Get it pre-built and externally supported. It'll be a lot easier to fly by your CIO.
The solution you suggested makes sense.
1. RSA keys are shared across the network.
2. A new file becomes available on your "central" server and is placed into a directory automatically shared by a bt client on the central server.
3. A simple script on the central server checks a list of servers it needs to update, and tells each of them to initiate a transfer using the bittorrent protocol.
The latest beta's have terrible crashing problems, but the primary crashes are currently being addressed on the bug tracker. wmode issues are also being resolved. This should put flash on linux in the same ballpark as flash on OS-X.
Of course we're pissed about it, but really, I think Adobe is already stepping up to the plate on this one.
Is that a good sports metaphor? I dunno. I don't do sports.
If you wish to try a recent beta without messing with your system, run the installer on the adobe site as a non-privileged user. It will install to your home directory, and can be removed by deleting a single file.
Threading has an overhead, making it a waste of resources if you don't have multiple cores. Multi-threading on a single core is always slower than single-threading.
There is a common misconception about this because multi-threaded applications can feel more responsive, but in fact, they take longer to accomplish the same unit of work.
I really did love 68000 assembly. I thought that maybe learning x86 assembly would re-spark the fire that kept me interested in programming through the 80's and 90's.
I was wrong.
I did, however, become slightly more interested in cpu design. Intel's complex x86 design partially supports the ass-backwards compatibility required to run 16 bit DOS, but it also *partially* supports incredibly fast code execution (if the code is written by a machine.. of course..)
I suppose in this age, nobody really cares how difficult it is to program a chip, except for the guy who has to write the boot-code, and a few other special purpose routines.
Regardless, I still have nostalgia for the elegant design of the 68000.
Oh, and I stubbornly insist on writing numbers from most significant digit to least significant digit. Call me weird!
How dare you suggest that there could possibly be an inaccuracy or hidden agenda in my post! My post was 100% pure grade "A" bullshit.. no "B" class bullshit in it at all.
Best...computer..ever...
on
Donkey Kong and Me
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
the best computer ever in the whole universe, except for virtually every other computer that has been produced since, was my Atari 600XL. Simple enough for a 5 year old to program in machine code, by copying long lists of poke statements out of the blue pages of antic magazine, this computer changed the way I saw the world. In fact, after only a few short years of sitting in front of a 27" inch TV typing in listings, the way I saw the world had become rather myopic.
Until I got my first Amiga of course. 68000 assembly language reads like a great literary work. Yes, the Amiga 500 with it's unix-like (but not *too* unix like) operating system and it's non-surface mounted giant chips named after *hot chicks*, and later, pregnant chicks, brought a 12 year old and his potentially permanently scarring soldering iron closer together than they had ever been before. Yes.. I got my first virus on an Amiga. It was so cool.. and so scary. Never before had I seen a virus! Don't share floppies kids!
Back then, there were also machines called "macs" which were identifiable by the fact that they used completely different hardware than a PC (stuff made by Motorola.. pfft.. a cellphone manufacturer. leave it up to them and we'll soon be computing on our cellphones!!) and completely different input devices. People said we would never learn to like mice... and they were right.
Well.. it's all gone kids. The mac doesn't exist anymore. Just PC's with unix-like operating systems, and PC's with Microsoft operating systems... and we still rate them on the same system... we fire up mame, and see how well they can duplicate the Donkey Kong experience.
The translation is far from perfect, but it certainly is a meaningful and useful translation. Except for a few ambiguities and grammatical errors, I had no problems understanding the intent of the article.
This is my suggestion precisely. In critical circumstances, move the encryption just outside of the execution core.. just past the internal CPU caches and into the memory controller. The keys should be regenerated on reset assertions, and memory caching modes would have to be used correctly to assure that info written to devices other than system ram is not encrypted.
It's got a huge performance penalty, but it's simple.
I don't think I missed the point at all, and I didn't say anything about disk encryption. I said "memory controllers with hardware encryption". I am suggesting encrypting the contents of RAM, not the contents of a disk.
New keys could be generated every time a reset line is asserted.
Does anyone have information to support this? If they do lease the devices for perpetuity for a fixed fee, then I side with them 100%. They have done nothing wrong (unless of course, that type of arrangement is against the law).
In a desperate attempt to not appear to be a hypocrite, I like to extend to others the same rights that I wish extended to myself. I expect others to follow the agreements they make with me. So should the CoS.
Is it, in general, legal to allow a vendor to prevent the resale of their product? I don't understand why this would be considered beneficial to society or why it wouldn't be considered monopolistic.
Of course, I'm no lawyer, but I've heard that everyone on Slashdot is.
This will probably get modded off-topic, but nonetheless, I think in a broad sense it is relevant.
Open Office pushes the its file format agenda inadvertently by not pointing out to users that it can behave more like Microsoft Office and default to using Word's format for saving files.
While I also agree with Open Office's agenda, it will never gain market share if new users think they have to "do something special" every time they save a file in order to remain compatible with the software that their business associates use, Microsoft Office.
