It's not about what you need, but what the companies developing computer hardware can do to keep their customers in the hunt for new hardware. If they don't improve their products to the point where you're willing to shell out your hard-earned dollars, they won't make profit. What they can't do at the moment is make faster/more efficient CPU's/GPU's that have a good value. If they build a faster single CPU, the cost goes up. If the CPU is more efficient, the cost to build it goes up. Most people won't buy new hardware unless they 1) have no choice or 2) perceive a real value. As so many people have enough computing power for their needs, option 1 doesn't happen enough to generate real profits for a firm. That leaves option 2, and the technology is at a point where it's not possible create real value in a faster, single CPU now.
What they can do right now is build CPU's and GPUs with more cores, and then make the claim that you, the consumer, need more cores. For a graphics card, that's mostly true, as the computing environment for graphics hardware is already able to use more cores, it's just a matter of whether you already have enough graphics power for your needs. Unfortunately, it's not true that more cores are better for CPU's. Your single user desktop isn't able to effectively use even 4 cores, except in certain specialized cases, let alone the 6, 8 or 12 cores in CPU's that have been recently developed.
The original article is a call for changes to Windows to use those cores, not because you need more cores, but because you will have more cores in the new machines, whether you want them or not. And if you have them, you might as well find a way to use them.
Thanks for the info on VSRM- I wasn't familiar with that acronym, and a google search on it was unenlightening w.r.t. automobile manuals.
I would still ask Zurk where he stops quoting the manual, and starts providing information/opinion not in the manual. I suspect that the last 2 paragraphs:
An internal short could occur within one or more of the paths from the circuits leading to the ecm. That could lead to a situation where the computer cannot detect its own failure.Therefore, when the system gets conflicting information, it arbitrarily ignores half the conflicting information. It does not know which of the circuits are lying or if they both are lying and shorted together. different resistance values will lead to arbitrary acceleration. Having the brake override it is a stopgap, but ixing the real problem (perhaps with a third circuit in voting mode which will require replacing the entire circuit path) is the REAL FIX. I suspect 2012 and onwards toyotas would have a third path and faraday cage/denso replacement for the magnet assembly in the plastic accelerator pedal (which is another problem with EMI which might lead to acceleration) which i am not going to go into here.
So, YES OP you should definitely install the update. Its the only thing standing between you and death if both the APP circuits short
.
are not in the manual.
It's OK if the information is a reasoned guess, speculation, or something he's tested personally or just a WAG. I would like to know how he came by it, so I can judge it's usefulness. Even if it's speculation or a WAG, it's a decent theory that can be easily tested. OK, maybe not safely tested, but testable at least.
That's very detailed information. Where are you getting this from? I see that ETCS issues are mentioned in a lawsuit against Toyota, but you're specifying that the unintended acceleration in Toyota's may be the result of a simple short across the 2 APP sensors? That's pretty big news, and if so, it's a hardware issue with a potential software workaround, as you've detailed above.
Is this something you've determined personally, or do you have a source link for it?
The article from the "Orlando Sentinel" is just a bit slanted. Perhaps things aren't as bleak as that article and the summary suggest.
If we lose Constellation, it doesn't follow that the Manned Space Program is gone- just that we can't afford Constellation. See the Augustine Commission's report that claims that Constellation will only work if we give it another $3 billion a year. And this would have been for a program 5 years behind schedule, with no real test flights and several significant safety issues that haven't been resolved as of yet.
So what alternatives does the Obama administration have to look at? Well, as the article notes, Nasa will look at other heavy lift launch designs and come up with a plan to use one of those to replace the Ares V. As the Ares I was for Crew only, Nasa will look at the commercial launch vehicles such as the Dragon that we can use to ferry astronauts to the ISS and back. Nasa will get $200-300 million more a year to look at the new designs. This seems like a reasonable idea. We'll use commercial space services to lift the light stuff, and let NASA design the expensive, heavy lift vehicles.
The other point made in the article is that a new program won't be ready any time soon, implying that the new program would be starting from scratch. Given that Constellation wasn't going to be ready before 2017 at best, I'm not sure that we're going to lose any time we would have made up with Constellation. The other thing is that we won't be starting from scratch. Worst case, we start with the NLS review vehicle that NASA worked on back in 1993. Best case, we let those hard-working NASA engineers start with the DIRECT V3 proposal and get something up by 2015, a full 2 years before Ares would have been ready.
I've used ntfs-3g for external storage. A lot. ntfs-3g won't fix a corrupted fs or bad block, and you'll need access to the windows box to do that, but since you plan on having access to windows, that shouldn't be an issue. What's nifty is that I haven't seen a large decrease in speed for reads and writes- not as fast on linux as ext3, but 25MB/s isn't out of the question.
At the moment, I trust open source linux drivers for ntfs much more than anything that has to run on a windows box to let it see ext3.
We've had the Lincoln cluster online and offering processing time since February of 2009. 196 computing nodes (dual quad cores) and 96 Tesla units. That being said, congrats to the Aussie's for bringing a powerful new system online.
Someone later in thread asked if these GPU units would actually be useful for scientific computing. We think so. Our users and researchers here have developed implementations of both NAMD, a parallel molecular dynamics simulator and MIMD Lattice Computation (MILC) Collaboration that use the power of the GPU's. Both of these codes are freely available and widely used in the HPC community. We've had no lack of requests for time on the Lincoln cluster.
Are these GPUS for everyone? Nope. To disappoint all you gamers out there, the Tesla units have no graphics out ports. All the communication is done over the the PCIe bus. But for all of you budding scientists out there, these cards use the same freely available CUDA language that runs on all modern (8xxx and above) Nvidia hardware, so you may already have compatible GPU in your desktop now, even if it's just a single unit and slower.
