Its not about the DDOS itself. Its about the media response generated by a DDOS attack.. When the news picks up that the FBI was shutdown, it makes waves. Of course, an interruption of a whole day is significant, but the effects of public exposure last weeks if not more.
The main problem is good, inspirational, games are still the exception rather than the standard.
Most games published are just re-hashes of previous ones. Poor game play, a guy with a gun.. I played FarCry 2 recently, and while the graphics was great, it was boooring. Yet another shooter. HalfLife 2, good game, but similar scenario. The best game i played recently, Armadillo Run (IGF winner), and its not an industry game.
Unfortunately this is the standard from the big industry players. Shooters, sports, space games with bulky main characters, and sex fem supporting roles. Boooring.. Detrimental to society? Perhaps not directly. But definitely indirectly. Its like watching television. Ok, it shouldn't be illegal, but do you really want your kids watching it all the time.
I think these comparisons of DX10 with DX9 are misleading. DX10 builds on a completely new architecture, so comparing to existing games isn't really fair. Basically, the games that will really demonstrate DX10 don't exist yet. These are all new features that DX9 doesn't even support.
- Render Arrays (to render 6-face shadow maps in one pass)
- Volumetric Textures (for volume rendering apps)
As mentioned, the games to take full advantage of DX10 don't exist yet.
For example:
- Shadows. A typical DX 9 game will implement geometry for "shadow volumes" on the CPU, then perform shadow shading using a fragment shader on the GPU. A DX 10 game could implement the entire process on the GPU much faster (not possible with DX9), leaving the CPU for better AI, etc. However, if you run a DX9 game on DX10 its not going to take advantage of that. i.e. its still going use the old method, just run through a DX10 card. So there will be a slight performance gain because of the new architecture and faster card, but you're not really taking advantage of what DX10 can do with the card.
Games have to be written to take advantage of the new features. This has always been an issue with graphics programming. You write software solutions. You have to re-write it once it gets ported to hardware. Not sure if this will ever change (one can hope).
Bottom line, putting old games through radically new cards is not a fair test. A real comparison would be to completely rewrite the same game in DX10.
PS. I code for both DX and OpenGL. In my experience, both do a pretty go job of keeping up with hardware. DX10 is a little ahead because the game industry has mostly adopted directx (theres some history to that story).
I think these comparisons of DX10 with DX9 are misleading. DX10 builds on a completely new architecture, so comparing to existing games isn't really fair. Basically, the games that will really demonstrate DX10 don't exist yet. These are all new features that DX9 doesn't even support.
Some examples:
- Geometry processors (for displacement mapping, procedural modeling)
- Render Arrays (to render 6-face shadow maps in one pass)
- Volumetric Textures (for volume rendering apps)
As mentioned, the games to take full advantage of DX10 don't exist yet.
For example:
- Shadows. A typical DX 9 game will implement geometry for "shadow volumes" on the CPU, then perform shadow shading using a fragment shader on the GPU. A DX 10 game could implement the entire process on the GPU much faster (not possible with DX9), leaving the CPU for better AI, etc. However, if you run a DX9 game on DX10 its not going to take advantage of that. i.e. its still going use the old method, just run through a DX10 card. So there will be a slight performance gain because of the new architecture and faster card, but you're not really taking advantage of what DX10 can do with the card.
Games have to be written to take advantage of the new features. This has always been an issue with graphics programming. You write software solutions. You have to re-write it once it gets ported to hardware. Not sure if this will ever change (one can hope).
Bottom line, putting old games through radically new cards is not a fair test. A real comparison would be to completely rewrite the same game in DX10.
PS. I code for both DX and OpenGL. In my experience, both do a pretty go job of keeping up with hardware. DX10 is a little ahead because the game industry has mostly adopted directx (theres some history to that story).
My conclusion is that it's another morally questionable, intrusive technology wrapped in scientific language. Since when did it become acceptable to trade away morals with technical language? There is generally the attitude in science and engineering that "it is sufficient for the engineer or scientist if we can create it or understand a thing", while policy should be left to others. I disagree. In a completely science-oriented society, what others? You say it is not about repossessing school computers. Ok, at least superficially. But how do we define what "something is about" if not by what it means, or implies to us?
