Lotus Notes does it automatically and it is pretty nice. The problem is that it is really centralized and that your admins can still read your email if they want, your competitors cannot though. WHen it's automatic it is nice and easy and very convienient, I like it when I get authenticated email in netscape.
You're right though, it's a chicken and egg problem, you draw attention to yourself when you encrypt email, fortunately I have nothing to hide so attention spent paying attention to my email will protect those who should fear our government.
As for the sense of security, a false sense of security can be better than none at all. I also presume that you are talking about methods other than simply capturing and decrypting emails. If all email was encrypted, I'd feel pretty good that mine weren't the ones that were being focused on for decryption.
Is it just me or are some of the cracks really funny. I check the lists on rootshell and hackernews pretty regularly and from time to time there is some really funny work.
Yeah I know it's wrong and bad and all that but some of them are really clever.
There is no way that they are dumping. The chips themselves are dirt cheap to produce, there is a tremendous amount of R&D and support costs (fabs are't so cheap) but really the fact of the matter is that Intel has essentially had a monopoly for a very long time and they dramatically over charge for their chips. Who can blame them?
They can probably produce chips much cheaper than AMD and still cut a profit on them, they've been doing it a long time and have very talented people. Intel could probably sell the coppermine for half of what the k7 is going to be selling for and still make a decent profit (probably a huge profit when they sell 100million coppermines because they are so cheap) and stay legal.
I'd really be shocked if they weren't cutting a profit on the celerons. There wasn't a lot of R&D for it, they really just watered down the P2. Most of the really hard work was already done, they just packaged it, down clocked it and started producing them (all of what, a dime a shot to produce?)
I think this is just great news, chips are getting cheaper because of competition, it's about time. Intel hasn't been pushed before, or at least not seriously. AMD is scaring them a little which should mean better and cheaper chips for all.
I also expect the coppermine to probably match or out perform the athalon, it only makes sense and intel has pulled off those silent style stunners before. (I think it might have been the ppro that performed better than they had let on during design and the released it early) While the pentim iii is an utter disappointment the coppermine will probably perform decently, if they stick with their trends.
How do you guys call it? Windows2000 is easy, I call it DOS 2000.
GNU/Linux is easy, I call it Linux.
AIX has puzzle me. Do you say "aye eye echs"? or "aches" or my new personal favorite "o (like "Oslo" ee ks" becuase it has a sort of cajun thing going on.
Most IBMers say "aye eye echs" but that's not cool.
We knew going in to this that MS wouldn't have been up for it if they didn't already know the outcome.. And now we know our weaknesses, the gap will only close.
This doesn't matter much. I'm not even sure this is a good configuration for most places, 2 duals could very easily be better than one monster quad. Or perhaps fewer nics... If they want to say they beat us here then they can have it, I think linux performs much closer if not better than NT in more common environments.
I unquestionably regard equality between people as right. I unquestionably regard freedom of expression as right in spirit.
Same goes for software, being free to use it as you wish and do with it as you wish are unquestionably right. I can't see how they could possibly be wrong. I am a bigot in my committment to freedom, in all things. Now I'm not a total biggot, I do use a few non-free applications (3 of them) but I think it is noble to sacrifice for the cause if you're more committed than I am or if you don't need any non-free (oppressionware? I've heard freedomware a couple times and I like it) software.
It's not radio though. You have to pay for a subscription and possibly per service you use (like premium cable channels) and it's not commercial free.
NPR is getting in on the deal which is cool but I'm not so crazy about paying for radio and listening to commercials. The only benefit I see is when you travel but we have CDs and tapes and MP3s for that.
I can deal with and understand the IR port issue but the eq lib was one of my favorites... Of course I'll just install it on there anyways but that was one hell of a feature.
MS would want to do it for marketing reasons. NT runs linux apps but linux doesn't run NT apps... Regardless of how useful those apps are or are not it fills some checkboxes in one of those grids that marketing people make. I imagine that it could make an impact when some execs are weighing their NT plans and start asking about all that linux hype... The MS rep quickly says that NT runs all linux apps (probably not, but that never stops anyone) and then goes on to give a jab at linux because it's freeware or something like that and it's not as tested.
It's a nice cover for them. We are still catching up with them in a lot of ways but we'll be leading pretty soon. Suppose some linux application really takes off as a hit? At least they wouldn't be totally left out in the cold.
