Godel's Incompleteness Theorem does NOT state that no FAS can be complete (any statement that is true under it's notation is provable is true). The first-order propositional calculus & first-order predicate calculus are both complete axiomatic systems (assuming proof of the former, I have done a proof of the latter). It states that any FAS capable of expressing the natural numbers cannot be complete which means no mathematical axiomatic system can yield a complete system. Any system that allow for unrestricted comprehension allows for variants of Russel's paradox - let us have A be the set of all sets that do not contain themselves and only those sets that do not contain themselves. does A contain itself? either answer is contradictory.
Random technically means non-deterministic. If you want to nitpick, yes numbers generated by an algorithm aren't random, but some algorithms are "cryptographically secure" which means given the previous numbers, one cannot predict the next number w/ certainty or even high probability. There's also the concept of probability distributions which are random in the sense that one cannot for sure know the value but one can know the expected value and the probability of anything being the value. In sum, random has very different connotations depending on it's use. I have been under the impression that omega in math refers to the first uncountable ordinal number (cite: wikipedia.org) which by definition can have no numeric value associated to it.
The fact that Riemann has been proven, IMHO, will simply remove those footnotes that say Assuming the General Riemann Hypothesis. The first 1.5 billion zeroes have been checked and verify the conjecture, and it's long been assumed that it is true. The significance of the proof will lie in a) how it was proven - perhaps these new methods will be applicable in the future since so many attacks have failed and probably b) providing mathematical fame to the prover for finding a new attack that worked. This proof will be a very big deal if correct but NOT directly because Riemann's hypothesis has been proven (and thus the Miller-Rabin primality test is now proven to run in polynomial time on a deterministic machine as opposed to assumed very strongly and not yet disproven) b/c the proof has been assumed to be true for a VERY long time. A counterexample would shake things up MUCH more than a proof.
More competition is only good if the new "drugs" can actually compete in quality w/ the old ones. Worst case scenario is that this makes the "old" method of patent-drugs obsolete and now those companies stop researching new products. Maybe that will be fine, maybe it wont be profitable enough for these corps to only manufacture generic drugs unless they become more expensive and thus prices will go up. I'm all for the sharing of information and for taking life-or-death decisions AWAY FROM for-profit corporations, but let's not only focus on the possible good benefits and be our usual paranoid selves and look at both sides. Hopefully someone more informed than me can add a nice run-down of possible scenarios (both good and bad)
Out of order? Fuck! Even in the future nothing works! -- Spaceballs
I designed one of the problem sets (homework assignments) for the intro CS course at Princeton University. The assignment is a digital signal processing one where you animate waveforms from an mp3, generate your own sound waves, and add a basic filter to a sound wave. All the sound stuff including decoding the mp3 file is done for you, you just have to manipulate the data. The assignment was intended to teach the use of objects in Java (we had students create a Wave class that had some built in capabilities to add two sound waves together, amplify/attenuate sound waves, and generate waves of a given amplitude frequency - musical notes are characterized by their frequency), and make them deal w/ arrays. FYI, here is the assignment. N.B: I'm sure I screwed up some technical sound details in there
Point of the post: I got responses ranging from I hate it to this assignment made me want to be a CS major. The people who were interested in CS/math/sciences loved it because they got to do something fun fairly simply. Those who were taking the course to fulfill a requirement or to dabble in programming hated it because it required them to deal w/ creating their own class and some math (fill an array with samples of a sin wave) and other stuff that required some thought/learning. They much preferred the assignments I hated that involved no creativity/original thought and were rather boilerplate. A lot of people (even really smart people) don't like being forced to think and much prefer memorization to critical thinking/problem solving. That's why, IMHO, many programs don't teach concepts (it disgusts me that in engineering classes the profs are "afraid" to give mathematical proofs for things b/c so many students hate them) or foundation - because too many people hate it and shy away from courses that focus on things that can't be crammed for and require understanding.
While it's a good thought, schools have enough trouble teaching what they already teach, you think anyone's gonna pay attention to lectures on computer security aside from those who already know about it? Do you really think people who don't understand why high school algebra (not abstract algebra) serves any purpose in and of itself let alone see the benefit in learning how to problem solve are going to get anything out of computer security lectures?
