Re:Gamers never know what's good for them
on
A Gamer's Manifesto
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I always start out a game on easy. Good example: Half Life 2. So much nicer to have a relaxed game of shooting the crap out of hapless minions, while looking at the graphics and surroundings, checking out the details, wondering if it's possible to reach that ledge over there somehow. I don't want a game to stress me out constantly.
And if the game is good enough to play again, I'll play it again on a higher difficulty.
I haven't had any problems installing 2k. What kind of esoteric hardware requires slipstreaming to work? Sure, SATA drives, but you get the same thing with XP.
Also, if you need to slipstream anything, use nlite. (version 1.0 just came out)
It doesn't matter which die is chosen, since their bias cannot be known. Having several dice is merely a precaution against lack of uniformity in a single die which might become apparent with large amounts of produced randomness. It's only necessary if your handicraft skillz aren't perfect. Any lack of uniformity that might be inherent in the wood itself can't really affect the die making process either. Suppose you make 6 dice. What's the likelihood that all of them get the same bias from the wood? In any case, since you choose yourself where you write the numbers on the dice, make sure you make one dice for every possible number pattern (according to wood grains etc.). Note that the numbers should be written, not carved. Use same amount of ink on all sides.
Wood is a good material because anyone can handle it. Of course, if you have a portable laser cutter and some metal lying around, go ahead and use them and eliminate all material bias.:)
I do think that 'right' and 'wrong' are a matter of perspecive, and that there aren't any absolute truths or wrongs. (heh, don't we all)
As of your $.02: If Stanford wants to be this extreme, well it's their loss. I'd say that their reaction is acceptable, but extreme, and thus wrong. Wrong in the sense 'stupid', and from the students' perspective (probably), morally as well.
I can't say that the students were wrong. They didn't crack any encryption or use force, the information was lying in a place were it shouldn't have been, and they took their chances. However, I can't say they were right either.
Essentially, both were between right and wrong, on average. My whole point (I think), was that people were saying that the students did the right thing. This is something said about a lot of other cases, essentially arguing that "it's the sysadmins fault", and making it so that it's no-one elses fault.
Although, the most irritating thing about this, is that the whole thing is so goddamned petty. It barely qualifies as "hacking"! I think that's also why it's hard to argument about 'right' or 'wrong', it strikes me as mostly ridiculous.
Heh, but has any company developed some simple "find wallet/dead cellphone" RFID technology? I'd get it in a second. Or is it easy to make it oneself..?
Re:When will the public revolt about issues like t
on
GPS-tracked Clothing
·
· Score: 1
Uh, if this is real, I expect there to be an 'off' switch somewhere:)
Not quite. If the memo was in a secret compartment in your box, that would be more correct. However I agree, the punishment is too extreme, that's the problem.
I would say that if the students feel they have no obligation to follow Stanfords rules about knowing information, Stanford has no obligation to accept them either. You can say that Stanford is wrong in not accepting the students. I can agree with that, the punishment is unnecessarily severe. But just because Stanford is wrong doesn't make the students right.
Now really, no-one's life is depending on this info, so saying that the students are absolutely wrong is incorrect, in my opinion. What I want to say is that they weren't right either. Since they entered into a grey zone, Stanford decided to screw them.
Thus my conclusion is: the punishment was too severe. That's it. The students might have done the right thing from their perspective (althought I don't think they thought that way), but the uni disagreed.
Ok, my reasoning about right/wrong: I have some info, but you can't know it. I'm not telling you the reason why, just that you can't. I'm writing the information on this paper here, and if you read it, I won't like it. If you go ahead and read it anyway because you feel it's not wrong, ok, that's your opinion. But my opinion is that it is wrong, so you ain't my friend.
In this case, I think a better way to put it is this way:
Wow! This is so deep that it's scary. Likewise, anyone is free to call an unlisted phone number, but that doesn't mean you should. Ethical and morally upstanding citizens should call only the numbers that are listed in the white pages.
Good point, but this is not a random phone number/url, it's an url with the specific intention of getting at information that the uni doesn't want them to have. And the uni didn't like that.
If you say the students have no oblication to follow rules, you can't say the school has any obligation to accept them either.
just because someone expects someone else to abide by their decision, doesn't in any way oblige that other one to actually do so.
You're right, it doesn't obligate them. But that still doesn't make it right, does it?
The big question is, is the information public or not? The answer is: neither. And since it's in a grey area, why take the risk? The uni says that it's not public, and it's their information.
It's like saying that because I'm connected to the Internet and running a publically available webserver, it's OK to take a look at what's available through that webserver.
