I think one of the most interesting aspects of gaming today is the fact that we are dealing with a large number of game producers that are following the Hollywood business model. That being, game play is determined by what is proven to work moderately well and that appearances are everything. Everything that is, except money.
Keep in mind that good game play usually requires code that allows for new and exciting physics, game play angles, modes, etc... What really makes a great game is diversity or elements and the ability to interface with these elements in such a manner that it doesn't clip the camera, crash the game, make it confusing for the player, etc... All these game play bonus items take R&D. These R&D items are then 'software' patented which in turn makes it more difficult for someone else to 'license' these for use in their game.
So this leads me back to money. That fact is, 3D and texture artists are cheaper in the short term than a really kick ass programmer that can write code to make the cheesy models come alive in the game engine. Also, it costs SOOOO much more money to write your own game engine, which in turn leaves the game developers with little money at the mercy of what they could afford to license.
The stereotype that games are for geeks is wrong if you ask me. I know many 'jocks' that play video games like they are going out of style. The thing is, they don't admit it or speak of it freely.
So what's the problem with the game industry? I think it's the fact that female population of the earth doesn't play games nearly as much as the male population.
Here is a quote from THIS article on artificial spider silk made from goats.
"...spider silk is five times stronger than steel and about three times tougher than man-made fibers such as Kevlar"
Now, if you meant your 'strongest' comment in the context of something that can be woven, and is elastic, I can't disagree with you at this time. You can read THIS article which speaks about the reasons why spider silk is so strong from an elasticity perspective. It's a pretty good explanation if you ask me.
And there isn't any electricity generated in the cooling systems of the PC. My point was, that there is a large amount of water involved around the production of electricity. So I think that Paul Lee's statement was pretty backwards.
The solution that was proposed includes water as a heat transfer medium; however, in this case it's sent away to disperse the heat from the chips and that's it. Wouldn't it be cool if we could have the water power a small steam turbine which supplimented the power supply of the computer itself.. perhaps the other fans in the computer could be run by this mini generator?
Yeah, perhaps he does; however, his nay-saying does not good to further technology. It's proven that liquid can cool better than air.
Why do you think they use liquid coolant on nuclear power generators? That's the ultimate of mixing electricity with water. Or how about hyrdro electric power?
Fans also have to worry about contaminants, corrosion, and critters. Fans break, the sieze up, they make noise. This water system they are talking about can be a real revolution to the cooling of personal sized chips. Just because plumbing leaks, doesn't mean that we should ignore it for that reason.
I'm curious as to what's next? DeCSS is so far out there now, I don't see how it can ever be retracted. I know that without it, my HTPC would not be possible. I use DVD Decrypter (www.dvddecrypter.com) to rip all my purchased movies to my HDD so I can output them at 1080i.
For the more educated when it comes to CSS, Is there a way, other than changing the entire standard of encryption, to fix the damage that has been done? Someone please post an 'informative' post with some information please.
However, others are cautious about the idea. "I don't like mixing water and electricity," says Paul Lee, at QuietPC in North Yorkshire, England, a company that specialises in PC noise elimination. "Even if all the technical details are ironed out, I think it will be five years at least before fans are replaced. They are still the cheapest option."
I really got a kick out of this statement. This is an example of how insecure people are and how most people view change as a bad thing. If Paul embraced the technology, perhaps his company would win the OEM contract with Intel. Imagine the money! But not with that thinking.
I think it's clearly about time that computers move into the liquid cooled stage. Look at what it did for automobiles. Anyone here own an old air cooled porche is a big city?
I agree with everything you just said, except you are missing the point. The use of the term 'by design' is the wrong way to write it. It goes back to my original post, which states that it could be interpreted as libel.
The phrase 'by design' references the word design in the verb form (the way I read it), meaning the action of creating. You prove my point by constantly refering to the 'design' of a thing (http) as a noun. You then switch back to using it as a verb by saying, "The protocol is secure by design with regard to this attack."
Now my question is, do you know for a FACT that http was designed on purpose to not allow this attack? Or was it an unforseen bonus?
If you say yes, then you've proved my point. That which is 'by design' is intentional.
If you say no, then you've proved my point. Your use of the 'by design' phrase from my point of view is an incorrect use of language and should be stated differently. Since you can't prove that it was intentional, then you can't prove that its design was meant to protect it from such attacks.
"In regards to this form of attack, the protocol is secure as a result of its design."
Hey.. I NEVER said anything to the contrary. The WAY Windows is designed makes it VERY insecure and, like you said, probably impossible to make secure.. other than pulling the power plug on your computer.
