The original ("fat") PS3s all included an option for the PS3 hypervisor to host an "OtherOS", like Linux, instead of booting into the GameOS. PS3 Linux was a PPC distro running on the Cell's 2.4GHz PPC CPU core, with access to the bus, 6 of 7 working DSPs and other devices (but not the RSX GPU) through drivers and filesystem mapping APIs. I could run Ubuntu on the PS3, install a driver and use mplayer to watch full HD movies from the hard drive or streaming from a network fileserver. I could program the Cell, including its SPUs, in a familiar environment.
The PS3 Slim has removed OtherOS support from its hypervisor. So it can't run Linux. So it's not really a "laptop", except that it can sit on top of your lap.
Thanks, that is evidently exactly right: selecting the weakest but fastest encryption. I can appreciate that ssh requires some encryption, as a practical matter to protect ssh's reputation if nothing else, but I'd think a symmetric key simply XOR'ed with the data would be the fastest.
And congratulations for the only reply that actually answers my question, rather than trying to force me to ask a different one with an answer they like better.
I find sshfs to be a much easier to use ad-hoc network fileystem mounter than the other popular alternatives. And it's secure by default.
But it's too secure. Or rather, there are scenarios in which the network transfer doesn't need the ssh security, but encrypting it takes too long (or too much CPU from other tasks, especially on dinky embedded network devices). Is there a way to force sshfs to use a much less compute intensive encryption, or maybe even a null crypto module? Without hacking the source directly, that is - like an execution option, a compile option, a config rule, etc.
That's better than nothing. But I want all the x86 packages, especially the Windows AV codecs. That requires an x86.
Though that requirement suggests an architecture of ARM CPU for OS/apps, little x86 coprocessor for codecs, and MPP GPU cores doing the DSP/rendering. If Linux could handle that kind of "heterogenous multicore" chip, it would really kill Windows 7. Especially on "embedded" media appliances.
Indeed, I have two (original/80GB) PS3s exclusively for running Linux on their Cells. The development of that niche has been very disappointing, especially SPU apps. And now Sony has discontinued "OtherOS" on new PS3s (they claim they won't close it on legacy models with new firmware, but who knows).
I'd love to see a $200 Linux PC with a Cell, even if it had "only" 2-6 (or 7, like the PS3) SPUs, and no hypervisor, but maybe a separate GPU (or at least a framebuffer/RAMDAC, but why not a $40 nVidia GPU?). The Cell shouldn't be so exotic and rare, and it certainly shouldn't cost $5000 for a workstation just to get 8 SPUs when it's really that bus that's the magic, and 2-6 SPUs are so fast, and such a CPU should cost under $80.
What I'd like to see is nVidia embed a decent x86 CPU, (maybe like a P4/2.4GHz) right on the chip with their superfast graphics chips. I'd like a media PC which isn't processing apps so much as it's processing media streams, pic-in-pic, DVR, audio. Flip the script of the fat Intel CPUs with "integrated" graphics, for the media apps that really need the DSP more than the ALU/CLU.
Gimme a $200 PC that can do 1080p HD while DVR another channel/download, and Intel and AMD will get a real shakeup.
NY state just passed "tough" new laws prohibiting texting while driving. But that made the roads a lot less safe in much of the state.
Two of the most trafficy counties, Nassau and Westchester (the two suburbs right next to NYC, with millions of their own people, and millions more through commuters) already had texting prohibitions for drivers. If a cop there saw someone texting on the road, they could be pulled over just for texting, and given a pretty steep ticket. Repeat offenses quickly revoked their drivers' license.
But the new law prohibits cops from pulling them over for just texting. Cops can cite drivers for texting if they pull them over for something else (like speeding). Texting drivers are erratic, so now cops have to catch them at the few seconds every minute they actually break some other traffic law. Or catch up with them later, when the fiery crash with several victims makes it hard to find the phone as evidence. When pulling them over for weaving or something, the texting driver will have hidden the phone that was their real crime.
