You missed out on an excellent game then. Sacrifice is a shogi-like variant to normal RTSs; essentially once your troops die they can be converted to your side by desecrating the corpse at your altar. The system kept every 'piece' in play, making it crucial to protect your troops, or at least their bodies. Also, your choice of deity (from 5) throughout the game influences the spells your avatar possessed. Never played the multiplayer version (not even sure if it had a multiplayer). Even though the storyline was lame, the gameplay was really interesting. I wish they'd make a sequel.
This won't work... there needs to be consistent physics for all avs involved, especially with vehicle and house simulation. While the graphics rendering is on the av side, the physics must be on the server side.
'Meta' isn't a noun, so it certainly can't be a genitive noun.
According to that ever-so-definitive source, the word Meta is so a noun. It might not be one in the matter in which it is used in the grandfather post, but there are several uses of the word meta both as a regular and proper noun. The meta (as in the meta key on unix/sun keyboards) has been uncapitalized for at least 10 years or so.
So pbbbbbbbt. (look that one up)
Wouldn't it be better for google to take the ClamAV base and extend/adapt it to their needs? I think that's more likely to happen than them starting from scratch unless there's something weird (aside from size) about the way their email system works.
Funny you should mention that... I read through the headers from an email I sent to our local mail server:(Identifiers mutated for spam reasons)
Received: from zproxy.gmail.com (zproxy.gmail.com [64.233.162.199])
by ###.###.### (8.13.5/8.13.5/Debian-3) with ESMTP id jB...5
for ; Thu, 1 Dec 2005 11:06:00 -0600
Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id x7so21853nzc
for ; Thu, 01 Dec 2005 09:06:48 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
s=beta; d=gmail.com;
h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-ve rsion:content-type;
b=DZ...SE/zJ0=
Received: by 10.37.12.24 with SMTP id p24mr1718713nzi;
Thu, 01 Dec 2005 09:06:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.36.153.11 with HTTP; Thu, 1 Dec 2005 09:06:47 -0800 (PST)
In other words, it looks like they have a cluster of 30 email servers for just the outside representation, and then 2 more levels of multiple clustered mail servers on the 10.37 subnet and 10.36 subnet. Your mail bounces in google's net 3 TIMES before it ever hits the real world. Granted, my experience in setting this stuff up is limited to clustering 2 or 3 servers together, but IMHO something amazing is going on under GMail's hood.
A group is a category over one object with invertible morphisms. Pbbbbbbbbbt.
Seriously though... every logical statement is technically an "equation". Even the definition of "definition" (if you allow me to quine for a bit) is a substitution of a long sequence of symbols with a smaller one, and substitutions are what equations are all about. I would argue with the submitter that Group Theory is not the simplest sort of abstraction (Category Theory is) but his point is still there: numbers and equations in their connotative or layman's sense are not involved.
1 and 2 aren't really viable options... Option 1, in addition to ruining the surface, would take too much energy (which is a problem with the lunar lawnmower as well) and would also not block the lunar winds which are also dusty. Option 2 would actually aggravate the problem: the problem is not that the dust is sticking but rather that the dust is penetrating the surfaces.
However, you're onto something with Option 3. It turns out that lunar dust accumulates a static charge and could be repelled from smaller objects by using a statically charged coating, and in the case of the lunar winds a Van-Allen like magnetic field could be used to deflect the particles in the wind (which might also provide an interesting power source from auroral-like collision at nodal points in the magnetic field).
However, I do think though that the best solution is just to coat everything with a stronger version of that teflon nanocoating they use on spill-proof pants... I'm sure they can develop a fabric nowadays that wouldn't be subjected to the same porous problems of the Apollo spacesuits.
I hope they did due dilligence and removed all access through google cache and the wayback machine. I realise that the SSNs are already out in the wild, but it would do no one any good to have their SSN permanently available in a history cache somewhere.
