The EVE UI might not be to your taste, but you can't say it isn't complete.
Considering the nature of the corporation-based gameplay, desktop metaphor works really well. It is actually configured very much the same way as I have my fluxbox install, so the whole thing is pretty seamless and feels very natural.
Sure, it takes a month (or three) of use before you get the most out of it, but it really is user-friendly. (in the vi sense, not the notepad sense)
Having said that, an open-source client would rock!
Not exactly, but a trained fighter is not allowed to use their training against a normal slob as it is deemed "unreasonable force". Like bringing a gun to a knife fight. So the definition is close.
Lets not mix-up bad password policy with bad passwords.
I don't give a toss what passwords my users might choose - or what malware they might happen to install for that matter. You will never stop them from doing the stupid things, so just setup the network under the assumption that they cannot be trusted and let them knock themselves out.
On the other hand, for critical systems under my direct control, strong passwords will always be used - policy or no.
The problem is that policy has come to be seen as a security measure in and of itself. This is completely ass backwards. Policy is only really effective at reducing support costs by minimizing the speed at which users bork their systems
Passwords that are too weak of course invite brute-force attacks. However, we find that relatively weak passwords, about 20 bits or so, are sufficient to make brute-force attacks on a single account unrealistic so long as a "three strikes" type rule is in place.
This may be statistically true, but isn't it missing the point of defense-in-depth? Why rely on three-strikes to catch brute force attempts, when you can also have a password that resists brute force in the first place.
You've missed my point, for an enthusiast in any field it is not about what you need. Anyway, there is plenty of non-trival stuff that requires powerful hardware.
Processing text could be done instantly on a 386/33 mhz machine
Hacking conf files is not text processing. Try using your vintage machine to process 10s or 100s of GB of logs a day and get back to me.
This isn't just satnav. I don't know many people who can remember how they got somewhere just after they drove with somebody dictating directions. My theory is that "left here... second right..." kind of directions turns off (or reduces the need for) the area of the brain that would normally be tracking where you actually are in relation to where you are actually going.
You're experience is hardly a citation either - but who cares? we ain't compiling an encyclopedia here.
Anyway, in my experience most people using Windows are on 32bit, where as everyone I know on Linux are on 64bit.
The maturation of 64bit software on Linux is such that the only reason not to use it is that you don't have a 64bit machine. And, at least in the circles I move, if you are a big enough geek to run Linux, you are enough of an enthusiast to have upgraded your machine in the last 4 years.
* Security and accountability
* Successful sexual harassment suits have been brought because a female employee happened to see porn on a co-workers screen.
* To keep you working while at work instead of goofing off.
Reasons manangement won't care who's pipe you are using to browse "adult stuff"
I'm Linux-exclusive too, and I don't give a toss how many people use it. So long as there is a big enough community to keep it progressing (and there is) then we only need enough new users to offset the old guard dropping dead.
But thanks to their abusive monopoly, MS affects everyone - even those that take steps to NOT use their products. This is why I think a lot of enthusiasts push Linux, not because they want to see more Linux users, but so they see less Windows users.
Previous virtualization systems did not require processor virtualization extensions to function.
Actually, yes they kind of did. Before VT extensions the guest OS needed to be aware of the fact that it was not running on bare metal. Various hacks by VMWare and Xen (NT kernel hacks, funny drivers, etc) made it possible to run XP as a guest but it wasn't pretty. (or even legally available in Xen's case).
VT made it possible to run unmodified operating systems as a guest - and generally on any arbitrary host OS you feel like - greatly increasing the utility and stability of VMs.
I never expected for a second that XP-mode would run on non-VT hardware. It would just look bad to the point of not worth supporting, like trying to do modern 3D in software. Windows-7 wont be running on many non-VT chips anyway, so it is really no big deal.
...resolution of 1920x1200 or below. Since so few PC gamers have screens larger than that...
This seems like a perfectly reasonable statement to me. Size in this context is refers to the amount of screen real-estate you have, - how much stuff you can display.
Your desktop size is unrelated to the physical size of your screen. Most people would agree that 1024x768 is bigger then 640x480.
Or you could just share your videos via samba and watch them with XBMC on the original xbox - this has worked great for years.
The fact that this is news shows exactly how broken closed source platforms are. The only reason this is not already possible is because you are not in contol of hardware that you own.
Nearly all of the significant improvements to security we are talking about here are implemented by the sys admin and are completely transparent to users.
The only change that I can think of which the users need to be aware is using a different port - hardly strip searching people at the airport is it?
Look up defense-in-depth and the reasons it is used. Encrypted keys may be the strongest link in the chain, but if they are the only defense you have then you are SOL the instant a vulnerability is discovered.