I'd like to see the rest of your notes.. thanks in advance.
My assumption has been that forcing MS to license the windows source or breaking them up would be awful for consumers, not because of costs (it would surely cost more to keep MS as they are now, I doubt it would cost $30bil to break them up though) but because the baby bills or licensers would have no insentive to break compatiblity with windows and windows wouldn't improve as rapidly as it has in the past.
The extreme version of the other side of that argument is that each licenser or babybill would diverge from the rest and cause market confusion. The only way I would see that happening is if one of them had somehow gained a majority of the market or something and could then start dictating what the other bills and licensers had to do. All things being equal, there is no clear reason to do anything to break compatibility with the other versions of windows. The way the splintering would happen would be in the add-on APIs and middleware market and there is already heated competition there, but MS has a huge leg up on their competitors.
I've heard a lot of talk that NFS on linux is a little subpar. I haven't done any benchmarks to find out but there seems to be a lot of concensus.
FWIW, I'd try to run an AFS based filesystem like CODA. I'm not sure if there are any free DFS implementations for linux but I know you can get CODA up and running. I'm not sure how it performs relative to other networking filesystems but it is actively developed and I'm sure they are aiming at providing a high performance solution. Development is open. There are some ways to tune NFS but unless you specifically need it for legacy support or something I'd go with CODA.
Do you know UML? Suggesting that it is standard or becomes standard is like suggesting that there is a standard flow-chart drawing methodology. UML does have a ton of momentum but I think its usefulness is coming in to question.
CORBA's problems are the same as all the problems of all OOA/D technologies, methods, schemes. Since they don't have any formalism they pretend to have it by making overly complex (pommobabble) presentations. UML is really just a way to draw your object model, it doesn't do a lot other than that. Drawing your object model is important, especially if you've got a large team of implementors who all need to be on the same page but it doesn't get you any closer to implementation or improve you implementation.
Have you ever learned Booch? or OMT? They are much too complex (proof of this is in the list of successful projects which have relied upon them..) This is the achilles heel of OOA/D. There are libraries full of books that discuss the philosophy and outline "methods" which are overly complex and get your project nowhere. The trick to good OOA/D and programming is to be dynamic because you can never figure out all the problems until you start solving some problems and plans change. There is also a lot to be said about finding the right balance between planning for the future in your design but implementing no more than you need, CORBA has plenty of useless features because they were afraid to say "no" and they wanted it to be everything to everybody; the best CORBA brokers are the ones that implement the few pieces that are really needed and ignore the rest.
I don't know, I'm a professional object programmer and we use UML at work. I'm also a functional programmer and I'm becoming more and more disgrunteld with all the talk in the object community and the consistant lack of substance. I think that the free software community is going to be the break through for CORBA and it is because they aren't playing the CORBA game, they are doing what is needed.
I've got nothing against tape, it works wonders on big computers but this just looks like another "last storage device you'll ever need" and it's not particularly impressive. If it used DATs I might take notice..
What we need are CDR juke boxes for backup, if I could drop a stack of 10 discs in and get a complete backup, I'd go for that. They are making archival grade CDRs now and you can read them anywhere...
Most processors are already parallel in the way EPIC means parallel. It has multiple units of execution which can concurrently process instructions. Multichip parallalism is a much more tough problem with lot's of different problems to beat. It has nothing to do with merced or the sales model.
An IA-64 instruction comes in a bundle with 2 other instructions, all together there are 3 instructions in a bundle. Each instruction is something like 40bits long and each bundle has a dependancy flag of several bits. The performance problems that hinder chips the most are pipeline stalls and branches. The chip has a ton of logic that tries to predict branches and choose the right one and modern chips have a ton of logic to execute instructions out of order to reduce stalls. IA-64 forces the job of stall detection to the compiler, which makes the instruction bundles and chooses the dependancy flag (the flag says which instructions in the bundle and conflict) that way the chip doesn't need as much logic for out of order execution, they can focus on more important things. This is also a piece of cake for modern compilers, IBM, Sun, MIPS and DEC all have the technology to do this and most have for years and years.
To solve the branch problem, IA-64 doesn't use branch prediction. This is the really important part of EPIC. It executes both branches and once the correct path is know it discards the instructions it executed on the wrong branch. THis is tough to do. The compiler is also supposed to help with this and add some bits to the flag and this is a tough thing to do.
