I could be totally wrong on this (but I don't think so...), but there doesn't seem to be anything new here. This is just a differential (like those between the right and left wheels of a car) where the input drive is the same as the input drive on a differential, the output drive is one of the wheels, and the electric motor that determines the gear ratio is in place of the other wheel.
They will find that the electric motor is really being run as a generator in lower gears, and so is actually just taking away energy, not increasing the torque.
I invented something like this when I was just a kid playing with Lego blocks. One of the pieces was a differential and I tried to create something like this, but then determined that it would only lose energy, not actually create a different gear ratio.
The vital thing that they are missing is that the way it is built, it is always trying to go into a lower gear. So even if you put a fly wheel in place of the electric motor, it would just spin faster and faster until the transmission was in neutral (as soon as you put any load on the output drive).
To me, it seems that the article does not actually detect unknown malware -- it only detects malware that is actively trying not to be detected. If the malware is currently unknown and is not trying to change how memory is accessed -- that is, it allows itself to be swapped out and overwritten like all the other running programs -- then it will not be detected by this method.
The idea seems to be that rootkits will always reside in memory but mask themselves by overriding OS calls. However, this may not always be the case.
Also, I would love to see how they plan to swap out the operating system along with all programs . . . as far as I know, this is not possible/practical on anything that exists. Obviously you have to do it in order to make the computer hibernate, but in that case the kernel stays in memory until the very end when it powers off the computer, and is reloaded again from disk when the computer resumes.
I have a programming contest coming up this Thursday at NJIT. We have two choices: Java, or C++. There is a one minute runtime limit for the solution (which is why we came in sixth place last year instead of first -- we focused too much on finishing all the problems than coming up with efficient solutions for two of them).
Anyway, for a runtime limit like that, there really is no difference between Java and C++. They will both do well or poorly depending on the algorithm. It's much better to be able to finish coding everything with time to spare than to spend too much time debugging.
That's why you always debias random data. You take two bits at a time. If they are both the same, you throw them both out. If it is 1 0, you return 1. If it is 0 1, you return 0. Or vice versa.
Ah, but you see...this is why you limit your presentation to 12 minutes (20 minutes in certain cases). Then you have an interactive question/answer session for 5-10 minutes (depending on the interest of the audience).
Oh, tor, of course. You could use tor to download it. That would still cause suspicion, though, because most people don't have tor installed. I know I don't. I have had it for brief periods, but only a couple of times before finding that I didn't actually need it and that it was wasting my time.
Another possible solution would be to download the executable every time you needed to use it, then shred and delete it afterwards. You'd have to use a discrete way of downloading it, though -- I'm not sure if there is a way of doing that if your internet connection is being tapped.
Is this unexpected for microsoft? Every single release of windows I've used has been the exact same features, but presented in a different way. Every single one has a learning curve, and no (or well-concealed) option for going back to the previous UI. The worst was probably either when they decided to make menus smaller by hiding the lesser used entries, or how they keep changing the freaking start menu.
So, no. None of the changes they've made are particularly *bad*; they just don't add any value. Personally, though, I think that the ribbon interface is misplaced, as it would better be used for an application related to photo or video editing, which have a lot of features that fall into groups in an easily defined way. An office application does not have enough features to warrant a ribbon-style interface, and its functions can not necessarily be sorted into groups easily.
YES! A ribbon interface would do wonders for the GIMP!...however, it is completely the wrong interface for an office productivity suite. The interface is perfectly suited to an application that is meant to make things look nice, but is terrible for anything that is actually supposed to be professional. It just has too many vain features for a professional, and presents the most counterproductive of them up front.
I have to agree with you. The purpose of productivity software is to provide the use with features that are useful to them, and then get out of the way.
One of the worst things about the ribbon is probably that all the people who want to create eye-catching and time-wasting presentations will now be able to make them twice as much of each. The people who actually wanted to be productive with powerpoint will have to relearn where everything is.
The problem seems to be that Microsoft is treating powerpoint as a toy or a game. They are adding lots of fluff to it and making it look nice. If I had plenty of time on my hands and wanted to make something look pretty (*not* useful, but pretty), I would use powerpoint with the ribbon interface. However, that is not what I want to do, and it is not what I will ever conceivably want to do. I don't use multiple backgrounds -- I use one single background. I don't use slide transitions. I generally write my presentations entirely using the outline interface of Impress, except when I have to add pictures to help convey my point. Does powerpoint even have an outline view? That's probably the killer feature in Impress for me, at least.
