And Joe sixpack and his friends are too lazy to do anything about it and too stupid to know what to do if they weren't. Joe sixpack and his friends have been having their noses rubbed in shit by our wonderful and pure democratic government and perfect serene friendly capitalism bread and butter spawned corporations for generations. They've always just rolled over and begged before... what makes you think that's going to change now?
For hundreds of years joe sixpack and his friends have gotten weaker and weaker. The big recognizable first piece was centralized citizenship after the civil war, prior to that the only citizens of the USA lived in washington, everybody else was a citizen of their state which in turn was a member of the union.
Next came the military, the constitution set up a division of powers, the central government was not supposed to have a standing army, that was supposed to be left to the states, while the central government maintained the navy. This wasn't random, it gave the states themselves the greatest power in domestic defense and limited the central government to only the direct military power to counter foreign foes (of course the militia's could be rallied). The air force was of course not covered in the Constitution. If you pay attention you'll notice the central government makes sure they are covered if this falls through, the navy is still the most highly funded of the forces, having within it all 3 types of armed forces. The Marines for instance are really just a subset of the Navy. The Navy's air power and number of craft are almost as extensive as the air force itself. And I guess it goes without saying, the navy of course has a navy;)
Now after centralizing authority and military power the government then started disarming the citizens. Deciding to do no more than pay lip service to the 2nd amendment (after all the government certainly doesn't feel people might need arms to overthrow it like the forefathers who had to do just that did when they put it in!). Now guns are being taken away, the classes of arms available to citizens has been reduced and reduced, arms are VERY closely watched by our police state.
Since these things became stronger, than the last significant threat (assault riffles) has been removed from citizens hands, the government has proceeded to clench down. Showing it's force in foreign countries (iraq for instance), using "Terrorism" which was likely at least inadvertantly funded by our own CIA as an excuse to give federal agents more and more authority to lock down and control the population.
Now to ensure Joe sixpack complies with all this they have been brainwashing him in school. School curriculum's are of course regulated by the state. They have to be in accordance with state tests, if you've noticed the state regulations tend to be most specific in matters of US History, where the government makes sure that text books and tests teach the materials in it's own interpretation of history. The interpretation that paints a picture of country being oppressed and fighting the good fight for independence. Supporting the common man etc etc etc. Rather than the truth, a bunch of rich men, did not like paying taxes and did not like the fact that england had given trade monopolies to rich men in england instead of them. Well over 80% of the population were loyal to the crown, more than that before war happened an innocents were caught in the crossfire. The enlistments in that war and pretty much every patriotic cause thereafter have been founded on a grain of truth buried in a stack of propoganda.
Our government lies to us and herds of us like sheep. It teaches us a revised history in school. It teaches conformity in school. Picture our children being stamped one by one in a great convoluted Jello mold. It convinces us to give up our liberties one piece at a time. It okay to whine about one piece or another, but it happens so often on such a regular basis nowdays we hardly remember what
ok lets try this again, THE GENRE OF A MMORPG IS RPG, RPG IS THE GENRE OF THEM ALL. If a game of the RPG genre is online, you could abbreviate it by saying ORPG, but the genre is STILL just rpg. The same for MM. Everquest does not have hundreds of servers, it has more to the tune of about 15-20ish, I could log in an count them but I'm too lazy. The majority of the players group on about 10 of those. The average everquest server has between 10-50k players at any given time.
The genre of Everquest is RPG, not MMORPG because that is an abbreviated way of saying it's an online game with a massive amount of players (and yes massive is a relative term with a different meaning based on who you ask, that again is beside the point) of the genre RPG.
Everquest has over half a million subscribers, not less than 100k. Get your facts straight. Niether gamespy nor game publishers decide what qualifies as a MMOG, therefore the references you listed are not any more authoritive than your or my post. It's game PLAYERS who get to decide what these terms mean.
The only one who has said that I myself have a paid anything at the moment is you. Not that it applies or is relevant to our current conversation in any way.
