My personal thoughts on the film aside, I totally found they overdid the travel-in/zoom-out a-la Shining on Harry Potter's face every time his name was mentionned.
So much so that I couldn't help noticing it for the probably 20 or so times it was done throughout.
It's like how the lens flare was back in the day: completely gratuitus and overabused.
Criminal Hacker Terrorist 1: I just ordered a card from ebay. It'll be in next week. In the meanwhile I'll be sitting on my couch eating chips and watching the simpsons...
Criminal Hacker Terrorist 2: Ok, can you send me an ISO of Doom III while we're waiting...
It would be much harder because an image doesn't have 'content'. At least text content.
URLs are generally cryptic numbers, so that even humans can't decipher what they are.
Although there are certain apps out there (such as Norton PErsonal FW) that let you block a certain add from ever popping up again. Which I find very cool.
Remember, what can run, can be reverse engineered. Them making a software driver is an invitation for people to reverse engineer the stuff going on in the card.
Eventually, yes, a smart person will make a software version of this (that's the outcome of it all). But the reason they use hardware is to make life harder. Maybe even impossible (if enough effort were to go into the hw design).
The United States and England were among 26 nations that last year signed the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime, an international treaty that provides for hacker extraditions even among countries without other formal extradition agreements.
So far, I haven't really heard any details on what kind of cracking has been done.
For all we know, the guy gained root access on some web or mail server. Or maybe he did get deeper in...
Maybe 99 out of those attacks were simple break-ins by bruteforcing someone's user id... and the 100th time, he actually got to something sensitive.
*Or*, maybe the government is hiding this, but this guy actually got root on a whole facility... kidnapped the firewalls, and databases... And removed traces from logs etc.
Really, there's nothing mentionned out there that shows either. Just the fact that he chose to mess with the wrong bully in town. and he's probably going to become some fat biker's bitch somewhere in a high security state pen.
Not that I believe nVidia should be giving out the source code, but I must admit, I'm *really* really curious to see what their source would look like.
nVidia is probably my favorite 'huge' company in the world. They are just simply righteous.
Netscape's sales started to decline in 1995 until they were vaporized by 1997 and giving away their browser so that they could make money off branding.
here you are giving me the perfect example that I told you was futile to start with. On top, it's very hipocritical to say "bah, law makers don't know squat about computers" when criticizing the RIAA and MPAA, and then say "don't you think the evidence showed in court proves it".
I switched from NN 4 to IE4 because NN was shit. Not because it came with Windows. *Everyone* I know right now switched over and is still using IE over Netscape for the exact same reason. The bullcrap about IE being 'integrated into the OS' doesn't impress me. (the HTML renderer is a COM object that can be used by anyone... does that mean ping is integrated into linux? you don't want to use it, you don't. end of story, quit complaining - why isn't anyone complaining about FTP being integrated into the Windows?)
Netscape did the typical geek idealist thing of hoping that 'you build it they will come'. Where as Moft sought alliance with other companies... Was microsoft using monopoly? yes. Was netscape a golden product that uselessly died because of Microsoft, I don't think so.
All of what you are saying about OS/2 is, as you have noted yourself, fair in the market. To quote what I have said in a related post:
Hey, I never said Moft was a saint. But the market place is similar to a battle field. you don't go around with favors and thank-you's. If OS/2 got jibbed, they should have sued for breach of contract. If the contract was loose, they should have made a better contract. Even if it's only by getting better lawyers, Microsoft beat them.
I personally think IBM was being arrogant and not thinking there was a market in the low-end user friendly machines.
I will reiterate, even if it's only because Microsoft did more campaigning (or advertising) of windows, IBM did make the stupid mistake of not trying to penetrate the market on time.
And yes sir, in a country where the economy is capitalist, you give away your right to be brought back the hundred dollar bill you dropped. (I'm not saying that's how I think it *should* be - but it is, and you live with it). IBM's incompetence cannot be blamed on others, that's the bottom line.
As for BeOS, how would you explain that Linux *did* take off? Government conspiracy? big bribes? Linux (w/ Redhat for example) entered on the same market that BeOS did. Had BeOS been more clever, they too could have survived.
Let's get it clear though, by all of what I have just said, I'm not trying to clear moft out of whatever they are... I am though, saying that the companies mentionned do not deserve to be elevated to the level of martyrdom... all three of those companies were big and strong. They only fell so much harder.
If anything, Microsoft raped small companies... *royally*. Not big ones.
Get your priorities straight... we're not talking about your neighbour's kid here that got hurt, we're talking about corporate bullies... in a bully market. They butt heads with bullies, don't have sympathy for them if and when they get hurt.
