Except they do. Languages such as Ada, and really any language that allows compilers to understand what is happening in the code, can optimise out many of the bounds checking.
Excuse my ignorance but where are these benchmarks. All the ones I see have Ada as marginally slower (but i guess not statistically significantly) and everything else not even close. Coding in C you can manually put the bounds checking back in at your digression and if the coder does not know where its needed then the program can hardly be trusted to be secure.
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=gnat&lang2=gcc If you want to quote me a better/more relevant benchmark feel free. The main issue here is the memory usage. The benchmarks where C is conclusively beaten ada uses multiples more memory (the CPU has a large cache which may be relevant here). And where it uses less it is slower. Averaging two or three times the memory usage of C exes is enough of a reason to not use it.
Also though I have no Ada experience the coding is more verbose so manually choosing bounds checking in is not necessary extra work.
C and C++ ARE disasters. gets() and >> can NOT be used safely. Period. Tons of functions in the standard libraries have been rewritten with secure variants, to try to make it vaguely possible for developers to keep track of buffer lengths. Still, some APIs screw it up and it's nearly impossible for an intelligent human to get it right every time without static analysis tools to back him up.
So don't use gets() and >> as you said there are a number of alternatives. You can stuff up the API in any language if you aren't careful and everyone has access to static analysis tools. Yes the record is poor but there are no other alternatives to compare it against. Once you build the checking into the language no one will want to use the slower executables it produces.
Open and other BSDs prove you can make a reasonably secure OS in C. People relying on C/C++ to be intrinsically secure is the disaster.
It would encourage the roommate to use a proxy/server and make everyone happy.
If you note the above comments he can still be liable if he is found to be 1 percent responsible. Knowing that he would torrent and logging it yet still providing a connection would potentially involve himself in the copy write impingement. The logs are not rock solid proof that it was all the roommates fault.
If you are going to go that route you may as well try to block all egress traffic you don't need.
From my experience torrents can't automatically work of just TPC 80. Unfortuatly they still get though to http:///anounce but generally all other connections are blocked. If he is unwilling to use some form of anonymity he probably cant be bothered getting torrents working when the outbound 30000:59999 are blocked.
The company who might get their certificates revoked. Seriously how hard would you look for the security breach that would destroy the entire company (it appears to be their only product). You can go back later and say you found the breach.
There is far too much money at stake to trust the company.
I know its not remotely legislated though they do occasionally pass legislation to make it more difficult to change it.
Since it does not affect the outcome this makes it all the more funny.
But an FFP voting system with news media making primaries out as being as or important than elections and no one really caring or believing they can change make it seem as entrenched as the constitution.
Seriouly ACs provide some justification for your statements. If i don't agree with your statement or i'm not American so don't have the full context so that google "promote the general welfare" has an obvious point.
The concept of "promote the general welfare" is quite socialist and also democratic (you can be both). I was unaware its in the US constitution I see no evidence of my interpretation of it in American policy. Would this not prevent large military spending for no direct purpose? (being world cops is not covered?) It appears that without a supreme court it can be used to justify or disallow things based on political interpretation its not a good safe guard for anything.
There was a less than subtle attack at American voters. I have yet to see the constitution by its self stop any US law in resent history./. says its against the constitution and a little later it passes.
Disclaimer: I don't live in US and I find the self destructive nature of two party system to be funny at times in a tragic way.
What original legislation? is this the stuff in the original constitution or more recent?
I know what blue trane means but those words are pure socialism which is not well received by most Americans. Also for good of the nation are general welfare are abstract goals you still need a method to get there. My last line is obviously a hyperbole feel free to ignore it.
I saw an interview on BBC this morning where tax cut for the rich are still being sold using the AD. At least my line makes a (poor) attempt to tie it into the AD.
Do you have a law that says if you don't see or accept the terms and condition you don't have to obey them. We still have stock standard copywrite law that you could argue covers this.
I'm fairly sure you are in violation of the "licence" they gave you by modifying the service or 4C http://www.youtube.com/t/terms
Getting the courts to care about when youtube may have trouble detecting it is a different issue.
They are both illegal here i'm pretty sure but since it is about as bloody trivial as it gets and would cost hundreds to prove for little payout.
