Yeah, I agree that there is no way to do with I was talking about in 14 weeks. My idea would take a few grad students a year, doing nothing else. Did anybody try unsing accelerometers? An optimal design would have (almost) no wheel slippage. Maybe something like a feedback circuit, where it never allows itself to pull more than.?? g's I think the memorization approach just doesn't work unless you have a ceratin amount of instrumentation. When I was really young my dad, brought home this robot that had ultrasonic distance sensors and used stepper motors to move itself. It looked a lot like R2D2. It tried to map it's environment, but wheel slippage caused it to suck horribly. I think any design that would do successful mapping would have to use several sensors for speed data. If someone wanted to go all out (choosing this as their life's quest), they could monitor each tire's rotation individually, use an optcal sensor on the bottom or the vehicle (like an optical mouse), use an accelerometer, and use the data from laser range finders.
Maybe we'll have auto pilots in 100 years, but I don't see it happening in my lifetime. Yeah, an good autopilot could let cars run closer together, under normal circumstances, but if anybody gets a flat, people are gonna die. A computer just can't spot all the road hazards a person can. It's not going to know about that cinderblock that fell off a truck, or the deer that's running into the road. Americans don't use public transportation, because public transportation here sucks. Ride a bus in Germany, then ride a bus in NY. There's a world of difference. For me to use public transportation more often, it needs to become less dirty and less dangerous. For me personally, it would also need to be going 24/7. One might also care to realize that things are laid out differently in America than they are in Europe. Ex: If I want to buy some milk, it would take me 40 minutes to walk to the closest place, and another 40 minutes to walk back. There is no mass transit I could take there even if I wanted to. America is BIG. I can get on the highway, drive for 3 hours and still be in the same state. I think cars are impractical in certain areas (NYC, Boston, etc). In most places, they are a necessity. Where I live traffic is very efficient. I'm lucky enough to live in an area when most people actually know how to drive, and near a highway big enough to handle their traffic. I love driving on it. Even during rush hour, the average speed is 70.
I'd like cars that avoid sidewalls.
on
Autonomous Race Cars
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
I just watched the video of the winning car and it's just not what I'd hoped for. All these cars are doing is following a line/wire. I was just hoping that these cars were actually using sensors to keep track of the distance to the sidewalls of the track and the next turn. It would be a good M. Eng. project for somebody to do this, using a half dozen laser distance sensors on the front, so that the car could go fast on straighaways, slow down for turns, and avoid sidewalls. Does anyone know of a project like this? With a good onboard computer, the car could build a model of the track as it went around, and calculate the optimal path & speeds to use on all subsequent laps. Using lasers or ultra sonic distance sensors would let the robot know when a turn was going to happen a lot sooner the the few inches of warning it gets in their setup. If you put an accelerometer in the car, you could even have it self-calibrate, discovering it's own acceleration curve, maximum lateral acceleration, and braking. It could then use those values to find the perfect path through the track on the second lap.
Yeah, but I haven't done that yet beacuse I'm still waiting for someone to get linux running on the xbox. It's much bigger and heavier. In the meantime I'll keep bludgeoning people with my C64. It's got a pretty good reach and I hear it can be turn into a webserver.
It's been said that: With a clipboard, a dress shirt and the right attitude you can get anywhere. From everything I've seen, I believe it. Security just isn't taken seriously by most people.
The basic premise that a gov't should operate on is that everything should be legal unless there's a good reason otherwise. This is a clear case of something that could be solved by technilogical means very simply. It is possible to burn a serial number into a chip so that it cannot be changed (it can always be changed but I mean that it would require an electron microscope to do so.) This can be done cheaply and easily. Using a forged number on their network is fraud, already illegal. So they're no good reason to pass a law like this. But they will because they're going to be bought off. I should be able to change the software inside anything I own. That should be my right. If I change the software inside something that uses public airwaves, like a cellphone, it should have to operate within FCC guidelines (or european in this case), but I should be able to chance anything else in the software I want. FCC guidelines need to be followed so that my right to operate an electronic device does not interfere with anyone else's right to operate theirs. It a fair trade off that keeps people from have transmitter power wars with each other. A good example of why someone would want to do this is to keep a backup phone. It's not like no-one has ever dropped a cellphone and broken it before, have they? If you had a backup, you could just pull it out and use it, no phone call to make, no fees. I'd like to have a phone in my car and a phone in my pocket that both use the same wireless account. If a service provider does not want to to use a phone with a changed number, all they have to do is state that in the contract, and by doing so I would be in breach of contact. If I used their network without authoization, it would be theft of services, which is already illegal. This law is not needed. It is just another case of coporations buying laws that give them control over how we can use devices we already own. (Like the DMCA)
I don't think it's more likely that he was speeding before he got to the farm. Cops around me have actually tailgated people to get them to speed and then pulled them over before.
