Tech isn't the problem, though. This is an artistic competition, and however good your graphics card is, you are going to be limited by your artists' talent.
Are games developers really going to be bothered spending the decades it would take to make each and every room look as good as these? I predict that graphical development is going to reach a peak fairly soon.
Really, just looking at the Microsoft Fanboys referenced in that article.
"Internet Explorer (7?) is all I need."
"Honestly, the rubbish you [Microsoft] have to put up with... my heart goes out to you guys. Keep up the good work with IE7"
Yes, people, we are eulogising about software that hasn't even been released yet.
I thought the point with Netscape is that it is meant to be an IE-replacement - hence the render using IE engine feature. Whether it respects an obsolete, badly coded application it is designed to get rid of is kinda irrelevant.
Obviously, this is a bug that needs to be fixed, but let's not start burying Netscape yet. More competition is always good.
Being forced by a warrant to admit police into your house is pretty similar to being requested by law to give up your encrypted data. The first is not a fifth amendment issue, so the second should not be either.
But it wasn't passing from left to right. According to the article, the camera started off ahead of the Odyssey, which then overtook it and was scanned from front to rear. Next, the camera catches up with the craft, which would cause it to be scanned in the opposite direction - from rear to front. So the two images should be mirrored.
A possible explanation was that Odyssey was in fact scanned 3 times, and that they've cropped out the middle time. However, the article doesn't say that.
I've sent off an email to JPL asking about this, now. I doubt they'll have time to reply, though.
From the description, one of the images should be the mirror image of the other - one is from a forward scan, and one is from a backwards scan. Someone pointed this out to me.
I suspect that they used some sort of filter on their raw data, to correct for distortions, and also to correct for the inversion effect.
If China becomes hostile, stopping them from taking out our satellites would be the least of our problems. Even the Soviets didn't attack our satellites.
The thing is, there is no plausible use for this sort of weaponary against any of our forseeable enemies. The only use there is for this sort of stuff is against our own allies, and it's obvious that building up material against our friends is going to be something of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
An alternative would be to download encrypted versions of the file, and have the player grab a decoding key from the server or something every few days or so. (Given permission from the user, of course.) After a few days, the server will stop generating encryption keys for old files, so the user's data will be useless, but he will still be in control over his own computer. (And it might be harder for Warez doodz to crack the mechanism.) Is this a good idea?
Also, it would be nice if the BBC open sources their player, so people can make a linux client.
Reading the referenced blog entry, there is a good point to be made where GM breaks sites. The point of standard compliance is that consumers are free to see the output that the producers intended, not that consumers would be forced into one way of working, and enjoying content. Now, so long as the default behaviour (i.e. no GM installed) is fully compatible, this doesn't seem to be a problem. (Maybe linkify should be disabled by default.)
We need to ensure that users know what modifications they are making to how websites display, and also know how to add to blacklists and stuff to solve the problem when things go wrong. We shouldn't just categorise this as a consumer vs producer struggle - that's just silly. GM script writers and website owners should be working together, to benefit the user.
1. User scripts need some sort of verification process. Something to guarantee safety, to the casual user. Perhaps some centralised list of checksums for 'certified' user scripts.
2. Websites should be able to check for what user scripts are installed. Not so as to ban them, but to provide a message that 'The scripts you are using are known to be incompatible. For optimal results, please turn them off.'
Is Internet Explorer still really of any benefit to Microsoft? Once upon a time, it might have been used to push ActiveX, or reinforce the Windows platform by encouraging integration. But security worries, and legal trouble, have put paid to that...
To my naive eyes, it seems that IE is more trouble than it's worth. It's earlier bugginess puts a weight on later development to duplicate previous rendering errors, and it is strongly challenged by Opera, Mozilla, and the like. Also, their developers have to take care not to break compatiability too much - or at least, to sort out how to get various plugins to work with newer versions. The whole thing is a running sore with regards to their reputation, and the number of idiots running the browser means everything has to be dumbed down.
It seems that the wise thing for Microsoft to do, simply from a selfish level, is to ditch the IE project. Open source what can be open sourced, develop a light, secure, bare-bones and idiot-proof version for bundling with their OS, and re-dedicate their resources elsewhere.
Payphones can be bugged. People can be compromised. Travel may be logged. Borders can be closed, people can poke around your suitcases. Dumb kids delivering leaflets can be arrested, and worked over until they give names, faces, places, times. Sometimes, information is time-sensitive, and you don't have time to set up the elaborate procedures for the drop.
