Please excuse the misfiring of my single humour neuron, I try recruit more neurons into this network by exercising that part of my brain but to this day only my retarded cell enrolled.
scheme is better define than emacs lisp. Scheme is based on the Revised 6 Report on the Algorithmic Language Scheme. It is a formal specification of what a minimal implementation of scheme should offer. Emac lisp is based on whatever emac lisp can run, it is a bastardize old school lisp mixed with common lisp, sprikled with a bit of scheme and a dash of weird smelling stuff.
This bacteria must interfere with possibly a combination of the Neuropeptides Y, S and CCK pathways. The CCK-4 neuropeptide is pretty nasty, it cause instant panic attack reliably at 75ug.
. There is huge instability seen only by people who open many windows and tabs, and leave them open for a long time. (It is not necessary to say you don't experience this bug if you don't commonly have 30 or more windows with 100 or more tabs open for several hours.
That is not Firefox fault if some js programmers setup some badly designed caches that eat all your memory. What is Firefox supposed to do about the javascript objects into a memory structure ? Discard them randomly or demand more memory to the system ? Any browser would seam to leak if you use it with that many web pages open. In java we have WeakReferance for that kind of usage, but I don't think that JavaScript offer a similar functionality.
I was not arguing against that. I don't hate vm, in fact I like them but to claim that they don't have a cost is bullshit as is the native speed claim. You could, at best, call it: close to native speed in some applications, that goes for NaCL to.
and in nacljit, where they talk about platform independent SFI of self modifying code they admit:
We found that the Mono and V8 platforms, and their x86-32 and x86-64 variants, spanned a wide range in terms of the porting effort required and the sandboxing slowdown incurred. At one end, Mono-32, porting effort was low and the measured overhead is near negligible. At the other extreme, V8-64, porting took a few weeks and sandboxing slowdown is between 51% and 60% on average, but 196% in one benchmark (due to a porting shortcut, as explained
See, you do not get the full speed while sand-boxing non trivial program.
However, our language-independent sandboxing does not aim to preserve high-level language semantics, and the implementation of our mechanisms is unencumbered by those semantics.
This is kind of bad, but without any details on what was dropped we can't know if it really is.
It sufces to extend traditional SFI techniques with a few new features, including new safety constraints that apply inductively on the structure of machine code, even across code modication.
The article you pointed nacl_paper.pdf, proved my point, they limit the instruction to a subset of the full X86 capabilities... from p3:
reviously, such analysis has been challenging for arbitrary x86 code due to such practices as self-modifying code and overlapping instruc-tions. In Native Client we disallow such practices through a set of alignment and structural rules that, when observed, insure that the native code module can be disassembled reliably, such that all reachable instructions are identied during disassembly.
And the halting problems is the impossibility of deciding if a given program will halt on execution or not. It is proven that for a Turing complete language (full X86 is) it can't be shown if an arbitrary program will halt or not. There is also another proof that enables you to reduce the analysis of any given property of a programs that must be preserved during is liveness to the halting problem. Sure, a class of program where it can be shown that it will halt exist but this is only a subset of all the possible programs.
If there is code verification for it to succeed, you must only allows a subset of X86 to be run else you run into the halting problem. If you only allow a subset you don't get native speed, you get the speed that your subset of instructions allows.
multiple sandbox layers
not native speed as to sandbox you must create a vm like system.
a secure API
Prove it, because of the halting problem isomorphism. A hint: design your API starting from proven math using a formal notation and prove that your generated implementation is correct if the CPU is behaving according to it's specifications.
but I guess that my skull will still be crushed so if I am not a terrorist (also known as freedom fighter) who value ideals more than is own life that is a bad thing...
what about good old bleach ? Strongest oxidizing agent in my home, man made but useful as hell for sanitation... It helped saved the western civilization from cholera in the 18th century....
in the light of the links I posted, my book analogy was flawed it should have been an English book about the combustion engine and a German one about car subsystems including some chapters on the combustion engine.
interoperability here should trump copyright in any case. Copyrighting APIs has a significant negative effect on everyone in the market, because it encourages lock-in, and thereby hinders fair competition.
But that should be written in the laws if it is not already written.
Slashdot Mirror
Please excuse the misfiring of my single humour neuron, I try recruit more neurons into this network by exercising that part of my brain but to this day only my retarded cell enrolled.
scheme is better define than emacs lisp.
Scheme is based on the Revised 6 Report on the Algorithmic Language Scheme. It is a formal specification of what a minimal implementation of scheme should offer.
Emac lisp is based on whatever emac lisp can run, it is a bastardize old school lisp mixed with common lisp, sprikled with a bit of scheme and a dash of weird smelling stuff.
you have the wrong form, your parenthesization is all wrong and you have two useless conjunction:
(Beside
(few (hardcore geek))
(hate people (look shit (like this)))
)
I use imDisk but pirate use deamon-tools
this screen shot won me : http://blogs.msdn.com/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/communityserver-blogs-components-weblogfiles/00-00-01-29-43-metablogapi/4380.Figure-24-_2D00_-Alex_2700_s-customizations_5F00_2.png
This bacteria must interfere with possibly a combination of the Neuropeptides Y, S and CCK pathways. The CCK-4 neuropeptide is pretty nasty, it cause instant panic attack reliably at 75ug.
