Actually IE9 is very HTML 5 compliant where the standards have stabilized. Many of the HTML 5 tests check for features that are still being decided on, which makes IE9 look bad. But if you just look at the HTML5 features that have been ratified, then it's as good or better than other browsers.
I still use Chrome. IE has left a bad taste in my mouth.
WebGL is as bad or worse than ActiveX ever was. Should be interesting.
I've already read security blogs from reputable security professionals about how WebGL is flawed from the ground up and can allow for kernel level security issues. ActiveX at least ran as the current user, not kernel.
I really think MS could get away with no implementing it.
Not all video drivers properly support OpenCL. DirectCompute is 100% supported on all DX10+ video cards, so AMP will work on all modern graphics cards, not just some.
Also, you can use one OpenCL driver at a time, one for a CPU, one for a GPU, one for a fusion.. etc..
AMP can distribute the same task over ALL devices at the same time. Bit of a difference.
The Windows API is actually all C. All the managed stuff is just an easier to use wrapper.
Managed C++ doesn't even have working syntax highlighting in VS2010 because almost no one uses it. It's currently on the back-burner to eventually get fixed.
The only reason gold has value if because other people value it, and the only reason other people value it is because other people value it. What started the whole thing is some people liked the "ohhhh shiny". Some people decided to collect it. It eventually became a social status to have more "shiny". Being naturally limited, it eventually became a stable way assign value.
Using a bit a logic, you quickly see why BitCoin is very similar. All you need is something that is naturally limited, hard to fake, and a way for someone to accumulate it, and other people accept it as a form of exchange. BitCoin currently meets the first three and the 4th is up in the air.
Actually, if people actually go read up on the history currency, you will find some countries didn't even value gold as it was too abundant, and some countries used shells, which you could collect on the beach, or some used large boulders.
Gold is the most popular, but isn't the only one.
The perceived value of a currency is entirely a social and psychological effect. If you can keep a currency stable and you can convince people to use it, then it is a valid form of money.
The stability grows with the amount of people using it and the diversity of services with which it can be traded.
Diamonds. Even though artificial diamonds can be cheaper and shinier than real diamonds, real diamonds carry a high price tag only because of the artificial value given. Same thing with gold.
But really, Discovery had an interesting segment on artificial diamonds many years back. They are atomically the same as real diamonds, but the only way you can distinguish real from fake is how perfect the fake ones are. I'm NOT talking about cubic zirconia, but the actual synthetic diamonds where they take carbon gas and compress it.
"first big counterfeiting scandal" Show me a way to break public key encryption and a way to generate hash keys really really fast, and I'll show you a way to "counterfeit" a bitcoin.
If you find this out, please let the entire internet know because all of our security systems will have to be overhauled.
But really people, go read up on BitCoin, it makes perfect sense. It is logically sound, but the only question is if people will accept it.
The tech community is actually helping with making BitCoin valuable.
Example. Some companies are offering their services for BitCoins, not because the currently have value. So, now you can get a web-host/vent-server/security-audit/etc.
This means BitCoin can be traded for a service, irregardless of it's USD exchange rate. So what if someone pumps up BitCoin's USD exchange rate then cashes in. It didn't influence the services you could get. At some point it may be cheaper to buy BitCoins with USD and get a service, at another point in time, it may not.
As BitCoin's user base grows, its stability grows. It may always have a fluctuating USD exchange rate, but maybe those WebHosts who allow purchasing services for BitCoin may use their BitCoins to purchase a security audit.
Much of our current economic system is based entirely on virtual items like MP3s/Video-games/CloudComputing/etc.
I'm not saying BitCoin is perfect or it will replace other money, but I have a strong feeling it will find a place in society. There's not logical reason why it can't, only a social reason. Only time will tell.
Cash has no inherent value, just ask someone who lived through the great depression.
Gold has no inherent value either. Gold only has value because it is hard to come by which makes it a great object to use for currency as it's hard to "duplicate".
BitCoin is the same. A currency is only as useful as it's ability to not be duplicated. It's much harder to create a bit coin than it is for the government to print off more money and deflate the USD.
The problem that occurred is someone artificially increased the exchange rate of bitcoin by creating artificial demand. A newly create currency is going to be volatile for a while before it stabilizes.
