Funny. I've seen a $59 Brisbane core (1.9 out of the box) overclocked to 2.9 GHz with just air cooling, so I'm not sure why everyone insists AMD can't hit the 3GHz barrier, especially when AMD keeps displaying 3GHz Barecelonas.
Gosh, maybe you should go tell AMD that they aren't having any trouble with leakage, the yield of their 65nm parts is optimal and they can start volume production right now! The time AMD has spent not shipping Barcelona has been costing them dearly. Did you see the loss they posted last quarter? Did you notice their market cap right now is just a tad over what they paid for ATI?
AMD knows Intel has the better fab, but AMD is selling super cheap. You can get a dual-core processor for half what Intel charges
Yeah, you can get a share of AMD for about half of what Intel's cost as well.
On a performance per dollar basis, AMD wins hands down.
So rush out and buy an AMD now, before their super-low margins bankrupt them altogether!
There is a mountain of evidence against Intel for anti-trust violations, and I try not to financially support evil. The EU is also coming down on Intel for anti-trust violations.
You know if Intel did what AMD has done back when AMD had the faster product - cut their margins down to almost nothing to undersell AMD and gain market share - you would be screaming about the evil monopolist Intel. Somehow it is exactly the opposite of evil when AMD does it.
Even if the anti-trust suits both come through, AMD is near bankruptcy, and I prefer choice in the marketplace. I am terrified of the day when Intel has no competition pushing them and they can just sell what they want and whatever price they want.
Oh please. Regulators would never allow Intel to buy AMDs IP and there are plenty of companies out there willing to jump in and try their hand at the x86 game. If Intel starts driving up prices, that just makes jumping in appear much more appealing.
The 'Interview" is nothing but a delaying tactic to allow more alcohol to enter the blood. That will give higher test results.
Oh please. If you have alcohol in your stomach (i.e. "ready to enter the blood") you should NOT be driving at all. What if there were an accident caused by someone else on the road in that mile, and traffic were stopped for 30 minutes. Now what?
Say the alphabet backwards is a ruse used to detect drunkeness, to that I say "You first officer"
or "which alphabet?".
90 percent og the officers themselves cannot say the alphabet backwards, even with a printed card.
Get off your high and mighty match box. Asking someone to say the alphabet backwards is a test of cognitive function. No jury would convict you if that was the state's best evidence. It is designed to give the officer a tool to detect a "fuzzy" head. If you have memorized the alphabet backwards, you'd completely destroy the value of the test - it needs to be something you have to think through.
Your entire argument is that any game not limited by time is infinite. The problem with this is two fold: with a finite number of states this implies that you go through the same sequence of states an infinite number of times; and any game A (where A is a set of finite states that finishes in finite time) can be made into an infinite game A' by the transformation A' = A A'. So let's backup and look at the two statements argued against in the OP:
The game seems to be insanely huge and how is it that there can be an infinite amount of different creates created in the game?
and
Procedural programming essentially shrinks the technological world, allowing us to fit a lot more information in limited space, and allowing this information to interact in near infinite ways.
Both of those statements involve a problem domain independent of time. You cannot have "an infinite amount of different creates created" because the computer has finite memory. Even with an infinite amount of time, you will exhaust the possible permutations long before then. Same argument for "information to interact in near infinite ways." Again, the computer is a finite turing machine - you will eventually exhaust all the permutations of the states that are possible - unless you consider a repetition of the same permutation to be a different interactions. Clearly the original writer didn't think so or he wouldn't have said "near infinite."
No, you are really being an ass because you are misrepresenting what was said for the sake of creating an easier to argue point. In the case of Rock-Paper-Scissors there are exactly three states and two inputs for the game. The "spirit of the example" is a strawman you have unnecessarily created since the original post was referring to variety of game states or objects, not variety in play time.
Oh come on, that WND article doesn't pass muster. Most notably, Sony is not an American company and Saddam could have easily acquired his PS2s in Japan, Taiwan or Europe. They didn't need to do a special ban on PS2 transfers to Iraq, Iraq was already an export controlled country. Reading that article is laughable... Iraqi weapons scientists need PS2's to browse the web? How could they have published that with a straight face?
