I believe you are confusing issues and trying to justify one misdeed through evidence of another possible misdeed. The two are twaned and cannot be reasonably used to negate the other.
He may or may not be legally obligated to give credit to the original creators. He certainly should, that I agree. But it has no bearance on the activities of Fuddruckers whatsoever; and if you believe it does then you are woefully obfuscating separate issues.
Fuddruckers technically linked; yes. But the manner in which they linked is termed hot-linking. They took his resources from him without asking. They framed his content and made it appear as if it was their own. It simply is, as a minimum, bad form.
Just because you technically can do it does not mean you should. That is to say yes, that is the way the WWW is technically constructed. It does not mean our society should be so ethically constructed. Thus peoples' rightful rancor with Fuddruckers.
I am a bit baffled why this is news. How is this any different than any other attack via a web page? And how is a weblog any different than a vanilla web page? (That was meant an ironic, rhetorical question for those itching to answer that.) The techniques used to phish and to infiltrate a target machine via web pages are identical for weblogs... since weblogs == web pages. (And yes, I do appreciate there are persons in the world who do not understand the two are the same.)
How on earth can one conclude that blocking people from all weblogs will protect them? Unless you also block them from all web pages to boot, ie the entire world wide web.
Websense warned that viruses hosted on weblogs might be a danger because they get round the filtering systems many firms have created to ensure malicious programs do not reach employees.
Can someone confirm this? Are you telling me companies actively track if a site is a weblog... and if so lower the security precautions for it?
I am a bit disappointed that BBC reported this article. Talk about FUD.
No word in given regarding how the average user should know whether or not to approve the request.
What I do not understand is how you can completely eliminate danger from ill-formed people. The fact of the matter is that people are responsible for using computers. We can either have completely dumbed-down OS's (namely, companies such as Apple and M$ take complete responsibility for every sort of sescutiry isssue and to do so ensure they strict limit our use of their products to help mitigate their risk to such a godly -- and equally inane -- level of responsibility) or we accept the fact that the end-users have some responsibility, too. So how should the user know whether to accept or deny...read a book, google it up, or any other of a thousand ways people have spent millenia educating themselves...
Granted, the dialog that Apple has implemented could include some more information, but it is certainly in the right direction. As I am away from a Mac for a week, I am not positive how the new system works. I am not sure if you can say "Always permit this URI..." or if permission is on a per session basis. If the latter that might become annoying...and it might be nice to say "Forever Accept/Deny" in those cases where I feel confident that I can/should do that. Having said that, the one thing that I'd like to see is a list of those apps/URIs I have granted/stripped permission to/from so I have better management over the system....esp. after I FUBAR and grant permission to EvilWare!
That said, what I think better software needs to be written to take advantage of the current hardware. When I see how beautiful graphics look in many console games, I can't help but wonder why PC games don't look as good on average, even with much studlier hardware.
Whilst I will not add the the previous replier, their point that the hardware is a static target is very valid.
However, another issue of playing on console (e.g. NSTC-standard TV) is that it is equivalent to playing on a PC dumped down to a resolution of 427 by 525 or 224,175 pixels per framed and interlaced to boot)! Your typical PC gamer plays a minimum 800 by 600, or about double the pixels per frame! (We can safely assume the same pixel bit depth.) And if console output interlaces the image then PC's are doing twice the work for the same frame -- but this isn't really fair since PC games sometimes have the option for interlace'd images...but it seems to be a passing fad from a few years back. When I take this into considertion I think PC games show a lot of great programming to get the performance that they do.
Not to say that more cannot be done -- but considering the pace of CPUs, GPUs, et al., PC game makers have a very fast moving target. And you are starting to see better optimized games for XBox and PS 2 in large part the developers are becoming more experienced with the fixed HW and thus know how/where to optimize.
What part of analogy do we not understand? I am not taking about the magnitude of complexity are equivalent, but the relation of complexity to change. I was trying to build an image. If you have a better analogy then certainly post it. *no sarcasm meant*
And of course they are fundamentally different -- why else would we call it an analogy? Sometimes it it easier to talk about the relation of X to Y as it is analogous to A to B when A != X and B != Y, but X/Y == A/B...anyway.
You can certainly grow your foundation of a house; but only so much. Add a new room either as an adjunct to the framework (add foundation) or grow upwards off existing foundation (add to framework but retain foundation). But I do agree you cannot redig the basement without a complete "re-write".
It is certainly not a 1-1 analogy, but nonethless appropriate on some first-order approximation. My point being that there is a similar relationship in the two -- an increasing difficult to add as complexity increases. At a certain point your interfaces just become too convulated or simply inappropiately under-valued to handle the new loads.
