Get free universal / generic address from a slightly more permanent company, like Hotmail or Gmail,
Or better still, register a cheap domain name. And then its as permanent as you want it to be. You can get a domain with mail forwarding for like $5 bucks a year.
Is my OS secure because it has fewer exploits, or is it the other way around: the OS has fewer exploits because it's more secure?
The point the pwnd2own winner made was the 2 aren't really all that related. All systems have exploits, that's why your OS is mythical.
Isn't security by definition the degree to which the OS in question can't be exploited?
Sure. To a point. But how can we know the relative degree to which the OS in question can't be exploited when 9/10ths of the effort is focused on finding exploits for the other OS.
Suppose Linux was a cardboard box and Windows a locked safe.
You stick Linux out in the desert somewhere, and put Windows in an alley in new york.
Even though windows is far more secure (in this hypothetical example); windows will be opened and emptied of anything valuable before the linux box, every time.
Concluding Linux is less exploitable than windows is like concluding homes are more securely built in Saskatoon than in New York because the number of break-ins in Saskatoon is lower (lower per capita, of course).
And the sheer amount of users who are trained to click OK at every dialog.
This is legitimate. Its not a windows 'flaw' though. Its what comes of being the system used by the majority of the least technical people. If the other oses gain siginifant marketshare, the people there will 'ok' away warning or prompt that's between them and their 'free cookie'.
Linux users are for the most part more savvy... for now.
Which is half of the reason why UAC is, on the whole, a failure.
UAC isn't a failure. Expecting UAC to fix unsophisticated users from themselves is unrealistic. Either you let the user have final say, or you don't. It would have been far worse if Microsoft had final say on what runs. That's the TPM/DRM worst case scenario that we REALLY don't want.
But what UAC does is let sophisticated users use Windows safely, and it works well at that. Very nearly as good as Linux in my opinion, especially given how much backwards compatibility with insecure applications that expect admin access it has to provide some sort of accomodation for.
(The other half being that certain actions have too multiple prompts)
See above. Particularly the part about 'backwards compatibility'. Linux doesn't have this problem. There aren't 2 billion programs from two to twenty years ago that linux users expect to use that all were written assuming they had root access. This is exactly the situation on Windows.
If you run it through the image processing software they use on 24, you can actually make out the license plate number too.
Even though its on the other side, facing away from us.
They can lift the print of the guy who screwed it on too.
But the real feat is that they can make out the license plate of the car across the street of a suspected terrorist by enhancing the reflection on one of the space stations windows, on a cloudy day.
I used to enjoy TV. Its almost sad. I can watch a rerun of something like "Columbo" and I find fewer plot holes and more credible police work, more credible set designs, more credible... everything, than I do on CSI. Sure in Columbo the villain was usually improbably or even implausibly ratting himself out... but compared to the routine violation the current limits of technology, and in many cases the known limits of even theoretical sciencce we are subjected to in the CSI's... Columbo is actually the more beleivable... by far.
Between Mac and PC, I'd say that Macs are less secure for the reasons we've discussed here (lack of anti-exploitation technologies) but are more safe because there simply isn't much malware out there.
That pretty much been my take on the situation as well. Vista SP1 really is one of the most secure OSes I've used.
They glossed over Linux on this question, but I suspect Vista SP1 is probably more secure than linux too 'out of the box'... but again less safe in actual practice. Again simply due to the sheer relative volume of malware and the relative high value of windows exploits to linux ones.
(Although Linux at least does have 'SE Linux', AppArmor, Exec Shield, support for ASLR, etc, etc so its more a case that its just not on by default yet. (Ironically a complaint usually levelled at Windows).
And while improvements are added with each kernel release, too Linux admins refuse to install them because would reset their belowed uptime scores which they feel the need to post to/. on a regular basis...
Colbert did nothing beyond allow the glow from his spot light to illuminate NASA for a short time.
Fair enough.
But how is the 2nd runner up, "Serenity" of any greater merit? It was merely selected by some Nasa committee, presumably because it was thematically consistent with some of the already named modules, and was honestly only highly popular with voters because of a spaceship on a TV series/movie. Colbert may not be a terribly good name, but its not like any of the other choices were in any way 'more significant'.
