As a little nostalgia trip, googled some of my old comments. I found one from 2005 that I firmly stand by today: "I think slashdot's quality has declined as the number of hot grits posts have decreased."
Yup that makes perfect sense. I took a shower right after I posted the comment and I realized that I was wrong. I came back to correct it, but you beat me to it.
It doesn't give you a warm fuzzy about software distribution, but the attack is not as simple as I described.
This is certainly a problem with software distribution. Here's an example of why. The good-faith programmer creates good.bin. A Bad-faith programmer creates bad.bin with the same hash. All the bad-faith programmer has to do is find a way to swap bad.bin in for good.bin (hacking, misrepresentation, etc).
Now everyone who gets bad.bin will hash the data, verify the signature and see that the signature verifies. When the signature verifies, everyone believes bad.bin is really good.bin.
The signature doesn't do anything to solve the problem. If I create an evil tarball that has the same hash as the good tarball, the signature will verify properly for both files. When you download the file, you won't know if it's the good or evil one.
GPG signs the hash. With a strong hash function, it's as good as signing the tarball. With a weak hash functions, one signature would match for many files.
The solution is not GPG signing. Because public key signature algorithms (like RSA) are slow they can't really be used on large files. Signing and verifying a 700 MB iso with RSA would take hours even on the fastest desktop computers.
GPG uses a signature algorithm to sign the hash of the data. If the hash function is strong, then it's infeasable to find another file that has the same hash. (Two different messages with the same hash is called a collision.) Researchers have been able to find collisions in MD5.
If I sign a file and someone else is able to find a hash collision with the file, you cannot determine which file I intended to sign.
No one up high gives a fuck cause it's video "games"
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that anyone who is 'high up' probably doesn't 'give a fuck' because games are completely inconsiquential.
Personally, I'd be pretty pissed if our leaders spent time worrying about the amount of creativity in amusement activities. If you want more creativity in games, buy creative games. If there aren't any creative games, then don't buy bad ones and go do something else.
The job of the government is not to ensure you are entertained. You could argue that it is the job of the government to provide schools that will teach you the difference between "cause" and "because", but that's an entirely different conversation.
This doesn't really seem like a problem. If there are enough developers that feel that they don't want to work for a giant company, why not start your own?
The main reason not to start your own company is that you are risk adverse. Big companies are also risk adverse. It's a natural thing. Why start your own company, when you can work for an established company? Why try a new game format when you have a formula that makes a lot of money.
There might be other reasons not to start a new company. Many developers are not business types. That's fine, find a business type and make them a partner. If no business type will touch your business plan, then that probably is your answer as to why such a company doesn't exist.
I think there probably is room for smaller game development shops that make lower budget games. However, if that's what you want, then buck it up and start your own businees. Don't just piss and moan that someone else should do it.
As for me, I'm going to go play some Unreal Tournament and wait for Civ 4 to come out.
You definately misunderstood the point of my post. Most because I think you misunderstand the terminology.
Encryption functions are 1-to-1 and have an inverse. Hash functions are many-to-1 and cannot possibly have an inverse. (Cryptographically secure hashes have other properties about being able to find collisions.)
A hash is not a "one way encryption function". A hash is a mapping from a large set of items to a smaller set. (e.g. A mapping from all strings that are less than 2^64 bits long to the set of non-negative integers less than 2^160)
Patriots and Terrorists are only the same for people who have absolutely no moral clarity. Here are three quick ways to tell them apart for the morally impared.
Patriots proudly stand up, say who they are and don't hide. Terrorits hide who and where they are.
Patriots target military assets. Terrorits target civilians.
Patriots fight to destroy oppressive governments. Terrorists fight to create them.
There are things that are done by people who claim to be patriots that are truly not patriotic. However, those with moral clarity are able to distinguish between the two. Apologist who lack the ablity to see the difference and claim that they are simply different points of view will forever be locked into a paranoid delusion.
You are not a representative user. You seem to be significantly more technically savy that the average user.
You have completely different expectations when you build a computer and when you buy a pre-built machine. Apple's selling point is that you take it out of the box, plug it in and it will work flawlessly. Someone who builds their own machine does not expect this.
However, people who build their own machines are an extremely tiny fraction of overall computer users. Apple is not going to support your DIY box at the expense of the normal user.
The previous poster wasn't saying that it should all be publically funded. He was saying that if there is public funding, then there will be politics involved in handing out the money. He doesn't say exactly how much is involved, but he implicity acknowledges that public funding has a limit.
The original poster complained that currently the US government wasn't spending the "small" sum of $4.2 million on the project. This is the guy that needs to have some help with explaining how to do this without public funds.
