I did try to correct a couple of people. But the problem is that they couldn't pronounce it correctly even if their life depended on it. So they cannot transliterate it correctly. You see they don't have a concept of 'dh'. And they think that they know there is somewhere an 'h' in it. So they get Ghandi, instead of Gandhi. The really wierd thing is that they don't even have a concept of a 'gh'. But well that may seem more logical to them. For us it is totally wrong way to pronounce it, but for them both are the same.
And how does the chip decide which 256 bytes to save of the trillions of data that has flown through the Chip over its lifetime. Unless Intel has a specific instruction that must be used for encryption or decrytion.
"So I guess you haven't worked on a large-scale project involving 50+ developers and containing millions lines of code, huh? Hint: there are quite a lot of reasons why so many programmers DEMAND the latest and greatest release of Visual Studio. It *IS* a great tool."
I guess you haven't been out of the Windows Hole for a long time. I have been working in Development for the last 10 years and haven't had the misfortune of having a need to develop in anything other than Emacs, even when I was developing for VxWorks over Windows. And yes I have worked in a Project with over 200 people in a single site with 3 more sites across India and Japan and can you guess the operating system we were using, well it was NetBSD. It was Emacs, Vi, GCC, and make all the way.
Think a little bit more. The idea does not work. The bots primarily do only three things
1) Collect data: Ofcourse the user will find out sometime that he has lost some money on internet fraud, but its not like he is going to understand that it was a keylogger that stole its password.
2) Spam: Problem here is that most people don't run MTAs on their machines. So if somebody was to block your IP from sending mail. You are not going to notice.
3) Blackmail: Massive Botnets do takeout sites by huge traffic, but they don't take them off at random. Mostly Pr0n and gambling sites are targetted. They are easier, smaller and if popular have the money, but generally don't have the infrastructure. No botnet is going to try to takedown Google, or MSN. These people do block your IP but you are not going to notice unless you are looking for Pr0n or Gambling, and in this case also you are most likely to think that the site must be down.
Nothing is ever going to work. The only solution is to prosecute perpetrators separately, after the fact, and here too these guys hide in countries where there is not much law enforcement.
Actually it does. What else would be the meaning of the network is the computer. Actually the most comfortable scenario for the future is that everybody will have their computing and storage devices. The computing devices could be watches or clothes in the distant future, and mobiles in the near future. The storage devices can be merged with the computing devices and be flash devices in the near future. The display will be a sort of goggles or maybe embedded inside the brains (for the people who don't mind). Sound devices can be built into caps or inside skin, so that you can feel the music from within your body. Input devices can still be embedded in your body and/or skin. The important thing is that Computers will never be far away from you.
The problem with this picture is that you could not possibly have the amount of computing and storage with you all the time that would possibly be required in this scenario. So the solution is to get your computing needs supplemented by the remote entities. Like the large computer in your house. The wearable computers communicate with your servers, whereever they are be at your home or your service provider, and present the data to you as and when you require. In this age there is no single computer but it is a network of possibly hundreds of computer connected through the network. Of course there will not be a single type of network. There will be the wireless network which ends at the nearest data port, and from there it goes to the fiber network.
Even now the computers (as in PCs, mobiles, pdas, etc) are not sufficient, but we live in a world of proprietory interfaces which does not allow easy connectivity. Once when we have standard interfaces driven by the OSS world, then all computing devices will start talking to each other. This scenario is not very far, as Linux is getting a huge traction, and manufacturers are beginning to understand the idea of OSS. It will probably take another 10 years if DRM does not get in the way very badly. You can implement the basic ideas now, but cannot because the wireless network is not ubiquitous. You can do this only in areas where you have wireless connectivity.
