I was using the same workaround. Just installed the new flash.so, and no longer need to. THANK FUCK. I was definitely with Linus that whatever the specification of memcpy, if your optimisations break a ubiquitous piece of software it's a regression. But it's also a good thing that Adobe fixed their broken code, of course.
I also had issues where periodically Flash would bring my system to a crawl - I've not seen anyone else mention that problem, but fingers crossed this'll solve that too.
That's a terrible idea. They're not going to put the only copy of the data in front of you on your own laptop for you to type what the hell you want and tamper with the only copy of evidence. They'll clone the drive and have you decrypt that copy.
Then, when they don't believe that all you had were copies of hello.jpg they'll compare the disk with the original, see all the unrelated blocks being written to, and know for sure that you have hidden data. Plus evidence that you've attempted to destroy evidence from their investigation.
When I launch DDoS attacks, I always VNC into my 300,000 zombies, load Chrome, and type the target's address into the URL bar of each one. This new feature will cripple me:(((((((
On an unrelated note, I must remember to buy a replacement for my worn-out F5 key.
Shame he'll not be able to hear how wrong he is through his insulating walls of billions of dollars. In fact it's surprising moot isn't aware of this issue given his similarly vast wealth.
So daily bandwidth caps are good because someone on Slashdot talks about downloading copyrighted content. You're right; it's obvious when you put it like that.
Clearly this whole "media" thing is clouding the issue, so let's come up with a different example: my bandwidth also gets throttled every time I download a 1.8GB ultra-high res image of an ocelot's vagina, which I do in my role as an ocelot gynaecologist. Or, you know, to fap over.
I was referring to the suggestion of queueing up a torrent to download overnight. If I have to wait overnight for something to download then my connection is no better than a modem.
...which is very reasonable for all but the most hardcore bandwidth users...
No. Superficially it might seem so, but in practice it sucks. Because the caps are applied on a daily basis, it's very easy to hit the cap due to one session of heavy downloading. As an example, I'm on the 10Mbit service - at the risk of losing my geek card, I just don't need a faster download than that and so object to paying for it. This means that in the evening I get a DL cap of 1.5GB, which is roughly the size of a 720p TV show rip. So if I want to download 2 episodes, or a full length film, or Linux ISOs + associated software, I will hit the cap. Even though my daily usage only ends up being a couple of hundred MB averaged over the month.
And to the commenter suggesting we should schedule torrents:
I don't leave my computer on when I'm not using it; it's a waste of electricity
If I wanted my Linux ISOs to arrive a day after I decided I want them, I'd order a CD online. And if your 50Mbit connection takes 24 hours to download 650MB, then it is in no meaningful way 50Mbit.
The Flash text benchmark is highly suspicious. IE9 posts by far the worst score for that benchmark on one machine, then beats FF on the same test on another machine. Without any description of testing methodology, I can only assume the benchmarking procedure is totally broken (e.g. maybe they only ran each one once) and so the results are best taken with a pinch of salt, even if they're not entirely useless.
While I genuinely appreciate what the guy is trying to do, I'm not sure how actually useful it is to see some guy submitting stories/comments every month about how the RIAA is in deep trouble now because the only possible outcome of this trial is for the defendants to be found not guilty and awarded costs, only to be followed the next day by a story about how the RIAA has just successfully won the defendant's first born's soul.
It's nice to hear an expert's opinion, but honestly I think I could have called a higher hit rate, and not only am I not a lawyer but I don't even live in the US. NYCL is the legal equivalent of the Linux zealot who is genuinely shocked each time a new release of Linux From Scratch fails to topple Windows from the OS throne.
Lossy music compression is almost always psychoacoustic. If you devise a test to show that there's a quantitative difference between the signals then you are doing it wrong. The only interesting test is ABX - if there's no significant difference shown in an ABX test then it doesn't matter how much absolute distortion there is; it's just numbers on a page.
