You'd think they'd at least learn from the past and just have a couple hashes stored in the driver - check the hashes of the exe and not just the name.
If IntelCheats.exe matches the hashes, turn on the optimizations.
Update each time 3D Mark is updated - they do this anyway.
How is better performance a bad thing? Optimizing for a game is good. Optimizing for a benchmark is bullshit.
And Crysis isn't a benchmark, no matter how much people want it to be. It's buggy, it scales horribly, and it's simply crap in terms of efficiency. Add on the fact that it's not a very good game (I got bored when the ice thing happened), and I wonder why people still talk about it.
People seem to like it because it stresses a system. Just because it runs like shit doesn't mean it's a good measure of your system's capabilities. I can write a shitty 3D program that will bring the latest dual quad-core, quad-crossfire/sli system to it's knees. That doesn't mean a damned thing.
I don't know all the details of when (in relation to AMD buying out ATi) but...
ATi was notorious for cheating on the IQ benchmarks - essentially using a different anisotropic filtering method for the IQ test (the good one), and then the cheating one during the other tests.
The ridiculous part was that Nvidia was caught doing a similar thing, and the outcry (in part driven by ATi calling out Nvidia) forced Nvidia to include admit it and later driver option to select the optimization level used. When ATi was later caught doing the exact same thing, there was no outcry, there was no admission (despite proof), and there was no option in the drivers to turn off the "optimization".
I don't recall the details of why the particular optimization was considered a "cheat" and others weren't (I believe it killed off IQ to the point of ass, and it was something that would never be used in-game).
This was back around the 6800 (Nvidia) vs x800 (ATi) days.
Have YOU ever heard of Medicare? Or the VA? They're shit.
Just because they're out there doesn't mean that proponents of government-run health care should be pointing to them as shining beacons.
Veterans get shit health care, and VAs get shut down all the time because they are vastly underfunded - even though much of their funding comes from private donations.
Medicare doesn't cover all the necessary health costs someone on Medicare needs covered, not by a long shot. And in terms of true money in / health care out, it's possibly the LEAST efficient ever.
The VA and Medicare are fucking paragons of "just getting by" and "passing the buck to the next generation". Even when it "works" many vets simply have no access to care and Granny is stretching her prescription to cover 2 months instead of 1.
I'm not saying that the government can/can't run health care. I'm not saying the government should/shouldn't run health care.
I'm saying that the proponents love to point to those examples, but those examples are such bullshit. They should be an argument for the opponents, not the proponents. But the opponents of health care reform won't dare raise a voice against the VA or Medicare because they get most of their support from older people. Older people will be confused by any critique of the government's handling of the VA and Medicare, and will perceive it as an attack against the systems they depend on.
Thus, the opponents can't point out the bullshit in the proponents' argument "look we already has it - if you didn't like it why do you support it here?".
I, not giving a shit, am free to point out the bullshit no matter where it comes from.
Is A true? If A is not true, why not? What specific problems are there relating to B? How could C mitigate those problems?
Yes, A is true.
vs.
No, A is not true, blahblahblahblah repeat everything you said because that's what you want to hear blahblahblahblah even though you're wrong and A is actually true.
"If your employees every day click on "Ignore self-signed cert" button, then they'll click on it the time when they connect to some random open access point that's set up to generate self-signed certs for any SSL website."
With a self-signed cert, you just add it to the exceptions once. Employees don't get trained in bad behavior.
With your own CA authority, you do the same thing.
The ONLY difference is that it's once per authority vs once per certificate. A small company will only need a couple certificates. A large company will just buy a glob of certificates from verisign and be done with it.
Being your own CA doesn't protect you from any attacks, as users themselves should never be making the exceptions - per certificate or per authority.
With a CA you set up, someone has to trust it explicitly by adding it as an exception, just as you have to do with individual certificates in your fud example.
ALL certificates are like this - modern OSs simply include and maintain a list of certificate authorities to trust.
Adding &fmt=8 gives you the raw version as uploaded to Youtube.
Useful for when the damned server just isn't loading your video all the way - you can force your way through to a different server (since the original isn't propagated to all their distribution servers).
I think the idea of a public revocation database has merit. How would I make sure that my connection to the database has not been tainted? How could this database as a business entity be designed in a way that's less vulnerable to social engineering attacks than the current system?
Does the idea of a public revocation database have merit? How would you make sure that your connection to the database has not been tainted? How could this database as a business entity be designed in a way that's less vulnerable to social engineering attacks than the current system?
