It's pretty clear the Xbox representative was saying the D3 Xbox game will have split screen co-op. I am certain that both versions will have net-based multiplayer.
News.com article
Intel's 64 bit extensions are compatible with AMD's. You will be able to run the same 64 bit OSes on them. Intel's 64-bit capable Xeons are Noconas, which are Prescotts in a Xeon package.
I work for Intel, but I do not speak for Intel. My opinions are not necessarily the opinions of Intel Corporation.
Vanderpool is the codename for Intel's hardware virtualization technology. It is independent of and different from Intel's plans to put multiple processor cores on a single die. You do not need Vanderpool technology to have multicore, or vice versa.
I do not speak for Intel. My opinions are not necessarily those of Intel's.
Sony 4:3 televisions have a feature that will compress the scan lines into a 16:9 format. You lose surface area, but you don't lose any of the pixels. Great way to get quality 16:9 movie playback on the cheap (less than a thousand bucks).
Note that the above numbers are for a application specific quantum circuit designed solely to break RSA. To my knowledge, no one has proposed a design for a general purpose quantum computer, though it has been proven that it is possible to build one. There are lots of technological (not mathematic or physical) problems associated with designing a general purpose quantum computer. Merely having a large quantity of entangled qubits is not sufficient.
Argh. It's painful how few people understand quantum computing.
First, the advantages of quantum computing. It is well established that there are quantum algorithms for which there are no known efficient classical algorithms. That is, there is a known efficient quantum algorithm for breaking RSA, and no known classical algorithm. Complexity theory still hasn't been able to determine if P belongs to NP, so there may theoretically be an efficient classical algorithm that breaks RSA. Only time and lots of math will tell. However, it is possible (and some say likely) that the space of problems that quantum computers can tackle efficiently is strictly greater than the space of problems classical computers can solve efficiently.
In a physical quantum computer, noise is a problem. That is, your qubits will become entangled with the environment and you lose the information encoded in them. Several others have noted this problem. What they have not noted is that there exist techniques for overcoming the problem of noise using additional qubits. The math is complicated, but the outcome is that quantum computers can be made sufficiently reliable and stable to perform computation at realistic conditions (i.e. well above absolute zero. like room temperature). However, this increases the number of qubits one would need to perform computation with.
For instance, the number of qubits needed to break RSA grows with the log of the size of the key. This is very encouraging. However, the number of qubits necessary to provide sufficient error correction grows this number significantly. That said, a reasonable piece of quantum hardware that could break 1024 bit RSA would require something on the order of 10^3 qubits, subsets of which would need to be entangled to perform the computation.
It is physically impossible to produce two copies of an unknown quantum state. One can reproduce an unknown quantum state but the original quantum state is destroyed or modified. One can produce multiple copies of a known quantum state, but that is hardly useful for human teleportation or copying.
Barring revisionist physics that alter our current understanding of the universe rather than adds depth, any sort of human teleportation or copying (including copying of the brain) will involve destruction (or at least alteration) of the original. I do not know about you, but I'm not about to undertake any sort of copying that fails to guarantee that my original quantum state will remain intact.
Sharp Zaurus 5600
Stay Connected
With wireless connectivity a must for any enterprise environment, the Zaurus SL-5600 comes wireless capable* with dual expansion slots and built-in drivers for numerous Compact Flash connectivity solutions including industry-leading 802.11b wireless LAN adaptors, CDPD Wireless modem, 10/100 Ethernet, and 56K V.90 modems and a plan to introduce 1xRTT and GPRS in 2003. The built-in Compact Flash (Type I and Type II) and SD / MMC slots allow users to add any Compact Flash-based connectivity solution in the Compact Flash - slot and still have room to add more memory in the SD slot without necessitating a jacket, eliminating the need to add to the size and the cost of the unit.
