With Windows it can still be done but requires much more work and skill. No Windows exploit code was released.
From the paper:
Of course on different systems than Linux, e.g. Windows, one doesn't have such a convenient access to/proc/mtrr pseudo-file. This is however only a minor technicality, as one can very well modify the MTRRs mapping using the standard WRMSR instructions.
This is an Intel problem. The only reason the exploit is easier on Linux is because of a FEATURE Linux offers (which, btw, you can disable when compiling the kernel).
A user can easily run arbitrary kernel code in 32-bit Vista or Windows (ie. like the root access required in Linux). In Windows >= Vista 64-bit, kernel code must be signed before it is run. So, you must rely on vulnerabilities in that system to run your code.
Yeah, it is actually the exact opposite. The FSF's licenses rely on copyrights. Hell, even the BSD license relies on copyrights to ensure people attribute the work. Free software is all about maintaining copyrights, it just that the copyrights permitted are substantially different then the usual "you can't copy this." Apparently that RIAA lawyer doesn't quite get this.
Yes, their flaw is that they measured injury rates per year, rather than by miles run or something that actually takes into account how intensely the athletes exercise. Pretty big flaw that I would think any researcher in their right mind wouldn't miss.
It can also go the other way. The people who are buying expensive shoes may be the runners who do it every day and really push their limits. The couch potato may be the guy buying the cheap shoes, running on a treadmill at a fairly comfortable pace.
The statistics given in that article come with absolutely zero thoughtful analysis. They also slipped in that people who stretch before exercise are more likely to injure themselves within the year. These are obviously messed up statistics, since it says NOTHING about how often the people who stretch exercise vs. those who don't. Yeah, perhaps those guys who didn't stretch didn't injure themselves, but perhaps they are also only running 1/4 the time. If they aren't stretching, then they probably also aren't pushing themselves as hard, and probably also out of commission for 3 days after every run from the DOMS.
Running on the balls of your foot means that the shock is being absorbed in your calf muscles. Running on your heels means it's being absorbed in the cartilage of your knees, which can very quickly wear out.
I think a lot of the shock is also absorbed by the muscles on the front of your shins. When you hit the heel, the force will rotate your foot (toes towards the ground), and those muscles will soften that rotation, putting strain on them (yay, shin splints), but also making it easier on your ankles and knees. That said, your calves are considerably larger, and the lever length from the balls of your feet to your ankle is a lot longer than from the heel to your ankle, so it would make sense that the calves would do a much better job of shock absorption.
Re:What about MySQL?
on
Oracle Buys Sun
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I don't think we should make the assumption that Oracle would willingly kill of either MySQL or Solaris. IBM still fully supports Informix, despite it being a direct competitor for DB2 (and there is much more direct competition between DB2 & Informix, then MySQL and Oracle). Most importantly, as long as people are using MySQL, they'll support it. If they killed it off, there is 0 guarantee they will just jump ship to Oracle. Given we are talking about MySQL, people would most likely go over to Postgres or one of the MySQL forks instead, long before even considering a DB like Oracle. The same could be said about Linux vs. Solaris. There are still customers using both. Killing one off would be foolish, unless they could ensure most users use the other. Also, don't know about you, but if some company I was giving lots of money too just killed off our product, forcing us to spend even more, I may take a much longer look at the competitors.
The only reason why I don't have the right is because there's a law that takes it away. A law that only bad judges in many countries is keeping around.
What? The law is there to GRANT the author/creator of the work the sole right to decide how their work is copied. The law places your right to copy someone else's work into that person's hands. It is also a 2 way street, so you are given then right to decide how your work is copied as well.
Think about all the amazing creative works that have grown because of open source licenses like the GPL. Where would some of this amazing open source software, like Linux, be today without licenses like the GPL, that rely on the copyright of the software's authors?
Oh, that's what you wanted! Here, Google> define: God. That should just about clear it up for you, hopefully.
In my OP, I used "God in a scientific discussion" in jest. You know, a joke.
Sorry. You seemed to genuinely want to know what I thought about God and I certainly didn't have to answer your question (and it served me no benefit to do so). In turn, I received an incredibly rude response from you. I answered your question. You asked me to define God and that is God to me. If you don't want a sermon, then I suggest you don't ask people to define God. Your response was uncalled for.