Of course Episode 3 doesn't stand on its own. It's not supposed to stand on its own. It doesn't even make sense to have the movie stand on own. It is the 6th movie in larger story. Heck, it's the middle of a six part story.
To stand on it's own, it would have to introduce all of the characters, explain the force and re-hash the previous two movies. If I wanted to see Episodes 1 and 2, I would watch them and not Episode 3.
The power of sequels (and prequels) is that the audience is already familiar with the basic setting, so you don't have to rehash the whole thing. You complain that Episode 3 would be nothing without the other 5 and you wish others would see it that way. Do you only enjoy novels where each of the chapters stands on its own? Of course not. Individual chapters in a book are junk, but they can be more than the sum of their parts. Same with the Star Wars movies.
Complaining that it doesn't stand on it's own, is crazy. It's like complaining that "The Two Towers" in the Lord of the Rings trilogy is junk because it doesn't stand on its own.
There are plenty of things to complain about with the Star Wars movies. But the fact that each movie doesn't stand on it's own, it just stupid. I would guess that this is just a way for the parent poster to try to feel superior to all of the unenlightened people who don't see it his way.
Its completely useless because it's a self-selected survey, rather than a random sampling. Self-selected survey's are basically junk if you want any good data.
The results of this tell us nothing more than if it were nothing more than a large, well-written slashdot poll. Mostly because it is nothing more than a large, well-writen slashdot poll.
Yeah, because if you didn't see the original Star Wars in the theater when it first came out, you really would have had no way to see it in the last 30 years.
Seriouslly. I would guess a huge portion of the audience for Episodes 1-3 were not even born when the original came out.
Slashdot Mirror
As a little nostalgia trip, googled some of my old comments. I found one from 2005 that I firmly stand by today: "I think slashdot's quality has declined as the number of hot grits posts have decreased."
How many people each wanting 1-10 MHz of bandwidth can you fit in this space?
It's 90 MHz so I'm going to say somewhere between 90 and 9.
At work the other day, the bad-joke-of-the-day was similar.
In lots of hotels, motel, inn, etc there are signs that indicate someone famous slept there. "Elvis slept here." "King Charles II slept here."
In a small inn in Germany there is a similar sign. "Heisenberg may have slept here."
It served as a very good geek test. People either immediately laughed, or just looked blankly waiting for the punchline.
Yeah, the thousands of cell towers that dot the pacific ocean really are a better way to navigate than an old 70's satellite system.
Someone needs to mod up the AC. He has a very good point.
Yup that makes perfect sense. I took a shower right after I posted the comment and I realized that I was wrong. I came back to correct it, but you beat me to it.
It doesn't give you a warm fuzzy about software distribution, but the attack is not as simple as I described.
This is certainly a problem with software distribution. Here's an example of why. The good-faith programmer creates good.bin. A Bad-faith programmer creates bad.bin with the same hash. All the bad-faith programmer has to do is find a way to swap bad.bin in for good.bin (hacking, misrepresentation, etc).
Now everyone who gets bad.bin will hash the data, verify the signature and see that the signature verifies. When the signature verifies, everyone believes bad.bin is really good.bin.
The signature doesn't do anything to solve the problem. If I create an evil tarball that has the same hash as the good tarball, the signature will verify properly for both files. When you download the file, you won't know if it's the good or evil one.
GPG signs the hash. With a strong hash function, it's as good as signing the tarball. With a weak hash functions, one signature would match for many files.
The solution is not GPG signing. Because public key signature algorithms (like RSA) are slow they can't really be used on large files. Signing and verifying a 700 MB iso with RSA would take hours even on the fastest desktop computers.
GPG uses a signature algorithm to sign the hash of the data. If the hash function is strong, then it's infeasable to find another file that has the same hash. (Two different messages with the same hash is called a collision.) Researchers have been able to find collisions in MD5.
If I sign a file and someone else is able to find a hash collision with the file, you cannot determine which file I intended to sign.
I have mod points, but I don't see a option for (-1 Doesn't get the joke).
The AC is correct.
I forgot Rule #1 when flaming someone for bad spelling/grammar: Proofread and don't hit the submit button too quickly.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that anyone who is 'high up' probably doesn't 'give a fuck' because games are completely inconsiquential.
Personally, I'd be pretty pissed if our leaders spent time worrying about the amount of creativity in amusement activities. If you want more creativity in games, buy creative games. If there aren't any creative games, then don't buy bad ones and go do something else.
The job of the government is not to ensure you are entertained. You could argue that it is the job of the government to provide schools that will teach you the difference between "cause" and "because", but that's an entirely different conversation.