One last note, while these units run really fast with single precision, they are capable of running in double precision, albeit much slower. For some problems, multiple initial runs can be done at the lower precision to localize the solution set, before doing a slower high precision run to find the final solution. This is similar to what Hollywood does when rendering animated movies- they first render a quick lo res version to see if the timing and characters are correct, then they run a hi-res version which takes longer to get a finished product. (Yes, I know, there's a lot more steps to it, but hey, this is just an analogy)
Well, the increase in numbers of cores will surely migrate down to the desktop level. Don't both Nvidia and ATI claim to provide graphics cards with hundreds of cores now? All available to the casual user.
He's got a point, though. Although the current HPC market is mature, and very sensitive to performance, the upcoming market for desktops with 100+ cores (call it hecto-scale) will care less about efficiency, and more about providing an easy way for the users to actually utilize all those cores. Even if the erlang language isn't want today's HPC users want, something like it will be useful for users on those hecto-scale desktops. I want to be able to take advantage of all those cores, but I sure don't want to write MPI or any other of today's options for massively parallel computing.
Maybe OpenCL or CUDA will spawn off some interpretive language that will be useful for us non-parallel programmers. On a system with 100+ cores, a language can afford to be less efficient for scripting or simple computing, but still find a use for all that processing power. We've certainly been willing to accept a loss of efficiency versus an ease of programming once the systems get powerful enough (look at the original assembly programming for the 8 bit home systems and compare it to say, java and an IDE).
Given that this test, while useful, didn't actually use any of the components of a man-rated Ares I, I'm not that excited.
Ares I will use a new 5 segment Solid Rocket Booster (SRB), this was the good old STS 4 segment SRB.
Ares I will use the J2-x powered upper stage, this was a weight equivalent mock-up.
Ares I will use the Orion capsule and it's engine to finish up the orbit, again, just a mock-up with right szie and weight.
Ares I flight control software not built yet, but that's ok, as the hardware it will guide wasn't here either.
You know when the car companies build a clay mock up of that new model? That's about where this Ares I-x test was. Baby steps are ok, but I was hoping for more return on investment.
So I'm annoyed that the test program hasn't progressed further, but in reality, this is rocket science, and at least they got the thing off the ground in a reasonable fashion. The problems here go a lot further than my unease that NCSA isn't that far along for the time and money they've already spent. Here's a list of issues that they still have to face in making this a viable launch system:
What's the lifting capacity of the ARES I? 25mt? That was the declared goal. 24 mt? That was a compromise when other issues crept in. 20 mt? Where the current design is, but Ares I needs 25 mt of lift for an Orion capsule with safety features and lunar capability for 4 crew, and doesn't have it.
Also, when is the Ares I scheduled to fly with the Orion capsule, even in a non-man-rated test? 2013, as NCSA originally planned? 2016 as the Augustine commission recently claimed?? Before the Space shuttle stops flying? Before the ISS is de-orbited? Be nice for NCSA to have a way to get our astronauts to the ISS without "borrowing a Soyuz."
More importantly, how much has NCSA spent on the development of the Ares I to date? 5 billion? 6 billion? They still have to finish the 5 segment SRB design and tests, the J-2x Upper stage engine and tests, the new upper stage and tests and the Orion capsule and tests before any manned flights can take place. That's got to be another $5 billion easy. All this to get the lift capacity of an Atlas V or a Delta IV heavy and a theoretical better safety rating.
Wow. Can I have some of whatever it is that you're smoking?
So do you put on your telepathic helmet in order to discern what it is that FSF really wants? Or do they you write secret emails, boasting about their plan to conquer the world? Perhaps they just beam this information directly to your brain.
There's no secret agenda here. The developer writes something and copyrights it, just like everybody else. For whatever reason, the developer then says, "Here, go ahead and use this. Do what whatever you want with as long as you respect my copyright. Here's a copy of the source code as a bonus, so you can see exactly how I did it. You know what? I'm feeling so generous that you can even have a copyright exemption in order to distribute this wonderful code as you see fit. One caveat though. Since I gave you the ability to see how its done with the source code, you need to give others that same ability when you distribute my work. If that's too much to ask, then just don't hand it out."
I do admit that I like your unstated base assumption- that only GPL'd software is worth having, and that by not having access to GPL, no computer would be worth anything. Let me take a moment and savor the thought of a world were anything other than GPL protected software was simply a joke... Ahhh. refreshing. Strangely though, I can't anyone thinking that's the way world is now, nor do see anyone claiming it should be that way.
As for defending freedom, I do believe no one has ever claimed that "Liberty is free", at least, not while sober. In fact, I can easily find many claims to the contrary. Here, try these guys Freedom Monkeys, they have a bunch of quotes. I suspect that those principles apply just as strongly to software liberty as they do for personal liberty. If you want your software to be freely available and usable, then it wouldn't make sense to hand it over to those who will just take it and hide it away. The GPL prevents this. Your way doesn't. Since your goals aren't aligned with those who choose the GPL, then you can simply not use the GPL.
How did you put it?
The solution is simple; we need to abandon the GPL.
Here, let's fix that.
The solution is simple; I need to abandon the GPL.
mod parent up. The original post on this thread was just plain FUD.
You must:
1) give the modified GPL source code as well as the binaries to the person who is your client.
You have the option to
2) give the modified GPL source code to your client, and everybody else if you choose to.
The second option is not mandatory.
In the revised advisory, Microsoft explained why it won't patch Windows XP, the world's most popular operating system. "By default, Windows XP SP2, Windows XP SP3 and Windows XP Professional x64 Edition SP2 do not have a listening service configured in the client firewall and are therefore not affected by this vulnerability," the company said. "Windows XP SP2 and later operating systems include a stateful host firewall that provides protection for computers against incoming traffic from the Internet or from neighboring network devices on a private network."
Although the two bugs can be exploited on Windows 2000 and XP, Microsoft downplayed their impact. "A system would become unresponsive due to memory consumption... [but] a successful attack requires a sustained flood of specially crafted TCP packets, and the system will recover once the flood ceases."
Looks like SP2 & SP3 do have this flaw- they just don't expose it normally, and even if they did, Microsoft claims that the consequences are less than dire. Not an unreasonable line to take. Probably not worth the hassle of patching, since the work-around is so simple- don't enable that.