If anything, God is the answer to all this. One thing we can all agree on, is that there are a lot of questions and whether you believe there is a God or there is no God, you are making that decision purely on faith. Science is just another extension of faith. String theory, of all things, should highlight this. We don't understand everything and our best efforts are even still, just approximations (albeit very good ones). While pursuing science has a very practical side (making our quality of life better), it also has a philosophical side, hoping we will someday have an "answer" to all this. There is absolutely no evidence that science will ever provide a final answer(s), but we continue to put our faith in it to provide these answers. If the answer to everything turns out to be a set of mathematical equations, then I would say that that is God. If it turns out we simply cannot completely define our universe through science, then clearly there must be something else that provides this answer. Who knows "what" that is?
Well, considerably more than half a million people voted on this on-line poll. Clearly they took a bit of time because they thought their voice would be heard. Instead, NASA just chose the one they wanted. Sure, they got some publicity this time around, but who is going to be bothered to vote next time around?
They are trying to explain a concept to laymen. It is not easy. Put another way, shadows on a floor live in a 3 dimensional (2 space + time) world, but the movements and behaviour of those shadows are actually better described in a 4 dimensional (3 space + time) world. In other worlds, a shadows movements are better described by considering them as projections of 4-d objects, rather than 3-d objects. Think of the shadow of a quarter flipping. In the shadow world, we see an object that is continuously shrinking down to a thin line then expanding again to a circle. It seems weird, and the equations to describe the movement/shape through time would not be trivial. However, when we add an extra dimension, we realize we can actually model the movement/shape as a simple rotation of a rigid body.
No doubt it is better, I never said it wasn't (I said I could do more than him, but no doubt I could do more with Photoshop as well). I am saying that the GIMP doesn't need to have all the extra features to be competitive, since it works just fine for many purposes and I can use it productively (for the stuff I do, either software doesn't offer any substantial time savings). I also like to remind people that Photoshop is not free. For major commercial purposes, Photoshop for sure. For minor tweaks and home use, it becomes very difficult to justify software that probably cost more than your computer or camera. This is not directed to you in any way, but what's worse is people who compare GIMP to Photoshop (for consumer use), yet pirate Photoshop. If those people feel Photoshop is worth its value, then they should pay it, not steal it. Of course, I'd rather have a Porsche than a Miata and I'd chose the Porsche if given either for free, but the fact is, you are paying for the "extras" in the Porsche.
That's part of the point, it isn't so much the software as it is the person and the purpose. There is probably nothing I can do in the GIMP that I couldn't do easier-than/equal-to in Photoshop. However, I have a lot of experience doing the same shit over and over again in the GIMP and that is usually web-related stuff (he does not have the same experience, I suppose). For that stuff, the GIMP works fine, it is on my computer and I can use it productively, so why not? It is free and I don't have a copy of photoshop on my computer (I am primarily a developer). The GIMP is not Photoshop, but it doesn't HAVE to be. Get it? Our graphics designer is competent enough, but he is an artist first. He probably will use many of the extra features... He choses good colour schemes and makes things look good, I, on the other hand, need a tool to get shit done and the GIMP fits the bill. Photoshop has more features, but if I don't need them, then why use it? Even with the GIMP, I can do many things faster/more easily (because I know what I'm doing), then him.
My buddy told me about a guy in one of his college classes... They had a test that was done over the web (but in class). It was marked immediately and everyone did so badly, the teacher told them to take 1h to study again, then come back in and they can all take the exact same test again. Of course, everyone started studying, except for one guy. He failed the test the first time, but decided to use the hour to play WoW instead of study. He failed again.
I can't agree. Not all games need to be fun all the time to be enjoyable. Quite often the biggest intrinsic rewards are gained through overcoming difficulties. Something that annoys me is when people just give up in the middle of playing a board game or card game once they start losing. Once that instant gratification of doing well wears off, they immediately dump the game. Delayed gratification is not exclusive to real life; I have enjoyed many "come backs" in poker or monopoly. Sure, losing for a while kind of sucked, but also made it that much better when I won. Even losing, at least you get that great feeling knowing you tried and hung on...
