I really never heard of them, and their Wikipedia page and website give away nearly the most vague description physically possible. It's just one step away from "We do things. Things that make you go. (On a global vertical enterprise scale.)"
Can someone tell me what this purchase means? What are actual real products they offer?
1. Set up an arbitrary point in time. (E.g. "the advent of modern cryptography", or "the invention of X by NotActualInventorY"R 2. Create an article, celebrating the X years since then. 3. Write up a crappy "history". (The crappier, the more "controversy" [aka. "troll power"] it will create.) 4.... 5. PROFIT!
Well, as long as there is any way at all to get data out of the country, you can get everything trough that hole. It does not even have to be slow.
If I have to, give me a day, and I set up a TOR router trough a (deliberately misused) obscure low-level protocol like ICMP or BGP.
And if they actually block all communication, my last message will contain a encrypted info, where on the outside of the border to set up a can-amplified wlan router (of course still strongly encrypted), so I can do the same on the inside, and become the master tor gateway to the outside. The first I'll do, is agree on where to put more such gateways.
Sure, this may be very dangerous. But I expect life in such a country to become worse than dead anyway. Why else would they block communication?
I disagree with the assumption that it's "just as easy". In some languages, it's definitely easier to write bad code. PHP is such an example. C/C++ is another one. In PHP it comes with the retardedness of the language. In C/C++ it comes with the freedom.
A good example for a language that has certain things in place to prevent bad coding, is Haskell. Type problems in running code are (except for the external input reader) simply impossible.
And why would you change it? After all: Never change a working system.
You would not go an change anything foundational, if there isn't a reason to do so. What would the reason be in this case? Maintainability does not really become harder for the same piece of code. Except if you constantly change things. Only the maintainers become more rare. But there is no reason they have to.
Hmm... what about the following solution: Stop changing *anything* in the basic COBOL code. If you change something, do the transformations on a thin layer that you wrap around it. And everything external then only communicates with that layer. Do this, until perhaps some time in the future, when every rule was changed at least once, no usage of the inner COBOL core remains. You could even add another layer, if the new layer does become too old to change too. Oh, besides: The decision if the old layer is too old, should be defined as the moment, where the cost and risk of maintaining that old layer becomes higher, than the cost and risk of introducing errors in the new layer. (Which for the above solution is theoretically zero, because you only add new things that would have to change anyway, and never re-implement any well working parts.)
GP uses the old "virtuality is reality" fallacy*. COBOL is not like a train, because it is not exposed to nature/physics. There is no natural disintegration in virtual things. It can lie there for a trillion years, and if the hardware is kept running and backups and error-correction are in place, it will not degrade in a single bit.
Also "surely" is no base for any arguments to put on top of it.:)
___ * The same one that media distribution companies use, to act as if the software on that media would be a real product instead of the result of a service.
[..] it looked like the dead salmon was actually thinking about the pictures it had been shown.... The result is completely nuts -- [...] as a warning about the dangers of false positives [...]
Looks to me like the dark matter syndrome: "Our theories wrong? Our calculations off by an insane amount? Unpossible! That can never be. Nature must be lying!"
Has anyone even checked if a dead brain can still have flows of energy through its brain? I mean light patterns still reach the retinas, and can still trigger signals, depending on the state of the neurons there. How long was that salmon dead? I know that pigs can be frozen to be clinically dead for long times (90+ minutes), and still be revived without much damage.
I'd at least check if there are actual signals of current going trough the brain (with an OTHER (better) instrument, before dismissing it. Every unchecked assumption is a good chance for flaw in your study. You wouldn't want it to be dismissed by peer review, because of a faulty assumption.
Uum, to be taken even close to serious, it would have to have a scale going from "100% gay" to 100% hetero". With allowing any value in-between. Also it would make sense, to separate mind and body sexuality onto different scales. And if you want to be fancy, separate the interest to have relationships and the interest in just sex too.
Oversimplification... the oldest disease of human brains.:/
[..] predicting who might be a terrorist to the likelihood a person is happy, fat, liberal, or conservative.
