Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Various hacking tools? (Score 1) 205

by tlhIngan (#48462135) Attached to: Top Counter-Strike Players Embroiled In Hacking Scandal

I agree that the people who do it for a job have more reason to cheat. You get almost nothing out of cheating in games for recreation.

On occasion, I used to play on servers that allowed cheats. When I played with them, the experience was interesting at first, but inevitably got boring very fast. In the end, all you do is remove the work done to generate good levels and turn it into a super-flat experience where your ping, cpu, and possibly your actual aim/weapon skill matters. If there are auto aim or other weapon hacks, there isn't even the weapon skill.

So, it gets boring. Especially against other people with the same hacks. It is probably marginally more entertaining when you are playing against people who don't have hacks and don't know that you have them.

However, ultimately, what is the point of playing a game if you don't actually play the game? There are people out there who enjoy trolling, but I can't see that being as interesting as trying to beat other people on a well-designed map.

Getting hacks is easy, although using them covertly is dangerous due to VAC and possible bans. For all of that, it's just a waste of your time, other than perhaps to understand a little of the mechanics of how the game works and how hackers might be using hacks on you.

Even if you don't do it professionally (i.e., compete in tournaments) you can still benefit financially from the cheats.

So that's a good motivator - you obviously cannot play in a controlled environment like the final tournament, but if you can get "up there" in the local tournament, you can end up being a local celebrity and get various low-level sponsorships and other things. Do it well enough that you make a name for yourself so you can get on YouTube and get paid for videos on topics not related to what you're cheating in and you're in a good spot.

You may not be able to get the $5M grand prize in a tournament (that requires work), but you can probably make a half-decent living on sponsorships, content sales and other things, without doing too much, either.

Comment: Re:CS players cheat? (Score 2) 205

by tlhIngan (#48461981) Attached to: Top Counter-Strike Players Embroiled In Hacking Scandal

Here's THE answer. Google [name of game] hacks. Download the hacking utilities that everyone else is using. Look at what directory it installs to or what DLLs go where. Have the game check for those files in the next patch. Permanently ban everyone with the hack installed and ban them from Steam so basically those cheating pieces of shit aren't allowed to play video games anymore.

Trust me, those things aren't static. And I'm sure Valve already does that - they purchase the cheats (cheats at this level are sold on a subscription basis) and they ensure that simple measures to detect them don't work.

Yes, it can also include rootkits, or transparent network proxies, DLLs and executables whose name changes every load to avoid detection, etc.

And I'm sure SteamOS will make things worse as wasn't kernel hacking "encouraged" for being an open system? Doesn't take a genius to realize if you can replace the kernel, you can easily break any anti-cheat system. (And userspace can do zilch about it since the kernel can easily lie).

Comment: Re:He definitely did know and understand the risk. (Score 2) 133

by tlhIngan (#48458787) Attached to: Kim Dotcom Regrets Not Taking Copyright Law and MPAA "More Seriously"

I agree with you, but I also agree with his idea that information should be set free. We The People enable, protect, and to a large part even pay for the production of mass media content due to Hollywood's and Big Music's creative accounting practices which show them losing money or breaking even on clearly profitable media. And the same goes for the telecommunications infrastructure: We The People largely paid for that, not just by paying for services but actually through government grants and the like, and it's used against us to milk us of every possible cent while providing the lowest possible standard of service. The fact that we still pay more to send calls across town than to send them across the country is just ridiculous and it's based on legislation bought by the telecoms industry.

Bullcrap. No one believes in "information should be free" because otherwise they're all hypocrites.

I mean, if information should be free, then where's his banking information? Passwords, transits, account numbers, etc? That's information, it should be free. Likewise identity card information, photos, alarm codes and key details to his mansion.

Now, it's true the content industries of the US have screwed people many times over, but let's not confuse "I want my content for free" with "information should be free". Or even "Copyright should be eliminated" (which a lot of people aren't for, either).

I'm sure even open-source advocates don't even want that - because free information means that their precious copyleft is invalid as well. I mean, if Linux is supposed to be free, then I should be free to do anything I want with it, without restrictions.

And yes without copyright, the GPL is useless (the GPL is a true license in that if you don't agree, you get basic legal rights granted by legislation. If you do agree, though, you get additional rights, unlike most licenses which seek to reduce your legal rights).