I read the the patent, and my conclusion is one must read between the lines to determine the moral and social impact of this "neutral" technology being proposed.
Anyway, i think we agree (at least i gather from your response) that the system should not be allowed in schools.
I think I'm going to file a patent for "morality cameras" for large software company executives with stupid ideas. The idea is: Every time a Microsoft exec or brainhead uses their computer, a morality camera checks to see if they are doing something morally absurd. This is done by asking certain questions: 1) Do you know what a human being is? 2) Do you know what children are? 3) What is the difference between a living cat, and a cat you killed with your bare hands?
If they don't answer correctly, the system seizes control of itself and self-destructs out of desperation.
Camera detection: 1) Stick gum on camera 2) Disconnect camera 3) Steal camera 4) Camera can't see me when i'm wearing super-spy eyes!
Most common responses to "ad understanding". System: What was the last ad you saw? Children: 1) Your mom 2) A horse pulling twelve lepricans over a rainbow 3) What is an ad? 4)..Take me to your leader..
Most common kid responses to whole system. 1) What are we learning in this class? 2) I wish that bully would stop punching me after school 3) I wish his girlfriend would stop punching me too 4) I love Coca-Cola. Oh, and McDonalds. Oh, oh, oh, and Wells Smith & Fargo Financial.
Beee. booo. beee. booo. Addveertissing.. I loovvee too lern @t sckool.
Rest assured if there is every a time that such a system is ever implemented in practice, our civilization will be so
near to revolution it won't matter.
Look at the frikin bigger picture! Either way, unless the system if subverted, the kid in the classroom is forced to register understand of the advertisement (ie. actually read it to provide the 'response data') to permit use of the computer. Now, which is more valuable? A kid with a balanced set of values, not distorted by all these ads, or a kid with a computer.
Its just a bad freaking idea.
I think its _essential_ to bring this kind of thing to our attention. The problem with your argument is that you are bargaining away the future of the children using these multiple systems for the presumed needs of the common owner. Any school teacher or principal who has any respect for the children in their school would reject this outright. Where is the patent that protects children from Microsoft?
Sensationalism? If we don't have feelings about this stuff, then we are totally lost.
The computer games you mention (PC Gauntlet, Space Quest, Kings Quest), used these things as an attempt at adult filtering or piracy prevention. Adult filtering was to completely prevent you from using the system if you weren't old enough (just as we prevent kids from entering adult bookstores). Of course, this didn't work very well. The questions were too easy to just look up in an encyclopedia. Piracy prevention didn't work either, since you could find out the word-in-the-page-in-the-manual from someone who had simply posted the whole thing online.
This is completely different. The goal is not to protect children (from adult material), or copyright (of software creators), its to enforce a mindset of consumerism. You're not being asked to present some information as verification, but to think according to their values. You're right, its not unique. Its 1984. I hope schools revert to traditional teaching, with out computers (which is often more effective), rather than accept these terms for free computers.
Ok, so I'm going to develop free software this summer and get $4500 for it. That seems like a good idea (and getting paid to create open source is unusual, but should be the norm).
But.. When Google sees all these cool ideas, grabs a few, rewrites them from scratch, and their market value goes up by several million -- i'm going to feel a bit differently about that $4500 i'm holding. Hey, if I knew it was _that_ valuable... As far as I remember it is the expressed work, the code, that is copyright (yes, in open source licenses too), not ideas. So nothing prevents Google from doing this. I'm all for giving away ideas to the community, but Google seems to gain a lot more than I, the originator of the idea, does. Ah, the American Dream: "Where any little guy can rise up and give away a good idea to a big company."
Ok, perhaps I'm paranoid, but when was the last time you checked how valuable _your_ idea was? Any comments? Does anyone think this is an issue?
I was just finding it interesting how these debates about violence can get so violent.. I mean, its odd to me that there are so few views that fall in the middle spectrum.. For example: 1) Violent gaming cannot be directly linked to real violence, because people who play violent games are generally smart enough to know real violence is _real_.. but 2) There are lots of studys that show violence gaming does lead to increased tendencies toward aggressive behavior. These don't seem like opposites to me.
