"retro
(rtr) adj. 1. Retroactive: retro pay. 2. Involving, relating to, or reminiscent of things past; retrospective: "As is often the case in retro fashion, historical accuracy is somewhat beside the point" (New York Times). n. pl. retros A fashion, decor, design, or style reminiscent of things past."
Old gaming technologies != "Retro gaming technologies".
Gaming with old technologies == gaming involving things past == retro(2) gaming. Therefore technologies used in gaming with old technologies are, using brackets to show how the words should be grouped when you parse them: ((retro gaming) technologies).
"The first game to simulate 3D was 3D Monster Maze for the Sinclair ZX81..."
That's the second time recently I've seen that myth trotted out. It's not true. Although a good game, it was actually a copy of a similar game for the Commodore PET that I played at least a year before the ZX81 even came out.
Uh-huh. And on more powerful workstation/minicomputer platforms, such games go back further. "Maze War", which also is sometimes claimed to be the first online multiplayer game, ran on the PDS-1 (a minicomputer with vector graphics) in 1974, according to the wikipedia article. Admittedly it didn't see a lot of distribution -- there weren't many PDS-1s outside of MIT, from all I gather -- but it existed. If you want widely-distributed, Battlezone was released about a year before the ZX81, although it may or may not have predated the game you remember.
Some of the other stuff is dubious; for instance I'm pretty sure there was a steering wheel controller available for the Atari 2600, which predates the console described as the first to have one in the article.
Not american, but I was under the impression that every american supposedly had a right of due process
5th amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger
Emphasis mine. It explicitly does not distinguish between citizens of the US and others.
However, if this car actually makes it into production [...] it might also get butchered (visually speaking) between concept and production (remember the Chevy Volt concept car?).
I dunno, Jaguar produce some very nice looking cars. I don't see them going for a design that isn't truly beautiful if they do release a hybrid sports car.
THe 'early adopters' in car's world, the afficcinados, like Jeremy Clarkson will not go for a boring hybrid unless it gives them better thrill than a conventional gas guzzling supercar.
It's well known that Clarkson will recommend any car Jaguar produces. He's like their biggest fan or something.
When the Obama Administration claims the right to ASSASSINATE CITIZENS without due process, I'm not surprised that a little thing like blocking websites doesn't merit due process either.
What does his being a US citizen have anything to do with it? Why should he be treated any differently in this respect from anyone else?
(Whether this means he's fair game, or that instead nobody should be listed for "targeted killing" as the current jargon goes, I'm not *entirely* sure of...)
Nevermind the fact that if you started stuffing D20s into your mouth you probably deserve what happens
A friends kid has a toy hard hat, a piece of pressed (non-expanded) polystyrene, effectively an ellipse measuring about 25cm x 15cm with a head-shaped indentation pressed into it. Said toy comes with a warning label which, along with the standard "does not provide protection" warning, also suggests that it is unsuitable for children under 3 due to containing small parts.
I'd love to see a 3-year-old get that in their mouth.
This is to determine if the makers of the kits must test these constituent parts for lead, which has been banned in toys.
Who on Earth puts lead into rulers or paperclips? Lead's much more expensive than the alternatives and has no real advantage in this application.
Also: WTF? Lead banned in toys? Speaking as a former collector of lead miniatures, I have to say it hasn't harmed me in the... err... hang on. What was I saying? Was I saying something? Never mind.
Your school sounds *fun*. Mine didn't do half of that stuff. I do remember disecting the bull's eye, and throwing a bit of sodium in a tank. The rest of that stuff, no. Didn't make any explosives until I got to university (and that was, uh, extracurricular -- not much explosive opportunity on a CS course). Don't think my school even *had* any nitric acid. We always used hydrochloric for everything that required an acid.:(
Dunno about the rulers and paperclips, but I think some standards are clearly required for magnets. You can now cheaply (i.e. for much less money than the average kid gets given in a week) acquire magnets that are strong enough to do serious damage if handled incorrectly. Crush injuries, or splinters of magnetic material if you let one slam into a solid metal surface, or (far worse) another, aren't exactly fun. You don't want a magnet that's too strong in a kids science kit; nor do you want one that doesn't have a good, strong coating that resists fragmentation.
What the hell are paper clips doing in a science kit anyway?
