Most that illegally copy software never would've bought it in the first place.
But you're still getting entertainment. If you didn't give them your bucks to be entertained, you'd probably have given them to someone else. So you're still taking something you're not entitled to and you're still ripping the entertainment industries off.
So programmer tools should automate the process according to best practices. Leaving it voluntary is no longer an acceptable risk.
Really? So how do you do the key management, then? Unencrypted private key? Or should the background process need to prompt for a password? Or should the password be provided on the compile line? Or left in memory? How do you stop a malicious attacker highjacking your session and generating a signed trojan with your compiler?
Is the CPU overhead signing everything worth it? Aren't you opening yourself up to theoretical attacks if the enemy can get hold of the hundreds of signatures you autogenerate that you don't really care about?
Not to sound like a miserable bastard, but exactly which of these are supposed to be funny? This article is really lame, uninformative and about as funny as colon cancer.
Yeah, they're only "sneer at someone else's misfortune" funny. Taco's alpha driver beat the lot - at least that made me smile.
"User reinstalls, forgets to back up, loses all their baby photos!" Hilarious. Not.
Also, the link for page two seems to keep taking me back to the first page in Firefox.
Dupe...and 12 minutes before the next article was posted.
Dupe of what?
The last article (as linked in this one's summary, BTW!) was an announcement. This is a review.
(your sig: Content Management System: A pretentious way of saying "text editor." "multi-document text editor with concurrent user support, version control and access control" you mean.)
Oh, OK. Yep, I didn't know about that - I knew the Gamecube was really only 32-bit so I assumed the N64 wasn't actually 64-bits since it's a generation back. But wikipedia says it is.
And I mean the CPU registers. When consoles marketeers claim they're 64-bit or 128-bit they mean ALU registers or vector unit, which is like saying the Pentium 3 was a 128-bit processor because it has MMX.
The Gamecube is 32-bit PPC. The Xbox is 32-bit P3. The PS2 is 32-bit MIPS.
Before the flood of jokes start, I'd like to ask those of you who are MSCP (I know you're out there) how difficult is it to get that certification? Is this really a child prodigy, or are the questions ultra simple?
As a whole, they're pretty easy - someone half-way bright could cram for them.
The summary does her down, BTW; it says she's MCP, which means passed any one exam, including some piss-takingly simple ones on the administration tracks, whereas she's actually got MCAD which means she's passed a number of developer exams. Yes, some of those are just cram windows features but one of those, the architecture one, actually needs some experience and thought. Or at least it did back in my day when the exam was new - maybe there's "here's all the answers" books for that too now.
In 50 years will chess club be dominated by nerds who know how to build computers and write software or by the humans who take the time to learn the game?
But the exercise here is the evolution of chess algorithms, and to produce a more natural opponent. You could draw parallels with the advancement of sport science to improve athletic performance over time - we're building better training aids.
(But let's not get carried away with the analogy: anyone who says chess is a sport is an ass.)
The time to get scared is when a 'thinking' computer chess program does it all for scratch from the first move.
From the FAQ here,
The Hydra opening book is very short. Typically 10 moves. After 10 moves we let the monster from the leash and rely on the playing strength of the program.
which is probably less than a serious chess player will have, albeit broader.
He does in his reply to himself above. You can't have missed it?
Take a look at the Linpack scores of the Top 500 supercomputer list. It's one of the fairest comparisons around, every processor optimised to the max, done by professional CS people proving only they're machine.
That's floating-point performance. He quoted SPECint which integer performance. The Opteron does indeed thrash most things on integer performance, the G5 included. Most operations you'll do on your desktop are integer-based unless you're into heavy CAD or image manipulation.
Agreed, the Opteron's floating point is weak - if you want floating-point perfomance with x86 then buy Intel - although I'd have expected better than that if you're using SSE instead of the FPU.
As usual, an AC tries to carck jokes at something they obviously failed to grasp.
Can't we just stop the AC posting all together?
