I would not predict such a thing. But I would predict an article by Dvorak and/or Cringeley predicting such a thing.
"You can already run Windows on the Mac. And I'm talking Windows Vista. Microsoft is already doing this internally. Microsoft, given its problems with security, will buy Apple so that it can get its hands on the OS. It will then port the entire Windows API to run on top of the Darwin kernel. With Virtual PC, they're already doing this. The purchase will give Microsoft all the benefits of the Unix security model with the developer base of Windows."
My friend bought a first generation DVD player and it's still functioning to this day. I think it even has some of the codecs built into it (MP3, AVIs, etc.).
It was 4-5 years after the first DVD players became available before MP3/AVI decoding was available.
Managers must also consider the cost of research and development, which is greater for a full software emulator than for including the PStwo chipset in the PS3.
Got any evidence to back up the cost comparison? They can't just superglue the chips to the board. And they certainly developed simulation tools before making final PS2 hardware, so there's sure to be code they could start from.
Google is complying with the wishes of that regime, and helping them maintain control in the process. Therefore, google is helping to kill people.
You are trying to make a strong connection where only a weak one exists.
I too am helping to kill people, by buying chinese goods. On the other hand, I've never publically promised to "do no evil".
I'm glad you accept your role as a Nazi in the New Chinese Holocaust. I'll inform the authorities so you can be brought up on charges as a war criminal.
Back to the point though, you put "do no evil" in "quotes". I think you are referring to this: http://www.google.com/corporate/tenthings.html. Number 6 is "You can make money without doing evil." In this context, it defines flashy, poorly targeted advertising as "evil". It's much less broad than you are reading it to be. Further, it's not a promise, it's a guiding principle. "Doing evil" is a subjective and grey area, and you really can't flip a switch either on or off to describe "evilness."
Obviously there is a huge difference between filtering search results and gassing people and putting them in mass graves, but the logic doesn't improve any as the severity decreases.
"Decreased severity" in this case would be if Google were performing a small-scale holocaust. Filtering text is simply not comparable. In any case, your application of logic is flawed. Human interaction isn't math, so you can't just apply logic operators and get reasonable results. Indeed, when it comes to human interaction, severity vastly affects logic.
By opening google.cn with censored search results, google is knowingly helping evil - which is evil. There's no way around that.
And every time you buy something made in China, you're doing evil because you're funding that evil government (they collect taxes from those Chinese companies that manufacture those shoes you're wearing). And believe me, you have bought many things made in China.
Don't be so quick to criticize. The world isn't so black and white as you seem to think it is. Cold logic like yours is appropriate for solving mathematical conundrums, not societal issues.
But I have to get through level 12 to play level 13 where the giant pretty monster of death awaits, and that's supposed to be the coolest thing ever. Excuse me, I bought the game. I'd like to go directly to the pretty monster of death.
Let me guess, you fast-forwarded through "Citizen Kane" just to see the sled at the end that everyone talks about. Because all that middle stuff is so boring.
I know this is an old thread but I just read this followup:
>>> OP: It's frustrating as hell to me that game development companies are so shallow that literally all they care about is what will make them money. >> You: The reason game companies care about making money is so that they can stay solvent and make more games. > Spot the difference.
Yes. It was exactly my point.
>> To your other point, every game company I know of uses some sort of platform-agnostic libraries/framework/etc. > Except for those that go with DirectX, which do, sadly, exist.
Every game I've seen that sits on DirectX does so through an abstraction layer. That's not to say nobody codes directly to DirectX - I'm sure it happens. But most developers can't accept the risk of being tied so directly to a platform. There's not a game developer out there who hasn't seen a project get cancelled or completely re-designed, re-targeted, or otherwise re-gurgitated by the publisher, even when the publisher is one and the same as the developer. To assume the target platform won't change is a big risk.
It's frustrating as hell to me that game development companies are so shallow that literally all they care about is what will make them money.