People who discover bugs should have no legal responsibility to do anything. If I find a bug in win2k and want to notify the world without giving Microsoft a 30 day heads-up that should be up to me. The bug is Microsofts fault, not mine. They should bear the reponsibility for any problems caused by it.
The bug is the problem, not the announcment of the bug! If a tree falls in the woods and no one's there to hear it, it still fell over. If people started making bugs public as soon as they found them, vendors would have to debug their software. I would rather find out the second a bug in apache is found, and shut down my server until a patch is realeased, than operate and server that can be taken over by anyone. I would prefer any e-commerce site I shop at to do the same. Thinking "yeah, I found this bug but there's no way anyone else could/has found it" is silly. If I found out that the locks on my car could be opened by any key from that manufacturer, I wouldn't wait for a recall. I would go to Autozone, and buy new locks. If you want to wait for a recall, you can. If you are serious about the security of your vehicle, you wouldn't.
Somebody's going to respond to this and complain about how everybody's site will be down all the time. Good. If I know XYZ.com uses IIS and they just found a root exploit for IIS I want to go to XYZ.com and see that it is down. If it isn't then I know they're not a good company to give my credit card info to. Bugs will get fixed VERY quickly and no one will be pretending that leaving a server online for a month with a root hole is okay, just because it hasn't been publicized by CERT yet. Hera are a couple scenarios:
You run an e-commerce website. A root expliot is found for your server. You shut it down (probably just a single service running on it) and fix it by the end of the day.
You run an e-commerce website. A root expliot is found for your server. You don't know this because the only one informed about it is the manufacturer and the people who are actively looking for bugs. A few malicous hackers who find this bug are able to run around the net and take over countless machines, installing root kits on them. This include your machine. The patch finally comes out and you install it. Too late.
I think it is generally a good thing to just inform the manufacturer of the bug, and not the whole world, but the ablitlty to go public with it at any time should be there. Companies need to know that people can and will go public with bugs in their software, and should take any chance to correct bugs before this happen seriously. It should not be conisdered a bad thing for someone to publicize a bug before there is a fix availible for it. They are destroying the illusion of security not the secuirty itself, which never was there.
One final analogy: Imagine a safe made out of cardboard. It's not safe. Even if I don't know it's made out of cardboard, it's still not safe. If someone tries to break into my cardboard safe, they're going to find out what it's made out of pretty quick.
Actually, I spent half of a summer working on a microcontrolled toaster. It has an 8Mhz Microchip PIC and 1K of RAM. The design intent was that you set the knob to the color toast you wanted and it always came out that color, no matter how recently/how much the toaster had been used. The thing even compensated for variations in line voltage. I think it's actually patented too. It looks like a normal 4 slot toaster though, so you could have used one and never even know it. BTW, I made a LOT of toast that summer.
I agree with the parent. I'm just not going to register. The IP of the NYT random login generator has been blocked, and I don't feel like using some huge group account that some jerk will change the password on. I don't like giving websites personally identifying data unless it's for a decent reason and I trust the website. And I don't want to bother remembering whatever bogus login I generate. It would be really nice to be able to shut off all NYT stories. How about an option to not see any stories where you can't just click the link and see the story? I already have fifty or so username:password combinations to remeber and I'd rather not have to deal with any more.