Nor does taking 4 words out of context and disputing them, despite the fact that your overall argument is aligned with my overall message. I fail to see what exactly your trying to accomplish here? I myself said that redhat was going to honor existing subscriptions. My point was that 12months MINIMUM did not mean 12 months was the MAXIMUM length of time redhat linux was supported for. Thankyou for FURTHER CLARIFYING MY POINT.
you right, RPG is a genre. MMORPG is an rpg which both has a massive number of players and is multiplayer. Quake has alot of players but isn't MMOG because they are spread across hundreds of servers and therefore there are not a massive number of players to interact with. Otherwise it would be an MMOG regardless of the games creators intent.
I can scribble on a piece of paper and intend it to be a drawing of a horse. It's still not a drawing of a horse unless someone can recognize it as such.
The labels for genre haven't change. There is no new MMORPG label that can be safely tacked on by publishers before the fact, they have the same one they always did, RPG or even ORPG. MM comes later when a number of people decide to start calling it that.
ok wait a second, you had to register with RHN to get updates. For each machine you got a 1yr subscription for free. After that 1 year you had to renew the subscription. As far as I know support contracts were a seperate thing, perhaps something was included with the boxed set but certainly not the download edition. You could most definately purchase another year subscription. I did this with rh8 in fact, although I moved to apt and never used it again about a week after doing so.
You could go through another source to get updates of course, or download them individually. I did this with freshrpms. But that doesn't mean there wasn't a subscription service to get windowsupdate type updates from redhat which could be renewed!
ok again, I'd call Asheron's anything made by microsoft to qualify as ONE game, same with Everquest anything you want to call it. So you lump those subscriber bases together. The rest of them yes. The sims online may be multiplayer but it's not exactly a role playing game, therefore it can't be a massively muliplayer roleplaying game regardless of the subscriber base.
You believe it's more important that the games desigers wanted to have a massive subscriber base than whether or not the game actually does have a massive subscriber base in determining if the game is massively multiplayer or merely multiplayer?
Just the base everquest has a subscriber base of aprox 450,000 according to the page you referenced. THAT is massively multiplayer, as in there are a massive number of players in a multiplayer environment. It's a roleplaying game, so now it qualifies as a MMORPG (massively multiplayer role playing game).
Massively multiplayer and obviously something affected by whether or not there are a massive number of players!!!
Niether rh 8 nor rh9 are EOL yet... there are still updates for both being released. I'd argue that's better evidence than a quote that is a guarantee they will support them for a MINIMUM of 1yr and nothing stating anything about a MAXIMUM of 1yr. They are cutting 9 off early but will either be refunding or continuing to support existing contracts for their remaining term. As stated by redhat's CEO.
Except the other desktop distributions had gapping holes in configurability, or sucked in terms of hardware detection (the only ones that don't suck use redhat's detection)
rhl 8 and 9 had renewable subscriptions. They came with one year but after that year was up you could renew for another year. With this once that year is up you CANNOT pay any sum of money to keep it going.
All the parent said was that the license meant unlimited clients and did NOT mean you could install it on 30 servers for $999, you would have to purchase a seperate license for each server which is $30k not $1k. That's it. What he said differs from what you said in no way whatsoever.
Sorry about that. Sometimes it seems like Slashdot is one big closed versus open source debate.
I wish you luck in finding the answers your looking for. Honestly, you'll find merits on both sides of the fence. The only thing I've found that really tips the debate is how things work in practice.
I wouldn't recommend taking my word or anyone elses word for which way leads to better security. Pick some popular examples, the whole microsoft/open source thing is over used but is a good choice nonetheless because it gives you a large sample base to work with. I wouldn't recommend going with the bug counts either, they really don't indicate anything.
If they find alot of bugs, does it mean they've really worked hard to get all the hidden bugs out? or does it simply mean the code was sloppy to begin with? And if they find few, is it because the code was pretty tight to begin with? or Because they really aren't looking? or because they don't announce every bug due to bad publicity?
Instead, look at the percentage of the userbase that gets infected or exploited. That way it scales to the popularity of the software in question. I think dollar amounts of damage should be looked at lightly. Unless we are actually talking about financial or banking software it's really a matter of coincidence.
Look at the bug itself. Just by reading a summary is the hole conceptually obvious? After reading the technical details do you yourself think you could write an exploit once this is pointed out to you? Do you think most professional programmers could?