Though I will agree that cymbals are usually the biggest giveaway for music recorded at too low a bitrate (or more commonly, just badly encoded).
Best part of a decade ago there was a Windows email virus (forget which one, sorry) that did rather well for itself. In order to avoid detection, it spread by email in a password protected zip file. In order to become infected, the user had to open the zip by typing in the randomly generated password given in the email, extract the executable within, then run it.
It was then that I realised there will never be a technical solution that makes more than a dent in malware infections.
That jumped out at me as well. And I'm not sure that it is just ambiguity over the meaning of 'several': The way he mentions it right after infants adapting to the different conditions, I think...I think he's actually implying Lamarckian evolution is the driving force.
I don't think that's right. With millisecond resolution (which is the resolution of the clock, but the input event loop will be much slower no doubt) you could pick any one second, and then have 3^1000 combinations of either moving left, moving right, or doing nothing for each tick in that second. As I say, the actual input response will be far slower, but even if it's 1/10th of a second, you only need a few seconds to get an astronomical number. Playing every possible game is entirely unfeasible. You could try to prune it, but even that is non-trivial. A left or right move can affect the behaviour of any barrel on a higher level, for example.
Oh God, you're right. That makes it even harder to calculate an optimum strategy. Maybe you're better off pausing for a fraction of a second and getting 300 for one fireball, so that you get higher points for that 8 barrel sequence that will reach you a few levels later (for those who don't know, the PRNG in dkong is really just the system clock). So there is still a theoretical highest-possible score (obviously, as you can't achieve an infinite score), but you'd have to be insane to figure out what it was.
I've partly answered this in a previous comment, but as an illustration of how much higher the score can go, take a look at level 1-1 (the first barrel round). In Wiebe's highest scoring game, he scored ~8000 points on that level. Twingalaxies opened a track for who could get the highest score on that level, and although the site is slashdotted, from memory it was well in excess of 12000. The barrel rounds are by far the most common in the game so that suggests a huge margin for improvement.
Of course, the 1-1 barrel round is quite different from the 5-1 barrel round. In the latter the timer counts down far faster, so there's less time to points press. On the other hand, you have far more control over the barrels, which makes higher scoring easier (if you ignore that whole 'death' thing).
If I had to make a guess, I'd say there's theoretically hundreds of thousands more points to score. Maybe even break 2 million if the game cooperates?
Well there is a theoretical limit because of the time limit per board and the kill screen, but figuring it out would be very hard (and achieving it practically impossible). It would first involve figuring out the optimum strategy assuming that the various enemies behaved in certain ways - e.g. the fireballs on the pie factory all respawning and immediately heading towards you while you have the mallet, the fireballs and blue barrels all being worth 800 points, etc, etc.
But the odds of this happening are probably on a par with winning the lottery many times over. If the PRNG decides a blue barrel is worth 300 then that's 500 points lost and nothing the player can do about it. And the optimum strategy for a theoretical perfect game is probably very different to the optimum strategy for a typical game.
Slashdot Mirror
I also had issues where periodically Flash would bring my system to a crawl - I've not seen anyone else mention that problem, but fingers crossed this'll solve that too.
Then, when they don't believe that all you had were copies of hello.jpg they'll compare the disk with the original, see all the unrelated blocks being written to, and know for sure that you have hidden data. Plus evidence that you've attempted to destroy evidence from their investigation.
Hipster poster is hipster.
That's not what's meant by 'falsify' in this context. See definition 3.
On an unrelated note, I must remember to buy a replacement for my worn-out F5 key.
Have you asked him why he wants a shell? If not, why the hell not? And if so, why haven't you told us?
Impressive.
Shame he'll not be able to hear how wrong he is through his insulating walls of billions of dollars. In fact it's surprising moot isn't aware of this issue given his similarly vast wealth.
Clearly this whole "media" thing is clouding the issue, so let's come up with a different example: my bandwidth also gets throttled every time I download a 1.8GB ultra-high res image of an ocelot's vagina, which I do in my role as an ocelot gynaecologist. Or, you know, to fap over.