One day while working at Looking Glass Studios some years back, I was called to an all-hands company meeting. It turned out the meeting was the announcement that it was to be the last day of the company's existence. Why were we closing down? Money. We had none, and we owed lots. Everyone at the meeting was sad, from playtesters to the president. Why sad? Because we had a great team that had made some great games, and we were in the process of making even better ones. Not because we were money-grubbing pigs.
The reason game companies care about making money is so that they can stay solvent and make more games.
To your other point, every game company I know of uses some sort of platform-agnostic libraries/framework/etc. But compiled code does not a shipping product make. Optimizations, installers, QA, packaging, distribution channels, you name it. It all costs money, and if the result isn't a net gain, it means the company can't afford it. Do you buy things you can't afford?
This article is useful in that it gets people thinking about the problem. Now some clever person can come up with a proposed solution and post an article about it. That's how it works.
I was kidding too. Anyhow, you really want things spelled out?
1. Authenticate against user-facing password. User-facing password not stored in plaintext.
2. Separate password, possibly stored in plaintext, encrypts and decrypts the data.
Not necessarily great. But it's better than what these guys did because it makes the user-facing password virtually unrecoverable. So Joe Blow end user would have to download a tool to get his stuff back, rather than just typing in the published password.
Which is fine and all, except that THE PROGRAM ENCRYPTS THE DOCUMENTS.
Come on people, give it a LITTLE thought first!
1. Authenticate on user-facing password. User-facing password is never stored in plaintext, making retrieval virtually impossible. 2. Encrypt/decrypt document using different password, possibly stored in plaintext.
I'm not saying it's a great approach. It's simple though, and better than the one they used.
"A completely new, secure email system would be the internet's next big critical application. If it required IPv6 addressing, maybe secure email would also kill those ridiculous "tiered internet (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4552138.stm )" ideas with one stone. But I'm just thinking aloud."
Your ISP can throttle an IPv4 stream just as well as an IPv6 stream. And why would an email protocol "kill teh tiered intarweb"? Amazing stuff.
How do you write a jump instruction for my handmade bytecode-interpretted vm? And doesn't the CRC, which I run inlined tests of throughout my code, of the file change when you modify that instruction?
The article could be wrong, but it seems to claim that the virus uses a fixed password no matter what is being encrypted. The poster was suggesting that a simple one-way crypt function could encrypt that password, not the files, making the password unrecoverable.
The virus writers could have used a GPL-based crypt library, but realized that there would be legal issues involved, requiring them to open-source the whole virus.
Within a week I saw a television interview with a Houston cop who was absolutely gleeful that this was another way he could get probable cause to pull over anyone whose looks he didn't like.
Right, because before the seatbelt law, they wouldn't do such a thing.
Reminds me of getting pulled over during a cross-country drive, in Kansas. It was, perhaps, the only time on the whole trip I was driving the speed limit. I had my seatbelt on as always. Got pulled over. Why? He says I crossed the white line on the side of the highway. Lookin' for drunk drivers. It was 10am, I wasn't drunk, and I crossed no line. I think he just didn't like my California plates. Oh, and after writing me up a warning (maybe because he knew I didn't cross some line), he asks if he can search my car. I'm in the middle of Kansas and a cop, who pulled me over for no reason, wants to search my car... Wonder what happens if I say "no"? So do I, because it was "Sure, no problem." F***ing Kansas.
Slashdot Mirror
I would not predict such a thing. But I would predict an article by Dvorak and/or Cringeley predicting such a thing.
"You can already run Windows on the Mac. And I'm talking Windows Vista. Microsoft is already doing this internally. Microsoft, given its problems with security, will buy Apple so that it can get its hands on the OS. It will then port the entire Windows API to run on top of the Darwin kernel. With Virtual PC, they're already doing this. The purchase will give Microsoft all the benefits of the Unix security model with the developer base of Windows."
My friend bought a first generation DVD player and it's still functioning to this day. I think it even has some of the codecs built into it (MP3, AVIs, etc.).
It was 4-5 years after the first DVD players became available before MP3/AVI decoding was available.
