It is probably easier to get 100 machines to DDOS a server, than to understand and get 1 computer to do a complex attack such as this one. This won't come into play untill they find a way to stop the current brute force attacks.
Actually their is online theft and fraud all the time. Its just passed on the the end user, us.
If banks can reduce the online fraud and theft, they will continue to pass on the old costs, but instead pocket the difference.
So they are interested, though I don't see DRM as a solution to anything, certificates can't already solve.
How long will it be before DRM spoofing is occurring. Remember, this is YOUR hardware, and you can modify it as you see fit in your own home. (well not us legal folks, but you criminals by definition could't care less about laws)
Its funny how people who try to prevent theft always act like its the poor man doing the stealing. They want to give Night vision goggles and metal detectors to the people to find the criminals, when its these same people that ARE the criminals.
When a movie is camcorded, its NOT by someone in the audience, its my someone that works at the theater, duh!
Same in the auto industry. A car's security devices must protect that car even from the creators of the security device. Security through obscurity is not security because the facts are not obscure to those who know them...
Money is not an easy way for power measure, but an easy way for power storage and passing on.
On the main topic, I used to always copy pages from books at the library. I am sure that was against the copyright. But copy machines were in evey library I ever visited.
Kind of like selling beer at a gas station (Texas).
They didnt learn not to cheat, as what ATI did was most certainly a cheat. Even if not in bad taste, it meats the technical definition. I think they want to quickly move from the trial phase to the punishment phase, as they believe their punishment will be MUCH less severe than NVIDIA's. They are probably right.
Also, NVIDIA knew the precision o DX9 when they designed the 16/32 bit card. So they must have expected this all along. Too late to cry foul now.
The jury is still out on what ATI did. They were cought in the NVIDIA investigation. FutureMark has yet to start an investigation into ATIs drivers(as they say they soon will). So ATI is hoping by pulling this out, they can get Futuremark to NOT investigate their drivers any further.
Any modifications are wrong. If you cheat a little, you will cheat a lot. I can not imagine anyone at ATI agreeing to ONLY a 1.9% cheat. That is only asking to be cought with no benefit to the cheat. I am sure we will find more...
Thats odd. ATI has always been known for the best TV-out in the industry. I would say their "performance" IS the direct reason whey they have won out in the OEM market for so long. Remember, OEMs barely care about 3D performance. And I am talking laptops with builtin graphics here, and desktops for big corporations. Any 3D work historically went to SGI or Sun anyway.
You are absolutely correct. Especially considering that ATI is part of the beta program. So this means that other cards will not benefit from the optimizations to "FutureMark03" that ATI made. The correct procedure for ATI would have been to tell Futuremark that they need to optimize at a certain point.
Its kind of like ATI finding a performance bug, and working around it. But not telling anyone else about it. Its more of oportunistic cheating. Its not blatant. hehe, I just don't feel as bad about the ATI cheat at this point. But we should wait till FurtureMark finishes auditing the ATI drivers...
I still do not understand your point. The email addresses either way are meaningless here. I am talking about info only see in the header. This is done by the mail server and has nothing to do with the appearant domain names of the email addresses.
I have a domain/website. I use comcast as my ISP, and my actual webhost for my domain is elsewhere. So every email I send from home with my domain name on it will have a comcast mail server as the original address, along with the appropriate comcast IP address. Eventhough the domain name of the mail is not comcast.net. This is automatically handled by the mail server when it sends the mail.
Yes, that sounds like a good idea. And also yes, the dude my wife was on a contract for is money hungry, careless man. If I have to get nasty, I don't have a problem with it.
Well my wife is going through this now. The lawyer said the NCA no matter what it says can not interfere with your right to live a quality life. In otherwords, it can NOT stop you from working. So the employer must give you within a resonable amount of time, a similar replacement job. Not a job across town, or in a different field. It must be similar.
Plus the employer DOES pay a portion of your unemployment.
What are you smoking? Its just as easy for *software* to check the forged header as it is for *software* to create them. Were you expecting a room of grandmothers to be reading them?
99% of the spam I receive has forged headers. It seems that spam assassin is actually verifying headers because I saw something in the source of some of my spam and it has a forged header keyword. So I think this is good.
