Comment: Re:Not even very good performance (Score 1) 158
And who can play anything rendered in the cloud?
One person at a time.
And who can play anything rendered in the cloud?
One person at a time.
in particular the hopelessly outdated Skype (who still do not have a 64bit version in static / dynamic - and Linux users don't all use Ubuntu).
Skype doesn't have a 64 bit version at all. They have Debian and Ubuntu packages that are labeled as 64 bit, but the binaries contained within are 32 bit, and require 32 bit libraries.
I think they do this so that dpkg won't give a "architecture does not match system" error, which doesn't apply to the raw archives. So you can use the package manager to install the skype binaries, but you're on your own for hunting down and installing the 32 bit libraries.
Was the film in braille?
This is what I thought of when I read the summary: http://www.collegehumor.com/video/3915385/your-printer-is-a-brat
You seem to be missing the point. The triforce spinning was probably a bad example, since it's not that important. The problems with inaccurate emulators range from annoying visual glitches, to crashes, to actually making a game unbeatable. Star Ocean, for example, will sometimes crash in zsnes, but I haven't experienced that in bsnes. The battles run at double speed, much like the triforce in LTTP. Playing Yoshi's Island in zsnes, any level with those giant fuzzballs will tick every time you move. It's nauseating to get through. In zsnes, Super Mario RPG battles will sometimes de-sync to the point that the music and animations will continue, but your input will no longer work and you have to reset the game.
In Speedy Gonzales - Los Gatos Bandidos, if you're playing with zsnes, you can't even beat the game, because it doesn't emulate everything necessary to do so. In Sink or Swim, the room fills with water, and you need to swim above it. But because of timing and speed issues, the room fills up much too fast and you will drown instantly.
You can read about some of these issues, and many more, here: http://byuu.org/bsnes/accuracy
That's funny. If I had a moderate button to go with my moderator points, I'd mod you up.
I don't know much about SHA, but I figure that if you're going to go to the trouble of setting up SSL, you may as well go for the best you can get, right?
If that's the way you feel, then yes, go for SHA-512. I think it is the heaviest NSA blessed hashing algorithm.
I've read about how SHA-1 was 'broken', but from what I can tell it still takes many hours.
Replace "hours" with "centuries". Or maybe more. Nobody has ever created a SHA-1 collision.
What is the practical risk to the real internet from this capability?
None for the near future. And CA certs expire after a year.
Would a sort of rolling key be a possible next step, where each SSL-encrypted stream has its own private/public key pair generated on the fly, and things like passwords and bank account numbers were broken up and sent in multiple streams with different private/public key pairs?
That would be ridiculous. There are valid concerns about SSL, but only regarding trusting CAs. The problem isn't the encryption itself, but the fact that you require a trusted avenue to exchange keys, and the CAs can't necessarily be trusted. The technical merits of AES and RSA and the SHA families are good.
How does this protect your privacy? It sounds more like selling your privacy.
If the path be beautiful, let us not ask where it leads. -- Anatole France