I've done this (replaced the connector) before and it worked perfectly. I ordered some speakers from and electronics company and instead of my tweeters, they sent me a pair of nintendo cartridge conns. They promptly sent me the right stuff and said I could keep the connectors, which turned out to be exactly what I needed to fix my Nintendo.
Nintendo is nuts!
on
Borrowing ROMs
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Check this out:
http://nintendo.com/corp/faqs/legal.html#what%20ar e%20ROMs These guys are nuts! They claim all kinds of legal things are illegal. From this website: Are Game Copying Devices Illegal? Yes. Game copiers enable users to illegally copy video game software onto floppy disks, writeable compact disks or the hard drive of a personal computer. They enable the user to make, play and distribute illegal copies of video game software which violates Nintendo's copyrights and trademarks. These devices also allow for the uploading and downloading of ROMs to and from the Internet. Based upon the functions of these devices, they are illegal.
Are they allowed to just lie like this? Pirating games is illegal, not making a backup. Here's another good one:
Can I Download a Nintendo ROM from the Internet if I Already Own the Authentic Game? There is a good deal of misinformation on the Internet regarding the backup/archival copy exception. It is not a "second copy" rule and is often mistakenly cited for the proposition that if you have one lawful copy of a copyrighted work, you are entitled to have a second copy of the copyrighted work even if that second copy is an infringing copy. The backup/archival copy exception is a very narrow limitation relating to a copy being made by the rightful owner of an authentic game to ensure he or she has one in the event of damage or destruction of the authentic. Therefore, whether you have an authentic game or not, or whether you have possession of a Nintendo ROM for a limited amount of time, i.e. 24 hours, it is illegal to download and play a Nintendo ROM from the Internet.
If I have a copy of the original cartidge, I don't see where they would have any legal leg to stand on saying that I couldn't download my backup copy from the internet. What if I ripped the ROM image myself, move it to my website and download it back to my PC? Does anyone know if there is any actual ruling supporting this or is this just them trying to say that you can't use the word 'mario' without paying the the appropriate liscensing fees? Copyright law needs to be changed so that, any work that is publicly availible not made publicly availible for sale becomes public domain in n years, where n is less than 75 frickin' years
In the 80's is was between 0 & 10 years old. I don't think I began to understand the original meaning of hacking until I went to college. I have a feeling, if I'd been born 10 years earlier I would also have learned the original usage around the time I went to college. I think knowing that meaning of hacking has more to do with being around technical people, but I have not the firsthand knowedge across 50 years to know for sure.
The original meaning was in use during the past 20-25 years. 10 & 20 years ago people were still using it and were bitching about its usage in describing any computer crime. Even if you like one of the usages more, you should be able to admit that.
Interestingly... I think I kind of personally have a bit of a double standard, not about/. vs. cnn, but about hack vs. hacker. I think is mostly due the ambiguity that arises when using the hacker title. When a person is described as a hacker, it can mean many things. When someone says my server got hacked, I know exactly what they mean. It's like the new usage of hacked as a verb doesn't really fuck up the old one that much, so I'm more okay with it, but adding more meanings to it in the noun form does. Of course, having 2+ meanings is still annoying.
Fine. But next time do your own google search before denigrating others. If someone uses a term incorrectly, they used the term incorrectly. The media has been screwing up computer related stories for a long time, that doesn't mean they're correct. Here is proof of my previous statement. BTW, the MIT hack museum is pretty cool.
Actually the term hacker originally had nothing to do with unauthorized use of computer systems. Its a very old term (>20yrs). Read about it. You don't know what you talking about. Get over it.
We have police for a reason. If someone steals my car stereo, I'm not allowed to grab a shotgun, drive around until I find them and then kill them, even if they are a thief. If you have reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed, it should be reported to the police. That's why we have them. If I can't be judge, jury and executioner, then neither should they. What this basically amounts to is anarchy. The people they are DOS'ing aren't theives, they're suspected theives and MPAA is who suspects them. If the police wanted to interfere with the operation of my computer they'd need a warrant, but these guys can do it just by suspecting that I might have some of their copyrighted material? Even if this is passed it will never stick. Who wants to bring a class action lawsuit against the RIAA? We'd be pretty sure to win. We could prove they are DOSing us, costing us money. They can't prove that we have their copyrighted content.