Why would you sit back after implementing private key access without any further consideration to the other techniques for making ssh even safer? For home servers this is probably sufficient, but if it is your job to secure systems then this would be negligence - possibly criminally so, depending on the industry you support.
No its not. Disabling root logins means the attacker has to brute force the username as well as the password, thus increasing the chances of the attack failing by a power of two. In actuality it is even more effective, as the attacker will usually try "root" and move on.
Same rationale exists on Windows. If you don't rename the "Administrator" account on setup, (or create a new admin account with a different name and delete the old one if you have a pre-installed box) you are asking for a world of hurt.
Even routers should have the default admin username changed, this is pretty elementary stuff.
For the love of God - please stop with the font tags! I'll defend to the death (figuratively) your right to say whatever you like, but not your right to use small, ugly fonts to do it!
Sure, but a law that is so broadly defined that it targets everybody does society no good at all.
If the aim is to hit child molesters, then the law should target child molesters - not the people who produce/buy graphic novels, or any other art forms not understood by politicians.
Seeing as you ask in all honesty, I will counter - Did you really believe that real fundamental change was ever on the table?
Politicians say whatever it takes to move their agenda forward. Hundreds - no, thousands of years of recorded history bear this out. Only the most naive of voters believed that real change would come about. Did you believe that Obama would single-handedly put an end to all of America's problems? Did you believe that he even wanted to? After all, he would have to dismantle the very system that gave him power in the first place
Obama just made the right noises, and truthfully, he would have to try REALLY hard to do a worse job than the last mob. But at the end of the day, it was always going to be business as usual in Washington - nothing short of a full blown revolution will change that now.
Why are you carrying on about this? Sure, different 'races' have ever-so-slightly different characteristics, but do you think that actually matters?
Many individuals don't fit in the middle of the bell curve, as you pointed out. So what is the point of having these profiles if they cannot be used to judge an individual? The only purpose they serve is to support bias and intellectual racism.
THAT is why so many find the ideas that you are peddling repugnant. It doesn't matter how statically correct you are, you are either: A) unsocially rational, or B) a closet racist. Either way it can be very distressing and/or destructive to the people that have to listen to you.
HOTU? Isn't that defunct now? Regardless, I would rather support GOG. Their releases are a massive improvement over the original, DRM free and a highly streamlined install process. Shits all over Steam and is actually a pleasure to use.
In the last few months I have bought more games from them then I have bought going back 8-10 years. I encourage everyone who talks the talk on/. to walk the walk and support this company. I hope they do well and have a real impact on the industry.
[I am just a happy customer, and not in anyway affiliated with GOG]
I just discovered the FreeSpace Open project, its not Starwars, but with the beam weapons and laser fire and HEAPS of shit going on at once it often reminds me of the epic Reaver space battle in Serenity
Get the original game files from GOG for $5.95 then upgrade to the open-sourced engine with modern resolutions and stunning effects.
There is even a Starwars full conversion in progress. The models being created look amazing - they could almost be used to make a film - and one of the aims is to make it "look and play like the Battle of Endor" how cool it that!
Sci-fi existing as a warning is just a writer's slogan to write depressing stuff, its easier to imagine how things could wrong more than it is to contemplate how things could be right.
No, no, you miss my point. I'm not talking about stuff that is dark just to be edgy - there is plenty of that I agree. And I don't mean SF that portrays humanity as doomed or hopeless. I mean an uplifting dystopian vision;)
You know, the road ahead is hard, but if we put the shoulder to the wheel we might just get by kind of dark. Hard SF often portrays past/present/future as the same thing, where at any point a fork in the river could take us to oblivion or to nirvana - all we need is the foresight to know which way to take before we get there. I believe that kind of message has far more to offer then the classic Trek theme - technology and heroism saves the day again!
As a boy I loved Kirk and Spock too. I also loved characters like Superman and the Phantom, but they got pretty dull when I got older and realized that the world is not about sides (Federation VS Klingon; shesh, how transparent is that!).
Shades of grey, ambiguity, and personal - not external - struggles reflect life, and are far more interesting. This is why I stick to mostly SF of the anime flavor these days (and I still love the Batman!)
And frankly, I'm sick of all the darkness in present science fiction. Science is advancing more all the time and if there was ever a time for optimism based on a scientific society, NOW is it. Humanity can improve, and will improve, and having a series that reminds us of what our future could be, if we chose to do it, and reminds us of our ongoing moral obligations, is a damned fine thing.
I really don't know about all that, I can't recall a real 'Hard' SF show. Ever. Technology can improve, will improve, but there is no guarantee that humans will. It is not the job of SF to coddle us and tell us that the future is rosy. It should say "Look at this! you don't want the future to look like this do you? This is where we are headed!"
Slashdot Mirror
The EVE UI might not be to your taste, but you can't say it isn't complete.
