They are actually not that bad an idea IF implemented properly. It is a fact of tech support that some hapless user will lock themselves out of their own box.
I think the best solution I've seen is from Intel for their 530T/535T series switches, where you can download a software utility that will generate a default password for your switch when you enter in the MAC address of the switch's management module. This password ONLY works from the console (requiring physical access to the switch, or root access to a console sharing device attatched to it).
I was thinking that if they upped this to also be time dependant, it would increase the security even more, but this is wrong for two reasons - a) if the switch is hosed, there's no telling what time it thinks it is, and b) anyone capable of generating a password the first time would be able to generate it again a second time for another x minute "safety window".
Of course, this begs the question - what is the difference between using a tool like this and just not requiring a password when logging in from the console?
Vote with your dollars--you don't have to run software that requires weekly security patches.
And, pray tell, what software would that be? A quick stop by CERT shows about twice as many Open Source exploits as Windows. And, quite frankly, all it takes is one. And how do I use my uber-secure software to prevent a DDoS attack from the rest of the world that runs unpatched systems. The point I was making was that there are environmental factors beyond the control of an administrator that can only be mitigated by legal recourse (i.e. using government resources to find and punish those responsible). It is a community wide problem, and should therefore be dealt with on a community wide basis.
The best way to continue the status quo of flaky, virus-prone software is to place the responsibility on the tax payer and the government. Is that what you want? I don't.
I see what you are trying to say. If the responsibility is placed on the developers, then the software will improve and we will all live happily ever after. The problem is that software can NEVER be perfect. Granted, I took programming classes over a decade ago, so maybe the technology has changed, but I very much doubt it. So, we build a system very much like our medical system - every time a problem slips through, we sue the doctor (developer), forcing them to carry insane amounts of insurance, which in turn jacks up the price of the product. When my company has to pay $20,000USD for an OS license because of this, it is safe to assume that the cost will be borne by our customers, as it will for EVERY industry making use of computers. Is this less expensive than making use of an infrastructure that is ALREADY IN PLACE? I think not.
And, because it will probably come up, let me explain the doctor/developer conclusion above. You state In fact, I think the way to get software to be secure is to hold businesses themselves liable for any damages that arise to their customers from viruses and break-ins. Well, as seen with the SCO suit, when this happens, businesses will seek to get legal assurance from the software provider that their software is secure, and that the developer (or his company) will pay these damages if their software fails to act as advertised. By the way, this kills Open Source overnight because there is noone to sue, and hence businesses will be unwilling to shoulder that responsibility alone.
So, now we've cemented Microsoft's dominance as a software provider and significantly raised the barrier to entry for other competitors. And if it's cheaper to eat the insurance costs than actually fix the software, what recourse do we have when MS takes the cheap way out?
I'm perfectly happy with my $20,000USD OS - how's yours? Oh, that's right, it's the same.
Incidentally, there is an easy way to avoid paying a high cost for the effects of viruses: don't let them infect your systems in the first place. And that's easy: keep them patched and up-to-date.
I have serious problems with this way of thinking. This is equivalent to saying that there is an easy way to avoid getting spam - just install and maintain a spam filter. The costs in time and effort to keep systems patched is enormous. Yes, it is unrealistic to expect that you can keep a system safe without constant patch application, but the burden is being placed in the wrong spot.
First, software should be written to be more secure and error free. It can never be 100% secure or error free, sure, but multiple patches per month is inane. Because the Internet has made the distribution of patches easy, it has become part of the development model to release incopmpletely tested software because issues can be fixed in a patch.
Secondly, and especially with the window between announcing of a vulnerability and the release of an exploit in the wild constantly shrinking, other forms of deterrance must be enlisted - namely the law. Because eventually, the virus exploiting the flaw will hit even the most rigorous system administrator before he has had a chance to patch his systems. Then youe "easy" way has failed, and it is not the system administrator's fault.
And lastly, it is expensive. Because virus writers and spammers are constantly modifying their tools to curcumvent the tools employed by the system administrators to keep them out, the system administrators have to constantly modify their defenses to continue to keep them out. This creates a huge industry for anti-virus software and spam filter software companies, sure, but it creates a huge time sink for the system administrators and a huge cost sink for the companies they work for.
When I became an SA, I knew what I was signing on for. I knew that patching and constant vigilance and long hours were par for the course. But nothing says that I shouldn't expect some help. My employer has locks on the doors, and a security guard, and cameras and scanners. But if someone should happen to circumvent all of that and steal something from my company, it still has legal recourse. It can expect some help from the law in apprehending the perpetrators and reclaming its damages. I'll ignore the insurance company, since it is an optional coverage provided by the private sector, and hence no different than many private sector solutions for viruses. And yes, the chances of the police making the location of our stolen goods any type of priority is slim. But if there were a rash of crimes affecting a large number of businesses all verifiably involving the same perpetrators, you bet the law will get involved, and heavily. How does that differ from a virus infection?
Actually, it may well be if Microsoft's vision for the future of computing comes to be. I am too lazy to pull the links, but Microsoft has made clear on numerous occasions that they are betting heavily on the multimedia convergence. So they probably expect that Longhorn will be powering these Media storage center/Tivo/web utility/TV/home monitor/kitchen sink computers that they believe will be the norm in 5 years.