Their prototypes are not nearly as ridiculous sounding as the press articles I have seen, and aren't really that great except for their extremly low power consumption:
The power consumption could be the kicker! As so many others on this item have posted, the Shannon limit is just that, a limit. You can use more of the spectrum to get more bandwidth, but then you start hitting other walls, like being unable to build antennae with the characteristics you need. So the search for more bandwidth is constrained--there's only so much out there.
But have you seen the cost of wireless communication in terms of power? Power requirements for wireless transmission technologies in use now are on the same order of magnitude as computation; I don't care whether it's narrow-band or wide-band. There's lots of sneaky things people are doing to lower the power consumption of CPUs. However, the return on those sorts of optimizations is getting less and less important because of the power requirements of the rest of the system. Consider that the power requirements of the CPU, display, and hard drive are all the same order of magnitude (6W to 4W to 2W in at least one system).
But on top of that, in the next, say, eighteen or twenty-four months, communication is projected to be more than three quarters of the power budget of a handheld wireless device. (And I can't find the goddamn link for this one.) That's where a wireless transmission technology with low, low power requirements could really make it in the market.
To get that pie-in-the-sky handheld Roblimo was dreaming about the other day, the power consumption of these sorts of systems has to come way down. Targetting the power use of communication is an important first step.
Does no one understand the point of being able to have a conversation with these things?
My girlfriend lives in another state. To prevent expensive phone bills, we use ICQ (though we could just as easily use AIM). It's that simple. It's a fabulous way to stay in touch.
It's a sad day when I log on and see Flamebait modded up to +3.
I know the movie industry could never collapse like that, but perhaps the events I have seen with my friend in the adult entertainment industry are harbingers of what may happen to your local video store owner as movie piracy becomes large-scale.
What local video store owner? I have to drive twenty minutes before I get to a video store that isn't Blockbuster. And if you think that homogenization doesn't have anything to do with piracy, then you're sadly mistaken.
Freenet has a lot to offer. But it's also a different sort of thing, IMHO.
I see this split as similar to the difference between ftp servers and web servers. Freenet is designed to serve up files without anyone being able to stop it. Publius is intended to serve up words (web pages, in this case) without anyone being able to tell who wrote them.
I believe there are enough niches for Freenet, Publius, and whole host of other privacy/anonymonity-guaranteeing ideas to coexist.
Anyway, this "Eternity service" doesn't have anything like that. Here, Kobrin will say "Is there anything else that this data could have been?" and "Could these have been key shares to any other data?" Alice will have to say "No."
I believe you're missing the point. After reading the Publius paper, I have these points to offer:
According to the paper, when a server receives its share of the key and data, "At this point, the server has no idea what it is hosting - it simply stores some random data." They are incapable, in fact, of determining what is on their server--they haven't the full crypto key.
When a user wishes to retrieve some data, "In our implementation, all of the work is handled by the proxy." Handling this by proxy means that Helena is going to have a much harder time tracking down where the data is kept. If she does, the server will have no record of who publish the secrets, or even knowledge that the secrets were published! Perhaps it is possible to discover on which servers the disparate parts of the secrets are kept. If it is, Helena still will not be able to tell who originally published the secrets.
Publius by itself does not provide any sort of connection based anonymity. This means that an adversary eavesdropping on the network segment between the publisher and the Publius servers could determine the publisher's identity. If a server hosting Publius Content keeps a log of all incoming network connections then an adversary can simply examine the log to determine the publisher's IP address. To protect a publisher from these sort of attacks a connection based anonymity tool such as Crowds should be used in conjunction with Publius. (taken from section 5.4 of the paper) So, Publius can't defend against that sort of attack, but assuming the publisher does indeed manage to get his data published anonymously, perhaps through the use of anonymizers (which is what Crowds is) or encryption like SSL, his anonymonity cannot be broken. That is the point of this system.
There's a lot more in this 14 page paper--it's very rich. It particular, it examines the attacks that an adversary could make against Publius and what safeguards could be put in place.
