Come on guys. You are looking at this all wrong. You WANT them to win this suite. Why? Because then the big corporations will FINALLY be on OUR side in saying the DMCA is one of the worst laws to be passed in recent times.
Subject: DHS-2006-0030 Comments
Sent: Tue, 8 May 2007 16:38:33 -0400
did not reach the following recipient(s):
moscomments@dhs.gov on Tue, 8 May 2007 16:28:26 -0400
The e-mail account does not exist at the organization this message
was sent to. Check the e-mail address, or contact the recipient
directly to find out the correct address.
The old model for video drivers has been in use since Win98, and essentially has not changed since then. During all that time, the video card companies have been optimizing their drivers to run faster in that architecture. Significant speed boosts have occurred in the past simply due to driver updates, even as much as 20-30% for some types of games.
In Vista, however, the driver model is completely different. As a result, many of the optimizations that had been done in the past are no longer valid and have to be completely re-written. Some of those optimizations have been ported over to the Vista drivers, but many have not. Even looking at the differences in performance from Nvidia's last 3 Vista drivers, you can see significant performance improvements. AMD/ATI is also showing the same thing, although they seem to be a little ahead of the game compared to Nvidia (although AMD/ATI does not have to deal with several different branches of its drivers, as they still have a unified driver set, unlike Nvidia who now has the 8xxx series driver set and the 7xxx and before series drivers, and thus have 2x the amount of work to do).
We are far from the point of the drivers being mature in any sense, as significant improvements have been made on each release since Vista has been available. I don't see this trend ending soon.
Too bad the correct version of the word is "there", as you were talking about neither a possessive plural third person, or a plural third person conjuncted with the third person plural present indicative verb of "be".
But that is just it. The card isn't USER overclocked. It is STOCK (i.e. FULL WARRANTY, SUPPORT, etc., etc.). In other words, no DIFFERENT then what you get when you buy an Ultra. The Ultra itself isn't using a new chip design, new features or anything else. The only difference is that the Ultra uses slightly changed silicone which removes some of the bottle necks they have in terms of making a full run of chips which reach a certain clock speed (i.e. not all chips made on waffer will meet specs for full speed, all chip makers do this, they simply bin the chips which meet spec into different piles and lable them at certain clocks accordingly). The only thing the 8800 Ultra does is bin the chips at Nvidia before they are shipped out to the manufacturers. The card makers themselves have in the past been binning the chips they get and found that many could be run faster then Nvidia said they can.
How do you think we have RAM that range in speeds from DDR2 PC6400 to PC8000 which use the EXACT SAME Micron D9 memory chips?
The difference here is that Nvidia feels they should get the premium cash for the chips instead of selling them to the card makers and letting them figure out if the chip can go faster. While I don't blame them for wanting to do this, Nvidia should have decided to do this with a new line of chips, not an existing line where there are plenty of chips available which already meet the high-end spec speed and have been priced over $180 less then what Nvidia now wants to charge for the same chip.
The reviews that were posted here on/. while good normally didn't do their homework today with this new card. Only Anandtech seemed to take a look at what is currently available in terms of factory overclocked 8800GTX's on the market. They used the EVGA 8800GTX KO w/AC3, which benches within less then 1% of the performance of the 8800 Ultra AND costs $180 LESS!
You need to use dd_rescue instead. This version of dd basically ignores the errors and was initially intended to be used to recover data from failing or failed disks. You can tell dd_rescue to null load the "bad" data areas.
I don't believe Sony is the holder of the DVD certification. If this new protection is not part of the official DVD certifications, then their DVD's should not be using the certification and should have a disclaimer on them, much like the "CD"'s which didn't work in CD players.
ummmm.... you are not even in the same league let alone ballpark with what the OP is asking. I believe he is talking about something like the Veritas Cluster Server, where you have multiple systems which can be used to serve out services such as NFS, or even software application services like running clearcase database, or even websites.
Basically you setup two similar systems (well they don't have to be, but it helps), they get a direct connection between the two, as well as the normal network connections. For this to work well, it is also assumed that you have a SAN setup with the data volumes that you want to share out being available to both servers. If one system goes down, the other takes over all the services that are needed to do what the other was handling (i.e. for instance if you are doing NFS shares, the disk groups that hold the volume are first brought under control by the system, then the volumes are mounted, once the volumes are mounted the virtual IP address used for the hostname sharing that data is configured, then the volumes are shared out. All clients actually see the information through the virtual IP address/DNS name, so if a server fails, the clients will only see a hickup in their connection to the data areas during the time it takes for the other server to take control of the disks and setup the virtual address).