"Sure, look at whatever you want. If you do so however, we wont accept you". That's the position of Stanford uni.
But if you go out of your way
Well, it's not like they were throwing the info in the students' faces, now is it? Again, it's a grey area, and they're saying it wasn't public info. Their info, their decision. Notice also that the info did not belong to the students. If I have an opinion or decision about you in my mind, it belongs to me, not you. We may have an agreement that I'll reveal the opinion at a later date, but that's my decision. If you go out of your way to obtain the info, I'll say you did the Wrong Thing (tm).
Isn't the decision whether or not the information is relevant with the officer who has the info? Why would it be right for a random student to decide on his own that the information should be his? Is it ok only because he was looking at info about someone else's decision pertaining to himself?
Apparently, the uni feels a need to discourage this kind of hacking, thus the punishment. Security was lacking, but hindsight is 20/20.
I also don't think that overly hackerish behaviour is good to encourage. Suppose they would have been readily accepted instead, with the comment: "Wow you guys are good, come on in!". Next thing you would have hordes of people trying to hack into the system, with varying intentions of trying to prove they are of the right stuff.
I'm not saying that hacking in to a system should be severely punished like in this case, but they can't very well encourage it either. They way I see it, hackers are often made into martyrs on here on/., disregarding that the hacker might not actually have been doing exactly "heroic" stuff. I think the issue is that they were de-admissioned. I don't there would be much to discuss had the punisment been less severe.
>"punishment" assumes both wrong doing and responsibility or need to correct it.
Well, I'm saying they were wrong, and I'd wager that's the majority opinion of society. Saying that something is right doesn't make it right. Saying that "information wants to be free" in order to read through your kid sister's diary is just a bad excuse, and I think the same applies here.
Consider: if you were applying for a job, and you hacked into their application system in order to get info quicker, would you complain if they didn't hire you after all, even if it said in the system that they would?
Now, I just read another comment that said that the students were not accepted because they were caught. While it's kind of obvious, it does pose the possibility that the uni wanted better students, who wouldn't get caught in such a simple thing. Food for thought...
But one can safely assume that the information wasn't supposed to be public. Even if the university has shady tactics and whatnot, it doesn't mean the students did the right and honorable thing. Also, the information isn't exactly private information.. or rather, not just private information. It's also internal information for the university, and they can do what they wish with the info until they decide to make it public.
In this case, someone gained access to info they shouldn't have access to, and copied it without permission. (like warez, whoa!)
Consider this: there's a government file lying about on the street with the words: "Top secret, for your eyes only, destroy after reading" printed on it. No matter that the information happens to be publicly acessible, you are still not allowed to read it, and it's not the right thing to do. Sure, someone should be flogged with a 9-tail and fired for dropping it there, but that's another matter.
Looking at information you're not supposed to look at is doing the wrong thing. Since you have to jump through hoops in order to get an URL that will lead to this info, the students surely must have considered, "am I supposed to do this?", but wen through with it. Saying that "the students didn't know" is possible for sure, but I don't think it's realistic, they knew what they were doing, and that it's probably not a good idea.
However, un-accepting already accepted students is overkill punishment in my opinion, but that's their choice. Would you propose that the students should get no punishment at all?
I don't think it sets a precedent to anything. Anyone's free to type in any URL they want, but that doesn't mean you should. Just because it's easy to do wrong doesn't justify it. Lack of moral integrity is lack of moral integrity.
Yes, but hacking into a banking system "just because it's possible" shows a lack of moral spine and respect for what's good, and what's not. This isn't a banking system of course, but the uni doesn't want people on that line of thought. Since, as you say, they don't have the ethical presence of mind to know Good hacking from "Bad", they chose not to deal with them, thus punishing them in a way. Their choice.
Ask yourself, did the students do the Right Thing (tm)? Whether or not the admin, the company or whoever did a bad job of securing the information is a separate matter, which should be dealt with separately. The fact is that the students did the Wrong Thing ®, and the university don't want people like that. They don't want people who don't seem to have any moral spine, even though they might be good and intelligent students otherwise.
A lot of people here seem to have this idea: "If it isn't encrypted, I'm allowed to read it. If it isn't secured, locked down, and guarded by the army, I'm allowed to break in." Or that it's the admin's fault for "letting me break in".
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The admin may be at fault for not doing his job fully, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the hacker has hacked. There are two faults involved, not one.
Conclusion: if you hack into a system, you have hacked into a system. Don't make irrelevant excuses.
Build soundproof, lightproof, disconnected room in the middle of nowhere.
Enter room with nothing but some wood, tools, paper and pen. Seal room from inside.
