Maybe just missing a "0" -- should be "100 times", but even that's low. Mach 10 is around 6600 mph "where the jets go" and 7700 at sea level.
Of course, escape velocity is 25,000 mph (no friction from the air factored in), but (and I didn't read tfa) it seemed like they want to come back (maybe like a really big boomerang?), so I don't think it matters.
Just for grins, if the thing is launched at a 45 degree angle, it should reach a maximum height of approximately 185 miles, and travel a distance of around 750 miles (every done in US measurements for you).
It will do that in 8 minutes. All presuming no air, which does tend to mess with the calculation a bit:) Still, to accelerate to Mach 10 on a rail? That's something I really want to see! If the projectile weighed in at 1kg (2.2 lbs), the resulting hit would be equivalent to an explosion of 3 lbs of TNT (again, no air resistance factored in).
And, in response to the inevitable "there's just no time or will to use FOSS". Just use Fedora.
The Fedora group cares about the software freedom, and integrates the whole thing for you into a working system. If you are an NGO, go ahead and contact them -- they may even be delighted to support you directly.
The "Internet" provides a pipe into my network. My network is secure. I am not sure how anyone would go and secure the inter-networking connection between my network and others. Well, yes, I can see the value of hardening the infrastructure (protecting fiber-optic and cable links). And, taking this literally, that is the meaning.
But, for some reason, I am sure that is not what is meant. What I suspect is that anyone who connects to the main backbones, or a subsidiary will need to have some confirmation that they will not be a source of "attacks". (leading us to attempt to define what "attack" means).
Maybe the US will finally secure its own government computers (preventing the fiasco started by McKinnon).
I am still not sure what "securing the Internet" means.
You are running a FILM BUSINESS. Wouldn't it be wise to have cameras, lighting, grip, costumes, makeup and props at hand? Now, I don't have those things at hand, because it's not my business. Still, if I get into the business, and I wanted to increase profits, I would certainly invest that way.
I work as a staff engineer -- my company does a lot of contract placements, but retains me on staff. Why would they do that, when they could pay twice as much to get a contractor to do my job?
Why not create a company to make the movie, and then rent it cameras, lighting, and the rest from other companies that you own? Begin pulling money out of it from the beginning. Then, to finance the movie, lend the filmmaker money (which you get back right away -- remember, you are the one renting the stuff TO the filmmaker). Charge interest on the money being lent as well. Of course, this has a couple of effects -- first, it inflates the cost of making the movie (on paper). Second, you get to collect the interest, and third, you get your money right away. Which reduces the studios risk. Next, the costs of those necessary support services are inflated, because each of the "shells" has to turn a profit. But all the profit goes into the profit of the movie. Early. It doesn't matter whether the movie "makes money" in the end...
To quote the wikipedia link:
"Winston Groom's price for the screenplay rights to his novel Forrest Gump included a share of the profits; however, due to Hollywood accounting, the film's commercial success was converted into a net loss, and Groom received nothing.[7] That being so, he has refused to sell the screenplay rights to the novel's sequel, stating that he "cannot in good conscience allow money to be wasted on a failure"."
"Film versions: The feature version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was released in Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland earlier this year and has become an enormous success, seen by over 2.5 million people to date. Two follow-ups were originally filmed for television in 2x90- minute episodes, as was the feature film."
Now, the follow-ups have also been released as a feature film, but made money AS TV PRODUCTIONS. Are you telling me that this cost $15M * 3? No way it ran into 15 million. Look, 2.5 million viewers is considered "an enormous success" here.
Yes, NoScript blocks Flash. But... if you want to make an exception and allow a site privilege to run scripts, Flashblock still disallows "random" flash. You have to click "allow this flash" to have it work. This means that (for example) on some sites you can have commenting features, while still not allowing Flashy bits from playing. It's probably doable with just NoScript... but combining these two makes it easy and (reasonably) painless.
You then get into the "habit" of having to explicitly allow any Flash bits to go.
Thanks for the heads-up on RequestPolicy. I'll look into it.
Actually, I like the current state of things. Since most "Webizens" are not using cookie blockers, I can, and they are very effective. All I have to do is not be the "low-hanging fruit".
Note though, that the level of control would be confusing to most users. Everything from "text-only, no cookies", though "limited javascript, but no trackers", to "fully trusted".
ATI the oldest surviving brand? What about Matrox? From Wikipedia:
"Matrox's first graphics card product was the ALT-256 for S-100 bus computers, released in 1978."
Matrox is (as ATI was) a Canadian company founded in 1976, but it never went public (still privately held). ATI was founded in 1985. But, unlike ATI, Matrox is still around, and still a surviving company, as well as a brand.
The PROCESS is Creative Commons licensed. Not the tools. Ok, but you know what? I would never have taken Microsoft as an example of a company whose secure coding practice I would want to follow.