As bitcoin gains more monetary value, a single person's influence will drop. After a while, a single person won't be able to make a noticeable difference.
It's a great idea, but the question is if it will take off. It's been doing quite well so far.
"What you're saying is that, without government subsidies, WiscNet wouldn't be able to compete with AT&T"
Ummm, no. Even without government subsidies, they're still cheaper and faster. All the subsidies are used for is to help connect rural libraries/etc that can't afford it. If these libraries/schools/etc can't afford WiscNet prices, there's no way they're going to afford the 2x-3x greater AT&T costs.
All this means is more people get a worse education and all of society pays for it.
To be Anti-WiscNet also means to be anti-education and anti-research.
Actually CDMA is extremely resilient to narrow band noise, much more so than TDMA/FDMA. CDMA was actually created by the military to get around jamming devices.
DOCSIS 2/3 can make use of the 20mhz band only when using CDMA. Because there is so much noise TDMA can't get any signal, yet CDMA works just fine.
Also,because of CDMA's resilience to noise, CDMA mode supports 128QAM on the upstream, while TDMA mode only supports 64QAM upstream.
Speaking about noise, look at cell phones. A GSM(TDMA) tower outputs about 100watts and has a hard range limit of about 35km. GSM phone supports ~400 channels with ~3 TDMA'd devices per channel. GSM has a max of about 1200 users per tower and towers have to be strategically places to avoid overlapping frequencies. The phones have a max output of 1.5watts.
CDMA towers output ~15watts, have a practical range of about 75km+(but no hard cap), and have only one channel shared by all towers and devices. The hard cap on a CDMA tower is about 1trillion users, but because of the processing overhead and limitations of signal quality it's closer to 10,000 users, but there's almost no limit on how many towers you can pack into a given area to increase signal quality. The phones have a max output of 0.2watts. CDMA towers can actually change their user limit based on signal quality. If you have clear weather, the tower may allow 12k users, but it starts to rain, it may drop down to 9k.. etc Those number were pulled out of my... well, you know, but for example. Given a clear enough signal and enough processing power, you could have a single tower handling everyone in the world, but I wouldn't want to be anywhere near it.
In the case of cell towers, CDMA uses ~1/6th the power, has double the range, supports about 5 times the devices, uses 1 channel instead of 400, and is more resilient to noise; compared to TDMA.
CDMA is that good. It just costs a lot more money and uses a lot more processing power.
Best quote I found about CDMA is "[...]not directly subject to the laws of Information Theory". TDMA unfortunately is.
CDMA mode for DOCSIS 3.0 actually allows channel bonding within the virtual channels of CDMA. eg each physical 6mhz channel has 128 CDMA channels. You can bond 4 of those virtual channels together for ~160mbit. It works better to bond over different physical channels though as a given channel could get sudden noise that interferes.
Actually, a single 6mhz channel can give about 4.75gbit of bandwidth if they're using CDMA. Each 6mhz physical channel has 128 virtual channels, each capable of 30mbit(64QAM)/38mbit(256QAM).
I wonder how much it would cost to switch the channels from FDMA to a FDMA+CDMA system. That would allow a ton more bandwidth, but would probably cost a crap ton to implement.
DOCSIS 2/3 both can use CDMA and it adds a lot more bandwidth, which allows many many more customers.
Just because you don't care for his example doesn't mean his idea is invalid.
What about a customer posting a negative review about a doctor who botched their surgery and now they're blind for life(or some other horrible result)? Libel?
What he meant is the government will defensively protect your rights, but not offensively.
The government will protect your rights, so long as they don't step on other people's rights. You may have a right to call me a cunt, but you don't have a right to not be fired for it and you don't have a right to be at my work place, so I can have you removed for imposing on my right to remove anyone who is neither a customer nor a worker.
Rights stop being rights once they impose on someone else's rights. eg You have a right to property, but you may not take someone else's property to gain it.
Well, being that Win7 has been the best selling OS ever and has been averaging 297,600 copies sold per day for the past 2 years, I would say they haven't been hurt much.
46% of businesses polled in the past few months are planning on upgrading to Win7 in the next year and 88% say "eventually". Sales should go up really soon.