Comment: Re:Dear Sony, I am delighted! (Score 1) 151

by tlhIngan (#48458619) Attached to: Sony Pictures Computer Sytems Shut Down After Ransomware Hack

There is currently quite a bit of hysteria from some consumers in the BluRay field over it because apparently 100% of the people upset about it have kids who ruin their discs and now they "can't make copies". I say that with sarcasm. Well, you can make copies, you just can't make BluRay copies. Non-BluRay players are not required to detect or honor Cinavia, so ripping your BluRays and making MKVs out of them without conversion works fine. Even most BluRay players will happily play such files without checking for Cinavia.

Actually, a lot of Blu-Ray players and media players in North America DO check for Cinevia, even if the source is no longer Blu-Ray. A lot of players outside do not, however, including many cheap Chinese ones.

Back so Sony, one could wonder if it's a bit much just for a single movie, since Sony Pictures dropped the Steve Jobs movie recently.

On a more serious note, one wonders if it's the result of poor security practices. After all, just a few years ago Sony suffered a major breach of their Playstation Network servers, and now their entire Sony Pictures group is out of commission. Could just be a case of corporate poor security practices.

Or maybe someone's just wanting the PS4 master key.

Comment: Re:Why do we call remote quadrotors "drones"? (Score 1) 42

by tlhIngan (#48451865) Attached to: Ohio College Building Indoor Drone Pavilion

$1000 is way too much. I can build one for $300 that can take off, take (waypoint/altitude) mission off an Android device or PC (wireless). Navigate all on its own, trigger a few relays or servos (to do what ever) come back and land. Fly time around 17-20 minutes with a payload of 500g and a total weight of say 1.5 kg.

Well, $1000 is a nice limit showing how functional and automated/autonomous these drones are. Commercial ones are around $1000, and Arducopters can be built from $300-800 depending on all the features desired.

Contrast this to an RC helicopter where the hobby ones are barely able to be bought for $1000 - when you have $400 radios and receivers, $200 engines, $300 kits, $100 gyros, etc (rough pricing). And there's a pilot in the loop - no such autopilot as on a drone.

It's just like lasers - they're so cheap they're in "idiot" territory which is why the FAA and others are cracking down.

Comment: Re:Why do we call remote quadrotors "drones"? (Score 2) 42

by tlhIngan (#48450135) Attached to: Ohio College Building Indoor Drone Pavilion

Did it just become cool to call every unmanned aircraft a drone, after we started murdering people with them?

No one called toy helicopters drones 8 years ago. No one.

Because a modern quadrotor is much more functional than an RC helicopter.

There is so much electronics in one that they literally do fly themselves. Push a button and they lift themselves off the ground and hover there automatically - something that no RC helicopter can do without continuous input by the pilot.

So while you fly an RC helicopter, you pretty much just direct a drone - want it to move forward? You command it forward and it obeys (even figuring out "forward" - yes, a modern drone can determine which way you're pointed and determine that to be forward regardless of orientation).

And drones with this capability cost under $1000.

It's also why we see more incidents around - learning to fly is a skill and you generally have to practice it (with both time and cost). With a drone, you push the button that says "Fly" and short of sudden gusts of wind or eddies, they sit there in the air waiting for your command.

And yes, there are projects that turn RC helicopters into drones, but they generally are far more expensive and limited. Quadrotors require a computer anyways due to their instabilities so it doesn't take much more effort to add in flying software.

Comment: Re:Post Jobs charity (Score 1) 101

by tlhIngan (#48450055) Attached to: Apple To Donate Profit Portion From Black Friday For AIDS Fight

It will be interesting to see if Apple becomes more charitable under Cook. Jobs was pretty stingy that way (very stingy in his perosnal life, but I think Apple unde rhim did do a few charitable contributions)

Apple has become more charitable under Cook. An employee perk is that Apple will match donations up to $10,000 or so per year to an employee's charity.

Now, Jobs himself we don't know the extent of his charity - his records of public philanthropy are generally scant, though it's possible that Jobs himself requested the donations be kept anonymous (probably for marketing reasons to keep charities from trying to raise funds under his name or to promote the fact that "famous Steve Jobs donates here" in their records).

