Of course, social aspects are way to hard for a bot. So socialising is a good method to minimise the advantages of a bot.
Not knowing all variables restricts only the accuracy of the prediction of both the human and non-human player. A computer can judge a situation (especially a coded one) fairly well.
Furthermore, it can react more quickly and control several things at one.
And it doesn't solve problems like transparent textures.
The difference is, that in an OS or an encryption algorithm, errors leads to insecurity. Obscurity makes it harder to find the error for both sides.
I think that leads to the problem that only the "bad guys" are trying to find mistakes.
But I didn't mean cheating by flaws in the code.
I meant something like aim-bots, semi-transparent tectures, and so on.
Almost all current games have a fundamental flaw in their concept which makes them cheatable by this mean. No patch can fix this.
Someone suggested that, if a bot can help you the game'll be to easy. Theoretically, he is be right, but this'll only achievable, if the server has more calculation power than all the clients combined.
The server has to calculate the outcome of an action, the client can pre-calculate it by same algorithm or an approximation of it.
Therefor the client can predict (to a certain degree) the outcome of a task. The prediction will surely be more correct than any prediction of a player.
This must be possible, because that's the way player decide. If it's unpredictable it's something like rolling dice, but not a game with a challenge.
To a certain amount, the client must be trustworthy.
The client must have a secret which the user can't access. Since he has the program he can access all data of it.
The way the GPL works, it's even more impossible.
To fulfill the GPL, the user must have the ability to recreate the binary with all given data.
Since english isn't my native tongue, I had to look this up:
proprietary
1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of a proprietor
2 : used, made, or marketed by one having the exclusive legal right
3 : privately owned and managed and run as a profit-making organization
Well, since Sun still retain all rights on Solaris, it fits the definition of proprietary.
>You mean, all those programmers who already know VB and VC++, which they can continue to use under.NET?
The problem is, that they can't. (Actually, in VC++ they still can, but it's discouraged and will surely vanish.)
They want.NET to be platform-independent.
In order to achieve that the code will be compiled to pseudocode and interpreted by a JIT-compiler. (Sounds familiar)
The windows-api will be wrapped into a new platform-independent api. (What an innovative idea.)
They want VB-objects and C#-objects be mixable.
Therefor they have to change VB syntax and they are introducing new modifiers into C++ to create C# ([WebMethod], anyone?).
I can only agree to gattaca, the syntax is not a problem, the libraries and philosophy is the problem. And exactly these are changed in.NET.
I think it's actually the other way round.
Actually you're quite right.
They're arabic. In the middle ages, they were surpassing europe in almost every scientific field. Hence, europe imported most of their knowledge. Among these imports were 10 numerical letters.
European numerics look something like this:
MCMI
Salve
I think the main reason for this is, that the elder generation measures the younger generation by their knowledge, or more exactly their kind of knowledge.
In their eyes, the younger generation doesn't know much and is considered as dumb.
But considering IT, one may notice, that this measure is not correct. There are several student who know as much as their teachers about computer, and even more.
Nevertheless, the problem shown by this study is not neglectable. I experienced something alike to this myself.
For quite some time, at school we weren't allowed to use calculators in school. Being quite fond of math, I aquired quite some skill in mental arithmetic. In the last years of school, we were allowed to use calculators, and one day, I noticed, how bad I had become in mental arithmetics (I forgot my calculator).
One could say, of what use is that skill. And of course, this didn't make me necessarily dumb. (At least, I hope so.)
The problem is, the brain has to be trained.
So, if your not using your brain for calculating or memorising, one should have an alternative mental "dumbbell".
AFAIK, the mean-IQ even has risin over the decades.
So, instead of creating a possibility of distraction for the childs and spending more money for policemen, they wanted to install cameras to monitor everybodys movements.
What a direct and senseful approach for a social problem.
The crime rate doubled for what reasons?
Because they didn't installed the cameras?
Cellulars are a greater risk for privacy, unlike walking in public, you mustn't use them.
