Re:Turns out the whole reason for the attack was..
on
Ubuntu Servers Hacked
·
· Score: 1
> See, this is what I'm talking about, you automatically go on defensive if anyone has any honest criticism of Ubuntu.
No, honest criticism is about actually having specifics to point at, not "zomg, they winblozified it into AOL for all the n00bs!" I suppose I am too sensitive, since I let myself be trolled. Anyway, I'm not an Ubuntu user, I'm back to using vanilla Debian, because it fit my needs better on the server end of things.
As for Automatix, I'd say the Ubuntu community at large is also quite solidly against using it.
> I can understand the feeling that memorizing the opening sequences can be overwhelming, it's a lot of work, just like any professional game, it takes practice.
It always helps to watch the openings actually played. Memorizing the BCO is perhaps the most boring thing imagineable. But when I was trying to learn chess, I think the best advice I got was: "It's good to wanna win, but if you wanna be a real playah, you better enjoy losing. A lot." Yeah, he said it like that. I think the best part about playing was the strange characters I played pick-up games in the park with, who would trash-talk throughout the game. I tried a chess club for a couple meetings, and all they wanted to do was play chess in complete silence. Blah.
What does any of this metaphorical claptrap about troops and strategy and tactics have to do with the basic decision theory? Despite the lack of moving pieces, Go has many many more states than chess, making it impossible to search a significant fraction of the space. However, just like chess openings, a computer with enough storage will kick your ass in most joseki, which are very much "tactical" situations.
Manyfaces was ranked at fifth dan last I looked. That's not grandmaster by any stretch, but that's far from "student" level.
Re:Turns out the whole reason for the attack was..
on
Ubuntu Servers Hacked
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Do you have a specific complaint, or is just it that the uncool kids are getting into the clubhouse? If you think the interface has gotten oversimplified, switch to kubuntu.
> The legal doctrine is called 'promissory estoppel' and has been invoked by IBM in the SCO case already, IIRC.
Yeah, and that's why SCO's case against IBM is no longer in the courts, and anyone without the deep pockets to pay for the likes of Swain, Cravath, and Moore can afford to rely on this doctrine.
Contempt is the judge's prerogative for behavior related to proceedings they're currently presiding over. After a trial is over, a complainant usually needs to file a contempt complaint to enforce compliance. So it actually is up to the aggrieved party.
Optional pseudonimity is still effectively anonymity. You can choose to adopt an identity over TOR if you wish to use it, and its use is still disconnected from its point of origin (other than TOR as a whole). If you choose the true anonymity option, then others like Wikipedia may choose to reject it. Seems like the ideal balance of freedoms all around.
> Your challenge is a tautology though, since anything that corrects science is science.
I imagine if God came down from heaven with all the singing hosts and fire and brimstone and whatnot and pointed his big manly finger at me and said "I'm here, I'm real, you're wrong", that would be a correction of my science that didn't really fit within the framework of science. Otherwise, yeah I suppose you're right, though there's certainly no shortage of crystal-rubbers who enjoy telling me that they have answers that science doesn't. Not sure if that counts as a claim of a correction or not.
And pray tell, what is the Galileo quip about? I don't recall he had any scientific rivals threatening to literally burn him at the stake.
Knee-jerking was indeed what my reply was. Apparently "insightful" knee-jerking... sigh.
Still, the difference between the wiki editor community and the scientific community is that the scientific community is made up of actual experts (at least in a vastly larger proportion) with verifiable credentials. There's also a little more professional tone going into most journal publications as well.
Every group has bias and groupthink -- we're more or less wired for it. But it turns out that despite that, they can still be right most of the time on the subjects they actually know about.
> Maybe a lot of today's nerds are too young to remember, but ADVENT was one of the most important computer games ever written
At the risk of being iconoclastic and dampening your effusive praise, no it wasn't. It was merely one of the first, and more of an inevitability. It wasn't even all that advanced for its time, being essentially a command-line menu system without the menu options visible. For the most part, it didn't even have state -- Don Woods added the score and inventory later. I personally hold up Zork as the real genre-creator, and though it might trace its lineage back to ADVENT, I would say it was purely in a "genetic contribution" sort of way.
> These days, everything is made almost too obvious, because too many potential customers don't like a challenge
That, or "guess the verb" went out of style. I wonder what kind of grumbly old curmudgeons that our kids will grow up to be. Then again, I never became one, and I still manage to find things that are fresh, fun, and new amidst the mountains of crap. And believe me, those mountains have always been there.
> The only checks and balances in place are reviews by scientific peers!
As opposed to the alternative, which has no methodology and no review whatsoever. Show me one case where science has been wrong where it was corrected by something not science.
Well, there's Tribes:Vengeance. And as a nifty tie-in to another article, SWAT 4 was one of the first games with in-game advertisement. Won a few dubious "honors" from reviewing magazines for that.
