Here is another option. It's just a battery operated HD that you can copy memory cards to. Then it hooks up with USB, as an removeable drive. Probably won't need drivers on Linux, Win2k or WinXP.
http://secure.serverlab.net/shop/merchant.mvc?Scre en=PROD&Store_Code=T00107&Product_Code=602 0
The only caveat would be that you need to be able to hook up to a USB port at the Internet Cafe.
Can't remember what mine is, but it I found it for USD$99 for 10GB storage.
They are only talking about the instructions and the functionality. This is exactly the information that is included in those manuals. They aren't saying that the transistors are a match.
I am guessing it is a joke. The problem is that if it is a joke, it isn't funny. The PigeonRank was funny and an astute reader would recognize it as such. If you read all the gmail pages, they went to alot of trouble coming up with all that and they put some scary stuff in there. One line in the personal privacy section mentions that messages may remain even after you delete them. They also talk about targetted advertising. The whole joke is about as funny as if a bank said they would offer free checking for life, but they are going to send you junk mail to pay for it.
The article does mention that it taxes HDs built into a music player. I don't know that the HD would be taxed if it were put in a PC. Also the HD probably was not purchased there, so it may be entering the system for the first time. This system is pretty common. Consider the Canadian Tax that has been mentioned and than there are Music CDRs that we in the US pay a "royalty" on.
It looks to me like Sony wants to expand market share or lock in market share in Europe. Does it bother me that this is how it works? Not really. I would prefer being able to get all the titles on the console of my choice, but I realize that I received a heavily subsidized piece of hardware so that Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo can make a profit on licensing fees from the software that runs on those systems. I can't blame them for trying to optimize profits.
My gaming experience sounds pretty similar to yours. I can buy whatever game I want, but now I have a harder time keeping interest in the games. I however don't think it is because I am growing up and gaming is something children do. Besides the fact that I don't have as much time as I did during my prime gaming years, I think that I am bored with the current titles. For instance, have we really had much innovation in the First Person Shooter scene since Half Life? I don't think so. My gaming group that was very active a few years ago has been trying all the new titles and nothing is catching on. We tried Call of Duty, but it felt like it was a step backwards. It just felt like we were playing the same game we had already played to death. RPGs aren't really that much better. If something really new came to the table I am sure I would once again be staying up till Three in the morning playing the game. I just haven't found anything that doesn't feel like I have already played it.
If the user has examined just 5% of the source on his machine, that is 5% more than he could see on a closed source system. You should also take into consideration that each user maybe looking at different sections of code, so among the community you are looking at much larger portions of the codebase having been examined. With a closed source version of the FSF breach, we wouldn't even have the opportunity to check the program. Our only recourse would be to locate an earlier version or hope that the vendor located any malicious code that had gotten into the system.
Even if we could trust closed source vendors producing completely secure code, all it takes is someone between the vendor and the consumer modifying the product. Closed source doesn't magically protect the user from tampering. No CD patches are an excellent example of people modifying closed source software to behave differently. That No CD patch could easily have been a backdoor or any number of other malicious pieces of code. All it would take is someone patching some popular app and replacing the patched version somewhere in the distribution system. Just think of the problems a popular patched app could do if it were placed on something like Downloads.com.
This is not security through obscurity. I can tell you that I use a port knocking scheme on my server and it doesn't allow you to get in. It will clue you in to the fact that could possibly packet sniff to get the key. Even than you could have a list of one time use knocks or maybe the knock is time based.
You are correct, it is not because water alters the focus. My guess is that the water may have been collecting on the dish a bit, if your reception increases after getting it out of the rain.
Dynamic scaling is not the way to go. I am guessing that the majority of gamers play games because they feel they have overcome a challenge. I think this applies to the non hardcore gamer too. Do you really think people would enjoy Dance Dance Revolution if it slowed down to match a players ability and let them hit the wrong pad?? With online play becoming more and more common, I think the dynamic scaling could set you up for a big letdown. Here you go finish the game and think you did really well and then you get online and can't score a frag.
I didn't see it so I will bring up another. Characters that depending on case can be mistaken for another.
ILL ill 111
When scanning code in a case insensitive language, you will have to keep an eye out for multiple possible representations of the word. With case sensitivity there will be a uniform representation I can more easily spot when scanning code.
