If the console version becomes widely popular, lots of people will look for the PC version
Why do you assume this?
If a lot a people want to play this game (since they know people playing the console versions, or they hear about it on game sites on the web), then it's certain that not all of them will own consoles (or the "right" consoles). In addition, most people don't carry full-blown consoles around with them when they travel, but they often do carry laptops, and I'm sure at least some of those people who like the game on a console might look for a version they could play "on the road".
I also dislike unethical behavior, but I look at it this way:
If the game flops on consoles, no one is "profiting" from violating the GPL.
If the console version becomes widely popular, lots of people will look for the PC version, and find the open-source project, and hopefully learn something about open-source.
> (or should I sound like a retard and use the prefix MEBI?!?)
No need! You actually sound like a retard just by implying that using mebi makes one "sound like a retard". As an AC poster pointed out to you, in this case the unit is actually mega, not mega-pretending-to-be-mebi, and thus your own confusion makes a poster case for the need to accurately and unambiguously differentiate between the two units.
I still remember the Carol Burnett Show "Went with the Wind" parody of Gone with the Wind, which I found hilariously funny as a kid even though I've never seen the original movie. I remember enjoying the TV show, I think a lot of it had to do with the impression that the cast often gave that they were just microns away from cracking up and causing an out-take.
And I see a certain parallel between the skit that Antique Geekmeister cited and the ending joke to the "Summarize Proust" Monty Python skit (of course, MP has taken the joke to an even greater extreme).
if the guy was viewing CP and getting off on it, he's guilty, IMHO. Deviant bastid needs to be cut, then tied down over a fire ant hill. I just don't know what to think.
> I think the word "need" is getting greatly watered down.
I thought that, also, once, but then realized that the Holy Grail for marketing (which is being paid for by these corps) is that, yes, everyone will feel their "product" is a "need".
So, in true reality, you are correct, but not in the distorted reality which these corporations would like to make reality.
I'm not sure about that. Microsoft's bid for upgrading Munich was $23M (negotiated down from an original bid of about $36M). Even if they would only have to pay that every 10 years, that's still $2.3M/yr. That doesn't sound negligible compared to the cost of "making it keep doing that" (especially after everything has been moved to open standards).
> I've read that all this migration has cost MILLIONS
Yes, there's a lot of shilling going on, trying to paint this transition in a bad light. man_of_mr_e provided me with a link to the Microsoft bid which was $23M. The original Linux bid was $36M. And it's probably cost more. But as I replied to man_of_mr_e, this is still probably a good fiscal decision for Munich, since I find it hard to believe that if they save MS relicensing costs of about $23M every, say, 6 years, they won't pay for the extra conversion costs fairly quickly.
And that's not even counting the advantages to being free of lock-in.
TFA is actually a six-page article behind a paywall, but everyone can get a 13 page PDF with the supplementary information, (most of which is pretty Greek to me as a non-bio geek) behind the "Supporting Info" link.
If I read the article correctly, this research group had already got 95% efficiency using a different kind of foam, it's just that this frog-protein-foam enables more sugar to be generated before the foam breaks. OTOH, I'm pretty sure I'm not really qualified to even have an opinion.
And judging from the summary of the article, the researchers are not expecting this to be able to be more efficient than the most efficient plants. So that 95% number is just not comparable to the maybe 10% photosynthetic yield of the best plants from sunlight because it's measuring something different.
You do realize that you sound very stupid when you merely project your ideas on "most people"?
Your list of "facts" is merely that. Well, no. It's that mixed with various fallacies like strawmen and false dichotomy.
Gee, I can do that too! Let's think about a hypothetical restaurant run by a genius scientist who has invented a container which looks like an ordinary disposable hot cup but can actually contain coffee which has been heated to 300 degrees centigrade (yes, superheated steam coffee!), due to its extraordinary insulating ability and tensile strength. If you look at your numerated list, all of your facts cover this situation, also! Therefore, by your reasoning, this scientist is not being irresponsible by not warning the public about his special way of serving coffee.
