It doesn't matter if you have a new PC, it will still lag when too much players are in the same zone.
Yes it does matter. On my medium configuration (4 Gb, Core 2 Duo @ 3 GHz and GTX 260 - yes it's a good configuration, and above average, but it's not "high-end") I always have a high frame-rate. What does happen is the zone server in high-population areas (major hubs such as Dalaran) are struggling. It could be a network bottleneck in the data center (throughput is saturated) or a hardware limitation of the said zone server (the piece of software running on it takes too much resources). One could argue that, therefore, in doesn't matter if you have a new PC (and by that you must mean a high end PC), because when you reach a certain threshold where the graphics are not the limiting factor, you reach another limit over which you have no control since it's in Blizzard's hands. But saying that the engine could sort of 'cap' your frame rate is just plain wrong.
You'd be right, in a "Freedom of speech overrules all" American kind of way, which is fine, but she went a little bit beyond than posting "posting public information about what they do".
You are, of course, correct. The main flaw of such techniques is that you just need to hold the packets. What matters is that you deliver the packets, not the rate at which you deliver them. Instead of sending all the packets of a spam at the same time, the spammer will send the first packet of the first spam, then the first packet of the second, and so on. When they reached the first packet of the 100th spam, they'll send the second packet of the first spam, and so on.
This technique is used by Layer-7 attacks where DPI devices will 'forget' about an attack pattern if the packets of the said pattern are not all sent within X seconds/minutes.
For what it's worth, I just gave a nice beginner programmer's book to my younger brother. He never programmed in his life, as his job is all about monitoring and fixing critical server operations for a major French mobile company. So the extend of his development skills are Shell scripts. The book I gave him is one of Oreilly's "Head On" series, and the language is C#. I think it's good to start with an object-oriented language, and C# being simpler than C++ it makes sense. So far he's loving it and he made quite impressive progress. Since he's basically self-learning maybe he's missing a point or two, but overall I think he'll be able to write small apps or website quite quickly. I self-learned programming about 10 years ago, and never made that my main job either. But I picked up PHP after a quick introduction to C/C++, and that gave me a ton of bad habit I wouldn't have picked up with C# or if I stuck to C++.
Yes. Only if you enabled the management from the WAN interface, as I understand, are you vulnerable. And you deserve to be hacked if you did that, really.
You can already stop buying Cisco products then, as they are doing the filtering of China (and using that technology to help ISPs throttle specific protocols, in Western countries, in case you're into the 'net neutrality' combat). Unless you care only about Iran internet filtering. Actually, I'm pretty sure you'll stop buying products from anyone pretty soon as they most likely all do business with China or Iran. If only Iran is your concern, I'd look at Israel vendors as I'm pretty sure they don't do business with Iran, and their technology is as good as European or American companies'.
I can't see how you could be wrong. Cisco, Juniper, Microsoft, Google, and every high tech US company have been selling exactly the same thing to China for years. Why punish NSN for doing exactly the same thing in Iran? Because US companies lost the deal? I hope this is not the case and these Senators really have the interest of the Iranians at heart.
This is because companies sell based on the cost of living, and yes, $1 is pretty much equal to 1. If I earn $2000 in the US, or 2000 in Europe, then paying $199 in the US or 199 in Europe is the same. Now of course if you look at the absolute value, we are being screwed over in Europe. This is why a lot of Europeans still buy from the US (even if you pay the customs you save money). And this is why the European union was asking the Bush administration to stop keeping the dollars low - you exports are cheaper, and your import as well since they are paid in dollars anyway.
This wasn't mentioned in the review so I suppose that's already an answer, but I figured I'd ask anyway. Is there any topic that covers running ASP.NET (through the Mono Project) under Ubuntu Server? Is there any Database-related topics, specifically for PostgreSQL? I don't need 300 pages books for these topics (not yet anyway), so that kind of "Jack of all trades" book is interesting to me.
That might work, but you'd get an insanely poor data rate since the TCP overhead is eating up all of the bandwidth. And some of the newer routing devices can monitor abnormal packet loss rates (normally to enforce SLA's) so it's pretty easy to detect that behavior.
I read an interview of the MP in question. She said that he never explicitly asked for this correspondence to be considered 'private'. Apparently by default the (e-)mails sent to MPs are considered 'public'. She also said that his letter was well constructed and contained good arguments, so she forwarded it to the Minister backing the bill to "challenge" her (more like to give her some time to come up with plausible counter-arguments). Then it found its way to TF1 HQ for some reasons.