Next comment: people are lazy. Very few will spend more than a few minutes securing a computer, it has to be done automatically or there must be a simple one-click & go program that does it for them
Last comment: Any user who secures their infected box receives little benefit in terms of spam. It's like voting, you need a lot of people to make a difference. While that behavior might be optimal if EVERYONE did it, individually it's probably better to not forego the "cost" in lost time learning how to secure and then securing and try and "benefit" from others having more secure systems. It's like the n-person generalized form of the prisoner's dilemna (aka freerider/freeloader problem): society benefits most if everyone goes against their rational self-interest.
That's the problem as I see it. Unless there's a huge negative drawback to being lazy (such as lost data, etc.), people have little incentive to not be lazy.
To the best of my knowledge we have the "Church-Turing Thesis" and not just the Turing thesis because Church's lambda calculus which was developed in parallel accomplishes the same thing as Turing machines. Not to knock Turing or anything, but it's ridiculous, IMHO, to assume it's only because of him that we have general purpose computers.
As can be seen by the comment at the top of page now (9:48 EDT), Turing commited suicide by eating a cyanide-laced apple. Re-read the comment and decide again if you think it's offtopic (don't forget offtopic/overrated lower karma while funny doesn't raise it)
Anyone saying that has never driven both a kia and a porsche. I've never driven a porsche, but I've driven some expensive cars, and they're expensive for a reason. Sports cars, IMHO, are way more fun to drive than cheap cars (some of which I have owned). Just because they're no better at their main purpose doesn't mean they have no purpose. My grandparents drive one of their cars between florida and NY twice a year and LOVE having a navigation system that can find stuff (restaurants, gas stations, whatever) near where they are. my mom has a job that requires her to travel to clients a lot and loves having a navigation system. it might not be worth it to you to pay extra to have something say turn right in 50 feet as opposed to looking it up yourself ahead of time and reading it but for some it is. The correct analogy, IMHO, would be sports cars used as station cars (sit parked at the train station) or to drive 5 miles a day. The few people I know with real sports cars, drive them fast on closed roads and do it because they enjoy it. Other expensive cars have pricey features that might be a waste to you but do provide comfort and might not be a waste to someone with lots of disposable income.
You're missing a monitor which could easily tack on another $500+ depending on size/quality, and I don't know anything about power consumption from that info if you want a laptop for your gaming machine (instead of lugging a huge-ass tower/monitor to lan parties)
Here's the difference. The average person has no idea that they need to update their computer/why they need to. There's no equiv to the CDC blasting warnings to average people. Yes/. knows about it, but most people don't read/.. Until the average person is taught about patching, it wont happen. In my experience, most users have problems because they don't know any better. Most people know that a car needs to be serviced, they don't know a computer needs to be patched. I spent quite a while explaining to my cleaning person how it's possible for a computer just sitting on the internet to become infected w/ a virus/worm. This is your average person - they don't know what ports are or buffer overflow errors and they also don't know what a patch is or in many cases that they're free.
Both of my parents have close to know idea how a computer works. They're computer got the sasser worm or some variant that kept restarting before they could do anything (solution, have a bootable disc to use so as not to boot off the hard-drive). What they didn't understand is that they CAN get viruses/worms by just being on the internet. Next thing, why wasn't their XP up to date, they thought it would cost money to get the updates so they never did (since they couldn't tell windows update notices apart from the mcaffee security center update notices - which do cost money once your subscription runs out) and never thought they could get viruses/worms except through email.
Both my parents are quite intelligent and can work a computer for what they need (word processor/quicken/email/browser) fairly competently. The problem, IMHO, is that computer users view a computer as any other appliance, it should just work, and think if they follow some common-sense (such as not opening strange attachments) they wont have problems. People don't understand why it's important to patch a computer or even how to do it, so they don't.
There's a difference between having no competition and engaging in anti-competitive behavior. the first is a monopoly, the second is generally illegal and refers to (IIRC) business practices that work to reduce/eliminate/prevent competition (such as using a monopoly on OSs to eliminate browser competition).
No idea if this was implied by poster or not but 1729 is also a carmichael number (or pseudoprime) defined, IIRC, as an odd composite number that satisfies Fermat's little theorem (for all a that are relatively prime to n, a^(n-1) = 0 mod n, or equivalently n divides a^(n-1) for all a relatively prime to n). For you cryptos out there, that's a big part of the math behind RSA (how you get the decrypted message w/ a different key than used to encrypt it and how to generate these keys so it's possible).