I did a search on Mozilla and effectively they have a proprietary extension that does a similar thing : https://developer.mozilla.org/en/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/WeakMap , they are effectively working to standardize it with the group you mentioned.
All of them wants to be free but some of them are better jailed, that is the tao of the datum.
. There is huge instability seen only by people who open many windows and tabs, and leave them open for a long time. (It is not necessary to say you don't experience this bug if you don't commonly have 30 or more windows with 100 or more tabs open for several hours.
That is not Firefox fault if some js programmers setup some badly designed caches that eat all your memory. What is Firefox supposed to do about the javascript objects into a memory structure ? Discard them randomly or demand more memory to the system ? Any browser would seam to leak if you use it with that many web pages open. In java we have WeakReferance for that kind of usage, but I don't think that JavaScript offer a similar functionality.
I was not arguing against that. I don't hate vm, in fact I like them but to claim that they don't have a cost is bullshit as is the native speed claim. You could, at best, call it: close to native speed in some applications, that goes for NaCL to.
and note most compilers won't do this
most games scripting engines will
and in nacljit, where they talk about platform independent SFI of self modifying code they admit :
We found that the Mono and V8 platforms, and their x86-32 and x86-64 variants, spanned a wide range in terms of the porting
effort required and the sandboxing slowdown incurred. At one end, Mono-32, porting effort was low and the measured overhead is near
negligible. At the other extreme, V8-64, porting took a few weeks and sandboxing slowdown is between 51% and 60% on average,
but 196% in one benchmark (due to a porting shortcut, as explained
See, you do not get the full speed while sand-boxing non trivial program.
However, our language-independent sandboxing does not aim to
preserve high-level language semantics, and the implementation of
our mechanisms is unencumbered by those semantics.
This is kind of bad, but without any details on what was dropped we can't know if it really is.
It sufces to extend traditional SFI techniques with a few new features, including new safety constraints that apply inductively on the structure
of machine code, even across code modication.
Subset, just like I said....
The article you pointed nacl_paper.pdf, proved my point, they limit the instruction to a subset of the full X86 capabilities... :
from p3
reviously, such analysis
has been challenging for arbitrary x86 code due to such
practices as self-modifying code and overlapping instruc-tions. In Native Client we disallow such practices through a
set of alignment and structural rules that, when observed,
insure that the native code module can be disassembled
reliably, such that all reachable instructions are identied
during disassembly.
And the halting problems is the impossibility of deciding if a given program will halt on execution or not. It is proven that for a Turing complete language (full X86 is) it can't be shown if an arbitrary program will halt or not. There is also another proof that enables you to reduce the analysis of any given property of a programs that must be preserved during is liveness to the halting problem. Sure, a class of program where it can be shown that it will halt exist but this is only a subset of all the possible programs.
worst than flash (flash running in a vm and vm are usually portable), equals to active X
There is code verification
If there is code verification for it to succeed, you must only allows a subset of X86 to be run else you run into the halting problem. If you only allow a subset you don't get native speed, you get the speed that your subset of instructions allows.
multiple sandbox layers
not native speed as to sandbox you must create a vm like system.
a secure API
Prove it, because of the halting problem isomorphism. A hint: design your API starting from proven math using a formal notation and prove that your generated implementation is correct if the CPU is behaving according to it's specifications.
the one you draw, assuming one the |x> is one glyph means semi-direct product. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semidirect_product
if you meant |${SOME_NAMES}> it is the bra-ket notation : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bra_vector
for more help with the notations, wikipedia is your friend @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mathematical_symbols
Chinese military has never implemented any form of cyber attacks
But the Chinese equivalent of the NSA sure did....
but I guess that my skull will still be crushed so if I am not a terrorist (also known as freedom fighter) who value ideals more than is own life that is a bad thing...
the trouble with hardware otp is that there is no passkey except the hardware itself (and the otp in it).
You can disobey physical laws... OTP encryption with a pad derived by a physical process is unbreakable without the pad.
what about good old bleach ?
Strongest oxidizing agent in my home, man made but useful as hell for sanitation... It helped saved the western civilization from cholera in the 18th century....
here is the index to the stl by SGI :http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/stl_index_cat.html
there is the same type of index in java : http://download.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/allclasses-noframe.html
in the light of the links I posted, my book analogy was flawed it should have been an English book about the combustion engine and a German one about car subsystems including some chapters on the combustion engine.
no you are wasting less lives but are still wasting them....
you have sane laws... especially the law on beer purity ;)
here, in Canada, i am not so sure anymore, and in the USA they have fucked up laws!
I agree with you on:
interoperability here should trump copyright in any case. Copyrighting APIs has a significant negative effect on everyone in the market, because it encourages lock-in, and thereby hinders fair competition.
But that should be written in the laws if it is not already written.