Not that women do not play these kinds of games but being masculine and outdoing each other does not appeal to them as much.
Yeah, most of the women I know prefer to be feminine while outdoing each other. It's easier, and less messy.
BTW, both of my 2 past ex gf's and my wife play(ed) FPS games online with me quite often (Starting with Duke Nuk'em, then Quakeworld, Q2, lots of Rocket Arena Q2 and Action Q2, some SoF2, and now Battlefield 1942 exclusively.)
Glad someone understands this isn't (even trying to be) a 80GHz x86. Anyway, to answer your question, the fine article does give the new material's mobility:
The resulting diamond layer showed a carrier mobility at 1300 cm2/Vs, about 20 times higher when compared to previous prototypes, NTT said.
For comparison to this (converting units first, giving us 0.1300 cm2/Vs for the new, 20x improved diamond substrate), GaAs electron mobility at 300 is K 0.92 m2/Vs (Hole mobility at 300 K 0.04 m2/Vs).
I call BS. You'd melt. My wife did, at least, and I'd heard her say things similar to what you said, until she saw that big shiny rock. It was fun giving it to her. And she still loves it and wears it all the time.
No, he or she cannot. See, if you can make something flawless, you can pretty easily add flaws as desired. RTFA -- this is not cubic zirconia we're talking about, it's 100% real, identical, indistinguishable diamond lattice, just made in a lab, using the same processes (sped up) that make "natural" diamonds.
computers are in fact a form of life based on silicone (soon to be 84GHz diamond! Hooray)
A few points for you to "really think about":
"Life" is the property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism. Since computers do not metabolize, grow, reproduce, or adapt, I think you're a little off on this.
Please re-read the "81GHz" story and consider not spreading misinformation. The 81GHz device operation was an RF amplifier, not a processor (CPU), and the diamond process used is not even targeted at digital logic devices -- it is aimed at analog RF amplification and other apps usually implemented in GaAs. You will most certainly not see anything like 81GHz or diamond process in your x86 anytime soon, and probably never.
Silicone is the liquid in breast implants. Silicon (no e) is used to make semiconductors.
The advance promises to make amplification in the millimeter-wave band from 30 to 300 GHz possible for the first time, NTT claimed.
This diamond process, and the semiconductor device mentioned in the article, is targeted at RF amplification, not processing.
I guess the power comment was about my other post. Modern CPUs use 50-100W of power max, total, for an entire (~81mm^2) die. This device is outputting (amplifying a signal) of 30W/mm^2, and that means about 90W output for this tiny little 3mm^2 die. It's consuming a lot more than that, I'm sure. Different ballgame.
It is targeting devices with an operating frequency of 200 GHz and an output power of 30 W/mm.
That's the output (RF, I assume) power of the chip. Not the total power consumption/dissipation of the device, which I would guess would be more like 200-100W. Serious cooling is necessary, of course, but I hear the diamond doesn't vary nearly as much with temperature as Si does, so heat is less of a problem.
Er, yeah, if you want a massive cellphone booster or something. This is definitely not a general purpose processor (CPU), 0.2um gates in 3mm^2 is insufficient density and area to make any kind of decent CPU (maybe an 8-bit PIC, which even a cluster of is weak by today's standards).
The fine article is not clear on this, just saying that they made "a chip" (which can be a lot of things.) In any case, I'm sure this isn't a x86 chip. Most likely a RF device. 0.2um in 3mm^2 aint much, definitely not enough for an x86. Not even a 286.
I found your message by searching the thread for "use key", before posting my tirade about it. What a good boy am I. A good, unhappy boy. To wit:
Lest hardcore gamers fear Carmack is going soft, he notes his fights to simplify "Doom 3" haven't always been successful. He admits the id Software developers got into bitter arguments about whether to include "crouch" and "use" keys in the upcoming game. (He lost the debate over "crouch" - which now appears - but convinced the team there was no need for a "use" key.)
Emphasis mine. Sigh. No 'use'. So, how do you 'use' anything? Or is everything like a Q1 elevator -- acting by player proximity? That is probably not going to work out very well. It's possible, I suppose, to make a good modern FPS with no 'use', but I think that it's hard.
