I've seen plenty of Antarctica propaganda. Who else would be sponsoring all the global warming "information" and alerts? They're the ones who'll feel the heat first!
I think they're saying that to explain that your job is to try to both maintain quality standards AND assure the devs that they're putting together a quality product, even if 1 & 2 do not match up.
Curiously, other people in the business of national security may use this. Like the DOD, DOE, Ag Dept, FAA, Treasury, etc. For the time that the encryption method works and remains secure, federal agencies really won't have much to worry if the people signing their paychecks have access to their secure data (within reason, but that's what private networks are for).
If the second batch of numbers becomes compromised, do what comes naturally with encryption methods: pick a different set of arbitrarily large prime numbers and release build N+1.
"Our internet investigations team, internet service providers and the police are well aware of encryption technology: it's been around for a long time and is commonplace in other areas of internet crime."
This statement infers that all encrypted traffic is somehow related to internet crime. If I encrypt my credit card number before sending it to Amazon.com or newegg.com or where ever, would the insinuation carry on to say that I am conducting internet crime by conducting a legitimate commercial transaction, or that the online store is engaged in criminal activity?
Passwords? Point-of-sale credit card and debit card readers? VPNs for those telecommuting to work, or just connecting multiple office buildings?
There's a LOT of encrypted traffic out there, and most of it because we don't trust the other people on the internet to responsibly use the information if they gained access to it.
Mod parent up. One of the big deals about mining our moon if how intimately it's tied into the climate cycles. The moon drives the tides, the tides help move hot and cold water around, leading to various cycles in marine life and in the atmosphere (such as wind, coastal weather, and precipitation)... Sure, the moon's a "big dead rock", but it's contributing to the current balance of our bigger not-quite-so-dead rock.
Yes, this will be targeted at gamers. The same gamers who spend hundreds of millions of dollars constructing supercomputers for "running games". We needn't consider molecular or weather simulations, modeling nuclear explosions, or solving Go.
0.3 dB (42.2 vs. 42.5) and ~20 watts (~15%) are significant? I'd think that the other aspects that add up to an improved board design would be the significant part.
Read up. It's not the dynamic IP that gets nuked, it's you provider that gets nuked. The bots won't care if the connections just get rejected, since they're not listening for the ACK response in the first place.
Argh, the buzzwording! It burns us! Make it stop!!
More seriously though, the article might benefit from a little bit more context. As mentioned above, taking 1ms off network latency is meaningless across long connections, where you expect 40ms latency just from the routers, speed of light, etc. Taking 1ms off when microseconds count, when your latency is 5ms, within a system where automated transactions and big money are involved, then the situation is different.
The readers do not recognize the requirements imposed by the environment implicitly!
When I was going over the E4E flier I was handed outside PAX, it felt much more like they were doing the whole thing for a buck, rather than because they wanted to bring all the crazy fans together to meet the people behind the screen names, play games, and have fun.
PAX is more of a social gathering that mutated into something unexpected, which you can't duplicate without something that draws people at its core.
Again, the developers would love the idea of "write once, run anywhere" sort of software/games. The console manufacturers would NOT appreciate it, because their market would go the way of the desktop computer. Dell, Compaq, HP, PeoplePC, and DIY'ers all make what is inevitably the same product from different pieces, and that market is as stable as it is because of the skills required to put a PC together AND the volume of computers consumed. The console market is a different kind of beast because of the lower volume, the differentiated products (XBox vs. Wii vs. PS#), and the elastic demand for new consoles (you don't NEED one, you WANT one, and can live without one).
Surviving in the console market isn't all about winning the hearts of developers, it's about putting out a superior product that is more fun, provides more useful functions (DVD playback), or can run games better, than the next machine. The developers are only in the equation for getting more games on the platform, which is being done through developer acquisitions and publishing contracts.
Short form: homogeneous consoles => fewer console sales => less money
EA's hoping that the console turns into too much of a gaming appliance, which isn't going to happen. The economics behind it are just plain shot when you take a number of products that have their unique differences, such as platform-specific games and platform-specific controllers, and attempt to homogenize them into a group that has limited differences. The asymmetric competition between the consoles is the reason why sales are quite as high as they are, since a consumer may end up purchasing a Wii and an XBox 360 if they want to play Game X and Game Y, rather than being able to purchase a generic console that will play both games and take both the wireless pad and the nunchuck.
A standard set of requirements isn't going to happen either. While Sony and Nintendo are happy to work with OpenGL, for example, it'll be a very cold day before you see Microsoft embracing modern OpenGL support alongside their DirectX baby. Each console manufacturer wants to have a share of the market based on what their console can do that others can't -- see the Wii. Some are going to go after the newest technology and play Blu-rays, others are going to have DVD remotes, some will include hard drives. The console manufacturers will not see any particular utility in adding "allows competitors to play 'our' games" to the list of requirements.
Emulation may happen, by comparison, in one fashion or another. However, the above still applies, since any game that can be run using a standard engine can also be run by their competitors.
Devs would love the idea, I'll wager. Learn the technology once and keep developing for the same, iteratively improving target. They'd love it up until the publishers stop getting paid for platform-exclusive releases.
