I can't believe that Valve would actually do that. My assumption has been that Valve made the statement that to assure online buyers that they would be able to play as soon as anyone. They never actually said that they would allow any copy to be activated before the official launch. registration activation.
That said, I wouldn't be surprised if VU used a little FUD to try to keep retailers from breaking the release date.
You're the one who cited the article in the first place and inappropriately drew the conclusion that it was prof of a common progenitor only 3500 year ago. I was simply trying to explain what the study's actually intent was. I don't know how many people existed 3500 years ago, but from what I read of the study it did not seek to prove or disprove the existance of a single progenitor, though I would guess that the researchers assumed a larger population in their formulae.
As for the 2nd question, again, you're the one who cited the study in the first place. The article did not mention any exclusions, but either way, it doesn't prove a common progenitor.
You're still missing the point of the study. It was not a genetic study to determine a common progenitor. It was a Mathmatical study to determine where and when the most recent common ancestor for all of humanity is likely to have occured. It does not prove this ancestor's existenec, but shows that his existence is probable. This theorized common ancestor, if he exists, is everyone's ancestor, but was one of millions of people on the earth at that time that are also ancestors of people today.
If the study were done to find a common ancestor of everyone living prior to the european visitaion of Tasmania, one would have to go back AT LEAST 12000 years. The fact that they are able theorize such a recent common ancestor for tasmanians as well in this study is because TODAY all tasmanians have some european ancestry.
Beer keeps better when stored cold. I'm not sure that I'd want to buy a beer that had been stored at room temp for the past 2 months. Of course this happens a lot anyway, but some stores are good about keeping their beer shipped and stored cool.
That said, if there's a way to make sure the cooling process didn't freeze the liquid inside the can, it'd be a great way to always have a nice ice cold beer at a tailgater, picnic or camping trip without having to over stuff the cooler with ice.
Yeah, I thought of this, but between the fact that it would not be secure(some people do check), ISPs (hopefully) watching for this kind of thing, SP2, and the limited upsteam speed of most 0wnabl3 systems; this may not be easy or profitable for spammers.
Actually that's exactly what it is good for. The point is that it doesn't matter where the email is coming from, you block the site being advertised by the spam. At some point they have to direct you to a website that will accept your credit card. Block that site and they can't make money.
Of course, they can just provide you with an 800 number instead. No way to stop that short of stopping the initial spam. Then again. providing an 800 number is nice clue for spam filters that it IS SPAM.
Biggest flaw in this idea is that it requires some sort of overview process to avoid what the grandparent suggested.
Also, I think that this is a great way to test the Source engine. The get to distribute an early version of the game to dedicated fans and get valuable feedback to make the release of HL2 go well. In my book that's a win-win.
Now if you didn't purchase CS:CZ, you don't HAVE to participate in the beta. You'll just have to wait for the release of HL2 like everyone else.
Apologies for the double post. Damn submit button is right next to the preview button.
First of all, since when did it become evil for a company to try to make money. The bottom line is, if people are willing to buy something, for what ever reason, as long as the product isn't being misrepresented, then more power to the company for having found a way to add value to a 'flopped' product. My only concern would be that people would buy CS:CZ expecting to be able to play CS:S indefinately, and that may not be the case.
Imagine a stadium where each IP address is assigned to an individual seat. The seats are organized into convenient tiers and sections and rows. Within each section, each row is usually sequentially numbered, and each seat is sequentially numbered within that row. This stadium has over 4 billion seats, enough for every person in the world to have their own seat.
ISP are given control of sections and sometimes whole tiers of seats that they make available to their customers in smaller subsections. For routing purposes all of a company's sections are grouped together in the stadium. This makes it easier and faster for the ISP to manage traffic within and between their sections.
If I want to find a person (www.JohnSmith.com) who is sitting in one of the seat in the stadium, there is a convenient lookup system called DNS. It tells me the seat number (IP address) that they are currently sitting in. I then look at a map to locate the tier and section in the stadium, and can quickly find the person i'm looking from there.
Usually if www.JohnSmith.com moves, all he has to do is update the DNS record to identify his new seat. That way I can still quickly find him.