Wrong on the profit point. In economics as I was taught it, economic profit is defined as the amount of money made OVER what I could make using my next best alternative for making money. In a perfectly competitive market, prices converge to no-economic profit (this does not mean no profit in the normal sense). So if one company is much more efficient, they can make more profit and force out all competitors by still charging low prices. But eventually they'll be undercut by someone equally efficient (assuming no barriers to entry) until everyone is selling @ 0 economic profit. no one takes a loss so no one will ever drop below that price.
As was pointed out before it's basic economics. Let's say I run a business and benefit from this project. Let's also assume that I have $75k/yr disposable income to pay this guy with. Why should I? The stuff is GPL/OSS and all my competitors can use it. All it will do is fund something that makes the industry more efficient because if I really start benefiting from it, my competitors will starrt using it. As a business, I have no incentive to make the industry more efficient, only to improve my position relative to my competitors and thus profit more.
It's not about being selfish it's about spending my money more wisely (such as investing it and getting a return on it that benefits me not something that only benefits customers and doesn't help me). Let's not be naive here.
I just took a course entitled "The Other Side of Rome". One thing many people couldn't grasp was that the life of a city-slave was often much better than that of a poor farmer. Slaves were educated (doctors/lawyers/business managers/etc. were often slaves) and could earn money. While it was miserable to be a field-slave where you were basically a workhorse, some people voluntarily entered slavery. Furthermore, there was a term for a slave who was treated and loved as a child. Try seeing that in any modern movie depicting life in ancient Rome.
My favorte "history" book is Micaehl Crichton's Timeline. Has some good quantum physics (very well dumbed down) in it too to give the book some sense of realism to the technology in it. Fascinating, and I loved learning the history while reading it because it was taught wrapped in an amazingly entertaining story. I highly recommend it to anyone who has not read it (or who has)
Apparently w/ Shrek 1, Mike Myers made them re-do a good chunk of the movie so he could change the voice. They showed a scene w/ the old voice, no comparison between the two scenes, the new voice makes it infinite3ly better. Clearly voice matters a lot.
All info from a behind-ethe-scenes thing on HBO after the first one came out.
From Dutch Boyd (an internet entrepreneur, IIRC) at last year's WSOP: "Poker is a lot like sex. Everybody thinks they're the best. But for the most part, most of them dont know what the hell they're doing"
My/. password is a randomly generated mixed case alphanumeric password. I have about 10 different random passwords that I use right now. For really important stuff (think bank account) I never re-use the password, but my/. password is the same as my maximlounge password and my nytimes/yahoo passwords are the same. I just don't use any non-random passwords. When I first generate a password (use a short irc alias to do it) I type it a whole bunch of times until I remember it and I have them all written down w/ some stupid encryption (think rot13 or simple interleaving of chars) in case I ever forget. Helps me remember it. If my password for some MUD I play happens to be complex, it's because all my passwds are not because ot's my online banking password or one of my 3 school passwords
I know for a fact that amazon.com has so much data that they don't even know what to do w/ it. they track so much info, that it's almost useless because they (as of a couple months ago) have no way to process it and gain anything valuable from it.
It's very typical in the do-not-fail nature of many US corps (IMHO), just make sure you don't fuck up, cover your ass so anything that goes wrong can be blamed on someone/something else. This way, if 3 yrs from now someone realizes how marketing data could be useful to your company, the marketing guy doesn't get yelled at for not having the foresight that no one else had.
Last comment, American companies are NOT going to start respecting the consumer's privacy/the consumer until this lack of respect results in less profit which means until consumer's start caring about this enough to pay more for a competing product/service.
I once had the same exact problem w/ my cable company (optimum online - long island, new york) w/ a modem they sent me. they stopped supporting it, EMAILED everyone about it and we were screwed until they replaced our modem w/ a new one. took forever for them to diagnose the problem. I hate tech support esp when they make you do the same 3 things first, i used to do them before calling (such as unplug the cable modem for 30 secs to let it re-login) since they often work but stopped when they wouldn't believe i had just tried it.
compare old sports game w/ 2 buttons to nba street or newer games. old games were easy, shoot & pass corresponded to steal(or jump or check)/switch player. now there are super combo attacks and such. If I have to read instructions beyond what button does what for a sports game when I know how to play said sport, I think the game has probably gotten too complicated.
