On the contrary, this allows a game to be evaluated on its own merits.
If the devs promised all of heaven and earth to kickstarter, but only deliver a decent game... original backers are going to slam it. See _No Man's Sky._ It's not a terrible game, but it over-promised and under-delivered. But it's not a bad game. Average to middling. Definitely better than the 35% it currently holds.
That's a bit of an extreme example, but the concept holds true for any game.
As soon as we get more games utilizing Vulkan, or Microsoft puts forth an OS that isn't spyware, I'll happily swap over to a "modern" OS. But for now, I use my computer for games. A VM just doesn't cut it.
Further, no one is asking Intel to support "a million different OSes." Just the #1 OS by market share (and it's not even close). Can you blame people for balking?
Oh, and for the record, you can definitely run Windows 7 on Xeons. I currently have it installed with an E5-2660 (long story, old batch of servers, running some tests)
But... that's the point. I neither want nor need integrated graphics. If I'm running a gaming rig or CAD/rendering machine, I'll need a much much better video card. And if I'm running a server, I can just pick up a cheap card for $20-30
Not even "old." Just current. CPUs aren't advancing at a breakneck pace or anything. A modern Skylake processor will last the better part of a decade for most purposes, and by then, Intel should have come to their senses, or a competitor will step in.
Also, this should only affect the consumer line (Core i). I can't imagine them locking Xeon processors into Windows 10, so just get yourself the equivalent Xeon (e.g. Xeon E3-1230v5 vs Core i7 6700). You lose the integrated graphics, but that's easy to work around, and it's usually cheaper anyway.
Yup. I'm still on a Sandy Bridge 2700k that I purchased in early 2012. I've upgraded RAM and GPU once since then, and added an SSD. CPU and MoBo haven't changed, and everything still runs smooth.
I'll probably upgrade to a skylake at some point; get that sexy ddr4 going on. But that won't be for a few more years yet
That's because everyone on the internet it looking to do repairs or modifications. Exx is a chassis (aka "platform"), so it will dictate compatibility. Any number of engines or transmissions can be installed into that chassis over several years
For example, the E36 was the 3-series platform through the 90s. A replacement headlight, seat, stereo, etc. will be compatible in any of those years, and any engines (e.g. a 1992 316i and a 1995 325tds).
And yes, the year and model will provide that same info, but platform number is a broader and more useful number in the repair niche
Except when they don't [wikipedia.org], and put a 2.0 liter engine in a *30, or a 3.0 liter engine in a *28.
Fair point. There are exceptions (most notably the M and Z series) but even those follow clear patterns for the most part. The Z1 - Z4 were simply sequential, they made a Z1 roadster until they upgraded the design to Z2, etc... (Z8 and Z9 are still dumb.) And the M series are just amped up versions of existing models, based on the associated number. An M3 is a 3-series (small frame) with all the bells and whistles. Likewise an M5 is a tricked out 5-series (mid-size).
The odd/even thing is stupid
No argument here. I didn't like the decision, especially as someone who drove an old 328is 2-door (1999 E36 platform). But I still respect that they've made a choice (whether or not I agree with that choice) rather than just slapping random letter number combos on their cars.
So long as there's rhyme and reason to the numbering scheme, I have no problem with it.
BMW does this, and it's awesome. The first digit is the body style (3 is small, 5 is mid, 7 is large), and the next 2 digits are the engine displacement. They add letters on the end for extra little features: i for Fuel Injection, s for Sport Package, L for Luxury Package, etc. So a 328is is a small car with a 2.8L engine, fuel injection and sport package.
They recently added even numbers to denote 2-door variants, and left odd numbers for 4-doors. They've also started putting x or i in front for SUVs or Electric/Hybrids respectively, but the concept holds. The alphanumeric scheme serves a purpose.
With your daily commute handled via self-driving car, you can afford to live further from the city.
Living further from the city will save you some money and/or get you a bigger plot of land. The self-driven commute will allow you the time necessary to take care of any menial tasks for the day. Check your email, return a few phone calls, schedule that doctors appointment, file your taxes... whatever needs to be done.
Now you can spend your time at home doing things. Buy an easel and some paint brushes, grow that fro, and go all Bob Ross. Or learn to garden (which you can read about during that drive to that doctor's appointment), write music, brew beer, whatever tickles your fancy. Maybe you want to build up an old manual-drive hot rod in your garage. Go nuts. And you'll still be environmentally cleaner with all that clean energy powering your electric ride for the daily drive.
The world doesn't automatically become boring because we might remove a few of the things to which you cling. Don't worry. There will still be enough room for the middle class ennui that exists today.
Except that reducing the scope by such a drastic and arbitrary amount makes it less resistant to quibbling.
Sure, his point is valid if you only know ~2000 words. There are more than 2000 unique words in this comments section
To further invite more quibbling: was Troubador in the list? I don't think so... it was worth 5 more points of entropy by qualifying as "uncommon." Apparently there exists a separate arbitrarily small dictionary of uncommon words in addition to the arbitrarily small dictionary of common words.
