1) wouldn't this apply to other games as well. the study should have (I admit I didn't actually read it) checked to see whether board games had a similar effect, or thinking games (read: D&D). Granted those wouldn't get coordination and skill (and maybe that tying actually would take them above the rest)
2) Um, without the well-developed muscles of real athleats, they're in non-competable categories. IE, it's sort of comparing apples and oranges to call computer gamers "athletes" if it brings up the idea of olympic runners.
3) So, we need a quake category in the next olympics. But does that fall into the summer or winter category?
Don't get me wrong... The portst tree is an excellent thing (as are.deps,.rpms,...). My only complaint is about local modifications to sources that have no reasons for being kept solely there. (note that there are cases where you would want to keep a patch away from the developers, like if you wanted to release the patch under the GPL and the original code was BSD based. Giving them the patch would destroy their licence).
Case in point: net-snmp on FreeBSD-4.3. The majority of patches are to makefiles. The majority of the rest only updated the FreeBSD version macros. Actual code changes are rare, and are only for the purpose of getting the software to build.
But see, you missed the point. We try to release the net-snmp software for use on FreeBSD so why wouldn't I want to see even those makefile patches so I can try to solve your problems in the main distribution? What if people don't use the ports tree and download the real release? What if they want the most recent CVS code from our cvs server?
Following your example, should I go remove all the freebsd specific code from the net-snmp distribution because the proper place for it is in the ports tree since no one else but freebsd folk will need it?
There are serious problems with porting trees that need to be addressed by their maintainers (but frequently aren't). Specifically, patches that go into ports trees or are applied to binary releases are rarely given back to the developers of the original package. I've been distributing the net-snmp (was ucd-snmp) toolkit for years now and nothing infuriates me more than running across a patch I haven't seen before being applied to some distributions private code cache.
By far, the worst distributor in this regcard is RedHat. I figured for years they were merely building the source and distributing the binaries as is. The first time I looked at the spec file I found around 4 patches I had never seen before and didn't even know some of the bugs existed. Well, I thought, I'll contact them and see whats up. "Sorry, I'll try to make sure patches get your way in the future". Of course, when I checked the source rpm for the next release I found yet more patches I'd never seen... Sigh...
I don't have a solution to this problem, though an obvious one might be something along the lines of at least asking the maintainer if they wished to receive CVS messages or CVS patches on a regular basis from the ports trees, or to be added as a default contact for the external bug database for a given package (To solve the redhat problem, I'm forced to go search through their bug database occasionally).
Don't get me wrong, I think distributing the source and binaries in an external "easy-to-use" fashion is a great thing. What I consider wrong is to not at least mention to the original developers that changes have been made. Sure, its legal and even goes along with the licence in most cases, but in the long run I would think it would save the ports maintainers a lot of conflict merging if they kept in touch with the package developers.
I think what I was missing was the surrounding the text...
Linus lost the kernel?
on
Just For Fun
·
· Score: 1
It may be hard to say much new about Linus and the results of his 1991 inspiration to loose his kernel on the world
Linus lost the kernel in the world? What? I sure hope he finds it soon!
("Where in the world is Linus' kernel?")
You should probably take a look at http://www.viewtouch.com/, which is a linux based pos GUI menu system. Granted its GUI, but it might be a good start to work on implementing a text based front end for their stuff. I haven't looked at it enough to give you a much better review than that, but I'm laying odds it'd help you achieve your goals or at least provide a good starting point.
The code is GPLed, last I checked, and you can download it to check it out.
Because otherwise games are really boring if they have no visual feedback.
Thats the ultimate in a game: inserting game characters into your every-day life. You could play doom downtown (since you're gun is only in the game, you'd look like an absolute idiot hiding behind things and shooting at nothing)
... we have a wireless direct neural intererface with a heads up display and thought recognition.
The interesting thing is that most complaints about devices or opperating systems are about the interface and the way in which you interact with it, not about its actual functionality.
Imagine a world where everyone has an antenna implanted directly into your head for wireless net access.
They want to be able to prove in the future that they are not a monopoly! They can do this easily if they can generate a list of (successful) companies that are not using the microsoft OS.
Much of what you're talking about is a mere extension of the simple boombox type systems. Cheap stereo equipment has been available for ages now that have combined receivers, amps, turn tables, cd players, tape decks, etc for a long time.
However, go to anyone's house with a good sound system and you'll find that individual components still provide better sound. The reasons are simple:
Producing one box that does everything is not cheap, so companies will try to make it cheap by sacrificing quality.
Producing one box that does everything requires a whole slew of specilization and it's unlikely that a box that does everything will have the quality with respect to design than a box who's sole purpose is to implement that single functionality will have.
I work for NAILabs on projects similar to this one, though I don't currently have ties to this project in particular. NAILabs specializes in contracts like this and the projects are very interesting and fun to work on. Plus, much of the work is often released in open source venues.
Previously, we worked on a publicly available implementation of SNMPv3 (first in net-snmp and then from scratch in opensnmp, both of which are BSD copyrighted code).
