Why would it be a boon for Microsoft? Do they still develop Windows and Windows applications for POWER?
5707 posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
Why would it be a boon for Microsoft? Do they still develop Windows and Windows applications for POWER?
In the US IIRC. Intel's foreign foundries are for older, less important chips.
How? Bad as it looks now, the US is STILL a huge sight better than any other country on offer. Including China, or they would've ALREADY demonstrated self-sufficiency (they carry a cultural impetus) which proves they can successfully cut off the US.
But once it's open, people can normally slip in or out as long as the door is open. No, what they demand is that the only way the fire door can open is by closing the way behind you first so that the ONLY direction one can go through the doorway is out. Normally this evokes images of airlocks, but you can also achieve this with the cylindrical doorways sometimes associated with darkrooms (to insure no light enters as people pass through). Imagine a weight-based mechanical latch so that once engaged, the door can only be spun to the outside and stays in that position until the door is emptied, upon which it can be spun inside again from within the building.
Better it go down due to a botched update rather than get pwned due to an overabundance of caution leading to the hax0rs getting through during the window of vulnerability. At least it can't be pwned while it's down.
Seems to me more like a CYA generalization. IOW, it's more an "Insert Sensitive Data Type Here". Name it, and apply it between the <>.
But again, how else can it guarantee a genuinely-unique ID without using something like the Serial Number? ANY other source and you run the remote but still possible and highly-consequential risk of a collision. And anything sufficiently unique may as well BE a serial number for all intents and purposes.
Kinda poses a problem. How else can you come up with a one-size-fits-all solution for coming up with a random WPS PIN that doesn't involve programming each and every device individually?
I am keeping up. But what if China outright steals legitimate certificates belonging to Western companies, thus are able to perfectly mimic them and prevent them being blacklisted without collateral damage?
What happens then if the Chinese start taking over non-Chinese IPs, particularly those already in use by non-Chinese businesses? Now how will you be able to know what's coming before you get attacked by the Great Cannon's zero-days?
OK, now repeat the experiment with a pointed tip, much as how a very high diver positions his hands in a specific way to minimize surface area on impact.
"Try Myst Masterpiece Edition. It runs on Win 7 and has higher resolution, true colour graphics. I played it through a while back."
RealMyst actually postdates Master Edition by about a year. This was supposed to be the "ultimate" edition of the game: the way they had really wanted the game to be played: not as a slideshow but an actual 3D first-person experience.
However, according to GoG, neither version is 64-bit compatible. Too old for today's hardware, it seems.
I've noticed that, even today, companies make use of the proprietary Bink codec. Anyone know why it's still in such wide use vs. something less encumbered like WebM?
Well, when it comes to products, those are covered by patents, and when the patents expire, the plans associated with that patent actually become public domain.
The trick with copyright is that works can get "second wind," so this raises a debate on just how long an author/artist/etc. should be entitled to exclusivity. Plus of course there's the argument of copyrighted works made under contract (which changes the terms).
Have you tried RealMyst? This redoes Myst as a 3D FPA, no QT necessary. It was made during the P3 era, so the hardware requirements in today's terms are easy, and IIRC it's available on Steam so should work even today.
"OH...... and pay taxes where you Physically Trade.... Just a WILD idea !!!!!!!"
But here's a wild idea to your wild idea. Consider e-commerce, where the buyer and seller never meet but stuff gets transferred between them. Now you have a clash because each party is within the borders of his respective country, so each country can legally claim jurisdiction: the buyer because currency changes hands in his country, the seller because the goods ship from his country. So if the laws clash between them, which takes precedence? The buyer's law or the seller's law?
Nope. That's due to the roads being owned or at least regulated by the respective governments. Their road, their rules. But what about privacy rights? They're of a more personal nature and don't involve government property. So who gets the call? The country of location or the country of origin?
Even better? What happens when a lax citizen is in a strict country (or vice versa) and a clash occurs (where the laws of the two locations differ)? Which law applies?
So what happens when an American is in Europe or a European is on American soil? And the specific rights in question clash? Whose law takes precedence? The soil or the citizenship?
"If someone wrote something equivalent to your software, by the time they got it to market you would have version 2 ready."
Thing is, copycatting also makes it easier to leapfrog. Since all the effort of the v1's already done, they can think of ways to one-up you. So by the time you come up with a version 2, they may have not only anticipated but also gotten ahead of you, coming up with the equivalent of your version 3 at the same time. Suddenly you're in the uncomfortable position known as "First is Worst."
If you can be so easily leapfrogged with no recourse, why bother trying? As a result, we could end up back in the days of the Renaissance when most works were reserved for commissions from the wealthy and powerful. Note that most of the revered works of art were just that: commissions only revealed to the public long after it was originally made and therefore useless in a contemporary sense. How would you like it if the most useful software (and by that you can include the stuff needed to make other software: compilers and the like) was instead kept under the lock and key of ultra-conglomerates a la Gibson's Sprawl?
But who was the first to put ALL of them together into a whole greater than the sum of its parts? Gestalt effect.
The main problem now isn't the exclusivity but the length. When the length was first used, industries were usually about durable things that last decades. But software cycles quickly. You can fix the patent problem by specifying different lengths for different industries: say a max 3 years for software and 5 for hardware.