Microsoft is trying to make news by announcing what they're working on, hailing it as the next great thing for the desktop PC/web/office/coffee industry, and then telling everyone to got on board the train before it starts moving.
Like others, I fail to see the news here. It's nothing new to build something and tell everyone to use it in the hopes that it becomes the next de-facto standard, or as posted above, just to get it some market share so that other developers in any field will take the new product seriously.
...okay, so she's guilty of recording 20s of the movie. If she's convicted, money says the judge/jury looks at the scope of the "theft", observes that your typical movie advertisement carries more than 20 seconds of scenes from the movie, and tells her not to do it again.
A system of laws is as rules-based as our computers are, but that doesn't mean that the sentencing is equally binary. The human element's going to show up in this case and either reduce the sentence to something insignificant, or throw the case out as "not worth the court's time".
Hell, I have an XBox that I picked up about six months after release, and the only problem I'm having five years later is that the laser in the DVD is getting old and doesn't always want to read some audio CDs (both normal and enhanced).
Nothing wrong with the machine for having a Microsoft logo on it.
It's a tough call whether or not the prime motivation is sharing information. O'Reilly is going to have several motives: advertise their books, raise their visibility, make money*. They can draw people first with the tutorials (and various discounts for students and corporate employees), second with the presence of speakers and employees with recognized names, third with the token free access to the booths. On the flip side, they need to worry about their expenses: they've brought a dozen of their own employees to work the Con, they've hired two different companies for manning the registration desk and for setting up the show's constructs (rails, desks, tables, chairs), lunch is provided today and tomorrow, they've printed out material to stuff 2500 cloth tote bags, badge holders & stock & ribbons, computer rental, and the cost of renting out two halls at the Oregon Convention Center.
I'm not in a position to argue in any direction as to what O'Reilly's motivations are (O RLY?!), but you have to consider that there's a lot of money tied up to set up and run a convention. Determining if it's about money will ultimately require checking in with the accountants.
And if you want to talk to His Holiness of Big Company, wait until he's on the floor, and not in a session. Then it's free, if you can find, recognize, and converse with hir.
Slashdot Mirror
White Mage must've clocked you pretty good with the hammer if you're seeing double doubly.
Wow! If Canada keeps this up, we might have to change the "In Soviet Russia" meme to a "In Federal Canada" meme!
In Soviet Russia, the cell phone hangs you up!
I've seen plenty of Antarctica propaganda. Who else would be sponsoring all the global warming "information" and alerts? They're the ones who'll feel the heat first!
I think they're saying that to explain that your job is to try to both maintain quality standards AND assure the devs that they're putting together a quality product, even if 1 & 2 do not match up.
Curiously, other people in the business of national security may use this. Like the DOD, DOE, Ag Dept, FAA, Treasury, etc. For the time that the encryption method works and remains secure, federal agencies really won't have much to worry if the people signing their paychecks have access to their secure data (within reason, but that's what private networks are for).
If the second batch of numbers becomes compromised, do what comes naturally with encryption methods: pick a different set of arbitrarily large prime numbers and release build N+1.
Bug in software a US Gov't agency is promoting? (some of) Your tax dollars at work!
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Wait, which cipher are they using? Ooops.
"Our internet investigations team, internet service providers and the police are well aware of encryption technology: it's been around for a long time and is commonplace in other areas of internet crime."
This statement infers that all encrypted traffic is somehow related to internet crime. If I encrypt my credit card number before sending it to Amazon.com or newegg.com or where ever, would the insinuation carry on to say that I am conducting internet crime by conducting a legitimate commercial transaction, or that the online store is engaged in criminal activity?
Passwords? Point-of-sale credit card and debit card readers? VPNs for those telecommuting to work, or just connecting multiple office buildings?
There's a LOT of encrypted traffic out there, and most of it because we don't trust the other people on the internet to responsibly use the information if they gained access to it.
Terminus, Quake 3, Angband. Eve is the first for-profit MMOG that I can think of supporting all three, I'll grant you.
Mod parent up. One of the big deals about mining our moon if how intimately it's tied into the climate cycles. The moon drives the tides, the tides help move hot and cold water around, leading to various cycles in marine life and in the atmosphere (such as wind, coastal weather, and precipitation) ... Sure, the moon's a "big dead rock", but it's contributing to the current balance of our bigger not-quite-so-dead rock.
Yes, this will be targeted at gamers. The same gamers who spend hundreds of millions of dollars constructing supercomputers for "running games". We needn't consider molecular or weather simulations, modeling nuclear explosions, or solving Go.
Bigger fish to fry than those in BioShock.
0.3 dB (42.2 vs. 42.5) and ~20 watts (~15%) are significant? I'd think that the other aspects that add up to an improved board design would be the significant part.
Read up. It's not the dynamic IP that gets nuked, it's you provider that gets nuked. The bots won't care if the connections just get rejected, since they're not listening for the ACK response in the first place.
Argh, the buzzwording! It burns us! Make it stop!!