The most important thing, and I can't emphasize this enough, is that these guys have a system. This is not some theoretical, pie-in-the-sky wouldn't-it-be-nice dream, like the XOR business was. They have the details and mechanics of publishing, retrieval, and updating worked out. You may read the paper yourself if you don't believe me.
Unfortunately, I'm in no position to evaluate the strength of the crypto here. I would very much like to see someone with knowledge in this area come forward with an opinion after having read the paper.
I think that an open source environment for games has two potential benefits - firstly for allowing bugs to be quickly fixed, and secondly to allow the game to be enhanced and updated in reponse to user requests and ideas.
You don't need open source code for this.
As id has demonstrated time and again with the Quake series, it is possible to design a game so that users can enhance and modify it. Another good example is the Rules Description Language (and this link too) of Stars! Supernova. Using the RDL, the multiplayer Stars! community will be able to effect gameplay balancing changes without waiting for the developers to release a patch. They'll also be able to set up custom rules for creating themed games, like Star Trek, Star Wars, or Babylon 5. Stars! Supernova will also has some interesting ways of letting players supply custom artwork and sound for their races. For more on this game, see news://rec.games.computer.stars.
At any rate, the point is through the implementation of good game design, developers can ensure that users will be able to update and enhance a closed-source proprietary game. It'd be interesting to see if anyone else has examples of this sort of design besides the ones I've mentioned (*hint, hint*).
The reason this market isn't being exploited is that it's complete. It's done. All the platform jumpers, 2-d shooters, Scorch-clones, and turn-based strats have been written already. To rewrite them would be a duplication of effort. They also wouldn't sell.
We could go on playing the same games, year in and year out. Some of us do. But game developers, and the gaming public, think there's still some new ground to be broken. With the advent of faster computers, nicer displays, and beefier graphics cards, game developers are able to bring to life gaming visions they never had a chance to create before. If you don't like 'em, don't play 'em. But don't call for a return to the gaming days of the early 90's. Those games have been written already, and there's nothing further to be done there. That's why the developers and market have moved on.
Slashdot Mirror
It's pretty clear the Xbox representative was saying the D3 Xbox game will have split screen co-op. I am certain that both versions will have net-based multiplayer.
News.com article
Intel's 64 bit extensions are compatible with AMD's. You will be able to run the same 64 bit OSes on them. Intel's 64-bit capable Xeons are Noconas, which are Prescotts in a Xeon package.
I work for Intel, but I do not speak for Intel. My opinions are not necessarily the opinions of Intel Corporation.
How the fuck is this insightful?
Which one of the four does he claim Linux has? Why does he think Linux has that? Why doesn't Linux have the others? Where is the insight, moderators?
People need to metamoderate this moderation as -1 Stupid.
In sharp contrast to /.
Remember that this is The Register, after all.
Intel has fabs in Ireland, Albuquerque, and Oregon, among others.
Disclaimer: I work for Intel.
Vanderpool is the codename for Intel's hardware virtualization technology. It is independent of and different from Intel's plans to put multiple processor cores on a single die. You do not need Vanderpool technology to have multicore, or vice versa.
I do not speak for Intel. My opinions are not necessarily those of Intel's.
What Good is a Free MUD Client? This would have been a much better Ask Slashdot.
Who modded this +1 Interesting?
"Pentium M" != "Pentium 4-M"
Sony 4:3 televisions have a feature that will compress the scan lines into a 16:9 format. You lose surface area, but you don't lose any of the pixels. Great way to get quality 16:9 movie playback on the cheap (less than a thousand bucks).
I sincerely doubt that, as C. C. was an Italian who, while he did seek English support, wound up doing all his history-making sailing for Spain.
Note that the above numbers are for a application specific quantum circuit designed solely to break RSA. To my knowledge, no one has proposed a design for a general purpose quantum computer, though it has been proven that it is possible to build one. There are lots of technological (not mathematic or physical) problems associated with designing a general purpose quantum computer. Merely having a large quantity of entangled qubits is not sufficient.