You don't trust random people. Good. You don't trust GoDaddy. Good. You don't trust Verisign. Okay. You don't trust anybody. Uh...
Yet you propose trusting a random network of "A friend of a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend knows the guy who made this site."? Idiot.
SSL isn't there to guarantee the identity of the person you're talking to, nor their trustworthiness. SSL is there to make sure only they can see your shit. SSL also tries to answer "Who are they?", but as you mentioned, this information is unreliable. But it's still more secure than just about all dealings you do face-to-face.
If you want real security you get your ass a dog and have him stare down and sniff out, in person (dog), anyone you're about to do business with.
I would have gone with Dale Gribble's "scrumdiddlyGARlicicious".
(They were fishing with garlic flavored bait, he caught a fish and held it up, moving it's mouth while he said, to taunt Hank. Hank insisted on using earthworms for bait, and was failing.)
Slashdot Mirror
You'd think they'd at least learn from the past and just have a couple hashes stored in the driver - check the hashes of the exe and not just the name.
If IntelCheats.exe matches the hashes, turn on the optimizations.
Update each time 3D Mark is updated - they do this anyway.
How is better performance a bad thing?
Optimizing for a game is good.
Optimizing for a benchmark is bullshit.
And Crysis isn't a benchmark, no matter how much people want it to be.
It's buggy, it scales horribly, and it's simply crap in terms of efficiency.
Add on the fact that it's not a very good game (I got bored when the ice thing happened), and I wonder why people still talk about it.
People seem to like it because it stresses a system. Just because it runs like shit doesn't mean it's a good measure of your system's capabilities.
I can write a shitty 3D program that will bring the latest dual quad-core, quad-crossfire/sli system to it's knees. That doesn't mean a damned thing.
I don't know all the details of when (in relation to AMD buying out ATi) but...
ATi was notorious for cheating on the IQ benchmarks - essentially using a different anisotropic filtering method for the IQ test (the good one), and then the cheating one during the other tests.
The ridiculous part was that Nvidia was caught doing a similar thing, and the outcry (in part driven by ATi calling out Nvidia) forced Nvidia to include admit it and later driver option to select the optimization level used. When ATi was later caught doing the exact same thing, there was no outcry, there was no admission (despite proof), and there was no option in the drivers to turn off the "optimization".
I don't recall the details of why the particular optimization was considered a "cheat" and others weren't (I believe it killed off IQ to the point of ass, and it was something that would never be used in-game).
This was back around the 6800 (Nvidia) vs x800 (ATi) days.
Uh, group policy makes it a one time, all users, users-never-sees-it, deal.
Have YOU ever heard of Medicare? Or the VA?
They're shit.
Just because they're out there doesn't mean that proponents of government-run health care should be pointing to them as shining beacons.
Veterans get shit health care, and VAs get shut down all the time because they are vastly underfunded - even though much of their funding comes from private donations.
Medicare doesn't cover all the necessary health costs someone on Medicare needs covered, not by a long shot. And in terms of true money in / health care out, it's possibly the LEAST efficient ever.
The VA and Medicare are fucking paragons of "just getting by" and "passing the buck to the next generation". Even when it "works" many vets simply have no access to care and Granny is stretching her prescription to cover 2 months instead of 1.
I'm not saying that the government can/can't run health care.
I'm not saying the government should/shouldn't run health care.
I'm saying that the proponents love to point to those examples, but those examples are such bullshit. They should be an argument for the opponents, not the proponents.
But the opponents of health care reform won't dare raise a voice against the VA or Medicare because they get most of their support from older people. Older people will be confused by any critique of the government's handling of the VA and Medicare, and will perceive it as an attack against the systems they depend on.
Thus, the opponents can't point out the bullshit in the proponents' argument "look we already has it - if you didn't like it why do you support it here?".
I, not giving a shit, am free to point out the bullshit no matter where it comes from.
they did eventually return the money, minus a fine.
YOU HAVE PAID TOO MUCH MONEY.
YOU ARE NOW ASSESSED A $500 FINE.
Alternatively:
Pay too much money?
That's a paddlin'.
You collect unemployment.
You have unreported earnings.
If you get caught, you're fucked.
Your best course of action would have been to post as AC.
Oh well, might as well turn yourself in now.
And nothing of value was lost.
Yeah, I always hated those questions.
Is A true?
If A is not true, why not? What specific problems are there relating to B? How could C mitigate those problems?
Yes, A is true.
vs.
