When you control the NAT it is an annoyance but not a problem.
What happens when your ISP implements NAT (and maybe double NAT) and the ISP upstream provider is implementing NAT. Suddenly unless you have the ability to configure all those NAT layers (and dream on thinking ISP will let you configure their network) nothing will get to your NAT layer.
By your logic there would be no global starvation problem even if the entire world resorted to cannibalism (aka "The Road"). A problem wouldn't exist (and thus no reason to start implementing a solution) until the very last cannibal kills the second to last cannibal left alive on the planet.
Hell there is no food problem right, the last surviving human has enough to eat for next couple days. Right?
I mean the idea that you can't have an equal level of security without NAT is a joke.
Part of the confusion comes from the fact that most "routers" sold today are actually NAT + firewall in one box which blurs the line.
There is no reason why in an all IPv6 world you no longer have a "home router" but instead have a firewall providing an equal level of protection.
Keeping NAT because you need protection is just stupid. NAT was a hack to get around a problem of IP scarcity. It was never intended as a security system.
"Here's another idea: why didn't they just expand the address space by x256 by prefixing it another couple bits?"
Of course they COULD have. Then again if the original IP address had been 64bit (each octal being 0-65535 instead of 0-255) we wouldn't have a problem for a century or more.
I guess the thinking is change from 32->128 is going to suck so they made the address space so large that it would only have to be done once.
How exactly is ISP level NAT going to work with port forwarding?
Me & Spazmania are behind the same public IP address (37.37.37.37)
A bittorrent (or VOIP, or whole host of other applications) packet comes in on port 23829 to 37.37.37.37. Is it suppose to go to me or Spazmania. The ISP has no way to determine. Packet dropped.
It INITIALLY was deployed to movie theaters but it has no been deployed to at least 4 recent Blurays. "The Losers" release just last month contains Cinavia watermark.
A ripped copy will not play (well audio shuts off after 20 minutes) on a Cinavia compatible players (including PS3). There is currently no workaround.
You can rip the movie just fine but the watermark survives and a compatible player when it sees watermark + lack of AACS (encryption) refuses playback after 20 minutes.
Now the "flaw" in the system is it requires compatible players. Older players will play it just fine. However there is a push to make this or something like this part of the BD spec thus all future players would not play back watermarked content (when encryption is missing).
As of yet no. It isn't a single "mark" but rather a continual non-audible pattern in the audio track.
The one thing I just realized is it is possible than Cinavia watermark could survive decompression and recompression. After all the "watermark" is sound it just happens to be sound humans can't hear. It might even survive digital -> analog -> digital conversion.
Doom9 forums have some information on Cinavia. Currently it is only on a few titles. "The Losers" is first mainstream Bluray to use it.
Right now Microsoft does allow unsigned drivers however you are right it is their goal eventually for only signed drivers to be ever installed.
Microsoft working w/ software companies could likely expose an API (I don't believe one already exists) which indicates if a driver is signed.
Like mosts things it likely will be a back and forth war.
However I have faith in the Chinese. They have for years made devices which are "compliant" only to be easily non-compliant. DVD players that have a DVD region code but for which an easy unlock exists to make them region free.
HDMI capture cards exist right now but they aren't HDCP compliant. All a company has to do is produce an HDMI capture card which is no compliant but "just so happens" can be easily flashed to be HDCP compliant w/ a random valid HDCP key.
I agree Bluray is currently broken and that decrypting the source is superior but sometimes that can be problematic.
Some BD+ titles give AnyDVD trouble (at least until AnyDVD is updated).
Also a couple of BD (and likely more in the future) titles now use Cinavia protection. While AnyDVD will copy the disc it leaves the Cinavia timebomb inside when a Cinavia protected player (such as PS3) sees the Cinavia watermark on an unprotected (decrypted) disc it stops audio playback. Right now only some players are Cinavia protected but expect more in the future.
So it is nice to have a backdoor. Since HDCP protects the raw bitstream once it is compromised any source level protection can simply be bypassed.