Electronic means may be non-ideal, but at times they are the only means available.
Much information can be useful, despite an anonymous source. For example, a simple message of PLEASE LOOK HERE can be of vital importance. It's not neccessary to know who said it. If the atrocity, the coverup, or the WMD is clearly visible, then the act of drawing attention is itself essential, even if it only tells the outside observer where to look.
I remember some software that could hide messages in graphics files, by subtly editing the values of some pixels. Then, if the other side has a copy of the image, they can subtract them to find the difference, and decode the image.
So, your scheme would be to send an image, and then, some random time later, to send some information using this image. Double encrypting might work too. As long as you aren't already under suspicion, I doubt anyone has the time to check for people sending duplicate graphics files.
Java don't work here on my FF. Works in msie, Opera and standalone. Maybe I just have too many different java installs. No biggie but occasionally I just have to fire msie (I noticed almost everyone using FF *HAS TO* go msie for some sites and it is not only for activex stuff)
worst bug I stumbled upon twice: if you happen to hard-reset a comp with FF open you may lose all your bookmarks.
I've never encountered this problem. You shouldn't really hard-reset in any OS, anyways - you get plenty of warnings about it, so it isn't a bug. Human error. If it recurs, get this:
http://extensionroom.mozdev.org/more-info/bookmark backup
FF wants to save everything in same directory. How about remembering where I last saved pics, html or zip/tar files? How about title of document becoming saved file name? msie is a bit better about that.
Being a programming god doesn't mean being a complete retard and trying to re-invent the wheel.
Appropiate solutions to appropiate problems. How many compilers have *YOU* written?
Because he's old and fat. And tired of being an one-man revolution, constantly working to assuage the needs of other people.
And he knows there are people who agree with him, who can also percieve the need.
Slashdot Mirror
My dream setup is a million monkeys on a million typewriters.
Tech isn't the problem, though. This is an artistic competition, and however good your graphics card is, you are going to be limited by your artists' talent. Are games developers really going to be bothered spending the decades it would take to make each and every room look as good as these? I predict that graphical development is going to reach a peak fairly soon.
1) Try to make software patents valid everywhere
2) File some patents
3) Allow open source software to use your patents
4) ???
5) PROFIT!
No Quality Control.
How are the OMG-evil-UN-world-government people going to handle this?
Really, just looking at the Microsoft Fanboys referenced in that article.
"Internet Explorer (7?) is all I need."
"Honestly, the rubbish you [Microsoft] have to put up with... my heart goes out to you guys. Keep up the good work with IE7"
Yes, people, we are eulogising about software that hasn't even been released yet.
I thought the point with Netscape is that it is meant to be an IE-replacement - hence the render using IE engine feature. Whether it respects an obsolete, badly coded application it is designed to get rid of is kinda irrelevant.
Obviously, this is a bug that needs to be fixed, but let's not start burying Netscape yet. More competition is always good.
Why not draw an analogy with search warrants?
Being forced by a warrant to admit police into your house is pretty similar to being requested by law to give up your encrypted data. The first is not a fifth amendment issue, so the second should not be either.
Maybe?
Conceals the occassional orgy.
But it wasn't passing from left to right. According to the article, the camera started off ahead of the Odyssey, which then overtook it and was scanned from front to rear. Next, the camera catches up with the craft, which would cause it to be scanned in the opposite direction - from rear to front. So the two images should be mirrored.
A possible explanation was that Odyssey was in fact scanned 3 times, and that they've cropped out the middle time. However, the article doesn't say that.
I've sent off an email to JPL asking about this, now. I doubt they'll have time to reply, though.
From the description, one of the images should be the mirror image of the other - one is from a forward scan, and one is from a backwards scan. Someone pointed this out to me.
I suspect that they used some sort of filter on their raw data, to correct for distortions, and also to correct for the inversion effect.
Ask the French how effective this strategy was in 1940.
So, who's Hitler now, then?
If China becomes hostile, stopping them from taking out our satellites would be the least of our problems. Even the Soviets didn't attack our satellites.
The thing is, there is no plausible use for this sort of weaponary against any of our forseeable enemies. The only use there is for this sort of stuff is against our own allies, and it's obvious that building up material against our friends is going to be something of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Yeah. That's my thoughts, too.
