As I remember it has a bitter-sour kind of taste compared to tap-water. I guess though it depends on what you're habituated to though. Every kind of tap water except water from a different kind of source than the one I get at home tasted weird to me.
The marketing argument applies to both. There are still far too many people paying a fortune on Macs when their usage is far more moderate. They basically fall for the marketing.
Of course, they all do have their selling points. Personally I really like the iPods, because they're reasonably priced and competitive products. But I hate Macs for such a limited and asinine choice of hardware, and the software which will lock you into buying expensive successors to said computer hardware.
And for all the fanboys who want to point out the high-end components they use in Macs, consider this: A Porsche 911 also uses expensive high-end components an lots of Aluminium. That doesn't stop them being a stupid waste of money for 99% of the population.
As a HTML reference, and not as UTF encoded unicode character. You can see it in the source. They might have hacked together a fix so I'll give it a try:
Some people like to whine and exaggerate. But it would be ignorant deny that these developments don't change the way people do business. For better or for worse.
Games developers have already shifted the majority of their efforts to consoles, so have in that sense been "laughed out the door". Some people are perfectly happy with that. Others complain about the publishers and write angry posts on forums.
Who can blame them? They don't owe it to anybody to supply people with games. They have a business to run. Most projects struggle to make a profit the way it is. If they see a new and emerging business model, they're not going to wait around for someone to beat them to it. And judging by the success of subscription based models and digital distribution, it appears that most gamers aren't tremendously concerned about reselling their games.
If anybody is to blame for this development it's the large chain retailers who actively discourage customers from buying their products and push their used games on which they make windfall profits. When your main distributor is doing this, you have a problem. Believe me when I tell you that the relationship between retailers like Gamestop and publishers is pretty tense.
With any market there is a balance between used and new, but thanks to Gamestop it has been shifted to one side. Publishers have simply reacted to the unbalanced situation. Of course you're free to not buy into this new distribution method.
Personally I would also like boxed games to stay. In the end though, I don't think consumers are worse off. Thanks to digital distribution Games are cheaper than ever and they no longer go out of print. There's two advantage of used games alsready dealt with.
Do you even read what people write? For combinatorics in alphanumeric sequences it is very small. 2^n to be precise. That makes 32 possibilities for five letters. And people will probably only be able to remember it if they use one of three or four patterns.
Going through a dictionary attack now takes 100X longer, just by requiring mixed case.
A dictionary attack with combined with three common patterns will likely return the majority of successes positives and only take three times as long.
I don't believe for a second users would be using a 64 character passphrase if good password practices are enforced
So why not just increase the minimum length instead of forcing users to trial and error their way around inserting special characters they won't forget?
In theory, there's an INFINITESIMAL reduction in entropy.
It's actually quite large. But for any sane authentication system, even relatively weak passwords should be more than enough to rule out abuse.
In reality, you're PREVENTING the most likely scenario, which is users selecting only a tiny subset of the available key space. In short, small theoretical downside, huge, real-world up-side.
Au contraire. Theoretically the downside is huge. In the real world the benefit is marginal at best. Just check out what microsoft tells us about secure passwords. Try the following:
They think the former is weak because it has only lowercaser characers. The latter is infinitely more predictable but fulfills every requirement designed to make it less predictable.
Your reply pretty much sums up the misguided assumption that more characters automatically mean enhanced security. From a cryptographic standpoint, sure. There's a lot of ASCII characters out there, but lets take a closer look:
Requiring upper-case letters doubles the key search space. Instead of 26, you've now got 52 characters to try.
Not really. Users are still likely to use memorable words. All you need to do is try the small number of permutations for capital and lower case letters. And because you've forced them to fill up with special characters and numbers, the letter string might only be four characters long. 16 Possibilities, woohoo. And it's actually far less than that. Nobody can remember an arbitrary sequence for capitalization, so they'll probably just use easy patterns like "Passwd" or "PaSsWd"
Adding numbers and symbols, again, greatly increases the key search space.
