note: i'm assuming this conversation is about console games since afaict noone rents PC games
You can play a pirate movie on any dvd player. To play a pirate console game OTOH you have to find somewhere that is prepared to chip it, pay them to do so and in the process void your warranty.
Wouldn't the fix for that be to use different density foundation in the honey harvesting section and the breeding section? (IIRC behives usually have two sections, one with the queen for breeding and one the queen can't reach for harvesting honey)
When the next edition of M$ Office comes with no support for Word '95.doc can users create it themselves? In principle they probablly could, while MS office isn't open source it does have quite a number of ways to programatically interact with it and i'm positive the word 95 format has been reverese engineered.
Getting the formatting exactly right is HARD with a word processor document because you have to exactly clone the behavoiour of the layout engine to do that. Getting the important data out isn't generally anywhere near as much of a problem.
Still I think in general word processor documents are lousy as an archival format. I belive any format that both tries to preserve exact layout and retain editability is fundamentally fragile.
If you want to preserve content and basic formatting in an editable way use rtf or html or similar. If you want to preserve exact layout use pdf.
geocities still seems to be up for the moment so if you can remember where they are you should be able to make copies.
archive.org has some stuff but it's patchy. Also archive.org has the horrible behavior of applying a sites current robots.txt to archived content which often ends up blocking out archived content. So you can't trust stuff on archive.org to remain availible.
Compatibility mode / visualization only takes you so far. Virtualisation takes you quite a long way, for even older stuff emulation takes over.
In 20 years are you expected to have a copy of EVERY edition of M$ Office on your PC (including all those M$ no longer fix exploits to) just so you can open a.doc created years ago and now found on an obscure archived website. My experiance is that office generally manages to open older documents though some of the formatting may be a bit screwy and I think you may have to manually reenable the converters that ms considers "insecure" to read some really old stuff.
I've tried to provoke it into collecting the rest of the site on the next run. I'm also trying to archive it locally but it seems my recursive wget has triggered service temporerally unavilible errors before it got quite the whole site.
has AMD ever paid a dividend? I'm finding it hard to find good data online but the impression i'm getting is if they have it was a long time ago.
Afaict AMDs problem is they are a fairly distant second in a market where upfront costs are huge. That means intel can make a comfortable profit at price levels where amd makes a loss.
They managed to make some headway while the giant was slumbering and putting out crap like the P4 and the itanium. Then intel struck back with core 2 and amd were pushed back to being a bit player in a market that really doesn't suit bit players.
While as a user I like having amd arround to keep prices at least somewhat reasonable and drive intel to innovate I can't see a good reason to invest in them.
so no particular country feels a need to respond. To put it another way they get away with it because it's cheaper for the shipping companies to pay the occasional bribe than to reregister thier ships under the flag of a country that is willing and able to protect them.
amusingly in that case the old upstream basically gauranteed the success of the fork by licensing new versions of certain key libraries in a way that was unacceptable to the distros. The distros considered it gpl incompatibile which was a problem because those were used in gpl apps*
*yes i'm aware of the "major component of the operating system" exception but many distros preffer not to rely on it because it is not clear exactly what counts as a "major component of the operating system" or what the case is when both the app and the library are distributed with the operating system.
One issue is that on the PSP pirating gives a BETTER experiance than buying because you don't have all the issues of a spinning optical drive in a portable.
I've always believed that making legit copies worse than pirate copies is a suicidal strategy.
Re:Lol.. fight piracy with hardware upgrades...
on
Piracy and the PSP
·
· Score: 1
Whats to crack? As I see it there are two obvious uses of a crack
1: running an alternate OS without it being cripped by the hypervisor 2: playing copied games (and possiblly in future imported region locked games though I don't think any current PS3 games are actually locked)
What I wonder is how exactly they value the parts. I was under the impression that for large quantity prices were generally negotiated on a case by case basis.
I don't understand how this works. If this was the case, what incentive would the professor have to require four of his books and never use them in the course? I see americans on/. talk about this as if it's a normal thing. Maybe it is in the USA, that doesn't mean it is everywhere.
At least on my course ( electronic systems engineering at manchester in the uk ) with a combination of good handouts and a reasonable library there is little need to purchase books. I think i've purchased one textbook so far on my course (and i've nearly finished said course)
The one time i've noticed a lecturer putting one of his own books on the "reccomended books" list he made sure there were plenty of copy of copies in the library, printed a large chunk of the content for us free in the form of a handout and basically explicitly advised us not to buy it.
Very strange system you guys have there. I have to say I think the american system which drives students into insane ammounts of debt both directly with fees and with very high other expenses is pretty strange/fucked up.
