That analogy seems rather stretched... It seems more like Mr A ISP going into the store with a big bag, grabbing a pile of stuff, walking out without paying, ducking into an alley, giving it to an anonymous individual, then when the store refuses to allow Mr A ISP on their property, he says "But I did not steal the goods, I'm just a carrier, you cannot punish me, I was an innocent party getting paid to do it!".
The abstraction does not help the individual to learn how the machine works though. To breed a new generation of actual technically interested kids who understand the lower levels of the machine and how the high level OOP abstractions actually execute on the hardware, I honestly believe you have to start at the other end.
I feel all of my knowledge of creating efficient solutions to problems stems from having learned BASIC, got dragged into assembler through that, back up into C, onto C++ and OOP, then into Java and dynamic languages like Lua.
Doing it the other way around seems to feel somewhat backwards to me, although I would certainly take the point that today's optimizing compilers are incredible, and the ability of high-level languages to create very efficient code in a relatively small amount of code are incredible. Maybe my desire to understand what goes on underneath leads me to program in particular ways that are not always suitable to high level and functional languages?
Of course it makes a difference. You are potentially allowing the site to take as much as they like from your account, whereas by instead logging into the PayPal page, the merchant never has to even know what method you use to authenticate with PayPal and will only provide the amount of funds shown on the payment confirmation page to the merchant.
With the second method, there is no requirement to trust the merchant with anything more than the value of the single transaction, your name and your delivery address
Inherent is fine... it means as a natural consequence of. Desktops are naturally operated by lusers, servers are naturally operated by trained operators.
I think someone is confusing "inherently" with "intrinsically"?
Windows Servers are likely to be operated by server operators, who on average have (a little) more of a clue than Joe Bloggs. Joe boots up Vista, turns off UAC, logs on as an administrator and installs Bonzi Buddy and anything IE asks him to.
It really does not say anything about the operating systems though... considering Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 are pretty much the same thing under the hood, the only real difference is default permissions and running services.
Part of the very nature of Linux and BSD often being more secure is that the operators understand the system and the best practises on how to configure the system.
I'm not sure I see where you jump from the permission to do whatever is necessary to circumvent the protection on a DMCA work to reproducing the a DMCA protection mechanism on a new work. These (sadly) still seem to be very different things in my mind. I'm a European though, so maybe I just don't get it.
I'm not even sure that the EUCD has circumvention provisions yet!:-( I hope someone can enlighten me...
I seem to recall that a large part of the Accolade problem was that including the necessary magic copyright signature in the ROM caused a "Licensed by Sega" screen to appear, which was known to be untrue in this circumstance, so Accolade decided to follow it with a "This product is NOT licensed or endorsed by Sega" screen to undo the effects of the misleading information.
I think you're a lot closer to how the future will go with regards to sandbox gaming.
There should be a lot of cosmetic and insignificant damage, for example the trees in Crysis, but there needs to be a level between destroying the lean-to huts with a single grenade and not being able to even dent the bigger caravan-type military huts.
Hopefully as system ram sizes begin to skyrocket, these issues will disappear. I remember a time where racing games left only a 10 foot tyre track from your car, and now they're permanent for all cars.
Admittedly, I often do too, but as a tangential activity to actually completing the game as originally intended.
I always spend some time exploring the limits of the box when getting a new game! With Prototype and inFamous kicking around at the moment, it's happy times.
I believe this actually is where gaming is going though, to a very real physics model which takes away the feeling of artificial limits.
Where necessary, limits can be placed on the gaming through outside factors, e.g. in a military game, unacceptable civilian deaths leading to failure, or in a GTA type game, the feds arriving. I think to make the experience feel unlimited, these limits need to be applied through such in-game factors, rather than certain skyscrapers being magically indestructible.
It should be easy in most cases to work the story to provide the necessary incentives, say putting one of your side's key characters in the skyscraper with the bad guys, preventing all-out destruction.
There does come a point to enjoyable gaming where we, the players, have to choose to embrace the story, rather than vandalizing the sandbox we are playing in.
I can forgive the banking, as it is due to the ships maneuvering thruster arrangement. They are often depicted as four thrusters (two up, two down) near the front of the ship, and sometimes an opposing four at the back. Firing opposing pairs of thrusters causes roll, firing both up / both down causes pitch, so the only logical way to turn is to bank and then pitch up. This layout saves having another pair of thrusters to allow turning without rolling, plus you only need to account for stress in two directions, rather than three, plus the torsion of the rolling action.
And when all the good sites on the internet have disappeared, the people who made them will be back on business on pay sites taking subscriptions. Better to just get paid directly for quality content, than splitting it with a whole mountain of third parties.
