Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Easy answers (Score 3, Insightful) 277

by Thruen (#46821855) Attached to: 'The Door Problem' of Game Design
This is a huge problem for me in exactly those types of levels. I do want to open every door, every single one, and I very rarely can. Admittedly, my favorite games are open world games which shouldn't have many areas inaccessible to the player, but I also play shooters and want the same thing. Battlefield 4 is full of elevators that only go from the lobby to the top floor or roof, I want to get out on the 32nd floor and kick the door in to the corner suite and set up my rifle where I won't immediately be spotted, taking that option away never makes sense from an immersion point of view. It only makes sense from a technological point of view. Does it create the possibility that 64 players will be roaming room to room with silencers in a hotel while ignoring the rest of a large map? Yes, and that's perfect. The previous post is entirely correct, while doors are important these questions are easy to answer.

Don't get me wrong, I believe game design to be rather difficult, but this is a poor attempt at explaining why. "The Door Problem" is not nearly as difficult as budget problems, working within technological limitations, or keeping a coherent storyline while letting the player make meaningful decisions. I speak from years of experience, in unrelated fields but experience none the less!

Comment: Re:Something smells fishy here (Score 1) 99

by Thruen (#46813745) Attached to: Scammers Lower Comcast Bills, Get Jail Time

they lost $2.4 million yet the fine for one accomplice is is only $66,825???

You want to know the definition of pointless? Fining someone more money than they actually possess. You could demand $2.4 million if it makes you feel better, but you ain't getting it.

Probably worth pointing out that they charged 5,790 customers $75-$150 for this, at the low end that puts their profits around half a million dollars. At the high end, over $800k. The fine is entirely insufficient, which I'm still alright with because fining them enough would mean they're treated worse than corporations, and that's never fun to see.

Comment: Re:Something smells fishy here (Score 1, Informative) 99

by Thruen (#46813701) Attached to: Scammers Lower Comcast Bills, Get Jail Time
I believe the $2.4 million number, it does say that 5,790 customers saved an average of $414 which puts it around $2.4 million, and savings like that wouldn't be difficult to achieve over maybe six months time without Comcast noticing the difference. As to the excuse, yeah it's nothing but. They have about 21 million customers, so this cost them a little over a dime per customer. I'm for fining the guys who did it, but jail time is completely ridiculous for how little this affected Comcast, as is suggesting they'd have to charge the rest of us more to make up for it.

Comment: Re:Actual thought process (Score 1) 270

Except it was the post he responded to that suggested to stop using one in favor of the other. Yeah, he's on Slashdot, saying please stop using Slashdot. As opposed to the post you responded to, where he doesn't even suggest you can't go to one if you go to the other but instead asks why the guy who's telling us to stop using Slashdot is commenting here instead of there.

Who looks stupid now, dumbass?

Comment: Re:Dumbass (Score 4, Insightful) 168

I'm not sure I understand the issue here. Russia has a seriously limited press, yes, but how does that lead to believing he shouldn't have asked the question at all. Wasn't this broadcast live? Even if many Russians couldn't watch it, many could and did. When a country has such a restricted press, the solution is not to stop trying to get the truth out. Sure, there are bigger issues, in Russia and elsewhere. But Snowden is now famous for revealing his home country's mass surveillance program, wouldn't it make sense for him to try and continue down that path? Would it have made more sense to you if he went to Russia and then started fighting for freedom for homosexuals and forgot all about mass surveillance?

Even in the US, we haven't done much about what he exposed, we haven't thrown anyone in jail for lying through their teeth about the program, instead we (and you, right now) have been focusing on discrediting the person who gave up everything in order to tell the truth. How can you sit there and say he should stop trying to expose corruption because the corrupt are too corrupt to care? Why don't we tell everyone under an oppressive government they should just give up and live with it?

Maybe instead of complaining that Snowden should've known better than to ask, you should be complaining that Putin is lying yet again, considering that's the actual problem. I can't understand why people think he should've just not bothered asking when he had the opportunity.

Comment: Why do people think Snowden would've done that? (Score 5, Insightful) 168

After watching a man sacrifice his chances of living a normal life, fleeing the country he grew up in after doing what he felt was right, why did so many readily believe he was willing to give up his principals so easily? Obviously Putin wasn't going to give a straight answer, whether in the US or Russia or anywhere else politicians lie when it suits them. How often do we go after reporters, attacking them for asking questions they don't receive truthful answers to? The entire incident seemed a clear attempt at discrediting Snowden, something that should have been exceedingly obvious to everyone. I applaud him for having the courage to put his own safety on the line and ask Putin about mass surveillance. I'm sure he fully expected the dodgy answer he got, he may have even expected further consequences from Putin and his lackeys, but I doubt he expected people to turn around and say he shouldn't have asked the question to begin with. He shows more courage still coming out and challenging Putin's answer in this article. We owe him our gratitude, respect, and an apology.

