He spelled the link wrong. It's:
He spelled the link wrong. It's:
Given how one of the main points of SteamOS is it's openness - does it make sense to have VAC on it?
I mean, it's a LOT easier to make a Linux kernel module that finds out what the VAC (or Steam) processes are, then having the kernel module modify responses to hide stuff from it.
I mean, lets say you have an aimbot or other cheat. You can run it on SteamOS, and have the kernel module hide that process (or even the fact network packets are redirected through it) so VAC can't even run anymore.
And I don't see VAC as a kernel module as every component in SteamOS is supposed to be replaceable so even compiling a new kernel is an option.
So I guess the question is - how is Valve protecting against SteamOS cheaters? It's a lot harder to do it on Windows since you have to do a lot of hooking and kernel signing and all that (plus trusting random binaries), whereas on Linux it's way easier to hook things.
Actually they need a new product. Their profits in the mp3 player market have basically evaporated and the smartphone market is getting commoditized as would be expected to happen in any mature market. They may grow for a couple of years more as they finally get contracts with telecoms operators in China and India but then its gonna go down. Especially when the competition can manufacture a superior products that costs less. I expect them to shrink to 10% of the market just like happened to them with PCs. The problem with a company with a leader like Steve Jobs is that when the leader dies it isn't easy to replace. There are just some things you can't teach someone to do. You have to BE someone. Their current CEO is a bean counter.
The difference is Apple did that with internal resources and minor acquisitions. Plus the products themselves were not that different from what they were used to building its still consumer electronics. To call a car a consumer electronics product is nonsensical.
IMO that works well when your strength is in manufacturing products. This is why Lenovo's aquisition of IBM worked. They are a vertically integrated company which can have much lower costs of manufacturing than IBM ever could all they needed was a brand to sell their own products. Apple is the complete opposite of that. For me it seems like utter nonsense to enter a different market like that.
One thing is to look at the next paradigm shift in your own industry. i.e. products that will replace your product at its target market application. Another wholly different thing is getting into a market which has *nothing* to do with your market. Then again this is Apple. Their current CEO is not a guy with any sort of college education or background into actually working in computer hardware or software products. He may actually try a dumbass ITT move like that.
iPhones and iPads make Apple an obscene amount of money and they are in a controlling position in the market. It should go without saying that they don't have "a deep desire to move away" from them. Add new product categories? Sure. Move away from iPhones and iPads? Nope.
No, but they realize that while the cash cow is iStuff, it won't be that way forever. Because just a little over 5 years ago, the cash cow was... iPods. Now iPods sell even less than Macs.
Oh yeah, 5 years before THAT, the hot cash cow was Macs.
The impetus is on Apple to find a new cash cow because it's obvious that iPhones and iPads aren't going to be generating the profits they used to.
The smartphone market is maturing, and the writing's on the wall - the money is still there, but it's diminishing. It's why everyone is trying everything to see what would stick. Like smart watches.
Apple knows the money from iPads and iPhones is drying up. They're looking for the next big thing because it's corporate suicide to keep relying on the old.
And one thing Apple does know - if the next big thing ends up hurting the iPad and iPhone sales, so be it - cannibalization will happen, sooner or later. better to embrace it than suffer from competitors eating you. (This happened with iPads - the low end Mac sales have deteriorated as people realized iPads suit them better than a low end Mac. Likewise, iPhones have pretty much killed the iPod).
Are you/the article saying that it is possible to have a single connection to your ISP, but for every computer, fridge, toaster, TV, etc. to have its own global IP address?
Yes, that is exactly how IPv6 is supposed to work.
And this is where fundamental assumption #1 of IPv6 falls flat. Even with IPv6, every endpoint will not be reachable.
This is the age of firewalls and all that (and even NAT provides a very basic level of firewalling). There's no guarantee that despite an endpoint having a publicly available address that it'll be reachable. Even today if a company has dozens of public IPv4 addresses for hosts, there's no guarantee that it'll be accessible.
Which means everything still breaks just as if NAT was present.
Even if IPv6 took the world over by storm, firewalls will still be around breaking connectivity. Even worse than NAT, you can't easily detect this condition. You might have a publicly visible address, but the firewall prevents you from establishing a connection. Or you may bind a port to serve something and the firewall blocks access.
In fact, the early days of NAT had those problems, but these days it's largely mitigated because of many techniques.
Possibly, but not necessarily even that. You could be set up to simply automatically generate IPv6 addresses from your MACs, and the ISP doesn't even explicitly grant you an address block.
But it may decide that you get a static IP and firewalls everything else off. E.g., even though you're advertised a
And finally, the biggest hurdle for IPv6 is NAT. Because NAT has a very nice side effect if you're maintaining a network of any size - it isolates internal network numbering for external network numbering. It doesn't matter what IP your ISP hands you for IPv4 - because NAT automatically hides it from internal clients. All they need to know is if they can see the router and magic happens.
