It's apt that this technology is being made widespread at the same time that the blockchain is gaining adoption. What we need is to blockchain every bit of relevant public discourse, updating the concept of the "chain of custody" to the XXIst century.
You don't mind then if I put some speakers under your bed playing my trash metal band songs, blowing at 200â... volume? You won't do anything to limit this expression of my speech, right?
The GPL is a free licence in the same way that the USA is designed to be a free country: it doesn't remove all impositions from those who use it, but the few impositions that it carries are intended to protect the overall independency of its users, so that no single group can impose a non-free version of the whole thing.
Programmers without artistic skills should be exploring the boundaries of procedural generation.
"Art" based games rely on standard libraries that all work the same way (sprites for 2D, geometric transformations for 3D) intended to accurately portray in photo-realistic ways, or some effects that have become standard (glows, bumps, reflections, etc).
However, games can be made with 100% abstract representations that don't require any drawing skill (you'd still required to have some taste in selecting a color pallete, but there are tools that can make that for you). With them, a programmer can invent new ways to lay out objects on the screen, building drawing engines nearly from scratch, or exploring the possibilities of configuration and expansion of existing engines.
If you learn how to program modern card pipelines, you could build your own visual routines that produce never-seen effects. Building games to take advantage of such novel visuals is an unlimited field, in special if the rules of the game are novel as well.
Which proves GP's point. In my book, steady food sources, healing and risk mitigation count as "life-extending devices" if they make it more likely that a larger percentage of population survives childhood.
Whenever a seriously efficient Dark Lord manages to establish an empire of subjugation and terror, the stupid copycats who try to follow their steps manage to ruin the strategy and make it useless.
I hate -*HATE*- having a machine try to read my mind. And a web browser? No, thanks. Just get out of the way & let me do what I want, the way I want.
So you never, ever have used spell checkers, tab autocompletion, search suggestions - or Google's web search, for that matter? Google Search is by definition the #1 "machine that tries to read your mind" in order to show the most relevant pages for a query term.
It has the Mozilla Public Licence, so none of that matters in the end. Ant downstream project fork may choose to ignore the code of conduct and remove the phone home calls. Default settings don't really matter to free libre open source code.
Then the people type in the password a second time, so what.
You've never heard about death by a thousand papercuts?
Every single misstep caused by a user interface makes people mistrust technology; and the effects are cumulative. This carelessness by developers is what makes end users badmouth tech and think it's too complicated.
Then they are not good security people. The weakest link in security is most often the human element; if you don't understand humans well, it's impossible to build a secure system, no matter how much of a cryptographer wizard you are. How good is the best encryption scheme if its user is socially engineered to unlock it for you?
Showing the indicator is almost useless, as proven by the Windows login dialog; people typing either from muscle memory or hunt-and-peck will most of the time ignore it until it's to late.
Ignoring the capslock is a much better strategy, and it outweighs the marginal benefit of easing out an ALL CAPS password (which is not much better than an all lowercase one).
People will never "naturally adopt strong passwords", and pretending that "they will, if only technicians bother them sufficiently" is the main reason why security by passwords is the clusterfuck that it is.
Designing the security system around the behavior of its users is the proper way to do it, rather than forcing users to adopt the behavior requirements of a bad system.
In the meantime, I welcome any attempt to make the life of password users less miserable. The password system is NOT secure as commonly implemented throughout the IT systems of the world, so we might as well make it more forgiving, until we get to replace it by something better.
>Yes, because that makes passwords more user-friendly
That is nothing but an assumption on your part.
What, that accepting a correctly-typed password will be more welcoming than rejecting it because of a system mode error? I have empirical evidence for all the times my password has been rejected by typing it with Caps Lock enabled.
Heck, the Windows login screen had to include a warning for Caps Lock due to all the users failing because of it.
Yes, because that makes passwords more user-friendly, which ultimately makes them MORE secure (no need for the user to write them down in a post-it, and all that).
If you remove capitalization as a factor, people would need to choose longer words and more symbols, so it even may prompt a net security gain overall.
You still need to show how simulations can be nested one within the other.
Nope. You have to show that they can't be.
Hey, it is you who made the grand claim that being able to create a simulation is proof that you likely live within one. The burden of proof lies on the one making the extraordinary claim, right?
I've pointed out a simple reason why those nested simulations in your argument may be not likely at all - there's no known mechanism by which a simulation could create those nested simulations all by itself, and if you say "look at how it's done in reality", you're just begging the question - assuming the desired result in order to prove it.
Slashdot Mirror
It's apt that this technology is being made widespread at the same time that the blockchain is gaining adoption. What we need is to blockchain every bit of relevant public discourse, updating the concept of the "chain of custody" to the XXIst century.