I mean its not like our choices were between Armstrong, Valentina, Bluford, and Colbert.
My next point was that if you named something after a living person and they did an atrocity, it would be a bad thing. If it was uncovered that Edwin Hubble raped and killed children, NASA would have more on its plate than a simple renaming meeting.
"We didn't know anything about it until now. The honor was bestowed for his contributions to Astronomy. Now that this new information out there, clearly its inappropriate to honor him, and we're renaming it immediately."
Hardly the end of the world. Its not like anyone would really believe it was named the Hubble to secretly honor murder and rape. And yes, while it is a risk, its a small risk... few people in the big scheme of things commit atrocities, and while old people are safer than young people, and dead people are safer than live ones, there is still a risk. For all we know, someone will unearth Hubble's private journal of murder and rape any day now... ok... the odds are low... but are they really that much lower than Colbert murdering and raping children? I'd say they are both: "pretty close to but not quite zilch".
If NASA named something after somebody who killed people or did stuff, there would ALWAYS be that note. The XXXX station (formerly the Colbert station, but was renamed because of YYYYY)... And so on. There are some times when there is such a thing as bad publicity.
Meh. I see what your saying, I just don't agree that its really that big of a deal, especially for something as trivial as a single 'module' of a space station. I mean, its probably going to be decommissioned anyway within 10-20 years. Its hardly going to be a permanent stain.
A school in New York just renamed itself "Barack Obama Elementary School". There's a Barack Obama Avenue in Miami. There's stuff named for the living Bushes, the living Clintons. Are current and former first families safer than a-list comedians? Ok...Probably... but honestly how much safer? What percentage of talk show hosts have committed atrocities?
By the way, it was unwarranted, we were not discussing the 2nd world war, we were not discussing germany, and you were the one who elevated getting drunk and running over a family to the level of killing millions by bringing hitler into this.
Ah, but that was my point, that even if someone did [MAXIMUM WORSE] than "get drunk and run over a family" the whole renaming thing really isn't all that big of a deal. For a godwin to be unwarranted, I'd have to (fallaciously) compare something to hitler and then, because "hitler was bad" then "other things is bad too". But in this case I'm saying,
Its also useful because refutes your point: "If some other Hubble went on a shooting rampage, NASA would not have to answer to anybody, Edwin Hubble earned the honor."
Perhaps a mere shooting rampage, but if some other Hubble does [MAXIMUM EVIL], Nasa WOULD still have to respond by renaming it, even if Edwin Hubble earned the honor. For example, the public isn't going to accept the 'Hitler Space Telescope' named for a hypothetical "Edwin Hitler the astronomer" who earned it. We'd probably, at the very least rename it to the 'Edwin Space Telescope'.
I think you are missing the GP's point that they only named two of the five devices...
Oh, I see.
But if that's the case, what were the two -devices- they did name? I only see one.
I mean, techically there are a couple different iphone models, but assuming a current model, the only difference between them is flash capacity, so I'll give you that one.
But what's a "Blackberry"? Bold? Storm? Curve? Pearl...? Blackberry doesn't really tell me anything more specific than 'an Android phone'.
Exactly what I was thinking. I went to the article to see what the 5 were and didn't really glean much more information out of it than what was in the summary.
I had no trouble identifying the five that were tested:
Wouldn't this scheme be illegal as Negative option billing?
Don't worry they'll get you to opt-in to a free six month trial when you renew or change your internet plan. The charges will start on the 7th month. It how they been nailing people with useless fluff on their cell phones for years now.
Sure its not as slimy as outright negative option billing. Its more like those software installers that install yahoo or google browser toolbars if you aren't careful to un-check the box EVERY time you install an update.
I routinely build PCs for people. I never install browser toolbars. When I see one of those toolbars on these peoples computers down the road and ask about it. A very small percentage of the time, they say they installed it deliberately. The VAST majority of the time they have no idea how or why it got there.
This is nothing more than throwing more hardware at an existing problem. This has been emulated in software before, with nothing much to show for it. This will make it easier to model such things, but multiplying almost nothing by many, many times is still very little.
You evidently aren't terribly familiar with what 'emergent' means, are you?
Sometimes, when you put enough almost nothings together, you get something much greater than big pile of almost nothings.