>La liberte des uns s'arrete la ou commence celle des autres.
Monitoring everybody in public places is a restriction on others liberty.
Furthermore the majoritys right on privacy has to be restricted to prevent a minority from commiting crimes.
I fear robbery less than the loss of privacy and self-determination. Not that the latter is more possible, but
You might have heard of the person in GB whose suicide was recorded by a surveillance camera and broadcasted on tv.
AFAIK, the only result of installing cameras has been that criminality has migrated to other areas were no cameras were installed.
I just would like comment that you are having a typical narrow-sighted view on things that people have, who just dont know the facts. "Policies" in the US (I've lived there, I know) about saving nature come down to saving sweety cuty rabbits in some wildlife parks.
As long as some el diablo cooperations rule the US, or at least the opinions of most people there, there will be no change in the US's policy of blocking a worldwide agreement that might be sufficient enough to prevent unreversable damage done to nature and the world wide climate. And to prove that I am not just writing some type of sensational headlines/comments: look at the world climate conferences held every couple of years. One of the only countries who seem to ruin the effort made by other countries who really have an interest in that topic, i.E. pacific island nations, is the US. There is no arguying about that, and since the US is one of the most industrialized countries in the world, the US industry have so much impact on the world's climate. You don't earn money by saving nature. You don't win the superbowl, either. That is the problem.
I know that the world is not supposed to pinpoint that problem to the US. Every nation has to self-reflect and think about their own policies. But there is enough reason to believe that people in power in the US are one of the last that will do exactly that.
2. Are the cost of disposal and transportation included?
3. LOL, that reminds me of the extracting gold out of seawater idea mentioned by Jules Verne.
One may wonder, why gold is still something worth. (The idea is from S. Sonstadt, 1872)
4. How much gold does seawater contain?
Up to 4pp billion
Research revealed that global warming is a result of natural disasters and human interference.
A model containing only the first component predicted the developement of the first part of the last century quite good, but failed utterly in the second half. Taking only the industry into account, the model failed in the first part of the century, but succeded in the second part (starting with the correct parameters, of course).
A sidenote: In Germany, they're selling sulphur-reduced gasolin with 99 octane.
To my regret, your totally right with solar-panels
> "...I don't care what you're willing to pay me, the answer is no--especially since these other plants,... , are willing to offer me an equal wage to work there."
Interesting interpretation of captitalism.
"equal wage,... no matter how much you'd pay me"
>Different people have different ideas of what is and is not dangerous.
Hmm, I would define the following situation as dangerous.
"All U.S. reactor operational designs are 1960s vintage, basically," said Gunter of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service. He said that a number of U.S. reactors have been identified with inadequate containment structures -- essentially the General Electric Mark I reactors, the same reactors "on the auction block in this divestment -- Pilgrim, in Plymouth, Mass., Vermont Yankee, Oyster Creek, N.J."
"All reactor designs have chinks in their armor," he said.
"These designs, identified by the NRC as early as 1985, have a 90 percent chance of failure if challenged by a pressurization accident," said Gunter. "These are the same reactors that three prominent General Electric engineers in very prestigious positions -- in 1976 public testimony before the U.S. Congress -- said they had simultaneously resigned over."
Gunter continued, "Some 28 reactors in this country have substandard containment. And any time they cut corners they're shortchanging public health and safety. Oyster Creek was scheduled to close in September 2000. AmGen's intended purchase has extended its life by three years -- its 40-year license is up in 2009."
As an interesting side effect, they would have met even the most severe criteria by the Kyoto-Protocol (summary/full).
The protocol determined that all industrial nations should reduce their output of certain "greenhouse gases" by 6-7% in comparison to 1990.
The former eastern block was granted to retain its level, since they are "undergoing the process of transition to a market economy".
The U.S. and Russian Federation strongly opted for a "carbon trade" deal, where they would be allowed to trade unused "carbon stocks" from such evolving countries. The reasons are quite clear.
