I know, I mean the earlier iterations may have been "zomfg! we must avoid forcing a guess!" later replaced by "screw it, it'll put hair on their chests, use a random number generator";3
Given access to a users profile it's pretty trivial to set a trap such that next time they use su/sudo*/a menu entry that asks for a password to become roote/etc the malware gets root.
While you are absolutely correct in this point, it is also true that most non-power users (assuming you get them into linux at all to begin with) rarely ever need to sudo, they're too busy playing farmville in Konquerer, or nautilus or whatever.
Malware that hangs around all ninja like waiting for you to press the magic button is rare compared to malware that fscks your computer up so bad you bring it in for "being all slow and wierd and stuff".
And besides, KGB level secret squirrel malware poses little risk to your in-laws, as they are not strategic to gaining access to Chinese dissident Gmail accounts.;3
Uh.... sorry to stray from geeky topic, but HOW in blue blazes did an article with the phrase "cool brown dwarf" get this far without racist remarks? xD
Er, that's what TFS says defines a good game: it can't be solved by logic (i.e. a computer, or an autist) alone. There's an element of chance in it.
Chance has zero import to the P=NP problem. What the article is referring to is there being no algorithm (thus, for example, no boring/safe process for a human to ergo-automate) that solves the puzzle in a predictably short time frame.
Minesweeper is still NP hard even if the "game server" secretly fiddles with the mines behind the scenes to destroy any combinations that force guesses. Even if the game can be deduced 100% of the time, that deduction itself can become gruelingly complicated and snake into a chain reaction all the way around the board (this spot depends upon this spot, which depends upon..) which leaves the game challenging enough that you'll never run out of surprises.
Tetris has a way shallower learning curve than minesweeper.
It is, literally, "fit the peg in the whole" as opposed to "deduce which mine is safe to trod on from these snarky numbers we've placed around"
It also has time pressure instead of "ZOMFG don't touch the sides" pressure, and fsckups can be heroically compensated for as opposed to A> never realizing you made a foolish risk, or B> *BOOM*
... I dislike Google slowly gaining control over books like this...
How are they gaining control over books? I have books in a bookshelf. Will Google come in and steal them from me?
If by "take control over" you mean "make commercial use of textual data without sacrificing Sergey's firstborn to Houghton Mifflin" then I don't see what there is to dislike. I argue that publishing houses and even Authors never should have had control over what other people do with their popular ideas to begin with. Propertizing publicly available knowledge is simply a publicly seductive form of censorship and it really ought to stop.
If you don't believe me, then show me where I can trade my hard earned money for DVD copies of Square One TV. $100 per season? $200? Show me to the auction.
Oh right... Childrens' Television Workshop has decided, in all of it's wisdom, that the information provided in that program must rot away on rare VHS tapes and be lost forever. I forgot.:P
As browsers move into the future more and more things that were "downloads" become embedds. this happens without the HTML changing. it's the browsers that are changing.
thus you can't really draw the line you want to draw so clearly.
Poppycock. The act of "publishing" in this context is clearly the act of serving the data to the end user. Not the act of inducing the end user's browser to ask for the data.
In all of your examples, a link points the way to an official server providing the data. You keep talking about greedy browsers pre-fetching the data. So? The server where it is hosted decides who the data goes to. The server is free to check URL referal codes to confirm the link came from them (many image hosting sites do precisely that to thwart deep linking) or even make the end user jump through hoops downloading other content before serving up the main course (see Hulu's ad model).
The client is responsible for what they request to download (disregarding malware of course), the server is responsible for what data they see fit to share, and the third party can do little but facilitate the client finding the server.
If you don't mind shifting through lots of crap. I think an ideal solution would be to have reviewed, and approved, apps as the default with an option to see everything. Like turning off filtering in Google Image Search.
I'm not sorting through very much crap when I look for apps. I just glance along the right column and scroll down, generally looking for the "free" or <$1usd applications with 4+ stars.
So far it's proved no more of a challenge for me than browsing through the condiment isle at Fred Meyers.
Slashdot Mirror
I know, I mean the earlier iterations may have been "zomfg! we must avoid forcing a guess!" later replaced by "screw it, it'll put hair on their chests, use a random number generator" ;3
or to avoid guess pitfalls :>
Oh, mylanta!
Thank you for citation sir, and mod parent informative. :3
Meb not, but we've got the lowest pingtimes, so we don't have to wait! For frost psot! xD
Given access to a users profile it's pretty trivial to set a trap such that next time they use su/sudo*/a menu entry that asks for a password to become roote/etc the malware gets root.
While you are absolutely correct in this point, it is also true that most non-power users (assuming you get them into linux at all to begin with) rarely ever need to sudo, they're too busy playing farmville in Konquerer, or nautilus or whatever.
Malware that hangs around all ninja like waiting for you to press the magic button is rare compared to malware that fscks your computer up so bad you bring it in for "being all slow and wierd and stuff".
