Somebody suggested that submissions waiting to be looked at by the Slashdot gods, should be put in a queue which is accessible to Slashdotters. Slashdotters would them vote up those headlines they think are newsworthy and should make it to the front page.
HOWEVER, I think that this solution will just result in people rushing over to the headline queue and disregarding the front page because it will inevitably always have older news.
I suggest, instead, that articles are rated and able to be filtered out, like comments. The Slashdot gods can post anything reasonably sane, perhaps giving it an initial "confidence" rating. Then, subsequent viewers of the article can rate it up or down, of other viewers can set their masks so, for example, they only see articles that are rated X or better.
The drawback to this scheme is that the viewers who see the articles raw an uncut have the burden of rating up low articles (perhaps 'new' articles can have an initial value which degrades over time, giving people with high masks a chance to see and rate them?). This could be made easier by putting two small radio button either in the header or title of an article, or at the bottom, one labeled + one labeled - (for plus one or minus one). This would take up very little space and allow people to rate an article without much hassle:
Re:Conspiracy theorists want no need to believe.
on
Apocalypse Not
·
· Score: 2
Didn't someone also say just locate a nearby Morman family because supposedly their religion dictates that they have at least six months of food on them at all times (because, like, Jesus will show up on their front porch someday or something).
I am blindly posting this without first trawling through other posts or going through the web on a research tramp, so take it with a grain of salt.
You can think of all things as functions. An image, for example, is a function of two variables, x and y, which give a pixel location. The function should return a color, and perhaps an alpha value. Fundamentally, one should be able then, to simply write down the formula for an image on a napkin. The image can then be generated by simply filling in the formula over the domain (width and height).
In practice, however, it is very difficult to derive this function. So we must approximate until it is close enough. As I see it, this is basically what wavelets do. They approximate the function with a series of trigonometric wave functions.
If you think about movies, now, they are just really frame after frame of images. So you simply have a three-variable function: x, y, and frame #. Theoretically, you should be able to reduce a movie to a function also. and just feed in three variables and be able to render an image.
I guess you could also represent images and movies as functions which returned matrices. You could probably do some nifty mathematics which would account for areas which stayed the same and would not have to be changed again...essentially 'masking' the new image over and over again with new image matrices.
Anyway, that is my take. It might not be perfectly accurate, but I've always thought of images, and movies, and data in general (the same procedure can be performed on arbitrary binary streams), as simply functions of position.
They also let ships get sunk, etc. even when they knew the positions of subs.
Sometimes they'd do things like first send out a "surveillance" plane and let the Germans see it. Then the Germans would think that the British had just happened to see them and thus the attack was to be expected. Those Germans must have been getting pretty damn frustrated when every single secret covert operation was discovered by some "chance" flyby from a surveillance plane. But they deserved it for being so damn smug about enigma, not to mention the age old end-user weak link (i.e. people in the field using the same damn keys over and over, trusting that the machine would just magically make all their correspondence uncrackable).
If each of us gave *dollars* it could do miracles. And those of us lucky enough to live in well-off countries (*cough* US *cough*), instead of throwing our drops in the bucket and feeling good about it, what about actually doing something significant like *relieving foreign debt* that keeps poor countries in the vicious borrow-pay-principal-plus-interest-borrow-again cycle? It all leads back to that ugly thing that we all think we are completely above and detached from - politics.
I'm "only" 21 and in the span of about 5 years it seems musica has pretty much gone to shit. About 70% of the people I really liked are either dead or havent produced anything for a LONG time. The other 30%, fortunately have continued on and produced more cool stuff (with the exception of perhaps U2's discotheque CD, but I hear they have a better one out). There are only a handful of decent new bands (IMHO). The rest is New Kids on the Block rip off, pop crap.
And for the record I do appreciate "classic" 60s, 70s, (hey, even 50s) music. It just seems that all that you hear on the radio these days is prefabricated pop-crap. It's not that it sounds *bad*...but that it is so disgustingly contrived and retreaded (of course generations before me probably say that about everything I like).
Well, I hope it is abundantly clear now. First, he gains useful experience in futuristic technology on Star Wars. He then takes such information and covertly plants the seeds of the computer revolution, upon which his scam is to make money by appearing in computer ads. Finally, the internet is invented, giving Shatner a new lucrative ad career for PriceLine.com. Shatner laughs evilly, muahahaha!
if IBM comes out with a computerized shirt, then Microsoft will upstage them with a computerized jacket.
