Not all languages are more verbose than the old classics. Though for a laugh, look a "C++-Epoc". I can't believe they actually expected anyone to program like that:P
I think you'd find if you looked that the user-space parts of any driver can't communicate with hardware directly. They can be given a DMA mapping by the system-level parts of the driver, for reading/writing (normally only one at a time) to the hardware's memory directly, and can call the kernel-level part of the driver for it to do stuff. The kernel-level part would be secured against processes trying to access each-other's graphics-card data.
Wiki says that patchguard is only in the x64 versions of Windows, and actually isn't new with Vista, it's in Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 x64 versions too. Considering that MS said that quite a few "Windows" crashes were caused by kernel code "patched" by drivers (especially some antivirus and firewall programs), I'm not surprised that they discourage it.
Though I have just found out that patchguard doesn't stop drivers patching each other. However, the x64 version of Vista requires drivers to be signed by Microsoft, so you couldn't use one driver to patch the graphics driver in an attempt to intercept the rendered video on x64, because you'd never get a driver that did this signed by MS. I don't think you could patch the user-space portion of a driver from your code, unless you were in system-debugger mode, because Windows just wouldn't give you the process handle of it, so you wouldn't be able to write to its address-space. I'm assuming you know enough about "Virtual Memory" to know that processes can't just write to each-other's memory without the kernel's permission.
On the other hand Vista 32 seems to be wide open to a hack that used a dodgy driver to patch the graphics driver in order to intercept the rendering commands used to display the protected video. But without patchguard running, there is nothing to cause the "slowdown" people attribute to DRM in Vista. Yet they still claim it.
But when it all boils down at the end, it's easier just to use a badly-made blu-ray/hddvd player which has the video flowing over an unencrypted link between two chips, than to try to hack around Vista's HDCP support.
"Vista's new DRM" is talking about support for playing HDCP-protected video streams, and nothing more. Some people lump "patchguard" under "Vista DRM" too, but that's not in 32-bit Vista, and it's not DRM, it's protection of the kernel from malicious and stupid driver code.
Well IIRC it requires a "signed" graphics card driver to enable HDCP playback. You also cannot snoop another process's graphics surfaces without the surface having been opened in shared mode by the first process (and even that is new in DX10), so there is no possibility of a program snooping a video being played by another program.
For a single program trying to trick the DRM into playing to a readable memory surface, the DRM'd codec would be able to detect a readable surface and would refuse to play to it. I wouldn't be surprised if it refused to play to a program's in-memory surface full-stop in fact, and insist on rendering to its own surface and blitting it to the screen itself.
Trust me, there is no reason for anything to do with a DRM'd video to run while the video isn't being played (which would have to be done via the DRM system, unless it had been completely cracked). Any DRM-related services "running" would in fact be just sitting there in a wait state (code not even running) until they were called on.
The only Windows built-in "DRM" that is running all the time is the system files protection, and that is only running all the time because it protects the OS, which runs all the time.
The single most annoying thing about xbox live is getting kicked out when it detects an update for a game. It doesn't even wait until you accept the update, it just cuts you in the middle of your voice chat.
As far as I know the only DRM is a check that runs before a protected video plays, that verifies that the hardware you're using for playback is all approved, and you're connected to the TV by a HDCP-encrypted connection, etc.
AFAIK, it doesn't do anything to non-protected videos, and nothing at all to non-video.
It certainly doesn't have a check in every command to the driver trying to figure out if you are watching an illegal xvid rip of something copyrighted like everyone suggests.
How do you know? Do you have the source code to Windows Vista?
Everyone I've seen that blames "DRM" for Vista being slow has no idea what they are talking about, and are just going "Vista has DRM and is slow, therefore it must be slow because of DRM".
If light is both a wave and a particle, does that mean that the light "wave" is actually a standing wave (vibration?) inside the light particle (aka photon)? With the particle moving the wave would appear to be travelling.
What happens if two photons collide (head-on)? Do they go straight through each other? Do they bounce? With the theory that every particle exhibits wave/particle duality, they should bounce.
If the arrays are all the same size then there is no memory difference, and if you often need the same element from each, the "class OHLC" way is more efficient due to all the data for one "OHLC" being in the same memory page. That means you'd only suffer one cache miss instead of four trying to read one that wasn't loaded. If you have primarily random access, it makes no real difference either way.
So why do you think the "class OHLC" method is inefficient? It's not like every element being a class adds any memory overhead at least in C++ (unless the class contains a virtual function and therefore a vtable pointer).
My 8800 GTS died yesterday, wonderful vertical lines down the screen (lines of characters in text mode) and unexpectedly booting in VGA res. I looked online for a new card, saw a 285 being sold for cheaper than any 280, and looked it up. I saw that it was basically a 280 v2, so I ordered one. Even at 9:40pm I was offered next day delivery by ebuyer, so I took it. I got the order dispatched email at 10:20pm.
I didn't realise until a little later that its release date was yesterday! That's some crazy timing.
We were talking about the countries where downloading WASN'T illegal, if you own the original (see the post I was replying to). I was pointing out that using P2P to get it you are still breaking the law, because you'll be uploading too.