That's a horrendous fallacy. How many special characters do you have easily accessible on your Keyboard? Now check how many letters of the alphabet there are. Same goes for numbers. By specifically requiring a certain (smaller) subset of elements you're decreasing the possible entropy and weakening the system. The Enigma machines prevented characters enciphering to themselves. Makes sense right? It's actually a design flaw that horribly weakens the security.
Now you're up to at least 80 likely characters.
For a random key generator, but for a human being you're still at memorable words plus a minimum of memorable special character requirements. For these, users are far more likely to use simple keyboard patterns. It's far easier to try the grand total of 484 combinations of two special characters on a US keyboard than say an extra word. And if you're clever, you'll probably guess that "!@" is easily the most common filler used for password requirements. Of course, if your system allows for that many login attempts before kicking up a stink you've failed security anyway.
Whether you were there when security was less stringent or not has no bearing on how much of a hassle the newer security measures are, nor of your responsibility to abide by them.
True, but people will sway from rules regularly if you don't reprimand them for it. If they're doing it as part of their daily work you have a serious flaw in the workflow. Having specific policies without taking into account how users deal with it is a mistake.
An ideal AR "coating" is actually a film stack with an infinite number of layers of exponentially varying thickness and IOR.
It's actually just a lambda-quarter interference layer for a relatively narrow frequency. That's why they appear tinted. Adding more layers you can target other frequencies and colors. You're right in that adding a film on top of another screen won't double the effect though.
24 years? Can someone explain to me how this works? People get away with less prison time for murder. Not to mention corporate fraudsters who never seem to be punished for anything.
Broken analogy. The key doesn't slow him down the more "secure" it becomes. Plus, all those rules are so retarded. Must contain lower and upper case symbols? Must contain at least two special characters and numbers? Seriously, what the fuck? Maybe these guys should learn a bit about combinatorics before coming up with bonehead password rules.
That's not secure. It may look "harder" but there is little more entropy than the plain text. Especially if you go telling everyone on Slashdot. It would only really help against a dictionary attack, and if the attacker is savvy he will probably have implemented a few common substitution methods. If the system is vulnerable to dictionary attacks it won't be very helpful. You're far better off adding another word.
It's personal preference I guess. You could just attach tracing paper to a CRT or glossy LCD. I personally can't understand why some people like to brag about picture quality and how CRTs do better blacks and buy matte LCDs.
I assume you mean antireflective coating, and they're on most quality glossy screens out there. Attaching an additional one might give you better results.
With matte screens you can better distinguish pixels and compare one pixel with another. That's why people like them for graphics work. As for colour accuracy all LCDs are limited and will look totally different from film or print. In light of this, many are happy to trade in a little contrast and saturation for the consistency of the image.
Colours still look far better on a Glossy screen. The reason they're preferred for graphics work isn't because of fidelity (all LCD scrrens are pretty much the same in that regard) but because of consistency. Glossy screens depend a lot on viewing conditions.
I need a lot from my OS so I use Linux. But if I just wanted to surf, write emails and do some light word-processing, I have to say Windows 7 would be fine for me. My laptop which is primarily used for those things, has Windows 7 on it for this reason. If I need to do anything more on it, I just open a remote shell to my main system and use Screens and that's good enough for me.
That seems rather illogical. Shouldn't you be using your expensive proprietary Operating system for the more demanding tasks, and the lightweight free OS if you have modest requirements? FWIW, most all heavy-duty and job-critical software out there is made for Windows. If you want the latest multimedia tools you need Windows. If you want the best graphics drivers you need Windows. And If you play demanding games, they'll only work well on Windows.
Right. Because we all know that “car analogies” is a well-known phrase here on Slashdot and “bow analogies” would be too confusing if not hyphenated.
No. But it's down to the ambiguity of the word "bow". When writing "bow-analogy" I felt the need for hyphenation. You know, when you actually think about what you're writing. Maybe it's not consistent, but I don't review my posts in fear of some smartass who thinks he's found a grammatical error to pounce upon.