Now claiming that it's not technologically feasible to fix it is a laugh; what they really meant to say was that it's not economically feasible to do so.
With actual Vista usage estimated at 30%, Microsoft has to do something to encourage the other 60% of the market not using Vista to upgrade. Getting some cheap and easy FUD against Windows XP is one way to push a large chunk of users towards Windows 7. Other efforts are underway as well. Nothing wrong with marketing your product, really, but doing so by promoting claims that your older products are unsafe has always struck me as unwise. It's one thing to say that "Our new Frobish 2000 is safer than ever" but claiming that "We no longer feel it's worth the effort to support the Frobish 1993, which so many of our customers use" is quite another. Some people might even form the impression that the company is interested only in new sales.
If you want a monitor that can display useful information about thousands of nodes on a single display try clumon. We use it for our 1000+ node clusters. The software was developed in-house but is available under the University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License Copyright (noticeware). If you're just going to use this in-house, the license shouldn't be an issue.
You can see a sample clumon display of a working cluster at NCSA Linux Cluster Monitor.The clumon page for that cluster shows you each the job status of each individual node (if the node is colored, it has a job assigned), the load on the machine (the height of the line is proportional to the load, and red tips show loads over 1.0 per cpu) and the service status (green underline is ready, yellow/black stripes is offline, and red is unexpected offline/no comms). If you mouse-over a node, a status box pops up with more information on that specific node.
As this was designed for a cluster with the Torque resource manager, it won't be exactly what you need, but since you are willing to write a monitor from scratch, it might be a really useful starting point. Design-wise, this monitor allows the engineer or manager to see what's going on in general, with problem areas being immediately obvious, and without being overly cluttered.
The open source Performance Co-Pilot software runs on each node to collect information, which is polled by the central server. Back end is MySQL. The dynamic display is PHP.
I wouldn't recommend using rotating-platter drives for "long term" archival storage, if by "long-term", you are talking more than 5 years. The lifespan of modern drives is such that 5 years is possible, but no guarantee.
The choice of format certainly won't be a factor in the ease of retrieval in the next 5 years, and probably won't in the next 10. ATA 1 was approved as standard back in 1994, and most motherboards today still have an onboard connector that supports it. That's what, 15 years of complete support? Any reason to believe that they will stop selling usb adapters for ide anytime soon? If you're concerned with sata's lifespan, just buy the $20 usb-to-sata adaptor now and you're covered. And realistically, what other drive interface would you suggest for home backup? SAS? Sata is the cheap, reliable and fast option these days.
The big issue with USB is that it is too slow for practical backups when the data involved approaches 1TB. With most USB external drives, you'd be lucky to break 20MB/s for sustained transfers. That's 50 seconds per GB, or almost 2 hours to backup the lot. The original poster was describing his effort to backup his media collection, so assuming that his backup needs involved hundreds of gigabytes of data is not too far fetched. Sata transfer rates on modern drives should be 50-60MB/s sustained, and quite possibly higher. This gives you a backup time of less than an hour, which is a lot more practical.
The external usb drive option also has a higher cost. The Freeagent unit adds about a $50 premium for each extra drive, not reasonable for a single unit, but quite expensive for a good swap set of 4 or 5 drives, and an unnecessary duplication of equipment. I'm not knocking the concept, but in practice, the external USB units are not as cheap or fast as a mobile tray and standard sata drives.
One could make a case for external drives with esata support, but you'd still be looking at an extra cost of $50 per drive, and a duplication of hardware. No thanks.
The great thing about this concept is that once solid state drives get to the point where they are cheap enough, they are a drop in replacement for the rotating platter drives you used to use. Instant upgrade in both reliability and speed. Assuming of course, that some manufacturer gets a clue and releases said drives in the 3.5" form factor. Don't get me started...
Then determine your storage needs- 1TB drives can be had for as low as $75, but that's for relatively cheap drives. The better ones are about $100. 1.5TB drives are available for $130. The 2 TB still command a premium price at $280.
I'd recommend the 1.5's.
Buy a few of them, just like you would buy tape cartridges. Geek tip- if you buy several(4-5) drives at once from Newegg, they ship them in a styrofoam shipping thing, that has slots for 3.5" drives and works wonderfully as shelf container. You keep the anti-static bags the drives are shipped in, and put them on the drives before stowing them in the styrofoam form.
There, you now have the equivalent of a tape drive and cartridges, for all of $50 for the "drive" and cartridges at the price point you want. Unlike cheap tape, you get sata speeds, no vendor lock-in, and your data on a medium that is universal.
All that being said, you have do your backups as if the drives were tape cartridges- that implies a cartridge (drive) rotation system, data stored redundantly on multiple cartridges, regular backups and verification, etc. It won't do you much good if you don't follow the proper backup steps. Here's a guide to doing it properly- http://www.structuredsolutions.net/whitepapers/Tape%20Backup%20Procedure.htm
It is a nice piece of kit, however. It's up to you to use it properly.
Fundamentally expensive. High voltage, low speed, large cache. Old manufacturing process. Not dual core (just multiple die per chip). The current ia64 implementation doesn't seem to lend itself to easy speed increases, given that the top speed is just 1.66ghz, and that after 6 years of development.
I could go on, but really, Itanium isn't an option unless Intel had nothing else, including the Atom. They could ramp the Atom up a lot faster.
In the extremely hypothetical world of x86 mutually assured destruction, where no one can build any x86 variant, I'd expect IBM's power chips to come out on top, at least in the short term. Linux already runs on them, and Apple/Windows has recently run on them. Be a pain to switch, but possible.
Wikipedia claims that a supercomputer "is a computer at the forefront current processing capability" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercomputer/.
The top500 list implies that a supercomputer is a system that can run Linpack really fast, while noting that the system must also be able to run other applications. http://www.top500.org/project/introduction
Given that NCSA has run many supercomputers over the years, and that I've personally run three while working there, I'd say that a good rule of thumb is that a supercomputer is a system designed to achieve high amounts of calculation throughput (as opposed to instant response) and that the system is at least 100x as powerful a high-end PC of that time frame. In fact, you could simplfy the rule down to- a system designed as a single unit to achieve high computing performance.