Right now a backup of a Cinavia protected disc can't be played on a PS3 even when using AnyDVD. The same disc output and copied via HDMI can.
1080p24 1920 pixels * 1080 pixels * 24bits per pixel * 24 fps / 8 bits per byte = ~150MB/sec
1080i60 (1080i60 is 60 interlaced frames per second which is equivelent to 1080p30) 1920 pixels * 540 pixels * 60 bits per pixel * 60 frames per second / 8 bits per byte = ~186MB/sec
Technically a little more for audio but safely a drive which can sustain 200MB/sec could store all known content.
Yeah HDMI has a theoretical MAX of 10Gbps but current content uses nowhere near the max.
1080p24 1920 pixels * 1080 pixels * 24bits per pixel * 24 fps / 8 bits per byte = ~150MB/sec
1080i60 (1080i60 is 60 interlaced frames per second which is equivelent to 1080p30) 1920 pixels * 540 pixels * 60 bits per pixel * 60 frames per second / 8 bits per byte = ~186MB/sec
Every form of consumer content available can be capture by a drive that can sustain ~186MB/sec.
Blurays are 1080p24 thus you only need 24 fps throughput.
HDTV is 1080i60 which contains no more pixels/sec than 1080p30. Once you can get
Currently they can process about 23 million pixels per second (640x480x76). HDMI encrypts each pixel separately.
Once someone optimizes the code, parellelizes it to 2+ cores, or moves it to a GPU so that throughput exceeds 62 million pixels per second you can decrypt 1080i60, 1080p24, or 1080p30 in realtime.
The software Bluray player sends data to video card. What if it sent it to a virtual video card driver by "mistake"?
Oh wait it can't because it attempts an HDCP handshake the video output device (normally your HDCP compliant video card). If in the past you tried it w/ a virtual video card it would fail (you get error message in your software Bluray player about playback on noncompliant device).
How long before someone makes an HDCP compliant (w/ random valid HDCP sink key) virtual video card driver you install in windows that appears to other software as a valid HDCP compliant video device. The driver could be written to decrypt and write the stream to a disk.
") "Best Gaming CPU" for say 140$ is like saying the Ford Fiesta is the best hauling truck for under 14k. It doesn't exist. If you are buying the severely low end, what does it really matter what you pick, they will all really suck, and/or do what job they can reasonably do about the same."
Hardly once again virtual all games are GPU limited not CPU limited and especially so at higher resolutions.
Given a finite budget spending less on CPU allows more to be spent on GPU.
If someone had $400 on CPU & GPU combined (more than capable of playing most games) they would be better served spending $150 on CPU and $250 on GPU. Spending $250 on higher end i5 CPU makes little sense as the system would be EVEN MORE GPU limited. Even if GPU/CPU budget is $500 one would be better suited spending $200 on CPU and $300 on GPU.
GPU is far more the limiting factor. For games spending >$200 on CPU buys you very little (and even less at higher resolutions).
Take a heat pump with COP of 3 and supply it 1 kwh of electricity.
The air inside the house will gain 3 kwh of thermal energy. The air (or ground for geothermal pumps) outside the home will lose 3 kWh of thermal energy.
No energy has been generated or even converted it has simply been moved. The total thermal energy of the system remains the same (outside air energy + inside air energy) however some small portion has been "pumped" into the house.
With resistance heating? No. With heat pumps? Yes.
Good heatpump can achieve a COP of 2.5 to 3. Thus 2.5 to 3.0 kwh of thermal energy for 1 kwh of electrical input.
So comparing entire system.
natural gas turbine 60% efficient 95% efficient transmissions COP 2.5 to 3 of heatpump
1 kwh of natural gas * 0.60 * 0.95 * 2.5 = 1.43 kWh thermal energy 1 kwh of natural gas * 0.60 * 0.95 * 3.0 = 1.76 kWh thermal energy
Condensing Natural gas furnace w/ 97% AFUE 1 kwh of natural gas * 0.97 = 0.97 kWh thermal energy
The real killer of heatpumps is that natural gas tends to be about 1/3 to 1/4 the price on per kwh basis. So on an efficiency basis heat pumps win but on a cost effective basis usually nothing can beat natural gas heating.
which it doesn't. Efficiency only applies when converting energy.