And besides, KGB level secret squirrel malware poses little risk to your in-laws, as they are not strategic to gaining access to Chinese dissident Gmail accounts. ;3
Uh.... sorry to stray from geeky topic, but HOW in blue blazes did an article with the phrase "cool brown dwarf" get this far without racist remarks? xD
I'unno, I guess Trudeau's just like urging their fans to spam the gubmint. 8I
Bwahaha, program could always go "Can I go hear?" and rely on the referee to say "No, UR dumb. Try again" xD
Yes, but like checkers, just about ANYONE with basic cognitive functions can play Tetris...the concept itself very easy to understand.
A minute to learn, a lifetime to master comes to mind...
That's a funny way to play Checkers 8I
H44444444444XXXXXX!!!!1 DX
Er, that's what TFS says defines a good game: it can't be solved by logic (i.e. a computer, or an autist) alone. There's an element of chance in it.
Chance has zero import to the P=NP problem. What the article is referring to is there being no algorithm (thus, for example, no boring/safe process for a human to ergo-automate) that solves the puzzle in a predictably short time frame.
Minesweeper is still NP hard even if the "game server" secretly fiddles with the mines behind the scenes to destroy any combinations that force guesses. Even if the game can be deduced 100% of the time, that deduction itself can become gruelingly complicated and snake into a chain reaction all the way around the board (this spot depends upon this spot, which depends upon..) which leaves the game challenging enough that you'll never run out of surprises.
Finite set of mine placements? You must be joking. Or if you're not, citation please.
Who would introduce finite mine placements when you've got a random number generator handy? 8I
Tetris has a way shallower learning curve than minesweeper.
It is, literally, "fit the peg in the whole" as opposed to "deduce which mine is safe to trod on from these snarky numbers we've placed around"
It also has time pressure instead of "ZOMFG don't touch the sides" pressure, and fsckups can be heroically compensated for as opposed to A> never realizing you made a foolish risk, or B> *BOOM*
Tetris in Stereogram 3D
Yep, it works. My eyes are bleeding all over the keyboard now. Thanks 8I
First Person Tetris [firstpersontetris.com]
Crap, without having the enemy's gate to orient myself by, I'm skrewed! ;3
I mean, you could probably write a version for the 1K ZX81 [wikipedia.org] without losing much except the Game Boy version's catchy music
What do you mean "probably"? I DID write a copy in Z-80 assembly language in 1994, you insensitive clod! :(
Verizon CEO Says "We Will Hunt Heavy Users Down"
It's a THYROID condition, you insensitive jack ass!!
How about "Hungry Photographers stand together when Google co-opts their work without remuneration."
Your summary begs the original question posed, though. Please clarify.
I agree with most of your post, but..
... I dislike Google slowly gaining control over books like this ...
How are they gaining control over books? I have books in a bookshelf. Will Google come in and steal them from me?
If by "take control over" you mean "make commercial use of textual data without sacrificing Sergey's firstborn to Houghton Mifflin" then I don't see what there is to dislike. I argue that publishing houses and even Authors never should have had control over what other people do with their popular ideas to begin with. Propertizing publicly available knowledge is simply a publicly seductive form of censorship and it really ought to stop.
If you don't believe me, then show me where I can trade my hard earned money for DVD copies of Square One TV. $100 per season? $200? Show me to the auction.
Oh right... Childrens' Television Workshop has decided, in all of it's wisdom, that the information provided in that program must rot away on rare VHS tapes and be lost forever. I forgot. :P
Can you explain it to me in 1 paragraph or less?
"Opportunistic copyright trolls are opportunistic." Now I don't know what to do with the rest of my paragraph. ;3
"WoW"? Is this a misreply?
I'm not Leeroy Jenkins, I am referring to The Eleventh Hour time index 00:41:32. Stay on topic, man! ;3
Alright! Let's do this thing..
Plx change sig to: "OK guys, let's do this"
Oh. And, delete yout internet history.... 8I
And a generation of little boys will want them to be her too.
.. they'll want their girlfriends to make them dress up as Matt Smith to roleplay girlish fantasies, and then get stood up the day before the wedding?
What a pathetic generation of little boys! ;P
As browsers move into the future more and more things that were "downloads" become embedds. this happens without the HTML changing. it's the browsers that are changing.
thus you can't really draw the line you want to draw so clearly.
Poppycock. The act of "publishing" in this context is clearly the act of serving the data to the end user. Not the act of inducing the end user's browser to ask for the data.
In all of your examples, a link points the way to an official server providing the data. You keep talking about greedy browsers pre-fetching the data. So? The server where it is hosted decides who the data goes to. The server is free to check URL referal codes to confirm the link came from them (many image hosting sites do precisely that to thwart deep linking) or even make the end user jump through hoops downloading other content before serving up the main course (see Hulu's ad model).
The client is responsible for what they request to download (disregarding malware of course), the server is responsible for what data they see fit to share, and the third party can do little but facilitate the client finding the server.
If you don't mind shifting through lots of crap. I think an ideal solution would be to have reviewed, and approved, apps as the default with an option to see everything. Like turning off filtering in Google Image Search.
I'm not sorting through very much crap when I look for apps. I just glance along the right column and scroll down, generally looking for the "free" or <$1usd applications with 4+ stars.
So far it's proved no more of a challenge for me than browsing through the condiment isle at Fred Meyers.