In order to accomplish all these things, supercomputers tend to have 2 things that "normal" network of PC's doesn't- a high speed, low latency network or interconnect, (and possibly several networks, each serving a different purpose) and a high speed, shared filesystem. Also, supercomputer tends to be designed and installed as a single unit, whereas a network of PC's happens over time.
Supercomputers tend to fall into one of 2 categories- a large collection of server class machines(cluster) or a small set of mainframe style systems(SMP). If you have the cash, you buy a large set of mainframe style systems, but who has the cash? Folks tend to purchase clusters as they tend to be less expensive, but you'd have determine if your application can work correctly on a large number of systems. Not all computing tasks can.
Tsubame, the system described above, is basically a cluster of inexpensive nodes with a high speed network. Applications on the cluster run on many of the individual nodes at the same time, and use the high speed network to pass messages to each other during the program, so that the application appears to be working on a single system. Tsubame is variant of a supercomputer cluster, where each inexpensive node is beefed up with co-processors and accelerators to increase the overall performance. Harder to program correctly, but potentially more powerful and still not as expensive as the large set of mainframes. Hope that helps.
Try using Zimbra webmail. Then imagine being required to use it as your work email. See, java benchmarks aren't useless. I'm sure that there are a few more java apps out there. I could come up with a list if necessary.
If IE can't run java or flash well, it's not that much of a browser, no? Let me know how many sites on the current Internet use neither of those technologies and therefore are IE safe. If a benchmark is applied to the technologies needed to use most websites, I thinking that's a pretty valid test. If the tests in question put a heavy reliance on some obscure web plugins, you'd have a point, but Java and Flash are hardly obscure. In fact, given that java and flash are a huge part of things we expect a browser to do with, wouldn't a browser benchmark without testing them be rather useless? Perhaps less than informative? Kinda like testing the fuel efficiency of 2 V8 engines in test stands, rather than testing the two different pickup trucks themselves.
As to fairness, and correct me if I'm wrong, but are you blaming IE's lack of performance on the same third party plugins that firefox also uses? Any suggestions as to why firefox would have plugins that are so much better than IE? Could it be that the closed source nature of IE is hampering other developers ability to make the plugins work well? If so, shouldn't MS get the blame?
Given that two separate vendors are involved (Sun and Adobe), are you positing some sort of collusion to make the MS product look bad?
Or perhaps the new firefox simply deals with the io from such plugins in a more efficient fashion. Given that Microsoft has equal access to the source code for firefox, I'd have a hard time believing that they wouldn't be able to determine how firefox achieves the speed increase. Whether they could use those techniques in the current IE is another question.
All in all, I think it is fair and informative to report on how fast a given browser does the things I ask it to do in a normal day.
For a reasonable sample of the things that can be done on a supercomputer, start here: http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Projects/. Those are just the things running at NCSA.
Followup with this, as the science gateways for the TeraGrid are designed to let scientists worry more about the science part and less about the programming part. Part of the reason to build bigger supercomputers is to let non-programmers get work done as well. By having more cycles available, the TeraGrid can allow access for codes that are easier for the average scientist to use, even if they don't make the best use of the machine. Not everyone is a wiz at parallel programming, and we shouldn't expect an expert in say, biology, to be just as expert in computer science.
Hmmm, you're correct. The Atomic Rockets site shows that while a VASMIR can generate up to 400 Newtons in "low gear", it doesn't have a thrust to weight ratio even close to 1. Darn. I was hoping for a cool "Buck Rogers" style craft. In my excitement I forgot to check the thrust numbers.
So, any spacecraft using this method requires "a nuclear reactor, a VASMIR engine, a large amount (50-75% of the whole thing) of reaction mass, wings" and some means of getting it to orbit.
I do think I mentioned that space travel using our current level of technology bites...
Try this Atomic Rocket website for some more information on this type of engine outside of Wikipedia. What's interesting about this type of engine is that it's capable of trading thrust (what you want to liftoff) for Specific Impulse (what you want in orbit to get best reaction mass efficiency).
This is a pretty good site for information on all types of potential/possible/theoretical propulsion systems, and what it would take to do "real" solar system space travel. That being said, space travel (even within the bounds of just our solar system) via our current level of technology bites.
As someone else noted, this type of propulsion requires about 10MW of electrical energy to function. That energy is not provided by the propulsion system. Something else has to provide it in a compact, dense and energetic form- namely a nuclear reactor onboard the craft. That's why this type of engine shows up at the "Atomic Rocket" website, even though the engine itself doesn't use any nuclear reactions. Some people might not appreciate that the exhaust is not radioactive, as the power plant is just used for electricity.
Unlike a chemical rocket, a spacecraft using this engine would be able to get to orbit with some payload, and would not resemble "a disintegrating totem pole" getting there. Unfortunately, it also requires a nuclear reactor, a VASMIR engine, a large amount (50-75% of the whole thing) of reaction mass, and probably, wings.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not about what you need, but what the companies developing computer hardware can do to keep their customers in the hunt for new hardware. If they don't improve their products to the point where you're willing to shell out your hard-earned dollars, they won't make profit. What they can't do at the moment is make faster/more efficient CPU's/GPU's that have a good value. If they build a faster single CPU, the cost goes up. If the CPU is more efficient, the cost to build it goes up. Most people won't buy new hardware unless they 1) have no choice or 2) perceive a real value. As so many people have enough computing power for their needs, option 1 doesn't happen enough to generate real profits for a firm. That leaves option 2, and the technology is at a point where it's not possible create real value in a faster, single CPU now.
What they can do right now is build CPU's and GPUs with more cores, and then make the claim that you, the consumer, need more cores. For a graphics card, that's mostly true, as the computing environment for graphics hardware is already able to use more cores, it's just a matter of whether you already have enough graphics power for your needs. Unfortunately, it's not true that more cores are better for CPU's. Your single user desktop isn't able to effectively use even 4 cores, except in certain specialized cases, let alone the 6, 8 or 12 cores in CPU's that have been recently developed.