In this case however, www.JohnSmith.com wants to take his seats with him. That means that if I'm looking for www.JohnSmith.com, I'll look up his seat number, then look at the map and go to the section his seats used to be in. Once I'm there I'll be rerouted to the new section that the seats are in, and once in the new section may have to stop along the way in that section to get directions to the appropriate row and where in the row his seat is.
One exception like this doesn't disrupt the system much, but if this were to be allowed on a regular basis, the stadium would quickly get to the point where the map would often point you to the wrong section, or it would have to be update to list where each row and sometimes smaller groups of seats are located, making it very time consuming to find the seat you are looking for.
I'll assume you meant the defendant, though I'll readily agree that this ruling makes moving a mlid inconvenience to the plaintiff.
Have you given any thought to what is required to fulfill this order? The actual cost may be negligable, but it is hardly a mild inconvenience, especially when it puts at risk the service to their PAYING customers, while possibly putting them in violation of their agreement with ARIN. Not to mention that they have to get the NEW ISP cooperation in accepting the traffic.
That makes me wonder why the customers new ISP didn't put a stop to this in the begining. Surely they should be saying to the new customer that they can't accept the IP block anymore than the previous ISP can transfer it.
Status quo would be to have the customer stay with NAC until the suit is resolved. Restraining orders are usually put in place to limit damage to both parties. In this case, the order limits the damage to the plantiff, but causes damage to the defendant which shouldn't be seen as a reasonable compromise.
And I wouldn't expect a judge to understand DNS and internet routing, but the complete ignorance that this ruling shows implies that he did bother to educate at all on the issue before making the ruling. He probably simply asked if it was possible to move the addresses and then ordered it done with a complete disregard of the technical difficulty, cost or legality of the decision.
I can see two advantages: the first being the security which is the whole point of the knock in the first place. The second being that many apps especially older windows apps don't have the ability to reconfigure what port they connect to, or even if they do, they don't allow different ports for different connections.
I don't think it'd be difficult to build a stand alone knock app that would knock and then run the app you wanted, or even better just listen for outgoing connection and make the appropriate knock before allowing the connection to go through.
This assumes that the hacker knows your rotation schedule and is always working with a current hash. The main point behind password rotation is to keep a step ahead. By the time someone can get a password, it has been changed, and passwords that have been compromised get replaced.
Changing passwords has the added benifit that it limits the time a hacker has to crack a particular hash, but you have a point, statistically speaking (though I have not actually done the math to prove it) if he were to get the new hash and start cracking that as soon as you changed passwords, his odds of finding in a given ammount of time are not significantly less.
hmm . . I think I have to add that no coin could be more than 4 times the next smaller. I obviously need to think this through more before I make any more sweeping statements.
I agree. I was trying to point out the problem with the mathematically more efficient system. I obviously didn't complete my thoughts well.
as long as each coin is at least twice the size of the next smaller denomination, the easiest AND most effiient way to make change is to start with the largest and work your way down.
With the more 'efficient' denominations, the easiest way to make change is still large to small and there is no efficient way for a person to firgure out the oprimal coins to give.
Re:I hate math...
on
Making Change
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Beyond that, it also means the cashier would have to figure out what the most efficient combination of change is . . for 0.36 don't give a quater two nickels and a penny, just give two 0.18 coins.
The logic for determining change is really easy for a cashier. start with the largest coin and work your way down until it all adds up.
Re:Got a whole lotta hype
on
Brain Privacy
·
· Score: 1
Motive is not the same as intent. these laws say that some 'reasons' for commiting crimes are worse than other. The thoughts alone are not illegal, but these laws say that the thoughts you had while assaulting that person may some how make it more heinous. As if beating a person senseless so you can steal their car is some how not as bad as beating the person senseles and stealing their while thinking bad thoughts about the person.
Slashdot Mirror
The Nightmare before Christmas makes so much more sense now.
I can't believe that Valve would actually do that. My assumption has been that Valve made the statement that to assure online buyers that they would be able to play as soon as anyone. They never actually said that they would allow any copy to be activated before the official launch. registration activation.