The first-use wizard should (in my opinion) ask user if they would rather have Open Office act like Microsoft office. This will make migration easier for users who don't like tinkering around with program settings. (there are many)
Similarly, Linux faces the problem that it is *different*. While there are Windows Like window managers, they are usually not installed by default, and users instantly feel like they are in an unfamiliar environment. Fear of a learning curve is more detrimental to software adoption than the learning curve itself in many cases. A distribution geared towards the desktop market, a market predominantly controlled by Microsoft, should offer users, on first use, an opportunity to minimize their learning curve by using a window manager which will feel familiar to them.
Microsoft made the mistake of making significant unnecessary changes to their default user interface in Windows Vista. They also did not offer users the option to choose a more familiar interface on first-use. As a result, the only people *I* know who bought a valid Vista license did so because it came included with their new computer.
My overall somewhat relevant point is, value propositions entice users and may influence early adopters, but general public opinion from community leaders (geeks) rarely rely on them. Value proposition is *not* the primary factor affecting Linux adoption. Usability, based on familiarity, is.
-- * this opinion is subject to change at a moments notice, and is based solely on me thinking that I'm always right. Go figure. -- ** not to mention that brand-name software frequently does not work on Linux.
On visiting Paypal, I noticed that the Firefox 3 Beta makes strides towards making users more aware of SSL and security certificates. The name of the organization that you are connected to is prominently displayed when visiting a secure site. Clicking on the name gives you additional information about the organization in a clear easy to understand manner.
The handling of invalid certificates is pretty serious too. You are presented with an error page which you must actually read, at least once, to figure out what to do to make an exception and connect to a site with an invalid certificate. Once you are connected, the name of the company on the certificate is NOT displayed, indicating that Firefox does not actually know who you are communicating with.
It falls pretty much in line with how I think this should be done.
I wonder if there is a legitimate case against ISP's here in North America that promise high-speed, but throttle connections if they detect torrent usage?
Slashdot Mirror
Better yet, tack on:
6. Give the script that handles this a name, build deployment tools, and release them under GPL.
Get it pre-built and externally supported. It'll be a lot easier to fly by your CIO.
The solution you suggested makes sense.
1. RSA keys are shared across the network.
2. A new file becomes available on your "central" server and is placed into a directory automatically shared by a bt client on the central server.
3. A simple script on the central server checks a list of servers it needs to update, and tells each of them to initiate a transfer using the bittorrent protocol.
4. ???
5. Profit.
The latest beta's have terrible crashing problems, but the primary crashes are currently being addressed on the bug tracker. wmode issues are also being resolved. This should put flash on linux in the same ballpark as flash on OS-X.
Of course we're pissed about it, but really, I think Adobe is already stepping up to the plate on this one.
Is that a good sports metaphor? I dunno. I don't do sports.
If you wish to try a recent beta without messing with your system, run the installer on the adobe site as a non-privileged user. It will install to your home directory, and can be removed by deleting a single file.
Threading has an overhead, making it a waste of resources if you don't have multiple cores. Multi-threading on a single core is always slower than single-threading. There is a common misconception about this because multi-threaded applications can feel more responsive, but in fact, they take longer to accomplish the same unit of work.
I really did love 68000 assembly. I thought that maybe learning x86 assembly would re-spark the fire that kept me interested in programming through the 80's and 90's.
I was wrong.
I did, however, become slightly more interested in cpu design. Intel's complex x86 design partially supports the ass-backwards compatibility required to run 16 bit DOS, but it also *partially* supports incredibly fast code execution (if the code is written by a machine.. of course..)
I suppose in this age, nobody really cares how difficult it is to program a chip, except for the guy who has to write the boot-code, and a few other special purpose routines.
Regardless, I still have nostalgia for the elegant design of the 68000.
Oh, and I stubbornly insist on writing numbers from most significant digit to least significant digit. Call me weird!
How dare you suggest that there could possibly be an inaccuracy or hidden agenda in my post! My post was 100% pure grade "A" bullshit.. no "B" class bullshit in it at all.
the best computer ever in the whole universe, except for virtually every other computer that has been produced since, was my Atari 600XL. Simple enough for a 5 year old to program in machine code, by copying long lists of poke statements out of the blue pages of antic magazine, this computer changed the way I saw the world. In fact, after only a few short years of sitting in front of a 27" inch TV typing in listings, the way I saw the world had become rather myopic.
Until I got my first Amiga of course. 68000 assembly language reads like a great literary work. Yes, the Amiga 500 with it's unix-like (but not *too* unix like) operating system and it's non-surface mounted giant chips named after *hot chicks*, and later, pregnant chicks, brought a 12 year old and his potentially permanently scarring soldering iron closer together than they had ever been before. Yes.. I got my first virus on an Amiga. It was so cool.. and so scary. Never before had I seen a virus! Don't share floppies kids!