My next project is targeted to large scale management of IPsec installations, the code for which should also be released to the public (though the popular FreeS/Wan code base won't accept US patches, so we'll probably be instrumenting Cerberus instead; FreeS/WAN's loss I guess, otherwise we might have implemented code for them both).
Working on projects like this is great, because it's typically in the form of "here's a hard problem", now "go solve it" without any mention of "do it this way".
Re:So you can't save it.. [or can you]
on
CPRM Lecture
·
· Score: 2
Thats why I was saying "I wonder if". If I were implementing the protocol that the video is streamed over, I'd certainly implement it in a way that authenticated based on a cryptographic checksum, was encrypted,...
However, we already have proof that many other systems (see DVDs for an example) don't necessarily do a good job of the protection they do implement.
Re:So you can't save it.. [or can you]
on
CPRM Lecture
·
· Score: 2
Well, I wonder if their protection scheme would deal with you simply starting tcpdump on a linux box next to the windows box, caputuring the entire conversation with the server and then later playing it back to the windows application again. (granted, you have to later set up the windows box to use the linux box as a router, spoof the address of the site if it was hard-coded,...)
We've often been subjected to the notion that science is moving at an amazingly rapid pace and we're making strides that are mind boggling. But is this really true?
The science fiction authors seem to always think we'll progress faster than we actually do. This is a perfect example. The technology in the 1984 story was far ahead of what actually was available, and now we've passed another literature milestone with the passage of the infamous 2001, where technology was more advanced in the story than is actually the case now. Lots of other books and movies (by less reputable science fiction authors) could easily show a similar correlation, but I'll stop here.
(this is all "in general" by the way, ie, "on average". It's certainly arguable that some of the technology in the story is behind the times [sic], but most of it, on average, is not.)
Microsoft has been in the news a lot lately and in the past about whether the NSA has backdoors in windows code or not. They may not have a technical backdoor to your passwords, but it sure sounds like they have a legal one now.
The problem with mis-spellings is that with work, the filter writers can start looking for those too (I've seen intrusion detection boxes look for words like "Warez", "r00tk1t", etc). All of these methods are reversible (via sed).
What we need is noise. You need to take the rule set that the filter(s) are using and any time they find a match on a word, add random noise (letters, whatever) to that word. The important aspect is randomness so that filters can't be written easily to match against every possible permutation. "sex" might become "seex" "seqx" "s3ex" "csex" "soex", etc, using only a "single letter added" type noise introduction rule. Much much harder to filter out misspellings if they're never consistent. Humans, on the other hand, can pick out context from a sentence which our computers can't yet do. Thats why we're so @#%*ing cool. Everyone knows the word I just "didn't-use" just from context.
1) Install the rpm/deb/what-have-you as you normall would.
2) Go pull that AOL CD out of the trash that you put there yesterday (and probably the day before and the day before that) and copy the aim.exe file to/etc/aol-sucks/aim.exe
Only my memory of seeing the hands in the room. It was quite possible 3 to 1 or so instead, I don't remember exactly. I probably shouldn't have tried to guess a ratio as I'm sure I'd be off by some factor or another;-)
Slashdot Mirror
His Lawyers: That's right *show* your anger George: oh. Ok. Luke: nooooooooooo.....
At least that's the time in my life where I ate the most spam...
1) wouldn't this apply to other games as well. the study should have (I admit I didn't actually read it) checked to see whether board games had a similar effect, or thinking games (read: D&D). Granted those wouldn't get coordination and skill (and maybe that tying actually would take them above the rest)
2) Um, without the well-developed muscles of real athleats, they're in non-competable categories. IE, it's sort of comparing apples and oranges to call computer gamers "athletes" if it brings up the idea of olympic runners.
3) So, we need a quake category in the next olympics. But does that fall into the summer or winter category?
... just attach a "satallite boot" to it!
(this idea is actually from my wife, not me)
(like most of my better ideas)
(and most of my better jokes for that matter)
... after which we can run nearly all the windows security holes directly on linux! I can't wait!
Don't get me wrong... The portst tree is an excellent thing (as are .deps, .rpms, ...). My only complaint is about local modifications to sources that have no reasons for being kept solely there. (note that there are cases where you would want to keep a patch away from the developers, like if you wanted to release the patch under the GPL and the original code was BSD based. Giving them the patch would destroy their licence).
But see, you missed the point. We try to release the net-snmp software for use on FreeBSD so why wouldn't I want to see even those makefile patches so I can try to solve your problems in the main distribution? What if people don't use the ports tree and download the real release? What if they want the most recent CVS code from our cvs server?
Following your example, should I go remove all the freebsd specific code from the net-snmp distribution because the proper place for it is in the ports tree since no one else but freebsd folk will need it?
Yes, but my point is that people don't do that. (which is why something slightly more automatted is needed).