So... Webkit renders html as far as I know. So the proposal seems to be to render the entire Gnome gui by feeding html at it. I hope I'm wrong, because if that is correct then it would be a really goofy way of going about things.
You're wrong, don't worry.
A window manager pretty much manages the window decorations (title bar, borders, et cetera) and window actions (close, maximize, resize, move, roll-up, sticky, always on top, always on bottom, et cetera).
Metacity is a window manager and nothing else. It doesn't handle what is in the windows themselves.
To an extent, this was what he was warning against (though he set no time constraints) -- that eventually people would complain about the existence of copyright regardless of length of time. He argued that making the law too broad and absurd (arguable - I'm not debating whether he was right on this issue) would cause people to view the entire thing as an unnecessary evil.
What we see in the past is copyright being extended and broadened continually over time, and people eventually arguing against it as a whole once they have a means to violate it easily.
Of course it is not perfectly what he predicted (and it is extremely late), but it does kind of fit some of the points.
No, by the fact that there is a rising Pirate Party in a few countries. I don't dispute that it is currently very disorganized and ill-defined, but it exists. It is by the fact that more and more people are obtaining copyrighted content from the internet illegally. It is by the fact that more and more people think that this is okay.
Right now, many governments of the world and the recording industry are trying to fight it. Whether they are winning or not, only time will tell. In that respect, not everything he said has come true, but what hasn't come true still has the potential to.
The main point the GP was trying to make is that he predicted that in the future it would become extremely easy to copy something; so easy, in fact, that anybody could do it. That did come true, and that did take 160 years.
You could probably pretty easily write an extension for mediawiki that attaches to the 'ArticleAfterFetchContent' hook and augments the page with content fetched on the fly from Wikipedia. That would be easy enough to do. Just make sure that when the user is editing the page, the function you attach to the hook does not activate (otherwise you will end up saving the wikipedia content into your page, and it will be there twice when a user visits the page).
1) Turn off immediately switching to new tab 2) Go to the slashdot index page 3) Middle click "Read More..." on any article 4) Try to scroll down the page 5) ??? 6) Profit!
But in all seriousness, this can be a problem when browsing slashdot!
By blocking, BitZtream is talking about blocking for a significant amount of time. Technically, all calls are blocking, but there is a significant difference between blocking for a few milliseconds or blocking for a few tenths of a second. For example, reading from a pipe can block for a long time if nothing is writing to the other end; however, you can tell the read function to be non-blocking, and just return an error or nothing if there is nothing to read at the moment.
Obviously, these are system calls. And, being system calls, they are talking to another process, namely part of the kernel. However, this does not make your program multithreaded, because if it did, by that definition, there would be no such thing as a single threaded program on any OS that uses process switching.
> But the smaller, leaner, more approachable codebase goal?
Somewhat. It doesn't get blogged about much, and when it's blogged about the press doesn't pick it up because nitty-gritty arch work is boring. But there have in fact been significant simplifications to all sorts of stuff in the meantime...
So does this mean that it won't take several hours to compile it anymore?
[in 1960 at MIT, "Mash Until No Good"; sometime after that the
derivation from the {recursive acronym} "Mung Until No Good" became
standard; but see {munge}]
1. To make changes to a file, esp. large-scale and irrevocable
changes. See {BLT}.
2. To destroy, usually accidentally, occasionally maliciously. The
system only mungs things maliciously; this is a consequence of
{Finagle's Law}. See {scribble}, {mangle}, {trash}, {nuke}. Reports
from {Usenet} suggest that the pronunciation/muhnj/ is now usual in
speech, but the spelling `mung' is still common in program comments
(compare the widespread confusion over the proper spelling of
{kluge}).
3. In the wake of the {spam} epidemics of the 1990s, mung is now
commonly used to describe the act of modifying an email address in a
sig block in a way that human beings can readily reverse but that will
fool an {address harvester}. Example: johnNOSPAMsmith@isp.net.