Considering the nature of the corporation-based gameplay, desktop metaphor works really well. It is actually configured very much the same way as I have my fluxbox install, so the whole thing is pretty seamless and feels very natural.
Sure, it takes a month (or three) of use before you get the most out of it, but it really is user-friendly. (in the vi sense, not the notepad sense)
Having said that, an open-source client would rock!
Not exactly, but a trained fighter is not allowed to use their training against a normal slob as it is deemed "unreasonable force". Like bringing a gun to a knife fight. So the definition is close.
Lets not mix-up bad password policy with bad passwords.
I don't give a toss what passwords my users might choose - or what malware they might happen to install for that matter. You will never stop them from doing the stupid things, so just setup the network under the assumption that they cannot be trusted and let them knock themselves out.
On the other hand, for critical systems under my direct control, strong passwords will always be used - policy or no.
The problem is that policy has come to be seen as a security measure in and of itself. This is completely ass backwards. Policy is only really effective at reducing support costs by minimizing the speed at which users bork their systems
Passwords that are too weak of course invite brute-force attacks. However, we find that relatively weak passwords, about 20 bits or so, are sufficient to make brute-force attacks on a single account unrealistic so long as a "three strikes" type rule is in place.
This may be statistically true, but isn't it missing the point of defense-in-depth? Why rely on three-strikes to catch brute force attempts, when you can also have a password that resists brute force in the first place.
Processing text could be done instantly on a 386/33 mhz machine
Hacking conf files is not text processing. Try using your vintage machine to process 10s or 100s of GB of logs a day and get back to me.
This isn't just satnav. I don't know many people who can remember how they got somewhere just after they drove with somebody dictating directions. My theory is that "left here... second right..." kind of directions turns off (or reduces the need for) the area of the brain that would normally be tracking where you actually are in relation to where you are actually going.
You're experience is hardly a citation either - but who cares? we ain't compiling an encyclopedia here.
Anyway, in my experience most people using Windows are on 32bit, where as everyone I know on Linux are on 64bit.
The maturation of 64bit software on Linux is such that the only reason not to use it is that you don't have a 64bit machine. And, at least in the circles I move, if you are a big enough geek to run Linux, you are enough of an enthusiast to have upgraded your machine in the last 4 years.
Main reasons for an acceptable use policy:
* Security and accountability
* Successful sexual harassment suits have been brought because a female employee happened to see porn on a co-workers screen.
* To keep you working while at work instead of goofing off.
Reasons manangement won't care who's pipe you are using to browse "adult stuff"
* See above
I'm Linux-exclusive too, and I don't give a toss how many people use it. So long as there is a big enough community to keep it progressing (and there is) then we only need enough new users to offset the old guard dropping dead.
But thanks to their abusive monopoly, MS affects everyone - even those that take steps to NOT use their products. This is why I think a lot of enthusiasts push Linux, not because they want to see more Linux users, but so they see less Windows users.
Previous virtualization systems did not require processor virtualization extensions to function.
Actually, yes they kind of did. Before VT extensions the guest OS needed to be aware of the fact that it was not running on bare metal. Various hacks by VMWare and Xen (NT kernel hacks, funny drivers, etc) made it possible to run XP as a guest but it wasn't pretty. (or even legally available in Xen's case).
VT made it possible to run unmodified operating systems as a guest - and generally on any arbitrary host OS you feel like - greatly increasing the utility and stability of VMs.
I never expected for a second that XP-mode would run on non-VT hardware. It would just look bad to the point of not worth supporting, like trying to do modern 3D in software. Windows-7 wont be running on many non-VT chips anyway, so it is really no big deal.
...resolution of 1920x1200 or below. Since so few PC gamers have screens larger than that...
This seems like a perfectly reasonable statement to me. Size in this context is refers to the amount of screen real-estate you have, - how much stuff you can display.
Your desktop size is unrelated to the physical size of your screen. Most people would agree that 1024x768 is bigger then 640x480.
Or you could just share your videos via samba and watch them with XBMC on the original xbox - this has worked great for years.
The fact that this is news shows exactly how broken closed source platforms are. The only reason this is not already possible is because you are not in contol of hardware that you own.
Nearly all of the significant improvements to security we are talking about here are implemented by the sys admin and are completely transparent to users.
The only change that I can think of which the users need to be aware is using a different port - hardly strip searching people at the airport is it?
Look up defense-in-depth and the reasons it is used. Encrypted keys may be the strongest link in the chain, but if they are the only defense you have then you are SOL the instant a vulnerability is discovered.
Why would you sit back after implementing private key access without any further consideration to the other techniques for making ssh even safer? For home servers this is probably sufficient, but if it is your job to secure systems then this would be negligence - possibly criminally so, depending on the industry you support.