Or? And an exclusive one too! You could as well go to the cave and bang on a piece of wood, "blarg good! wuoargh baad! ughwharrk!". You wouldn't stand out a bit.
Here, in the world of 21st century Homo sapiens sapiens, we aware of simple basic playschool-level facts, like that 1. Every property is a dimension in property space. 2. Every dimension has a gradient. (Possibly quantized on the Planck level of space-time, depending on what theories you believe in.) 3. If the properties are not exactly opposite to each other (making them one dimension with negative values), they are not exactly opposite. 4. The state of every position on every dimension may or may not be relative to any of the other positions of the other dimensions in property space, depending on their orthogonality.
I am a indie game designer, and I'd rather die than enforce DRM on any games I do. I could offer my ideas to EA and then get 10-15 millions right on the table when they accept it! But I rather live poor than give them any rights/saying.
Also I don't thing my colleagues like DRM. After all, file sharing is our number one marketing channel!! So I think the survey is bogus and made up. (E.g. by EA.)
Do I even have to mention, that DRM blocks NOT A SINGLE freeloader! One creates a crack, tenthousands download it, and millions get helped by their friends to get the games running. There no such thing as the guy who can't get it running if he wants it. It's a myth. How can the editors pass something like that through? Have they lost their mind? One should sue them for that lie alone!
And we creators get paid for a SERVICE! THERE IS NO PRODUCT called "game". It's a service. Just like music. So you get a specific amount for your service, and you are done. Every copy is free. If you want to earn money, you have to EARN (as in DESERVE) it! Offer special physical things like collectors packages. Or a multi-player-server plan with a fair price. (If you keep the profit rather small, those prices usually go to ridiculously low values.)
Is it that hard? MAKE. PEOPLE. HAPPY. So they WANT to thank you. If they do not want to thank you, you don't deserve shit with your soulless crap wannabe "hollywood plastic fantastic" shallow default batch production run-of-the-mill trash game.
Sorry, but this attitude and propaganda makes me angry. They ruin the real artists' business for all of us.
- Only ONE of all the users can have the maximum speed in the same area. If others use it too, it drops. Which for thousands of users can easily mean a very crappy bandwidth. - Everyone can access and potentially crack it, without having physical access. - General pointlessness to replace the wired connection of stationary devices with it because... [HYPEHYPEHYPEHYPESCREAMHYPEBLINGHYPEHYPEHYPE]
For mobile devices it's OK when well encrypted, because you've got no choice. But if you can use cables, their bandwitdh will always be higher, and their connection safer. If only because you can use the full spectrum for yourself alone.
I'd recommend changing your reaction to "you're doing it wrong!".
Because the trick is not, to come to you. The trick is, to make you come to them, and offer something so great, that you'll beg to get it. ^^
I recommend putting up a large projection of Compiz an action, giant "Never get Viruses again!" banners, etc. Make them drool and wish to throw away their Windows. And give away the Linux DVDs in a "Shop price: $xxx" "Get a free copy! Only today!" booth. Play music! Add some lights! (But in a way that also drags older people there.) Offer tasty food that you can smell on the whole street, drinks, sexy babes/men on two elevated platforms, friendly people (to fulfill our basic needs/interests). Sell merchandising that people can afford to buy just out of impulse and for fun! Stickers, T-Shirts, things you can't get anywhere else. And add a Linux DVD / open source software DVD to every sale of anything on that booth. Let the sexy people throw the DVDs into the people. And do it in a place and at a time, where there are enough people to make it work. If nessecary, work out a deal with a local shopping mall, or something similar.
That will give you hype and interest! ^^ You will have 40 year old hockey moms talk to all their friends about that really cute new "Linux" (used as if it were a version of Windows), that they caught, when they were surprised by that hot guy looking at her. She will put the DVD in, it will start, looking really fancy. And when it runs, it throws the full power of beauty and power at them! So that even if they don't understand a thing of it, they will want to learn to have that too.