Mr. and Mrs. Lester -
Your son/daughter from Michigan, USA is currently in:
Amman, Jordan
Would you like driving directions to her location?
Managers must also consider the cost of research and development, which is greater for a full software emulator than for including the PStwo chipset in the PS3.
Got any evidence to back up the cost comparison? They can't just superglue the chips to the board. And they certainly developed simulation tools before making final PS2 hardware, so there's sure to be code they could start from.
Google is complying with the wishes of that regime, and helping them maintain control in the process. Therefore, google is helping to kill people.
You are trying to make a strong connection where only a weak one exists.
I too am helping to kill people, by buying chinese goods. On the other hand, I've never publically promised to "do no evil".
I'm glad you accept your role as a Nazi in the New Chinese Holocaust. I'll inform the authorities so you can be brought up on charges as a war criminal.
Back to the point though, you put "do no evil" in "quotes". I think you are referring to this: http://www.google.com/corporate/tenthings.html. Number 6 is "You can make money without doing evil." In this context, it defines flashy, poorly targeted advertising as "evil". It's much less broad than you are reading it to be. Further, it's not a promise, it's a guiding principle. "Doing evil" is a subjective and grey area, and you really can't flip a switch either on or off to describe "evilness."
"DMCA does it today, Barbara Boxer's PERFORM act, and the WIPO broadcasting treaty will soon add to the burden."
I believe the PERFORM act was introduced by Feinstein(D) and Graham(R), not Boxer(D).
Obviously there is a huge difference between filtering search results and gassing people and putting them in mass graves, but the logic doesn't improve any as the severity decreases.
"Decreased severity" in this case would be if Google were performing a small-scale holocaust. Filtering text is simply not comparable. In any case, your application of logic is flawed. Human interaction isn't math, so you can't just apply logic operators and get reasonable results. Indeed, when it comes to human interaction, severity vastly affects logic.
By opening google.cn with censored search results, google is knowingly helping evil - which is evil. There's no way around that.
And every time you buy something made in China, you're doing evil because you're funding that evil government (they collect taxes from those Chinese companies that manufacture those shoes you're wearing). And believe me, you have bought many things made in China.
Don't be so quick to criticize. The world isn't so black and white as you seem to think it is. Cold logic like yours is appropriate for solving mathematical conundrums, not societal issues.
But I have to get through level 12 to play level 13 where the giant pretty monster of death awaits, and that's supposed to be the coolest thing ever. Excuse me, I bought the game. I'd like to go directly to the pretty monster of death.
Let me guess, you fast-forwarded through "Citizen Kane" just to see the sled at the end that everyone talks about. Because all that middle stuff is so boring.
I know this is an old thread but I just read this followup:
>>> OP: It's frustrating as hell to me that game development companies are so shallow that literally all they care about is what will make them money.
>> You: The reason game companies care about making money is so that they can stay solvent and make more games.
> Spot the difference.
Yes. It was exactly my point.
>> To your other point, every game company I know of uses some sort of platform-agnostic libraries/framework/etc.
> Except for those that go with DirectX, which do, sadly, exist.
Every game I've seen that sits on DirectX does so through an abstraction layer. That's not to say nobody codes directly to DirectX - I'm sure it happens. But most developers can't accept the risk of being tied so directly to a platform. There's not a game developer out there who hasn't seen a project get cancelled or completely re-designed, re-targeted, or otherwise re-gurgitated by the publisher, even when the publisher is one and the same as the developer. To assume the target platform won't change is a big risk.
OT: (LOVE the italics on the new CSS but there's too much line spacing guys)
What
do
you
mean?
It's frustrating as hell to me that game development companies are so shallow that literally all they care about is what will make them money.
One day while working at Looking Glass Studios some years back, I was called to an all-hands company meeting. It turned out the meeting was the announcement that it was to be the last day of the company's existence. Why were we closing down? Money. We had none, and we owed lots. Everyone at the meeting was sad, from playtesters to the president. Why sad? Because we had a great team that had made some great games, and we were in the process of making even better ones. Not because we were money-grubbing pigs.