MARBLE JARS: Distribute them eveny between the 2 jars, assuming the guy will give you a jar at random or the worst of the two jars.
ARAB SHEIKH CAMELS: he told them to switch camels
3 HATS: Guy A sees at least one black hat. Guy B see a white hat on C. If Guy B saw a white hat on C he knows his can't be white or else A would know that his hat is black. Thus Guy C knows that his hat is black.
HUMMINGBIRD: ( 5000 / (20 + 15) ) 25
FOOT SIZE IMPLIES SPELLING ABILITY: Foot size correlates with age which is correlated with spelling ability.
NONHOMOGENOUS ROPE BURNING: Light one rope at both ends. When this entire rope has burnt, 30 min have passed. Then, light the other rope at both ends and at the middle. When, this entire roep has burnt, 15 min have passed. 30 + 15 = 45
WILLYWUTANG AND
THE BURNING ISLAND OF DOOM: I think there is a mistake in this problem. The wind should be going from B toward A. Th correct answer is to start another fire in between himself and the fire which the wind will them carry away from him and towards the other fire.
TWO COIN FLIPS: 50%
COIN MACHINE WEIGHING: Put one coin from machine 1, two from macine 2, etc. Take the difference from the expected weight and divide it by 1 oz to get the # of the broken machine.
HOURGLASSES: Run the 7 & 11 simultaneously. When the 7 is done start timing. When the 11 is done you've been timing 4 minutes. Flip it over and when it's empty you'll have 15.
LOGICAL SIGNS I: Open the silver chest.
LOGICAL SIGNS II: Open the bronze chest.
I don't feel like doin ASCII art for the chess problems.
CORK, BOTTLE, COIN: Push the cork into the bottle, then get the coin out.
FAMILY RELATIONS: His son
ANALOG CLOCK I: 0 deg or rad
ANALOG CLOCK II: 24 times/day, add n times 1:05 where n is an integer APPLES AND ORANGES: Look in the cate marked apples. It has to be either O or A&O. If it's O then the A&O crate is A and the O crate is A&O. If it's A&O then the O crate is A and the A&O crate is O.
Maybe more may come later. Anybody have more/disagree?
The correct answer is that manhole cover are round so they don't fall in. This crap about the shape of a wankel rotary engine is just that, crap. Of course you could make it in the shape of a star, rotoary engine, cartman (he's pretty round), whatever. There are other shapes that would fall though, but that doesn't mean that the way it is right now doesn't work. As for all those square manhole covers, they are either hinged or very rare, and irrelevant to the question (Assuming the question is: Why are manhole covers round?). The can be additional reasons/benfits, like the fact that most pipes are round, and being easy to roll, but not falling in seems like the best answer to me. To say that there is not reason is silly. At some point someone man a decision to produce round manholes and cover for them. People actively choose to contiune to produce them. They could choose to make them a different shape if they wanted to. Also, using fixed size buffers for user input is okay, and should be done. You just have to check that the buffer doesn't overflow. If your program will just keep acccepting more and more data a user could consume all your RAM as a DNS attack. This is commonly checked for on web forms, otherwise someone could submit 1,000 web forms with a few megs of data each, and bring down a server. I'm not a CS major, but AFAIK it is almost always a good thing this to set a limit on the size of user input. Just make sure it's reasonable and it doesn't barf when someone tries to go above that limit.
You've obviously never heard of quake then. Quake was realeased with a backdoor in it (accidentally). Yeah John Romero doesn't want to root my box, but at some point it was found and then started to become expoited. It's a hell of a lot easier to check source code for backdoors than it is to check binary only code like windows. So much FUD, so little time.
Slashdot Mirror
Congrats on the winning car!
Yeah, I agree that there is no way to do with I was talking about in 14 weeks. My idea would take a few grad students a year, doing nothing else. .?? g's
Did anybody try unsing accelerometers?
An optimal design would have (almost) no wheel slippage.