Oh come on dafing... I won't get into a flame war about you with this, but I will say that the Rio and the other Creative brands were there long before the iPod was ever popular (remember the Nomad?)... look how long they took to go to a decent OS, and they went to an established standard (UNIX)! The iPod was going along with the flow, so was the move to OS X, because of the popularity of *NIX brands among the geek set.
Apple has done a lot of interesting moves, but none of them have been unquestionable financially, and that's what makes a daring move in the eyes of a company. Call me a heretic if you will, but I think this is another example of Apple not being brave enough. If they were brave, they would allow more than 100 songs, they would allow purchases from the phone, and they would allow the songs to be ringtones, exactly as the article said.
True, but I think that you're missing the point of the article. It makes an interesting point about Apple being worried about cannibalizing its own business.
In fact you need to be interested in this article. It makes a really keen obversation about Apple; that Apple is too scared to damage itself in order to imporve itself. This implies that Apple viewes itself and its current business posture as weak, and thus must do everytihing in its power to keep the status quo. Look at its move towards Intel chips for its next generation hardware; they realize that Intel is the status quo and they are putting themselves in that stream. It takes effort and cunning to successfully be different, and Apple is now showing a reluctance to do just that.
There will be another company that will build the next iPhone, but they will do it better because of the failure of the iPhone; they will learn from mistakes. The point to be gleamed from this is that in fact it will NOT be Apple.
If you had bothered to RTFA you'd realise that he compares gaming to other fields and makes the rather valid point that other fields seem to go stale every once in a while, but that the gaming industry is not pursuing it. On this page in the article he makes it plain:
.....Innovative, compelling novels are published every year, and that's a medium that's 300 years old. We're only 30 years into the gaming revolution. Additionally, games are an enormously flexible form: They've been created with every technology from the Neolithic to the modern. And software is an enormously flexible medium, too; if you can specify it, you can implement it. We've gone from three genres to dozens in a few short decades, but we've charted only the merest coastline of a vast, virgin continent.
And we need to keep exploring it, or we're going to get stale.
He makes some compelling arguments in that argument. You'd get more out of it if you didn't dismiss it so easily.
In a few years Sony expect videos to be more than 60 percent of all UMD sales, with an expected 130 million UMDs being sold in 2008.
They're tring to tell us how many UMDs will be sold three years from now?!? What about some predictions about 2006 and 2007? This smells like some pretty rank PR to me.
Issues of this translation dictionary finder in order:
How does this algorithm handle exceptions to the normal word patterns from sentences that don't exhibit the pattern? For example, if not for the word receive one wouldn't know that there are exceptions to the i before e rule.
This will create a translation based upon a supposedly authoritarian source. Many times in language translation there is an argument as to how things are translated. How are multiple authorities handled?
Along with the other posts I read I doubt the efficacy of the algorithm in both time and space measurements. Unless there are some serious restrictions, I doubt the problem is even tractable.
Finally, if this code were that good it could be used to crack any code that isn't a one-time pad system from enough consecutive examples of ciphertext to plaintext. For example, it could be used to find the private key of a 2-key system by encrypting everything you could using a public key and finding the reverse translation once the dictionary has been deciphered.
There are not enough published details to make a judgement on this one way or the other. It's a shame the algorithm is patented; otherwise peer review would take place and possibly find some holes or some other interesting uses of this seemingly black-box algorithm.
Agreed... but there's a bigger issue at work here. Those poor souls who run a mail server and have it hacked into immediately have their IP address or worse their domain name blacklisted, forcing a grueling process of trying to get their email back. This process can be devestating for a company who depends on email as their sole method of communication.
In general I think any blacklisting method is not useful because the possession of those IP addresses is either questionable for 0wn3rship reasons or for the fact that people change IP addresses all the time. Blacklisting seems to hurt legitimate mail servers more than it serves to punish illegimate ones.
BTW since I started using SA and ClamAV I've never looked back.
Just watch. In their next iteration, it'll send your consumer information to the advertiser automatically! You won't even have to press a button. How convenient will that be?