This doesn't really seem like a problem. If there are enough developers that feel that they don't want to work for a giant company, why not start your own?
The main reason not to start your own company is that you are risk adverse. Big companies are also risk adverse. It's a natural thing. Why start your own company, when you can work for an established company? Why try a new game format when you have a formula that makes a lot of money.
There might be other reasons not to start a new company. Many developers are not business types. That's fine, find a business type and make them a partner. If no business type will touch your business plan, then that probably is your answer as to why such a company doesn't exist.
I think there probably is room for smaller game development shops that make lower budget games. However, if that's what you want, then buck it up and start your own businees. Don't just piss and moan that someone else should do it.
As for me, I'm going to go play some Unreal Tournament and wait for Civ 4 to come out.
You definately misunderstood the point of my post. Most because I think you misunderstand the terminology.
Encryption functions are 1-to-1 and have an inverse. Hash functions are many-to-1 and cannot possibly have an inverse. (Cryptographically secure hashes have other properties about being able to find collisions.)
A hash is not a "one way encryption function". A hash is a mapping from a large set of items to a smaller set. (e.g. A mapping from all strings that are less than 2^64 bits long to the set of non-negative integers less than 2^160)
Encryption functions are 1-to-1 functions.
If you would say "that a hash is still encryption" then you would say something completely false.
Patriots and Terrorists are only the same for people who have absolutely no moral clarity. Here are three quick ways to tell them apart for the morally impared.
Patriots proudly stand up, say who they are and don't hide. Terrorits hide who and where they are.
Patriots target military assets. Terrorits target civilians.
Patriots fight to destroy oppressive governments. Terrorists fight to create them.
There are things that are done by people who claim to be patriots that are truly not patriotic. However, those with moral clarity are able to distinguish between the two. Apologist who lack the ablity to see the difference and claim that they are simply different points of view will forever be locked into a paranoid delusion.
Um, if sex is complex for you, I think you're doing something wrong.
You are not a representative user. You seem to be significantly more technically savy that the average user.
You have completely different expectations when you build a computer and when you buy a pre-built machine. Apple's selling point is that you take it out of the box, plug it in and it will work flawlessly. Someone who builds their own machine does not expect this.
However, people who build their own machines are an extremely tiny fraction of overall computer users. Apple is not going to support your DIY box at the expense of the normal user.
The previous poster wasn't saying that it should all be publically funded. He was saying that if there is public funding, then there will be politics involved in handing out the money. He doesn't say exactly how much is involved, but he implicity acknowledges that public funding has a limit.
The original poster complained that currently the US government wasn't spending the "small" sum of $4.2 million on the project. This is the guy that needs to have some help with explaining how to do this without public funds.
Of course Episode 3 doesn't stand on its own. It's not supposed to stand on its own. It doesn't even make sense to have the movie stand on own. It is the 6th movie in larger story. Heck, it's the middle of a six part story.
To stand on it's own, it would have to introduce all of the characters, explain the force and re-hash the previous two movies. If I wanted to see Episodes 1 and 2, I would watch them and not Episode 3.
The power of sequels (and prequels) is that the audience is already familiar with the basic setting, so you don't have to rehash the whole thing. You complain that Episode 3 would be nothing without the other 5 and you wish others would see it that way. Do you only enjoy novels where each of the chapters stands on its own? Of course not. Individual chapters in a book are junk, but they can be more than the sum of their parts. Same with the Star Wars movies.
Complaining that it doesn't stand on it's own, is crazy. It's like complaining that "The Two Towers" in the Lord of the Rings trilogy is junk because it doesn't stand on its own.
There are plenty of things to complain about with the Star Wars movies. But the fact that each movie doesn't stand on it's own, it just stupid. I would guess that this is just a way for the parent poster to try to feel superior to all of the unenlightened people who don't see it his way.
Its completely useless because it's a self-selected survey, rather than a random sampling. Self-selected survey's are basically junk if you want any good data.
The results of this tell us nothing more than if it were nothing more than a large, well-written slashdot poll. Mostly because it is nothing more than a large, well-writen slashdot poll.
Yeah, because if you didn't see the original Star Wars in the theater when it first came out, you really would have had no way to see it in the last 30 years.
Seriouslly. I would guess a huge portion of the audience for Episodes 1-3 were not even born when the original came out.
I love your plan for making it stop. More periods. It's genius. See. how. much. slower. you. read. by. putting. in. extra. punctuation.
Keep. stickin'. it. to. "the. man.".
Can anyone really swim across the northern Atlantic? I would have thought he would freeze.
Perhaps he'll get on a cruise ship and spend the whole time in the pool?
I sass him. He's a frood who knows where his towel is.