Well, my user ID has initials "AC" but you'll see I'm actually signed in:-p
And how's about this for grasping it, then: yes, it's pretty easy to use micro-variances in wave timing to cause sound blackspots and focal points. It's called "interference", you'll cover it high-school physics. The problem is that it's even more focused directionally than the 10% this screen allows you, and it also's tuned to a specific distance. (In previous implementations, e.g. QSound in some older SoundBlasters, they got around this by making it headphone-only.) If you want stereo, you'll have to generate two separate sound focuses the wide of a human head apart! So the user will have to keep absolutely still, so unless you equip everyone with head-positioning devices it's practically useless. And in that case you might as well give them all headphones.
Now if they could just figure out a way so that only certain sounds would only be heard by you, this would totally rock.
Oh my God, you've given me the most marvellous idea! Why not make tiny speakers, no more that a third of an inch across, that people can put *directly into their own ears*? That way, if you get the volume right, they'll get their own totally individual audio experience which no-one else in the room can really hear!
Yes, I think we're onto a winner here! Must run to the patent office!
On Unix keyboards, the Control and Caps Lock are swapped. I actually find it a bit more comfortable, but many people are used to the PC keyboard design.
what, you've mapped all your "CTRL+", "CTRL+ALT+", "CTRL+ALT+SHIFT+", "CTRL+ALT+SHIFT+FN+" combinations already and need even more special keys?
No, sure. I wanted keyboard gymnastics I could use windows+r, "calc", return. But that's not the point - I've got a calculator key, I like it, and I'd prefer to keep it thanks very much.
Personally, I would never buy a keyboard that has an "email key", that's what keybindings are for. I would question the build and design quality of a keyboard that relies on extra keys to get me to hand over the cash.
Well you could just ignore them:-p I ignore most of them.
I really don't see how an extra row of keys compromises build quality, though (!). Sure, if it had double the keys at the same price point but I don't see that happening. And I am willing to pay for premium stuff.
Re:Calculator key?
on
Blank Keyboard
·
· Score: 2, Informative
special keys are so last year. get a real OS with a Dashboard so you can have a key for a calculator or anything else.
Uh, even Windows can map keys. Like I said, I *don't want* to lose another key by mapping it to calculator.
Nowadays keyboards come with an extra row of buttons along the top: email, internet, volume and so forth. The mute key is pretty useful but the real piece of genius is the calculator key.
I don't care how funky your keyboard is: if you don't have a calculator key I'm not buying it. I'm used to it and I've come to expect it. Five years ago, sure, but get with the program. I'm not willing to remap and lose a regular key.
No, no, no! It should be part of the OS. If I buy an OS and it is vulnerable to viruses, it is a flaw in the OS's design. Why do I have to pay extra to make my machine usable?
Any OS that can run user code will be vulnerable. Or are you advocating TCPA?
Re:Its only the bad things we head about?
on
Safari vs. KHTML
·
· Score: 1
The only 'hoops' we have asked for is that they give us some form of vcs (version control) logs rather than just a single 60MB dump:(
Someone else said the patch difference was 6MB.
How about you carve that up into 1000 chunks, throw up a quick bugzilla (or similar) with a bug for each chunk and get it on slashdot as a 'put up or shut up'?
Folks can assign themselves chunks of the patch to try and understand and explain in the database, then you can come along and apply the well-understood hunks to your own codebase.
The problem with exposing internal VCS is that it can contain commercially sensitive information in code comments or logs (e.g. "fixed this for customer X"). We don't give our code partners access to our VCS.
Slashdot Mirror
So you're still taking something you're not entitled to and you're still ripping the entertainment industries off.
Actually given this thread started off about pedantry, I guess I should have said "you're still enjoying" or "you're still consuming".
Most that illegally copy software never would've bought it in the first place.
But you're still getting entertainment. If you didn't give them your bucks to be entertained, you'd probably have given them to someone else. So you're still taking something you're not entitled to and you're still ripping the entertainment industries off.