Seriously, folks. Those of you who think this is a good idea aren't thinking about how badly this whole system can be abused.
it might also help typing tutor apps, assign colors to the keys or flash the one you are supposed to type next.
Sorry, wouldn't be good for that. This whole LED keyboard concept betrays the touch-typing concept. When you touchtype, you are supposed to be looking at the screen, not looking at the keys. That's the whole reason you type faster after learning touchtyping; the hunt in the hunt-and-peck equation has been removed.
Furthermore, this just goes to illustrate the uselessness of this concept. There should be no time that someone needs to look down at the keys, or else they aren't being productive with the keyboard. If you need to know the shortcuts assigned to keys, put them on the screen, where the shortcut can be spelled out insted of being just some cryptic icon, and where it wouldn't encourage someone to look at the keys. I would actually think that this keyboard would make regular typists type slower because of the fact that the LED keys would encourage they eyes to stare at the keys again, just to break the good habit that these typists developed in looking away from the keys in the first place.
I remember someone selling a keyboard with no key marks on it a couple years back and thinking at first that it was some geek tech pr0n. After mulling it over however, I realized that this is exactly in the right direction, because it encourages the typist to look at the screen instead of looking at the keyboard. To enhance the concept, it would be good if each of the keys were designed to feel slightly different (like the bumps on the f and j keys) so you had an intuitive and tactile sense of what keys you were pressing. That way you could have the best of both worlds.
in the eyes of the GNU licensing. Most people don't realise that open source depends on copyright in order to protect its right to be freely distributable. If it wasn't copyrighted, then some malicious person would copyright it and then sue the original author for giving it away for free.
The same thing applies to these trademarks. Firefox (Firesomething lol) has to trademark in order to protect itself from parasitic corporate thugs who would whisk the trademark away and turn around the attack in order to force a name change.
I couldn't think of any company who'd want to take trademarks from open source products... who could it be who would want to do this... hmmmm could it be MICROSOFT?
Does anyone else here hate highways that are made with concrete? They have them here around Salt Lake with asphalt segments every now and then. Every time I go from concrete to asphalt I realize just how much quieter the car is and smoother the ride feels. It's almost painful to go back to concrete.
Actually, since this bendable concrete stuff is not only malleable but also elastic, it should have a much quieter sound than normal concrete, because it would absorb more of the shock that causes the annoying sound of driving on concrete. It may even be quieter than asphalt.
I mean... all of every AIX version has now been supplied in a court document. IANAL, but doesn't this make the source code PUBLIC DOMAIN? so, did IBM just unwittingly give up all copyright to AIX with this move?
Nah... they're still wriggling in the katamari after they've been rolled up, so they're still alive. The only time that those people die is when the star they get rolled into gets smashed into dust (because of a failure to meet the sceneraio requirements). Even the ending alludes to this, where the family after being rolled up in the katamari that becomes the moon, is grooving with all the other people rolled in with the other continents that you roll up in the credits.
So I would say that while it is most assuredly disturbing, it's not especially violent.
I'm sure Bill is paying attention... with at least $10 million invested in SCO's lawyers and the purchase of a submarine patent, he has a lot riding on it.
an internal packet filter (leads from intranet to DMZ, where you have your torrents, wireless networks, and proxies set up. Granted, the wireless network may be behind a different firewall.)
an external packet filter (leads from DMZ to internet)
But these two firewalls would actually be one firewall on most systems. There are two ways to set up this DMZ. One way is to have a proxy server with three network cards: one for internet, one for intranet, and one for DMZ. The routing and firewalling happens all under one roof, hence only one firewall. The other way to do this would be to have 2 proxy systems with 2 network cards each, with a switch between them that exists as the DMZ. While this would imply two firewalls as you stated above, it would also not be as safe, because all of your internet-intranet traffic travels through and yells across the DMZ space, meaning if your DMZ is hacked a convenient packet sniffer can read all internet-intranet traffic without detection. Since I would assume the safer configuration from Mr. Paranoid, I would assume the former configuration, which is why I thought his third firewall to be useless.