For me, interactivity is what makes one FPS better than another (Duke Nuk'em, System Shock, HalfLife, Battlefield 1942 all have 'use' keys). Taking out this intuitive control, which is used to represent doing something with the environment, as opposed to just shooting, moving, or observing, is a shame, IMHO.
In the same vein, may I also suggest careful viewing of "Forensic Files", "The New Detectives" and other similar crime investigation TV shows as they are excellent compilations of how others were caught, and thus are perfect "what not to do" training for the up-and-coming criminal.
Of course, they never seem to tell you what you have to use to wash away blood to prevent detection with luminol (sp?) and a blacklight. Anyone know? Just, uh, curious, you know:)
Annoying sometimes, yes. Wrong? Well, it's not illegal, most of it is not immoral (IMHO). I don't like it, but I'm not sure it's wrong.
So I guess you should be securing that better too and tough luck if you get spammed with 100 goatse's in a day?
Well, the mildly-obfuscated email of mine here on/. is a spam account I rarely pay much attention to (unless/. is mentioned in the subject line), so it's not a problem. I take responsible steps to make sure my main email is safe from abuse (and, having a domain means I can easily make new emails as needed), and yes, tough luck if I do (other than I can take steps to filter, file, or block the stuff).
I think I'd like some laws to help curb spam, but as others have noted, they probably woudln't work anyway. Similarly, I think laws against linking to websites won't work, but contrastingly, I would not like some laws to try. I think technical means are the way to go if you want to provide limited access to info on your little part of the www. This has been discussed on/. many times, and some might agree with your position that one should be responsible for ignoring a do-not-link notice on a site, I think everyone pretty much realizes that this is not the case, like it or not.
It's called a "reasonable expection from a reasonable human being." Unfortunately, with the attitude of people today, reasonable expectation is that you will meet unreasonable people (aka the a**holes aforementioned).
You're new in this world, aren't you?:). Seriously, the problem with that sort of statement is that everyone has a different idea of what's reasonable. To wit: you think do-not-link warnings should be binding, and I don't. We can both still be reasonable. Another example: I think it's unreasonable to call someone an asshole for having a different definition of the word reasonable than youurs, even if they do threaten to emphasize this disagreement with spiteful action.
It's a sign of the degradation of society... "ain't a problem unless it's hurtin' me," correct?
Well, no, not correct. Not at all what I said or meant. In fact, the opposite is true. Read my post -- I said I have been hurt by this sort of thing, the difference is I learned from the experience and fixed it for the future. You, on the other hand, seem to prefer to use your energy to complain about it rather than implement fairly simple technical controls (such as putting "passwords or logins etc etc on every bloody page") that don't rely on: visitors to understand your warning, visitors to heed your warning, and new laws to punish them if they don't.
if you had a huge portal or site like slashdot, and I had said article crouched in legaleze, and you still posted the damn link, you might even be liable for the huge f**ing bandwidth charges that are likely incurred if you flagrantly ignored such a notice.
Sure, and I might be able to fart a dialtone, but it's highly unlikely.
In terms of who can read what when and how, posting something anywhere on the web without security (warnings and disclaimers are not security) is no different from writing it down and nailing it to a tree in a public place (other than the latter may be more easily taken down). You have to deal with it if 0, 1, or 10e6 people read your sign, and it doesn't matter that you're paying for the BW. You don't have to pay for the bandwidth, or even have a website for that matter.
Website owners should be able to have some exectation that if they put up reasonable warnings then they don't have to put passwords or logins etc etc on every bloody page just to avoid the slashdot flood.
No, they shouldn't (and don't) have any such expectation unless they are deluded.
I'm assuming that you don't run servers, because such a claim is simply ignorance and I wouldn't expect it from anybody who knows the work it takes to provide such a service (for free, more often than not).