BTW, MSFT has nothing to fear from AAPL in the enterprise because AAPL is one of the worst platforms to manage. I would sooner manage Linux than Apple in a large enterprise. And since people work with MS at work, that's what they use at home. As more companies switch to Win7 at work, more people at home will switch also as they won't want to use one OS at work and one at home.
From a gamers perspective, DirectX 11 is awesome and several big titles are coming out soon. If you want the fastest and best graphics, you will use Win7.
I read one person's blog a few weeks back about how he had BTRFS set on attempting to fix something, but not sure what. It was reading the HD at full speed for over a day. It was effectively stuck in a loop. It was eating up all of his IO and also a large portion of his CPU, and a modern 8 core server with several gigs of ram. Also, because the FS was stuck trying to fix the data, the computer refused to shutdown as the FS would not release.
He had to do a forceful shutdown and that messed up his FS even more. He said the HD was left in a corrupted state and no tools would fix it.Luckily this was a test machine and he had a full back-up of the data. He reformatted and put EXT on and it worked fine.
My college education taught me how to learn better. I learned a lot of critical thinking, organization, and problem solving.
Nearly all of my teachers emphasized thinking outside the box by presenting a problem, showing you some tools and theory, having you solve it, then showing you how to "correctly" do it. Then we compare and contrast how some people solved the problem and what was good and bad and why.
Most of my classes were project based and graded on originality and teamwork. I had a lot of tests that were open book and open internet, just not open neighbor.
IPv6 will be more scalable because the routing tables are more efficient. Current IPv6 routing practice makes use of the huge address space and uses that to better organize the tables to be smaller. IPv4 routing tables have mushroomed over the past few years because of subnet fragmentation caused by lack of address space.
"Carrier grade NAT" HA. All professions see this as a no-go. As it is right now, your ISP logs who gets what IP address. On average, an IP for a given broadband device probably changes once per week. I've had the same one for the past few months now because I haven't reset my modem. Here comes the fun part. Your ISP logs this info not only for maintenance, but legal reasons. If they rolled out "Carrier grade NAT", they would have to log EVERY connection in real time.
Can you imagine going from 1 log entry per user per week to possibly hundreds per second per user, and sometimes thousands? Gigabyte log files where kilobytes use to work. Professional talks about CGN for broadband essentially stated it's prohibitively expensive and massively complicated from both a technical and legal view. It already takes ISPs hours to days to respond to police about IP addresses.
Sorry, your Skype/xBox/PS3/PC-game doesn't work anymore. Class action lawsuit waiting to happen. Before you say "all that stuff already works through NAT".. NO IT DOESN'T. They use uPNP to forward ports. CGN would not allow that. Several big name anti-cheat and DRM software makes use of uPNP, and if uPNP doesn't work, you have to manually setup port-fowarding. Many games make use of P2P for a slew of reasons, but hide the port-fowarding setup via uPNP.
Many places still block traffic based on IP address. An entire city could easily get blocked from nearly any service.
We're approaching 3 billion users and there's only 4.3bil addresses total, not including inefficiencies from smaller subnets or reserved ranges. I would say there's very few un-used addresses.
"If the unused addresses were to be put back into the pool it would give us most likely" Few months. This has been discusses many times, even by the president of ARIN.
"The hogs want to sit on them and then sell them for a fat profit" You can't sell them, you can only return them.
" I'd said a good 85%+ of the routers being sold this very minute are IPV4 only" Sadly, yes.. for residential anyway. Nearly any new commercial grade products are IPv6. It's actually hard to find IPv4 only switches/routers for anything you would use at a job/ISP/etc.
The real clusterfuck is what's happening to the IPv4 routing tables from subnet fragmentation.
Slashdot Mirror
I hope they just keep it to a wikileak+smear campaign and not actually leak info that can get people killed.
But if this goes through, Blizzard would be next as it would give the trolls a prior case.
Actually IE9 is very HTML 5 compliant where the standards have stabilized. Many of the HTML 5 tests check for features that are still being decided on, which makes IE9 look bad. But if you just look at the HTML5 features that have been ratified, then it's as good or better than other browsers.
I still use Chrome. IE has left a bad taste in my mouth.