Argh. It's painful how few people understand quantum computing.
First, the advantages of quantum computing. It is well established that there are quantum algorithms for which there are no known efficient classical algorithms. That is, there is a known efficient quantum algorithm for breaking RSA, and no known classical algorithm. Complexity theory still hasn't been able to determine if P belongs to NP, so there may theoretically be an efficient classical algorithm that breaks RSA. Only time and lots of math will tell. However, it is possible (and some say likely) that the space of problems that quantum computers can tackle efficiently is strictly greater than the space of problems classical computers can solve efficiently.
In a physical quantum computer, noise is a problem. That is, your qubits will become entangled with the environment and you lose the information encoded in them. Several others have noted this problem. What they have not noted is that there exist techniques for overcoming the problem of noise using additional qubits. The math is complicated, but the outcome is that quantum computers can be made sufficiently reliable and stable to perform computation at realistic conditions (i.e. well above absolute zero. like room temperature). However, this increases the number of qubits one would need to perform computation with.
For instance, the number of qubits needed to break RSA grows with the log of the size of the key. This is very encouraging. However, the number of qubits necessary to provide sufficient error correction grows this number significantly. That said, a reasonable piece of quantum hardware that could break 1024 bit RSA would require something on the order of 10^3 qubits, subsets of which would need to be entangled to perform the computation.
It is physically impossible to produce two copies of an unknown quantum state. One can reproduce an unknown quantum state but the original quantum state is destroyed or modified. One can produce multiple copies of a known quantum state, but that is hardly useful for human teleportation or copying.
Barring revisionist physics that alter our current understanding of the universe rather than adds depth, any sort of human teleportation or copying (including copying of the brain) will involve destruction (or at least alteration) of the original. I do not know about you, but I'm not about to undertake any sort of copying that fails to guarantee that my original quantum state will remain intact.
Ha. Answered my own question:
Sharp Zaurus 5600
Stay Connected
With wireless connectivity a must for any enterprise environment, the Zaurus SL-5600 comes wireless capable* with dual expansion slots and built-in drivers for numerous Compact Flash connectivity solutions including industry-leading 802.11b wireless LAN adaptors, CDPD Wireless modem, 10/100 Ethernet, and 56K V.90 modems and a plan to introduce 1xRTT and GPRS in 2003. The built-in Compact Flash (Type I and Type II) and SD / MMC slots allow users to add any Compact Flash-based connectivity solution in the Compact Flash - slot and still have room to add more memory in the SD slot without necessitating a jacket, eliminating the need to add to the size and the cost of the unit.
Anybody know if there's any type of wireless support for the Zaurus?
Aw, hell, I found the link. It's the same paper that I linked to before. Here it is again.
Jonathan David Pearce
The power consumption could be the kicker! As so many others on this item have posted, the Shannon limit is just that, a limit. You can use more of the spectrum to get more bandwidth, but then you start hitting other walls, like being unable to build antennae with the characteristics you need. So the search for more bandwidth is constrained--there's only so much out there.
But have you seen the cost of wireless communication in terms of power? Power requirements for wireless transmission technologies in use now are on the same order of magnitude as computation; I don't care whether it's narrow-band or wide-band. There's lots of sneaky things people are doing to lower the power consumption of CPUs. However, the return on those sorts of optimizations is getting less and less important because of the power requirements of the rest of the system. Consider that the power requirements of the CPU, display, and hard drive are all the same order of magnitude (6W to 4W to 2W in at least one system).
But on top of that, in the next, say, eighteen or twenty-four months, communication is projected to be more than three quarters of the power budget of a handheld wireless device. (And I can't find the goddamn link for this one.) That's where a wireless transmission technology with low, low power requirements could really make it in the market.