Unrealistic? Well, the most common reaction I get from girls, when I show them my Linux desktop is: "I want that too! Can you put that on my computer?". QED. ^^
I'd to it in a contest with the pattern: If you achieve X, you will get NASA's moon budget, plus the 3 billion. NASA would of course also enter the contest... but not necessarily be competitive. Realistically, one could give out a 1st, 2nd and 3rd price, made out of the combined budget above.
This contest would happen every year. I bet after the 3rd year, one could make out one contestant who would get it done for the best price / performance ratio.
You are the joke! Because you give up. You are the type that accepts that 2+2=5, just because "everyone around" is saying to. (When actually this is not even the case... but soon could be, thanks to people like you.) It takes two sides for such a privacy-free world to exist. The NSA is one of them. You are the other. As the ambassador of that kind of people: Thank you very much, asshole!
P.S.: Q: Another name for "digital privacy". A: "encryption".
Who can string together the largest number of platform layers over each other, and still have it running.
The first league will start in the 2 GB core memory and 2* 2 GHz (dual-core) CPU range with no other processor (like GPU) or storage (like HDD) usage. Every type of platform is only allowed once.
Here is a list of platforms, to get you started: - Emacs - the CPU itself - Virtual machine (e.g. VirtualBox/VMware) - Browser(s) - C/C++ - JavaScript - interpreted Piet - Python - LOLCode - Malbolge
Bonus points for achieving a circle jer^H^H^Hof platforms, so that no actual real program is ever executed.
Slashdot Mirror
I really never heard of them, and their Wikipedia page and website give away nearly the most vague description physically possible. It's just one step away from "We do things. Things that make you go. (On a global vertical enterprise scale.)"
Can someone tell me what this purchase means? What are actual real products they offer?
1. Set up an arbitrary point in time. (E.g. "the advent of modern cryptography", or "the invention of X by NotActualInventorY"R ...
2. Create an article, celebrating the X years since then.
3. Write up a crappy "history". (The crappier, the more "controversy" [aka. "troll power"] it will create.)
4.
5. PROFIT!
Well, as long as there is any way at all to get data out of the country, you can get everything trough that hole. It does not even have to be slow.
If I have to, give me a day, and I set up a TOR router trough a (deliberately misused) obscure low-level protocol like ICMP or BGP.
And if they actually block all communication, my last message will contain a encrypted info, where on the outside of the border to set up a can-amplified wlan router (of course still strongly encrypted), so I can do the same on the inside, and become the master tor gateway to the outside. The first I'll do, is agree on where to put more such gateways.
Sure, this may be very dangerous. But I expect life in such a country to become worse than dead anyway. Why else would they block communication?
I disagree with the assumption that it's "just as easy". In some languages, it's definitely easier to write bad code. PHP is such an example. C/C++ is another one. In PHP it comes with the retardedness of the language. In C/C++ it comes with the freedom.
A good example for a language that has certain things in place to prevent bad coding, is Haskell. Type problems in running code are (except for the external input reader) simply impossible.
And why would you change it? After all: Never change a working system.
You would not go an change anything foundational, if there isn't a reason to do so. What would the reason be in this case?
Maintainability does not really become harder for the same piece of code. Except if you constantly change things. Only the maintainers become more rare. But there is no reason they have to.
Hmm... what about the following solution: Stop changing *anything* in the basic COBOL code. If you change something, do the transformations on a thin layer that you wrap around it. And everything external then only communicates with that layer. Do this, until perhaps some time in the future, when every rule was changed at least once, no usage of the inner COBOL core remains.
You could even add another layer, if the new layer does become too old to change too.
Oh, besides: The decision if the old layer is too old, should be defined as the moment, where the cost and risk of maintaining that old layer becomes higher, than the cost and risk of introducing errors in the new layer. (Which for the above solution is theoretically zero, because you only add new things that would have to change anyway, and never re-implement any well working parts.)
GP uses the old "virtuality is reality" fallacy*. COBOL is not like a train, because it is not exposed to nature/physics. There is no natural disintegration in virtual things. It can lie there for a trillion years, and if the hardware is kept running and backups and error-correction are in place, it will not degrade in a single bit.