An couple individual neuron is almost nothing. Multiply that "almost nothing by many, many times" and you end up with something that might be capable of intelligence.
Actually, it says that only one copy of each game can be played at a time. So, you and your kid could each play your games at once as much as you like
You're inferring that.
What they claim in the new article that each 'customer-signed-game' can be played only one at a time, should NOT be inferred to mean you are now allowed to play one copy of each game you own simultaneously. Steam has never allowed that, and there is no justification to infer they will suddenly start now.
Call them up, and get a statement from them, stating explicitly that they will allow this. But I suspect you won't get the answer you want:
Remember: a) they don't allow simultaneous use now b) the official policy is that you are not allowed you to share your account with others
Given the above; especially b, why would they allow simulaneous use of multiple titles. That would pretty much imply that they are allowing you to share your account.
per wikipedia (which may not always be reliable, but this sums it up very nicely):
"Digital rights management (DRM) refers to access control technologies used by publishers, copyright holders, and hardware manufacturers to limit usage of digital media or devices."
Furthermore, if you read something like the steam's brochure...
The implied reason they claim its not DRM is because its not locked to your hardware. Since when has DRM ever been defined exclusively as a system of locking content to particular hardware? Steam doesn't get to redefine DRM just so they can say their DRM isn't DRM. Talk about marketing doublespeak. Don't fall for it.
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. DRM by any other name is still just a big STEAMing turd.
Yes this is abolutely a steaming DRM turd. However its got some new stink lines...
Because each executable is signed to an account, if somebody else wants to play the game, they can't use your copy, EVEN if they own the game themselves. They'd actually have to install a second copy of the game and play their own copy signed for their own account.
It also appears to make no progress on any of the limitations of the existing steam service. Can I at least play two different titles on my account simultaneously now? I doubt it.
How does it work with offline mode? It can't really, because this new feature is based on authenticating the signed executable with your online steam account. This can't happen unless you go online before you play the game. So hurrah, I can copy my game to any PC I want... I just have to prove to steams satisfaction that its my copy each time I play. Yeah...in what twisted marketing fucktards method of logic is that not DRM?
This whole CEG is unmitigated horseshit, and should be called out as the DRM it is, because that's what it is, no matter how much steam wants to proclaim its not.
Its pure unmitigated rubbish. CEG is DRM despite what they claim. And if CEG is linked to steam authentication, (which it *is*), then you've got to log in to authenticate each time you play.
Worse, now if you and your son both have a steam account, and both own a copy of left for dead, you have to install it on the computer twice, because you can't play his copy, because each copy only works with one account. At least hard disk space is cheap...
Actually, the 45:1 is a better deal - at that scale, recruiters can afford to read every resume without any sort of preculling
Only if the odds of them preculling mine are somehow biased against me. If the odds are completely fair, then its a wash.
And if the pre-culling is biased, who's to say the pre-culling isn't biased in my favor? Strikes me that if pre-culling is biased, for every applicant that is pushed down another applicant is raised up. Bummer for those that its biased against, but net result for the entire pool of applications: its a wash.
Any modern PC will allow you to "play" with virtualization. What you're describing (in my opinion, of course) are things you want if you're going to do serious work with virtualization.
If your stated goal is to experiment with virtualization, and you are going to buy hardware for the purpose, it would be absurd to select hardware that doesn't support most of the available solutions.
If I wanted to buy some hardware to play with "Linux", would you recommend a PS3? I mean sure, you can run linux on it, and you could certainly play with Linux on a PS3.
But surely you agree it would make a LOT more sense to buy an Intel/AMD based PC that will run all the major and minor distros.
Similiarly, if you want to play with virtualization, you should probably choose a cpu with hardware vm support, to give you the option to "play" with Xen, VMware, VirtualBox, etc... all with unmodified guests... if you pick a celeron... you get VMware. The others either don't work at all, or have all kinds of restrictions.
You can only play, say, Left 4 Dead with your three friends if they each have a copy of the game (unless you are a cheapskate thief).
Ok. But if I buy left 4 dead and Team Fortress Classic on my steam account, why exactly can't I play Left 4 dead while my son plays Team Fortress?