If preventing forks (as in forks made by proprietory interests), then GPL is the way to go. The GPL makes it stupid for anybody to make a fork unless they think that the present leadership is not doing its job properly. So Microsoft or IBM will not make a fork because it will be better to just contribute to the base. Proprietory forks are disallowed by GPL and OSS forks cannot survive because there is an inherent bias in merging the forks, because it improves the code base faster. As past has shown us before (GCC fork, X11 fork), they only happen when the current leadership is not working well. These kinds of fork are a good thing.
BTW no non-viral license can do the job of preventing forks effectively, and that includes BSD and others. Not to flame BSD users but BSD license is great in instances where you want a particular protocol to be used everywhere including proprietory implementation. I would think it would be good if there is an ODF implementation in BSD License then everybody except MS would use it. And we will have a similarly working ODF readers. BSD TCP/IP stack is a reason why TCP/IP is so popular. But preventing forks is not one of its features.
I don't think you are adding the cost of digging roads in there. If you do it will immediately outstrip all the other costs immediately. You must also factor in the cost and uncertainities of dealing with the government for the digging.
Also the tech costs are dropping like hell including the technicians cost as well, as the tech becomes commoditized and automated detection becomes possible.
I also do not agree with wireless as it is good only for sparse areas like the US suburbs but not for either Europe or Asia, which have high population desities almost everywhere.
I don't understand how this thing will see the past. So from now on you should try not to do these things in places that have the cameras. Of course this thing will not catch planned crimes. This thing is most likely to catch impulse crimes. Impulse crimes are the most common crimes. Removing them can only get better. I do agree with gays, smoking pot, etc other kinds of morally good but legally bad activities. But in this case it is better to change the laws. And when a lot of such so called crimes will be reported the public opinion will definitely change and get them legal status. In the mean time such people will suffer. But they are already suffering, although much less. It will increase the suffering for a short time but make it legal far more quickly.
I think this is the single best way to decrease crime rate, from the criminals and from the police. If you don't believe that the police can do crime then I think you must be living in Paradise. The only way to keep the police in check is to have these cameras in every public area. It reduces the venues for crime for everybody including the Police. The worst you could do is to have the cameras but let only Police see the feeds. This results in 1984 situation. But have everybody access it, and you have a crime free area.
I didn't think it possible that any country would attempt this. My kudos to the Police for installing this. I just hope that they put it on the net. Allowing people to do a post-mortem search also. It will also become difficult to coverup tracks when you have already been seen on the cameras once.
I think you mis-understand. Monolithic is like a central dictatorship. When there is a benevolent dictator it works well, but in case of a bad one you get a mis-managed affair, where everybody is destroying things for everybody else. While Micro-kernel is a Burocracy, where the system is trying to keep everybody from hurting everybody else. This results in lots of inefficiencies. The system is useful because it works with the normal human greed, being compartmentalised. But a benevolent dictator is the most efficient solution, and it does work in the Open Source world. I would recommend Microkernels for Proprietory systems where many companies where going to work on adding features to the micro-kernel. This is exactly where QNX rules.
Why is perl the anti-thesis of the UNIX way. It is cryptic, it allows you to do one thing in as many ways as possible. It allows you to build your programs by re-using components (CPAN). It is very extendable.
"Why split fundemental os functions, such as memory management, into user processes? As all good *nix gurus know, the means to success is to divide and conquer, with the goal being to *simplify* the problem into managable, well defined components. If splitting basic parts of the operating system into user space processes complicates the function by introducing additional mechanisms (message passing, complicated signals), have we met the objective of simplifying the design and implementation?"
He had said the same thing in the last flame-war, which means exactly the same thing which Linus is saying now.
The main point is that the simplest design is the best design.
A microkernel is not the simplest possible design, a monolithic kernel with proper modularisation is simpler.
I think a way to share data structures between multiple processes would be to allocate identical virtual addresses which could be determined by the processes themselves. Basically you would want to be able to allocate memory on user provided memory addresses, and then share it within the tasks that needs these addresses. It could be implemented using a permission based scheme. Say you have 64 bit addresses. So you split it into 4 parts. One part of which must only be used for sharing addresses. You have a 30bit process ID, for each process a 32 bit address is provided. This address space can be used by other processes if they don't need to share the same address space transparently. In this case you can use pointers etc transparently. I know it still not as easy as working from the same address space. But you can work around the problem somewhat.
