I'm not sure what distribution you're using, but here I am typing into my custom dual-boot gaming/performance PC. I had zero problems running my high-end graphics card.
I've had far fewer problems with Linux (in my case, Ubuntu) than Windows 7 or Windows 10. I can hibernate on Linux but not Windows.
There's a certain amount of discipline enforced when confronted with the grub boot menu: do I want to play (select Windows), or do I want to Get Shit Done (Linux).
The counterargument lies in the very text you wrote. It was a very loosely-regulated group of supposedly self-interested investors, bond traders, and banks that killed any idea that unregulated capitalism can somehow govern itself (not unlike BP's boneheaded disaster in the Gulf). The internal structure of the banks and corporations have been proven to be just as incompetent as the worst governments. They created the very weapons of their own destruction.
The result of too-big-to-fail banks and insurance companies suffering the "natural result of their actions" would have been a nuclear-war-equivalent destruction of capital that they knew would never be allowed to happen. The only way to prevent it would have been aggressive anti-trust action to break the banks into small-enough-to-fail pieces.
The irony of your last statement is that continuing to allow corporate power to be concentrated into fewer hands ultimately leads to the "perpetual serfdom to the landed classes" you seek to avoid. At least we can occasionally vote incompetent politicians out of office.
True story: after arriving in Canada from the U.S, I was selected for a "special" search. They asked for my laptop, and asked me to enter the login password. I politely declined. I requested to speak to my corporate attorney (via my cell phone) and they refused. They asked again more forcefully, threatening me with arrest if I didn't give in. I gave in. (I'll only go so far to protect my employer's IP).
You should have seen the look on the poor inspector's face when it booted into Linux. He politely asked me how to search for porn on my computer. I taught him the "find" command.
There is nothing in the Common Criteria that specifies that an EAL7 system is "completely secure". It merely indicates that a great deal of evidence exists that the system meets its security function requirements, nothing more, nothing less. In Common Criteria, the actual security function requirements can be extremely weak, but to make EAL 7, a great deal of evidence must be presented to show that the extremely weak requirement was implemented correctly.
The "mathematically irrelevent industry certificate" of which you speak, Common Criteria EAL 6, does require formal analysis, and Integrity did have certain important security properties proved about it. Now, this L4 kernel set a much higher bar, in that it was proven correct, a super-set of what what proved about Integrity.
Where do you live? I visit companies all over the U.S. doing embedded, and a lot of them are desperate for embedded developers. I saw a poster at a company just the other day offering a $10K bounty to any employee that finds one.
Right now for embedded jobs, defense is where it is at. They are also most likely to accept entry-level folks. That's where I got my start in embedded.
Actually I'm looking for a sort-of (low-level PC hardware) embedded developer right now.:)
I really don't understand the arguments about embedded being a niche. Embedded software is a $5 billion business, more or less. It ain't COBOL, but there are enough jobs in enough geographic areas that you won't have to worry about changing careers for the forseeable future. And if you learned C in the late 80s, you could still be using the same language now, 20 years later, unlike the eternal rate race of PHP/C#/.Net/Ruby/Python/flavor of the day.
It comes down to a matter of perspective. While Searle couldn't possibly grok that the system of the book, the worker/ordertaker, and the room opening "understands" Chinese, he thinks it natural to believe that the system of neurons, blood vessels, organs, and bodily fluids called "Mao Zedung" understands Chinese.
Why? Merely convention. Defining intelligence by mechanism (in Searle's case: neurons) is problematic because it precludes definition in situations where mechanism is unknown. If an alien race landed on Earth tomorrow and demanded to speak to our leader, are we going to kill one and dissect it to verify it has neurons before we negotiate?
Put another way, Mao Zedung's clone, properly taught, knows Chinese. A supercomputer of the future, exactly simulating the effects of all of the neurons in Mao Zedung's head, should "know" Chinese too, otherwise one ends up with an analog of dualism's "zombie" problem. The brain of Mao Zedung's clone could have been replaced by a wireless link to the supercomputer. So, even though Mao clone will act and behave exactly the same as if he had a real brain, he's doesn't "understand" Chinese.
To answer your question, we can't preclude silicon from being intelligent merely by decree. We have to evaluate artificial intelligence the same way we evaluate biological intelligence: by observing the outputs from the party in question, applying semantic content to those outputs, and seeing if that semantic content jives with our own understanding of what it means to be intelligent.
