Except she never ever says that gaming is bad, she just wants better games, with more interesting characters and story.
She has previously made a point at identifying negative impact of games that do certain things. Not much different from shooters being murder simulators etc.
Really? Your reponse is "everyone does it so we shouldn't even try to change it"?
Nope.
I don't really get how you could even get that from my response.
It's not the community of gamers that's objecting. It's the small, virulent subset that sees it as an attack on themselves.
Of course it's not the entire community. However this behavior is exactly the same when gaming was claimed to induce violence, turn people into murderers, take drugs etc.
People who say "what should you expect" are the enablers.
That's some projection there. I'm just pointing out history in such matters and it's foolish to not expect what has traditionally continuously happened in history.
If you don't have proper expectations, you can't reduce your risk,nor come up with proper counter measures. Being reactive often doesn't work in public (again history), you need to be proactive. Assuming you're a geek/techie/nerd, you would fail at applying ISO 31000 properly without having proper expectations.
Seriously when did [citation needed] become a sign of the fascist overlords?
Saying "I think" doesn't mean "it is". He's not trying to claim it as fact, he's saying he thinks. Wikipedia's rules on citations on the matter of someone 'thinking something' would just require some evidence it came from the person who stated it. As you can see the user account and 'I' references the self, doesn't seem legitimate to me.
Doesn't mean he won't get replies telling him what he thinks and says is crap
You didn't tell him what he thought was crap, you told him to shut up.
Free speech cuts both ways.
It's not free speech if he has to shut up.
Regarding free speech though, the first amendment applies to government entities, not private entities like Slashdot / Dice, so that argument isn't really valid here either.
The fact that these threats have been made is more than enough to prove her point.
I've received 'going to tell the police you raped me' threats from women for not letting them into a secured area (my job at the time).
It is my fellow men like these ones that really make me mad, and I wonder why any of them would treat a woman like this.
I don't see it as a male thing. It's a gamer thing. Have you never seen how gamers react to accusations of becoming rapists, murders etc? I think she is foolish for not bothering to analyze previous negative media attention on the gaming community and what it resulted in.
To be frank. What did she expect? Every single time gaming/gamers/games has been pointed out for being bad (think create violence, sex, obsessions) it's been slammed by the community. For someone who spends a lot of time analyzing stuff, she didn't really look hard at the history of gaming related allegations.
If you have more than a few employees and have to back up terabytes of data
I have terabytes daily backed up to the cloud in my firm.
and have custom applications which require a day or two minimum to install and configure and data in multiple places, and downtime costs you hundreds, thousands, or more per hour, cloud backup services quickly become an epic fail - plus you need to worry about bandwidth caps with crappy ISPs.
That's why we have redundant fail over systems (both manual and automatic).
Other backup solutions become more important - for low-budget IT a handful of large external hard drives swapped out daily and taken off-site is a workable (if not ideal) solution
What we're doing at my firm isn't even with a big budget.
It's not illogical. I'm using google.com as an example to block. I am not going to link some actual real malware domain (where you really couldn't trust any subdomain it has) for obvious reasons.
3.) Now @ least you ADMIT I can block domains/subdomains (when you said I literally couldn't earlier), & I get them added as my 12 reputable sources in the security community add them (or, as I see fit to) completely automated & easy to do thus.
I'm talking about entire domains, stop being pedantic.
I pointed out addon shortcomings vs. hosts & your DNS setup doubles overheads (tcp vs. udp) isn't anymore secure than a hosts file protected by WFP & my program in combination with it.
I've previously pointed out the shortcomings of hosts files to you. Such as trying to blacklist an entire domain requires generating every single combination of a subdomain for that domain. The intensive I/O usage to read that file into memory, the requirement for an immense amount of disk space (as opposed to the few lines for DNS) to block an entire domain, breaks standard windows services and while there are some additional overheads, it also reduce overheads that you have from hosts, such as the application attempting to establish a connection to a blocked address, rather than getting a resolution failure.
Apply said solution to a LAN server and you've mitigated any client system overheads (not that there is really anything that notable as far as overheads are when it comes to DNS to begin with).
Your DNS setup eats more power, cpu cycles, RAM, & other forms of I/O (especially when setup as a separate machine), & increases complexity + learning curve also vs. a simple text file in hosts.
Not when compared to the scenarios I am using the DNS server, such as blacklisting entire domains used by malicious users. The additional overhead in TCP resolution is acceptable for security purposes.
As for learning curve; if I was concerned about learning curve, I'd pre-package some DNS server in an installer with the right configurations and maybe write some GUI configuration tool (didn't you make one for hosts?).
P.S.=> How you can say hosts can't block subdomains AND that using DNS (especially as a separate machine) doesn't consume more electric power, cpu cycles, RAM, + other forms of I/O boggles the mind - it's IMPOSSIBLE for it NOT TO DO SO, period... apk
I've already explained this to you previously, how do you not get it?