Isn't one of the 'features' of pdf that it is for document exchange? One of the talking points was that it "couldn't be changed" by the end viewer. Bollocks of course, pdf can be edited but your average luser has no easy way to do so. I belive the full acrobat has some limited editing capabilities but that is sufficiantly expensive that relatively few mahines have it installed.
Some OSS tools try to edit pdf with varying degrees of success.
Usually if the pdf has "encryption"/restrictions in use you have to strip that first with another price of software before you can load it into your editing tool.
I'll say that again: PDF is an *open* ISO standard. Afaict pdf is an adobe standard that they later submitted to ISO.
BTW do any of the non-adobe pdf readers you have tried offer the following.
1: automatic display of the "bookmarks" pane if the pdf requests it. With larger pdfs that pane is generally the main means of navigation and having to open it manually is annoying. 2: fast response when dealing with large pdf's and/or high zoom levels. 3: similar selection of toolbar buttons (zoom, page switch, hand tool/select text/select image, printing etc) to acrobat 4: ability to print multiple pages per sheet 5: ability to scale from pdf paper size to the paper size I have in my printer. 6: support for at least windows and lintel
features that acrobat reader doesnt have like the ability to copy diagrams as vector images rather than bitmaps would be a bonus.
I'm not sure who are more dangerous, those that don't update because they don't know what updates are, or those that don't update because they're too paranoid about corporations whose software they already use to allow that software to be patched against demonstrated security issues. What about: Those who don't update because it would take unreasonable ammounts of time on thier slow connection
Those who don't upgrade because they are afraid vendor incompetance will cause something to break (or have upgraded and then had to downgrade because something broke and are now stuck with the version they downgraded too)
Those who don't update because they simply can't be bothered dealing with all the updators.
IMO all the major windows development houses (including MS themselves) need to get together and use a common automatic updates system with a common setting for deciding update policy (off/check and ask/download and ask/full auto) and maybe an advanced settings box to set different update policies for different products. I think the windows automatic updates system may already support this but if it does then i've never seen anyone other than MS use it.
* a 10BASE-T or 100BASE-T network with a hub. The 10BASE-T links are in half duplex mode and the whole network is still one collision domain. As before the nodes use CSMA/CD to arbitrate. Just to clarify that should say "The 10BASE-T or 100BASE-T links are in half duplex mode"
Are you sure theres a full duplex / half duplex distinction ? Positive.
with layer 2 devices everything is on the one 'bus' so to speak. In this case the rules of csma/cd apply whether full or half duplex regardless. I think you have your layer numbers a bit screwy. Current convention seems to be that layer 1 is the very low level hardware interfaces. 3 is the IP layer and 2 is everything in between. Personally I think layer numbers confuse more than they help with describing such things...
Coaxial bus based ethernet (10BASE-2 and 10BASE-5) is naturally half duplex. As you say only one station can transmit at a time on such a network.
Most twisted pair and fiber ethernet (there are a couple of exceptions, e.g. 10BASE-FP and 100BASE-T4 but none are in common use) is naturally full duplex. However for compatibility and to support use of hubs they also support a mode where they act like a half duplex link.
Just to make things absoloutely clear, lets consider 4 simple cases (if you understand theese you should be able to understand more complex ones too)
* an old fasioned 10BASE2 or 10BASE5 bus. All nodes share a shared bus and use CSMA/CD to arbitrade.
* a 10BASE-T or 100BASE-T network with a hub. The 10BASE-T links are in half duplex mode and the whole network is still one collision domain. As before the nodes use CSMA/CD to arbitrate.
* a 10BASE-T (or possiblly very old 100BASE-T ) network with a switch. Since there is no autonegotiation half duplex links and CSMA/CD are still used but rather than being the whole network the collision domain is only one link.
* A modern network with a switch. The links autonegotiate into full-duplex mode and there is no collision domain at all.
this is exactly why theres minimum ethernet packet sizes ! so transiting stations can detect they have not sent the whole packet before a collision And half duplex gigabit had to increase the minimum packet size to keep a reasonable network size possible but since hardly anyone uses half duplex gigabit that's kind of academic.
There is talk of near light speed electron movement in this thread which is wrong as even in a vacuum (which seems not to exist now - like infinity) was only every touted at 3X10^7 m/s. If there is (I haven't spotted it myself) it probablly results from confusion between the speed of electrons (which is pretty slow) and the speed of the electrical wave (which iirc is about a third to a half the speed of light depending on the material of the cable).
According to my calculations PCIe 3 x16 would give arround 128 gigabit per second. That is less than a terabit but MORE than 100 gigabit.
