I graduated from a smaller university that isn't really known for its computer science or any technical schools.
I now work for a mobile phone game company and prior to that, I worked for Amazon. A friend of mine graduated from the same university with the same major and is now working for Lockheed Martin.
youll find your job. experience outdoes almost any college name. At the bottom line, I agree with the parent, that experience is huge. On top of that, how well you interact with people and "market yourself" to potential employers matters a lot too (the friend who works for Lockheed got his initial position there from a very impressive conversation with a recruiter at a job fair where the recruiter wasn't even really looking for anyone new).
If a packet has to get retransmitted, or held because it's not in order, it's going to be stale by the time it arrives, so you might as well ignore it.
Not entirely true. I have reverse engineered the protocol for a few games. For most of the ones I have looked at, certain packets get retransmitted or held for order. They use UDP, but write their own packet ordering and retransmission code so that they can have certain packets considered "reliable" and in order. These packets usually contain control data.
For instance, when a player spawns... If that packet is just sent using the usual UDP method without regard for whether it gets there or in what order, some clients may never receive the packet and never realize that player has respawned. Or they could receive play data for that player before they receive the spawn itself. Then you have a player running around in the game that others don't know is ready to run around yet and the game state gets desynced.
They don't use a complete TCP implementation so that the application layer protocol implementing the TCP features is more streamlined, but some data is required to get to all clients reliably, so most FPS games cannot be described as just a "spew of packets".
What about security? Could someone not create a node with their phone and basically listen in on conversations that are routed through it? Or do they segment the traffic and split it up among multiple peers so that you only get bits and pieces of any one conversation through any one node?
Their whole information gathering process is pretty shady already, but if they're routinely scanning content that they don't actually have rights to, that's much shadier. Yea, and considering that rights to content is exactly what they're arguing about...
I don't really understand. It seems fairly obvious to me that they are using their position/power/money to get what they want, but in the process they seem to be making a mockery of the very laws that they think others are breaking.
Maybe what those games need are mods to reduce the violence and make the gameplay easier to follow in order to gain spectators.
Specifically, most FPS games are very bloody and also take place on maps that are not designed for spectators to view the game. Soccer/Football, Baseball, American Football, etc all have large, open fields that allows the audience to view every active member of the game.
Just reducing the current games to open maps wouldn't be enough, though, as just that change on its own would make the game less entertaining I think. The gameplay would have to be modified to allow for the more open maps... as it stands, most FPS games don't have gameplay types that would be very interesting on an open map.
I would suspect that driving over it over and over again would wear it off. Despite it being labeled as cheap, covering every road and then maintaining it as it wears away would be a prohibitive cost. Although.... we do spend a lot on road maintenance anyway...
I was wondering if someone would mention proxies. I have seen a network proxy based hack in action. They are a very formidable weapon against anticheats. No anticheat the server admin used could detect it because the cheater was running the proxy on an entirely different system than the game itself. Not only that, but even if it did run on the same system, an anticheat would be unlikely to catch it since it wasn't modifying any of the game code or memory... just modifying game data as it went out on the network.
That said, they are usually more difficult to create than anything else. If you do any web searching, it is much easier to find anything other than a network based hack.
I'd like to see a chip on a board detect a network proxy. As far as the game is concerned, it's running as it usually does, and the server as well.
"The last thing it ever does" is better than saying "Hey everybody, Watch this!" I don't know... they might get a lot more people interested and watching if they said "Hey everybody, watch this!"
I'm not sure exactly what Gates means by he's "a very low-tech person".
I hope it just means that he doesn't use as much technology as the rest of the world and not that he doesn't understand the rest of the world's technology. Since he is the defense secretary, I would want him to at least informed about how some of it works.
Although regardless of the technology, security still needs to be adhered to -- hard copies can also be stolen given the motive and opportunity. Both of which seem to be in abundant in government/politics.
Well, Linux is getting more time regardless of whether it needs it or not.
My argument was that you said 'In this context, "failing" and "not gaining market share" are the same thing.' The parent had used the term "long time to gain market share". There is a big difference between not gaining market share and taking time to do it. Your statement modified the original to make your own seem more plausible. If there is some gain, even if slowly and over time, it is still gain from the other and that is very different than none at all.
