This truly is wonderful news! There are a large number of client applications that use Qt for display rendering that really aren't fundamentally X11 applications.
Several of theseapplications are used daily by our engineering team.
Having a native (or at least X11-free) version of these tools is a real bonus for us; but in particular, it's a bonus for the less sophisticated users that would benefit from using applications as though they were OS/X native applications.
Think about CEO or tech support people who don't (won't) want to run X11 just in order to look at that packet trace or 'jiggle that SNMP MIB'.
I, for one, look forward to this, and will happily help port a few key applications to the Darwin / OS X platform.
This, and portage all in one week! Good News For All!
Students? I suppose technically, but the paper's principle author is a PhD candidate at this institution.
This is a far cry from the implied 'student' moniker everyone has been going on about 'round here.:-/
These are exactly the sort of people that should be looking at security problems. Especially when their findings include ways to avoid the problem, as their paper did.
The server has definitive information that the user does not exist at the domain specified in the Request-URI. This status is also returned if the domain in the Request-URI does not match any of the domains handled by the recipient of the request.
I see them every day at work if I misdial from my Cisco7960.
Made me laugh the first time; now it just makes me cry.:-)
Actually, I think explicit is a huge step in the right direction, but it doesn't help me in my case, since it is for class member functions -- as far as I can tell, it cannot sort out my original problem. I'd love to be shown wrong though.
I believe (keeping in mind that I was a C++ guru in an Ada shop), that Ada83 and Ada95 will prevent the assignment in my (contrived) example simply because the type is different. My static_cast in the example was (as stated) solely for the output illustration; I do not condone arbitrary casts. At several places I have worked, a cast required a waiver, in writing, to ensure that the architectural oversight was adequate and the potential consequences of that cast considered. Sound draconian? Depends on the application. This was an air-traffic control project; many people were coming from weapons or command-control environments, and they thought our programme was lax.
It's all relative, and, in the end, more awareness of the language limitations is a good thing.
I don't agree with all of your examples, for instance;
int i = 1<<8; char c = i;
This is a trivial example, and I did not intend to imply that I was interested in this case because of the static nature of the assignments. I am interested in this case solely because you are slamming a value from one type into another type that cannot hold all values of the former.
I think this should be an error.
If you want to patch it up with a cast; then sure, go for it. BUT, implementors have to understand that the cast is really saying a whole lot more than "make the warning go away". A cast is an implicit contract of sorts; "I know what I'm doing -- leave me alone". Far too often, I think the responsible party really doesn't understand what they are doing. That's where problems start.
Of course, with C++, being a strongly typed language...
I completely agree with all of your points, except this one.:-) This I must disagree with. C++ is FAR from a strongly typed language. 99% of modern C++ compilers will permit the following to compile, most without a warning even.
#include <iostream> int main(int, char *[]) { int i = 1 << sizeof(char)*8;// too big for a char char c = i;// Truncation error
Note: I make use of a static_cast ONLY to display the character as a decimal value representation of it's bitset and not as the character at ordinal 0.
Note: This is frightening. There ought to be atomic blast-sized warnings about the assignment of a 4 byte wide value to a char, BUT, oh - no. That would be strong typing.
Ada83 / Ada95 : Not there's some strong(er) typing.
(yuck).
You're going to have to do the latter if you want to succeed. Of course, you won't succeed because the Linux Kernel doesn't grok HFS+ yet.
If you use the
dd if=image of=/dev/hdX
approach, the partition tables and C/H/S settings will be baked for all drives that aren't identical to your master drive.
I've had no end of grief cloning systems at work when building embedded devices. In the end, building the filesystem on a new device is about the only way that reliably works.
Welcome to Darwin! bash-2.05a$ host 66.35.250.150 150.250.35.66.IN-ADDR.ARPA is a nickname for 150.0/24.250.35.66.IN-ADDR.ARPA 150.0/24.250.35.6 6.IN-ADDR.ARPA domain name pointer slashdot.org
CDMA has poor interoperability; sure, if you only ever need a phone in the USA and your don't care about open standards, please, get a CDMA phone.
If you travel at ALL, then GSM is currently the only way to go.
The sooner CDMA and other US-centric telecom technologies buy the farm, the better for consumers.
The insane convenience of having one-phone, one-number, 6 continents and no hassels roaming FAR outweighs the slight technological advance that the CDMA air interface has.
I second this one. I sit here in my office (home) with my trusty HP 4 MX Si PS that a purchased used in 1999 for 100$. It has printed over 10,000 pages for me and various companies and is still going strong. Total pages on the unit: 39296. Built in PostScript, 12 ppm, 600dpi, no hassels, archival waterproof output. I'm not giving it up for anything.:-)
Wireless 802.11b VOIP Phone?
on
Wireless VOIP?