Brazil, India and China are just evolving. Therefor, no restrictions where applied to them, "... However, China was making a major contribution to the mitigation of climate change through its policies to reduce population growth, improve energy intensity by vigorous implementation of the Energy Conservation Law, develop renewable energies, increase forest coverage and enhance sinks" (source)
Chinas per capita emission are 0.7 tons compared to 5.3 in the U.S. (source)
And:
The top 15 energy producing States in the U.S. produce more carbon emission than the entire country of Russia
Southern U.S. States emit more carbon emissions than China
If six Northern States (Indiana, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, New York, Michigan) were an independent Country, it would be the 3rd largest carbon contributor in the world, just behind Russia and China
(source).
and still two countries between them and India: Japan and Germany.
The downfall of this is that you think that you have a secure system.
This sounds like you not only have tons of open jacks, but even don't have a decently configured switch, which filters packets based on MAC and RJ45-port.
One can plug into your net,...
... switch the card into promiscous mode, and sniff all data (sniffing),
... arp two clients and pretend to be the other one (spoofing),
and perpetrate almost any other malicous deed out of the textbook of hacking?
The MAC address can be set by software. Any hardware solution is more expensive.
Some cards even explicitly give you the option to change it (although they shouldn't).
The MAC address is part of the lowest and therefore hardware level of the ethernet.
Normally, a ethernet-adapter filters any packages which are not targeted for its MAC address(although even this behaviour can be altered).
Furthermore, any package send contains the MAC address of the sender. This all happens in hardware and is the ethernet-protocol.
The change of the MAC address in the OS should only affect the ARP request, which translate an IP-address into a MAC-address.
Slashdot Mirror
CSS is an encryption algorithm.
That an outsider (the player) beats the system (wins) is an inherently part of a game.
In an encryption algorithm or an OS, it would be considered as flaw.
Imagine, it occured to them (Several of them being victims of the regime theirselves).
Information is aviable, but only for educational purpose.
Propaganda and misinformation is what they fear.
But I think, it's getting a bit off-topic.
Of course, social aspects are way to hard for a bot. So socialising is a good method to minimise the advantages of a bot.
Not knowing all variables restricts only the accuracy of the prediction of both the human and non-human player. A computer can judge a situation (especially a coded one) fairly well.
Furthermore, it can react more quickly and control several things at one.
And it doesn't solve problems like transparent textures.
The difference is, that in an OS or an encryption algorithm, errors leads to insecurity. Obscurity makes it harder to find the error for both sides.
I think that leads to the problem that only the "bad guys" are trying to find mistakes.
But I didn't mean cheating by flaws in the code.
I meant something like aim-bots, semi-transparent tectures, and so on.
Almost all current games have a fundamental flaw in their concept which makes them cheatable by this mean. No patch can fix this.
Someone suggested that, if a bot can help you the game'll be to easy. Theoretically, he is be right, but this'll only achievable, if the server has more calculation power than all the clients combined.
The server has to calculate the outcome of an action, the client can pre-calculate it by same algorithm or an approximation of it.
Therefor the client can predict (to a certain degree) the outcome of a task. The prediction will surely be more correct than any prediction of a player.
This must be possible, because that's the way player decide. If it's unpredictable it's something like rolling dice, but not a game with a challenge.
To a certain amount, the client must be trustworthy.
They can't have handled it.
The client must have a secret which the user can't access. Since he has the program he can access all data of it.
The way the GPL works, it's even more impossible.
To fulfill the GPL, the user must have the ability to recreate the binary with all given data.
I think there is a different reason, why a GLP'ed game may not be the right solution:
Cheating...
Even doing all the calculations on server-side won't prevent this.
How do you seperate player from bots or bot-assisted players?
I think it's hard to prevent this in software and it'll be even harder to prevent if you've access to all the code.
He only retains the right to enforce the GPL. He may not revoke a once granted license. That's why its called copyleft.