Ah, but you modified the statement. Is Linux "not gaining market share" as you said or is it just taking a while like the parent said?
If it's just taking a while, it hasn't failed (yet) unless you define that it must gain a certain market share in a certain amount of time.
I don't know the actual stats on any of that, but my guess is that Linux is probably not losing market share... just gaining it more slowly than some want it to. It may never get a majority market share, and that could be considered a failure, but I think it's too early to say.
As the article's title says, somewhat alarmingly, "It isn't that images fade, it's that they can vanish." Doc: Great Scott. Let me see that photograph again of your brother. Just as I thought, this proves my theory, look at your brother.
Marty: His head's gone, it's like it's been erased.
Doc: Erased from existence.
Now, I think this is a completely crappy way to run a network, and I think we just need to get rid of the idea of firewalls completely (at least as a generic cureall, I'm all for retaining them for specific applications); security needs to be at the client level, not at the network-gateway level; as more and more devices become mobile, they cannot and should not ever assume that their local network is secure. What's useful about a gateway level firewall versus a client level one is that you can have one point of configuration for blanket security over the network. What happens when your client level firewall is reconfigured by malware? The gateway level firewall is then useful.
At the same time, I agree that gateway firewall isn't designed to be and shouldn't be used for a complete solution. There must be other policies in place like the client level firewall, antivirus solutions, etc.
But unfortunately, people have gotten so used to the idea of firewalls that they're attached to them, particularly because it allows for a certain amount of laziness (running old, crummy operating systems on Internet-enabled systems, not patching, etc.) while giving the perception of safety. So I suspect that all IPv6 implementations will mimic the brokenness of NAT, at least initially. I also agree that probably most networks that use a gateway level firewall (at least most that I have seen) have used it to hide less secure systems, and those systems should be secured rather than using the firewall to hide them, but this does not negate the usefulness of a gateway level firewall... people just need to use the tool for its proper purpose and stop relying on it for too much.
I disagree, though, that it should be gotten rid of in favor of purely client-level firewalls. Maybe there IS a better solution out there, but just getting rid of gateway-level firewalls for client-level ones without some sort of gateway-level protection will lead to many more problems than you will solve.
Mainly, I say that because of mobile devices... the parent made the case that mobile devices shouldn't automatically assume the network they connect to is secure. The same also works the other direction -- a network shouldn't automatically assume a mobile device connected to it is secure. The network cannot assume that a mobile device has the proper client-level firewall rules and security policy, and so a gateway-level firewall helps with that. Not that you should be allowing any random mobile device on your network, but unpredictable things can happen with all the mobile devices available today.
This flawed on so many levels. Exactly... I laugh at the thought of how they'll tax spam. Those people running bot nets would really be laughing at us then.
I've heard a number of those phone conversations -- I used to work for a company that was bought by Amazon who uses Dells.
It did seem that they needed new motherboards more often than should be usual, but they also were on the ball for replacing them.
It's pretty amazing how fast some of those engineers can disassemble a laptop, replace the motherboard, and have the entire thing back together and running again. Then again, they do it all day and probably have tests on it.
It wouldn't stop me from buying a Dell -- their support was always fast and once they had a working MB, they ran just fine. I'd just make sure I had a good warranty on what I bought.
If society wants to make laws against some kind of behavior than maybe with the implants one could cause some one to lose the ability to do the unwanted behavior by knocking the person out before they have the chance to accomplish the unwanted behavior. It sure beats allowing the person to accomplish it and than punish them with prison. Sounds like a good concept at first... no murder, no rape, etc. However, you'd be just one step away from the government controlling thought by knocking people out who were thinking things they don't want you to. For instance disagreeing with the administration... Sounds kinda Orwellian.
Exactly who else am I supposed to look out for? Hey, I like to help out my fellow man when I can....the ones here alive with me, but, what do I care for someone 500 years from now that won't give a shit or know who I was? So... what you're saying is that you really don't care what happens to anyone else unless they are around so you can get credit for it and you're admitting the parent correct.
