How is voting the way you feel the majority of people will vote a good thing? While I don't want to out and out say that Democracy doesn't work, there certainly are instances where the majority of people are wrong. The whole crowd-sourcing system doesn't really account for this. Still, it's probably still better than existing systems.
Before I got my android phone, A windows mobile device was the best phone I'd ever had. This was back in 2004, mind you, when people were still impressed by colour screens and "polyphonic ringtones", while I was able to watch films and play Doom.
Furthermore, Geohot didn't actually perform the hack that "released the guts of the PS3", it was a different group (called Fail0verflow) that discovered the flaw in Sony's Encryption that allows you to mathematically calculate the private keys of every module on the system. They are the ones that released the info and tools to do this. All Geohot did was use this knowledge to release the key to metldr, the first stage of the PS3's boot process. Enough information was out there to create custom firmwares WITHOUT anything Geohot released.
It seems you are correct. I have no idea why I remember seeing it on a box, I must be getting mixed up with a leaflet or poster or something, I remember seeing something about "supports additional operating systems" but I have no idea where. Sony definitely did use it in advertising and marketing, it was absolutely an advertised feature, just not on the box itself. I stand completely corrected.
You're absolutely right, I made a major cockup. What I had in my head was the 50mile exclusion zone around the plant, which is obviously quite a lot larger than 50 square miles. I stand both corrected and ashamed.
Basically, because the PS3 was "unhackable", George Hotz decided to take a look at it and came up with a really convoluted way to unlock a tiny bit more memory access within Linux. This "hack" involved soldering a chip to your PS3 and triggering it at the right time. It was really trigger happy and a bit of a faff to pull off, but it did work eventually. You had to do this EVERY time you restarted your PS3.
That's it. That's the entire reason why Sony removed Linux. This "hack" didn't enable piracy, it didn't grant access to any encrypted files or anything like that, it didn't even give you total control over the PS3 like recent hacks have, it basically allowed you to poke around the memory a bit more. So Sony panicked and removed it from all FAT PS3's.
I should point out - Sony had decided that the PS3 slim would never have OtherOS support long before this happened, but that's ok - that's a refresh of the console line and nowhere did Sony claim the Slim would have OtherOS support. The issue is the Original, "FAT" PS3's that had this feature advertised on the box.
It's quite ludicrous as well, as anyone interested in hacking the PS3 simply didn't update, poked around all they wanted and 6 months later, PSJAILBREAK was released, allowing people to do little more than play backups on (what was at the time) the latest PS3 firmware - which had linux stripped from it. This allowed other teams to REALLY explore the PS3 as it was effectively in Debug mode and the rest is history - all the CFW stuff that's going around now came as a result of this.So it was a pointless move, the cat was out of the bag and rather than just patch the flaw, Sony removed Linux and pissed off a lot of people, giving them a "valid, righteous" reason to push further into the PS3 and unlock as much as they could. The original Geohot exploit never really got that much attention and probably would have died down if Sony had just left well enough alone.
Of course, that's all the official reason. The real reason was probably just to save money. Less support costs, less development costs, less testing costs, etc.
Without sounding too Inconsiderate, quite a lot of their land was recently flattened by the tsunami, so should they lose 50 square miles due to Fukushima, they'll be able to cope by building more efficient housing.
They do actually lay down new fibre in areas near existing fibre. They're SUPPOSED to do a feasibility study on places like yours - near an existing fibre installation, if there's enough subscribers and the amount of cable required is below a certain length, they'll cable up the place. Like I said, supposed to, but it seems this process is very selective. As far as I'm aware, they haven't actually "enabled" any new towns (apart from a recent trial of some town to see if they could deploy fibre over a telegraph pole), but they do a bit of expansion to nearby areas. Right now, they're definitely focusing on upgrading the existing network. I don't just mean enabling faster speeds, like the 100Meg or this 1.5Gbit trial, I mean they're deploying a massive upgrade through the whole network to enable larger amounts of subscribers and reduce contention, as I'm sure you're aware, a lot of where Virgin Currently covers is oversubscribed. And it makes sense - why spend millions deploying to new places when you can spend a lot less to capitalise on the demand you already have?
I work for an ISP. If someone is only getting 4Mbit out of their 30Mbit connection, we class it as "Slow speeds". If someone's getting ridiculously high pings, we class it as "high latency".