No its not. Disabling root logins means the attacker has to brute force the username as well as the password, thus increasing the chances of the attack failing by a power of two. In actuality it is even more effective, as the attacker will usually try "root" and move on.
Same rationale exists on Windows. If you don't rename the "Administrator" account on setup, (or create a new admin account with a different name and delete the old one if you have a pre-installed box) you are asking for a world of hurt.
Even routers should have the default admin username changed, this is pretty elementary stuff.
For the love of God - please stop with the font tags! I'll defend to the death (figuratively) your right to say whatever you like, but not your right to use small, ugly fonts to do it!
Theft deprives the owner of use
Exactly so. The only theft that occurs in the Securom situation is perpetrated by EA on its own customers. Securom should be illegal.
Sure, but a law that is so broadly defined that it targets everybody does society no good at all.
If the aim is to hit child molesters, then the law should target child molesters - not the people who produce/buy graphic novels, or any other art forms not understood by politicians.
Seeing as you ask in all honesty, I will counter - Did you really believe that real fundamental change was ever on the table?
Politicians say whatever it takes to move their agenda forward. Hundreds - no, thousands of years of recorded history bear this out. Only the most naive of voters believed that real change would come about. Did you believe that Obama would single-handedly put an end to all of America's problems? Did you believe that he even wanted to? After all, he would have to dismantle the very system that gave him power in the first place
Obama just made the right noises, and truthfully, he would have to try REALLY hard to do a worse job than the last mob. But at the end of the day, it was always going to be business as usual in Washington - nothing short of a full blown revolution will change that now.
The OS partition you are thinking of is 'root' or '/' - not '/root'.
Its an easy mistake to make, and one that Aigarius was having some fun with.
Why are you carrying on about this? Sure, different 'races' have ever-so-slightly different characteristics, but do you think that actually matters?
Many individuals don't fit in the middle of the bell curve, as you pointed out. So what is the point of having these profiles if they cannot be used to judge an individual? The only purpose they serve is to support bias and intellectual racism.
THAT is why so many find the ideas that you are peddling repugnant. It doesn't matter how statically correct you are, you are either: A) unsocially rational, or B) a closet racist. Either way it can be very distressing and/or destructive to the people that have to listen to you.
HOTU? Isn't that defunct now? Regardless, I would rather support GOG. Their releases are a massive improvement over the original, DRM free and a highly streamlined install process. Shits all over Steam and is actually a pleasure to use.
In the last few months I have bought more games from them then I have bought going back 8-10 years. I encourage everyone who talks the talk on /. to walk the walk and support this company. I hope they do well and have a real impact on the industry.
[I am just a happy customer, and not in anyway affiliated with GOG]
I just discovered the FreeSpace Open project, its not Starwars, but with the beam weapons and laser fire and HEAPS of shit going on at once it often reminds me of the epic Reaver space battle in Serenity
Get the original game files from GOG for $5.95 then upgrade to the open-sourced engine with modern resolutions and stunning effects.
There is even a Starwars full conversion in progress. The models being created look amazing - they could almost be used to make a film - and one of the aims is to make it "look and play like the Battle of Endor" how cool it that!
Sci-fi existing as a warning is just a writer's slogan to write depressing stuff, its easier to imagine how things could wrong more than it is to contemplate how things could be right.
No, no, you miss my point. I'm not talking about stuff that is dark just to be edgy - there is plenty of that I agree. And I don't mean SF that portrays humanity as doomed or hopeless. I mean an uplifting dystopian vision ;)
You know, the road ahead is hard, but if we put the shoulder to the wheel we might just get by kind of dark. Hard SF often portrays past/present/future as the same thing, where at any point a fork in the river could take us to oblivion or to nirvana - all we need is the foresight to know which way to take before we get there. I believe that kind of message has far more to offer then the classic Trek theme - technology and heroism saves the day again!
As a boy I loved Kirk and Spock too. I also loved characters like Superman and the Phantom, but they got pretty dull when I got older and realized that the world is not about sides (Federation VS Klingon; shesh, how transparent is that!).
Shades of grey, ambiguity, and personal - not external - struggles reflect life, and are far more interesting. This is why I stick to mostly SF of the anime flavor these days (and I still love the Batman!)
And frankly, I'm sick of all the darkness in present science fiction. Science is advancing more all the time and if there was ever a time for optimism based on a scientific society, NOW is it. Humanity can improve, and will improve, and having a series that reminds us of what our future could be, if we chose to do it, and reminds us of our ongoing moral obligations, is a damned fine thing.
I really don't know about all that, I can't recall a real 'Hard' SF show. Ever. Technology can improve, will improve, but there is no guarantee that humans will. It is not the job of SF to coddle us and tell us that the future is rosy. It should say "Look at this! you don't want the future to look like this do you? This is where we are headed!"