Also "surely" is no base for any arguments to put on top of it. :)
___
* The same one that media distribution companies use, to act as if the software on that media would be a real product instead of the result of a service.
You don't get it, do you? That IS the point!
How can humans still be so cowardly to believe otherwise? I mean WTF?
I've seen that happen with FeO+Al too. Went right trough the hood, motor, axle, and into the concrete.
Unfortunately it was not enough to create a new volcano. I could have needed the hideout back then.
Or? There is no or.
Neither. ^^
(I root for me. No exceptions.)
Should have used a functional language like real men then. ;)
Wait for AMD to add Super Pursuit Mode to their next laptop CPU.
[..] it looked like the dead salmon was actually thinking about the pictures it had been shown. ... The result is completely nuts -- [...] as a warning about the dangers of false positives [...]
Looks to me like the dark matter syndrome: "Our theories wrong? Our calculations off by an insane amount? Unpossible! That can never be. Nature must be lying!"
Has anyone even checked if a dead brain can still have flows of energy through its brain? I mean light patterns still reach the retinas, and can still trigger signals, depending on the state of the neurons there. How long was that salmon dead? I know that pigs can be frozen to be clinically dead for long times (90+ minutes), and still be revived without much damage.
I'd at least check if there are actual signals of current going trough the brain (with an OTHER (better) instrument, before dismissing it. Every unchecked assumption is a good chance for flaw in your study. You wouldn't want it to be dismissed by peer review, because of a faulty assumption.
Uum, to be taken even close to serious, it would have to have a scale going from "100% gay" to 100% hetero". With allowing any value in-between.
Also it would make sense, to separate mind and body sexuality onto different scales. And if you want to be fancy, separate the interest to have relationships and the interest in just sex too.
Oversimplification... the oldest disease of human brains. :/
[..] predicting who might be a terrorist to the likelihood a person is happy, fat, liberal, or conservative.
Or? And an exclusive one too! You could as well go to the cave and bang on a piece of wood, "blarg good! wuoargh baad! ughwharrk!". You wouldn't stand out a bit.
Here, in the world of 21st century Homo sapiens sapiens, we aware of simple basic playschool-level facts, like that
1. Every property is a dimension in property space.
2. Every dimension has a gradient. (Possibly quantized on the Planck level of space-time, depending on what theories you believe in.)
3. If the properties are not exactly opposite to each other (making them one dimension with negative values), they are not exactly opposite.
4. The state of every position on every dimension may or may not be relative to any of the other positions of the other dimensions in property space, depending on their orthogonality.
My god, is this that hard to understand?
— Sheldon Cooper
I am a indie game designer, and I'd rather die than enforce DRM on any games I do. I could offer my ideas to EA and then get 10-15 millions right on the table when they accept it! But I rather live poor than give them any rights/saying.
Also I don't thing my colleagues like DRM. After all, file sharing is our number one marketing channel!! So I think the survey is bogus and made up. (E.g. by EA.)
Do I even have to mention, that DRM blocks NOT A SINGLE freeloader!
One creates a crack, tenthousands download it, and millions get helped by their friends to get the games running. There no such thing as the guy who can't get it running if he wants it. It's a myth.
How can the editors pass something like that through? Have they lost their mind? One should sue them for that lie alone!
And we creators get paid for a SERVICE! THERE IS NO PRODUCT called "game". It's a service. Just like music.
So you get a specific amount for your service, and you are done. Every copy is free.
If you want to earn money, you have to EARN (as in DESERVE) it! Offer special physical things like collectors packages. Or a multi-player-server plan with a fair price. (If you keep the profit rather small, those prices usually go to ridiculously low values.)
Is it that hard? MAKE. PEOPLE. HAPPY. So they WANT to thank you.
If they do not want to thank you, you don't deserve shit with your soulless crap wannabe "hollywood plastic fantastic" shallow default batch production run-of-the-mill trash game.
Sorry, but this attitude and propaganda makes me angry. They ruin the real artists' business for all of us.