And I half think they are correct.
Add in some of the UI improvements that are likely to come down the pike (verbal control, facial recognition, a computer generated face on your computer screen to interact with, etc) and the video card requirements (think real time near photo quality rendering) become more sane. The hard drive is required for the media storage, and the processor is needed for the human interaction, video encoding (though this will likely be handled by special hardware, likely in the video card), etc. I can't figure what the need for so much RAM is, though it could be to have an exceptionally large disk cache as the OS and apps will be very real time oriented and thus more heavily affected by swapping to disk. And of course the networking is to transfer large media streams to all the network connected media devices, etc, and wireless is central to Microsoft's pervasive computing initiatives (see research.microsoft.com).
So, yeah, I see the OS driving a demand for these machines.
Of course, I also see Microsoft releasing a lower end OS for the rest of the world.
No offense but as soon as LucasArt steps out of the starwars zone, they are plain aweful.
I fully agree - many of their best games were from licenses outside the SW world. I was full of awe when I played "The Dig" - the soundtrack was truly incredible, and the story was thought provoking, and inspired a sense of wonder. And Sam and Max and Full Throttle were masterpieces (I ripped so many choice sound bytes out of the resource file of Sam & Max I kept people in hysterics forever when I played them back. And I kept the savegame from FT that was just before the part where he uses the wind up toys to clear the mine field with "Ride of the Valkyries" playing in the background JUST so I could reinstall the game and watch that part when I wanted to). Loom was even fun, though it seems to get a fair amount of bad press from adventure game fans. And the many other wacky adventur titles (Monley Island, Day of the Tenticle, etc) were great. I never played Grim Fandango, but it garnered critical acclaim. And GF didn't come out all that long ago, so I don't know how they can claim that the adventure market is dead, unless they were planning on releasing S&M2 and FT2 on a console...
At this point, I think that the article posters are being intentionally vague. I was laughing as I read the article, because it reminded me almost exactly of this tongue in cheek post.
It's like a commercial - long on statements, short on information
TinyProxy (Essential for bypassing my employer's content filter)
Ok, so TinyProxy isn't part of the base install. Whatever.
That's about it. I don't really use Linux as a primary machine, and I rarely use the graphical interface on it. On the Windows box I will also usually install a better editor, though it changes about every install. WinVIM is my current choice. And of course, the latest codecs for QuickTime Alternative and XViD.
Yeah, the original says that it is unfortunate that hardly anyone is likely to use them. This may be true from the standpoint of the companies making a buck off the machines, but I've found this the biggest blessing in the case of these movie ticket machines.
In my case though, they are used just often enough that they get fixed when they break. And it is really surreal when the ticket line is backed out to the street and around the corner, and I can just walk up to the machine and have my tickets in 2 minutes. The fact that hardly anyone uses them is one of the most attractive features in my mind...:D
Of course, buying software from a machine? Seems an inefficient distribution mechanism in that you are already at the store. If they put these in malls IN PLACE OF a software store, they might be on to something. But there is still a plethora of problems ("Jefe, what is a plethora?") with getting software distributors on board (it was mentioned that MS won't allow thier product to be distributed this way), maintaining the machines (stock of CDRs, CDR quality/life expectancy, paper manuals (will it print them, restocking paper & ink, keeping the machine in a dry place), mechanical failures, etc). It would seem that there would have to be a live person present simply to keep the thing running smoothly. And again, at about 4 minutes per transaction MINIMUM due to burn time, not to mention browsing and the inevitable slow user (I HATE being stuck behind people at the ATM that you just KNOW are 12 o'clock flashers), the efficiency of the system is debateable. And what about the inevitable coasters? Do you seriously think that they will use sufficient hardware/software to minimize these (read: Windows and Roxio = coasters)?
I could go on, but bottom line, it will take years to iron out the kinks, and by then, the whole thing will be moot due to increased bandwidth to the average user allowing efficient and widespread Internet distribution.
Re:Mirror of the International House of Mojo edito
on
Sam & Max Sequel Canceled
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Thank you for the addresses. Here is the letter I sent:
To whom it may concern,
As a fan of the original San & Max game, I have looked forward to a sequel for many years. I read the announcement of a planned sequel last year with great excitement. I was disappointed earlier this year when the cancellation of the Full Throttle sequel was announced, but the same announcement seemed to indicate that the cancellation would allow Lucas Arts to concentrate more on its other products, and Sam & Max was mentioned specifically, so I remained silent, and continued to anticipate the Sam & Max sequel.
However, with the latest announcement, it appears that Lucas Arts has lost its desire to innovate, and would rather stick to the same FPS and MMORPG drivel that marks the current industry. Lucas Arts won many a loyal follower, and significant acclaim, for its adventure games. The list of these games is like reading a top ten list for this category. Even Loom was brilliant, though certainly not destined to be an enduring classic. Whoever has decided this gaming genre is dead hasn't been listening to the fans. I can't even count the number of times that RPGs have been declared dead, only to be revived by one game that introduces a whole new generation to their ranks. In fact, Everquest, by far one of the most successful games today - and for the past 3 or so years, is at its core an RPG (hence the "RPG" in "MMORPG"), simply updated and improved with newer technology.