Burn natural gas results in conversion of chemical energy into thermal energy. At best that conversion is 100% efficiency (real world it is more like 85%-95%).
However a heat pump doesn't convert energy. It simply MOVES energy (hence the very aptly named heat PUMP). It moves thermal energy from outside the home into the home. (Similar to a refrigerator or AC in reverse).
As such it can "produce" >1 kwh of thermal energy per 1kwh of electrical energy. The exact limit depends on difference between the two heat sources (inside and outside). This why geothermal heat pumps have higher COP. The ground remains warmer than outside air in the winter. The ground also remains cooler in the summer than the outside air.
Carnot limit places an upper limit on the max COP and it varies depending on the outside heat source and required inside heat level. The theoretical limit is about 6:1 (600%) to 12:1 (1200%) in real world current geothermal heat pumps achieve about half that.
Thus even with an older 90% efficiency furnace (97% AFUE are available today) it would require natural gas price that is roughly doubled (48 cents per cubic meter) to break even on $0.053/Kwh electrical heating.
It is no more a perpetual motion machine than a heating oil delivery truck is. A heating oil delivery truck transports a magnitude more gasoline than it burns. In a typical day of deliveries it may move 10x as much energy as it burns in its engine. In other words the energy transfered is 10x the energy used in the transfer.
In a similar fashion a heat pump simply moves heat energy. In winter it moves heat from outside (even when it is "cold" there is heat energy present). In summer it moves heat from the home to the outside. A heat pump with a COP of 4 adds 4kwh of thermal energy to the home for every 1kwh of electrical energy supplied. In comparison a resistance electrical heating adds 1kwh of thermal energy per 1 kwh of electrical energy supplied.
i5 starts at $180. So IF (big IF) you want to spend $180+ on CPU then yeah you really can't go wrong with Intel i5-xxx series.
However for many users they aren't CPU limited. CPU power makes very little difference in game performance once you get past dual core 2.5Ghz. It makes a difference but not as much as a GPU.
In the $100 to $200 segment is where AMD really shines.
Best Gaming CPU for ~$70 - Athlon II X3 425 Best Gaming CPU for ~$85 - Athlon II x3 445 Best Gaming CPU for ~$115 - Core i3-530 Best Gaming CPU for ~$140 - Phenom II x4 945 Best Gaming CPU for ~$160 - Phenom II x4 955 Best Gaming CPU for ~$180 - Phenom II x4 965 Best Gaming CPU for ~$200 - Core i5-760 Best Gaming CPU for ~$290 - Core i5-930
When someone has a fixed budget spending $50 to $100 LESS on CPU allows them to buy $50 to $100 more GPU and that system will offer better overall game performance.
I do agree that $200+ Intel dominates and AMD doesn't really have anything that answers but that is a small segment of the market. One also has to consider that i5 boards tend to run $10 to $20 more than comparable AMD board and i7 boards run $60 to $100 more.
Slashdot Mirror
When you control the NAT it is an annoyance but not a problem.
What happens when your ISP implements NAT (and maybe double NAT) and the ISP upstream provider is implementing NAT. Suddenly unless you have the ability to configure all those NAT layers (and dream on thinking ISP will let you configure their network) nothing will get to your NAT layer.
By your logic there would be no global starvation problem even if the entire world resorted to cannibalism (aka "The Road"). A problem wouldn't exist (and thus no reason to start implementing a solution) until the very last cannibal kills the second to last cannibal left alive on the planet.
Hell there is no food problem right, the last surviving human has enough to eat for next couple days. Right?
Yeah and watch the internet routing tables explode by a couple orders of magnitude.
Some one mod this one up.