Three firewalls? I hope they are open source cause Checkpoint licenses are expensive.
Not only do I agree, I also don't understand why he would want 3 firewalls... I understand having a subnet firewall to block entrance into the gateway, and a client firewall on each workstation/server to slow anything that gets inside(which he counts as one firewall unless the rest of his family all uses his computer, which I highly doubt), but a third firewall??? Where the hell does it go?
FYI to anyone running a firewall. A firewall blocks suspicious packets by checking each one for packet flags, unusual protocols, unnecessary ports, and unusual content. There is NO reason to have more than one of these per machine! Two firewalls do the EXACT SAME THING as one firewall, and otherwise only waste processing speed and increase lag on your connection.
Slashdot Mirror
You missed out on an excellent game then. Sacrifice is a shogi-like variant to normal RTSs; essentially once your troops die they can be converted to your side by desecrating the corpse at your altar. The system kept every 'piece' in play, making it crucial to protect your troops, or at least their bodies. Also, your choice of deity (from 5) throughout the game influences the spells your avatar possessed. Never played the multiplayer version (not even sure if it had a multiplayer). Even though the storyline was lame, the gameplay was really interesting. I wish they'd make a sequel.
This won't work... there needs to be consistent physics for all avs involved, especially with vehicle and house simulation. While the graphics rendering is on the av side, the physics must be on the server side.
Received: from zproxy.gmail.com (zproxy.gmail.com [64.233.162.199]) by ###.###.### (8.13.5/8.13.5/Debian-3) with ESMTP id jB...5 for ; Thu, 1 Dec 2005 11:06:00 -0600 Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id x7so21853nzc for ; Thu, 01 Dec 2005 09:06:48 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-ve rsion:content-type;
b=DZ...SE/zJ0=
Received: by 10.37.12.24 with SMTP id p24mr1718713nzi;
Thu, 01 Dec 2005 09:06:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.36.153.11 with HTTP; Thu, 1 Dec 2005 09:06:47 -0800 (PST)
In other words, it looks like they have a cluster of 30 email servers for just the outside representation, and then 2 more levels of multiple clustered mail servers on the 10.37 subnet and 10.36 subnet. Your mail bounces in google's net 3 TIMES before it ever hits the real world. Granted, my experience in setting this stuff up is limited to clustering 2 or 3 servers together, but IMHO something amazing is going on under GMail's hood.
Seriously though... every logical statement is technically an "equation". Even the definition of "definition" (if you allow me to quine for a bit) is a substitution of a long sequence of symbols with a smaller one, and substitutions are what equations are all about. I would argue with the submitter that Group Theory is not the simplest sort of abstraction (Category Theory is) but his point is still there: numbers and equations in their connotative or layman's sense are not involved.
However, you're onto something with Option 3. It turns out that lunar dust accumulates a static charge and could be repelled from smaller objects by using a statically charged coating, and in the case of the lunar winds a Van-Allen like magnetic field could be used to deflect the particles in the wind (which might also provide an interesting power source from auroral-like collision at nodal points in the magnetic field).
However, I do think though that the best solution is just to coat everything with a stronger version of that teflon nanocoating they use on spill-proof pants... I'm sure they can develop a fabric nowadays that wouldn't be subjected to the same porous problems of the Apollo spacesuits.
I'm sure more people out there got it. Although I'd think the graduation reference was a little obscure.
I hope they did due dilligence and removed all access through google cache and the wayback machine. I realise that the SSNs are already out in the wild, but it would do no one any good to have their SSN permanently available in a history cache somewhere.
Apple has done a lot of interesting moves, but none of them have been unquestionable financially, and that's what makes a daring move in the eyes of a company. Call me a heretic if you will, but I think this is another example of Apple not being brave enough. If they were brave, they would allow more than 100 songs, they would allow purchases from the phone, and they would allow the songs to be ringtones, exactly as the article said.