And one of the biggest, ignoring announcements by both sides about how fast they do things. From the moment you hear about a 3rd party announcing a bug in the software, how long is it before you see a patch for that bug.
If you already do all this, great, maybe someone who doesn't will read it:)
Something tells me you've debated this many times are testing the waters with a new stink bait, but I'll bite.
"My personal thought is the less known about a product the less that can be discovered."
To make it simple, lets look at some of the constants with either method. (Where I say bug or bugs read security hole or security holes.)
1. The more people looking for bugs, the more bugs that will be found. (This argument is used in favor of open source, and in defense of popular closed source programs.)
2. No program is ever bug free or completely secure.
I think most people would agree with both of those statements when applied neutrally as above.
On the closed source side of things.
1. There are far far more people looking for bugs for malicious purposes than to fix said bugs. The more obscure, the less legitimate developers, therefore the larger the gap.
2. There are a small number of people who actually have access to the source code who are looking for bugs.
3. Code is debugged only to the extent it is profitable to do so. Actually creating a truely secure application is not the gole. Creating an application which is PERCIEVED as being secure is the goal. There is a world of difference.
4. While availability of the source code to legitimate analyists and debuggers is kept to a minimum, for a malicious cracker it's a relatively trivial task to decompile and distribute the source code.
5. Exploiting existing bugs once discovered is likely to be trivial, since proper effort isn't really taken (or even capable of being taken) to make the bugs themselves obscure. Instead the fact that the sourcecode isn't available tends to be relied upon.
On the open source side of things.
1. The number of developers with source code actively debugging code in relation to bad guys doing the same varies. I'm sure you'd find most of those same developers would be cracking these applications if closed source, now they can hack them instead and get positive recognition and respect. However if you look at the numbers you'll find that popular open source applications typically have THOUSANDS or even TENS OF THOUSANDS of developers sifting through the source code looking for bugs. The more popular the programs the more crackers, and the more hackers.
2. Everyone has access to the source code (of course), good and bad. The sheer volume of developers insures that although the source code is not obscure, the bugs which exist in it (as I think we've agreed all programs have bugs in them) will become more obscure over time. Raising the bar for how intelligent one must be to discover one or to write an exploit for it.
3. There is typically no pressure to market. If an effort is made toward security it is a legitimate effort. In a world of open source code, there is no such thing going for percieved security only since any fool can look at the code and see for themselves. Instead a developer makes a legitimate effort to be secure, and has no motivation to stop making said effort at a point simply because it's not profitable to continue.
In short, the only way I could see security through obscurity working is if nobody ever tried to break the security. Basically, it would only work in a situation in which no security is needed because that is pretty much what you have. No security.
You seem a little confused. It's almost as if you are implying that XP is as secure as OS/2 to begin with, obscurity or no. This is not the case. Anybody's dog can hack it's way into XP without even having fingers. You'll have no better luck getting the XP sourcecode than the OS/2 sourcecode as well.
Note, any ATM's out there running linux go unnoticed. Why? Because they aren't bluescreening and they aren't getting infected by windows worms and viruses. Wtf was this thing doing attached to an insecure network to begin with? Why wasn't it firewalled against all but some oddball port used to transfer the data out of the ATM to begin with? And the biggest question of course, why was this thing running the most noriously insecure operating system on the market at any price?
I suggest that the industry leave terms just the way they are and if LA doesn't like it, LA doesn't need hardware. They can go right back to the stoneage if they want to, there is a big world out there and it all needs hardware. It's not like hardware manufacturers NEED to sell to L.A. county to survive. Most of them wouldn't even see a significant number flux.
umm MOST of the world still uses the generic he/him/mankind terms. A few political elitists use improper english. A teacher is doing a disservice if they fail to mark off for things like s/he because they are incorrect grammar.
That is funny. But on a side note, and I'm usually the last one you'd here this from. S/he is blatant improper English. If I were a professor and you handed me a paper filled with those I'd flunk you back to grade school English. The male terms are genderless when used in a generic sense in the english language. Just like the term mankind does NOT merely refer to the guys but all human beings.
