Your Linux gaming machine shouldn't be doing more than 3/4 cores of CPU and handing the heavy grunt work off to the GPU anyway. No need for a 64 core CPU for that one.
I beg to differ. Games that are trying to run hundreds/thousands of copies of a unit AI or pathfinding (Dwarf Fortress, RTSs, etc.), or are doing tons of physics (KSP, From the Depths, etc.) are what usually end up causing slide shows for me these days, not the graphics. More cores & threads, please. (Yes, I'm aware that a lot of times this due to the games not taking advantage of existing cores)
Point of Linus was, taking a 6 core CPU, and replacing 2 cores with more cache and more transistors per core should make almost anything on Desktop run faster.
The real problem is that some desktop tasks really need one thread to run as fast as possible, and others (path finding for 200 drunken Dwarf Fortress denizens, for example) would benefit from having 100 somewhat slower cores. When you buy a desktop CPU, all the cores are the same, and you end up having to compromise between number of cores, single-thread speed, heat, etc.
Maybe it's time we started designing systems with two separate chips - one dual core chip optimized for running single tasks as fast as possible, and another with 10-50 simpler cores optimized for parallel tasks. I think we're halfway there already, what with GPUs being used that way to some extent, but standardizing it would actually allow non-custom applications to make use of it.
So you might be a 'suspect'. In the real word (as opposed the paranoid crazy version here) someone would politely sit down with you and discuss a few things. Then someone else might come over and discuss some more things.
If you're a 'suspect', and they want to talk to you, then at a minimum, you're forced to pay to retain counsel (unless you're stupid, and talk to them without one). So you're screwed no matter what at that point.
And from Salman Rushdie: “Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't exist in any declaration I have ever read.
If you are offended it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people.
My favorite way to deal with people that claim a right to not be offended is to point out that I find them taking offense at whatever stupid thing they're on about very offensive, so by their own logic, they must stop being offended because they're violating my rights.:P
Best solution? Encourage everyone to record every interaction with the police. This will systematically education the police on the rights of citizens.
Just like the 2nd Amendment public carry folks with a big old riffle slung over their shoulder on the sidewalk - it educated the police & public at the same time, and nobody gets hurt. (The the latter case, jimmes get russeled by some liberals, but, meh)
What we really need is a purpose-built "CopCorder" device. Has a camera and mic that records to local storage, and streams via 3/4G to mitigate confiscation. It would have a panic button that can be configured to lock it into recording mode for a time period, until the battery dies, or it's destroyed (so it's physically impossible to comply with any order to turn it off). The storage to local media means that if THEY destroy it, they've destroyed evidence, and you probably have a recording streamed of them doing it. If they confiscate it, you continue to get the streamed recording of whatever they subsequently do/say. Bonus if it can support a hidden external bluetooth or whatever external camera or mic, so if they take it and put it in their car or something, you may still get a recording.
For that matter, quit buying them the first month or two. Let someone else debug them and when the game is worth actually playing, get it. Heck by then 1/2 the time the game has dropped in price 10-25% anyway.
I have given up on buying games before the first major patch, for that matter the first few if I am really interested and the reviews are that bad.
Or quit buying AAA titles at all. There are enough good indie games around that I haven't even got around to looking at the big names for the last two years. Even the pre-alpha/alpha/beta versions seem to have fewer bugs (and they get fixed faster) than a major release of a AAA title.
Makes you wonder just what the budget split is in the big studios between bling/marketing/executive leeches and actual development.
CurrentC also tracks information about a user's purchase history for merchants. CurrentC users can select what information they want to share with retailers and can opt out of marketing communications, according to the MCX website.
And if you really trust a merchant created system to respect your wishes and not track you, you're hopelessly naive.
Yep... read that quote very carefully. "...can select what information they want to share with retailers..." They'll still hoard everything, they just won't (voluntarily) share it with retailers (but might with anyone else who's not a retailer?).
I call bullshit without more evidence. From the article:
When it detects the STARTTLS command being sent from the client to the server, the mobile wireless provider modifies the command to âoeXXXXXXXX.â The server does not understand this command and therefore sends an error message to the client.
This smells like a transparent proxy for mail, in a similar manner is providers have been doing transparent proxying for a long time. This does not necessarily have anything to do with DPI and selectively modifying server's responses to client requests.
