Pay (or someone else does because they like you) to get ad-free youtube (and probably other perks)...
OR
Use an adblocker like you should be doing today (advertisements ONLY exist to hurt you, so ofc you should have one)
OR
Watch advertisements, have them become part of your subconscious, be more likely to buy things they sell you, be MUCH more likely to respond to your friend mentioning brand X with familiarity (thus rewarding your friend for buying brand X, as they value your presumably useful opinions, even your subconscious ones, and brand X being on your radar is important to them), be MUCH more likely to "join the conversation" about a brand...
Advertisements are based on the idea that you are willing to spare a bunch of behavior and nerves to help their company AND MOST OF ALL THAT YOU DON'T BELIEVE THIS TO BE THE CASE / BELIEVE IT ISN'T REAL / THINK IT DOESN'T AFFECT YOU.
Ads work on you. They work on everyone. They don't pay just so that dumb people will see them, they pay for YOU to see them. You should be using adblock, adblock plus, adblock edge... something... today. Unless you don't value your time or money, and like having corporations make decisions for you (moreso than normal).
Personally, I'll likely grab their Youtube Gold or whatever. I mean, if I'm going to sit and rant about advertisements (and hey, look, I just did!) I may as well support the business models that don't involve shitting in my mouth, right? But as for you, you should be using adblock today, and whether you like their offering in the future, well, future you will decide that. Likely based on advertisements, snerk snerk!
Rest assured, google knows that you, I, and everyone else who is slashdotting use adblockers. They know we only see youtube ads at ludicrously rare situations.
So: A premium mode that offers things they can't normally (specifically, anything that involves per-viewer resources that would open them up to DOS style attacks if they allowed it for just any account) is definitely something I'm interested in. And I'm sure free ads would be part of that.
I bet it's "youtube gold"- something you can gift to commenters who don't call you racist names ("...so, none of them?"), turns off advertising, etc. (based on "reddit gold", a model that reddit uses- google would have their own take on it, of course)
What she means: "We are lowering our entry salaries because we no longer need the top talent for our current set of requirements. Engineers with that level of skill and negotiating talent will go somewhere that will pay them what they are worth, and we are fine with that because we don't need that level of skill at the moment. I'll try to phrase this such that anyone who calls me on it sounds misogynistic, k thx!"
Irrelevant though. Whether a developer wants to point at the bogeyman of piracy or the bogeyman of cheaters, it's still my phone. The fact that I *could* be a pirate because I have root doesn't mean shit, and anyone who thinks that needs technical discouragement (mostly present), but possibly even legal discouragement as well. Ideally, we'd lose the idea of rootless phones entirely, but the model has been really helpful for its actual only good purpose- noob level users not getting ownfaced like they do in Windoze.
Do you WANT to "get there from here"? This isn't a language building group, it's a group wanting to use language to change society. I'd be interested in a language if I was using it to sculpt my mind, not be brainwashed. Our natural languages do more than enough of that, but at least they've been through the evolutionary wringer.
"Taking for granted that actually replacing English is highly unlikely, what characteristics would the new language need?"
1- It would need to be designed with an attitude like this. Language is a tool, a functional one. I'll say this again: if the goals of the language are like, "political unity", "avoid sexism", "reduce regional pride", "language rights", or "diversity", then it isn't a useful tool, it's ultimately newspeak.
2- Needs to offer an advantage to the speaker. Some languages seem to likely impart an advantage to most speakers based on the inclusion or absence of certain forms. A native thinker in this hypothetical language needs to actually have some tricks that help them think faster or more accurately. This is VERY distinct from political goals above- this is functional.
3- Needs to be extensible and compatible with emotion. Constructed languages seem to really lack on this, likely because the lived experience of the constructors just don't add up to anything close to the human experience. If your language can't express the opinions of your enemies, if they can't say what they want to tear you down, then you're trying to create a world where they can't express their thoughts. I can't find any good racial slurs in Esperanto or Lojban, likely because the people who use these languages aren't the sort to use them- but lacking expressivity means the language is crap. If you make a utopian language, they'll use it in utopia- so, nowhere at all.