The original article is a call for changes to Windows to use those cores, not because you need more cores, but because you will have more cores in the new machines, whether you want them or not. And if you have them, you might as well find a way to use them.
Thanks for the info on VSRM- I wasn't familiar with that acronym, and a google search on it was unenlightening w.r.t. automobile manuals.
I would still ask Zurk where he stops quoting the manual, and starts providing information/opinion not in the manual. I suspect that the last 2 paragraphs:
An internal short could occur within one or more of the paths from the circuits leading to the ecm. That could lead to a situation where the computer cannot detect its own failure.Therefore, when the system gets conflicting information, it arbitrarily ignores half the conflicting information. It does not know which of the circuits are lying or if they both are lying and shorted together. different resistance values will lead to arbitrary acceleration. Having the brake override it is a stopgap, but ixing the real problem (perhaps with a third circuit in voting mode which will require replacing the entire circuit path) is the REAL FIX. I suspect 2012 and onwards toyotas would have a third path and faraday cage/denso replacement for the magnet assembly in the plastic accelerator pedal (which is another problem with EMI which might lead to acceleration) which i am not going to go into here.
So, YES OP you should definitely install the update. Its the only thing standing between you and death if both the APP circuits short
.
are not in the manual.
It's OK if the information is a reasoned guess, speculation, or something he's tested personally or just a WAG. I would like to know how he came by it, so I can judge it's usefulness. Even if it's speculation or a WAG, it's a decent theory that can be easily tested. OK, maybe not safely tested, but testable at least.
That's very detailed information. Where are you getting this from? I see that ETCS issues are mentioned in a lawsuit against Toyota, but you're specifying that the unintended acceleration in Toyota's may be the result of a simple short across the 2 APP sensors? That's pretty big news, and if so, it's a hardware issue with a potential software workaround, as you've detailed above.
Is this something you've determined personally, or do you have a source link for it?
Was working on customer's computer last night, and I did the scan of his hard drive on my clean system and it caught a hacked atapi.sys with AVG.
"Object name";"K:\WINDOWS\system32\drivers\atapi.sys"
"Detection name";"Trojan horse Rootkit-Pakes.U"
Swapped it out with the good one from my windows XP SP3 and then did the updates on his system. No issues.
I was just lucky and did this without knowledge of the Blue screen issue.
So, to sum up:
1) yes atapi.sys can be hacked
2) didn't see any blue screens when updating 4 XP systems with known good atapi.sys.
That's just one data point, but it's useful.
The article from the "Orlando Sentinel" is just a bit slanted. Perhaps things aren't as bleak as that article and the summary suggest.
If we lose Constellation, it doesn't follow that the Manned Space Program is gone- just that we can't afford Constellation. See the Augustine Commission's report that claims that Constellation will only work if we give it another $3 billion a year. And this would have been for a program 5 years behind schedule, with no real test flights and several significant safety issues that haven't been resolved as of yet.
So what alternatives does the Obama administration have to look at? Well, as the article notes, Nasa will look at other heavy lift launch designs and come up with a plan to use one of those to replace the Ares V. As the Ares I was for Crew only, Nasa will look at the commercial launch vehicles such as the Dragon that we can use to ferry astronauts to the ISS and back. Nasa will get $200-300 million more a year to look at the new designs. This seems like a reasonable idea. We'll use commercial space services to lift the light stuff, and let NASA design the expensive, heavy lift vehicles.
The other point made in the article is that a new program won't be ready any time soon, implying that the new program would be starting from scratch. Given that Constellation wasn't going to be ready before 2017 at best, I'm not sure that we're going to lose any time we would have made up with Constellation. The other thing is that we won't be starting from scratch. Worst case, we start with the NLS review vehicle that NASA worked on back in 1993. Best case, we let those hard-working NASA engineers start with the DIRECT V3 proposal and get something up by 2015, a full 2 years before Ares would have been ready.
ntfs-3g was updated on nov 14 2009
ntfsmount was last updated in 2008
you do the math.
I've used ntfs-3g for external storage. A lot. ntfs-3g won't fix a corrupted fs or bad block, and you'll need access to the windows box to do that, but since you plan on having access to windows, that shouldn't be an issue. What's nifty is that I haven't seen a large decrease in speed for reads and writes- not as fast on linux as ext3, but 25MB/s isn't out of the question.
At the moment, I trust open source linux drivers for ntfs much more than anything that has to run on a windows box to let it see ext3.
We've had the Lincoln cluster online and offering processing time since February of 2009. 196 computing nodes (dual quad cores) and 96 Tesla units. That being said, congrats to the Aussie's for bringing a powerful new system online.
Someone later in thread asked if these GPU units would actually be useful for scientific computing. We think so. Our users and researchers here have developed implementations of both NAMD, a parallel molecular dynamics simulator and MIMD Lattice Computation (MILC) Collaboration that use the power of the GPU's. Both of these codes are freely available and widely used in the HPC community. We've had no lack of requests for time on the Lincoln cluster.
Are these GPUS for everyone? Nope. To disappoint all you gamers out there, the Tesla units have no graphics out ports. All the communication is done over the the PCIe bus. But for all of you budding scientists out there, these cards use the same freely available CUDA language that runs on all modern (8xxx and above) Nvidia hardware, so you may already have compatible GPU in your desktop now, even if it's just a single unit and slower.
One last note, while these units run really fast with single precision, they are capable of running in double precision, albeit much slower. For some problems, multiple initial runs can be done at the lower precision to localize the solution set, before doing a slower high precision run to find the final solution. This is similar to what Hollywood does when rendering animated movies- they first render a quick lo res version to see if the timing and characters are correct, then they run a hi-res version which takes longer to get a finished product. (Yes, I know, there's a lot more steps to it, but hey, this is just an analogy)
Well, the increase in numbers of cores will surely migrate down to the desktop level. Don't both Nvidia and ATI claim to provide graphics cards with hundreds of cores now? All available to the casual user.
