That's not true. Americans can be just as rude as anyone else.
I was in America 2 years ago. I speak perfect English, it's my primary language but i still have to slow down for Americans to understand me.
Even when i was trying my hardest to speak as clearly as possible it was quite common to get comments like "How am i supposed to understand what you are saying? Learn English!" followed by a refusal of service.
Americans don't seem to have any patience for those of use with non-American accents.
It uses the hostap driver on Mac - that's HOST Access Point driver, same as what's used in Linux. It creates full access point, not an ad-hoc network. It works well, you can connect to it with other devices just like you would to any other WAP.
It isn't built into the kernel though (nothing much is on Darwin). This Linux feature they are talking about now has been around for a while. It hasn't been built into the kernel before though.
Errr... Australia is currently marked as red on that chart. It is the only country not to have access to wikileaks.
Iran, China, Russia are all fine. You can access wikileaks from there. We Australians can't though.
Not every game makes a profit, we'd all be game developers if that were true. So is it fair to say piracy is to blame in this case? Or is this simply just one of the many games that don't make a profit regardless or there being piracy or not?
Yes! Glad i wasn't the only one who cringed.
See picture 5/10
Oops, someone's halo fell down! And how inconvenient -- she's trying to inspect a ring transducer, and doesn't have a spare hand. We would've helped, but, y'know, we were busy and stuff
(That halo is exactly where it should be, you actually want to look through the middle like that)
It wouldn't be much of an ask slashdot if we couldn't give suggestions outside of what his boss wants him to do.
Needless to say, he can at least discuss who he wants to shape with his boss - shape the large downloaders or those that download at peak hour?
You don't want to punish customers for how much they download so much as when they download.
The guy who downloads 100Gb overnight when no one else is online? He isn't a problem.
The 100 users who all connect and download from together at peak hour? They are the problem.
So you want to allow people who don't use the net when everyone else is using it full-speed access. And you want those who use the net at peak hour to be slowed down.
The way to acheive this?
Do nothing and let congestion shape them.
Yes that's right it stops the keys being recorded.
I could record your encrypted traffic right now. In 20 years time when it may be feasible to decrypt that data i could take that recorded encrypted data and decrypt it.
So you need something right now that stops the data being recorded in the first place if you don't want that data possibly decoded in 20 years time.
Surely a better design is to produce a series of very small, highly specialized, very fast cores on a single piece of silicon, and then have a layer on top of that which makes it appear to be an x86, ARM or whatever.
Yes, they call that a modern x86 CPU.
They don't create the x86 instruction set in hardware anymore. They just have a translation layer in hardware that takes the x86 code and runs it on another type of hardware (usually a RISC core).
The internal execution core of this type of CPU [a modern x86] is actually a "machine within the machine", that functions internally as a RISC processor but externally like a CISC processor. The way this works is explained in more detail in other sections in this area, but in a nutshell, it does this by translating (on the fly, in hardware) the CISC instructions into one or more RISC instructions. It then processes these using multiple RISC execution units inside the processor core.
Incidently CISC had a big advantage over RISC. Each instruction typically did more and so for a given program a CISC computer will typically use less code. Saving cache, memory and bandwidth. So modern x86 CPUs have the advantage of the dense code of the x86 instruction set and with their instruction decoders the advantage of an efficient RISC core.
Well yes, the standard practice for making a modern x86 CPU is to make a RISC core and then put a decoder in to translate x86 instructions (see the AMD K5 for a good example of this).
However, GPUs are a little different. The programming model of a GPU is as follows;
Load in a block of code that performs some kind of mathematical operation (known as a kernel).
Specify the block of data to run the kernel against and the block of data to put the output.
Run the kernel.
For an x86 program that typically consists of a series of sequential operations on small data sets there is a hell of a lot of overhead. You're spending more time loading and unloading kernels than you are actually processing blocks of data.
Not to mention that GPUs have limited branching capabilities (all GPGPU tutorials tell you to avoid branching and the cost it incurs).
If nVidia changed the way its graphics cards worked, all this would be possible, but then if they have to change the graphics cards that much they may as well just make an x86 from scratch.
Exactly. Is public key crypto broken enough to need to spend any money to switch over to QKD?
For that matter is public key crypto over the internet broken?
Yes. Think secret plans that can't get out, even in 20 years time.
Can you guarantee quantum computers won't be around in 20 years time?