The reason game companies care about making money is so that they can stay solvent and make more games.
To your other point, every game company I know of uses some sort of platform-agnostic libraries/framework/etc. But compiled code does not a shipping product make. Optimizations, installers, QA, packaging, distribution channels, you name it. It all costs money, and if the result isn't a net gain, it means the company can't afford it. Do you buy things you can't afford?
This article is useful in that it gets people thinking about the problem. Now some clever person can come up with a proposed solution and post an article about it. That's how it works.
It's not like nobody's ever discussed these issues before. Or have they?
I was kidding too. Anyhow, you really want things spelled out?
1. Authenticate against user-facing password. User-facing password not stored in plaintext.
2. Separate password, possibly stored in plaintext, encrypts and decrypts the data.
Not necessarily great. But it's better than what these guys did because it makes the user-facing password virtually unrecoverable. So Joe Blow end user would have to download a tool to get his stuff back, rather than just typing in the published password.
Which is fine and all, except that THE PROGRAM ENCRYPTS THE DOCUMENTS.
Come on people, give it a LITTLE thought first!
1. Authenticate on user-facing password. User-facing password is never stored in plaintext, making retrieval virtually impossible.
2. Encrypt/decrypt document using different password, possibly stored in plaintext.
I'm not saying it's a great approach. It's simple though, and better than the one they used.
My favorite quote:
m )" ideas with one stone. But I'm just thinking aloud."
"A completely new, secure email system would be the internet's next big critical application. If it required IPv6 addressing, maybe secure email would also kill those ridiculous "tiered internet (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4552138.st
Your ISP can throttle an IPv4 stream just as well as an IPv6 stream. And why would an email protocol "kill teh tiered intarweb"? Amazing stuff.
How do you write a jump instruction for my handmade bytecode-interpretted vm? And doesn't the CRC, which I run inlined tests of throughout my code, of the file change when you modify that instruction?
Given a fixed password, P, and a non-invertable function, f:
The original post was simply suggeting storing e = f(P) rather than P itself. Then the code does:
inputPassword = getPasswordFromVictim();
if( e == f(inputPassword) )
passwordWasCorrect();
else
sorryWrongPassword();
The article could be wrong, but it seems to claim that the virus uses a fixed password no matter what is being encrypted. The poster was suggesting that a simple one-way crypt function could encrypt that password, not the files, making the password unrecoverable.
The virus writers could have used a GPL-based crypt library, but realized that there would be legal issues involved, requiring them to open-source the whole virus.
Results of your query:
We found no entries in our database for the artist 'hypecrap'. May we suggest Mariah Carey, Hoobastank, or Celine Dion?
i though Rambus was price fixing.. tobe honest i thought they where dead..
A company isn't dead until the lawyers have picked the carcass clean. I'd say "investors" instead of "lawyers", but the investors just get the bones.
There's also one in the Georgia World Congress Center. Presumably, their target market is the kind of people who fly to business conventions and such.
There's one at the Claremont Lounge too. Oh wait, no there's not.
I move for an indefinite moratorium on the use of the term "final edition."
All in favor?
Within a week I saw a television interview with a Houston cop who was absolutely gleeful that this was another way he could get probable cause to pull over anyone whose looks he didn't like.
Right, because before the seatbelt law, they wouldn't do such a thing.
Reminds me of getting pulled over during a cross-country drive, in Kansas. It was, perhaps, the only time on the whole trip I was driving the speed limit. I had my seatbelt on as always. Got pulled over. Why? He says I crossed the white line on the side of the highway. Lookin' for drunk drivers. It was 10am, I wasn't drunk, and I crossed no line. I think he just didn't like my California plates. Oh, and after writing me up a warning (maybe because he knew I didn't cross some line), he asks if he can search my car. I'm in the middle of Kansas and a cop, who pulled me over for no reason, wants to search my car... Wonder what happens if I say "no"? So do I, because it was "Sure, no problem." F***ing Kansas.