I didn't expect you to RTFA, but you could at least read the comment of the person you're responding to
Oh, I did RTFA. Before I posted in fact. And I read the parent I replied to... however, you'll notice that your quote of "although he's probably set for like in whatever career choice he wants" is wrong, indicating you didn't read my post either.
Having demonstrated this kind of brain-power, he has a good chance of pursuing whatever career takes his fancy. But, the $100K doesn't make him "set for life" (or "set for like"... possibly "set for stun", but it's too early to determine that).
The hate is directed at the entry at a fundamental level. He deserves a pat on the back, but "teenager wins competition for teenagers" doesn't exactly merit a./ nod.
Why not? He accomplished something in the field of mathematics.
If that isn't "news for nerds", then I don't know what is -- it's far more interesting than hearing that Taco visited Lucasfilm but can't tell us anything about it other than a showing picture of him in front of a Yoda statue.
Hopefully his parents have no access to any of it and he invests it properly when he gets 18, although he's probably set for life in whatever career choice he wants.
Just how much do you think $100K is?
Sure, it will likely go a long way to paying for his education, which means he won't be paying for that for the rest of his life.
But, really, $100K doesn't make you 'set for life'. It gives him a bit of a leg up, and having won the award it likely increases his chances of getting into a good school
Back in high school, the cops did a drug sting on campus. They busted the drug dealers AND the people that told them how to find the drug dealers. being part of the problem means you are part of the problem.
Which, is pretty reaching considering in some places it's pretty hard not to know who is dealing, and knowing to stay away from them can be a valuable skill.
That would be like arresting people who can plainly point out which are the crack houses -- it's kind of obvious, and simply knowing where they are doesn't mean you were in any involved in it.
And, they wonder why people aren't always keen to cooperate with police.
I find it highly unlikely the ones screeching loudest about losing money to copyright violations are going to start charging less money for their stuff.
CDs were supposed to be lower the cost of music. Digital files were supposed to lower the cost of music.
These guys will push to get a law passed to ensure that everybody tithes to them long before they'd ever consider lowering their prices.
but aside from cyber-hoarders, porn addicts, and legitimate business uses, the supply of hard disk space has clearly exceeded the demand.
Several years ago, I would have agreed with you.
I'm hardly a 'cyber hoarder', but between photos, MP3s, and movies (ripped from DVD, not downloaded), and a couple of vmware images with snapshots... I'm actually finding my 1TB drive is filling up, and the second 1TB I back up to is filling as well.
I'm very seriously pondering adding another a couple more terabytes. I can remember being incredulous at the idea of a gigabyte, and now I'm looking at more terabytes... It truly amazes me how much ones storage needs simply grow over time.
Give it a decade or so, and you'll be buying terabytes from a hook in the checkout lane next to the Weekly World News.;-)
That's really awful. But... Aren't these guys supposed to be clipped in when they're working up there?
Apparently there are some contexts in which OHSA will allow free-climbing since tying in as actually more dangerous.
A friend sent me this video a while back (sorry for the flash)... it shows some guy climbing a really tall tower and not being tied on for the most part.
Not for the faint of heart or people who really don't like heights. It's not something I'd be willing to do.
* Figure out how to write code for an alien computer in a few hours without knowing alien speak. check
* Figure out in the space of another hour how to write a virus that completely disables ships defenses. check
* Figure out how to network to said ship to download virus in almost no time at all. check
* Fly alien fighter craft into mother ship to upload virus. check
* PROFIT!
So, I realize I'm a few days late with this, but here's some thoughts on this...
I was equally saying "WTF" after I saw the movie in the theater as that made no sense whatsoever. Several co-worker and I were all pretty peeved at it as we'd left the office to go see this and felt it was lacking.
However, if you watch the Directors Cut instead of the theatrical version, the discrepancy goes something like this:
Jeff Goldblum's character is an expert in radio frequencies. Before anything happens, they show him using some signal analysis software on the actual waveforms.
When he identifies that the signal is counting down, it's to do with the frequency and timing of the sound waves. He later infers that their entire communications and signals is based on audio frequencies. He's more or less using his Mac as an oscilloscope, and has broadcast an audio signal which affected them. Basically, a radio signal.
He doesn't write a "virus" in the sense of writing code, and the alien craft is definitely not using Appletalk or anything like that.