I mean the idea that you can't have an equal level of security without NAT is a joke.
Part of the confusion comes from the fact that most "routers" sold today are actually NAT + firewall in one box which blurs the line.
There is no reason why in an all IPv6 world you no longer have a "home router" but instead have a firewall providing an equal level of protection.
Keeping NAT because you need protection is just stupid. NAT was a hack to get around a problem of IP scarcity. It was never intended as a security system.
"Here's another idea: why didn't they just expand the address space by x256 by prefixing it another couple bits?"
Of course they COULD have. Then again if the original IP address had been 64bit (each octal being 0-65535 instead of 0-255) we wouldn't have a problem for a century or more.
I guess the thinking is change from 32->128 is going to suck so they made the address space so large that it would only have to be done once.
Even 8 class A blocks would provide only months not years.
The IANA has been depleting/assigning roughly 1 class 8 block per month. This trend has held true for last couple years.
1 block reclaimed = 1 month.
It simply isn't worth it.
How the hell did this get modded interesting?
How exactly is ISP level NAT going to work with port forwarding?
Me & Spazmania are behind the same public IP address (37.37.37.37)
A bittorrent (or VOIP, or whole host of other applications) packet comes in on port 23829 to 37.37.37.37. Is it suppose to go to me or Spazmania. The ISP has no way to determine. Packet dropped.
It INITIALLY was deployed to movie theaters but it has no been deployed to at least 4 recent Blurays. "The Losers" release just last month contains Cinavia watermark.
A ripped copy will not play (well audio shuts off after 20 minutes) on a Cinavia compatible players (including PS3). There is currently no workaround.
You can rip the movie just fine but the watermark survives and a compatible player when it sees watermark + lack of AACS (encryption) refuses playback after 20 minutes.
Now the "flaw" in the system is it requires compatible players. Older players will play it just fine. However there is a push to make this or something like this part of the BD spec thus all future players would not play back watermarked content (when encryption is missing).
As of yet no. It isn't a single "mark" but rather a continual non-audible pattern in the audio track.
The one thing I just realized is it is possible than Cinavia watermark could survive decompression and recompression. After all the "watermark" is sound it just happens to be sound humans can't hear. It might even survive digital -> analog -> digital conversion.
Doom9 forums have some information on Cinavia. Currently it is only on a few titles. "The Losers" is first mainstream Bluray to use it.
Right now Microsoft does allow unsigned drivers however you are right it is their goal eventually for only signed drivers to be ever installed.
Microsoft working w/ software companies could likely expose an API (I don't believe one already exists) which indicates if a driver is signed.
Like mosts things it likely will be a back and forth war.
However I have faith in the Chinese. They have for years made devices which are "compliant" only to be easily non-compliant. DVD players that have a DVD region code but for which an easy unlock exists to make them region free.
HDMI capture cards exist right now but they aren't HDCP compliant. All a company has to do is produce an HDMI capture card which is no compliant but "just so happens" can be easily flashed to be HDCP compliant w/ a random valid HDCP key.
I agree Bluray is currently broken and that decrypting the source is superior but sometimes that can be problematic.
Some BD+ titles give AnyDVD trouble (at least until AnyDVD is updated).
Also a couple of BD (and likely more in the future) titles now use Cinavia protection. While AnyDVD will copy the disc it leaves the Cinavia timebomb inside when a Cinavia protected player (such as PS3) sees the Cinavia watermark on an unprotected (decrypted) disc it stops audio playback. Right now only some players are Cinavia protected but expect more in the future.
So it is nice to have a backdoor. Since HDCP protects the raw bitstream once it is compromised any source level protection can simply be bypassed.
Right now a backup of a Cinavia protected disc can't be played on a PS3 even when using AnyDVD. The same disc output and copied via HDMI can.
Actually it is less.
1080i60 is actually 60 interlaced fields. 1920 pixels x 540 pixels (even pixels) then another field 1920 pixels x 540 pixels (odd pixels).