I bought Half-Life 1 as a multiplayer game that had little DRM except for its CD-Key. I didn't have a problem with that.
These days i've found you can't patch that game to that latest version to remove the bugs without using Steam.
So i bought a game that had a traditional licensing and distrubution system (a CD that you could resell under the first sale doctrine). I've now been told that the old license is no longer valid and that my copy of Half-Life 1 cannot be gifted or resold.
Also, the poster who said the gravitational wave says something about what is going on inside the black hole is incorrect I believe. The gravitational wave says something about the black hole's velocity and acceleration through space-time because it is that acceleration which produces the waves. The wave says nothing about what may or may not be occurring on the inside.
When 2 black holes merge they form a peanut shaped event horizon (they don't instantly snap into a perfectly round sphere on contact). If i detected gravity waves from a spinning event horizon that was peanut shaped I could easily tell there were originally 2 masses involved and from the spin I could also tell the velocity of those masses as well as the position of those masses.
It seems to me that gravity is a dead giveaway of not only the velocity and acceleration of a black hole but also the mass and the position of mass inside the black hole.
Once black holes are formed their gravity well isn't static. It moves about and changes in size as new mass falls into the event horizon and as the mass inside the black hole itself moves around through space.
The gravity waves eminating from these changes in gravity would be based on what the mass inside the event horizon is doing.
Basically they use a WINE wrapper that runs in your Virtual Machine. It'll run DirectX games at pretty much the same level of performance and compatibility as Wine runs natively.
It's not perfect but it beats the pants off any of the commercial solutions.
But that's my point. Gravity waves and light waves ARE NOT the same thing.
So it seems strange that the gravity waves and light waves arrived at the exact same time. Just think of all the different ways light can be affected by mass on its way here from a distant supernova. Every single bit of mass changes the path of light slightly.
For gravity waves to arrive at the exact same time as EM waves, gravity must do to itself what it does to the EM waves.
Yes.
It works really well too. I mean REALLY well.
Basically any game that runs under Wine currently will run under Virtual Boxes 3D hardware implementation (they used a lot of WINEs implementations for the graphics functions).
The performance is about what you'd get running under WINE in Linux natively.
For home use i wouldn't bother with anything other than VitualBox. No other Virtual Machine out there approaches its 3D hardware virtualisation.
Gravity waves arriving at the same time as light seems to raise a whole lot of questions to me.
For a start it means gravity affects itself in the same way it bends and affects light. As light travels away from a gravity well it's redshifted, bringing it down to a lower energy state. Light can also be focused by a gravity well (gravitational lensing). Since gravity arrived at the same time it can also do all these things to itself. So why aren't we seeing a whole lot of unpredicted gravitational anomolies if gravity affects itself?
It also raises the question: if light waves can't escape a black hole then why can gravitational waves?
It's not like a black holes gravity well remains in a static position in space once it forms. The gravity well of a black hole apparantly still moves around which would mean information in the form of gravity waves must be able to get out from inside the event horizon.
Lastly if gravity does to itself what it does to light. Wouldn't an increase in mass of an object bring about less gravitational pull than expected?
As the object gets a stronger and stronger gravity well the gravity escaping will have less an less energy (just like the light escaping as it gets redshifted has less and less energy).
So take an object with a 100Gs of gravity, double its mass and you shouldn't end up with 200Gs of gravity. As gravity affects itself in the same ways it affects light.
If Intel licenses its 32nm manufacturing process to TSMC it will make it harder for TSMC to create a new 32nm for creating chips for other manufacturers. Intel could claim TSMC used information given to them under a license agreement. It will be hard for TSMC to claim any new 32nm process wasn't created using information covered under that license.
Sure i could put all the compiler directives around #if-#else blocks but how do i handle possible new compilers with new directives that i don't even know about yet?
Like the Kernel authors i could do everything you say and still have my code break in a compiler that does things differently.
The only real solution is for compilers to all start doing things in a fairly standard way. Which leads us back to the great-grandparents suggestion...
Slashdot Mirror
OK well i made a typo which doesn't help my point :P
*us not use
That's not true. Americans can be just as rude as anyone else.
I was in America 2 years ago. I speak perfect English, it's my primary language but i still have to slow down for Americans to understand me. Even when i was trying my hardest to speak as clearly as possible it was quite common to get comments like "How am i supposed to understand what you are saying? Learn English!" followed by a refusal of service.