At a guess: as a demonstration that a ferro-magnetic material in contact with a magnet becomes magnetic itself, i.e. you can build a chain of paperclips hanging from a magnet to a much greater distance from the magnet than the magnet will attract the paperclips from by itself.
That doesn't say it's a *sufficient* security mechanism for any specific threat, but saying simply that it is *not* one is ignorant.
Well, yes, but the fact that the sufficient security mechanism that you would use to fill in the gaps in the protection it allows (i.e. a host-based firewall) will also fix any problems gained by having your internal network globally addressable renders the point kind-of-moot.
I haven't tried this, but sources I've seen suggest it isn't the case: you just need to run "netsh ipv6 install" (or something similar; the precise command seems to vary according to which service pack you're on). The support is already there, it just isn't enabled by default because it was considered experimental.
Unfortunately, the support is missing several important features, including IIRC support for DHCP.
I participated in a RIPE training 4 years ago and according to their statistics, we were supposed to deplete the IPv4 address space during 2009. Well guess what..
The low estimates for running out of addresses are the ones that usually get quoted, but both low and high bounds on the estimate have been available for a while and while they tighten taking a midpoint has been quite stable for some time now. 4 years ago the estimates were 2009-2013. IIRC the bounds are now something like June 2011 - December 2012.
Much as I respect DJB (ROTFL), he's talking utter bullshit, and has clearly never used a modern implementation of IPv6.
Suppose someone sells you a public IPv6 address. You put your computer on that address. You find that you can't reach the CNN servers or the Google servers or your company's web servers. How will you react?
This is an example of what's called an interoperability failure. Right now, many---in fact, most---Internet servers can't talk to clients on public IPv6 addresses.
I did some experiments a few weeks ago with IPv6. You know what? Most things just work. There's this thing called ipv4-over-ipv6 tunnelling: if you attempt to connect to an address of the form::ffff:[an ipv4 address] your local router should be able to handle tunnelling the packets as far as a router that has a public IPv4 address, at which point you get an NAT'd connection outgoing and everything works pretty much transparently. The only thing that *fails* is when connections back are needed. Pretty much no P2P software works. Active-mode FTP fails. The situation is pretty similar to using an NAT router that doesn't have any protocol mangling stuff like we generally expect these days.
The specifications could have defined a functionally equivalent public IPv6 address for each public IPv4 address, embedding the IPv4 address space into the IPv6 address space; but they didn't.
You can't route IPv6 packets directly to IPv4 addresses. The idea is absurd: how can a machine that only talks IPv4 reply to such a packet? Clearly the packet must be rewritten at some point, and that has to be done by a machine that has a public IPv4 address, which basically means either your router or some upstream router that your router should be aware of. Tunneling the packets is the only possibility, which is where the 4-in-6 tunnel comes in.
(RFC 2893 does some of this, but the IPv6 proponents say that RFC 2893 is a local option, not part of the IPv6 architecture. In particular, they say that an IPv6 client is not supposed to send a packet to an IPv4 address by using the RFC 2893 address.)
RFC2893 is an outdated RFC that has been superceded by RFC4213. Bernstein's rant is undated, but it's either at least 5 years out of date, or else he's attacking a strawman version of IPv6 that ignores recent advances.
As of 2002.11, Google hasn't published IPv6 addresses for www.google.com
OK, so the rant is probably nearly 8 years out of date. FTR, google.com is accessible through IPv6, as I believe are all the other specific examples of sites DJB quotes that were not IPv6 enabled at the time of writing.
Most of his concerns seem to be addressed by the easy methods available for automatically tunneling IPv4 connections over IPv6. The *only* outstanding issue is the one he glosses over briefly: that an IPv4-only client can't talk to an IPv4-only server. This is unfortunate, but it's hard to see how anything can be done about it, other than perhaps reserving the last few IPv4 addresses for server applications and only allocating IPv6 addresses to nodes that will be clients (which would be an administrative nightmare, but should be feasible).
This is what Google does too. A business pays cash to get a chance at being displayed on Google's first page of search results. And nobody raises a finger...right?