A-ha. I now see why your understanding of the phrase differs from, well, everyone else's.:)
In saying X is Y by design, we're implicitly saying "by its design". That doesn't refer to the act of the designer, but rather to those present qualities of the sentence object that make it what it is. I agree one could read it either way, but again, my perception has been that most people don't.
Obviously another way of putting this is that most people will see your two example sentences as carrying the same meaning. If I, for instance, wanted to say what you believe the phrase intimates, I might say "X was designed to be Y". This is a stronger and less ambiguous statement for a reason - it's levelling an accusation, rather than just saying something about an unfortunate aspect of the way the world currently exists - the latter being not an accusation but a lament. Windows was not designed to unsafe, but it is nonetheless unsafe by design.;)
YES! Someone who gets it! *grin* Without careful, sculpted language, the message can be turned around by the reader so many ways. I suppose this is wy I always wanted to be in law.
No, that would be the same as saying "Operating systems are insecure by design." What the article says is, "Windows is insecure by design." This is like saying "the Suzuki Samurai is unsafe by design." Damned thing tips over way too easy.
So this leads me back to perspectives and how we understand language.
If the Suzuki Samurai is unsafe because it tips over too easy, I would write it as:
"The Suzuki Samurai is unsafe because of the way it was designed."
Not,
"The Suzuki Samurai is unsafe by design."
Too me, The first method indicates that the design carries with it a low value of safety. The second indicates that there was intent to design the Samurai as an unsafe vehicle.
Your reply is the best so far; however, just take a step back and listen to my point.
Do you think we should write an article that claims that Henry Ford invented the automobile as a device to kill people 'by design'?
People get in vehicles drunk and run into families of four, killing them all. Do you think that this unintentional side effect was, 'by design' when the engineers created the vehicle? Was it 'by design' when man created beer or wine?
I think I'm being treated VERY unfairly by most responses here.
I give you one more example.
When the hammer was designed, do you think the designer intended it to be used to kill people? Or how about the baseball bat?
This is being over-analyzed by so many techies, that I think the clear facts are being missed. That which is, the article is misleading and doesn't contain a fair wording of facts. Put yourself in the shoes of others. Take a breath and look at my point.
A reasoned purpose; an intent: It was her design to set up practice on her own as soon as she was qualified.
Deliberate intention: He became a photographer more by accident than by design.
A secretive plot or scheme. Often used in the plural: He has designs on my job.
So, If you take a look, the word design, IMHO, means INTENT. The Washington Post should have used terms like, unintentional, oversight, or lack of focus on....
You may say that it's simply semantics; however, in the world of propaganda and politics (aka the media), semantics means everything.
But did anyone ever say "this isn't secure.. we need to change that."?
I don't know, nor do you, or the Washington Post. That's my point. This guy is making this statement without any facts, just assumptions.
In the design balance between fundamental security and "user experience", has any weight ever been given to security in the design phases? Surely Microsoft does something they call "design" for this stuff.
I don't know about MS. Can you say that they don't? I for one know that my non-software company which has an IT department that watches the actions of MS a lot, has an information risk management team that looks for security holes in all in-house and purchased software before implementation. Would you care to assume that MS gives weight, or doesn't give weight to security during the design phase? Or would you care to not assume, since all the facts are not available?
Not only is what this guy who wrote the article saying a ridiculous choice of words, I consider it to be libel. He is saying that the architects of Windows, with his comment 'by design', planned on having security flaws. If I were MS, I'd sue this guy by making such a claim. No one sat around a conference table in a code review and said.... you know what.. this isn't insecure.. we need to change that.
Sheesh.. more of the same. People writing articles that I would equate to "TROLL" and "FLAMEBAIT"
I didn't have ANY trouble with SoBig.. or Blaster.. why, because I patched my system and secured it.. I also have taken steps to protect myself from crap mail programs that allow SoBig.
I've never seen any photos of someone in real-life and then the reconstructed version. This would be possible with a few pictures of those that have died recently. Just find the family and get a picture of them after the software has done it's thing.
I'd like to see just how close they come to actually getting it right.
I don't know about the rest of slashdot, but I'm sick of the GUI looking like it was built for a 4 year old. As the population ages, the less we need these over-simplified 'Fisher Price' interfaces. Ugg...
I use nextel and love PTT. It's fast and I know I'll never go over any minutes.
But here's the thing.. Just like my neighbors letting their dogs piss on my grass.. those same people don't use "PRIVATE MODE" for PTT. It's simple.. you push one button and you put the phone to your ear and PTT works just the same. I ALWAYS use private mode with PTT unless I'm in the privacy of my own home or in an area with no people.
