I'm wondering why they aren't telling bots to self-destruct? It seems pretty obvious to me that the C&C structures could reform fluidly as you take them down? A Black hat has a list of his bots, if you nuke his IRC channel, he just spawns a new one, or moves to a new IRC network...
But if instead you tell all his bots to wipe themselves out, he's got to buy new ones. Yes those machines will surely get reinfected within a few days/weeks, but it will throw a much bigger wrench in the works.
How is this not the obvious approach? Why aren't they doing it? Or maybe they are and aren't stupid enough to tell the media....
(I have a Big Head), so I'm not having a defensive reaction, and I think it's a very reasonable idea.
But there is a weakness study, having skimmed it.
It could be the case that most of us exist in a group evenly clustered around the mean of Intelligence and head size, with no correlation between the two. Yet there might be a second group of people in which something hasn't quite worked out during development, they're missing brain volume and are therefore dumber.
This would mean the study is technically correct, but only because there exist someoddball cases, while for those of us in the normal range, size means nothing.
Meta-analyses can be difficult to interpret because you don't get to see the raw data, so it's hard to argue my explanation without going through each of those papers and figuring out if they've got some kind of clusters or oddballs on the low end.
That probably has more to do with Meth labs than terrorism.
And at least Meth is a valid concern. Terrorism is not really much of a problem on US soil (compared to other forms of death), but crystal meth is huge and getting worse.
The hard part in cashing in from poker bots online (which must exist somewhere, writing a statistically playing bot that just waits for nuts isn't that hard, and lousy players will fork over money to this thing) is evading detection.
If you just simply spawn 1000 bots, as easy as that seems, you'll be detected easily, and your online assets siezed. At the very least you'd need 100 or more IP's, and probably some variance in reaction times, mouse movements, etc.
that's the difficult part, because online casinos have alot of money to lose if players get spooked by the fear of bots. So they'll be trying *hard* to detect you.
This questionaire seems deliberately worded to create a gloom and doom result.
Innocuous crimes are paired with atrocious ones, allowing them to generate impressive and scary sounding numbers for categories like "falsifying data or petting kittens".
Which of those two do you think people are going to associate with the 15%?
With this put an end to the ridiculous idea that listening to my ipod in row 38 can cripple the navigational instruments of an airliner?
If that pittance of an electrical field could have any appreciable impact on an airplane, any solar flare would result in the complete destruction of the world's airline fleet in a single day.
It's apparently a robot that can make circuit boards, and that's it. There are about 50 million steps involved in making itself, this can do one of them.
Thx media hype, call me when something interesting happens.
One more thing to break preventing my car from working and leaving me sober and stranded in the middle of nowhere, with a broken part that's only available from the dealer thereby leaving my car unrepairable by the local garage off the freeway in Idaho.
As the number of gadgets that have to function correctly for cars to run increases, the probability of getting from point A to B decreases to zero.
Gamers never know what's good for them
on
A Gamer's Manifesto
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
It's a good thing the gaming industry doesn't listen to players, because we'd all quit playing within a week.
This guy does have some good points, especially re: obnoxious savepoints, misleading advertising and jumping puzzles, but many times he's asking for things that would destroy the fun of games.
For example, having instant-save anywhere sounds fun until you have it, at which point you realize there's no challenge to a game. You can just play like an idiot and rewind whenever you make a mistake. At that point you could throw your console controller into a paintmixer and it would eventually "win". Fun = gone.
And the parents point about "good" AI is excellent also. we enjoy beating up lots of stupid guys in a game because it puts us in the driver's seat, controlling the game flow. If this guy wants good AI's with a selection of weapons, he should fire up some bots in Quake or UT and get his fill of immaculately aimed rail guns up his ass every 5 seconds. Wheee!!!
That said, a few elements of good Ai *used sparingly and appropriately* will do wonders to enhance immersion.
Back to the main point, people don't often realize that the things they are aggravated about during gameplay are the same elements that make them enjoy the game when it's done.
Yes it's very stupid for them to have not had the foresight to spend many thousands of dollars to remove a useful set of power outlets that let them flexibly reposition their floor lighting.
They should fire the guy who failed to sign that work order form.
Freedom for one person always comes at the expense of freedom for another.
My freedom to punch you in the face comes by taking away your freedom to not be punchbed in the face by me. It's a fundamental tradeoff.
What's important is not sticking to some impossible moral high ground, but accepting that this whole governing business involves a series of clever compromises, and then figuring out what those compromises should be.
good cameras can't be combined with cell phones, the physics of photography demand a lens aperture that won't fit in a phone.
But MP3 players are a different story. Our hearing isn't getting any better, so as storage tech improves, we'll be better and better able to cram enough gigs into a phone that we can listen to top notch music.
Slashdot Mirror
This approach is even less effective than that.
All they are doing is shutting down a rogue IRC channel. The boss merely has to switch to a new one. It probably takes about 5 seconds of effort.
But they have to do something.
I'm wondering why they aren't telling bots to self-destruct? It seems pretty obvious to me that the C&C structures could reform fluidly as you take them down? A Black hat has a list of his bots, if you nuke his IRC channel, he just spawns a new one, or moves to a new IRC network...
But if instead you tell all his bots to wipe themselves out, he's got to buy new ones. Yes those machines will surely get reinfected within a few days/weeks, but it will throw a much bigger wrench in the works.
How is this not the obvious approach? Why aren't they doing it? Or maybe they are and aren't stupid enough to tell the media....