Also, “well-known” is too uncommon to leave unhyphenated.
Apples and oranges. "Well" is an adverb. Maybe we should stop talking about this if you have no clue.
Too bad you don’t bother to spell things correctly.
Says th guy who no doubt has a spell-checker permanently on in his browser. Now if only it could fill in your missing words...
No, I said it could destroy the engine if the car was still stuck at open throttle,
Let me help you refresh your memory
And that solves the stuck accelerator problem how?
By destroying your engine, that’s how. An engine with a blown head won’t keep going.
That's just complete bull. A car in neutral won't keep going due to not having any transmission. Not because of what the engine is or isn't doing. Now, whether or not it's easy to shift to neutral is another question. I haven't driven enough automatics for a good comparison. So you can carry on and rant all day about it.
So we've moved from car analogies to bow-analogies now? Do you even know how the transmisiion works? Putting the car in neutral will disengage the engine from the wheels, which will be running freely on a bearing. The engine will not be capable of transmitting any torque. The car will slow and stop.
And even without the wheels working against it, an electronic engine will not rev itself past its redline.
Another thing that's got me wondering is how Flash-based game sites such as Newgrounds.com are going to adapt if (when?) Flash becomes less relevant for the Internet wholesale.
They don't have to. People won't stop what they do just because Steve Jobs tells them Flash is slow. As long as there is still a community and a market for web games, they will continue to use the tools which work best.
Slashdot Mirror
As I remember it has a bitter-sour kind of taste compared to tap-water. I guess though it depends on what you're habituated to though. Every kind of tap water except water from a different kind of source than the one I get at home tasted weird to me.
The marketing argument applies to both. There are still far too many people paying a fortune on Macs when their usage is far more moderate. They basically fall for the marketing.
Of course, they all do have their selling points. Personally I really like the iPods, because they're reasonably priced and competitive products. But I hate Macs for such a limited and asinine choice of hardware, and the software which will lock you into buying expensive successors to said computer hardware.
And for all the fanboys who want to point out the high-end components they use in Macs, consider this:
A Porsche 911 also uses expensive high-end components an lots of Aluminium. That doesn't stop them being a stupid waste of money for 99% of the population.
Well, what do ya know. It works *clapclap*
As a HTML reference, and not as UTF encoded unicode character. You can see it in the source. They might have hacked together a fix so I'll give it a try:
€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€
Some people like to whine and exaggerate. But it would be ignorant deny that these developments don't change the way people do business. For better or for worse.
Games developers have already shifted the majority of their efforts to consoles, so have in that sense been "laughed out the door". Some people are perfectly happy with that. Others complain about the publishers and write angry posts on forums.
Who can blame them? They don't owe it to anybody to supply people with games. They have a business to run. Most projects struggle to make a profit the way it is. If they see a new and emerging business model, they're not going to wait around for someone to beat them to it.
And judging by the success of subscription based models and digital distribution, it appears that most gamers aren't tremendously concerned about reselling their games.
If anybody is to blame for this development it's the large chain retailers who actively discourage customers from buying their products and push their used games on which they make windfall profits.
When your main distributor is doing this, you have a problem. Believe me when I tell you that the relationship between retailers like Gamestop and publishers is pretty tense.
With any market there is a balance between used and new, but thanks to Gamestop it has been shifted to one side. Publishers have simply reacted to the unbalanced situation. Of course you're free to not buy into this new distribution method.
Personally I would also like boxed games to stay. In the end though, I don't think consumers are worse off. Thanks to digital distribution Games are cheaper than ever and they no longer go out of print. There's two advantage of used games alsready dealt with.
It's not a "small number" at all
Do you even read what people write? For combinatorics in alphanumeric sequences it is very small. 2^n to be precise. That makes 32 possibilities for five letters. And people will probably only be able to remember it if they use one of three or four patterns.
Going through a dictionary attack now takes 100X longer, just by requiring mixed case.