Just sayin'
And why bother with a CC license for this? Just publish the practice, and don't take out "business process" patents. Microsoft did that with "Code Complete".
Anyway, I now have to read the frakkin stuff, just to stay on top of it. Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised...
"Conceptually the first and second stages are part of the same program, on the same area of the disk. Because of space constraints they have been split into two, but you would always install them together. They are copied from the combined file/boot/boot by the installer or bsdlabel (see below).
They are located outside file systems, in the first track of the boot slice, starting with the first sector. This is where boot0, or any other boot manager, expects to find a program to run which will continue the boot process. The number of sectors used is easily determined from the size of/boot/boot."
The FreeBSD booting mechanism on the x86 does the SAME thing as GRUB. It can also use LILO for booting.
Your comment is not warranted. A Windows dual-boot with such a "bad program" could possibly damage a FreeBSD boot loader as well.
LILO put the blocks addresses of the boot file into the boot loader. Of course, this has two major problems:
1 - Every time the boot file is updated, the boot loader needed to be updated. A simple command sufficed. But this problem absolutely PAILED in the face of the second issue... 2 - The boot file was limited in size, Only a fixed number of addresses could be coded into the boot file. But, this problem was partially "fixed" by the third issue: 3 - (I did two MAJOR problems, this is a minor issue). The boot loader operates in REAL mode on the x86. As a result, the code must load under 640K. But, since the boot file is of limited size ANYWAY, this one really didn't matter so much.
Of course, since the "MBR loader" is under 1 sector (the forced jump, checksum, and primary partition areas do take space, and these are BIOS-checked), there really isn't even room for a device driver. This code is pretty much forced to work in real-mode, but that's actually a good thing -- it can make use of BIOS interrupts for the disc handling. But...
4 - The boot is limited to a BIOS reachable (disc geometry) region. That is why some OSs MUST be loaded into the first 528MB (or so, it's really been a while since I've looked at this crap, sue me if the actual is different) region.
Now, different OSs attempt to get around these limitations in different ways. A boot loader can chain to a partition-specific boot loader, which serves to "push" the issues. Some OSs (cough, DOS, cough) simply force the OS image to be contiguous and the first thing in a partition. But, users don't (generally) WANT to be bothered with these issues. Where the OS is physically resident, HOW it loads, and how to keep its size within constraints. Linux can be built with built-in drivers, minimal drivers, etc. Using many different file systems...
So, GRUB attempts to address these issues. If you think you can do better (and, from your fairly arrogant tone, I think you do think so), have at it.
"Users may copy or modify Sun RPC without charge, but are not authorized to license or distribute it to anyone else except as part of a product or program developed by the user."
which breaks most definitions of "free software". You can't give it to someone else without having used it in something, or wrapped it up with something. The new license is a 3-part BSD standard.
I honestly don't care if Flash is support on Apple portable devices. But...
It's not Flash. Apple ALSO denies the ability to create with Flash, and convert to straight iPhone/Touch applications. The fear is (most think) that Apple will somehow lose control of the development process.
You said: "If Flash didn't have the long list of failings, I think it would be on the iDevices."
A native iPhone/iPad compilation of Flash into native code would not have that "long list of failings". Yet it still isn't allowed. I wouldn't code an iPhone/iPad application in C. Much as I wouldn't code a GUI application for my damn netbook in C either. Python, TCL/TK, Scheme, something reasonable would be better. Even Flash (I consider it better than native C, although it isn't particularly pretty). Python, Scheme and Flash can be compiled to C. But that still isn't good enough for Apple.
So, these platforms are just not suitable for me. The "walled garden" may be suitable for you; have fun in it.
Ok, we have established that Linux and Mainframe platforms don't "blow" with J2EE application servers, right? Your claim is focussed:
"all J2EE servers BLOW on windows"
Here is a white paper detailing a migration from SUN SPARC using Solaris and WebLogic to Dell running Windows 2000. Notice the performance improvement, and the author doesn't detail any problems with WebLogic on the Dell Windows platform.
Like I said, just give me some (small) supporting evidence (a bug report, a rumour, whatever). Crashing, installation, or performance issues welcome. Anything.
Sorry (reply to myself) -- it's a tail call, so by definition, we don't need to keep "old_p" around. Since the exit point MUST be the end of the function, simply because the return point itself must be rendered irrelevant to the call. Therefore, there is never a need to restore the old binding for p, and we can simply assign (p = newval) prior to the loop back.
My bad -- I must have been in an alternate reality while typing the above.
Thanks for the description. I definitely see your point. Marking a tail call to allow the elimination of a stack frame, and allow static verification.
But, mutual recursive functions that are compiled separately cannot be so marked. Of course, attempting to check for stack non-growth is probably not included -- the call can only be marked as a tail call if it is within the same source unit, and when doing the analysis prior to marking it has already been determined that no stack growth would be needed. The tail call marking can, however, be used to suppress any frame reallocation. By definition, there will then be no frame growth, as all bound variables simply have their previous binding.