Since english isn't my native tongue, I had to look this up:
proprietary
1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of a proprietor
2 : used, made, or marketed by one having the exclusive legal right
3 : privately owned and managed and run as a profit-making organization
Well, since Sun still retain all rights on Solaris, it fits the definition of proprietary.
>3. Who has a proprietary OS again?
Both?
>You mean, all those programmers who already know VB and VC++, which they can continue to use under .NET?
.NET to be platform-independent.
.NET.
The problem is, that they can't. (Actually, in VC++ they still can, but it's discouraged and will surely vanish.)
They want
In order to achieve that the code will be compiled to pseudocode and interpreted by a JIT-compiler. (Sounds familiar)
The windows-api will be wrapped into a new platform-independent api. (What an innovative idea.)
They want VB-objects and C#-objects be mixable.
Therefor they have to change VB syntax and they are introducing new modifiers into C++ to create C# ([WebMethod], anyone?).
I can only agree to gattaca, the syntax is not a problem, the libraries and philosophy is the problem. And exactly these are changed in
I think it's actually the other way round. Actually you're quite right. They're arabic. In the middle ages, they were surpassing europe in almost every scientific field. Hence, europe imported most of their knowledge. Among these imports were 10 numerical letters. European numerics look something like this: MCMI Salve
I think the main reason for this is, that the elder generation measures the younger generation by their knowledge, or more exactly their kind of knowledge.
In their eyes, the younger generation doesn't know much and is considered as dumb.
But considering IT, one may notice, that this measure is not correct. There are several student who know as much as their teachers about computer, and even more.
Nevertheless, the problem shown by this study is not neglectable. I experienced something alike to this myself.
For quite some time, at school we weren't allowed to use calculators in school. Being quite fond of math, I aquired quite some skill in mental arithmetic. In the last years of school, we were allowed to use calculators, and one day, I noticed, how bad I had become in mental arithmetics (I forgot my calculator).
One could say, of what use is that skill. And of course, this didn't make me necessarily dumb. (At least, I hope so.)
The problem is, the brain has to be trained.
So, if your not using your brain for calculating or memorising, one should have an alternative mental "dumbbell".
AFAIK, the mean-IQ even has risin over the decades.
But the point is, dolpins in the Jiang Tse have become deaf due to noise surrounding them, which certainly does not originate from hurricanes.
Of course, the ocean is much bigger...
Nevertheless, one should always be aware of possible problems.
So, instead of creating a possibility of distraction for the childs and spending more money for policemen, they wanted to install cameras to monitor everybodys movements.
What a direct and senseful approach for a social problem.
The crime rate doubled for what reasons?
Because they didn't installed the cameras?
Cellulars are a greater risk for privacy, unlike walking in public, you mustn't use them.
>La liberte des uns s'arrete la ou commence celle des autres.
Monitoring everybody in public places is a restriction on others liberty.
Furthermore the majoritys right on privacy has to be restricted to prevent a minority from commiting crimes.
I fear robbery less than the loss of privacy and self-determination. Not that the latter is more possible, but
You might have heard of the person in GB whose suicide was recorded by a surveillance camera and broadcasted on tv.
AFAIK, the only result of installing cameras has been that criminality has migrated to other areas were no cameras were installed.
Maybe you should read George Orwells "1984".
I just would like comment that you are having a typical narrow-sighted view on things that people have, who just dont know the facts. "Policies" in the US (I've lived there, I know) about saving nature come down to saving sweety cuty rabbits in some wildlife parks.
As long as some el diablo cooperations rule the US, or at least the opinions of most people there, there will be no change in the US's policy of blocking a worldwide agreement that might be sufficient enough to prevent unreversable damage done to nature and the world wide climate. And to prove that I am not just writing some type of sensational headlines/comments: look at the world climate conferences held every couple of years. One of the only countries who seem to ruin the effort made by other countries who really have an interest in that topic, i.E. pacific island nations, is the US. There is no arguying about that, and since the US is one of the most industrialized countries in the world, the US industry have so much impact on the world's climate. You don't earn money by saving nature. You don't win the superbowl, either. That is the problem.
