The analogy isn't great, and all responses to do with it being easy to verify the answer are wrong. if the QC just gives you a wrong answer as often as a guess would, which is implied in the responses, then there is no point using a QC!
Imagine a game where you have to guess the correct input to get an output (one of these games is called factorisation), QC is a way of cheating at these games, instead of actually trying all the inputs the QC tries them all the ones that give the wrong answer cancel! The interpretations, i don't know how something that fundamentally can't be verified can be called a theory, are to do with explaining when the cancelling/cheating happens but don't really matter much to the science of quantum mechanics, at some point you interpret the answer and use that data and the cheating is already done (e.g you already have the correct answer)
people don't care, they see they can get an xbox360 for alot less than the ps3 they don't care that: ps3 can run normal software and browse internet, watch DVDs, etc ps3 on-line gaming is free ps3 controllers are bluetooth and can be used on computers ps3 has much better hardware ps3 games can contain much more content.'. better graphics about a million reasons that ps3 is technically better, all they see is xbox360 is cheaper+ everybody else has then+ more friends to play online against
why? its low level but it doesn't affect the above filesystem. on the list of reasons why it SHOULD be done by the OS not the firmware are: *OS has a better clue about idleness *OS can create idleness by holding unimportant writes for a while (ext4 style) and using this time to do GC *OS can decide to save power by not doing this while on batterypower on the list AGAINST i only have: *jtownatpunk.net thinks it should be platform independent and thinks this can't be achieved without doing it in firmware
put out the essence of the driver in public-domain and code a version for windows/mac if required, that way all oses will use the same logic even if they have completely different drivers.
walk/run modifier is great imho it provides a much better way to seperate walk/run (which in most FPSes are two pretty different actions), would would be nice is variable speed for the walking
controldescripts allows what your asking for (well the disabling ajax and javascript animations, othertools will block flash and esc will stop gifs), unfortunately setting it up was beyond me, but the functionality to restrict the js commands a site has access to is there, so i just use noscript+temporarily allow default domain.
look back about a year, since AMD opened up specs & docs, the radeon drivers have become very usable for everyday stuff (maybe not HD video, compiz or games), but the stability blows any prop driver i have ever used (nvidia or flgrx) right out of the water. For years linux users/developers have been claiming that we don't want drivers we just want open specs (without NDAs) and "we" would do the hard work. Well AMD have opened specs but it turns out when i say "we" i mean just the 2 guys who can be bothers, fortunately these guys are pretty fucking awesome so development is coming along smoothly but still lags behind what prop drives offer (in terms of performance anyway). Perhaps readon does not meet your needs but they it is defiantly viable alternative to nvidia for many uses!
On the otherhand if windows7 uses lots of wakeup calls then the CPU can never sit in C3 for very long, that would however not be a mac specific problem so my money is on bootcamps fault too!
Murdoch doesn't give a shit, it just happens that a lot of idiots buy into nationalistic sensationalism, so he sells them what they want. In the UK the sun isn't too bad compared to the mail and is more left wing than the telegraph, the (london) times and thelondonpaper arn't particularity bad either. Over here the colbert report goes out on fx, so the idea that murdoch and his nth wife sit down and tell fox news to spread right wing bullshit is pretty dumb, he just sells "news" to the lowest common denominator, he doesn't really care who's in power he's fucking loaded anyway!
Interesting theory, but pure bullshit. Linus in 2.6.30 broke atime and said that userspace applications relying on it be fixed.
This ensures predictable behavior of an OS that you can actually rely on, and better release management.
If you want an OS you can rely on then the linux development model is fucked! 2.x+1/2.x produces reliable OSes, but Linus choose to switch to 2.6 only development (a bold move that has had its benefits).
Alan was still getting to the root of the problem and finding a correct fix, Linus got flamey, Alan got fed up.Linus doesn't know the specifics of how most of the kernel works (by his own admission) yet far too often gets into arguments with maintainers that DO (the scheduling problem, ioscheduling, filesystem behavior, now ttys) sometimes hes right, sometimes hes not, the problem is that not only does he jump in all guns blazing but he also rarely admits his mistakes (to the point of having somebody reimplement a scheduler, just to save him some face). IMO far too much enphasis is put on the linus tree and linux development would be much better off if distros kept their own trees which pulled directly from patchsets, -ac, -next and mainline.