What's to stop a miscreant from hacking the sent OGL commands to make the scene look different to the competition? A setup like this can still allow a hacker to tell "lies" to his opponents.
VM's are not useful for this type of cheat. The cheat would be on the host, giving it hypervisor access where it can snoop any memory at will, including pre-encryption (making a secure tunnel useless here, too).
"If the hardware/OS/games are created using the generally hated (at least here) concepts proposed by Trusted Computing Group (previously known as the TCPA and the previous Microsoft Palladium project), it would be possible to implement a hardware and software stack that would prevent client side privileged access to the system unless it was signed by a recognised key. This would at a stroke prevent almost all of this type of client side attack, but at the same time would wrest almost total control of a machine from it's owner, making it a data appliance rather than a PC."
You will note how little you hear of the Trusted Platform Module outside of tightly-controlled settings such as businesses who need the control for their own reasons. Simply put, it's a non-starter on the consumer (and gamers are a subset of consumers mostly) end. If the only practical solution is to implement a system that isn't accepted by your customers, your market is basically a dead end. Either people won't buy your games because they're full of cheats or people won't buy your games because they won't buy the "secure" hardware needed to run them.
Did you note the part of the article about "sponsored events" and "professional gamers"? In both, money is involved (the former due to the sponsorships and the latter because professionals, by definition, are doing it for a living).
I'm surprised they haven't taken a look at hardware-based cheating. At that point, the gaming companies may be forced to raise the white flag. After all, what man can make, man can subvert if determined enough.
That doesn't sound that good to me. Sure, the price may be lower, but don't you also run the risk of hitting a fly-by-night counterfeit dealer, depending on the circumstances? I know some friends that got hit like this trying to bargain-hunt online.
The One-Time-Pad is the only encryption system proven to be perfectly secure. Furthermore, any other perfectly-secure system must (also proven) be essentially the same as a OTP. Using XOR, the OTP also has deniability since you can change the message simply by changing the key.
Not really because most files have internal structure that goes beyond ten bytes. Meaning it would be detected as corrupt (and to a spook, suspicious).
Here's a serious question. How can you get encryption right if you can't roll you own NOR can you trust anyone else to be a Man In Black behind your back?
"It is not just the random nature of them , but the simple fact that no person could possibly purchase even a small %age of the ad volume on ANY website."
Trouble is, the needed %age to turn a profit is in the low fractions of a percent. IOW, just one hit in several thousand is enough, and if one follows P.T. Barnum, there will always be enough sicker to make the whole business worthwhile. Not to mention the ads are getting tougher to block, leaving you with two choices: suck up or abandon the Internet.
They can glean information no matter what you answer. Give different answers and they'll know you're deceptive and change tactics.
But if we're the product then we're passive and don't buy anything meaning we never respond to ads making them pointless. We MUST be customers in order to make ads worthwhile.
"What's needed is a browser add-in that will accept the adds without displaying them & even generate click-throughs without displaying the results."
Credits to Milo's it'll soon be followed by a Turing Test to make sure the click-throughs are human.
And when they inevitably fight back by using ad blocker blockers?
What about the likes of Google who do provide actual bona fide services that have little or no viable substitutes? You're talking about a lot of potential collateral damage.
They'll never be outlawed because they'll just go international, even if it means bribing some hodunk country to change its laws.
And then they start using ad-blocker-blockers and pay walls...
And if the caller is I'D as international and vanishes the next day?
Oh? They can't just demand it from EVERY suspect?
Not if they can figure out ONE of the passwords and know the technique, meaning it boils down to a one-word dictionary attack, which IIRC is within feasibility.
Also, what if you visit a bunch of sites with the same theme OR have a truly abysmal memory...oh, and the computer's shared so you can't use a password manager?
Chrome is perhaps not trustworthy, but about about Chromium, which IIRC is the open-source fork of Chrome, with most of the Google-centric stuff stripped out?
Aren't many hijackings the result of social engineering (AKA identity theft), which no amount of safeguarding will prevent (because the miscreant will simply glean enough credentials to pass any test)?
Not unless the game's key component is online, which means you eater pay up or pack up.
The FCC will just counter their authority is delegated to them BY Congress through the Telecommunications Acts. Unless Tennessee can cite where it's the purview of Congress ALONE, that argument won't stand.
You assume these interests can't pressure the rest of the world to cooperate regardless. A little extortion perhaps...? There's also the chance these interests are worth more than Europe and therefore out monies the competition.
The ship and car could fall back to accelerometers which would be much tougher to fool.
As for the cargo, lock it down tighter?
Alan Turing PROVED the answer is "never" for "a program that can detect infinite loops".
"The controller of a flash drive must surely know how many pages have failed and been replaced from the pool of spares. So what's going on? Are SSD controllers not being honest with their SMART statistics (for example with SMART 182, " Erase Fail count")? Or did the testers simply write until failed, without monitoring the statistics to see whether impending failure was easy to spot? Or are there whole-chip failure modes with flash storage, that make abrupt failure far more likely than with other VLSI chips such as hard disk controllers? (Well, there are 8 or 16 more VLSI chips in an SSD, so maybe 8 to 16 times the risk)."
What's happening is that it's the controller that's failing first, rendering everything else moot.