4- Needs some study done to show that the actual things it does are helpful. For instance, there's a study going around that hints that languages with a future tense feature people who think of "future them" as different than "present them"- this is presented as a negative (save less, eat more, make some poorer short term decisions), but given the HUGE number of tenses and modes that ancestral languages had (and mostly lost), it seems likely that any of these things could be advantages or disadvantages at different times.
Summary: The language should be designed to help the INDIVIDUAL, first and foremost. It shouldn't be about some redesign society goal.
I think that such a language can't really exist- I think that, if languages are worth creating and discussing and learning, that it's obvious that they have shaped their societies at the same time as they have been shaped by them. If society A and society B both have a language that, say, has a future tense (supposing that this one is a real finding), and society A loses it, will members of society A become more fulfilled and wary of tomorrow, as the study seems to hint, while society B stays stagnant, or will society B be more likely to be aggressive about resources, more able to defend itself from society E coming in and kicking their asses? Given that in the real world we have both (and from root languages that DID have it, meaning some lost it), it's not even possible to call one "better" under all circumstances.
I think that languages meant with a specific goal will appeal to people who want that. Lojban seems like it should be appealing to people who want to think in some rational fashion, but I don't think any study shows that in any way. Esperanto is popular among people who want to bring down national borders and unify humanity. So if you make a language that makes the individual learning it more powerful and effective (versus "everyone in society would need to have this language drilled into them for the test to happen"), then you'll get a core group, and if it is successful, then the language will spread naturally for the reason all language does- beneficial for the user.
Man, I think the last anything I pirated was X-Wing in the 90s. Then I asked for it for Christmas. But fuck you too.
I've got a jailbroken iphone, and I've pirated not one goddamned thing. There's a lot of reasons to jailbreak- "the default UI fucks up your background with a goddamned gradient.png file" was my breaking point, but there's others. None of them are piracy. You think things are piracy because you have a filter on, and you think people should be shackled to the whims of developers on the hardware they bought and paid for. Not your hardware. Not your CPU. Theirs.
So YOU fuck right off, you generalizing goddamned idiot. I say something "high and mighty" because I'm goddamned CORRECT. You don't own my phone, I don't break any laws, and your digital vigilanteeism, inability to handle your own failures at developing (the whole industry blames piracy as if a bunch of broke-ass teens trying to impress their friends were all gonna turn into megasales if only you wrote shittier and more fucked up DRM bullshit), instant ability to generalize me totally incorrectly,combined with a 100% selfcertainty are just going to end up with even more shitty content and more fed up users.
As a note: a lot of games already try to detect jailbroken iphones and refuse to play. Because OBVIOUSLY, if you are jailbroken, it must be to cheat at their stupid games. That's like refusing to run if your machine has a local admin account, or the root user has a fucking shell attached. Ludicrous.
Anyone who wants more of this shit hasn't had the first thought on the topic yet.
We don't need "OS level protections". It's your phone, you control all the code on it. Same as on your PC. Are you really fucking bitching that phones don't have enough fucking DRM? I'm sure glad to give up all my freedoms so some teenager can't cheat in clash of fucking clans.
The big thing here is that none of these files have a header- if they did, they wouldn't be indistinguishable from randomized data. When you type in a key, it uses a hash over a certain number of repetitions (a lower number for truecrypt, a massive one for veracrypt). It then tests the hashed key. If this fails... it tries with the next possible hashing algo. It goes strictly in order- there's no way to say "just use Whirlpool" or whatever. So if you chose a hash further down the list, you are waiting for all the hashes. In TC, this wasn't many, in VC, it's a whole lot.
A single button on the UI to choose which one to try first would really make these open much faster.
We're all "cyborgs" when it comes to search. But, that's the whole point.
I doubt I could program at even 1/10th the speed without EITHER the Internet, or about three-six large books (a language book, an OS API book, and then whatever I'm actually working on). Does this mean I'm not really a coder? Or does it just mean that asking a blacksmith to work without fire is dumb?
If you made a Mario 64 level (any of them), believe me, everyone would know. I think you underestimate how many times they've been played.
That's the whole thing though. If this demo hadn't used Mario, it wouldn't have made slashdot, like, twice. No one would have an opinion if it was just a cool game implemented interesting. It's news because it's Mario.