Still, this appears a complicated way of doing it.
Consider:
func() {... func(); }
can simply be replaced by:
func() { for(;;) {... } }
and, the second case is already accommodated by the compiler. Of course the parameters may need to be rebound, without rebinding anything else. Which (since no further frames are to be created) is as simple as:
func(int p) {... func(new_p); }
becomes
func(int p) { int p_old; for(;;) {... p_old = p; p = new_p; } }
(or thereabouts, note that you can use the equivalent to C's "continue" to good effect). Anyway, with a tail call flag, I would assume it looks like this:
func(int p) {... func(new_p, tail_call=true); }
Note that we are still missing somewhere to stuff the previous binding for p (old_p) on the tail call. In the "simplistic" approach, this storage is rather explicit. As far as flow is concerned, I still don't quite understand -- the compiler had to be aware anyway. So, I still don't understand why it is considered a feature.
Although I haven't really thought about it, maybe inter-method tail calls? Maybe someone with Microsoft.Net VM experience can jump in and explain (I don't have the time to plow into Mono right now).
Since I generally compile to C, and the second method requires poking the call machinery, I tend to like my original formulation. Still,.Net is a VM and not a compiler (although it does JIT compile, right?), so it's not a big deal.
(What is likely is that I have missed something, possibly obvious, and need enlightenment).
Thanks in advance Ratboy666 - deep down and full access
"too bad all the Java application servers blow on anything but Unix... so in reality... with Java you get Unix OSs"
J2EE application servers are available on Windows Server, Solaris, HP-UX, RedHat Linux (and other Linux distributions), AIX, OS/2, OS/390, OS/400.
Are you telling me that the two Mainframe servers aren't stable? That the Linux (JBoss or WebSphere) isn't stable? And, if a J2EE server (WebSphere or WebLogic) is blowing up on Windows Server, I would really like to know.
- Supported on Unix, Linux, Windows, z/OS, including AIX, HP-UX and Solaris. - Supported on Blackberry, and other hand-held devices.
And, no, Rotor doesn't really cut it for support. For some limited uses, Mono on Linux may be usable, but.Net has very little, if any, penetration into z/OS, AIX, HP-UX and Solaris.
So, it's fairly reasonable to not bother supporting "ultra-portable" programming. After all, if its single-platform, just build it there to begin with. Just like the iOS platform.
As developers go, celebrate, because this de-emphasis just increased the value of your skills.
As to the feature comparison of the Java vs..Net run-time -- sure, "unsafe pointers" would have been useful to me. I wrote a COBOL-85 to JVM compiler, and the biggest performance issue is that data can, and often does, overlap in COBOL. Note that COBOL-85 doesn't have pointers, just redeclaration. This forces "interpreted" retyped access -- my compiler isn't smart enough to know when an overlap can happen. However, the primary target platforms are AIX and Solaris, so the feature remains... elusive.
I am curious about your claim for "tail call support". Mostly, compilers are smart enough to replace a pure tail call with a simple transfer, and the run-time doesn't have to be aware. If the optimization is contemplated, there cannot be any partial results needed, and this must be maintained through the entire recursive sequence (direct tail call, or through another function). How does the run-time itself assist with this?
The concept is in Unix, including Linux, and probably in Windows - COW (copy-on-write) pages... fork() uses COW, vfork() shares the entire address space (but suspends the parent).
$ man vfork
[snip]
Historic Description
Under Linux, fork(2) is implemented using copy-on-write pages, so the
only penalty incurred by fork(2) is the time and memory required to
duplicate the parent's page tables, and to create a unique task struc-
ture for the child. However, in the bad old days a fork(2) would
require making a complete copy of the caller's data space, often need-
lessly, since usually immediately afterwards an exec(3) is done. Thus,
for greater efficiency, BSD introduced the vfork() system call, which
did not fully copy the address space of the parent process, but bor-
rowed the parent's memory and thread of control until a call to
execve(2) or an exit occurred. The parent process was suspended while
the child was using its resources. The use of vfork() was tricky: for
example, not modifying data in the parent process depended on knowing
which variables are held in a register.
The money is the ONLY reason. It must be, since the ones promoting this are corporations, and it isn't a benefit otherwise.
As to key revocation -- sure, why not? But, existing material can still be decoded. Of course, "official" players would then have to be updated to play new discs. Which gives a very bad "out-of-the-box" experience. Imagine you (accidentally) purchased a new disc, and an old-stock player. Take it home, and discover that your Blue-Ray won't play Blue-Ray.
Until you attach it to the internet with an ethernet cable. Or give it an update on a USB stick, or order a special Blue-Ray from the manufacturer. Oops, you discover that your model is two years old, and no further updates are being done...