Slashdot Mirror
Godel's Incompleteness Theorem does NOT state that no FAS can be complete (any statement that is true under it's notation is provable is true). The first-order propositional calculus & first-order predicate calculus are both complete axiomatic systems (assuming proof of the former, I have done a proof of the latter). It states that any FAS capable of expressing the natural numbers cannot be complete which means no mathematical axiomatic system can yield a complete system. Any system that allow for unrestricted comprehension allows for variants of Russel's paradox - let us have A be the set of all sets that do not contain themselves and only those sets that do not contain themselves. does A contain itself? either answer is contradictory.
Random technically means non-deterministic. If you want to nitpick, yes numbers generated by an algorithm aren't random, but some algorithms are "cryptographically secure" which means given the previous numbers, one cannot predict the next number w/ certainty or even high probability. There's also the concept of probability distributions which are random in the sense that one cannot for sure know the value but one can know the expected value and the probability of anything being the value.
In sum, random has very different connotations depending on it's use. I have been under the impression that omega in math refers to the first uncountable ordinal number (cite: wikipedia.org) which by definition can have no numeric value associated to it.
Ditto. For more info, check out a course I'm taking next semester that's taught by Ed Felten on Information Security. Part of it is designing security procedures into systems.
The fact that Riemann has been proven, IMHO, will simply remove those footnotes that say Assuming the General Riemann Hypothesis. The first 1.5 billion zeroes have been checked and verify the conjecture, and it's long been assumed that it is true. The significance of the proof will lie in a) how it was proven - perhaps these new methods will be applicable in the future since so many attacks have failed and probably b) providing mathematical fame to the prover for finding a new attack that worked. This proof will be a very big deal if correct but NOT directly because Riemann's hypothesis has been proven (and thus the Miller-Rabin primality test is now proven to run in polynomial time on a deterministic machine as opposed to assumed very strongly and not yet disproven) b/c the proof has been assumed to be true for a VERY long time. A counterexample would shake things up MUCH more than a proof.
More competition is only good if the new "drugs" can actually compete in quality w/ the old ones. Worst case scenario is that this makes the "old" method of patent-drugs obsolete and now those companies stop researching new products. Maybe that will be fine, maybe it wont be profitable enough for these corps to only manufacture generic drugs unless they become more expensive and thus prices will go up. I'm all for the sharing of information and for taking life-or-death decisions AWAY FROM for-profit corporations, but let's not only focus on the possible good benefits and be our usual paranoid selves and look at both sides. Hopefully someone more informed than me can add a nice run-down of possible scenarios (both good and bad)
Out of order? Fuck! Even in the future nothing works! -- Spaceballs
I designed one of the problem sets (homework assignments) for the intro CS course at Princeton University. The assignment is a digital signal processing one where you animate waveforms from an mp3, generate your own sound waves, and add a basic filter to a sound wave. All the sound stuff including decoding the mp3 file is done for you, you just have to manipulate the data. The assignment was intended to teach the use of objects in Java (we had students create a Wave class that had some built in capabilities to add two sound waves together, amplify/attenuate sound waves, and generate waves of a given amplitude frequency - musical notes are characterized by their frequency), and make them deal w/ arrays. FYI, here is the assignment. N.B: I'm sure I screwed up some technical sound details in there
Point of the post: I got responses ranging from I hate it to this assignment made me want to be a CS major. The people who were interested in CS/math/sciences loved it because they got to do something fun fairly simply. Those who were taking the course to fulfill a requirement or to dabble in programming hated it because it required them to deal w/ creating their own class and some math (fill an array with samples of a sin wave) and other stuff that required some thought/learning. They much preferred the assignments I hated that involved no creativity/original thought and were rather boilerplate. A lot of people (even really smart people) don't like being forced to think and much prefer memorization to critical thinking/problem solving. That's why, IMHO, many programs don't teach concepts (it disgusts me that in engineering classes the profs are "afraid" to give mathematical proofs for things b/c so many students hate them) or foundation - because too many people hate it and shy away from courses that focus on things that can't be crammed for and require understanding.
While it's a good thought, schools have enough trouble teaching what they already teach, you think anyone's gonna pay attention to lectures on computer security aside from those who already know about it? Do you really think people who don't understand why high school algebra (not abstract algebra) serves any purpose in and of itself let alone see the benefit in learning how to problem solve are going to get anything out of computer security lectures?
