I'm sorry, maybe I misread that NASA site, but I don't see *anything* about navigation on it. What makes you think that's all they're talking about? We have GPS already. Clearly they're thinking about something other than GPS, or something that would use GPS. Sure, maybe Timmy's comment was wrong, but I think that they're going to attempt to create something that would be *easier* than driving your car. And clearly, that can't happen with the practices that you describe. So I guarantee you they're talking about something else. They are rocket scientists after all.
I'm sure that this is (-1, Redundant) by now, but...
Are there any cases involving damage done to personal property in eavesdropping operations? That is, legal taps? Any lawyers here? I gotta imagine that this would be a very very dangerous thing for the government to get into. Not only could it cause damage to personal property, but if the suspect is smart enough to encrypt their stuff, they're going to be smart enough to know when they've been h4x0red by an email virus.
This story makes a lot more sense if you remove every reference to "our sources" and replace it with "my little brother."
"The FBI is developing software capable of inserting a computer virus onto a suspect's machine and obtaining encryption keys, my little brother told MSNBC.com."
Well. Perhaps some of their SMP boards are like that. I think that they might feel that way about this particular system. Are you discussing the one with four DIMM slots and mobo RAID? I can't find your parent.
They sure knew what their market was for their dual celery boards. My BP6 sure has integrated USB.
If they don't understand numbers than they will not be able to receive the communication anyway. They're not *our* numbers. Numbers are discovered, not invented.
This would remove some of the power of the root servers, but you'd still need an authoritative answer from DNS when you first send someone a link to Troll Land.
I'm *trying* to figure out what that paper means, and I think I'm getting it...
The implication is that either the root servers account for all of the speed in the DNS system, and the caching doesn't make too much of a difference, or the implication is that a freenet/gnutella/whatever style distributed system would work just fine. I'm having trouble with the last sentence of the abstract:
These results suggest that the performance of DNS is not as dependent on aggressive caching as is commonly believed, and that the widespread use of dynamic, low-TTL A-record bindings should not degrade DNS performance.
I'm sorry, I want DNS to work instantly. FreeNet gives a great model for how to solve this problem if it were ok for DNS to take between 3 seconds and 3 minutes to resolve. 3 seconds is too long. Centralization is necesary. Redundant is good, but it should still be centralized. If anyone can tell me how a decentralized DNS system would allow fast lookups of uncommon names, then I'll change my mind.
I think solar radiation would be even more of a concern than launch vibration. Like the other poster said, it'll probably be broadcast and recorded by terrestrial scientists.
Ok. That's right. I misunderstood. The original poster's point is still not too misinformed. BeOS might not have been originally designed as a replacement for MacOS, but by the time they were in talks with Apple for a $400 million buyout, Gassee might very well have been thinking just like the poster was suggesting.
So yeah. My post was wrong. But yours was more wronger! (Joking. Lighten up, moderators.)
Um, I think you're wrong. The BeBox never shipped with a hobbit processor. They did begin with the Hobbit, but it had been discontinued by the time they actually shipped anything. So the first BeBoxes were PowerPC.
Uh, that's not how they failed. Their last chance for success was to get bought by Apple, but they asked for too much money. I gotta wonder how the shareholders are feeling about that $400 million asking price right now. Apple only ever started talking to Jobs about NeXT so that they could force Be's price down, and Jobs closed the deal.
By the time they ditched their desktop operating system, they had no choice. It was long gone.
Hmmm. I thought that they were doing exactly that. A lot of copying between servers by using the Mach messaging system. Maybe not between the filesystem and the disk drivers, but I'm sure some of those servers do a lot of communication. Now, I have *no* idea if any of that communication is something that would have to be copied in a monolithic kernel. Perhaps all of it would. I realize that Mach messaging was a well thought out tradeoff, and I don't think that it's a bad idea for the HURD. They certainly took their time thinking about it:) I'm just curious if further optimization is really going to improve their speed a lot. I can't imagine that Neal would say it's going to improve if it isn't, so I imagine that some of my post is just plain incorrect. Is the messaging going to slow them down, or not?
Hmm... He says HURD is slower than it should be, and it will get better. I was under the impression that it was doing some high-order operations, and that was why it was going to be slow. Eventually with high-order operations, don't you sortof hit a brick wall in optimization? For example, I thought they were using the very expensive (computationally) Mach messaging system for some of their features. Is this the case? Is their switch to L4 going to improve this issue, since Mach's speed issues are related to operation order? Iduno. I guarantee that I'm less educated in this subject than the majority of/. readers, so can someone elucidate?