Super Mario Bros. is not Super Mario Bros. 2. Neither is anything like Super Mario 3. The Zelda games are all very different from each other. Super Mario 64 is very different from Super Mario Galaxy, and Super Mario 3D World is also unlike the previous ones. The fact that they continue to rerelease older games seems odd until you remember that tons of people still buy them and play them.
Nintendo is certainly not a one-trick pony, even with their big franchises showing up again and again.
I mean, sure, I'm a fan of Nintendo......But here's the thing. Mario 64 is a game that Nintendo actively remakes, updates, and sells. It's on their shop RIGHT THIS SECOND, updated to work with all the new controllers and whatever on the Wii-U. What legal precedent do they set if they allow a guy to just flat out reimplement their game? Note that they are going with "DMCA takedown"- that's a reasonably soft pitch that doesn't land some cool coder in real legal troubles.
Note that unlike most DMCA (ab)use, this isn't "a website where I told you how to read data on your drive" or "a hyperlink, which is magically indistinguishable from the real thing now" or "an emulator unrelated to our characters, games, or code". This is, some guy made a version of their game and put it online. A game they actively sell for their current system (they may even be making the DS version).
I just don't see this as something that, legally, they can leave up there.
Should github be involved? We could ramp it up and pretend the project was actually hateful, instead of not being that at all. When should github care? If they are an open source repo, shouldn't they be that?
Here's an emulator for Nintendo hardware. It's safe on legal grounds (even though console companies have lawyered up and taken down some emus by threatening the authors): https://github.com/dolphin-emu
Here's an archive of "hacking tools". While almost everyone reading this post will understand the context of "hacking", and the fact that these are completely innocuous, would you put that past everyone in the world? https://github.com/Gexos/Hacki...
Remember, some people consider "hacking" to equal "a crime done to people that should be result in life in prison". Even among those that are a bit smarter than that, you could EASILY argue that labeling something a "hacking tool" is "encouraging people to commit a crime" or somesuch- there's a reason the crack pipes at the flea market are not labelled as such, and have a sign saying that if you call them that, they'll kick you out.
You could argue that the above two projects, along with MANY others, are offensive or encourage illegal activities. You may not agree, but the argument could be made.
If someone is concerned about some cock and balls jokes because some section of the population (certainly not "women" and not really even "feminists", but likely "people who professionally get offended about bullshit to honk their own horns"), I will point out that **there's already a ton of projects that would offend fucking SOMEONE**.
Don't confuse murder and killing. States deem murder illegal, but self defense is trivially not murder, and that's also a kind of killing. There's a whole arc of crimes that someone can be guilty of (or not) after unambiguously killing someone.
Plenty of reasons to want real encryption besides being a "suspected terrorist". The point is, if the government can get in, you have to trust ALL governments... and if the government can get in, so can a hacker.
Encryption is a software process, in all cases. If something "self encrypts", that means it has access to the key, and produced cyphertext from plaintext, and plaintext from cyphertext. There's literally NOTHING stopping:
> It could keep the key in some scrambled (and recoverable) form, rendering the encryption meaningless to anyone who knows how to access it physically. > It could use an escrow algo such that the vendor or their appointed agents (aka, a distant freedom hostile government, hackers) can gleefully decrypt anything forever. > It could use an implementation with a weakness (deliberately or accidentally) which allows anyone with knowledge of the weakness and sufficient cryptanalysis capabilities to decrypt.
Now, you COULD get around this in a few ways- but ultimately, it's just a bad idea to trust hardware encryption. It is fundamentally not trustworthy.
This is not a problem with the new lenovo, or lenovo in general, but rather with all self encrypting USB sticks, hard drives, SSD,s etc. Because nothing self encrypts!
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, that's incorrect. Here's your choices:
Pay (or someone else does because they like you) to get ad-free youtube (and probably other perks)...