I suppose I just have to say.. what-the-fuck-ever man..
Your latest post just proves your argument is baseless and is 100% Ad Hominem. All you are doing is avoiding the argument and attacking me. You don't address the FACT that installing drivers from ATI is a convoluted process.
If you had read my original post, you would have realized that I am hoping that ATI will be able to garner greater skills and relationships through the Microsoft relationship that will enable them to produce a superior driver/software product to support their "fine line" of hardware.
Speakin as someone who has used ATI video cards for over 6 years I can say that ATI has cleaned up their driver act considerably. I'm thinking that the problem with your computer is entirely PEBMAC.
While your post is nothing other than flamebait, I'll bite.
I've been using ATI cards since Mach32 (1992) and can say that while they have improved, they are nowhere near perfect. Let's take into account the compatibility problem between MMC and my DVD players, such as Power DVD. MMC causes all sorts of fun problems that you can go research if you like on the HTPC section of avsforum.com. Or perhaps you can comment on how ATI has a very convoluted procedure on installing newer versions of drivers. On my AIW, I have to remove this, install that first, then this, but don't reboot (even though it prompts me to), then install this, then reboot.. Etc..etc... Not a very streamlined process. Needless to say, many of the people I know outside of the IT world don't want to mess with something so convoluted. NVIDIA's drivers are very simple to install and I've had very very few problems with them over the years in my other computers. So before you start speakin (sic) again, remember your not the only one that has used ATI cards for an extended period of time.
You are bad, Microsoft Man! You are bad and we are good! Your badness will be your demise, and our goodness will be our triumph! Bad is bad, good is good! Good-good, bad-bad, bad-bad, good,bad, good,good,bad,bad,good.
I think humans have a real problem when they get hit by lightning strikes... go figure! They suffer non-reversable brain and heart glitches when subjected lightning.
Granted, you have to get hit directly; however, wouldn't we want a robot destryoed rather than one of our soldiers?
Slashdot Mirror
I think one of the most interesting aspects of gaming today is the fact that we are dealing with a large number of game producers that are following the Hollywood business model. That being, game play is determined by what is proven to work moderately well and that appearances are everything. Everything that is, except money.
Keep in mind that good game play usually requires code that allows for new and exciting physics, game play angles, modes, etc... What really makes a great game is diversity or elements and the ability to interface with these elements in such a manner that it doesn't clip the camera, crash the game, make it confusing for the player, etc... All these game play bonus items take R&D. These R&D items are then 'software' patented which in turn makes it more difficult for someone else to 'license' these for use in their game.
So this leads me back to money. That fact is, 3D and texture artists are cheaper in the short term than a really kick ass programmer that can write code to make the cheesy models come alive in the game engine. Also, it costs SOOOO much more money to write your own game engine, which in turn leaves the game developers with little money at the mercy of what they could afford to license.
The stereotype that games are for geeks is wrong if you ask me. I know many 'jocks' that play video games like they are going out of style. The thing is, they don't admit it or speak of it freely.
So what's the problem with the game industry? I think it's the fact that female population of the earth doesn't play games nearly as much as the male population.
Thoughts?
Actually it's not, diamonds are.
Here is a quote from THIS article on artificial spider silk made from goats.
"...spider silk is five times stronger than steel and about three times tougher than man-made fibers such as Kevlar"
Now, if you meant your 'strongest' comment in the context of something that can be woven, and is elastic, I can't disagree with you at this time. You can read THIS article which speaks about the reasons why spider silk is so strong from an elasticity perspective. It's a pretty good explanation if you ask me.
And there isn't any electricity generated in the cooling systems of the PC. My point was, that there is a large amount of water involved around the production of electricity. So I think that Paul Lee's statement was pretty backwards.
The solution that was proposed includes water as a heat transfer medium; however, in this case it's sent away to disperse the heat from the chips and that's it. Wouldn't it be cool if we could have the water power a small steam turbine which supplimented the power supply of the computer itself.. perhaps the other fans in the computer could be run by this mini generator?
Yeah, perhaps he does; however, his nay-saying does not good to further technology. It's proven that liquid can cool better than air.
s /s ilicon_eo_pumps.htm
Why do you think they use liquid coolant on nuclear power generators? That's the ultimate of mixing electricity with water. Or how about hyrdro electric power?
Fans also have to worry about contaminants, corrosion, and critters. Fans break, the sieze up, they make noise. This water system they are talking about can be a real revolution to the cooling of personal sized chips. Just because plumbing leaks, doesn't mean that we should ignore it for that reason.