I guess the Cylons were right about us all along;)
Depends on the encoding you use. zlib+rle isn't much slower than tightVNC's encoding. If I remember correctly, RealVNC didn't use a great encoding by default when connecting to my mac.
The biggest problem with VNC on a Mac is all the animations and eyecandy -- it slows things down. If those could be turned off or tuned down for a VNC connection, it could be pretty quick even over a slow connection.
I think most people reading/. would agree that software patents (especially one as obvious as a one-click cart) should not exist.
Even if you are siding for software patents, I think that many of Amazon's should still be reviewed.
Why do you need huge acceleration and top speed? You're using your car for transport, not racing. There's no need for a car that goes more than 70mph. There's no need for a car that burns rubber. Acceleration and burning rubber often have more to do with torque than power. Also, consider your car's top speed -- how long does it take you to get there if you floor it? It usually takes quite some time on the top end to actually reach that top speed. Do you really want a car that has a top speed of 70 on today's roads? Finally, consider how stressful it is on the engine, transmission, etc to run at your top speed for any amount of time. It's really not a good idea to run an engine at its highest speed -- you wear it faster, burn more gas than an engine designed to attain that speed at a lower rpm range, and it makes the ride much louder and more uncomfortable.
Saying there is no need for a car that can burn rubber is also misleading -- I had a car that got somewhere between 30 and 40mpg depending on how you drove it and still could burn rubber if you popped the clutch right. That part is about torque/gearing vs traction/weight of the car more than it is about how much gas it burns.
With that said, I do agree that most cars on the road can accelerate and run at higher top speeds than are necessary, but a top speed of 70 is a bit low I think.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, the thought of that happening is pretty much the only thing keeping me from putting my house in orbit.
Yea, but imagine the commute...
Where can I read about some of those nuclear technologies and what they could do for us?
Not entirely true. I have reverse engineered the protocol for a few games. For most of the ones I have looked at, certain packets get retransmitted or held for order. They use UDP, but write their own packet ordering and retransmission code so that they can have certain packets considered "reliable" and in order. These packets usually contain control data.
For instance, when a player spawns... If that packet is just sent using the usual UDP method without regard for whether it gets there or in what order, some clients may never receive the packet and never realize that player has respawned. Or they could receive play data for that player before they receive the spawn itself. Then you have a player running around in the game that others don't know is ready to run around yet and the game state gets desynced.
They don't use a complete TCP implementation so that the application layer protocol implementing the TCP features is more streamlined, but some data is required to get to all clients reliably, so most FPS games cannot be described as just a "spew of packets".
a quick search for PlaySpan turned up a few links: techcrunch.com and Yahoo Biz
What about security? Could someone not create a node with their phone and basically listen in on conversations that are routed through it? Or do they segment the traffic and split it up among multiple peers so that you only get bits and pieces of any one conversation through any one node?
I don't really understand. It seems fairly obvious to me that they are using their position/power/money to get what they want, but in the process they seem to be making a mockery of the very laws that they think others are breaking.
How do they think any of this is helping them?
Maybe what those games need are mods to reduce the violence and make the gameplay easier to follow in order to gain spectators.
Specifically, most FPS games are very bloody and also take place on maps that are not designed for spectators to view the game. Soccer/Football, Baseball, American Football, etc all have large, open fields that allows the audience to view every active member of the game.
Just reducing the current games to open maps wouldn't be enough, though, as just that change on its own would make the game less entertaining I think. The gameplay would have to be modified to allow for the more open maps... as it stands, most FPS games don't have gameplay types that would be very interesting on an open map.
Well, that explains all the gambling and sex ;)
I would suspect that driving over it over and over again would wear it off. Despite it being labeled as cheap, covering every road and then maintaining it as it wears away would be a prohibitive cost.
Although.... we do spend a lot on road maintenance anyway...