But overall, yeah, their stuff is good. In fact, 2K in general is nurturing their acquisitions well, in stark contrast to That Other Big Game Publisher.
And supooosedly (insert grain of salt) Saddam Hussein was buying up PS2's to get around those pesky export restrictions to build a computing cluster for a weapons program.
Erm, despite all the other whoppers we were told, that one actually was a hoax. Of the joke kind. Of the hah-hah could anyone possibly take it seriously kind. Um, lemme think some more and try again.
> how hard is it (?) to hack inside a hdcp monitor and get hold of the bitstream there?
The DVI bitstream? Probably damn near impossible. You could get at the display matrix itself though; it's beyond the capacities of most hardware hackers, but no sweat for an experienced engineer in the pay of a pirate (yarr!). But actually recording that data would take insane amounts of CPU, and as another poster mentioned, when you recoded it into a lossy algorithm like mpeg-4, it still would be full of artifacts from double-encoding.
It's much cheaper to simply copy the disc bit for bit. AACS might be hard to globally break, but it will most likely always be easy to find weak players.
> Not to mention GHC produces C code that you're free to tweak if needed just fine?
It's my understanding that ghc doesn't normally produce C output, but that it's a backend you can select. You really don't want to touch the C output of ghc though. It's not made for human consumption.
> Abstract classes are interfaces, and inheriting from an abstract class is identical to implementing an interface.
Except for slicing if you're dumb enough to actually cast to the object type itself. Of course, in the real world, you do everything with pointers (which is the only way to get polymorphism anyway), where you now have to GC them yourself, and deal with the fact that any object may be broken at any time (null or dangling). Real damn fun, that. Oh yeah, you can use boost::smart_ptr -- or is is boost::shared_ptr, or boost::kinda_shared_ptr_with_racing_stripes?
C++ is an all right language with some nice features. Referencing and dereferencing is not one of them. Inscrutable page-long error messages from the compiler whenever you use even mildly complex templates is another.
Slashdot Mirror
> See, this is what I'm talking about, you automatically go on defensive if anyone has any honest criticism of Ubuntu.
No, honest criticism is about actually having specifics to point at, not "zomg, they winblozified it into AOL for all the n00bs!" I suppose I am too sensitive, since I let myself be trolled. Anyway, I'm not an Ubuntu user, I'm back to using vanilla Debian, because it fit my needs better on the server end of things.
As for Automatix, I'd say the Ubuntu community at large is also quite solidly against using it.
> I can understand the feeling that memorizing the opening sequences can be overwhelming, it's a lot of work, just like any professional game, it takes practice.
It always helps to watch the openings actually played. Memorizing the BCO is perhaps the most boring thing imagineable. But when I was trying to learn chess, I think the best advice I got was: "It's good to wanna win, but if you wanna be a real playah, you better enjoy losing. A lot." Yeah, he said it like that. I think the best part about playing was the strange characters I played pick-up games in the park with, who would trash-talk throughout the game. I tried a chess club for a couple meetings, and all they wanted to do was play chess in complete silence. Blah.
What does any of this metaphorical claptrap about troops and strategy and tactics have to do with the basic decision theory? Despite the lack of moving pieces, Go has many many more states than chess, making it impossible to search a significant fraction of the space. However, just like chess openings, a computer with enough storage will kick your ass in most joseki, which are very much "tactical" situations.
Manyfaces was ranked at fifth dan last I looked. That's not grandmaster by any stretch, but that's far from "student" level.
Do you have a specific complaint, or is just it that the uncool kids are getting into the clubhouse? If you think the interface has gotten oversimplified, switch to kubuntu.
> you know as well as I do that there would be a high-pitched wailing from the Slashdot World.
You mean the high-pitched wailing from the Slashdot World actually stops at some point?
> The legal doctrine is called 'promissory estoppel' and has been invoked by IBM in the SCO case already, IIRC.
Yeah, and that's why SCO's case against IBM is no longer in the courts, and anyone without the deep pockets to pay for the likes of Swain, Cravath, and Moore can afford to rely on this doctrine.
> seriously, who pays for his crap?
The German Government. There's a ministry that will finance any piece of crap as long as it's German.
Contempt is the judge's prerogative for behavior related to proceedings they're currently presiding over. After a trial is over, a complainant usually needs to file a contempt complaint to enforce compliance. So it actually is up to the aggrieved party.
I don't believe that perl5 allows purely numeric labels though.
And we've got to get ourselves back to the garden.
Bullshit like this shouldn't be on the front page, let alone using Einstein's image.
I suggest a cuckoo clock. Or a crank. Or a cracked pot. If nothing else, change it to the foot.