I don't need a box. What I do want is a install package that I can burn to a CD as an archival copy. I also don't want to lose the right to use the software. My biggest fear is that the market is going to a subscription based market, like what Valve is trying with STEAM. When I purchase a game I want to know that I can access the install file six months down the line and that I will be authorized to play it. I don't want to have to maintain an ongoing subscription and possibly lose access to a game, because the hosting service has gone out of business or they drop the title without unlocking it first. Online distribution I think will work, the developers and publishers just need to accept that we want to buy the right to use the program, not a service that can vanish and leave us with nothing.
I open my mail client and compose a message to a friend. I hit the send button and the prior to sending the email to my ISPs email server, my mail client will do a task that takes about 10 seconds on most computers using the email message as input. When the task is done the mail client adds a header to the message saying what it got for an answer. The mail client then sends the message to the email server where it is handled like any other email. When the recipient recieves the mail it can check for the header. If it finds it and supports it, it can run the same task on the message and check the answer it gets to the answer the header claims. If the answers don't match, it would be a fairly good indicator that the message is spam.
To be honest this is just another tool in the end users toolbox of antispam tools. I am guessing that MS has plans to make its use default however in new versions of its mail client software.
You are missing the point. Nobody is saying that this is going to be required for all machines. Essentially it is an extra header attached to emails so email recipients can filter messages that don't have this tag. As I see it this is how it would work for most end users.
First setup a whitelist, make this your first spam check. On the whitelist? Email goes through never checking for any other spam criteria. (Mailing list should be accepted here).\ For mail that doesn't pass the white list check we can check for the header created by the MS program. We verify that the computationally intense header is correct and maybe we can let that through if we want, maybe I let emails with this tag pass through my spam checker with a higher spam score. If we decided to accept mails with the header, we now check the remaining email with a very thorough spam checker and use a very low score.
No matter how many computers they have, it will lower the number of emails that are able to be sent, if people filter on this criteria.
None of these issues are applicable to his solution. What he is saying is to have the SMTP server that recieved the mail hold the offending possible spam in an inactive queue. The SMTP server sends an email saying please reply to this message email (tagged for that specific email) to the reply to address on the email. If you don't have a valid reply to address it can't be validated and if nobody ever replies the message could be deleted or marked as spam and forwarded to the appropriate recipient. This could easily be implemented with any spam filter and if the user has access they could whitelist addresses that might get caught. The only issue would be emails to false positives not replying and you possibly missing an important message.
The problem isn't the wheel. It is that with only two buttons and a narrow scroll wheel, some people (My self and eschasi apparently) can't comfortably use three fingers for all the buttons. With my old Logitech Mouseman Cordless, I could have three fingers on the buttons in a natural position. On my new MX700, to put my middle finger on the wheel causes me to have to hold my middle 3 fingers together which gets very uncomfortable after a little while.
Now as to why I need it... My reason, is I am a gamer. When playing action games it is handy to be able to bring the extra finger into action on the mouse.
If you check the spec.org site, you can find numerous Intel and AMD 32bit processors that score higher than the numbers claimed by Apple. Last time this came around people argued that those numbers were biased by different compilers and optimizations. My take is those numbers are as good as the Apple numbers why should we believe that Dell, Intel and AMD are optimizing for SPEC and Apple isn't. Lastly as the complaint mentions depending on the application which computer is best varies widely.
I was pointing out that the sun burns roughly 700,000,000 tons of hydrogen every second and yet we are only getting roughly 450MWatts from it. Do these numbers mean much? No, but does the fact that it took 78 tons of vegetation to produce a gallon of gas mean much more. I don't think so. There is a lot of energy stored up in fossil fuels and we currently rely on it. We know it will eventually go away and we are working on means to eliminate the huge needs we have. I am pretty sure that most alternate fuels we can currently produce are not as "inefficient" as that so I think the only real use of this info is possibly as a question on a trivial pursuits card.
Recent studies show that Solar Energy is grossly inefficient. Scientists at a leading University have determined that solar powerer 100 watt light bulbs use 590,000,000 tons of hydrogen for every hour they are on. Scientists do say that they efficiency will get better as we cover more and more of the earth with solar cells, however they doubt we will ever get to the equivalent efficiency seen with the 78 tons of plant matter to a gallon of gasoline. These results have led many to question the use of solar power.
