No I think they got this going the right away around. The Internet will finally reach its full potential once everyone can filter out everything except.xxx domains.
No one has billions of dollars in chequing. These people have billions of dollars in investments. The mainstream media likes to talk about these investments in terms of dollars because it makes for cute headlines, but for the people involved I suspect it has more to do with control. Controlling billions of dollars worth of organizations means, for better or worse, you can help shape a sizeable chunk of the world.
Not true at all. The disparity between consuming resources to attack and consuming resources to defend is the crux of a Denial of Service attack, which is essentially what these drones are. If you know that you can force your enemy to spend $6000 for every $1 you spend, it's pretty easy to drag them into attrition.
I don't see why the summary is misleading or why a desktop machine would be the only measuring stick worth considering, especially when you think of how seldomly Linux is run on the desktop.
This is like saying, "My toaster runs linux and it can boot instantly!"
What would be wrong with that?
They poured a tonne of work into making this happen. Just because they control the hardware their hard work isn't worth anything? I think it's pretty cool what they've been able to do, someone no one else in the history of Linux has ever been able to do.
That's a really good point! You could have an acquaintance (you don't really like the guy, but hang out with him, know his living situation). Him posting to the world that he's going to be out of town for the next couple days could be tipping point.
The site doesn't tell you whether everyone in the household is gone, only if one person in the household is gone. A robber would still have to peek in the windows and do whatever it is robbers do to make sure the house is empty. But they could do that just by walking around some random neighbourhood and peeking in random windows; they don't need Twitter to tell them to peek into someone's windows.
If the different colours are perfectly parallel, then there is zero movement in the upper layers and they only look parallel due to how the data is presented (stacked). In order for them to be "synchronized" you'd have to see the layers diverging from one another, not parallel to one another. You can a little bit of this, but not much. For instance, between December 2006 and March 2007, Office sales diverge a wee bit from the layers underneath. The Servers and Tools seems to stay completely flat, maybe even shrinking a bit.
Really it's just Windows sales going up and down and the two layers on top of them not doing very much.
I have some really stupid cheater stories, of course. Like the guy who handed in verbatim his buddy's assignment, including his buddy's name and student number at the top of the comments, and still kept denying it. Those are the easy cases to deal with and, while kind of funny, not very meaningful. If they fess up and apologize and co-operate you give them negative 100%; if they don't you give them an academic offence (which means automatically failing the course and automatically getting expelled from the university if they get a second offence).
There's definitely a lot more cheating going on than I can find evidence for, which I've come to accept is mostly out of my control. My only two real strategies for combatting it are to make the assignments as exciting/interesting as I can so that students don't mind doing them so much, and mandate that you need at least 50% on the exams to pass the course so that you can't get through just on the assignments.
The one that still affects me is a girl I had in a first-year course in my first year of TAing. She was one of the "cool kids" (a little slow transitioning out of her popular high school kid days, you know). Her friends sort of lived for partying and never took any of their courses seriously: most of them ended up failing the CS course. It was a lab scenario where it was scheduled for 2 hours, but if you finished your work in an hour (which many did), you left early. After all her friends had finished the bare minimum and had left, she would stick around, though, for an extra half hour or hour, asking questions and redoing the work she'd already done to make sure she understood it at all properly. She wasn't doing insanely well--I think she was carrying a mark in the course somewhere around the high 70s--but definitely better than her friends and she was putting a lot of work into what obviously didn't come naturally for her.
Then came her final assignment of the course. It was gorgeous! It was their only assignment where they had to incorporate object-oriented design (the course was taught in C++) and she did everything perfectly. It was definitely the best assignment out of the entire class, and we had a lot of really smart cookies in the class. I wrote glowing praises all over it. I ran into her at a bus stop a month or so later and gushed about how impressive her assignment was and how much work she must have put it into it and she just quietly smiled and didn't say much beyond "thank you".