I actually found the Director's cut made sense instead of the totally unexplained presumption that some guy with a Mac laptop took down the Aliens. It was at least plausible and made some sense, and they at least attempted to explain it.
Oddly enough, I found that the Directors Cut of the The Abyss also made a lot more sense than the theatrical version as they actually had time to explain some of the things that people generally found themselves not getting. You didn't suddenly get an ending that made no sense, you got some hints at it.
Sometimes, for length or whatever, they actually cut out the parts of the movie that helped to make sense. In this case, I really have to at least try to defend Independence Day -- if you watch the Director's Cut, how this all happens is at least made somewhat more plausible.
We just released an app with in-app purchase. You'll be happy to know that we (developers) don't have direct access to your account. Apple handles all the authentication and transaction, and all we (developers) get is a digital receipt of the transaction.
Oh, I get that you don't have the account information.
That doesn't mean that I would trust you or any other developer with anything in the game which could attempt to spend my money. For one, I'm not willing to give you any, and two, I don't trust the mechanism.
Any game that wants to pop up a "Click OK to buy in-game" crap, well, I'm not going to buy it, and I don't want to inadvertently click "Yes". My solution is to prevent any app from having the option. It's turned off on the system level.
For the same reason that I don't let any company I deal with have access to my checking account so they can directly take money. I will decide when I give you money, it will likely be on a credit card so I can have control over it, and you don't have the option to decide "now is the time for more money". Any company which insists the only method I have of dealing with them involves that kind of access gets told to PFO -- than includes Pay Pal.
Good luck with your app, but for a lot of us, in-app purchases is a sign that maybe I really don't want your app very much to begin with.
This is why I have actually turned off in-app purchases.
I don't want it (I'm not willing to buy stuff to make a free game easier/shinier), and I don't trust the developers with direct access to my account. Of course, I haven't given Apple any means of actually billing me -- for pretty much the same reason.
Though, in this case, it seems to be more about people getting into other people's account and doing fraudulent charges.
I just think the whole concept of letting a game have a shortcut to my VISA is a stupid idea. If I really need to purchase something from the iTunes store (and, I have yet to do this), I'll buy a friggin' points card.
And the copyright is largely muted by the license Berkeley distributed so much of it under. How much of UNIX do you really care about that isn't available under the BSD license?
Well, there's what we know, and what we think we know, and what you can convince a judge is true.
I would like to believe this has been largely resolved, but SCO didn't lose for any of the reasons you cite. They lost because it turned out Novell still owned the copyrights. So, essentially, SCO had no standing to sue. (Well, that and they never demonstrated any infringing code.)
The fear is that with enough lawyers and money, someone could undercut the things that we here on Slashdot generally accept to be true, and re-open the debate. And, who do we know with lots of lawyers and money would is looking to buy this and might like to re-open the debate and claim they own UNIX?
How relevant is that particular copyright, really? I mean - everything in Unix has been transported to other operating systems, right?
Well, if someone owns the copyright, and they can convince a judge that the stuff that was "transported" into other operating systems was actually copyright... they could get an injunction or force people to pay licensing fees.
Part of the reason SCO finally got tossed out of court was that Novell still owned the copyrights. Well, that and they couldn't find any infringing code.
But, if someone who actually did own the copyright could convince someone it was copied, there is lots of possibility for fallout. At the very least, needing to incur expenses to prove you didn't violate that copyright.
It's a shame that Unix has ended up being a football that greedy companies fight over now.
It's a shame, but it's hardly surprising.
UNIX and a lot of the concepts (and code) in it are the foundation for a lot of stuff that's used in modern operating systems. If you can own that, you can have leverage over most operating systems.
Having Microsoft suddenly own the copyrights and everything else for UNIX would be bad for anybody that isn't them -- if every other OS had to pay Microsoft licensing fees, then they stand to gain quite a bit.
Companies are generally greedy, especially once they're big enough that lawyers play a significant part in how they run their day to day stuff.
Tell you what, YOU tell the US Air Force that they shouldn't use the word Howitzer in their press releases
The AC-130U has a 25 mm Gatling gun that is able to fire 1,800 rounds per minute, and, along with the AC-130H, carries a rapid fire 40 mm Bofors cannon and a 105 mm Howitzer. The canons are located on the left side of the aircraft.
and we'll see what they say.
Sure, they call it a cannon now, but they do refer to it as a Howitzer. I wasn't suggesting the laser would be used as a mortar, merely that it could be used in a similar way as the Howitzer they've already mounted in an aircraft.