I'd bet that the legislators making it safer to text while driving in NY are getting paid by telcos to protect that lucrative, though suicidal, market.
'By openly flaunting the call-blocking prohibition that applies to its competitors, Google is acting in a manner inconsistent with the spirit, if not the letter, of the FCC's fourth principle contained in its Internet Policy Statement,' Robert Quinn, AT&T's senior vice president focusing on federal regulation,
1. (transitive) To parade, display with ostentation.
"She's always flaunting her designer clothes." 2. (intransitive) (archaic or literary) To show off with flashy clothing.
AT&T flaunts its hypocrisy by flouting not only Net Neutrality rules and principles, but also by ignoring the rules of using words correctly. Triple hypocrisy word score! AT&T wins again!
You're talking like nothing is changing after the impulse ends. But the object's position continues to change. Saying its momentum is the same is circular: momentum is defined in terms of the object's inertial frame, according to the law you're using momentum to prove. Circular.
The question being asked is simply "why does the position continue to change, when there's nothing continuing to change it?" The implied question, that shows the conflict between that one and yours, is "how is velocity the fundamental state, but position is not as fundamental?" I haven't seen a good one yet.
As for springs, that was a snide retort to someone suggesting (perhaps snidely) that "strings" are the reason, as if that answers anything - especially without explanation. Springs at least store energy that can release over time, which could continue to impulse an object into continued sustained motion at velocity. It's not a rigorous answer, nor a serious one. But a simpler one than "strings".
You evidently don't know how big the Moon is, or how much momentum is in its orbit around the Earth. Indeed, the Moon doesn't quite orbit the Earth, but rather the Moon and the Earth orbit one another around a center quite a ways away from the Earth's center. Or you just don't know how much energy can be produced by a nuke plant - a very tiny amount compared to what's needed to push the Moon out of orbit into the Earth in any appreciable amount of time.
But if you want to keep carrying on about some fact free paranoia, that's your business. Lunacy, but your business.
Not as an explanation for continued motion after the initial impulse has ended. Strings would have to be involved in something more complex. Springs, pretty much sufficient all by themselves.
There's plenty of solar power on the Moon's surface, and plenty of materials for construction in its crust. The first stage would be launching a small amount of automated fabrication machinery, run by a small crew, to build a solar power plant.
That plant could supply the energy to power the larger construction of a nuclear plant. Again, using local materials, and a larger crew supported by the larger infrastructure built by the solar power. The nuclear power available would be much larger than even the solar power.
Along the way, the power, infrastructure and crew would be capable of doing a lot more than building the next phase. Lunar science, other industrial engineering, telescopy, and launching other missions to farther out.
A solar base should take America no more than 5-8 years to build, if funded intelligently (ie, at the levels at which we love to fund wars for oil, but with a larger and more guaranteed return on investment). A nuclear base should take no more than 10 years to build, with probably 2-3 of those years performed during the 5-8 years building the solar plant. So the nuke plant could be operating somewhere 12-16 years or so from commencement. Since the US is right now deciding the entire roadmap for offplanet development, the clock should start in a year or two. Twenty years until we have sufficient power to explore, industrialize and colonize the nearby solar neighborhood is quite short, especially with lots of material benefits to show sooner along the way.
As for other countries, that's their problem. Many nuclear capable countries already launch nuke plants in satellites. That's a much more dangerous operation than building one on the Far Side of the Moon. And as usual, the US project will create the science and engineering, as well as working proof of concept, for other countries to do it themselves. We always give away some of the most valuable products of our investments in space, because it makes the world better in which Americans can live (as well as others who take advantage of it).