Back then, there were also machines called "macs" which were identifiable by the fact that they used completely different hardware than a PC (stuff made by Motorola.. pfft.. a cellphone manufacturer. leave it up to them and we'll soon be computing on our cellphones!!) and completely different input devices. People said we would never learn to like mice... and they were right.
Well.. it's all gone kids. The mac doesn't exist anymore. Just PC's with unix-like operating systems, and PC's with Microsoft operating systems... and we still rate them on the same system... we fire up mame, and see how well they can duplicate the Donkey Kong experience.
I nearly beat level 2 today.
JVM? VM? I already have machines that run Java and Python. What do I need a virtual one for?
Ironic that IBM isn't manufacturing popular CPU's anymore.
The translation is far from perfect, but it certainly is a meaningful and useful translation. Except for a few ambiguities and grammatical errors, I had no problems understanding the intent of the article.
Kudos to Google!
AH! This explains the claim that Vista is faster than XP. All this time I thought it was just marketing nonsense.
Son of a bitch! He got modded up.
Debian! Debian! SUSE! SUSE! Hippopotami! Hippopotami!
My post seems silly now that I realize you weren't responding to me. haha
This is my suggestion precisely. In critical circumstances, move the encryption just outside of the execution core.. just past the internal CPU caches and into the memory controller. The keys should be regenerated on reset assertions, and memory caching modes would have to be used correctly to assure that info written to devices other than system ram is not encrypted.
It's got a huge performance penalty, but it's simple.
I don't think I missed the point at all, and I didn't say anything about disk encryption. I said "memory controllers with hardware encryption". I am suggesting encrypting the contents of RAM, not the contents of a disk.
New keys could be generated every time a reset line is asserted.
Time for memory controllers with hardware encryption.
If we use the prefix to convey the purpose of the variable, what are we supposed to use the rest of the variable name for?
I didn't know this was true. What prohibits religious organizations from suing?
Does anyone have information to support this? If they do lease the devices for perpetuity for a fixed fee, then I side with them 100%. They have done nothing wrong (unless of course, that type of arrangement is against the law).
In a desperate attempt to not appear to be a hypocrite, I like to extend to others the same rights that I wish extended to myself. I expect others to follow the agreements they make with me. So should the CoS.
Is it, in general, legal to allow a vendor to prevent the resale of their product? I don't understand why this would be considered beneficial to society or why it wouldn't be considered monopolistic.
Of course, I'm no lawyer, but I've heard that everyone on Slashdot is.
FUD, however distasteful, works on Joe Average. Quote worst-case scenarios, no matter how unlikely.
Or just be happy that you understand security well enough to be part of the solution.
This will probably get modded off-topic, but nonetheless, I think in a broad sense it is relevant.
Open Office pushes the its file format agenda inadvertently by not pointing out to users that it can behave more like Microsoft Office and default to using Word's format for saving files.
While I also agree with Open Office's agenda, it will never gain market share if new users think they have to "do something special" every time they save a file in order to remain compatible with the software that their business associates use, Microsoft Office.
The first-use wizard should (in my opinion) ask user if they would rather have Open Office act like Microsoft office. This will make migration easier for users who don't like tinkering around with program settings. (there are many)
Similarly, Linux faces the problem that it is *different*. While there are Windows Like window managers, they are usually not installed by default, and users instantly feel like they are in an unfamiliar environment. Fear of a learning curve is more detrimental to software adoption than the learning curve itself in many cases. A distribution geared towards the desktop market, a market predominantly controlled by Microsoft, should offer users, on first use, an opportunity to minimize their learning curve by using a window manager which will feel familiar to them.
Microsoft made the mistake of making significant unnecessary changes to their default user interface in Windows Vista. They also did not offer users the option to choose a more familiar interface on first-use. As a result, the only people *I* know who bought a valid Vista license did so because it came included with their new computer.
My overall somewhat relevant point is, value propositions entice users and may influence early adopters, but general public opinion from community leaders (geeks) rarely rely on them. Value proposition is *not* the primary factor affecting Linux adoption. Usability, based on familiarity, is.
-- * this opinion is subject to change at a moments notice, and is based solely on me thinking that I'm always right. Go figure.
-- ** not to mention that brand-name software frequently does not work on Linux.
Who would have expected this kind of behavior from the industry that redefined "Unlimited"?
"It's easier to ask forgiveness than to get permission", Amazing Grace
On visiting Paypal, I noticed that the Firefox 3 Beta makes strides towards making users more aware of SSL and security certificates. The name of the organization that you are connected to is prominently displayed when visiting a secure site. Clicking on the name gives you additional information about the organization in a clear easy to understand manner.
The handling of invalid certificates is pretty serious too. You are presented with an error page which you must actually read, at least once, to figure out what to do to make an exception and connect to a site with an invalid certificate. Once you are connected, the name of the company on the certificate is NOT displayed, indicating that Firefox does not actually know who you are communicating with.
It falls pretty much in line with how I think this should be done.
I wonder if there is a legitimate case against ISP's here in North America that promise high-speed, but throttle connections if they detect torrent usage?