And then comes inevitable "bloat". Microsoft will then come out with a computerized trench coat, and then tundra coat, and space suit. Linus will then come out with a super mega-coat which is actually constructed by thousands of patches of different materials zippered together, each patch individually removable and configurable. We will trumpet it as being more "free" and allowing "choice" in wearable computing.;)
Naming a product with a year in the title is NOT versioning. I'm quite sure people at Microsoft, or anywhere else, aren't version controlling using year numbers. The technical version number for Windows 95 original is 4.00.950, add service pack 1 and it is 4.00.950a. OSR2 is 4.00.950b (I believe). This makes sense because before Windows 95 there was Windows 3.1 (or 3.11 or Windows for Workgroups). The/title/ of a product doesn't have to have an accurate version number in it. Take for example Hurricane Red Hat, or Slink Debian, or Krash KDE, or October GNOME. These are just mnemonics that people can easily associate with a major release of the product. For the unwashed masses, using a year number makes it easier and gives context. It is not apparent just from the technical version number, the time difference between Linux 2.2 and 2.3.
If Microsoft wants to call it's products by year let it. At least it's not calling it's products Krash. (Yeah, I'd like Windows Krash with that. Oh, a gratis copy has been installed? Thanks!)
I don't know if I like the idea of random security people getting a peep show all day long. I think that's an invasion of privacy. Can't they at least fiddle with the contrast or something so the body outline and detail goes away, and just leaves bright areas for metal, etc?
And as for the comment the libertarian mentioned about people not having to use a service...well I'm pretty libertarian and would agree with you, except that there are some things that are so ubiquitous and important that it becomes the government responsibility to overlook. Transportation is one of those things. If everybody in the us "decides" individually not to use airplanes, although it may be logical, there will be serious ramifications.
Ok, this is the second time I've seen the term "sod" used. The first time I thought it was a typo or something. Over here, "sod" is what a Yank plants flowers in. What is "sod" on the other side of the Atlantic?
This morning a phone call woke me up. It was a telemarketer. I gave her about 5 words before I tolder her "I don't need credit card protection, thank you, bye".
Also, my waffles were burned today. So I think my toaster may not be y2k compliant.
A few horsemen and guys with trumpets showed up at my door asking directions to New York. Man, I hope they're not late for their party.
"and that was one of the main points they stressed, don't pick up your phone to see if there is a dial tone. It makes a lot of sense to me. Of course, you just know somewhere people will do that and the grid will go down and then they'll panic over it. Same way with the power as you mentioned. I just plan to only have my computer (cable modem, so no phone lines to worry about) and TV on (other than normal stuff like VCR's)."
Picking up your phone (normal, not cell, i assume), shouldn't really do anything at all. The dial tone should be coming from the pbx. In fact, you should be able to call locally, no problam, because everybody is hooked into a local pbx. It's the long distance that might have trouble.
NYSEG (New York State Electricity and Gas, I believe) basically suggests that you just power down your computer. Everything else you can leave on. I'm sure what they/don't/ want, is everybody in New York State turning all their electricity off, and then on again on 1/1/2000:00:00:01
"I agree. I've witnessed localized gravity shifts occurring for years. You know they happen when you stumble while you walk or when you or a friend is just standing around and suddenly falls over or at least has to take a step to catch themselves."
Or when you step out of a HomeStyle Buffet or Ponderosa and leave footprints in the asphalt.
""Man In The Moon" may be the best holiday movie of the year so far, even though Jim Carrey is already much more of a comedic legend than Andy Kaufman, the man he portrays."
HUH!? Andy Kaufman was the original, the classic! Carrey is just a recent upstart. Sure he's good, in a Jerry Lewis slapstick sort of way, but saying that, while still alive, he has a greater comedic legend than Andy Kaufman is heresy.
Get out. Never do movie reviews again, you curmudgeon.
Bush is a governor-backed governor. As you know, governors are "losing" a lot of sales tax to ebusiness. Of all the candidates, Bush was the most reluctant to maintain that the tax ban be pushed back a bit more (note - note indefinately).
