Yes, since I only read the title (who has time to read TFS, much less TFA?), I'm going to go on a DVD-ripping spree that I wouldn't have been able to do an hour ago.
My parents recently purchased a Dell and I was present when the package arrived, so I helped them set it up. They plugged in all the cords rather quickly (power, monitor, keyboard, mouse ((they were confused as to why the mouse and keyboard could be plugged into any USB port)), ethernet and speakers) and hit the power button. You can mod me down for this, but it booted right up. The "What would you like your computer to be named?" prompt appeared and they were already on the internet. All the software was pre-installed, including anti-virus and Dell's auto-updater.
My point is this: Apple is a hardware company and Macintosh OSX is software that Apple just happens to produce. They are the only company that can legally build computers to run OSX. It is flawed to contribute your experiences on a laptop to Windows itself - blame Acer (or whoever manufactured the laptop).
I can understand if you like Windows less because it, for lack of a better term, has "Microsoftitus," but at least blame the real cause of the problem.
I see your point, however I think you've misunderstood me. Sure, mobile companies can encourage people to join their network by offering free calls after a certain time of the night or free calling to others within your network, land lines can charge you different amounts for certain times of the day, but there is a difference between what you see as a "neutral" network and what net neutrality wants to enforce. My mobile carrier charges me so much for my gateway to the public telephone network and they are not allowed to charge me more for calling a Sprint number than a Verizon number, nor are they allowed to intentionally drop my calls to carriers that are not Cingular. The former, with a twist of words, could be called "bribery," assuming some money changed hands and the latter could be construed as a form of corporate, and completely fictitious, mud-slinging - both of which are illegal.
I do agree with you that demand should limit itself, not only in the phone networks but also in the internet - there have been times I've simply walked away from my computer because the network was so incredibly slow. However, your solution to the problem (although you did not explicitly state it), has almost nothing to do with net neutrality. If ISPs charged people more for use of the internet at a certain time of the day - fine. ISPs are free to do any sort of throttling they care for, just as they are free to block you from running a server and free to block you from using torrent clients - it's a selling point for switching to a different ISP. What they are NOT allowed to do is to block you from contacting certain IP addresses or to specifically target a range of IPs for throttling. It would be like ATT intentionally not allowing you to call SBC (I hope they're not the same company) - it's simply not right.
I think the best comparison (and the one that historically goes with my point of view on the matter) is to compare ISPs to the telephone companies when the telephone first started out. In the beginning of the 20th Century, after the Edison patent expired and when the telephone network was recognized as the most important part of the system, marketing types would come to your front door and say "Join our network! Your good friend, Mr. Google is on our network, if you'd like to call him, you should join us!" So you would. The next day, another salesperson would come and say "Join our network! Your doctor, Dr. Kaspersky is on our network, if you'd like to call him, you should join us!" Not wanting to make Mr. Google sad, you'd just get the second phone installed. The next day, another salesman would come by and say, "Join our network! Your furniture mover, Mr. Ballmer is in our network, if you'd like to call him, you should join us!" Not wanting to make Mr. Google or Dr. Kaspersky sad, you'd join the new network as well. Pretty soon, you'd have 10 telephones in your living room. So the government stepped in and made the public telephone system, which coincidentally works almost exactly the same (fundamentally) as the internet does today.
This is exactly the same as net neutrality. Both networks provide a means of remote communication. The internet may move a lot more information and may be growing at an ever-increasing rate, but it was built a century later. The internet is still a relatively new system - we're still learning just how big the enormous amounts of data we can transport, but the ISPs are still complaining about laying new lines. Phone networks are old technology, but all the telephone companies switched to digital telephony in the 60s to allow the massive amount of people getting phone services.
It costs money to keep a public network running, but once the the public telephone system was established, nobody was calling to bring back the old system. The problem is that the internet is a little bit more complicated than telephones and so the politicians don't fully understand the repercussions of their actions. We need somebody in Washington to stand up and explain that the series of tubes that make up the internet is the same as the series of tubes that make up the telephone network (and with VoIP are becoming the same tubes) and that they've already made legislation regarding it that works and they don't need to waste their time.