As to whether this was motivated by the PS2 being a supercomputer... rubbish. The whole "PS2 is a supercomputer" thing was little more than guerrilla marketing.
No legitimate interest? How about 95 stolen cars and 111 wanted felons.
Stolen cars = legitimate interest, once you know the car is stolen. Wanted felons = legitimate interest, once the person is wanted.
I suppose you could, given enough scans, and enough computing power begin to associate people with places.
You and I clearly have a different notion of what is "enough." I think a desktop computer with a couple hundred scans and a statistics package could characterize your driving patterns within a 95% LoC in just a couple of minutes.
But, and this is a big but, you presume that this data would be openly shared with the public sector.
No, I presume this data would be shared with the politically connected sector.
Anything that helps catch such criminals, and more importantly acts as a deterent to prevent the crime in the first place is a go. You'll have to come up with something better than not wanting to be spotted outside a strip club.
Freedom comes with a price. Terrible things happen. Wicked people are out there. I grew up in Los Angeles and I have 3 children of my own. I can't even watch the news anymore because it makes me a nervous wreck every time some smiling blond tells me all about some family's grief process after their 12 year old girl was abducted, raped and killed. I still think this surveillance system is a terrible affront to the rights we as Americans hold so dear.
While you are doing the the "think of the children" thing, how many rights are you willing to surrender to that end? If the government had the ability to know where every citizen in the country was at all times, would that be an acceptable sacrifice of your freedom?
If you are of no interest to the police, then your records will just be sitting on a disk somewhere.
Oh, of course! If I have nothing to hide, then I have nothing to worry about, right?
What if I become a person of interest to my spouse during divorce proceedings? Then the database potentially becomes a tool to punish me, not for something illegal I may have done, but for something immoral. Great, so giving right of review of our morality to the police is good why?
Sure they can. But they can't store the GPS coordinates and store it in a database. As long as knowledge of my whereabouts exists until the police officer forgets about me because he has something better to do, I see no issue. The database has a much, MUCH better memory.
You're out on the open road. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy. No civil right is being violated, IMO.
The police have no legitimate interest in tracking the driving patterns of people who have not committed a crime and are not under suspicion of having committed a crime.
This is the sort of database that is ripe for use for illegal and unconstitutional purposes: * Have you been making too many trips to the anti-war rally? Oh, sorry, we're going to have to deny you entrance to this political forum for, uh, 'security' reasons. * Oh, thank you for your job application... oh dear, it seems you were parked for a while at the planned parenthood, we don't hire your type.
You are technically correct. Closer reading of the article (suggested from another thread) reveals though that this may not be too far from what actually happens. It appears they are able to exploit a dangling pointer to dynamically loaded code that has since been freed. So myFuncPtr may yet be exploitable. But the theory of the example was flawed.
Hmmm, interesting. So in this case, they are writing to memory of executable code that has been freed. It's interesting that this exploit requires some sort of dynamically loaded, and freed, executable code. It's too bad they didn't give us more details, I'm now curious about the sequence of actions that must be followed to allow this to happen.
How the heck do you get a dangling function pointer in C or C++? You never malloc() or operator new() functions, unless you fancy self-modifying code.
Oh fine, be pedantic about it. Put the pointer in a struct and maintain a dangling pointer to the struct. All pointers within the struct are now dangling as well, including function pointers. An attacker can then (theoretically) change the value of the function pointer. This is the C equivalent of the C++ attack you describe. If someone attempts to call the function based off the dangling struct pointer, the exploit succeeds.
Presumably what they have here is a dangling pointer to a function, which they can get IIS to then call. They state that this used to be a "denial of service" attack - meaning that if IIS attempted the call before, it would execute garbage and cause a runtime fault. Now, however, they can change the value of the dangling pointer and when IIS does the jump this time, it executes their exploit code instead.
If AMD wanted to, they could have hads Intel's style "quad core" long ago.
And yet they don't, and they just posted a $600 MILLION loss in one quarter. The difference between what AMD lost and Intel made last quarter is almost 2 billion dollars. Maybe you should take your market genius over there and help them turn it around.