Well for one you can very easily find all the SPEC data sheets for the systems I quoted very easily on the SPEC website. Here are links to two of them.
http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2003q2/cp u2 000-20030421-02085.html http://www.spec.org/cpu20 00/results/res2003q4/cpu2 000-20030922-02519.html
By the way the Windows XP numbers are higher than the Linux one I quoted.
GCC 3.3 was used for the Opteron 146 numbers.
The benchmark is useful (I mean Apple does use them to falsely claim to be the fastest personal computer). Everyone got to use the compiler they like and these are the numbers they returned. Do these benchmarks scale to real world apps, probably not perfectly, but they do give us some idea. Considering the numbers from the AMD cpus, I would say they have a very safe margin over the G5. So far the numbers I have seen don't make the G5s look great. Check this page for Single CPU P4C 3.2Ghz numbers about 50% higher than the 2Ghz G5. http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2003q4 /cpu2 000-20030922-02521.html
I'm not saying that we should only buy a computer based on the SPEC benchmarks. Any sane consumer will want to do research based on the applications they want to run and what platforms they run on. Obviously if you want Final Cut Pro you need and vice versa for the current version of Premier.
All the systems for the SPEC numbers I showed use the same number of processors.
The first two numbers are single CPU and the second set is from Dual Processor systems.
I used the SPEC numbers from Apples Powermac page for the G5 scores and the opterons scores I got from the SPEC website.
http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/
You are right that the PCWorld test could have been done much better. What bothers me is that Apple is tossing around the fastest computer in the world title using the SPEC suite and a 3.2 P4C comes in around 1200 for SPECfp base and almost 1300 in SPECint base.
Slashdot Mirror
Here is another option. It's just a battery operated HD that you can copy memory cards to. Then it hooks up with USB, as an removeable drive. Probably won't need drivers on Linux, Win2k or WinXP.e en=PROD&Store_Code=T00107&Product_Code=602 0
http://secure.serverlab.net/shop/merchant.mvc?Scr
The only caveat would be that you need to be able to hook up to a USB port at the Internet Cafe.
Can't remember what mine is, but it I found it for USD$99 for 10GB storage.
They are only talking about the instructions and the functionality. This is exactly the information that is included in those manuals. They aren't saying that the transistors are a match.
I am guessing it is a joke. The problem is that if it is a joke, it isn't funny. The PigeonRank was funny and an astute reader would recognize it as such. If you read all the gmail pages, they went to alot of trouble coming up with all that and they put some scary stuff in there. One line in the personal privacy section mentions that messages may remain even after you delete them. They also talk about targetted advertising. The whole joke is about as funny as if a bank said they would offer free checking for life, but they are going to send you junk mail to pay for it.
The article does mention that it taxes HDs built into a music player. I don't know that the HD would be taxed if it were put in a PC. Also the HD probably was not purchased there, so it may be entering the system for the first time. This system is pretty common. Consider the Canadian Tax that has been mentioned and than there are Music CDRs that we in the US pay a "royalty" on.
It looks to me like Sony wants to expand market share or lock in market share in Europe. Does it bother me that this is how it works? Not really. I would prefer being able to get all the titles on the console of my choice, but I realize that I received a heavily subsidized piece of hardware so that Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo can make a profit on licensing fees from the software that runs on those systems. I can't blame them for trying to optimize profits.
My gaming experience sounds pretty similar to yours. I can buy whatever game I want, but now I have a harder time keeping interest in the games. I however don't think it is because I am growing up and gaming is something children do. Besides the fact that I don't have as much time as I did during my prime gaming years, I think that I am bored with the current titles. For instance, have we really had much innovation in the First Person Shooter scene since Half Life? I don't think so. My gaming group that was very active a few years ago has been trying all the new titles and nothing is catching on. We tried Call of Duty, but it felt like it was a step backwards. It just felt like we were playing the same game we had already played to death. RPGs aren't really that much better. If something really new came to the table I am sure I would once again be staying up till Three in the morning playing the game. I just haven't found anything that doesn't feel like I have already played it.
Here is an article detailing how MS shipped a virus to developers.