A "runqueue" keeps track of all essential tasks assigned to a given CPU [Queue is O(1) efficient]
Each runqueue contains two priority arrays, the active and the expired. As a task completes, it is moved (during the move, the new timeslice is calculated - the point of debate and largest fundamental change to the task scheduler) [Moving from static array to static array is O(1) efficient]
When the active priority array is finished, the expired array becomes the active array [Swapping 2 pointers is O(1) efficient]
The priority arrays are of fixed length 140, as that is the amount of priority levels Linux has [O(140) = O(1)]
The point of debate comes if two threads have the same priority, in which case they are put on a round robin in the priority array. However, the confusion comes in that the execution is O(n) (which makes sense if you think about it), but the scheduler itself handles these at O(1) efficiency.
If you want a good description of the old way it works (which is what you're talking about), [PDF Warning] here it is. As this PDF describes, the 2.4.x kernel uses a O(n) fast algorithm for choosing the next task, going through the array of tasks to re-evaluate them. The the Linux 2.6.x scheduler recalculates timeslices as each task uses up its timeslice. In this fashion, the kernel should always know the most important thread, it is simply the next element. Granted, you are doing the same amount of work, but the pauses for re-evaluation are spread out so that you don't get long lapses where nothing important happens.
I'm a freshman in the computer science program at Georgia Tech, and we've altered our program to the new Threads curriculum. For those who don't feel like visiting the website: the curriculum is divided into eight different "threads" such as "Computational Modeling" or "Intelligence," from which you pick two (or more) to focus on. Furthermore, you pick a "role," such as "Master Practitioner" or "Communicator," which defines your focus within those threads. For example, one in the "Media" thread in the role of "Communicator" would translate things like "rasterisation" to "the process that takes abstract definitions and transforms them into viewable graphics," whereas a "Master Practitioner" would write the code to do the process.
Anyway, our marketing department would have us believe that companies love this new program we have and that other colleges with computer science programs like what we have and are implementing something similar of their own and some guy in some book (I really can't remember the title, but it's close to "The New Face of Computing") said "Georgia Tech has got it right." That was a big deal last semester. My question is: Is our marketing department making this stuff up or do actual companies look for programs like ours?
As far as women in the program here...I have many classes with only a couple girls. Last semester I was in only 1000-level (freshman) CS courses, where I'd estimate about 10 percent were girls. This semester, in my only 2000-level (sophomore) course, there are two girls in a lecture of about 100. I suppose it's statistically insignificant, though.
That's how Uwe Boll keeps making movies, too. He also literally beats up his critics. It's good to see government subsidies that work.
Re:I were one of the cracking groups...
on
AACS Cracked Again
·
· Score: 1
(I'm not sure exactly what the device key length is)
128-bit - so...well over a quadrillion years to break using brute force, unless there is a way to reduce the key space (only check bits, SHAs of bits or MD5s of bits found in the program's executable?).
I've been thinking about this for the past 5 minutes and there seem to be a few problems with this "new" idea:
1: If two hashes taken from random sources collide, there is no way to check the source, except by human interaction with the downloaded content.
2: BitTorrent is already widely adopted.
3: Incredible bandwidth use.
How can we solve this? By the creation of a dramatically different BitTorrent client. However, instead of loading one torrent file for one download group, you can load multiple torrents with one designated as "primary," the rest are used to point to other trackers for similar chunk downloads.
Here's what I mean: You want torrent A, which is a properly ID3-tagged album of your favorite Creative Commons artist which has 1 seed and 7 peers. However, some idiot uploaded torrent B first, and it has the same music at the same bitrate, except the ID3 tags are wrong and there are 20 seeds and 100 peers. Torrent A is designated as "primary," and this BitTorrent client checks to see if Torrent B contains chunks of the same MD5 hash that A contains. Those chunks may be downloaded from either source, and chunks only in A must be downloaded from A.
This solves problem 1, as there is 99.9% likelihood that the chunks are correct. It obviously solves problem 2, as it would work perfectly with existing BitTorrent trackers. Problem 3? Eh...if everybody used it...
That should be similar to how the researchers did it, but I didn't RTFA, so I don't know.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the kind of thing an idiot would have on his luggage. A truly secure combination is my sequence of four zeros.