Which means that key revocation and crypto changes will be very unlikely, or applied very rarely. The only solution to the model issue is to ensure that all models run the same crypto code. Of course, this makes it easier to crack. Different machines will use different processors, as part of the normal cost reduction process. Which means the crypto code will have to be written in a p-code system which is slow and interferes with the goal of cost-reduction, or in a separate chip, which then becomes the weak link since all hardware players would have the same chip. But PC players don't have the chip (although there is a push to include such things in PC's as well), which means software players would have to be disallowed.
Or, the Blue-Ray vendors simply ignore the model issue, and apply revocation, thus rendering players automatically obsolete. Would you want to deal with the backlash? I don't think this would work in Europe anyway -- fitness of purpose is a consumer right there. Or, vendors could promise to support players "forever". I would buy a European player, just to be sure to be able to play upcoming Blue-Ray titles.
"Normally", encryption keys are controlled by a secured trusted key appliance. If the key is destroyed on the appliance, the data on a drive or tape is rendered worthless. But this puts the key in the drive, and allows invalidation (or destruction) of the key on power-off.
The idea is that the drive can be effectively wiped in a single command, rather than having to overwrite all the data on it. What I don't know (but expect) is that the crypto key can be retrieved and sent to the drive.
So, my expected usage case is:
1 - On system start, identify user 2 - Authenticate with key server 3 - Retrieve hard drive key, and send to drive 4 - Immediately send "WIPE" command
Now, if anyone powers down the system, the drive becomes de-keyed and useless. About the only physical attack left is to ensure that the drive remains powered if it is removed (or the system remains powered). But this effectively secures "hot-swap" drives in servers.
Reading the article and some of the fine links (note that quotes are marked, but not attributed) -- to quote one (on identify theft):
"Identity theft is on the rise nationwide, yet in a report released Tuesday, federal investigators lament that the Department of Justice's (DOJ) efforts to combat such crimes have to some degree "faded as priorities."
According to the DOJ's Office of the Inspector General (IG), many of the suggestions pitched in 2006 by then-President George W. Bush's task force on identity theft have yet to be implemented fully. As of March, the agency had not even appointed an official to oversee those efforts, according to the report.
Moreover, changes in how the FBI handles related investigations have resulted in an atmosphere in which "the specific crime of identity theft is not an FBI priority," investigators said."
Now, Copyright violation is a civil matter, and identify theft is a crime:
"Well, isn't this just great. Just a little while back, the Justice Department announced that fighting "intellectual property crime" was a major priority. At the time, we wondered if there weren't more important things for the DOJ to be working on. The answer is yes, of course, but the Justice Department has apparently decided to push them off the priority list. A new report on identity fraud notes that it has "faded" as a priority for the DOJ and the FBI. Ah, right, the stuff that actually harms individuals directly and isn't a civil or business model issue? Why focus on that when you can prop up your friends in Hollywood?"
And, yes, the FBI has a horrible backlog (2 years, according to the OIG, if no new cases come in). So, why is the FBI investing in a private police force (for civil matters)? This is a new mission:
"Attorney General Eric Holder Friday announced the creation of a Justice Department intellectual property task force to better tackle domestic and international piracy and other IP crimes. "The rise in intellectual property crime in the United States and abroad threatens not only our public safety but also our economic well being," Holder said in a statement. "This Task Force will allow us to identify and implement a multi-faceted strategy with our federal, state and international partners to effectively combat this type of crime."
Is this not the very definition of prioritization? Yes, I would say that Copyright has been prioritized over missing persons. There was no need to create a Copyright private police force, and an acknowledged need to bolster DNA analysis.
The Washington Post, which can (reasonably) be taken as a measure of US opinion, is calling for Assange to be "brought to justice" as a "terrorist" and a "criminal syndicate". As well, the Washington Post is suggesting that "military assets" be used in bringing Mr. Assange to justice.
Under this sort of pressure, what is Mr. Assange to do? He has chosen a "MAD" approach -- forcing the US to leave him alone, and, since the US is the "big kid" here, forcing the US to provide him protection.
And that is what the "insurance" file is all about. If anyone is to blame, I would think that the Washington Post should be considered. What did they think would be gained by this op-ed piece?
Especially, considering that they referenced Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates: "Assange had a "moral culpability" for the harm he has caused", indicating that the weight of the US government was behind these statements.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe just missing a "0" -- should be "100 times", but even that's low. Mach 10 is around 6600 mph "where the jets go" and 7700 at sea level.
Of course, escape velocity is 25,000 mph (no friction from the air factored in), but (and I didn't read tfa) it seemed like they want to come back (maybe like a really big boomerang?), so I don't think it matters.
Just for grins, if the thing is launched at a 45 degree angle, it should reach a maximum height of approximately 185 miles, and travel a distance of around 750 miles (every done in US measurements for you).
It will do that in 8 minutes. All presuming no air, which does tend to mess with the calculation a bit :) Still, to accelerate to Mach 10 on a rail? That's something I really want to see! If the projectile weighed in at 1kg (2.2 lbs), the resulting hit would be equivalent to an explosion of 3 lbs of TNT (again, no air resistance factored in).