Make a number of dice out of wood.
Jumble dice, pick one and throw it.
Congrats, your first random number!
Repeat until finished.
Chop all dice into pieces, incinerate.
Exit room.
Since the dice-making process and number generating process cannot be observed, and the bias of the dice cannot be determined, what you have is random numbers.
Also, the bias of individual dice is reduced by the use of several dice, so any bias in the final output could either be because all the dice happened to have the same bias, or just by accident. Either way, it's impossible to know since the dice are hand-made on the spot.
Also, building of room might not be necessary in all cases.
My cheap Wacom Graphire2 tablet has had this stuff for quite a while, including the mouse. The mouse is not only powered by the tablet, but also tracked by it. Only problem is, the mouse has only one transceiver, so it cannot detect mouse orientation.
Slashdot Mirror
And if the game is good enough to play again, I'll play it again on a higher difficulty.
He's good, consistent and sensible. Maybe he's a bit wooden, but at least he's not plastic.
Also, if you need to slipstream anything, use nlite. (version 1.0 just came out)
It's a server OS isn't it? Or is there any Win2k3 Pro/Home?
Wood is a good material because anyone can handle it. Of course, if you have a portable laser cutter and some metal lying around, go ahead and use them and eliminate all material bias. :)
I do think that 'right' and 'wrong' are a matter of perspecive, and that there aren't any absolute truths or wrongs. (heh, don't we all)
As of your $.02: If Stanford wants to be this extreme, well it's their loss. I'd say that their reaction is acceptable, but extreme, and thus wrong. Wrong in the sense 'stupid', and from the students' perspective (probably), morally as well.
I can't say that the students were wrong. They didn't crack any encryption or use force, the information was lying in a place were it shouldn't have been, and they took their chances. However, I can't say they were right either.
Essentially, both were between right and wrong, on average. My whole point (I think), was that people were saying that the students did the right thing. This is something said about a lot of other cases, essentially arguing that "it's the sysadmins fault", and making it so that it's no-one elses fault.
Although, the most irritating thing about this, is that the whole thing is so goddamned petty. It barely qualifies as "hacking"! I think that's also why it's hard to argument about 'right' or 'wrong', it strikes me as mostly ridiculous.
Heh, but has any company developed some simple "find wallet/dead cellphone" RFID technology? I'd get it in a second. Or is it easy to make it oneself..?
Uh, if this is real, I expect there to be an 'off' switch somewhere :)
Not quite. If the memo was in a secret compartment in your box, that would be more correct. However I agree, the punishment is too extreme, that's the problem.
I would say that if the students feel they have no obligation to follow Stanfords rules about knowing information, Stanford has no obligation to accept them either. You can say that Stanford is wrong in not accepting the students. I can agree with that, the punishment is unnecessarily severe. But just because Stanford is wrong doesn't make the students right.
Now really, no-one's life is depending on this info, so saying that the students are absolutely wrong is incorrect, in my opinion. What I want to say is that they weren't right either. Since they entered into a grey zone, Stanford decided to screw them.
Thus my conclusion is: the punishment was too severe. That's it. The students might have done the right thing from their perspective (althought I don't think they thought that way), but the uni disagreed.
Ok, my reasoning about right/wrong: I have some info, but you can't know it. I'm not telling you the reason why, just that you can't. I'm writing the information on this paper here, and if you read it, I won't like it. If you go ahead and read it anyway because you feel it's not wrong, ok, that's your opinion. But my opinion is that it is wrong, so you ain't my friend.
In this case, I think a better way to put it is this way:
Stanford: wrong.
Students: !right.
Good point, but this is not a random phone number/url, it's an url with the specific intention of getting at information that the uni doesn't want them to have. And the uni didn't like that.
just because someone expects someone else to abide by their decision, doesn't in any way oblige that other one to actually do so.
You're right, it doesn't obligate them. But that still doesn't make it right, does it?
The big question is, is the information public or not? The answer is: neither. And since it's in a grey area, why take the risk? The uni says that it's not public, and it's their information.
It's like saying that because I'm connected to the Internet and running a publically available webserver, it's OK to take a look at what's available through that webserver.
"Sure, look at whatever you want. If you do so however, we wont accept you". That's the position of Stanford uni.
But if you go out of your way
Well, it's not like they were throwing the info in the students' faces, now is it? Again, it's a grey area, and they're saying it wasn't public info. Their info, their decision. Notice also that the info did not belong to the students. If I have an opinion or decision about you in my mind, it belongs to me, not you. We may have an agreement that I'll reveal the opinion at a later date, but that's my decision. If you go out of your way to obtain the info, I'll say you did the Wrong Thing (tm).