I guess the bit of playing-along sarcasm flew right over your head. Nah, somebody whose new here couldn't make a joke...
Yes, since I only read the title (who has time to read TFS, much less TFA?), I'm going to go on a DVD-ripping spree that I wouldn't have been able to do an hour ago.
My parents recently purchased a Dell and I was present when the package arrived, so I helped them set it up. They plugged in all the cords rather quickly (power, monitor, keyboard, mouse ((they were confused as to why the mouse and keyboard could be plugged into any USB port)), ethernet and speakers) and hit the power button. You can mod me down for this, but it booted right up. The "What would you like your computer to be named?" prompt appeared and they were already on the internet. All the software was pre-installed, including anti-virus and Dell's auto-updater.
My point is this: Apple is a hardware company and Macintosh OSX is software that Apple just happens to produce. They are the only company that can legally build computers to run OSX. It is flawed to contribute your experiences on a laptop to Windows itself - blame Acer (or whoever manufactured the laptop).
I can understand if you like Windows less because it, for lack of a better term, has "Microsoftitus," but at least blame the real cause of the problem.
I see your point, however I think you've misunderstood me. Sure, mobile companies can encourage people to join their network by offering free calls after a certain time of the night or free calling to others within your network, land lines can charge you different amounts for certain times of the day, but there is a difference between what you see as a "neutral" network and what net neutrality wants to enforce. My mobile carrier charges me so much for my gateway to the public telephone network and they are not allowed to charge me more for calling a Sprint number than a Verizon number, nor are they allowed to intentionally drop my calls to carriers that are not Cingular. The former, with a twist of words, could be called "bribery," assuming some money changed hands and the latter could be construed as a form of corporate, and completely fictitious, mud-slinging - both of which are illegal.
I do agree with you that demand should limit itself, not only in the phone networks but also in the internet - there have been times I've simply walked away from my computer because the network was so incredibly slow. However, your solution to the problem (although you did not explicitly state it), has almost nothing to do with net neutrality. If ISPs charged people more for use of the internet at a certain time of the day - fine. ISPs are free to do any sort of throttling they care for, just as they are free to block you from running a server and free to block you from using torrent clients - it's a selling point for switching to a different ISP. What they are NOT allowed to do is to block you from contacting certain IP addresses or to specifically target a range of IPs for throttling. It would be like ATT intentionally not allowing you to call SBC (I hope they're not the same company) - it's simply not right.
I think the best comparison (and the one that historically goes with my point of view on the matter) is to compare ISPs to the telephone companies when the telephone first started out. In the beginning of the 20th Century, after the Edison patent expired and when the telephone network was recognized as the most important part of the system, marketing types would come to your front door and say "Join our network! Your good friend, Mr. Google is on our network, if you'd like to call him, you should join us!" So you would. The next day, another salesperson would come and say "Join our network! Your doctor, Dr. Kaspersky is on our network, if you'd like to call him, you should join us!" Not wanting to make Mr. Google sad, you'd just get the second phone installed. The next day, another salesman would come by and say, "Join our network! Your furniture mover, Mr. Ballmer is in our network, if you'd like to call him, you should join us!" Not wanting to make Mr. Google or Dr. Kaspersky sad, you'd join the new network as well. Pretty soon, you'd have 10 telephones in your living room. So the government stepped in and made the public telephone system, which coincidentally works almost exactly the same (fundamentally) as the internet does today.
This is exactly the same as net neutrality. Both networks provide a means of remote communication. The internet may move a lot more information and may be growing at an ever-increasing rate, but it was built a century later. The internet is still a relatively new system - we're still learning just how big the enormous amounts of data we can transport, but the ISPs are still complaining about laying new lines. Phone networks are old technology, but all the telephone companies switched to digital telephony in the 60s to allow the massive amount of people getting phone services.
It costs money to keep a public network running, but once the the public telephone system was established, nobody was calling to bring back the old system. The problem is that the internet is a little bit more complicated than telephones and so the politicians don't fully understand the repercussions of their actions. We need somebody in Washington to stand up and explain that the series of tubes that make up the internet is the same as the series of tubes that make up the telephone network (and with VoIP are becoming the same tubes) and that they've already made legislation regarding it that works and they don't need to waste their time.