4. The kind of beans the sprouts of which are used in Chinese food.
(That's their real name! Mung beans! Really!)
Like many early hacker terms, this one seems to have originated at
{TMRC}; it was already in use there in 1958. Peter Samson (compiler of
the original TMRC lexicon) thinks it may originally have been
onomatopoeic for the sound of a relay spring (contact) being twanged.
However, it is known that during the World Wars, `mung' was U.S.: army
slang for the ersatz creamed chipped beef better known as `SOS', and
it seems quite likely that the word in fact goes back to Scots-dialect
{munge}.
Charles Mackay's 1874 book Lost Beauties of the English Language
defined "mung" as follows: "Preterite of ming, to ming or mingle; when
the substantive meaning of mingled food of bread, potatoes, etc.
thrown to poultry. In America, `mung news' is a common expression
applied to false news, but probably having its derivation from mingled
(or mung) news, in which the true and the false are so mixed up
together that it is impossible to distinguish one from another."
The problem with voting in people with strong principles is that they often expect everybody else to also have strong principles, and pass laws accordingly. For example, libertarianism in the strictest sense works if everybody has strong principles and foresight. In the long run, it is disadvantageous to be anticompetitive as a company because it prevents you from improving your product. Soon (or several years) after something significantly better arrives at a better price than you can give, it will take over. However, people in charge of companies do not think that way. They think in the short term, as does any competition they may have at the moment. Therefore, they cannot be trusted to not be anticompetitive.
This is only one example why strict libertarianism does not work, and also only one example why relying on politicians with strong principles does not work. Thinking of other examples is an exercise left to the reader.
Same sort of thing here. The only time I see even the beginning of my password is when I type too fast in the terminal, and start typing my password before sudo or login turns off echoing.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, yes, I did read the whole article.
I could be totally wrong on this (but I don't think so...), but there doesn't seem to be anything new here. This is just a differential (like those between the right and left wheels of a car) where the input drive is the same as the input drive on a differential, the output drive is one of the wheels, and the electric motor that determines the gear ratio is in place of the other wheel.
They will find that the electric motor is really being run as a generator in lower gears, and so is actually just taking away energy, not increasing the torque.
I invented something like this when I was just a kid playing with Lego blocks. One of the pieces was a differential and I tried to create something like this, but then determined that it would only lose energy, not actually create a different gear ratio.
The vital thing that they are missing is that the way it is built, it is always trying to go into a lower gear. So even if you put a fly wheel in place of the electric motor, it would just spin faster and faster until the transmission was in neutral (as soon as you put any load on the output drive).
No holy grail here (unfortunately).
To me, it seems that the article does not actually detect unknown malware -- it only detects malware that is actively trying not to be detected. If the malware is currently unknown and is not trying to change how memory is accessed -- that is, it allows itself to be swapped out and overwritten like all the other running programs -- then it will not be detected by this method.
The idea seems to be that rootkits will always reside in memory but mask themselves by overriding OS calls. However, this may not always be the case.
Also, I would love to see how they plan to swap out the operating system along with all programs . . . as far as I know, this is not possible/practical on anything that exists. Obviously you have to do it in order to make the computer hibernate, but in that case the kernel stays in memory until the very end when it powers off the computer, and is reloaded again from disk when the computer resumes.
I have a programming contest coming up this Thursday at NJIT. We have two choices: Java, or C++. There is a one minute runtime limit for the solution (which is why we came in sixth place last year instead of first -- we focused too much on finishing all the problems than coming up with efficient solutions for two of them).
Anyway, for a runtime limit like that, there really is no difference between Java and C++. They will both do well or poorly depending on the algorithm. It's much better to be able to finish coding everything with time to spare than to spend too much time debugging.
That's why you always debias random data. You take two bits at a time. If they are both the same, you throw them both out. If it is 1 0, you return 1. If it is 0 1, you return 0. Or vice versa.
Google Chrome (the browser) actually does run on Linux. It even has flash and java support now.
I added the chromium-daily repository, and everything is stable and works fine.
https://launchpad.net/~chromium-daily/+archive/ppa
By the way, I still use firefox for the most part. Adblock plus is nice.