If it all works, IA64 chips will be fast, but nothing stellar because RISC chip makers have done such a great job of dealing with these problems already. So Intel has chosen to make a very complicated design, with some hard but not impossible compiler changes and they aren't going to deliver the ultimate performance they have been promising for years. There are definitely hard technical problems to solved but they aren't that bad, I think the bigger problem is actually building a chip that can compete with modern PowerPC and Alpha RISC processors and look like it is innovative. Intel is breaking compatibility and once that is done it's anybody's market because they have nothing that makes them look better than the other guys (like 25 years of x86 software...)
The funny thing about all this epic talk is that intel still has to have logic on the processor to tell if the compiler lied... They were trying to get rid of that logic to make a leaner and meaner processor but they still have to have it.
I guess the way I see it, the GPL is about freedom because that is what it was intended to be about. Some of the other licenses are more about exposing source code than freedom.
To use a bad analogy, the GPL freedom is like the first amendment and if you really believe in it you support it even if people are saying things you don't want to hear. Some of these other licenses then try to filter you. You can look at the code but you can't use it, or you have to pay for it if you don't use it in a free way. It's like trying to stop racists from speaking instead of fighting for their right to speak.
That's not to say I haven't enjoyed what ESR has done, he has gotten a lot of press and a lot of attention for the cause but it has also left the community in a split on a lot of issues. Getting an OSS branding has become more important that the freedom and regardless of what you think of RMS, the freedom is the greatest aspect of linux, it's how the community was built and how it all works at it's best.
Probably but you don't have to win a lawsuit to ruin somebody anymore. Especially is you're fighting against hobbiests. Threaten to sue and more often then not, even if they aren't breaking the law, they will give up. Worst case, you sue them and it's "BOLOMAG" (Big Organization with Lots of Money and Guns) against Joe Webmaster in court and you run up his legal fees and put him out of business.
Scientologists have been accused of that tactic, they have an endless supply of money and they can lose law suit after law suit and financially ruin their detractors.
The Theos one is interesting, I bet they have no case. It sounds like they were willing to compromise though. They could have theos.com and give theos.net or theos.org to Theo, right? That would seem pretty reasonable to me, the dot com addresses will always get looked up faster by the web browsers... If it's a marketing gimmick, it's brilliant becuase they have pushed the right buttons just enough to get the attention but not too much to expose their ploy. They have a legitmate concern.
Sleep, hypnos, is used in the New Testament to mean physical death. The commandment to kill somebody (if it existed) would literally say: "put them to sleep"
Thanatos, death, refers to the soul. You can be alive and kicking but experience thanatos.
The passage in question where some other poster suggested that Romans 1 commands that all homosexuals should be killed doesn't say what the poster thought. It says that wicked people who hide the truth (some of whom are homosexual) deserve spiritual death. It doesn't say to kill people and even if it did it isn't saying to go out and stone them or shoot them it is saying that whenthey are judged by God they won't make the cut into heaven. We're way off topic though.
That's not what it says. Reread it. I presume you're talking about verse 27 where it mentions homosexuality and then verse 32 where it mentions death. Reread it, it doesn't say all gay people deserve death. It says that all the godless people who are wicked and supress the truth deserve death (verse 18) and homosexuality was one of the characteristics of some of them.
If we wanted to make this a Bible study we could also analyze the word thanatos vs the word hypnos and how they are translated..
Slashdot Mirror
You're right though, it's a chicken and egg problem, you draw attention to yourself when you encrypt email, fortunately I have nothing to hide so attention spent paying attention to my email will protect those who should fear our government.
As for the sense of security, a false sense of security can be better than none at all. I also presume that you are talking about methods other than simply capturing and decrypting emails. If all email was encrypted, I'd feel pretty good that mine weren't the ones that were being focused on for decryption.
Yeah I know it's wrong and bad and all that but some of them are really clever.
They can probably produce chips much cheaper than AMD and still cut a profit on them, they've been doing it a long time and have very talented people. Intel could probably sell the coppermine for half of what the k7 is going to be selling for and still make a decent profit (probably a huge profit when they sell 100million coppermines because they are so cheap) and stay legal.
I think this is just great news, chips are getting cheaper because of competition, it's about time. Intel hasn't been pushed before, or at least not seriously. AMD is scaring them a little which should mean better and cheaper chips for all.