I think you mis-named your Chess. In Schrodinger's Chess, the hidden pieces should be in a super-position of all possible states and will not collapse down to one state until you observe (move) it. All you're doing is keeping its one true state uncertain until it is moved.
Perhaps if they taught set theory instead of multi courses in machine language concepts, it would have, but they didn't.
I can't speak to your CS program, but nowadays to get accredited you generally have to take courses in Discrete Mathematics, Finite Automata and Data design. All of those are set-theory heavy courses (particularly Discrete math). Seeing as how CS was calved from mathematics, and built on set theory principles, it seems very strange that you could have escaped without more than your fill of set theory.
The knowledge you find in CS is readily available in book form. Things change often in IT anyhow, and 80% of it is faddish such that you have to grab it fast and dump it fast again as it falls out of style.
Which is exactly why you want a degree in CS. The fundamentals of CS don't change. A problem that is not computable by a Turing Machine remains non-computable today. The implementations do change. If you are well grounded in the fundamentals, changing the tools will not matter much (except to HR, who frequently screen candidates based on technology keywords).
I found a program called DVD Shrink that is free and seems pretty nice. Automatically parses the disc and even lets you remaster so that it only contains the shows you want. I mean, I think it does that. It can't legally be downloaded in the US so, of course, I didn't download. But it was pretty nice. I could have gotten Dumbo ripped to a DVD5 in 15 minutes, assuming I had downloaded it... which, of course, I hadn't, because that would be illegal in the US.
Is DVD Fab free as well, or is it a commercial product?
Slashdot Mirror
Funny. I've seen a $59 Brisbane core (1.9 out of the box) overclocked to 2.9 GHz with just air cooling, so I'm not sure why everyone insists AMD can't hit the 3GHz barrier, especially when AMD keeps displaying 3GHz Barecelonas.
Gosh, maybe you should go tell AMD that they aren't having any trouble with leakage, the yield of their 65nm parts is optimal and they can start volume production right now! The time AMD has spent not shipping Barcelona has been costing them dearly. Did you see the loss they posted last quarter? Did you notice their market cap right now is just a tad over what they paid for ATI?
AMD knows Intel has the better fab, but AMD is selling super cheap. You can get a dual-core processor for half what Intel charges
Yeah, you can get a share of AMD for about half of what Intel's cost as well.
On a performance per dollar basis, AMD wins hands down.
So rush out and buy an AMD now, before their super-low margins bankrupt them altogether!
There is a mountain of evidence against Intel for anti-trust violations, and I try not to financially support evil. The EU is also coming down on Intel for anti-trust violations.
You know if Intel did what AMD has done back when AMD had the faster product - cut their margins down to almost nothing to undersell AMD and gain market share - you would be screaming about the evil monopolist Intel. Somehow it is exactly the opposite of evil when AMD does it.
Even if the anti-trust suits both come through, AMD is near bankruptcy, and I prefer choice in the marketplace. I am terrified of the day when Intel has no competition pushing them and they can just sell what they want and whatever price they want.
Oh please. Regulators would never allow Intel to buy AMDs IP and there are plenty of companies out there willing to jump in and try their hand at the x86 game. If Intel starts driving up prices, that just makes jumping in appear much more appealing.
In Soviet Russia, Asteroid-stealing Overlords welcome you!
Who actually pays $5 a month for Tivo?
I do.
If you have DirectTV+TiVo (aka DirecTiVo), the surcharge for the Tivo service is $5.
The 'Interview" is nothing but a delaying tactic to allow more alcohol to enter the blood.
That will give higher test results.
Oh please. If you have alcohol in your stomach (i.e. "ready to enter the blood") you should NOT be driving at all. What if there were an accident caused by someone else on the road in that mile, and traffic were stopped for 30 minutes. Now what?
Say the alphabet backwards is a ruse used to detect drunkeness, to that I say "You first officer"
or "which alphabet?".
90 percent og the officers themselves cannot say the alphabet backwards, even with a printed card.
Get off your high and mighty match box. Asking someone to say the alphabet backwards is a test of cognitive function. No jury would convict you if that was the state's best evidence. It is designed to give the officer a tool to detect a "fuzzy" head. If you have memorized the alphabet backwards, you'd completely destroy the value of the test - it needs to be something you have to think through.