Americans don't seem to have any patience for those of use with non-American accents.
Arrgh i just modded you funny when i meant insightful. But you are 100% correct. GPL doesn't stop re-implementations under another license.
It's not acceptable to rip wings off flys and let them die slowly.
So why is it acceptable to boil a lobster alive in a slow and horrible death?
Much better to put a meat skewer through its head first. Give it a bit of a twist and it dies instantly and doesn't make a mess.
It uses the hostap driver on Mac - that's HOST Access Point driver, same as what's used in Linux. It creates full access point, not an ad-hoc network. It works well, you can connect to it with other devices just like you would to any other WAP.
It isn't built into the kernel though (nothing much is on Darwin). This Linux feature they are talking about now has been around for a while. It hasn't been built into the kernel before though.
Errr... Australia is currently marked as red on that chart. It is the only country not to have access to wikileaks.
Iran, China, Russia are all fine. You can access wikileaks from there. We Australians can't though.
As mentioned in the previous article, wikileaks is banned here in Australia.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/17/1228224
Not every game makes a profit, we'd all be game developers if that were true. So is it fair to say piracy is to blame in this case? Or is this simply just one of the many games that don't make a profit regardless or there being piracy or not?
See picture 5/10
Oops, someone's halo fell down! And how inconvenient -- she's trying to inspect a ring transducer, and doesn't have a spare hand. We would've helped, but, y'know, we were busy and stuff
(That halo is exactly where it should be, you actually want to look through the middle like that)
It wouldn't be much of an ask slashdot if we couldn't give suggestions outside of what his boss wants him to do.
Needless to say, he can at least discuss who he wants to shape with his boss - shape the large downloaders or those that download at peak hour?
You don't want to punish customers for how much they download so much as when they download.
The guy who downloads 100Gb overnight when no one else is online? He isn't a problem.
The 100 users who all connect and download from together at peak hour? They are the problem.
So you want to allow people who don't use the net when everyone else is using it full-speed access. And you want those who use the net at peak hour to be slowed down.
The way to acheive this?
Do nothing and let congestion shape them.
Yes that's right it stops the keys being recorded.
I could record your encrypted traffic right now. In 20 years time when it may be feasible to decrypt that data i could take that recorded encrypted data and decrypt it.
So you need something right now that stops the data being recorded in the first place if you don't want that data possibly decoded in 20 years time.
Surely a better design is to produce a series of very small, highly specialized, very fast cores on a single piece of silicon, and then have a layer on top of that which makes it appear to be an x86, ARM or whatever.
Yes, they call that a modern x86 CPU.
They don't create the x86 instruction set in hardware anymore. They just have a translation layer in hardware that takes the x86 code and runs it on another type of hardware (usually a RISC core).
The internal execution core of this type of CPU [a modern x86] is actually a "machine within the machine", that functions internally as a RISC processor but externally like a CISC processor. The way this works is explained in more detail in other sections in this area, but in a nutshell, it does this by translating (on the fly, in hardware) the CISC instructions into one or more RISC instructions. It then processes these using multiple RISC execution units inside the processor core.
http://www.tek-tips.com/faqs.cfm?fid=788
Incidently CISC had a big advantage over RISC. Each instruction typically did more and so for a given program a CISC computer will typically use less code. Saving cache, memory and bandwidth. So modern x86 CPUs have the advantage of the dense code of the x86 instruction set and with their instruction decoders the advantage of an efficient RISC core.
Well yes, the standard practice for making a modern x86 CPU is to make a RISC core and then put a decoder in to translate x86 instructions (see the AMD K5 for a good example of this).
However, GPUs are a little different. The programming model of a GPU is as follows;
Load in a block of code that performs some kind of mathematical operation (known as a kernel).
Specify the block of data to run the kernel against and the block of data to put the output.
Run the kernel.
For an x86 program that typically consists of a series of sequential operations on small data sets there is a hell of a lot of overhead. You're spending more time loading and unloading kernels than you are actually processing blocks of data.
Not to mention that GPUs have limited branching capabilities (all GPGPU tutorials tell you to avoid branching and the cost it incurs).
If nVidia changed the way its graphics cards worked, all this would be possible, but then if they have to change the graphics cards that much they may as well just make an x86 from scratch.
Exactly. Is public key crypto broken enough to need to spend any money to switch over to QKD? For that matter is public key crypto over the internet broken?