A dictionary attack with combined with three common patterns will likely return the majority of successes positives and only take three times as long.
I don't believe for a second users would be using a 64 character passphrase if good password practices are enforced
So why not just increase the minimum length instead of forcing users to trial and error their way around inserting special characters they won't forget?
In theory, there's an INFINITESIMAL reduction in entropy.
It's actually quite large. But for any sane authentication system, even relatively weak passwords should be more than enough to rule out abuse.
In reality, you're PREVENTING the most likely scenario, which is users selecting only a tiny subset of the available key space. In short, small theoretical downside, huge, real-world up-side.
Au contraire. Theoretically the downside is huge. In the real world the benefit is marginal at best. Just check out what microsoft tells us about secure passwords. Try the following:
verylongpasswordsarebetterthannamesandnumbers
Password1!
They think the former is weak because it has only lowercaser characers. The latter is infinitely more predictable but fulfills every requirement designed to make it less predictable.
Graded Index optics are extremely exotic. The standard way of doing it is applying a number of layers. That's what's in every camera lens.
Your reply pretty much sums up the misguided assumption that more characters automatically mean enhanced security.
From a cryptographic standpoint, sure. There's a lot of ASCII characters out there, but lets take a closer look:
Requiring upper-case letters doubles the key search space. Instead of 26, you've now got 52 characters to try.
Not really. Users are still likely to use memorable words. All you need to do is try the small number of permutations for capital and lower case letters. And because you've forced them to fill up with special characters and numbers, the letter string might only be four characters long. 16 Possibilities, woohoo.
And it's actually far less than that. Nobody can remember an arbitrary sequence for capitalization, so they'll probably just use easy patterns like "Passwd" or "PaSsWd"
Adding numbers and symbols, again, greatly increases the key search space.
That's a horrendous fallacy. How many special characters do you have easily accessible on your Keyboard? Now check how many letters of the alphabet there are. Same goes for numbers. By specifically requiring a certain (smaller) subset of elements you're decreasing the possible entropy and weakening the system.
The Enigma machines prevented characters enciphering to themselves. Makes sense right? It's actually a design flaw that horribly weakens the security.
Now you're up to at least 80 likely characters.
For a random key generator, but for a human being you're still at memorable words plus a minimum of memorable special character requirements. For these, users are far more likely to use simple keyboard patterns. It's far easier to try the grand total of 484 combinations of two special characters on a US keyboard than say an extra word. And if you're clever, you'll probably guess that "!@" is easily the most common filler used for password requirements.
Of course, if your system allows for that many login attempts before kicking up a stink you've failed security anyway.
Whether you were there when security was less stringent or not has no bearing on how much of a hassle the newer security measures are, nor of your responsibility to abide by them.
True, but people will sway from rules regularly if you don't reprimand them for it. If they're doing it as part of their daily work you have a serious flaw in the workflow. Having specific policies without taking into account how users deal with it is a mistake.
An ideal AR "coating" is actually a film stack with an infinite number of layers of exponentially varying thickness and IOR.
It's actually just a lambda-quarter interference layer for a relatively narrow frequency. That's why they appear tinted. Adding more layers you can target other frequencies and colors.
You're right in that adding a film on top of another screen won't double the effect though.
24 years? Can someone explain to me how this works? People get away with less prison time for murder. Not to mention corporate fraudsters who never seem to be punished for anything.
Broken analogy. The key doesn't slow him down the more "secure" it becomes.
Plus, all those rules are so retarded. Must contain lower and upper case symbols? Must contain at least two special characters and numbers? Seriously, what the fuck? Maybe these guys should learn a bit about combinatorics before coming up with bonehead password rules.
That's not secure. It may look "harder" but there is little more entropy than the plain text. Especially if you go telling everyone on Slashdot.
It would only really help against a dictionary attack, and if the attacker is savvy he will probably have implemented a few common substitution methods. If the system is vulnerable to dictionary attacks it won't be very helpful. You're far better off adding another word.