Adventure games have not lost their place in the world. It only takes one company with vision and talent to restore them to the stage - to lead the charge the same way that Command and Conquer started the massive success of RTS games (even though the previous Dune title all but flopped). Your die hard fans had hoped that LucasArts would demonstrate its brilliance and step up to the plate, but apparently mining the Star Wars franchise is all that we can expect from you. Though I am truly disappointed in this step away from leadership and innovation your company has taken, I still hold hope that when the Star Wars franchise has been adequately milked, your management will once again allow the creative talent of your developers to shine, and light the way - no, LEAD the way - into a new golden age of story driven gaming.
Sure, it's harder to create a market, but the created market is also less crowded with competition. And, just by looking at the reaction to this announcement, I have a feeling that you will be receiving a large number of emails expressing disappointment. It is unlikely that you will "un-cancel" a game, even if it can be conclusively demonstrated that the cancellation was a patently bad idea, but I should hope that in a few years, when Lucas Arts is again looking to explore something outside the Star Wars franchise, that Sam & Max will be reconsidered, and the massively under-represented adventure gaming genre can again be catapulted to the glory it deserves. If you still fail to see the importance of this market, there are numerous studies that show that more and more women are starting to play computer games, and so many of the genres that may have fallen from favor can certainly enjoy a new life fueled by this whole new market segment. And since the Adventure genre will stand on its own, just from the older players that still yearn for new and GOOD games of this type, it seems to me that it would be a low risk platform for capturing the female audience.
Thank you for your time in listening to my complaint, and I hope that it inspires you to re-evaluate the direction Lucas Arts has taken regarding this genre.
People buy products from spammers, hence why there continues to be spam - it's profitable.
If people buy products from spamming vendors, it follows that people aren't 100% effective at determining spam. Yes, you could argue that if the person was interested in the product, then it wasn't spam to them, but when they get that bogus penis enlargement supplement that doesn't work, and THEN realize that the message was for a product they really didn't want (because it doesn't work as advertized), you can see then that they made a mistake that a spam filter could have saved them from. If every spam product worked as advertized, I think that very little of it would be spam since almost everybody would want these miracle products (especially since it seems that all of the penis enlargement products have the handy benefit of enlarging breasts if consumed by females).
Hence one of the reasons that a spam filter (human or otherwise) can't be 100% accurate, as it can't accurately predict if the product will work as advertised.
Of course, this is heavily dependent on your exact definition of spam. Does spam=UCE? Does spam= ANY unsolicited email, commercial or otherwise? Does spam = anything you don't feel like reading, solicited or not? Or one of myriad other possible definitions. Most spam filters define spam as either UCE (word lists) or things you don't want to read (bayesian). But what about the bad news that your brother has died? I didn't want to read that, but I should, and so I would want it to get through. So in effect, what spam filters are TRYING to do is sort out what you SHOULD read from what you SHOULDN'T read, regardless of the combination of commercial, solicited, or pleasant. And for the reason given above concerning ordering a bum product, since many people are gullible and/or unknowledgeable, there are many things they THINK they should read that they shouldn't (or vice versa if they get overzealous when deleting what they think is spam after seeing only the subject and sender). Spam preys on both of those (gullibility and lack of knowledge in a particular area) to entice people to buy products that aren't worth the asking price by a long shot. A filter might be able to do a better job of weeding these out than the average person (i.e. a person might buy a penis enlargement product or believe the Nigerian scam, but the filter would know better), but neither is ever likely to be 100% (the filter might let through something you subscribed to that offers to sell you a legitimate product from a legitimate vendor, but still turns out to be a lemon, or even fail to let through a TRUE deal). In some cases you can consider a spam filter to be like an expert system, providing expertise in email deception practices to the average computer user that doesn't even know that "From:" headers (among others) are easily forged.
Sorry for the rough edges - I'm rambling a stream of conciaousness without editing due to lack of time (gotta get to work!)
Attorneys for the Haitian organizations and the video game manufacturer did not return phone calls late Wednesday.
In other words, we called them at 5pm on New Years Eve, and no one was in the office. But we'd rather make it sound like they have something to hide so they are avoiding us.
Now, in this case, neither party returned a call, so at least this line isn't biased towards one end or another, but all to often the newspaper does things like "So and so demonstrators say that big corporation X has contracted with Satan to increase its bottom line, but representatives of corp X did not return our calls." Here, the language makes it sound as if it was a conscious effort on the company's part to avoid the call, when in most cases, due to publishing deadlines, the reporter can only wait a few hours at most for a call back, and even then the call was probably placed near or after the end of business. You try reaching Bill Gates at 4pm Friday afternoon for a Saturday story that has to be ready for printing by 10pm to make the presses. Heck, even if the company has a PR dept. they are often not allowed to make any comment until it has been reviewed by a legal team. These things take time, and any "attempt" to call that provides the call's recipient less than 1 full business day to respond should not even be mentioned, unless the reporter would like to be accurate and state "there was insufficient time for this reporter to contact a representative of comp X before wiring this story." But you won't ever see that, because that admits sloppy reporting, which is all to prevalent anymore.