It also appears Bush might be the most of inept of the candidates about technology (my own impression there). Al Gore seems semi-clueful...but I personally don't agree with all his views. Bill Bradley seems a bit more open-minded, and all encompassing. His views involve querying all possibilities, and then coming to a consensus, instead of thinking "My idea is Hot Shit - agree with me!" I have no idea about McCain, but of all the Republicans he seems to least dangerous and most approachable.
"However what about above-average joe? How about someone who has done personal research, read reports, etc and decided that a drug is right for them? What gives you or anyone else the right to tell him that he shouldn't be able to decide for himself? Is it not his body?"
I do agree with you that doctors and pharmicists are not unreproachable holy people. Both make mistakes, sometimes stupid ones. I also think that an individual is capable of doing research and finding appropriate treatments for themselves. For instance, a lot of people use homeopathic or holistic remedies, or so-called "quack" medicine like chiropracty and acupuncture (which yields amazing results for being such "quacks").
However I think that responsibility should be limited to those who can live up to it. Under your libertarian scheme, could I "prescribe" a few crates of morphine for myself, and then sell it out of the back of my car? The privelage of prescribing drugs is withheld for pharmacists because having gone through pharmacological school they, ostensibly, can live up to a higher responsibility.
Logically you can say that people should be able to use whatever foods and chemicals (illegal "drugs" included) they want, because it is/their/ body. And when we wake up one day and find everybody is coked/tripped out, insane, poisoned, etc., we can say "oh, well, it was their choice, they're stupid"...but shit - we'll be out one country.
If you concede that it is part of the government's responsibility to protect its populace (hell, we have a military don't we?), then it is natural this would extend to health care. Whether or not one even concedes that is another issue. I for one wouldn't mind money being shifted from weapons that kill people, to feeding and educating people.
Can inanimate objects be labeled "enemy"? Could the whole level be labeled "enemy"? Intelligent AimBots could of course attempt to detect between "real" enemies and "phantom" enemies, but that would reqiure their complexity to go up and their performance down. It's just an arms race...but if it can be made sufficiently annoying then perhaps people won't try it. Then again, this will kill off client-side bots too.
"The solution is (and always has been) to assume the server is trusted and the client is not. The majority of server's out there that anyone is willing to play on will be trustworthy anyway."
Yes, I totally agree. Because of the specific constraints of a multiplayer gaming environment it is simply impractical to create a security model in which the client can be untrusted. People shouldn't be wasting time trying to make sketchy stop-gap solutions to the underlying (and necessarily) flawed security model.
So then public key cryptography is used where the keys are stored in hardware. This means either that each piece of hardware has to be different because each has a separate key ingrained in hardware somewhere, which will be totally impractical to manufacture,/or/ that the key is stored in ROM, which, although it is harder, is still accessible.
Also the hardware would have to entirely take over the CPU...this means the addition of a super-monitor level that can only be activated by hardware, over and above the software-level monitor state (kernel). If this is done, how is authentication achieved to allow the hardware to do this? Can any piece of hardware do this? If so, then the crypto hardware is compromised. If not, yet another scheme must be invented to authenticate the crypto hardware, which may lead back to manufacturing individual CPUs to recognize a certain key, which is again impractical.
If there is no hardware-level monitor, what is stopping a rogue kernel from just dumping memory?
I think this may end up a philosophical question. If I give somebody something, I must/trust/ them. If I don't trust them, I can't give them something sensitive. Now, all sorts of "trust proxies" can be put in place, but it will eventually resolve to me trusting somebody. And the only secure endpoint is somebody's brain. So there will always need to be a brain-brain trust. Hardware and software just proxies it for us.
"What you're concerned about is actions... Bots can shoot better, and dodge better (theoretically) than humans. How does the server tell it that perfect spin while holding the lightning on a guy who ran by was Thresh, or a bot?"
For the sake of clear terminology, I call these valid (within the rules) cheats "behavioral cheats". That is, it is a cheat of performing allowed, but unrealistic, behavoirs within the rules.
Slashdot Mirror
Somebody suggested that submissions waiting to be looked at by the Slashdot gods, should be put in a queue which is accessible to Slashdotters. Slashdotters would them vote up those headlines they think are newsworthy and should make it to the front page.
HOWEVER, I think that this solution will just result in people rushing over to the headline queue and disregarding the front page because it will inevitably always have older news.