You would have to look on ebay for 68k VxWorks board. Nobody has had a new design on 68k for a half a decade now. You are going to need a PowerPC running well over 200 MHz for that kind of response time.
If you really have 1 microsecond response time requirements, you're going to have to either find:
a) An RTOS that doesn't disable interrupts, or b) Queue it up in hardware.
If you go A, that rules out QNX, and all other Linuxes, real-time or not.
Most companies go B, and then still use an RTOS with a good response time, since the RTOS still has to suck it out of the hardware before the queue fills up.
One RTOS, similar in architecture to QNX, that doesn't disable interrupts, is INTEGRITY
On PowerPC, GHS kills gcc, on x86, the Intel compiler beats gcc pretty well, and on ARM, both GHS and ARM Ltd. absolutely kill gcc, by 20-30% in most cases.
There's a lot of good compilers out there. gcc is just the lowest common denominator. Hey, you get what you pay for.
That's funny about Montavista and Wind River. Both companies are losing money hand over fist.
Actually, Dan's company sells a Linux-hosted debugger and compiler for your Coldfire 5407 board, so you can pitch VisionClick and erase your Windows partition.
What stops me from writing a HAL that responds to software interrupts?
Efficiency, for one. The trap interface has overhead that is usually undesirable for the low level routines. Also, unlike the x86, there is only one software interrupt on ARM. So, the trap interrupt logic that vectors to the HAL calls would have to be shared with the logic that vectors to RiscOS calls. This is not impossible, but certainly messy. Plus, the modifications to the HAL to make it work with software interrupts would be governed by the GPL and would have to be distributed.
What stops me from writing a BIOS that instead of using software interrupts has a jump table in a well defined memory location just like dynamic linking?
That is linking. You are just doing the work that the linker usually does. Regardless of whether you use the standard linker, you are still placing a table in memory so that your application uses to call GPL code, which means your application must be GPL.
If this was legal under the GPL (not the LGPL), any proprietary application could use any GPL code by just using some jump tables.
They are complying with the GPL with respect to the HAL because they will release code to all customers who ask for it. Well, at least after being slashdotted they will.
There is more to the GPL than distributing source code. You must also notify in every release how someone can acquire the source code, which Castle has not done.
There is a minor but significant technical difference between linking to a hardware abstraction library (HAL) and making a call to a BIOS or ROM Monitor.
When system code wants to issue a call to the BIOS, it issues a software interrupt, which causes an exception that the BIOS handles.
When system code wants to call a function in a HAL, the code sets the program counter to equal the address in memory of the particular HAL call. The only reason why the system code knows where the function lies in memory is because it has been LINKED with the system code and LOCATED into physical memory.
The difference between using a BIOS and a HAL is akin to writing a proprietary Linux program that executes "ls" and grabs its output, and writing a program that has recompiled "ls" into a library and directly calls "ls" functions. According to the GPL, the former is fine, while the latter is a no-no. On another note, if the ls library were relicensed LGPL, then it would be fine.
I think this demonstrates that Castle doesn't really understand the GPL and needs to get a good lawyer.
No. That's only true for NiCd or NiMH batteries, like those in most rechargable AA or AAA. Those you should power cycle and discharge to maximum to reduce the memory effect.
Almost all current laptops have Lithium-based batteries that should not be discharged fully if you can help it.
I went to the site. There isn't a whole lot in the public domain. Open Channel Software charges money for the application and more money for the source code.
I'm not going to pay $100 for the source code to a line of code counter.
The article's author misrepresents the embedded market. Yes, a small part of the embedded market consists of PDAs and such, but is mostly industrial, medical, automotive, and defense.
Wind River's VxWorks has roughly 40% of the embedded market. Over 50% of companies developing embedded products roll their own OSs. That leaves less than 10% for all the other embedded OSs around. All the embedded OSs mentioned in the article (QNX, VRTX, Win CE, LynuxWorks) together have less than 5% of the market.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure what distribution you're using, but here I am typing into my custom dual-boot gaming/performance PC. I had zero problems running my high-end graphics card.
I've had far fewer problems with Linux (in my case, Ubuntu) than Windows 7 or Windows 10. I can hibernate on Linux but not Windows.