Sorry, my bad. Guess I was too tired. OTOH, I still think that the simplistic "if statements are a no-go" is going to get your point across to a greater number of readers.
> to laws like "pi equals 3.00" and findings like the McDonalds coffee lawsuit
Your post has quite good points, but you come off looking like an idiot when you equate legislation to jurisdiction, and a law which contradicts fact to a lawsuit whose outcome, as you so correctly point out, rests on what is considered "reasonable" (peculiar that you do not understand that this is largely a subjective judgment rather than a factual one).
Or did you just not read up on the facts of the McDonald's coffee case?
Jewish law doesn't prohibit anything involving pigs except for eating them, and praying in places where you can smell them. Get your facts straight before you blathering on about the corruption of a religion you don't know much about.
I agree that the post you replied to is trollish, but have to berate you for your very, very limited imagination. This is the Internet Era, no? The last time I checked, bestiality with pigs was still a big no-no in Judaism (and no, I wasn't checking because of personal interest --- it's a figure of speech, get over it). In addition, I believe that most rabbis would also forbid torturing pigs (unless it might save a human life). Hmm, what else. If/when the practice of animal sacrifice will become active again, only kosher animals are permitted to be sacrificed. Jews can wear shoes made from pig leather, but not on Yom Kippur. It's forbidden to murder someone by dropping a pig on them from a great height. You are forbidden buying and selling pigs on the Sabbath.
As a mathematician, I understand Plant Kingdom's problem with making Mar-14 Pi Day (and even worse since it's not using a computer-friendly date format).
And as a mathematician, I also understand that sometimes there is no way to push mathematical elegance over practical considerations. In this case, it's obvious that if we want to have a Pi Day which is looking to be at all known in popular circles, it absolutely has to be based on being a fixed day in the Gregorian calendar year (or at least as fixed as something like the US President's day --- the n-th particular-weekday in particular-month).
If you would like to better understand security through obscurity
"Security through obscurity" is a "term of art" in the security field, and for sure you're wrong when you say
That means that part of the power of the system is a lack of users having a solid knowledge of the OS and it's finer details.
The particular demographics which you claim exist are not, as you point out, caused by an attempt to use secrecy of design or implementation to increase security (as the WP article you linked to explains is the meaning of "security through obscurity").
If this were a private company I'd be of the opinion that their internal security is their concern but this is a government office and the people who pay the bills have a right to know what's going on.
If the internal security failure lead to your private information being leaked and the possibility of financial loss to you, I think that you might be of the opinion that there should be legislation which deals with disclosure. Actually, there is such legislation in many jurisdictions. And you also have Sarbanes–Oxley stuff which is supposed to encourage whistleblowing.
Some "internal" things are more internal than others....
As such, you really cannot assume you haven't been rooted just because someone got access only as a given user.
Well, how surprising. Isn't that why they are called "privilege escalation" vulnerabilities?
Many linux people seem to disregard local root vulnerabilities
Which only shows us that PEBKAC isn't a Windows-only problem. How true.
What is true, or at least was true up until at least Vista, is that Windows effectively only had one level of protection. Privilege escalation vulnerabilities were much, much more common on Windows systems than on Linux systems (partially because of Microsoft bugs, but mainly because of the fact that (practically) all third-party software was installed with administrative privileges and a ton of third-party software was useful for attaining privilege escalation).
Slashdot Mirror
If the console version becomes widely popular, lots of people will look for the PC version
Why do you assume this?
If a lot a people want to play this game (since they know people playing the console versions, or they hear about it on game sites on the web), then it's certain that not all of them will own consoles (or the "right" consoles). In addition, most people don't carry full-blown consoles around with them when they travel, but they often do carry laptops, and I'm sure at least some of those people who like the game on a console might look for a version they could play "on the road".
> a thousand years bad juju
I also dislike unethical behavior, but I look at it this way:
> (or should I sound like a retard and use the prefix MEBI?!?)
No need! You actually sound like a retard just by implying that
using mebi makes one "sound like a retard". As an AC poster pointed out to you, in this case the unit is actually mega, not mega-pretending-to-be-mebi, and thus your own confusion makes a poster case for the need to accurately and unambiguously differentiate between the two units.
