Jump to content
  • Advertisement


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7032 Excellent

About Cornstalks

  • Rank
    Indie Resources Manager

Personal Information

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The protocol is never really required. You can start with "/" and it's taken as the root of the current domain (for example, "/foobar" is <current-protocol>://<current-domain>/foobar, so here on this site it would be http://www.gamedev.net/foobar). Alternatively, you can use "//" to inherit the protocol of the current page (that is, "//foobar" is <current-protocol>://foobar, which would be http://foobar here on GameDev.net). Either way, HTTPS should be hard coded for a login POST with a password being sent. (ugh, the editor ate my post, and I don't have time to retype it)
  2. Certainly, but I'll bet lots of people have (even though they shouldn't). I think secure should be the default for this site, rather than insecure.   That's a good alternative, but given that GameDev.net already has a valid SSL/TLS cert, they might as well use it...
  3. I generally prefer HTTPS browsing. When I tried to go to https://www.gamedev.net many resources on the website failed to load. This made me question GameDev's HTTPS support. So then I decided to test the login form. To my surprise, it doesn't use HTTPS! The login form does a POST to "http://www.gamedev.net/index.php?app=core&amp;module=global&amp;section=login&amp;do=process" (not that it's NOT https). I wanted to see if I could capture my password using WireShark, and to my dismay it was incredibly easy: [attachment=24127:Screen Shot 2014-10-08 at 10.59.17 AM.png] This shows my username and password as part of the POST in clear text. I have redacted with black my password, the hex dump, and portions of the POST data that aren't immediately relevant. Guys, this is a huge security vulnerability.
  4. Cornstalks

    Our New Game: I Am Dolphin

    I am not sure what you're asking. The dolphin's fins move on their own based on your input. I'm guessing he's talking about Flipper the TV show/movie. I love the way the dolphin/fish move!
  5. Cornstalks

    Why is infinite technically not a number.

    Because using the "normal"/simple definitions of summation and integers, that summation does diverge. The natural numbers are closed over addition, and yet -1/12 is not a natural number, which breaks that closure of natural numbers. So in order to make sense of this contradiction, alternative/fancier definitions of summations and numbers must be used. Specifically, p-adic numbers, which converge for large values rather than diverge. Once you're using p-adic numbers, you're not using the natural numbers and aren't restricted to the closure of natural numbers, and so can achieve 1 + 2 + 3 + ... = -1/12.   As others have said, you can't treat infinity like a variable and do algebra with it. You can do some things (which actually involve evaluating a limit), but there are several things one might be tempted to do with infinity that would seem valid, but in reality aren't. But maybe I'm not understanding, as I can't see the contradiction/inequality in sum n where n=1..? != sum 1/(1/n) where n=1..?.
  6. Cornstalks

    Why is infinite technically not a number.

    I'm not a mathematician, but according to wikipedia and wolframalpha, ?(?1) = -1/12 Mats1 is actually kind of correct. The thing is that the sum of the natural numbers is indeed infinite. In order to get -1/12 you have to use a different concept of numbers, called p-adic numbers. For the curious, this question and answer give good a good introduction to the subject. Anyway, this is further complicated by the fact that we aren't actually talking about 1 + 2 + 3 + ... = -1/12. What we're really talking about are limits and convergence, which isn't necessarily the same (or as strict) as equality. Because it's a limit we're computing, there are more ways to show 1 + 2 + 3 + ... = -1/12 than just the zeta function. So you might say 1 + 2 + 3 + ... is infinity just as much as you might say it's -1/12.
  7. I'm guessing you're using Visual Studio. VS <2013 doesn't have initializer lists.
  8. Cornstalks

    unresolved external symbol problem

    Link to GLEW.
  9. Cornstalks

    Why is infinite technically not a number.

    Perhaps indicating some kind of overflow in the substrate of the universe, or that something akin to floating point error exists even for the humble integer when the values are extreme? Nah, it's a bug in the universe's FPU, similar to the Pentium FDIV bug. Send bug reports to your nearest church/chapel/synagogue/mosque/temple/etc.
  10. Cornstalks

    Does C++ have a squared operator?

    My question is why you think this is good cause for a macro? What benefit does this provide over: template <typename T> T pow2(const T& x) { return x * x; } // Or, if using a more "modern" C++: template <typename T> constexpr T pow2(const T& x) { return x * x; }
  11. Cornstalks

    Why is infinite technically not a number.

    One thing that hasn't been mentioned much (besides Álvaro) is which infinity you're talking about. Not all infinities are the same. For example, there's Aleph-0* and Aleph-1**. So when you say "is infinity a number" one valid response is "which infinity are you talking about?" It's also important to note that in spite of us sometimes treating infinity like a number, it doesn't match our definition of number: "an arithmetical value, expressed by a word, symbol, or figure, representing a particular quantity and used in counting and making calculations and for showing order in a series or for identification." There isn't a specific, particular quantity represented by infinity. If you just go back and look at the core definitions of number and infinity, you'll see that infinity doesn't quite match the requirements to be a number. *Aleph-0 is the number of integers (and, interestingly, there are the same number of positive integers as there are negative and positive integers). **Aleph-1 may or may not be the number of real numbers; we cannot prove nor disprove this, but it's important to note that Aleph-1 is greater than Aleph-0.
  12. Cornstalks

    So, what have I missed?

    Deja vu. I wonder if this time he'll stay gone...   Dang it, you got me curious enough to google things. Fortunately, there's still a cached page of the joestick that I found to be... life changing. I couldn't find the GPU thread...
  13. Cornstalks

    So, what have I missed?

    Ha sweet. Well, I guess it's back to business, as usual.
  14. Cornstalks

    So, what have I missed?

    I'm back from my hiatus. It's been months since I was active here, which I kinda feel bad about because I was supposed to help a lot with the new Indie Resources thing (I'm not sure what' it's status is).   For me, I'm just about to finish my undergraduate degree within the next week. I'm dating someone. I moved out of my parents' place into SLC. I'm working for IBM (Aspera) now. Besides those bigger things, the smaller things are mostly the same.   Have I missed anything here in GDnet land?
  15. Cornstalks

    Radical equation

    I'm saying what you're really doing when you square both sides is multiply both sides by themselves. So when you have the equation:   -7 = ?x   You can't just square the terms and come up with   49 = x   You have to square both sides, which is effectively multiplying each side by itself:   (-7)2 = (?x)2   Or, another way of writing this is:   49 = ?x?x   If you don't square the sides you skip a step and assume that ?x?x = ?(xx) = x, which isn't generally true.   That's what I'm arguing.
  • Advertisement

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

GameDev.net is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!