Don't worry, when all they can tell their employer is a bunch of buzzwords, without knowing any theory behind it, this method of studying will catch up with them.
Odd, never heard of Lithium. Team fortress, 3wave, and another mod I remember, but Lithium never hit our college. We never liked team fortress, it was just too different from normal play, which was more than enough fun to begin with.
I'll have to google for it, but we never found any servers that weren't 3wave or quake + runes for plain deathmatch.
Re:quake on a dual ISDN
on
Quake is 10
·
· Score: 1
Heh.. well we knew it wasn't the connection that mattered much, because there were some really awesome modem players too (judging from the pings anyway). So it really did come down to skill, the connection didn't matter as much.
I supposed QuakeWorld fixed these issues, but we only played threewave ctf. The grappling hook was the best.
I've connected with others though, and the game played more or less as fast as it did if I was in single player. The connection was extermely slow.. half to a quarter speed when we were online.
Re:I can still remember Quake 1 being released
on
Quake is 10
·
· Score: 1
Heh.. I remember the many taunts of 'you stupid LPB!!'
Nevermind that there were some modem guys that could easily kick our ass (we were pretty good at the time too).
Re:quake on a dual ISDN
on
Quake is 10
·
· Score: 1
I was in college, and we got ethernet connections in our dorms only months after quake came out. Good stuff, having 10ms pings to most other college servers.
Re:2 FPS?
on
Quake is 10
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Um, bullshit? 486s did have the option of a FPU. I had a 486DX (which means I had an FPU). Was rid of it by the time Quake came out though, so I can't say if it played ona 486... but if it couldn't it certainly wasn't because of lack of an FPU.
I played doom over modem with a HS friend of mine. Unfortuntally we never got it to connect at 56k, so image doom at half speed. Also played heretic.... also great fun, especially when we managed to turn each other into chickens at the same time.. quite the deathmatch. Coop was just as fun as well.
As a wise man once said, don't make assumptions - it makes an ass out of you, and umption.
Neat saying, and irrelevent here. Computer systems make assumptions all the time. To say otherwise is foolish.
Making assumptions is one great way to create a big fat gaping security hole.
So what would be teh security hole here? You computer gets a packet really intended for another host? Yippee. As a variant (which another poster suggested), you could check the low order bits first, and if they don't match, just discard.
I'm not sure this is true; by the time the packet gets to the network, you can probably assume that the high order bits already match... otherwise the packet shouldn't have gotten as close to your computer as it did. At least that's what I'm infering by the hierarchical routing..
Really? I snuck out becuase I wanted to do things I shouldn't have been allowed to do.
I guess it depends on what it was that you snuck out to do. Its very easy to claim that you did something you shouldn't have without saying what it was.
Sounds like you had hella sterile life if you only ever did things parents [should have] let you do.
Not at all; my parents gave me a good deal of responsiblity, and gave more as I got older. I didn't plenty of things they'd rather I didn't, but they didn't stop me from them either.
They can cuff you any time they please, as far as I understand even for just looking at them. But they also have to charge you with a crime within a very short time, or let you go. Otherwise, you sic your lawyers on them.
I wonder if he could turn around and sue for wrongful arrest. It is kinda a big deal, and if they don't know a charge up front, it doesn't seem like they should be able to pick over everything to find something..
Well, so were kids able to before child labor laws... I still think we're better off.
Not sure what you're trying to get at here.. I wasn't advocating removing child labor laws. I wasn't even being totally serious in my reply:-)
As someone else mentioned, the idea is that kids later become better off than you were, and can help support you in your older ages, when you're not able to support yourself.
Bleck, no thanks. If i can't take care of myself anymore, its time to check out. To me, depending on others means I've sacificed my freedom.
Well, you should go out and get a job then. *laugh*
I have one.:-) Just a break (and its slow, between phases now).
I wouldn't depend on a guy financially either, as much respect as I have for house wives, and have entertained the idea of being one myself, I don't think I could stand it. Of course, it would be great though, if my husband were to make enough that I didn't have to work, and I could just stay home.
Of course, I'd also hate to become the stereotypical woman sitting at home eating bon bons, and watching Oprah. Ick, that just sounds horrible.