Maybe something like a feedback circuit, where it never allows itself to pull more than
I think the memorization approach just doesn't work unless you have a ceratin amount of instrumentation.
When I was really young my dad, brought home this robot that had ultrasonic distance sensors and used stepper motors to move itself. It looked a lot like R2D2. It tried to map it's environment, but wheel slippage caused it to suck horribly.
I think any design that would do successful mapping would have to use several sensors for speed data. If someone wanted to go all out (choosing this as their life's quest), they could monitor each tire's rotation individually, use an optcal sensor on the bottom or the vehicle (like an optical mouse), use an accelerometer, and use the data from laser range finders.
Maybe we'll have auto pilots in 100 years, but I don't see it happening in my lifetime. Yeah, an good autopilot could let cars run closer together, under normal circumstances, but if anybody gets a flat, people are gonna die. A computer just can't spot all the road hazards a person can. It's not going to know about that cinderblock that fell off a truck, or the deer that's running into the road.
Americans don't use public transportation, because public transportation here sucks.
Ride a bus in Germany, then ride a bus in NY. There's a world of difference. For me to use public transportation more often, it needs to become less dirty and less dangerous. For me personally, it would also need to be going 24/7.
One might also care to realize that things are laid out differently in America than they are in Europe. Ex: If I want to buy some milk, it would take me 40 minutes to walk to the closest place, and another 40 minutes to walk back. There is no mass transit I could take there even if I wanted to. America is BIG. I can get on the highway, drive for 3 hours and still be in the same state.
I think cars are impractical in certain areas (NYC, Boston, etc). In most places, they are a necessity. Where I live traffic is very efficient. I'm lucky enough to live in an area when most people actually know how to drive, and near a highway big enough to handle their traffic. I love driving on it. Even during rush hour, the average speed is 70.
I just watched the video of the winning car and it's just not what I'd hoped for. All these cars are doing is following a line/wire.
I was just hoping that these cars were actually using sensors to keep track of the distance to the sidewalls of the track and the next turn.
It would be a good M. Eng. project for somebody to do this, using a half dozen laser distance sensors on the front, so that the car could go fast on straighaways, slow down for turns, and avoid sidewalls.
Does anyone know of a project like this?
With a good onboard computer, the car could build a model of the track as it went around, and calculate the optimal path & speeds to use on all subsequent laps. Using lasers or ultra sonic distance sensors would let the robot know when a turn was going to happen a lot sooner the the few inches of warning it gets in their setup. If you put an accelerometer in the car, you could even have it self-calibrate, discovering it's own acceleration curve, maximum lateral acceleration, and braking. It could then use those values to find the perfect path through the track on the second lap.
Yeah, but I haven't done that yet beacuse I'm still waiting for someone to get linux running on the xbox. It's much bigger and heavier.
In the meantime I'll keep bludgeoning people with my C64. It's got a pretty good reach and I hear it can be turn into a webserver.
It's been said that:
With a clipboard, a dress shirt and the right attitude you can get anywhere.
From everything I've seen, I believe it.
Security just isn't taken seriously by most people.
The basic premise that a gov't should operate on is that everything should be legal unless there's a good reason otherwise.
This is a clear case of something that could be solved by technilogical means very simply.
It is possible to burn a serial number into a chip so that it cannot be changed (it can always be changed but I mean that it would require an electron microscope to do so.) This can be done cheaply and easily.
Using a forged number on their network is fraud, already illegal. So they're no good reason to pass a law like this. But they will because they're going to be bought off.
I should be able to change the software inside anything I own. That should be my right. If I change the software inside something that uses public airwaves, like a cellphone, it should have to operate within FCC guidelines (or european in this case), but I should be able to chance anything else in the software I want. FCC guidelines need to be followed so that my right to operate an electronic device does not interfere with anyone else's right to operate theirs. It a fair trade off that keeps people from have transmitter power wars with each other.
A good example of why someone would want to do this is to keep a backup phone. It's not like no-one has ever dropped a cellphone and broken it before, have they? If you had a backup, you could just pull it out and use it, no phone call to make, no fees. I'd like to have a phone in my car and a phone in my pocket that both use the same wireless account.