The format is exceptionally prone to bit errors that cause the player to lock. The format quality scales poorly (great for low bandwidth stuff, awful for high bandwidth). Content creation is NOT free. Annoy ware si built in (yes, it's disableable, but what a pain in the neck to do so). The interface is clunky (ctrl-P to pause?, no easy way to enter full screen mode?). And it has destabilized a number of systems I've used it on (including fresh Windows installs where it was the third app installed after Winzip and a virus scanner).
On the other hand, WMP has gotten steadily worse since version 6, and the morons in Redmond actually decided that ctrl-P was BETTER than the spacebar to pause and unpause, following Real's lame interface. Come ON! Who can possibly argue that a two key combination is better than hitting the largest and closest key on the keyboard for what is arguably the most commonly used function of a player (with volume control, full screen, and the initial start of playback being the only other possible contenders, and in my mind not very close ones at that).
And yes, I realize there is a content creator for Real that is free to download, but you cannot create content in the newer formats, nor use some of the multi-bandwidth features with it, hence making it less useful for content distribution.
Personally, I like the player that came with my Radeon card, and MPEG variants (MPEG, MPEG2, DivX, etc) for content. But I tend to not watch much streaming content, so I can't comment much on the various players abilities to handle streamed content. But what I do remember is Real intentionally crippling the free player's buffering ability in order to entice people to spring for the pay version - another strike against it.
As an aside, I have boycotted Quicktime since Apple started adding the adverts that won't go away. I don't need to create content, so leave me the f*ck alone about PRO already! Apparently there is an unofficial ad free version, but other than movie trailers, I haven't seen any QT content that's worthwhile. And even those end up in MPG format shortly after their release, so no loss here.
Anyway, sorry for the rant, but this is a pretty sore subject with me. WMP used to be useable, now I try to stay away from it as well, but I'd still take it over RP and QT ANYDAY.
Heh - makes me think of this line from Monty Python and the Holy Grail:
King: Listen, lad: I built this kingdom up from nuthin'. When I started here, all of this was swamp! Other kings said it was *daft* to build a castle in a swamp, but I built it all the same, just to show 'em! It sank into the swamp. SO, I built a second one! That sank into the swamp. So I built a *third* one. That burned down, fell over, *then* sank into the swamp. But the fourth one......stayed up. And that's what you're gonna get, lad: the *strongest* castle in these islands.
Maybe just maybe Bush is the biggest weasel because he has a history of failed businesses, bending the truth, objecting to fair and just process and while talking about a morale crusade is dishing out cash to his friends.
Yes, well, the conservatives had to find a candidate that was an acceptible replacement for Clinton, since he was such a popular president despite the exact same shortcomings...
Good point - they are making the point that the government should not MANDATE any specific platform like you say. However, the role of government is to mandate, to make decisions that affect large numbers of people. There are certain areas that they should stay out of, true, but government governs, and that requires making decisions. In a perfect world, the decisions would be in the publics best interest, and reflect the will of the majority, but I digress.
My point (for those of you wondering when I might get around to it) is that effective government must be able to interoperate. Honestly, how many times have you accused the left hand of government of not knowing what its right hand is doing? So, now that they do something right in this regards (standardize on a platform), they are criticized for not allowing diversity? The point is, a government (local, state or federal) must agree on certain things to interoperate. I'm glad they chose open source, since Microsoft has demonstrated on numerous occasions (no links as I am hammering this out while running late for work) that it intentionally cripples the ability of outside software to interoperate with its products in an effort to gain market share.
I could go into much more detail, but the beginnings of the thought are here for others to surely build upon and explain why at some point, a governing body must make a decision on what process to use that must exclude a vast number of other non-complimentary options.
Yes, and they code their site for IE - their little scroller along the top of the page doesn't render right under Mozilla 1.4...
Of course, since I don't see this mentioned yet, it could just be my browser, but I've noticed when coding that the paragraph tag under Mozilla based browsers renders an additional vertical indent on the first line, so it appears consistent with my previous experience...
Of course it's workable footprint wise - it's a spider, just hang it from the ceiling!;-P
Re:If it's raw ethernet, then it's not "IP based"
on
HyperSCSI Examined
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Not quite reinventing, just reengineering. To keep the analogy, it's like reformulating the rubber to provide better "grip" in racing tires - great for flat, dry tracks, but not great for inclement weather. In this case, they are redesigning TCP to remove all of the stuff that is unneccesary for this particular purpose:
sliding window sizes - block data transfer needs to start with large windows, not slowly "wind up" to them
error checking - this is done already by the SCSI protocol, and the Ethernet protocol as well
But keep the stuff that IS needed:
Flow control
Retransmits for bad/lost packets
This is a lot like using a GPU - the General Purpose CPU in your computer can do all of the same things, but having a processor that is streamlined for such a specific task is much more efficient.
Slashdot Mirror
They are actually not that bad an idea IF implemented properly. It is a fact of tech support that some hapless user will lock themselves out of their own box.