There's a certain amount of discipline enforced when confronted with the grub boot menu: do I want to play (select Windows), or do I want to Get Shit Done (Linux).
The counterargument lies in the very text you wrote. It was a very loosely-regulated group of supposedly self-interested investors, bond traders, and banks that killed any idea that unregulated capitalism can somehow govern itself (not unlike BP's boneheaded disaster in the Gulf). The internal structure of the banks and corporations have been proven to be just as incompetent as the worst governments. They created the very weapons of their own destruction.
The result of too-big-to-fail banks and insurance companies suffering the "natural result of their actions" would have been a nuclear-war-equivalent destruction of capital that they knew would never be allowed to happen. The only way to prevent it would have been aggressive anti-trust action to break the banks into small-enough-to-fail pieces.
The irony of your last statement is that continuing to allow corporate power to be concentrated into fewer hands ultimately leads to the "perpetual serfdom to the landed classes" you seek to avoid. At least we can occasionally vote incompetent politicians out of office.
Not NPR, PRI. This American Life is distributed by PRI, not NPR.
The report stated that the ground speed at impact was 107 knots, which is pretty slow.
Since 2003, qualified dividends are taxed at 15% (0% if you're in the 15% tax bracket). This will end at the end of this year.
True story: after arriving in Canada from the U.S, I was selected for a "special" search. They asked for my laptop, and asked me to enter the login password. I politely declined. I requested to speak to my corporate attorney (via my cell phone) and they refused. They asked again more forcefully, threatening me with arrest if I didn't give in. I gave in. (I'll only go so far to protect my employer's IP).
You should have seen the look on the poor inspector's face when it booted into Linux. He politely asked me how to search for porn on my computer. I taught him the "find" command.
There is nothing in the Common Criteria that specifies that an EAL7 system is "completely secure". It merely indicates that a great deal of evidence exists that the system meets its security function requirements, nothing more, nothing less. In Common Criteria, the actual security function requirements can be extremely weak, but to make EAL 7, a great deal of evidence must be presented to show that the extremely weak requirement was implemented correctly.
The "mathematically irrelevent industry certificate" of which you speak, Common Criteria EAL 6, does require formal analysis, and Integrity did have certain important security properties proved about it. Now, this L4 kernel set a much higher bar, in that it was proven correct, a super-set of what what proved about Integrity.
Lol. You must have worked with DARPA before.
If it is remotely achievable, it ain't funded by DARPA.
Where do you live? I visit companies all over the U.S. doing embedded, and a lot of them are desperate for embedded developers. I saw a poster at a company just the other day offering a $10K bounty to any employee that finds one.
:)
Right now for embedded jobs, defense is where it is at. They are also most likely to accept entry-level folks. That's where I got my start in embedded.
Actually I'm looking for a sort-of (low-level PC hardware) embedded developer right now.
I really don't understand the arguments about embedded being a niche. Embedded software is a $5 billion business, more or less. It ain't COBOL, but there are enough jobs in enough geographic areas that you won't have to worry about changing careers for the forseeable future. And if you learned C in the late 80s, you could still be using the same language now, 20 years later, unlike the eternal rate race of PHP/C#/.Net/Ruby/Python/flavor of the day.
Public 'domian'?
Biological chauvinism.
It comes down to a matter of perspective. While Searle couldn't possibly grok that the system of the book, the worker/ordertaker, and the room opening "understands" Chinese, he thinks it natural to believe that the system of neurons, blood vessels, organs, and bodily fluids called "Mao Zedung" understands Chinese.
Why? Merely convention. Defining intelligence by mechanism (in Searle's case: neurons) is problematic because it precludes definition in situations where mechanism is unknown. If an alien race landed on Earth tomorrow and demanded to speak to our leader, are we going to kill one and dissect it to verify it has neurons before we negotiate?
Put another way, Mao Zedung's clone, properly taught, knows Chinese. A supercomputer of the future, exactly simulating the effects of all of the neurons in Mao Zedung's head, should "know" Chinese too, otherwise one ends up with an analog of dualism's "zombie" problem. The brain of Mao Zedung's clone could have been replaced by a wireless link to the supercomputer. So, even though Mao clone will act and behave exactly the same as if he had a real brain, he's doesn't "understand" Chinese.
To answer your question, we can't preclude silicon from being intelligent merely by decree. We have to evaluate artificial intelligence the same way we evaluate biological intelligence: by observing the outputs from the party in question, applying semantic content to those outputs, and seeing if that semantic content jives with our own understanding of what it means to be intelligent.
