I am a fairly quick typist but my brain is still much faster than my fingers, so when I am attempting to convey a complex thought typing speed does come into play.
The entire point of a well designed smart card system is that the access control system is NOT trusted. Think of it like hashing; you give the system enough information to prove your identity beyond the shadow of a doubt, but not enough to assume your identity. Thus, it is impossible for your waiter to clone your card, or for that disreputable computer company to collect a bunch of numbers, charge them, and run.
Personally, I can't wait until smart cards become more prevelant; it worries me to have passwords on 100+ sites because I can't remember 100 passwords. Any one site being compromised means you lose security on several sites, whereas with smart card authentication there is no additional vulnerability.
You are falling into the same trap that you accuse your detractors of ignoring. Interpretations of the law have changed over the course of the past 200 odd years, and this issue has already been to the Supreme Court. Guess what? They didn't agree that any random citizen has the right to own guns.
Let me say that again: the 2nd amendment confers NO RIGHTS upon the average citizen; only miltias have the right to bear arms.
The reason for the confusion is that none of your definitions of militia fit the legal definition. When the amendment was framed it was intended to protect State's rights by ensuring that the States would always have the ability to form an army. Thus, in order to be in a militia you must be a member of a state or local emergency/paramilitary organization. Only then do you have a consitutional right to own a weapon, and you have it only so long as the state deems you a member.
No, the actual story was that you may or may not disclose details of the hack, but that to be eligable for the prize money you had to disclose and sign the NDA.
If you made an MP3 of a watermarked track, your new fangled SDMI-compliant player would, at some point in the future, refuse to play it. The whole point of the watermarking system is to be able to uniquely identify a track regardless of its format (CDDA, wav, mp3).
If you go back and actually look at it, though, you'll find that there was just as high a percentage of crap (re: Sturgeon's Law) then as there is now. People tend to forget the crap, and focus on the stuff that was great.
This is very true; however, you are ignoring the possiblity that the best game of the decade came 9-10 years ago. I can think of a number of games (Al-Quadim, StarCon2) that I have gone back and played and had a lot of fun with. These games are just so different than anything that has come out since that they can still compete despite their age.
It isn't always self delusion that makes people love a classic...sometimes it is just that good!
But immersiveness goes a long ways towards compensating for poor gameplay any day of the week.
I think this is a difficult thing to argue. On one hand, a game with a lot of immersiveness will probably make a lot of people go out and buy it, even if they drop it after a month. This is fairly good for the game company, because they are making sales.
However, can they continue selling the product for months after the release? I would argue that those later sales are more the result of buzz, word-of-mouth, and 2nd-look reviews. A game that people are bored with is unlikely to continue to sell well.
I think it comes down to the fact that for the buyer who is making a decision based solely on the box (or a demo), immersiveness may be a more important factor than gameplay, and obviously a game with one will do better than a game lacking both. However, in the long run it is the gameplay that will drive sales (and recruit players).
I have not read this book, so please correct me if I am misunderstanding something, but I think that the focus of most "virtual reality" games is (or should be) immersiveness over realism. The movie business has shown us that people don't want realism, they want things that *look* good (or "correct"). e.g. the car had better explode in a flaming conflagration despite the overwhelming odds against this occurance.
If you look at a lot of modern games you can clearly see where choices were made that enhance the "feel" of the game even if they are not, strictly speaking, "realistic".
The answer is that realistic virtual worlds make games more interesting and more immersive, but fail to make up for a failed basic premise. If a game is well thought out and well designed, the realism added definitely increases the fun and value. A pretty game that is not fun to play lasts only as long as the eye candy is still intriguing.
This is why there are still plenty of people playing Quake and Starcraft. They are poor examples of current (audio visual) technology, but as games they are just plain very entertaining.