By far, the worst distributor in this regcard is RedHat. I figured for years they were merely building the source and distributing the binaries as is. The first time I looked at the spec file I found around 4 patches I had never seen before and didn't even know some of the bugs existed. Well, I thought, I'll contact them and see whats up. "Sorry, I'll try to make sure patches get your way in the future". Of course, when I checked the source rpm for the next release I found yet more patches I'd never seen... Sigh... I don't have a solution to this problem, though an obvious one might be something along the lines of at least asking the maintainer if they wished to receive CVS messages or CVS patches on a regular basis from the ports trees, or to be added as a default contact for the external bug database for a given package (To solve the redhat problem, I'm forced to go search through their bug database occasionally). Don't get me wrong, I think distributing the source and binaries in an external "easy-to-use" fashion is a great thing. What I consider wrong is to not at least mention to the original developers that changes have been made. Sure, its legal and even goes along with the licence in most cases, but in the long run I would think it would save the ports maintainers a lot of conflict merging if they kept in touch with the package developers.
I think what I was missing was the surrounding the text...
It may be hard to say much new about Linus and the results of his 1991 inspiration to loose his kernel on the world Linus lost the kernel in the world? What? I sure hope he finds it soon! ("Where in the world is Linus' kernel?")
You should probably take a look at http://www.viewtouch.com/, which is a linux based pos GUI menu system. Granted its GUI, but it might be a good start to work on implementing a text based front end for their stuff. I haven't looked at it enough to give you a much better review than that, but I'm laying odds it'd help you achieve your goals or at least provide a good starting point. The code is GPLed, last I checked, and you can download it to check it out.
> why do you need a display?
Because otherwise games are really boring if they have no visual feedback.
Thats the ultimate in a game: inserting game characters into your every-day life. You could play doom downtown (since you're gun is only in the game, you'd look like an absolute idiot hiding behind things and shooting at nothing)
... we have a wireless direct neural intererface with a heads up display and thought recognition.
The interesting thing is that most complaints about devices or opperating systems are about the interface and the way in which you interact with it, not about its actual functionality.
Imagine a world where everyone has an antenna implanted directly into your head for wireless net access.
They want to be able to prove in the future that they are not a monopoly! They can do this easily if they can generate a list of (successful) companies that are not using the microsoft OS.
However, go to anyone's house with a good sound system and you'll find that individual components still provide better sound. The reasons are simple:
Will they be popular and useful? Certainly.
Will I buy one? Doubtful.
Previously, we worked on a publicly available implementation of SNMPv3 (first in net-snmp and then from scratch in opensnmp, both of which are BSD copyrighted code).
My next project is targeted to large scale management of IPsec installations, the code for which should also be released to the public (though the popular FreeS/Wan code base won't accept US patches, so we'll probably be instrumenting Cerberus instead; FreeS/WAN's loss I guess, otherwise we might have implemented code for them both).
Working on projects like this is great, because it's typically in the form of "here's a hard problem", now "go solve it" without any mention of "do it this way".
Thats why I was saying "I wonder if". If I were implementing the protocol that the video is streamed over, I'd certainly implement it in a way that authenticated based on a cryptographic checksum, was encrypted, ...
However, we already have proof that many other systems (see DVDs for an example) don't necessarily do a good job of the protection they do implement.
Well, I wonder if their protection scheme would deal with you simply starting tcpdump on a linux box next to the windows box, caputuring the entire conversation with the server and then later playing it back to the windows application again. (granted, you have to later set up the windows box to use the linux box as a router, spoof the address of the site if it was hard-coded, ...)
We've often been subjected to the notion that science is moving at an amazingly rapid pace and we're making strides that are mind boggling. But is this really true?
The science fiction authors seem to always think we'll progress faster than we actually do. This is a perfect example. The technology in the 1984 story was far ahead of what actually was available, and now we've passed another literature milestone with the passage of the infamous 2001, where technology was more advanced in the story than is actually the case now. Lots of other books and movies (by less reputable science fiction authors) could easily show a similar correlation, but I'll stop here.
(this is all "in general" by the way, ie, "on average". It's certainly arguable that some of the technology in the story is behind the times [sic], but most of it, on average, is not.)
Microsoft has been in the news a lot lately and in the past about whether the NSA has backdoors in windows code or not. They may not have a technical backdoor to your passwords, but it sure sounds like they have a legal one now.
The problem with mis-spellings is that with work, the filter writers can start looking for those too (I've seen intrusion detection boxes look for words like "Warez", "r00tk1t", etc). All of these methods are reversible (via sed).
What we need is noise. You need to take the rule set that the filter(s) are using and any time they find a match on a word, add random noise (letters, whatever) to that word. The important aspect is randomness so that filters can't be written easily to match against every possible permutation. "sex" might become "seex" "seqx" "s3ex" "csex" "soex", etc, using only a "single letter added" type noise introduction rule. Much much harder to filter out misspellings if they're never consistent. Humans, on the other hand, can pick out context from a sentence which our computers can't yet do. Thats why we're so @#%*ing cool. Everyone knows the word I just "didn't-use" just from context.
It should be noted that 2.2.19 was also just released a few days ago.
1) Install the rpm/deb/what-have-you as you normall would.
/etc/aol-sucks/aim.exe
2) Go pull that AOL CD out of the trash that you put there yesterday (and probably the day before and the day before that) and copy the aim.exe file to
Only my memory of seeing the hands in the room. It was quite possible 3 to 1 or so instead, I don't remember exactly. I probably shouldn't have tried to guess a ratio as I'm sure I'd be off by some factor or another ;-)