I'm not surprised -- not surprised at all because I've been getting fradulant spam from them claiming that they've received a request to transfer my domain to them and just click here to confirm.
Of course, I've made no such request and will never use or recommend them for anything after this little episode!
I saw this joke in the User Friendly Internet-published comic strip so many years ago now that I can't remember the date off the top of my head, although I remember the strip well. This sounds like just the most recent retelling of an old saw.
PowerPC has a lot of registers, can do much more complicated floating point arithmetic
A question, if you don't mind. Can you give an example of more complicated floating point arithmetic that can be performed on the PowerPC, yet not performed on the latest AMD 64-bit processor.
I'm asking, because I really can't think of any myself. I'm asking as a question of ability, and not just speed.
If I ever buy another high-end camera, I do not want it's manufacturer locking me in to their, less than competative, software.
As I see it, Nikon clearly does not care about their customers at all.
Or better yet, be discovered shipping AMD white-boxes out the back loading dock to customers they'd lose otherwise for backing the wrong horse in the 64-bit derby.
There was a rumor that Dell would first try everything possible (including "corked" benchmarks) to try to get you to choose Intel. And only if that failed, offer an AMD solution. I'd love to hear more facts on that.
AMD has made an interesting choice here, given that Intel has made the opposite decision.
Usually the only thing preventing a server class cpu from being used on the desktop is price.
Alternatively, it is shown that fast desktop chips don't automatically make good server chips due to the different type of workload involved. If desktop chips made equally good server chips, then server chips wouldn't exist at all.
Conclusion: you'll see AMD dual-processor cpus on the desktop before you see Intel dual-processor cpus in servers.
BitTorrent use hashes to verify each small chunk of the file as they are downloaded. I can imagine that it is very hard to find a collision for the entire file, but given the relatively small size of each chunk, I think it would be pretty easy to generate a collision for the smaller blocks.
You've got it backwards. The smaller the file being hashed, the harder it would be to create a collision.
Why? Because you have less to work with. Consider MD5 creating 512bits of hash while you're hashing a 1-byte file. You have 256 possible values each hashing to 512 bits. Think you're going to find any collisions? 2 bytes is 65536 unique possibilities. No collisions likely here. Only with files larger than the hash size itself is it mathmatically certain that collisions must exist (e.g. 1024 bits of data hashing to 512 bits of hash guarantees that collisions must happen for some input strings).
But then the trick is that in order to find that collision for your specific original string you may have to create and compare 2^1023 possibilities in the process.
The hash is generally generated on the client side of the original uploading system - and the validity of the file can only be checked once the file has been fully downloaded.
The article implies that the CD itself is protected by the fact that when ripped and shared on the P2P system, that its hash will match other different files, resulting in interleaved result to any downloader.
This, is of course, impossible given varying MP3 compression, and that fact that hashes are created to prevent this very problem of two different files seeming identical.
Only if there is a fault in hash implementation could this work on one P2P system, and it's unlikely that all P2P systems implement faulty hashing.
One way a P2P system could automate checking that the file is valid is for there to be a whole-file hash, and incremental hashes - say first.5MB, first MB, every 5MBs after that. Hardly going to increase file size or transfer speed significantly. Then as the file arrives, if it doesn't has properly for the length received, you've been poisoned.
Heck, could just be CRC-32 values as far as that likely goes, although hashes would be more resistent.
Upshot, I'm not buying stock in this company any time soon, and wonder when the lawsuits for false and fraudlent advertising start arriving.
They probably aren't actually making files with the same hashes, just modifying the clients, probably open source ones too, to report the md5 sums that they want to for each file,
This has to be the answer. Just a new way of poisoning P2P. Here's why:
Point 1: The article gives the impression that when you rip a CD using their protection method, somehow the hash result will be confused with other files that generated the same hash result, meaning you'll get bits of every file interleaved among each other on a download. BS!! The hash is computed against the actual MP3 file, which is different at minimum based on MP3 encoder used, compression settings, and even if you've modified the ID3 tags. Unless everyone was sharing perfect ripped.wav files, they won't be identical, and won't hash identically.
Point 2: Different P2P systems use different hashing methods. I don't believe it is possible to have a one-size-fits-all unless, once again, everyone is sharing the identical file (e.g..wav).
Vaporware pure and simple. They are just betting the the record companies are stupider than the "pirates". Considering that the record companies spent how much on a system defeated by the SHIFT key, they may well be right, and collect a few million $'s of their own from corporate drones too stupid to understand that their cheese has moved!
1: HP builds crap, supports it like crap, and was the first major manufacturer to stop shipping the Windows Operating System discs you paid for as part of the system with the system. Their "recovery disc" is even more crap, when you can get it. They sell computers mainly to bundle their much more profitable printers with. If you disagree, tell me the last time you recommended a Pavilion to a friend you wanted to keep.
2: Sun is overpriced! Let me repeat, Sun is overpriced!!
3: IBM is not as cheap as Dell, is trying to get out of the PC business because they're losing money on the desktop and notebook arenas, and hasn't been winning any customer support awards for end-users/home-users for years, if not a decade.
4: Gateway is dueling with Apple to see who can have a lower market share in computers. They try to sell TV's the way Apple sells iPods.
5: And Dell, who suffers from none of the above, keeps insisting that "Well sell AMD based computers when our customers demand it." How deaf can they be?
6: Alienware and the other niche marketeeters? $$$.
In my book, not a single good choice for a no-problems, affordable, supported, home AMD system. And both myself, my wife's business, and the company I now work for (as well as the last one) have all been loyal Dell customers accounting for well over 1000 units sold so far. Dell does not care about us!