Then about a year later I ran into one of her friends and the topic of her came up again. I said again how impressive it was and said "either she found someone else to write it or she put a lot of work into that". He got awkward and said "I don't want to get her in trouble, but let's just say she didn't put a lot of work into it".
It really did a number on me. I was at the end of my Master's degree at the time and it through me for a loop, wondering if I even wanted to come back for my Ph.D. Research is okay and all, but really the only reason I was in grad school was for the teaching. I eventually did go back and things have gone well, but it surprised me what effect one (previously) good student cheating can have on you:\
Yup, it's changed in Finder. Find a document, either right-click or go to the File menu, select Get Info, change the application in "Open with" and then select "Change All".
Indeed. One can't be totally certain (calculating entropy exactly is undecidable in general), but the entropy rate of English is approximately 1 bit per letter (give or take half a bit, so says Claude Shannon).
Assuming your passphrase is English, it would have to be somewhere around 30 words long to give 128 bits of security? That's essentially the entire first paragraph of this comment, a pretty long passphrase!
That leaves you with emulation, which i doubt Intel could make faster than native...
If only you could go back in time and convince Intel of this! The first generation of Itaniums actually did x86 emulation in hardware. A brilliant idea: the only problem with it was that it was actually slower than software emulators (which themselves were pretty slow).
Anyway I don't think Itanium was every supposed to replace x86. This was before x86-64 existed and Intel thought it would be their only 64-bit chip.
Intel can't move to a new architecture because they are held back by all the millions of closed source applications out there.
Ahh but they did! It's called x86-64!
In the end it wasn't backwards compatibility that was the problem. x86-64 has the almost all the same backwards compatibility problems that Itanium has: software developers are forced to release two binaries for their code these days, an x86-32 binary and an x86-64 binary. Obviously x86-64 took off like gang-busters, though, even though it came out like 5 years after Itanium. The reason developers are happy to develop x86-64 binaries but not Itanium binaries is that there still doesn't exist a decent compiler for Itanium.
Okay, okay, I know x86-64 trivially does x86-32 "emulation" very efficiently, which helped it out, but I think the existence of extremely good compilers is what helped it more.
Looks like it's US-only. There are any number of US-only "PayPal alternatives", but in the grand scheme of things, if you're US-only, you're not a PayPal alternative.
Actually no, assuming it's compiled with gcc, and I don't think Linux compiles under anything other than gcc. gcc on 64-bit platforms typically makes int 32 bits wide and long 64 bits wide.
How many modern applications can you run on an old single core computer? How about a computer with 128 megs of RAM? Or how about a 1 GB hard drive?
Uh all of them? With the exception of the 1GB HDD, I do this every day. I'm not sure what your point is?
Even if other applications were just as bad as Adobe, that doesn't make it okay. Using 5 times as many resources as you need isn't "progress"; it's exactly the opposite of progress.
More to the point (since basic Diffie-Hellman is vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks), if you already have the "fingerprint" stored for your home machine, that really can't be faked, so you're safe. If you're not storing the "fingerprint" (why not?) then, well, why would anyone do that?
How do you distinguish between the gas pedal being down due to being stuck versus the gas pedal being down due to someone stepping on it? In either case the sensor is going to report that the gas pedal is down. All the software intelligence in the world is going to have a hard time distinguishing between the identical inputs of PEDAL_DOWN and PEDAL_DOWN.
You could have more intelligent sensors, perhaps, but then that's no longer a software problem.
Not to mention it's got 16 times as much memory as a Cray-1 bleeding supercomputer. I don't know which is sadder, the fact that it's surprising that something so much more powerful than a supercomputer needs a video demonstration to prove it can successfully view a webpage, or the fact that some people can't think of anything to do with a supercomputer beyond giving it to a 2 year-old.
And yet as horrific as that tidbit is, it somehow managed to raise my opinion of him. I'd consider the opinion of my cat to be more credible than that of Joel Splosky on anything programming related.
You should give your wife an operating system designed in the past 40 years. It will do exactly what she wants: idle background processes will be swapped out and use no memory and active idle processes will get access to RAM.