Laptop hard drives are slow for a reason. They are smaller and use lower power than desktop drives. If you would prefer something that is larger and faster than the current laptop setup, the first thing you should request would be laptop hard drives that are more like desktop hard drives. I'm sure that your speed increase would be more heat/size/cost effective that way than with IDE RAID. The hard drive in a laptop is one of the biggest power drains. Two drives would be much worse.
Hrm... perhaps. I wonder if reading 1MB from 2 disks uses a whole lot more juice than reading 2MB from 1 disk. The two disk option would definitely cost something in power, just because of the doubled seek costs, but iduno. Maybe it's not such a bad idea. Anybody with actual knowledge have any revelations?
mrm677 is carping that KDE is bad because they charge $2000 for some product. He is saying that Gnome is good because they do not offer this product at all. Is that it? Gnome is ok because you *can't* buy a proprietary license, but KDE is bad because the proprietary license costs money?
Have I been trolled?
Re:User Programmability
on
New AIBO Demo'd
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Your point is dead on. While we're attempting to copy a living thing, we'll probably always come up a little short of the results of evolution. The reason endeavors like this are worthwhile is that you can use design preferences that are different from natural or artificial selection. By removing capabilities like self-repair, growth and embryology, etc., and removing design goals like reproduction and survivability, you can achieve things that nature can not. Like a more convenient diet, no poop, high bandwidth wireless output, etc.
Re:Reminds me of this "classic" prose...
on
New AIBO Demo'd
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Yeah. My guess is that despite your obvious ideological connections to someone whom you understand so well, you're not going to email him either? Gotta wonder how you got modded down. This comment was literally requested by the original poster.
Dude, I'm sorry. You didn't say anything offensive at all. I thought you were saying you understood and then asking the same question. My friends call this ironing:
"You know, I've never understood how ironing works. I just don't get it."
"What do you mean you don't know how ironing works. Everyone knows that."
Uh, are you trolling? The raytracer is a program that runs on a computer. Thus, the raytracing source *is* computer source code. They're not similar, but the same.
No... Halo was never going to be massively multiplayer. The cool multiplayer aspect to the game was that they were going to have mission based cooperative play. One player would be the driver, one would be the gunner, and one would ride shotgun. That was the cool idea. No one ever said a thing about massively multiplayer. It still has a fantastic outdoor graphics engine, and we don't know if it still has deformable terrain and a persistent world. I'm not sure what's making you say that Halo is now just another FPS. That's not what the reviewer said at all...
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, maybe I misread that NASA site, but I don't see *anything* about navigation on it. What makes you think that's all they're talking about? We have GPS already. Clearly they're thinking about something other than GPS, or something that would use GPS. Sure, maybe Timmy's comment was wrong, but I think that they're going to attempt to create something that would be *easier* than driving your car. And clearly, that can't happen with the practices that you describe. So I guarantee you they're talking about something else. They are rocket scientists after all.
Are there any cases involving damage done to personal property in eavesdropping operations? That is, legal taps? Any lawyers here? I gotta imagine that this would be a very very dangerous thing for the government to get into. Not only could it cause damage to personal property, but if the suspect is smart enough to encrypt their stuff, they're going to be smart enough to know when they've been h4x0red by an email virus.
This story makes a lot more sense if you remove every reference to "our sources" and replace it with "my little brother." I believe *that*.
Well. Perhaps some of their SMP boards are like that. I think that they might feel that way about this particular system. Are you discussing the one with four DIMM slots and mobo RAID? I can't find your parent.
They sure knew what their market was for their dual celery boards. My BP6 sure has integrated USB.
If they don't understand numbers than they will not be able to receive the communication anyway. They're not *our* numbers. Numbers are discovered, not invented.
thanks.
Huh. What a terrible, stilted writing style? I thought it was better than the victorian novels they were copying.
This would remove some of the power of the root servers, but you'd still need an authoritative answer from DNS when you first send someone a link to Troll Land.
Interesting idea though.
The implication is that either the root servers account for all of the speed in the DNS system, and the caching doesn't make too much of a difference, or the implication is that a freenet/gnutella/whatever style distributed system would work just fine. I'm having trouble with the last sentence of the abstract:What's a "dynamic, low-TTL A-record binding"?
I'm sorry, I want DNS to work instantly. FreeNet gives a great model for how to solve this problem if it were ok for DNS to take between 3 seconds and 3 minutes to resolve. 3 seconds is too long. Centralization is necesary. Redundant is good, but it should still be centralized. If anyone can tell me how a decentralized DNS system would allow fast lookups of uncommon names, then I'll change my mind.
I think solar radiation would be even more of a concern than launch vibration. Like the other poster said, it'll probably be broadcast and recorded by terrestrial scientists.