I second that. But the sound of a huge rolling tank... with a cannon shooting sound as the horn... that also has its appeal.
Same thing for those types.
(Yes, their lawsuit fetish is also very strange to me.)
- Only ONE of all the users can have the maximum speed in the same area. If others use it too, it drops. Which for thousands of users can easily mean a very crappy bandwidth.
- Everyone can access and potentially crack it, without having physical access.
- General pointlessness to replace the wired connection of stationary devices with it because... [HYPEHYPEHYPEHYPESCREAMHYPEBLINGHYPEHYPEHYPE]
For mobile devices it's OK when well encrypted, because you've got no choice. But if you can use cables, their bandwitdh will always be higher, and their connection safer. If only because you can use the full spectrum for yourself alone.
Many Americans could not care less about lives lost, if the objective is the right one.
The best example: American wars. ^^
(Yes, there are still many many sane people in the USA. I just wonder why they haven't thrown the nutjobs out yet. ^^)
I'd recommend changing your reaction to "you're doing it wrong!".
Because the trick is not, to come to you. The trick is, to make you come to them, and offer something so great, that you'll beg to get it. ^^
I recommend putting up a large projection of Compiz an action, giant "Never get Viruses again!" banners, etc.
Make them drool and wish to throw away their Windows.
And give away the Linux DVDs in a "Shop price: $xxx" "Get a free copy! Only today!" booth.
Play music! Add some lights! (But in a way that also drags older people there.)
Offer tasty food that you can smell on the whole street, drinks, sexy babes/men on two elevated platforms, friendly people (to fulfill our basic needs/interests).
Sell merchandising that people can afford to buy just out of impulse and for fun! Stickers, T-Shirts, things you can't get anywhere else.
And add a Linux DVD / open source software DVD to every sale of anything on that booth. Let the sexy people throw the DVDs into the people.
And do it in a place and at a time, where there are enough people to make it work. If nessecary, work out a deal with a local shopping mall, or something similar.
That will give you hype and interest! ^^
You will have 40 year old hockey moms talk to all their friends about that really cute new "Linux" (used as if it were a version of Windows), that they caught, when they were surprised by that hot guy looking at her. She will put the DVD in, it will start, looking really fancy. And when it runs, it throws the full power of beauty and power at them! So that even if they don't understand a thing of it, they will want to learn to have that too.
Unrealistic? Well, the most common reaction I get from girls, when I show them my Linux desktop is: "I want that too! Can you put that on my computer?". QED. ^^
I'd to it in a contest with the pattern:
If you achieve X, you will get NASA's moon budget, plus the 3 billion.
NASA would of course also enter the contest... but not necessarily be competitive.
Realistically, one could give out a 1st, 2nd and 3rd price, made out of the combined budget above.
This contest would happen every year. I bet after the 3rd year, one could make out one contestant who would get it done for the best price / performance ratio.
You are the joke! Because you give up. You are the type that accepts that 2+2=5, just because "everyone around" is saying to. (When actually this is not even the case... but soon could be, thanks to people like you.)
It takes two sides for such a privacy-free world to exist. The NSA is one of them. You are the other.
As the ambassador of that kind of people: Thank you very much, asshole!
P.S.: Q: Another name for "digital privacy". A: "encryption".
In MY USA?
It's more likely than... oh wait...
Oh, I forgot some very important ones:
- PHP
- Typo3's Smarty & others
- Wiki syntax (if possible)
- XSLT
Who can string together the largest number of platform layers over each other, and still have it running.
The first league will start in the 2 GB core memory and 2* 2 GHz (dual-core) CPU range with no other processor (like GPU) or storage (like HDD) usage.
Every type of platform is only allowed once.
Here is a list of platforms, to get you started:
- Emacs
- the CPU itself
- Virtual machine (e.g. VirtualBox/VMware)
- Browser(s)
- C/C++
- JavaScript
- interpreted Piet
- Python
- LOLCode
- Malbolge
Bonus points for achieving a circle jer^H^H^Hof platforms, so that no actual real program is ever executed.