The US is going to put more and more nukes in space, even if it's just the CIA and Pentagon getting the monopoly. The more we do it for more peaceful and constructive purposes, the safer we'll be in every way. We could spend the next couple decades doing it. Or arguing why we shouldn't - and watching China, India, Russia, Japan and other global competitors doing it instead - and probably not as well. We can be Spain in this new age of exploration/colonization/industrialization, or we can be Britain. I'd like my grandchildren to keep speaking English.
That is indeed the answer, though there is some evidence from symmetry and conservation - which is somewhat circular.
But your answer is totally different from the answer to which I replied. While the linked "physics rebel" blog does not have a more convincing answer among its diatribe and handwaving, that rebel is correct to point out that practically all physics is based on an axiom like inertia/momentum. Which is a matter of faith, as much as "god moves it" was. The answer to which I replied is quite wrong, though widely believed. Which does indeed show that the reality of our sophistication is quite different from our belief in it.
I'll be very interested to see how much deuterium or tritium is contained in the water's two hydrogen atoms per oxygen. Because the best place within humanity's reach to put nuclear reactors (fission or fusion) is on the Far Side of the Moon. Nothing like a huge planetoid standing between your reactor and your home planet, with no atmosphere and low gravity, reachable by only those authorized for spaceflight, to make nuclear power actually safe. And with such a reactor farther out of Earth's gravity well, we could launch all kinds of space exploration and exploitation missions.
And the byproduct of harvesting all that heavy water would be a lot of drinkable water for human staff, and even for gardens and farms to feed it.
Nuke powered Moon bases. Two great American innovations that go great together.
The news corporations have reduced their news products to he/she said gossip.
The journalism that people used to buy in newspapers every day (sometimes twice a day) was the report of a person finding the actual facts and telling the actual story. The modern version, especially (but not at all exclusively) on TV, is the report of a person collecting different sides of an argument, telling what each arguer said (and editing them to look just as reasonable on each side). Radio news isn't even that: it's pure commentary propaganda, paid for by corporate sponsors (not at all necessarily the advertisers).
Who would pay for that crap? Especially in the most propaganda news (the majority of it), the news org should pay its audience to consume it, as the product is designed to serve the news org's needs, usually contrary to its audience's needs.
The news industry should be thriving in the Info Age, with free distribution and a nearly universal audience. Instead it kept its worst artifacts of the previous eras, especially its corruption, while its main moneymakers (embedded ads and classifieds) were done better by new, focused competitors after news orgs failed for over a decade to do it right.
Payments for news that isn't either urgent (eg. its value in making more money or protecting lives/property vanishes after 15 minutes) or valuable to an audience too small to compete with an organized distribution org (eg. technical bulletins for specialists) is just as much delusion as is the Holy Grail. The quest for it is the industry. Actually having it is a fantasy.
technology that Microsoft perfected nearly three years ago
If there's a phrase that should trigger skepticism, that's it. ASLR isn't "perfect", and has been reported (and confirmed) exploited as recently as 7 months ago:
March 24, 2009 -
quote:Internet Explorer 8 "critical" flaw in final version
Microsoft confirmed that the vulnerability exists in the official release, said Terri Forslof, a researcher at TippingPoint, which sponsored the Pwn2Own contest that challenged competitors to find bugs in either web browsers or mobile devices
"This is a single-click-and-you're-owned exploit," she told SCMagazineUS.com on Tuesday. "You click a link in an email or simply browse to a website, and your machine is compromised. This meets Microsoft's 'critical' bar [in its vulnerabilities and rating system]."
The exploit apparently defies Microsoft's DEP (Data Execution Prevention) and ASLR (Address Space Layout Randomization) technologies -- two features added to IE8 to prevent memory corruption vulnerabilities.
"Once the browser was compromised, we handed over the exploit to Microsoft immediately, on site," Forslof said. "They went back and reproduced it and called to verify that the vulnerability was present. We retested again on the released version of IE8 that went live on the following morning and verified that the vulnerability was in it as well."