A local dns isn't more secure than a local hosts file that runs my program since it, along with Windows File Protection in combination with it, protects hosts.
It's more secure when running with the configuration I told you previously, TCP based resolution.
What makes you think I can't protect subdomains in hosts? I can do google.com , www.google.com , test.google.com, etc.- et al, easily.
But you can't blacklist an entire domain 'easily' in a hosts file. By 'entire domain', I mean, all subdomains and the domain it self. If I explain using a wildcard format: google.com *.google.com
1st: I can't BE infected if I can't touch sources of infestation (hosts do that for me).
Of course, since you don't block entire domains, you could become trivially vulnerable if they just open a new subdomain, or even just do a wildcard subdomain.
You failed to read (see link below, it leads to it) that I use hosts + external & secured DNS (saves wasting power & adding complexity with inefficiency + room for breakdown running dns here, as you see fit to do, illogically) in OpenDNS!
We've discussed this extensively. I've told you before, I have seen no notable differences in power consumption. There is an increase in bandwidth consumption from using TCP, sure. However, I'm not exactly on some 5MB internet cap where it would make a difference.
Having a locally accessible DNS server on your machine that handles the resolutions over TCP with end points is more secure than a hosts file, that can only cover vulnerabilities that you're aware of and doesn't break geographical CDNs that use DNS to provide the relevant geographical IP address to connect to.
Unlike a hosts file, you can also block resolution completely of entire domains (or just subdomains, which is what you do) too. This blocking unlike hosts file, tells the browser, or any other application attempting to access said address, that it doesn't even exist and as such, a connection isn't even attempted to said address to begin with, leading to faster browser loading times.
Can adblock/ghostery/requestpolicy do the these (hosts can)
Why is this relevant even? I repeat: I don't understand why your post targets adblock+, ghostery or request policy. I have never endorsed those as solutions to anything.
It's illogical to use them vs. hosts but up to you
I use DNS in a safe configuration with full domain blacklists for malicious sites. But you know this, because we've been over this before.
I already told you how to configure a DNS server/resolver to not have vulnerability issues and we discussed vulnerabilities effecting hosts file as well as the inadequacies where blocking entire domains leads to multi-gb hosts files that Windows starts breaking with services on and running out of memory with.
I don't understand why your post targets adblock+, ghostery or request policy. I have never endorsed those as solutions to anything (I also consider them as a false sense of security. I've trivially bypassed the cookie stuff by storing unique values in RGB values of force-cached PNGs using HTML5 Canvas tag and the read pixels back out. I have also bypassed advertising blockers through tight integration with web content that makes it hard to produce a rule to target the advertisements).
From "Visual Basic Programmer's Journal" Oct. 1997 issue "INSIDE THE VB 5 COMPILER" (Delphi, vs. VB, vs. MSVC++) where Delphi TORCHED MS' stuff in 4/6 total tests (in a competing trade rag no less, where they 'downplayed' that fact to ONLY 1 LINE (lame))?
From "Visual Basic Programmer's Journal" Oct. 1997 issue "INSIDE THE VB 5 COMPILER"
In my experience, Agile results in poor, ad hoc, designs that are not good enough for the products end goal. They also result in quick, works-for-me/now fixes to things that make shit harder down the line.
In my experience, proper use of Agile, decent developers, reasonable deadlines, decent business analysts to gather requirements, iterations sufficiently adjusted (not too spaced out, not too close), continuous integration, managers that deal with the client/business so developers don't have to, behavior driven development and automated testing coupled with session based testing (detached from development iterative process) results in very good quality code.
Agile is far more likely to result in spaghetti code than proper planning is.
Honestly, Agile won't fix issues you have because your problems go beyond Agile.
Slashdot Mirror
She has previously made a point at identifying negative impact of games that do certain things. Not much different from shooters being murder simulators etc.
Nope.
I don't really get how you could even get that from my response.
Of course it's not the entire community. However this behavior is exactly the same when gaming was claimed to induce violence, turn people into murderers, take drugs etc.
That's some projection there. I'm just pointing out history in such matters and it's foolish to not expect what has traditionally continuously happened in history.
If you don't have proper expectations, you can't reduce your risk,nor come up with proper counter measures. Being reactive often doesn't work in public (again history), you need to be proactive. Assuming you're a geek/techie/nerd, you would fail at applying ISO 31000 properly without having proper expectations.
Saying "I think" doesn't mean "it is". He's not trying to claim it as fact, he's saying he thinks. Wikipedia's rules on citations on the matter of someone 'thinking something' would just require some evidence it came from the person who stated it. As you can see the user account and 'I' references the self, doesn't seem legitimate to me.
You didn't tell him what he thought was crap, you told him to shut up.
It's not free speech if he has to shut up.
Regarding free speech though, the first amendment applies to government entities, not private entities like Slashdot / Dice, so that argument isn't really valid here either.
AC, as you are an expert on irrational, unfounded statements could you please explain the rational behind this:
http://i.imgur.com/zHPLIan.jpg
So you're the thought police?
