Start them off with something simple, plain text adventure games, get them building interactive stories with plots and characters. It takes at least a little imagination, so long as they don't come up with no brains like flight of the amazon queen.
That's not a very good plan for the future, we need innovative games with good plots, AI and game play. Modern games are designed like a copy of pent house, nice to look at but don't expect anything to challenge your intelligence.
is that 17% - 21% of people or businesses..
21% of businesses having one mac seems plausible, we used to have one and only one so that we could test out web sites &co.
All the extension code runs in a interpreter, so it shouldn't be too hard for the interpreter to manage some kind of thread based security permissions.
You can also encapsulate some data with a wrapper and assign access rights and permissions to that block of data, in a similar way to DRM, but without all the Copyright crap.
I've raised a bug against KDE asking them to sandbox plugins (so that they don't take out you konq session when they crash amongst other things).
The reply was, too hard and QT isn't thread safe etc....
I've also raised bugs against Mozilla about the lack of a security model, the reply was don't got there, cross site scripting ahhh, too hard.
From the moment you explicetly whitelisted an extension (which takes more than a single click, see below), it's the extension that has a vulnerability, not the browser
That's weird, because when I complained about the lack of memory management in Konqueror the kde guys said that it was the kernels job to manage memory.
I think it's the responsibility of Firefox to provide fine grained security for extensions, scripts, web pages or whatever. A bug in a script shouldn't be able to pose a security threat unless the user gives it some kind of God privileges, GM shouldn't have been able to read the HDD in the first place.
Lets say FF implement a sandbox model where each running script has a security ID, a bit like a thread id or process id.
Each thread has a set or privileges and permissions, e.g. Firefox can modify any page, access files, open up sockets etc.. but a script run from www.foo.com can only modify the page it owns.
If this kind of sandboxing was implemented a user could install GM, safe in the knowledge that a page couldn't use GM to elevate it's privileges.
It is a problem with Firefox allowing GM to have such privileges.
Do you always log in as administrator or root? Have you edited the source code of postgress so that is can also run as root? So why should Firefox give root to any extension that comes along?
So I whitelist greasemonkey, what next? How do I stop greasemonkey from being a security threat.
Generally people click ok, or I agree without knowing what the content there agreeing to will do, just like people who whitelisted greasemonkey didn't know that it was a security risk.
Castrating the permissions that extensions or BHO's run is industry standard for systems considered secure.
Well, if Firefox came OOTB with reasonable restrictions on what extension can do users could still download anything, and be warned when that anything tries to do something it shouldn't be doing.
When was the last time a Java applet posed a security risk or required you to change your security settings?
The firefox guys should have realized that extensions are a HUGE security threat, possibly even worse than anything that's come out of IE.
What they should have done is setup some permissions from the first place, so that you can allow or prevent extensions from performing sensitive operations. Something similar to the Java security model would have been good enough
This post is licenced under the GPL.
You post is a prize example of why you can link against GPL code and not be requires to GPL your code.
I suffer from, yes you can link against GPL stop giving me all that hypochondriac crap about not being able to.
how old do you have to be to own a Gun?
Why isn't it:
Graphically real violence that makes you sick: 12.
Cartoon violence, like I could just walk around the park shooting these guys: 21
It all seems a bit back to front, telling kids that if you drop a iron on the cats head it's going to be just fine.
Well, the article states that Office 2000 can be installed on windows 2000, you can still run word for windows (or even Wordperfect) on
Windows 3.11 if you want, and you can access the internet via mosaic and have Windows networking support. (I wonder how long it takes a Win3.11 box to get owned)
It's very unlikely you'd need modern software, or that modern software will run on the 8 year old hardware that the article suggests.
I'd like to mention that the strength of such a video iPod would be in its ability to output signal to a TV.
You still have a TV? why can't you just store divx's on the current ipod and play them via your media center. Don't bother buying this Ipod, spend the cash on a $200 media center instead.
Slashdot Mirror
There are plenty of adventure game engines out there, and they rarely have complex sentence-recognition algorithms.
Start them off with something simple, plain text adventure games, get them building interactive stories with plots and characters. It takes at least a little imagination, so long as they don't come up with no brains like flight of the amazon queen.