Hey, I never said Moft was a saint. But the market place is similar to a battle field. you don't go around with favors and thank-you's. If OS/2 got jibbed, they should have sued for breach of contract. If the contract was loose, they should have made a better contract. Even if it's only by getting better lawyers, Microsoft beat them.
I personally think IBM was being arrogant and not thinking there was a market in the low-end user friendly machines.
I will reiterate, even if it's only because Microsoft did more campaigning (or advertising) of windows, IBM did make the stupid mistake of not trying to penetrate the market on time.
It's being a sore loser to blame microsoft for that.
Hey, in continuation with this thread, I switched over to IE at version 4 of browsers (when "NN 4 The Abominable" came out that is)... Before then, I never stopped wanting netscape to come up with a desktop OS, a-la Redhat... They didn't. They're stupid. End of story.
Hey, why don't *you* prove that Microsoft did have a negative impact. And STFU if it's going to be saying that Nutscrape's sales went down...
Netscape 4 is one of the buggiest pieces of software out there. It's hell to develop for, and it's hell to use. (For crying out loud, it reloads a page when you resize the fucker) -- are you going to deny this? -- and if so, you don't even deserver being replied to.
OS2 is/was IBMs flagship. Now IBM is one of the world's biggest software/hardware companies. It's huge. Saying that OS2 was struck by Microsoft is equivalent to saying McDonalds is being hurt by Burger King. Get real.
Get FUCKING REAL.
As for BeOS, read this article posted on/. a few months ago... It says:
Some are going to say BeOS would have been different; and they would be wrong. Be had a different set of sins, but sins none-the-less. I have no doubt that had Be been the chosen candidate, then enough new and ugly surprises would have cost Apple enough time, that we would have had roughly the same outcome; years more than expected to actually deliver.
And do read the article, because that is the only 'proof' you're going to find. There is no proof in the market. Only speculation, opinions, and stock prices.
Now you sir, are entitled to STFU, or provide something in return!
Ask Be Inc, or Netscape, OS/2 or Linux companies what they think of about this being something we should forget about?
Be, Nutscrap and OS/2 all shot themselves in the foot. They can thank the existence of microsoft, because frankly, if Moft wasn't there, they'd still go down in flames, and have nobody to blame it on.
Anyone know what he is talking about here? So, Windows and Unix are almost 5000 dog years old. How is this little piece of info helping his argument. Can anyone help me out here. I don't see it. I think he is trying to make linux look like the old beast of the ancients, when it is actually newer than Windows is. I mean, Windows the OS didn't happen till 1993 with NT 3.1- linux was 'born' in 1990. Prior to 93, windows was an OE.
Fool, the guy is praising linux for being old... and you are getting defensive about that. In the real software world, older is better, more mature. tried tested and true.
Apart from that though, the guy is stupid to think 10 years old, for either operating system, is old enough.
I don't know why everyone talks about SCSI as if it were some sort of god sent. UDMA 100 is actually faster than SCSI.
The only thing SCSI is better at really is multiple paralel operations on a single chain. (which is useful in RAID kind of stuff -- which you wouldn't really need in a Desktop anyways)
Given that, the price of UDMA sure as hell beats SCSI.
Nice to hear from Moft...
on
Halloween VII
·
· Score: 1
[...]Abstract arguments about intellectual property rights, on the other hand, have served Microsoft just as poorly as they have served us.
Maybe if microsoft drops the leash on stuff like DRM.... sigh. Maybe? =)
Mental symptoms such as lethargy, anxiety and "reluctance to go to work," as well as sleep-related problems including insomnia and fatigue, were most common among workers who spent more than 5 hours a day glued to their computer screen.
These are the typical signs of burn-out (possibly from coding - but burnout from any work)... associating it to have a monitor in front of you is just plain near sighted (pardon the pun).
Have they made studies on people who sit for hours in front of their computers but *aren't* working? (/.ers come to mind =)
Why not isolate threads and files, and IPC into light-weight objects?
Sure you are going to have incompatible concepts across platforms (e.g. Windows doesn't support just unlinking an inode), but I'm sure you can find a happy subset without making too much compromise.
I know Alias|Wavefront uses a very similar concept for their Studio and Maya products. (studio looks and behaves identically on all platforms - so it *is* possible).
Yes. For example what is the probability of picking a random number among reals and having that number be a rational number. The proof makes use of topology and limits...
You may be using more stronger more complex mathetmatical tools, but the idea that you know what your universes are remains.
(btw, for the curious: the probabilty of picking a random number among reals and it being a rational is 0)
Touche, but there is still a catch. He is applying the model of a bayesian filter to a real world scenario.