That's all I got... now I might go read TFA...
And, in response to the inevitable "there's just no time or will to use FOSS". Just use Fedora.
The Fedora group cares about the software freedom, and integrates the whole thing for you into a working system. If you are an NGO, go ahead and contact them -- they may even be delighted to support you directly.
No, the internet is not secure.
Africa can be cut off with EASSy http://www.eassy.org/
Or, if you want to disrupt Stanford (Palo Alto)
http://personalpages.manchester.ac.uk/staff/m.dodge/cybergeography/atlas/paloalto_fibre_largemap.gif
As far as I know, none of this stuff is "secure". And, I am sure that you can find fiber maps for your neighborhood as well.
The "Internet" provides a pipe into my network. My network is secure. I am not sure how anyone would go and secure the inter-networking connection between my network and others. Well, yes, I can see the value of hardening the infrastructure (protecting fiber-optic and cable links). And, taking this literally, that is the meaning.
But, for some reason, I am sure that is not what is meant. What I suspect is that anyone who connects to the main backbones, or a subsidiary will need to have some confirmation that they will not be a source of "attacks". (leading us to attempt to define what "attack" means).
Maybe the US will finally secure its own government computers (preventing the fiasco started by McKinnon).
I am still not sure what "securing the Internet" means.
You are running a FILM BUSINESS. Wouldn't it be wise to have cameras, lighting, grip, costumes, makeup and props at hand? Now, I don't have those things at hand, because it's not my business. Still, if I get into the business, and I wanted to increase profits, I would certainly invest that way.
I work as a staff engineer -- my company does a lot of contract placements, but retains me on staff. Why would they do that, when they could pay twice as much to get a contractor to do my job?
However, "Hollywood accounting" pulls through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
Why not create a company to make the movie, and then rent it cameras, lighting, and the rest from other companies that you own? Begin pulling money out of it from the beginning. Then, to finance the movie, lend the filmmaker money (which you get back right away -- remember, you are the one renting the stuff TO the filmmaker). Charge interest on the money being lent as well. Of course, this has a couple of effects -- first, it inflates the cost of making the movie (on paper). Second, you get to collect the interest, and third, you get your money right away. Which reduces the studios risk. Next, the costs of those necessary support services are inflated, because each of the "shells" has to turn a profit. But all the profit goes into the profit of the movie. Early. It doesn't matter whether the movie "makes money" in the end...
To quote the wikipedia link:
"Winston Groom's price for the screenplay rights to his novel Forrest Gump included a share of the profits; however, due to Hollywood accounting, the film's commercial success was converted into a net loss, and Groom received nothing.[7] That being so, he has refused to sell the screenplay rights to the novel's sequel, stating that he "cannot in good conscience allow money to be wasted on a failure"."
To quote http://www.sfi.se/PageFiles/8729/SwedishFilm2_2009.pdf which is a Filmgate propaganda piece. It's hard to know the exact amounts.
"Film versions: The feature
version of The Girl with the Dragon
Tattoo was released in Sweden,
Norway, Denmark and Finland
earlier this year and has become
an enormous success, seen by
over 2.5 million people to date.
Two follow-ups were originally
filmed for television in 2x90-
minute episodes, as was the
feature film."
Now, the follow-ups have also been released as a feature film, but made money AS TV PRODUCTIONS. Are you telling me that this cost $15M * 3? No way it ran into 15 million. Look, 2.5 million viewers is considered "an enormous success" here.
Flashblock does have its own whitelist.
Yes, NoScript blocks Flash. But... if you want to make an exception and allow a site privilege to run scripts, Flashblock still disallows "random" flash. You have to click "allow this flash" to have it work. This means that (for example) on some sites you can have commenting features, while still not allowing Flashy bits from playing. It's probably doable with just NoScript... but combining these two makes it easy and (reasonably) painless.
You then get into the "habit" of having to explicitly allow any Flash bits to go.
Thanks for the heads-up on RequestPolicy. I'll look into it.
Actually, I like the current state of things. Since most "Webizens" are not using cookie blockers, I can, and they are very effective. All I have to do is not be the "low-hanging fruit".
NoScript, CookieSafe, Ghostery, ImageBlock, Flashblock, Adblock Plus, BetterPrivacy
Which is why I still use Firefox.
Note though, that the level of control would be confusing to most users. Everything from "text-only, no cookies", though "limited javascript, but no trackers", to "fully trusted".
ATI the oldest surviving brand? What about Matrox? From Wikipedia:
"Matrox's first graphics card product was the ALT-256 for S-100 bus computers, released in 1978."
Matrox is (as ATI was) a Canadian company founded in 1976, but it never went public (still privately held). ATI was founded in 1985. But, unlike ATI, Matrox is still around, and still a surviving company, as well as a brand.