Why not? The Pentagon continued using Halliburton for years, on huge no-bid contracts, even when its divisions were installing showers in Iraq that electrocuted our servicemembers. And that's just the worst failure the public heard about, after most of a decade of abusive cronyism.
Microsoft is much richer than even Halliburton, and its failures much less publicly scandalous. Why would it face a tougher standard? I'm sure Dick Cheney owns a lot of Microsoft stock, too.
Slashdot Mirror
So it's not a PS3 Slim then. Hard to tell that when the original article is slashdotted, and the story says it's a Slim.
It's a rhetorical question. The point is that it's not a laptop.
The original ("fat") PS3s all included an option for the PS3 hypervisor to host an "OtherOS", like Linux, instead of booting into the GameOS. PS3 Linux was a PPC distro running on the Cell's 2.4GHz PPC CPU core, with access to the bus, 6 of 7 working DSPs and other devices (but not the RSX GPU) through drivers and filesystem mapping APIs. I could run Ubuntu on the PS3, install a driver and use mplayer to watch full HD movies from the hard drive or streaming from a network fileserver. I could program the Cell, including its SPUs, in a familiar environment.
The PS3 Slim has removed OtherOS support from its hypervisor. So it can't run Linux. So it's not really a "laptop", except that it can sit on top of your lap.
Yeah, I wrap scp in rsync, too, and this throughput enhancement will really help. Thanks again.
Thanks, that is evidently exactly right: selecting the weakest but fastest encryption. I can appreciate that ssh requires some encryption, as a practical matter to protect ssh's reputation if nothing else, but I'd think a symmetric key simply XOR'ed with the data would be the fastest.
And congratulations for the only reply that actually answers my question, rather than trying to force me to ask a different one with an answer they like better.
I find sshfs to be a much easier to use ad-hoc network fileystem mounter than the other popular alternatives. And it's secure by default.
But it's too secure. Or rather, there are scenarios in which the network transfer doesn't need the ssh security, but encrypting it takes too long (or too much CPU from other tasks, especially on dinky embedded network devices). Is there a way to force sshfs to use a much less compute intensive encryption, or maybe even a null crypto module? Without hacking the source directly, that is - like an execution option, a compile option, a config rule, etc.
That's better than nothing. But I want all the x86 packages, especially the Windows AV codecs. That requires an x86.
Though that requirement suggests an architecture of ARM CPU for OS/apps, little x86 coprocessor for codecs, and MPP GPU cores doing the DSP/rendering. If Linux could handle that kind of "heterogenous multicore" chip, it would really kill Windows 7. Especially on "embedded" media appliances.
Indeed, I have two (original/80GB) PS3s exclusively for running Linux on their Cells. The development of that niche has been very disappointing, especially SPU apps. And now Sony has discontinued "OtherOS" on new PS3s (they claim they won't close it on legacy models with new firmware, but who knows).
I'd love to see a $200 Linux PC with a Cell, even if it had "only" 2-6 (or 7, like the PS3) SPUs, and no hypervisor, but maybe a separate GPU (or at least a framebuffer/RAMDAC, but why not a $40 nVidia GPU?). The Cell shouldn't be so exotic and rare, and it certainly shouldn't cost $5000 for a workstation just to get 8 SPUs when it's really that bus that's the magic, and 2-6 SPUs are so fast, and such a CPU should cost under $80.
What I'd like to see is nVidia embed a decent x86 CPU, (maybe like a P4/2.4GHz) right on the chip with their superfast graphics chips. I'd like a media PC which isn't processing apps so much as it's processing media streams, pic-in-pic, DVR, audio. Flip the script of the fat Intel CPUs with "integrated" graphics, for the media apps that really need the DSP more than the ALU/CLU.
Gimme a $200 PC that can do 1080p HD while DVR another channel/download, and Intel and AMD will get a real shakeup.
NY state just passed "tough" new laws prohibiting texting while driving. But that made the roads a lot less safe in much of the state.