I think the next wave of game makers will be making much better games than exist currently. Projectile physics is relatively easy to program, while meaningful content, smart AI, and good interaction is hard.
Robots are fun, but very engineering oriented. Since kids are not programmers, you are looking at out-of-the-box robotic kits or a good investment in time and effort. Not all kids are interested in robotics, either.
I would recommend computer games. Not the high-tech kind seen in industry, but 2D scrolling-type games. Student interest, even among younger kids, is high in this area (actually, for younger kids I think _any_ theme is a good one - so long as you do it _right_). Games involve both artwork, logical thinking, music and narrative so you can involve both creative and logical kids. I've been developing a gaming engine especially for the purpose of educational instruction (GameX, currently being used at Cornell U.)
We also developed a grade-level proposal called "Games for Kids" in which a team of college-level student programmers in CS (provided by collaboration with a university or tech-company) are teamed up with groups of kids. The kids develop the artwork, game idea and layout while the CS team implements the behavior/code.
Sorry for the plug, but this is an area i'm very passionate about and think there are lots of opportunities for kids here. I got interested in CG myself from wanting to make computer games as a kid.
Look guys.. Assuming its not a hoax, it's clear something hit the top of that post. The brightest area of the flash is to the bottom right of the very top of the post, which is consistent with a high-speed object coming in from the top left of the image, hitting the post, and producing a flash to the bottom-right of the impact point. Even the cloud around the flash is in the right direction, perpendicular to the dark streak. The dark streak is consistent, and the exposure would be darker so long as the moving object is not on fire or giving off light itself.
My advise: Inspect the post!
To say that "the street light doesn't work" is not nearly enough info! The lightbulb doesn't have to smash to produce a flash from a high-speed object. It most likely hit the steel pole, or the steel cover on the >top of the bulb dome. It could have just nicked the post at the top. My advice:
1) Climb to the top.
2) Take high-res pictures all over the top of the post.
3) Collect dust and look at it under a microscope.
4) Compare to neighboring posts.
I'd like to know what it is too...
What I'd like to know is, what is that clearly visible, dark, yet shiny object in the foreground in the Meridiani Planium image at 97 degs (the largest image download has azimuth degree marks)?
It can't be the Backshell & Parachute which are at 235 degs. It can't be heat shield either, which is much farther away. And from the image, it clearly is much darker and rises above the surface.
Also interesting is the fact that it lies on one of the bounce marks from the airbags, but none of the other bounce marks have this feature. Its' in line with the distant East Crater (probably by chance), but clearly in the foreground...
In the Beagle-Spirit comparison, I think it is important to point out several things:
- Spirit (~$400 mil) has over six times the budget of the Beagle (~$60 mil)
- Spirit is built on the success of Pathfinder.
- This is the European Space Agency's *first* time out to mars, and they attempted a *landing*
- Our first two times out failed (Mariner 3 & 4), and our third was just a flyby for 71 photos. Of course, that was 1969.
- Pathfinder is more recent, cost ~$200 mil... but of course Beagle is not a rover.
- ESA never had a strong national space program similar to the US or USSR for budget reasons, as well as many other factors (natural resources, age and background of the nations it comprises, WW I & II)
Bottom line, a simple comparison is impossible. Even so, here is an attempt: US space program performs better due to being the greatest world power (at the cost of being one of the worlds most hated nations). Money and power are very good for making Martian rovers (and microchips, and wireless networks, and stealth bombers), but they are also good at building inflated self images.
My point? If you succeed, don't gloat, help others.. If you fail, try again.
Slashdot Mirror
If anyone has connected an industrial control system to a public website, that's you're problem right there!
Its not about the DDOS itself. Its about the media response generated by a DDOS attack.. When the news picks up that the FBI was shutdown, it makes waves. Of course, an interruption of a whole day is significant, but the effects of public exposure last weeks if not more.
The main problem is good, inspirational, games are still the exception rather than the standard.
Most games published are just re-hashes of previous ones. Poor game play, a guy with a gun.. I played FarCry 2 recently, and while the graphics was great, it was boooring. Yet another shooter. HalfLife 2, good game, but similar scenario. The best game i played recently, Armadillo Run (IGF winner), and its not an industry game.