The PROCESS is Creative Commons licensed. Not the tools. Ok, but you know what? I would never have taken Microsoft as an example of a company whose secure coding practice I would want to follow.
Just sayin'
And why bother with a CC license for this? Just publish the practice, and don't take out "business process" patents. Microsoft did that with "Code Complete".
Anyway, I now have to read the frakkin stuff, just to stay on top of it. Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised...
I hope
Let me quote from the FreeBSD manual: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/boot-blocks.html
"Conceptually the first and second stages are part of the same program, on the same area of the disk. Because of space constraints they have been split into two, but you would always install them together. They are copied from the combined file /boot/boot by the installer or bsdlabel (see below).
They are located outside file systems, in the first track of the boot slice, starting with the first sector. This is where boot0, or any other boot manager, expects to find a program to run which will continue the boot process. The number of sectors used is easily determined from the size of /boot/boot."
The FreeBSD booting mechanism on the x86 does the SAME thing as GRUB. It can also use LILO for booting.
Your comment is not warranted. A Windows dual-boot with such a "bad program" could possibly damage a FreeBSD boot loader as well.
LILO put the blocks addresses of the boot file into the boot loader. Of course, this has two major problems:
1 - Every time the boot file is updated, the boot loader needed to be updated. A simple command sufficed. But this problem absolutely PAILED in the face of the second issue...
2 - The boot file was limited in size, Only a fixed number of addresses could be coded into the boot file. But, this problem was partially "fixed" by the third issue:
3 - (I did two MAJOR problems, this is a minor issue). The boot loader operates in REAL mode on the x86. As a result, the code must load under 640K. But, since the boot file is of limited size ANYWAY, this one really didn't matter so much.
Of course, since the "MBR loader" is under 1 sector (the forced jump, checksum, and primary partition areas do take space, and these are BIOS-checked), there really isn't even room for a device driver. This code is pretty much forced to work in real-mode, but that's actually a good thing -- it can make use of BIOS interrupts for the disc handling. But...
4 - The boot is limited to a BIOS reachable (disc geometry) region. That is why some OSs MUST be loaded into the first 528MB (or so, it's really been a while since I've looked at this crap, sue me if the actual is different) region.
Now, different OSs attempt to get around these limitations in different ways. A boot loader can chain to a partition-specific boot loader, which serves to "push" the issues. Some OSs (cough, DOS, cough) simply force the OS image to be contiguous and the first thing in a partition. But, users don't (generally) WANT to be bothered with these issues. Where the OS is physically resident, HOW it loads, and how to keep its size within constraints. Linux can be built with built-in drivers, minimal drivers, etc. Using many different file systems...
So, GRUB attempts to address these issues. If you think you can do better (and, from your fairly arrogant tone, I think you do think so), have at it.
The original license said:
"Users may copy or modify Sun RPC without charge, but are not authorized to license or distribute it to anyone else except as part of a product or program developed by the user."
which breaks most definitions of "free software". You can't give it to someone else without having used it in something, or wrapped it up with something. The new license is a 3-part BSD standard.
I honestly don't care if Flash is support on Apple portable devices. But...
It's not Flash. Apple ALSO denies the ability to create with Flash, and convert to straight iPhone/Touch applications. The fear is (most think) that Apple will somehow lose control of the development process.
You said: "If Flash didn't have the long list of failings, I think it would be on the iDevices."
A native iPhone/iPad compilation of Flash into native code would not have that "long list of failings". Yet it still isn't allowed. I wouldn't code an iPhone/iPad application in C. Much as I wouldn't code a GUI application for my damn netbook in C either. Python, TCL/TK, Scheme, something reasonable would be better. Even Flash (I consider it better than native C, although it isn't particularly pretty). Python, Scheme and Flash can be compiled to C. But that still isn't good enough for Apple.
So, these platforms are just not suitable for me. The "walled garden" may be suitable for you; have fun in it.
Ok, we have established that Linux and Mainframe platforms don't "blow" with J2EE application servers, right? Your claim is focussed:
"all J2EE servers BLOW on windows"
Here is a white paper detailing a migration from SUN SPARC using Solaris and WebLogic to Dell running Windows 2000. Notice the performance improvement, and the author doesn't detail any problems with WebLogic on the Dell Windows platform.
http://ftp.dell.com/app/2q01-Jaf.pdf
Like I said, just give me some (small) supporting evidence (a bug report, a rumour, whatever). Crashing, installation, or performance issues welcome. Anything.
Sorry (reply to myself) -- it's a tail call, so by definition, we don't need to keep "old_p" around. Since the exit point MUST be the end of the function, simply because the return point itself must be rendered irrelevant to the call. Therefore, there is never a need to restore the old binding for p, and we can simply assign (p = newval) prior to the loop back.
My bad -- I must have been in an alternate reality while typing the above.