Want flame, get flame.
sopssa, I heard a rumor that you installed Linux on a young and innocent Windows box in 1990. Why haven't you proven to us that you didn't?
I still remember the Carol Burnett Show "Went with the Wind" parody of Gone with the Wind, which I found hilariously funny as a kid even though I've never seen the original movie. I remember enjoying the TV show, I think a lot of it had to do with the impression that the cast often gave that they were just microns away from cracking up and causing an out-take.
And I see a certain parallel between the skit that Antique Geekmeister cited and the ending joke to the "Summarize Proust" Monty Python skit (of course, MP has taken the joke to an even greater extreme).
From there, we could have discussion, debate, and argument over what would constitute "improvement".
Your post proposes the weirdest hybrid of dystopia and utopia I've ever seen.
I do appreciate your courage, though.
> And, his genes are undesirable.
You are for active eugenics?
> The guy in your link? What a moron. Whether it be CP or anything ... What a douche.
> else, if you copy it to a demo machine
And you think he should be killed to improve the gene pool?
if the guy was viewing CP and getting off on it, he's guilty, IMHO. Deviant bastid needs to be cut, then tied down over a fire ant hill. I just don't know what to think.
Just curious. Do you think you would think the same if all that CP were virtual? How about if it were merely text that the guy wrote for himself?
> I have little problem with executing a lot of deviants.
Like people who know how those computer thingies work? If you're here on /., you're already deviant, in someone's eyes.
> that doesn't involve the consent of everyone involved
So you would be OK with someone getting off on virtual CP?
> I think the word "need" is getting greatly watered down.
I thought that, also, once, but then realized that the Holy Grail for marketing (which is being paid for by these corps) is that, yes, everyone will feel their "product" is a "need".
So, in true reality, you are correct, but not in the distorted reality which these corporations would like to make reality.
> Licensing costs are pretty negligible
I'm not sure about that. Microsoft's bid for upgrading Munich was $23M (negotiated down from an original bid of about $36M). Even if they would only have to pay that every 10 years, that's still $2.3M/yr. That doesn't sound negligible compared to the cost of "making it keep doing that" (especially after everything has been moved to open standards).
> I've read that all this migration has cost MILLIONS
Yes, there's a lot of shilling going on, trying to paint this transition in a bad light. man_of_mr_e provided me with a link to the Microsoft bid which was $23M. The original Linux bid was $36M. And it's probably cost more. But as I replied to man_of_mr_e, this is still probably a good fiscal decision for Munich, since I find it hard to believe that if they save MS relicensing costs of about $23M every, say, 6 years, they won't pay for the extra conversion costs fairly quickly.
And that's not even counting the advantages to being free of lock-in.
TFA is actually a six-page article behind a paywall, but everyone can get a 13 page PDF with the supplementary information, (most of which is pretty Greek to me as a non-bio geek) behind the "Supporting Info" link.
If I read the article correctly, this research group had already got 95% efficiency using a different kind of foam, it's just that this frog-protein-foam enables more sugar to be generated before the foam breaks. OTOH, I'm pretty sure I'm not really qualified to even have an opinion.
And judging from the summary of the article, the researchers are not expecting this to be able to be more efficient than the most efficient plants. So that 95% number is just not comparable to the maybe 10% photosynthetic yield of the best plants from sunlight because it's measuring something different.
You do realize that you sound very stupid when you merely project your ideas on "most people"?
Your list of "facts" is merely that. Well, no. It's that mixed with various fallacies like strawmen and false dichotomy.
Gee, I can do that too! Let's think about a hypothetical restaurant run by a genius scientist who has invented a container which looks like an ordinary disposable hot cup but can actually contain coffee which has been heated to 300 degrees centigrade (yes, superheated steam coffee!), due to its extraordinary insulating ability and tensile strength. If you look at your numerated list, all of your facts cover this situation, also! Therefore, by your reasoning, this scientist is not being irresponsible by not warning the public about his special way of serving coffee.
Right.
I wonder if this has implications for making closed ecological systems easier?