(I have a Big Head), so I'm not having a defensive reaction, and I think it's a very reasonable idea.
But there is a weakness study, having skimmed it.
It could be the case that most of us exist in a group evenly clustered around the mean of Intelligence and head size, with no correlation between the two. Yet there might be a second group of people in which something hasn't quite worked out during development, they're missing brain volume and are therefore dumber.
This would mean the study is technically correct, but only because there exist someoddball cases, while for those of us in the normal range, size means nothing.
Meta-analyses can be difficult to interpret because you don't get to see the raw data, so it's hard to argue my explanation without going through each of those papers and figuring out if they've got some kind of clusters or oddballs on the low end.
That probably has more to do with Meth labs than terrorism.
And at least Meth is a valid concern. Terrorism is not really much of a problem on US soil (compared to other forms of death), but crystal meth is huge and getting worse.
California is ready to roll out a program for taxpayers where the state will offer to fill out their tax forms for them if they are simple enough.
By simple, do they mean the taxpayers?
It's remarkably difficult to cooperate effectively in Texas Hold'em.
Yes, you can help each other a bit, but the chance of winning only increases marginally.
The hard part in cashing in from poker bots online (which must exist somewhere, writing a statistically playing bot that just waits for nuts isn't that hard, and lousy players will fork over money to this thing) is evading detection.
If you just simply spawn 1000 bots, as easy as that seems, you'll be detected easily, and your online assets siezed. At the very least you'd need 100 or more IP's, and probably some variance in reaction times, mouse movements, etc.
that's the difficult part, because online casinos have alot of money to lose if players get spooked by the fear of bots. So they'll be trying *hard* to detect you.
How does a calculator help *anyone* at calculus?
I didn't get really good at swimming until I learned to do it without bread!!
How about you consider that the bloated managerial staff could be the reason that these programs are foundering...
This questionaire seems deliberately worded to create a gloom and doom result.
Innocuous crimes are paired with atrocious ones, allowing them to generate impressive and scary sounding numbers for categories like "falsifying data or petting kittens".
Which of those two do you think people are going to associate with the 15%?
I'm not sure how this would account for the success of Friends and Seinfeld, which I think would score pretty badly on this formula.
"Ha Ha"
*lameness add on........*
I am aware of all of these things.
If any of this is true, why the hell are they allowing 802.11?
uh huh, and I can't operate my computer because...
With this put an end to the ridiculous idea that listening to my ipod in row 38 can cripple the navigational instruments of an airliner?
If that pittance of an electrical field could have any appreciable impact on an airplane, any solar flare would result in the complete destruction of the world's airline fleet in a single day.
It's apparently a robot that can make circuit boards, and that's it. There are about 50 million steps involved in making itself, this can do one of them.
Thx media hype, call me when something interesting happens.
One more thing to break preventing my car from working and leaving me sober and stranded in the middle of nowhere, with a broken part that's only available from the dealer thereby leaving my car unrepairable by the local garage off the freeway in Idaho.
As the number of gadgets that have to function correctly for cars to run increases, the probability of getting from point A to B decreases to zero.
It's a good thing the gaming industry doesn't listen to players, because we'd all quit playing within a week.
This guy does have some good points, especially re: obnoxious savepoints, misleading advertising and jumping puzzles, but many times he's asking for things that would destroy the fun of games.
For example, having instant-save anywhere sounds fun until you have it, at which point you realize there's no challenge to a game. You can just play like an idiot and rewind whenever you make a mistake. At that point you could throw your console controller into a paintmixer and it would eventually "win". Fun = gone.
And the parents point about "good" AI is excellent also. we enjoy beating up lots of stupid guys in a game because it puts us in the driver's seat, controlling the game flow. If this guy wants good AI's with a selection of weapons, he should fire up some bots in Quake or UT and get his fill of immaculately aimed rail guns up his ass every 5 seconds. Wheee!!!
That said, a few elements of good Ai *used sparingly and appropriately* will do wonders to enhance immersion.
Back to the main point, people don't often realize that the things they are aggravated about during gameplay are the same elements that make them enjoy the game when it's done.
Yes it's very stupid for them to have not had the foresight to spend many thousands of dollars to remove a useful set of power outlets that let them flexibly reposition their floor lighting.
They should fire the guy who failed to sign that work order form.
This opens the door for cooling systems based on knives and stabbing weapons.
Of course you need to start compromising. My freedom to send spam anonymously is fundamentally at odds with your ability to not receive spam.
You can put in spam filters, but it will always be an arms race in which either you or I are winning at any moment.
That's why you have to find the best set of compromises that result in the most freedom for everyone.
I never meant to imply anything as silly as a zero-sum game in which freedom is linearly quantifiable.
but I see like 100 methods of abusing anonymity for each valid reason to have anonymity.
It's not about numbers. Those few reasons valid reasons are far more important for humanity as a whole than the huge number of potential abuses.
Freedom for one person always comes at the expense of freedom for another.
My freedom to punch you in the face comes by taking away your freedom to not be punchbed in the face by me. It's a fundamental tradeoff.
What's important is not sticking to some impossible moral high ground, but accepting that this whole governing business involves a series of clever compromises, and then figuring out what those compromises should be.
good cameras can't be combined with cell phones, the physics of photography demand a lens aperture that won't fit in a phone.
But MP3 players are a different story. Our hearing isn't getting any better, so as storage tech improves, we'll be better and better able to cram enough gigs into a phone that we can listen to top notch music.
So camera + phone = bad
MP3 + phone = good