Comment: Re:Credible Source? (Score 1) 185

by Thruen (#46800699) Attached to: Google Aids Scientology-Linked Group CCHR With Pay-Per-Click Ads
In that case, they deserve as much credit for supporting every other organization that doesn't agree with this view. Google's program would be just as helpful to a non-profit that advocates for psychiatrists, should we run a story about that and act like it makes them heroes to the community? How about we dig up a list of everyone they support so we can all blame them for supporting and opposing every controversial subject there is?

For that matter, why don't why all take the blame for allowing these organizations to exist? After all, we aren't stopping them, and we're funding a government that gives them tax breaks and benefits just for being non profits.

Comment: Re:Credible Source? (Score 5, Informative) 185

by Thruen (#46800463) Attached to: Google Aids Scientology-Linked Group CCHR With Pay-Per-Click Ads
A commenter on the linked blog sums up how, even if this is true, it's not news in the way the headline makes it seem.

FOTF2012 says
April 18, 2014 at 11:26 am

The Boris letter is misleading. Makes it sound like CCHR applied for and got a grant from Google in the sense of a monetary gift.

Pretty much anyone can set up a Google ad words account (https://support.google.com/adwords/answer/1704354?hl=en) and then learn how to manage the details (https://www.google.com/grants/details.html). Here are the basic qualifications: https://www.google.com/grants/....

One requirement is to be a 501(c)3, which CCHR is. You can search for them on GuideStar (http://www.guidestar.org/?gclid=CKDF0e2q6r0CFVKFfgodPrMAHA) and you get 38 results. Apparently CCHR sets up separate entities in each state — maybe they have to as a charity.

One of the Google Ads program restrictions is that you can only link to one legitimate website. So I imagine they will link to http://www.cchr.org/.

Anyway, this “grant” is something that any “non-profit” can use. It is nothing significant Google has given CCHR specifically. It is part of a program that no doubt profits Google while they can say they are helping non-profits. Further, given the eligibility criteria (which CCHR meet), if Google were to deny CCHR use of the program, they would be in a lawsuit and would probably lose.

Comment: Credible Source? (Score 5, Insightful) 185

by Thruen (#46800421) Attached to: Google Aids Scientology-Linked Group CCHR With Pay-Per-Click Ads
I know Slashdot editors like to sleep on the job, but where does this story even come from? Is it really all based on a blog some supposed letter with no explanation behind it? Is this even true? Searching for it turns up some other articles (blogs) from sources I've never heard of, and nothing seems to point to this being real. Can somebody help me out here? Is the future of Slashdot fictional stories and Bennett's Blog?

Comment: Re:When did slashdot become a blog for Bennett? (Score 1) 235

by Thruen (#46794033) Attached to: Bug Bounties Don't Help If Bugs Never Run Out
I know he isn't, that's one of the reasons I was asking, his opinion on everything is about as worthwhile to hear as my own, and I know very little about the topic.
Given these answers, even though they're not from Bennett, it seems his argument is an impossible one to make, as it supposes money spent on research won't turn up multiple bugs (or the benefits of research can't be measured by any individual bug), that vulnerabilities are the only bugs worth fixing (otherwise black market value would have no effect on whether they continue looking for bugs) and that people are motivated only by the money. Your answers are roughly what I expected, and I'd imagine Bennett's answer for #3 would be the same which is what I was really aiming for. So what I gather is that people will spend time finding flaws in software because it's something to do, what the bug bounty program does is provide motivation to hand it over to the people who can fix it for everyone. That being the case, it's a safe bet the value of the efforts that go toward finding these flaws varies widely, some folks will get lucky and stumble across bugs quickly and some may not find anything for years. One major benefit of a bug bounty program is that, since there's no guarantee any given approach will yield worthwhile results, the company gets more results without a much larger investment. By paying out based on the severity of the bug and not the effort that goes into finding it, they're ensuring they never go over budget in finding any of those bugs, where as investigating themselves there is no guarantee they'll find anything after spending any amount of money.

How about some straight answers now, Bennett? What's your affiliation with Slashdot and why are you able to blog on their front page?

Comment: Re:When did slashdot become a blog for Bennett? (Score 1) 235

by Thruen (#46792661) Attached to: Bug Bounties Don't Help If Bugs Never Run Out
Okay, I'm obviously missing some important details not being a security expert. Clear a couple things up for me.
1. Do security researchers spend their efforts actively searching for one particular bug using one particular method, or do they try a lot of different things and expect to find a lot of different bugs of varying levels of importance?
2. Do companies looking at their own code for bugs only concern themselves with bugs that would be worth selling on the black market, or is every bug a concern for them?
3. Bit of an opinion question, how much would you consider spending to find a bug to sell for $100k considering the potential failure of the endeavor?
4. Do you think bug bounties are the primary motivation for white hats to research bugs, and if not what effect do they have?

Comment: Re:When did slashdot become a blog for numbnuts? (Score 1) 235

by Thruen (#46792567) Attached to: Bug Bounties Don't Help If Bugs Never Run Out
How about I just call you numbnuts instead?