Since a howitzer is capable of both direct and indirect fire, I doubt you would want to laser one up unless you are shooting in proximity to a black hole.
Well, go with the direct fire route and a big battery pack and it's still usable.
Slashdot Mirror
LOL. Do you have a tiny penis?
Boo hoo, scathing comments from an AC. I shall now go weep in solitude and ponder how my life has gone horribly awry.
Nope, that's a euphemism.
Which, in this case "That's not 'sleeping', that's 'dead'." still applies. :-P
Oh, I did RTFA. Before I posted in fact. And I read the parent I replied to ... however, you'll notice that your quote of "although he's probably set for like in whatever career choice he wants" is wrong, indicating you didn't read my post either.
Having demonstrated this kind of brain-power, he has a good chance of pursuing whatever career takes his fancy. But, the $100K doesn't make him "set for life" (or "set for like" ... possibly "set for stun", but it's too early to determine that).
Did you actually have a point?
Why not? He accomplished something in the field of mathematics.
If that isn't "news for nerds", then I don't know what is -- it's far more interesting than hearing that Taco visited Lucasfilm but can't tell us anything about it other than a showing picture of him in front of a Yoda statue.
Just how much do you think $100K is?
Sure, it will likely go a long way to paying for his education, which means he won't be paying for that for the rest of his life.
But, really, $100K doesn't make you 'set for life'. It gives him a bit of a leg up, and having won the award it likely increases his chances of getting into a good school
Which, is pretty reaching considering in some places it's pretty hard not to know who is dealing, and knowing to stay away from them can be a valuable skill.
That would be like arresting people who can plainly point out which are the crack houses -- it's kind of obvious, and simply knowing where they are doesn't mean you were in any involved in it.
And, they wonder why people aren't always keen to cooperate with police.
That's not 'sleeping', that's 'dead'.
I find it highly unlikely the ones screeching loudest about losing money to copyright violations are going to start charging less money for their stuff.
CDs were supposed to be lower the cost of music. Digital files were supposed to lower the cost of music.
These guys will push to get a law passed to ensure that everybody tithes to them long before they'd ever consider lowering their prices.
I think if half the time you can identify a phrase in a supposedly encrypted stream ... that's better than 'chance'.
Several years ago, I would have agreed with you.
I'm hardly a 'cyber hoarder', but between photos, MP3s, and movies (ripped from DVD, not downloaded), and a couple of vmware images with snapshots ... I'm actually finding my 1TB drive is filling up, and the second 1TB I back up to is filling as well.
I'm very seriously pondering adding another a couple more terabytes. I can remember being incredulous at the idea of a gigabyte, and now I'm looking at more terabytes ... It truly amazes me how much ones storage needs simply grow over time.
Give it a decade or so, and you'll be buying terabytes from a hook in the checkout lane next to the Weekly World News. ;-)
Apparently there are some contexts in which OHSA will allow free-climbing since tying in as actually more dangerous.
A friend sent me this video a while back (sorry for the flash) ... it shows some guy climbing a really tall tower and not being tied on for the most part.
Not for the faint of heart or people who really don't like heights. It's not something I'd be willing to do.
So, I realize I'm a few days late with this, but here's some thoughts on this ...
I was equally saying "WTF" after I saw the movie in the theater as that made no sense whatsoever. Several co-worker and I were all pretty peeved at it as we'd left the office to go see this and felt it was lacking.
However, if you watch the Directors Cut instead of the theatrical version, the discrepancy goes something like this:
Jeff Goldblum's character is an expert in radio frequencies. Before anything happens, they show him using some signal analysis software on the actual waveforms.
When he identifies that the signal is counting down, it's to do with the frequency and timing of the sound waves. He later infers that their entire communications and signals is based on audio frequencies. He's more or less using his Mac as an oscilloscope, and has broadcast an audio signal which affected them. Basically, a radio signal.
He doesn't write a "virus" in the sense of writing code, and the alien craft is definitely not using Appletalk or anything like that.
I actually found the Director's cut made sense instead of the totally unexplained presumption that some guy with a Mac laptop took down the Aliens. It was at least plausible and made some sense, and they at least attempted to explain it.
Oddly enough, I found that the Directors Cut of the The Abyss also made a lot more sense than the theatrical version as they actually had time to explain some of the things that people generally found themselves not getting. You didn't suddenly get an ending that made no sense, you got some hints at it.