It sounds fun at first, but my wife knows some housewives, and they are insanely bored. Worse, one with a kid doesn't get to see any adults, and feels like her mind is turning to mush.. before she had a kid, she was in college to become a doctor... now she feels dumb and doesn't really get any intellectial stimulate... so based on that small sample, I'd advise against becoming a housewife (or house husband, for that matter).
At any rate, my original comment was half in jest anyway, I didn't think it would get any replies:-)
Sure you did: And to discount your "IE6 has just been around too long" argument, there's fewer and fewer holes in products like OpenBSD, which have been around far longer than all versions of IE combined.
The fact that OpenBSD has been around longer is irrelevent. The relevent part of the 'IE6 has been around too long' is the fact that its development stopped. If you stopped development of OpenBSD, you WILL find more and more holes than if you keep developing it.
The point is, OpenBSD as a whole is far more secure than just IE6 alone. Now keep in mind that one's a full OS, the other merely an "application" running on an OS, and the magnitude of the security issues start boggling the mind.
Not really; OpenBSD mostly deals with trusted requests. IE (and any browser really) takes data from unknown sources and tries to parse it. Let OpenBSD's kernel accept commands from any computer on teh internet, and I bet it would be comprimised pretty quickly too.
The reason they're going after windows boxes is because it's easier than hacking into the actual target - *nix boxes.
No, the reason they are going after Windows is because they just want the maxium number of computers to take over. They don't give one flying fuck about unix boxes. Unix boxes aren't the 'actual target.'
DDOS is the fallback ploy.
Wrong, its the main play. Its how hackers try to make money, through extortion.
If they could own the actual target system, there'd be no need for bot nets, as they could take down the target site at will, or do more unscrupulous activities, like putting up their own content or stealing data.
They don't care to own the actual target system. They could own it, so what? As soon as someone figures it out, the box can be taken off teh network and cleaned. But how do you stop a DDOS attack? Well, you can't really.
They replaced content? So what? There's not alot of profit to gain by that. Stealing data? There are easier ways than hacking into someone server. Most of the 'stolen' data of late has been someone running off with a laptop or getting a hard drive that wasn't wiped properly.
The hackers WANT bot nets, so that they can take down targets of their choice, and there's little anyone can do about it.
From another post: I do not know you, but from the way you sound you are desperately trying to show how much of an adult you are and how any content that is not adult like enough sucks.. Don't worry, that is also a part of growing up, it will go again.
Your post: Perhaps Twain was wrong; maybe youth is best spent on the young, after all.
I was going to go through and respond to most of yoru points, and the other posters points, but I've decided not to bother.
Maybe I'm wrong, but you both sound like you have the attitude shared by most today; that is the refusal to grow up, and accept that the past is the past and that you can't cling to your childhood forever. Which is the real problem in America today; most people fall into this category. They didn't want their childhood to end, and didn't really accept it, and if they have kids, they'll do their best to make sure their kids never grow up. They refuse to accept responsibility for anything, nothing is their fault. If they're fat, its genetic, its not that they just won't put down the Coke can and french fries. They ask the government to babysit them; "make us safe! Keep those bad movies and games away from us! I dinged this guys door, so I'll just move my car instead of owning up to it. I need someone to tell me how to take care of myself, I can't be bothered to find out if what I'm eating is healthy or not."
Its an entire culture that needs to be told what to do and is incapable of taking care of themselves. Not everyone is like that, but it seems to be the majority, and its sad.
Sorry, but you're wrong. A good parent is one that raise a good kid. If you end up with a bad kid, you are a bad parent.
If you instill proper values in your children, they will listen to their conscience. If you don't, they'll ignore it (or worse, won't have one).
Your statement about jail is irrelevent; some are in there wrongly (because the state has not an intrest in the trust, but in blaming someone), some are in there for things which should not be crimes (smoking pot, for example) and the others are there because they belong there; had their parents taught them better values, they wouldn't be there.
Silly boy, don't you know that we fully cost more than a kid?
Except that you (women) can have a job and help out with expenses. Kids usually are nothing but a drain. FWIW, I personally wouldn't be with someone that depended on me financially.
The MPAA ratings are not government-mandated, nor are there any laws requiring theaters to uphold them. If this is "censorship," then so is the ESRB itself.