I believe that any DOCSIS3 modem HAS to be IPv6 ready in some form, as part of the DOCSIS3 spec (please tell me if I'm wrong on this, but as far as I am aware, this is the case). Now I don't profess to know how NAT really works at the low level, but from my understanding, a router takes a single external IP and "shares" it via NAT as a (usually) 192.168.x.x IP. My question is this - is it possible to NAT an IPv6 IP to an IPv4 address? So while normally your external IP is 64.129.1.200 (for example) yet internally your IP is 192.168.0.3 (for example), is there any technical limitation as to why your external IP can't be an IPv6 address but still use an IPv4 address internally? Basically, I'm asking if the "routers don't support IPv6" issue can be solved with some jiggery pokery on the Modem side, whereby the modem gives the router an IPv4 address to play with (that's not actually external), which gets NAT'd as normal, but on the modem side, this IPv4 address gets translated to the "real" IPv6 address? Is there some reason why this is simply not possible? And if the router requests an IPv6 address (or addresses - one can hope), it's just BAU? I wouldn't expect it to necessarily work for everything, but surely it's a reasonable stopgap. If it's possible, I mean.
On another note, why in the name of fuck is Slashdot posting anything from the Daily Star? The newspaper is most famous for its page-3 topless girls and their sheer determination to use words with as few syllables as possible.
Have a look at the website, the topics along the top, they've got an entire section dedicated to "Babes" and what's more the bottom of the article has the words "More 'News' Here". That's right, not even the website itself genuinely believes that it has real news there, instead opting to put the term in quotes.
Seriously...the daily star? Is this what slashdot has come to?
"This accidental leak reveals, among many other things, how easy it would be to cause a Fukushima-style reactor meltdown in a sub"
Is that it, now? Is every single thing to do with nuclear reactors going to be compared to Fukushima from now on? What about if terrorists wanted to create a Chernobyl-style meltdown, or how about a three-mile-island-style meltdown? No really, it's fine, I don't mind throwing random keywords in there to grab extra attention when it's completely unnecessary.
Just so you know, I completely agree with everything you've just said. Neither option is ideal, neither option is the "best" option as the best option would involve no caps or traffic shaping at all and really we should have a third option that meets these needs.
I guess the thing is that most people would be happy on either of those two systems. By "most" people, I mean average non-techy person that uses the internet for little more than Facebook, gaming, porn and the odd bit of streaming. This is probably why they can get away with offering services like this - because most people don't notice the limitations.
In the UK, we only really have one cable company - Virgin Media. They offer 10, 30, 50 and 100Mbit services - all "unlimited" (with an Acceptable Use Policy attached for people who constantly throttle their full connection). The kicker is they employ some pretty heavy traffic management. Download more than about 3Gb in the evening (between 4pm and midnight) and your connection speed gets cut by 75%. So the 30 becomes about 6 or 7mbit. The thing is, you can still keep downloading as much as you want, it's just slower - so which system is better? They also employ traffic shaping, so between the same hours (And ALL weekend), P2P and newsgroup traffic gets slowed by 75% as well, no matter how much you're downloading.
It's a bit of a ridiculous catch. There are some decent DSL providers that have no usage limits, but they can only offer an "Up to" connection that can do 24mbit, but you're more likely to get about 8mbit (on average), whereas on Virgin you'll get the speed you signed up for (until traffic management/shaping kicks in). So/.ers which would you rather have, obscene traffic management or hard caps?
This might have a really obvious answer, but is there any reason why mobiles necessarily need an IPv4 address? Surely they could get away with IPv6 and a bit of tunnelling. Hell, in the UK most mobiles share an IP anyway.
Since when have multiple cores been geared purely for Multitasking?
4-cores, or rather 4 hardware threads, can be utilised by a single app, it just depends on what you're doing. THe real thing to keep in mind is battery life. Having 4 cores going at 100% will drain the battery, sure, but compare that against 4 cores doing a task in 1s that a single core takes 5 or 6 seconds to do. The faster a job gets done, the less juice that's used. There's every reason to look forward to the coming multi-core devices you can fit in your pocket.
Well, I doubt they've designed an entirely new type of car, so logic presumes they've got an off-the-line model and retrofitted it with their fancy new suspension.
Slashdot Mirror
Didn't Barclay's try to charge for withdrawals a while back?
How is voting the way you feel the majority of people will vote a good thing? While I don't want to out and out say that Democracy doesn't work, there certainly are instances where the majority of people are wrong. The whole crowd-sourcing system doesn't really account for this. Still, it's probably still better than existing systems.
