What he needs is a way to connect to his (IPv6) home computers, from presumably-IPv4 remote locations. There are two ways he could do this - by finding a way to use IPv4 on his home machines, or by finding a way to use IPv6 on the remote connections. Tunneling IPv6 over IPv4 would work on the remote side, just as tunneling IPv4 over IPv6 would work on the home side.
Erm, you got it backwards. Firefox implements the standard properly, and is thus not vulnerable to disc-filling attacks of this sort. It's every other browser that is vulnerable.
Encryption doesn't do shit if they're grabbing it before encryption or after decryption. It's not a magic security bullet. It has its uses, but now it's become easier for Eve to hack Alice and read the plaintext than to intercept and brute-force the ciphertext. And when Alice is talking to not just Bob, but Carol and Dave, well, that makes Alice a high-value target worth spending time on.
I have put a lot of thought into combat robots, particularly airborne ones. I think they're really an inevitable development.
I don't have a problem with robots maneuvering themselves over a battlefield. I don't have a problem with a robot killing someone. I don't even have a problem with giving it a target, and letting it decide the best way to eliminate it.
The only provision I would require is that we not have it select its own targets. There should be a human operator somewhere telling it what it should be shooting at. Or, for some scenarios, a "shoot everything that moves that isn't broadcasting an IFF signal" button, but that would be useful mainly for aircraft or fixed defenses, and should only be used for actual large-scale warfare, not counter-insurgency stuff. I'm talking "there are 200 MiGs over DC, if it isn't USAF, kill it". And *that's* only necessary because I think air warfare is going to become a numbers game, with hundreds or thousands of cheap (~$10,000) drones forming a "swarm", so a pure "drone pilot/human gunner" solution just won't work. Land robots are intrinsically more complex - both the human-like designs and the tank-like designs (the only two worth a damn IMO) are by their nature expensive, so the numbers will be small enough for "drone pilot/human gunner" to work.
Argument, Torvalds, hands down. Ballmer just screams loudly, he can't actually form a logical, coherent argument or come up with any witty comebacks. Torvalds is no Cicero, but he can definitely tell someone how to fuck off.
However, Ballmer seems to be more prone to physical violence. Torvalds better learn how to duck. Or parry. Otherwise it might be a short fight.
Or there's another way: accept it as payment for a good or service. As (or "if", I suppose) Bitcoin grows and becomes a more legitimate currency, I expect that that will become a more common, or even primary way of obtaining them. (It wouldn't always be anonymously, but it would be possible to do it that way).
I mean, how do most people get Euros, or Dollars - by converting some other currency, or by working for them?
Yeah, I knew that was why it happened. Many games, even most open-world games do that - they have low-res textures loaded for everything, and dynamically load and unload the higher-res ones depending on what the scene needs. Late UE2.5 and early UE3 titles seem to stick out as the ones that preload *no* high-res textures until the level actually starts. UT3, The Last Remnant, Bioshock, games like that.
Rage is another example of one that is extremely aggressive about unloading textures - you can look at a wall, and just turn 180 degrees and it will be unloaded. Most just take player position and maybe vistrees into account, not view frustrum.
99th percentile frame times. That gives you a realistic minimum framerate, discarding most outliers (many games, particularly those using UE3, tend to have a few very choppy frames right on level load, that don't really affect performance).
I stand corrected - it would appear to be Jaguar-based. Quite an... interesting approach by Sony. I guess expecting them to do the logical thing is going contrary to tradition.
While I do regularly read Anandtech (that's where I was mentally pulling those benchmarks from), I don't think he's quite right here. Granted, he's going off his own speculation, while I'm relying on leaks and rumors. And isn't Jaguar supposed to be AMD's next-gen "slow core" - Bobcat being the current one? Seems odd that AMD would release their Atom-like core for a console before a PC or tablet. Only way to be sure is to wait for Sony to announce it in detail, I suppose.