No, A is not true, blahblahblahblah repeat everything you said because that's what you want to hear blahblahblahblah even though you're wrong and A is actually true.
"If your employees every day click on "Ignore self-signed cert" button, then they'll click on it the time when they connect to some random open access point that's set up to generate self-signed certs for any SSL website."
With a self-signed cert, you just add it to the exceptions once. Employees don't get trained in bad behavior.
With your own CA authority, you do the same thing.
The ONLY difference is that it's once per authority vs once per certificate. A small company will only need a couple certificates.
A large company will just buy a glob of certificates from verisign and be done with it.
Being your own CA doesn't protect you from any attacks, as users themselves should never be making the exceptions - per certificate or per authority.
With a CA you set up, someone has to trust it explicitly by adding it as an exception, just as you have to do with individual certificates in your fud example.
ALL certificates are like this - modern OSs simply include and maintain a list of certificate authorities to trust.
Yeah, I was all "WTF IS THIS SHIT" when I had to set up wireless on a Vista install the first time.
Have to enable the connection, set your network mode to semi-private or some other bullshit, then actually configure the wireless.
Retarded.
Dude.
DUDE.
Get a team of squirrels, and dress them up in SGC uniforms, and create your own episodes.
None of this Atlantis shit.
No fucking Universe crap.
Original SG-1 squirrel reenactment GO!
http://www.sugarbushsquirrel.com/642346.html
Uh....
This is the telco industry you're talking about.
If a lot of people sit at 225 GB (out of 250 GB), they simply drop the cap to 200 GB.
For some reason that sentence reminded me of the issue where Robin left the Bat Cave (both actually and metaphorically) to become Nightwing.
Adding &fmt=8 gives you the raw version as uploaded to Youtube.
Useful for when the damned server just isn't loading your video all the way - you can force your way through to a different server (since the original isn't propagated to all their distribution servers).
Unfortunately, project director Robinson ignored all the warnings. Had the company been named "Danger Danger", ol' Will would have paid attention.
You must be the GoTo Guy at your office.
Something went wrong? Blame AC.
I don't know about you, but I keep all my keys in a safe.
When I go out, I open up the safe (which has it's own key), and then take only the keys I'll need for my outing.
I keep them loose, in my various pockets.
When I return, I return the keys.
One time I locked the key to the safe inside the safe itself.
What a day that was.
There is no distribution.
My PC is not helping your browser render the shitty css and run the shitty javascript.
Work to render this page: W.
Work to render this page for N users: NW.
Nothing's wrong with table layouts if it works for what you need.
It's a billion times faster than CSS.
For slashdot (at least in the nested view I use) table layouts would work, but be ugly.
What certainly doesn't work is the CSS/javascript/whatever that lets people tag a story. Simply. Can. Not. Tag. Stories.
That's like saying the correct term is "cylinder" when you're actually talking about a thing.
You actually mean the Universe (capital U), and how it applies itself.
(XKCD comic is wrong - math is a (counting) model of the physical (quantum) Universe.)
FOOL!
You've just done Magic5Ball's homework.
I think the idea of a public revocation database has merit. How would I make sure that my connection to the database has not been tainted? How could this database as a business entity be designed in a way that's less vulnerable to social engineering attacks than the current system?
Does the idea of a public revocation database have merit? How would you make sure that your connection to the database has not been tainted? How could this database as a business entity be designed in a way that's less vulnerable to social engineering attacks than the current system?
You don't trust random people. Good.
You don't trust GoDaddy. Good.
You don't trust Verisign. Okay.
You don't trust anybody. Uh...
Yet you propose trusting a random network of "A friend of a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend knows the guy who made this site."? Idiot.
SSL isn't there to guarantee the identity of the person you're talking to, nor their trustworthiness. SSL is there to make sure only they can see your shit. SSL also tries to answer "Who are they?", but as you mentioned, this information is unreliable. But it's still more secure than just about all dealings you do face-to-face.
If you want real security you get your ass a dog and have him stare down and sniff out, in person (dog), anyone you're about to do business with.
Uh, simply add that self-signed cert once.
Someone in IT will do it.
If people want to access email from home, tell them to remote into their machine at work.
Setting up your own CA doesn't fix the problems you mentioned (random access point fud).
I would have gone with Dale Gribble's "scrumdiddlyGARlicicious".
(They were fishing with garlic flavored bait, he caught a fish and held it up, moving it's mouth while he said, to taunt Hank. Hank insisted on using earthworms for bait, and was failing.)