This is a common misconception. NP stands for non-deterministic polynomial. It it is possible to solve a NP problem with a non-deterministic algorithm in polynomial time, but there is no known polynomial time deterministic algorithm to solve them. Proving whether deterministic polynomial (P) is equal to non-deterministic polynomial (NP) or not is probably worth a Nobel prize.
Doh! I can't believe I screwed up like that since I've taken a few discrete math and theoretical cs classes.You're right of course. BTW, anyone who proves that P=NP or P!=NP will probably win a Fields medal since Nobels are awarded for mathematics.
Register selection is very easy in most cases. Also, I can't think of a machine that has 10 registers,
That may be true for x86 and CISC processors but most RISC processors have significantly more than 10 registers. HP's PA-RISC has 31 integer and >10 floating point, the MIPS have 32 integer and 32/16 floating point, the SPARCs, alphas, etc. also have at least 20 integer and 10 floating point registers. Then there are more obscure stuff like the AMD29k which had 128 registers. The IA-64 architecture has more than 50 registers, I believe.
anyway the NP-Complete problems require N! time
NP complete problems are solvable in non-polynomial time hence the NP designation. c^n where c is constant is non-polynomial hence NP problems can have solutions that are O(c^n). NP-complete problems are a subset of NP problems hence there can exist NP-complete problems that take O(c^n) time.
How did I improve it? I used SIMD instructions (MMX). I was able to get a 4x increase in speed. *NO COMPILER COULD EVER DO THIS*.
Just because you've never encountered a compiler that can't do this doesn't mean that one doesn't exist.
The problem you've given is just an application of vectorizing the algorithm. Several fortran compilers exist that do this. However they were for architectures like the Cray which had SIMD instructions 15 years ago. SIMD is relatively new to the x86 and ppc architectures so naturally compilers for those architectures haven't been able to take advantage of this. Plus vectorizing compilers are hard to make.
The fastest way to loose weight, and gain muscle is to lift weight. Preferably free weights, because they offer better rage of motion than machines. It is a fact that you burn more calories resting after lifting (you body burns calories to repair the muscle tissue you slightly damage when working out)
Actually running is better than lifting free weights. Your body still has to do the same repair stuff after running and its better for your cardiovascular system then weight lifting. Ideally, you would do both but if you could only do one running or some other aerobic exercise such as swimming, biking, etc. will be better than lifting.
BTW, eating 5-6 small meals a day is a great idea but having your diet composed of 40% carbs and 60% protein is not. You'll stress your kidneys with a higher influx of proteins, increase your risk for kidney stones and other nastiness. A diet of 50% carbs, 30% proteins, and 20% fats is would be better.
It was pretty cool seeing Viswanath's name in the article since I took a class he taught on formal languages last fall.
Getting back on topic, a lot of the sciences have had deep interplays with society. For example, some important thermodyanic ideas and relationships were discovered by people trying to perfect beer brewing (I believe it was Kelvin but I'm not sure). Another example is theology in northern england, which was one of the major influences in the developement of the idea that energy is conserved in physics. A similar connection exists between quantitative science and accounting.
Despite our superficial impressions, scientists have often used influences and concepts from society at large to formulate their theories. In this respect, the sciences are socially constructed. However, the are not entirely social constructions regardless of what some say.
Ya think they really needed all those SCSI disks just for getting Linux to boot on a Power4 CPU? I mean cripes, they have like 15 17GB disks and 2 8.5GB disks in there! I can see a few for testing RAID, but 17 disks?!? Isn't that a little overkill?
Well I can see this configuration happening. One of the sun servers used by a cs prof (david beazley of python fame) at my school has a similiar setup. Two drives in a RAID 0 configuration for the system disk and 10 drives in a RAID 5 for the rest of the space usuage. You get fast performance and good fault tolerance.
If you consider ramsey theory then you'll know that any two coloring of a graph will give a group of vertices that are strongly interconnected (a clique) and/or a group that where none of the vertices is connected to any other(anti-clique).