Comment: Re:I don't think hydrogen makes sense (Score 1) 279

One nit: Tesla has not yet solved the recharge time problem. Sure, you can drive cross-country in a Tesla, but if you value your time, it's not nearly as convenient as doing so in a regular ICE car. But they're doing their darnedest to make it better.

If you value your time over every thing else, including safety, you mean.

So yeah, if you're the kind who'll do a 3 day drive non-stop, you'd probably go ICE (then again, if you really valued your time, you might consider flying - either commercially or general aviation). But those people generally are rare and most normal people do want to stop to stretch legs and eat outside of the car, which means easily a 30-40 minute stop at a rest stop which is an ideal time to charge up.

Comment: Re:I mean this respectfully (Score 1) 90

by tlhIngan (#48449703) Attached to: Samsung Seeking To Block Nvidia Chips From US Market

Apple attacked Samsung for using the same elements that Apple stole from others, Samsung attacked back with *real* patents to back themselves up.

Except both were real patents. Apple's patents were Design Patents which cover ornamental designs unique to the covered item. Samsung's patents were FRAND licensed Utility Patents.

And yes, if you want people to learn about computers, you gotta learn all about IP law because it's complex and tricky.

Samsung made a phone that did violate Apple's design patents - which are purely for decorative purposes (rounded slab with grid of icons). In fact, you can't have any utility in a design patent - because the features are ornamental, slight non-functional changes can be made to not violate the patent. (And face it, when all the reviews of the Galaxy S (the original one) all said "It's an iPhone clone", you know you're in trouble. Especially since no other Android device gets that mention).

Samsung fought back using FRAND patents that earned it considerable consternation and censure by the EU and the DoJ who promised to look into the issue should Samsung actually proceed. And South Korea, too, Samsung's home turf.

It should be noted Google tried to do the same and also got shot down using Motorola's patents - FRAND patents simply have lesser protection due to their special status.

Comment: Re:Except for Mozilla and Colts (Score 1) 128

Economic impact would be probably close to zero.

It depends on who blinks first. If the site that's broken is highly reliant on Chinese traffic (and it ISN'T hosted in China), then likely they'll cave and use another CDN. The economic impact to the site owners is probably greater than trying to ride it out hoping China would change its policies. (And many other countries - why is it China is singled out for its firewall, when most countries have similar setups?)

If the site has little Chinese traffic, they likely wouldn't notice.

Edgecast will probably the loser out in all this.

Comment: Re:Nope... Nailed It (Score 1) 185

by tlhIngan (#48435147) Attached to: It's Not Developers Slowing Things Down, It's the Process

And let's not forget another role of manager - managing the customer.

Unless you want to dress up in a suit and tie because the customer expects it (some do) and babysit them for the week they're here and interface with them, those are tasks best left to the manager.

Dealing with customers is a huge part of being a manager because customers can become extremely demanding especially if they're doing site visits and need to be babysat. Best to have someone else being interrupted every 5 minutes than you trying to get some work done.

Comment: Re:Invite link? (Score 1) 301

by tlhIngan (#48435039) Attached to: Google Launches Service To Replace Web Ads With Subscriptions

I would love one. I would actually pay as much as $100/month for a fully ad-free web experience (and I realize that most adds are not Google ads.) But $3/month is a no-brainer. Hope this includes YouTube.

Actually, most ads ARE Google ads. They're just done by companies and ad networks Google owns. After all, they have like 98% marketshare, while the 2% belong to those more questionable networks (the ones that advertise for sites that Google won't touch - e.g., torrent sites and the like).

Which brings up the question - does it only apply to ads served through Google Ads (which seems to be on the decline), or ads served by ALL of Google, including Google-owned ad networks like DoubleClick?

It's an important question because Google Ads makes up very little ads nowadays it seems, while Google-owned ad companies and networks still are the vast majority out there.

Ditto if it applies to AdMob for mobile apps as well.

Comment: Re:Wrong Question (Score 1) 197

by tlhIngan (#48422069) Attached to: Is a Moral Compass a Hindrance Or a Help For Startups?

The question should be is a moral compass a help to society. Then the follow up is: What should we do given that we know a moral compass is a benefit to society but almost 0% of companies have one.