The law is not ever worth enforcing and therefore everyone forgets it exists. NZ socity has a long history about not giving a shit about some forms of copywrite infringement that 90 percent probably don't see any issue with it and that its the individuals choice if they do it.http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/09/08/0218220/P2P-Traffic-Drops-10-After-New-NZ-Law#
No, it is highly successful. The 10% of P2P that were used for piracy have stopped, while the 90% that were used for legitimate purposes are still there.
I know you can be idealistic on/. but come on. Almost all legal p2p downloads have mirrors for ftp/http downloads. Generally our internet is so slow that our bandwidth from the ISP limits the speed. The only reason I can think of is if the download is non resumeable and you could run into the time limit and be cut off (thereby not being able to download the file, not being able to clone the suse kernel from git is annoying). The 10 percent overhead from leaching is to be avoided.
There is legitimate torrent traffic but is probably a single figure percentage here.
You do know your suppose to delete TV show recording after you have watched them or within i think its 14 days (no one would waste money enforcing or detecting it).
In NZ and probably most over places there are laws that the police do not enforce because they are trivial and not worth it let alone wasting a judges time. I understand some countries get Police ten7 (NZ cop show) there will be a lot of people get minor punishments for far more serious offences .
I consider copywrite infringement (not stealing) to be of a similar or lesser infringement to intentionally driving over the speed limit but no so far as to get into the range where you would be given a ticket.
And what about all the free legal distribution of copyrighted content by copyright holders, which in turn can easily be saved as mp3s? It is saying if someone downloads something via P2P they are criminal, but if they save a youtube stream to a file, they are model citizens.
They still break the law but there is no way to catch them doing this (as the download was legal) so what’s the point to scaring potential voters.
What the expected fine if your are caught in Sweden?
As much as think the fines in the US are ridiculous, i just don't see how anything short of large fines could stop copy write infringement. There is no way cutting off someone’s internet can remain law for more than a decade, it will become to important to society.
My only other solution would be punish someone by sticking them behind a restrictive firewall that would allow web traffic but be plain annoying to make p2p and a lot of other stuff work with but that would cost ISPs too much and a single proxy would bypass it.
Everyone will have herd about it except for possibly people who do not use the web. I guess a few may be unaware of the date it came in.
I think the education from the government is meant to come from infringement/warning notices (no fines are initially given) but as no one is issuing these yet that may not happen.
It is also possible that people intending to infringe have avoided being the ones to sign up for being the account holder since this law has be going to come in for a couple of years thus they will not be directly punished for offence.
Don't know who your friends are let me assure you that leeching is very much alive (no one seeds at $1-2.5/GB). It does not seem to be confined to one demographic either. The inability for some to stream at DVD def (slow connections) and having to pay for extra bandwith to watch on demand with ads makes torrenting very attractive.
I get annoyed at people who waste bandwidth re-downloading youtube. I do use this to rationalise the downloading of low quality mp3s.
Its worse than that some ISPs are only able to say they noticed a drop and other ISPs report no drop.
Since no notices are being set as of yet I expect it will recover and then exceed previous levels if no notices are sent. The government said they would review the law if it failed to work so the rights holder may want it to fail.
Interestingly the law has yet to be used (or at least no news sites have reported it).
The 25 dollar charge couple with low chance of actually getting any money back have made the law seem pretty useless. I would think the fines would be around the minimum of 300 or so there is little chance of making a profit or even getting your money back.
The problem with putting the burden of proof on the accused is that judges will find it hard to award large damages (500+) since the account holder could not lock down his network and does not have the skill or money to prove it did not happen. Getting someone’s net cut off so they can't buy music legally is not the best business model either. If they have to get a friend to do it, there will be high chance of copywrite infringement immediately afterwards.
According to wikipedia Hacker has 3 definitions Obama and co is referring to one one (computer security) and you are calling yourself another (programmer subculture).
The context they are used in determines the meaning, both uses are acceptable to me. Unfortunately for you 95 percent of the public only know the computer security one so if you don’t give context for them guess the others then I would think you would be better using another word.
You may feel your word got hijacked but this is the English language, get over it.
I’m sure I'm practice its not that bad but say your os currently uses 100MB of memory from C programs at start up this is now 2 GB.