OR
Use an adblocker like you should be doing today (advertisements ONLY exist to hurt you, so ofc you should have one)
OR
Watch advertisements, have them become part of your subconscious, be more likely to buy things they sell you, be MUCH more likely to respond to your friend mentioning brand X with familiarity (thus rewarding your friend for buying brand X, as they value your presumably useful opinions, even your subconscious ones, and brand X being on your radar is important to them), be MUCH more likely to "join the conversation" about a brand...
Advertisements are based on the idea that you are willing to spare a bunch of behavior and nerves to help their company AND MOST OF ALL THAT YOU DON'T BELIEVE THIS TO BE THE CASE / BELIEVE IT ISN'T REAL / THINK IT DOESN'T AFFECT YOU.
Ads work on you. They work on everyone. They don't pay just so that dumb people will see them, they pay for YOU to see them. You should be using adblock, adblock plus, adblock edge... something... today. Unless you don't value your time or money, and like having corporations make decisions for you (moreso than normal).
Personally, I'll likely grab their Youtube Gold or whatever. I mean, if I'm going to sit and rant about advertisements (and hey, look, I just did!) I may as well support the business models that don't involve shitting in my mouth, right? But as for you, you should be using adblock today, and whether you like their offering in the future, well, future you will decide that. Likely based on advertisements, snerk snerk!
Rest assured, google knows that you, I, and everyone else who is slashdotting use adblockers. They know we only see youtube ads at ludicrously rare situations.
So:
A premium mode that offers things they can't normally (specifically, anything that involves per-viewer resources that would open them up to DOS style attacks if they allowed it for just any account) is definitely something I'm interested in. And I'm sure free ads would be part of that.
I bet it's "youtube gold"- something you can gift to commenters who don't call you racist names ("...so, none of them?"), turns off advertising, etc. (based on "reddit gold", a model that reddit uses- google would have their own take on it, of course)
What was said: "something something sexism".
What she means: "We are lowering our entry salaries because we no longer need the top talent for our current set of requirements. Engineers with that level of skill and negotiating talent will go somewhere that will pay them what they are worth, and we are fine with that because we don't need that level of skill at the moment. I'll try to phrase this such that anyone who calls me on it sounds misogynistic, k thx!"
Irrelevant though. Whether a developer wants to point at the bogeyman of piracy or the bogeyman of cheaters, it's still my phone. The fact that I *could* be a pirate because I have root doesn't mean shit, and anyone who thinks that needs technical discouragement (mostly present), but possibly even legal discouragement as well. Ideally, we'd lose the idea of rootless phones entirely, but the model has been really helpful for its actual only good purpose- noob level users not getting ownfaced like they do in Windoze.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
Do you WANT to "get there from here"? This isn't a language building group, it's a group wanting to use language to change society. I'd be interested in a language if I was using it to sculpt my mind, not be brainwashed. Our natural languages do more than enough of that, but at least they've been through the evolutionary wringer.
"Taking for granted that actually replacing English is highly unlikely, what characteristics would the new language need?"
1- It would need to be designed with an attitude like this. Language is a tool, a functional one. I'll say this again: if the goals of the language are like, "political unity", "avoid sexism", "reduce regional pride", "language rights", or "diversity", then it isn't a useful tool, it's ultimately newspeak.
2- Needs to offer an advantage to the speaker. Some languages seem to likely impart an advantage to most speakers based on the inclusion or absence of certain forms. A native thinker in this hypothetical language needs to actually have some tricks that help them think faster or more accurately. This is VERY distinct from political goals above- this is functional.
3- Needs to be extensible and compatible with emotion. Constructed languages seem to really lack on this, likely because the lived experience of the constructors just don't add up to anything close to the human experience. If your language can't express the opinions of your enemies, if they can't say what they want to tear you down, then you're trying to create a world where they can't express their thoughts. I can't find any good racial slurs in Esperanto or Lojban, likely because the people who use these languages aren't the sort to use them- but lacking expressivity means the language is crap. If you make a utopian language, they'll use it in utopia- so, nowhere at all.
4- Needs some study done to show that the actual things it does are helpful. For instance, there's a study going around that hints that languages with a future tense feature people who think of "future them" as different than "present them"- this is presented as a negative (save less, eat more, make some poorer short term decisions), but given the HUGE number of tenses and modes that ancestral languages had (and mostly lost), it seems likely that any of these things could be advantages or disadvantages at different times.