His analysis of the GPU mirrored my own, though. The 2TFLOP figure Sony gave fits right into the 78xx range.
Console games aren't that much different from PC games. Slightly so, yes, but not significantly. They mostly run on the same engine anyways (it felt like half this generation ran on UE3), so you won't see too much a difference. I could just as easily point out that different games have non-comparable workloads - does a particle-heavy game like Call of Duty or Mass Effect have the same load as an AI-heavy open-world game like Skyrim or GTA?
And if you're talking about OS overhead, you're kidding yourself if you think Sony managed to do significantly better than Windows while still doing all the Facebook/Twitter/Youtube integration that they did. Hell, it seems like they basically record a video constantly as you play - that's a hell of a lot of overhead.
Further, the leaked specifications were: 8-core Bulldozer CPU at 2GHz, an integrated Southern Islands GPU with 18 compute units at 800MHz, and 8GB of RAM. The unveiling didn't go into that much detail, but look what they did say: 8-core x86 CPU, an integrated GPU, and 8GB of RAM. Seems like those leaked specifications are a bit more accurate than mere "conjecture". Yes, I simplified, and I used Intel terminology to compare AMD processors as a shorthand. I did so for brevity, not malice.
PS: The original comment is marked as unmoderated right now, since you apparently care about that.
I simplified not to troll, but (*gasp*) to simplify. Basically, I was pointing out that not all cores are equal, and that the ones the PS4 is (rumored, but the rest of the rumors were borne out) to use is not a particularly efficient one. And that it is not clocked to the specifications of the most similar PC processor, making it closer to a low-end processor.
Benchmark-wise, an FX 8350, the 8-core top-end Piledriver, is considered comparable to the i5 3570. The i5 generally takes a large lead in single-threaded performance, but the FX leads on the more parallel stuff. Still effectively a tie, especially with the mere $10 price difference. People I know tend to go Intel, since it's cooler and (if you spring $30 for the 3570K version) it overclocks better, but for most purposes they can be considered equivalents.
However, the 8350 is clocked at 4.0GHz, precisely twice that the PS4 is rumored to have (the detailed specs were not shown tonight, but the stuff that was matches up exactly with what the leaked specs claimed so I'm treating them as reasonably accurate). So it is a reasonable conclusion that the PS4 chip would run approximately half as fast as the FX-8350. Yes, cache hit rates, memory controller clocks and all that will affect it, but at the end of the day, the processor has to run instructions, and if it does that at half the rate, it's running slower. (And yes, you can compare the PS4 and FX clock-for-clock, because they're the same architecture (at least as far as my information goes)).
I simply used i3/i5 as a reference, as they are both more generic names than FX-4300/FX-8350, and Intel has a larger market share and brand awareness, so their labels make for better shorthand.
No, I was thinking of when I tried to do this. Due to complicated reasons, I couldn't get internet at my apartment for several months - literally, I could not even pay for it when I tried. So I leeched off a neighbor with unsecured wifi - along with nearly everyone in the complex, judging by the speeds. So I tried cracking some of the closer ones, hoping for a maintainable connection.
If one of the networks I tried to break into had spontaneously renamed itself into a warning, I would have taken it as "damn, got caught - no luck here". Probably would have sent an anonymous, technical apology (rename the evil twin to "Sorry - just trying to get a connection"?) and moved on to the next network.
Slashdot Mirror
You aren't looking at the full picture.
What he needs is a way to connect to his (IPv6) home computers, from presumably-IPv4 remote locations. There are two ways he could do this - by finding a way to use IPv4 on his home machines, or by finding a way to use IPv6 on the remote connections. Tunneling IPv6 over IPv4 would work on the remote side, just as tunneling IPv4 over IPv6 would work on the home side.
Erm, you got it backwards. Firefox implements the standard properly, and is thus not vulnerable to disc-filling attacks of this sort. It's every other browser that is vulnerable.