Eh? No offense, but you seem to be suffering from the ignorance here. And the "work" involved is irrelevant. If you choose to put info in a publicly-accessible place, for free or not, you may or may not be/.'ed (or similar). As someone who does run servers and has had websites hammered into oblivion from ill-preparedness and unexpected popularity, I think it's naive (and wrong) to expect webvisitors to adhere to your warnings or disclaimers about linking. You'll have a hard enough time getting them to respect your (c)opyrights (which unlike your warnings are legally enforceable, though not very practical in most cases to pursue), much less your whimsical, arbitrary admonitions against links.
I'm sorry to break it to you since you seem rather upset by this stark reality (and the "asshole" that would link for fun or spite), but them's the facts. And that's the way it should be too, IMHO. Finding ways to limit access to your "publicly available data" is left as an exercise for the reader.
I pretty much agree with you, so imagine my surprise to find, a few links deep into the posted article, a reference to a case of what someone seriously called a rape in a MUD. This has to be read to be believed.
From the website, it seems they do have their privacy ducks in a fairly neat row:
ES5 #1 goal is to protect its users from intrusions to their privacy by providing encrypted traffic, random ports and IP anonymity:
ONE CLICK PROXY SERVER - Users can send connection requests through intermediary proxy servers located throughout the world so that the download destination of a file cannot be traced by any entity whatsoever. There is nothing for the user to set-up, just right click to enable the proxy server.
SSL - SECURE SOCKETS - Prevents monitoring of a user's uploading or downloading activity. Users can automatically deploy SSL by right clicking.
UDP -USER DATAGRAM PROTOCOL Using UDP makes it impossible to reliably scan a useras computer to determine if ES5 is running. Also, unlike TCP connections, UDP traffic can not be easily blocked by ISPs.
ES5 SECURITY KEY - ES5 utilizes a standard HTTP server to transmit files, but deploys a special "security key" so than only ES5 users can access your shared files.
IP ADDRESSES - ES5 does not display user IP Address information.
DYNAMIC PORTS- Each ES5 node uses a randomly chosen port (unless the user chooses a specific port themselves). Therefore, ISPs will be unable to identify file-sharing traffic based upon port numbers and unable to throttle back the users bandwidth.
USER DEFINED PORT SETTINGS- ES5 provides users with "one-click" port setting options for ES5 to use port 53 (the port used by DNS) or port 37 (the port used by time service) therefore rendering all blocking attempts hopeless.
MULTIPLE POINTS OF ENTRY - ES5 uses multiple methods for connecting to the ES5 network including IP Multicast, Usenet Articles, Web Sites, Node List Files and a several other undisclosed methods.
PENETRATING FIREWALLS - UDP allows seamless penetration of firewalls without inconvenient setting of firewall parameters. For users behind firewalls, ES5 uses UDP to request a PUSH, where the behind-the-firewall computer initiates the connection back to the requested user's computer.
PGPDisk - As an additional security feature, to all P2P programs, is that ES5 integrates seamlessly with PGPDisk (which is a free program and will be provided by ES5 to its users) that lets you encrypt your disk drives to store your P2P content. No one except you will ever be able to see your files, not your kids, your spouse, your mother, your boss, the FBI, the KGB or anyone else!
So, the plot thickens. Whatever will the *AA do?;)
OK, you know what? I read all the comments, and it seems everyone was afraid to say this (perhaps to avoid being labeled a fanboy?), but that trailer rocked my world, and I'm not ashamed to admit it.
And, in case this wasn't clear, if you can reduce your CPU core voltage to 1/2 of the current value, you will reduce the power (and heat) by 1/4. [(1/2)^2], since p(switching) = 0.5 * C * F * V^2. Of course, if you dro pyour voltage in half, your CPU won't work, but the point is that power varies with capacitance, clock rate, and the square of voltage. Compare voltage reduction with reducing clock rate to 1/2, which leads to a mere 1/2 power reduction. Unfortunately, unless you really drop the clock rate, you won't be able to reduce the voltage much without losing syste, stability. And, the newer your CPU, the less you'll be able to drop the voltage no matter what else you do.
Seriously -- when and how did this "crack-smoking" thing start? I though it was a thoroughly slang-only thing, but this is borderline mainstream use. As hard as is it to admit this, I've smoked crack, and freebase cocaine, and damnit it neither one ever made me feel SCO-crazy (did I get ripped off?). The main effect is more like a paralysis than any sort of inspiration to active idiocy.