So programmer tools should automate the process according to best practices. Leaving it voluntary is no longer an acceptable risk.
Really? So how do you do the key management, then? Unencrypted private key? Or should the background process need to prompt for a password? Or should the password be provided on the compile line? Or left in memory? How do you stop a malicious attacker highjacking your session and generating a signed trojan with your compiler?
Is the CPU overhead signing everything worth it? Aren't you opening yourself up to theoretical attacks if the enemy can get hold of the hundreds of signatures you autogenerate that you don't really care about?
Not to sound like a miserable bastard, but exactly which of these are supposed to be funny? This article is really lame, uninformative and about as funny as colon cancer.
Yeah, they're only "sneer at someone else's misfortune" funny. Taco's alpha driver beat the lot - at least that made me smile.
"User reinstalls, forgets to back up, loses all their baby photos!" Hilarious. Not.
Also, the link for page two seems to keep taking me back to the first page in Firefox.
Yeah, you need the "read more" link below that.
Dupe...and 12 minutes before the next article was posted.
Dupe of what?
The last article (as linked in this one's summary, BTW!) was an announcement. This is a review.
(your sig:
Content Management System: A pretentious way of saying "text editor."
"multi-document text editor with concurrent user support, version control and access control" you mean.)
Nintendo 64!
Oh, OK. Yep, I didn't know about that - I knew the Gamecube was really only 32-bit so I assumed the N64 wasn't actually 64-bits since it's a generation back. But wikipedia says it is.
Let's not even talk about games consoles
Uh, why, which one's 64-bit?
And I mean the CPU registers. When consoles marketeers claim they're 64-bit or 128-bit they mean ALU registers or vector unit, which is like saying the Pentium 3 was a 128-bit processor because it has MMX.
The Gamecube is 32-bit PPC. The Xbox is 32-bit P3. The PS2 is 32-bit MIPS.
Yes, some of those are just cram windows features but one of those, the architecture one, actually needs some experience and thought.
D'oh, showing my ignorance of these new-fangled exam tracks.
Actually, the that exam isn't needed for MCAD, just MCSD.
So yeah, the ones she has are pretty much cram-for exams.
an MCP has completed a single OS exam, most likely a workstation one. I think a lot of 9 year old kids could do this.
RTFA not the summary. She has MCAD, that's APPLICATION DEVELOPER.
Before the flood of jokes start, I'd like to ask those of you who are MSCP (I know you're out there) how difficult is it to get that certification? Is this really a child prodigy, or are the questions ultra simple?
As a whole, they're pretty easy - someone half-way bright could cram for them.
The summary does her down, BTW; it says she's MCP, which means passed any one exam, including some piss-takingly simple ones on the administration tracks, whereas she's actually got MCAD which means she's passed a number of developer exams. Yes, some of those are just cram windows features but one of those, the architecture one, actually needs some experience and thought. Or at least it did back in my day when the exam was new - maybe there's "here's all the answers" books for that too now.
-- a VC++ 6 MCSD.
In 50 years will chess club be dominated by nerds who know how to build computers and write software or by the humans who take the time to learn the game?
But the exercise here is the evolution of chess algorithms, and to produce a more natural opponent. You could draw parallels with the advancement of sport science to improve athletic performance over time - we're building better training aids.
(But let's not get carried away with the analogy: anyone who says chess is a sport is an ass.)
From the FAQ here,which is probably less than a serious chess player will have, albeit broader.
You don't spec where you got these SPEC figures.
He does in his reply to himself above. You can't have missed it?
Take a look at the Linpack scores of the Top 500 supercomputer list. It's one of the fairest comparisons around, every processor optimised to the max, done by professional CS people proving only they're machine.
That's floating-point performance. He quoted SPECint which integer performance. The Opteron does indeed thrash most things on integer performance, the G5 included. Most operations you'll do on your desktop are integer-based unless you're into heavy CAD or image manipulation.
Agreed, the Opteron's floating point is weak - if you want floating-point perfomance with x86 then buy Intel - although I'd have expected better than that if you're using SSE instead of the FPU.