Two of the most trafficy counties, Nassau and Westchester (the two suburbs right next to NYC, with millions of their own people, and millions more through commuters) already had texting prohibitions for drivers. If a cop there saw someone texting on the road, they could be pulled over just for texting, and given a pretty steep ticket. Repeat offenses quickly revoked their drivers' license.
But the new law prohibits cops from pulling them over for just texting. Cops can cite drivers for texting if they pull them over for something else (like speeding). Texting drivers are erratic, so now cops have to catch them at the few seconds every minute they actually break some other traffic law. Or catch up with them later, when the fiery crash with several victims makes it hard to find the phone as evidence. When pulling them over for weaving or something, the texting driver will have hidden the phone that was their real crime.
I'd bet that the legislators making it safer to text while driving in NY are getting paid by telcos to protect that lucrative, though suicidal, market.
The word is "flout", which means
Not "flaunt"
AT&T flaunts its hypocrisy by flouting not only Net Neutrality rules and principles, but also by ignoring the rules of using words correctly. Triple hypocrisy word score! AT&T wins again!
You're talking like nothing is changing after the impulse ends. But the object's position continues to change. Saying its momentum is the same is circular: momentum is defined in terms of the object's inertial frame, according to the law you're using momentum to prove. Circular.
The question being asked is simply "why does the position continue to change, when there's nothing continuing to change it?" The implied question, that shows the conflict between that one and yours, is "how is velocity the fundamental state, but position is not as fundamental?" I haven't seen a good one yet.
As for springs, that was a snide retort to someone suggesting (perhaps snidely) that "strings" are the reason, as if that answers anything - especially without explanation. Springs at least store energy that can release over time, which could continue to impulse an object into continued sustained motion at velocity. It's not a rigorous answer, nor a serious one. But a simpler one than "strings".
Just because my posts are going over your head doesn't mean you don't have to explain whatever it is you think is funny about what you're posting.
You evidently don't know how big the Moon is, or how much momentum is in its orbit around the Earth. Indeed, the Moon doesn't quite orbit the Earth, but rather the Moon and the Earth orbit one another around a center quite a ways away from the Earth's center. Or you just don't know how much energy can be produced by a nuke plant - a very tiny amount compared to what's needed to push the Moon out of orbit into the Earth in any appreciable amount of time.
But if you want to keep carrying on about some fact free paranoia, that's your business. Lunacy, but your business.
That sounds like a terrible idea that would never work anyway.
I prefer my idea of using Lunar local resources to generate power safely for more space operations. YMMV.
Not as an explanation for continued motion after the initial impulse has ended. Strings would have to be involved in something more complex. Springs, pretty much sufficient all by themselves.
So you say. Without offering a shred of proof, mathematical or otherwise. But you did capitalize "Mathematical", so that settles it.
There's plenty of solar power on the Moon's surface, and plenty of materials for construction in its crust. The first stage would be launching a small amount of automated fabrication machinery, run by a small crew, to build a solar power plant.
That plant could supply the energy to power the larger construction of a nuclear plant. Again, using local materials, and a larger crew supported by the larger infrastructure built by the solar power. The nuclear power available would be much larger than even the solar power.
Along the way, the power, infrastructure and crew would be capable of doing a lot more than building the next phase. Lunar science, other industrial engineering, telescopy, and launching other missions to farther out.
A solar base should take America no more than 5-8 years to build, if funded intelligently (ie, at the levels at which we love to fund wars for oil, but with a larger and more guaranteed return on investment). A nuclear base should take no more than 10 years to build, with probably 2-3 of those years performed during the 5-8 years building the solar plant. So the nuke plant could be operating somewhere 12-16 years or so from commencement. Since the US is right now deciding the entire roadmap for offplanet development, the clock should start in a year or two. Twenty years until we have sufficient power to explore, industrialize and colonize the nearby solar neighborhood is quite short, especially with lots of material benefits to show sooner along the way.