Ah, but you see...this is why you limit your presentation to 12 minutes (20 minutes in certain cases). Then you have an interactive question/answer session for 5-10 minutes (depending on the interest of the audience).
Oh, tor, of course. You could use tor to download it. That would still cause suspicion, though, because most people don't have tor installed. I know I don't. I have had it for brief periods, but only a couple of times before finding that I didn't actually need it and that it was wasting my time.
Another possible solution would be to download the executable every time you needed to use it, then shred and delete it afterwards. You'd have to use a discrete way of downloading it, though -- I'm not sure if there is a way of doing that if your internet connection is being tapped.
Is this unexpected for microsoft? Every single release of windows I've used has been the exact same features, but presented in a different way. Every single one has a learning curve, and no (or well-concealed) option for going back to the previous UI. The worst was probably either when they decided to make menus smaller by hiding the lesser used entries, or how they keep changing the freaking start menu.
So, no. None of the changes they've made are particularly *bad*; they just don't add any value. Personally, though, I think that the ribbon interface is misplaced, as it would better be used for an application related to photo or video editing, which have a lot of features that fall into groups in an easily defined way. An office application does not have enough features to warrant a ribbon-style interface, and its functions can not necessarily be sorted into groups easily.
YES! A ribbon interface would do wonders for the GIMP! ...however, it is completely the wrong interface for an office productivity suite. The interface is perfectly suited to an application that is meant to make things look nice, but is terrible for anything that is actually supposed to be professional. It just has too many vain features for a professional, and presents the most counterproductive of them up front.
I have to agree with you. The purpose of productivity software is to provide the use with features that are useful to them, and then get out of the way.
One of the worst things about the ribbon is probably that all the people who want to create eye-catching and time-wasting presentations will now be able to make them twice as much of each. The people who actually wanted to be productive with powerpoint will have to relearn where everything is.
The problem seems to be that Microsoft is treating powerpoint as a toy or a game. They are adding lots of fluff to it and making it look nice. If I had plenty of time on my hands and wanted to make something look pretty (*not* useful, but pretty), I would use powerpoint with the ribbon interface. However, that is not what I want to do, and it is not what I will ever conceivably want to do. I don't use multiple backgrounds -- I use one single background. I don't use slide transitions. I generally write my presentations entirely using the outline interface of Impress, except when I have to add pictures to help convey my point. Does powerpoint even have an outline view? That's probably the killer feature in Impress for me, at least.
So... Webkit renders html as far as I know. So the proposal seems to be to render the entire Gnome gui by feeding html at it. I hope I'm wrong, because if that is correct then it would be a really goofy way of going about things.
You're wrong, don't worry.
A window manager pretty much manages the window decorations (title bar, borders, et cetera) and window actions (close, maximize, resize, move, roll-up, sticky, always on top, always on bottom, et cetera).
Metacity is a window manager and nothing else. It doesn't handle what is in the windows themselves.
Oh, and their only proposing to use CSS. No HTML.
To an extent, this was what he was warning against (though he set no time constraints) -- that eventually people would complain about the existence of copyright regardless of length of time. He argued that making the law too broad and absurd (arguable - I'm not debating whether he was right on this issue) would cause people to view the entire thing as an unnecessary evil.
What we see in the past is copyright being extended and broadened continually over time, and people eventually arguing against it as a whole once they have a means to violate it easily.
Of course it is not perfectly what he predicted (and it is extremely late), but it does kind of fit some of the points.
Perhaps.
No, by the fact that there is a rising Pirate Party in a few countries. I don't dispute that it is currently very disorganized and ill-defined, but it exists.
It is by the fact that more and more people are obtaining copyrighted content from the internet illegally.
It is by the fact that more and more people think that this is okay.
Right now, many governments of the world and the recording industry are trying to fight it. Whether they are winning or not, only time will tell. In that respect, not everything he said has come true, but what hasn't come true still has the potential to.
The main point the GP was trying to make is that he predicted that in the future it would become extremely easy to copy something; so easy, in fact, that anybody could do it. That did come true, and that did take 160 years.
You could probably pretty easily write an extension for mediawiki that attaches to the 'ArticleAfterFetchContent' hook and augments the page with content fetched on the fly from Wikipedia. That would be easy enough to do. Just make sure that when the user is editing the page, the function you attach to the hook does not activate (otherwise you will end up saving the wikipedia content into your page, and it will be there twice when a user visits the page).