I also expect the coppermine to probably match or out perform the athalon, it only makes sense and intel has pulled off those silent style stunners before. (I think it might have been the ppro that performed better than they had let on during design and the released it early) While the pentim iii is an utter disappointment the coppermine will probably perform decently, if they stick with their trends.
GNU/Linux is easy, I call it Linux.
AIX has puzzle me. Do you say "aye eye echs"? or "aches" or my new personal favorite "o (like "Oslo" ee ks" becuase it has a sort of cajun thing going on.
Most IBMers say "aye eye echs" but that's not cool.
Actually he named it after his father.
This doesn't matter much. I'm not even sure this is a good configuration for most places, 2 duals could very easily be better than one monster quad. Or perhaps fewer nics... If they want to say they beat us here then they can have it, I think linux performs much closer if not better than NT in more common environments.
I unquestionably regard equality between people as right. I unquestionably regard freedom of expression as right in spirit.
Same goes for software, being free to use it as you wish and do with it as you wish are unquestionably right. I can't see how they could possibly be wrong. I am a bigot in my committment to freedom, in all things. Now I'm not a total biggot, I do use a few non-free applications (3 of them) but I think it is noble to sacrifice for the cause if you're more committed than I am or if you don't need any non-free (oppressionware? I've heard freedomware a couple times and I like it) software.
I knew I was always like him, or Obi Wan...
I just thought it was funny people were using it in a negative way against others.
It's like watching a former sports champion flounder around and get beat by some kids.
NPR is getting in on the deal which is cool but I'm not so crazy about paying for radio and listening to commercials. The only benefit I see is when you travel but we have CDs and tapes and MP3s for that.
I can deal with and understand the IR port issue but the eq lib was one of my favorites... Of course I'll just install it on there anyways but that was one hell of a feature.
It's a moral victory though, it means that Sun is worried about binary only linux applications becoming important.
It's a nice cover for them. We are still catching up with them in a lot of ways but we'll be leading pretty soon. Suppose some linux application really takes off as a hit? At least they wouldn't be totally left out in the cold.
My assumption has been that forcing MS to license the windows source or breaking them up would be awful for consumers, not because of costs (it would surely cost more to keep MS as they are now, I doubt it would cost $30bil to break them up though) but because the baby bills or licensers would have no insentive to break compatiblity with windows and windows wouldn't improve as rapidly as it has in the past.
The extreme version of the other side of that argument is that each licenser or babybill would diverge from the rest and cause market confusion. The only way I would see that happening is if one of them had somehow gained a majority of the market or something and could then start dictating what the other bills and licensers had to do. All things being equal, there is no clear reason to do anything to break compatibility with the other versions of windows. The way the splintering would happen would be in the add-on APIs and middleware market and there is already heated competition there, but MS has a huge leg up on their competitors.
All this starwars stuff is amazing. My only question is if TPM will be great enough to displace Empire as the "Greatest Movie of All Time" or not.
FWIW, I'd try to run an AFS based filesystem like CODA. I'm not sure if there are any free DFS implementations for linux but I know you can get CODA up and running. I'm not sure how it performs relative to other networking filesystems but it is actively developed and I'm sure they are aiming at providing a high performance solution. Development is open. There are some ways to tune NFS but unless you specifically need it for legacy support or something I'd go with CODA.
CORBA's problems are the same as all the problems of all OOA/D technologies, methods, schemes. Since they don't have any formalism they pretend to have it by making overly complex (pommobabble) presentations. UML is really just a way to draw your object model, it doesn't do a lot other than that. Drawing your object model is important, especially if you've got a large team of implementors who all need to be on the same page but it doesn't get you any closer to implementation or improve you implementation.
Have you ever learned Booch? or OMT? They are much too complex (proof of this is in the list of successful projects which have relied upon them..) This is the achilles heel of OOA/D. There are libraries full of books that discuss the philosophy and outline "methods" which are overly complex and get your project nowhere. The trick to good OOA/D and programming is to be dynamic because you can never figure out all the problems until you start solving some problems and plans change. There is also a lot to be said about finding the right balance between planning for the future in your design but implementing no more than you need, CORBA has plenty of useless features because they were afraid to say "no" and they wanted it to be everything to everybody; the best CORBA brokers are the ones that implement the few pieces that are really needed and ignore the rest.