I've received 'going to tell the police you raped me' threats from women for not letting them into a secured area (my job at the time).
I don't see it as a male thing. It's a gamer thing. Have you never seen how gamers react to accusations of becoming rapists, murders etc? I think she is foolish for not bothering to analyze previous negative media attention on the gaming community and what it resulted in.
To be frank. What did she expect? Every single time gaming/gamers/games has been pointed out for being bad (think create violence, sex, obsessions) it's been slammed by the community. For someone who spends a lot of time analyzing stuff, she didn't really look hard at the history of gaming related allegations.
I don't even see a challenge on that link.
At home I have multiple terabytes backed up to the cloud?
I have terabytes daily backed up to the cloud in my firm.
That's why we have redundant fail over systems (both manual and automatic).
What we're doing at my firm isn't even with a big budget.
It's not illogical. I'm using google.com as an example to block. I am not going to link some actual real malware domain (where you really couldn't trust any subdomain it has) for obvious reasons.
I'm using google.com as an example. I'm not telling you to use it.
Show me a hosts file blocking the entire google.com domain (this includes every combination of subdomain).
Tell me more how ten minutes is a great deal of time to reach a good assessment on an operating system.
You give up after just 10 minutes? You're clearly not the right person for the job.
I'm talking about entire domains, stop being pedantic.
I've previously pointed out the shortcomings of hosts files to you. Such as trying to blacklist an entire domain requires generating every single combination of a subdomain for that domain. The intensive I/O usage to read that file into memory, the requirement for an immense amount of disk space (as opposed to the few lines for DNS) to block an entire domain, breaks standard windows services and while there are some additional overheads, it also reduce overheads that you have from hosts, such as the application attempting to establish a connection to a blocked address, rather than getting a resolution failure.
Apply said solution to a LAN server and you've mitigated any client system overheads (not that there is really anything that notable as far as overheads are when it comes to DNS to begin with).
Not when compared to the scenarios I am using the DNS server, such as blacklisting entire domains used by malicious users. The additional overhead in TCP resolution is acceptable for security purposes.
As for learning curve; if I was concerned about learning curve, I'd pre-package some DNS server in an installer with the right configurations and maybe write some GUI configuration tool (didn't you make one for hosts?).
I've already explained this to you previously, how do you not get it?
It's more secure when running with the configuration I told you previously, TCP based resolution.
But you can't blacklist an entire domain 'easily' in a hosts file. By 'entire domain', I mean, all subdomains and the domain it self. If I explain using a wildcard format:
google.com
*.google.com
Of course, since you don't block entire domains, you could become trivially vulnerable if they just open a new subdomain, or even just do a wildcard subdomain.
We've discussed this extensively. I've told you before, I have seen no notable differences in power consumption. There is an increase in bandwidth consumption from using TCP, sure. However, I'm not exactly on some 5MB internet cap where it would make a difference.
Having a locally accessible DNS server on your machine that handles the resolutions over TCP with end points is more secure than a hosts file, that can only cover vulnerabilities that you're aware of and doesn't break geographical CDNs that use DNS to provide the relevant geographical IP address to connect to.
Unlike a hosts file, you can also block resolution completely of entire domains (or just subdomains, which is what you do) too. This blocking unlike hosts file, tells the browser, or any other application attempting to access said address, that it doesn't even exist and as such, a connection isn't even attempted to said address to begin with, leading to faster browser loading times.
Why is this relevant even? I repeat: I don't understand why your post targets adblock+, ghostery or request policy. I have never endorsed those as solutions to anything.
I use DNS in a safe configuration with full domain blacklists for malicious sites. But you know this, because we've been over this before.
I already told you how to configure a DNS server/resolver to not have vulnerability issues and we discussed vulnerabilities effecting hosts file as well as the inadequacies where blocking entire domains leads to multi-gb hosts files that Windows starts breaking with services on and running out of memory with.
I don't understand why your post targets adblock+, ghostery or request policy. I have never endorsed those as solutions to anything (I also consider them as a false sense of security. I've trivially bypassed the cookie stuff by storing unique values in RGB values of force-cached PNGs using HTML5 Canvas tag and the read pixels back out. I have also bypassed advertising blockers through tight integration with web content that makes it hard to produce a rule to target the advertisements).
It's not Delphi I was wowing about.
Wow.
You mean like using the resource designer which has been in visual studio since as far back as... Well, forever?
MSVC++ in Borland Delphi 7.1 Object Pascal... Wow.
In my experience, proper use of Agile, decent developers, reasonable deadlines, decent business analysts to gather requirements, iterations sufficiently adjusted (not too spaced out, not too close), continuous integration, managers that deal with the client/business so developers don't have to, behavior driven development and automated testing coupled with session based testing (detached from development iterative process) results in very good quality code.
Honestly, Agile won't fix issues you have because your problems go beyond Agile.
You weren't practicing real agile.