Next step is AUTO SPAM BACK. Wwhich is simply a automatically generated complaint sent to the admin of the ip address the spam actually came from. Telling him to shut down his open relay or be cut off from the rest of the civilized world.
You do not make the point that these "recordings" are all done by different modules. The airbag has no knowledge of the brake status, and vice versa, etc...
Yes, diagnostic codes are stored for all modules by the respective modules.
Naturally, most investigations show the driver at fault as most are sponsored by whom?
Further, most module data will tend to tattle on the driver and not the OEM;) Thus, why do I want that in my car? As I said in another post, it seems like an invasion of privacy, like an illegal wiretap.
You can determine when the belt *is not* on. As for when it is on, you can not. But that was just a bad example because they really could care less if the belt is on or not. For airbag performance, it is indeed meaningless.
To get technical for a second, their are now "pyrotechnic" seatbelts. Upon impact, an explosive device goes off on the "buckle side" of the seatbelt. It pulls the belt taut. Lets hope you were sitting back;) This is triggered by the Passive Restraint Module (which also does bags). So you could make another case for knowing the state of the belt.
I know, but this would seem to be a form of illegal wire tap? I would expect the data to be thrown out. Its not necessary to carry out the duties of the airbag system for it to know anything but vehicle speed, and acceleration data. In truth it does not even need to know seat belt status...
I have to agree with the prior poster. I do not get very close to 10Mbps on my 10 networks when I had them, and I do not get very close to 100Mbps on my 100 networks now that I have them.
The switch should not add any delay to the transaction and I do not know why you would blame anything on the switch?
Also, saying good hosts and good cards, blah blah, does not matter because his cards undoubtidly labelled themselves at 100Mbps cards, and not 95Mbps cards.
Further, you are starting at the TCP layer when you should be starting at the ethernet layer because that is the layer that is claiming the 100Mb not the TCP layer.
If you cant get anywhere near 11Mbps from an 11Mb link on a wireless network, then they need to explain clearly the difference between what you actually get on wireless and what you actually get on ethernet, because for me, neither is approaching their claims exactly.
To put it simply, people always expect a 100Mb file to be transferred between their computers in 1 second. And always wan't to know why this does not happen...Same with 11Mbps wireless. Why is the answer different based on the case?
I have to admit that I would love to have a linux version as well. but linux is not really a big Multimedia Platform yet. It seems to be heading that way within 2 years though. Not that the applications will be there, but the US itself will be very appealing to MM application developers the way its going now.
Of course their is never an excuse not to have a network renderer that works on Linux even if the main application does not...
Personally I have been using Hash Animation Master for about 3-4 years now. Has all the power of the big boys, but its only $300 and has a community which is very open and helpful. Patches come out all the time, and most bugs are found by the community.
If you want a 3d package but do not have $3000, but want something easy to use than any other, check out www.hash.com.
Most of the time the quoted speed is the RAW speed. a 100Mbps network card is doing 100Mbps in RAW speed and actual data level speed is much lower. So then, shouldn't they be always quoting the higher 54Mbit/sec as opposed to some 11Mbit/sec!!?!
Anyway, 802.11b is 11Mbps so I can't believe 802.11g would be the same. I am automatically decreeing that 802.11g is faster than 11Mbps...
Does sound like bad reporting. Shouldnt happen from technically saavy folks
I also disagree. Lots of corporations are getting hammers for "optimized" sales figures. Technically not illegal, but in bad confidence. And that is all that is required. Thats why you are seeing fines, and not jail time. They are willing to shell out $$$ because thats nothing to them, but they will bring out the real nasty lawyers if you try and jail em. (unless they can keep all the stole...)
Me too. In fact I remember Tom's hardware being the site that accused Intel of all sorts of nasty things. Essentially claiming they put pressure on the press to report certain things, and wouldnt allow access to others. Basically saying they were as nasty if not more so than M$. And had information to back. Maybe he just got it backwards.
Probably closer to "Microsoft helps SCO through the back door, to sue everyone that pushes Linux." Maybe M$ is trying to make SCO look as if they have legitimate claims.
Slashdot Mirror
Naa. KISS.
It is probably easier to get 100 machines to DDOS a server, than to understand and get 1 computer to do a complex attack such as this one. This won't come into play untill they find a way to stop the current brute force attacks.