If a service provider does not want to to use a phone with a changed number, all they have to do is state that in the contract, and by doing so I would be in breach of contact. If I used their network without authoization, it would be theft of services, which is already illegal.
This law is not needed. It is just another case of coporations buying laws that give them control over how we can use devices we already own. (Like the DMCA)
I don't think it's more likely that he was speeding before he got to the farm. Cops around me have actually tailgated people to get them to speed and then pulled them over before.
If I find a bug in win2k and want to notify the world without giving Microsoft a 30 day heads-up that should be up to me. The bug is Microsofts fault, not mine. They should bear the reponsibility for any problems caused by it.
The bug is the problem, not the announcment of the bug!
If a tree falls in the woods and no one's there to hear it, it still fell over.
If people started making bugs public as soon as they found them, vendors would have to debug their software.
I would rather find out the second a bug in apache is found, and shut down my server until a patch is realeased, than operate and server that can be taken over by anyone.
I would prefer any e-commerce site I shop at to do the same.
Thinking "yeah, I found this bug but there's no way anyone else could/has found it" is silly. If I found out that the locks on my car could be opened by any key from that manufacturer, I wouldn't wait for a recall. I would go to Autozone, and buy new locks. If you want to wait for a recall, you can. If you are serious about the security of your vehicle, you wouldn't.
Somebody's going to respond to this and complain about how everybody's site will be down all the time. Good. If I know XYZ.com uses IIS and they just found a root exploit for IIS I want to go to XYZ.com and see that it is down. If it isn't then I know they're not a good company to give my credit card info to. Bugs will get fixed VERY quickly and no one will be pretending that leaving a server online for a month with a root hole is okay, just because it hasn't been publicized by CERT yet.
Hera are a couple scenarios:
I think it is generally a good thing to just inform the manufacturer of the bug, and not the whole world, but the ablitlty to go public with it at any time should be there. Companies need to know that people can and will go public with bugs in their software, and should take any chance to correct bugs before this happen seriously. It should not be conisdered a bad thing for someone to publicize a bug before there is a fix availible for it. They are destroying the illusion of security not the secuirty itself, which never was there.
One final analogy:
Imagine a safe made out of cardboard. It's not safe. Even if I don't know it's made out of cardboard, it's still not safe. If someone tries to break into my cardboard safe, they're going to find out what it's made out of pretty quick.
Actually, I spent half of a summer working on a microcontrolled toaster.
It has an 8Mhz Microchip PIC and 1K of RAM. The design intent was that you set the knob to the color toast you wanted and it always came out that color, no matter how recently/how much the toaster had been used. The thing even compensated for variations in line voltage. I think it's actually patented too. It looks like a normal 4 slot toaster though, so you could have used one and never even know it.
BTW, I made a LOT of toast that summer.
I agree with the parent.
I'm just not going to register.
The IP of the NYT random login generator has been blocked, and I don't feel like using some huge group account that some jerk will change the password on.
I don't like giving websites personally identifying data unless it's for a decent reason and I trust the website. And I don't want to bother remembering whatever bogus login I generate.
It would be really nice to be able to shut off all NYT stories. How about an option to not see any stories where you can't just click the link and see the story? I already have fifty or so username:password combinations to remeber and I'd rather not have to deal with any more.
I've done this (replaced the connector) before and it worked perfectly.
I ordered some speakers from and electronics company and instead of my tweeters, they sent me a pair of nintendo cartridge conns. They promptly sent me the right stuff and said I could keep the connectors, which turned out to be exactly what I needed to fix my Nintendo.
Check this out: http://nintendo.com/corp/faqs/legal.html#what%20ar e%20ROMs
These guys are nuts!
They claim all kinds of legal things are illegal.
From this website:
Are Game Copying Devices Illegal?
Yes. Game copiers enable users to illegally copy video game software onto floppy disks, writeable compact disks or the hard drive of a personal computer. They enable the user to make, play and distribute illegal copies of video game software which violates Nintendo's copyrights and trademarks. These devices also allow for the uploading and downloading of ROMs to and from the Internet. Based upon the functions of these devices, they are illegal.