To quote him:
Here's a sketch of how I do statistical filtering. I start with one corpus of spam and one of nonspam mail. At the moment each one has about 4000 messages in it.
That statement has nothing theoretical about it... he's doing plain and simple statistical analysis on a limited universe. Mathematically speaking, it's easy to say "Conditional Independance", or "a test group of homogenous distribution", but in reality, it's not.
The fundamental catch here is that you don't know the universe of possibilities, and hence you have to establish an approximation that eliminates as much false positives as possible.
There lies the entire difference: if you actually knew the universe of possibilities (or had a homogeneous group selection), then and only then would the sum of all of your probabilties be equal to 1... and in the scope of that article: you would have 0 false positives, and 0 true negatives... But again: you would have established a rule that gives you hard-fact of what is and is not spam. Bam. back in the same hole.
Nobody seems to have stated this, so I will have to:
the probability p(X) where X is an event, is simply the number of possible scenarios where X happens, divided by the possible number of scenarios in the universe of X.
Quote properly. I'm not disagreeing with you, but nobody (including you) said in a clear and consice way what probabilities are. As soon as you state what it is, it becomes obvious that probabilites and fuzzy logic are completely distinct things.
Nobody seems to have stated this, so I will have to:
the probability p(X) where X is an event, is simply the number of possible scenarios where X happens, divided by the possible number of scenarios in the universe of X.
To give an example: the probability that I will pick a spade card out of a random deck is: 13 / (13 * 4) = 1/4.
It has no guess work done at all in it: it is combinatorics... the word essentially means to count.
Fuzzy logic is attributing a value to an expression, it is a predicate. And there is no set rule for a predicate. For example, the email spam monitoring system described in an earlier post does exactly this: it attributes a value, a predicate to an email being spam or not. (unfortunately, the author uses the word probability, but in effect his algorithm is a statistical predicate - not a mathematical probabilty -- to establish a real probability, he would have to know the universe of possible emails, and also the universe of emails which are spam, which is pointless because at that point he would know what is spam and what is not -- i digress)
A chess program is also doing computing fuzzy predicates determining how 'good' a certain move is. It's like a rating. There is no way a chess program can work out the entire tree of moves, so in effect, there is no way it can determine a probability in the 'true' sense.
To sum it up, fuzzy logic is basically a continuous boolean value. Are you happy? true.0, false.0, tru.false, tr.fffffalse. Hah... late. must sleep....
Slashdot Mirror
hmmm. I don't get your point. Are you saying DirectX is in competition with game consoles, and so it's wrong (because they are a monopoly)?
My personal thoughts on the film aside, I totally found they overdid the travel-in/zoom-out a-la Shining on Harry Potter's face every time his name was mentionned.
So much so that I couldn't help noticing it for the probably 20 or so times it was done throughout.
It's like how the lens flare was back in the day: completely gratuitus and overabused.
The rocket motor is a reproduction V2 engine, capable of 57,000 lbs of thrust, burning a mixture of alcohol and liquid oxygen.
This is the first time I hear of alcohol being used to launch a rocket to space.
How about:
Criminal Hacker Terrorist 1: I just ordered a card from ebay. It'll be in next week. In the meanwhile I'll be sitting on my couch eating chips and watching the simpsons...
Criminal Hacker Terrorist 2: Ok, can you send me an ISO of Doom III while we're waiting...
It would be much harder because an image doesn't have 'content'. At least text content.
URLs are generally cryptic numbers, so that even humans can't decipher what they are.
Although there are certain apps out there (such as Norton PErsonal FW) that let you block a certain add from ever popping up again. Which I find very cool.
Who are you man?
Remember, what can run, can be reverse engineered. Them making a software driver is an invitation for people to reverse engineer the stuff going on in the card.
Eventually, yes, a smart person will make a software version of this (that's the outcome of it all). But the reason they use hardware is to make life harder. Maybe even impossible (if enough effort were to go into the hw design).
isolated probably means behind a firewall. not inside a bombshelter.
If the card can do what it claims to be able to do, then you won't be able to authenticate/connect to their network, even though it's on airwaves.
The United States and England were among 26 nations that last year signed the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime, an international treaty that provides for hacker extraditions even among countries without other formal extradition agreements.
It seems so...
So far, I haven't really heard any details on what kind of cracking has been done.
For all we know, the guy gained root access on some web or mail server. Or maybe he did get deeper in...
Maybe 99 out of those attacks were simple break-ins by bruteforcing someone's user id... and the 100th time, he actually got to something sensitive.