Summary: The language should be designed to help the INDIVIDUAL, first and foremost. It shouldn't be about some redesign society goal.
I think that such a language can't really exist- I think that, if languages are worth creating and discussing and learning, that it's obvious that they have shaped their societies at the same time as they have been shaped by them. If society A and society B both have a language that, say, has a future tense (supposing that this one is a real finding), and society A loses it, will members of society A become more fulfilled and wary of tomorrow, as the study seems to hint, while society B stays stagnant, or will society B be more likely to be aggressive about resources, more able to defend itself from society E coming in and kicking their asses? Given that in the real world we have both (and from root languages that DID have it, meaning some lost it), it's not even possible to call one "better" under all circumstances.
I think that languages meant with a specific goal will appeal to people who want that. Lojban seems like it should be appealing to people who want to think in some rational fashion, but I don't think any study shows that in any way. Esperanto is popular among people who want to bring down national borders and unify humanity. So if you make a language that makes the individual learning it more powerful and effective (versus "everyone in society would need to have this language drilled into them for the test to happen"), then you'll get a core group, and if it is successful, then the language will spread naturally for the reason all language does- beneficial for the user.
Man, I think the last anything I pirated was X-Wing in the 90s. Then I asked for it for Christmas. But fuck you too.
I've got a jailbroken iphone, and I've pirated not one goddamned thing. There's a lot of reasons to jailbreak- "the default UI fucks up your background with a goddamned gradient .png file" was my breaking point, but there's others. None of them are piracy. You think things are piracy because you have a filter on, and you think people should be shackled to the whims of developers on the hardware they bought and paid for. Not your hardware. Not your CPU. Theirs.
So YOU fuck right off, you generalizing goddamned idiot. I say something "high and mighty" because I'm goddamned CORRECT. You don't own my phone, I don't break any laws, and your digital vigilanteeism, inability to handle your own failures at developing (the whole industry blames piracy as if a bunch of broke-ass teens trying to impress their friends were all gonna turn into megasales if only you wrote shittier and more fucked up DRM bullshit), instant ability to generalize me totally incorrectly,combined with a 100% selfcertainty are just going to end up with even more shitty content and more fed up users.
^ Good post, thank you.
As a note: a lot of games already try to detect jailbroken iphones and refuse to play. Because OBVIOUSLY, if you are jailbroken, it must be to cheat at their stupid games. That's like refusing to run if your machine has a local admin account, or the root user has a fucking shell attached. Ludicrous.
Anyone who wants more of this shit hasn't had the first thought on the topic yet.
We don't need "OS level protections". It's your phone, you control all the code on it. Same as on your PC. Are you really fucking bitching that phones don't have enough fucking DRM? I'm sure glad to give up all my freedoms so some teenager can't cheat in clash of fucking clans.
The big thing here is that none of these files have a header- if they did, they wouldn't be indistinguishable from randomized data. When you type in a key, it uses a hash over a certain number of repetitions (a lower number for truecrypt, a massive one for veracrypt). It then tests the hashed key. If this fails... it tries with the next possible hashing algo. It goes strictly in order- there's no way to say "just use Whirlpool" or whatever. So if you chose a hash further down the list, you are waiting for all the hashes. In TC, this wasn't many, in VC, it's a whole lot.
A single button on the UI to choose which one to try first would really make these open much faster.
Apple can swap the battery out for a new one, it's not like an iphone.
We're all "cyborgs" when it comes to search. But, that's the whole point.
I doubt I could program at even 1/10th the speed without EITHER the Internet, or about three-six large books (a language book, an OS API book, and then whatever I'm actually working on). Does this mean I'm not really a coder? Or does it just mean that asking a blacksmith to work without fire is dumb?
...and the purchase is logged on your phone and you can cancel it. So, every few days assuming you never check on any of your tech at all.
If you made a Mario 64 level (any of them), believe me, everyone would know. I think you underestimate how many times they've been played.
That's the whole thing though. If this demo hadn't used Mario, it wouldn't have made slashdot, like, twice. No one would have an opinion if it was just a cool game implemented interesting. It's news because it's Mario.