Personally I'm a much bigger fan of coxs "do things correctly, even if it hurts" mentality than linus's "don't break userspace, unless its something I don't care about, in which case fuck userspace, unless i don't like the maintainer of the patch in which case ill get some peon to redo the whole thing" mentality, but hey if it wasn't for the licenses id probably be on bsd anyway!
Any specifics? I've always heard people bitching about kde+ubuntu, but it seamed better than kde+debian and no worse than kde+fedora. What is all this anti-(K)ubuntu stuff about anyway? yes it is less supported than ubuntu but its not noticeable worse than the competition.
***I do all important configuration from CLI anyway so some perhaps I'm only talking about day to day use not configuration.
I kept hearing people bitch about kubuntu so switched to fedora, while a change is good i don't see how F11 is any better than for kde than the last kubuntu i used (granted it has been a while since i left kubuntu because i preferrf kde3.x)
pardus looks nice unfortunatly thier english release page stops at 2008.2 (released in jan 09 so not too bad) madriva seams nice, but i sometimes get the impression that they cripple their free version a bit chakra-project is arch linux, some people love it but generally rolling release distros are not great for the masses.
You have to ask... "how does/did that make you feel?"
Is that like cat/var/log/messages? I mean there is a lot of random noise in there, but eventually you'll probably piece together enough information to fix something (that may or may not be the cause of the original problem) but will make you feel like you've achieved something (unless the original problem still continues in which case you get frustrated because you realise you don't have a clue what's going on!)
Obviously this is a stupid way to do it (sounds like they may just have an authenticated vpn run on the client), but what is the best way to implement this without opening up your clients to MITM attacks (both from fake hotspots and malicious hotspot owners)?
A secured web gateway/proxy, seams like a solution that would work anywhere and would be pretty simple stuff for an ISP to setup. (explain https at the login page to prevent fake hotspots) enterprise WPA2 solutions may be even better (less overhead) and seams to work for eduroam (which worked a lot more of the time than my uni's cisco vpn solution)
The problem was they didn't capitalise on the 1st world markets, back when it was 1st release G1G1 meant you could get a laptop designed for a kid to learn with, cheaper than a standard laptop. Even when netbooks started to make a laptops cheaper than G1G1, simply mass producing them (possibly with a portion of profits going to make 3rd world purchases cheaper) would help cut production costs.
The only value of certificates is when they *change*. You can't verify who you're talking to the first time around anyway.. a certificate is *not* sufficient verification.
Unless your users have a clue (e.g will jump through hoops), they will agree to a change of certificate warning, thus rendering all your security useless!
It gives a false sense of security vs knowing that nothing is protected. Self-signed certs ( that haven't been explained to the user in such a way that they will "jump through hoops") are only slightly better at protecting your data than javascript obfusciation, the false sense of security that uninformed users/admins get more than counteracts any real benefits.
Sometimes all you're after is an encrypted connection.
Sometimes you haven't got a clue wtf your doing! Q: why are you encrypting your connection? A: to protect your self from MITM attacks! Q: What are self-signed certs susceptible to? A: MITM attacks! Q: What have you acheived by using a self-signed cert? A: Nothing
Let me put it another way: Q: Who do self-signed certs protect against MITM attacks? A: people with a clue about security Q: What will people with a clue need to see, to get this protection A: All the information that firefox shows when you "jump through hoops"
This is stupidity of the highest order - instead of the increased use of encryption browsers like firefox are discouraging its use.
No it makes MITM attacks against legitimate sites harder, while not offering a false sense of security! Giving the clueless users an easy way to be tricked into MITM while offering no real benefit, THAT is the stupidity of the highest order!
There is more to it than that, linux was: *much more open than hurd *aimed at what people where using *much easier to develop *didn't have RMS in charge (they guy is great for some things but apparently he's a complete dick to work with)
Serious what did the actually guy invent? Seams he ripped off (or rather paid a fair price for people to develop what where just ideas that needed a fair amount of development to make profitable) the people that came up with the ideas and got loaded himself!
Slashdot Mirror
The analogy isn't great, and all responses to do with it being easy to verify the answer are wrong. if the QC just gives you a wrong answer as often as a guess would, which is implied in the responses, then there is no point using a QC!