Just for the record, the Gendarmerie is not "the" French national Police force. It's a Police branch of the Military, deployed in the country-side or low population areas (mostly, not always). The national Police, which is called, tumtumtum La Police Nationale, is a separate force, usually deployed in larger cities.
Yes, this is the real reason. And on top of that Digital Downloading are the same price than retail, but cost a fraction for the vendor. Gaming is no longer about selling cool stuff, nice manuals and cloth maps, it's only about making money. And to maximize that, you need to cut your costs.
The hardest part in handling SSL (or IPSec for that matter) sessions is making sure each packet sent is actually permitted. Not so much the initial key exchange phase or subsequent re-negotiations.
If ISPs started setting the QoS bits to favor voice traffic and send Bittorrent into the lowest priority queue, I guarantee that it won't take long for a BitTorrent client to start disguising itself as voice traffic.
Fair point. But Deep Packet Inspection-enabled devices can identify protocols disguising themselves as other protocols. Stateful analysis of that kind of traffic (10Gbps+) is possible, but the performance hit could be pretty big. Not huge though, and it's definitively something doable if you spend enough money on network devices to scale up the performances. I'm starting to see 10G line rate probes that can detect Layer 7 attacks, I'm sure they can determine as quickly, if not quicker, a forged protocol.
Whatever the technical problem is, somebody at Cisco, Juniper, F5, Foundy, and others already found the solution. It's just a matter of paying for the technology, and ISPs don't want to spend one dime too many, obviously, because they need to maximize the profitability for you know whom.
You can put UDP on a lower QoS priority than TCP. You can even make it so that 'fair' UDP traffic (VoIP, RTSP, etc..) is not impacted by this. The only thing preventing this are ISP not willing to spend millions of dollars on upgrading their core networks to manage this, and also because it would be complex to configure. They could also increase their own bandwidth - the technology exists, it's just a matter of adding more 10G ports in the mix. Or even upgrade to 40G ports. I wouldn't count on that since carriers and operators and content providers just barely moved to 10G cores.
It's also worth mentionning that UDP has a much smaller overhead than TCP. In one UDP packet you can send more data than using a TCP packet. In theory it would then take less time to download a file, so in theory you would have less concurrent downloads on Internet. The bandwidth usage could be more "bursty" instead of longer, steady phases. But that's from one user perspective, I'm not sure about the effects on a large scale - besides that you would have more goodput for the same throughput.
On a smaller level, societies where people own guns are usually more peaceful ones. Why? Because people can see them. Just the threat of being shot is enough to deter people from starting shit.
What? There are no guns in most European countries, well except the guns used for hunting, which only a very tiny percentage of the population own, and I wouldn't say the European countries are less peaceful than, say, USA. Case in point : USA has got the largest firearm-related death rate of any industrial country.
It could add latency on an ISP level indeed, but there are already a lot of devices that do Stateful (or "Deep Packet") Inspection with pretty good performances - but on a much smaller scale.
However, you just need to transfer the files over HTTPS/SFTP/SSH and the device can't do shit, because it's just not possible to Man-in-the-Middleing on an global ISP level. It would be possible to do that for targeted individuals though, and they couldn't tell the difference (unless they use certificates, CA, CRL and so on).
I can't believe the ISPs in the US still give you bandwidth limits. This is what I have in France, for 35/month :
- ADSL 1 (10 Mbps downstream, 1 Mbps upstream. Had my DSLAM been ADSL2+ compatible, I'd have 28 Mbps downstream for the same price)
- VoIP with calls free of charge to 30 major countries (including US, Canada, North Africa and the European Union)
- About 15 Multicast (IPTV) channels
- Built in Unicast (VoD) service (3/24 hours for newer movies)
- No bandwidth limitation
- No traffic shaping
I have about 50 Gb of monthly traffic (two persons in the household). Of course I am "allowed" to host webservers and such if I want to. I use one of the most expensive ISP (Orange), other ISPs are at 29.99/month. One of them even has a MIMO set top box.
If I was one of the lucky guys with Fiber To The Home, I'd have a 50 Mbps *symetric* bandwidth, for about 50/month, and the same services. If I had cable, I'd get 100 Mbps downstream, 20 Mbps upstream, for 30/month (same services, as well).