Now, you would also what other things like redundant SAN storage, using storage arrays that support multiple paths or possibly even mirroring between multiple arrays through software like Veritas Disk Suite.
Again, this is well above the mirrored disks in a single server. The poster wants full redundancy in services. Your mirror only fixes a few disk failures, not a network subnet outage, a fibre switch failing, a motherboard failing, a fibre card dieing, etc., etc., etc.... In other words there is a LOT that needs to be in place to get real high availability. A mirror won't cut it.
Wireless costs a total of $7 to add in. I picked up several USB, PCMCIA, and PCI based wireless cards for $7 after rebate almost a year ago... don't say it costs $100 to add when the parts are only $5-6 in cost anymore. It is probably even connected via an internal usb header.
Do you really think so? Why would MS pay someone $300,000-500,000 when they have people who get $70,000 that could simply scan the code itself? They won't upset their current pay scales and pay grades to place "hackers" into their business units. For one, many of those "hackers" are hackers because they have a record of conduct that does not work in a normal business environment. Be it social, societal or other issues (potentially and not limited to criminal and trust issues). In fact, some people many not even be employable due to said activities due to security reasons.
Again, MS sure isn't going to hire a hacker who is paid more then their bosses and that is for sure.
The problem with this is that the said paid hackers get better pay working on the exploits on their own and selling them in the black market. A lot of exploit code goes for $5000 a pop to the people who use it, and there are plenty of buyers (and it is not like they can't sell to multiple people, and make N*$5000 for a single good exploit).
Heck, something like the above would easily sell hundreds or possibly thousands of times for $5000 a pop. Can most software companies afford to pay hackers the $300,000-500,000 a year that a good one could easily make off a single exploit?
If the player was already hacked once, the probability only goes up that it would be hacked again. Especially if a hardware level flaw was uncovered (i.e. a physical attack which was able to intercept the key as it is being read/used would make any new key given the device just as exposed as the last key).
Yeah, I think the fastest you can play Advanced Civ even in only a 3 player game is 6 hours. Start roasting a pig if you play an 8 player game, or a 18 player one with the expanded world rules (see http://www.civproject.net/ for more details)... well with an 18 player game, you better line up a lot of caffeen drinks and a 4 day weekend.
LOL. I don't think I have seen MUD drunk in a while... I should go log into some of my old stomping grounds (heck, should probably check to see if they even still exist).
Remember that this also moved DST changes back after October 31st. So the candy companies love this and it is "safer for the children", even if it does nothing for energy usage. It will stay most likely.
They really did screw up with this. They instructed other activision employees (they were managers), to develop a demo for a new game. They then left the company and used that demo that was made while at activision by activision employees to sell as the basis of a new game. If they had done it on their own time with their own resources without involving other activision employees, hardware or software, they would probably have been ok. However, they didn't.
But then again, I am a geek. Not many people run 2 Sun servers at home. But that is where I have my ftp server, mysql database, and apache running... Starting to experiment with bind, but it is so security vulnerable that I havn't left it on much (same reason why sendmail is disabled). My next real project will be Solaris zones.
There is a difference here. The papers in question were printed works, much like a book, in other words a single edition. The school was given a single edition for use in terms of grading the paper. However, it was not given the rights to further distribute the work, and most definitely not give the right for use by Turnitin, in fact that was explicitly stated on the works in question.
When dealing with the internet, if the creator of the work published it for distribution, it is giving an implicit right for it to be read by other parties, and potentially even copied for the party to archive and read later, unless otherwise stated. For bots, stating this is to configure the user-agent strings in the appropriate config files.
The difference here is in the medium. For all intents and purposes, publishing on the web itself is just like owning your own printing press and printing an edition of the paper for everyone who wants one. That is not how a physical work is treated. It is treated as its own single piece of property.
Slashdot Mirror
VR-Zone had theirs up at 3:51am EST
VR-Zone's X2900XT Pre/Review
Oh, they aren't slashdotted either, but have been getting hit hard from hardware junkies.