These condo's must really be inside the city, or else Beijing is way more expensive then Delhi. I spent just 40,000$ for a house (ground floor of a three floor building) in a suburb of built up area of 1500sqft, ie around 140m2, not including the front and back lawn. Ofcourse that was in early 2003 and now the prices have more than doubled, ie around 100,000$.
/Flame on If you do respond before reading the responses then I think you are in the wrong business. You may attempt to modify a code without understanding all the ramifications of the code that is already there. I believe you must simply quit rather than trying to write code that will make life hell for all your users.
> I want the kernel to run my code as fast as possible by default. Yes everybody wants a free lunch, but you have to pay for it. I don't expect you to know it, but Kernel does not run your code it just schedules it. Optimizing code is hard stuff. It is very easy to write badly performing code, just like it is easy to write obfuscated code. You can do any of the following to get your code to suck. 1) Writing unaligned data structures (If your processor is good (ie nonintel) it will SIGBUS on you mercifully) 2) Writing arrays without knowing your cache size. 3) Writing multithreaded applications without the need. 4) Using Mutexes/Semaphores/etc on large blocks of code without need. 5) Doing unnecessary copies. This is just scraching the surface. So do you do 1). I have seen so many people do it that it is not funny./Flame off BTW Linus is a very entertaining troll, but he is mostly correct about what he says. And he can take things as well as he gives. He is always ready to learn if he is wrong. But you have to prove him wrong, by submitting better performing code than the crap he wrote/accepted.
Actually it will be you who goes bankrupt buying storage for that 100 billion copies of a movie.
Re:Some artists just want to be heard...
on
CRIA Falling Apart?
·
· Score: 1
The point is with P2P you don't have to promote a good thing. It will promote itself. You need to promote substandard things the kind that RIAA needs to promote. The other thing is that the RIAA had a stranglehold on the venues of promotion. They controlled all the venues from the Radio to the CD. But now with the Internet and P2P you can let others do the promotion without spending anything. This kills the RIAA. And everybody will be happy when they are dead. Now we really get into the realm of meritocracy. There is no RIAA to define what will be good. It will be the public and their opinion that will define what will be popular. There is no scope of authors thinking that they are good but the RIAA does not accept them. If the public does not accept you, you are not good. Does it matter that you think you are good, when nobody else thinks the same way.
Re:Some artists just want to be heard...
on
CRIA Falling Apart?
·
· Score: 1
I am burning my right to moderate, but my question to you is, Do you have fans. If you think that you have then do you think that they will not pay for owning CDs signed by you. If you don't have fans then I guess your music is not good anyway. If you think it is but you haven't found the right audience then how do you propose to find them without using P2P.
Well what use is a closed standard. A government mandated closed standard is basically giving monopoly to a company in a balatant display of favoritism. It doesn't matter if most people are blind.
You can see it in his post. He quivers in submission. He does not want to face the gods, and reason with them. Because he has been told and has known somewhere deep down that the gods are unreasonable. He is the tool by which the religious fanatics rule the world. He will bear arms for them. Will cause the destruction of another World Trade Center. There is no difference between men of any religion who cannot reason. If only reason was more common the world would be a better place, and maybe somewhere the entity that started it all would be happy. I say maybe because who has the time (even for the creators of the universe) to care for the happyness/unhappyness of the ape descendent people of this insignificant little planet which cannot be observed from just a few million light years.
Free Software would have taken a lot longer without Linux to become big, and Linux would not exist without the huge body of free software. Both mentalities are required the Stallman style principles, and Linus style Open Mind. We are lucky that we have both.