The whole article is written by folks who clearly have no idea about how the internet works.
Worse, TFA only gives ONE example, then goes on to say, "...monitoring the responses from the email server in issue."
This seems to imply that not all email servers have a problem. Given that the symptoms (*****-ing out the SMTP banner, and blocking STARTTLS) are the exact behavior of a default protocol inspection config on a Cisco ASA or PIX firewall, I'm guessing that it's a major overreaction to the way the firewall in front of the destination email server is configured, and nothing to do with the ISP at all.
Google "250-XXXXXXXA asa cisco starttls" and you'll find this is almost certainly an ASA preventing TLS as configured on the device. Since it doesn't want TLS traffic, the config is to just mangle the packets. Well known effect, been around for years (5+). The FW admin needs to correctly deploy fixup, allow TLS or simply not inspect esmtp. Simple fix, documented in Cisco doc 118550, among many other places.
You beat me to it. That's the first thing that popped into my head, too. This (for some inexplicable reason known only to Cisco) is the *default* behavior of ASA and PIX firewalls, so really it probably just means that someone that didn't know what they were doing threw a firewall in the mix somewhere. It's an easy fix, but requires messing with policy-maps, which inexperienced admins often find confusing.
They are already there (in the dating game). And they were always there.
Really? The stereotype that women have to wait for men to make the first move puts MEN in the driver's seat. We don't have to deal with constant unwanted advances - we only do the dating thing when *we* want to. If a woman subscribes to that convention, then she has to wait for men she's interested to approach her, while under the same convention, men can pick their target and go for it. How is that putting women in the driver's seat?
That's why I've never understood why some men whine about "always having to make the first move." It puts us in the driver's seat.
And/or they've gotten wise enough to only really open up the throttle in places where they're relatively safe. I mean with a lifetime of fast driving under your belt there's really no excuse to still be getting caught.
Or can afford to take it to the track and do their fast driving there. I've done this a couple of times, and it's not cheap - $1k+ once you factor in entry fee, tire wear, gas, travel, hotel, insurance, etc.
Also, if you have a good sports car, you can have plenty of fun without ever exceeding the speed limit - corners are a lot more fun than just going fast in a straight line, especially if you do it right and get one with a manual transmission set up well for heel/toe.
Cars don't get tickets, drivers do - but those drivers like the WRX,
This is the important bit. The cheaper "fun" cars are the ones that the younger, less responsible drivers can buy. I was extremely surprised when I bought a used Boxster S a few years ago (probably one of the best cars around for, umm, "enthusiastic" driving), and the liability insurance was LESS than for my 14 year old Camry.
To make things worse for the WRX, the STI version comes stock with a ridiculous wing on the trunk that just screams "stupid rice rocket driver."
For me, having two phones makes sense only for two things: - Keeping all the expense-related things clearly separated in regards with private/business usage. - Having the ability to turn off business phone while off the clock and actually have some time off.
I find it's worth carrying two phones solely to avoid having to deal with Byzantine expense reporting systems once a month.:P
Human beings are social creatures, and enjoy experiencing interesting and entertaining events while in the company of others. For a sports event, sharing the thrill of possible victory or defeat with thousands of other fans around you is also about sharing in a certain camaraderie. Unless you're a fan yourself and already enjoy the game, or if you really hate crowds in general, it's probably hard to understand the appeal.
Which is why I know where the good sports bars are. They're easier to get to, free parking, the food is better, the beer is better, and on game days, they're usually packed with other fans. You have multiple large screens with the better TV viewpoint, too, and they have cable, in case the game isn't on broadcast TV (which is all I have at home).
Settlement? What settlement? This is a prima facie Clayton Act Anti-Trust violation. Multiple felonies, with jailtime due. Amazingly, this appearently exists on paper, so everyone who negotiated or signed it should go to jail.
The Clayton Act makes organizing supplier boycotts a prohibited activity. And that's just what they have done -- organized a boycott not to hire an employee, times the collective number.
That this has not gone to a Federal Grand Jury appears more like corruption than anything else.
By that argument, everyone in a union belongs in jail, too.
From Big Pharma's perspective, with the involuntary testing of prison inmates off the table in most Western countries, the homeless population presents a viable alternative who are statistically unlikely to pursue litigation.
From a humanitarian perspective, the quandary is "Do we want to allow the weakest among us to make decisions they are unqualified to properly weigh?"