An alternative would be to download encrypted versions of the file, and have the player grab a decoding key from the server or something every few days or so. (Given permission from the user, of course.) After a few days, the server will stop generating encryption keys for old files, so the user's data will be useless, but he will still be in control over his own computer. (And it might be harder for Warez doodz to crack the mechanism.) Is this a good idea?
Also, it would be nice if the BBC open sources their player, so people can make a linux client.
The FSF is primarily an advocacy group. Poking their nose into other people's business is their job. If not them, then who else?
(n/t)
Reading the referenced blog entry, there is a good point to be made where GM breaks sites. The point of standard compliance is that consumers are free to see the output that the producers intended, not that consumers would be forced into one way of working, and enjoying content. Now, so long as the default behaviour (i.e. no GM installed) is fully compatible, this doesn't seem to be a problem. (Maybe linkify should be disabled by default.) We need to ensure that users know what modifications they are making to how websites display, and also know how to add to blacklists and stuff to solve the problem when things go wrong. We shouldn't just categorise this as a consumer vs producer struggle - that's just silly. GM script writers and website owners should be working together, to benefit the user. 1. User scripts need some sort of verification process. Something to guarantee safety, to the casual user. Perhaps some centralised list of checksums for 'certified' user scripts. 2. Websites should be able to check for what user scripts are installed. Not so as to ban them, but to provide a message that 'The scripts you are using are known to be incompatible. For optimal results, please turn them off.'
Or use flash/java applet based interfaces.
I'll point out, though, that such things tend to really piss me off.
Is Internet Explorer still really of any benefit to Microsoft? Once upon a time, it might have been used to push ActiveX, or reinforce the Windows platform by encouraging integration. But security worries, and legal trouble, have put paid to that...
To my naive eyes, it seems that IE is more trouble than it's worth. It's earlier bugginess puts a weight on later development to duplicate previous rendering errors, and it is strongly challenged by Opera, Mozilla, and the like. Also, their developers have to take care not to break compatiability too much - or at least, to sort out how to get various plugins to work with newer versions. The whole thing is a running sore with regards to their reputation, and the number of idiots running the browser means everything has to be dumbed down.
It seems that the wise thing for Microsoft to do, simply from a selfish level, is to ditch the IE project. Open source what can be open sourced, develop a light, secure, bare-bones and idiot-proof version for bundling with their OS, and re-dedicate their resources elsewhere.
Internet Explorer has no future.
Payphones can be bugged. People can be compromised. Travel may be logged. Borders can be closed, people can poke around your suitcases. Dumb kids delivering leaflets can be arrested, and worked over until they give names, faces, places, times. Sometimes, information is time-sensitive, and you don't have time to set up the elaborate procedures for the drop.
Electronic means may be non-ideal, but at times they are the only means available.
Now you are just being silly.
Much information can be useful, despite an anonymous source. For example, a simple message of PLEASE LOOK HERE can be of vital importance. It's not neccessary to know who said it. If the atrocity, the coverup, or the WMD is clearly visible, then the act of drawing attention is itself essential, even if it only tells the outside observer where to look.
I remember some software that could hide messages in graphics files, by subtly editing the values of some pixels. Then, if the other side has a copy of the image, they can subtract them to find the difference, and decode the image.
So, your scheme would be to send an image, and then, some random time later, to send some information using this image. Double encrypting might work too. As long as you aren't already under suspicion, I doubt anyone has the time to check for people sending duplicate graphics files.
I don't, and I use linux. Check your plugins settings. Try http://www.java.com/en/download/manual.jsp and use the automatic install link.
worst bug I stumbled upon twice: if you happen to hard-reset a comp with FF open you may lose all your bookmarks.
I've never encountered this problem. You shouldn't really hard-reset in any OS, anyways - you get plenty of warnings about it, so it isn't a bug. Human error. If it recurs, get this: http://extensionroom.mozdev.org/more-info/bookmark backup
FF wants to save everything in same directory. How about remembering where I last saved pics, html or zip/tar files? How about title of document becoming saved file name? msie is a bit better about that.
Well, different people like different behaviours. You might want to use this: http://downloadstatusbar.mozdev.org/downsort/
And I can hiss down telephones.
Being a programming god doesn't mean being a complete retard and trying to re-invent the wheel. Appropiate solutions to appropiate problems. How many compilers have *YOU* written?
Because he's old and fat. And tired of being an one-man revolution, constantly working to assuage the needs of other people. And he knows there are people who agree with him, who can also percieve the need.