Oh wait, the content isn't so great that people will pay for it? Bummer.
If they take this "simulated shooting causes real shootings" logic further though, surely it means the next step will be to ban violent video games and then movies?
Yeah, you have got me wondering now quite how out of spec you have to be. As you say, if it is all well crimped and terminated, it should be a pretty small ratio even in the worst situation.
I originally mentioned the reflection issue because I did see a real problem with this on some embedded hardware we developed, but it turned out to be the (cheap and nasty) kit at the other end of the cable causing the issue.
Kind of sad I don't have access to the scope we borrowed any more!
Matching it to the frequency is BAD in this situation. The point is that bad termination leads to reflections, and if your cable is a multiple of the wavelength, and you chuck some patterns which happen to repeat down it you can see some effects.
Yes, it depends very much on the bit patterns going down it, the cable length being a close multiple of the wavelength and the termination being poor, but it is not hard to engineer a situation where you can actually see the effect.
As you say, in the real world, with decent termination, no sharp bends in the cable and decent cable you would hope the SnR would always be way on the acceptable side of the line though.
Not quite sure how talking about the characteristics of UTP regarding reception of external noise relates to standing waves on CAT5 cables?
I was just pointing out to the AC above that UTP cables do have different behaviour as you change the length. If you fancy a fun experiment, get a fast enough scope, and some 100M Ethernet kit and see what happens as you change the length of the cable by small increments relative to the wavelength (100MHz = 3m).
I'm well aware of how to crimp CAT5 and how UTP works though, thanks all the same.
You've never come across standing waves on transmission lines?
Yes, your EE theory is all well and good when you have perfect impedance matches.
Welcome to the real world, where standing waves on transmission lines do exist, and you can choose lengths carefully based on the frequency going down it.
Slashdot Mirror
That analogy seems rather stretched... It seems more like Mr A ISP going into the store with a big bag, grabbing a pile of stuff, walking out without paying, ducking into an alley, giving it to an anonymous individual, then when the store refuses to allow Mr A ISP on their property, he says "But I did not steal the goods, I'm just a carrier, you cannot punish me, I was an innocent party getting paid to do it!".
It's too late for the contest, the Apple images for Safari were already staged, so they got to exploit the old version.
Apple took a risk by patching late and obviously misjudged the timing.
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/security/365845/safari-first-to-fall-in-hacking-contest
The abstraction does not help the individual to learn how the machine works though.
To breed a new generation of actual technically interested kids who understand the lower levels of the machine and how the high level OOP abstractions actually execute on the hardware, I honestly believe you have to start at the other end.
I feel all of my knowledge of creating efficient solutions to problems stems from having learned BASIC, got dragged into assembler through that, back up into C, onto C++ and OOP, then into Java and dynamic languages like Lua.
Doing it the other way around seems to feel somewhat backwards to me, although I would certainly take the point that today's optimizing compilers are incredible, and the ability of high-level languages to create very efficient code in a relatively small amount of code are incredible. Maybe my desire to understand what goes on underneath leads me to program in particular ways that are not always suitable to high level and functional languages?
Interestingly along those lines someone has created a low-entry-barrier BASIC type language. Check out http://kidbasic.sourceforge.net/
Of course it makes a difference. You are potentially allowing the site to take as much as they like from your account, whereas by instead logging into the PayPal page, the merchant never has to even know what method you use to authenticate with PayPal and will only provide the amount of funds shown on the payment confirmation page to the merchant.
With the second method, there is no requirement to trust the merchant with anything more than the value of the single transaction, your name and your delivery address
Presumably you can still hit static neutrons with the proton beam?
How can a developer now realistically choose PhysX when they know it would cut their target market by 25%?
They've killed it.
You can probably add Android to that list in a sense, after the recent C&D debacle.
Inherent is fine... it means as a natural consequence of. Desktops are naturally operated by lusers, servers are naturally operated by trained operators.
I think someone is confusing "inherently" with "intrinsically"?
Did I miss the joke?
Windows Servers are likely to be operated by server operators, who on average have (a little) more of a clue than Joe Bloggs.
Joe boots up Vista, turns off UAC, logs on as an administrator and installs Bonzi Buddy and anything IE asks him to.
It really does not say anything about the operating systems though... considering Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 are pretty much the same thing under the hood, the only real difference is default permissions and running services.
Part of the very nature of Linux and BSD often being more secure is that the operators understand the system and the best practises on how to configure the system.