I will leave the ethics to others, but ultimately, as future consumers of these tested pharmaceuticals, do we want to rely on results that are likely skewed because the test subjects were also taking heroin, methamphetamine, and cocaine?
It's not the companies sponsoring the test that somehow try to pick this demographic. It's the people themselves. Most of the tests pay the panelists, but it's not all that much. For someone with a stable job, the small amount usually isn't worth the hassle (have to be at the test location during business hours several times a week sometimes, keeping logs, or whatever). Not to mention not worth the possible health risks. For homeless/unemployed/etc., that's their electric bill for this month. It's enough money to them that they routinely lie about health conditions, drug use, etc. on the consent forms.
Only way to fix it is to offer substantially more money to panelists.
(Source: girlfriend who works as a clinical test manager)
It sounds like they're only doing this when the network is congested in a specific location. Like they're basically prioritizing slowing down the heavy users when things get busy, rather than everyone. I have a much harder time getting worked up about that, especially when they're waiting until people are out of contract and can easily switch carriers.
Not to mention that even if you have "nothing to hide," what about when you piss the wrong person off, and suddenly there's child porn on your encrypted drive that obviously only you could ever have had access to.
It sounds like every single individual like you needs to start filing small-claims cases against MS. Let them deal with several thousand of those, where the money imbalance won't matter so much.
I agree that what you describe makes "consent" useless, but you don't necessarily need to outlaw it.
Just require that: - any commercial entity that stores information on individuals (with NO exceptions whatsoever) has to provide said individuals a full dump of the data once per some time period upon request, with no conditions or cost attached, along with a list of everyone they've given it to. - the entity must correct any incorrect information, and can't distribute any information regarding an individual until the errors are corrected.
Actually, if you're mailing passwords, send the FUTURE passwords. Then once you've verified that the copies have reached the recipients unmolested, change the passwords to what you sent.
Slashdot Mirror
Your Linux gaming machine shouldn't be doing more than 3/4 cores of CPU and handing the heavy grunt work off to the GPU anyway. No need for a 64 core CPU for that one.
I beg to differ. Games that are trying to run hundreds/thousands of copies of a unit AI or pathfinding (Dwarf Fortress, RTSs, etc.), or are doing tons of physics (KSP, From the Depths, etc.) are what usually end up causing slide shows for me these days, not the graphics. More cores & threads, please. (Yes, I'm aware that a lot of times this due to the games not taking advantage of existing cores)
Point of Linus was, taking a 6 core CPU, and replacing 2 cores with more cache and more transistors per core should make almost anything on Desktop run faster.
The real problem is that some desktop tasks really need one thread to run as fast as possible, and others (path finding for 200 drunken Dwarf Fortress denizens, for example) would benefit from having 100 somewhat slower cores. When you buy a desktop CPU, all the cores are the same, and you end up having to compromise between number of cores, single-thread speed, heat, etc.
Maybe it's time we started designing systems with two separate chips - one dual core chip optimized for running single tasks as fast as possible, and another with 10-50 simpler cores optimized for parallel tasks. I think we're halfway there already, what with GPUs being used that way to some extent, but standardizing it would actually allow non-custom applications to make use of it.
So you might be a 'suspect'. In the real word (as opposed the paranoid crazy version here) someone would politely sit down with you and discuss a few things. Then someone else might come over and discuss some more things.
If you're a 'suspect', and they want to talk to you, then at a minimum, you're forced to pay to retain counsel (unless you're stupid, and talk to them without one). So you're screwed no matter what at that point.
And from Salman Rushdie:
“Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't exist in any declaration I have ever read.
If you are offended it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people.
My favorite way to deal with people that claim a right to not be offended is to point out that I find them taking offense at whatever stupid thing they're on about very offensive, so by their own logic, they must stop being offended because they're violating my rights. :P
Best solution? Encourage everyone to record every interaction with the police. This will systematically education the police on the rights of citizens.