Slashdot Mirror
I did try to correct a couple of people. But the problem is that they couldn't pronounce it correctly even if their life depended on it. So they cannot transliterate it correctly. You see they don't have a concept of 'dh'. And they think that they know there is somewhere an 'h' in it. So they get Ghandi, instead of Gandhi. The really wierd thing is that they don't even have a concept of a 'gh'. But well that may seem more logical to them. For us it is totally wrong way to pronounce it, but for them both are the same.
And how does the chip decide which 256 bytes to save of the trillions of data that has flown through the Chip over its lifetime. Unless Intel has a specific instruction that must be used for encryption or decrytion.
"So I guess you haven't worked on a large-scale project involving 50+ developers and containing millions lines of code, huh? Hint: there are quite a lot of reasons why so many programmers DEMAND the latest and greatest release of Visual Studio. It *IS* a great tool."
I guess you haven't been out of the Windows Hole for a long time. I have been working in Development for the last 10 years and haven't had the misfortune of having a need to develop in anything other than Emacs, even when I was developing for VxWorks over Windows. And yes I have worked in a Project with over 200 people in a single site with 3 more sites across India and Japan and can you guess the operating system we were using, well it was NetBSD. It was Emacs, Vi, GCC, and make all the way.
And why do you think that sending a million email is difficult. The spam networks can generate a lot of mail traffic.
Think a little bit more. The idea does not work.
The bots primarily do only three things
1) Collect data: Ofcourse the user will find out sometime that he has lost some money on internet fraud, but its not like he is going to understand that it was a keylogger that stole its password.
2) Spam: Problem here is that most people don't run MTAs on their machines. So if somebody was to block your IP from sending mail. You are not going to notice.
3) Blackmail: Massive Botnets do takeout sites by huge traffic, but they don't take them off at random. Mostly Pr0n and gambling sites are targetted. They are easier, smaller and if popular have the money, but generally don't have the infrastructure. No botnet is going to try to takedown Google, or MSN. These people do block your IP but you are not going to notice unless you are looking for Pr0n or Gambling, and in this case also you are most likely to think that the site must be down.
Nothing is ever going to work. The only solution is to prosecute perpetrators separately, after the fact, and here too these guys hide in countries where there is not much law enforcement.
It is stupid to use it for email period. Unless you don't care about external email. Anyway I use gmail for all external email, so I don't care.
Actually it does. What else would be the meaning of the network is the computer. Actually the most comfortable scenario for the future is that everybody will have their computing and storage devices. The computing devices could be watches or clothes in the distant future, and mobiles in the near future. The storage devices can be merged with the computing devices and be flash devices in the near future. The display will be a sort of goggles or maybe embedded inside the brains (for the people who don't mind). Sound devices can be built into caps or inside skin, so that you can feel the music from within your body. Input devices can still be embedded in your body and/or skin. The important thing is that Computers will never be far away from you.
The problem with this picture is that you could not possibly have the amount of computing and storage with you all the time that would possibly be required in this scenario. So the solution is to get your computing needs supplemented by the remote entities. Like the large computer in your house. The wearable computers communicate with your servers, whereever they are be at your home or your service provider, and present the data to you as and when you require. In this age there is no single computer but it is a network of possibly hundreds of computer connected through the network. Of course there will not be a single type of network. There will be the wireless network which ends at the nearest data port, and from there it goes to the fiber network.
Even now the computers (as in PCs, mobiles, pdas, etc) are not sufficient, but we live in a world of proprietory interfaces which does not allow easy connectivity. Once when we have standard interfaces driven by the OSS world, then all computing devices will start talking to each other. This scenario is not very far, as Linux is getting a huge traction, and manufacturers are beginning to understand the idea of OSS. It will probably take another 10 years if DRM does not get in the way very badly. You can implement the basic ideas now, but cannot because the wireless network is not ubiquitous. You can do this only in areas where you have wireless connectivity.