What we lack currently is the killer app for virtual worlds: a game that is both technologically stunning as well as based on a framework that keeps gamers playing. It's a hard mix to achieve, because so much work *is* required for modern games. We've come a long way from the days of 2d scrollers; many modern game projects are beginning to look more like movie sets. Getting all that fancy technology (and complicated geometry) working may require more effort from designers than ever before, but if they can pull it off they can also show off a game that is more amazing than previously thought possible.
This wouldn't necessarily work; consider repeat articles in the past, which have gotten lots of posts and karma. Also consdider that it is the editors that people hate (e.g. John Katz) that consistently get the most posts, and hence karma.
All the cumulative karma would tell you is the number of people interested in the story...it wouldn't give any indication of whether that interest was positive or negative.
I agree completely. I think why people find these things so hard to accept though is that much of the academic community believes NP!=P; they are searching for a proof of that, not the reverse.
If you could do NP in P time, it would probably be worth a lot more than a million dollars to you.
Re: Is this problem NP complete? (3SAT?)
on
Does P = NP?
·
· Score: 1
Actually it is even more general than that. Any NP complete problem can be written as a special case of any other NP complete problem; this is why it is such a big deal to do NP in P time. Once someone finds an algorithm for a single NP problem, they have solved *ALL* NP problems in polynomial time.
This is also why proving an isomorphism proves x in {NP}.
...but putting the USB connection in the same cable provides no additional functionality...it just means there are less cables. You could just as easily use ports on your usb-hub monitor if it was connected via a second cable.
I think the reason it didn't catch on is that it doesn't provide a lot of additional functionality, but adds to the cost. If you want to run power on a single cable that means you need to transfer a huge amount of power through the video card. Current architectures aren't designed to do that. USB is easier to implement, but what does USB really have to do with monitors? (VSYNC, R, G, B, USBclk??)
The bottom line is that you can get equivilent functionality at lower cost and with more flexibility through the use of an additional 2 cables. I'll take the two cables.
More likely efficient manufacturing processes have yet to be designed for something like this.
There are additional issues with manufacturing a unit that is 100% pixels...generally displays have a "dead" border where control lines are aggregated. To make a seamless display would require no border, and would require each chunk to have it's pixels offset nor more than about 1/16 of nominal, or you'd get wavy lines as they crossed boundaries. Accuracy of >1 mil is pretty tough. (note that I'm talking about accuracy of the pixel network relative to the substrate, not relative to each other, which is much easier)
He didn't describe DVI as proprietary; he said the "Apple Display Connector" is proprietary (which it is). So you are both distorting the original statement as well as making a factual error.
High bitrate MPEG1 (2Mbps+) actually looks great at resolutions around 400x240@24. Very little artifacting, and *should* play on any decent mpeg player.
*I* think it looks too real. Video is incredibly harsh next to film...sure, certain things are lost in the grain and in the exposure, but what comes out in the end is a wonderful visual experience and not a mathematically precise eyesore.
Contrary to popular opinion, movies are all about what looks *right*, not what looks *real*. This has reached such an art form that reality looks rather fake at times.
There is some corporate maneuvering occuring, but consider that DVD-R is *just now* on the consumer market. Drives are fairly reasonable, and media in bulk (5k units) is running about $13.
As far as price fixing, I think you are underestimating how much harder it is to make recordable blanks. Commercial DVDs are stamped using the same process as commercial CDs...the tolerances are tighter, but the cost is close for single layer discs. Manufacturing a writable substrate is a lot more complex. As production scales and is streamlined, it will probably approach CDR manufacturing costs, but that takes time.
I am very interested in acquiring the book dicussed in the article; anyone know where I can pick up a copy of "The of university verses in a groove-brightly?"
Actually, I think Mr. Lucas is very shrewd. Look at all of the hype that surrounded the Matrix...mostly based on people NOT knowing the storyline! Lucas knows that the Star Wars name alone is enough to grab the attention of moviegoers. I'm sure as the movie is about to be released the Lucas PR machine will spring into action, and there will be tons of stuff flying around. The difference is Lucas will have control of everything.