However, some of these games really are ridiculous. When I think of how much time I spent playing Pokemon as a kid, just leveling up my pokemon, I get angry. I'd just grind my way through the long grass, for 5-6h on end. That is why I still have yet to play WoW and other such MMOs that require countless hours of tedious boring shit, essentially, so you can do more tedious boring shit... Well, back to work I go...
True. But if I don't lock my front door, that doesn't mean it's ok for you to take my stuff.
Yeah, but who would you rather have break into your house a) a police man, pointing out that, perhaps, you should lock your door or b) a criminal, who steals all your valuables? What they did may not be exactly right, but if they are doing it in the name of academia, I'd rather a bit of damage be done now, then a potentially much worse situation later.
My favorite "useless feature" is track changes in Word. Do you have any idea how surprised people get when they send me a Word document and I send them back all my edits with cute little bubble comments next them? Does OO support track changes? Cause if they dont, that is a shame... it is a damn useful feature once somebody drops change-tracked document on your lap and you go "wow, I never knew this existed!". But I can only imagine the number of 37-signals followers who sit around and call it "useless bloat!!! off with its head!!"
I'd say that is pretty much a required feature for any word editor (OOo has it). Any student who has ever had to do a group report will attest to that.
The graphics designer at my workplace came over to my office to tweek a web design we'd been working on. I opened up the GIMP and started editing a bunch of images. He actually said, "wow, that's some nice software... what is it?" This guy, who uses Photoshop non-stop. Yeah, it may not have all the features of Photoshop, but I was still able to do more with the GIMP than he could with Photoshop... I mean, there are a lot of nice features in Photoshop, but 98% of what I do with an image editor is really basic stuff that both support. And, yes, I do use Photoshop on occasion, but our office only has 1 license, and if the GIMP will do just fine, why bother?
Slashdot Mirror
^ meant to say the user must be an Administrator (hence why I said ie. like the root access required in Linux), must've deleted it when posting.
With Windows it can still be done but requires much more work and skill. No Windows exploit code was released.
From the paper:
Of course on different systems than Linux, e.g. Windows, one doesn't have such a convenient access to /proc/mtrr pseudo-file. This is however only a minor technicality, as one can very well modify the MTRRs mapping using the standard WRMSR instructions.
This is an Intel problem. The only reason the exploit is easier on Linux is because of a FEATURE Linux offers (which, btw, you can disable when compiling the kernel).
A user can easily run arbitrary kernel code in 32-bit Vista or Windows (ie. like the root access required in Linux). In Windows >= Vista 64-bit, kernel code must be signed before it is run. So, you must rely on vulnerabilities in that system to run your code.
But, I agree with you. If these units are selling, why lower the cost?
Valve had a 3000% increase in sales of Left 4 Dead by cutting the price in half. Why lower the cost if they are selling? So you can sell even more!
Nowhere does it advocate infringing copyright.
Yeah, it is actually the exact opposite. The FSF's licenses rely on copyrights. Hell, even the BSD license relies on copyrights to ensure people attribute the work. Free software is all about maintaining copyrights, it just that the copyrights permitted are substantially different then the usual "you can't copy this." Apparently that RIAA lawyer doesn't quite get this.
Yes, their flaw is that they measured injury rates per year, rather than by miles run or something that actually takes into account how intensely the athletes exercise. Pretty big flaw that I would think any researcher in their right mind wouldn't miss.
It can also go the other way. The people who are buying expensive shoes may be the runners who do it every day and really push their limits. The couch potato may be the guy buying the cheap shoes, running on a treadmill at a fairly comfortable pace.
The statistics given in that article come with absolutely zero thoughtful analysis. They also slipped in that people who stretch before exercise are more likely to injure themselves within the year. These are obviously messed up statistics, since it says NOTHING about how often the people who stretch exercise vs. those who don't. Yeah, perhaps those guys who didn't stretch didn't injure themselves, but perhaps they are also only running 1/4 the time. If they aren't stretching, then they probably also aren't pushing themselves as hard, and probably also out of commission for 3 days after every run from the DOMS.
Running on the balls of your foot means that the shock is being absorbed in your calf muscles. Running on your heels means it's being absorbed in the cartilage of your knees, which can very quickly wear out.