He's got a point, though. Although the current HPC market is mature, and very sensitive to performance, the upcoming market for desktops with 100+ cores (call it hecto-scale) will care less about efficiency, and more about providing an easy way for the users to actually utilize all those cores. Even if the erlang language isn't want today's HPC users want, something like it will be useful for users on those hecto-scale desktops. I want to be able to take advantage of all those cores, but I sure don't want to write MPI or any other of today's options for massively parallel computing.
Maybe OpenCL or CUDA will spawn off some interpretive language that will be useful for us non-parallel programmers. On a system with 100+ cores, a language can afford to be less efficient for scripting or simple computing, but still find a use for all that processing power. We've certainly been willing to accept a loss of efficiency versus an ease of programming once the systems get powerful enough (look at the original assembly programming for the 8 bit home systems and compare it to say, java and an IDE).
Given that this test, while useful, didn't actually use any of the components of a man-rated Ares I, I'm not that excited.
Ares I will use a new 5 segment Solid Rocket Booster (SRB), this was the good old STS 4 segment SRB.
Ares I will use the J2-x powered upper stage, this was a weight equivalent mock-up.
Ares I will use the Orion capsule and it's engine to finish up the orbit, again, just a mock-up with right szie and weight.
Ares I flight control software not built yet, but that's ok, as the hardware it will guide wasn't here either.
You know when the car companies build a clay mock up of that new model? That's about where this Ares I-x test was. Baby steps are ok, but I was hoping for more return on investment.
So I'm annoyed that the test program hasn't progressed further, but in reality, this is rocket science, and at least they got the thing off the ground in a reasonable fashion. The problems here go a lot further than my unease that NCSA isn't that far along for the time and money they've already spent. Here's a list of issues that they still have to face in making this a viable launch system:
What's the lifting capacity of the ARES I? 25mt? That was the declared goal. 24 mt? That was a compromise when other issues crept in. 20 mt? Where the current design is, but Ares I needs 25 mt of lift for an Orion capsule with safety features and lunar capability for 4 crew, and doesn't have it.
Also, when is the Ares I scheduled to fly with the Orion capsule, even in a non-man-rated test? 2013, as NCSA originally planned? 2016 as the Augustine commission recently claimed?? Before the Space shuttle stops flying? Before the ISS is de-orbited? Be nice for NCSA to have a way to get our astronauts to the ISS without "borrowing a Soyuz."
More importantly, how much has NCSA spent on the development of the Ares I to date? 5 billion? 6 billion? They still have to finish the 5 segment SRB design and tests, the J-2x Upper stage engine and tests, the new upper stage and tests and the Orion capsule and tests before any manned flights can take place. That's got to be another $5 billion easy. All this to get the lift capacity of an Atlas V or a Delta IV heavy and a theoretical better safety rating.
Lastly, one reason the Ares I was chosen was that it was supposed to be safer for the crew than any alternative. But there's this- http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/07/death-knell-for-nasas-ares-roc.html. I feel sorry for the hard-working engineers at NCSA, and I hope that the new management can get them back on track with a better design.
Wow. Can I have some of whatever it is that you're smoking?
So do you put on your telepathic helmet in order to discern what it is that FSF really wants? Or do they you write secret emails, boasting about their plan to conquer the world? Perhaps they just beam this information directly to your brain.
There's no secret agenda here. The developer writes something and copyrights it, just like everybody else. For whatever reason, the developer then says, "Here, go ahead and use this. Do what whatever you want with as long as you respect my copyright. Here's a copy of the source code as a bonus, so you can see exactly how I did it. You know what? I'm feeling so generous that you can even have a copyright exemption in order to distribute this wonderful code as you see fit. One caveat though. Since I gave you the ability to see how its done with the source code, you need to give others that same ability when you distribute my work. If that's too much to ask, then just don't hand it out."
I do admit that I like your unstated base assumption- that only GPL'd software is worth having, and that by not having access to GPL, no computer would be worth anything. Let me take a moment and savor the thought of a world were anything other than GPL protected software was simply a joke... Ahhh. refreshing. Strangely though, I can't anyone thinking that's the way world is now, nor do see anyone claiming it should be that way.
As for defending freedom, I do believe no one has ever claimed that "Liberty is free", at least, not while sober. In fact, I can easily find many claims to the contrary. Here, try these guys Freedom Monkeys, they have a bunch of quotes. I suspect that those principles apply just as strongly to software liberty as they do for personal liberty. If you want your software to be freely available and usable, then it wouldn't make sense to hand it over to those who will just take it and hide it away. The GPL prevents this. Your way doesn't. Since your goals aren't aligned with those who choose the GPL, then you can simply not use the GPL.
How did you put it?
The solution is simple; we need to abandon the GPL.
Here, let's fix that.
The solution is simple; I need to abandon the GPL.
See? So much better for all of us.
mod parent up. The original post on this thread was just plain FUD.
You must:
1) give the modified GPL source code as well as the binaries to the person who is your client.
You have the option to
2) give the modified GPL source code to your client, and everybody else if you choose to.
The second option is not mandatory.
From the article:
In the revised advisory, Microsoft explained why it won't patch Windows XP, the world's most popular operating system. "By default, Windows XP SP2, Windows XP SP3 and Windows XP Professional x64 Edition SP2 do not have a listening service configured in the client firewall and are therefore not affected by this vulnerability," the company said. "Windows XP SP2 and later operating systems include a stateful host firewall that provides protection for computers against incoming traffic from the Internet or from neighboring network devices on a private network."
Although the two bugs can be exploited on Windows 2000 and XP, Microsoft downplayed their impact. "A system would become unresponsive due to memory consumption ... [but] a successful attack requires a sustained flood of specially crafted TCP packets, and the system will recover once the flood ceases."
Looks like SP2 & SP3 do have this flaw- they just don't expose it normally, and even if they did, Microsoft claims that the consequences are less than dire. Not an unreasonable line to take. Probably not worth the hassle of patching, since the work-around is so simple- don't enable that.