I'm not paying Google to provide me with search results. They therefore have a right to do whatever the hell they want. I *am* paying my ISP, so they *will* carry my packets, with equal priority to their other customers' packets, or I *will* be terminating my contract and taking my money elsewhere. I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels like that.
most other ISP's are beholden to BT to a greater or lesser extent
AIUI, usually only for the so-called "last mile" (which, on BT's network, averages more like 2 miles), over which there should only be a single customer's traffic, so prioritization shouldn't be an issue at this level.
As a business whose sole existence is to make money and pay their shareholders, is anyone surprised at this? Hell, does any reasonable person expect otherwise? It makes perfect business sense to prioritize websites that pay you. This is why people should not expect businesses to promote net neutrality.
Not really, no. As a customer of an ISP (i.e. an end user), I'm paying to have my packets transferred across their network. I'm not going to be happy to find that they're prioritizing the traffic of another customer just because that customer is using a service that the ISP prefers to the one I'm using. I download several hundred megabytes of data per day from a specialist streaming data provider. I don't suspect my provider is going to be willing to pay my ISP (in addition to me paying them) to get that data to me, but I do need it to arrive reasonably quickly after it is sent. If my ISP starts playing around with this kind of bullshit, then:
1. I'll be very carefully reading the terms of service for terms like the one in my ISP's terms right now: "[We] attempt to provide [you] with the best possible service" (which is usually followed by a disclaimer that they won't be responsible for failures that are out of their control). If they're prioritizing somebody else's traffic, they're *intentionally* not providing *me* with the best possible service, a breach of this term, meaning I can expect to recover my reasonable costs as a result of this in compensation, which is to say at the very least a partial refund of what I'm paying for the service.
2. I'll be moving ASAP to an ISP that *doesn't* do this.
Slashdot Mirror
"retro
(rtr)
adj.
1. Retroactive: retro pay.
2. Involving, relating to, or reminiscent of things past; retrospective: "As is often the case in retro fashion, historical accuracy is somewhat beside the point" (New York Times).
n. pl. retros
A fashion, decor, design, or style reminiscent of things past."
Old gaming technologies != "Retro gaming technologies".
Gaming with old technologies == gaming involving things past == retro(2) gaming.
Therefore technologies used in gaming with old technologies are, using brackets to show how the words should be grouped when you parse them: ((retro gaming) technologies).
"The first game to simulate 3D was 3D Monster Maze for the Sinclair ZX81..."
That's the second time recently I've seen that myth trotted out. It's not true. Although a good game, it was actually a copy of a similar game for the Commodore PET that I played at least a year before the ZX81 even came out.
Uh-huh. And on more powerful workstation/minicomputer platforms, such games go back further. "Maze War", which also is sometimes claimed to be the first online multiplayer game, ran on the PDS-1 (a minicomputer with vector graphics) in 1974, according to the wikipedia article. Admittedly it didn't see a lot of distribution -- there weren't many PDS-1s outside of MIT, from all I gather -- but it existed. If you want widely-distributed, Battlezone was released about a year before the ZX81, although it may or may not have predated the game you remember.
Some of the other stuff is dubious; for instance I'm pretty sure there was a steering wheel controller available for the Atari 2600, which predates the console described as the first to have one in the article.
There's not necessarily a win condition in these games.
So, the only way to win is not to play?
I believe he hates the s-type...
Have you ever been in an S-type? It's basically a rebadged Ford Scorpio.
Not american, but I was under the impression that every american supposedly had a right of due process
5th amendment:
Emphasis mine. It explicitly does not distinguish between citizens of the US and others.
However, if this car actually makes it into production [...] it might also get butchered (visually speaking) between concept and production (remember the Chevy Volt concept car?).
I dunno, Jaguar produce some very nice looking cars. I don't see them going for a design that isn't truly beautiful if they do release a hybrid sports car.
THe 'early adopters' in car's world, the afficcinados, like Jeremy Clarkson will not go for a boring hybrid unless it gives them better thrill than a conventional gas guzzling supercar.
It's well known that Clarkson will recommend any car Jaguar produces. He's like their biggest fan or something.
When the Obama Administration claims the right to ASSASSINATE CITIZENS without due process, I'm not surprised that a little thing like blocking websites doesn't merit due process either.
What does his being a US citizen have anything to do with it? Why should he be treated any differently in this respect from anyone else?
(Whether this means he's fair game, or that instead nobody should be listed for "targeted killing" as the current jargon goes, I'm not *entirely* sure of...)