I think a lot of the shock is also absorbed by the muscles on the front of your shins. When you hit the heel, the force will rotate your foot (toes towards the ground), and those muscles will soften that rotation, putting strain on them (yay, shin splints), but also making it easier on your ankles and knees. That said, your calves are considerably larger, and the lever length from the balls of your feet to your ankle is a lot longer than from the heel to your ankle, so it would make sense that the calves would do a much better job of shock absorption.
I don't think we should make the assumption that Oracle would willingly kill of either MySQL or Solaris. IBM still fully supports Informix, despite it being a direct competitor for DB2 (and there is much more direct competition between DB2 & Informix, then MySQL and Oracle). Most importantly, as long as people are using MySQL, they'll support it. If they killed it off, there is 0 guarantee they will just jump ship to Oracle. Given we are talking about MySQL, people would most likely go over to Postgres or one of the MySQL forks instead, long before even considering a DB like Oracle. The same could be said about Linux vs. Solaris. There are still customers using both. Killing one off would be foolish, unless they could ensure most users use the other. Also, don't know about you, but if some company I was giving lots of money too just killed off our product, forcing us to spend even more, I may take a much longer look at the competitors.
The only reason why I don't have the right is because there's a law that takes it away. A law that only bad judges in many countries is keeping around.
What? The law is there to GRANT the author/creator of the work the sole right to decide how their work is copied. The law places your right to copy someone else's work into that person's hands. It is also a 2 way street, so you are given then right to decide how your work is copied as well.
Think about all the amazing creative works that have grown because of open source licenses like the GPL. Where would some of this amazing open source software, like Linux, be today without licenses like the GPL, that rely on the copyright of the software's authors?
Oh, that's what you wanted! Here, Google> define: God. That should just about clear it up for you, hopefully. In my OP, I used "God in a scientific discussion" in jest. You know, a joke.
Sorry. You seemed to genuinely want to know what I thought about God and I certainly didn't have to answer your question (and it served me no benefit to do so). In turn, I received an incredibly rude response from you. I answered your question. You asked me to define God and that is God to me. If you don't want a sermon, then I suggest you don't ask people to define God. Your response was uncalled for.
If anything, God is the answer to all this. One thing we can all agree on, is that there are a lot of questions and whether you believe there is a God or there is no God, you are making that decision purely on faith. Science is just another extension of faith. String theory, of all things, should highlight this. We don't understand everything and our best efforts are even still, just approximations (albeit very good ones). While pursuing science has a very practical side (making our quality of life better), it also has a philosophical side, hoping we will someday have an "answer" to all this. There is absolutely no evidence that science will ever provide a final answer(s), but we continue to put our faith in it to provide these answers. If the answer to everything turns out to be a set of mathematical equations, then I would say that that is God. If it turns out we simply cannot completely define our universe through science, then clearly there must be something else that provides this answer. Who knows "what" that is?
Well, you are talking about a Slashdotter and this was posted on slashdot before the whole Colbert mess.
Well, considerably more than half a million people voted on this on-line poll. Clearly they took a bit of time because they thought their voice would be heard. Instead, NASA just chose the one they wanted. Sure, they got some publicity this time around, but who is going to be bothered to vote next time around?
They are trying to explain a concept to laymen. It is not easy. Put another way, shadows on a floor live in a 3 dimensional (2 space + time) world, but the movements and behaviour of those shadows are actually better described in a 4 dimensional (3 space + time) world. In other worlds, a shadows movements are better described by considering them as projections of 4-d objects, rather than 3-d objects. Think of the shadow of a quarter flipping. In the shadow world, we see an object that is continuously shrinking down to a thin line then expanding again to a circle. It seems weird, and the equations to describe the movement/shape through time would not be trivial. However, when we add an extra dimension, we realize we can actually model the movement/shape as a simple rotation of a rigid body.
May be string theory is the biggest joke God ever played. In order to progress in science, we have to first have faith.