Slashdot Mirror
This is just in time for my next Nvida PCI-E video card with two 75 watt auxiliary power connectors in addition to the 75W through the socket.
Does this mean they are all in the same subdirectory?
So the more code you have, the more you want it to run more slowly. Perfect sense.
Of course, I've made no such request and will never use or recommend them for anything after this little episode!
I saw this joke in the User Friendly Internet-published comic strip so many years ago now that I can't remember the date off the top of my head, although I remember the strip well. This sounds like just the most recent retelling of an old saw.
A question, if you don't mind. Can you give an example of more complicated floating point arithmetic that can be performed on the PowerPC, yet not performed on the latest AMD 64-bit processor.
I'm asking, because I really can't think of any myself. I'm asking as a question of ability, and not just speed.
Promise your critics a cut of the savings, and see how fast the shut up afterwards.
Give's a whole new meaning to the phrase Earn Big-Bucks working at home.
Can 1099 forms and Income Tax be far behind?
If I ever buy another high-end camera, I do not want it's manufacturer locking me in to their, less than competative, software. As I see it, Nikon clearly does not care about their customers at all.
Or better yet, be discovered shipping AMD white-boxes out the back loading dock to customers they'd lose otherwise for backing the wrong horse in the 64-bit derby.
There was a rumor that Dell would first try everything possible (including "corked" benchmarks) to try to get you to choose Intel. And only if that failed, offer an AMD solution. I'd love to hear more facts on that.
Usually the only thing preventing a server class cpu from being used on the desktop is price.
Alternatively, it is shown that fast desktop chips don't automatically make good server chips due to the different type of workload involved. If desktop chips made equally good server chips, then server chips wouldn't exist at all.
Conclusion: you'll see AMD dual-processor cpus on the desktop before you see Intel dual-processor cpus in servers.
And just which Rule of Acquision are we talking about here?
You've got it backwards. The smaller the file being hashed, the harder it would be to create a collision.
Why? Because you have less to work with. Consider MD5 creating 512bits of hash while you're hashing a 1-byte file. You have 256 possible values each hashing to 512 bits. Think you're going to find any collisions? 2 bytes is 65536 unique possibilities. No collisions likely here. Only with files larger than the hash size itself is it mathmatically certain that collisions must exist (e.g. 1024 bits of data hashing to 512 bits of hash guarantees that collisions must happen for some input strings).
But then the trick is that in order to find that collision for your specific original string you may have to create and compare 2^1023 possibilities in the process.
I'll wait while you test this for yourself.
The article implies that the CD itself is protected by the fact that when ripped and shared on the P2P system, that its hash will match other different files, resulting in interleaved result to any downloader.
This, is of course, impossible given varying MP3 compression, and that fact that hashes are created to prevent this very problem of two different files seeming identical.
Only if there is a fault in hash implementation could this work on one P2P system, and it's unlikely that all P2P systems implement faulty hashing.
Heck, could just be CRC-32 values as far as that likely goes, although hashes would be more resistent.
Upshot, I'm not buying stock in this company any time soon, and wonder when the lawsuits for false and fraudlent advertising start arriving.
This has to be the answer. Just a new way of poisoning P2P. Here's why:
Point 1: The article gives the impression that when you rip a CD using their protection method, somehow the hash result will be confused with other files that generated the same hash result, meaning you'll get bits of every file interleaved among each other on a download. BS!! The hash is computed against the actual MP3 file, which is different at minimum based on MP3 encoder used, compression settings, and even if you've modified the ID3 tags. Unless everyone was sharing perfect ripped .wav files, they won't be identical, and won't hash identically.
Point 2: Different P2P systems use different hashing methods. I don't believe it is possible to have a one-size-fits-all unless, once again, everyone is sharing the identical file (e.g. .wav).
Vaporware pure and simple. They are just betting the the record companies are stupider than the "pirates". Considering that the record companies spent how much on a system defeated by the SHIFT key, they may well be right, and collect a few million $'s of their own from corporate drones too stupid to understand that their cheese has moved!
Powerful = Usable. Obviously this system is not that, which is why 60 companies are trying to make it powerful and usable.
1: HP builds crap, supports it like crap, and was the first major manufacturer to stop shipping the Windows Operating System discs you paid for as part of the system with the system. Their "recovery disc" is even more crap, when you can get it. They sell computers mainly to bundle their much more profitable printers with. If you disagree, tell me the last time you recommended a Pavilion to a friend you wanted to keep.
2: Sun is overpriced! Let me repeat, Sun is overpriced!!
3: IBM is not as cheap as Dell, is trying to get out of the PC business because they're losing money on the desktop and notebook arenas, and hasn't been winning any customer support awards for end-users/home-users for years, if not a decade.
4: Gateway is dueling with Apple to see who can have a lower market share in computers. They try to sell TV's the way Apple sells iPods.
5: And Dell, who suffers from none of the above, keeps insisting that "Well sell AMD based computers when our customers demand it." How deaf can they be?
6: Alienware and the other niche marketeeters? $$$.
In my book, not a single good choice for a no-problems, affordable, supported, home AMD system. And both myself, my wife's business, and the company I now work for (as well as the last one) have all been loyal Dell customers accounting for well over 1000 units sold so far. Dell does not care about us!
I'm a beta tester for the MPAA's 21st century digital distribution system.
Dumb
IBM
1970
IBM
1980
IBM
1990
Microsoft
2000
Microsoft
2003
SCO
It's de facto when it requires no further explination.
I'm sure you do by now...:^)
Intel ships the chips no one is buying. How real is that?
DNS poisoning?
What DNS poisoning?
Isn't this www.NerdsMeetingExcitingGirlsOnLine.org?