"(Mario etc etc etc)"
Super Mario Bros. is not Super Mario Bros. 2. Neither is anything like Super Mario 3. The Zelda games are all very different from each other. Super Mario 64 is very different from Super Mario Galaxy, and Super Mario 3D World is also unlike the previous ones. The fact that they continue to rerelease older games seems odd until you remember that tons of people still buy them and play them.
Nintendo is certainly not a one-trick pony, even with their big franchises showing up again and again.
You can't use the Wii-U specific ones, but you can use the Wii ones.
I mean, it's for sale for the Wii and Wii-U. I'm not sure if the DS version from 2004 is still being printed. It's certainly not abandonware.
I mean, sure, I'm a fan of Nintendo... ...But here's the thing. Mario 64 is a game that Nintendo actively remakes, updates, and sells. It's on their shop RIGHT THIS SECOND, updated to work with all the new controllers and whatever on the Wii-U. What legal precedent do they set if they allow a guy to just flat out reimplement their game? Note that they are going with "DMCA takedown"- that's a reasonably soft pitch that doesn't land some cool coder in real legal troubles.
Note that unlike most DMCA (ab)use, this isn't "a website where I told you how to read data on your drive" or "a hyperlink, which is magically indistinguishable from the real thing now" or "an emulator unrelated to our characters, games, or code". This is, some guy made a version of their game and put it online. A game they actively sell for their current system (they may even be making the DS version).
I just don't see this as something that, legally, they can leave up there.
I dunno, they've made great progress on green fog...
Honestly, search might arguably be AI- or a big part of it.
Should github be involved? We could ramp it up and pretend the project was actually hateful, instead of not being that at all. When should github care? If they are an open source repo, shouldn't they be that?
Here's an emulator for Nintendo hardware. It's safe on legal grounds (even though console companies have lawyered up and taken down some emus by threatening the authors):
https://github.com/dolphin-emu
Here's an archive of "hacking tools". While almost everyone reading this post will understand the context of "hacking", and the fact that these are completely innocuous, would you put that past everyone in the world?
https://github.com/Gexos/Hacki...
Remember, some people consider "hacking" to equal "a crime done to people that should be result in life in prison". Even among those that are a bit smarter than that, you could EASILY argue that labeling something a "hacking tool" is "encouraging people to commit a crime" or somesuch- there's a reason the crack pipes at the flea market are not labelled as such, and have a sign saying that if you call them that, they'll kick you out.
You could argue that the above two projects, along with MANY others, are offensive or encourage illegal activities. You may not agree, but the argument could be made.
If someone is concerned about some cock and balls jokes because some section of the population (certainly not "women" and not really even "feminists", but likely "people who professionally get offended about bullshit to honk their own horns"), I will point out that **there's already a ton of projects that would offend fucking SOMEONE**.
This shouldn't be a story at all.
Don't confuse murder and killing. States deem murder illegal, but self defense is trivially not murder, and that's also a kind of killing. There's a whole arc of crimes that someone can be guilty of (or not) after unambiguously killing someone.
Hypocrisy isn't a very good critique.
Plenty of reasons to want real encryption besides being a "suspected terrorist". The point is, if the government can get in, you have to trust ALL governments... and if the government can get in, so can a hacker.
Encryption is a software process, in all cases. If something "self encrypts", that means it has access to the key, and produced cyphertext from plaintext, and plaintext from cyphertext. There's literally NOTHING stopping:
> It could keep the key in some scrambled (and recoverable) form, rendering the encryption meaningless to anyone who knows how to access it physically.
> It could use an escrow algo such that the vendor or their appointed agents (aka, a distant freedom hostile government, hackers) can gleefully decrypt anything forever.
> It could use an implementation with a weakness (deliberately or accidentally) which allows anyone with knowledge of the weakness and sufficient cryptanalysis capabilities to decrypt.
Now, you COULD get around this in a few ways- but ultimately, it's just a bad idea to trust hardware encryption. It is fundamentally not trustworthy.
This is not a problem with the new lenovo, or lenovo in general, but rather with all self encrypting USB sticks, hard drives, SSD,s etc. Because nothing self encrypts!