Now claiming that it's not technologically feasible to fix it is a laugh; what they really meant to say was that it's not economically feasible to do so.
With actual Vista usage estimated at 30%, Microsoft has to do something to encourage the other 60% of the market not using Vista to upgrade. Getting some cheap and easy FUD against Windows XP is one way to push a large chunk of users towards Windows 7. Other efforts are underway as well. Nothing wrong with marketing your product, really, but doing so by promoting claims that your older products are unsafe has always struck me as unwise. It's one thing to say that "Our new Frobish 2000 is safer than ever" but claiming that "We no longer feel it's worth the effort to support the Frobish 1993, which so many of our customers use" is quite another. Some people might even form the impression that the company is interested only in new sales.
If you want a monitor that can display useful information about thousands of nodes on a single display try clumon. We use it for our 1000+ node clusters. The software was developed in-house but is available under the University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License Copyright (noticeware). If you're just going to use this in-house, the license shouldn't be an issue.
You can see a sample clumon display of a working cluster at NCSA Linux Cluster Monitor.The clumon page for that cluster shows you each the job status of each individual node (if the node is colored, it has a job assigned), the load on the machine (the height of the line is proportional to the load, and red tips show loads over 1.0 per cpu) and the service status (green underline is ready, yellow/black stripes is offline, and red is unexpected offline/no comms). If you mouse-over a node, a status box pops up with more information on that specific node.
As this was designed for a cluster with the Torque resource manager, it won't be exactly what you need, but since you are willing to write a monitor from scratch, it might be a really useful starting point. Design-wise, this monitor allows the engineer or manager to see what's going on in general, with problem areas being immediately obvious, and without being overly cluttered.
The open source Performance Co-Pilot software runs on each node to collect information, which is polled by the central server. Back end is MySQL. The dynamic display is PHP.
Straightforward, useful and very configurable.
I wouldn't recommend using rotating-platter drives for "long term" archival storage, if by "long-term", you are talking more than 5 years. The lifespan of modern drives is such that 5 years is possible, but no guarantee.
The choice of format certainly won't be a factor in the ease of retrieval in the next 5 years, and probably won't in the next 10. ATA 1 was approved as standard back in 1994, and most motherboards today still have an onboard connector that supports it. That's what, 15 years of complete support? Any reason to believe that they will stop selling usb adapters for ide anytime soon? If you're concerned with sata's lifespan, just buy the $20 usb-to-sata adaptor now and you're covered. And realistically, what other drive interface would you suggest for home backup? SAS? Sata is the cheap, reliable and fast option these days.
The big issue with USB is that it is too slow for practical backups when the data involved approaches 1TB. With most USB external drives, you'd be lucky to break 20MB/s for sustained transfers. That's 50 seconds per GB, or almost 2 hours to backup the lot. The original poster was describing his effort to backup his media collection, so assuming that his backup needs involved hundreds of gigabytes of data is not too far fetched. Sata transfer rates on modern drives should be 50-60MB/s sustained, and quite possibly higher. This gives you a backup time of less than an hour, which is a lot more practical.
The external usb drive option also has a higher cost. The Freeagent unit adds about a $50 premium for each extra drive, not reasonable for a single unit, but quite expensive for a good swap set of 4 or 5 drives, and an unnecessary duplication of equipment. I'm not knocking the concept, but in practice, the external USB units are not as cheap or fast as a mobile tray and standard sata drives.
One could make a case for external drives with esata support, but you'd still be looking at an extra cost of $50 per drive, and a duplication of hardware. No thanks.
The great thing about this concept is that once solid state drives get to the point where they are cheap enough, they are a drop in replacement for the rotating platter drives you used to use. Instant upgrade in both reliability and speed. Assuming of course, that some manufacturer gets a clue and releases said drives in the 3.5" form factor. Don't get me started...
If you'd just like to store your data off the PC, and you need "unlimited" storage, get a sata hot-swap mobile rack, a bunch of drives and presto!
Specifically, this is what I use.
Get one of these - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817994057 and install it. Its' hot swap, and tray-less, so it treats the sata drives like cartridges. It's about $25.
Find out if your motherboard supports sata hot swap - if not, you'll need one of sate card that can do hotplug, try this - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816132003. It works and it's about $25 as well.
Then determine your storage needs- 1TB drives can be had for as low as $75, but that's for relatively cheap drives. The better ones are about $100. 1.5TB drives are available for $130. The 2 TB still command a premium price at $280.
I'd recommend the 1.5's.
Buy a few of them, just like you would buy tape cartridges. Geek tip- if you buy several(4-5) drives at once from Newegg, they ship them in a styrofoam shipping thing, that has slots for 3.5" drives and works wonderfully as shelf container. You keep the anti-static bags the drives are shipped in, and put them on the drives before stowing them in the styrofoam form.
There, you now have the equivalent of a tape drive and cartridges, for all of $50 for the "drive" and cartridges at the price point you want. Unlike cheap tape, you get sata speeds, no vendor lock-in, and your data on a medium that is universal.
All that being said, you have do your backups as if the drives were tape cartridges- that implies a cartridge (drive) rotation system, data stored redundantly on multiple cartridges, regular backups and verification, etc. It won't do you much good if you don't follow the proper backup steps. Here's a guide to doing it properly- http://www.structuredsolutions.net/whitepapers/Tape%20Backup%20Procedure.htm
It is a nice piece of kit, however. It's up to you to use it properly.
You saw that this was released for Linux just yesterday??
1. Thanks for the very timely info
2. Have fun beta testing.
That being said, hopefully the linux version will perform up to the standards of the other version.
Fundamentally expensive. High voltage, low speed, large cache. Old manufacturing process. Not dual core (just multiple die per chip). The current ia64 implementation doesn't seem to lend itself to easy speed increases, given that the top speed is just 1.66ghz, and that after 6 years of development.
I could go on, but really, Itanium isn't an option unless Intel had nothing else, including the Atom. They could ramp the Atom up a lot faster.