I was wondering if someone would mention proxies. I have seen a network proxy based hack in action. They are a very formidable weapon against anticheats. No anticheat the server admin used could detect it because the cheater was running the proxy on an entirely different system than the game itself. Not only that, but even if it did run on the same system, an anticheat would be unlikely to catch it since it wasn't modifying any of the game code or memory... just modifying game data as it went out on the network. That said, they are usually more difficult to create than anything else. If you do any web searching, it is much easier to find anything other than a network based hack. I'd like to see a chip on a board detect a network proxy. As far as the game is concerned, it's running as it usually does, and the server as well.
I'm not sure exactly what Gates means by he's "a very low-tech person".
I hope it just means that he doesn't use as much technology as the rest of the world and not that he doesn't understand the rest of the world's technology. Since he is the defense secretary, I would want him to at least informed about how some of it works.
Although regardless of the technology, security still needs to be adhered to -- hard copies can also be stolen given the motive and opportunity. Both of which seem to be in abundant in government/politics.
Well, Linux is getting more time regardless of whether it needs it or not.
My argument was that you said 'In this context, "failing" and "not gaining market share" are the same thing.' The parent had used the term "long time to gain market share". There is a big difference between not gaining market share and taking time to do it. Your statement modified the original to make your own seem more plausible. If there is some gain, even if slowly and over time, it is still gain from the other and that is very different than none at all.
Ah, but you modified the statement. Is Linux "not gaining market share" as you said or is it just taking a while like the parent said?
If it's just taking a while, it hasn't failed (yet) unless you define that it must gain a certain market share in a certain amount of time.
I don't know the actual stats on any of that, but my guess is that Linux is probably not losing market share... just gaining it more slowly than some want it to. It may never get a majority market share, and that could be considered a failure, but I think it's too early to say.
Marty: His head's gone, it's like it's been erased.
Doc: Erased from existence.
I couldn't resist
At the same time, I agree that gateway firewall isn't designed to be and shouldn't be used for a complete solution. There must be other policies in place like the client level firewall, antivirus solutions, etc. But unfortunately, people have gotten so used to the idea of firewalls that they're attached to them, particularly because it allows for a certain amount of laziness (running old, crummy operating systems on Internet-enabled systems, not patching, etc.) while giving the perception of safety. So I suspect that all IPv6 implementations will mimic the brokenness of NAT, at least initially. I also agree that probably most networks that use a gateway level firewall (at least most that I have seen) have used it to hide less secure systems, and those systems should be secured rather than using the firewall to hide them, but this does not negate the usefulness of a gateway level firewall... people just need to use the tool for its proper purpose and stop relying on it for too much.
I disagree, though, that it should be gotten rid of in favor of purely client-level firewalls. Maybe there IS a better solution out there, but just getting rid of gateway-level firewalls for client-level ones without some sort of gateway-level protection will lead to many more problems than you will solve.
Mainly, I say that because of mobile devices... the parent made the case that mobile devices shouldn't automatically assume the network they connect to is secure. The same also works the other direction -- a network shouldn't automatically assume a mobile device connected to it is secure. The network cannot assume that a mobile device has the proper client-level firewall rules and security policy, and so a gateway-level firewall helps with that. Not that you should be allowing any random mobile device on your network, but unpredictable things can happen with all the mobile devices available today.
I've heard a number of those phone conversations -- I used to work for a company that was bought by Amazon who uses Dells. It did seem that they needed new motherboards more often than should be usual, but they also were on the ball for replacing them. It's pretty amazing how fast some of those engineers can disassemble a laptop, replace the motherboard, and have the entire thing back together and running again. Then again, they do it all day and probably have tests on it. It wouldn't stop me from buying a Dell -- their support was always fast and once they had a working MB, they ran just fine. I'd just make sure I had a good warranty on what I bought.
Aww, come on, no implants!? I was looking forward to being assimilated.
Depends on the encoding you use. zlib+rle isn't much slower than tightVNC's encoding. If I remember correctly, RealVNC didn't use a great encoding by default when connecting to my mac. The biggest problem with VNC on a Mac is all the animations and eyecandy -- it slows things down. If those could be turned off or tuned down for a VNC connection, it could be pretty quick even over a slow connection.
I think most people reading /. would agree that software patents (especially one as obvious as a one-click cart) should not exist.
Even if you are siding for software patents, I think that many of Amazon's should still be reviewed.