Encryption doesn't do shit if they're grabbing it before encryption or after decryption. It's not a magic security bullet. It has its uses, but now it's become easier for Eve to hack Alice and read the plaintext than to intercept and brute-force the ciphertext. And when Alice is talking to not just Bob, but Carol and Dave, well, that makes Alice a high-value target worth spending time on.
I have put a lot of thought into combat robots, particularly airborne ones. I think they're really an inevitable development.
I don't have a problem with robots maneuvering themselves over a battlefield. I don't have a problem with a robot killing someone. I don't even have a problem with giving it a target, and letting it decide the best way to eliminate it.
The only provision I would require is that we not have it select its own targets. There should be a human operator somewhere telling it what it should be shooting at. Or, for some scenarios, a "shoot everything that moves that isn't broadcasting an IFF signal" button, but that would be useful mainly for aircraft or fixed defenses, and should only be used for actual large-scale warfare, not counter-insurgency stuff. I'm talking "there are 200 MiGs over DC, if it isn't USAF, kill it". And *that's* only necessary because I think air warfare is going to become a numbers game, with hundreds or thousands of cheap (~$10,000) drones forming a "swarm", so a pure "drone pilot/human gunner" solution just won't work. Land robots are intrinsically more complex - both the human-like designs and the tank-like designs (the only two worth a damn IMO) are by their nature expensive, so the numbers will be small enough for "drone pilot/human gunner" to work.
Argument or fight?
Argument, Torvalds, hands down. Ballmer just screams loudly, he can't actually form a logical, coherent argument or come up with any witty comebacks. Torvalds is no Cicero, but he can definitely tell someone how to fuck off.
However, Ballmer seems to be more prone to physical violence. Torvalds better learn how to duck. Or parry. Otherwise it might be a short fight.
Or there's another way: accept it as payment for a good or service. As (or "if", I suppose) Bitcoin grows and becomes a more legitimate currency, I expect that that will become a more common, or even primary way of obtaining them. (It wouldn't always be anonymously, but it would be possible to do it that way).
I mean, how do most people get Euros, or Dollars - by converting some other currency, or by working for them?
Yeah, I knew that was why it happened. Many games, even most open-world games do that - they have low-res textures loaded for everything, and dynamically load and unload the higher-res ones depending on what the scene needs. Late UE2.5 and early UE3 titles seem to stick out as the ones that preload *no* high-res textures until the level actually starts. UT3, The Last Remnant, Bioshock, games like that.
Rage is another example of one that is extremely aggressive about unloading textures - you can look at a wall, and just turn 180 degrees and it will be unloaded. Most just take player position and maybe vistrees into account, not view frustrum.
99th percentile frame times. That gives you a realistic minimum framerate, discarding most outliers (many games, particularly those using UE3, tend to have a few very choppy frames right on level load, that don't really affect performance).
Good.
The USSR built nearly twice as many warheads as the US.
Informative chart
I stand corrected - it would appear to be Jaguar-based. Quite an... interesting approach by Sony. I guess expecting them to do the logical thing is going contrary to tradition.
While I do regularly read Anandtech (that's where I was mentally pulling those benchmarks from), I don't think he's quite right here. Granted, he's going off his own speculation, while I'm relying on leaks and rumors. And isn't Jaguar supposed to be AMD's next-gen "slow core" - Bobcat being the current one? Seems odd that AMD would release their Atom-like core for a console before a PC or tablet. Only way to be sure is to wait for Sony to announce it in detail, I suppose.
His analysis of the GPU mirrored my own, though. The 2TFLOP figure Sony gave fits right into the 78xx range.
Console games aren't that much different from PC games. Slightly so, yes, but not significantly. They mostly run on the same engine anyways (it felt like half this generation ran on UE3), so you won't see too much a difference. I could just as easily point out that different games have non-comparable workloads - does a particle-heavy game like Call of Duty or Mass Effect have the same load as an AI-heavy open-world game like Skyrim or GTA?