Slashdot Mirror
No I think they got this going the right away around. The Internet will finally reach its full potential once everyone can filter out everything except .xxx domains.
No one has billions of dollars in chequing. These people have billions of dollars in investments. The mainstream media likes to talk about these investments in terms of dollars because it makes for cute headlines, but for the people involved I suspect it has more to do with control. Controlling billions of dollars worth of organizations means, for better or worse, you can help shape a sizeable chunk of the world.
Not true at all. The disparity between consuming resources to attack and consuming resources to defend is the crux of a Denial of Service attack, which is essentially what these drones are. If you know that you can force your enemy to spend $6000 for every $1 you spend, it's pretty easy to drag them into attrition.
What would be wrong with that?
They poured a tonne of work into making this happen. Just because they control the hardware their hard work isn't worth anything? I think it's pretty cool what they've been able to do, someone no one else in the history of Linux has ever been able to do.
That's a really good point! You could have an acquaintance (you don't really like the guy, but hang out with him, know his living situation). Him posting to the world that he's going to be out of town for the next couple days could be tipping point.
The site doesn't tell you whether everyone in the household is gone, only if one person in the household is gone. A robber would still have to peek in the windows and do whatever it is robbers do to make sure the house is empty. But they could do that just by walking around some random neighbourhood and peeking in random windows; they don't need Twitter to tell them to peek into someone's windows.
It was a comment directly in response to "the iPad is the netbook of the future". Are you saying netbooks shouldn't be computers?
If the different colours are perfectly parallel, then there is zero movement in the upper layers and they only look parallel due to how the data is presented (stacked). In order for them to be "synchronized" you'd have to see the layers diverging from one another, not parallel to one another. You can a little bit of this, but not much. For instance, between December 2006 and March 2007, Office sales diverge a wee bit from the layers underneath. The Servers and Tools seems to stay completely flat, maybe even shrinking a bit.
Really it's just Windows sales going up and down and the two layers on top of them not doing very much.
I have some really stupid cheater stories, of course. Like the guy who handed in verbatim his buddy's assignment, including his buddy's name and student number at the top of the comments, and still kept denying it. Those are the easy cases to deal with and, while kind of funny, not very meaningful. If they fess up and apologize and co-operate you give them negative 100%; if they don't you give them an academic offence (which means automatically failing the course and automatically getting expelled from the university if they get a second offence).
There's definitely a lot more cheating going on than I can find evidence for, which I've come to accept is mostly out of my control. My only two real strategies for combatting it are to make the assignments as exciting/interesting as I can so that students don't mind doing them so much, and mandate that you need at least 50% on the exams to pass the course so that you can't get through just on the assignments.
The one that still affects me is a girl I had in a first-year course in my first year of TAing. She was one of the "cool kids" (a little slow transitioning out of her popular high school kid days, you know). Her friends sort of lived for partying and never took any of their courses seriously: most of them ended up failing the CS course. It was a lab scenario where it was scheduled for 2 hours, but if you finished your work in an hour (which many did), you left early. After all her friends had finished the bare minimum and had left, she would stick around, though, for an extra half hour or hour, asking questions and redoing the work she'd already done to make sure she understood it at all properly. She wasn't doing insanely well--I think she was carrying a mark in the course somewhere around the high 70s--but definitely better than her friends and she was putting a lot of work into what obviously didn't come naturally for her.
Then came her final assignment of the course. It was gorgeous! It was their only assignment where they had to incorporate object-oriented design (the course was taught in C++) and she did everything perfectly. It was definitely the best assignment out of the entire class, and we had a lot of really smart cookies in the class. I wrote glowing praises all over it. I ran into her at a bus stop a month or so later and gushed about how impressive her assignment was and how much work she must have put it into it and she just quietly smiled and didn't say much beyond "thank you".
Then about a year later I ran into one of her friends and the topic of her came up again. I said again how impressive it was and said "either she found someone else to write it or she put a lot of work into that". He got awkward and said "I don't want to get her in trouble, but let's just say she didn't put a lot of work into it".