3 /0 714nw1.html
http://news.com.com/2100-1001_3-240413.html
For something more recent here is an article about a virus Novell shipped out.
http://www.nwfusion.com/newsletters/netware/200
Now why should we believe that closed source is so much safer than open source.
To look at it another way...
If the user has examined just 5% of the source on his machine, that is 5% more than he could see on a closed source system. You should also take into consideration that each user maybe looking at different sections of code, so among the community you are looking at much larger portions of the codebase having been examined. With a closed source version of the FSF breach, we wouldn't even have the opportunity to check the program. Our only recourse would be to locate an earlier version or hope that the vendor located any malicious code that had gotten into the system.
Even if we could trust closed source vendors producing completely secure code, all it takes is someone between the vendor and the consumer modifying the product. Closed source doesn't magically protect the user from tampering. No CD patches are an excellent example of people modifying closed source software to behave differently. That No CD patch could easily have been a backdoor or any number of other malicious pieces of code. All it would take is someone patching some popular app and replacing the patched version somewhere in the distribution system. Just think of the problems a popular patched app could do if it were placed on something like Downloads.com.
This is not security through obscurity. I can tell you that I use a port knocking scheme on my server and it doesn't allow you to get in. It will clue you in to the fact that could possibly packet sniff to get the key. Even than you could have a list of one time use knocks or maybe the knock is time based.
You are correct, it is not because water alters the focus. My guess is that the water may have been collecting on the dish a bit, if your reception increases after getting it out of the rain.
Dynamic scaling is not the way to go. I am guessing that the majority of gamers play games because they feel they have overcome a challenge. I think this applies to the non hardcore gamer too. Do you really think people would enjoy Dance Dance Revolution if it slowed down to match a players ability and let them hit the wrong pad?? With online play becoming more and more common, I think the dynamic scaling could set you up for a big letdown. Here you go finish the game and think you did really well and then you get online and can't score a frag.
I didn't see it so I will bring up another. Characters that depending on case can be mistaken for another.
ILL
ill
111
When scanning code in a case insensitive language, you will have to keep an eye out for multiple possible representations of the word. With case sensitivity there will be a uniform representation I can more easily spot when scanning code.
I don't need a box. What I do want is a install package that I can burn to a CD as an archival copy. I also don't want to lose the right to use the software. My biggest fear is that the market is going to a subscription based market, like what Valve is trying with STEAM. When I purchase a game I want to know that I can access the install file six months down the line and that I will be authorized to play it. I don't want to have to maintain an ongoing subscription and possibly lose access to a game, because the hosting service has gone out of business or they drop the title without unlocking it first. Online distribution I think will work, the developers and publishers just need to accept that we want to buy the right to use the program, not a service that can vanish and leave us with nothing.
The i875 and I think the i865 Intel Southbridge chips do have SATA integrated.
This is the idea.
I open my mail client and compose a message to a friend. I hit the send button and the prior to sending the email to my ISPs email server, my mail client will do a task that takes about 10 seconds on most computers using the email message as input. When the task is done the mail client adds a header to the message saying what it got for an answer. The mail client then sends the message to the email server where it is handled like any other email. When the recipient recieves the mail it can check for the header. If it finds it and supports it, it can run the same task on the message and check the answer it gets to the answer the header claims. If the answers don't match, it would be a fairly good indicator that the message is spam.
To be honest this is just another tool in the end users toolbox of antispam tools. I am guessing that MS has plans to make its use default however in new versions of its mail client software.
You are missing the point. Nobody is saying that this is going to be required for all machines. Essentially it is an extra header attached to emails so email recipients can filter messages that don't have this tag. As I see it this is how it would work for most end users.
First setup a whitelist, make this your first spam check. On the whitelist? Email goes through never checking for any other spam criteria. (Mailing list should be accepted here).\
For mail that doesn't pass the white list check we can check for the header created by the MS program. We verify that the computationally intense header is correct and maybe we can let that through if we want, maybe I let emails with this tag pass through my spam checker with a higher spam score.
If we decided to accept mails with the header, we now check the remaining email with a very thorough spam checker and use a very low score.
No matter how many computers they have, it will lower the number of emails that are able to be sent, if people filter on this criteria.