This article obviously overstates the problem significantly. Those who had power could get on the web, those who did not could not. Those who had power could communicate with others who had power over the web for the most part even when those inbetween did not. The failure is with the power grid, not with the internet, the internet is reliant on that system, and of course when that system goes down in an area the internet will as well. However the internet as a whole performed quite gracefully, barely noticing the loss.
Furthermore, none of the types of organizations listed above are exactly important or significant in their presence on the web. Nobody really misses them. If slashdot went down it might be different, but as we all know, slashdot has a much more redudant and stable setup, being that's it a more critical function.
Another interesting thing I've noted on a quasi side note. It's incredible how many people here seem to think that a UPS is a solution for keeping things up during a power outage!!! A UPS is not a device that is very useful for keeping systems up in a power outage at all!!
A UPS is a device you choose to be slightly larger than what you need to survive the transition to the backup generator which is what keeps your systems up during an outage. It also needs to have a bit more juice left over to smooth the power flow coming in since the generator will undoubtedly be giving out "dirty" power.
If you can't afford a generator, you can't afford to stay up during an outage. If you live in an area of reasonably good power supply there is really no point to a UPS at all without a generator. If you live in an area in which the power is dirty and flaky like that from a generator THEN maybe your on to something with a UPS and no generator;)
All else being equal yes, but all else is not equal.
In the smaller design the processor is less stable and generates more heat, the error has to be compensated for and this significantly reduces the impact of the clock speed increase, possibly to the point of little to nil or even negative impact.
Somehow I don't think something will be ruled inadmissable simply because it's common knowledge. If that were the case math could not be used in the courtroom;)
Slashdot Mirror
This really isn't that big a deal, for the most part linux overrides the bios anyway.
And Joe sixpack and his friends are too lazy to do anything about it and too stupid to know what to do if they weren't. Joe sixpack and his friends have been having their noses rubbed in shit by our wonderful and pure democratic government and perfect serene friendly capitalism bread and butter spawned corporations for generations. They've always just rolled over and begged before... what makes you think that's going to change now?
;)
For hundreds of years joe sixpack and his friends have gotten weaker and weaker. The big recognizable first piece was centralized citizenship after the civil war, prior to that the only citizens of the USA lived in washington, everybody else was a citizen of their state which in turn was a member of the union.
Next came the military, the constitution set up a division of powers, the central government was not supposed to have a standing army, that was supposed to be left to the states, while the central government maintained the navy. This wasn't random, it gave the states themselves the greatest power in domestic defense and limited the central government to only the direct military power to counter foreign foes (of course the militia's could be rallied). The air force was of course not covered in the Constitution. If you pay attention you'll notice the central government makes sure they are covered if this falls through, the navy is still the most highly funded of the forces, having within it all 3 types of armed forces. The Marines for instance are really just a subset of the Navy. The Navy's air power and number of craft are almost as extensive as the air force itself. And I guess it goes without saying, the navy of course has a navy
Now after centralizing authority and military power the government then started disarming the citizens. Deciding to do no more than pay lip service to the 2nd amendment (after all the government certainly doesn't feel people might need arms to overthrow it like the forefathers who had to do just that did when they put it in!). Now guns are being taken away, the classes of arms available to citizens has been reduced and reduced, arms are VERY closely watched by our police state.
Since these things became stronger, than the last significant threat (assault riffles) has been removed from citizens hands, the government has proceeded to clench down. Showing it's force in foreign countries (iraq for instance), using "Terrorism" which was likely at least inadvertantly funded by our own CIA as an excuse to give federal agents more and more authority to lock down and control the population.
Now to ensure Joe sixpack complies with all this they have been brainwashing him in school. School curriculum's are of course regulated by the state. They have to be in accordance with state tests, if you've noticed the state regulations tend to be most specific in matters of US History, where the government makes sure that text books and tests teach the materials in it's own interpretation of history. The interpretation that paints a picture of country being oppressed and fighting the good fight for independence. Supporting the common man etc etc etc. Rather than the truth, a bunch of rich men, did not like paying taxes and did not like the fact that england had given trade monopolies to rich men in england instead of them. Well over 80% of the population were loyal to the crown, more than that before war happened an innocents were caught in the crossfire. The enlistments in that war and pretty much every patriotic cause thereafter have been founded on a grain of truth buried in a stack of propoganda.