Before I got my android phone, A windows mobile device was the best phone I'd ever had. This was back in 2004, mind you, when people were still impressed by colour screens and "polyphonic ringtones", while I was able to watch films and play Doom.
I'll take 8!
Ohhh I'm becoming a crafty consumer!
Google owns 8.8.8.8, it's one of their DNS servers.
How bad does the security have to initially be for it to be better to take the whole thing down and start over?
No, you've got it all wrong there.
For one, the "timeline" already mentions this -
6 months later, PSJAILBREAK was released
Furthermore, Geohot didn't actually perform the hack that "released the guts of the PS3", it was a different group (called Fail0verflow) that discovered the flaw in Sony's Encryption that allows you to mathematically calculate the private keys of every module on the system. They are the ones that released the info and tools to do this. All Geohot did was use this knowledge to release the key to metldr, the first stage of the PS3's boot process. Enough information was out there to create custom firmwares WITHOUT anything Geohot released.
It seems you are correct. I have no idea why I remember seeing it on a box, I must be getting mixed up with a leaflet or poster or something, I remember seeing something about "supports additional operating systems" but I have no idea where.
Sony definitely did use it in advertising and marketing, it was absolutely an advertised feature, just not on the box itself.
I stand completely corrected.
No harm done =)
Let that be a lesson to other people on slashot - sometimes it is possible to be wrong and there's no harm in admitting it.
You're absolutely right, I made a major cockup. What I had in my head was the 50mile exclusion zone around the plant, which is obviously quite a lot larger than 50 square miles. I stand both corrected and ashamed.
Basically, because the PS3 was "unhackable", George Hotz decided to take a look at it and came up with a really convoluted way to unlock a tiny bit more memory access within Linux. This "hack" involved soldering a chip to your PS3 and triggering it at the right time. It was really trigger happy and a bit of a faff to pull off, but it did work eventually. You had to do this EVERY time you restarted your PS3.
That's it. That's the entire reason why Sony removed Linux. This "hack" didn't enable piracy, it didn't grant access to any encrypted files or anything like that, it didn't even give you total control over the PS3 like recent hacks have, it basically allowed you to poke around the memory a bit more. So Sony panicked and removed it from all FAT PS3's.
I should point out - Sony had decided that the PS3 slim would never have OtherOS support long before this happened, but that's ok - that's a refresh of the console line and nowhere did Sony claim the Slim would have OtherOS support. The issue is the Original, "FAT" PS3's that had this feature advertised on the box.
It's quite ludicrous as well, as anyone interested in hacking the PS3 simply didn't update, poked around all they wanted and 6 months later, PSJAILBREAK was released, allowing people to do little more than play backups on (what was at the time) the latest PS3 firmware - which had linux stripped from it. This allowed other teams to REALLY explore the PS3 as it was effectively in Debug mode and the rest is history - all the CFW stuff that's going around now came as a result of this.So it was a pointless move, the cat was out of the bag and rather than just patch the flaw, Sony removed Linux and pissed off a lot of people, giving them a "valid, righteous" reason to push further into the PS3 and unlock as much as they could. The original Geohot exploit never really got that much attention and probably would have died down if Sony had just left well enough alone.
Of course, that's all the official reason. The real reason was probably just to save money. Less support costs, less development costs, less testing costs, etc.
Without sounding too Inconsiderate, quite a lot of their land was recently flattened by the tsunami, so should they lose 50 square miles due to Fukushima, they'll be able to cope by building more efficient housing.
They do actually lay down new fibre in areas near existing fibre. They're SUPPOSED to do a feasibility study on places like yours - near an existing fibre installation, if there's enough subscribers and the amount of cable required is below a certain length, they'll cable up the place. Like I said, supposed to, but it seems this process is very selective.
As far as I'm aware, they haven't actually "enabled" any new towns (apart from a recent trial of some town to see if they could deploy fibre over a telegraph pole), but they do a bit of expansion to nearby areas.
Right now, they're definitely focusing on upgrading the existing network. I don't just mean enabling faster speeds, like the 100Meg or this 1.5Gbit trial, I mean they're deploying a massive upgrade through the whole network to enable larger amounts of subscribers and reduce contention, as I'm sure you're aware, a lot of where Virgin Currently covers is oversubscribed. And it makes sense - why spend millions deploying to new places when you can spend a lot less to capitalise on the demand you already have?
I work for an ISP. If someone is only getting 4Mbit out of their 30Mbit connection, we class it as "Slow speeds". If someone's getting ridiculously high pings, we class it as "high latency".