I suggest, instead, that articles are rated and able to be filtered out, like comments. The Slashdot gods can post anything reasonably sane, perhaps giving it an initial "confidence" rating. Then, subsequent viewers of the article can rate it up or down, of other viewers can set their masks so, for example, they only see articles that are rated X or better.
The drawback to this scheme is that the viewers who see the articles raw an uncut have the burden of rating up low articles (perhaps 'new' articles can have an initial value which degrades over time, giving people with high masks a chance to see and rate them?). This could be made easier by putting two small radio button either in the header or title of an article, or at the bottom, one labeled + one labeled - (for plus one or minus one). This would take up very little space and allow people to rate an article without much hassle:
*+ *- [rate]
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
Good idea! With enough eyeballs, all hoaxes and fake news are shallow!
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
Didn't someone also say just locate a nearby Morman family because supposedly their religion dictates that they have at least six months of food on them at all times (because, like, Jesus will show up on their front porch someday or something).
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
I am blindly posting this without first trawling through other posts or going through the web on a research tramp, so take it with a grain of salt.
You can think of all things as functions. An image, for example, is a function of two variables, x and y, which give a pixel location. The function should return a color, and perhaps an alpha value. Fundamentally, one should be able then, to simply write down the formula for an image on a napkin. The image can then be generated by simply filling in the formula over the domain (width and height).
In practice, however, it is very difficult to derive this function. So we must approximate until it is close enough. As I see it, this is basically what wavelets do. They approximate the function with a series of trigonometric wave functions.
If you think about movies, now, they are just really frame after frame of images. So you simply have a three-variable function: x, y, and frame #. Theoretically, you should be able to reduce a movie to a function also. and just feed in three variables and be able to render an image.
I guess you could also represent images and movies as functions which returned matrices. You could probably do some nifty mathematics which would account for areas which stayed the same and would not have to be changed again...essentially 'masking' the new image over and over again with new image matrices.
Anyway, that is my take. It might not be perfectly accurate, but I've always thought of images, and movies, and data in general (the same procedure can be performed on arbitrary binary streams), as simply functions of position.
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
They also let ships get sunk, etc. even when they knew the positions of subs.
Sometimes they'd do things like first send out a "surveillance" plane and let the Germans see it. Then the Germans would think that the British had just happened to see them and thus the attack was to be expected. Those Germans must have been getting pretty damn frustrated when every single secret covert operation was discovered by some "chance" flyby from a surveillance plane. But they deserved it for being so damn smug about enigma, not to mention the age old end-user weak link (i.e. people in the field using the same damn keys over and over, trusting that the machine would just magically make all their correspondence uncrackable).
If each of us gave *dollars* it could do miracles. And those of us lucky enough to live in well-off countries (*cough* US *cough*), instead of throwing our drops in the bucket and feeling good about it, what about actually doing something significant like *relieving foreign debt* that keeps poor countries in the vicious borrow-pay-principal-plus-interest-borrow-again cycle? It all leads back to that ugly thing that we all think we are completely above and detached from - politics.
No, but the government can dictate that an "independent third party" define the protocols...like, say, the IETF, or W3C, or ANSI.
Reminds me of Jimmy Fallon in Weekend Update, or that Simpsons episode:
Anchor: "Is Nintendo Buying Sega? Or not?"
Anchor: "The answer is no."
Anchor: "Or is it...?"
I'm "only" 21 and in the span of about 5 years it seems musica has pretty much gone to shit. About 70% of the people I really liked are either dead or havent produced anything for a LONG time. The other 30%, fortunately have continued on and produced more cool stuff (with the exception of perhaps U2's discotheque CD, but I hear they have a better one out). There are only a handful of decent new bands (IMHO). The rest is New Kids on the Block rip off, pop crap.
And for the record I do appreciate "classic" 60s, 70s, (hey, even 50s) music. It just seems that all that you hear on the radio these days is prefabricated pop-crap. It's not that it sounds *bad*...but that it is so disgustingly contrived and retreaded (of course generations before me probably say that about everything I like).
Well, I hope it is abundantly clear now. First, he gains useful experience in futuristic technology on Star Wars. He then takes such information and covertly plants the seeds of the computer revolution, upon which his scam is to make money by appearing in computer ads. Finally, the internet is invented, giving Shatner a new lucrative ad career for PriceLine.com. Shatner laughs evilly, muahahaha!