WebGL is as bad or worse than ActiveX ever was. Should be interesting.
I've already read security blogs from reputable security professionals about how WebGL is flawed from the ground up and can allow for kernel level security issues. ActiveX at least ran as the current user, not kernel.
I really think MS could get away with no implementing it.
Not all video drivers properly support OpenCL. DirectCompute is 100% supported on all DX10+ video cards, so AMP will work on all modern graphics cards, not just some.
Also, you can use one OpenCL driver at a time, one for a CPU, one for a GPU, one for a fusion.. etc..
AMP can distribute the same task over ALL devices at the same time. Bit of a difference.
The Windows API is actually all C. All the managed stuff is just an easier to use wrapper.
Managed C++ doesn't even have working syntax highlighting in VS2010 because almost no one uses it. It's currently on the back-burner to eventually get fixed.
The value of gold is circular reasoning.
The only reason gold has value if because other people value it, and the only reason other people value it is because other people value it. What started the whole thing is some people liked the "ohhhh shiny". Some people decided to collect it. It eventually became a social status to have more "shiny". Being naturally limited, it eventually became a stable way assign value.
Using a bit a logic, you quickly see why BitCoin is very similar. All you need is something that is naturally limited, hard to fake, and a way for someone to accumulate it, and other people accept it as a form of exchange. BitCoin currently meets the first three and the 4th is up in the air.
Actually, if people actually go read up on the history currency, you will find some countries didn't even value gold as it was too abundant, and some countries used shells, which you could collect on the beach, or some used large boulders.
Gold is the most popular, but isn't the only one.
The perceived value of a currency is entirely a social and psychological effect. If you can keep a currency stable and you can convince people to use it, then it is a valid form of money.
The stability grows with the amount of people using it and the diversity of services with which it can be traded.
Better example.
Diamonds. Even though artificial diamonds can be cheaper and shinier than real diamonds, real diamonds carry a high price tag only because of the artificial value given. Same thing with gold.
But really, Discovery had an interesting segment on artificial diamonds many years back. They are atomically the same as real diamonds, but the only way you can distinguish real from fake is how perfect the fake ones are. I'm NOT talking about cubic zirconia, but the actual synthetic diamonds where they take carbon gas and compress it.
"first big counterfeiting scandal" Show me a way to break public key encryption and a way to generate hash keys really really fast, and I'll show you a way to "counterfeit" a bitcoin.
If you find this out, please let the entire internet know because all of our security systems will have to be overhauled.
But really people, go read up on BitCoin, it makes perfect sense. It is logically sound, but the only question is if people will accept it.
The tech community is actually helping with making BitCoin valuable.
Example. Some companies are offering their services for BitCoins, not because the currently have value. So, now you can get a web-host/vent-server/security-audit/etc.
This means BitCoin can be traded for a service, irregardless of it's USD exchange rate. So what if someone pumps up BitCoin's USD exchange rate then cashes in. It didn't influence the services you could get. At some point it may be cheaper to buy BitCoins with USD and get a service, at another point in time, it may not.
As BitCoin's user base grows, its stability grows. It may always have a fluctuating USD exchange rate, but maybe those WebHosts who allow purchasing services for BitCoin may use their BitCoins to purchase a security audit.
Much of our current economic system is based entirely on virtual items like MP3s/Video-games/CloudComputing/etc.
I'm not saying BitCoin is perfect or it will replace other money, but I have a strong feeling it will find a place in society. There's not logical reason why it can't, only a social reason. Only time will tell.
BitCoin isn't a scam, it's a currency.
A currency has only as much value as it's ability to trade for services. We could all go back to the barter system, but that system sucks.
By your logic, getting paid in money from your employer is a scam because cash reduces value over time. Why doesn't you employer just pay in gold?
You can't just "print" off money with BitCoin.
Cash has no inherent value, just ask someone who lived through the great depression.
Gold has no inherent value either. Gold only has value because it is hard to come by which makes it a great object to use for currency as it's hard to "duplicate".
BitCoin is the same. A currency is only as useful as it's ability to not be duplicated. It's much harder to create a bit coin than it is for the government to print off more money and deflate the USD.