The Second Edition of the 20-volume Oxford English Dictionary contains full entries for 171,476 words in current use, and 47,156 obsolete words. To this may be added around 9,500 derivative words included as subentries.
You're right, it's easy to double or triple his pool. Or centuple. He's off by a factor of roughly 110 (or 84 if you only count full entries, but lets not split hairs).
That one has always bothered me. The logic is all fucky
The first example, Tr0ub4dor, assumes that the attacker can guess random words, and get a "warmer... colder" reading, until they guess Troubador (which a dictionary attack probably wouldn't, cuz it's spelled Troubadour, but I digress) and then just make common substitutions from there
In the second example, why do all 4 random words have the same amount of entropy? Sure, in a dictionary attack, each word is equally difficult to guess, but now we assume that the attack knows to randomly mix 4 dictionary words? On what grounds?
That's not how this works... that's not how any of this works.
Really, any password more robust than "password" is fine for most users. It's the responsibility of the database owner to put in place rules against brute force attacks on live systems (i.e. lockout after 3 unsuccessful attempts, disabling old accounts, etc) and to properly encrypt/salt the database to protect against offline attacks (and really, to prevent offline attacks entirely by securing their system properly)
Slashdot Mirror
We now know that we're being spied upon (which most of us probably already suspected)
As a result, we've begun encrypting our data, websites are using https as a default, and the nation has become generally MORE secure.
This is the digital equivalent of the gestapo bitching about the 4th amendment making their jobs impossible and protecting criminals.
On the contrary, this allows a game to be evaluated on its own merits.
If the devs promised all of heaven and earth to kickstarter, but only deliver a decent game ... original backers are going to slam it. See _No Man's Sky._ It's not a terrible game, but it over-promised and under-delivered. But it's not a bad game. Average to middling. Definitely better than the 35% it currently holds.
That's a bit of an extreme example, but the concept holds true for any game.
Not for moral reasons, for scientific ones. I'd be very interested to see what evolution would produce without our influence.
There are ample rocks floating through space. We can select barren ones to use for our seeding experiments.
We must make sure other countries don't attack us, because we've created so many back doors for us to attack ourselves.
The NSA and their ilk have made us prime targets, and now we rely on begging other countries to not exploit all those vulnerabilities we've created.
As soon as we get more games utilizing Vulkan, or Microsoft puts forth an OS that isn't spyware, I'll happily swap over to a "modern" OS. But for now, I use my computer for games. A VM just doesn't cut it.
Further, no one is asking Intel to support "a million different OSes." Just the #1 OS by market share (and it's not even close). Can you blame people for balking?
Oh, and for the record, you can definitely run Windows 7 on Xeons. I currently have it installed with an E5-2660 (long story, old batch of servers, running some tests)
But ... that's the point. I neither want nor need integrated graphics. If I'm running a gaming rig or CAD/rendering machine, I'll need a much much better video card. And if I'm running a server, I can just pick up a cheap card for $20-30
Not even "old." Just current. CPUs aren't advancing at a breakneck pace or anything. A modern Skylake processor will last the better part of a decade for most purposes, and by then, Intel should have come to their senses, or a competitor will step in.
Also, this should only affect the consumer line (Core i). I can't imagine them locking Xeon processors into Windows 10, so just get yourself the equivalent Xeon (e.g. Xeon E3-1230v5 vs Core i7 6700). You lose the integrated graphics, but that's easy to work around, and it's usually cheaper anyway.
Yup. I'm still on a Sandy Bridge 2700k that I purchased in early 2012. I've upgraded RAM and GPU once since then, and added an SSD. CPU and MoBo haven't changed, and everything still runs smooth.
I'll probably upgrade to a skylake at some point; get that sexy ddr4 going on. But that won't be for a few more years yet
We, the people, have already had an adult conversation.
You were not invited, Mr. Comey, as you did not meet the criteria.
In that conversation, we decided it best to encrypt our communications.
Maybe if you behave yourself, you will be invited to the next adult conversation.
That's because everyone on the internet it looking to do repairs or modifications. Exx is a chassis (aka "platform"), so it will dictate compatibility. Any number of engines or transmissions can be installed into that chassis over several years
For example, the E36 was the 3-series platform through the 90s. A replacement headlight, seat, stereo, etc. will be compatible in any of those years, and any engines (e.g. a 1992 316i and a 1995 325tds).
And yes, the year and model will provide that same info, but platform number is a broader and more useful number in the repair niche
That's the point.
The Z is a few cm shorter, but a couple cm wider. For all intents and purposes, they're basically the same size
Pardon the watermarks:
BMW E36 Blueprints
350z Blueprints
350z Super GT Blueprints
Ahh. My last bimmer was an E36, so apparently I missed all the major fuckery.
At least they're keeping the relative performance numerically sound, if not adhering directly to the physical characteristics.