But really the thing you are missing is that ethernet is not just about connections to end systems. You also have to think about the connections from switch to switch. In any decent sized network your requirements for those is likely to be considerablly higher than your requirements for links to end systems.
Ethernet has traditionally moved in fairly large jumps. This is IMO a good thing as it helps keep the number of different standards in use to a managable level.
Doesn't really answer the question. To elaborate: most current computer systems are incapable of maxing out Gigabit ethernet. For any nontrivial application you're going to be loading data from disk, and unless you have very fast disks you're not going to hit 1Gbps. The reason is backbone links. Consider a tree of 1000 very active machines and suddenly exceeding 100 gigabit seems quite feasible at the pinch points of that network
You may ask why use ethernet for such things, well the answer is if your whole network is ethernet it is easier to just transparently replace a link with a faster one than to start trying to mix technologies
Terabit is probablly OTT right now but given the speed at which standards bodies move it is nessacery to start planning it sooner rather than later;)
The other thing that TFA doesn't mention is that current 100 gigabit proposals rely on multiple "channels" (either completely seperate links or WDM wavelengths). I imagine that in paralell with the development of terabit ethernet there will be a push for a single channel 100 gigabit standard.
There was the same issue in the early days of 100 megabit. While normal PCs with cheap controllers (e.g. the (in)famous RTL8139) could link at 100 megabit they couldn't really push data that fast.
With an adequate OS, NICs, internal interconnects (that means PCIe), protocol implemenations, storage, cable, switches etc it is possible to get very close to the theoretical maximum with gigabit ethernet. Cheap shit OTOH.........
Lets assume Token Ring would have got the same attention as Ethernet? Then I would guess like ethernet it would have abandoned it's roots and moved to a network of full duplex point to point links. It's really the only sensible topology at modern speeds.
Modern ethernet is only ethernet in name and frame format. Shared bus networks and CSMA/CD were relegated to network backwaters noone cares about
Slashdot Mirror
note: i'm assuming this conversation is about console games since afaict noone rents PC games
You can play a pirate movie on any dvd player. To play a pirate console game OTOH you have to find somewhere that is prepared to chip it, pay them to do so and in the process void your warranty.
Wouldn't the fix for that be to use different density foundation in the honey harvesting section and the breeding section? (IIRC behives usually have two sections, one with the queen for breeding and one the queen can't reach for harvesting honey)
When the next edition of M$ Office comes with no support for Word '95 .doc can users create it themselves?
In principle they probablly could, while MS office isn't open source it does have quite a number of ways to programatically interact with it and i'm positive the word 95 format has been reverese engineered.
Getting the formatting exactly right is HARD with a word processor document because you have to exactly clone the behavoiour of the layout engine to do that. Getting the important data out isn't generally anywhere near as much of a problem.
Still I think in general word processor documents are lousy as an archival format. I belive any format that both tries to preserve exact layout and retain editability is fundamentally fragile.
If you want to preserve content and basic formatting in an editable way use rtf or html or similar. If you want to preserve exact layout use pdf.
geocities still seems to be up for the moment so if you can remember where they are you should be able to make copies.
archive.org has some stuff but it's patchy. Also archive.org has the horrible behavior of applying a sites current robots.txt to archived content which often ends up blocking out archived content. So you can't trust stuff on archive.org to remain availible.
Compatibility mode / visualization only takes you so far.
Virtualisation takes you quite a long way, for even older stuff emulation takes over.
In 20 years are you expected to have a copy of EVERY edition of M$ Office on your PC (including all those M$ no longer fix exploits to) just so you can open a .doc created years ago and now found on an obscure archived website.
My experiance is that office generally manages to open older documents though some of the formatting may be a bit screwy and I think you may have to manually reenable the converters that ms considers "insecure" to read some really old stuff.
In my experiance the wayback machine only archives stuff beyond a certain level of popularity and sometimes it gets the homepage but not the important stuff e.g. http://web.archive.org/web/20071002152623/http://www.geocities.com/vampyrdarla/frame.htm has the homepage but none of the pages with the real information.
I've tried to provoke it into collecting the rest of the site on the next run. I'm also trying to archive it locally but it seems my recursive wget has triggered service temporerally unavilible errors before it got quite the whole site.
has AMD ever paid a dividend? I'm finding it hard to find good data online but the impression i'm getting is if they have it was a long time ago.
Afaict AMDs problem is they are a fairly distant second in a market where upfront costs are huge. That means intel can make a comfortable profit at price levels where amd makes a loss.