How does thinking that is complete bullshit make me a cheapskate theif? I have two games. Why should I put up with being prevented from using them both at the same time?
Can you imagine if the moment you picked up a book off your bookshelf, no one else would be allowed to read any of your OTHER books? Its absurd.
Yes I know I have the option of registering each steam game into a new separate steam account. However they actively discourage this, it creates other hassles as well.
And yes I know about offline mode. How does that help online games?
I bet that those establishments were named after Der Fuhrer.
Yeah, because he was the only person in all the world named Adolph.
By the way, I call Godwin's Law. You lose.
Its only a godwin if its an unwarranted reference. I think its a perfectly applicable example. As its a very real transition that 'unfortunately named' entities had to deal with. btw, There was a "Mount Hitler" that was renamed too.
My point is, it'd be insane to name something after a living person.
Yeah.
I mean look at all those pre-WWII restaurant's and companies etc... Adolph & Sons Exports, J. Hitler's Bistro, Hilter's Bar and Grill... they were left with no option but to just fold over into infamy and destitution.
Of course, the fact that hey were named after their proprietors before the infamous one was even was in politics is their fault too... and yeah... they were just "insane" to name things to something that could be turned so distasteful. Blame it on their utter lack of omniscience.
Or they could just rename the god-damned thing to something else should Colbert...whether the one with a TV show, or the future fascist genocidal dictator of the Republic of Fictionland casts an evil specter onto the name...
That's how we usually deal with this problem.
A lot of things NASA does really are rocket science... this isn't one of them.
The CPU is almost irrelevant - you'll need whatever CPU you'd need to do all the things you're doing, plus some overhead, but it's not like it falls apart.
I disagree. The CPU is the most relevant element of the whole system for someone who wants to play around with actualization.
If you are buying a system to play with virtualization you really want Intel VT or AMD-V support. Along with execute disable (Intel XD/AMD NX) and Hardware Data Execution Protection (DEP), and other features.
VMWare server will run on almost anything, but if you want to play with Citrix Xenserver, Solaris Virtual Box or Microsoft Hyper-V server too, you really benefit from the extra features, and in some cases you require them.
I'd look at a Xeon 3200 (~$250) for the CPU.
You could also get away with the right Core 2 Quad. A Q9100 or better supports everything... Intel VT, XD, and TXT (virtualization, execute disable, and trusted execution). The old Q6600 supports everything but TXT. (But afaik, you don't need TXT for anything.)
That said, avoid the Q8200, it doesn't support VT.
The current i7's should all be good.
I really don't know my AMD's well enough to advise on them for virtual server roles.
In any case, research the cpu carefully, to give yourself as many options as possible, and then match it to a motherboard that will support the features as well. Some don't.
50 competing for 5 is a LOT better.... what happens when one of the 5 don't work out? What's the odds you'll get called back when it's now 4500 : 1 as opposed to 45 : 1
Your math is off. the odds of 1 of the 5 not working out is the same as 100 of the 500 not working out. So its 4500:100 as opposed to 45:1 which is a wash. And actually, the 4500:100 is more reliable; because the larger the the pool the more it behaves the way its statistically "supposed" to. Suppose the odds are that 1 in 5 employees doesn't work out.
Then with 5, there is pretty good odds that all of them will work out. With 500, the odds that all of them will work out is extremely unlikely.
Most people aren't especailly good. Half of them are below average. So this advice only benefits the statistical outliers? The people who don't need help getting a job anyway, because they are probably choosing from multiple offers already?
Of course, there's other factors involved, but broadly speaking, a high-ability person can stand out more easily in a niche.
A high ability person is going to be fine anywhere.
Slashdot Mirror
Get free universal / generic address from a slightly more permanent company, like Hotmail or Gmail,
Or better still, register a cheap domain name. And then its as permanent as you want it to be. You can get a domain with mail forwarding for like $5 bucks a year.
Is my OS secure because it has fewer exploits, or is it the other way around: the OS has fewer exploits because it's more secure?
The point the pwnd2own winner made was the 2 aren't really all that related.
All systems have exploits, that's why your OS is mythical.
Isn't security by definition the degree to which the OS in question can't be exploited?
Sure. To a point. But how can we know the relative degree to which the OS in question can't be exploited when 9/10ths of the effort is focused on finding exploits for the other OS.