There is no way its just the compliers/runtime fault about the performance of these languages they are just no good for C level performance. Erlang was able to distribute the load over the cores better though for all that’s worth but did not gain anything going from 1 to 4 cores.
Not saying I can but I think most Parallelism problems in C/C++ can be solved by programming better or finding/hiring a better programmer and planning beforehand and doing it the best way always helps as well. I cant see the argument for crippling an OS so we can all contribute.
D's performance is not worse than C (older version of shoovtout since D's not in the most recent version). And it makes little sense to require the replacement language to be faster; except for things like runtime JIT optimizations, if there's a way to code it to run fast in any other language, you could, with sufficient effort, reproduce that performance with C code, though it might be a heckua lot more complicated.
performance is similar and memory appears to be terrible (i dont know what the important benchmarks for kernel dev are) you can't just increase the kernel size by 500 percent (could just be the runtime I guess) and you still look like you are taking a 15 to 20 percent speed hit.
Your arguments could just as well be used against the introduction of C and Fortran to replace programming directly in assembler: there were libraries in assembler which would be incompatible with some of what people did in C or Fortran, and if you can code something to run fast in C or Fortran you can, with sufficient effort you can get the same performance from code written directly in asm. But moving to higher-level languages had huge benefits for programmer efficiency and program safety, and a C developer may well write something which performs better than what an asm dev can write in the same amount of time. The same kind of advances can be realized by moving from C to a better language.
When assembler can be compiled for a different arch post this again. This hashing program runs really fast on x64 but your computer can't even run it.
Slashdot Mirror
How long does it take you to get to the normal windows shell?
Is it loading the full OS or just enough to run Metro apps?
Except they do. Languages such as Ada, and really any language that allows compilers to understand what is happening in the code, can optimise out many of the bounds checking.
Excuse my ignorance but where are these benchmarks. All the ones I see have Ada as marginally slower (but i guess not statistically significantly) and everything else not even close. Coding in C you can manually put the bounds checking back in at your digression and if the coder does not know where its needed then the program can hardly be trusted to be secure.
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=gnat&lang2=gcc
If you want to quote me a better/more relevant benchmark feel free. The main issue here is the memory usage. The benchmarks where C is conclusively beaten ada uses multiples more memory (the CPU has a large cache which may be relevant here). And where it uses less it is slower. Averaging two or three times the memory usage of C exes is enough of a reason to not use it.
Also though I have no Ada experience the coding is more verbose so manually choosing bounds checking in is not necessary extra work.
C and C++ ARE disasters. gets() and >> can NOT be used safely. Period. Tons of functions in the standard libraries have been rewritten with secure variants, to try to make it vaguely possible for developers to keep track of buffer lengths. Still, some APIs screw it up and it's nearly impossible for an intelligent human to get it right every time without static analysis tools to back him up.
So don't use gets() and >> as you said there are a number of alternatives. You can stuff up the API in any language if you aren't careful and everyone has access to static analysis tools. Yes the record is poor but there are no other alternatives to compare it against. Once you build the checking into the language no one will want to use the slower executables it produces.
Open and other BSDs prove you can make a reasonably secure OS in C. People relying on C/C++ to be intrinsically secure is the disaster.
No everyone now has to buy bandwidth on the cable so they are not on the wrong side of this.
I don't think anything will change except the company who put the cable in will be charging more than the old company.
It would encourage the roommate to use a proxy/server and make everyone happy.
If you note the above comments he can still be liable if he is found to be 1 percent responsible. Knowing that he would torrent and logging it yet still providing a connection would potentially involve himself in the copy write impingement. The logs are not rock solid proof that it was all the roommates fault.
If you are going to go that route you may as well try to block all egress traffic you don't need.
From my experience torrents can't automatically work of just TPC 80. Unfortuatly they still get though to http:///anounce but generally all other connections are blocked. If he is unwilling to use some form of anonymity he probably cant be bothered getting torrents working when the outbound 30000:59999 are blocked.
YMMV for blocking something other than rtorrent.
The hacker who wants some credibility.
The company who might get their certificates revoked.
Seriously how hard would you look for the security breach that would destroy the entire company (it appears to be their only product). You can go back later and say you found the breach.