I know that the world is not supposed to pinpoint that problem to the US. Every nation has to self-reflect and think about their own policies. But there is enough reason to believe that people in power in the US are one of the last that will do exactly that.
1. Is that raw uranium or refined uranium?
2. Are the cost of disposal and transportation included?
3. LOL, that reminds me of the extracting gold out of seawater idea mentioned by Jules Verne.
One may wonder, why gold is still something worth. (The idea is from S. Sonstadt, 1872)
4. How much gold does seawater contain?
Up to 4pp billion
Research revealed that global warming is a result of natural disasters and human interference.
A model containing only the first component predicted the developement of the first part of the last century quite good, but failed utterly in the second half. Taking only the industry into account, the model failed in the first part of the century, but succeded in the second part (starting with the correct parameters, of course).
A sidenote: In Germany, they're selling sulphur-reduced gasolin with 99 octane.
> "...I don't care what you're willing to pay me, the answer is no--especially since these other plants,
Interesting interpretation of captitalism.
"equal wage,... no matter how much you'd pay me"
>Different people have different ideas of what is and is not dangerous.
Hmm, I would define the following situation as dangerous.
There are two missing points in your calculations.
The electricity has to be transported to the car.
The energy has to be transported in the car.
Considering a car that consumes 3l per 100km, those two factors destroy all advantages a power-plant has towards a combustion-engine.
As an interesting side effect, they would have met even the most severe criteria by the Kyoto-Protocol (summary/full).
The protocol determined that all industrial nations should reduce their output of certain "greenhouse gases" by 6-7% in comparison to 1990.
The former eastern block was granted to retain its level, since they are "undergoing the process of transition to a market economy".
The U.S. and Russian Federation strongly opted for a "carbon trade" deal, where they would be allowed to trade unused "carbon stocks" from such evolving countries. The reasons are quite clear.
Brazil, India and China are just evolving. Therefor, no restrictions where applied to them, "... However, China was making a major contribution to the mitigation of climate change through its policies to reduce population growth, improve energy intensity by vigorous implementation of the Energy Conservation Law, develop renewable energies, increase forest coverage and enhance sinks" (source)
Chinas per capita emission are 0.7 tons compared to 5.3 in the U.S. (source)
And:
The top 15 energy producing States in the U.S. produce more carbon emission than the entire country of Russia
Southern U.S. States emit more carbon emissions than China
If six Northern States (Indiana, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, New York, Michigan) were an independent Country, it would be the 3rd largest carbon contributor in the world, just behind Russia and China
(source).
and still two countries between them and India: Japan and Germany.
The downfall of this is that you think that you have a secure system.
This sounds like you not only have tons of open jacks, but even don't have a decently configured switch, which filters packets based on MAC and RJ45-port.
One can plug into your net,...
... switch the card into promiscous mode, and sniff all data (sniffing),
... arp two clients and pretend to be the other one (spoofing),
and perpetrate almost any other malicous deed out of the textbook of hacking?
The MAC address can be set by software. Any hardware solution is more expensive.
Some cards even explicitly give you the option to change it (although they shouldn't).
The MAC address is part of the lowest and therefore hardware level of the ethernet.
Normally, a ethernet-adapter filters any packages which are not targeted for its MAC address(although even this behaviour can be altered).
Furthermore, any package send contains the MAC address of the sender. This all happens in hardware and is the ethernet-protocol.
The change of the MAC address in the OS should only affect the ARP request, which translate an IP-address into a MAC-address.
Hmm, as far as I see, EVAS is based on OpenGL and X, which, are perfectly machine-independent.
OpenGL even more than X.
Please enlighten me, where the increased machine dependency can be found.
On what is your opinion based, the the c't magazine is one-sided?
Hopefully, not on reading only on the news (not even full articles) mentioned on slashdot.
A quick search for "language teaching" revealed: LingoTeach.