For example, coloring a complete 6 vertex graph will either give a clique or anti-clique of three vertices. In a social context, this means that in a group of 6 people there will be a group of at least 3 people who either do not know anyone else in the group or know everyone else in the group. Using a theorem by Erdos tells use that the web probably does not have a clique or anti-clique of size greater than 1+log n (here log = log base 2) where n is the number of web sites. Another result says that there is guaranteed to be a clique or anticlique of that is at least as large as the fourth root of n where n is the number of web pages.
u don't die a few days after you buy a cell phone... but you do if you were near a powerfull gamma burst. Of course alpha and beta radiation is much worse, it breaks up your DNA and shit and you get instant cancer. But those are no problem if you live in a brick house since they are particles and get stopped.
That's only partly right. The Earth gets hit by large gamma burst every couple of months or so. Sure the van allen belts provide shielding but some still gets through. You're getting hit by high energy muons from cosmic showers all the time.
Gamma rays are somewhat nasty but they aren't that bad. I've worked with several gamma sources like Co57, Co60, Cs137, P37 (122KeV - ~1.3MeV) as well as a Pu238/Be neutron howitizer and personally I worry more about the neutrons than the gammas. Alphas and betas are usually stopped by thin layers of clothing or even your skin. As long as they stay outside your body you're fine. If they get inside then you have pronblems. Gammas will usually compton scatter and leave without many interactions so they aren't that bad. Neutrons will probably plow through your molecules and dump most/all their energy since there are so many hydrogens within your body.
Btw, I done some experiments on cross sections of gamma rays of various energies and a 122 KeV gamma has something like a 50% chance of getting through 32cm(~16 inches) of aluminum and a 30% chance of getting through 32cm of iron. This is just low energy gammas, several radioactive decays will provide gammas with 10 or more times the energy. So unless your brick house has a thick lining of steel (~1-2m) or lead (~.5m), you aren't getting any protection fromt the walls.
Now here, I absolutely disagree with you. Our brains simply have not had enough time to develop for efficient language parsing. At best, language parsing is an 'arch'. Some of the features of phonetics have had the time (VOT for example) but not language parsing in general.
I think that you are underestimating the amount of time that we have had to evolve parsing. I see parsing as a specialized case of communication. Other animals are able to communicate and seem to have the ability to use language in a limited capacity (e.g. Koko, some apes). In more primitive forms, many mammals are able to communicate in some form. These communications are structured. So I would consider our language abilities as a specialization of these communication abilities. If you buy this, then we have had quite a while to evolve structures to deal with parsing in some form.
Precisely what I'm attempting to get at. A generative grammar tells you only all the possibilities (at best) but never any of the probabilities. A prototype grammar, one appearing in the early 80s called the sausage machine, would provide you with the main possibilities and all the probabilities. This would be much more useful in attempting mechanical translation.
Using a stochastic context free grammer lets you assign probabilities to production rules in the grammar. More generally you can assign probabilities to production rules in a context sensitive grammer to get a sense a of how often a given production is used.
And you've shown yourself to have bought Chomsky's line hook line and sinker by arguing this point. Language is not a mathematical construct, it is a psychological one.
Whether language is a mathematical or psychological construct does not really matter much to modeling it mathematically. The model may not work well but you can still do it. The advantages of using a generative are that it is mathematically well understood and has a solid interconnections with complexity theory and algorithmics. You can get good idea of how an algorithm based on this model will run and where it will have problems. Other models may not have these advantages.
In addition, using a computer to parse language means that ultimately you need to express the parsing in an algorithmic procedure. Regardless of whether language is a psychological construct or not, you will express it in terms of if/then or case statements. My assertion is that you can change these statements into a generative grammar with associated probabilities.
In any case, I disagree with your position that language is entirely psychological. I think that there are some aspects that are purely mathematical. For example, most people are to identify the syntactic elements in a nonsense sentence such as "The sdfjklds aaadjed fdfjdfj to fdjlfkdj." I would think a psychological model of language would have problems with this and the ability of sentences/phrases to be perfectly correct while having no mean or a contradictory meaning.
By the way, who moderated you up?????
I get an automatic +1 bonus do to positive moderation in the past. If you get more than 20 something points of positive moderation, your posts receive a +1 bonus unless you explicitly prevent it.