How did crack get such a wrong stereotype? Don't you kids even bother to use a drug once or twice before adopting it as the nominally definitive slang for "acting wrong"?
Slashdot Mirror
Not that women do not play these kinds of games but being masculine and outdoing each other does not appeal to them as much.
Yeah, most of the women I know prefer to be feminine while outdoing each other. It's easier, and less messy.
BTW, both of my 2 past ex gf's and my wife play(ed) FPS games online with me quite often (Starting with Duke Nuk'em, then Quakeworld, Q2, lots of Rocket Arena Q2 and Action Q2, some SoF2, and now Battlefield 1942 exclusively.)
Glad someone understands this isn't (even trying to be) a 80GHz x86. Anyway, to answer your question, the fine article does give the new material's mobility:
The resulting diamond layer showed a carrier mobility at 1300 cm2/Vs, about 20 times higher when compared to previous prototypes, NTT said.
For comparison to this (converting units first, giving us 0.1300 cm2/Vs for the new, 20x improved diamond substrate), GaAs electron mobility at 300 is K 0.92 m2/Vs (Hole mobility at 300 K 0.04 m2/Vs).
I call BS. You'd melt. My wife did, at least, and I'd heard her say things similar to what you said, until she saw that big shiny rock. It was fun giving it to her. And she still loves it and wears it all the time.
you don't know very many women, do you? :)
so then, if you choose to marry a boy, any one will do? ;)
No, he or she cannot. See, if you can make something flawless, you can pretty easily add flaws as desired. RTFA -- this is not cubic zirconia we're talking about, it's 100% real, identical, indistinguishable diamond lattice, just made in a lab, using the same processes (sped up) that make "natural" diamonds.
A few points for you to "really think about":
From the article:
The advance promises to make amplification in the millimeter-wave band from 30 to 300 GHz possible for the first time, NTT claimed.
This diamond process, and the semiconductor device mentioned in the article, is targeted at RF amplification, not processing.
I guess the power comment was about my other post. Modern CPUs use 50-100W of power max, total, for an entire (~81mm^2) die. This device is outputting (amplifying a signal) of 30W/mm^2, and that means about 90W output for this tiny little 3mm^2 die. It's consuming a lot more than that, I'm sure. Different ballgame.
From the fine article:
It is targeting devices with an operating frequency of 200 GHz and an output power of 30 W/mm.
That's the output (RF, I assume) power of the chip. Not the total power consumption/dissipation of the device, which I would guess would be more like 200-100W. Serious cooling is necessary, of course, but I hear the diamond doesn't vary nearly as much with temperature as Si does, so heat is less of a problem.
Er, yeah, if you want a massive cellphone booster or something. This is definitely not a general purpose processor (CPU), 0.2um gates in 3mm^2 is insufficient density and area to make any kind of decent CPU (maybe an 8-bit PIC, which even a cluster of is weak by today's standards).
The fine article is not clear on this, just saying that they made "a chip" (which can be a lot of things.) In any case, I'm sure this isn't a x86 chip. Most likely a RF device. 0.2um in 3mm^2 aint much, definitely not enough for an x86. Not even a 286.
Which goes without saying if you remember to eschew obfuscation.
Emphasis mine. Sigh. No 'use'. So, how do you 'use' anything? Or is everything like a Q1 elevator -- acting by player proximity? That is probably not going to work out very well. It's possible, I suppose, to make a good modern FPS with no 'use', but I think that it's hard.
For me, interactivity is what makes one FPS better than another (Duke Nuk'em, System Shock, HalfLife, Battlefield 1942 all have 'use' keys). Taking out this intuitive control, which is used to represent doing something with the environment, as opposed to just shooting, moving, or observing, is a shame, IMHO.
In the same vein, may I also suggest careful viewing of "Forensic Files", "The New Detectives" and other similar crime investigation TV shows as they are excellent compilations of how others were caught, and thus are perfect "what not to do" training for the up-and-coming criminal.