·
· Score: 1
Adam writes:
Last winter I mulled the idea over in my head of making a voip phone with 16 bit 802.11b cards (compactflash or pcmcia). It would take a relatively low power microcontroller to encode the communications.
So you were thinking about something along the lines of a wireless SIP phone that used 802.11b. Like the one that this Norwegian company had at the last SIPit (interoperability test) event for testing. Very cool little device. They plan to license it to OEMs and/or integrators from what they were telling me. Very cool little company. Still in early beta.
Hmm looks like the wireless phone isn't on their site. Here's their hard phone and you should email them if you want more info on their wireless device. I know it exists. I have a spec sheet and have tested with it.
First, people need to understand that no Bad Things will happen if an ATC system goes offline while planes are under it's jurisdiction. ICAO member countries (and most nations for that matter) have strong procedural rules in place that keep planes separated without the help of radar. This is espcially true in the enroute case. (Area control centres handle overflight and enroute traffic. Eveyone is separated by at least 1000' vertical and 3 miles horizontal at all times. The altitude restrictions and clearances that each pilot receives are chosen specifically so that in the even of loss of communications, the pilot can continue to his "clearance limit" without any problem. Well, you ask, what happens when he gets to his clearance limit and still isn't communicating with air traffic control? They hold. This is all laid our quite clearly. These rules have been around since before RADAR because thats the way it was done.
Just take a look at the RADAR coverage map of Canada (one is visible at the link above). There are lots of places that don't even HAVE radar coverage.
The old tried and true clearance and time/speed based conflict resolutions works and works well.
Secondly, and more imporatantly, there really isn't any news in this article. It's scaremongering. This happens all the time. It's an inconvenience, but rarely a saftey concern.
For those who asked about it; yes, typically a new system is run in parallel with the legacy system for a period of time (sometimes 24 months) before it is used as the primary control. Notice that the old system is live and the new system is shadowing. That way, anomalies that are found do not impact any flights.
[*flame proof underwear on*]
Is it just me, or does the press dig around for 'news' in about as diligent a manner as Slashdot?
The three things that have been powerful and useful to be in almost every application have been:
Finite State Machines Their analysis, NFA to DFA transformation and the applicability of FSMs to most stateful problems (protocols, lexical analysis, communications, etc.)
Graph Theory Use of graph representations for the analysis of many of the same problems mentioned above
All these thing consistently make my job easier, more interesting and, continue to provide a level of insight to tricky problems (especially the first two) that exceeds simple 'programming'.
The two most under appreciated courses of all time in Computer Science education have to be the Theory of Computation (FSMs etc) and the Discrete Mathematics (Graphs, Numerical Analysis, etc). An alarming number of new graduates cannot phathom how to apply this stuff. It's powerful and once you start using it, you'll always see things a little bit more ''completely''.
Good book that deals with complex systems etc.
on
Why Alien Species Thrive
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
There is a really good book that addressing this, along with lots of other geek interesting things. I read it a few years ago, but it is equally interesting today as it was then.
If you have a favorite book search engine, then you might only want the details:
ISBN number: 0679425632 Title:Why things bite back: Technology and the Revenge of Unintended Consequences Author: Edward Tenner Publisher:Random House Canada Published: May 1996
SIP and video is NO different than SIP and audio, or SIP and bazookie player commands. SIP is the Session Initiation Protocol and, underneath it all, it's just a way to exchange offer/answer pairs of SDP (session description protocol) so the endpoints (eg. phones) can do what they wish.
Once you have a user agent (endpoint / phone) that groks audio SDP, you just need an appropriate way to render video and you have a video phone if that's what you want. If you want to exchange chess moves by SIP, you can do that too. It's just about establishing a session (out of band from the signalling).
There are plenty of companies marketing firewall solutions and NAT traversal solutions for SIP and H.323. I'm not as up on my H.323 as I am on my SIP (I play a SIP guy at work.). Some companies are even rolling out equipment that doesn't need to be at the customer premise for NAT traversal of SIP and media streams. Try a google search for more on NAT and SIP and VoIP.
Just what I want people to think....
on
Peephole Displays
·
· Score: 1
As pointed out elsewhere, cell phones are designed for a different environment. It is assumed throughout the design of terrestrial radio systems that you will only be able to contact one cell tower using a certain carrier frequency. The cells are laid out in a repeating pattern. If you are 'in' a cell, you are talking to it over a particular channel. All the other cells that are adjacent to YOUR cell cannot use that channel, because you are using it. BUT, move two cells away and you can reuse your channel for another person. Cells are about (let's guess) 800m to 1 km on a side.
This all works really well until you ruin this assumption.