*Or*, maybe the government is hiding this, but this guy actually got root on a whole facility... kidnapped the firewalls, and databases... And removed traces from logs etc.
Really, there's nothing mentionned out there that shows either. Just the fact that he chose to mess with the wrong bully in town. and he's probably going to become some fat biker's bitch somewhere in a high security state pen.
nVidia is probably my favorite 'huge' company in the world. They are just simply righteous.
Kudos to them really.
Win32 being similar to OS/2 is as irrelevant as Linux being similar to UNIX in this conversation.
here you are giving me the perfect example that I told you was futile to start with. On top, it's very hipocritical to say "bah, law makers don't know squat about computers" when criticizing the RIAA and MPAA, and then say "don't you think the evidence showed in court proves it". I switched from NN 4 to IE4 because NN was shit. Not because it came with Windows. *Everyone* I know right now switched over and is still using IE over Netscape for the exact same reason. The bullcrap about IE being 'integrated into the OS' doesn't impress me. (the HTML renderer is a COM object that can be used by anyone... does that mean ping is integrated into linux? you don't want to use it, you don't. end of story, quit complaining - why isn't anyone complaining about FTP being integrated into the Windows?)
Netscape did the typical geek idealist thing of hoping that 'you build it they will come'. Where as Moft sought alliance with other companies... Was microsoft using monopoly? yes. Was netscape a golden product that uselessly died because of Microsoft, I don't think so.
All of what you are saying about OS/2 is, as you have noted yourself, fair in the market. To quote what I have said in a related post:
Hey, I never said Moft was a saint. But the market place is similar to a battle field. you don't go around with favors and thank-you's. If OS/2 got jibbed, they should have sued for breach of contract. If the contract was loose, they should have made a better contract. Even if it's only by getting better lawyers, Microsoft beat them.
I personally think IBM was being arrogant and not thinking there was a market in the low-end user friendly machines.
I will reiterate, even if it's only because Microsoft did more campaigning (or advertising) of windows, IBM did make the stupid mistake of not trying to penetrate the market on time.
And yes sir, in a country where the economy is capitalist, you give away your right to be brought back the hundred dollar bill you dropped. (I'm not saying that's how I think it *should* be - but it is, and you live with it). IBM's incompetence cannot be blamed on others, that's the bottom line.
As for BeOS, how would you explain that Linux *did* take off? Government conspiracy? big bribes? Linux (w/ Redhat for example) entered on the same market that BeOS did. Had BeOS been more clever, they too could have survived.
Let's get it clear though, by all of what I have just said, I'm not trying to clear moft out of whatever they are... I am though, saying that the companies mentionned do not deserve to be elevated to the level of martyrdom... all three of those companies were big and strong. They only fell so much harder.
If anything, Microsoft raped small companies... *royally*. Not big ones.
Get your priorities straight... we're not talking about your neighbour's kid here that got hurt, we're talking about corporate bullies... in a bully market. They butt heads with bullies, don't have sympathy for them if and when they get hurt.
Hey, I never said Moft was a saint. But the market place is similar to a battle field. you don't go around with favors and thank-you's. If OS/2 got jibbed, they should have sued for breach of contract. If the contract was loose, they should have made a better contract. Even if it's only by getting better lawyers, Microsoft beat them.
I personally think IBM was being arrogant and not thinking there was a market in the low-end user friendly machines.
I will reiterate, even if it's only because Microsoft did more campaigning (or advertising) of windows, IBM did make the stupid mistake of not trying to penetrate the market on time.
It's being a sore loser to blame microsoft for that.
Hey, in continuation with this thread, I switched over to IE at version 4 of browsers (when "NN 4 The Abominable" came out that is)... Before then, I never stopped wanting netscape to come up with a desktop OS, a-la Redhat... They didn't. They're stupid. End of story.
Let's not point fingers away from the problem.
Netscape 4 is one of the buggiest pieces of software out there. It's hell to develop for, and it's hell to use. (For crying out loud, it reloads a page when you resize the fucker) -- are you going to deny this? -- and if so, you don't even deserver being replied to.
OS2 is/was IBMs flagship. Now IBM is one of the world's biggest software/hardware companies. It's huge. Saying that OS2 was struck by Microsoft is equivalent to saying McDonalds is being hurt by Burger King. Get real. Get FUCKING REAL.
As for BeOS, read this article posted on /. a few months ago... It says:
Some are going to say BeOS would have been different; and they would be wrong. Be had a different set of sins, but sins none-the-less. I have no doubt that had Be been the chosen candidate, then enough new and ugly surprises would have cost Apple enough time, that we would have had roughly the same outcome; years more than expected to actually deliver.