Anyway, the analogy itself is not the point (when is it ever?). It is what it eludes to that is important -- changing needs, at times, cannot be addressed by an update to the current system.
I have to concur. That was my point; albeit you stated more succinctly than I.
Rewrites are excellent learning opportunities -- naturally everything does not nor should it be a rewrite. But there are times when starting from scratch gives you two modes to the same problem; let evolution prevail and the one best suited to the environment win. In some senses, code rewrite can an internal form of competition as you strive to "improve" upon old processes and methods. I say "improve" since at times it can a two steps forward three back; but then that is part of the growth/evolution.
I do not concur with the author's seemingly blanket assumption that a complete re-write of codebase is wasteful. There are times when it is necessary for both practical and philosophical reasons.
From the practical standpoint, and suggested by other astute readers, often times the initial specs did not sufficiently anticipate future growth. Needless, it is a poor programmer who does not from a programmatic perspective anticipate this and do his/her/its best to provide a sufficiently robust framework that has at least one order of magnitude growth in a primary spec. On top of this, standards change, new ones emerge, "paradigms" shift, needs change and so on -- at times it just makes sense to start from scratch. You are not going to build a business building on top of your house's foundation...it just is not scalable to the new needs.
Philosophically, I think it is worth tearing down the structures and building anew at times. Too much incremental growth can lead to long term stagnation as the original skills to build the foundation are lost through inactivity. As an aerospace engineer I can see it now where too much information and processes have become institutionalized -- I fear if ever we needed to do it from scratch.
I have to concur that keyboard and mouse are critical for a certain type of MMO. Especially for MMORPG where there are people who actually RPG then I do not see consoles adding value or taking market share. The caveat being unless they become more like PCs -> add keyboard and mouse.
But my experience -- unfortunately -- playing ShadowBane was the lack of RPG elements. There have been other discussions about the RPG element of MMO going the way of the dinosaur as younger members play more for the action elemets than anything else. As such, the UI needed to support this type of gameplay does not require a kybd and mouse.
But as was also mentioned in/. recently, a lot of people see MMOs as a hang-out just as malls were in the 80s. And if so, then the argument for keyboard and mouse is again sustained. I do not see any way for consoles to surpass PCs for MMOs except as glorified Doom kill rooms. The social aspects, esp. RPG aspects, just cannot be sustained by console UIs. And if they can then they have obstensibly become PCs....
Slashdot Mirror
I believe you are confusing issues and trying to justify one misdeed through evidence of another possible misdeed. The two are twaned and cannot be reasonably used to negate the other.
Just because you technically can do it does not mean you should. That is to say yes, that is the way the WWW is technically constructed. It does not mean our society should be so ethically constructed. Thus peoples' rightful rancor with Fuddruckers.
I am a bit baffled why this is news. How is this any different than any other attack via a web page? And how is a weblog any different than a vanilla web page? (That was meant an ironic, rhetorical question for those itching to answer that.) The techniques used to phish and to infiltrate a target machine via web pages are identical for weblogs ... since weblogs == web pages. (And yes, I do appreciate there are persons in the world who do not understand the two are the same.)
How on earth can one conclude that blocking people from all weblogs will protect them? Unless you also block them from all web pages to boot, ie the entire world wide web.
Can someone confirm this? Are you telling me companies actively track if a site is a weblog ... and if so lower the security precautions for it?
I am a bit disappointed that BBC reported this article. Talk about FUD.
What I do not understand is how you can completely eliminate danger from ill-formed people. The fact of the matter is that people are responsible for using computers. We can either have completely dumbed-down OS's (namely, companies such as Apple and M$ take complete responsibility for every sort of sescutiry isssue and to do so ensure they strict limit our use of their products to help mitigate their risk to such a godly -- and equally inane -- level of responsibility) or we accept the fact that the end-users have some responsibility, too. So how should the user know whether to accept or deny...read a book, google it up, or any other of a thousand ways people have spent millenia educating themselves...
Granted, the dialog that Apple has implemented could include some more information, but it is certainly in the right direction. As I am away from a Mac for a week, I am not positive how the new system works. I am not sure if you can say "Always permit this URI..." or if permission is on a per session basis. If the latter that might become annoying...and it might be nice to say "Forever Accept/Deny" in those cases where I feel confident that I can/should do that. Having said that, the one thing that I'd like to see is a list of those apps/URIs I have granted/stripped permission to/from so I have better management over the system....esp. after I FUBAR and grant permission to EvilWare!