1080i60 has same pixels per second as 1080p30. You just need >= 30 frames per second throughput to decrypt either 1080i60 (HDTV) or 1080p24 (Bluray).
I single drive can do it.
1080p24
1920 pixels * 1080 pixels * 24bits per pixel * 24 fps / 8 bits per byte = ~150MB/sec
1080i60 (1080i60 is 60 interlaced frames per second which is equivelent to 1080p30)
1920 pixels * 540 pixels * 60 bits per pixel * 60 frames per second / 8 bits per byte = ~186MB/sec
Technically a little more for audio but safely a drive which can sustain 200MB/sec could store all known content.
Such a disk exists right now.
Yeah HDMI has a theoretical MAX of 10Gbps but current content uses nowhere near the max.
1080p24
1920 pixels * 1080 pixels * 24bits per pixel * 24 fps / 8 bits per byte = ~150MB/sec
1080i60 (1080i60 is 60 interlaced frames per second which is equivelent to 1080p30)
1920 pixels * 540 pixels * 60 bits per pixel * 60 frames per second / 8 bits per byte = ~186MB/sec
Every form of consumer content available can be capture by a drive that can sustain ~186MB/sec.
More than enough.
1080p contents on blurays are 24fps.
1080i content (HDTV, cable, sat,etc) is actually 60 fields (each field is 1920 x 540 pixels) a second
1080i60 has same number of pixels per second as 1080p30. So any system capable of more than 30fps can decrypt all known HD content.
Blurays are 1080p24 thus you only need 24 fps throughput.
HDTV is 1080i60 which contains no more pixels/sec than 1080p30. Once you can get
Currently they can process about 23 million pixels per second (640x480x76). HDMI encrypts each pixel separately.
Once someone optimizes the code, parellelizes it to 2+ cores, or moves it to a GPU so that throughput exceeds 62 million pixels per second you can decrypt 1080i60, 1080p24, or 1080p30 in realtime.
You are missing the much easier solution.
The software Bluray player sends data to video card. What if it sent it to a virtual video card driver by "mistake"?
Oh wait it can't because it attempts an HDCP handshake the video output device (normally your HDCP compliant video card). If in the past you tried it w/ a virtual video card it would fail (you get error message in your software Bluray player about playback on noncompliant device).
How long before someone makes an HDCP compliant (w/ random valid HDCP sink key) virtual video card driver you install in windows that appears to other software as a valid HDCP compliant video device. The driver could be written to decrypt and write the stream to a disk.
How long before someone created a virtual video card adapter which software based Bluray players see as a valid HDCP compliant video card.
The virtual video card driver simply decrypts the HDCP stream and dumps it to a disk.
") "Best Gaming CPU" for say 140$ is like saying the Ford Fiesta is the best hauling truck for under 14k. It doesn't exist. If you are buying the severely low end, what does it really matter what you pick, they will all really suck, and/or do what job they can reasonably do about the same."
Hardly once again virtual all games are GPU limited not CPU limited and especially so at higher resolutions.
Given a finite budget spending less on CPU allows more to be spent on GPU.
If someone had $400 on CPU & GPU combined (more than capable of playing most games) they would be better served spending $150 on CPU and $250 on GPU. Spending $250 on higher end i5 CPU makes little sense as the system would be EVEN MORE GPU limited. Even if GPU/CPU budget is $500 one would be better suited spending $200 on CPU and $300 on GPU.
GPU is far more the limiting factor. For games spending >$200 on CPU buys you very little (and even less at higher resolutions).
No heat is being generated. Simpy moved.
Take a heat pump with COP of 3 and supply it 1 kwh of electricity.
The air inside the house will gain 3 kwh of thermal energy. The air (or ground for geothermal pumps) outside the home will lose 3 kWh of thermal energy.
No energy has been generated or even converted it has simply been moved. The total thermal energy of the system remains the same (outside air energy + inside air energy) however some small portion has been "pumped" into the house.
With resistance heating? No. With heat pumps? Yes.