That said, I wouldn't be surprised if VU used a little FUD to try to keep retailers from breaking the release date.
You're the one who cited the article in the first place and inappropriately drew the conclusion that it was prof of a common progenitor only 3500 year ago. I was simply trying to explain what the study's actually intent was. I don't know how many people existed 3500 years ago, but from what I read of the study it did not seek to prove or disprove the existance of a single progenitor, though I would guess that the researchers assumed a larger population in their formulae. As for the 2nd question, again, you're the one who cited the study in the first place. The article did not mention any exclusions, but either way, it doesn't prove a common progenitor.
You're still missing the point of the study. It was not a genetic study to determine a common progenitor. It was a Mathmatical study to determine where and when the most recent common ancestor for all of humanity is likely to have occured. It does not prove this ancestor's existenec, but shows that his existence is probable. This theorized common ancestor, if he exists, is everyone's ancestor, but was one of millions of people on the earth at that time that are also ancestors of people today.
If the study were done to find a common ancestor of everyone living prior to the european visitaion of Tasmania, one would have to go back AT LEAST 12000 years. The fact that they are able theorize such a recent common ancestor for tasmanians as well in this study is because TODAY all tasmanians have some european ancestry.
Couldn't I just play Sims if I wanted this kind of drudgery.
Beer keeps better when stored cold. I'm not sure that I'd want to buy a beer that had been stored at room temp for the past 2 months. Of course this happens a lot anyway, but some stores are good about keeping their beer shipped and stored cool.
That said, if there's a way to make sure the cooling process didn't freeze the liquid inside the can, it'd be a great way to always have a nice ice cold beer at a tailgater, picnic or camping trip without having to over stuff the cooler with ice.
Yeah, I thought of this, but between the fact that it would not be secure(some people do check), ISPs (hopefully) watching for this kind of thing, SP2, and the limited upsteam speed of most 0wnabl3 systems; this may not be easy or profitable for spammers.
Actually that's exactly what it is good for. The point is that it doesn't matter where the email is coming from, you block the site being advertised by the spam. At some point they have to direct you to a website that will accept your credit card. Block that site and they can't make money.
Of course, they can just provide you with an 800 number instead. No way to stop that short of stopping the initial spam. Then again. providing an 800 number is nice clue for spam filters that it IS SPAM.
Biggest flaw in this idea is that it requires some sort of overview process to avoid what the grandparent suggested.
Also, I think that this is a great way to test the Source engine. The get to distribute an early version of the game to dedicated fans and get valuable feedback to make the release of HL2 go well. In my book that's a win-win.
Now if you didn't purchase CS:CZ, you don't HAVE to participate in the beta. You'll just have to wait for the release of HL2 like everyone else.
Apologies for the double post. Damn submit button is right next to the preview button.
First of all, since when did it become evil for a company to try to make money. The bottom line is, if people are willing to buy something, for what ever reason, as long as the product isn't being misrepresented, then more power to the company for having found a way to add value to a 'flopped' product. My only concern would be that people would buy CS:CZ expecting to be able to play CS:S indefinately, and that may not be the case.
Hey, I just fingered her.
Here's my analogy for what it's worth:
Imagine a stadium where each IP address is assigned to an individual seat. The seats are organized into convenient tiers and sections and rows. Within each section, each row is usually sequentially numbered, and each seat is sequentially numbered within that row. This stadium has over 4 billion seats, enough for every person in the world to have their own seat.
ISP are given control of sections and sometimes whole tiers of seats that they make available to their customers in smaller subsections. For routing purposes all of a company's sections are grouped together in the stadium. This makes it easier and faster for the ISP to manage traffic within and between their sections.
If I want to find a person (www.JohnSmith.com) who is sitting in one of the seat in the stadium, there is a convenient lookup system called DNS. It tells me the seat number (IP address) that they are currently sitting in. I then look at a map to locate the tier and section in the stadium, and can quickly find the person i'm looking from there.
Usually if www.JohnSmith.com moves, all he has to do is update the DNS record to identify his new seat. That way I can still quickly find him.