Wikipedia claims that plants only have something like a 3-6% photosynthetic efficiency.
Sorry, my bad. Guess I was too tired. OTOH, I still think that the simplistic "if statements are a no-go" is going to get your point across to a greater number of readers.
Good post, but you missed an easy way to emphasize the difference between GPU and CPU programming:
> but for run of the mill computing tasks
Try saying
>> but for run of the mill computing tasks (including practically anything which does branching using "if" statements)
next time (yes I know that in limited circumstances it is possible to work around this problem). Feel free to add other (more concrete) examples.
> to laws like "pi equals 3.00" and findings like the McDonalds coffee lawsuit
Your post has quite good points, but you come off looking like an idiot when you equate legislation to jurisdiction, and a law which contradicts fact to a lawsuit whose outcome, as you so correctly point out, rests on what is considered "reasonable" (peculiar that you do not understand that this is largely a subjective judgment rather than a factual one).
Or did you just not read up on the facts of the McDonald's coffee case?
Jewish law doesn't prohibit anything involving pigs except for eating them, and praying in places where you can smell them. Get your facts straight before you blathering on about the corruption of a religion you don't know much about.
I agree that the post you replied to is trollish, but have to berate you for your very, very limited imagination. This is the Internet Era, no? The last time I checked, bestiality with pigs was still a big no-no in Judaism (and no, I wasn't checking because of personal interest --- it's a figure of speech, get over it). In addition, I believe that most rabbis would also forbid torturing pigs (unless it might save a human life). Hmm, what else. If/when the practice of animal sacrifice will become active again, only kosher animals are permitted to be sacrificed. Jews can wear shoes made from pig leather, but not on Yom Kippur. It's forbidden to murder someone by dropping a pig on them from a great height. You are forbidden buying and selling pigs on the Sabbath.
Actually, the list is, well, endless....
BTW for the next time this comes up, you might want to cite: http://engforum.pravda.ru/archive/index.php/t-216072.html
As a mathematician, I understand Plant Kingdom's problem with making Mar-14 Pi Day (and even worse since it's not using a computer-friendly date format).
And as a mathematician, I also understand that sometimes there is no way to push mathematical elegance over practical considerations. In this case, it's obvious that if we want to have a Pi Day which is looking to be at all known in popular circles, it absolutely has to be based on being a fixed day in the Gregorian calendar year (or at least as fixed as something like the US President's day --- the n-th particular-weekday in particular-month).
If you would like to better understand security through obscurity
"Security through obscurity" is a "term of art" in the security field, and for sure you're wrong when you say
That means that part of the power of the system is a lack of users having a solid knowledge of the OS and it's finer details.
The particular demographics which you claim exist are not, as you point out, caused by an attempt to use secrecy of design or implementation to increase security (as the WP article you linked to explains is the meaning of "security through obscurity").
If this were a private company I'd be of the opinion that their internal security is their concern but this is a government office and the people who pay the bills have a right to know what's going on.
If the internal security failure lead to your private information being leaked and the possibility of financial loss to you, I think that you might be of the opinion that there should be legislation which deals with disclosure. Actually, there is such legislation in many jurisdictions. And you also have Sarbanes–Oxley stuff which is supposed to encourage whistleblowing.
Some "internal" things are more internal than others....
Most of the big star bands probably were cheated out of quite a lot of money by slimy accounting practices, and PF is probably just trying to recoup part of that since they found a good excuse to go to court:
As such, you really cannot assume you haven't been rooted just because someone got access only as a given user.
Well, how surprising. Isn't that why they are called "privilege escalation" vulnerabilities?
Many linux people seem to disregard local root vulnerabilities
Which only shows us that PEBKAC isn't a Windows-only problem. How true.
What is true, or at least was true up until at least Vista, is that Windows effectively only had one level of protection. Privilege escalation vulnerabilities were much, much more common on Windows systems than on Linux systems (partially because of Microsoft bugs, but mainly because of the fact that (practically) all third-party software was installed with administrative privileges and a ton of third-party software was useful for attaining privilege escalation).