More seriously though, the article might benefit from a little bit more context. As mentioned above, taking 1ms off network latency is meaningless across long connections, where you expect 40ms latency just from the routers, speed of light, etc. Taking 1ms off when microseconds count, when your latency is 5ms, within a system where automated transactions and big money are involved, then the situation is different.
The readers do not recognize the requirements imposed by the environment implicitly!
Agreed.
When I was going over the E4E flier I was handed outside PAX, it felt much more like they were doing the whole thing for a buck, rather than because they wanted to bring all the crazy fans together to meet the people behind the screen names, play games, and have fun.
PAX is more of a social gathering that mutated into something unexpected, which you can't duplicate without something that draws people at its core.
Again, the developers would love the idea of "write once, run anywhere" sort of software/games. The console manufacturers would NOT appreciate it, because their market would go the way of the desktop computer. Dell, Compaq, HP, PeoplePC, and DIY'ers all make what is inevitably the same product from different pieces, and that market is as stable as it is because of the skills required to put a PC together AND the volume of computers consumed. The console market is a different kind of beast because of the lower volume, the differentiated products (XBox vs. Wii vs. PS#), and the elastic demand for new consoles (you don't NEED one, you WANT one, and can live without one).
Surviving in the console market isn't all about winning the hearts of developers, it's about putting out a superior product that is more fun, provides more useful functions (DVD playback), or can run games better, than the next machine. The developers are only in the equation for getting more games on the platform, which is being done through developer acquisitions and publishing contracts.
Short form: homogeneous consoles => fewer console sales => less money
EA's hoping that the console turns into too much of a gaming appliance, which isn't going to happen. The economics behind it are just plain shot when you take a number of products that have their unique differences, such as platform-specific games and platform-specific controllers, and attempt to homogenize them into a group that has limited differences. The asymmetric competition between the consoles is the reason why sales are quite as high as they are, since a consumer may end up purchasing a Wii and an XBox 360 if they want to play Game X and Game Y, rather than being able to purchase a generic console that will play both games and take both the wireless pad and the nunchuck.
A standard set of requirements isn't going to happen either. While Sony and Nintendo are happy to work with OpenGL, for example, it'll be a very cold day before you see Microsoft embracing modern OpenGL support alongside their DirectX baby. Each console manufacturer wants to have a share of the market based on what their console can do that others can't -- see the Wii. Some are going to go after the newest technology and play Blu-rays, others are going to have DVD remotes, some will include hard drives. The console manufacturers will not see any particular utility in adding "allows competitors to play 'our' games" to the list of requirements.
Emulation may happen, by comparison, in one fashion or another. However, the above still applies, since any game that can be run using a standard engine can also be run by their competitors.
Devs would love the idea, I'll wager. Learn the technology once and keep developing for the same, iteratively improving target. They'd love it up until the publishers stop getting paid for platform-exclusive releases.
Microsoft is trying to make news by announcing what they're working on, hailing it as the next great thing for the desktop PC/web/office/coffee industry, and then telling everyone to got on board the train before it starts moving.
Like others, I fail to see the news here. It's nothing new to build something and tell everyone to use it in the hopes that it becomes the next de-facto standard, or as posted above, just to get it some market share so that other developers in any field will take the new product seriously.
Business as usual.
Real Strogg printers use stroylent, not these watered-down human enzymes. [Quake4]
I always wanted a Tech 2 processor.
Oh wait...
...okay, so she's guilty of recording 20s of the movie. If she's convicted, money says the judge/jury looks at the scope of the "theft", observes that your typical movie advertisement carries more than 20 seconds of scenes from the movie, and tells her not to do it again.
A system of laws is as rules-based as our computers are, but that doesn't mean that the sentencing is equally binary. The human element's going to show up in this case and either reduce the sentence to something insignificant, or throw the case out as "not worth the court's time".
Hell, I have an XBox that I picked up about six months after release, and the only problem I'm having five years later is that the laser in the DVD is getting old and doesn't always want to read some audio CDs (both normal and enhanced).
Nothing wrong with the machine for having a Microsoft logo on it.
OSCAMP, right. There's also FOSCON for the Ruby fans, held by FreeGeek [www.freegeek.org] a mile or two south-southwest, towards OMSI.
It's a tough call whether or not the prime motivation is sharing information. O'Reilly is going to have several motives: advertise their books, raise their visibility, make money*. They can draw people first with the tutorials (and various discounts for students and corporate employees), second with the presence of speakers and employees with recognized names, third with the token free access to the booths. On the flip side, they need to worry about their expenses: they've brought a dozen of their own employees to work the Con, they've hired two different companies for manning the registration desk and for setting up the show's constructs (rails, desks, tables, chairs), lunch is provided today and tomorrow, they've printed out material to stuff 2500 cloth tote bags, badge holders & stock & ribbons, computer rental, and the cost of renting out two halls at the Oregon Convention Center.
I'm not in a position to argue in any direction as to what O'Reilly's motivations are (O RLY?!), but you have to consider that there's a lot of money tied up to set up and run a convention. Determining if it's about money will ultimately require checking in with the accountants.
And if you want to talk to His Holiness of Big Company, wait until he's on the floor, and not in a session. Then it's free, if you can find, recognize, and converse with hir.