Don't confuse GPA with intelligence. Some of the smartest people I know had pretty terrible GPAs.
http://epicslut.ytmnd.com/
No doubt it is better, I never said it wasn't (I said I could do more than him, but no doubt I could do more with Photoshop as well). I am saying that the GIMP doesn't need to have all the extra features to be competitive, since it works just fine for many purposes and I can use it productively (for the stuff I do, either software doesn't offer any substantial time savings). I also like to remind people that Photoshop is not free. For major commercial purposes, Photoshop for sure. For minor tweaks and home use, it becomes very difficult to justify software that probably cost more than your computer or camera. This is not directed to you in any way, but what's worse is people who compare GIMP to Photoshop (for consumer use), yet pirate Photoshop. If those people feel Photoshop is worth its value, then they should pay it, not steal it. Of course, I'd rather have a Porsche than a Miata and I'd chose the Porsche if given either for free, but the fact is, you are paying for the "extras" in the Porsche.
That's part of the point, it isn't so much the software as it is the person and the purpose. There is probably nothing I can do in the GIMP that I couldn't do easier-than/equal-to in Photoshop. However, I have a lot of experience doing the same shit over and over again in the GIMP and that is usually web-related stuff (he does not have the same experience, I suppose). For that stuff, the GIMP works fine, it is on my computer and I can use it productively, so why not? It is free and I don't have a copy of photoshop on my computer (I am primarily a developer). The GIMP is not Photoshop, but it doesn't HAVE to be. Get it? Our graphics designer is competent enough, but he is an artist first. He probably will use many of the extra features... He choses good colour schemes and makes things look good, I, on the other hand, need a tool to get shit done and the GIMP fits the bill. Photoshop has more features, but if I don't need them, then why use it? Even with the GIMP, I can do many things faster/more easily (because I know what I'm doing), then him.
My buddy told me about a guy in one of his college classes... They had a test that was done over the web (but in class). It was marked immediately and everyone did so badly, the teacher told them to take 1h to study again, then come back in and they can all take the exact same test again. Of course, everyone started studying, except for one guy. He failed the test the first time, but decided to use the hour to play WoW instead of study. He failed again.
I can't agree. Not all games need to be fun all the time to be enjoyable. Quite often the biggest intrinsic rewards are gained through overcoming difficulties. Something that annoys me is when people just give up in the middle of playing a board game or card game once they start losing. Once that instant gratification of doing well wears off, they immediately dump the game. Delayed gratification is not exclusive to real life; I have enjoyed many "come backs" in poker or monopoly. Sure, losing for a while kind of sucked, but also made it that much better when I won. Even losing, at least you get that great feeling knowing you tried and hung on...
However, some of these games really are ridiculous. When I think of how much time I spent playing Pokemon as a kid, just leveling up my pokemon, I get angry. I'd just grind my way through the long grass, for 5-6h on end. That is why I still have yet to play WoW and other such MMOs that require countless hours of tedious boring shit, essentially, so you can do more tedious boring shit... Well, back to work I go...
True. But if I don't lock my front door, that doesn't mean it's ok for you to take my stuff.
Yeah, but who would you rather have break into your house a) a police man, pointing out that, perhaps, you should lock your door or b) a criminal, who steals all your valuables? What they did may not be exactly right, but if they are doing it in the name of academia, I'd rather a bit of damage be done now, then a potentially much worse situation later.
My favorite "useless feature" is track changes in Word. Do you have any idea how surprised people get when they send me a Word document and I send them back all my edits with cute little bubble comments next them? Does OO support track changes? Cause if they dont, that is a shame... it is a damn useful feature once somebody drops change-tracked document on your lap and you go "wow, I never knew this existed!". But I can only imagine the number of 37-signals followers who sit around and call it "useless bloat!!! off with its head!!"
I'd say that is pretty much a required feature for any word editor (OOo has it). Any student who has ever had to do a group report will attest to that.
The graphics designer at my workplace came over to my office to tweek a web design we'd been working on. I opened up the GIMP and started editing a bunch of images. He actually said, "wow, that's some nice software... what is it?" This guy, who uses Photoshop non-stop. Yeah, it may not have all the features of Photoshop, but I was still able to do more with the GIMP than he could with Photoshop... I mean, there are a lot of nice features in Photoshop, but 98% of what I do with an image editor is really basic stuff that both support. And, yes, I do use Photoshop on occasion, but our office only has 1 license, and if the GIMP will do just fine, why bother?