Just like the 2nd Amendment public carry folks with a big old riffle slung over their shoulder on the sidewalk - it educated the police & public at the same time, and nobody gets hurt. (The the latter case, jimmes get russeled by some liberals, but, meh)
What we really need is a purpose-built "CopCorder" device. Has a camera and mic that records to local storage, and streams via 3/4G to mitigate confiscation. It would have a panic button that can be configured to lock it into recording mode for a time period, until the battery dies, or it's destroyed (so it's physically impossible to comply with any order to turn it off). The storage to local media means that if THEY destroy it, they've destroyed evidence, and you probably have a recording streamed of them doing it. If they confiscate it, you continue to get the streamed recording of whatever they subsequently do/say. Bonus if it can support a hidden external bluetooth or whatever external camera or mic, so if they take it and put it in their car or something, you may still get a recording.
For that matter, quit buying them the first month or two. Let someone else debug them and when the game is worth actually playing, get it. Heck by then 1/2 the time the game has dropped in price 10-25% anyway.
I have given up on buying games before the first major patch, for that matter the first few if I am really interested and the reviews are that bad.
Or quit buying AAA titles at all. There are enough good indie games around that I haven't even got around to looking at the big names for the last two years. Even the pre-alpha/alpha/beta versions seem to have fewer bugs (and they get fixed faster) than a major release of a AAA title.
Makes you wonder just what the budget split is in the big studios between bling/marketing/executive leeches and actual development.
Yet another reason not to use biometrics to unlock devices.
Time for a feature like "Right index finger unlocks, left index finger wipes most things, then unlocks."
And if you really trust a merchant created system to respect your wishes and not track you, you're hopelessly naive.
Yep... read that quote very carefully. "...can select what information they want to share with retailers..." They'll still hoard everything, they just won't (voluntarily) share it with retailers (but might with anyone else who's not a retailer?).
I blame the lack of autopilot for these human fingers.
I blame the faulty autopilot that's running the Slashdot editors.
I call bullshit without more evidence. From the article:
When it detects the STARTTLS command being sent from the client to the server, the mobile wireless provider modifies the command to âoeXXXXXXXX.â The server does not understand this command and therefore sends an error message to the client.
This smells like a transparent proxy for mail, in a similar manner is providers have been doing transparent proxying for a long time. This does not necessarily have anything to do with DPI and selectively modifying server's responses to client requests.
The whole article is written by folks who clearly have no idea about how the internet works.
Worse, TFA only gives ONE example, then goes on to say, "...monitoring the responses from the email server in issue."
This seems to imply that not all email servers have a problem. Given that the symptoms (*****-ing out the SMTP banner, and blocking STARTTLS) are the exact behavior of a default protocol inspection config on a Cisco ASA or PIX firewall, I'm guessing that it's a major overreaction to the way the firewall in front of the destination email server is configured, and nothing to do with the ISP at all.
Google "250-XXXXXXXA asa cisco starttls" and you'll find this is almost certainly an ASA preventing TLS as configured on the device. Since it doesn't want TLS traffic, the config is to just mangle the packets. Well known effect, been around for years (5+). The FW admin needs to correctly deploy fixup, allow TLS or simply not inspect esmtp. Simple fix, documented in Cisco doc 118550, among many other places.
You beat me to it. That's the first thing that popped into my head, too. This (for some inexplicable reason known only to Cisco) is the *default* behavior of ASA and PIX firewalls, so really it probably just means that someone that didn't know what they were doing threw a firewall in the mix somewhere. It's an easy fix, but requires messing with policy-maps, which inexperienced admins often find confusing.
They are already there (in the dating game). And they were always there.
Really? The stereotype that women have to wait for men to make the first move puts MEN in the driver's seat. We don't have to deal with constant unwanted advances - we only do the dating thing when *we* want to. If a woman subscribes to that convention, then she has to wait for men she's interested to approach her, while under the same convention, men can pick their target and go for it. How is that putting women in the driver's seat?
That's why I've never understood why some men whine about "always having to make the first move." It puts us in the driver's seat.
And/or they've gotten wise enough to only really open up the throttle in places where they're relatively safe. I mean with a lifetime of fast driving under your belt there's really no excuse to still be getting caught.
Or can afford to take it to the track and do their fast driving there. I've done this a couple of times, and it's not cheap - $1k+ once you factor in entry fee, tire wear, gas, travel, hotel, insurance, etc.
Also, if you have a good sports car, you can have plenty of fun without ever exceeding the speed limit - corners are a lot more fun than just going fast in a straight line, especially if you do it right and get one with a manual transmission set up well for heel/toe.