Language processing really isn't that hard. Look at some of the people who do it. That may sound flippant but it obviously doesn't consume fast portions of normal people's brains to do it. Sure I slow down talking when dealing with complex driving problems but compare it to relatively basic mathematics which I can't do while driving (I mean more complex than long division.)
I disagree on this point. I'm sure that if you were to go back to Hyde Park and asking people in Cummings or BSLC they would disagree about how much mental ability parsing takes. I think the reason that parsing seems easy and math problems seem to be difficult is because our brains have evolved to deal with parsing in an efficient manner.
For a given person not being able to divide a 3 digit number by a 2 digit number quickly isn't much of a handicap, but not being able to speak and understand speech quickly and easily is a big problem. In our past, being able to communicate without effort would be more advantageous if you were hunting something than being able to do complex math problems.
Given an appropriate setting and some help, I could, by following several psycholinguistics methods that I worked on at the University of Chicago and access to an online thesarus based database, get working mechanical translation going within six months. Problem is I don't do generative linguistics and all of Noam Chomsky's followers would rather not have a working system than see his theories disproven.
I'm sure that others have tried using other methods to do translations/parsing but so far it hasn't been very successful. To tell the truth, using a generative grammer is probably the best method available in computer science. It has a solid theoretical/mathematical framework and its problems/benefits are relatively well understood. In any case, I don't believe that language semantics are well enough understood/adequately modeled in linguistics that a mechanical translation system would be possible right now (e.g. idioms and cultural references that cause problems for professional translators).
HF is also used to keep ultrapure water sterile and free of bacteria. Ultrapure water is really, really pure water (double distilled and filtered). It has an resistance of 19 megaohms per cm and is used to wash board/components. Unfortunately bacteria grow like crazy in it so companies use a weak HF solution in the water to keep it sterile.
There are some pretty scary chemicals used in the semiconductor manufacturing process, though. Take HF, for instance - it'll leach the calcium out of your bones. Through your skin. (This same substance is used in alloy wheel cleaner...). Some of the gases that go into the mix are morbidly called "two-step" gases - one whiff, take two steps, and you're dead
ACtually, HF is a lot worse than that. HF exposure causes nasty burns that can't really be treated. Plus high exposures to HF will leach calcium from your cardiac muscles leading to cardiac failure. There really isn't any treatment for this so you'll die in a few hours after the exposure.
The article doesn't go into converting SDRAM into RDRAM at all. It's about making an EMI shielding for your SDRAM chips. This doesn't make the SDRAM into RDRAM although it make look like it. It's sort of like taking a saturn and putting a porsche body on top of it and expecting it to perform like a porsche.
RDRAM uses a 8 or 16 bit channel running at 300 to 400+ MHz with data being sent on the rising and falling edges of the clock. SDRAM runs at 100MHz on a 32bit bus that sends data on the rising edge only. Turning SDRAM into RDRAM would involve replacing the memory interface and control circuits on the SDRAM and changing the packing to fit in a RIMM. If you can do this, you'll probably do better to work as a chip designer for a semiconductor company and using the money you earn to buy some RDRAM.
Wait, I doubt Gilliam was thinking hacker and the hacker ethic when he filmed Brazil. I think he was thinking more about dystopia's and the stupidity of bureaucracy. I'm not even sure Harry Tuttle was actually there past the first scene since alot of the scenes in the film were things that Sam imagines in order to avoid the facing the reality of his everyday life. Sam is an inept cog in the bureaucracy that obtains his position through his mother's influence, tries to escape his life in daydreams where he is a brave and courageous hero who fights the system, and finally dies because of some errors that he made.
Well, interleaving memory banks is live and kicking in non-Wintel-cheapo-pc systems aka so called "workstations". Sun's, HP's, Alpha's all can use the speedup effect of interleaving memory banks if you stick enough RAM modules into them. And due to the incredible braindeadness of intel and rambus, they will never ever use rambus ram's for their systems. And high cost is not the reason!
Actually the next alpha 21364 chips will have a rambus memory controller integrated onto to the chip die.