Unfortunately this is the standard from the big industry players. Shooters, sports, space games with bulky main characters, and sex fem supporting roles. Boooring.. Detrimental to society? Perhaps not directly. But definitely indirectly. Its like watching television. Ok, it shouldn't be illegal, but do you really want your kids watching it all the time.
There are a few exceptions. Too few.
Water is fuel
The oceans catch on fire
Major problem
---
Latest technology transforms
Stupid people into smart ones
Most simply vanish
---
E=mc^2.
M = 2 gals water. E = very large.
It could work.
---
Water made into fuel!
Other liquids made into quantum computers.
Car becomes self-aware,
with tummy ache.
---
Water burns efficiently
Tech journalists self-combust
World still using gas
Maybe this was mentioned this already, maybe not.
I think these comparisons of DX10 with DX9 are misleading. DX10 builds on a completely new architecture, so comparing to existing games isn't really fair. Basically, the games that will really demonstrate DX10 don't exist yet. These are all new features that DX9 doesn't even support.
Some examples:
- Geometry processors (for displacement mapping, procedural modeling)
- Render Arrays (to render 6-face shadow maps in one pass)
- Volumetric Textures (for volume rendering apps)
As mentioned, the games to take full advantage of DX10 don't exist yet.
For example:
- Shadows. A typical DX 9 game will implement geometry for "shadow volumes" on the CPU, then perform shadow shading using a fragment shader on the GPU. A DX 10 game could implement the entire process on the GPU much faster (not possible with DX9), leaving the CPU for better AI, etc. However, if you run a DX9 game on DX10 its not going to take advantage of that. i.e. its still going use the old method, just run through a DX10 card. So there will be a slight performance gain because of the new architecture and faster card, but you're not really taking advantage of what DX10 can do with the card.
Games have to be written to take advantage of the new features. This has always been an issue with graphics programming. You write software solutions. You have to re-write it once it gets ported to hardware. Not sure if this will ever change (one can hope).
Bottom line, putting old games through radically new cards is not a fair test. A real comparison would be to completely rewrite the same game in DX10.
For more details look here:
http://www.csee.umbc.edu/~olano/s2006c03/ch02.pdf
PS. I code for both DX and OpenGL. In my experience, both do a pretty go job of keeping up with hardware. DX10 is a little ahead because the game industry has mostly adopted directx (theres some history to that story).
Maybe this was mentioned this already, maybe not.
I think these comparisons of DX10 with DX9 are misleading. DX10 builds on a completely new architecture, so comparing to existing games isn't really fair. Basically, the games that will really demonstrate DX10 don't exist yet. These are all new features that DX9 doesn't even support.
Some examples:
- Geometry processors (for displacement mapping, procedural modeling)
- Render Arrays (to render 6-face shadow maps in one pass)
- Volumetric Textures (for volume rendering apps)
As mentioned, the games to take full advantage of DX10 don't exist yet.
For example:
- Shadows. A typical DX 9 game will implement geometry for "shadow volumes" on the CPU, then perform shadow shading using a fragment shader on the GPU. A DX 10 game could implement the entire process on the GPU much faster (not possible with DX9), leaving the CPU for better AI, etc. However, if you run a DX9 game on DX10 its not going to take advantage of that. i.e. its still going use the old method, just run through a DX10 card. So there will be a slight performance gain because of the new architecture and faster card, but you're not really taking advantage of what DX10 can do with the card.
Games have to be written to take advantage of the new features. This has always been an issue with graphics programming. You write software solutions. You have to re-write it once it gets ported to hardware. Not sure if this will ever change (one can hope).
Bottom line, putting old games through radically new cards is not a fair test. A real comparison would be to completely rewrite the same game in DX10.
For more details look here: http://www.csee.umbc.edu/~olano/s2006c03/ch02.pdf
PS. I code for both DX and OpenGL. In my experience, both do a pretty go job of keeping up with hardware. DX10 is a little ahead because the game industry has mostly adopted directx (theres some history to that story).
I did RTFA. Twice.