Ok. That's right. I misunderstood. The original poster's point is still not too misinformed. BeOS might not have been originally designed as a replacement for MacOS, but by the time they were in talks with Apple for a $400 million buyout, Gassee might very well have been thinking just like the poster was suggesting.
So yeah. My post was wrong. But yours was more wronger! (Joking. Lighten up, moderators.)
Um, I think you're wrong. The BeBox never shipped with a hobbit processor. They did begin with the Hobbit, but it had been discontinued by the time they actually shipped anything. So the first BeBoxes were PowerPC.
Right, so, at the time, the VCs were shareholders.
Uh, that's not how they failed. Their last chance for success was to get bought by Apple, but they asked for too much money. I gotta wonder how the shareholders are feeling about that $400 million asking price right now. Apple only ever started talking to Jobs about NeXT so that they could force Be's price down, and Jobs closed the deal.
By the time they ditched their desktop operating system, they had no choice. It was long gone.
That was exactly the answer I was looking (and hoping) for.
Hmmm. I thought that they were doing exactly that. A lot of copying between servers by using the Mach messaging system. Maybe not between the filesystem and the disk drivers, but I'm sure some of those servers do a lot of communication. Now, I have *no* idea if any of that communication is something that would have to be copied in a monolithic kernel. Perhaps all of it would. I realize that Mach messaging was a well thought out tradeoff, and I don't think that it's a bad idea for the HURD. They certainly took their time thinking about it :) I'm just curious if further optimization is really going to improve their speed a lot. I can't imagine that Neal would say it's going to improve if it isn't, so I imagine that some of my post is just plain incorrect. Is the messaging going to slow them down, or not?
gee, not offtopic at all. (*THIS* post is offtopic.)
Hmm... He says HURD is slower than it should be, and it will get better. I was under the impression that it was doing some high-order operations, and that was why it was going to be slow. Eventually with high-order operations, don't you sortof hit a brick wall in optimization? For example, I thought they were using the very expensive (computationally) Mach messaging system for some of their features. Is this the case? Is their switch to L4 going to improve this issue, since Mach's speed issues are related to operation order? Iduno. I guarantee that I'm less educated in this subject than the majority of /. readers, so can someone elucidate?
Laptop hard drives are slow for a reason. They are smaller and use lower power than desktop drives. If you would prefer something that is larger and faster than the current laptop setup, the first thing you should request would be laptop hard drives that are more like desktop hard drives. I'm sure that your speed increase would be more heat/size/cost effective that way than with IDE RAID. The hard drive in a laptop is one of the biggest power drains. Two drives would be much worse.
Hrm... perhaps. I wonder if reading 1MB from 2 disks uses a whole lot more juice than reading 2MB from 1 disk. The two disk option would definitely cost something in power, just because of the doubled seek costs, but iduno. Maybe it's not such a bad idea. Anybody with actual knowledge have any revelations?
Um, I don't follow. Someone please correct me:
mrm677 is carping that KDE is bad because they charge $2000 for some product. He is saying that Gnome is good because they do not offer this product at all. Is that it? Gnome is ok because you *can't* buy a proprietary license, but KDE is bad because the proprietary license costs money?
Have I been trolled?
Your point is dead on. While we're attempting to copy a living thing, we'll probably always come up a little short of the results of evolution. The reason endeavors like this are worthwhile is that you can use design preferences that are different from natural or artificial selection. By removing capabilities like self-repair, growth and embryology, etc., and removing design goals like reproduction and survivability, you can achieve things that nature can not. Like a more convenient diet, no poop, high bandwidth wireless output, etc.
Yeah. My guess is that despite your obvious ideological connections to someone whom you understand so well, you're not going to email him either? Gotta wonder how you got modded down. This comment was literally requested by the original poster.
Dude, I'm sorry. You didn't say anything offensive at all. I thought you were saying you understood and then asking the same question. My friends call this ironing:
"You know, I've never understood how ironing works. I just don't get it."
"What do you mean you don't know how ironing works. Everyone knows that."
"No, really. Like, what's the point?"
"Well, it's to get the wrinkles out of clothing."
"What, like stretching?"
etc...
Uh, are you trolling? The raytracer is a program that runs on a computer. Thus, the raytracing source *is* computer source code. They're not similar, but the same.
No... Halo was never going to be massively multiplayer. The cool multiplayer aspect to the game was that they were going to have mission based cooperative play. One player would be the driver, one would be the gunner, and one would ride shotgun. That was the cool idea. No one ever said a thing about massively multiplayer. It still has a fantastic outdoor graphics engine, and we don't know if it still has deformable terrain and a persistent world. I'm not sure what's making you say that Halo is now just another FPS. That's not what the reviewer said at all...