The MPAA exists because the government was about to start stepping in and outright censoring. So Hollywood formed the MPAA in an attempt to self-regulate to stave off government stepping in. The same goes for the ESRB; the government was going to step in, they created ratings (hey, it 'worked' for hollywood). The problem is that the government still isn't happy, because there are still quite a few M rated games out there.
To be honest, if you think that something can't be entertaining without sex, violence, or profanity, maybe you're not the go-to guy for judging the quality of movies.
I think its really difficult to come out with something new and groundbreaking if you automatically rule out any possiblity of sex, violence or profanity.
First, the movie leaves the realm of the real world, since in the real world, there is sex, violance and profanity. Second, most G rated movies amount to the 'funny' scenes amounting to 'look at the squirell get hit over the head! HAHA AHAHA AHAH HAHA'. Please. You think THAT makes a quality movie? The EXACT same drivel over and over and over again? Yes, I'm sure that Over the Hedge is a truely groundbreaking movie, and Saving Private Ryan or the Green Mile or even T2 are just plain junk.
You may still be entertained by playing with Legos and Matchbox cars, but I just don't find them entertaining anymore.
There's nothing wrong with legally enforced ratings. They don't hurt anyone.
Sure it does. R rated movies have a smaller target audience, and thus become less profitable to make. Therefore, the numbere of R rated movies decreases. It still ends up being censorship. Personally it hurts me because G and PG movies I automatically rule out as the same tripe over and over again. As a rule, I don't find them entertaining (sorry, I guess I don't find what entertains 8 years olds entertaining to me). Same things goes for M and AO rated games.
The beer industry does not seem to be suffering from the fact that it's illegal to supply liquor to minors; the porn industry does not seem to have been stifled by the fact that Walmart does not stock hardcore videos.
These industries also have stores which exist soley for that market. There's plenty of adult stores and liquor stores around. Hell, I can buy beer at convience stores here in Vermont. The same is NOT true for M rated games. Walmart may sell beer, but it won't sell an M or AO rated game. And what this law is attempting to do is make it so that no other stores will carry M or AO rated gamse either, because they FEAR they MIGHT be prosecuted under this law. In the end, its still censorship, just like the FCC indecency fines are still censorship. The government can't tell FreeFM what to bleep on O&A, but they CAN fine FreeFM is someone complains. The end result is that FreeFM bleeps things because of a POSSIBLE government imposed fine. Its still censorship. In some respects its actually worse, because the FCC can't give any guidelines on what can or cannot be said, so FreeFM is many times overzealous, and censors MORE than if there were hard and fast censorship rules.
The problem with this law was nothing to do with its stated intent; it was that it was vaguely worded. The wording was designed to create an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty, where game manufacturers were not able to be sure whether their games would be treated as "violent" or not, and where game retailers were not able to be sure whether they were allowed to sell certain games to minors. That would have stifled people's free expression by encouraging self-censorship. That would have been bad.
The intent of the law is to censor games, no matter how you slice it or try to justify it. The law must be vague, because it would be struct down as an attempt at censorship. See above where I talk about why the FCC won't tell radio stations what is acceptable and what isn't.
But the stated intent itself is not bad. It's not even censorship. A well-written law of this sort, with very precise and rigid definitions and easily-understood effects, would not be a problem. If they want to institute some "arbitrary" standards, then that's fine. If the people change their standards, the law can be changed to reflect that.
Bull. It is censorship, no matter how you try to justify it. And children don't stop having rights just because they are young.
The people will get what they want, which is what "democracy" means.
Its too bad we are NOT a democracy, and nor would I want this country to become one. Democracy = mob rule. There are plenty of things people have the right to do even though the majority doesn't agree that it should be a right.
For example, free speech. Popular speech doesn't need free speech protection at all. Its the unpopular speech (such as video games) that the first amendment is meant to protect.
Slashdot Mirror
(The above assumes that the service is locked down against anything put port 80.)
Why make such an assumption? Especially if they are targetnig business people (who would need VPN, for example).
Also, you might not pay $27, but a company sending someone on a business trip might.
Don't worry, when all they can tell their employer is a bunch of buzzwords, without knowing any theory behind it, this method of studying will catch up with them.