Slashdot Mirror
Yes it does matter. On my medium configuration (4 Gb, Core 2 Duo @ 3 GHz and GTX 260 - yes it's a good configuration, and above average, but it's not "high-end") I always have a high frame-rate. What does happen is the zone server in high-population areas (major hubs such as Dalaran) are struggling. It could be a network bottleneck in the data center (throughput is saturated) or a hardware limitation of the said zone server (the piece of software running on it takes too much resources). One could argue that, therefore, in doesn't matter if you have a new PC (and by that you must mean a high end PC), because when you reach a certain threshold where the graphics are not the limiting factor, you reach another limit over which you have no control since it's in Blizzard's hands. But saying that the engine could sort of 'cap' your frame rate is just plain wrong.
That sounds more like [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Man%27s_War]Old Man's War[/url] than Starship Troopers, really.
I attribute this to Microsoft's policy of not giving any DLC for free. As simple as that.
You'd be right, in a "Freedom of speech overrules all" American kind of way, which is fine, but she went a little bit beyond than posting "posting public information about what they do".
You are, of course, correct. The main flaw of such techniques is that you just need to hold the packets. What matters is that you deliver the packets, not the rate at which you deliver them. Instead of sending all the packets of a spam at the same time, the spammer will send the first packet of the first spam, then the first packet of the second, and so on. When they reached the first packet of the 100th spam, they'll send the second packet of the first spam, and so on.
This technique is used by Layer-7 attacks where DPI devices will 'forget' about an attack pattern if the packets of the said pattern are not all sent within X seconds/minutes.
For what it's worth, I just gave a nice beginner programmer's book to my younger brother. He never programmed in his life, as his job is all about monitoring and fixing critical server operations for a major French mobile company. So the extend of his development skills are Shell scripts. The book I gave him is one of Oreilly's "Head On" series, and the language is C#. I think it's good to start with an object-oriented language, and C# being simpler than C++ it makes sense. So far he's loving it and he made quite impressive progress. Since he's basically self-learning maybe he's missing a point or two, but overall I think he'll be able to write small apps or website quite quickly. I self-learned programming about 10 years ago, and never made that my main job either. But I picked up PHP after a quick introduction to C/C++, and that gave me a ton of bad habit I wouldn't have picked up with C# or if I stuck to C++.
Yes. Only if you enabled the management from the WAN interface, as I understand, are you vulnerable. And you deserve to be hacked if you did that, really.
You can already stop buying Cisco products then, as they are doing the filtering of China (and using that technology to help ISPs throttle specific protocols, in Western countries, in case you're into the 'net neutrality' combat). Unless you care only about Iran internet filtering. Actually, I'm pretty sure you'll stop buying products from anyone pretty soon as they most likely all do business with China or Iran. If only Iran is your concern, I'd look at Israel vendors as I'm pretty sure they don't do business with Iran, and their technology is as good as European or American companies'.
I can't see how you could be wrong. Cisco, Juniper, Microsoft, Google, and every high tech US company have been selling exactly the same thing to China for years. Why punish NSN for doing exactly the same thing in Iran? Because US companies lost the deal? I hope this is not the case and these Senators really have the interest of the Iranians at heart.
This is because companies sell based on the cost of living, and yes, $1 is pretty much equal to 1. If I earn $2000 in the US, or 2000 in Europe, then paying $199 in the US or 199 in Europe is the same. Now of course if you look at the absolute value, we are being screwed over in Europe. This is why a lot of Europeans still buy from the US (even if you pay the customs you save money). And this is why the European union was asking the Bush administration to stop keeping the dollars low - you exports are cheaper, and your import as well since they are paid in dollars anyway.
This wasn't mentioned in the review so I suppose that's already an answer, but I figured I'd ask anyway. Is there any topic that covers running ASP.NET (through the Mono Project) under Ubuntu Server? Is there any Database-related topics, specifically for PostgreSQL? I don't need 300 pages books for these topics (not yet anyway), so that kind of "Jack of all trades" book is interesting to me.
That might work, but you'd get an insanely poor data rate since the TCP overhead is eating up all of the bandwidth. And some of the newer routing devices can monitor abnormal packet loss rates (normally to enforce SLA's) so it's pretty easy to detect that behavior.
I read an interview of the MP in question. She said that he never explicitly asked for this correspondence to be considered 'private'. Apparently by default the (e-)mails sent to MPs are considered 'public'. She also said that his letter was well constructed and contained good arguments, so she forwarded it to the Minister backing the bill to "challenge" her (more like to give her some time to come up with plausible counter-arguments). Then it found its way to TF1 HQ for some reasons.