Our government lies to us and herds of us like sheep. It teaches us a revised history in school. It teaches conformity in school. Picture our children being stamped one by one in a great convoluted Jello mold. It convinces us to give up our liberties one piece at a time. It okay to whine about one piece or another, but it happens so often on such a regular basis nowdays we hardly remember what
dunno I guess zzx8btrq wasn't on the top of their list of choices ;)
ok lets try this again, THE GENRE OF A MMORPG IS RPG, RPG IS THE GENRE OF THEM ALL. If a game of the RPG genre is online, you could abbreviate it by saying ORPG, but the genre is STILL just rpg. The same for MM. Everquest does not have hundreds of servers, it has more to the tune of about 15-20ish, I could log in an count them but I'm too lazy. The majority of the players group on about 10 of those. The average everquest server has between 10-50k players at any given time.
The genre of Everquest is RPG, not MMORPG because that is an abbreviated way of saying it's an online game with a massive amount of players (and yes massive is a relative term with a different meaning based on who you ask, that again is beside the point) of the genre RPG.
Everquest has over half a million subscribers, not less than 100k. Get your facts straight. Niether gamespy nor game publishers decide what qualifies as a MMOG, therefore the references you listed are not any more authoritive than your or my post. It's game PLAYERS who get to decide what these terms mean.
The only one who has said that I myself have a paid anything at the moment is you. Not that it applies or is relevant to our current conversation in any way.
Nor does taking 4 words out of context and disputing them, despite the fact that your overall argument is aligned with my overall message. I fail to see what exactly your trying to accomplish here? I myself said that redhat was going to honor existing subscriptions. My point was that 12months MINIMUM did not mean 12 months was the MAXIMUM length of time redhat linux was supported for. Thankyou for FURTHER CLARIFYING MY POINT.
Please READ my post before arguing next time.
you right, RPG is a genre. MMORPG is an rpg which both has a massive number of players and is multiplayer. Quake has alot of players but isn't MMOG because they are spread across hundreds of servers and therefore there are not a massive number of players to interact with. Otherwise it would be an MMOG regardless of the games creators intent.
I can scribble on a piece of paper and intend it to be a drawing of a horse. It's still not a drawing of a horse unless someone can recognize it as such.
The labels for genre haven't change. There is no new MMORPG label that can be safely tacked on by publishers before the fact, they have the same one they always did, RPG or even ORPG. MM comes later when a number of people decide to start calling it that.
ok wait a second, you had to register with RHN to get updates. For each machine you got a 1yr subscription for free. After that 1 year you had to renew the subscription. As far as I know support contracts were a seperate thing, perhaps something was included with the boxed set but certainly not the download edition. You could most definately purchase another year subscription. I did this with rh8 in fact, although I moved to apt and never used it again about a week after doing so.
You could go through another source to get updates
of course, or download them individually. I did this with freshrpms. But that doesn't mean there wasn't a subscription service to get windowsupdate type updates from redhat which could be renewed!
ok again, I'd call Asheron's anything made by microsoft to qualify as ONE game, same with Everquest anything you want to call it. So you lump those subscriber bases together. The rest of them yes. The sims online may be multiplayer but it's not exactly a role playing game, therefore it can't be a massively muliplayer roleplaying game regardless of the subscriber base.
You believe it's more important that the games desigers wanted to have a massive subscriber base than whether or not the game actually does have a massive subscriber base in determining if the game is massively multiplayer or merely multiplayer?
Just the base everquest has a subscriber base of aprox 450,000 according to the page you referenced. THAT is massively multiplayer, as in there are a massive number of players in a multiplayer environment. It's a roleplaying game, so now it qualifies as a MMORPG (massively multiplayer role playing game).
Massively multiplayer and obviously something affected by whether or not there are a massive number of players!!!