You gave him a mod point, then commented to tell him you did this, removing all moderation points you gave out in this article in the process?
I believe that any DOCSIS3 modem HAS to be IPv6 ready in some form, as part of the DOCSIS3 spec (please tell me if I'm wrong on this, but as far as I am aware, this is the case). Now I don't profess to know how NAT really works at the low level, but from my understanding, a router takes a single external IP and "shares" it via NAT as a (usually) 192.168.x.x IP.
My question is this - is it possible to NAT an IPv6 IP to an IPv4 address? So while normally your external IP is 64.129.1.200 (for example) yet internally your IP is 192.168.0.3 (for example), is there any technical limitation as to why your external IP can't be an IPv6 address but still use an IPv4 address internally?
Basically, I'm asking if the "routers don't support IPv6" issue can be solved with some jiggery pokery on the Modem side, whereby the modem gives the router an IPv4 address to play with (that's not actually external), which gets NAT'd as normal, but on the modem side, this IPv4 address gets translated to the "real" IPv6 address? Is there some reason why this is simply not possible? And if the router requests an IPv6 address (or addresses - one can hope), it's just BAU?
I wouldn't expect it to necessarily work for everything, but surely it's a reasonable stopgap. If it's possible, I mean.
On another note, why in the name of fuck is Slashdot posting anything from the Daily Star? The newspaper is most famous for its page-3 topless girls and their sheer determination to use words with as few syllables as possible.
Have a look at the website, the topics along the top, they've got an entire section dedicated to "Babes" and what's more the bottom of the article has the words "More 'News' Here". That's right, not even the website itself genuinely believes that it has real news there, instead opting to put the term in quotes.
Seriously...the daily star? Is this what slashdot has come to?
"This accidental leak reveals, among many other things, how easy it would be to cause a Fukushima-style reactor meltdown in a sub"
Is that it, now? Is every single thing to do with nuclear reactors going to be compared to Fukushima from now on? What about if terrorists wanted to create a Chernobyl-style meltdown, or how about a three-mile-island-style meltdown?
No really, it's fine, I don't mind throwing random keywords in there to grab extra attention when it's completely unnecessary.
Just so you know, I completely agree with everything you've just said. Neither option is ideal, neither option is the "best" option as the best option would involve no caps or traffic shaping at all and really we should have a third option that meets these needs.
I guess the thing is that most people would be happy on either of those two systems. By "most" people, I mean average non-techy person that uses the internet for little more than Facebook, gaming, porn and the odd bit of streaming. This is probably why they can get away with offering services like this - because most people don't notice the limitations.
In the UK, we only really have one cable company - Virgin Media.
They offer 10, 30, 50 and 100Mbit services - all "unlimited" (with an Acceptable Use Policy attached for people who constantly throttle their full connection). The kicker is they employ some pretty heavy traffic management. Download more than about 3Gb in the evening (between 4pm and midnight) and your connection speed gets cut by 75%. So the 30 becomes about 6 or 7mbit.
The thing is, you can still keep downloading as much as you want, it's just slower - so which system is better?
They also employ traffic shaping, so between the same hours (And ALL weekend), P2P and newsgroup traffic gets slowed by 75% as well, no matter how much you're downloading.
It's a bit of a ridiculous catch. There are some decent DSL providers that have no usage limits, but they can only offer an "Up to" connection that can do 24mbit, but you're more likely to get about 8mbit (on average), whereas on Virgin you'll get the speed you signed up for (until traffic management/shaping kicks in). So /.ers which would you rather have, obscene traffic management or hard caps?
This might have a really obvious answer, but is there any reason why mobiles necessarily need an IPv4 address? Surely they could get away with IPv6 and a bit of tunnelling. Hell, in the UK most mobiles share an IP anyway.
Since when have multiple cores been geared purely for Multitasking?
4-cores, or rather 4 hardware threads, can be utilised by a single app, it just depends on what you're doing. THe real thing to keep in mind is battery life. Having 4 cores going at 100% will drain the battery, sure, but compare that against 4 cores doing a task in 1s that a single core takes 5 or 6 seconds to do. The faster a job gets done, the less juice that's used. There's every reason to look forward to the coming multi-core devices you can fit in your pocket.
Well, I doubt they've designed an entirely new type of car, so logic presumes they've got an off-the-line model and retrofitted it with their fancy new suspension.
Put some sort of accelerometer in the car and take measurements with and without the suspension?
In the future, all cars will likely be electric, so if the batteries fail, the suspension will probably be the least of your worries.