Suppose Linux was a cardboard box and Windows a locked safe.
You stick Linux out in the desert somewhere, and put Windows in an alley in new york.
Even though windows is far more secure (in this hypothetical example); windows will be opened and emptied of anything valuable before the linux box, every time.
Concluding Linux is less exploitable than windows is like concluding homes are more securely built in Saskatoon than in New York because the number of break-ins in Saskatoon
is lower (lower per capita, of course).
The default login on vista is an administrator...
The 'administrators' group in Vista is a lot more like being on the sudoers list than being root.
I don't really think it was flamebait.
And the sheer amount of users who are trained to click OK at every dialog.
This is legitimate. Its not a windows 'flaw' though.
Its what comes of being the system used by the majority of the least technical people. If the other oses gain siginifant marketshare, the people there will 'ok' away warning or prompt that's between them and their 'free cookie'.
Linux users are for the most part more savvy... for now.
Which is half of the reason why UAC is, on the whole, a failure.
UAC isn't a failure. Expecting UAC to fix unsophisticated users from themselves is unrealistic. Either you let the user have final say, or you don't. It would have been far worse if Microsoft had final say on what runs. That's the TPM/DRM worst case scenario that we REALLY don't want.
But what UAC does is let sophisticated users use Windows safely, and it works well at that. Very nearly as good as Linux in my opinion, especially given how much backwards compatibility with insecure applications that expect admin access it has to provide some sort of accomodation for.
(The other half being that certain actions have too multiple prompts)
See above. Particularly the part about 'backwards compatibility'. Linux doesn't have this problem. There aren't 2 billion programs from two to twenty years ago that linux users expect to use that all were written assuming they had root access. This is exactly the situation on Windows.
If you run it through the image processing software they use on 24, you can actually make out the license plate number too.
Even though its on the other side, facing away from us.
They can lift the print of the guy who screwed it on too.
But the real feat is that they can make out the license plate of the car across the street of a suspected terrorist by enhancing the reflection on one of the space stations windows, on a cloudy day.
I used to enjoy TV. Its almost sad. I can watch a rerun of something like "Columbo" and I find fewer plot holes and more credible police work, more credible set designs, more credible ... everything, than I do on CSI. Sure in Columbo the villain was usually improbably or even implausibly ratting himself out... but compared to the routine violation the current limits of technology, and in many cases the known limits of even theoretical sciencce we are subjected to in the CSI's... Columbo is actually the more beleivable... by far.
Between Mac and PC, I'd say that Macs are less secure for the reasons we've discussed here (lack of anti-exploitation technologies) but are more safe because there simply isn't much malware out there.
That pretty much been my take on the situation as well. Vista SP1 really is one of the most secure OSes I've used.
They glossed over Linux on this question, but I suspect Vista SP1 is probably more secure than linux too 'out of the box'... but again less safe in actual practice. Again simply due to the sheer relative volume of malware and the relative high value of windows exploits to linux ones.
(Although Linux at least does have 'SE Linux', AppArmor, Exec Shield, support for ASLR, etc, etc so its more a case that its just not on by default yet. (Ironically a complaint usually levelled at Windows).
And while improvements are added with each kernel release, too Linux admins refuse to install them because would reset their belowed uptime scores which they feel the need to post to /. on a regular basis...
I kid... I kid...
Just saying that that might be of interest to someone with time to get his macbook ya know ;p he does carry around to many countries.
Just tip off the TSA. They'll confiscate it in a heartbeat.
Then its just a matter of liberating it from the TSA and getting it into the hands of someone who'll know how to read the information on it.
Baby steps...
Colbert did nothing beyond allow the glow from his spot light to illuminate NASA for a short time.
Fair enough.
But how is the 2nd runner up, "Serenity" of any greater merit? It was merely selected by some Nasa committee, presumably because it was thematically consistent with some of the already named modules, and was honestly only highly popular with voters because of a spaceship on a TV series/movie. Colbert may not be a terribly good name, but its not like any of the other choices were in any way 'more significant'.
I mean its not like our choices were between Armstrong, Valentina, Bluford, and Colbert.