My conclusion is that it's another morally questionable, intrusive technology wrapped in scientific language. Since when did it become acceptable to trade away morals with technical language? There is generally the attitude in science and engineering that "it is sufficient for the engineer or scientist if we can create it or understand a thing", while policy should be left to others. I disagree. In a completely science-oriented society, what others? You say it is not about repossessing school computers. Ok, at least superficially. But how do we define what "something is about" if not by what it means, or implies to us?
I read the the patent, and my conclusion is one must read between the lines to determine the moral and social impact of this "neutral" technology being proposed.
Anyway, i think we agree (at least i gather from your response) that the system should not be allowed in schools.
I think I'm going to file a patent for "morality cameras" for large software company executives with stupid ideas. The idea is: Every time a Microsoft exec or brainhead uses their computer, a morality camera checks to see if they are doing something morally absurd. This is done by asking certain questions:
1) Do you know what a human being is?
2) Do you know what children are?
3) What is the difference between a living cat, and a cat you killed with your bare hands?
If they don't answer correctly, the system seizes control of itself and self-destructs out of desperation.
Children's Responses:
..Take me to your leader..
Camera detection:
1) Stick gum on camera
2) Disconnect camera
3) Steal camera
4) Camera can't see me when i'm wearing super-spy eyes!
Most common responses to "ad understanding".
System: What was the last ad you saw?
Children:
1) Your mom
2) A horse pulling twelve lepricans over a rainbow
3) What is an ad?
4)
Most common kid responses to whole system.
1) What are we learning in this class?
2) I wish that bully would stop punching me after school
3) I wish his girlfriend would stop punching me too
4) I love Coca-Cola. Oh, and McDonalds. Oh, oh, oh, and Wells Smith & Fargo Financial.
Beee. booo. beee. booo. Addveertissing.. I loovvee too lern @t sckool.
Rest assured if there is every a time that such a system is ever implemented in practice, our civilization will be so near to revolution it won't matter.
Except that the people who get the computers: school superintendents, principals - don't have to look at the ads.. The kids do.
Look at the frikin bigger picture! Either way, unless the system if subverted, the kid in the classroom is forced to register understand of the advertisement (ie. actually read it to provide the 'response data') to permit use of the computer. Now, which is more valuable? A kid with a balanced set of values, not distorted by all these ads, or a kid with a computer.
Its just a bad freaking idea.
I think its _essential_ to bring this kind of thing to our attention. The problem with your argument is that you are bargaining away the future of the children using these multiple systems for the presumed needs of the common owner. Any school teacher or principal who has any respect for the children in their school would reject this outright. Where is the patent that protects children from Microsoft?
Sensationalism? If we don't have feelings about this stuff, then we are totally lost.
The computer games you mention (PC Gauntlet, Space Quest, Kings Quest), used these things as an attempt at adult filtering or piracy prevention. Adult filtering was to completely prevent you from using the system if you weren't old enough (just as we prevent kids from entering adult bookstores). Of course, this didn't work very well. The questions were too easy to just look up in an encyclopedia. Piracy prevention didn't work either, since you could find out the word-in-the-page-in-the-manual from someone who had simply posted the whole thing online.
This is completely different. The goal is not to protect children (from adult material), or copyright (of software creators), its to enforce a mindset of consumerism. You're not being asked to present some information as verification, but to think according to their values. You're right, its not unique. Its 1984. I hope schools revert to traditional teaching, with out computers (which is often more effective), rather than accept these terms for free computers.
Ok, so I'm going to develop free software this summer and get $4500 for it. That seems like a good idea (and getting paid to create open source is unusual, but should be the norm).
But.. When Google sees all these cool ideas, grabs a few, rewrites them from scratch, and their market value goes up by several million -- i'm going to feel a bit differently about that $4500 i'm holding. Hey, if I knew it was _that_ valuable... As far as I remember it is the expressed work, the code, that is copyright (yes, in open source licenses too), not ideas. So nothing prevents Google from doing this. I'm all for giving away ideas to the community, but Google seems to gain a lot more than I, the originator of the idea, does. Ah, the American Dream: "Where any little guy can rise up and give away a good idea to a big company."