Niether rh 8 nor rh9 are EOL yet... there are still updates for both being released. I'd argue that's better evidence than a quote that is a guarantee they will support them for a MINIMUM of 1yr and nothing stating anything about a MAXIMUM of 1yr. They are cutting 9 off early but will either be refunding or continuing to support existing contracts for their remaining term. As stated by redhat's CEO.
Except the other desktop distributions had gapping holes in configurability, or sucked in terms of hardware detection (the only ones that don't suck use redhat's detection)
rhl 8 and 9 had renewable subscriptions. They came with one year but after that year was up you could renew for another year. With this once that year is up you CANNOT pay any sum of money to keep it going.
All the parent said was that the license meant unlimited clients and did NOT mean you could install it on 30 servers for $999, you would have to purchase a seperate license for each server which is $30k not $1k. That's it. What he said differs from what you said in no way whatsoever.
Sorry about that. Sometimes it seems like Slashdot is one big closed versus open source debate.
:)
I wish you luck in finding the answers your looking for. Honestly, you'll find merits on both sides of the fence. The only thing I've found that really tips the debate is how things work in practice.
I wouldn't recommend taking my word or anyone elses word for which way leads to better security. Pick some popular examples, the whole microsoft/open source thing is over used but is a good choice nonetheless because it gives you a large sample base to work with. I wouldn't recommend going with the bug counts either, they really don't indicate anything.
If they find alot of bugs, does it mean they've really worked hard to get all the hidden bugs out? or does it simply mean the code was sloppy to begin with? And if they find few, is it because the code was pretty tight to begin with? or Because they really aren't looking? or because they don't announce every bug due to bad publicity?
Instead, look at the percentage of the userbase that gets infected or exploited. That way it scales to the popularity of the software in question. I think dollar amounts of damage should be looked at lightly. Unless we are actually talking about financial or banking software it's really a matter of coincidence.
Look at the bug itself. Just by reading a summary is the hole conceptually obvious? After reading the technical details do you yourself think you could write an exploit once this is pointed out to you? Do you think most professional programmers could?
And one of the biggest, ignoring announcements by both sides about how fast they do things. From the moment you hear about a 3rd party announcing a bug in the software, how long is it before you see a patch for that bug.
If you already do all this, great, maybe someone who doesn't will read it
Something tells me you've debated this many times are testing the waters with a new stink bait, but I'll bite.
"My personal thought is the less known about a product the less that can be discovered."
To make it simple, lets look at some of the constants with either method. (Where I say bug or bugs read security hole or security holes.)
1. The more people looking for bugs, the more bugs that will be found. (This argument is used in favor of open source, and in defense of popular closed source programs.)
2. No program is ever bug free or completely secure.
I think most people would agree with both of those statements when applied neutrally as above.
On the closed source side of things.
1. There are far far more people looking for bugs for malicious purposes than to fix said bugs. The more obscure, the less legitimate developers, therefore the larger the gap.
2. There are a small number of people who actually have access to the source code who are looking for bugs.
3. Code is debugged only to the extent it is profitable to do so. Actually creating a truely secure application is not the gole. Creating an application which is PERCIEVED as being secure is the goal. There is a world of difference.
4. While availability of the source code to legitimate analyists and debuggers is kept to a minimum, for a malicious cracker it's a relatively trivial task to decompile and distribute the source code.
5. Exploiting existing bugs once discovered is likely to be trivial, since proper effort isn't really taken (or even capable of being taken) to make the bugs themselves obscure. Instead the fact that the sourcecode isn't available tends to be relied upon.
On the open source side of things.
1. The number of developers with source code actively debugging code in relation to bad guys doing the same varies. I'm sure you'd find most of those same developers would be cracking these applications if closed source, now they can hack them instead and get positive recognition and respect. However if you look at the numbers you'll find that popular open source applications typically have THOUSANDS or even TENS OF THOUSANDS of developers sifting through the source code looking for bugs. The more popular the programs the more crackers, and the more hackers.
2. Everyone has access to the source code (of course), good and bad. The sheer volume of developers insures that although the source code is not obscure, the bugs which exist in it (as I think we've agreed all programs have bugs in them) will become more obscure over time. Raising the bar for how intelligent one must be to discover one or to write an exploit for it.