Come on guys. You are looking at this all wrong. You WANT them to win this suite. Why? Because then the big corporations will FINALLY be on OUR side in saying the DMCA is one of the worst laws to be passed in recent times.
Took me a second or two for me to remember my chemistry :D
The typo in the "moscomments" was in my copying and formating to the post here (adding in the little formating...)
Subject: DHS-2006-0030 Comments
Sent: Tue, 8 May 2007 16:38:33 -0400
did not reach the following recipient(s):
moscomments@dhs.gov on Tue, 8 May 2007 16:28:26 -0400
The e-mail account does not exist at the organization this message
was sent to. Check the e-mail address, or contact the recipient
directly to find out the correct address.
The old model for video drivers has been in use since Win98, and essentially has not changed since then. During all that time, the video card companies have been optimizing their drivers to run faster in that architecture. Significant speed boosts have occurred in the past simply due to driver updates, even as much as 20-30% for some types of games.
In Vista, however, the driver model is completely different. As a result, many of the optimizations that had been done in the past are no longer valid and have to be completely re-written. Some of those optimizations have been ported over to the Vista drivers, but many have not. Even looking at the differences in performance from Nvidia's last 3 Vista drivers, you can see significant performance improvements. AMD/ATI is also showing the same thing, although they seem to be a little ahead of the game compared to Nvidia (although AMD/ATI does not have to deal with several different branches of its drivers, as they still have a unified driver set, unlike Nvidia who now has the 8xxx series driver set and the 7xxx and before series drivers, and thus have 2x the amount of work to do).
We are far from the point of the drivers being mature in any sense, as significant improvements have been made on each release since Vista has been available. I don't see this trend ending soon.
Too bad the correct version of the word is "there", as you were talking about neither a possessive plural third person, or a plural third person conjuncted with the third person plural present indicative verb of "be".
But that is just it. The card isn't USER overclocked. It is STOCK (i.e. FULL WARRANTY, SUPPORT, etc., etc.). In other words, no DIFFERENT then what you get when you buy an Ultra. The Ultra itself isn't using a new chip design, new features or anything else. The only difference is that the Ultra uses slightly changed silicone which removes some of the bottle necks they have in terms of making a full run of chips which reach a certain clock speed (i.e. not all chips made on waffer will meet specs for full speed, all chip makers do this, they simply bin the chips which meet spec into different piles and lable them at certain clocks accordingly). The only thing the 8800 Ultra does is bin the chips at Nvidia before they are shipped out to the manufacturers. The card makers themselves have in the past been binning the chips they get and found that many could be run faster then Nvidia said they can.
How do you think we have RAM that range in speeds from DDR2 PC6400 to PC8000 which use the EXACT SAME Micron D9 memory chips?
The difference here is that Nvidia feels they should get the premium cash for the chips instead of selling them to the card makers and letting them figure out if the chip can go faster. While I don't blame them for wanting to do this, Nvidia should have decided to do this with a new line of chips, not an existing line where there are plenty of chips available which already meet the high-end spec speed and have been priced over $180 less then what Nvidia now wants to charge for the same chip.
The reviews that were posted here on /. while good normally didn't do their homework today with this new card. Only Anandtech seemed to take a look at what is currently available in terms of factory overclocked 8800GTX's on the market. They used the EVGA 8800GTX KO w/AC3, which benches within less then 1% of the performance of the 8800 Ultra AND costs $180 LESS!
Read the review yourself....
For a while there Sun was only using AMD chips in there X86_64 architecture based systems. Very soon they will have Intel based systems available.
You need to use dd_rescue instead. This version of dd basically ignores the errors and was initially intended to be used to recover data from failing or failed disks. You can tell dd_rescue to null load the "bad" data areas.
I don't believe Sony is the holder of the DVD certification. If this new protection is not part of the official DVD certifications, then their DVD's should not be using the certification and should have a disclaimer on them, much like the "CD"'s which didn't work in CD players.
hmmm... must have hit reply on wrong post.
ummmm.... you are not even in the same league let alone ballpark with what the OP is asking. I believe he is talking about something like the Veritas Cluster Server, where you have multiple systems which can be used to serve out services such as NFS, or even software application services like running clearcase database, or even websites.