Next comment: people are lazy. Very few will spend more than a few minutes securing a computer, it has to be done automatically or there must be a simple one-click & go program that does it for them
Last comment: Any user who secures their infected box receives little benefit in terms of spam. It's like voting, you need a lot of people to make a difference. While that behavior might be optimal if EVERYONE did it, individually it's probably better to not forego the "cost" in lost time learning how to secure and then securing and try and "benefit" from others having more secure systems. It's like the n-person generalized form of the prisoner's dilemna (aka freerider/freeloader problem): society benefits most if everyone goes against their rational self-interest.
That's the problem as I see it. Unless there's a huge negative drawback to being lazy (such as lost data, etc.), people have little incentive to not be lazy.
To the best of my knowledge we have the "Church-Turing Thesis" and not just the Turing thesis because Church's lambda calculus which was developed in parallel accomplishes the same thing as Turing machines. Not to knock Turing or anything, but it's ridiculous, IMHO, to assume it's only because of him that we have general purpose computers.
As can be seen by the comment at the top of page now (9:48 EDT), Turing commited suicide by eating a cyanide-laced apple. Re-read the comment and decide again if you think it's offtopic (don't forget offtopic/overrated lower karma while funny doesn't raise it)
Anyone saying that has never driven both a kia and a porsche. I've never driven a porsche, but I've driven some expensive cars, and they're expensive for a reason. Sports cars, IMHO, are way more fun to drive than cheap cars (some of which I have owned). Just because they're no better at their main purpose doesn't mean they have no purpose. My grandparents drive one of their cars between florida and NY twice a year and LOVE having a navigation system that can find stuff (restaurants, gas stations, whatever) near where they are. my mom has a job that requires her to travel to clients a lot and loves having a navigation system. it might not be worth it to you to pay extra to have something say turn right in 50 feet as opposed to looking it up yourself ahead of time and reading it but for some it is. The correct analogy, IMHO, would be sports cars used as station cars (sit parked at the train station) or to drive 5 miles a day. The few people I know with real sports cars, drive them fast on closed roads and do it because they enjoy it. Other expensive cars have pricey features that might be a waste to you but do provide comfort and might not be a waste to someone with lots of disposable income.
You're missing a monitor which could easily tack on another $500+ depending on size/quality, and I don't know anything about power consumption from that info if you want a laptop for your gaming machine (instead of lugging a huge-ass tower/monitor to lan parties)
Here's the difference. The average person has no idea that they need to update their computer/why they need to. There's no equiv to the CDC blasting warnings to average people. Yes /. knows about it, but most people don't read /.. Until the average person is taught about patching, it wont happen. In my experience, most users have problems because they don't know any better. Most people know that a car needs to be serviced, they don't know a computer needs to be patched. I spent quite a while explaining to my cleaning person how it's possible for a computer just sitting on the internet to become infected w/ a virus/worm. This is your average person - they don't know what ports are or buffer overflow errors and they also don't know what a patch is or in many cases that they're free.
Both of my parents have close to know idea how a computer works. They're computer got the sasser worm or some variant that kept restarting before they could do anything (solution, have a bootable disc to use so as not to boot off the hard-drive). What they didn't understand is that they CAN get viruses/worms by just being on the internet. Next thing, why wasn't their XP up to date, they thought it would cost money to get the updates so they never did (since they couldn't tell windows update notices apart from the mcaffee security center update notices - which do cost money once your subscription runs out) and never thought they could get viruses/worms except through email.
Both my parents are quite intelligent and can work a computer for what they need (word processor/quicken/email/browser) fairly competently. The problem, IMHO, is that computer users view a computer as any other appliance, it should just work, and think if they follow some common-sense (such as not opening strange attachments) they wont have problems. People don't understand why it's important to patch a computer or even how to do it, so they don't.
There's a difference between having no competition and engaging in anti-competitive behavior. the first is a monopoly, the second is generally illegal and refers to (IIRC) business practices that work to reduce/eliminate/prevent competition (such as using a monopoly on OSs to eliminate browser competition).
No idea if this was implied by poster or not but 1729 is also a carmichael number (or pseudoprime) defined, IIRC, as an odd composite number that satisfies Fermat's little theorem (for all a that are relatively prime to n, a^(n-1) = 0 mod n, or equivalently n divides a^(n-1) for all a relatively prime to n). For you cryptos out there, that's a big part of the math behind RSA (how you get the decrypted message w/ a different key than used to encrypt it and how to generate these keys so it's possible).