I think the best solution I've seen is from Intel for their 530T/535T series switches, where you can download a software utility that will generate a default password for your switch when you enter in the MAC address of the switch's management module. This password ONLY works from the console (requiring physical access to the switch, or root access to a console sharing device attatched to it).
I was thinking that if they upped this to also be time dependant, it would increase the security even more, but this is wrong for two reasons - a) if the switch is hosed, there's no telling what time it thinks it is, and b) anyone capable of generating a password the first time would be able to generate it again a second time for another x minute "safety window".
Of course, this begs the question - what is the difference between using a tool like this and just not requiring a password when logging in from the console?
And, pray tell, what software would that be? A quick stop by CERT shows about twice as many Open Source exploits as Windows. And, quite frankly, all it takes is one. And how do I use my uber-secure software to prevent a DDoS attack from the rest of the world that runs unpatched systems. The point I was making was that there are environmental factors beyond the control of an administrator that can only be mitigated by legal recourse (i.e. using government resources to find and punish those responsible). It is a community wide problem, and should therefore be dealt with on a community wide basis.
The best way to continue the status quo of flaky, virus-prone software is to place the responsibility on the tax payer and the government. Is that what you want? I don't.I see what you are trying to say. If the responsibility is placed on the developers, then the software will improve and we will all live happily ever after. The problem is that software can NEVER be perfect. Granted, I took programming classes over a decade ago, so maybe the technology has changed, but I very much doubt it. So, we build a system very much like our medical system - every time a problem slips through, we sue the doctor (developer), forcing them to carry insane amounts of insurance, which in turn jacks up the price of the product. When my company has to pay $20,000USD for an OS license because of this, it is safe to assume that the cost will be borne by our customers, as it will for EVERY industry making use of computers. Is this less expensive than making use of an infrastructure that is ALREADY IN PLACE? I think not.
And, because it will probably come up, let me explain the doctor/developer conclusion above. You state In fact, I think the way to get software to be secure is to hold businesses themselves liable for any damages that arise to their customers from viruses and break-ins. Well, as seen with the SCO suit, when this happens, businesses will seek to get legal assurance from the software provider that their software is secure, and that the developer (or his company) will pay these damages if their software fails to act as advertised. By the way, this kills Open Source overnight because there is noone to sue, and hence businesses will be unwilling to shoulder that responsibility alone.
So, now we've cemented Microsoft's dominance as a software provider and significantly raised the barrier to entry for other competitors. And if it's cheaper to eat the insurance costs than actually fix the software, what recourse do we have when MS takes the cheap way out?
I'm perfectly happy with my $20,000USD OS - how's yours? Oh, that's right, it's the same.
I have serious problems with this way of thinking. This is equivalent to saying that there is an easy way to avoid getting spam - just install and maintain a spam filter. The costs in time and effort to keep systems patched is enormous. Yes, it is unrealistic to expect that you can keep a system safe without constant patch application, but the burden is being placed in the wrong spot.
First, software should be written to be more secure and error free. It can never be 100% secure or error free, sure, but multiple patches per month is inane. Because the Internet has made the distribution of patches easy, it has become part of the development model to release incopmpletely tested software because issues can be fixed in a patch.
Secondly, and especially with the window between announcing of a vulnerability and the release of an exploit in the wild constantly shrinking, other forms of deterrance must be enlisted - namely the law. Because eventually, the virus exploiting the flaw will hit even the most rigorous system administrator before he has had a chance to patch his systems. Then youe "easy" way has failed, and it is not the system administrator's fault.
And lastly, it is expensive. Because virus writers and spammers are constantly modifying their tools to curcumvent the tools employed by the system administrators to keep them out, the system administrators have to constantly modify their defenses to continue to keep them out. This creates a huge industry for anti-virus software and spam filter software companies, sure, but it creates a huge time sink for the system administrators and a huge cost sink for the companies they work for.
When I became an SA, I knew what I was signing on for. I knew that patching and constant vigilance and long hours were par for the course. But nothing says that I shouldn't expect some help. My employer has locks on the doors, and a security guard, and cameras and scanners. But if someone should happen to circumvent all of that and steal something from my company, it still has legal recourse. It can expect some help from the law in apprehending the perpetrators and reclaming its damages. I'll ignore the insurance company, since it is an optional coverage provided by the private sector, and hence no different than many private sector solutions for viruses. And yes, the chances of the police making the location of our stolen goods any type of priority is slim. But if there were a rash of crimes affecting a large number of businesses all verifiably involving the same perpetrators, you bet the law will get involved, and heavily. How does that differ from a virus infection?
Actually, it may well be if Microsoft's vision for the future of computing comes to be. I am too lazy to pull the links, but Microsoft has made clear on numerous occasions that they are betting heavily on the multimedia convergence. So they probably expect that Longhorn will be powering these Media storage center/Tivo/web utility/TV/home monitor/kitchen sink computers that they believe will be the norm in 5 years.
And I half think they are correct.