As for other countries, that's their problem. Many nuclear capable countries already launch nuke plants in satellites. That's a much more dangerous operation than building one on the Far Side of the Moon. And as usual, the US project will create the science and engineering, as well as working proof of concept, for other countries to do it themselves. We always give away some of the most valuable products of our investments in space, because it makes the world better in which Americans can live (as well as others who take advantage of it).
The US is going to put more and more nukes in space, even if it's just the CIA and Pentagon getting the monopoly. The more we do it for more peaceful and constructive purposes, the safer we'll be in every way. We could spend the next couple decades doing it. Or arguing why we shouldn't - and watching China, India, Russia, Japan and other global competitors doing it instead - and probably not as well. We can be Spain in this new age of exploration/colonization/industrialization, or we can be Britain. I'd like my grandchildren to keep speaking English.
Springs.
See? That's even simpler, so it must be true.
That is indeed the answer, though there is some evidence from symmetry and conservation - which is somewhat circular.
But your answer is totally different from the answer to which I replied. While the linked "physics rebel" blog does not have a more convincing answer among its diatribe and handwaving, that rebel is correct to point out that practically all physics is based on an axiom like inertia/momentum. Which is a matter of faith, as much as "god moves it" was. The answer to which I replied is quite wrong, though widely believed. Which does indeed show that the reality of our sophistication is quite different from our belief in it.
Well, then how about you explain why/how objects in motion tend to stay in motion or at rest. If it's that easy.
I'll be very interested to see how much deuterium or tritium is contained in the water's two hydrogen atoms per oxygen. Because the best place within humanity's reach to put nuclear reactors (fission or fusion) is on the Far Side of the Moon. Nothing like a huge planetoid standing between your reactor and your home planet, with no atmosphere and low gravity, reachable by only those authorized for spaceflight, to make nuclear power actually safe. And with such a reactor farther out of Earth's gravity well, we could launch all kinds of space exploration and exploitation missions.
And the byproduct of harvesting all that heavy water would be a lot of drinkable water for human staff, and even for gardens and farms to feed it.
Nuke powered Moon bases. Two great American innovations that go great together.
The news corporations have reduced their news products to he/she said gossip.
The journalism that people used to buy in newspapers every day (sometimes twice a day) was the report of a person finding the actual facts and telling the actual story. The modern version, especially (but not at all exclusively) on TV, is the report of a person collecting different sides of an argument, telling what each arguer said (and editing them to look just as reasonable on each side). Radio news isn't even that: it's pure commentary propaganda, paid for by corporate sponsors (not at all necessarily the advertisers).
Who would pay for that crap? Especially in the most propaganda news (the majority of it), the news org should pay its audience to consume it, as the product is designed to serve the news org's needs, usually contrary to its audience's needs.
The news industry should be thriving in the Info Age, with free distribution and a nearly universal audience. Instead it kept its worst artifacts of the previous eras, especially its corruption, while its main moneymakers (embedded ads and classifieds) were done better by new, focused competitors after news orgs failed for over a decade to do it right.
Payments for news that isn't either urgent (eg. its value in making more money or protecting lives/property vanishes after 15 minutes) or valuable to an audience too small to compete with an organized distribution org (eg. technical bulletins for specialists) is just as much delusion as is the Holy Grail. The quest for it is the industry. Actually having it is a fantasy.
If there's a phrase that should trigger skepticism, that's it. ASLR isn't "perfect", and has been reported (and confirmed) exploited as recently as 7 months ago:
Why not? The Pentagon continued using Halliburton for years, on huge no-bid contracts, even when its divisions were installing showers in Iraq that electrocuted our servicemembers. And that's just the worst failure the public heard about, after most of a decade of abusive cronyism.
Microsoft is much richer than even Halliburton, and its failures much less publicly scandalous. Why would it face a tougher standard? I'm sure Dick Cheney owns a lot of Microsoft stock, too.