Take a look at this article..
http://www.stanford.edu/~dlaser/silicon_eo_pump
- Are property and trade secrets rights a constitutional right?
NO.
- Can anything outweigh a constitutional right?
MONEY.
I'm curious as to what's next? DeCSS is so far out there now, I don't see how it can ever be retracted. I know that without it, my HTPC would not be possible. I use DVD Decrypter (www.dvddecrypter.com) to rip all my purchased movies to my HDD so I can output them at 1080i.
For the more educated when it comes to CSS, Is there a way, other than changing the entire standard of encryption, to fix the damage that has been done? Someone please post an 'informative' post with some information please.
However, others are cautious about the idea. "I don't like mixing water and electricity," says Paul Lee, at QuietPC in North Yorkshire, England, a company that specialises in PC noise elimination. "Even if all the technical details are ironed out, I think it will be five years at least before fans are replaced. They are still the cheapest option."
I really got a kick out of this statement. This is an example of how insecure people are and how most people view change as a bad thing. If Paul embraced the technology, perhaps his company would win the OEM contract with Intel. Imagine the money! But not with that thinking.
I think it's clearly about time that computers move into the liquid cooled stage. Look at what it did for automobiles. Anyone here own an old air cooled porche is a big city?
I agree with everything you just said, except you are missing the point. The use of the term 'by design' is the wrong way to write it. It goes back to my original post, which states that it could be interpreted as libel.
The phrase 'by design' references the word design in the verb form (the way I read it), meaning the action of creating. You prove my point by constantly refering to the 'design' of a thing (http) as a noun. You then switch back to using it as a verb by saying, "The protocol is secure by design with regard to this attack."
Now my question is, do you know for a FACT that http was designed on purpose to not allow this attack? Or was it an unforseen bonus?
If you say yes, then you've proved my point. That which is 'by design' is intentional.
If you say no, then you've proved my point.
Your use of the 'by design' phrase from my point of view is an incorrect use of language and should be stated differently. Since you can't prove that it was intentional, then you can't prove that its design was meant to protect it from such attacks.
"In regards to this form of attack, the protocol is secure as a result of its design."
Hey.. I NEVER said anything to the contrary. The WAY Windows is designed makes it VERY insecure and, like you said, probably impossible to make secure.. other than pulling the power plug on your computer.
A-ha. I now see why your understanding of the phrase differs from, well, everyone else's. :)
;)
In saying X is Y by design, we're implicitly saying "by its design". That doesn't refer to the act of the designer, but rather to those present qualities of the sentence object that make it what it is. I agree one could read it either way, but again, my perception has been that most people don't.
Obviously another way of putting this is that most people will see your two example sentences as carrying the same meaning. If I, for instance, wanted to say what you believe the phrase intimates, I might say "X was designed to be Y". This is a stronger and less ambiguous statement for a reason - it's levelling an accusation, rather than just saying something about an unfortunate aspect of the way the world currently exists - the latter being not an accusation but a lament. Windows was not designed to unsafe, but it is nonetheless unsafe by design.
YES! Someone who gets it! *grin* Without careful, sculpted language, the message can be turned around by the reader so many ways. I suppose this is wy I always wanted to be in law.
No, that would be the same as saying "Operating systems are insecure by design." What the article says is, "Windows is insecure by design." This is like saying "the Suzuki Samurai is unsafe by design." Damned thing tips over way too easy. So this leads me back to perspectives and how we understand language.
If the Suzuki Samurai is unsafe because it tips over too easy, I would write it as:
"The Suzuki Samurai is unsafe because of the way it was designed."
Not,
"The Suzuki Samurai is unsafe by design."
Too me, The first method indicates that the design carries with it a low value of safety. The second indicates that there was intent to design the Samurai as an unsafe vehicle.
Semantics again...
Your reply is the best so far; however, just take a step back and listen to my point.
Do you think we should write an article that claims that Henry Ford invented the automobile as a device to kill people 'by design'?
People get in vehicles drunk and run into families of four, killing them all. Do you think that this unintentional side effect was, 'by design' when the engineers created the vehicle? Was it 'by design' when man created beer or wine?
I think I'm being treated VERY unfairly by most responses here.
I give you one more example.
When the hammer was designed, do you think the designer intended it to be used to kill people? Or how about the baseball bat?
This is being over-analyzed by so many techies, that I think the clear facts are being missed. That which is, the article is misleading and doesn't contain a fair wording of facts. Put yourself in the shoes of others. Take a breath and look at my point.
I take this from www.dictionary.com
v. designed, designing, designs
v. tr.
v. intr.
n.