My next point was that if you named something after a living person and they did an atrocity, it would be a bad thing. If it was uncovered that Edwin Hubble raped and killed children, NASA would have more on its plate than a simple renaming meeting.
"We didn't know anything about it until now. The honor was bestowed for his contributions to Astronomy. Now that this new information out there, clearly its inappropriate to honor him, and we're renaming it immediately."
Hardly the end of the world. Its not like anyone would really believe it was named the Hubble to secretly honor murder and rape. And yes, while it is a risk, its a small risk... few people in the big scheme of things commit atrocities, and while old people are safer than young people, and dead people are safer than live ones, there is still a risk. For all we know, someone will unearth Hubble's private journal of murder and rape any day now... ok... the odds are low... but are they really that much lower than Colbert murdering and raping children? I'd say they are both: "pretty close to but not quite zilch".
If NASA named something after somebody who killed people or did stuff, there would ALWAYS be that note. The XXXX station (formerly the Colbert station, but was renamed because of YYYYY)... And so on. There are some times when there is such a thing as bad publicity.
Meh. I see what your saying, I just don't agree that its really that big of a deal, especially for something as trivial as a single 'module' of a space station. I mean, its probably going to be decommissioned anyway within 10-20 years. Its hardly going to be a permanent stain.
A school in New York just renamed itself "Barack Obama Elementary School". There's a Barack Obama Avenue in Miami. There's stuff named for the living Bushes, the living Clintons. Are current and former first families safer than a-list comedians? Ok...Probably... but honestly how much safer? What percentage of talk show hosts have committed atrocities?
By the way, it was unwarranted, we were not discussing the 2nd world war, we were not discussing germany, and you were the one who elevated getting drunk and running over a family to the level of killing millions by bringing hitler into this.
Ah, but that was my point, that even if someone did [MAXIMUM WORSE] than "get drunk and run over a family" the whole renaming thing really isn't all that big of a deal. For a godwin to be unwarranted, I'd have to (fallaciously) compare something to hitler and then, because "hitler was bad" then "other things is bad too". But in this case I'm saying,
Its also useful because refutes your point: "If some other Hubble went on a shooting rampage, NASA would not have to answer to anybody, Edwin Hubble earned the honor."
Perhaps a mere shooting rampage, but if some other Hubble does [MAXIMUM EVIL], Nasa WOULD still have to respond by renaming it, even if Edwin Hubble earned the honor.
For example, the public isn't going to accept the 'Hitler Space Telescope' named for a hypothetical "Edwin Hitler the astronomer" who earned it. We'd probably, at the very least rename it to the 'Edwin Space Telescope'.
What part of "Add more drives, or more often backups until you get to the point you sleep easy at night." confused you?
I think you are missing the GP's point that they only named two of the five devices...
Oh, I see.
But if that's the case, what were the two -devices- they did name? I only see one.
I mean, techically there are a couple different iphone models, but assuming a current model, the only difference between them is flash capacity, so I'll give you that one.
But what's a "Blackberry"? Bold? Storm? Curve? Pearl...? Blackberry doesn't really tell me anything more specific than 'an Android phone'.
Exactly what I was thinking. I went to the article to see what the 5 were and didn't really glean much more information out of it than what was in the summary.
I had no trouble identifying the five that were tested:
iphone, blackberry, windows, symbian, android.
Wouldn't this scheme be illegal as Negative option billing?
Don't worry they'll get you to opt-in to a free six month trial when you renew or change your internet plan. The charges will start on the 7th month. It how they been nailing people with useless fluff on their cell phones for years now.
Sure its not as slimy as outright negative option billing. Its more like those software installers that install yahoo or google browser toolbars if you aren't careful to un-check the box EVERY time you install an update.
I routinely build PCs for people. I never install browser toolbars. When I see one of those toolbars on these peoples computers down the road and ask about it. A very small percentage of the time, they say they installed it deliberately. The VAST majority of the time they have no idea how or why it got there.
This is nothing more than throwing more hardware at an existing problem. This has been emulated in software before, with nothing much to show for it. This will make it easier to model such things, but multiplying almost nothing by many, many times is still very little.
You evidently aren't terribly familiar with what 'emergent' means, are you?
Sometimes, when you put enough almost nothings together, you get something much greater than big pile of almost nothings.