If preventing forks (as in forks made by proprietory interests), then GPL is the way to go. The GPL makes it stupid for anybody to make a fork unless they think that the present leadership is not doing its job properly. So Microsoft or IBM will not make a fork because it will be better to just contribute to the base. Proprietory forks are disallowed by GPL and OSS forks cannot survive because there is an inherent bias in merging the forks, because it improves the code base faster. As past has shown us before (GCC fork, X11 fork), they only happen when the current leadership is not working well. These kinds of fork are a good thing.
BTW no non-viral license can do the job of preventing forks effectively, and that includes BSD and others. Not to flame BSD users but BSD license is great in instances where you want a particular protocol to be used everywhere including proprietory implementation. I would think it would be good if there is an ODF implementation in BSD License then everybody except MS would use it. And we will have a similarly working ODF readers. BSD TCP/IP stack is a reason why TCP/IP is so popular. But preventing forks is not one of its features.
For those who havent, RTFM.
I would like to see the control of the copy as a means to earn a livelyhood get thrown away.
I don't think you are adding the cost of digging roads in there. If you do it will immediately outstrip all the other costs immediately. You must also factor in the cost and uncertainities of dealing with the government for the digging.
Also the tech costs are dropping like hell including the technicians cost as well, as the tech becomes commoditized and automated detection becomes possible.
I also do not agree with wireless as it is good only for sparse areas like the US suburbs but not for either Europe or Asia, which have high population desities almost everywhere.
I don't understand how this thing will see the past. So from now on you should try not to do these things in places that have the cameras. Of course this thing will not catch planned crimes. This thing is most likely to catch impulse crimes. Impulse crimes are the most common crimes. Removing them can only get better. I do agree with gays, smoking pot, etc other kinds of morally good but legally bad activities. But in this case it is better to change the laws. And when a lot of such so called crimes will be reported the public opinion will definitely change and get them legal status. In the mean time such people will suffer. But they are already suffering, although much less. It will increase the suffering for a short time but make it legal far more quickly.
I think this is the single best way to decrease crime rate, from the criminals and from the police. If you don't believe that the police can do crime then I think you must be living in Paradise. The only way to keep the police in check is to have these cameras in every public area. It reduces the venues for crime for everybody including the Police. The worst you could do is to have the cameras but let only Police see the feeds. This results in 1984 situation. But have everybody access it, and you have a crime free area.
I didn't think it possible that any country would attempt this. My kudos to the Police for installing this. I just hope that they put it on the net. Allowing people to do a post-mortem search also. It will also become difficult to coverup tracks when you have already been seen on the cameras once.
I think you mis-understand. Monolithic is like a central dictatorship. When there is a benevolent dictator it works well, but in case of a bad one you get a mis-managed affair, where everybody is destroying things for everybody else. While Micro-kernel is a Burocracy, where the system is trying to keep everybody from hurting everybody else. This results in lots of inefficiencies. The system is useful because it works with the normal human greed, being compartmentalised. But a benevolent dictator is the most efficient solution, and it does work in the Open Source world. I would recommend Microkernels for Proprietory systems where many companies where going to work on adding features to the micro-kernel. This is exactly where QNX rules.
Why is perl the anti-thesis of the UNIX way. It is cryptic, it allows you to do one thing in as many ways as possible. It allows you to build your programs by re-using components (CPAN). It is very extendable.
"Why split fundemental os functions, such as memory management, into user
p pa.html
processes? As all good *nix gurus know, the means to success is to
divide and conquer, with the goal being to *simplify* the problem into
managable, well defined components. If splitting basic parts of the
operating system into user space processes complicates the function by
introducing additional mechanisms (message passing, complicated signals),
have we met the objective of simplifying the design and implementation?"
He had said the same thing in the last flame-war, which means exactly the same thing which Linus is saying now.
The main point is that the simplest design is the best design.
A microkernel is not the simplest possible design, a monolithic kernel with proper modularisation is simpler.
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/a
I think a way to share data structures between multiple processes would be to allocate identical virtual addresses which could be determined by the processes themselves. Basically you would want to be able to allocate memory on user provided memory addresses, and then share it within the tasks that needs these addresses.