Ratboy666
Thanks for the description. I definitely see your point. Marking a tail call to allow the elimination of a stack frame, and allow static verification.
But, mutual recursive functions that are compiled separately cannot be so marked. Of course, attempting to check for stack non-growth is probably not included -- the call can only be marked as a tail call if it is within the same source unit, and when doing the analysis prior to marking it has already been determined that no stack growth would be needed. The tail call marking can, however, be used to suppress any frame reallocation. By definition, there will then be no frame growth, as all bound variables simply have their previous binding.
Still, this appears a complicated way of doing it.
Consider:
func() { ... func(); }
can simply be replaced by:
func() { for(;;) { ... } }
and, the second case is already accommodated by the compiler. Of course the parameters may need to be rebound, without rebinding anything else. Which (since no further frames are to be created) is as simple as:
func(int p) { ... func(new_p); }
becomes
func(int p) { int p_old; for(;;) { ... p_old = p; p = new_p; } }
(or thereabouts, note that you can use the equivalent to C's "continue" to good effect). Anyway, with a tail call flag, I would assume it looks like this:
func(int p) { ... func(new_p, tail_call=true); }
Note that we are still missing somewhere to stuff the previous binding for p (old_p) on the tail call. In the "simplistic" approach, this storage is rather explicit. As far as flow is concerned, I still don't quite understand -- the compiler had to be aware anyway. So, I still don't understand why it is considered a feature.
Although I haven't really thought about it, maybe inter-method tail calls? Maybe someone with Microsoft .Net VM experience can jump in and explain (I don't have the time to plow into Mono right now).
Since I generally compile to C, and the second method requires poking the call machinery, I tend to like my original formulation. Still, .Net is a VM and not a compiler (although it does JIT compile, right?), so it's not a big deal.
(What is likely is that I have missed something, possibly obvious, and need enlightenment).
Thanks in advance
Ratboy666 - deep down and full access
"too bad all the Java application servers blow on anything but Unix... so in reality... with Java you get Unix OSs"
J2EE application servers are available on Windows Server, Solaris, HP-UX, RedHat Linux (and other Linux distributions), AIX, OS/2, OS/390, OS/400.
Are you telling me that the two Mainframe servers aren't stable? That the Linux (JBoss or WebSphere) isn't stable? And, if a J2EE server (WebSphere or WebLogic) is blowing up on Windows Server, I would really like to know.
Back up your claim, please.
Positive things Java has over .Net:
- Supported on Unix, Linux, Windows, z/OS, including AIX, HP-UX and Solaris.
- Supported on Blackberry, and other hand-held devices.
And, no, Rotor doesn't really cut it for support. For some limited uses, Mono on Linux may be usable, but .Net has very little, if any, penetration into z/OS, AIX, HP-UX and Solaris.
So, it's fairly reasonable to not bother supporting "ultra-portable" programming. After all, if its single-platform, just build it there to begin with. Just like the iOS platform.
As developers go, celebrate, because this de-emphasis just increased the value of your skills.
As to the feature comparison of the Java vs. .Net run-time -- sure, "unsafe pointers" would have been useful to me. I wrote a COBOL-85 to JVM compiler, and the biggest performance issue is that data can, and often does, overlap in COBOL. Note that COBOL-85 doesn't have pointers, just redeclaration. This forces "interpreted" retyped access -- my compiler isn't smart enough to know when an overlap can happen. However, the primary target platforms are AIX and Solaris, so the feature remains... elusive.
I am curious about your claim for "tail call support". Mostly, compilers are smart enough to replace a pure tail call with a simple transfer, and the run-time doesn't have to be aware. If the optimization is contemplated, there cannot be any partial results needed, and this must be maintained through the entire recursive sequence (direct tail call, or through another function). How does the run-time itself assist with this?
Yes, we pay attention...
The concept is in Unix, including Linux, and probably in Windows - COW (copy-on-write) pages...
fork() uses COW, vfork() shares the entire address space (but suspends the parent).
$ man vfork
[snip]
Historic Description
Under Linux, fork(2) is implemented using copy-on-write pages, so the
only penalty incurred by fork(2) is the time and memory required to
duplicate the parent's page tables, and to create a unique task struc-
ture for the child. However, in the bad old days a fork(2) would
require making a complete copy of the caller's data space, often need-
lessly, since usually immediately afterwards an exec(3) is done. Thus,
for greater efficiency, BSD introduced the vfork() system call, which
did not fully copy the address space of the parent process, but bor-
rowed the parent's memory and thread of control until a call to
execve(2) or an exit occurred. The parent process was suspended while
the child was using its resources. The use of vfork() was tricky: for
example, not modifying data in the parent process depended on knowing
which variables are held in a register.
[snip]
The money is the ONLY reason. It must be, since the ones promoting this are corporations, and it isn't a benefit otherwise.