True, but ESR's main point w.r.t the Weenie issue is that it is very very hard for someone to sneek a backdoor into OSS.
Really? It may be difficult to put a typical backdoor but how about placing a buffer overrun in a program and then using that overrun to get a shell. That can be done by the author and if it's found, the author can say it was a mistake.
f Bill Gates would decide to sell all his MS stock to finance a private space station, MS price would suffer quite a drop - simply because there wouldn't be a demand for such a large number of shares.
Actually Gates has only about 10% of the MSFT stock according to microsoft's 10Q so its share price wouldn't drop that much. However in the current climate it would proabably plummet since investors would think that MSFT was in trouble and would then dump it
Re:Good...weeded out the idiot day traders
on
Tech Stocks Tumble
·
· Score: 2
What happened was, these day traders started to realize that when the ruling came out, and these companies that depended on Microsoft started to drop with Microsoft, they realized that the market isn't some sort of game anymore, where their account balance was bragged about like a high score on Galaga. Those numbers they saw on e-trade, etc. was their retirement going down the shitter, and it scared the hell out of them. So the same jabronis that inflated the market with idiot buying, took it back down with idiot selling.
Actually the real day traders probably made money on the correction. Day traders do well in volatile markets since they can short into the slides and then cover at lower prices. On minirallies they can go long and then sell as the rally begins to top out. If the market isn't volatile then a stock price doesn't move much and traders can't grind out enough on the price movements to cover commissions and fees.
Technical analysts and momentum players usually do a good job on making money on stocks without looking at the fundamentals. So you don't necessarily need to know much about the company in order to know what you're doing.
The people who got screwed are the people who bought on margin and decided to play the market without a coherent strategy, an understanding of the risks, or a discplined exit strategy. And no holding a stock and trying to wait out a correction/slump isn't a discplined exit strategy if you're buying on margin.
The amount of market clout day traders wield is insignificant compared to the huge institutional investors (mutuals, pension funds, etc.)
Day traders account for roughly 20-30 percent of the market volume on the exchanges. That's a significant chunk. Ironically, day traders do better in volatile markets since large and frequent changes in direction allow day traders to ride stocks up and down making money each way. It's the people who bought stocks on margin that are screwed.
No, because ESR's point still stands. It's not the fact whether there was a backdoor or not, what is important is the fact that that dll had been around for 4 years and Microsoft didn't even know what the hell was going on inside it
There are also bugs/races in open source program that were sitting around for several years. I believe a few months ago there was a exploit for redhat/debian systems that slackware that fixed 2 years before. Right now Lynx has a bunch of races in file creation that won't be fixed because the code is so bad and the authors aren't addressing it. So opensource is not the cure that ESR makes it out to be since not many people with the knowledge of whats happening look at the code they're compiling
remember, slashdot DOES NOT VERIFY news to any great extent. it only reports it
What bothered me was not that slashdot got it wrong but that they had an entire article by ESR about how this proves closed source is totally insecure and open source is the cure.
Other news sources reported this but did not hav extensive articles bashing microsoft and imply that microsoft designed the backdoor and placed it in the program.
What slashdot did is sort of like a paper writing an extensive article explaining how the cuban community in miami is evil because they killed Elian rather than give him to his father then writing another article saying that they were wrong and Elian wasn't dead after all.
Open source should always be immune, you can look at what it does before you run it.
Seriously, how many people examine all the code for all the programs on their machine? Yeah, with open source you can look at the source but no one really has the time to examine the several hundred MB of source that their system was compiled from.
Read access to these files can be enough to allow a clever hacker to find further security holes in a web site.
I'm not sure what this gets you. If you're a developer then you can already execute the code. The only situation where this is a benefit is if the machine is hosting multiple independent sites, then a developer for one site could read the code for another site. This is a problem but not as serious as others such as buffer overruns, and real backdoors.
The backdoor isn't as bad as ESR is implying. In order to exploit the code, the attacker needs to be given authoring privileges on the server. So this is primarily restricted to developers and only lets the attackers read.asp or.asa files.