Odd, never heard of Lithium. Team fortress, 3wave, and another mod I remember, but Lithium never hit our college. We never liked team fortress, it was just too different from normal play, which was more than enough fun to begin with.
I'll have to google for it, but we never found any servers that weren't 3wave or quake + runes for plain deathmatch.
Heh.. well we knew it wasn't the connection that mattered much, because there were some really awesome modem players too (judging from the pings anyway). So it really did come down to skill, the connection didn't matter as much.
I supposed QuakeWorld fixed these issues, but we only played threewave ctf. The grappling hook was the best.
I've connected with others though, and the game played more or less as fast as it did if I was in single player. The connection was extermely slow.. half to a quarter speed when we were online.
Heh.. I remember the many taunts of 'you stupid LPB!!'
Nevermind that there were some modem guys that could easily kick our ass (we were pretty good at the time too).
I was in college, and we got ethernet connections in our dorms only months after quake came out. Good stuff, having 10ms pings to most other college servers.
Um, bullshit? 486s did have the option of a FPU. I had a 486DX (which means I had an FPU). Was rid of it by the time Quake came out though, so I can't say if it played ona 486... but if it couldn't it certainly wasn't because of lack of an FPU.
I played doom over modem with a HS friend of mine. Unfortuntally we never got it to connect at 56k, so image doom at half speed. Also played heretic.... also great fun, especially when we managed to turn each other into chickens at the same time.. quite the deathmatch. Coop was just as fun as well.
Anyone else remember the Threewave CTF mod?
Quake + 3Wave CTF 3... took up a great deal of my time in college.
As a wise man once said, don't make assumptions - it makes an ass out of you, and umption.
Neat saying, and irrelevent here. Computer systems make assumptions all the time. To say otherwise is foolish.
Making assumptions is one great way to create a big fat gaping security hole.
So what would be teh security hole here? You computer gets a packet really intended for another host? Yippee. As a variant (which another poster suggested), you could check the low order bits first, and if they don't match, just discard.
I'm not sure this is true; by the time the packet gets to the network, you can probably assume that the high order bits already match... otherwise the packet shouldn't have gotten as close to your computer as it did. At least that's what I'm infering by the hierarchical routing..
However you are not most people; you are the minority that doesn't mind spending time getting your computer to work.
The fact is that Windows is fine for most people, while linux is not. What you find is pretty much irrelevent.
Really? I snuck out becuase I wanted to do things I shouldn't have been allowed to do.
I guess it depends on what it was that you snuck out to do. Its very easy to claim that you did something you shouldn't have without saying what it was.
Sounds like you had hella sterile life if you only ever did things parents [should have] let you do.
Not at all; my parents gave me a good deal of responsiblity, and gave more as I got older. I didn't plenty of things they'd rather I didn't, but they didn't stop me from them either.
Plenty of people shun childish things and are irresponsible. Plenty of people enjoy childish things and are responsible.
Seems to me that those are pretty rare though.
How does one get from enjoying children's movies and playing with toys to not taking responsibility for oneself?
From looking around and watching how people behave.
Linux on the desktop leaves much to be desired. Its certainly not for everyone.
They can cuff you any time they please, as far as I understand even for just looking at them. But they also have to charge you with a crime within a very short time, or let you go. Otherwise, you sic your lawyers on them.
I wonder if he could turn around and sue for wrongful arrest. It is kinda a big deal, and if they don't know a charge up front, it doesn't seem like they should be able to pick over everything to find something..
Well, so were kids able to before child labor laws... I still think we're better off.
:-)
:-) Just a break (and its slow, between phases now).
:-)
Not sure what you're trying to get at here.. I wasn't advocating removing child labor laws. I wasn't even being totally serious in my reply
As someone else mentioned, the idea is that kids later become better off than you were, and can help support you in your older ages, when you're not able to support yourself.
Bleck, no thanks. If i can't take care of myself anymore, its time to check out. To me, depending on others means I've sacificed my freedom.
Well, you should go out and get a job then. *laugh*
I have one.
I wouldn't depend on a guy financially either, as much respect as I have for house wives, and have entertained the idea of being one myself, I don't think I could stand it. Of course, it would be great though, if my husband were to make enough that I didn't have to work, and I could just stay home.