That's not a very good plan for the future, we need innovative games with good plots, AI and game play. Modern games are designed like a copy of pent house, nice to look at but don't expect anything to challenge your intelligence.
is that 17% - 21% of people or businesses.. 21% of businesses having one mac seems plausible, we used to have one and only one so that we could test out web sites &co.
guter tag kamerad
Except, anything you fail to mention can 'and will?' be used against you in a court of law.
They don't have a fucking clue, and they'll do anything that can to get one, even if it's obtained in dubious ways.
I was thinking more along the lines of asta lavista baby.
Riot: A peaceably assemble where the police decide to get heavy handed.
What can't you do with java? Last time I checked there wasn't anything you couldn't do.
6 clicks or 6000 clicks, who cares how many clicks for Joe sispack to install an extension, it didn't prevent GS from being a security threat.
All the extension code runs in a interpreter, so it shouldn't be too hard for the interpreter to manage some kind of thread based security permissions. You can also encapsulate some data with a wrapper and assign access rights and permissions to that block of data, in a similar way to DRM, but without all the Copyright crap.
I've raised a bug against KDE asking them to sandbox plugins (so that they don't take out you konq session when they crash amongst other things). The reply was, too hard and QT isn't thread safe etc.... I've also raised bugs against Mozilla about the lack of a security model, the reply was don't got there, cross site scripting ahhh, too hard.
From the moment you explicetly whitelisted an extension (which takes more than a single click, see below), it's the extension that has a vulnerability, not the browser That's weird, because when I complained about the lack of memory management in Konqueror the kde guys said that it was the kernels job to manage memory. I think it's the responsibility of Firefox to provide fine grained security for extensions, scripts, web pages or whatever. A bug in a script shouldn't be able to pose a security threat unless the user gives it some kind of God privileges, GM shouldn't have been able to read the HDD in the first place.
Lets say FF implement a sandbox model where each running script has a security ID, a bit like a thread id or process id. Each thread has a set or privileges and permissions, e.g. Firefox can modify any page, access files, open up sockets etc.. but a script run from www.foo.com can only modify the page it owns. If this kind of sandboxing was implemented a user could install GM, safe in the knowledge that a page couldn't use GM to elevate it's privileges.
It is a problem with Firefox allowing GM to have such privileges. Do you always log in as administrator or root? Have you edited the source code of postgress so that is can also run as root? So why should Firefox give root to any extension that comes along?
So I whitelist greasemonkey, what next? How do I stop greasemonkey from being a security threat. Generally people click ok, or I agree without knowing what the content there agreeing to will do, just like people who whitelisted greasemonkey didn't know that it was a security risk. Castrating the permissions that extensions or BHO's run is industry standard for systems considered secure.
Well, if Firefox came OOTB with reasonable restrictions on what extension can do users could still download anything, and be warned when that anything tries to do something it shouldn't be doing. When was the last time a Java applet posed a security risk or required you to change your security settings?
The firefox guys should have realized that extensions are a HUGE security threat, possibly even worse than anything that's come out of IE. What they should have done is setup some permissions from the first place, so that you can allow or prevent extensions from performing sensitive operations. Something similar to the Java security model would have been good enough
This post is licenced under the GPL. You post is a prize example of why you can link against GPL code and not be requires to GPL your code. I suffer from, yes you can link against GPL stop giving me all that hypochondriac crap about not being able to.
how old do you have to be to own a Gun? Why isn't it: Graphically real violence that makes you sick: 12. Cartoon violence, like I could just walk around the park shooting these guys: 21 It all seems a bit back to front, telling kids that if you drop a iron on the cats head it's going to be just fine.
Well, the article states that Office 2000 can be installed on windows 2000, you can still run word for windows (or even Wordperfect) on Windows 3.11 if you want, and you can access the internet via mosaic and have Windows networking support. (I wonder how long it takes a Win3.11 box to get owned) It's very unlikely you'd need modern software, or that modern software will run on the 8 year old hardware that the article suggests.
And seriously, in real life noone says they have "coding skill level 31" But they do have PHD's, diplomas, BSC, City and Guilds, MCraP's etc....
Does that fact that you can run windows 3.1 on modern hardware impede OS sales?
I'd like to mention that the strength of such a video iPod would be in its ability to output signal to a TV. You still have a TV? why can't you just store divx's on the current ipod and play them via your media center. Don't bother buying this Ipod, spend the cash on a $200 media center instead.