Cars don't get tickets, drivers do - but those drivers like the WRX,
This is the important bit. The cheaper "fun" cars are the ones that the younger, less responsible drivers can buy. I was extremely surprised when I bought a used Boxster S a few years ago (probably one of the best cars around for, umm, "enthusiastic" driving), and the liability insurance was LESS than for my 14 year old Camry.
To make things worse for the WRX, the STI version comes stock with a ridiculous wing on the trunk that just screams "stupid rice rocket driver."
I see a lot of cars driving around 80% empty. To and from work, I must admit that one of them is mine.
You wastrel... At least my Ferrari is only 50% empty!
For me, having two phones makes sense only for two things:
- Keeping all the expense-related things clearly separated in regards with private/business usage.
- Having the ability to turn off business phone while off the clock and actually have some time off.
I find it's worth carrying two phones solely to avoid having to deal with Byzantine expense reporting systems once a month. :P
This is just ULA being afraid they will lose their iron rice bowl.
Yes... The congressmen should be held accountable to taxpayers for allowing themselves to be bought by the existing bloated contractors.
Human beings are social creatures, and enjoy experiencing interesting and entertaining events while in the company of others. For a sports event, sharing the thrill of possible victory or defeat with thousands of other fans around you is also about sharing in a certain camaraderie. Unless you're a fan yourself and already enjoy the game, or if you really hate crowds in general, it's probably hard to understand the appeal.
Which is why I know where the good sports bars are. They're easier to get to, free parking, the food is better, the beer is better, and on game days, they're usually packed with other fans. You have multiple large screens with the better TV viewpoint, too, and they have cable, in case the game isn't on broadcast TV (which is all I have at home).
Settlement? What settlement? This is a prima facie Clayton Act Anti-Trust violation. Multiple felonies, with jailtime due. Amazingly, this appearently exists on paper, so everyone who negotiated or signed it should go to jail.
The Clayton Act makes organizing supplier boycotts a prohibited activity. And that's just what they have done -- organized a boycott not to hire an employee, times the collective number.
That this has not gone to a Federal Grand Jury appears more like corruption than anything else.
By that argument, everyone in a union belongs in jail, too.
From Big Pharma's perspective, with the involuntary testing of prison inmates off the table in most Western countries, the homeless population presents a viable alternative who are statistically unlikely to pursue litigation.
From a humanitarian perspective, the quandary is "Do we want to allow the weakest among us to make decisions they are unqualified to properly weigh?"
I will leave the ethics to others, but ultimately, as future consumers of these tested pharmaceuticals, do we want to rely on results that are likely skewed because the test subjects were also taking heroin, methamphetamine, and cocaine?
It's not the companies sponsoring the test that somehow try to pick this demographic. It's the people themselves. Most of the tests pay the panelists, but it's not all that much. For someone with a stable job, the small amount usually isn't worth the hassle (have to be at the test location during business hours several times a week sometimes, keeping logs, or whatever). Not to mention not worth the possible health risks. For homeless/unemployed/etc., that's their electric bill for this month. It's enough money to them that they routinely lie about health conditions, drug use, etc. on the consent forms.
Only way to fix it is to offer substantially more money to panelists.
(Source: girlfriend who works as a clinical test manager)
It sounds like they're only doing this when the network is congested in a specific location. Like they're basically prioritizing slowing down the heavy users when things get busy, rather than everyone. I have a much harder time getting worked up about that, especially when they're waiting until people are out of contract and can easily switch carriers.
Not to mention that even if you have "nothing to hide," what about when you piss the wrong person off, and suddenly there's child porn on your encrypted drive that obviously only you could ever have had access to.
It sounds like every single individual like you needs to start filing small-claims cases against MS. Let them deal with several thousand of those, where the money imbalance won't matter so much.
I agree that what you describe makes "consent" useless, but you don't necessarily need to outlaw it.
Just require that:
- any commercial entity that stores information on individuals (with NO exceptions whatsoever) has to provide said individuals a full dump of the data once per some time period upon request, with no conditions or cost attached, along with a list of everyone they've given it to.
- the entity must correct any incorrect information, and can't distribute any information regarding an individual until the errors are corrected.
Not perfect, but it would be a start.
Fed-ex the unlabeled passwords
USPS the un-passworded accounts list
Actually, if you're mailing passwords, send the FUTURE passwords. Then once you've verified that the copies have reached the recipients unmolested, change the passwords to what you sent.