Actually their is online theft and fraud all the time. Its just passed on the the end user, us.
If banks can reduce the online fraud and theft, they will continue to pass on the old costs, but instead pocket the difference.
So they are interested, though I don't see DRM as a solution to anything, certificates can't already solve.
How long will it be before DRM spoofing is occurring. Remember, this is YOUR hardware, and you can modify it as you see fit in your own home. (well not us legal folks, but you criminals by definition could't care less about laws)
Its funny how people who try to prevent theft always act like its the poor man doing the stealing. They want to give Night vision goggles and metal detectors to the people to find the criminals, when its these same people that ARE the criminals.
When a movie is camcorded, its NOT by someone in the audience, its my someone that works at the theater, duh!
Same in the auto industry. A car's security devices must protect that car even from the creators of the security device. Security through obscurity is not security because the facts are not obscure to those who know them...
Money is not an easy way for power measure, but an easy way for power storage and passing on.
On the main topic, I used to always copy pages from books at the library. I am sure that was against the copyright. But copy machines were in evey library I ever visited.
Kind of like selling beer at a gas station (Texas).
They didnt learn not to cheat, as what ATI did was most certainly a cheat. Even if not in bad taste, it meats the technical definition. I think they want to quickly move from the trial phase to the punishment phase, as they believe their punishment will be MUCH less severe than NVIDIA's. They are probably right.
Also, NVIDIA knew the precision o DX9 when they designed the 16/32 bit card. So they must have expected this all along. Too late to cry foul now.
The jury is still out on what ATI did. They were cought in the NVIDIA investigation. FutureMark has yet to start an investigation into ATIs drivers(as they say they soon will). So ATI is hoping by pulling this out, they can get Futuremark to NOT investigate their drivers any further.
Any modifications are wrong. If you cheat a little, you will cheat a lot. I can not imagine anyone at ATI agreeing to ONLY a 1.9% cheat. That is only asking to be cought with no benefit to the cheat. I am sure we will find more...
Thats odd. ATI has always been known for the best TV-out in the industry. I would say their "performance" IS the direct reason whey they have won out in the OEM market for so long. Remember, OEMs barely care about 3D performance. And I am talking laptops with builtin graphics here, and desktops for big corporations. Any 3D work historically went to SGI or Sun anyway.
You are absolutely correct. Especially considering that ATI is part of the beta program. So this means that other cards will not benefit from the optimizations to "FutureMark03" that ATI made. The correct procedure for ATI would have been to tell Futuremark that they need to optimize at a certain point.
Its kind of like ATI finding a performance bug, and working around it. But not telling anyone else about it. Its more of oportunistic cheating. Its not blatant. hehe, I just don't feel as bad about the ATI cheat at this point. But we should wait till FurtureMark finishes auditing the ATI drivers...
I still do not understand your point. The email addresses either way are meaningless here. I am talking about info only see in the header. This is done by the mail server and has nothing to do with the appearant domain names of the email addresses.
I have a domain/website. I use comcast as my ISP, and my actual webhost for my domain is elsewhere. So every email I send from home with my domain name on it will have a comcast mail server as the original address, along with the appropriate comcast IP address. Eventhough the domain name of the mail is not comcast.net. This is automatically handled by the mail server when it sends the mail.
Forged headers are not a natural occurance.
Yes, that sounds like a good idea. And also yes, the dude my wife was on a contract for is money hungry, careless man. If I have to get nasty, I don't have a problem with it.
We see that power is more important to Microsoft.
Well my wife is going through this now. The lawyer said the NCA no matter what it says can not interfere with your right to live a quality life. In otherwords, it can NOT stop you from working. So the employer must give you within a resonable amount of time, a similar replacement job. Not a job across town, or in a different field. It must be similar.
Plus the employer DOES pay a portion of your unemployment.
What are you smoking? Its just as easy for *software* to check the forged header as it is for *software* to create them. Were you expecting a room of grandmothers to be reading them?
99% of the spam I receive has forged headers. It seems that spam assassin is actually verifying headers because I saw something in the source of some of my spam and it has a forged header keyword. So I think this is good.