Add in some of the UI improvements that are likely to come down the pike (verbal control, facial recognition, a computer generated face on your computer screen to interact with, etc) and the video card requirements (think real time near photo quality rendering) become more sane. The hard drive is required for the media storage, and the processor is needed for the human interaction, video encoding (though this will likely be handled by special hardware, likely in the video card), etc. I can't figure what the need for so much RAM is, though it could be to have an exceptionally large disk cache as the OS and apps will be very real time oriented and thus more heavily affected by swapping to disk. And of course the networking is to transfer large media streams to all the network connected media devices, etc, and wireless is central to Microsoft's pervasive computing initiatives (see research.microsoft.com).
So, yeah, I see the OS driving a demand for these machines.
Of course, I also see Microsoft releasing a lower end OS for the rest of the world.
I fully agree - many of their best games were from licenses outside the SW world. I was full of awe when I played "The Dig" - the soundtrack was truly incredible, and the story was thought provoking, and inspired a sense of wonder. And Sam and Max and Full Throttle were masterpieces (I ripped so many choice sound bytes out of the resource file of Sam & Max I kept people in hysterics forever when I played them back. And I kept the savegame from FT that was just before the part where he uses the wind up toys to clear the mine field with "Ride of the Valkyries" playing in the background JUST so I could reinstall the game and watch that part when I wanted to). Loom was even fun, though it seems to get a fair amount of bad press from adventure game fans. And the many other wacky adventur titles (Monley Island, Day of the Tenticle, etc) were great. I never played Grim Fandango, but it garnered critical acclaim. And GF didn't come out all that long ago, so I don't know how they can claim that the adventure market is dead, unless they were planning on releasing S&M2 and FT2 on a console...
They will, but sadly not in time.
At this point, I think that the article posters are being intentionally vague. I was laughing as I read the article, because it reminded me almost exactly of this tongue in cheek post.
It's like a commercial - long on statements, short on information
It's Dante's fault. He should have taken that German scientist up on his offer...
I agree about 7-Zip, except that it doesn't do multivolume archives - it'll extract RAR multivolume, but cannot create them.
As long as I'm posting, here goes my top 10
Windows (after all the patches, of course)
Linux
Nothing! RedHat (Fedora) comes with all I need. Though the programs I update right away (and use most often) are:
Ok, so TinyProxy isn't part of the base install. Whatever.
That's about it. I don't really use Linux as a primary machine, and I rarely use the graphical interface on it. On the Windows box I will also usually install a better editor, though it changes about every install. WinVIM is my current choice. And of course, the latest codecs for QuickTime Alternative and XViD.
+1 funny. I love puns - lowest form of humor my ass. Of course, I do read /., so what do I know...
Bah, and me without moderation points - +1 funny for sure!
Um, from the US-CERT announcement:
US-CERT thanks Paul Watson, Cisco Systems and NISCC for notifying us about this problem and for helping us to construct this advisory.That looks an awful lot like Cisco making an announcement, even if by proxy.
And the hosts file resolves all domains to 127.0.0.1?
This really sounds like a great way to get kicked off your ISP for violating their AUP.
Look at HyperSCSI (covered on Slashdot here).
Yeah, the original says that it is unfortunate that hardly anyone is likely to use them. This may be true from the standpoint of the companies making a buck off the machines, but I've found this the biggest blessing in the case of these movie ticket machines.
:D
In my case though, they are used just often enough that they get fixed when they break. And it is really surreal when the ticket line is backed out to the street and around the corner, and I can just walk up to the machine and have my tickets in 2 minutes. The fact that hardly anyone uses them is one of the most attractive features in my mind...
Of course, buying software from a machine? Seems an inefficient distribution mechanism in that you are already at the store. If they put these in malls IN PLACE OF a software store, they might be on to something. But there is still a plethora of problems ("Jefe, what is a plethora?") with getting software distributors on board (it was mentioned that MS won't allow thier product to be distributed this way), maintaining the machines (stock of CDRs, CDR quality/life expectancy, paper manuals (will it print them, restocking paper & ink, keeping the machine in a dry place), mechanical failures, etc). It would seem that there would have to be a live person present simply to keep the thing running smoothly. And again, at about 4 minutes per transaction MINIMUM due to burn time, not to mention browsing and the inevitable slow user (I HATE being stuck behind people at the ATM that you just KNOW are 12 o'clock flashers), the efficiency of the system is debateable. And what about the inevitable coasters? Do you seriously think that they will use sufficient hardware/software to minimize these (read: Windows and Roxio = coasters)?
I could go on, but bottom line, it will take years to iron out the kinks, and by then, the whole thing will be moot due to increased bandwidth to the average user allowing efficient and widespread Internet distribution.
Thank you for the addresses. Here is the letter I sent:
To whom it may concern,
As a fan of the original San & Max game, I have looked forward to a sequel for many years. I read the announcement of a planned sequel last year with great excitement. I was disappointed earlier this year when the cancellation of the Full Throttle sequel was announced, but the same announcement seemed to indicate that the cancellation would allow Lucas Arts to concentrate more on its other products, and Sam & Max was mentioned specifically, so I remained silent, and continued to anticipate the Sam & Max sequel.