Optional pseudonimity is still effectively anonymity. You can choose to adopt an identity over TOR if you wish to use it, and its use is still disconnected from its point of origin (other than TOR as a whole). If you choose the true anonymity option, then others like Wikipedia may choose to reject it. Seems like the ideal balance of freedoms all around.
> Your challenge is a tautology though, since anything that corrects science is science.
I imagine if God came down from heaven with all the singing hosts and fire and brimstone and whatnot and pointed his big manly finger at me and said "I'm here, I'm real, you're wrong", that would be a correction of my science that didn't really fit within the framework of science. Otherwise, yeah I suppose you're right, though there's certainly no shortage of crystal-rubbers who enjoy telling me that they have answers that science doesn't. Not sure if that counts as a claim of a correction or not.
And pray tell, what is the Galileo quip about? I don't recall he had any scientific rivals threatening to literally burn him at the stake.
Knee-jerking was indeed what my reply was. Apparently "insightful" knee-jerking... sigh.
Still, the difference between the wiki editor community and the scientific community is that the scientific community is made up of actual experts (at least in a vastly larger proportion) with verifiable credentials. There's also a little more professional tone going into most journal publications as well.
Every group has bias and groupthink -- we're more or less wired for it. But it turns out that despite that, they can still be right most of the time on the subjects they actually know about.
> Maybe a lot of today's nerds are too young to remember, but ADVENT was one of the most important computer games ever written
At the risk of being iconoclastic and dampening your effusive praise, no it wasn't. It was merely one of the first, and more of an inevitability. It wasn't even all that advanced for its time, being essentially a command-line menu system without the menu options visible. For the most part, it didn't even have state -- Don Woods added the score and inventory later. I personally hold up Zork as the real genre-creator, and though it might trace its lineage back to ADVENT, I would say it was purely in a "genetic contribution" sort of way.
> a thread about how our capitalist economy has destroyed the Third World.
Actually, it's the Third World that's trying to be capitalist, but they can't compete with the government-subsidized agriculture of the First.
> These days, everything is made almost too obvious, because too many potential customers don't like a challenge
That, or "guess the verb" went out of style. I wonder what kind of grumbly old curmudgeons that our kids will grow up to be. Then again, I never became one, and I still manage to find things that are fresh, fun, and new amidst the mountains of crap. And believe me, those mountains have always been there.
> The only checks and balances in place are reviews by scientific peers!
As opposed to the alternative, which has no methodology and no review whatsoever. Show me one case where science has been wrong where it was corrected by something not science.
> Do you really think we are all so childish as to completely demonize everyone we disagree with?
Judging by the typical traffic on slashdot, yeah, pretty much.
> Irrational has never let me down before
Well, there's Tribes:Vengeance. And as a nifty tie-in to another article, SWAT 4 was one of the first games with in-game advertisement. Won a few dubious "honors" from reviewing magazines for that.
But overall, yeah, their stuff is good. In fact, 2K in general is nurturing their acquisitions well, in stark contrast to That Other Big Game Publisher.
Hedge funds might have taken it on in the "high risk" column. Basically betting on the long odds.
And supooosedly (insert grain of salt) Saddam Hussein was buying up PS2's to get around those pesky export restrictions to build a computing cluster for a weapons program.
Erm, despite all the other whoppers we were told, that one actually was a hoax. Of the joke kind. Of the hah-hah could anyone possibly take it seriously kind. Um, lemme think some more and try again.
> how hard is it (?) to hack inside a hdcp monitor and get hold of the bitstream there?
The DVI bitstream? Probably damn near impossible. You could get at the display matrix itself though; it's beyond the capacities of most hardware hackers, but no sweat for an experienced engineer in the pay of a pirate (yarr!). But actually recording that data would take insane amounts of CPU, and as another poster mentioned, when you recoded it into a lossy algorithm like mpeg-4, it still would be full of artifacts from double-encoding.
It's much cheaper to simply copy the disc bit for bit. AACS might be hard to globally break, but it will most likely always be easy to find weak players.
> Not to mention GHC produces C code that you're free to tweak if needed just fine?
It's my understanding that ghc doesn't normally produce C output, but that it's a backend you can select. You really don't want to touch the C output of ghc though. It's not made for human consumption.
> Abstract classes are interfaces, and inheriting from an abstract class is identical to implementing an interface.
Except for slicing if you're dumb enough to actually cast to the object type itself. Of course, in the real world, you do everything with pointers (which is the only way to get polymorphism anyway), where you now have to GC them yourself, and deal with the fact that any object may be broken at any time (null or dangling). Real damn fun, that. Oh yeah, you can use boost::smart_ptr -- or is is boost::shared_ptr, or boost::kinda_shared_ptr_with_racing_stripes?
C++ is an all right language with some nice features. Referencing and dereferencing is not one of them. Inscrutable page-long error messages from the compiler whenever you use even mildly complex templates is another.