Ok, perhaps I'm paranoid, but when was the last time you checked how valuable _your_ idea was? Any comments? Does anyone think this is an issue?
c.c.
I was just finding it interesting how these debates about violence can get so violent.. I mean, its odd to me that there are so few views that fall in the middle spectrum.. For example: 1) Violent gaming cannot be directly linked to real violence, because people who play violent games are generally smart enough to know real violence is _real_.. but 2) There are lots of studys that show violence gaming does lead to increased tendencies toward aggressive behavior. These don't seem like opposites to me.
I think the next wave of game makers will be making much better games than exist currently. Projectile physics is relatively easy to program, while meaningful content, smart AI, and good interaction is hard.
Robots are fun, but very engineering oriented. Since kids are not programmers, you are looking at out-of-the-box robotic kits or a good investment in time and effort. Not all kids are interested in robotics, either.
I would recommend computer games. Not the high-tech kind seen in industry, but 2D scrolling-type games. Student interest, even among younger kids, is high in this area (actually, for younger kids I think _any_ theme is a good one - so long as you do it _right_). Games involve both artwork, logical thinking, music and narrative so you can involve both creative and logical kids. I've been developing a gaming engine especially for the purpose of educational instruction (GameX, currently being used at Cornell U.)
We also developed a grade-level proposal called "Games for Kids" in which a team of college-level student programmers in CS (provided by collaboration with a university or tech-company) are teamed up with groups of kids. The kids develop the artwork, game idea and layout while the CS team implements the behavior/code.
Sorry for the plug, but this is an area i'm very passionate about and think there are lots of opportunities for kids here. I got interested in CG myself from wanting to make computer games as a kid.
Look guys.. Assuming its not a hoax, it's clear something hit the top of that post. The brightest area of the flash is to the bottom right of the very top of the post, which is consistent with a high-speed object coming in from the top left of the image, hitting the post, and producing a flash to the bottom-right of the impact point. Even the cloud around the flash is in the right direction, perpendicular to the dark streak. The dark streak is consistent, and the exposure would be darker so long as the moving object is not on fire or giving off light itself. My advise: Inspect the post! To say that "the street light doesn't work" is not nearly enough info! The lightbulb doesn't have to smash to produce a flash from a high-speed object. It most likely hit the steel pole, or the steel cover on the >top of the bulb dome. It could have just nicked the post at the top. My advice: 1) Climb to the top. 2) Take high-res pictures all over the top of the post. 3) Collect dust and look at it under a microscope. 4) Compare to neighboring posts. I'd like to know what it is too...
What I'd like to know is, what is that clearly visible, dark, yet shiny object in the foreground in the Meridiani Planium image at 97 degs (the largest image download has azimuth degree marks)?
It can't be the Backshell & Parachute which are at 235 degs. It can't be heat shield either, which is much farther away. And from the image, it clearly is much darker and rises above the surface.
Also interesting is the fact that it lies on one of the bounce marks from the airbags, but none of the other bounce marks have this feature. Its' in line with the distant East Crater (probably by chance), but clearly in the foreground...
There are as many definitions of the word Hacker as there are geeks who post to slashdot (and more).
The definitions all overlap --- slightly.
In the Beagle-Spirit comparison, I think it is important to point out several things:
- Spirit (~$400 mil) has over six times the budget of the Beagle (~$60 mil)
- Spirit is built on the success of Pathfinder.
- This is the European Space Agency's *first* time out to mars, and they attempted a *landing*
- Our first two times out failed (Mariner 3 & 4), and our third was just a flyby for 71 photos. Of course, that was 1969.
- Pathfinder is more recent, cost ~$200 mil... but of course Beagle is not a rover.
- ESA never had a strong national space program similar to the US or USSR for budget reasons, as well as many other factors (natural resources, age and background of the nations it comprises, WW I & II)
Bottom line, a simple comparison is impossible. Even so, here is an attempt: US space program performs better due to being the greatest world power (at the cost of being one of the worlds most hated nations). Money and power are very good for making Martian rovers (and microchips, and wireless networks, and stealth bombers), but they are also good at building inflated self images.
My point? If you succeed, don't gloat, help others.. If you fail, try again.