I'm glad we've finally found some common ground.
How the cocking fuck is that relevant to a discussion about throttling and download caps?
I was referring to the suggestion of queueing up a torrent to download overnight. If I have to wait overnight for something to download then my connection is no better than a modem.
No. Superficially it might seem so, but in practice it sucks. Because the caps are applied on a daily basis, it's very easy to hit the cap due to one session of heavy downloading. As an example, I'm on the 10Mbit service - at the risk of losing my geek card, I just don't need a faster download than that and so object to paying for it. This means that in the evening I get a DL cap of 1.5GB, which is roughly the size of a 720p TV show rip. So if I want to download 2 episodes, or a full length film, or Linux ISOs + associated software, I will hit the cap. Even though my daily usage only ends up being a couple of hundred MB averaged over the month.
And to the commenter suggesting we should schedule torrents:
That's exactly what BT Openreach was created for. Obviously they've nothing to do with Virgin, but they own most of the country's infrastructure.
The Flash text benchmark is highly suspicious. IE9 posts by far the worst score for that benchmark on one machine, then beats FF on the same test on another machine. Without any description of testing methodology, I can only assume the benchmarking procedure is totally broken (e.g. maybe they only ran each one once) and so the results are best taken with a pinch of salt, even if they're not entirely useless.
It's nice to hear an expert's opinion, but honestly I think I could have called a higher hit rate, and not only am I not a lawyer but I don't even live in the US. NYCL is the legal equivalent of the Linux zealot who is genuinely shocked each time a new release of Linux From Scratch fails to topple Windows from the OS throne.
He's just spent a whole day upgrading from MSDOS 5 to Win7. He probably doesn't want to spend another week getting linux to work properly.
Though I will agree that cymbals are usually the biggest giveaway for music recorded at too low a bitrate (or more commonly, just badly encoded).
I could have sworn that several years back some comments were removed because they contained a threat to the US president?
It was then that I realised there will never be a technical solution that makes more than a dent in malware infections.
That jumped out at me as well. And I'm not sure that it is just ambiguity over the meaning of 'several': The way he mentions it right after infants adapting to the different conditions, I think...I think he's actually implying Lamarckian evolution is the driving force.
I don't think that's right. With millisecond resolution (which is the resolution of the clock, but the input event loop will be much slower no doubt) you could pick any one second, and then have 3^1000 combinations of either moving left, moving right, or doing nothing for each tick in that second. As I say, the actual input response will be far slower, but even if it's 1/10th of a second, you only need a few seconds to get an astronomical number. Playing every possible game is entirely unfeasible. You could try to prune it, but even that is non-trivial. A left or right move can affect the behaviour of any barrel on a higher level, for example.
Oh God, you're right. That makes it even harder to calculate an optimum strategy. Maybe you're better off pausing for a fraction of a second and getting 300 for one fireball, so that you get higher points for that 8 barrel sequence that will reach you a few levels later (for those who don't know, the PRNG in dkong is really just the system clock). So there is still a theoretical highest-possible score (obviously, as you can't achieve an infinite score), but you'd have to be insane to figure out what it was.
Of course, the 1-1 barrel round is quite different from the 5-1 barrel round. In the latter the timer counts down far faster, so there's less time to points press. On the other hand, you have far more control over the barrels, which makes higher scoring easier (if you ignore that whole 'death' thing).
If I had to make a guess, I'd say there's theoretically hundreds of thousands more points to score. Maybe even break 2 million if the game cooperates?
But the odds of this happening are probably on a par with winning the lottery many times over. If the PRNG decides a blue barrel is worth 300 then that's 500 points lost and nothing the player can do about it. And the optimum strategy for a theoretical perfect game is probably very different to the optimum strategy for a typical game.
My thoughts are: just because what you wrote exceeds Twitter's 140 char limit doesn't mean you should post it to Slashdot's front page intead.