It really did a number on me. I was at the end of my Master's degree at the time and it through me for a loop, wondering if I even wanted to come back for my Ph.D. Research is okay and all, but really the only reason I was in grad school was for the teaching. I eventually did go back and things have gone well, but it surprised me what effect one (previously) good student cheating can have on you :\
Yup, it's changed in Finder. Find a document, either right-click or go to the File menu, select Get Info, change the application in "Open with" and then select "Change All".
Indeed. One can't be totally certain (calculating entropy exactly is undecidable in general), but the entropy rate of English is approximately 1 bit per letter (give or take half a bit, so says Claude Shannon).
Assuming your passphrase is English, it would have to be somewhere around 30 words long to give 128 bits of security? That's essentially the entire first paragraph of this comment, a pretty long passphrase!
If only you could go back in time and convince Intel of this! The first generation of Itaniums actually did x86 emulation in hardware. A brilliant idea: the only problem with it was that it was actually slower than software emulators (which themselves were pretty slow).
Anyway I don't think Itanium was every supposed to replace x86. This was before x86-64 existed and Intel thought it would be their only 64-bit chip.
Ahh but they did! It's called x86-64!
In the end it wasn't backwards compatibility that was the problem. x86-64 has the almost all the same backwards compatibility problems that Itanium has: software developers are forced to release two binaries for their code these days, an x86-32 binary and an x86-64 binary. Obviously x86-64 took off like gang-busters, though, even though it came out like 5 years after Itanium. The reason developers are happy to develop x86-64 binaries but not Itanium binaries is that there still doesn't exist a decent compiler for Itanium.
Okay, okay, I know x86-64 trivially does x86-32 "emulation" very efficiently, which helped it out, but I think the existence of extremely good compilers is what helped it more.
Looks like it's US-only. There are any number of US-only "PayPal alternatives", but in the grand scheme of things, if you're US-only, you're not a PayPal alternative.
Actually no, assuming it's compiled with gcc, and I don't think Linux compiles under anything other than gcc. gcc on 64-bit platforms typically makes int 32 bits wide and long 64 bits wide.
Uh all of them? With the exception of the 1GB HDD, I do this every day. I'm not sure what your point is?
Even if other applications were just as bad as Adobe, that doesn't make it okay. Using 5 times as many resources as you need isn't "progress"; it's exactly the opposite of progress.
More to the point (since basic Diffie-Hellman is vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks), if you already have the "fingerprint" stored for your home machine, that really can't be faked, so you're safe. If you're not storing the "fingerprint" (why not?) then, well, why would anyone do that?
On the plus side, they'd work well for ninja star fights during mass.
Good news, everyone! If you recognized this as Professor Farnsworth's voice, you're not a nerd!
Perhaps they even meant trademarked?
How do you distinguish between the gas pedal being down due to being stuck versus the gas pedal being down due to someone stepping on it? In either case the sensor is going to report that the gas pedal is down. All the software intelligence in the world is going to have a hard time distinguishing between the identical inputs of PEDAL_DOWN and PEDAL_DOWN.
You could have more intelligent sensors, perhaps, but then that's no longer a software problem.
You forgot about OS-9!
More precisely, AT&T tries to follow Unix order, not English order. Things in Unix (e.g., the ln command) consistently have the destination last.
Not to mention it's got 16 times as much memory as a Cray-1 bleeding supercomputer. I don't know which is sadder, the fact that it's surprising that something so much more powerful than a supercomputer needs a video demonstration to prove it can successfully view a webpage, or the fact that some people can't think of anything to do with a supercomputer beyond giving it to a 2 year-old.
And yet as horrific as that tidbit is, it somehow managed to raise my opinion of him. I'd consider the opinion of my cat to be more credible than that of Joel Splosky on anything programming related.
You should give your wife an operating system designed in the past 40 years. It will do exactly what she wants: idle background processes will be swapped out and use no memory and active idle processes will get access to RAM.