You're right though, accesing this url isn't the same as waltzing into the bank vault. That's why they weren't arrested, just merely unwanted.
Apparently, the uni feels a need to discourage this kind of hacking, thus the punishment. Security was lacking, but hindsight is 20/20.
I also don't think that overly hackerish behaviour is good to encourage. Suppose they would have been readily accepted instead, with the comment: "Wow you guys are good, come on in!". Next thing you would have hordes of people trying to hack into the system, with varying intentions of trying to prove they are of the right stuff.
I'm not saying that hacking in to a system should be severely punished like in this case, but they can't very well encourage it either. They way I see it, hackers are often made into martyrs on here on /., disregarding that the hacker might not actually have been doing exactly "heroic" stuff. I think the issue is that they were de-admissioned. I don't there would be much to discuss had the punisment been less severe.
>"punishment" assumes both wrong doing and responsibility or need to correct it.
Well, I'm saying they were wrong, and I'd wager that's the majority opinion of society. Saying that something is right doesn't make it right. Saying that "information wants to be free" in order to read through your kid sister's diary is just a bad excuse, and I think the same applies here.
Consider: if you were applying for a job, and you hacked into their application system in order to get info quicker, would you complain if they didn't hire you after all, even if it said in the system that they would?
Now, I just read another comment that said that the students were not accepted because they were caught. While it's kind of obvious, it does pose the possibility that the uni wanted better students, who wouldn't get caught in such a simple thing. Food for thought...
In this case, someone gained access to info they shouldn't have access to, and copied it without permission. (like warez, whoa!)
Consider this: there's a government file lying about on the street with the words: "Top secret, for your eyes only, destroy after reading" printed on it. No matter that the information happens to be publicly acessible, you are still not allowed to read it, and it's not the right thing to do. Sure, someone should be flogged with a 9-tail and fired for dropping it there, but that's another matter.
However, un-accepting already accepted students is overkill punishment in my opinion, but that's their choice. Would you propose that the students should get no punishment at all?
I don't think it sets a precedent to anything. Anyone's free to type in any URL they want, but that doesn't mean you should. Just because it's easy to do wrong doesn't justify it. Lack of moral integrity is lack of moral integrity.
Yes, but hacking into a banking system "just because it's possible" shows a lack of moral spine and respect for what's good, and what's not. This isn't a banking system of course, but the uni doesn't want people on that line of thought. Since, as you say, they don't have the ethical presence of mind to know Good hacking from "Bad", they chose not to deal with them, thus punishing them in a way. Their choice.
Ask yourself, did the students do the Right Thing (tm)? Whether or not the admin, the company or whoever did a bad job of securing the information is a separate matter, which should be dealt with separately. The fact is that the students did the Wrong Thing ®, and the university don't want people like that. They don't want people who don't seem to have any moral spine, even though they might be good and intelligent students otherwise.
A lot of people here seem to have this idea: "If it isn't encrypted, I'm allowed to read it. If it isn't secured, locked down, and guarded by the army, I'm allowed to break in." Or that it's the admin's fault for "letting me break in".
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The admin may be at fault for not doing his job fully, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the hacker has hacked. There are two faults involved, not one.
Conclusion: if you hack into a system, you have hacked into a system. Don't make irrelevant excuses.
How to get untraceable random numbers:
- Build soundproof, lightproof, disconnected room in the middle of nowhere.
- Enter room with nothing but some wood, tools, paper and pen. Seal room from inside.
- Make a number of dice out of wood.
- Jumble dice, pick one and throw it.
- Congrats, your first random number!
- Repeat until finished.
- Chop all dice into pieces, incinerate.
- Exit room.
Since the dice-making process and number generating process cannot be observed, and the bias of the dice cannot be determined, what you have is random numbers.Also, the bias of individual dice is reduced by the use of several dice, so any bias in the final output could either be because all the dice happened to have the same bias, or just by accident. Either way, it's impossible to know since the dice are hand-made on the spot.
Also, building of room might not be necessary in all cases.
My cheap Wacom Graphire2 tablet has had this stuff for quite a while, including the mouse. The mouse is not only powered by the tablet, but also tracked by it. Only problem is, the mouse has only one transceiver, so it cannot detect mouse orientation.
But those botnets aren't related to piracy are they?? I thought they were for even less honorable network practises, spam, virii, etc.
The IRC bots usually run on unix machines, from what I can remember. At least eggdrop did. That's what people want shell accounts for.
And many Europeans too.
Exactly. All patent disputes up to this point - existing, nonexisting or otherwise - are hereby void. The future is still the same.