AI has always meant that in academy. Maybe you were using some other definition from, say, literature?
That should be 200%, dammit.
You don't mind then if I put some speakers under your bed playing my trash metal band songs, blowing at 200â... volume? You won't do anything to limit this expression of my speech, right?
I say it's rocket surgery.
What makes you think that, if they can signal us, they can visit us?
The GPL is a free licence in the same way that the USA is designed to be a free country: it doesn't remove all impositions from those who use it, but the few impositions that it carries are intended to protect the overall independency of its users, so that no single group can impose a non-free version of the whole thing.
Programmers without artistic skills should be exploring the boundaries of procedural generation.
"Art" based games rely on standard libraries that all work the same way (sprites for 2D, geometric transformations for 3D) intended to accurately portray in photo-realistic ways, or some effects that have become standard (glows, bumps, reflections, etc).
However, games can be made with 100% abstract representations that don't require any drawing skill (you'd still required to have some taste in selecting a color pallete, but there are tools that can make that for you). With them, a programmer can invent new ways to lay out objects on the screen, building drawing engines nearly from scratch, or exploring the possibilities of configuration and expansion of existing engines.
If you learn how to program modern card pipelines, you could build your own visual routines that produce never-seen effects. Building games to take advantage of such novel visuals is an unlimited field, in special if the rules of the game are novel as well.
... and accidents.
Which proves GP's point. In my book, steady food sources, healing and risk mitigation count as "life-extending devices" if they make it more likely that a larger percentage of population survives childhood.
Whenever a seriously efficient Dark Lord manages to establish an empire of subjugation and terror, the stupid copycats who try to follow their steps manage to ruin the strategy and make it useless.
Right between ceramic and clay.
So you never, ever have used spell checkers, tab autocompletion, search suggestions - or Google's web search, for that matter? Google Search is by definition the #1 "machine that tries to read your mind" in order to show the most relevant pages for a query term.
Being open source gives your users a licence to ignore you if you're a prick.
It has the Mozilla Public Licence, so none of that matters in the end. Ant downstream project fork may choose to ignore the code of conduct and remove the phone home calls. Default settings don't really matter to free libre open source code.
You've never heard about death by a thousand papercuts?
Every single misstep caused by a user interface makes people mistrust technology; and the effects are cumulative. This carelessness by developers is what makes end users badmouth tech and think it's too complicated.
Then they are not good security people. The weakest link in security is most often the human element; if you don't understand humans well, it's impossible to build a secure system, no matter how much of a cryptographer wizard you are. How good is the best encryption scheme if its user is socially engineered to unlock it for you?
Showing the indicator is almost useless, as proven by the Windows login dialog; people typing either from muscle memory or hunt-and-peck will most of the time ignore it until it's to late.
Ignoring the capslock is a much better strategy, and it outweighs the marginal benefit of easing out an ALL CAPS password (which is not much better than an all lowercase one).
People will never "naturally adopt strong passwords", and pretending that "they will, if only technicians bother them sufficiently" is the main reason why security by passwords is the clusterfuck that it is.
Designing the security system around the behavior of its users is the proper way to do it, rather than forcing users to adopt the behavior requirements of a bad system.
In the meantime, I welcome any attempt to make the life of password users less miserable. The password system is NOT secure as commonly implemented throughout the IT systems of the world, so we might as well make it more forgiving, until we get to replace it by something better.
If my fingers produce the exact sequence of key presses that constitute my password, how is that sequence not correct?
So? That's not inherently less secure than the shorter PasswordPassword, even if the later is caps-sensitive.
You don't understand the problem. Having a lowercase password won't help you when you happen to type it with Caps Lock enabled.
Not that it prevented you from posting an inflammatory post.
What, that accepting a correctly-typed password will be more welcoming than rejecting it because of a system mode error? I have empirical evidence for all the times my password has been rejected by typing it with Caps Lock enabled.
Heck, the Windows login screen had to include a warning for Caps Lock due to all the users failing because of it.
Yes, because that makes passwords more user-friendly, which ultimately makes them MORE secure (no need for the user to write them down in a post-it, and all that).
If you remove capitalization as a factor, people would need to choose longer words and more symbols, so it even may prompt a net security gain overall.
Hey, it is you who made the grand claim that being able to create a simulation is proof that you likely live within one. The burden of proof lies on the one making the extraordinary claim, right?
I've pointed out a simple reason why those nested simulations in your argument may be not likely at all - there's no known mechanism by which a simulation could create those nested simulations all by itself, and if you say "look at how it's done in reality", you're just begging the question - assuming the desired result in order to prove it.