Here's how Linux 2.6.x task scheduler works:
- A "runqueue" keeps track of all essential tasks assigned to a given CPU [Queue is O(1) efficient]
- Each runqueue contains two priority arrays, the active and the expired. As a task completes, it is moved (during the move, the new timeslice is calculated - the point of debate and largest fundamental change to the task scheduler) [Moving from static array to static array is O(1) efficient]
- When the active priority array is finished, the expired array becomes the active array [Swapping 2 pointers is O(1) efficient]
- The priority arrays are of fixed length 140, as that is the amount of priority levels Linux has [O(140) = O(1)]
The point of debate comes if two threads have the same priority, in which case they are put on a round robin in the priority array. However, the confusion comes in that the execution is O(n) (which makes sense if you think about it), but the scheduler itself handles these at O(1) efficiency.If you want a good description of the old way it works (which is what you're talking about), [PDF Warning] here it is. As this PDF describes, the 2.4.x kernel uses a O(n) fast algorithm for choosing the next task, going through the array of tasks to re-evaluate them. The the Linux 2.6.x scheduler recalculates timeslices as each task uses up its timeslice. In this fashion, the kernel should always know the most important thread, it is simply the next element. Granted, you are doing the same amount of work, but the pauses for re-evaluation are spread out so that you don't get long lapses where nothing important happens.
I'm a freshman in the computer science program at Georgia Tech, and we've altered our program to the new Threads curriculum. For those who don't feel like visiting the website: the curriculum is divided into eight different "threads" such as "Computational Modeling" or "Intelligence," from which you pick two (or more) to focus on. Furthermore, you pick a "role," such as "Master Practitioner" or "Communicator," which defines your focus within those threads. For example, one in the "Media" thread in the role of "Communicator" would translate things like "rasterisation" to "the process that takes abstract definitions and transforms them into viewable graphics," whereas a "Master Practitioner" would write the code to do the process.
Anyway, our marketing department would have us believe that companies love this new program we have and that other colleges with computer science programs like what we have and are implementing something similar of their own and some guy in some book (I really can't remember the title, but it's close to "The New Face of Computing") said "Georgia Tech has got it right." That was a big deal last semester. My question is: Is our marketing department making this stuff up or do actual companies look for programs like ours?
As far as women in the program here...I have many classes with only a couple girls. Last semester I was in only 1000-level (freshman) CS courses, where I'd estimate about 10 percent were girls. This semester, in my only 2000-level (sophomore) course, there are two girls in a lecture of about 100. I suppose it's statistically insignificant, though.
That's how Uwe Boll keeps making movies, too. He also literally beats up his critics. It's good to see government subsidies that work.
128-bit - so...well over a quadrillion years to break using brute force, unless there is a way to reduce the key space (only check bits, SHAs of bits or MD5s of bits found in the program's executable?).
I've been thinking about this for the past 5 minutes and there seem to be a few problems with this "new" idea: 1: If two hashes taken from random sources collide, there is no way to check the source, except by human interaction with the downloaded content. 2: BitTorrent is already widely adopted. 3: Incredible bandwidth use. How can we solve this? By the creation of a dramatically different BitTorrent client. However, instead of loading one torrent file for one download group, you can load multiple torrents with one designated as "primary," the rest are used to point to other trackers for similar chunk downloads. Here's what I mean: You want torrent A, which is a properly ID3-tagged album of your favorite Creative Commons artist which has 1 seed and 7 peers. However, some idiot uploaded torrent B first, and it has the same music at the same bitrate, except the ID3 tags are wrong and there are 20 seeds and 100 peers. Torrent A is designated as "primary," and this BitTorrent client checks to see if Torrent B contains chunks of the same MD5 hash that A contains. Those chunks may be downloaded from either source, and chunks only in A must be downloaded from A. This solves problem 1, as there is 99.9% likelihood that the chunks are correct. It obviously solves problem 2, as it would work perfectly with existing BitTorrent trackers. Problem 3? Eh...if everybody used it... That should be similar to how the researchers did it, but I didn't RTFA, so I don't know.