It's personal preference I guess. You could just attach tracing paper to a CRT or glossy LCD.
I personally can't understand why some people like to brag about picture quality and how CRTs do better blacks and buy matte LCDs.
I assume you mean antireflective coating, and they're on most quality glossy screens out there. Attaching an additional one might give you better results.
You live on the equator? Nice!
Why not just use tracing paper? You can try different transparencies for whatever suits best.
With matte screens you can better distinguish pixels and compare one pixel with another. That's why people like them for graphics work. As for colour accuracy all LCDs are limited and will look totally different from film or print. In light of this, many are happy to trade in a little contrast and saturation for the consistency of the image.
Colours still look far better on a Glossy screen. The reason they're preferred for graphics work isn't because of fidelity (all LCD scrrens are pretty much the same in that regard) but because of consistency. Glossy screens depend a lot on viewing conditions.
I need a lot from my OS so I use Linux. But if I just wanted to surf, write emails and do some light word-processing, I have to say Windows 7 would be fine for me. My laptop which is primarily used for those things, has Windows 7 on it for this reason. If I need to do anything more on it, I just open a remote shell to my main system and use Screens and that's good enough for me.
That seems rather illogical. Shouldn't you be using your expensive proprietary Operating system for the more demanding tasks, and the lightweight free OS if you have modest requirements?
FWIW, most all heavy-duty and job-critical software out there is made for Windows. If you want the latest multimedia tools you need Windows. If you want the best graphics drivers you need Windows. And If you play demanding games, they'll only work well on Windows.
Right. Because we all know that “car analogies” is a well-known phrase here on Slashdot and “bow analogies” would be too confusing if not hyphenated.
No. But it's down to the ambiguity of the word "bow". When writing "bow-analogy" I felt the need for hyphenation. You know, when you actually think about what you're writing.
Maybe it's not consistent, but I don't review my posts in fear of some smartass who thinks he's found a grammatical error to pounce upon.
Also, “well-known” is too uncommon to leave unhyphenated.
Apples and oranges. "Well" is an adverb. Maybe we should stop talking about this if you have no clue.
Too bad you don’t bother to spell things correctly.
Says th guy who no doubt has a spell-checker permanently on in his browser. Now if only it could fill in your missing words...
No, I said it could destroy the engine if the car was still stuck at open throttle,
Let me help you refresh your memory
And that solves the stuck accelerator problem how?
By destroying your engine, that’s how. An engine with a blown head won’t keep going.
That's just complete bull. A car in neutral won't keep going due to not having any transmission. Not because of what the engine is or isn't doing. Now, whether or not it's easy to shift to neutral is another question. I haven't driven enough automatics for a good comparison. So you can carry on and rant all day about it.
Is there any significance in the peculiar fact that only one of them is hyphenated?
Yes. Clarity. You see, familiar compounds are often left unhyphenated, whereas uncommon or potentially confusing ones can be joined with a hyphen.
Yes, and I know how to spell it correctly also. It’s 3 S’s and 2 I’s, not the other way ’round. :p
Backing up your misconceptions about car engines by pointing out typos?
Good job that's not the only correct argument you have. Oh wait...
It’s still not good for it. A much better alternative would be shutting it off completely.
Wow. Way to miss the point completely.
Your first reply claimed it would fix the stuck accelerator by breaking the engine which would stop the car.
So we've moved from car analogies to bow-analogies now?
Do you even know how the transmisiion works? Putting the car in neutral will disengage the engine from the wheels, which will be running freely on a bearing. The engine will not be capable of transmitting any torque. The car will slow and stop.
And even without the wheels working against it, an electronic engine will not rev itself past its redline.
Another thing that's got me wondering is how Flash-based game sites such as Newgrounds.com are going to adapt if (when?) Flash becomes less relevant for the Internet wholesale.
They don't have to. People won't stop what they do just because Steve Jobs tells them Flash is slow. As long as there is still a community and a market for web games, they will continue to use the tools which work best.
How is disengaging gears supposed to damage your engine?