Wrong on the profit point. In economics as I was taught it, economic profit is defined as the amount of money made OVER what I could make using my next best alternative for making money. In a perfectly competitive market, prices converge to no-economic profit (this does not mean no profit in the normal sense). So if one company is much more efficient, they can make more profit and force out all competitors by still charging low prices. But eventually they'll be undercut by someone equally efficient (assuming no barriers to entry) until everyone is selling @ 0 economic profit. no one takes a loss so no one will ever drop below that price.
As was pointed out before it's basic economics. Let's say I run a business and benefit from this project. Let's also assume that I have $75k/yr disposable income to pay this guy with. Why should I? The stuff is GPL/OSS and all my competitors can use it. All it will do is fund something that makes the industry more efficient because if I really start benefiting from it, my competitors will starrt using it. As a business, I have no incentive to make the industry more efficient, only to improve my position relative to my competitors and thus profit more.
It's not about being selfish it's about spending my money more wisely (such as investing it and getting a return on it that benefits me not something that only benefits customers and doesn't help me). Let's not be naive here.
I just took a course entitled "The Other Side of Rome". One thing many people couldn't grasp was that the life of a city-slave was often much better than that of a poor farmer. Slaves were educated (doctors/lawyers/business managers/etc. were often slaves) and could earn money. While it was miserable to be a field-slave where you were basically a workhorse, some people voluntarily entered slavery. Furthermore, there was a term for a slave who was treated and loved as a child. Try seeing that in any modern movie depicting life in ancient Rome.
My favorte "history" book is Micaehl Crichton's Timeline. Has some good quantum physics (very well dumbed down) in it too to give the book some sense of realism to the technology in it. Fascinating, and I loved learning the history while reading it because it was taught wrapped in an amazingly entertaining story. I highly recommend it to anyone who has not read it (or who has)
Apparently w/ Shrek 1, Mike Myers made them re-do a good chunk of the movie so he could change the voice. They showed a scene w/ the old voice, no comparison between the two scenes, the new voice makes it infinite3ly better. Clearly voice matters a lot. All info from a behind-ethe-scenes thing on HBO after the first one came out.
From Dutch Boyd (an internet entrepreneur, IIRC) at last year's WSOP: "Poker is a lot like sex. Everybody thinks they're the best. But for the most part, most of them dont know what the hell they're doing"
My /. password is a randomly generated mixed case alphanumeric password. I have about 10 different random passwords that I use right now. For really important stuff (think bank account) I never re-use the password, but my /. password is the same as my maximlounge password and my nytimes/yahoo passwords are the same. I just don't use any non-random passwords. When I first generate a password (use a short irc alias to do it) I type it a whole bunch of times until I remember it and I have them all written down w/ some stupid encryption (think rot13 or simple interleaving of chars) in case I ever forget. Helps me remember it. If my password for some MUD I play happens to be complex, it's because all my passwds are not because ot's my online banking password or one of my 3 school passwords
I know for a fact that amazon.com has so much data that they don't even know what to do w/ it. they track so much info, that it's almost useless because they (as of a couple months ago) have no way to process it and gain anything valuable from it.
It's very typical in the do-not-fail nature of many US corps (IMHO), just make sure you don't fuck up, cover your ass so anything that goes wrong can be blamed on someone/something else. This way, if 3 yrs from now someone realizes how marketing data could be useful to your company, the marketing guy doesn't get yelled at for not having the foresight that no one else had.
Last comment, American companies are NOT going to start respecting the consumer's privacy/the consumer until this lack of respect results in less profit which means until consumer's start caring about this enough to pay more for a competing product/service.
I once had the same exact problem w/ my cable company (optimum online - long island, new york) w/ a modem they sent me. they stopped supporting it, EMAILED everyone about it and we were screwed until they replaced our modem w/ a new one. took forever for them to diagnose the problem. I hate tech support esp when they make you do the same 3 things first, i used to do them before calling (such as unplug the cable modem for 30 secs to let it re-login) since they often work but stopped when they wouldn't believe i had just tried it.
compare old sports game w/ 2 buttons to nba street or newer games. old games were easy, shoot & pass corresponded to steal(or jump or check)/switch player. now there are super combo attacks and such. If I have to read instructions beyond what button does what for a sports game when I know how to play said sport, I think the game has probably gotten too complicated.