Sometimes, for length or whatever, they actually cut out the parts of the movie that helped to make sense. In this case, I really have to at least try to defend Independence Day -- if you watch the Director's Cut, how this all happens is at least made somewhat more plausible.
Oh, I get that you don't have the account information.
That doesn't mean that I would trust you or any other developer with anything in the game which could attempt to spend my money. For one, I'm not willing to give you any, and two, I don't trust the mechanism.
Any game that wants to pop up a "Click OK to buy in-game" crap, well, I'm not going to buy it, and I don't want to inadvertently click "Yes". My solution is to prevent any app from having the option. It's turned off on the system level.
For the same reason that I don't let any company I deal with have access to my checking account so they can directly take money. I will decide when I give you money, it will likely be on a credit card so I can have control over it, and you don't have the option to decide "now is the time for more money". Any company which insists the only method I have of dealing with them involves that kind of access gets told to PFO -- than includes Pay Pal.
Good luck with your app, but for a lot of us, in-app purchases is a sign that maybe I really don't want your app very much to begin with.
This is why I have actually turned off in-app purchases.
I don't want it (I'm not willing to buy stuff to make a free game easier/shinier), and I don't trust the developers with direct access to my account. Of course, I haven't given Apple any means of actually billing me -- for pretty much the same reason.
Though, in this case, it seems to be more about people getting into other people's account and doing fraudulent charges.
I just think the whole concept of letting a game have a shortcut to my VISA is a stupid idea. If I really need to purchase something from the iTunes store (and, I have yet to do this), I'll buy a friggin' points card.
I can see it now ... Scientists engineer super-enzyme which wipes out all plant matter upon escape, wiping out all plant life. ;-)
I'm sure it's a highly unlikely scenario, but I hope this isn't something which has some really bad unintended consequences.
Well, there's what we know, and what we think we know, and what you can convince a judge is true.
I would like to believe this has been largely resolved, but SCO didn't lose for any of the reasons you cite. They lost because it turned out Novell still owned the copyrights. So, essentially, SCO had no standing to sue. (Well, that and they never demonstrated any infringing code.)
The fear is that with enough lawyers and money, someone could undercut the things that we here on Slashdot generally accept to be true, and re-open the debate. And, who do we know with lots of lawyers and money would is looking to buy this and might like to re-open the debate and claim they own UNIX?
Well, if someone owns the copyright, and they can convince a judge that the stuff that was "transported" into other operating systems was actually copyright ... they could get an injunction or force people to pay licensing fees.
Part of the reason SCO finally got tossed out of court was that Novell still owned the copyrights. Well, that and they couldn't find any infringing code.
But, if someone who actually did own the copyright could convince someone it was copied, there is lots of possibility for fallout. At the very least, needing to incur expenses to prove you didn't violate that copyright.
It's a shame, but it's hardly surprising.
UNIX and a lot of the concepts (and code) in it are the foundation for a lot of stuff that's used in modern operating systems. If you can own that, you can have leverage over most operating systems.
Having Microsoft suddenly own the copyrights and everything else for UNIX would be bad for anybody that isn't them -- if every other OS had to pay Microsoft licensing fees, then they stand to gain quite a bit.
Companies are generally greedy, especially once they're big enough that lawyers play a significant part in how they run their day to day stuff.
I keep hearing people say this, but every time I get a search result that hits experts exchange, the answer is obscured and there is no way to see it.
Are you doing something different than the rest of us? Because I sure as heck don't see the answers there.
At this point, I'd happily block that from my search results.
Dude, it's kevlar. What's wrong with kevlar?
So do a lot of monkeys.
Tell you what, YOU tell the US Air Force that they shouldn't use the word Howitzer in their press releases
and we'll see what they say.
Sure, they call it a cannon now, but they do refer to it as a Howitzer. I wasn't suggesting the laser would be used as a mortar, merely that it could be used in a similar way as the Howitzer they've already mounted in an aircraft.
How so? They call it a Howitzer in the link I gave. Does mounting it to an aircraft make it stop being a Howitzer?
Well, go with the direct fire route and a big battery pack and it's still usable.
If you can put a Howizter into an AC-130, why not a scaled up version of this?
Who needs indirect fire when you can just rain down mayhem from an aircraft?
Those are both cyborgs.
Provided they don't try to kill you, you're allowed to date them.