Also the dll was present in interdev 1.0 but isn't found in later versions or in the releases on other platforms besides windows on x86. There are also questions about whether microsoft or whether the original developer vemeer technologies put it in. Therefore saying that microsoft designed this is irresponsible on the part of ESR and Slashdot.
I also have objections to ESR saying that webmasters are going be pulling out their hair over this. If the sites had upgraded to a latter version of InterDev then there's no problem. Plus, only web developers can exploit this and then only to view.asp/.asa files so its not as serious as ESR makes it out to be. Even those sites running InterDev 1.0, can get rid of the backdoor by deleting the dll since it codes for a view links feature which is not essential.
some linux and solaris boxen up there and give it an internet feed, you've got yourself an untouchable censor-proof project
You couldn't put a linux box up there since it wouldn't have enough hardware fault tolerance to be reliable enough. Also I belive you'll probably want a rad-hardened system if its going to be up there for a while. This means that whatever you put up there will not be off-the-self stuff unless you want to go up there and fix it after every solar flare and gamma ray burst that occurs.
Slashdot Mirror
Doh! I can't believe I screwed up like that since I've taken a few discrete math and theoretical cs classes.You're right of course. BTW, anyone who proves that P=NP or P!=NP will probably win a Fields medal since Nobels are awarded for mathematics.
Hmm...you're wrong one a couple of points.
Register selection is very easy in most cases. Also, I can't think of a machine that has 10 registers,That may be true for x86 and CISC processors but most RISC processors have significantly more than 10 registers. HP's PA-RISC has 31 integer and >10 floating point, the MIPS have 32 integer and 32/16 floating point, the SPARCs, alphas, etc. also have at least 20 integer and 10 floating point registers. Then there are more obscure stuff like the AMD29k which had 128 registers. The IA-64 architecture has more than 50 registers, I believe.
anyway the NP-Complete problems require N! timeNP complete problems are solvable in non-polynomial time hence the NP designation. c^n where c is constant is non-polynomial hence NP problems can have solutions that are O(c^n). NP-complete problems are a subset of NP problems hence there can exist NP-complete problems that take O(c^n) time.
How did I improve it? I used SIMD instructions (MMX). I was able to get a 4x increase in speed. *NO COMPILER COULD EVER DO THIS*.Just because you've never encountered a compiler that can't do this doesn't mean that one doesn't exist.
The problem you've given is just an application of vectorizing the algorithm. Several fortran compilers exist that do this. However they were for architectures like the Cray which had SIMD instructions 15 years ago. SIMD is relatively new to the x86 and ppc architectures so naturally compilers for those architectures haven't been able to take advantage of this. Plus vectorizing compilers are hard to make.
Anyway, that's why you're wrongAnd thats where you're wrong. :)
Actually running is better than lifting free weights. Your body still has to do the same repair stuff after running and its better for your cardiovascular system then weight lifting. Ideally, you would do both but if you could only do one running or some other aerobic exercise such as swimming, biking, etc. will be better than lifting.
BTW, eating 5-6 small meals a day is a great idea but having your diet composed of 40% carbs and 60% protein is not. You'll stress your kidneys with a higher influx of proteins, increase your risk for kidney stones and other nastiness. A diet of 50% carbs, 30% proteins, and 20% fats is would be better.
It was pretty cool seeing Viswanath's name in the article since I took a class he taught on formal languages last fall.
Getting back on topic, a lot of the sciences have had deep interplays with society. For example, some important thermodyanic ideas and relationships were discovered by people trying to perfect beer brewing (I believe it was Kelvin but I'm not sure). Another example is theology in northern england, which was one of the major influences in the developement of the idea that energy is conserved in physics. A similar connection exists between quantitative science and accounting.
Despite our superficial impressions, scientists have often used influences and concepts from society at large to formulate their theories. In this respect, the sciences are socially constructed. However, the are not entirely social constructions regardless of what some say.
Well I can see this configuration happening. One of the sun servers used by a cs prof (david beazley of python fame) at my school has a similiar setup. Two drives in a RAID 0 configuration for the system disk and 10 drives in a RAID 5 for the rest of the space usuage. You get fast performance and good fault tolerance.