Are they allowed to just lie like this? Pirating games is illegal, not making a backup.
Here's another good one:
Can I Download a Nintendo ROM from the Internet if I Already Own the Authentic Game?
There is a good deal of misinformation on the Internet regarding the backup/archival copy exception. It is not a "second copy" rule and is often mistakenly cited for the proposition that if you have one lawful copy of a copyrighted work, you are entitled to have a second copy of the copyrighted work even if that second copy is an infringing copy. The backup/archival copy exception is a very narrow limitation relating to a copy being made by the rightful owner of an authentic game to ensure he or she has one in the event of damage or destruction of the authentic. Therefore, whether you have an authentic game or not, or whether you have possession of a Nintendo ROM for a limited amount of time, i.e. 24 hours, it is illegal to download and play a Nintendo ROM from the Internet.
If I have a copy of the original cartidge, I don't see where they would have any legal leg to stand on saying that I couldn't download my backup copy from the internet. What if I ripped the ROM image myself, move it to my website and download it back to my PC? Does anyone know if there is any actual ruling supporting this or is this just them trying to say that you can't use the word 'mario' without paying the the appropriate liscensing fees?
Copyright law needs to be changed so that, any work that is publicly availible not made publicly availible for sale becomes public domain in n years, where n is less than 75 frickin' years
In the 80's is was between 0 & 10 years old. I don't think I began to understand the original meaning of hacking until I went to college. I have a feeling, if I'd been born 10 years earlier I would also have learned the original usage around the time I went to college. I think knowing that meaning of hacking has more to do with being around technical people, but I have not the firsthand knowedge across 50 years to know for sure.
The original meaning was in use during the past 20-25 years. 10 & 20 years ago people were still using it and were bitching about its usage in describing any computer crime. Even if you like one of the usages more, you should be able to admit that.
Interestingly... /. vs. cnn, but about hack vs. hacker.
I think I kind of personally have a bit of a double standard, not about
I think is mostly due the ambiguity that arises when using the hacker title.
When a person is described as a hacker, it can mean many things. When someone says my server got hacked, I know exactly what they mean.
It's like the new usage of hacked as a verb doesn't really fuck up the old one that much, so I'm more okay with it, but adding more meanings to it in the noun form does.
Of course, having 2+ meanings is still annoying.
Fine.
But next time do your own google search before denigrating others.
If someone uses a term incorrectly, they used the term incorrectly. The media has been screwing up computer related stories for a long time, that doesn't mean they're correct.
Here is proof of my previous statement.
BTW, the MIT hack museum is pretty cool.
Actually the term hacker originally had nothing to do with unauthorized use of computer systems. Its a very old term (>20yrs). Read about it.
You don't know what you talking about. Get over it.
We have police for a reason. If someone steals my car stereo, I'm not allowed to grab a shotgun, drive around until I find them and then kill them, even if they are a thief.
If you have reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed, it should be reported to the police. That's why we have them. If I can't be judge, jury and executioner, then neither should they.
What this basically amounts to is anarchy.
The people they are DOS'ing aren't theives, they're suspected theives and MPAA is who suspects them. If the police wanted to interfere with the operation of my computer they'd need a warrant, but these guys can do it just by suspecting that I might have some of their copyrighted material? Even if this is passed it will never stick.
Who wants to bring a class action lawsuit against the RIAA? We'd be pretty sure to win. We could prove they are DOSing us, costing us money. They can't prove that we have their copyrighted content.
Oh, and get back under your bridge.
Perhaps they filter out the IP?
Anybody got an idea how to make this work again?
It used to work (weeks ago) if you gave it a valid zip code. Now it doesn't seem to. I think they started checking more things now.
- STUPID: e
- CLIMBING SNAIL: 5 days. They left the trick out of this one. They should've made it 21 meters.
- 8-WAY CAKE SLICE: Cut it in half. Cut it in quarters. Line up all the quarters in a row and cut them in half.