An couple individual neuron is almost nothing. Multiply that "almost nothing by many, many times" and you end up with something that might be capable of intelligence.
Actually, it says that only one copy of each game can be played at a time. So, you and your kid could each play your games at once as much as you like
You're inferring that.
What they claim in the new article that each 'customer-signed-game' can be played only one at a time, should NOT be inferred to mean you are now allowed to play one copy of each game you own simultaneously. Steam has never allowed that, and there is no justification to infer they will suddenly start now.
Call them up, and get a statement from them, stating explicitly that they will allow this. But I suspect you won't get the answer you want:
Remember:
a) they don't allow simultaneous use now
b) the official policy is that you are not allowed you to share your account with others
Given the above; especially b, why would they allow simulaneous use of multiple titles. That would pretty much imply that they are allowing you to share your account.
I can almost gaurantee you that hasn't changed.
This is another method of control, just not DRM.
DRM - digital rights management.
per wikipedia (which may not always be reliable, but this sums it up very nicely):
"Digital rights management (DRM) refers to access control technologies used by publishers, copyright holders, and hardware manufacturers to limit usage of digital media or devices."
Furthermore, if you read something like the steam's brochure...
http://www.steampowered.com/steamworks/SteamWorksBrochure2009.pdf
The implied reason they claim its not DRM is because its not locked to your hardware. Since when has DRM ever been defined exclusively as a system of locking content to particular hardware? Steam doesn't get to redefine DRM just so they can say their DRM isn't DRM. Talk about marketing doublespeak. Don't fall for it.
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. DRM by any other name is still just a big STEAMing turd.
Yes this is abolutely a steaming DRM turd. However its got some new stink lines...
Because each executable is signed to an account, if somebody else wants to play the game, they can't use your copy, EVEN if they own the game themselves. They'd actually have to install a second copy of the game and play their own copy signed for their own account.
It also appears to make no progress on any of the limitations of the existing steam service. Can I at least play two different titles on my account simultaneously now? I doubt it.
How does it work with offline mode? It can't really, because this new feature is based on authenticating the signed executable with your online steam account. This can't happen unless you go online before you play the game. So hurrah, I can copy my game to any PC I want... I just have to prove to steams satisfaction that its my copy each time I play. Yeah...in what twisted marketing fucktards method of logic is that not DRM?
This whole CEG is unmitigated horseshit, and should be called out as the DRM it is, because that's what it is, no matter how much steam wants to proclaim its not.
Nothing in the article or press release says you are unable to run two *DIFFERENT* games on two different PC's at the same time.
Except that's exactly how the steam system works. You can't play two different games on two different PCs online at the same time.
This article isn't even "new" its just rebranded marketing rubbish. Instead of those vacuous linked articles. Read the actual brochure:
http://www.steampowered.com/steamworks/SteamWorksBrochure2009.pdf
Its pure unmitigated rubbish. CEG is DRM despite what they claim. And if CEG is linked to steam authentication, (which it *is*), then you've got to log in to authenticate each time you play.
Worse, now if you and your son both have a steam account, and both own a copy of left for dead, you have to install it on the computer twice, because you can't play his copy, because each copy only works with one account. At least hard disk space is cheap...
Actually, the 45:1 is a better deal - at that scale, recruiters can afford to read every resume without any sort of preculling
Only if the odds of them preculling mine are somehow biased against me. If the odds are completely fair, then its a wash.
And if the pre-culling is biased, who's to say the pre-culling isn't biased in my favor? Strikes me that if pre-culling is biased, for every applicant that is pushed down another applicant is raised up. Bummer for those that its biased against, but net result for the entire pool of applications: its a wash.
Any modern PC will allow you to "play" with virtualization. What you're describing (in my opinion, of course) are things you want if you're going to do serious work with virtualization.
If your stated goal is to experiment with virtualization, and you are going to buy hardware for the purpose, it would be absurd to select hardware that doesn't support most of the available solutions.
If I wanted to buy some hardware to play with "Linux", would you recommend a PS3?
I mean sure, you can run linux on it, and you could certainly play with Linux on a PS3.
But surely you agree it would make a LOT more sense to buy an Intel/AMD based PC that will run all the major and minor distros.