They managed to make some headway while the giant was slumbering and putting out crap like the P4 and the itanium. Then intel struck back with core 2 and amd were pushed back to being a bit player in a market that really doesn't suit bit players.
While as a user I like having amd arround to keep prices at least somewhat reasonable and drive intel to innovate I can't see a good reason to invest in them.
so no particular country feels a need to respond.
To put it another way they get away with it because it's cheaper for the shipping companies to pay the occasional bribe than to reregister thier ships under the flag of a country that is willing and able to protect them.
amusingly in that case the old upstream basically gauranteed the success of the fork by licensing new versions of certain key libraries in a way that was unacceptable to the distros. The distros considered it gpl incompatibile which was a problem because those were used in gpl apps*
*yes i'm aware of the "major component of the operating system" exception but many distros preffer not to rely on it because it is not clear exactly what counts as a "major component of the operating system" or what the case is when both the app and the library are distributed with the operating system.
One issue is that on the PSP pirating gives a BETTER experiance than buying because you don't have all the issues of a spinning optical drive in a portable.
I've always believed that making legit copies worse than pirate copies is a suicidal strategy.
Whats to crack?
As I see it there are two obvious uses of a crack
1: running an alternate OS without it being cripped by the hypervisor
2: playing copied games (and possiblly in future imported region locked games though I don't think any current PS3 games are actually locked)
What I wonder is how exactly they value the parts. I was under the impression that for large quantity prices were generally negotiated on a case by case basis.
hile Amazon charges about $10/ebook, each additional copy of the book costs them little more than pennies
Do you have a source for that claim?
I don't understand how this works. If this was the case, what incentive would the professor have to require four of his books and never use them in the course? /. talk about this as if it's a normal thing. Maybe it is in the USA, that doesn't mean it is everywhere.
I see americans on
At least on my course ( electronic systems engineering at manchester in the uk ) with a combination of good handouts and a reasonable library there is little need to purchase books. I think i've purchased one textbook so far on my course (and i've nearly finished said course)
The one time i've noticed a lecturer putting one of his own books on the "reccomended books" list he made sure there were plenty of copy of copies in the library, printed a large chunk of the content for us free in the form of a handout and basically explicitly advised us not to buy it.
Very strange system you guys have there.
I have to say I think the american system which drives students into insane ammounts of debt both directly with fees and with very high other expenses is pretty strange/fucked up.
I guess it's all a matter of perspective.
Isn't one of the 'features' of pdf that it is for document exchange? One of the talking points was that it "couldn't be changed" by the end viewer. Bollocks of course,
pdf can be edited but your average luser has no easy way to do so. I belive the full acrobat has some limited editing capabilities but that is sufficiantly expensive that relatively few mahines have it installed.
Some OSS tools try to edit pdf with varying degrees of success.
Usually if the pdf has "encryption"/restrictions in use you have to strip that first with another price of software before you can load it into your editing tool.
actual daemons don't have one /dev/ptmx .
But on most linux systems any process that wants to can get a pty/tty pair through the use of
Many people assume rightly or wrongly that stuff running in a vm only has access to stuff that vm has been explicitly granted access to.
Whether this is a wise assumption is another matter but afaict it is a common one.
I'll say that again: PDF is an *open* ISO standard.
Afaict pdf is an adobe standard that they later submitted to ISO.
BTW do any of the non-adobe pdf readers you have tried offer the following.
1: automatic display of the "bookmarks" pane if the pdf requests it. With larger pdfs that pane is generally the main means of navigation and having to open it manually is annoying.
2: fast response when dealing with large pdf's and/or high zoom levels.
3: similar selection of toolbar buttons (zoom, page switch, hand tool/select text/select image, printing etc) to acrobat
4: ability to print multiple pages per sheet
5: ability to scale from pdf paper size to the paper size I have in my printer.
6: support for at least windows and lintel
features that acrobat reader doesnt have like the ability to copy diagrams as vector images rather than bitmaps would be a bonus.
I'm not sure who are more dangerous, those that don't update because they don't know what updates are, or those that don't update because they're too paranoid about corporations whose software they already use to allow that software to be patched against demonstrated security issues.
What about:
Those who don't update because it would take unreasonable ammounts of time on thier slow connection
Those who don't upgrade because they are afraid vendor incompetance will cause something to break (or have upgraded and then had to downgrade because something broke and are now stuck with the version they downgraded too)
Those who don't update because they simply can't be bothered dealing with all the updators.
IMO all the major windows development houses (including MS themselves) need to get together and use a common automatic updates system with a common setting for deciding update policy (off/check and ask/download and ask/full auto) and maybe an advanced settings box to set different update policies for different products. I think the windows automatic updates system may already support this but if it does then i've never seen anyone other than MS use it.