Yes. Think secret plans that can't get out, even in 20 years time.
Can you guarantee quantum computers won't be around in 20 years time?
I bought Half-Life 1 as a multiplayer game that had little DRM except for its CD-Key. I didn't have a problem with that.
These days i've found you can't patch that game to that latest version to remove the bugs without using Steam.
So i bought a game that had a traditional licensing and distrubution system (a CD that you could resell under the first sale doctrine). I've now been told that the old license is no longer valid and that my copy of Half-Life 1 cannot be gifted or resold.
Also, the poster who said the gravitational wave says something about what is going on inside the black hole is incorrect I believe. The gravitational wave says something about the black hole's velocity and acceleration through space-time because it is that acceleration which produces the waves. The wave says nothing about what may or may not be occurring on the inside.
When 2 black holes merge they form a peanut shaped event horizon (they don't instantly snap into a perfectly round sphere on contact). If i detected gravity waves from a spinning event horizon that was peanut shaped I could easily tell there were originally 2 masses involved and from the spin I could also tell the velocity of those masses as well as the position of those masses.
It seems to me that gravity is a dead giveaway of not only the velocity and acceleration of a black hole but also the mass and the position of mass inside the black hole.
Once black holes are formed their gravity well isn't static. It moves about and changes in size as new mass falls into the event horizon and as the mass inside the black hole itself moves around through space.
The gravity waves eminating from these changes in gravity would be based on what the mass inside the event horizon is doing.
Beta versions of Virtual Box support DirectX just fine.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=NzAyNA
Basically they use a WINE wrapper that runs in your Virtual Machine. It'll run DirectX games at pretty much the same level of performance and compatibility as Wine runs natively.
It's not perfect but it beats the pants off any of the commercial solutions.
Unpatched copies of Half-Life 1 uninstalled everything.
But that's my point. Gravity waves and light waves ARE NOT the same thing.
So it seems strange that the gravity waves and light waves arrived at the exact same time. Just think of all the different ways light can be affected by mass on its way here from a distant supernova. Every single bit of mass changes the path of light slightly.
For gravity waves to arrive at the exact same time as EM waves, gravity must do to itself what it does to the EM waves.
Yes.
It works really well too. I mean REALLY well.
Basically any game that runs under Wine currently will run under Virtual Boxes 3D hardware implementation (they used a lot of WINEs implementations for the graphics functions).
The performance is about what you'd get running under WINE in Linux natively.
For home use i wouldn't bother with anything other than VitualBox. No other Virtual Machine out there approaches its 3D hardware virtualisation.
Gravity waves arriving at the same time as light seems to raise a whole lot of questions to me.
For a start it means gravity affects itself in the same way it bends and affects light. As light travels away from a gravity well it's redshifted, bringing it down to a lower energy state. Light can also be focused by a gravity well (gravitational lensing). Since gravity arrived at the same time it can also do all these things to itself. So why aren't we seeing a whole lot of unpredicted gravitational anomolies if gravity affects itself?
It also raises the question: if light waves can't escape a black hole then why can gravitational waves?
It's not like a black holes gravity well remains in a static position in space once it forms. The gravity well of a black hole apparantly still moves around which would mean information in the form of gravity waves must be able to get out from inside the event horizon.
Lastly if gravity does to itself what it does to light. Wouldn't an increase in mass of an object bring about less gravitational pull than expected?
As the object gets a stronger and stronger gravity well the gravity escaping will have less an less energy (just like the light escaping as it gets redshifted has less and less energy).
So take an object with a 100Gs of gravity, double its mass and you shouldn't end up with 200Gs of gravity. As gravity affects itself in the same ways it affects light.
Remember how IBMs PC-BIOS was reverse engineered and there wasn't anything IBM could do about it because the reverse engineering was done legitimately?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering#Binary_software
If Intel licenses its 32nm manufacturing process to TSMC it will make it harder for TSMC to create a new 32nm for creating chips for other manufacturers. Intel could claim TSMC used information given to them under a license agreement. It will be hard for TSMC to claim any new 32nm process wasn't created using information covered under that license.
Sure i could put all the compiler directives around #if-#else blocks but how do i handle possible new compilers with new directives that i don't even know about yet?
Like the Kernel authors i could do everything you say and still have my code break in a compiler that does things differently.
The only real solution is for compilers to all start doing things in a fairly standard way. Which leads us back to the great-grandparents suggestion...