With IPv6, you lose this handy feature - your ISP decides to change your prefix? Well, damn, they haven't done that in 5 years and now everything has been hardcoded with the old prefix in it - all your internal services used it.
flush the dns cache before you launch steam:
on a mac that command is:
sudo killall -HUP mDNSResponder
Except, mDNSResponder isn't a DNS cache. It's the multicast (hence "m") DNS server used by Bonjour/ZeroConfig.
It has zip to do with DNS caching other than storing what services are being made available on your machine to your network. It binds on a multicast IP.
Um, yes. In order to actually operate a Kickstarter project, you are required to give them details of an Amazon account. They only accept and transfer money via Amazon.
No, they use Amazon PAYMENTS, which while requiring an Amazon account, does not need the originating site to know it.
What happens is KickStarter forwards your pledge amount to Amazon. Amazon then asks you to log in and find out your method of payment and all that. It then gives the site back a payment token. Kickstarter uses that payment token to withdraw against the authorized amount (up to the limit which you agreed to when you agreed to the payment - Amazon knows it from the originating site and displays it to you so no shenanigans can take place).
So no, Kickstarter does not know your Amazon account information. Of course, for a lot of people, their Kickstarter login email is the same as their Amazon login...
And the Music industry isn't in a position to take on Google and Itunes and Amazon. Those three companies decide not to sell your crap-music, at your crap-prices, and you are pretty much dead in the water as a label.
Together, no. But individually, yes.
When iTunes was the only provider around and calling the shots, the music industry was afraid. Very afraid. So much so they cut Amazon a very sweetheart deal - sell music, but DRM-free, in an attempt to break up the grip iTunes had on digital distribution. It's why Apple had to cave and allow $1.29 tracks in order to get DRM-free music - Apple knows they no longer have pull with the industry with Amazon in the picture. And with two players, the industry can play each off each other.
Adding in Google Music, well, that's just a bonus topping - ensuring the music industry calls the shots, not Apple, Google nor Amazon. Because they'll be more busy competing with each other than trying o squeeze the industry.
The movie industry has seen what happened and it's why they're cutting deals with Netflix, Hulu, Vudu, Amazon, etc. But, in a twist, they're not allowing one service to "have it all" - they're ensuring content is distributed amongst all the players - if one gets too big, they cut back on its content and give it to someone else in the meantime.
3. Why then, do we have only 3 spatial dimensions?
This one is pretty easy. Math in 2 dimensions is fundamentally different from math in 3 dimensions. Certain functions which converge in 2D (e.g. a random wandering path will always eventually hit its starting point) will diverge in 3D (will usually never hit its starting point). It turns out that dimensions >3D mathematically act pretty much like 3D. So for most purposes there is no need to simulate more than 3 spatial dimensions.
Is there a chapter on why econ theory predicted Japan's 230% debt-to-gdp should have led to the failure of their state by now?
How about a chapter on why the IMF was right and Sachs was wrong about how to deal with Bolivia's hyperinflation?
Or maybe a chapter on why the Fed could create trillions in a matter of weeks in 2008, doubling their balance sheet, without affecting inflation?
Maybe a chapter on C. H. Douglas's Social Credit theory, in which money has become a ticketing system rather than a means of exchange?
According to economists, money is a medium of exchange. Douglas argued that this may have once been the case when the majority of wealth was produced by individuals who subsequently exchanged it with each other. But in modern economies, division of labour splits production into multiple processes, and wealth is produced by people working in association with each other. For instance, an automobile worker does not produce any wealth (i.e., the automobile) by himself, but only in conjunction with other auto workers, the producers of roads, gasoline, insurance, etc. In this view, wealth is a pool upon which people can draw, and money becomes a ticketing system. The efficiency gained by individuals cooperating in the productive process was coined by Douglas as the “unearned increment of association” – historic accumulations of which constitute what Douglas called the cultural heritage. The means of drawing upon this pool is money distributed by the banking system.
Right now, it's great for the lenders, because they've rigged the system so that most people have an artificial scarcity of money imposed upon them.
The problem is not production capacity, it's scarcity thinking, and exerting control over others.
Why should an increase in the money supply devalue the dollar in my pocket? If today there are X amount of dollars, and tomorrow there are 2*X dollars, why do prices have to rise?
Inflation is psychological, not a physical necessity. If a shopkeeper decides to raise prices because there is more money, that's a choice, not a necessary consequence. The choice is basically saying "I want certain people not to be able to afford what I'm selling, so I'll raise prices until they can't."
The way to fight the psychology of inflation is through indexing. Make it seamless and automatic, and use some sort of trick like Brazil used with the Real (see http://www.npr.org/blogs/money...). Since money can be stored on cards, no wheelbarrows full of paper are necessary. It can all be handled behind the scenes so that people aren't even aware of inflation.
Eventually, those raising prices will realize they have to get attention some other way than by trying to create an artificial scarcity.
How long does it take a DEC field service engineer to change a lightbulb? It depends on how many bad ones he brought with him.