Of course, I'd also hate to become the stereotypical woman sitting at home eating bon bons, and watching Oprah. Ick, that just sounds horrible.
It sounds fun at first, but my wife knows some housewives, and they are insanely bored. Worse, one with a kid doesn't get to see any adults, and feels like her mind is turning to mush.. before she had a kid, she was in college to become a doctor... now she feels dumb and doesn't really get any intellectial stimulate... so based on that small sample, I'd advise against becoming a housewife (or house husband, for that matter).
At any rate, my original comment was half in jest anyway, I didn't think it would get any replies
I made no such claim.
Sure you did: And to discount your "IE6 has just been around too long" argument, there's fewer and fewer holes in products like OpenBSD, which have been around far longer than all versions of IE combined.
The fact that OpenBSD has been around longer is irrelevent. The relevent part of the 'IE6 has been around too long' is the fact that its development stopped. If you stopped development of OpenBSD, you WILL find more and more holes than if you keep developing it.
The point is, OpenBSD as a whole is far more secure than just IE6 alone. Now keep in mind that one's a full OS, the other merely an "application" running on an OS, and the magnitude of the security issues start boggling the mind.
Not really; OpenBSD mostly deals with trusted requests. IE (and any browser really) takes data from unknown sources and tries to parse it. Let OpenBSD's kernel accept commands from any computer on teh internet, and I bet it would be comprimised pretty quickly too.
The reason they're going after windows boxes is because it's easier than hacking into the actual target - *nix boxes.
No, the reason they are going after Windows is because they just want the maxium number of computers to take over. They don't give one flying fuck about unix boxes. Unix boxes aren't the 'actual target.'
DDOS is the fallback ploy.
Wrong, its the main play. Its how hackers try to make money, through extortion.
If they could own the actual target system, there'd be no need for bot nets, as they could take down the target site at will, or do more unscrupulous activities, like putting up their own content or stealing data.
They don't care to own the actual target system. They could own it, so what? As soon as someone figures it out, the box can be taken off teh network and cleaned. But how do you stop a DDOS attack? Well, you can't really.
They replaced content? So what? There's not alot of profit to gain by that. Stealing data? There are easier ways than hacking into someone server. Most of the 'stolen' data of late has been someone running off with a laptop or getting a hard drive that wasn't wiped properly.
The hackers WANT bot nets, so that they can take down targets of their choice, and there's little anyone can do about it.
From another post: I do not know you, but from the way you sound you are desperately trying to show how much of an adult you are and how any content that is not adult like enough sucks.. Don't worry, that is also a part of growing up, it will go again.
Your post: Perhaps Twain was wrong; maybe youth is best spent on the young, after all.
I was going to go through and respond to most of yoru points, and the other posters points, but I've decided not to bother.
Maybe I'm wrong, but you both sound like you have the attitude shared by most today; that is the refusal to grow up, and accept that the past is the past and that you can't cling to your childhood forever. Which is the real problem in America today; most people fall into this category. They didn't want their childhood to end, and didn't really accept it, and if they have kids, they'll do their best to make sure their kids never grow up. They refuse to accept responsibility for anything, nothing is their fault. If they're fat, its genetic, its not that they just won't put down the Coke can and french fries. They ask the government to babysit them; "make us safe! Keep those bad movies and games away from us! I dinged this guys door, so I'll just move my car instead of owning up to it. I need someone to tell me how to take care of myself, I can't be bothered to find out if what I'm eating is healthy or not."
Its an entire culture that needs to be told what to do and is incapable of taking care of themselves. Not everyone is like that, but it seems to be the majority, and its sad.
Sorry, but you're wrong. A good parent is one that raise a good kid. If you end up with a bad kid, you are a bad parent.
If you instill proper values in your children, they will listen to their conscience. If you don't, they'll ignore it (or worse, won't have one).
Your statement about jail is irrelevent; some are in there wrongly (because the state has not an intrest in the trust, but in blaming someone), some are in there for things which should not be crimes (smoking pot, for example) and the others are there because they belong there; had their parents taught them better values, they wouldn't be there.
Silly boy, don't you know that we fully cost more than a kid?
Except that you (women) can have a job and help out with expenses. Kids usually are nothing but a drain. FWIW, I personally wouldn't be with someone that depended on me financially.