* a 10BASE-T or 100BASE-T network with a hub. The 10BASE-T links are in half duplex mode and the whole network is still one collision domain. As before the nodes use CSMA/CD to arbitrate.
Just to clarify that should say "The 10BASE-T or 100BASE-T links are in half duplex mode"
Are you sure theres a full duplex / half duplex distinction ?
Positive.
with layer 2 devices everything is on the one 'bus' so to speak. In this case the rules of csma/cd apply whether full or half duplex regardless.
I think you have your layer numbers a bit screwy. Current convention seems to be that layer 1 is the very low level hardware interfaces. 3 is the IP layer and 2 is everything in between. Personally I think layer numbers confuse more than they help with describing such things...
Coaxial bus based ethernet (10BASE-2 and 10BASE-5) is naturally half duplex. As you say only one station can transmit at a time on such a network.
Most twisted pair and fiber ethernet (there are a couple of exceptions, e.g. 10BASE-FP and 100BASE-T4 but none are in common use) is naturally full duplex. However for compatibility and to support use of hubs they also support a mode where they act like a half duplex link.
Just to make things absoloutely clear, lets consider 4 simple cases (if you understand theese you should be able to understand more complex ones too)
* an old fasioned 10BASE2 or 10BASE5 bus. All nodes share a shared bus and use CSMA/CD to arbitrade.
* a 10BASE-T or 100BASE-T network with a hub. The 10BASE-T links are in half duplex mode and the whole network is still one collision domain. As before the nodes use CSMA/CD to arbitrate.
* a 10BASE-T (or possiblly very old 100BASE-T ) network with a switch. Since there is no autonegotiation half duplex links and CSMA/CD are still used but rather than being the whole network the collision domain is only one link.
* A modern network with a switch. The links autonegotiate into full-duplex mode and there is no collision domain at all.
this is exactly why theres minimum ethernet packet sizes ! so transiting stations can detect they have not sent the whole packet before a collision
And half duplex gigabit had to increase the minimum packet size to keep a reasonable network size possible but since hardly anyone uses half duplex gigabit that's kind of academic.
There is talk of near light speed electron movement in this thread which is wrong as even in a vacuum (which seems not to exist now - like infinity) was only every touted at 3X10^7 m/s.
If there is (I haven't spotted it myself) it probablly results from confusion between the speed of electrons (which is pretty slow) and the speed of the electrical wave (which iirc is about a third to a half the speed of light depending on the material of the cable).
According to my calculations PCIe 3 x16 would give arround 128 gigabit per second. That is less than a terabit but MORE than 100 gigabit.
But really the thing you are missing is that ethernet is not just about connections to end systems. You also have to think about the connections from switch to switch. In any decent sized network your requirements for those is likely to be considerablly higher than your requirements for links to end systems.
Ethernet has traditionally moved in fairly large jumps. This is IMO a good thing as it helps keep the number of different standards in use to a managable level.
Doesn't really answer the question. To elaborate: most current computer systems are incapable of maxing out Gigabit ethernet. For any nontrivial application you're going to be loading data from disk, and unless you have very fast disks you're not going to hit 1Gbps.
The reason is backbone links. Consider a tree of 1000 very active machines and suddenly exceeding 100 gigabit seems quite feasible at the pinch points of that network
You may ask why use ethernet for such things, well the answer is if your whole network is ethernet it is easier to just transparently replace a link with a faster one than to start trying to mix technologies
Terabit is probablly OTT right now but given the speed at which standards bodies move it is nessacery to start planning it sooner rather than later ;)
The other thing that TFA doesn't mention is that current 100 gigabit proposals rely on multiple "channels" (either completely seperate links or WDM wavelengths). I imagine that in paralell with the development of terabit ethernet there will be a push for a single channel 100 gigabit standard.
There was the same issue in the early days of 100 megabit. While normal PCs with cheap controllers (e.g. the (in)famous RTL8139) could link at 100 megabit they couldn't really push data that fast.
With an adequate OS, NICs, internal interconnects (that means PCIe), protocol implemenations, storage, cable, switches etc it is possible to get very close to the theoretical maximum with gigabit ethernet. Cheap shit OTOH.........
Lets assume Token Ring would have got the same attention as Ethernet?
Then I would guess like ethernet it would have abandoned it's roots and moved to a network of full duplex point to point links. It's really the only sensible topology at modern speeds.
Modern ethernet is only ethernet in name and frame format. Shared bus networks and CSMA/CD were relegated to network backwaters noone cares about