Basically you setup two similar systems (well they don't have to be, but it helps), they get a direct connection between the two, as well as the normal network connections. For this to work well, it is also assumed that you have a SAN setup with the data volumes that you want to share out being available to both servers. If one system goes down, the other takes over all the services that are needed to do what the other was handling (i.e. for instance if you are doing NFS shares, the disk groups that hold the volume are first brought under control by the system, then the volumes are mounted, once the volumes are mounted the virtual IP address used for the hostname sharing that data is configured, then the volumes are shared out. All clients actually see the information through the virtual IP address/DNS name, so if a server fails, the clients will only see a hickup in their connection to the data areas during the time it takes for the other server to take control of the disks and setup the virtual address).
Now, you would also what other things like redundant SAN storage, using storage arrays that support multiple paths or possibly even mirroring between multiple arrays through software like Veritas Disk Suite.
Again, this is well above the mirrored disks in a single server. The poster wants full redundancy in services. Your mirror only fixes a few disk failures, not a network subnet outage, a fibre switch failing, a motherboard failing, a fibre card dieing, etc., etc., etc.... In other words there is a LOT that needs to be in place to get real high availability. A mirror won't cut it.
Wireless costs a total of $7 to add in. I picked up several USB, PCMCIA, and PCI based wireless cards for $7 after rebate almost a year ago... don't say it costs $100 to add when the parts are only $5-6 in cost anymore. It is probably even connected via an internal usb header.
Too bad they will probably cheat on the console and add in a snap-aim type action...
Do you really think so? Why would MS pay someone $300,000-500,000 when they have people who get $70,000 that could simply scan the code itself? They won't upset their current pay scales and pay grades to place "hackers" into their business units. For one, many of those "hackers" are hackers because they have a record of conduct that does not work in a normal business environment. Be it social, societal or other issues (potentially and not limited to criminal and trust issues). In fact, some people many not even be employable due to said activities due to security reasons.
Again, MS sure isn't going to hire a hacker who is paid more then their bosses and that is for sure.
The problem with this is that the said paid hackers get better pay working on the exploits on their own and selling them in the black market. A lot of exploit code goes for $5000 a pop to the people who use it, and there are plenty of buyers (and it is not like they can't sell to multiple people, and make N*$5000 for a single good exploit). Heck, something like the above would easily sell hundreds or possibly thousands of times for $5000 a pop. Can most software companies afford to pay hackers the $300,000-500,000 a year that a good one could easily make off a single exploit?
If the player was already hacked once, the probability only goes up that it would be hacked again. Especially if a hardware level flaw was uncovered (i.e. a physical attack which was able to intercept the key as it is being read/used would make any new key given the device just as exposed as the last key).
Yeah, I think the fastest you can play Advanced Civ even in only a 3 player game is 6 hours. Start roasting a pig if you play an 8 player game, or a 18 player one with the expanded world rules (see http://www.civproject.net/ for more details)... well with an 18 player game, you better line up a lot of caffeen drinks and a 4 day weekend.
LOL. I don't think I have seen MUD drunk in a while... I should go log into some of my old stomping grounds (heck, should probably check to see if they even still exist).
Remember that this also moved DST changes back after October 31st. So the candy companies love this and it is "safer for the children", even if it does nothing for energy usage. It will stay most likely.
They really did screw up with this. They instructed other activision employees (they were managers), to develop a demo for a new game. They then left the company and used that demo that was made while at activision by activision employees to sell as the basis of a new game. If they had done it on their own time with their own resources without involving other activision employees, hardware or software, they would probably have been ok. However, they didn't.
But then again, I am a geek. Not many people run 2 Sun servers at home. But that is where I have my ftp server, mysql database, and apache running... Starting to experiment with bind, but it is so security vulnerable that I havn't left it on much (same reason why sendmail is disabled). My next real project will be Solaris zones.
There is a difference here. The papers in question were printed works, much like a book, in other words a single edition. The school was given a single edition for use in terms of grading the paper. However, it was not given the rights to further distribute the work, and most definitely not give the right for use by Turnitin, in fact that was explicitly stated on the works in question.
When dealing with the internet, if the creator of the work published it for distribution, it is giving an implicit right for it to be read by other parties, and potentially even copied for the party to archive and read later, unless otherwise stated. For bots, stating this is to configure the user-agent strings in the appropriate config files.
The difference here is in the medium. For all intents and purposes, publishing on the web itself is just like owning your own printing press and printing an edition of the paper for everyone who wants one. That is not how a physical work is treated. It is treated as its own single piece of property.