:)
Of course, they never seem to tell you what you have to use to wash away blood to prevent detection with luminol (sp?) and a blacklight. Anyone know? Just, uh, curious, you know
But I suppose you think SPAM is wrong.
/. is a spam account I rarely pay much attention to (unless /. is mentioned in the subject line), so it's not a problem. I take responsible steps to make sure my main email is safe from abuse (and, having a domain means I can easily make new emails as needed), and yes, tough luck if I do (other than I can take steps to filter, file, or block the stuff).
/. many times, and some might agree with your position that one should be responsible for ignoring a do-not-link notice on a site, I think everyone pretty much realizes that this is not the case, like it or not.
:). Seriously, the problem with that sort of statement is that everyone has a different idea of what's reasonable. To wit: you think do-not-link warnings should be binding, and I don't. We can both still be reasonable. Another example: I think it's unreasonable to call someone an asshole for having a different definition of the word reasonable than youurs, even if they do threaten to emphasize this disagreement with spiteful action.
Annoying sometimes, yes. Wrong? Well, it's not illegal, most of it is not immoral (IMHO). I don't like it, but I'm not sure it's wrong.
So I guess you should be securing that better too and tough luck if you get spammed with 100 goatse's in a day?
Well, the mildly-obfuscated email of mine here on
I think I'd like some laws to help curb spam, but as others have noted, they probably woudln't work anyway. Similarly, I think laws against linking to websites won't work, but contrastingly, I would not like some laws to try. I think technical means are the way to go if you want to provide limited access to info on your little part of the www. This has been discussed on
It's called a "reasonable expection from a reasonable human being." Unfortunately, with the attitude of people today, reasonable expectation is that you will meet unreasonable people (aka the a**holes aforementioned).
You're new in this world, aren't you?
It's a sign of the degradation of society... "ain't a problem unless it's hurtin' me," correct?
Well, no, not correct. Not at all what I said or meant. In fact, the opposite is true. Read my post -- I said I have been hurt by this sort of thing, the difference is I learned from the experience and fixed it for the future. You, on the other hand, seem to prefer to use your energy to complain about it rather than implement fairly simple technical controls (such as putting "passwords or logins etc etc on every bloody page") that don't rely on: visitors to understand your warning, visitors to heed your warning, and new laws to punish them if they don't.
if you had a huge portal or site like slashdot, and I had said article crouched in legaleze, and you still posted the damn link, you might even be liable for the huge f**ing bandwidth charges that are likely incurred if you flagrantly ignored such a notice.
/.'ed (or similar). As someone who does run servers and has had websites hammered into oblivion from ill-preparedness and unexpected popularity, I think it's naive (and wrong) to expect webvisitors to adhere to your warnings or disclaimers about linking. You'll have a hard enough time getting them to respect your (c)opyrights (which unlike your warnings are legally enforceable, though not very practical in most cases to pursue), much less your whimsical, arbitrary admonitions against links.
Sure, and I might be able to fart a dialtone, but it's highly unlikely.
In terms of who can read what when and how, posting something anywhere on the web without security (warnings and disclaimers are not security) is no different from writing it down and nailing it to a tree in a public place (other than the latter may be more easily taken down). You have to deal with it if 0, 1, or 10e6 people read your sign, and it doesn't matter that you're paying for the BW. You don't have to pay for the bandwidth, or even have a website for that matter.
Website owners should be able to have some exectation that if they put up reasonable warnings then they don't have to put passwords or logins etc etc on every bloody page just to avoid the slashdot flood.
No, they shouldn't (and don't) have any such expectation unless they are deluded.
I'm assuming that you don't run servers, because such a claim is simply ignorance and I wouldn't expect it from anybody who knows the work it takes to provide such a service (for free, more often than not).
Eh? No offense, but you seem to be suffering from the ignorance here. And the "work" involved is irrelevant. If you choose to put info in a publicly-accessible place, for free or not, you may or may not be
I'm sorry to break it to you since you seem rather upset by this stark reality (and the "asshole" that would link for fun or spite), but them's the facts. And that's the way it should be too, IMHO. Finding ways to limit access to your "publicly available data" is left as an exercise for the reader.