I think the headline is overly hopeful. According to AOL's spokesperson, they have no intent to join the two services in the near future.
"Primrose said the capability was a by-product of tests conducted by engineers at AOL who were working on how to interoperate with other services, but that it was not an effort to interoperate AIM and ICQ."
Slashdot Mirror
"Digital Betamax" or D-Betacam are entirely different technologies than Betamax so it is not really valuable to compare them.
I am a fairly quick typist but my brain is still much faster than my fingers, so when I am attempting to convey a complex thought typing speed does come into play.
The entire point of a well designed smart card system is that the access control system is NOT trusted. Think of it like hashing; you give the system enough information to prove your identity beyond the shadow of a doubt, but not enough to assume your identity. Thus, it is impossible for your waiter to clone your card, or for that disreputable computer company to collect a bunch of numbers, charge them, and run.
Personally, I can't wait until smart cards become more prevelant; it worries me to have passwords on 100+ sites because I can't remember 100 passwords. Any one site being compromised means you lose security on several sites, whereas with smart card authentication there is no additional vulnerability.
You are falling into the same trap that you accuse your detractors of ignoring. Interpretations of the law have changed over the course of the past 200 odd years, and this issue has already been to the Supreme Court. Guess what? They didn't agree that any random citizen has the right to own guns.
Let me say that again: the 2nd amendment confers NO RIGHTS upon the average citizen; only miltias have the right to bear arms.
The reason for the confusion is that none of your definitions of militia fit the legal definition. When the amendment was framed it was intended to protect State's rights by ensuring that the States would always have the ability to form an army. Thus, in order to be in a militia you must be a member of a state or local emergency/paramilitary organization. Only then do you have a consitutional right to own a weapon, and you have it only so long as the state deems you a member.
The quote is "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
Try reading the Salon article before posting more factual inaccuracies.
No, the actual story was that you may or may not disclose details of the hack, but that to be eligable for the prize money you had to disclose and sign the NDA.
If you made an MP3 of a watermarked track, your new fangled SDMI-compliant player would, at some point in the future, refuse to play it. The whole point of the watermarking system is to be able to uniquely identify a track regardless of its format (CDDA, wav, mp3).
It isn't always self delusion that makes people love a classic...sometimes it is just that good!
I think this is a difficult thing to argue. On one hand, a game with a lot of immersiveness will probably make a lot of people go out and buy it, even if they drop it after a month. This is fairly good for the game company, because they are making sales.
However, can they continue selling the product for months after the release? I would argue that those later sales are more the result of buzz, word-of-mouth, and 2nd-look reviews. A game that people are bored with is unlikely to continue to sell well. I think it comes down to the fact that for the buyer who is making a decision based solely on the box (or a demo), immersiveness may be a more important factor than gameplay, and obviously a game with one will do better than a game lacking both. However, in the long run it is the gameplay that will drive sales (and recruit players).
I have not read this book, so please correct me if I am misunderstanding something, but I think that the focus of most "virtual reality" games is (or should be) immersiveness over realism. The movie business has shown us that people don't want realism, they want things that *look* good (or "correct"). e.g. the car had better explode in a flaming conflagration despite the overwhelming odds against this occurance.
If you look at a lot of modern games you can clearly see where choices were made that enhance the "feel" of the game even if they are not, strictly speaking, "realistic".
The answer is that realistic virtual worlds make games more interesting and more immersive, but fail to make up for a failed basic premise. If a game is well thought out and well designed, the realism added definitely increases the fun and value. A pretty game that is not fun to play lasts only as long as the eye candy is still intriguing.
This is why there are still plenty of people playing Quake and Starcraft. They are poor examples of current (audio visual) technology, but as games they are just plain very entertaining.