Hey, I'm over a week late, but so what...:
;)
if IBM comes out with a computerized shirt, then Microsoft will upstage them with a computerized jacket.
And then comes inevitable "bloat". Microsoft will then come out with a computerized trench coat, and then tundra coat, and space suit. Linus will then come out with a super mega-coat which is actually constructed by thousands of patches of different materials zippered together, each patch individually removable and configurable. We will trumpet it as being more "free" and allowing "choice" in wearable computing.
Naming a product with a year in the title is NOT versioning. I'm quite sure people at Microsoft, or anywhere else, aren't version controlling using year numbers. The technical version number for Windows 95 original is 4.00.950, add service pack 1 and it is 4.00.950a. OSR2 is 4.00.950b (I believe). This makes sense because before Windows 95 there was Windows 3.1 (or 3.11 or Windows for Workgroups). The /title/ of a product doesn't have to have an accurate version number in it. Take for example Hurricane Red Hat, or Slink Debian, or Krash KDE, or October GNOME. These are just mnemonics that people can easily associate with a major release of the product. For the unwashed masses, using a year number makes it easier and gives context. It is not apparent just from the technical version number, the time difference between Linux 2.2 and 2.3.
If Microsoft wants to call it's products by year let it. At least it's not calling it's products Krash. (Yeah, I'd like Windows Krash with that. Oh, a gratis copy has been installed? Thanks!)
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
I don't know if I like the idea of random security people getting a peep show all day long. I think that's an invasion of privacy. Can't they at least fiddle with the contrast or something so the body outline and detail goes away, and just leaves bright areas for metal, etc?
And as for the comment the libertarian mentioned about people not having to use a service...well I'm pretty libertarian and would agree with you, except that there are some things that are so ubiquitous and important that it becomes the government responsibility to overlook. Transportation is one of those things. If everybody in the us "decides" individually not to use airplanes, although it may be logical, there will be serious ramifications.
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
"1) Sod the world"
Ok, this is the second time I've seen the term "sod" used. The first time I thought it was a typo or something. Over here, "sod" is what a Yank plants flowers in. What is "sod" on the other side of the Atlantic?
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
This morning a phone call woke me up. It was a telemarketer. I gave her about 5 words before I tolder her "I don't need credit card protection, thank you, bye".
Also, my waffles were burned today. So I think my toaster may not be y2k compliant.
A few horsemen and guys with trumpets showed up at my door asking directions to New York. Man, I hope they're not late for their party.
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
"and that was one of the main points they stressed, don't pick up your phone to see if there is a dial tone. It makes a lot of sense to me. Of course, you just know somewhere people will do
/don't/ want, is everybody in New York State turning all their electricity off, and then on again on 1/1/2000:00:00:01
that and the grid will go down and then they'll panic over it. Same way with the power as you mentioned. I just plan to only have my computer (cable modem, so no phone lines to worry about) and TV on (other than normal stuff like VCR's)."
Picking up your phone (normal, not cell, i assume), shouldn't really do anything at all. The dial tone should be coming from the pbx. In fact, you should be able to call locally, no problam, because everybody is hooked into a local pbx. It's the long distance that might have trouble.
NYSEG (New York State Electricity and Gas, I believe) basically suggests that you just power down your computer. Everything else you can leave on. I'm sure what they
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
"I agree. I've witnessed localized gravity shifts occurring for years. You know they happen when you stumble while you walk or when you or a friend is just standing around and suddenly falls over or at least has to take a step to catch themselves."
Or when you step out of a HomeStyle Buffet or Ponderosa and leave footprints in the asphalt.
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
""Man In The Moon" may be the best holiday movie of the year so far, even though Jim Carrey is already much more of a comedic legend than Andy Kaufman, the man he portrays."
HUH!? Andy Kaufman was the original, the classic! Carrey is just a recent upstart. Sure he's good, in a Jerry Lewis slapstick sort of way, but saying that, while still alive, he has a greater comedic legend than Andy Kaufman is heresy.
Get out. Never do movie reviews again, you curmudgeon.
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
Well, if anyone, not Bush.
Bush is a governor-backed governor. As you know, governors are "losing" a lot of sales tax to ebusiness. Of all the candidates, Bush was the most reluctant to maintain that the tax ban be pushed back a bit more (note - note indefinately).