What math are YOU using?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrases_from_The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#Answer_to_the_Ultimate_Question_of_Life.2C_the_Universe_and_Everything_.2842.29
Nevermind the fact that if you started stuffing D20s into your mouth you probably deserve what happens
A friends kid has a toy hard hat, a piece of pressed (non-expanded) polystyrene, effectively an ellipse measuring about 25cm x 15cm with a head-shaped indentation pressed into it. Said toy comes with a warning label which, along with the standard "does not provide protection" warning, also suggests that it is unsuitable for children under 3 due to containing small parts.
I'd love to see a 3-year-old get that in their mouth.
This is to determine if the makers of the kits must test these constituent parts for lead, which has been banned in toys.
Who on Earth puts lead into rulers or paperclips? Lead's much more expensive than the alternatives and has no real advantage in this application.
Also: WTF? Lead banned in toys? Speaking as a former collector of lead miniatures, I have to say it hasn't harmed me in the ... err ... hang on. What was I saying? Was I saying something? Never mind.
Your school sounds *fun*. Mine didn't do half of that stuff. I do remember disecting the bull's eye, and throwing a bit of sodium in a tank. The rest of that stuff, no. Didn't make any explosives until I got to university (and that was, uh, extracurricular -- not much explosive opportunity on a CS course). Don't think my school even *had* any nitric acid. We always used hydrochloric for everything that required an acid. :(
Dunno about the rulers and paperclips, but I think some standards are clearly required for magnets. You can now cheaply (i.e. for much less money than the average kid gets given in a week) acquire magnets that are strong enough to do serious damage if handled incorrectly. Crush injuries, or splinters of magnetic material if you let one slam into a solid metal surface, or (far worse) another, aren't exactly fun. You don't want a magnet that's too strong in a kids science kit; nor do you want one that doesn't have a good, strong coating that resists fragmentation.
What the hell are paper clips doing in a science kit anyway?
At a guess: as a demonstration that a ferro-magnetic material in contact with a magnet becomes magnetic itself, i.e. you can build a chain of paperclips hanging from a magnet to a much greater distance from the magnet than the magnet will attract the paperclips from by itself.
You are correct, but the problem was that when IPv6 was first announced, the NAT based tunnel mechanism was not ready yet, AFAICT.
Oh, sure, and I'm happy to accept that it wasn't ready when DJB wrote that rant. But it is now, so perhaps people should stop referring to it.
That doesn't say it's a *sufficient* security mechanism for any specific threat, but saying simply that it is *not* one is ignorant.
Well, yes, but the fact that the sufficient security mechanism that you would use to fill in the gaps in the protection it allows (i.e. a host-based firewall) will also fix any problems gained by having your internal network globally addressable renders the point kind-of-moot.
winxp needed download from Microsoft
I haven't tried this, but sources I've seen suggest it isn't the case: you just need to run "netsh ipv6 install" (or something similar; the precise command seems to vary according to which service pack you're on). The support is already there, it just isn't enabled by default because it was considered experimental.
Unfortunately, the support is missing several important features, including IIRC support for DHCP.
I participated in a RIPE training 4 years ago and according to their statistics, we were supposed to deplete the IPv4 address space during 2009. Well guess what..
The low estimates for running out of addresses are the ones that usually get quoted, but both low and high bounds on the estimate have been available for a while and while they tighten taking a midpoint has been quite stable for some time now. 4 years ago the estimates were 2009-2013. IIRC the bounds are now something like June 2011 - December 2012.
http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html
Much as I respect DJB (ROTFL), he's talking utter bullshit, and has clearly never used a modern implementation of IPv6.
Suppose someone sells you a public IPv6 address. You put your computer on that address. You find that you can't reach the CNN servers or the Google servers or your company's web servers. How will you react?
This is an example of what's called an interoperability failure. Right now, many---in fact, most---Internet servers can't talk to clients on public IPv6 addresses.
I did some experiments a few weeks ago with IPv6. You know what? Most things just work. There's this thing called ipv4-over-ipv6 tunnelling: if you attempt to connect to an address of the form ::ffff:[an ipv4 address] your local router should be able to handle tunnelling the packets as far as a router that has a public IPv4 address, at which point you get an NAT'd connection outgoing and everything works pretty much transparently. The only thing that *fails* is when connections back are needed. Pretty much no P2P software works. Active-mode FTP fails. The situation is pretty similar to using an NAT router that doesn't have any protocol mangling stuff like we generally expect these days.