Except when they don't [wikipedia.org], and put a 2.0 liter engine in a *30, or a 3.0 liter engine in a *28.
Fair point. There are exceptions (most notably the M and Z series) but even those follow clear patterns for the most part. The Z1 - Z4 were simply sequential, they made a Z1 roadster until they upgraded the design to Z2, etc... (Z8 and Z9 are still dumb.) And the M series are just amped up versions of existing models, based on the associated number. An M3 is a 3-series (small frame) with all the bells and whistles. Likewise an M5 is a tricked out 5-series (mid-size).
The odd/even thing is stupid
No argument here. I didn't like the decision, especially as someone who drove an old 328is 2-door (1999 E36 platform). But I still respect that they've made a choice (whether or not I agree with that choice) rather than just slapping random letter number combos on their cars.
Hell yeah, Robocop. Back when Robocop was both a solid action flick and remarkably prescient social commentary.
So long as there's rhyme and reason to the numbering scheme, I have no problem with it.
BMW does this, and it's awesome. The first digit is the body style (3 is small, 5 is mid, 7 is large), and the next 2 digits are the engine displacement. They add letters on the end for extra little features: i for Fuel Injection, s for Sport Package, L for Luxury Package, etc. So a 328is is a small car with a 2.8L engine, fuel injection and sport package.
They recently added even numbers to denote 2-door variants, and left odd numbers for 4-doors. They've also started putting x or i in front for SUVs or Electric/Hybrids respectively, but the concept holds. The alphanumeric scheme serves a purpose.
While your point is valid, it's entirely unrelated to the issue at hand.
No one is going out and buying an EpiPen because they saw an advert for one. This is fundamental life saving medicine.
The problem is that a single company has a monopoly on that medicine
That's the issue we should be addressing. Letting a company maintain an iron grip on life saving medicines.
It would seem that on a long enough timeline, all social media devolves into the same overwrought mess of flashing lights and blaring noise.
And then dies
ATT can offer speeds up to 1Gbps.
They won't, obviously... but they can
It's only as boring as you make it.
With your daily commute handled via self-driving car, you can afford to live further from the city.
Living further from the city will save you some money and/or get you a bigger plot of land. The self-driven commute will allow you the time necessary to take care of any menial tasks for the day. Check your email, return a few phone calls, schedule that doctors appointment, file your taxes ... whatever needs to be done.
Now you can spend your time at home doing things. Buy an easel and some paint brushes, grow that fro, and go all Bob Ross. Or learn to garden (which you can read about during that drive to that doctor's appointment), write music, brew beer, whatever tickles your fancy. Maybe you want to build up an old manual-drive hot rod in your garage. Go nuts. And you'll still be environmentally cleaner with all that clean energy powering your electric ride for the daily drive.
The world doesn't automatically become boring because we might remove a few of the things to which you cling. Don't worry. There will still be enough room for the middle class ennui that exists today.
Except that reducing the scope by such a drastic and arbitrary amount makes it less resistant to quibbling.
Sure, his point is valid if you only know ~2000 words. There are more than 2000 unique words in this comments section
To further invite more quibbling: was Troubador in the list? I don't think so... it was worth 5 more points of entropy by qualifying as "uncommon." Apparently there exists a separate arbitrarily small dictionary of uncommon words in addition to the arbitrarily small dictionary of common words.
And all of this was done to reduce quibbling.
The Second Edition of the 20-volume Oxford English Dictionary contains full entries for 171,476 words in current use, and 47,156 obsolete words. To this may be added around 9,500 derivative words included as subentries.
You're right, it's easy to double or triple his pool. Or centuple. He's off by a factor of roughly 110 (or 84 if you only count full entries, but lets not split hairs).
Not sure if that changes the outcome or not.
While he might be correct, he loses point here:
There's still one scheme that works. Back in 2008, I described the "Schneier scheme":
"Try my method, that's named after my name, I promise it's the only method that works. And it's on the website that's myname.com."
That's one step shy of a buzzfeed headline: "Fool hackers with this one neat trick"
That one has always bothered me. The logic is all fucky
The first example, Tr0ub4dor, assumes that the attacker can guess random words, and get a "warmer ... colder" reading, until they guess Troubador (which a dictionary attack probably wouldn't, cuz it's spelled Troubadour, but I digress) and then just make common substitutions from there
In the second example, why do all 4 random words have the same amount of entropy? Sure, in a dictionary attack, each word is equally difficult to guess, but now we assume that the attack knows to randomly mix 4 dictionary words? On what grounds?
That's not how this works... that's not how any of this works.
Really, any password more robust than "password" is fine for most users. It's the responsibility of the database owner to put in place rules against brute force attacks on live systems (i.e. lockout after 3 unsuccessful attempts, disabling old accounts, etc) and to properly encrypt/salt the database to protect against offline attacks (and really, to prevent offline attacks entirely by securing their system properly)
Hahahaha
No