You would have to look on ebay for 68k VxWorks board. Nobody has had a new design on 68k for a half a decade now. You are going to need a PowerPC running well over 200 MHz for that kind of response time.
If you really have 1 microsecond response time requirements, you're going to have to either find:
a) An RTOS that doesn't disable interrupts, or
b) Queue it up in hardware.
If you go A, that rules out QNX, and all other Linuxes, real-time or not.
Most companies go B, and then still use an RTOS with a good response time, since the RTOS still has to suck it out of the hardware before the queue fills up.
One RTOS, similar in architecture to QNX, that doesn't disable interrupts, is INTEGRITY
On PowerPC, GHS kills gcc, on x86, the Intel compiler beats gcc pretty well, and on ARM, both GHS and ARM Ltd. absolutely kill gcc, by 20-30% in most cases.
There's a lot of good compilers out there. gcc is just the lowest common denominator. Hey, you get what you pay for.
That's funny about Montavista and Wind River. Both companies are losing money hand over fist.
Actually, Dan's company sells a Linux-hosted debugger and compiler for your Coldfire 5407 board, so you can pitch VisionClick and erase your Windows partition.
MULTI Debugger
Here's a U.S. Supreme Court Decision that does just that: InfoWorld article
I have yet to see a single, documented, upheld court decision asserting that these click-throughs are really legally binding.
Here's a U.S. S
Actually, there is. Dermatologists routinely prescribe oil-free diets as part of a program to reduce acne.
I, too, thought it was a lot of baloney. But I went on a diet to lose some weight, and a nice side effect was that my complexion cleared up.
Efficiency, for one. The trap interface has overhead that is usually undesirable for the low level routines. Also, unlike the x86, there is only one software interrupt on ARM. So, the trap interrupt logic that vectors to the HAL calls would have to be shared with the logic that vectors to RiscOS calls. This is not impossible, but certainly messy. Plus, the modifications to the HAL to make it work with software interrupts would be governed by the GPL and would have to be distributed.
That is linking. You are just doing the work that the linker usually does. Regardless of whether you use the standard linker, you are still placing a table in memory so that your application uses to call GPL code, which means your application must be GPL.
If this was legal under the GPL (not the LGPL), any proprietary application could use any GPL code by just using some jump tables.
There is more to the GPL than distributing source code. You must also notify in every release how someone can acquire the source code, which Castle has not done.
There is a minor but significant technical difference between linking to a hardware abstraction library (HAL) and making a call to a BIOS or ROM Monitor.
When system code wants to issue a call to the BIOS, it issues a software interrupt, which causes an exception that the BIOS handles.
When system code wants to call a function in a HAL, the code sets the program counter to equal the address in memory of the particular HAL call. The only reason why the system code knows where the function lies in memory is because it has been LINKED with the system code and LOCATED into physical memory.
The difference between using a BIOS and a HAL is akin to writing a proprietary Linux program that executes "ls" and grabs its output, and writing a program that has recompiled "ls" into a library and directly calls "ls" functions. According to the GPL, the former is fine, while the latter is a no-no. On another note, if the ls library were relicensed LGPL, then it would be fine.
I think this demonstrates that Castle doesn't really understand the GPL and needs to get a good lawyer.
No. That's only true for NiCd or NiMH batteries, like those in most rechargable AA or AAA. Those you should power cycle and discharge to maximum to reduce the memory effect.
Almost all current laptops have Lithium-based batteries that should not be discharged fully if you can help it.
This just shows how New York-centric the Times is. Dallas has required 10 digit dialing for over 4 years.
Welcome to the 90's.
I went to the site. There isn't a whole lot in the public domain. Open Channel Software charges money for the application and more money for the source code.
I'm not going to pay $100 for the source code to a line of code counter.
The article's author misrepresents the embedded market. Yes, a small part of the embedded market consists of PDAs and such, but is mostly industrial, medical, automotive, and defense.
Wind River's VxWorks has roughly 40% of the embedded market. Over 50% of companies developing embedded products roll their own OSs. That leaves less than 10% for all the other embedded OSs around. All the embedded OSs mentioned in the article (QNX, VRTX, Win CE, LynuxWorks) together have less than 5% of the market.