As usual, an AC tries to carck jokes at something they obviously failed to grasp.
:-p
Can't we just stop the AC posting all together?
Well, my user ID has initials "AC" but you'll see I'm actually signed in
And how's about this for grasping it, then: yes, it's pretty easy to use micro-variances in wave timing to cause sound blackspots and focal points. It's called "interference", you'll cover it high-school physics. The problem is that it's even more focused directionally than the 10% this screen allows you, and it also's tuned to a specific distance. (In previous implementations, e.g. QSound in some older SoundBlasters, they got around this by making it headphone-only.) If you want stereo, you'll have to generate two separate sound focuses the wide of a human head apart! So the user will have to keep absolutely still, so unless you equip everyone with head-positioning devices it's practically useless. And in that case you might as well give them all headphones.
Now if they could just figure out a way so that only certain sounds would only be heard by you, this would totally rock.
Oh my God, you've given me the most marvellous idea! Why not make tiny speakers, no more that a third of an inch across, that people can put *directly into their own ears*? That way, if you get the volume right, they'll get their own totally individual audio experience which no-one else in the room can really hear!
Yes, I think we're onto a winner here! Must run to the patent office!
On Unix keyboards, the Control and Caps Lock are swapped. I actually find it a bit more comfortable, but many people are used to the PC keyboard design.
Actually, Windows lets you swap caps lock and ctrl if you prefer that.
Give me your adress, I'll send you 2 bucks to buy an actual calculator.
Oh, I can afford two bucks but thanks for the offer! I'll settle for a recommendation of a calculator I can copy/paste into the windows clipboard?
what, you've mapped all your "CTRL+", "CTRL+ALT+", "CTRL+ALT+SHIFT+", "CTRL+ALT+SHIFT+FN+" combinations already and need even more special keys?
No, sure. I wanted keyboard gymnastics I could use windows+r, "calc", return. But that's not the point - I've got a calculator key, I like it, and I'd prefer to keep it thanks very much.
Real geeks use a sliderule.
:-)
Heh
Yes, I was half expecting someone to tell me to get an HP-graphing-ultracalc.
Personally, I would never buy a keyboard that has an "email key", that's what keybindings are for. I would question the build and design quality of a keyboard that relies on extra keys to get me to hand over the cash.
:-p I ignore most of them.
Well you could just ignore them
I really don't see how an extra row of keys compromises build quality, though (!). Sure, if it had double the keys at the same price point but I don't see that happening. And I am willing to pay for premium stuff.
special keys are so last year. get a real OS with a Dashboard so you can have a key for a calculator or anything else.
Uh, even Windows can map keys. Like I said, I *don't want* to lose another key by mapping it to calculator.
Nowadays keyboards come with an extra row of buttons along the top: email, internet, volume and so forth. The mute key is pretty useful but the real piece of genius is the calculator key.
I don't care how funky your keyboard is: if you don't have a calculator key I'm not buying it. I'm used to it and I've come to expect it. Five years ago, sure, but get with the program. I'm not willing to remap and lose a regular key.
No, no, no! It should be part of the OS. If I buy an OS and it is vulnerable to viruses, it is a flaw in the OS's design. Why do I have to pay extra to make my machine usable?
Any OS that can run user code will be vulnerable. Or are you advocating TCPA?
The only 'hoops' we have asked for is that they give us some form of vcs (version control) logs rather than just a single 60MB dump :(
Someone else said the patch difference was 6MB.
How about you carve that up into 1000 chunks, throw up a quick bugzilla (or similar) with a bug for each chunk and get it on slashdot as a 'put up or shut up'?
Folks can assign themselves chunks of the patch to try and understand and explain in the database, then you can come along and apply the well-understood hunks to your own codebase.
The problem with exposing internal VCS is that it can contain commercially sensitive information in code comments or logs (e.g. "fixed this for customer X"). We don't give our code partners access to our VCS.