Next step is AUTO SPAM BACK. Wwhich is simply a automatically generated complaint sent to the admin of the ip address the spam actually came from. Telling him to shut down his open relay or be cut off from the rest of the civilized world.
the IP address is put on by the receiving mail server. the name is put on by the sender. if the name does not match the ip, toss it.
In other words, you know your real IP, make sure you put that on your emails or the associated name, or your mail gets tossed.
You do not make the point that these "recordings" are all done by different modules. The airbag has no knowledge of the brake status, and vice versa, etc...
;) Thus, why do I want that in my car? As I said in another post, it seems like an invasion of privacy, like an illegal wiretap.
Yes, diagnostic codes are stored for all modules by the respective modules.
Naturally, most investigations show the driver at fault as most are sponsored by whom?
Further, most module data will tend to tattle on the driver and not the OEM
You can determine when the belt *is not* on. As for when it is on, you can not. But that was just a bad example because they really could care less if the belt is on or not. For airbag performance, it is indeed meaningless.
;) This is triggered by the Passive Restraint Module (which also does bags). So you could make another case for knowing the state of the belt.
To get technical for a second, their are now "pyrotechnic" seatbelts. Upon impact, an explosive device goes off on the "buckle side" of the seatbelt. It pulls the belt taut. Lets hope you were sitting back
I know, but this would seem to be a form of illegal wire tap? I would expect the data to be thrown out. Its not necessary to carry out the duties of the airbag system for it to know anything but vehicle speed, and acceleration data. In truth it does not even need to know seat belt status...
I have to agree with the prior poster. I do not get very close to 10Mbps on my 10 networks when I had them, and I do not get very close to 100Mbps on my 100 networks now that I have them.
The switch should not add any delay to the transaction and I do not know why you would blame anything on the switch?
Also, saying good hosts and good cards, blah blah, does not matter because his cards undoubtidly labelled themselves at 100Mbps cards, and not 95Mbps cards.
Further, you are starting at the TCP layer when you should be starting at the ethernet layer because that is the layer that is claiming the 100Mb not the TCP layer.
If you cant get anywhere near 11Mbps from an 11Mb link on a wireless network, then they need to explain clearly the difference between what you actually get on wireless and what you actually get on ethernet, because for me, neither is approaching their claims exactly.
To put it simply, people always expect a 100Mb file to be transferred between their computers in 1 second. And always wan't to know why this does not happen...Same with 11Mbps wireless. Why is the answer different based on the case?
I have to admit that I would love to have a linux version as well. but linux is not really a big Multimedia Platform yet. It seems to be heading that way within 2 years though. Not that the applications will be there, but the US itself will be very appealing to MM application developers the way its going now.
Of course their is never an excuse not to have a network renderer that works on Linux even if the main application does not...
Personally I have been using Hash Animation Master for about 3-4 years now. Has all the power of the big boys, but its only $300 and has a community which is very open and helpful. Patches come out all the time, and most bugs are found by the community.
If you want a 3d package but do not have $3000, but want something easy to use than any other, check out www.hash.com.
Most of the time the quoted speed is the RAW speed. a 100Mbps network card is doing 100Mbps in RAW speed and actual data level speed is much lower. So then, shouldn't they be always quoting the higher 54Mbit/sec as opposed to some 11Mbit/sec!!?!
Anyway, 802.11b is 11Mbps so I can't believe 802.11g would be the same. I am automatically decreeing that 802.11g is faster than 11Mbps...
Does sound like bad reporting. Shouldnt happen from technically saavy folks
I also disagree. Lots of corporations are getting hammers for "optimized" sales figures. Technically not illegal, but in bad confidence. And that is all that is required. Thats why you are seeing fines, and not jail time. They are willing to shell out $$$ because thats nothing to them, but they will bring out the real nasty lawyers if you try and jail em. (unless they can keep all the stole...)
Me too. In fact I remember Tom's hardware being the site that accused Intel of all sorts of nasty things. Essentially claiming they put pressure on the press to report certain things, and wouldnt allow access to others. Basically saying they were as nasty if not more so than M$. And had information to back. Maybe he just got it backwards.
No but they know how to go out to the street corner and buy a copied CD there.
Probably closer to "Microsoft helps SCO through the back door, to sue everyone that pushes Linux." Maybe M$ is trying to make SCO look as if they have legitimate claims.