Similiarly, if you want to play with virtualization, you should probably choose a cpu with hardware vm support, to give you the option to "play" with Xen, VMware, VirtualBox, etc... all with unmodified guests... if you pick a celeron... you get VMware. The others either don't work at all, or have all kinds of restrictions.
You can only play, say, Left 4 Dead with your three friends if they each have a copy of the game (unless you are a cheapskate thief).
Ok. But if I buy left 4 dead and Team Fortress Classic on my steam account, why exactly can't I play Left 4 dead while my son plays Team Fortress?
How does thinking that is complete bullshit make me a cheapskate theif? I have two games. Why should I put up with being prevented from using them both at the same time?
Can you imagine if the moment you picked up a book off your bookshelf, no one else would be allowed to read any of your OTHER books? Its absurd.
Yes I know I have the option of registering each steam game into a new separate steam account. However they actively discourage this, it creates other hassles as well.
And yes I know about offline mode. How does that help online games?
I bet that those establishments were named after Der Fuhrer.
Yeah, because he was the only person in all the world named Adolph.
By the way, I call Godwin's Law. You lose.
Its only a godwin if its an unwarranted reference. I think its a perfectly applicable example. As its a very real transition that 'unfortunately named' entities had to deal with. btw, There was a "Mount Hitler" that was renamed too.
My point is, it'd be insane to name something after a living person.
Yeah.
I mean look at all those pre-WWII restaurant's and companies etc... Adolph & Sons Exports, J. Hitler's Bistro, Hilter's Bar and Grill... they were left with no option but to just fold over into infamy and destitution.
Of course, the fact that hey were named after their proprietors before the infamous one was even was in politics is their fault too... and yeah... they were just "insane" to name things to something that could be turned so distasteful. Blame it on their utter lack of omniscience.
Or they could just rename the god-damned thing to something else should Colbert ...whether the one with a TV show, or the future fascist genocidal dictator of the Republic of Fictionland casts an evil specter onto the name...
That's how we usually deal with this problem.
A lot of things NASA does really are rocket science... this isn't one of them.
The CPU is almost irrelevant - you'll need whatever CPU you'd need to do all the things you're doing, plus some overhead, but it's not like it falls apart.
I disagree. The CPU is the most relevant element of the whole system for someone who wants to play around with actualization.
If you are buying a system to play with virtualization you really want Intel VT or AMD-V support. Along with execute disable (Intel XD/AMD NX) and Hardware Data Execution Protection (DEP), and other features.
VMWare server will run on almost anything, but if you want to play with Citrix Xenserver, Solaris Virtual Box or Microsoft Hyper-V server too, you really benefit from the extra features, and in some cases you require them.
I'd look at a Xeon 3200 (~$250) for the CPU.
You could also get away with the right Core 2 Quad. A Q9100 or better supports everything... Intel VT, XD, and TXT (virtualization, execute disable, and trusted execution). The old Q6600 supports everything but TXT. (But afaik, you don't need TXT for anything.)
That said, avoid the Q8200, it doesn't support VT.
The current i7's should all be good.
I really don't know my AMD's well enough to advise on them for virtual server roles.
In any case, research the cpu carefully, to give yourself as many options as possible, and then match it to a motherboard that will support the features as well. Some don't.
50 competing for 5 is a LOT better.... what happens when one of the 5 don't work out? What's the odds you'll get called back when it's now 4500 : 1 as opposed to 45 : 1
Your math is off. the odds of 1 of the 5 not working out is the same as 100 of the 500 not working out. So its 4500:100 as opposed to 45:1 which is a wash. And actually, the 4500:100 is more reliable; because the larger the the pool the more it behaves the way its statistically "supposed" to. Suppose the odds are that 1 in 5 employees doesn't work out.
Then with 5, there is pretty good odds that all of them will work out. With 500, the odds that all of them will work out is extremely unlikely.
It's only a better deal if you're good.
Most people aren't especailly good. Half of them are below average. So this advice only benefits the statistical outliers? The people who don't need help getting a job anyway, because they are probably choosing from multiple offers already?
Of course, there's other factors involved, but broadly speaking, a high-ability person can stand out more easily in a niche.
A high ability person is going to be fine anywhere.