Good heatpump can achieve a COP of 2.5 to 3. Thus 2.5 to 3.0 kwh of thermal energy for 1 kwh of electrical input.
So comparing entire system.
natural gas turbine 60% efficient
95% efficient transmissions
COP 2.5 to 3 of heatpump
1 kwh of natural gas * 0.60 * 0.95 * 2.5 = 1.43 kWh thermal energy
1 kwh of natural gas * 0.60 * 0.95 * 3.0 = 1.76 kWh thermal energy
Condensing Natural gas furnace w/ 97% AFUE
1 kwh of natural gas * 0.97 = 0.97 kWh thermal energy
The real killer of heatpumps is that natural gas tends to be about 1/3 to 1/4 the price on per kwh basis. So on an efficiency basis heat pumps win but on a cost effective basis usually nothing can beat natural gas heating.
which it doesn't. Efficiency only applies when converting energy.
Burn natural gas results in conversion of chemical energy into thermal energy. At best that conversion is 100% efficiency (real world it is more like 85%-95%).
However a heat pump doesn't convert energy. It simply MOVES energy (hence the very aptly named heat PUMP).
It moves thermal energy from outside the home into the home. (Similar to a refrigerator or AC in reverse).
As such it can "produce" >1 kwh of thermal energy per 1kwh of electrical energy. The exact limit depends on difference between the two heat sources (inside and outside). This why geothermal heat pumps have higher COP. The ground remains warmer than outside air in the winter. The ground also remains cooler in the summer than the outside air.
Carnot limit places an upper limit on the max COP and it varies depending on the outside heat source and required inside heat level. The theoretical limit is about 6:1 (600%) to 12:1 (1200%) in real world current geothermal heat pumps achieve about half that.
You get roughly 10kWh energy per cubic meter.
Thus even with an older 90% efficiency furnace (97% AFUE are available today) it would require natural gas price that is roughly doubled (48 cents per cubic meter) to break even on $0.053/Kwh electrical heating.
At 97% AFUE it would be more like 50+ cents.
It is no more a perpetual motion machine than a heating oil delivery truck is. A heating oil delivery truck transports a magnitude more gasoline than it burns. In a typical day of deliveries it may move 10x as much energy as it burns in its engine. In other words the energy transfered is 10x the energy used in the transfer.
In a similar fashion a heat pump simply moves heat energy. In winter it moves heat from outside (even when it is "cold" there is heat energy present). In summer it moves heat from the home to the outside. A heat pump with a COP of 4 adds 4kwh of thermal energy to the home for every 1kwh of electrical energy supplied. In comparison a resistance electrical heating adds 1kwh of thermal energy per 1 kwh of electrical energy supplied.
i5 starts at $180. So IF (big IF) you want to spend $180+ on CPU then yeah you really can't go wrong with Intel i5-xxx series.
However for many users they aren't CPU limited. CPU power makes very little difference in game performance once you get past dual core 2.5Ghz. It makes a difference but not as much as a GPU.
In the $100 to $200 segment is where AMD really shines.
From tomshardware.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-gaming-cpu-core-i5-760-core-i7-970,2698.html
Best Gaming CPU for ~$70 - Athlon II X3 425
Best Gaming CPU for ~$85 - Athlon II x3 445
Best Gaming CPU for ~$115 - Core i3-530
Best Gaming CPU for ~$140 - Phenom II x4 945
Best Gaming CPU for ~$160 - Phenom II x4 955
Best Gaming CPU for ~$180 - Phenom II x4 965
Best Gaming CPU for ~$200 - Core i5-760
Best Gaming CPU for ~$290 - Core i5-930
When someone has a fixed budget spending $50 to $100 LESS on CPU allows them to buy $50 to $100 more GPU and that system will offer better overall game performance.
I do agree that $200+ Intel dominates and AMD doesn't really have anything that answers but that is a small segment of the market. One also has to consider that i5 boards tend to run $10 to $20 more than comparable AMD board and i7 boards run $60 to $100 more.