Following that logic I take you already banged Mac OS X for 8 days...and that would be 2 years ago...and no MSclap.
Don't you mean to ask if all good Windows-using Slashdotters haven't already migrated to Mac OS X or Linux yet?
yeah, so troll. I know. lol.
Whilst I will not add the the previous replier, their point that the hardware is a static target is very valid.
However, another issue of playing on console (e.g. NSTC-standard TV) is that it is equivalent to playing on a PC dumped down to a resolution of 427 by 525 or 224,175 pixels per framed and interlaced to boot)! Your typical PC gamer plays a minimum 800 by 600, or about double the pixels per frame! (We can safely assume the same pixel bit depth.) And if console output interlaces the image then PC's are doing twice the work for the same frame -- but this isn't really fair since PC games sometimes have the option for interlace'd images...but it seems to be a passing fad from a few years back. When I take this into considertion I think PC games show a lot of great programming to get the performance that they do.
Not to say that more cannot be done -- but considering the pace of CPUs, GPUs, et al., PC game makers have a very fast moving target. And you are starting to see better optimized games for XBox and PS 2 in large part the developers are becoming more experienced with the fixed HW and thus know how/where to optimize.
What part of analogy do we not understand? I am not taking about the magnitude of complexity are equivalent, but the relation of complexity to change. I was trying to build an image. If you have a better analogy then certainly post it. *no sarcasm meant*
And of course they are fundamentally different -- why else would we call it an analogy? Sometimes it it easier to talk about the relation of X to Y as it is analogous to A to B when A != X and B != Y, but X/Y == A/B...anyway.
This thread has gone tangential! *laughs*
You can certainly grow your foundation of a house; but only so much. Add a new room either as an adjunct to the framework (add foundation) or grow upwards off existing foundation (add to framework but retain foundation). But I do agree you cannot redig the basement without a complete "re-write".
It is certainly not a 1-1 analogy, but nonethless appropriate on some first-order approximation. My point being that there is a similar relationship in the two -- an increasing difficult to add as complexity increases. At a certain point your interfaces just become too convulated or simply inappropiately under-valued to handle the new loads.
Anyway, the analogy itself is not the point (when is it ever?). It is what it eludes to that is important -- changing needs, at times, cannot be addressed by an update to the current system.
I have to concur. That was my point; albeit you stated more succinctly than I.
Rewrites are excellent learning opportunities -- naturally everything does not nor should it be a rewrite. But there are times when starting from scratch gives you two modes to the same problem; let evolution prevail and the one best suited to the environment win. In some senses, code rewrite can an internal form of competition as you strive to "improve" upon old processes and methods. I say "improve" since at times it can a two steps forward three back; but then that is part of the growth/evolution.
I do not concur with the author's seemingly blanket assumption that a complete re-write of codebase is wasteful. There are times when it is necessary for both practical and philosophical reasons.
From the practical standpoint, and suggested by other astute readers, often times the initial specs did not sufficiently anticipate future growth. Needless, it is a poor programmer who does not from a programmatic perspective anticipate this and do his/her/its best to provide a sufficiently robust framework that has at least one order of magnitude growth in a primary spec. On top of this, standards change, new ones emerge, "paradigms" shift, needs change and so on -- at times it just makes sense to start from scratch. You are not going to build a business building on top of your house's foundation...it just is not scalable to the new needs.
Philosophically, I think it is worth tearing down the structures and building anew at times. Too much incremental growth can lead to long term stagnation as the original skills to build the foundation are lost through inactivity. As an aerospace engineer I can see it now where too much information and processes have become institutionalized -- I fear if ever we needed to do it from scratch.
I have to concur that keyboard and mouse are critical for a certain type of MMO. Especially for MMORPG where there are people who actually RPG then I do not see consoles adding value or taking market share. The caveat being unless they become more like PCs -> add keyboard and mouse.
But my experience -- unfortunately -- playing ShadowBane was the lack of RPG elements. There have been other discussions about the RPG element of MMO going the way of the dinosaur as younger members play more for the action elemets than anything else. As such, the UI needed to support this type of gameplay does not require a kybd and mouse.
But as was also mentioned in /. recently, a lot of people see MMOs as a hang-out just as malls were in the 80s. And if so, then the argument for keyboard and mouse is again sustained. I do not see any way for consoles to surpass PCs for MMOs except as glorified Doom kill rooms. The social aspects, esp. RPG aspects, just cannot be sustained by console UIs. And if they can then they have obstensibly become PCs....