To get that pie-in-the-sky handheld Roblimo was dreaming about the other day, the power consumption of these sorts of systems has to come way down. Targetting the power use of communication is an important first step.
Jonathan David Pearce
Does no one understand the point of being able to have a conversation with these things?
My girlfriend lives in another state. To prevent expensive phone bills, we use ICQ (though we could just as easily use AIM). It's that simple. It's a fabulous way to stay in touch.
It's a sad day when I log on and see Flamebait modded up to +3.
Jonathan David Pearce
Publius has been on /. before, guys.
You'd think Hemos would take five seconds to use /.'s own damn search engine to check for past stories.
Jonathan David Pearce
I know the movie industry could never collapse like that, but perhaps the events I have seen with my friend in the adult entertainment industry are harbingers of what may happen to your local video store owner as movie piracy becomes large-scale.
What local video store owner? I have to drive twenty minutes before I get to a video store that isn't Blockbuster. And if you think that homogenization doesn't have anything to do with piracy, then you're sadly mistaken.
Jonathan David Pearce
Freenet has a lot to offer. But it's also a different sort of thing, IMHO.
I see this split as similar to the difference between ftp servers and web servers. Freenet is designed to serve up files without anyone being able to stop it. Publius is intended to serve up words (web pages, in this case) without anyone being able to tell who wrote them.
I believe there are enough niches for Freenet, Publius, and whole host of other privacy/anonymonity-guaranteeing ideas to coexist.
Jonathan David Pearce
I believe you're missing the point. After reading the Publius paper, I have these points to offer:
So, Publius can't defend against that sort of attack, but assuming the publisher does indeed manage to get his data published anonymously, perhaps through the use of anonymizers (which is what Crowds is) or encryption like SSL, his anonymonity cannot be broken. That is the point of this system.
There's a lot more in this 14 page paper--it's very rich. It particular, it examines the attacks that an adversary could make against Publius and what safeguards could be put in place.
The most important thing, and I can't emphasize this enough, is that these guys have a system. This is not some theoretical, pie-in-the-sky wouldn't-it-be-nice dream, like the XOR business was. They have the details and mechanics of publishing, retrieval, and updating worked out. You may read the paper yourself if you don't believe me.
Unfortunately, I'm in no position to evaluate the strength of the crypto here. I would very much like to see someone with knowledge in this area come forward with an opinion after having read the paper.
Jonathan David Pearce
You don't need open source code for this.
As id has demonstrated time and again with the Quake series, it is possible to design a game so that users can enhance and modify it. Another good example is the Rules Description Language (and this link too) of Stars! Supernova. Using the RDL, the multiplayer Stars! community will be able to effect gameplay balancing changes without waiting for the developers to release a patch. They'll also be able to set up custom rules for creating themed games, like Star Trek, Star Wars, or Babylon 5. Stars! Supernova will also has some interesting ways of letting players supply custom artwork and sound for their races. For more on this game, see news://rec.games.computer.stars.
At any rate, the point is through the implementation of good game design, developers can ensure that users will be able to update and enhance a closed-source proprietary game. It'd be interesting to see if anyone else has examples of this sort of design besides the ones I've mentioned (*hint, hint*).
Jonathan David Pearce
The reason this market isn't being exploited is that it's complete. It's done. All the platform jumpers, 2-d shooters, Scorch-clones, and turn-based strats have been written already. To rewrite them would be a duplication of effort. They also wouldn't sell.
We could go on playing the same games, year in and year out. Some of us do. But game developers, and the gaming public, think there's still some new ground to be broken. With the advent of faster computers, nicer displays, and beefier graphics cards, game developers are able to bring to life gaming visions they never had a chance to create before. If you don't like 'em, don't play 'em. But don't call for a return to the gaming days of the early 90's. Those games have been written already, and there's nothing further to be done there. That's why the developers and market have moved on.
Jonathan David Pearce