There is far too much money at stake to trust the company.
I know its not remotely legislated though they do occasionally pass legislation to make it more difficult to change it.
Since it does not affect the outcome this makes it all the more funny.
But an FFP voting system with news media making primaries out as being as or important than elections and no one really caring or believing they can change make it seem as entrenched as the constitution.
Seriouly ACs provide some justification for your statements. If i don't agree with your statement or i'm not American so don't have the full context so that google "promote the general welfare" has an obvious point.
The concept of "promote the general welfare" is quite socialist and also democratic (you can be both). I was unaware its in the US constitution I see no evidence of my interpretation of it in American policy. Would this not prevent large military spending for no direct purpose? (being world cops is not covered?) It appears that without a supreme court it can be used to justify or disallow things based on political interpretation its not a good safe guard for anything.
There was a less than subtle attack at American voters. I have yet to see the constitution by its self stop any US law in resent history. /. says its against the constitution and a little later it passes.
Disclaimer: I don't live in US and I find the self destructive nature of two party system to be funny at times in a tragic way.
What original legislation? is this the stuff in the original constitution or more recent?
I know what blue trane means but those words are pure socialism which is not well received by most Americans. Also for good of the nation are general welfare are abstract goals you still need a method to get there. My last line is obviously a hyperbole feel free to ignore it.
I saw an interview on BBC this morning where tax cut for the rich are still being sold using the AD. At least my line makes a (poor) attempt to tie it into the AD.
It should be about what's best for the nation and the General Welfare.
You do realise how socialist you sound there?
That's anti american dream talk there, more likely to get your shot than elected.
You have to present it more like this:
It should be about allowing leaving room for other companies to be successful.
But that still seems far to socialist for a Democrat Candidate to risk even thinking.
Yes im the chatterbox tucked in the corner.
Do you have a law that says if you don't see or accept the terms and condition you don't have to obey them. We still have stock standard copywrite law that you could argue covers this.
I'm fairly sure you are in violation of the "licence" they gave you by modifying the service or 4C
http://www.youtube.com/t/terms
Getting the courts to care about when youtube may have trouble detecting it is a different issue.
They are both illegal here i'm pretty sure but since it is about as bloody trivial as it gets and would cost hundreds to prove for little payout.
The law is not ever worth enforcing and therefore everyone forgets it exists. NZ socity has a long history about not giving a shit about some forms of copywrite infringement that 90 percent probably don't see any issue with it and that its the individuals choice if they do it.http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/09/08/0218220/P2P-Traffic-Drops-10-After-New-NZ-Law#
No, it is highly successful. The 10% of P2P that were used for piracy have stopped, while the 90% that were used for legitimate purposes are still there.
I know you can be idealistic on /. but come on. Almost all legal p2p downloads have mirrors for ftp/http downloads. Generally our internet is so slow that our bandwidth from the ISP limits the speed. The only reason I can think of is if the download is non resumeable and you could run into the time limit and be cut off (thereby not being able to download the file, not being able to clone the suse kernel from git is annoying). The 10 percent overhead from leaching is to be avoided.
There is legitimate torrent traffic but is probably a single figure percentage here.
You do know your suppose to delete TV show recording after you have watched them or within i think its 14 days (no one would waste money enforcing or detecting it).
In NZ and probably most over places there are laws that the police do not enforce because they are trivial and not worth it let alone wasting a judges time. I understand some countries get Police ten7 (NZ cop show) there will be a lot of people get minor punishments for far more serious offences .
I consider copywrite infringement (not stealing) to be of a similar or lesser infringement to intentionally driving over the speed limit but no so far as to get into the range where you would be given a ticket.
And what about all the free legal distribution of copyrighted content by copyright holders, which in turn can easily be saved as mp3s? It is saying if someone downloads something via P2P they are criminal, but if they save a youtube stream to a file, they are model citizens.
They still break the law but there is no way to catch them doing this (as the download was legal) so what’s the point to scaring potential voters.
What the expected fine if your are caught in Sweden?
As much as think the fines in the US are ridiculous, i just don't see how anything short of large fines could stop copy write infringement. There is no way cutting off someone’s internet can remain law for more than a decade, it will become to important to society.