And do read the article, because that is the only 'proof' you're going to find. There is no proof in the market. Only speculation, opinions, and stock prices.
Now you sir, are entitled to STFU, or provide something in return!
Be, Nutscrap and OS/2 all shot themselves in the foot. They can thank the existence of microsoft, because frankly, if Moft wasn't there, they'd still go down in flames, and have nobody to blame it on.
Anyone know what he is talking about here? So, Windows and Unix are almost 5000 dog years old. How is this little piece of info helping his argument. Can anyone help me out here. I don't see it. I think he is trying to make linux look like the old beast of the ancients, when it is actually newer than Windows is. I mean, Windows the OS didn't happen till 1993 with NT 3.1- linux was 'born' in 1990. Prior to 93, windows was an OE.
Fool, the guy is praising linux for being old... and you are getting defensive about that. In the real software world, older is better, more mature. tried tested and true.
Apart from that though, the guy is stupid to think 10 years old, for either operating system, is old enough.
I don't know why everyone talks about SCSI as if it were some sort of god sent. UDMA 100 is actually faster than SCSI.
The only thing SCSI is better at really is multiple paralel operations on a single chain. (which is useful in RAID kind of stuff -- which you wouldn't really need in a Desktop anyways)
Given that, the price of UDMA sure as hell beats SCSI.
Maybe if microsoft drops the leash on stuff like DRM.... sigh. Maybe? =)
These are the typical signs of burn-out (possibly from coding - but burnout from any work)... associating it to have a monitor in front of you is just plain near sighted (pardon the pun).
Have they made studies on people who sit for hours in front of their computers but *aren't* working? (/.ers come to mind =)
Why not isolate threads and files, and IPC into light-weight objects?
Sure you are going to have incompatible concepts across platforms (e.g. Windows doesn't support just unlinking an inode), but I'm sure you can find a happy subset without making too much compromise.
I know Alias|Wavefront uses a very similar concept for their Studio and Maya products. (studio looks and behaves identically on all platforms - so it *is* possible).
You may be using more stronger more complex mathetmatical tools, but the idea that you know what your universes are remains.
(btw, for the curious: the probabilty of picking a random number among reals and it being a rational is 0)
Ahhhh... you restore my faith in rational conversations on /.
Anyways, yes, I find it fascinating too to be able to have approximations like that.
I find it just as curious as the exponential function which for natural numbers f(n) = !n...
To quote him:
Here's a sketch of how I do statistical filtering. I start with one corpus of spam and one of nonspam mail. At the moment each one has about 4000 messages in it.
That statement has nothing theoretical about it... he's doing plain and simple statistical analysis on a limited universe. Mathematically speaking, it's easy to say "Conditional Independance", or "a test group of homogenous distribution", but in reality, it's not.
The fundamental catch here is that you don't know the universe of possibilities, and hence you have to establish an approximation that eliminates as much false positives as possible.
There lies the entire difference: if you actually knew the universe of possibilities (or had a homogeneous group selection), then and only then would the sum of all of your probabilties be equal to 1... and in the scope of that article: you would have 0 false positives, and 0 true negatives... But again: you would have established a rule that gives you hard-fact of what is and is not spam. Bam. back in the same hole.
Quote properly. I'm not disagreeing with you, but nobody (including you) said in a clear and consice way what probabilities are. As soon as you state what it is, it becomes obvious that probabilites and fuzzy logic are completely distinct things.
the probability p(X) where X is an event, is simply the number of possible scenarios where X happens, divided by the possible number of scenarios in the universe of X.
To give an example: the probability that I will pick a spade card out of a random deck is: 13 / (13 * 4) = 1/4.
It has no guess work done at all in it: it is combinatorics... the word essentially means to count.
Fuzzy logic is attributing a value to an expression, it is a predicate. And there is no set rule for a predicate. For example, the email spam monitoring system described in an earlier post does exactly this: it attributes a value, a predicate to an email being spam or not. (unfortunately, the author uses the word probability, but in effect his algorithm is a statistical predicate - not a mathematical probabilty -- to establish a real probability, he would have to know the universe of possible emails, and also the universe of emails which are spam, which is pointless because at that point he would know what is spam and what is not -- i digress)
A chess program is also doing computing fuzzy predicates determining how 'good' a certain move is. It's like a rating. There is no way a chess program can work out the entire tree of moves, so in effect, there is no way it can determine a probability in the 'true' sense.
To sum it up, fuzzy logic is basically a continuous boolean value. Are you happy? true.0, false.0, tru.false, tr.fffffalse. Hah... late. must sleep....
gnight...