However, with the latest announcement, it appears that Lucas Arts has lost its desire to innovate, and would rather stick to the same FPS and MMORPG drivel that marks the current industry. Lucas Arts won many a loyal follower, and significant acclaim, for its adventure games. The list of these games is like reading a top ten list for this category. Even Loom was brilliant, though certainly not destined to be an enduring classic. Whoever has decided this gaming genre is dead hasn't been listening to the fans. I can't even count the number of times that RPGs have been declared dead, only to be revived by one game that introduces a whole new generation to their ranks. In fact, Everquest, by far one of the most successful games today - and for the past 3 or so years, is at its core an RPG (hence the "RPG" in "MMORPG"), simply updated and improved with newer technology.
Adventure games have not lost their place in the world. It only takes one company with vision and talent to restore them to the stage - to lead the charge the same way that Command and Conquer started the massive success of RTS games (even though the previous Dune title all but flopped). Your die hard fans had hoped that LucasArts would demonstrate its brilliance and step up to the plate, but apparently mining the Star Wars franchise is all that we can expect from you. Though I am truly disappointed in this step away from leadership and innovation your company has taken, I still hold hope that when the Star Wars franchise has been adequately milked, your management will once again allow the creative talent of your developers to shine, and light the way - no, LEAD the way - into a new golden age of story driven gaming.
Sure, it's harder to create a market, but the created market is also less crowded with competition. And, just by looking at the reaction to this announcement, I have a feeling that you will be receiving a large number of emails expressing disappointment. It is unlikely that you will "un-cancel" a game, even if it can be conclusively demonstrated that the cancellation was a patently bad idea, but I should hope that in a few years, when Lucas Arts is again looking to explore something outside the Star Wars franchise, that Sam & Max will be reconsidered, and the massively under-represented adventure gaming genre can again be catapulted to the glory it deserves. If you still fail to see the importance of this market, there are numerous studies that show that more and more women are starting to play computer games, and so many of the genres that may have fallen from favor can certainly enjoy a new life fueled by this whole new market segment. And since the Adventure genre will stand on its own, just from the older players that still yearn for new and GOOD games of this type, it seems to me that it would be a low risk platform for capturing the female audience.
Thank you for your time in listening to my complaint, and I hope that it inspires you to re-evaluate the direction Lucas Arts has taken regarding this genre.
People buy products from spammers, hence why there continues to be spam - it's profitable.
If people buy products from spamming vendors, it follows that people aren't 100% effective at determining spam. Yes, you could argue that if the person was interested in the product, then it wasn't spam to them, but when they get that bogus penis enlargement supplement that doesn't work, and THEN realize that the message was for a product they really didn't want (because it doesn't work as advertized), you can see then that they made a mistake that a spam filter could have saved them from. If every spam product worked as advertized, I think that very little of it would be spam since almost everybody would want these miracle products (especially since it seems that all of the penis enlargement products have the handy benefit of enlarging breasts if consumed by females).
Hence one of the reasons that a spam filter (human or otherwise) can't be 100% accurate, as it can't accurately predict if the product will work as advertised.
Of course, this is heavily dependent on your exact definition of spam. Does spam=UCE? Does spam= ANY unsolicited email, commercial or otherwise? Does spam = anything you don't feel like reading, solicited or not? Or one of myriad other possible definitions. Most spam filters define spam as either UCE (word lists) or things you don't want to read (bayesian). But what about the bad news that your brother has died? I didn't want to read that, but I should, and so I would want it to get through. So in effect, what spam filters are TRYING to do is sort out what you SHOULD read from what you SHOULDN'T read, regardless of the combination of commercial, solicited, or pleasant. And for the reason given above concerning ordering a bum product, since many people are gullible and/or unknowledgeable, there are many things they THINK they should read that they shouldn't (or vice versa if they get overzealous when deleting what they think is spam after seeing only the subject and sender). Spam preys on both of those (gullibility and lack of knowledge in a particular area) to entice people to buy products that aren't worth the asking price by a long shot. A filter might be able to do a better job of weeding these out than the average person (i.e. a person might buy a penis enlargement product or believe the Nigerian scam, but the filter would know better), but neither is ever likely to be 100% (the filter might let through something you subscribed to that offers to sell you a legitimate product from a legitimate vendor, but still turns out to be a lemon, or even fail to let through a TRUE deal). In some cases you can consider a spam filter to be like an expert system, providing expertise in email deception practices to the average computer user that doesn't even know that "From:" headers (among others) are easily forged.
Sorry for the rough edges - I'm rambling a stream of conciaousness without editing due to lack of time (gotta get to work!)
In other words, we called them at 5pm on New Years Eve, and no one was in the office. But we'd rather make it sound like they have something to hide so they are avoiding us.