Imagine a game where you have to guess the correct input to get an output (one of these games is called factorisation), QC is a way of cheating at these games, instead of actually trying all the inputs the QC tries them all the ones that give the wrong answer cancel! The interpretations, i don't know how something that fundamentally can't be verified can be called a theory, are to do with explaining when the cancelling/cheating happens but don't really matter much to the science of quantum mechanics, at some point you interpret the answer and use that data and the cheating is already done (e.g you already have the correct answer)
Can they also eliminate lots of latency by doing the computation BEFORE reading the file?
people don't care, they see they can get an xbox360 for alot less than the ps3 they don't care that: .'. better graphics
ps3 can run normal software and browse internet, watch DVDs, etc
ps3 on-line gaming is free
ps3 controllers are bluetooth and can be used on computers
ps3 has much better hardware
ps3 games can contain much more content
about a million reasons that ps3 is technically better, all they see is xbox360 is cheaper+ everybody else has then+ more friends to play online against
why? its low level but it doesn't affect the above filesystem.
on the list of reasons why it SHOULD be done by the OS not the firmware are:
*OS has a better clue about idleness
*OS can create idleness by holding unimportant writes for a while (ext4 style) and using this time to do GC
*OS can decide to save power by not doing this while on batterypower
on the list AGAINST i only have:
*jtownatpunk.net thinks it should be platform independent and thinks this can't be achieved without doing it in firmware
put out the essence of the driver in public-domain and code a version for windows/mac if required, that way all oses will use the same logic even if they have completely different drivers.
walk/run modifier is great imho it provides a much better way to seperate walk/run (which in most FPSes are two pretty different actions), would would be nice is variable speed for the walking
controldescripts allows what your asking for (well the disabling ajax and javascript animations, othertools will block flash and esc will stop gifs), unfortunately setting it up was beyond me, but the functionality to restrict the js commands a site has access to is there, so i just use noscript+temporarily allow default domain.
look back about a year, since AMD opened up specs & docs, the radeon drivers have become very usable for everyday stuff (maybe not HD video, compiz or games), but the stability blows any prop driver i have ever used (nvidia or flgrx) right out of the water.
For years linux users/developers have been claiming that we don't want drivers we just want open specs (without NDAs) and "we" would do the hard work. Well AMD have opened specs but it turns out when i say "we" i mean just the 2 guys who can be bothers, fortunately these guys are pretty fucking awesome so development is coming along smoothly but still lags behind what prop drives offer (in terms of performance anyway). Perhaps readon does not meet your needs but they it is defiantly viable alternative to nvidia for many uses!
On the otherhand if windows7 uses lots of wakeup calls then the CPU can never sit in C3 for very long, that would however not be a mac specific problem so my money is on bootcamps fault too!
Even fox news is pretty biased
No where else manages to put so much bias into their "news", e.g to get even close you have to start looking at comedy programs!
Hey, just because you voted republican doesn't mean you can expect a black man to come over and sort out your mess for free!
Murdoch doesn't give a shit, it just happens that a lot of idiots buy into nationalistic sensationalism, so he sells them what they want. In the UK the sun isn't too bad compared to the mail and is more left wing than the telegraph, the (london) times and thelondonpaper arn't particularity bad either. Over here the colbert report goes out on fx, so the idea that murdoch and his nth wife sit down and tell fox news to spread right wing bullshit is pretty dumb, he just sells "news" to the lowest common denominator, he doesn't really care who's in power he's fucking loaded anyway!
Interesting theory, but pure bullshit. Linus in 2.6.30 broke atime and said that userspace applications relying on it be fixed.
This ensures predictable behavior of an OS that you can actually rely on, and better release management.
If you want an OS you can rely on then the linux development model is fucked! 2.x+1/2.x produces reliable OSes, but Linus choose to switch to 2.6 only development (a bold move that has had its benefits).
Alan was still getting to the root of the problem and finding a correct fix, Linus got flamey, Alan got fed up.Linus doesn't know the specifics of how most of the kernel works (by his own admission) yet far too often gets into arguments with maintainers that DO (the scheduling problem, ioscheduling, filesystem behavior, now ttys) sometimes hes right, sometimes hes not, the problem is that not only does he jump in all guns blazing but he also rarely admits his mistakes (to the point of having somebody reimplement a scheduler, just to save him some face). IMO far too much enphasis is put on the linus tree and linux development would be much better off if distros kept their own trees which pulled directly from patchsets, -ac, -next and mainline.