Just for the record, the Gendarmerie is not "the" French national Police force. It's a Police branch of the Military, deployed in the country-side or low population areas (mostly, not always). The national Police, which is called, tumtumtum La Police Nationale, is a separate force, usually deployed in larger cities.
Yes, this is the real reason. And on top of that Digital Downloading are the same price than retail, but cost a fraction for the vendor. Gaming is no longer about selling cool stuff, nice manuals and cloth maps, it's only about making money. And to maximize that, you need to cut your costs.
I think they are thinking about the Old Ones. Finally somebody to believe Lovecraft.
Somebody played Ivan the Mad once too many.
The hardest part in handling SSL (or IPSec for that matter) sessions is making sure each packet sent is actually permitted. Not so much the initial key exchange phase or subsequent re-negotiations.
If ISPs started setting the QoS bits to favor voice traffic and send Bittorrent into the lowest priority queue, I guarantee that it won't take long for a BitTorrent client to start disguising itself as voice traffic.
Fair point. But Deep Packet Inspection-enabled devices can identify protocols disguising themselves as other protocols. Stateful analysis of that kind of traffic (10Gbps+) is possible, but the performance hit could be pretty big. Not huge though, and it's definitively something doable if you spend enough money on network devices to scale up the performances. I'm starting to see 10G line rate probes that can detect Layer 7 attacks, I'm sure they can determine as quickly, if not quicker, a forged protocol.
Whatever the technical problem is, somebody at Cisco, Juniper, F5, Foundy, and others already found the solution. It's just a matter of paying for the technology, and ISPs don't want to spend one dime too many, obviously, because they need to maximize the profitability for you know whom.
You can put UDP on a lower QoS priority than TCP. You can even make it so that 'fair' UDP traffic (VoIP, RTSP, etc..) is not impacted by this. The only thing preventing this are ISP not willing to spend millions of dollars on upgrading their core networks to manage this, and also because it would be complex to configure. They could also increase their own bandwidth - the technology exists, it's just a matter of adding more 10G ports in the mix. Or even upgrade to 40G ports. I wouldn't count on that since carriers and operators and content providers just barely moved to 10G cores.
It's also worth mentionning that UDP has a much smaller overhead than TCP. In one UDP packet you can send more data than using a TCP packet. In theory it would then take less time to download a file, so in theory you would have less concurrent downloads on Internet. The bandwidth usage could be more "bursty" instead of longer, steady phases. But that's from one user perspective, I'm not sure about the effects on a large scale - besides that you would have more goodput for the same throughput.
On a smaller level, societies where people own guns are usually more peaceful ones. Why? Because people can see them. Just the threat of being shot is enough to deter people from starting shit.
What? There are no guns in most European countries, well except the guns used for hunting, which only a very tiny percentage of the population own, and I wouldn't say the European countries are less peaceful than, say, USA. Case in point : USA has got the largest firearm-related death rate of any industrial country.
It could add latency on an ISP level indeed, but there are already a lot of devices that do Stateful (or "Deep Packet") Inspection with pretty good performances - but on a much smaller scale.
However, you just need to transfer the files over HTTPS/SFTP/SSH and the device can't do shit, because it's just not possible to Man-in-the-Middleing on an global ISP level. It would be possible to do that for targeted individuals though, and they couldn't tell the difference (unless they use certificates, CA, CRL and so on).
As far as I'm concerned, Flash 9 never arrived on Linux as there was no 64-bits support.
We don't have to adjust the theories of planet formation because of this. It's simply a Dyson Sphere. The actual planet is much smaller than that.
I can't believe the ISPs in the US still give you bandwidth limits. This is what I have in France, for 35/month : - ADSL 1 (10 Mbps downstream, 1 Mbps upstream. Had my DSLAM been ADSL2+ compatible, I'd have 28 Mbps downstream for the same price) - VoIP with calls free of charge to 30 major countries (including US, Canada, North Africa and the European Union) - About 15 Multicast (IPTV) channels - Built in Unicast (VoD) service (3/24 hours for newer movies) - No bandwidth limitation - No traffic shaping I have about 50 Gb of monthly traffic (two persons in the household). Of course I am "allowed" to host webservers and such if I want to. I use one of the most expensive ISP (Orange), other ISPs are at 29.99/month. One of them even has a MIMO set top box. If I was one of the lucky guys with Fiber To The Home, I'd have a 50 Mbps *symetric* bandwidth, for about 50/month, and the same services. If I had cable, I'd get 100 Mbps downstream, 20 Mbps upstream, for 30/month (same services, as well).