I don't know, I'm a professional object programmer and we use UML at work. I'm also a functional programmer and I'm becoming more and more disgrunteld with all the talk in the object community and the consistant lack of substance. I think that the free software community is going to be the break through for CORBA and it is because they aren't playing the CORBA game, they are doing what is needed.
What we need are CDR juke boxes for backup, if I could drop a stack of 10 discs in and get a complete backup, I'd go for that. They are making archival grade CDRs now and you can read them anywhere...
Most processors are already parallel in the way EPIC means parallel. It has multiple units of execution which can concurrently process instructions. Multichip parallalism is a much more tough problem with lot's of different problems to beat. It has nothing to do with merced or the sales model.
An IA-64 instruction comes in a bundle with 2 other instructions, all together there are 3 instructions in a bundle. Each instruction is something like 40bits long and each bundle has a dependancy flag of several bits. The performance problems that hinder chips the most are pipeline stalls and branches. The chip has a ton of logic that tries to predict branches and choose the right one and modern chips have a ton of logic to execute instructions out of order to reduce stalls. IA-64 forces the job of stall detection to the compiler, which makes the instruction bundles and chooses the dependancy flag (the flag says which instructions in the bundle and conflict) that way the chip doesn't need as much logic for out of order execution, they can focus on more important things. This is also a piece of cake for modern compilers, IBM, Sun, MIPS and DEC all have the technology to do this and most have for years and years.
To solve the branch problem, IA-64 doesn't use branch prediction. This is the really important part of EPIC. It executes both branches and once the correct path is know it discards the instructions it executed on the wrong branch. THis is tough to do. The compiler is also supposed to help with this and add some bits to the flag and this is a tough thing to do.
If it all works, IA64 chips will be fast, but nothing stellar because RISC chip makers have done such a great job of dealing with these problems already. So Intel has chosen to make a very complicated design, with some hard but not impossible compiler changes and they aren't going to deliver the ultimate performance they have been promising for years. There are definitely hard technical problems to solved but they aren't that bad, I think the bigger problem is actually building a chip that can compete with modern PowerPC and Alpha RISC processors and look like it is innovative. Intel is breaking compatibility and once that is done it's anybody's market because they have nothing that makes them look better than the other guys (like 25 years of x86 software...)
The funny thing about all this epic talk is that intel still has to have logic on the processor to tell if the compiler lied... They were trying to get rid of that logic to make a leaner and meaner processor but they still have to have it.
To use a bad analogy, the GPL freedom is like the first amendment and if you really believe in it you support it even if people are saying things you don't want to hear. Some of these other licenses then try to filter you. You can look at the code but you can't use it, or you have to pay for it if you don't use it in a free way. It's like trying to stop racists from speaking instead of fighting for their right to speak.
That's not to say I haven't enjoyed what ESR has done, he has gotten a lot of press and a lot of attention for the cause but it has also left the community in a split on a lot of issues. Getting an OSS branding has become more important that the freedom and regardless of what you think of RMS, the freedom is the greatest aspect of linux, it's how the community was built and how it all works at it's best.
Scientologists have been accused of that tactic, they have an endless supply of money and they can lose law suit after law suit and financially ruin their detractors.
The Theos one is interesting, I bet they have no case. It sounds like they were willing to compromise though. They could have theos.com and give theos.net or theos.org to Theo, right? That would seem pretty reasonable to me, the dot com addresses will always get looked up faster by the web browsers... If it's a marketing gimmick, it's brilliant becuase they have pushed the right buttons just enough to get the attention but not too much to expose their ploy. They have a legitmate concern.
Thanatos, death, refers to the soul. You can be alive and kicking but experience thanatos.
The passage in question where some other poster suggested that Romans 1 commands that all homosexuals should be killed doesn't say what the poster thought. It says that wicked people who hide the truth (some of whom are homosexual) deserve spiritual death. It doesn't say to kill people and even if it did it isn't saying to go out and stone them or shoot them it is saying that whenthey are judged by God they won't make the cut into heaven. We're way off topic though.
I presume you're talking about verse 27 where it mentions homosexuality and then verse 32 where it mentions death. Reread it, it doesn't say all gay people deserve death. It says that all the godless people who are wicked and supress the truth deserve death (verse 18) and homosexuality was one of the characteristics of some of them.
If we wanted to make this a Bible study we could also analyze the word thanatos vs the word hypnos and how they are translated..