None of these issues are applicable to his solution. What he is saying is to have the SMTP server that recieved the mail hold the offending possible spam in an inactive queue. The SMTP server sends an email saying please reply to this message email (tagged for that specific email) to the reply to address on the email. If you don't have a valid reply to address it can't be validated and if nobody ever replies the message could be deleted or marked as spam and forwarded to the appropriate recipient. This could easily be implemented with any spam filter and if the user has access they could whitelist addresses that might get caught. The only issue would be emails to false positives not replying and you possibly missing an important message.
The problem isn't the wheel. It is that with only two buttons and a narrow scroll wheel, some people (My self and eschasi apparently) can't comfortably use three fingers for all the buttons. With my old Logitech Mouseman Cordless, I could have three fingers on the buttons in a natural position. On my new MX700, to put my middle finger on the wheel causes me to have to hold my middle 3 fingers together which gets very uncomfortable after a little while.
Now as to why I need it... My reason, is I am a gamer. When playing action games it is handy to be able to bring the extra finger into action on the mouse.
If you check the spec.org site, you can find numerous Intel and AMD 32bit processors that score higher than the numbers claimed by Apple. Last time this came around people argued that those numbers were biased by different compilers and optimizations. My take is those numbers are as good as the Apple numbers why should we believe that Dell, Intel and AMD are optimizing for SPEC and Apple isn't. Lastly as the complaint mentions depending on the application which computer is best varies widely.
I was pointing out that the sun burns roughly 700,000,000 tons of hydrogen every second and yet we are only getting roughly 450MWatts from it. Do these numbers mean much? No, but does the fact that it took 78 tons of vegetation to produce a gallon of gas mean much more. I don't think so. There is a lot of energy stored up in fossil fuels and we currently rely on it. We know it will eventually go away and we are working on means to eliminate the huge needs we have. I am pretty sure that most alternate fuels we can currently produce are not as "inefficient" as that so I think the only real use of this info is possibly as a question on a trivial pursuits card.
Recent studies show that Solar Energy is grossly inefficient. Scientists at a leading University have determined that solar powerer 100 watt light bulbs use 590,000,000 tons of hydrogen for every hour they are on. Scientists do say that they efficiency will get better as we cover more and more of the earth with solar cells, however they doubt we will ever get to the equivalent efficiency seen with the 78 tons of plant matter to a gallon of gasoline. These results have led many to question the use of solar power.
Oops, that should be you need a Mac for Final Cut Pro and an X86 for Premier.
Well for one you can very easily find all the SPEC data sheets for the systems I quoted very easily on the SPEC website. Here are links to two of them.
p u2 000-20030421-02085.html0 00/results/res2003q4/cpu2 000-20030922-02519.html
4 /cpu2 000-20030922-02521.html
http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2003q2/c
http://www.spec.org/cpu2
By the way the Windows XP numbers are higher than the Linux one I quoted.
GCC 3.3 was used for the Opteron 146 numbers.
The benchmark is useful (I mean Apple does use them to falsely claim to be the fastest personal computer). Everyone got to use the compiler they like and these are the numbers they returned. Do these benchmarks scale to real world apps, probably not perfectly, but they do give us some idea. Considering the numbers from the AMD cpus, I would say they have a very safe margin over the G5. So far the numbers I have seen don't make the G5s look great. Check this page for Single CPU P4C 3.2Ghz numbers about 50% higher than the 2Ghz G5.
http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2003q
I'm not saying that we should only buy a computer based on the SPEC benchmarks. Any sane consumer will want to do research based on the applications they want to run and what platforms they run on. Obviously if you want Final Cut Pro you need and vice versa for the current version of Premier.
All the systems for the SPEC numbers I showed use the same number of processors.
The first two numbers are single CPU and the second set is from Dual Processor systems.
I used the SPEC numbers from Apples Powermac page for the G5 scores and the opterons scores I got from the SPEC website.
http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/
You are right that the PCWorld test could have been done much better. What bothers me is that Apple is tossing around the fastest computer in the world title using the SPEC suite and a 3.2 P4C comes in around 1200 for SPECfp base and almost 1300 in SPECint base.
Check this website for a breakdown of the energy costs.
http://www.dslreports.com/faq/2404