And if you're talking about OS overhead, you're kidding yourself if you think Sony managed to do significantly better than Windows while still doing all the Facebook/Twitter/Youtube integration that they did. Hell, it seems like they basically record a video constantly as you play - that's a hell of a lot of overhead.
Further, the leaked specifications were: 8-core Bulldozer CPU at 2GHz, an integrated Southern Islands GPU with 18 compute units at 800MHz, and 8GB of RAM. The unveiling didn't go into that much detail, but look what they did say: 8-core x86 CPU, an integrated GPU, and 8GB of RAM. Seems like those leaked specifications are a bit more accurate than mere "conjecture". Yes, I simplified, and I used Intel terminology to compare AMD processors as a shorthand. I did so for brevity, not malice.
PS: The original comment is marked as unmoderated right now, since you apparently care about that.
I simplified not to troll, but (*gasp*) to simplify. Basically, I was pointing out that not all cores are equal, and that the ones the PS4 is (rumored, but the rest of the rumors were borne out) to use is not a particularly efficient one. And that it is not clocked to the specifications of the most similar PC processor, making it closer to a low-end processor.
I refer you to my above comment for greater clarification.
Really? What's your source on that? Everything I've seen said Bulldozer or Piledriver.
I'm genuinely curious. Until Sony actually tells us, neither of us will know for sure, but I've heard nothing of Jaguar with regard to console usage.
Benchmark-wise, an FX 8350, the 8-core top-end Piledriver, is considered comparable to the i5 3570. The i5 generally takes a large lead in single-threaded performance, but the FX leads on the more parallel stuff. Still effectively a tie, especially with the mere $10 price difference. People I know tend to go Intel, since it's cooler and (if you spring $30 for the 3570K version) it overclocks better, but for most purposes they can be considered equivalents.
However, the 8350 is clocked at 4.0GHz, precisely twice that the PS4 is rumored to have (the detailed specs were not shown tonight, but the stuff that was matches up exactly with what the leaked specs claimed so I'm treating them as reasonably accurate). So it is a reasonable conclusion that the PS4 chip would run approximately half as fast as the FX-8350. Yes, cache hit rates, memory controller clocks and all that will affect it, but at the end of the day, the processor has to run instructions, and if it does that at half the rate, it's running slower. (And yes, you can compare the PS4 and FX clock-for-clock, because they're the same architecture (at least as far as my information goes)).
I simply used i3/i5 as a reference, as they are both more generic names than FX-4300/FX-8350, and Intel has a larger market share and brand awareness, so their labels make for better shorthand.
8 *Bulldozer* cores, which makes it comparable to an i5 - mid-level for gaming. And underclocked to 2GHz - so maybe more like an i3. Which makes it...
No, I was thinking of when I tried to do this. Due to complicated reasons, I couldn't get internet at my apartment for several months - literally, I could not even pay for it when I tried. So I leeched off a neighbor with unsecured wifi - along with nearly everyone in the complex, judging by the speeds. So I tried cracking some of the closer ones, hoping for a maintainable connection.
If one of the networks I tried to break into had spontaneously renamed itself into a warning, I would have taken it as "damn, got caught - no luck here". Probably would have sent an anonymous, technical apology (rename the evil twin to "Sorry - just trying to get a connection"?) and moved on to the next network.
Rename your SSID to "if you don't stop trying to hack in, I will call the police" (or whatever will fit). That should be enough of a hint.
No, magnetic tape is too vulnerable to EMP. He boots from punch card.
the enemy
its own population
You're acting like they don't think those are one and they same.
You're going to have to narrow it down - "opaque pretend-currency" describes the US Dollar as well as it describes Bitcoins.
Better solution: find more land.
That moon up there sure has a lot of free space...
Since when did Linux count as a "major operating system"?
(I kid, I kid - it's just odd that a) they support it and b) the summary doesn't mention it specifically, given that this is /.)
Brazil? Rock in Rio draws like 10 million people over several days, wouldn't be surprising if single events in it drew 100K people.