Other thing heard in an RIAA conference room...
"Hey, didn't the whole slashdot community say the exact same thing last month?"
We could have at least gotten credit for it.
Your entire argument is that any game not limited by time is infinite. The problem with this is two fold: with a finite number of states this implies that you go through the same sequence of states an infinite number of times; and any game A (where A is a set of finite states that finishes in finite time) can be made into an infinite game A' by the transformation A' = A A'. So let's backup and look at the two statements argued against in the OP:
The game seems to be insanely huge and how is it that there can be an infinite amount of different creates created in the game?
and
Procedural programming essentially shrinks the technological world, allowing us to fit a lot more information in limited space, and allowing this information to interact in near infinite ways.
Both of those statements involve a problem domain independent of time. You cannot have "an infinite amount of different creates created" because the computer has finite memory. Even with an infinite amount of time, you will exhaust the possible permutations long before then. Same argument for "information to interact in near infinite ways." Again, the computer is a finite turing machine - you will eventually exhaust all the permutations of the states that are possible - unless you consider a repetition of the same permutation to be a different interactions. Clearly the original writer didn't think so or he wouldn't have said "near infinite."
No, you are really being an ass because you are misrepresenting what was said for the sake of creating an easier to argue point. In the case of Rock-Paper-Scissors there are exactly three states and two inputs for the game. The "spirit of the example" is a strawman you have unnecessarily created since the original post was referring to variety of game states or objects, not variety in play time.
Oh come on, that WND article doesn't pass muster. Most notably, Sony is not an American company and Saddam could have easily acquired his PS2s in Japan, Taiwan or Europe. They didn't need to do a special ban on PS2 transfers to Iraq, Iraq was already an export controlled country. Reading that article is laughable... Iraqi weapons scientists need PS2's to browse the web? How could they have published that with a straight face?
As to whether this was motivated by the PS2 being a supercomputer... rubbish. The whole "PS2 is a supercomputer" thing was little more than guerrilla marketing.
No legitimate interest? How about 95 stolen cars and 111 wanted felons.
Stolen cars = legitimate interest, once you know the car is stolen.
Wanted felons = legitimate interest, once the person is wanted.
I suppose you could, given enough scans, and enough computing power begin to associate people with places.
You and I clearly have a different notion of what is "enough." I think a desktop computer with a couple hundred scans and a statistics package could characterize your driving patterns within a 95% LoC in just a couple of minutes.
But, and this is a big but, you presume that this data would be openly shared with the public sector.
No, I presume this data would be shared with the politically connected sector.
Anything that helps catch such criminals, and more importantly acts as a deterent to prevent the crime in the first place is a go. You'll have to come up with something better than not wanting to be spotted outside a strip club.
Freedom comes with a price. Terrible things happen. Wicked people are out there. I grew up in Los Angeles and I have 3 children of my own. I can't even watch the news anymore because it makes me a nervous wreck every time some smiling blond tells me all about some family's grief process after their 12 year old girl was abducted, raped and killed. I still think this surveillance system is a terrible affront to the rights we as Americans hold so dear.
While you are doing the the "think of the children" thing, how many rights are you willing to surrender to that end? If the government had the ability to know where every citizen in the country was at all times, would that be an acceptable sacrifice of your freedom?
If you are of no interest to the police, then your records will just be sitting on a disk somewhere.
Oh, of course! If I have nothing to hide, then I have nothing to worry about, right?
What if I become a person of interest to my spouse during divorce proceedings? Then the database potentially becomes a tool to punish me, not for something illegal I may have done, but for something immoral. Great, so giving right of review of our morality to the police is good why?
Sure they can. But they can't store the GPS coordinates and store it in a database. As long as knowledge of my whereabouts exists until the police officer forgets about me because he has something better to do, I see no issue. The database has a much, MUCH better memory.
You're out on the open road. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy. No civil right is being violated, IMO.
The police have no legitimate interest in tracking the driving patterns of people who have not committed a crime and are not under suspicion of having committed a crime.