EVE has a ONE SECOND tick rate. Admittedly the client interpolates so that you see smooth movement, but there is always at least a 1s gap between your weapons firing, or between clicking the button and having a module activate. No-one complains.
It goes a way towards explaining how they can support so many players in one universe at once.
I started by playing VII, then went back and played 4-6 on SNES emulator (they weren't available for sale at the time, I've since bought IV for the DS). I played up to X-2, and I've also recently tried X1, so here's a bit of fill-in:
4 had a good but pretty standard good/evil story, spells were gained purely by level-up or plot, with very little ability to customize characters. Had an annoying tendency to kill off the characters you were using or have them leave, but a good game. 5 used the "job" system, essentially character classes. A lot of people aren't a fan of this. Story is mediocre and character names are ridiculous. 6 was set in a "steampunk" environment. Spells are learned from equipped summoning "magicite". VII's materia seems to be based on this stuff. Add a good story, and all in all a very good game.
11 sucks, at least at the start, and I didn't get further. Multiple username/password combinations needed to get in (both username and password being random), and an unintuitive front-end. No real indications as to where you are supposed to go to do the early quests (what am I supposed to do with the name of someone I've never met or some place I've never been? Give me a damn arrow). I couldn't bring myself to play it more than once. Dull gameplay, and even duller graphics, at least where I started. Brown, grey, more brown, more grey...
Slashdot Mirror
Not by Apple's choice.
You'd probably be able to do it with the Zune too if any open-source developer could ever bring themself to touch one.
Lua's is:
print "Hello world"
Not all languages are more verbose than the old classics. Though for a laugh, look a "C++-Epoc". I can't believe they actually expected anyone to program like that :P
Oh, and the link should be: http://www.roesler-ac.de/wolfram/hello.htm (no slash on the end).
I think you'd find if you looked that the user-space parts of any driver can't communicate with hardware directly. They can be given a DMA mapping by the system-level parts of the driver, for reading/writing (normally only one at a time) to the hardware's memory directly, and can call the kernel-level part of the driver for it to do stuff. The kernel-level part would be secured against processes trying to access each-other's graphics-card data.
Wiki says that patchguard is only in the x64 versions of Windows, and actually isn't new with Vista, it's in Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 x64 versions too. Considering that MS said that quite a few "Windows" crashes were caused by kernel code "patched" by drivers (especially some antivirus and firewall programs), I'm not surprised that they discourage it.
Though I have just found out that patchguard doesn't stop drivers patching each other. However, the x64 version of Vista requires drivers to be signed by Microsoft, so you couldn't use one driver to patch the graphics driver in an attempt to intercept the rendered video on x64, because you'd never get a driver that did this signed by MS. I don't think you could patch the user-space portion of a driver from your code, unless you were in system-debugger mode, because Windows just wouldn't give you the process handle of it, so you wouldn't be able to write to its address-space. I'm assuming you know enough about "Virtual Memory" to know that processes can't just write to each-other's memory without the kernel's permission.
On the other hand Vista 32 seems to be wide open to a hack that used a dodgy driver to patch the graphics driver in order to intercept the rendering commands used to display the protected video.
But without patchguard running, there is nothing to cause the "slowdown" people attribute to DRM in Vista. Yet they still claim it.
But when it all boils down at the end, it's easier just to use a badly-made blu-ray/hddvd player which has the video flowing over an unencrypted link between two chips, than to try to hack around Vista's HDCP support.
"Vista's new DRM" is talking about support for playing HDCP-protected video streams, and nothing more. Some people lump "patchguard" under "Vista DRM" too, but that's not in 32-bit Vista, and it's not DRM, it's protection of the kernel from malicious and stupid driver code.
This seems to be a reasonably good article on the subject, if you want further reading: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=299&tag=rbxccnbzd1
Well IIRC it requires a "signed" graphics card driver to enable HDCP playback. You also cannot snoop another process's graphics surfaces without the surface having been opened in shared mode by the first process (and even that is new in DX10), so there is no possibility of a program snooping a video being played by another program.
For a single program trying to trick the DRM into playing to a readable memory surface, the DRM'd codec would be able to detect a readable surface and would refuse to play to it. I wouldn't be surprised if it refused to play to a program's in-memory surface full-stop in fact, and insist on rendering to its own surface and blitting it to the screen itself.
Trust me, there is no reason for anything to do with a DRM'd video to run while the video isn't being played (which would have to be done via the DRM system, unless it had been completely cracked). Any DRM-related services "running" would in fact be just sitting there in a wait state (code not even running) until they were called on.
The only Windows built-in "DRM" that is running all the time is the system files protection, and that is only running all the time because it protects the OS, which runs all the time.
If you are using Windows Vista, yes.
Per-program volume/mute ftw.
Good job I'm only a programmer and not an circuit designer then huh?
They should use them though, not having to worry about which way round batteries went would be nice.
I wonder if you could incorporate the rectifier into the battery itself, and get a battery that could be inserted into any device either way round?