Another simple way to reproduce:
1) Turn off immediately switching to new tab
2) Go to the slashdot index page
3) Middle click "Read More..." on any article
4) Try to scroll down the page
5) ???
6) Profit!
But in all seriousness, this can be a problem when browsing slashdot!
By blocking, BitZtream is talking about blocking for a significant amount of time. Technically, all calls are blocking, but there is a significant difference between blocking for a few milliseconds or blocking for a few tenths of a second. For example, reading from a pipe can block for a long time if nothing is writing to the other end; however, you can tell the read function to be non-blocking, and just return an error or nothing if there is nothing to read at the moment.
Obviously, these are system calls. And, being system calls, they are talking to another process, namely part of the kernel. However, this does not make your program multithreaded, because if it did, by that definition, there would be no such thing as a single threaded program on any OS that uses process switching.
> But the smaller, leaner, more approachable codebase goal?
Somewhat. It doesn't get blogged about much, and when it's blogged about the press doesn't pick it up because nitty-gritty arch work is boring. But there have in fact been significant simplifications to all sorts of stuff in the meantime...
So does this mean that it won't take several hours to compile it anymore?
Link to PDF version for those without access to Nature. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.2030
No, no, no. You divide the larger by the difference.
From Jargon File (4.4.4, 14 Aug 2003) [jargon]:
mung /muhng/, vt.
[in 1960 at MIT, "Mash Until No Good"; sometime after that the
derivation from the {recursive acronym} "Mung Until No Good" became
standard; but see {munge}]
1. To make changes to a file, esp. large-scale and irrevocable
changes. See {BLT}.
2. To destroy, usually accidentally, occasionally maliciously. The /muhnj/ is now usual in
system only mungs things maliciously; this is a consequence of
{Finagle's Law}. See {scribble}, {mangle}, {trash}, {nuke}. Reports
from {Usenet} suggest that the pronunciation
speech, but the spelling `mung' is still common in program comments
(compare the widespread confusion over the proper spelling of
{kluge}).
3. In the wake of the {spam} epidemics of the 1990s, mung is now
commonly used to describe the act of modifying an email address in a
sig block in a way that human beings can readily reverse but that will
fool an {address harvester}. Example: johnNOSPAMsmith@isp.net.
4. The kind of beans the sprouts of which are used in Chinese food.
(That's their real name! Mung beans! Really!)
Like many early hacker terms, this one seems to have originated at
{TMRC}; it was already in use there in 1958. Peter Samson (compiler of
the original TMRC lexicon) thinks it may originally have been
onomatopoeic for the sound of a relay spring (contact) being twanged.
However, it is known that during the World Wars, `mung' was U.S.: army
slang for the ersatz creamed chipped beef better known as `SOS', and
it seems quite likely that the word in fact goes back to Scots-dialect
{munge}.
Charles Mackay's 1874 book Lost Beauties of the English Language
defined "mung" as follows: "Preterite of ming, to ming or mingle; when
the substantive meaning of mingled food of bread, potatoes, etc.
thrown to poultry. In America, `mung news' is a common expression
applied to false news, but probably having its derivation from mingled
(or mung) news, in which the true and the false are so mixed up
together that it is impossible to distinguish one from another."
See the third definition.
The problem with voting in people with strong principles is that they often expect everybody else to also have strong principles, and pass laws accordingly. For example, libertarianism in the strictest sense works if everybody has strong principles and foresight. In the long run, it is disadvantageous to be anticompetitive as a company because it prevents you from improving your product. Soon (or several years) after something significantly better arrives at a better price than you can give, it will take over. However, people in charge of companies do not think that way. They think in the short term, as does any competition they may have at the moment. Therefore, they cannot be trusted to not be anticompetitive.
This is only one example why strict libertarianism does not work, and also only one example why relying on politicians with strong principles does not work. Thinking of other examples is an exercise left to the reader.
Same sort of thing here. The only time I see even the beginning of my password is when I type too fast in the terminal, and start typing my password before sudo or login turns off echoing.
I would totally buy a pen that could do that! Let me know when you make it!
:)