What we lack currently is the killer app for virtual worlds: a game that is both technologically stunning as well as based on a framework that keeps gamers playing. It's a hard mix to achieve, because so much work *is* required for modern games. We've come a long way from the days of 2d scrollers; many modern game projects are beginning to look more like movie sets. Getting all that fancy technology (and complicated geometry) working may require more effort from designers than ever before, but if they can pull it off they can also show off a game that is more amazing than previously thought possible.
This wouldn't necessarily work; consider repeat articles in the past, which have gotten lots of posts and karma. Also consdider that it is the editors that people hate (e.g. John Katz) that consistently get the most posts, and hence karma.
All the cumulative karma would tell you is the number of people interested in the story...it wouldn't give any indication of whether that interest was positive or negative.
I agree completely. I think why people find these things so hard to accept though is that much of the academic community believes NP!=P; they are searching for a proof of that, not the reverse.
If you could do NP in P time, it would probably be worth a lot more than a million dollars to you.
Actually it is even more general than that. Any NP complete problem can be written as a special case of any other NP complete problem; this is why it is such a big deal to do NP in P time. Once someone finds an algorithm for a single NP problem, they have solved *ALL* NP problems in polynomial time.
This is also why proving an isomorphism proves x in {NP}.
...but putting the USB connection in the same cable provides no additional functionality...it just means there are less cables. You could just as easily use ports on your usb-hub monitor if it was connected via a second cable.
My error on the ADC.
I think the reason it didn't catch on is that it doesn't provide a lot of additional functionality, but adds to the cost. If you want to run power on a single cable that means you need to transfer a huge amount of power through the video card. Current architectures aren't designed to do that. USB is easier to implement, but what does USB really have to do with monitors? (VSYNC, R, G, B, USBclk??)
The bottom line is that you can get equivilent functionality at lower cost and with more flexibility through the use of an additional 2 cables. I'll take the two cables.
More likely efficient manufacturing processes have yet to be designed for something like this.
There are additional issues with manufacturing a unit that is 100% pixels...generally displays have a "dead" border where control lines are aggregated. To make a seamless display would require no border, and would require each chunk to have it's pixels offset nor more than about 1/16 of nominal, or you'd get wavy lines as they crossed boundaries. Accuracy of >1 mil is pretty tough. (note that I'm talking about accuracy of the pixel network relative to the substrate, not relative to each other, which is much easier)
He didn't describe DVI as proprietary; he said the "Apple Display Connector" is proprietary (which it is). So you are both distorting the original statement as well as making a factual error.
High bitrate MPEG1 (2Mbps+) actually looks great at resolutions around 400x240@24. Very little artifacting, and *should* play on any decent mpeg player.
*I* think it looks too real. Video is incredibly harsh next to film...sure, certain things are lost in the grain and in the exposure, but what comes out in the end is a wonderful visual experience and not a mathematically precise eyesore.
Contrary to popular opinion, movies are all about what looks *right*, not what looks *real*. This has reached such an art form that reality looks rather fake at times.
There is some corporate maneuvering occuring, but consider that DVD-R is *just now* on the consumer market. Drives are fairly reasonable, and media in bulk (5k units) is running about $13.
As far as price fixing, I think you are underestimating how much harder it is to make recordable blanks. Commercial DVDs are stamped using the same process as commercial CDs...the tolerances are tighter, but the cost is close for single layer discs. Manufacturing a writable substrate is a lot more complex. As production scales and is streamlined, it will probably approach CDR manufacturing costs, but that takes time.
I am very interested in acquiring the book dicussed in the article; anyone know where I can pick up a copy of "The of university verses in a groove-brightly?"
Actually, I think Mr. Lucas is very shrewd. Look at all of the hype that surrounded the Matrix...mostly based on people NOT knowing the storyline! Lucas knows that the Star Wars name alone is enough to grab the attention of moviegoers. I'm sure as the movie is about to be released the Lucas PR machine will spring into action, and there will be tons of stuff flying around. The difference is Lucas will have control of everything.