Now, fly at 10 000m (33 000ft) and look at the same system. You are almost the exact same distance from the cell under you as the cell next to it and the cell(s) next to those ones. So, who does your phone talk to?
It fights it out and talks to many cells, or just one, but you are now interfering with many other cells, using up a huge amount of the mobile providers capacity.
In effect, this is a DOS attack for all those cells that you are not really using, but who can still hear your carrier on the channel.
There are other problems with trying to use a mobile phone on an aircraft. At 10 000m, you are 10km (~6 statute miles) from the base station. That's pretty fringe. Especially for a low power digital-mode radio that has a maximum output of around 300mW RF.
No, I don't think you'll see mobile phones on aircraft any time soon.
Slashdot Mirror
They either pulled the content, or they are dealing with the slashdot effect. I did find it in Japanese though.
Shouldn't that be 480 MPG -- MPG 2.0 -- or just "Hi-Speed MPG?"
Now that's embarassing. Next time I'll engage brain before mouth. Nah, this is slashdot. :-)
This truly is wonderful news! There are a large number of client applications that use Qt for display rendering that really aren't fundamentally X11 applications.
Several of these applications are used daily by our engineering team.
Having a native (or at least X11-free) version of these tools is a real bonus for us; but in particular, it's a bonus for the less sophisticated users that would benefit from using applications as though they were OS/X native applications.
Think about CEO or tech support people who don't (won't) want to run X11 just in order to look at that packet trace or 'jiggle that SNMP MIB'.
I, for one, look forward to this, and will happily help port a few key applications to the Darwin / OS X platform.
This, and portage all in one week! Good News For All!
Students? I suppose technically, but the paper's principle author is a PhD candidate at this institution. :-/
This is a far cry from the implied 'student' moniker everyone has been going on about 'round here.
These are exactly the sort of people that should be looking at security problems. Especially when their findings include ways to avoid the problem, as their paper did.
RFC 3261 Section 21.4.5 clearly states:
I see them every day at work if I misdial from my Cisco 7960.
Made me laugh the first time; now it just makes me cry.
Actually, I think explicit is a huge step in the right direction, but it doesn't help me in my case, since it is for class member functions -- as far as I can tell, it cannot sort out my original problem. I'd love to be shown wrong though.
It's all relative, and, in the end, more awareness of the language limitations is a good thing.
I don't agree with all of your examples, for instance;This is a trivial example, and I did not intend to imply that I was interested in this case because of the static nature of the assignments. I am interested in this case solely because you are slamming a value from one type into another type that cannot hold all values of the former.
I think this should be an error.
If you want to patch it up with a cast; then sure, go for it. BUT, implementors have to understand that the cast is really saying a whole lot more than "make the warning go away". A cast is an implicit contract of sorts; "I know what I'm doing -- leave me alone". Far too often, I think the responsible party really doesn't understand what they are doing. That's where problems start.
I completely agree with all of your points, except this one.
The output:
Note: I make use of a static_cast ONLY to display the character as a decimal value representation of it's bitset and not as the character at ordinal 0.
Note: This is frightening. There ought to be atomic blast-sized warnings about the assignment of a 4 byte wide value to a char, BUT, oh - no. That would be strong typing.
Ada83 / Ada95 : Not there's some strong(er) typing. (yuck).
If you use the approach, the partition tables and C/H/S settings will be baked for all drives that aren't identical to your master drive.
I've had no end of grief cloning systems at work when building embedded devices. In the end, building the filesystem on a new device is about the only way that reliably works.
Although there is something amusing about being called a "Mac Kid".
Methinks you have your head on backwards.
CDMA has poor interoperability; sure, if you only ever need a phone in the USA and your don't care about open standards, please, get a CDMA phone.
If you travel at ALL, then GSM is currently the only way to go.
The sooner CDMA and other US-centric telecom technologies buy the farm, the better for consumers.
The insane convenience of having one-phone, one-number, 6 continents and no hassels roaming FAR outweighs the slight technological advance that the CDMA air interface has.
I second this one. I sit here in my office (home) with my trusty HP 4 MX Si PS that a purchased used in 1999 for 100$. It has printed over 10,000 pages for me and various companies and is still going strong. Total pages on the unit: 39296. :-)
Built in PostScript, 12 ppm, 600dpi, no hassels, archival waterproof output. I'm not giving it up for anything.
Hmm looks like the wireless phone isn't on their site. Here's their hard phone and you should email them if you want more info on their wireless device. I know it exists. I have a spec sheet and have tested with it.
Once prototyped a replacement interface for the 3270 based library system at a University. The program was called the:
Document Information Retreival Tool
You'd use it to scrape references from the backend. ie) digging up dirt on a particular publication.