I pretty much agree with you, so imagine my surprise to find, a few links deep into the posted article, a reference to a case of what someone seriously called a rape in a MUD. This has to be read to be believed.
From the website, it seems they do have their privacy ducks in a fairly neat row:
;)
ES5 #1 goal is to protect its users from intrusions to their privacy by providing encrypted traffic, random ports and IP anonymity:
ONE CLICK PROXY SERVER - Users can send connection requests through intermediary proxy servers located throughout the world so that the download destination of a file cannot be traced by any entity whatsoever. There is nothing for the user to set-up, just right click to enable the proxy server.
SSL - SECURE SOCKETS - Prevents monitoring of a user's uploading or downloading activity. Users can automatically deploy SSL by right clicking.
UDP -USER DATAGRAM PROTOCOL Using UDP makes it impossible to reliably scan a useras computer to determine if ES5 is running. Also, unlike TCP connections, UDP traffic can not be easily blocked by ISPs.
ES5 SECURITY KEY - ES5 utilizes a standard HTTP server to transmit files, but deploys a special "security key" so than only ES5 users can access your shared files.
IP ADDRESSES - ES5 does not display user IP Address information.
DYNAMIC PORTS- Each ES5 node uses a randomly chosen port (unless the user chooses a specific port themselves). Therefore, ISPs will be unable to identify file-sharing traffic based upon port numbers and unable to throttle back the users bandwidth.
USER DEFINED PORT SETTINGS- ES5 provides users with "one-click" port setting options for ES5 to use port 53 (the port used by DNS) or port 37 (the port used by time service) therefore rendering all blocking attempts hopeless.
MULTIPLE POINTS OF ENTRY - ES5 uses multiple methods for connecting to the ES5 network including IP Multicast, Usenet Articles, Web Sites, Node List Files and a several other undisclosed methods.
PENETRATING FIREWALLS - UDP allows seamless penetration of firewalls without inconvenient setting of firewall parameters. For users behind firewalls, ES5 uses UDP to request a PUSH, where the behind-the-firewall computer initiates the connection back to the requested user's computer. PGPDisk - As an additional security feature, to all P2P programs, is that ES5 integrates seamlessly with PGPDisk (which is a free program and will be provided by ES5 to its users) that lets you encrypt your disk drives to store your P2P content. No one except you will ever be able to see your files, not your kids, your spouse, your mother, your boss, the FBI, the KGB or anyone else!
So, the plot thickens. Whatever will the *AA do?
Answer the question! I want to see where he's going with this, and the suspense is killing me!
Know what? You're spot-on, and funny as hell. Good show!
OK, you know what? I read all the comments, and it seems everyone was afraid to say this (perhaps to avoid being labeled a fanboy?), but that trailer rocked my world , and I'm not ashamed to admit it.
I can't effin wait to see the end to this.
And, in case this wasn't clear, if you can reduce your CPU core voltage to 1/2 of the current value, you will reduce the power (and heat) by 1/4. [(1/2)^2], since p(switching) = 0.5 * C * F * V^2. Of course, if you dro pyour voltage in half, your CPU won't work, but the point is that power varies with capacitance, clock rate, and the square of voltage. Compare voltage reduction with reducing clock rate to 1/2, which leads to a mere 1/2 power reduction. Unfortunately, unless you really drop the clock rate, you won't be able to reduce the voltage much without losing syste, stability. And, the newer your CPU, the less you'll be able to drop the voltage no matter what else you do.
Seriously -- when and how did this "crack-smoking" thing start? I though it was a thoroughly slang-only thing, but this is borderline mainstream use. As hard as is it to admit this, I've smoked crack, and freebase cocaine, and damnit it neither one ever made me feel SCO-crazy (did I get ripped off?). The main effect is more like a paralysis than any sort of inspiration to active idiocy.
How did crack get such a wrong stereotype? Don't you kids even bother to use a drug once or twice before adopting it as the nominally definitive slang for "acting wrong"?
Yen-symbols in place of \r?! Nihongo wa hanasemasu ka? Nihonjin desu ka?
You call that post an argument and can't evem post with a user name? Bah. YOU FAIL IT!