The problem that occurred is someone artificially increased the exchange rate of bitcoin by creating artificial demand. A newly create currency is going to be volatile for a while before it stabilizes.
As bitcoin gains more monetary value, a single person's influence will drop. After a while, a single person won't be able to make a noticeable difference.
It's a great idea, but the question is if it will take off. It's been doing quite well so far.
"What you're saying is that, without government subsidies, WiscNet wouldn't be able to compete with AT&T"
Ummm, no. Even without government subsidies, they're still cheaper and faster. All the subsidies are used for is to help connect rural libraries/etc that can't afford it. If these libraries/schools/etc can't afford WiscNet prices, there's no way they're going to afford the 2x-3x greater AT&T costs.
All this means is more people get a worse education and all of society pays for it.
To be Anti-WiscNet also means to be anti-education and anti-research.
Actually CDMA is extremely resilient to narrow band noise, much more so than TDMA/FDMA. CDMA was actually created by the military to get around jamming devices.
DOCSIS 2/3 can make use of the 20mhz band only when using CDMA. Because there is so much noise TDMA can't get any signal, yet CDMA works just fine.
Also,because of CDMA's resilience to noise, CDMA mode supports 128QAM on the upstream, while TDMA mode only supports 64QAM upstream.
Speaking about noise, look at cell phones. A GSM(TDMA) tower outputs about 100watts and has a hard range limit of about 35km. GSM phone supports ~400 channels with ~3 TDMA'd devices per channel. GSM has a max of about 1200 users per tower and towers have to be strategically places to avoid overlapping frequencies. The phones have a max output of 1.5watts.
CDMA towers output ~15watts, have a practical range of about 75km+(but no hard cap), and have only one channel shared by all towers and devices. The hard cap on a CDMA tower is about 1trillion users, but because of the processing overhead and limitations of signal quality it's closer to 10,000 users, but there's almost no limit on how many towers you can pack into a given area to increase signal quality. The phones have a max output of 0.2watts. CDMA towers can actually change their user limit based on signal quality. If you have clear weather, the tower may allow 12k users, but it starts to rain, it may drop down to 9k.. etc Those number were pulled out of my... well, you know, but for example. Given a clear enough signal and enough processing power, you could have a single tower handling everyone in the world, but I wouldn't want to be anywhere near it.
In the case of cell towers, CDMA uses ~1/6th the power, has double the range, supports about 5 times the devices, uses 1 channel instead of 400, and is more resilient to noise; compared to TDMA.
CDMA is that good. It just costs a lot more money and uses a lot more processing power.
Best quote I found about CDMA is "[...]not directly subject to the laws of Information Theory". TDMA unfortunately is.
CDMA mode for DOCSIS 3.0 actually allows channel bonding within the virtual channels of CDMA. eg each physical 6mhz channel has 128 CDMA channels. You can bond 4 of those virtual channels together for ~160mbit. It works better to bond over different physical channels though as a given channel could get sudden noise that interferes.
Actually, a single 6mhz channel can give about 4.75gbit of bandwidth if they're using CDMA. Each 6mhz physical channel has 128 virtual channels, each capable of 30mbit(64QAM)/38mbit(256QAM).
I wonder how much it would cost to switch the channels from FDMA to a FDMA+CDMA system. That would allow a ton more bandwidth, but would probably cost a crap ton to implement.
DOCSIS 2/3 both can use CDMA and it adds a lot more bandwidth, which allows many many more customers.
I bet your open source software runs on a "closed source" CPU.
Just because you don't care for his example doesn't mean his idea is invalid.
What about a customer posting a negative review about a doctor who botched their surgery and now they're blind for life(or some other horrible result)? Libel?
What he meant is the government will defensively protect your rights, but not offensively.
The government will protect your rights, so long as they don't step on other people's rights. You may have a right to call me a cunt, but you don't have a right to not be fired for it and you don't have a right to be at my work place, so I can have you removed for imposing on my right to remove anyone who is neither a customer nor a worker.
Rights stop being rights once they impose on someone else's rights. eg You have a right to property, but you may not take someone else's property to gain it.
Well, being that Win7 has been the best selling OS ever and has been averaging 297,600 copies sold per day for the past 2 years, I would say they haven't been hurt much.