First, people need to understand that no Bad Things will happen if an ATC system goes offline while planes are under it's jurisdiction. ICAO member countries (and most nations for that matter) have strong procedural rules in place that keep planes separated without the help of radar. This is espcially true in the enroute case. (Area control centres handle overflight and enroute traffic. Eveyone is separated by at least 1000' vertical and 3 miles horizontal at all times. The altitude restrictions and clearances that each pilot receives are chosen specifically so that in the even of loss of communications, the pilot can continue to his "clearance limit" without any problem. Well, you ask, what happens when he gets to his clearance limit and still isn't communicating with air traffic control? They hold. This is all laid our quite clearly. These rules have been around since before RADAR because thats the way it was done.
Just take a look at the RADAR coverage map of Canada (one is visible at the link above). There are lots of places that don't even HAVE radar coverage.
The old tried and true clearance and time/speed based conflict resolutions works and works well.
Secondly, and more imporatantly, there really isn't any news in this article. It's scaremongering. This happens all the time. It's an inconvenience, but rarely a saftey concern.
For those who asked about it; yes, typically a new system is run in parallel with the legacy system for a period of time (sometimes 24 months) before it is used as the primary control. Notice that the old system is live and the new system is shadowing. That way, anomalies that are found do not impact any flights.
[*flame proof underwear on*]
Is it just me, or does the press dig around for 'news' in about as diligent a manner as Slashdot?
Their analysis, NFA to DFA transformation and the applicability of FSMs to most stateful problems
(protocols, lexical analysis, communications, etc.)
Use of graph representations for the analysis of many of the same problems mentioned above
Methods for modeling continuous phenomena discretly.
(Euler Integration, FEA, Meshing, etc.)
All these thing consistently make my job easier, more interesting and, continue to provide a level of insight to tricky problems (especially the first two) that exceeds simple 'programming'.
The two most under appreciated courses of all time in Computer Science education have to be the Theory of Computation (FSMs etc) and the Discrete Mathematics (Graphs, Numerical Analysis, etc). An alarming number of new graduates cannot phathom how to apply this stuff. It's powerful and once you start using it, you'll always see things a little bit more ''completely''.
There is a really good book that addressing this, along with lots of other geek interesting things. I read it a few years ago, but it is equally interesting today as it was then.
If you have a favorite book search engine, then you might only want the details:
ISBN number: 0679425632
Title: Why things bite back: Technology and the Revenge of Unintended Consequences
Author: Edward Tenner
Publisher: Random House Canada
Published: May 1996
If you want, you can see it at Amazon, Barnes and Noble and Indigo.
Go read it. It's interesting.
There is a company that is doing this locally with excellent success.
Boils down to
I use this frequently when travelling and it works very very well
Their platform is available commercially and the software is based on compact BSD.
SIP and video is NO different than SIP and audio, or SIP and bazookie player commands. SIP is the Session Initiation Protocol and, underneath it all, it's just a way to exchange offer/answer pairs of SDP (session description protocol) so the endpoints (eg. phones) can do what they wish.
Once you have a user agent (endpoint / phone) that groks audio SDP, you just need an appropriate way to render video and you have a video phone if that's what you want. If you want to exchange chess moves by SIP, you can do that too. It's just about establishing a session (out of band from the signalling).
You can read more in the actual RFC 3261 .
There are plenty of companies marketing firewall solutions and NAT traversal solutions for SIP and H.323. I'm not as up on my H.323 as I am on my SIP (I play a SIP guy at work.). Some companies are even rolling out equipment that doesn't need to be at the customer premise for NAT traversal of SIP and media streams. Try a google search for more on NAT and SIP and VoIP.
As pointed out elsewhere, cell phones are designed for a different environment. It is assumed throughout the design of terrestrial radio systems that you will only be able to contact one cell tower using a certain carrier frequency. The cells are laid out in a repeating pattern. If you are 'in' a cell, you are talking to it over a particular channel. All the other cells that are adjacent to YOUR cell cannot use that channel, because you are using it. BUT, move two cells away and you can reuse your channel for another person. Cells are about (let's guess) 800m to 1 km on a side.
This all works really well until you ruin this assumption.
Now, fly at 10 000m (33 000ft) and look at the same system. You are almost the exact same distance from the cell under you as the cell next to it and the cell(s) next to those ones. So, who does your phone talk to?
It fights it out and talks to many cells, or just one, but you are now interfering with many other cells, using up a huge amount of the mobile providers capacity.
In effect, this is a DOS attack for all those cells that you are not really using, but who can still hear your carrier on the channel.
There are other problems with trying to use a mobile phone on an aircraft. At 10 000m, you are 10km (~6 statute miles) from the base station. That's pretty fringe. Especially for a low power digital-mode radio that has a maximum output of around 300mW RF.
No, I don't think you'll see mobile phones on aircraft any time soon.