3. There is typically no pressure to market. If an effort is made toward security it is a legitimate effort. In a world of open source code, there is no such thing going for percieved security only since any fool can look at the code and see for themselves. Instead a developer makes a legitimate effort to be secure, and has no motivation to stop making said effort at a point simply because it's not profitable to continue.
In short, the only way I could see security through obscurity working is if nobody ever tried to break the security. Basically, it would only work in a situation in which no security is needed because that is pretty much what you have. No security.
You seem a little confused. It's almost as if you are implying that XP is as secure as OS/2 to begin with, obscurity or no. This is not the case. Anybody's dog can hack it's way into XP without even having fingers. You'll have no better luck getting the XP sourcecode than the OS/2 sourcecode as well.
Note, any ATM's out there running linux go unnoticed. Why? Because they aren't bluescreening and they aren't getting infected by windows worms and viruses. Wtf was this thing doing attached to an insecure network to begin with? Why wasn't it firewalled against all but some oddball port used to transfer the data out of the ATM to begin with? And the biggest question of course, why was this thing running the most noriously insecure operating system on the market at any price?
maybe I should clarify, just my opinion, but it hardly qualifies as MM if there are less than 100,000 players. Otherwise it's just morpg ;)
Has anyone even heard of this thing?
There really aren't that many Fantasy mmorpg's out there. Everquest, Dark Ages of Camelot, The Realm, Asheron's Call, and that pretty much covers it.
4 Games hardly covers "just too many".
They'd be complaining about the term RAID, after all it offends the cockroaches
I suggest that the industry leave terms just the way they are and if LA doesn't like it, LA doesn't need hardware. They can go right back to the stoneage if they want to, there is a big world out there and it all needs hardware. It's not like hardware manufacturers NEED to sell to L.A. county to survive. Most of them wouldn't even see a significant number flux.
umm MOST of the world still uses the generic he/him/mankind terms. A few political elitists use improper english. A teacher is doing a disservice if they fail to mark off for things like s/he because they are incorrect grammar.
That is funny. But on a side note, and I'm usually the last one you'd here this from. S/he is blatant improper English. If I were a professor and you handed me a paper filled with those I'd flunk you back to grade school English. The male terms are genderless when used in a generic sense in the english language. Just like the term mankind does NOT merely refer to the guys but all human beings.
"consume the same monopoly-generated content everyone else is consuming"
If that is what you find Slashdot to be, then why are you replying to me when you could be watching tv?
This article obviously overstates the problem significantly. Those who had power could get on the web, those who did not could not. Those who had power could communicate with others who had power over the web for the most part even when those inbetween did not. The failure is with the power grid, not with the internet, the internet is reliant on that system, and of course when that system goes down in an area the internet will as well. However the internet as a whole performed quite gracefully, barely noticing the loss.
;)
Furthermore, none of the types of organizations listed above are exactly important or significant in their presence on the web. Nobody really misses them. If slashdot went down it might be different, but as we all know, slashdot has a much more redudant and stable setup, being that's it a more critical function.
Another interesting thing I've noted on a quasi side note. It's incredible how many people here seem to think that a UPS is a solution for keeping things up during a power outage!!! A UPS is not a device that is very useful for keeping systems up in a power outage at all!!
A UPS is a device you choose to be slightly larger than what you need to survive the transition to the backup generator which is what keeps your systems up during an outage. It also needs to have a bit more juice left over to smooth the power flow coming in since the generator will undoubtedly be giving out "dirty" power.
If you can't afford a generator, you can't afford to stay up during an outage. If you live in an area of reasonably good power supply there is really no point to a UPS at all without a generator. If you live in an area in which the power is dirty and flaky like that from a generator THEN maybe your on to something with a UPS and no generator
All else being equal yes, but all else is not equal.
In the smaller design the processor is less stable and generates more heat, the error has to be compensated for and this significantly reduces the impact of the clock speed increase, possibly to the point of little to nil or even negative impact.
Not to mention, this is vaporware.
Somehow I don't think something will be ruled inadmissable simply because it's common knowledge. If that were the case math could not be used in the courtroom ;)