46% of businesses polled in the past few months are planning on upgrading to Win7 in the next year and 88% say "eventually". Sales should go up really soon.
BTW, MSFT has nothing to fear from AAPL in the enterprise because AAPL is one of the worst platforms to manage. I would sooner manage Linux than Apple in a large enterprise. And since people work with MS at work, that's what they use at home. As more companies switch to Win7 at work, more people at home will switch also as they won't want to use one OS at work and one at home.
From a gamers perspective, DirectX 11 is awesome and several big titles are coming out soon. If you want the fastest and best graphics, you will use Win7.
I read one person's blog a few weeks back about how he had BTRFS set on attempting to fix something, but not sure what. It was reading the HD at full speed for over a day. It was effectively stuck in a loop. It was eating up all of his IO and also a large portion of his CPU, and a modern 8 core server with several gigs of ram. Also, because the FS was stuck trying to fix the data, the computer refused to shutdown as the FS would not release.
He had to do a forceful shutdown and that messed up his FS even more. He said the HD was left in a corrupted state and no tools would fix it.Luckily this was a test machine and he had a full back-up of the data. He reformatted and put EXT on and it worked fine.
BTRFS does not sound ready.
My college education taught me how to learn better. I learned a lot of critical thinking, organization, and problem solving.
Nearly all of my teachers emphasized thinking outside the box by presenting a problem, showing you some tools and theory, having you solve it, then showing you how to "correctly" do it. Then we compare and contrast how some people solved the problem and what was good and bad and why.
Most of my classes were project based and graded on originality and teamwork. I had a lot of tests that were open book and open internet, just not open neighbor.
In the end, I was taught how to teach myself.
The average American spends decades paying off a mortgage for $100k house, they're not going to purchase a $100k plane.
I saw this post as a +1 Funny. I see other's are trying to tear it apart.
Just look at the punch line: "The terrorists have just won by another order of magnitude."
IPv6 will be more scalable because the routing tables are more efficient. Current IPv6 routing practice makes use of the huge address space and uses that to better organize the tables to be smaller. IPv4 routing tables have mushroomed over the past few years because of subnet fragmentation caused by lack of address space.
"Carrier grade NAT" HA. All professions see this as a no-go. As it is right now, your ISP logs who gets what IP address. On average, an IP for a given broadband device probably changes once per week. I've had the same one for the past few months now because I haven't reset my modem. Here comes the fun part. Your ISP logs this info not only for maintenance, but legal reasons. If they rolled out "Carrier grade NAT", they would have to log EVERY connection in real time.
Can you imagine going from 1 log entry per user per week to possibly hundreds per second per user, and sometimes thousands? Gigabyte log files where kilobytes use to work. Professional talks about CGN for broadband essentially stated it's prohibitively expensive and massively complicated from both a technical and legal view. It already takes ISPs hours to days to respond to police about IP addresses.
Sorry, your Skype/xBox/PS3/PC-game doesn't work anymore. Class action lawsuit waiting to happen. Before you say "all that stuff already works through NAT".. NO IT DOESN'T. They use uPNP to forward ports. CGN would not allow that. Several big name anti-cheat and DRM software makes use of uPNP, and if uPNP doesn't work, you have to manually setup port-fowarding. Many games make use of P2P for a slew of reasons, but hide the port-fowarding setup via uPNP.
Many places still block traffic based on IP address. An entire city could easily get blocked from nearly any service.
"less than 30% of IPV4 was being utilized"
We're approaching 3 billion users and there's only 4.3bil addresses total, not including inefficiencies from smaller subnets or reserved ranges. I would say there's very few un-used addresses.
"If the unused addresses were to be put back into the pool it would give us most likely" Few months. This has been discusses many times, even by the president of ARIN.
"The hogs want to sit on them and then sell them for a fat profit" You can't sell them, you can only return them.
" I'd said a good 85%+ of the routers being sold this very minute are IPV4 only" Sadly, yes.. for residential anyway. Nearly any new commercial grade products are IPv6. It's actually hard to find IPv4 only switches/routers for anything you would use at a job/ISP/etc.
The real clusterfuck is what's happening to the IPv4 routing tables from subnet fragmentation.