Comments by alexandros
Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | Tweetproducts of large companies traditionally suffer by having to strategically support other products of the same company. This is a major reason why products of large companies often get beaten by products of smaller uncommited ones. If Google has truly decided not to go this route with Chrome (or any of its products), I think is pretty great.
Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | Tweetthere is a way to derrive an unbiased random number, even if everyone else is cheating. take this:http://everything2.com/title/Coin%2520tossing%2520protocoland extend for N participants and results from 1 to N.
Given this, a lot can be done.
Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | Tweetthe phone seems very good in general, but Android is too much of a draw for me to get this even if it has superior hardware.
Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | Tweetgranted. perhaps 'a better theory than what came before it' might be a better description.
Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | TweetSometimes you have to go against the grain though. After all, evolution is true, and marketing it as 'this is a great way to supplement your creationism' (which Darwin actually did) may not exactly go over well or be the most honest approach.
Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | TweetTo be fair, there are 14 that are authored by multiple authors. Perhaps a few more females are hiding in there?
Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | TweetYour point is valid, translating existing games which are built on a set of assumptions (physical presence -> unique non-communicating players, physical deck + shuffling -> unique cards and true randomness) may not be translatable to an online experience in a sustainable manner.
I was refering to the general problem of not being able to trust the single point of control, which applies to all types of online gambling. In this context, I was wondering why games that can be gambled on have not appeared that work in a fully distributed manner.
Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | TweetI wonder if a provably unbiased distributed gambling application cannot be made so as to guard against the potential for such attacks.
Generating random numbers in a distributed and uncheatable way is already possible, I wonder what is holding this back.
Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | Tweetjust because I mentioned the problem does not mean I have the solution :). If I had to venture a guess, I would say it would look much more like a distributed identity/trust model than the current semi-centralized DNS solution.
Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | TweetWhatever level the nevessary action needed to be performed on, it needed the big boys (and girls) to get involved. And the chance has been lost for this round it seems.
Thinking about your solution a bit more though, and it does sound good at first, what happens when the black list starts approaching a material percentage of the total of usable domain names? are we eventually going to blaclist the entire domain-space? This is just another reason why DNS is very, very broken.
Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | TweetAside from the obvious stupidity of the 'established players', i have to say, that is one hell of a bootstraping technique.
Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | Tweetodd.. Although microsoft has been an innovative company at least during the 90's, it seems open source outplays microsoft on all five of these strategies. Would explain a lot.
Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | TweetTouche. I read that 'and' as starting a new unrelated characteristic where 'ground' was bridge level. Reading it again, you are right.
Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | Tweetmindblowing! i could easily use this to optimize the appearance of the css in my websites... excellent work.
Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | TweetThis really goes to show that the chinese can and do innovate, contrary to the preconception.