The MPAA ratings are not government-mandated, nor are there any laws requiring theaters to uphold them. If this is "censorship," then so is the ESRB itself.
The MPAA exists because the government was about to start stepping in and outright censoring. So Hollywood formed the MPAA in an attempt to self-regulate to stave off government stepping in. The same goes for the ESRB; the government was going to step in, they created ratings (hey, it 'worked' for hollywood). The problem is that the government still isn't happy, because there are still quite a few M rated games out there.
To be honest, if you think that something can't be entertaining without sex, violence, or profanity, maybe you're not the go-to guy for judging the quality of movies.
I think its really difficult to come out with something new and groundbreaking if you automatically rule out any possiblity of sex, violence or profanity.
First, the movie leaves the realm of the real world, since in the real world, there is sex, violance and profanity. Second, most G rated movies amount to the 'funny' scenes amounting to 'look at the squirell get hit over the head! HAHA AHAHA AHAH HAHA'. Please. You think THAT makes a quality movie? The EXACT same drivel over and over and over again? Yes, I'm sure that Over the Hedge is a truely groundbreaking movie, and Saving Private Ryan or the Green Mile or even T2 are just plain junk.
You may still be entertained by playing with Legos and Matchbox cars, but I just don't find them entertaining anymore.
Why do people still support IE at all?
Do you really have to ask this question? I dunno, maybe because IE has 90%+ market share.
If web designers would stop supporting IE and provided links to compatible alternatives, then the masses would certainly upgrade.
No, they will certainly close the browser window and move on to a site that works in IE.
There's nothing wrong with legally enforced ratings. They don't hurt anyone.
Sure it does. R rated movies have a smaller target audience, and thus become less profitable to make. Therefore, the numbere of R rated movies decreases. It still ends up being censorship. Personally it hurts me because G and PG movies I automatically rule out as the same tripe over and over again. As a rule, I don't find them entertaining (sorry, I guess I don't find what entertains 8 years olds entertaining to me). Same things goes for M and AO rated games.
The beer industry does not seem to be suffering from the fact that it's illegal to supply liquor to minors; the porn industry does not seem to have been stifled by the fact that Walmart does not stock hardcore videos.
These industries also have stores which exist soley for that market. There's plenty of adult stores and liquor stores around. Hell, I can buy beer at convience stores here in Vermont. The same is NOT true for M rated games. Walmart may sell beer, but it won't sell an M or AO rated game. And what this law is attempting to do is make it so that no other stores will carry M or AO rated gamse either, because they FEAR they MIGHT be prosecuted under this law. In the end, its still censorship, just like the FCC indecency fines are still censorship. The government can't tell FreeFM what to bleep on O&A, but they CAN fine FreeFM is someone complains. The end result is that FreeFM bleeps things because of a POSSIBLE government imposed fine. Its still censorship. In some respects its actually worse, because the FCC can't give any guidelines on what can or cannot be said, so FreeFM is many times overzealous, and censors MORE than if there were hard and fast censorship rules.
The problem with this law was nothing to do with its stated intent; it was that it was vaguely worded. The wording was designed to create an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty, where game manufacturers were not able to be sure whether their games would be treated as "violent" or not, and where game retailers were not able to be sure whether they were allowed to sell certain games to minors. That would have stifled people's free expression by encouraging self-censorship. That would have been bad.
The intent of the law is to censor games, no matter how you slice it or try to justify it. The law must be vague, because it would be struct down as an attempt at censorship. See above where I talk about why the FCC won't tell radio stations what is acceptable and what isn't.
But the stated intent itself is not bad. It's not even censorship. A well-written law of this sort, with very precise and rigid definitions and easily-understood effects, would not be a problem. If they want to institute some "arbitrary" standards, then that's fine. If the people change their standards, the law can be changed to reflect that.
Bull. It is censorship, no matter how you try to justify it. And children don't stop having rights just because they are young.
The people will get what they want, which is what "democracy" means.
Its too bad we are NOT a democracy, and nor would I want this country to become one. Democracy = mob rule. There are plenty of things people have the right to do even though the majority doesn't agree that it should be a right.
For example, free speech. Popular speech doesn't need free speech protection at all. Its the unpopular speech (such as video games) that the first amendment is meant to protect.