As to key revocation -- sure, why not? But, existing material can still be decoded. Of course, "official" players would then have to be updated to play new discs. Which gives a very bad "out-of-the-box" experience. Imagine you (accidentally) purchased a new disc, and an old-stock player. Take it home, and discover that your Blue-Ray won't play Blue-Ray.
Until you attach it to the internet with an ethernet cable. Or give it an update on a USB stick, or order a special Blue-Ray from the manufacturer. Oops, you discover that your model is two years old, and no further updates are being done...
Which means that key revocation and crypto changes will be very unlikely, or applied very rarely. The only solution to the model issue is to ensure that all models run the same crypto code. Of course, this makes it easier to crack. Different machines will use different processors, as part of the normal cost reduction process. Which means the crypto code will have to be written in a p-code system which is slow and interferes with the goal of cost-reduction, or in a separate chip, which then becomes the weak link since all hardware players would have the same chip. But PC players don't have the chip (although there is a push to include such things in PC's as well), which means software players would have to be disallowed.
Or, the Blue-Ray vendors simply ignore the model issue, and apply revocation, thus rendering players automatically obsolete. Would you want to deal with the backlash? I don't think this would work in Europe anyway -- fitness of purpose is a consumer right there. Or, vendors could promise to support players "forever". I would buy a European player, just to be sure to be able to play upcoming Blue-Ray titles.
Just sayin', Revocation won't be common...
And it's STILL the money.
No, it's likely exactly that.
"Normally", encryption keys are controlled by a secured trusted key appliance. If the key is destroyed on the appliance, the data on a drive or tape is rendered worthless. But this puts the key in the drive, and allows invalidation (or destruction) of the key on power-off.
The idea is that the drive can be effectively wiped in a single command, rather than having to overwrite all the data on it. What I don't know (but expect) is that the crypto key can be retrieved and sent to the drive.
So, my expected usage case is:
1 - On system start, identify user
2 - Authenticate with key server
3 - Retrieve hard drive key, and send to drive
4 - Immediately send "WIPE" command
Now, if anyone powers down the system, the drive becomes de-keyed and useless. About the only physical attack left is to ensure that the drive remains powered if it is removed (or the system remains powered). But this effectively secures "hot-swap" drives in servers.
I am looking forward to this.
Reading the article and some of the fine links (note that quotes are marked, but not attributed) -- to quote one (on identify theft):
"Identity theft is on the rise nationwide, yet in a report released Tuesday, federal investigators lament that the Department of Justice's (DOJ) efforts to combat such crimes have to some degree "faded as priorities."
According to the DOJ's Office of the Inspector General (IG), many of the suggestions pitched in 2006 by then-President George W. Bush's task force on identity theft have yet to be implemented fully. As of March, the agency had not even appointed an official to oversee those efforts, according to the report.
Moreover, changes in how the FBI handles related investigations have resulted in an atmosphere in which "the specific crime of identity theft is not an FBI priority," investigators said."
Now, Copyright violation is a civil matter, and identify theft is a crime:
"Well, isn't this just great. Just a little while back, the Justice Department announced that fighting "intellectual property crime" was a major priority. At the time, we wondered if there weren't more important things for the DOJ to be working on. The answer is yes, of course, but the Justice Department has apparently decided to push them off the priority list. A new report on identity fraud notes that it has "faded" as a priority for the DOJ and the FBI. Ah, right, the stuff that actually harms individuals directly and isn't a civil or business model issue? Why focus on that when you can prop up your friends in Hollywood?"
And, yes, the FBI has a horrible backlog (2 years, according to the OIG, if no new cases come in). So, why is the FBI investing in a private police force (for civil matters)? This is a new mission:
"Attorney General Eric Holder Friday announced the creation of a Justice Department intellectual property task force to better tackle domestic and international piracy and other IP crimes. "The rise in intellectual property crime in the United States and abroad threatens not only our public safety but also our economic well being," Holder said in a statement. "This Task Force will allow us to identify and implement a multi-faceted strategy with our federal, state and international partners to effectively combat this type of crime."
Is this not the very definition of prioritization? Yes, I would say that Copyright has been prioritized over missing persons. There was no need to create a Copyright private police force, and an acknowledged need to bolster DNA analysis.
The Washington Post, which can (reasonably) be taken as a measure of US opinion, is calling for Assange to be "brought to justice" as a "terrorist" and a "criminal syndicate". As well, the Washington Post is suggesting that "military assets" be used in bringing Mr. Assange to justice.
Under this sort of pressure, what is Mr. Assange to do? He has chosen a "MAD" approach -- forcing the US to leave him alone, and, since the US is the "big kid" here, forcing the US to provide him protection.
And that is what the "insurance" file is all about. If anyone is to blame, I would think that the Washington Post should be considered. What did they think would be gained by this op-ed piece?
Especially, considering that they referenced Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates: "Assange had a "moral culpability" for the harm he has caused", indicating that the weight of the US government was behind these statements.