The specifications could have defined a functionally equivalent public IPv6 address for each public IPv4 address, embedding the IPv4 address space into the IPv6 address space; but they didn't.
You can't route IPv6 packets directly to IPv4 addresses. The idea is absurd: how can a machine that only talks IPv4 reply to such a packet? Clearly the packet must be rewritten at some point, and that has to be done by a machine that has a public IPv4 address, which basically means either your router or some upstream router that your router should be aware of. Tunneling the packets is the only possibility, which is where the 4-in-6 tunnel comes in.
(RFC 2893 does some of this, but the IPv6 proponents say that RFC 2893 is a local option, not part of the IPv6 architecture. In particular, they say that an IPv6 client is not supposed to send a packet to an IPv4 address by using the RFC 2893 address.)
RFC2893 is an outdated RFC that has been superceded by RFC4213. Bernstein's rant is undated, but it's either at least 5 years out of date, or else he's attacking a strawman version of IPv6 that ignores recent advances.
As of 2002.11, Google hasn't published IPv6 addresses for www.google.com
OK, so the rant is probably nearly 8 years out of date. FTR, google.com is accessible through IPv6, as I believe are all the other specific examples of sites DJB quotes that were not IPv6 enabled at the time of writing.
Most of his concerns seem to be addressed by the easy methods available for automatically tunneling IPv4 connections over IPv6. The *only* outstanding issue is the one he glosses over briefly: that an IPv4-only client can't talk to an IPv4-only server. This is unfortunate, but it's hard to see how anything can be done about it, other than perhaps reserving the last few IPv4 addresses for server applications and only allocating IPv6 addresses to nodes that will be clients (which would be an administrative nightmare, but should be feasible).
While attacking the Slashdot page I found Firefox performance not up to scratch. Chrome 7.x was better but still not perfect.
Anyone know of a high-FPS browser?
IE9?
When you say something like "fails in chrome" don't you think it would be a good idea to have actually tried it?
What he meant was "I fail in chrome 6." ;)
you say? Submission by anyone you say? Finally I can get those self righteous morons in Portland to ride into the river.
There isn't a river in Portland. Plenty of sea, though.
(Note: the app in question only has UK maps.)
This is what Google does too. A business pays cash to get a chance at being displayed on Google's first page of search results. And nobody raises a finger...right?
I'm not paying Google to provide me with search results. They therefore have a right to do whatever the hell they want. I *am* paying my ISP, so they *will* carry my packets, with equal priority to their other customers' packets, or I *will* be terminating my contract and taking my money elsewhere. I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels like that.
most other ISP's are beholden to BT to a greater or lesser extent
AIUI, usually only for the so-called "last mile" (which, on BT's network, averages more like 2 miles), over which there should only be a single customer's traffic, so prioritization shouldn't be an issue at this level.
As a business whose sole existence is to make money and pay their shareholders, is anyone surprised at this? Hell, does any reasonable person expect otherwise? It makes perfect business sense to prioritize websites that pay you. This is why people should not expect businesses to promote net neutrality.
Not really, no. As a customer of an ISP (i.e. an end user), I'm paying to have my packets transferred across their network. I'm not going to be happy to find that they're prioritizing the traffic of another customer just because that customer is using a service that the ISP prefers to the one I'm using. I download several hundred megabytes of data per day from a specialist streaming data provider. I don't suspect my provider is going to be willing to pay my ISP (in addition to me paying them) to get that data to me, but I do need it to arrive reasonably quickly after it is sent. If my ISP starts playing around with this kind of bullshit, then:
1. I'll be very carefully reading the terms of service for terms like the one in my ISP's terms right now: "[We] attempt to provide [you] with the best possible service" (which is usually followed by a disclaimer that they won't be responsible for failures that are out of their control). If they're prioritizing somebody else's traffic, they're *intentionally* not providing *me* with the best possible service, a breach of this term, meaning I can expect to recover my reasonable costs as a result of this in compensation, which is to say at the very least a partial refund of what I'm paying for the service.
2. I'll be moving ASAP to an ISP that *doesn't* do this.