In fact you need to be interested in this article. It makes a really keen obversation about Apple; that Apple is too scared to damage itself in order to imporve itself. This implies that Apple viewes itself and its current business posture as weak, and thus must do everytihing in its power to keep the status quo. Look at its move towards Intel chips for its next generation hardware; they realize that Intel is the status quo and they are putting themselves in that stream. It takes effort and cunning to successfully be different, and Apple is now showing a reluctance to do just that.
There will be another company that will build the next iPhone, but they will do it better because of the failure of the iPhone; they will learn from mistakes. The point to be gleamed from this is that in fact it will NOT be Apple.
- How does this algorithm handle exceptions to the normal word patterns from sentences that don't exhibit the pattern? For example, if not for the word receive one wouldn't know that there are exceptions to the i before e rule.
- This will create a translation based upon a supposedly authoritarian source. Many times in language translation there is an argument as to how things are translated. How are multiple authorities handled?
- Along with the other posts I read I doubt the efficacy of the algorithm in both time and space measurements. Unless there are some serious restrictions, I doubt the problem is even tractable.
- Finally, if this code were that good it could be used to crack any code that isn't a one-time pad system from enough consecutive examples of ciphertext to plaintext. For example, it could be used to find the private key of a 2-key system by encrypting everything you could using a public key and finding the reverse translation once the dictionary has been deciphered.
There are not enough published details to make a judgement on this one way or the other. It's a shame the algorithm is patented; otherwise peer review would take place and possibly find some holes or some other interesting uses of this seemingly black-box algorithm.In general I think any blacklisting method is not useful because the possession of those IP addresses is either questionable for 0wn3rship reasons or for the fact that people change IP addresses all the time. Blacklisting seems to hurt legitimate mail servers more than it serves to punish illegimate ones.
BTW since I started using SA and ClamAV I've never looked back.
Seriously, folks. Those of you who think this is a good idea aren't thinking about how badly this whole system can be abused.
Furthermore, this just goes to illustrate the uselessness of this concept. There should be no time that someone needs to look down at the keys, or else they aren't being productive with the keyboard. If you need to know the shortcuts assigned to keys, put them on the screen, where the shortcut can be spelled out insted of being just some cryptic icon, and where it wouldn't encourage someone to look at the keys. I would actually think that this keyboard would make regular typists type slower because of the fact that the LED keys would encourage they eyes to stare at the keys again, just to break the good habit that these typists developed in looking away from the keys in the first place.
I remember someone selling a keyboard with no key marks on it a couple years back and thinking at first that it was some geek tech pr0n. After mulling it over however, I realized that this is exactly in the right direction, because it encourages the typist to look at the screen instead of looking at the keyboard. To enhance the concept, it would be good if each of the keys were designed to feel slightly different (like the bumps on the f and j keys) so you had an intuitive and tactile sense of what keys you were pressing. That way you could have the best of both worlds.
The same thing applies to these trademarks. Firefox (Firesomething lol) has to trademark in order to protect itself from parasitic corporate thugs who would whisk the trademark away and turn around the attack in order to force a name change.
I couldn't think of any company who'd want to take trademarks from open source products... who could it be who would want to do this... hmmmm could it be MICROSOFT?
I mean... all of every AIX version has now been supplied in a court document. IANAL, but doesn't this make the source code PUBLIC DOMAIN? so, did IBM just unwittingly give up all copyright to AIX with this move?
dude, grow up... and play video games because they're fun, not because they're cool. :)
So I would say that while it is most assuredly disturbing, it's not especially violent.
I'm sure Bill is paying attention... with at least $10 million invested in SCO's lawyers and the purchase of a submarine patent, he has a lot riding on it.
Dude, we heard you the first 1000 times. You know that trolls always lose the argument, right?
FYI to anyone running a firewall. A firewall blocks suspicious packets by checking each one for packet flags, unusual protocols, unnecessary ports, and unusual content. There is NO reason to have more than one of these per machine! Two firewalls do the EXACT SAME THING as one firewall, and otherwise only waste processing speed and increase lag on your connection.