Now, in this case, neither party returned a call, so at least this line isn't biased towards one end or another, but all to often the newspaper does things like "So and so demonstrators say that big corporation X has contracted with Satan to increase its bottom line, but representatives of corp X did not return our calls." Here, the language makes it sound as if it was a conscious effort on the company's part to avoid the call, when in most cases, due to publishing deadlines, the reporter can only wait a few hours at most for a call back, and even then the call was probably placed near or after the end of business. You try reaching Bill Gates at 4pm Friday afternoon for a Saturday story that has to be ready for printing by 10pm to make the presses. Heck, even if the company has a PR dept. they are often not allowed to make any comment until it has been reviewed by a legal team. These things take time, and any "attempt" to call that provides the call's recipient less than 1 full business day to respond should not even be mentioned, unless the reporter would like to be accurate and state "there was insufficient time for this reporter to contact a representative of comp X before wiring this story." But you won't ever see that, because that admits sloppy reporting, which is all to prevalent anymore.
Why does Real suck? Oh, let me count the ways...
The format is exceptionally prone to bit errors that cause the player to lock. The format quality scales poorly (great for low bandwidth stuff, awful for high bandwidth). Content creation is NOT free. Annoy ware si built in (yes, it's disableable, but what a pain in the neck to do so). The interface is clunky (ctrl-P to pause?, no easy way to enter full screen mode?). And it has destabilized a number of systems I've used it on (including fresh Windows installs where it was the third app installed after Winzip and a virus scanner).
On the other hand, WMP has gotten steadily worse since version 6, and the morons in Redmond actually decided that ctrl-P was BETTER than the spacebar to pause and unpause, following Real's lame interface. Come ON! Who can possibly argue that a two key combination is better than hitting the largest and closest key on the keyboard for what is arguably the most commonly used function of a player (with volume control, full screen, and the initial start of playback being the only other possible contenders, and in my mind not very close ones at that).
And yes, I realize there is a content creator for Real that is free to download, but you cannot create content in the newer formats, nor use some of the multi-bandwidth features with it, hence making it less useful for content distribution.
Personally, I like the player that came with my Radeon card, and MPEG variants (MPEG, MPEG2, DivX, etc) for content. But I tend to not watch much streaming content, so I can't comment much on the various players abilities to handle streamed content. But what I do remember is Real intentionally crippling the free player's buffering ability in order to entice people to spring for the pay version - another strike against it.
As an aside, I have boycotted Quicktime since Apple started adding the adverts that won't go away. I don't need to create content, so leave me the f*ck alone about PRO already! Apparently there is an unofficial ad free version, but other than movie trailers, I haven't seen any QT content that's worthwhile. And even those end up in MPG format shortly after their release, so no loss here.
Anyway, sorry for the rant, but this is a pretty sore subject with me. WMP used to be useable, now I try to stay away from it as well, but I'd still take it over RP and QT ANYDAY.
Heh - makes me think of this line from Monty Python and the Holy Grail:
King: Listen, lad: I built this kingdom up from nuthin'. When I started here, all of this was swamp! Other kings said it was *daft* to build a castle in a swamp, but I built it all the same, just to show 'em! It sank into the swamp. SO, I built a second one! That sank into the swamp. So I built a *third* one. That burned down, fell over, *then* sank into the swamp. But the fourth one......stayed up. And that's what you're gonna get, lad: the *strongest* castle in these islands.
Maybe just maybe Bush is the biggest weasel because he has a history of failed businesses, bending the truth, objecting to fair and just process and while talking about a morale crusade is dishing out cash to his friends.
Yes, well, the conservatives had to find a candidate that was an acceptible replacement for Clinton, since he was such a popular president despite the exact same shortcomings...
Good point - they are making the point that the government should not MANDATE any specific platform like you say. However, the role of government is to mandate, to make decisions that affect large numbers of people. There are certain areas that they should stay out of, true, but government governs, and that requires making decisions. In a perfect world, the decisions would be in the publics best interest, and reflect the will of the majority, but I digress.
My point (for those of you wondering when I might get around to it) is that effective government must be able to interoperate. Honestly, how many times have you accused the left hand of government of not knowing what its right hand is doing? So, now that they do something right in this regards (standardize on a platform), they are criticized for not allowing diversity? The point is, a government (local, state or federal) must agree on certain things to interoperate. I'm glad they chose open source, since Microsoft has demonstrated on numerous occasions (no links as I am hammering this out while running late for work) that it intentionally cripples the ability of outside software to interoperate with its products in an effort to gain market share.
I could go into much more detail, but the beginnings of the thought are here for others to surely build upon and explain why at some point, a governing body must make a decision on what process to use that must exclude a vast number of other non-complimentary options.
Yes, and they code their site for IE - their little scroller along the top of the page doesn't render right under Mozilla 1.4...
Of course, since I don't see this mentioned yet, it could just be my browser, but I've noticed when coding that the paragraph tag under Mozilla based browsers renders an additional vertical indent on the first line, so it appears consistent with my previous experience...
Of course it's workable footprint wise - it's a spider, just hang it from the ceiling! ;-P
Not quite reinventing, just reengineering. To keep the analogy, it's like reformulating the rubber to provide better "grip" in racing tires - great for flat, dry tracks, but not great for inclement weather. In this case, they are redesigning TCP to remove all of the stuff that is unneccesary for this particular purpose:
But keep the stuff that IS needed:
This is a lot like using a GPU - the General Purpose CPU in your computer can do all of the same things, but having a processor that is streamlined for such a specific task is much more efficient.