In this case however, www.JohnSmith.com wants to take his seats with him. That means that if I'm looking for www.JohnSmith.com, I'll look up his seat number, then look at the map and go to the section his seats used to be in. Once I'm there I'll be rerouted to the new section that the seats are in, and once in the new section may have to stop along the way in that section to get directions to the appropriate row and where in the row his seat is.
One exception like this doesn't disrupt the system much, but if this were to be allowed on a regular basis, the stadium would quickly get to the point where the map would often point you to the wrong section, or it would have to be update to list where each row and sometimes smaller groups of seats are located, making it very time consuming to find the seat you are looking for.
I'll assume you meant the defendant, though I'll readily agree that this ruling makes moving a mlid inconvenience to the plaintiff.
Have you given any thought to what is required to fulfill this order? The actual cost may be negligable, but it is hardly a mild inconvenience, especially when it puts at risk the service to their PAYING customers, while possibly putting them in violation of their agreement with ARIN. Not to mention that they have to get the NEW ISP cooperation in accepting the traffic.
That makes me wonder why the customers new ISP didn't put a stop to this in the begining. Surely they should be saying to the new customer that they can't accept the IP block anymore than the previous ISP can transfer it.
Status quo would be to have the customer stay with NAC until the suit is resolved. Restraining orders are usually put in place to limit damage to both parties. In this case, the order limits the damage to the plantiff, but causes damage to the defendant which shouldn't be seen as a reasonable compromise.
And I wouldn't expect a judge to understand DNS and internet routing, but the complete ignorance that this ruling shows implies that he did bother to educate at all on the issue before making the ruling. He probably simply asked if it was possible to move the addresses and then ordered it done with a complete disregard of the technical difficulty, cost or legality of the decision.
All I know is that after reading thios article, I really want to go out and get that magazine.
.
.
.
For the articles, of course.
I can see two advantages: the first being the security which is the whole point of the knock in the first place. The second being that many apps especially older windows apps don't have the ability to reconfigure what port they connect to, or even if they do, they don't allow different ports for different connections.
I don't think it'd be difficult to build a stand alone knock app that would knock and then run the app you wanted, or even better just listen for outgoing connection and make the appropriate knock before allowing the connection to go through.
This assumes that the hacker knows your rotation schedule and is always working with a current hash. The main point behind password rotation is to keep a step ahead. By the time someone can get a password, it has been changed, and passwords that have been compromised get replaced.
Changing passwords has the added benifit that it limits the time a hacker has to crack a particular hash, but you have a point, statistically speaking (though I have not actually done the math to prove it) if he were to get the new hash and start cracking that as soon as you changed passwords, his odds of finding in a given ammount of time are not significantly less.
Charles Sheffield's Web Between the Worlds deals with not only Elevators, but Slings as well.
hmm . . I think I have to add that no coin could be more than 4 times the next smaller. I obviously need to think this through more before I make any more sweeping statements.
I find this unlikely since the penny is mostly zinc (only 2.5% Cu), and all the other coins are at least 75% copper.
that's exactly my point . . it's not easy. working from large to small is easy.
"as long as each coin is at least twice the size of the next smaller denomination"
before someone gives an example where I'm wrong, I realize that if the coins need to share a common factor for this to be true in all cases.
I agree. I was trying to point out the problem with the mathematically more efficient system. I obviously didn't complete my thoughts well.
as long as each coin is at least twice the size of the next smaller denomination, the easiest AND most effiient way to make change is to start with the largest and work your way down.
With the more 'efficient' denominations, the easiest way to make change is still large to small and there is no efficient way for a person to firgure out the oprimal coins to give.
Beyond that, it also means the cashier would have to figure out what the most efficient combination of change is . . for 0.36 don't give a quater two nickels and a penny, just give two 0.18 coins.
The logic for determining change is really easy for a cashier. start with the largest coin and work your way down until it all adds up.
Motive is not the same as intent. these laws say that some 'reasons' for commiting crimes are worse than other. The thoughts alone are not illegal, but these laws say that the thoughts you had while assaulting that person may some how make it more heinous. As if beating a person senseless so you can steal their car is some how not as bad as beating the person senseles and stealing their while thinking bad thoughts about the person.