Actually, a lot of companies have a moral compass, even "evil" ones. I mean, do you consider Apple evil because they sue over patents? But what about their moral compass for environmental causes? Or supporting LGBTQ equality? The latter two have either caused problems with shareholders or the public.

Comment: Re:What? (Score 1) 55

by tlhIngan (#48422013) Attached to: Nielsen Will Start Tracking Netflix and Amazon Video

What, you mean they haven't been tracking on demand and streaming video? Then, how are they at all relevant? The TV Tray Generation, who watches TV in real time and sits through the commercials, have been dying out for some time, and as a group are all but irrelevant now.

Actually, more people watch live TV than you think. DVRs are complex, and cable/satellite provided ones are generally unreliable and horrible to use, so most people actually DON'T use it. And a surprisingly large number don't bother skipping commercials because it's a PITA to do so when the box decides to add a second or two of latency to the response while you fast forward.

Plenty of people have DVRs purely because they want their HD programming, and that's what their cable company gave them. But they don't want to bother learning the DVR, they just want to turn on the TV and watch it.

For those third party DVRs like TiVo, if you're investing time and effort into it, then you're going to learn how to use it and use it to its fullest, so you're already a self-selected group that will skip ads and all that.

Thinking about it, this may help to explain why network suits regularly drop promising series that go on to become streaming favorites. It's not just that they don't understand their audience, but also that they're going by statistics from an organization that also no longer understands their audience.

Or, the streaming favorites appeal to the wrong people. Remember, the TV program ratings no one cares about When you hear the Big Bang Theory scored 5.5 last week, Neilsen gives that number away for free. That's not the product. The product stations want is the C3 or C7 numbers (minute-by-minute commercial ratings, live + 3 days or 7 days). The numbers Neilsen gives away for free are known as SD, L+3 or L+7 (Live+Same Day, Live + 3 days, Live + 7 days), which are absolutely worthless.

A show that people skip ads for should have a SD or L+3/L+7 number that's significantly higher than it's C3/C7 number, which means the free ratings of it should be high (e.g., 5.0 for BBT). The C3/C7 numbers for it would be low (which is what stations care about). So if your theory was true, then networks would drop a show with high ratings (C3/C7 numbers are secret because they're paid for by stations, so you rarely find out what they are).

No, there are plenty of reasons why a show is dropped. Firefly, for example, was only picked up by FOX because Joss Wheadon forced FOX to pick up Firefly if they wanted Buffy. (And FOX wanted Buffy). So politics ensured that Firefly intentionally wouldn't succeed so FOX could drop it the moment their contract said they could. Or the network plays Ping-Pong with the schedule so the show is at 7:30pm one night, 6:00pm the week after, completely absent the week after that, etc. Intentionally killing the ratings.

Oh, and networks love streaming services like Hulu and having the show up on their website, because they can ensure ads are unskippable.

Comment: Re:Not a jet pack (Score 1) 54

by tlhIngan (#48421891) Attached to: Martin Jetpack Closer To Takeoff In First Responder Applications

But the grandparent's point's two and three still apply - a medic sans equipment and supplies isn't much better than no medic at all, and you still need to get the patient evacuated. And all that assumes you know where the injured person is in the first place...

Well, he can carry basic supplies.

In a lot of cases, you just need a trained responder there ASAP while you dispatch a regular ambulance. Said ambulance can take easily 15-30 minutes to arrive even in an urban environment. The jetpack responder can be there within a few minutes, and being administering first aid.

I mean, what's the point of learning to do CPR if you see someone collapse? You're likely not carrying medical supplies so you can't really help the guy by doing anything other than CPR. Yet, the CPR can keep the guy alive long enough so when emergency services arrives, the guy is actually alive rather than dead.

Same goes with AEDs. Why do we wish for them everywhere?

Minutes count, and if you can get the passer by to do some basic first aid for the jetpack responder to arrive who can do more advanced first aid while waiting for the ambulance. Plus, some physically heavy activities like CPR require a crew because it's tiring. Most people probably can't continue for 15 minutes waiting for emergency services. Having a medic as a relief is invaluable.

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro..." -- Hunter S. Thompson