Personally I'm a much bigger fan of coxs "do things correctly, even if it hurts" mentality than linus's "don't break userspace, unless its something I don't care about, in which case fuck userspace, unless i don't like the maintainer of the patch in which case ill get some peon to redo the whole thing" mentality, but hey if it wasn't for the licenses id probably be on bsd anyway!
Any specifics? I've always heard people bitching about kde+ubuntu, but it seamed better than kde+debian and no worse than kde+fedora. What is all this anti-(K)ubuntu stuff about anyway? yes it is less supported than ubuntu but its not noticeable worse than the competition.
***I do all important configuration from CLI anyway so some perhaps I'm only talking about day to day use not configuration.
I kept hearing people bitch about kubuntu so switched to fedora, while a change is good i don't see how F11 is any better than for kde than the last kubuntu i used (granted it has been a while since i left kubuntu because i preferrf kde3.x)
pardus looks nice unfortunatly thier english release page stops at 2008.2 (released in jan 09 so not too bad)
madriva seams nice, but i sometimes get the impression that they cripple their free version a bit
chakra-project is arch linux, some people love it but generally rolling release distros are not great for the masses.
You have to ask... "how does/did that make you feel?"
Is that like cat /var/log/messages? I mean there is a lot of random noise in there, but eventually you'll probably piece together enough information to fix something (that may or may not be the cause of the original problem) but will make you feel like you've achieved something (unless the original problem still continues in which case you get frustrated because you realise you don't have a clue what's going on!)
Obviously this is a stupid way to do it (sounds like they may just have an authenticated vpn run on the client), but what is the best way to implement this without opening up your clients to MITM attacks (both from fake hotspots and malicious hotspot owners)?
A secured web gateway/proxy, seams like a solution that would work anywhere and would be pretty simple stuff for an ISP to setup. (explain https at the login page to prevent fake hotspots)
enterprise WPA2 solutions may be even better (less overhead) and seams to work for eduroam (which worked a lot more of the time than my uni's cisco vpn solution)
The problem was they didn't capitalise on the 1st world markets, back when it was 1st release G1G1 meant you could get a laptop designed for a kid to learn with, cheaper than a standard laptop. Even when netbooks started to make a laptops cheaper than G1G1, simply mass producing them (possibly with a portion of profits going to make 3rd world purchases cheaper) would help cut production costs.
There is a huge difference between a forged certificate and a self signed certificate.
That's either the funniest quote I've seen all day or the dumbest!
The only value of certificates is when they *change*. You can't verify who you're talking to the first time around anyway.. a certificate is *not* sufficient verification.
Unless your users have a clue (e.g will jump through hoops), they will agree to a change of certificate warning, thus rendering all your security useless!
It gives a false sense of security vs knowing that nothing is protected. Self-signed certs ( that haven't been explained to the user in such a way that they will "jump through hoops") are only slightly better at protecting your data than javascript obfusciation, the false sense of security that uninformed users/admins get more than counteracts any real benefits.
Sometimes all you're after is an encrypted connection.
Sometimes you haven't got a clue wtf your doing!
Q: why are you encrypting your connection?
A: to protect your self from MITM attacks!
Q: What are self-signed certs susceptible to?
A: MITM attacks!
Q: What have you acheived by using a self-signed cert?
A: Nothing
Let me put it another way:
Q: Who do self-signed certs protect against MITM attacks?
A: people with a clue about security
Q: What will people with a clue need to see, to get this protection
A: All the information that firefox shows when you "jump through hoops"
This is stupidity of the highest order - instead of the increased use of encryption browsers like firefox are discouraging its use.
No it makes MITM attacks against legitimate sites harder, while not offering a false sense of security! Giving the clueless users an easy way to be tricked into MITM while offering no real benefit, THAT is the stupidity of the highest order!
There is more to it than that, linux was:
*much more open than hurd
*aimed at what people where using
*much easier to develop
*didn't have RMS in charge (they guy is great for some things but apparently he's a complete dick to work with)
Serious what did the actually guy invent? Seams he ripped off (or rather paid a fair price for people to develop what where just ideas that needed a fair amount of development to make profitable) the people that came up with the ideas and got loaded himself!