So, If you take a look, the word design, IMHO, means INTENT. The Washington Post should have used terms like, unintentional, oversight, or lack of focus on....
You may say that it's simply semantics; however, in the world of propaganda and politics (aka the media), semantics means everything.
But did anyone ever say "this isn't secure.. we need to change that."?
I don't know, nor do you, or the Washington Post. That's my point. This guy is making this statement without any facts, just assumptions.
In the design balance between fundamental security and "user experience", has any weight ever been given to security in the design phases? Surely Microsoft does something they call "design" for this stuff.
I don't know about MS. Can you say that they don't? I for one know that my non-software company which has an IT department that watches the actions of MS a lot, has an information risk management team that looks for security holes in all in-house and purchased software before implementation. Would you care to assume that MS gives weight, or doesn't give weight to security during the design phase? Or would you care to not assume, since all the facts are not available?
Good post...
BTW, My post is OT and directed not for the main article, but back at the parent of this post simply for conversation.
Funny how some people see two different things almost instantly. I saw the article 100% opposite.
Check out this link for a great reference of those famous black and white images..
Optical Illusions
Not only is what this guy who wrote the article saying a ridiculous choice of words, I consider it to be libel. He is saying that the architects of Windows, with his comment 'by design', planned on having security flaws. If I were MS, I'd sue this guy by making such a claim. No one sat around a conference table in a code review and said.... you know what.. this isn't insecure.. we need to change that.
Sheesh.. more of the same. People writing articles that I would equate to "TROLL" and "FLAMEBAIT"
I didn't have ANY trouble with SoBig.. or Blaster.. why, because I patched my system and secured it.. I also have taken steps to protect myself from crap mail programs that allow SoBig.
rant over...
I've never seen any photos of someone in real-life and then the reconstructed version. This would be possible with a few pictures of those that have died recently. Just find the family and get a picture of them after the software has done it's thing.
I'd like to see just how close they come to actually getting it right.
You know what they say... an ugly woman makes the best wife! *grin*
I don't know about the rest of slashdot, but I'm sick of the GUI looking like it was built for a 4 year old. As the population ages, the less we need these over-simplified 'Fisher Price' interfaces. Ugg...
I use nextel and love PTT. It's fast and I know I'll never go over any minutes.
But here's the thing.. Just like my neighbors letting their dogs piss on my grass.. those same people don't use "PRIVATE MODE" for PTT. It's simple.. you push one button and you put the phone to your ear and PTT works just the same. I ALWAYS use private mode with PTT unless I'm in the privacy of my own home or in an area with no people.
I suppose I just have to say.. what-the-fuck-ever man.. Your latest post just proves your argument is baseless and is 100% Ad Hominem. All you are doing is avoiding the argument and attacking me. You don't address the FACT that installing drivers from ATI is a convoluted process. If you had read my original post, you would have realized that I am hoping that ATI will be able to garner greater skills and relationships through the Microsoft relationship that will enable them to produce a superior driver/software product to support their "fine line" of hardware.
Speakin as someone who has used ATI video cards for over 6 years I can say that ATI has cleaned up their driver act considerably. I'm thinking that the problem with your computer is entirely PEBMAC.
.etc... Not a very streamlined process. Needless to say, many of the people I know outside of the IT world don't want to mess with something so convoluted. NVIDIA's drivers are very simple to install and I've had very very few problems with them over the years in my other computers. So before you start speakin (sic) again, remember your not the only one that has used ATI cards for an extended period of time.
While your post is nothing other than flamebait, I'll bite.
I've been using ATI cards since Mach32 (1992) and can say that while they have improved, they are nowhere near perfect. Let's take into account the compatibility problem between MMC and my DVD players, such as Power DVD. MMC causes all sorts of fun problems that you can go research if you like on the HTPC section of avsforum.com. Or perhaps you can comment on how ATI has a very convoluted procedure on installing newer versions of drivers. On my AIW, I have to remove this, install that first, then this, but don't reboot (even though it prompts me to), then install this, then reboot.. Etc.
You are bad, Microsoft Man! You are bad and we are good! Your badness will be your demise, and our goodness will be our triumph! Bad is bad, good is good! Good-good, bad-bad, bad-bad, good,bad, good,good,bad,bad,good.
I would hope that this relationship will assist ATI in fine tuning their still awful drivers that seem to conflict with everything on my system.
I think humans have a real problem when they get hit by lightning strikes... go figure! They suffer non-reversable brain and heart glitches when subjected lightning.
Granted, you have to get hit directly; however, wouldn't we want a robot destryoed rather than one of our soldiers?