I'm not sure I see where you jump from the permission to do whatever is necessary to circumvent the protection on a DMCA work to reproducing the a DMCA protection mechanism on a new work. These (sadly) still seem to be very different things in my mind. I'm a European though, so maybe I just don't get it.
I'm not even sure that the EUCD has circumvention provisions yet! :-( I hope someone can enlighten me...
I seem to recall that a large part of the Accolade problem was that including the necessary magic copyright signature in the ROM caused a "Licensed by Sega" screen to appear, which was known to be untrue in this circumstance, so Accolade decided to follow it with a "This product is NOT licensed or endorsed by Sega" screen to undo the effects of the misleading information.
I think you're a lot closer to how the future will go with regards to sandbox gaming.
There should be a lot of cosmetic and insignificant damage, for example the trees in Crysis, but there needs to be a level between destroying the lean-to huts with a single grenade and not being able to even dent the bigger caravan-type military huts.
Hopefully as system ram sizes begin to skyrocket, these issues will disappear. I remember a time where racing games left only a 10 foot tyre track from your car, and now they're permanent for all cars.
Yet the applied rotation accompanied by the lack of initial lack of gravity until the turn itself begins does not spill your tea?
Nice idea though! Mmm, Earl Grey...
Admittedly, I often do too, but as a tangential activity to actually completing the game as originally intended.
I always spend some time exploring the limits of the box when getting a new game! With Prototype and inFamous kicking around at the moment, it's happy times.
I believe this actually is where gaming is going though, to a very real physics model which takes away the feeling of artificial limits.
Where necessary, limits can be placed on the gaming through outside factors, e.g. in a military game, unacceptable civilian deaths leading to failure, or in a GTA type game, the feds arriving.
I think to make the experience feel unlimited, these limits need to be applied through such in-game factors, rather than certain skyscrapers being magically indestructible.
It should be easy in most cases to work the story to provide the necessary incentives, say putting one of your side's key characters in the skyscraper with the bad guys, preventing all-out destruction.
There does come a point to enjoyable gaming where we, the players, have to choose to embrace the story, rather than vandalizing the sandbox we are playing in.
I can forgive the banking, as it is due to the ships maneuvering thruster arrangement. They are often depicted as four thrusters (two up, two down) near the front of the ship, and sometimes an opposing four at the back.
Firing opposing pairs of thrusters causes roll, firing both up / both down causes pitch, so the only logical way to turn is to bank and then pitch up.
This layout saves having another pair of thrusters to allow turning without rolling, plus you only need to account for stress in two directions, rather than three, plus the torsion of the rolling action.
Out of interest, what do you think the "Subscribe" button is for?
And when all the good sites on the internet have disappeared, the people who made them will be back on business on pay sites taking subscriptions.
Better to just get paid directly for quality content, than splitting it with a whole mountain of third parties.
Oh wait, the content isn't so great that people will pay for it? Bummer.
If they take this "simulated shooting causes real shootings" logic further though, surely it means the next step will be to ban violent video games and then movies?
Surely your first thought was "can I hack it to run my own code?"
Yeah, you have got me wondering now quite how out of spec you have to be. As you say, if it is all well crimped and terminated, it should be a pretty small ratio even in the worst situation.
I originally mentioned the reflection issue because I did see a real problem with this on some embedded hardware we developed, but it turned out to be the (cheap and nasty) kit at the other end of the cable causing the issue.
Kind of sad I don't have access to the scope we borrowed any more!
Matching it to the frequency is BAD in this situation. The point is that bad termination leads to reflections, and if your cable is a multiple of the wavelength, and you chuck some patterns which happen to repeat down it you can see some effects.
Yes, it depends very much on the bit patterns going down it, the cable length being a close multiple of the wavelength and the termination being poor, but it is not hard to engineer a situation where you can actually see the effect.
As you say, in the real world, with decent termination, no sharp bends in the cable and decent cable you would hope the SnR would always be way on the acceptable side of the line though.
Not quite sure how talking about the characteristics of UTP regarding reception of external noise relates to standing waves on CAT5 cables?
I was just pointing out to the AC above that UTP cables do have different behaviour as you change the length. If you fancy a fun experiment, get a fast enough scope, and some 100M Ethernet kit and see what happens as you change the length of the cable by small increments relative to the wavelength (100MHz = 3m).
I'm well aware of how to crimp CAT5 and how UTP works though, thanks all the same.
You've never come across standing waves on transmission lines?
Yes, your EE theory is all well and good when you have perfect impedance matches.
Welcome to the real world, where standing waves on transmission lines do exist, and you can choose lengths carefully based on the frequency going down it.