Alright firstly, your posts are not to a news aggregate what chicken burgers are to McDonalds, especially considering McD's has never been a "beef hamburger joint" or anything so limited. Your posts are not some small deviation from the usual, they're not even always particularly "nerdy" in nature. A more apt comparison would be if McDonalds started selling coffee tables, it's completely unrelated and not what anyone goes to McDonalds for. In fact, it's like Slashdot selling coffee tables, except I bet they'd gain more visitors than they drive away with that one. As for this being the direction Slashdot wants to go in, are you affiliated with Slashdot and can you speak officially to this? Otherwise, I think even you need to admit it's very far out of place from everything else Slashdot consists of and arguably does not belong.

I think it's clear from the responses you receive here that the worth of your posts is debated about as much as the topics themselves. You'd get as much interesting discussion were the topic, "Should Numbnuts be allowed to blog on Slashdot's front page?" Beyond that, you may find your individual reasoning steps hard to argue against, but the rest of us don't. That's not to say you're not smart enough, but you probably already know that it's far easier to pick apart an argument coming from someone else than see the holes in your own. I still don't see why your opinion deserves to be on Slashdot any more than any other fool's opinion.

Now here's an easy question to give me a straight answer to: What's the process you follow for submitting these? Are you just filling out the submission form like anyone else and for some mysterious reason the editors post it?

Comment: Re:When did slashdot become a blog for Bennett? (Score 1) 235

by Thruen (#46792423) Attached to: Bug Bounties Don't Help If Bugs Never Run Out
Firstly, not infinite, stop using that word, nothing in this BS argument is infinite. There is a limited number of bugs, and a limited amount of time for anyone to find them. Second, you can not act as if the optimum black market price of an exploit is how much someone will spend to find it, nobody smart enough to find anything is dumb enough to ignore the high potential for failure. It's possible that someone else will have found it first, they might go over budget, there's even a chance they'll never find anything. You're also ignoring the possibility that many people don't care about the black market value because they have morals, but knowing there's a legitimate bug bounty program is enough motivation to keep chipping away in their spare time because it's more interesting than television and has the potential to yield a cash bonus sometimes. You make too many assumptions, your entire argument is based on them.

Comment: Re:When did slashdot become a blog for Bennett? (Score 1) 235

by Thruen (#46792301) Attached to: Bug Bounties Don't Help If Bugs Never Run Out
There you go spouting nonsense and not actually answering my question. I'd bet most of us who post on Slashdot could come up with an interesting post a week, something that will be interesting to a number of other people on the site. I think you'd have a hard time disagreeing with that, you'd have to have an ego the size of the moon to think you're the only one of us with anything interesting to say. Actually, given the size of the Slashdot audience, I'd wager anything that doesn't amount to mere gibberish will spark some discussion. So, if you accept your previous reasoning that articles which can potentially start an interesting discussion are beneficial with no cost, and you accept that many (any) of us could write something that would do the same, then you believe we should all be allowed to post on Slashdot's front page. After all, you can't disagree with the conclusion if you agree with the reasoning, right Bennet?

So why can't we all post our rants on the front page, Bennet?

The fact is your reasoning is BS, and you know it, because the same could be said about any junk you want to plaster on the front page. It's an opinion, Bennett, they're like assholes, and while I'm sure there's someone who could make the case that a picture of your asshole could spark an interesting discussion, I don't think we need to put one up, let alone a new one every week.

Slashdot is not a blog, yet you are able to use it as such when you think you have something interesting to say. Slashdot is a news aggregate, as I said before. Now please stop dodging this and give me straight answers to my questions:

What makes you think Slashdot, a technology news aggregate, is the place for you to plaster your obviously unpopular opinions and argue that you're right? And why is it that you get this special treatment, being allowed to post all your rants on the front page of Slashdot, while the rest of us are stuck in the comments section unless we write some popular, interesting article on our own site?

Come on, Bennet, prove to me (and maybe yourself) that you deserve your spot on the front page and the rest of us don't. Convince me you deserve so much as the time it takes to realize it's one of your posts and keep scrolling from everyone who reads Slashdot, and convince me I don't.

Comment: Re:When did slashdot become a blog for Bennett? (Score 1) 235

by Thruen (#46792173) Attached to: Bug Bounties Don't Help If Bugs Never Run Out
I'll get this. There's nothing to suggest anyone would ever pay so much for a vulnerability, and no guarantee you would find one first spending any amount of money. The "dubious premises" are that anyone would ever pay that much for a vulnerability, or spend that much on the assumption it will yield one. Your real world where there isn't infinite amount of time to scrutinize the code goes both ways, as long as you believe it would take devs to find a bug is how long it's reasonable to believe it would take malicious outsiders to find them. You can not pick and choose unrealistic conditions to make your case.

The only thing cheaper than hardware is talk.

Working...