- CHESSBOARD SQUARE COUNT: 8 * 8 = 64,7 * 7 = 49, 6*6 = 36, 5 * 5 = 25, 4 * 4 =16, 3 * 3 = 9, 2 * 2 = 4 . Answer is 64+49+36+25+16+9+4+1
- MONTY HALL SHOW: Always switch. This is a really famous problem. You can do the math pretty easily.
- GLASS HALF FULL: Tilt it. The top of the water should reach the upper and lower edges at exactly the same time.
- HANGING CHAIN: 0 feet
BTW AC was right 'bout my 1st answer.- MARBLE JARS: Distribute them eveny between the 2 jars, assuming the guy will give you a jar at random or the worst of the two jars.
- ARAB SHEIKH CAMELS: he told them to switch camels
- 3 HATS: Guy A sees at least one black hat. Guy B see a white hat on C. If Guy B saw a white hat on C he knows his can't be white or else A would know that his hat is black. Thus Guy C knows that his hat is black.
- HUMMINGBIRD: ( 5000 / (20 + 15) ) 25
- FOOT SIZE IMPLIES SPELLING ABILITY: Foot size correlates with age which is correlated with spelling ability.
- NONHOMOGENOUS ROPE BURNING: Light one rope at both ends. When this entire rope has burnt, 30 min have passed. Then, light the other rope at both ends and at the middle. When, this entire roep has burnt, 15 min have passed. 30 + 15 = 45
- WILLYWUTANG AND
THE BURNING ISLAND OF DOOM: I think there is a mistake in this problem. The wind should be going from B toward A. Th correct answer is to start another fire in between himself and the fire which the wind will them carry away from him and towards the other fire.
- TWO COIN FLIPS: 50%
- COIN MACHINE WEIGHING: Put one coin from machine 1, two from macine 2, etc. Take the difference from the expected weight and divide it by 1 oz to get the # of the broken machine.
- HOURGLASSES: Run the 7 & 11 simultaneously. When the 7 is done start timing. When the 11 is done you've been timing 4 minutes. Flip it over and when it's empty you'll have 15.
- LOGICAL SIGNS I: Open the silver chest.
- LOGICAL SIGNS II: Open the bronze chest.
- I don't feel like doin ASCII art for the chess problems.
- CORK, BOTTLE, COIN: Push the cork into the bottle, then get the coin out.
- FAMILY RELATIONS: His son
- ANALOG CLOCK I: 0 deg or rad
- ANALOG CLOCK II: 24 times/day, add n times 1:05 where n is an integer APPLES AND ORANGES: Look in the cate marked apples. It has to be either O or A&O. If it's O then the A&O crate is A and the O crate is A&O. If it's A&O then the O crate is A and the A&O crate is O.
Maybe more may come later.Anybody have more/disagree?
The correct answer is that manhole cover are round so they don't fall in.
This crap about the shape of a wankel rotary engine is just that, crap. Of course you could make it in the shape of a star, rotoary engine, cartman (he's pretty round), whatever. There are other shapes that would fall though, but that doesn't mean that the way it is right now doesn't work.
As for all those square manhole covers, they are either hinged or very rare, and irrelevant to the question (Assuming the question is: Why are manhole covers round?).
The can be additional reasons/benfits, like the fact that most pipes are round, and being easy to roll, but not falling in seems like the best answer to me.
To say that there is not reason is silly. At some point someone man a decision to produce round manholes and cover for them. People actively choose to contiune to produce them. They could choose to make them a different shape if they wanted to.
Also, using fixed size buffers for user input is okay, and should be done. You just have to check that the buffer doesn't overflow. If your program will just keep acccepting more and more data a user could consume all your RAM as a DNS attack. This is commonly checked for on web forms, otherwise someone could submit 1,000 web forms with a few megs of data each, and bring down a server. I'm not a CS major, but AFAIK it is almost always a good thing this to set a limit on the size of user input. Just make sure it's reasonable and it doesn't barf when someone tries to go above that limit.
You've obviously never heard of quake then.
Quake was realeased with a backdoor in it (accidentally). Yeah John Romero doesn't want to root my box, but at some point it was found and then started to become expoited.
It's a hell of a lot easier to check source code for backdoors than it is to check binary only code like windows.
So much FUD, so little time.