It could be implemented using a permission based scheme. Say you have 64 bit addresses. So you split it into 4 parts. One part of which must only be used for sharing addresses. You have a 30bit process ID, for each process a 32 bit address is provided. This address space can be used by other processes if they don't need to share the same address space transparently. In this case you can use pointers etc transparently. I know it still not as easy as working from the same address space. But you can work around the problem somewhat.
These condo's must really be inside the city, or else Beijing is way more expensive then Delhi. I spent just 40,000$ for a house (ground floor of a three floor building) in a suburb of built up area of 1500sqft, ie around 140m2, not including the front and back lawn. Ofcourse that was in early 2003 and now the prices have more than doubled, ie around 100,000$.
/Flame on
/Flame off
If you do respond before reading the responses then I think you are in the wrong business. You may attempt to modify a code without understanding all the ramifications of the code that is already there. I believe you must simply quit rather than trying to write code that will make life hell for all your users.
> I want the kernel to run my code as fast as possible by default.
Yes everybody wants a free lunch, but you have to pay for it. I don't expect you to know it, but Kernel does not run your code it just schedules it. Optimizing code is hard stuff. It is very easy to write badly performing code, just like it is easy to write obfuscated code. You can do any of the following to get your code to suck.
1) Writing unaligned data structures (If your processor is good (ie nonintel) it will SIGBUS on you mercifully)
2) Writing arrays without knowing your cache size.
3) Writing multithreaded applications without the need.
4) Using Mutexes/Semaphores/etc on large blocks of code without need.
5) Doing unnecessary copies.
This is just scraching the surface. So do you do 1). I have seen so many people do it that it is not funny.
BTW Linus is a very entertaining troll, but he is mostly correct about what he says. And he can take things as well as he gives. He is always ready to learn if he is wrong. But you have to prove him wrong, by submitting better performing code than the crap he wrote/accepted.
Actually it will be you who goes bankrupt buying storage for that 100 billion copies of a movie.
The point is with P2P you don't have to promote a good thing. It will promote itself. You need to promote substandard things the kind that RIAA needs to promote. The other thing is that the RIAA had a stranglehold on the venues of promotion. They controlled all the venues from the Radio to the CD. But now with the Internet and P2P you can let others do the promotion without spending anything. This kills the RIAA. And everybody will be happy when they are dead. Now we really get into the realm of meritocracy. There is no RIAA to define what will be good. It will be the public and their opinion that will define what will be popular. There is no scope of authors thinking that they are good but the RIAA does not accept them. If the public does not accept you, you are not good. Does it matter that you think you are good, when nobody else thinks the same way.
I am burning my right to moderate, but my question to you is, Do you have fans. If you think that you have then do you think that they will not pay for owning CDs signed by you. If you don't have fans then I guess your music is not good anyway. If you think it is but you haven't found the right audience then how do you propose to find them without using P2P.
Well what use is a closed standard. A government mandated closed standard is basically giving monopoly to a company in a balatant display of favoritism. It doesn't matter if most people are blind.
You can see it in his post. He quivers in submission. He does not want to face the gods, and reason with them. Because he has been told and has known somewhere deep down that the gods are unreasonable. He is the tool by which the religious fanatics rule the world. He will bear arms for them. Will cause the destruction of another World Trade Center. There is no difference between men of any religion who cannot reason. If only reason was more common the world would be a better place, and maybe somewhere the entity that started it all would be happy. I say maybe because who has the time (even for the creators of the universe) to care for the happyness/unhappyness of the ape descendent people of this insignificant little planet which cannot be observed from just a few million light years.
Free Software would have taken a lot longer without Linux to become big, and Linux would not exist without the huge body of free software. Both mentalities are required the Stallman style principles, and Linus style Open Mind. We are lucky that we have both.
I wouldn't place any faith in his prediction.