They don't look like CDs: http://www.amazon.co.uk/MP3-Music-Download/b/ref=sa_menu_dm1?ie=UTF8&node=77197031&pf_rd_p=218610391&pf_rd_s=left-nav-1&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_i=468294&pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_r=0FP8207JX6SK1TEG62GB
The single most annoying thing about xbox live is getting kicked out when it detects an update for a game. It doesn't even wait until you accept the update, it just cuts you in the middle of your voice chat.
How about "when the user presses the play button"?
I'd expect it to be called from the codec's initialize function myself.
As far as I know the only DRM is a check that runs before a protected video plays, that verifies that the hardware you're using for playback is all approved, and you're connected to the TV by a HDCP-encrypted connection, etc.
AFAIK, it doesn't do anything to non-protected videos, and nothing at all to non-video.
It certainly doesn't have a check in every command to the driver trying to figure out if you are watching an illegal xvid rip of something copyrighted like everyone suggests.
Now prove me wrong.
How do you know? Do you have the source code to Windows Vista?
Everyone I've seen that blames "DRM" for Vista being slow has no idea what they are talking about, and are just going "Vista has DRM and is slow, therefore it must be slow because of DRM".
Correlation is not causation people!
And if you want to say that, by not viewing ads, I'm harming science and art, I have a few followup questions for you to clarify.
It's even better when you're in the UK and watching a US show, because the adverts would be completely pointless even if we did watch them :)
He was speaking ironically, taking a jab at how the US networks seem to treat Europe as "less important".
Removing it from DNS won't help, they'll just switch the software to using the site's IP address.
If light is both a wave and a particle, does that mean that the light "wave" is actually a standing wave (vibration?) inside the light particle (aka photon)? With the particle moving the wave would appear to be travelling.
What happens if two photons collide (head-on)? Do they go straight through each other? Do they bounce? With the theory that every particle exhibits wave/particle duality, they should bounce.
If the arrays are all the same size then there is no memory difference, and if you often need the same element from each, the "class OHLC" way is more efficient due to all the data for one "OHLC" being in the same memory page. That means you'd only suffer one cache miss instead of four trying to read one that wasn't loaded. If you have primarily random access, it makes no real difference either way.
So why do you think the "class OHLC" method is inefficient? It's not like every element being a class adds any memory overhead at least in C++ (unless the class contains a virtual function and therefore a vtable pointer).
My 8800 GTS died yesterday, wonderful vertical lines down the screen (lines of characters in text mode) and unexpectedly booting in VGA res.
I looked online for a new card, saw a 285 being sold for cheaper than any 280, and looked it up. I saw that it was basically a 280 v2, so I ordered one. Even at 9:40pm I was offered next day delivery by ebuyer, so I took it. I got the order dispatched email at 10:20pm.
I didn't realise until a little later that its release date was yesterday! That's some crazy timing.
I just ran the numbers, and the tax brackets do match up properly in Australia:
$0 - $6,000
Nil
$6,001 - $34,000
15c for each $1 over $6,000
15c - $4200
$34,001 - $80,000
$4,200 plus 30c for each $1 over $34,000
$4200.30 - $18000
$80,001 - $180,000
$18,000 plus 40c for each $1 over $80,000
$18000.40 - $58000
$180,001 and over
$58,000 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000
$58000.45 -
He said total burden, not new tax bracket.
If the new tax bracket was 30% and started at 50k, then he would pay 15% of his income in tax overall.
Irony.
The person would blame the government, but it's there own fault. THAT WAS HIS POINT.
We were talking about the countries where downloading WASN'T illegal, if you own the original (see the post I was replying to). I was pointing out that using P2P to get it you are still breaking the law, because you'll be uploading too.
Using P2P is a different story of course, because you upload to anyone who asks, not just people who you've verified owns the original.
It's the uploading, not the downloading, which is technically illegal.
MMOs could benefit too.
EVE has a ONE SECOND tick rate. Admittedly the client interpolates so that you see smooth movement, but there is always at least a 1s gap between your weapons firing, or between clicking the button and having a module activate. No-one complains.
It goes a way towards explaining how they can support so many players in one universe at once.
I started by playing VII, then went back and played 4-6 on SNES emulator (they weren't available for sale at the time, I've since bought IV for the DS). I played up to X-2, and I've also recently tried X1, so here's a bit of fill-in:
4 had a good but pretty standard good/evil story, spells were gained purely by level-up or plot, with very little ability to customize characters. Had an annoying tendency to kill off the characters you were using or have them leave, but a good game.
5 used the "job" system, essentially character classes. A lot of people aren't a fan of this. Story is mediocre and character names are ridiculous.
6 was set in a "steampunk" environment. Spells are learned from equipped summoning "magicite". VII's materia seems to be based on this stuff. Add a good story, and all in all a very good game.
11 sucks, at least at the start, and I didn't get further. Multiple username/password combinations needed to get in (both username and password being random), and an unintuitive front-end. No real indications as to where you are supposed to go to do the early quests (what am I supposed to do with the name of someone I've never met or some place I've never been? Give me a damn arrow). I couldn't bring myself to play it more than once. Dull gameplay, and even duller graphics, at least where I started. Brown, grey, more brown, more grey...