And if you want to, I recommend PerlHP! It even gives you good old REGISTER_GLOBALS for Perl! In Perl, you can even do that much more safely thanks to use strict.
He's talking about tortured sentences like While I certainly wouldn't classify HL2 as 'easy' on normal mode, the difficulty of firefights in Episode One takes things up a notch or two from combat in that game.
As I posted elsewhere, spammers don't need to target specific scripts, since they have tools that just spider the net for s and POST them. They may target certain popular scripts specifically anyway, but it's no requirement.
I don't believe this is the case. Comment spammers have a tendency to write scripts to bulk submit comments to particular locations across multiple hosts like/submit-comment.php that correspond to popular weblog software.
Incorrect. I've written various message board scripts, and spam bots hit those even though they are nowhere near popular enough to show up on spammers' radars. There are plenty of generic comment spam scripts out there, that will just look for suitable s and POST them.
This is really the very basics of digital photography, so yes, I am sure. And yes, there is some amount of blurring introduced by the interpolation, but it is not necessarily noticable due to there being so many other factors affecting image quality, not least JPEG compression, which also downscales colour information and introduces blurring. Cameras also run any number of sharpening algorithms on the image data. (One reason to take photos in RAW is to avoid the camera-applied algorithms so you can do your own processing).
You excited my curiousity. How does it achieve that?
Most cameras actually have a monochrome image sensor. They then have a grid of red, green and blue filters that sits on top of the individual pixels, so that some see in red, some in green, and some in blue. That's the Bayer grid. Colour information is interpolated among neighbouring pixels to produce an (approximate) full-colour image. This is the case in consumer as well as in pro cameras.
There are sensors that take actual R, G and B measurements for every pixel, but they are a recent development and not in widespread use.
But if you want for example to have your photos displayed on your website, you'll go straight for the 8 bit, therefore it'll be lighter than your cam's 12-bits.
Right, if you put images up on the web, but then you are losing information, and you're also probably resizing images down. I was speaking mostly in the context of PNG-vs-RAW, not PNG for photos in general.
Raw files are usually smaller than their corresponding PNG files, even without compression. First off, the bayer grid on the CCD cuts the data down to one third in size, while PNG might manage compression on the order of 50% or less for a photo. Furthermore, lots of pro camera has sensors with unusual bit lengths like 12 bits, while PNG only supports 8 or 16, meaning PNG will have to add a significant amount of bloat to the data before it can be represented.
Do you really, really think the people who developed this had never heard of certificates and smart cards? They chose not to do this because it is very bad solution. CA's are a dismal failure, and they can guarantee nothing except that you have enough money to pay them.
Meanwhile, the hash solution is quick, simple and secure, requiring no secure exchange of secrets beforehand, nor trusting completely unreliable CAs. Zfone uses the exact same method: http://www.philzimmermann.com/EN/zfone/index.html
But maybe you know something about these matters that Phil Zimmerman doesn't?
Yes, it halves the effective key length of symmetric ciphers. That leaves 2^64, which with our normal, hyper-performing computers still takes huge amounts of time and large clusters or collaborative efforts to crack. It will quite probably be a long, long time before quantum computers could be developed to anywhere near the speeds we achieve with traditional computers today.
Traditional cryptography is not going to suddenly be useless. Doubling key sizes is a piece of cake, and bang, we're back where we started.
Welcome to the free, unregulated market. Choice and freedom are not in the best interests of the sellers, and thus they will stamp it out if given the chance. That's the free market.
Some sort of unregulated market where sellers compete on equal footing is a silly and entirely unrealistic libertarian pipe dream.
Quantum computing also promises ponies for everyone.
Maybe you should try to actually find out what quantum computing actually is, and what it can actually do, instead of parroting popular-science nonsense.
In the article, it says they show you a "hash" on your cellphone display. A hash of what? A hash of the temporary session key? are you supposed to verbally communicate this to the other person to make sure they agree? That wouldn't make any sense.
That is exactly what they mean, and it makes perfect sense. It's a cheap and simple solution, which does not require any smart cards or certificates, which would make the whole thing inconvenient enough to be nearly unusuable.
But hey, maybe you're right, I'm sure Joe Q. Slashdot can think up a much better solution in five minutes than any group of cryptographers can over the whole developement cycle of an actual commercial product.
So basically, you'd dismiss the statements of a large group of people because you have not been given the chance to automate your prejudices against them individually?
Why are you caring about who he is, instead of what he says? Are you really so shallow that you think who is speaking is more important than what is said?
(Pretend I posted this anonymously - Slashdot frustratingly does not track your anonymous posts, so I'd have no way to follow the discussion without posting with a name.)
Man, that's some awesome gut feeling you have, to be able to tell so easily when people are actually stupider than you, and not just pulling your leg, trying to get you to act superior!
Actually, at least Delta Force: Land Warrior used hardware-accelerated "voxel" landscapes.
(None of them were ever "voxel" landscapes. Voxel graphics are quite different from the height fields used by the Delta Force games, but the name has stuck.)
Slashdot Mirror
It's even possible to do this in Perl.
And if you want to, I recommend PerlHP! It even gives you good old REGISTER_GLOBALS for Perl! In Perl, you can even do that much more safely thanks to use strict.
It is not my job to write other people's articles for them. I do not get paid by Slashdot to do this, unlike Zonk.
However, I will give this piece advice for free: Take an English writing class.
He's talking about tortured sentences like While I certainly wouldn't classify HL2 as 'easy' on normal mode, the difficulty of firefights in Episode One takes things up a notch or two from combat in that game.
It's apparently broken. It doesn't work for me either, or for several others I've talked to. Developers don't seem to know why.
"s", even.
As I posted elsewhere, spammers don't need to target specific scripts, since they have tools that just spider the net for s and POST them. They may target certain popular scripts specifically anyway, but it's no requirement.
I don't believe this is the case. Comment spammers have a tendency to write scripts to bulk submit comments to particular locations across multiple hosts like /submit-comment.php that correspond to popular weblog software.
Incorrect. I've written various message board scripts, and spam bots hit those even though they are nowhere near popular enough to show up on spammers' radars. There are plenty of generic comment spam scripts out there, that will just look for suitable s and POST them.
So basically you pay to work for Linden Labs. Wow, sign me up!
This is really the very basics of digital photography, so yes, I am sure. And yes, there is some amount of blurring introduced by the interpolation, but it is not necessarily noticable due to there being so many other factors affecting image quality, not least JPEG compression, which also downscales colour information and introduces blurring. Cameras also run any number of sharpening algorithms on the image data. (One reason to take photos in RAW is to avoid the camera-applied algorithms so you can do your own processing).
You excited my curiousity. How does it achieve that?
Most cameras actually have a monochrome image sensor. They then have a grid of red, green and blue filters that sits on top of the individual pixels, so that some see in red, some in green, and some in blue. That's the Bayer grid. Colour information is interpolated among neighbouring pixels to produce an (approximate) full-colour image. This is the case in consumer as well as in pro cameras.
There are sensors that take actual R, G and B measurements for every pixel, but they are a recent development and not in widespread use.
But if you want for example to have your photos displayed on your website, you'll go straight for the 8 bit, therefore it'll be lighter than your cam's 12-bits.
Right, if you put images up on the web, but then you are losing information, and you're also probably resizing images down. I was speaking mostly in the context of PNG-vs-RAW, not PNG for photos in general.
Raw files are usually smaller than their corresponding PNG files, even without compression. First off, the bayer grid on the CCD cuts the data down to one third in size, while PNG might manage compression on the order of 50% or less for a photo. Furthermore, lots of pro camera has sensors with unusual bit lengths like 12 bits, while PNG only supports 8 or 16, meaning PNG will have to add a significant amount of bloat to the data before it can be represented.
Well, they didn't say which 20 MHz!
Do you really, really think the people who developed this had never heard of certificates and smart cards? They chose not to do this because it is very bad solution. CA's are a dismal failure, and they can guarantee nothing except that you have enough money to pay them.
Meanwhile, the hash solution is quick, simple and secure, requiring no secure exchange of secrets beforehand, nor trusting completely unreliable CAs. Zfone uses the exact same method: http://www.philzimmermann.com/EN/zfone/index.html
But maybe you know something about these matters that Phil Zimmerman doesn't?
Yes, it halves the effective key length of symmetric ciphers. That leaves 2^64, which with our normal, hyper-performing computers still takes huge amounts of time and large clusters or collaborative efforts to crack. It will quite probably be a long, long time before quantum computers could be developed to anywhere near the speeds we achieve with traditional computers today.
Traditional cryptography is not going to suddenly be useless. Doubling key sizes is a piece of cake, and bang, we're back where we started.
Welcome to the free, unregulated market. Choice and freedom are not in the best interests of the sellers, and thus they will stamp it out if given the chance. That's the free market.
Some sort of unregulated market where sellers compete on equal footing is a silly and entirely unrealistic libertarian pipe dream.
Quantum computing also promises ponies for everyone.
Maybe you should try to actually find out what quantum computing actually is, and what it can actually do, instead of parroting popular-science nonsense.
In the article, it says they show you a "hash" on your cellphone display. A hash of what? A hash of the temporary session key? are you supposed to verbally communicate this to the other person to make sure they agree? That wouldn't make any sense.
That is exactly what they mean, and it makes perfect sense. It's a cheap and simple solution, which does not require any smart cards or certificates, which would make the whole thing inconvenient enough to be nearly unusuable.
But hey, maybe you're right, I'm sure Joe Q. Slashdot can think up a much better solution in five minutes than any group of cryptographers can over the whole developement cycle of an actual commercial product.
If you can brute-force 128-bit crypto in "several months", you probably have figured out some way to change the laws of physics.
So basically, you'd dismiss the statements of a large group of people because you have not been given the chance to automate your prejudices against them individually?
That is even dumber than I thought.
Why are you caring about who he is, instead of what he says? Are you really so shallow that you think who is speaking is more important than what is said?
(Pretend I posted this anonymously - Slashdot frustratingly does not track your anonymous posts, so I'd have no way to follow the discussion without posting with a name.)
Yes, that parasite is called "the internet".
Welcome to Slashdot: News for luddites, stuff that scares us.
"Score:5, Funny"?
For stating the obvious? For stating that you didn't get the obvious until now? What?
http://imdb.com/title/tt0119177/trivia
Man, that's some awesome gut feeling you have, to be able to tell so easily when people are actually stupider than you, and not just pulling your leg, trying to get you to act superior!
Actually, at least Delta Force: Land Warrior used hardware-accelerated "voxel" landscapes.
(None of them were ever "voxel" landscapes. Voxel graphics are quite different from the height fields used by the Delta Force games, but the name has stuck.)