This is the sort of database that is ripe for use for illegal and unconstitutional purposes:
* Have you been making too many trips to the anti-war rally? Oh, sorry, we're going to have to deny you entrance to this political forum for, uh, 'security' reasons.
* Oh, thank you for your job application... oh dear, it seems you were parked for a while at the planned parenthood, we don't hire your type.
Because the police have no right to track me when I have committed no crime and am not wanted in connection with a criminal investigation.
You are technically correct. Closer reading of the article (suggested from another thread) reveals though that this may not be too far from what actually happens. It appears they are able to exploit a dangling pointer to dynamically loaded code that has since been freed. So myFuncPtr may yet be exploitable. But the theory of the example was flawed.
Hmmm, interesting. So in this case, they are writing to memory of executable code that has been freed. It's interesting that this exploit requires some sort of dynamically loaded, and freed, executable code. It's too bad they didn't give us more details, I'm now curious about the sequence of actions that must be followed to allow this to happen.
How the heck do you get a dangling function pointer in C or C++? You never malloc() or operator new() functions, unless you fancy self-modifying code.
Oh fine, be pedantic about it. Put the pointer in a struct and maintain a dangling pointer to the struct. All pointers within the struct are now dangling as well, including function pointers. An attacker can then (theoretically) change the value of the function pointer. This is the C equivalent of the C++ attack you describe. If someone attempts to call the function based off the dangling struct pointer, the exploit succeeds.
Yes and no. The pointer in question may have a lifetime greater than that of the object being pointed to. Example:
// myFuncPtr is now dangling!
void (*myFuncPtr)() = NULL;
void cleanUp() {
item listItem = firstItem;
while ( listItem != NULL ) {
myFuncPtr = listItem->fcn;
myFuncPtr();
tempItem = listItem->next;
free(listItem);
listItem = tempItem;
}
}
A little contrived, sure, but it is an example of how a pointer might get left dangling.
Presumably what they have here is a dangling pointer to a function, which they can get IIS to then call. They state that this used to be a "denial of service" attack - meaning that if IIS attempted the call before, it would execute garbage and cause a runtime fault. Now, however, they can change the value of the dangling pointer and when IIS does the jump this time, it executes their exploit code instead.
If AMD wanted to, they could have hads Intel's style "quad core" long ago.
And yet they don't, and they just posted a $600 MILLION loss in one quarter. The difference between what AMD lost and Intel made last quarter is almost 2 billion dollars. Maybe you should take your market genius over there and help them turn it around.
No, they're literally in the same figurative boat.
Quite trying to be pedantic.
Umm, that's Heisenberg's chess.
I think you mis-named your Chess. In Schrodinger's Chess, the hidden pieces should be in a super-position of all possible states and will not collapse down to one state until you observe (move) it. All you're doing is keeping its one true state uncertain until it is moved.
Perhaps if they taught set theory instead of multi courses in machine language concepts, it would have, but they didn't.
I can't speak to your CS program, but nowadays to get accredited you generally have to take courses in Discrete Mathematics, Finite Automata and Data design. All of those are set-theory heavy courses (particularly Discrete math). Seeing as how CS was calved from mathematics, and built on set theory principles, it seems very strange that you could have escaped without more than your fill of set theory.
The knowledge you find in CS is readily available in book form. Things change often in IT anyhow, and 80% of it is faddish such that you have to grab it fast and dump it fast again as it falls out of style.
Which is exactly why you want a degree in CS. The fundamentals of CS don't change. A problem that is not computable by a Turing Machine remains non-computable today. The implementations do change. If you are well grounded in the fundamentals, changing the tools will not matter much (except to HR, who frequently screen candidates based on technology keywords).
Is DVDFab a commercial product?
I found a program called DVD Shrink that is free and seems pretty nice. Automatically parses the disc and even lets you remaster so that it only contains the shows you want. I mean, I think it does that. It can't legally be downloaded in the US so, of course, I didn't download. But it was pretty nice. I could have gotten Dumbo ripped to a DVD5 in 15 minutes, assuming I had downloaded it... which, of course, I hadn't, because that would be illegal in the US.
Is DVD Fab free as well, or is it a commercial product?