In the extremely hypothetical world of x86 mutually assured destruction, where no one can build any x86 variant, I'd expect IBM's power chips to come out on top, at least in the short term. Linux already runs on them, and Apple/Windows has recently run on them. Be a pain to switch, but possible.
Wikipedia claims that a supercomputer "is a computer at the forefront current processing capability" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercomputer/. The top500 list implies that a supercomputer is a system that can run Linpack really fast, while noting that the system must also be able to run other applications. http://www.top500.org/project/introduction
Given that NCSA has run many supercomputers over the years, and that I've personally run three while working there, I'd say that a good rule of thumb is that a supercomputer is a system designed to achieve high amounts of calculation throughput (as opposed to instant response) and that the system is at least 100x as powerful a high-end PC of that time frame. In fact, you could simplfy the rule down to- a system designed as a single unit to achieve high computing performance.
In order to accomplish all these things, supercomputers tend to have 2 things that "normal" network of PC's doesn't- a high speed, low latency network or interconnect, (and possibly several networks, each serving a different purpose) and a high speed, shared filesystem. Also, supercomputer tends to be designed and installed as a single unit, whereas a network of PC's happens over time.
Supercomputers tend to fall into one of 2 categories- a large collection of server class machines(cluster) or a small set of mainframe style systems(SMP). If you have the cash, you buy a large set of mainframe style systems, but who has the cash? Folks tend to purchase clusters as they tend to be less expensive, but you'd have determine if your application can work correctly on a large number of systems. Not all computing tasks can.
Tsubame, the system described above, is basically a cluster of inexpensive nodes with a high speed network. Applications on the cluster run on many of the individual nodes at the same time, and use the high speed network to pass messages to each other during the program, so that the application appears to be working on a single system. Tsubame is variant of a supercomputer cluster, where each inexpensive node is beefed up with co-processors and accelerators to increase the overall performance. Harder to program correctly, but potentially more powerful and still not as expensive as the large set of mainframes. Hope that helps.
Try using Zimbra webmail. Then imagine being required to use it as your work email. See, java benchmarks aren't useless. I'm sure that there are a few more java apps out there. I could come up with a list if necessary.
If IE can't run java or flash well, it's not that much of a browser, no? Let me know how many sites on the current Internet use neither of those technologies and therefore are IE safe. If a benchmark is applied to the technologies needed to use most websites, I thinking that's a pretty valid test. If the tests in question put a heavy reliance on some obscure web plugins, you'd have a point, but Java and Flash are hardly obscure. In fact, given that java and flash are a huge part of things we expect a browser to do with, wouldn't a browser benchmark without testing them be rather useless? Perhaps less than informative? Kinda like testing the fuel efficiency of 2 V8 engines in test stands, rather than testing the two different pickup trucks themselves.
As to fairness, and correct me if I'm wrong, but are you blaming IE's lack of performance on the same third party plugins that firefox also uses? Any suggestions as to why firefox would have plugins that are so much better than IE? Could it be that the closed source nature of IE is hampering other developers ability to make the plugins work well? If so, shouldn't MS get the blame?
Given that two separate vendors are involved (Sun and Adobe), are you positing some sort of collusion to make the MS product look bad?
Or perhaps the new firefox simply deals with the io from such plugins in a more efficient fashion. Given that Microsoft has equal access to the source code for firefox, I'd have a hard time believing that they wouldn't be able to determine how firefox achieves the speed increase. Whether they could use those techniques in the current IE is another question.
All in all, I think it is fair and informative to report on how fast a given browser does the things I ask it to do in a normal day.
For a reasonable sample of the things that can be done on a supercomputer, start here: http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Projects/. Those are just the things running at NCSA.
Followup with this, as the science gateways for the TeraGrid are designed to let scientists worry more about the science part and less about the programming part. Part of the reason to build bigger supercomputers is to let non-programmers get work done as well. By having more cycles available, the TeraGrid can allow access for codes that are easier for the average scientist to use, even if they don't make the best use of the machine. Not everyone is a wiz at parallel programming, and we shouldn't expect an expert in say, biology, to be just as expert in computer science.
Hmmm, you're correct. The Atomic Rockets site shows that while a VASMIR can generate up to 400 Newtons in "low gear", it doesn't have a thrust to weight ratio even close to 1. Darn. I was hoping for a cool "Buck Rogers" style craft. In my excitement I forgot to check the thrust numbers.
So, any spacecraft using this method requires "a nuclear reactor, a VASMIR engine, a large amount (50-75% of the whole thing) of reaction mass, wings" and some means of getting it to orbit.
I do think I mentioned that space travel using our current level of technology bites...
I sit corrected. IBM has allowed NCSA to host a special version of xCAT for RHEL 5.2 on PPC. You can find it in here.
Try hereinstead. And yes, xCAT kicks butt if you want to run a linux cluster. More so, now that it's open source.
Try this Atomic Rocket website for some more information on this type of engine outside of Wikipedia. What's interesting about this type of engine is that it's capable of trading thrust (what you want to liftoff) for Specific Impulse (what you want in orbit to get best reaction mass efficiency).
This is a pretty good site for information on all types of potential/possible/theoretical propulsion systems, and what it would take to do "real" solar system space travel. That being said, space travel (even within the bounds of just our solar system) via our current level of technology bites.
As someone else noted, this type of propulsion requires about 10MW of electrical energy to function. That energy is not provided by the propulsion system. Something else has to provide it in a compact, dense and energetic form- namely a nuclear reactor onboard the craft. That's why this type of engine shows up at the "Atomic Rocket" website, even though the engine itself doesn't use any nuclear reactions. Some people might not appreciate that the exhaust is not radioactive, as the power plant is just used for electricity.
Unlike a chemical rocket, a spacecraft using this engine would be able to get to orbit with some payload, and would not resemble "a disintegrating totem pole" getting there. Unfortunately, it also requires a nuclear reactor, a VASMIR engine, a large amount (50-75% of the whole thing) of reaction mass, and probably, wings.