My only other solution would be punish someone by sticking them behind a restrictive firewall that would allow web traffic but be plain annoying to make p2p and a lot of other stuff work with but that would cost ISPs too much and a single proxy would bypass it.
Everyone will have herd about it except for possibly people who do not use the web. I guess a few may be unaware of the date it came in.
I think the education from the government is meant to come from infringement/warning notices (no fines are initially given) but as no one is issuing these yet that may not happen.
It is also possible that people intending to infringe have avoided being the ones to sign up for being the account holder since this law has be going to come in for a couple of years thus they will not be directly punished for offence.
Don't know who your friends are let me assure you that leeching is very much alive (no one seeds at $1-2.5/GB). It does not seem to be confined to one demographic either. The inability for some to stream at DVD def (slow connections) and having to pay for extra bandwith to watch on demand with ads makes torrenting very attractive.
I get annoyed at people who waste bandwidth re-downloading youtube. I do use this to rationalise the downloading of low quality mp3s.
Its worse than that some ISPs are only able to say they noticed a drop and other ISPs report no drop.
Since no notices are being set as of yet I expect it will recover and then exceed previous levels if no notices are sent.
The government said they would review the law if it failed to work so the rights holder may want it to fail.
Interestingly the law has yet to be used (or at least no news sites have reported it).
The 25 dollar charge couple with low chance of actually getting any money back have made the law seem pretty useless. I would think the fines would be around the minimum of 300 or so there is little chance of making a profit or even getting your money back.
The problem with putting the burden of proof on the accused is that judges will find it hard to award large damages (500+) since the account holder could not lock down his network and does not have the skill or money to prove it did not happen. Getting someone’s net cut off so they can't buy music legally is not the best business model either. If they have to get a friend to do it, there will be high chance of copywrite infringement immediately afterwards.
According to wikipedia Hacker has 3 definitions Obama and co is referring to one one (computer security) and you are calling yourself another (programmer subculture).
The context they are used in determines the meaning, both uses are acceptable to me. Unfortunately for you 95 percent of the public only know the computer security one so if you don’t give context for them guess the others then I would think you would be better using another word.
You may feel your word got hijacked but this is the English language, get over it.
I assume we are both talking about making a consumer/enterprise OS/kernel here.
Erlang is not even in the same League as C/C++ its about 15 times slower than C and uses roughly 20 times the memory.
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32q/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=hipe&lang2=gcc
Haskell might be similar are does not lag by as much but is still completely unusable
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32q/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=ghc&lang2=gcc
I’m sure I'm practice its not that bad but say your os currently uses 100MB of memory from C programs at start up this is now 2 GB.
There is no way its just the compliers/runtime fault about the performance of these languages they are just no good for C level performance. Erlang was able to distribute the load over the cores better though for all that’s worth but did not gain anything going from 1 to 4 cores.
Not saying I can but I think most Parallelism problems in C/C++ can be solved by programming better or finding/hiring a better programmer and planning beforehand and doing it the best way always helps as well. I cant see the argument for crippling an OS so we can all contribute.
D's performance is not worse than C (older version of shoovtout since D's not in the most recent version). And it makes little sense to require the replacement language to be faster; except for things like runtime JIT optimizations, if there's a way to code it to run fast in any other language, you could, with sufficient effort, reproduce that performance with C code, though it might be a heckua lot more complicated.
performance is similar and memory appears to be terrible (i dont know what the important benchmarks for kernel dev are) you can't just increase the kernel size by 500 percent (could just be the runtime I guess) and you still look like you are taking a 15 to 20 percent speed hit.
Your arguments could just as well be used against the introduction of C and Fortran to replace programming directly in assembler: there were libraries in assembler which would be incompatible with some of what people did in C or Fortran, and if you can code something to run fast in C or Fortran you can, with sufficient effort you can get the same performance from code written directly in asm. But moving to higher-level languages had huge benefits for programmer efficiency and program safety, and a C developer may well write something which performs better than what an asm dev can write in the same amount of time. The same kind of advances can be realized by moving from C to a better language.
When assembler can be compiled for a different arch post this again. This hashing program runs really fast on x64 but your computer can't even run it.