It also appears Bush might be the most of inept of the candidates about technology (my own impression there). Al Gore seems semi-clueful...but I personally don't agree with all his views. Bill Bradley seems a bit more open-minded, and all encompassing. His views involve querying all possibilities, and then coming to a consensus, instead of thinking "My idea is Hot Shit - agree with me!" I have no idea about McCain, but of all the Republicans he seems to least dangerous and most approachable.
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
"However what about above-average joe? How about
/their/ body. And when we wake up one day and find everybody is coked/tripped out, insane, poisoned, etc., we can say "oh, well, it was their choice, they're stupid"...but shit - we'll be out one country.
someone who has done personal research, read
reports, etc and decided that a drug is right
for them? What gives you or anyone else the right
to tell him that he shouldn't be able to decide
for himself? Is it not his body?"
I do agree with you that doctors and pharmicists are not unreproachable holy people. Both make mistakes, sometimes stupid ones. I also think that an individual is capable of doing research and finding appropriate treatments for themselves. For instance, a lot of people use homeopathic or holistic remedies, or so-called "quack" medicine like chiropracty and acupuncture (which yields amazing results for being such "quacks").
However I think that responsibility should be limited to those who can live up to it. Under your libertarian scheme, could I "prescribe" a few crates of morphine for myself, and then sell it out of the back of my car? The privelage of prescribing drugs is withheld for pharmacists because having gone through pharmacological school they, ostensibly, can live up to a higher responsibility.
Logically you can say that people should be able to use whatever foods and chemicals (illegal "drugs" included) they want, because it is
If you concede that it is part of the government's responsibility to protect its populace (hell, we have a military don't we?), then it is natural this would extend to health care. Whether or not one even concedes that is another issue. I for one wouldn't mind money being shifted from weapons that kill people, to feeding and educating people.
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
Is there something peculiar to OS9 that leaves it vulnerable to this attack? What about other OSs? Can they detect a spoof?
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
Yes, that is a good idea...
Can inanimate objects be labeled "enemy"? Could the whole level be labeled "enemy"? Intelligent AimBots could of course attempt to detect between "real" enemies and "phantom" enemies, but that would reqiure their complexity to go up and their performance down. It's just an arms race...but if it can be made sufficiently annoying then perhaps people won't try it. Then again, this will kill off client-side bots too.
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
"The solution is (and always has been) to assume the server is trusted and the client is not. The majority of server's out there that anyone is willing to play on will be trustworthy anyway."
Yes, I totally agree. Because of the specific constraints of a multiplayer gaming environment it is simply impractical to create a security model in which the client can be untrusted. People shouldn't be wasting time trying to make sketchy stop-gap solutions to the underlying (and necessarily) flawed security model.
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
So then public key cryptography is used where the keys are stored in hardware. This means either that each piece of hardware has to be different because each has a separate key ingrained in hardware somewhere, which will be totally impractical to manufacture, /or/ that the key is stored in ROM, which, although it is harder, is still accessible.
/trust/ them. If I don't trust them, I can't give them something sensitive. Now, all sorts of "trust proxies" can be put in place, but it will eventually resolve to me trusting somebody. And the only secure endpoint is somebody's brain. So there will always need to be a brain-brain trust. Hardware and software just proxies it for us.
Also the hardware would have to entirely take over the CPU...this means the addition of a super-monitor level that can only be activated by hardware, over and above the software-level monitor state (kernel). If this is done, how is authentication achieved to allow the hardware to do this? Can any piece of hardware do this? If so, then the crypto hardware is compromised. If not, yet another scheme must be invented to authenticate the crypto hardware, which may lead back to manufacturing individual CPUs to recognize a certain key, which is again impractical.
If there is no hardware-level monitor, what is stopping a rogue kernel from just dumping memory?
I think this may end up a philosophical question. If I give somebody something, I must
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
"What you're concerned about is actions... Bots can shoot better, and dodge better (theoretically) than humans. How does the server tell it that perfect spin while holding the lightning on a guy who ran by was Thresh, or a bot?"
For the sake of clear terminology, I call these valid (within the rules) cheats "behavioral cheats". That is, it is a cheat of performing allowed, but unrealistic, behavoirs within the rules.
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla