Right. It's exactly what I'm in fear of. Once the balance is tipped far enough in favor of Microsoft's platform then everything will require going through their pay portal. There are a few developers who (mostly in japan) host their own pay servers. The SNK servers for King of Fighters games come to mind. If you change your Playstation ID to a Japanese one you can get signed up if you can understand Japanese. Playstation has hosted a few games with free online services, but they weren't very well implemented and suffered from not having a unified portal service to launch through. Microsoft has the means to support this on a wide scale, and it might be free for a limited time, but all the good (real) services will probably require payments.
This is what I've been telling people all along: that's the reason for the Xbox in the first place. I was so scared for gaming when I first saw that thing because I knew that even though Microsoft's first foray into console gaming would be a complete and utter failure (I was wrong, it wasn't a failure unless you consider the substantial financial loses) their subsequent attempts would be much better because Microsoft had enough money to throw at whatever problem arose the first time. I also make it my point to reason with people that once the consoles market has been thoroughly cornered, and all gaming devices are inextricably mated to the Internet and PC peripherals there will be very little difference between them and the one that serves up everything all at once will be king. Microsoft is doing this, albeit slowly. I give Playstation and Nintendo consoles 20 years more, maximum. Soon we'll have HD movies, and gaming and internet all wrapped up in one device (more or less) and probably under one subscription service that will be hosted by Microsoft. It's not even console wars anymore, it's content wars and there is no way that Sony and especially Nintendo will be able to compete in a long battle because Microsoft has already gotten so deeply involved in the surrounding factors, namely the internet and subscription-based services.
Modern music notation is not the only musical notation. The article also states that Da Vinci was known for making musical puzzles in his writings, and that he played the lute and designed many instruments, so I really don't think it's out of line for some music to be hidden in a painting, too.
No, it's not at all harsh for what is supposed to be a professional writer. He starts off with an idea, a dangerous beginning in the first place, that there should be some sort of software security specifically for interfacing phones and PCs in the office. A good idea (perhaps even a profitable one) and doesn't think it through at all. He starts off, not with the good idea, but with a broad, one-sided assumption that all open applications are prone to security issues simply because they are open. If he were somewhere in the ballpark range of competent he would have reversed the two topics and stated that we need security software for smart phone to PC interfaces and that the result of not developing it could be rogue open applications creating a security nightmare. But he didn't. He speculated on something that went well in hand with his idea, but he didn't have a clue about it worked, and also didn't do any research on it to get more knowledge. He even pretty much says all this (sans admitting that he doesn't know what he's talking about and didn't do any research, but that much is very obvious) in his rehash he added to the article to address the people who e-mailed him about his mistake. The update is almost as large as the article itself. I'd say he pretty much deserves to be criticized on his grasp of Open Source as it is demonstrated by this article.
... until the people who push this stuff gets a taste of it when their wives track their signal to the local red light district when they were supposed to be at the office working.
Sure technology would make it even easier for him, but I'd be willing to bet that a person like Frank Abagnale would be at home in just about any society with the sort of rules that we are used to. He is a larger-than-life super villan of a criminal, the sort of person who was born with natural criminal... talent? I'm sure one could call it that, regardless of the nefarious intent of his actions. Sure, he was a bad guy. But who are we to judge the origins of his motive? The truth here is that this guy thinks in exploits. He sees a system and his mind immediately sets to work on how it can be subverted for his personal gains.
This is the sort of guy we NEED to see problems in security. Locking such a person away is not going to make the problem go away because there are many people who think similarly, although perhaps not as fast or efficiently, to Mr. Abagnale. With enough time - and indeed enough cleverness - any system can be exploited, whether it's a social system or a computer system. If a person like Abagnale could be persuaded to finding flaws in a system for the ethical reason of disabling them, then systems could be much more secure.
It's obvious that this guy was born with a natural tendency for deception, something that does not always have to be for bad purposes, just as computers and technology is not always designed for bad purposes. People should learn and accept that criminals are often only a hairs breath away from being "normal people." They also need to stop thinking that crime is something that will just go away once we've eliminated the means for it. We should use those talented ones that are willing or able to be persuaded to be willing to uncover the thought process and motives that go into committing crime, not wastefully trying to criminalize the tools of miscreant behavior such as p2p and data encryption/decryption software, or the knowledge and methodology for creating and using such tools. We should instead set out to learn the reasons for crime and seek to eliminate them, while simultaneously closing up the gaps that allow for it. People commit crimes, people such as Frank Abagnale. Not tools. I think that is what was most thoroughly proven in this interview.
Actually any game is like that because there will invariably be a move or strat that counters what is being performed by your opponent. If not, and all moves in the game are equal, then it comes down to sheer chance. The exception to this is having the option to hide your actions, or encapsulate them into something else: being sneaky. It's games like this that makes for GOOD games. Bad games usually either reward one or a few move too much (unfair and broken moves) or neglect to include enough good moves (all your choices are too weak). In a good game, you have a variety of choices that are all viably good ones to make. Good players learn to primarily use these moves, balancing their play between exploiting the best qualities of weaker moves and mixing up into the good moves that yield the best outcome. The opponent always has to guess what's coming next, the "good" move that wins a lot, but has a counter or a "bad" move that isn't safe unless I use my "good" move. But then what if my opponent knows that I know this. What's the counter to that "bad" move, because that's the move that I want to use... unless he knows that I know he knows...
Computers are great a finding patterns, but bad at guessing. I actually think that chess is the IDEAL game for an AI achievement because there are a plethora of moves and just as many ways to disguise each one of them. A RTS really doesn't have all that many options when you think about it. Not only that, but most games distill down to either outright guessing, or rock-paper-scissors and I'm rather sure that this is true of chess and most RTS games. In chess, your pieces are your primary resources, and it's plain to see what pieces your opponent have available and what can possibly be done with those pieces. In RTSs other arbitrary factors are resources and even though it may be impossible to now exactly what your opponent is capable of, one can generalize and devise a contingency for a number of possible outcomes, except you become limited in how you can mix up your options because EVERYTHING requires resources and once you've spent them they are gone. In chess, your you have much tighter control of your resources because all the resources do not depend on each other, therefore making it less of a slippery slope game. In an RTS, expending a large amount of oil (for example) on troops of a certain type directly hinders your ability to produce a different type of troop if the need arises for that sort of counter. You've slid that much further away from victory by spending that oil. In chess, however, loosing a pawn doesn't necessarily hinder your knights ability to capture. It definitely, most absolutely may have a great bearing on the game and/or it's outcome, but it still doesn't change the capture pattern of the knight or whether or not you still have one available.
For an excellent article on this sort of thing check out http://www.sirlin.net/Features/feature_Yomi.htm
Upon re-reading the headline, I now see that it was the submitter who had the book in.txt format, not the boy in the article. But still, ignorance is king these days. I wonder how many people are actually aware that this book exists.
If the book were sitting on his nightstand, bound and in physical form, there would be no problem here, perhaps. At least I hope there wouldn't. The debacle is probably due to that ever-so-bewildering element of digital devices to over-complicate the legal process into such distorted and out of shape lines of thought as criminalizing the digital theft of a piece of media far more than the physical theft of the same media. Maybe it's due to ignorance and and the puffed-up and over emphasized importance placed upon computers in this so-called "digital age" as they directly aid so few of us yet completely mystify the great majority of us that we're seeing these trends such as the translation of the ASCI words of a.txt file into something perceived as far more dangerous and threatening than the printed words of a book. One could also suppose that it is the same phenomenon that transforms the digitized violence of a video game into being more harmful than that which is featured on film. Such is the result of extreme ignorance by a great majority of the populace and the nature of the powers that be to placate this populace with ineffective, unnecessary and and unfair judgments such as this one that make no sense to the rest of us, those few that are left to marvel at the situation and hope that somehow, someday everybody else will get a clue. And maybe one day the use of a computers won't immediately baffle authorities into letting fear and ignorance direct their actions instead of common sense.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone who is uninstalling it.
Right. It's exactly what I'm in fear of. Once the balance is tipped far enough in favor of Microsoft's platform then everything will require going through their pay portal. There are a few developers who (mostly in japan) host their own pay servers. The SNK servers for King of Fighters games come to mind. If you change your Playstation ID to a Japanese one you can get signed up if you can understand Japanese. Playstation has hosted a few games with free online services, but they weren't very well implemented and suffered from not having a unified portal service to launch through. Microsoft has the means to support this on a wide scale, and it might be free for a limited time, but all the good (real) services will probably require payments.
This is what I've been telling people all along: that's the reason for the Xbox in the first place. I was so scared for gaming when I first saw that thing because I knew that even though Microsoft's first foray into console gaming would be a complete and utter failure (I was wrong, it wasn't a failure unless you consider the substantial financial loses) their subsequent attempts would be much better because Microsoft had enough money to throw at whatever problem arose the first time. I also make it my point to reason with people that once the consoles market has been thoroughly cornered, and all gaming devices are inextricably mated to the Internet and PC peripherals there will be very little difference between them and the one that serves up everything all at once will be king. Microsoft is doing this, albeit slowly. I give Playstation and Nintendo consoles 20 years more, maximum. Soon we'll have HD movies, and gaming and internet all wrapped up in one device (more or less) and probably under one subscription service that will be hosted by Microsoft. It's not even console wars anymore, it's content wars and there is no way that Sony and especially Nintendo will be able to compete in a long battle because Microsoft has already gotten so deeply involved in the surrounding factors, namely the internet and subscription-based services.
Hittin' them NOS switches, bishes! So now I live my life a quarter mile at a time.
It could stay resident in memory.
Modern music notation is not the only musical notation. The article also states that Da Vinci was known for making musical puzzles in his writings, and that he played the lute and designed many instruments, so I really don't think it's out of line for some music to be hidden in a painting, too.
... just to make your penis bigger.
No, it's not at all harsh for what is supposed to be a professional writer. He starts off with an idea, a dangerous beginning in the first place, that there should be some sort of software security specifically for interfacing phones and PCs in the office. A good idea (perhaps even a profitable one) and doesn't think it through at all. He starts off, not with the good idea, but with a broad, one-sided assumption that all open applications are prone to security issues simply because they are open. If he were somewhere in the ballpark range of competent he would have reversed the two topics and stated that we need security software for smart phone to PC interfaces and that the result of not developing it could be rogue open applications creating a security nightmare. But he didn't. He speculated on something that went well in hand with his idea, but he didn't have a clue about it worked, and also didn't do any research on it to get more knowledge. He even pretty much says all this (sans admitting that he doesn't know what he's talking about and didn't do any research, but that much is very obvious) in his rehash he added to the article to address the people who e-mailed him about his mistake. The update is almost as large as the article itself. I'd say he pretty much deserves to be criticized on his grasp of Open Source as it is demonstrated by this article.
Damn, my first one's on the way and You just made me feel old thinking about seeing him (I hope it's a boy) browsing /. and hacking away.
... until the people who push this stuff gets a taste of it when their wives track their signal to the local red light district when they were supposed to be at the office working.
Yes, it's harder. we're competing with ourselves much more fiercely and more often. We're up against our own brains, and that is the fatal limitation.
We got an electronic nose. All I want now is a robotic cow that grows all it's meat back after you slaughter it.
Sure technology would make it even easier for him, but I'd be willing to bet that a person like Frank Abagnale would be at home in just about any society with the sort of rules that we are used to. He is a larger-than-life super villan of a criminal, the sort of person who was born with natural criminal... talent? I'm sure one could call it that, regardless of the nefarious intent of his actions. Sure, he was a bad guy. But who are we to judge the origins of his motive? The truth here is that this guy thinks in exploits. He sees a system and his mind immediately sets to work on how it can be subverted for his personal gains.
This is the sort of guy we NEED to see problems in security. Locking such a person away is not going to make the problem go away because there are many people who think similarly, although perhaps not as fast or efficiently, to Mr. Abagnale. With enough time - and indeed enough cleverness - any system can be exploited, whether it's a social system or a computer system. If a person like Abagnale could be persuaded to finding flaws in a system for the ethical reason of disabling them, then systems could be much more secure.
It's obvious that this guy was born with a natural tendency for deception, something that does not always have to be for bad purposes, just as computers and technology is not always designed for bad purposes. People should learn and accept that criminals are often only a hairs breath away from being "normal people." They also need to stop thinking that crime is something that will just go away once we've eliminated the means for it. We should use those talented ones that are willing or able to be persuaded to be willing to uncover the thought process and motives that go into committing crime, not wastefully trying to criminalize the tools of miscreant behavior such as p2p and data encryption/decryption software, or the knowledge and methodology for creating and using such tools. We should instead set out to learn the reasons for crime and seek to eliminate them, while simultaneously closing up the gaps that allow for it. People commit crimes, people such as Frank Abagnale. Not tools. I think that is what was most thoroughly proven in this interview.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeM0rH_4ung
I have a powerful system and I can't get it to look good at all. What settings are you using?
If they didn't this post wouldn't be echoing right now.
In fighting game circles, we call such a person a scrub, and just about EVERYONE is one in the beginning. ;P
Actually any game is like that because there will invariably be a move or strat that counters what is being performed by your opponent. If not, and all moves in the game are equal, then it comes down to sheer chance. The exception to this is having the option to hide your actions, or encapsulate them into something else: being sneaky. It's games like this that makes for GOOD games. Bad games usually either reward one or a few move too much (unfair and broken moves) or neglect to include enough good moves (all your choices are too weak). In a good game, you have a variety of choices that are all viably good ones to make. Good players learn to primarily use these moves, balancing their play between exploiting the best qualities of weaker moves and mixing up into the good moves that yield the best outcome. The opponent always has to guess what's coming next, the "good" move that wins a lot, but has a counter or a "bad" move that isn't safe unless I use my "good" move. But then what if my opponent knows that I know this. What's the counter to that "bad" move, because that's the move that I want to use... unless he knows that I know he knows...
Computers are great a finding patterns, but bad at guessing. I actually think that chess is the IDEAL game for an AI achievement because there are a plethora of moves and just as many ways to disguise each one of them. A RTS really doesn't have all that many options when you think about it. Not only that, but most games distill down to either outright guessing, or rock-paper-scissors and I'm rather sure that this is true of chess and most RTS games. In chess, your pieces are your primary resources, and it's plain to see what pieces your opponent have available and what can possibly be done with those pieces. In RTSs other arbitrary factors are resources and even though it may be impossible to now exactly what your opponent is capable of, one can generalize and devise a contingency for a number of possible outcomes, except you become limited in how you can mix up your options because EVERYTHING requires resources and once you've spent them they are gone. In chess, your you have much tighter control of your resources because all the resources do not depend on each other, therefore making it less of a slippery slope game. In an RTS, expending a large amount of oil (for example) on troops of a certain type directly hinders your ability to produce a different type of troop if the need arises for that sort of counter. You've slid that much further away from victory by spending that oil. In chess, however, loosing a pawn doesn't necessarily hinder your knights ability to capture. It definitely, most absolutely may have a great bearing on the game and/or it's outcome, but it still doesn't change the capture pattern of the knight or whether or not you still have one available.
For an excellent article on this sort of thing check out http://www.sirlin.net/Features/feature_Yomi.htm
Terrorism levels have probably risen, considering that there are now more "terrorists" and more terrorist activities.
Upon re-reading the headline, I now see that it was the submitter who had the book in .txt format, not the boy in the article. But still, ignorance is king these days. I wonder how many people are actually aware that this book exists.
If the book were sitting on his nightstand, bound and in physical form, there would be no problem here, perhaps. At least I hope there wouldn't. The debacle is probably due to that ever-so-bewildering element of digital devices to over-complicate the legal process into such distorted and out of shape lines of thought as criminalizing the digital theft of a piece of media far more than the physical theft of the same media. Maybe it's due to ignorance and and the puffed-up and over emphasized importance placed upon computers in this so-called "digital age" as they directly aid so few of us yet completely mystify the great majority of us that we're seeing these trends such as the translation of the ASCI words of a .txt file into something perceived as far more dangerous and threatening than the printed words of a book. One could also suppose that it is the same phenomenon that transforms the digitized violence of a video game into being more harmful than that which is featured on film. Such is the result of extreme ignorance by a great majority of the populace and the nature of the powers that be to placate this populace with ineffective, unnecessary and and unfair judgments such as this one that make no sense to the rest of us, those few that are left to marvel at the situation and hope that somehow, someday everybody else will get a clue. And maybe one day the use of a computers won't immediately baffle authorities into letting fear and ignorance direct their actions instead of common sense.
I'm pretty sure that Bill Gates could come much closer to being the botnet king if he wanted to.
Gee, thanks. Now I have lead poisoning.
What the hell do the Pirates have to say about all of this?
... by a pair of boobies just out of peripheral view.