If you consider ramsey theory then you'll know that any two coloring of a graph will give a group of vertices that are strongly interconnected (a clique) and/or a group that where none of the vertices is connected to any other(anti-clique).
For example, coloring a complete 6 vertex graph will either give a clique or anti-clique of three vertices. In a social context, this means that in a group of 6 people there will be a group of at least 3 people who either do not know anyone else in the group or know everyone else in the group. Using a theorem by Erdos tells use that the web probably does not have a clique or anti-clique of size greater than 1+log n (here log = log base 2) where n is the number of web sites. Another result says that there is guaranteed to be a clique or anticlique of that is at least as large as the fourth root of n where n is the number of web pages.
That's only partly right. The Earth gets hit by large gamma burst every couple of months or so. Sure the van allen belts provide shielding but some still gets through. You're getting hit by high energy muons from cosmic showers all the time.
Gamma rays are somewhat nasty but they aren't that bad. I've worked with several gamma sources like Co57, Co60, Cs137, P37 (122KeV - ~1.3MeV) as well as a Pu238/Be neutron howitizer and personally I worry more about the neutrons than the gammas. Alphas and betas are usually stopped by thin layers of clothing or even your skin. As long as they stay outside your body you're fine. If they get inside then you have pronblems. Gammas will usually compton scatter and leave without many interactions so they aren't that bad. Neutrons will probably plow through your molecules and dump most/all their energy since there are so many hydrogens within your body.
Btw, I done some experiments on cross sections of gamma rays of various energies and a 122 KeV gamma has something like a 50% chance of getting through 32cm(~16 inches) of aluminum and a 30% chance of getting through 32cm of iron. This is just low energy gammas, several radioactive decays will provide gammas with 10 or more times the energy. So unless your brick house has a thick lining of steel (~1-2m) or lead (~.5m), you aren't getting any protection fromt the walls.
I think that you are underestimating the amount of time that we have had to evolve parsing. I see parsing as a specialized case of communication. Other animals are able to communicate and seem to have the ability to use language in a limited capacity (e.g. Koko, some apes). In more primitive forms, many mammals are able to communicate in some form. These communications are structured. So I would consider our language abilities as a specialization of these communication abilities. If you buy this, then we have had quite a while to evolve structures to deal with parsing in some form.
Precisely what I'm attempting to get at. A generative grammar tells you only all the possibilities (at best) but never any of the probabilities. A prototype grammar, one appearing in the early 80s called the sausage machine, would provide you with the main possibilities and all the probabilities. This would be much more useful in attempting mechanical translation.Using a stochastic context free grammer lets you assign probabilities to production rules in the grammar. More generally you can assign probabilities to production rules in a context sensitive grammer to get a sense a of how often a given production is used.
And you've shown yourself to have bought Chomsky's line hook line and sinker by arguing this point. Language is not a mathematical construct, it is a psychological one.Whether language is a mathematical or psychological construct does not really matter much to modeling it mathematically. The model may not work well but you can still do it. The advantages of using a generative are that it is mathematically well understood and has a solid interconnections with complexity theory and algorithmics. You can get good idea of how an algorithm based on this model will run and where it will have problems. Other models may not have these advantages.
In addition, using a computer to parse language means that ultimately you need to express the parsing in an algorithmic procedure. Regardless of whether language is a psychological construct or not, you will express it in terms of if/then or case statements. My assertion is that you can change these statements into a generative grammar with associated probabilities.
In any case, I disagree with your position that language is entirely psychological. I think that there are some aspects that are purely mathematical. For example, most people are to identify the syntactic elements in a nonsense sentence such as "The sdfjklds aaadjed fdfjdfj to fdjlfkdj." I would think a psychological model of language would have problems with this and the ability of sentences/phrases to be perfectly correct while having no mean or a contradictory meaning.
By the way, who moderated you up?????I get an automatic +1 bonus do to positive moderation in the past. If you get more than 20 something points of positive moderation, your posts receive a +1 bonus unless you explicitly prevent it.
I disagree on this point. I'm sure that if you were to go back to Hyde Park and asking people in Cummings or BSLC they would disagree about how much mental ability parsing takes. I think the reason that parsing seems easy and math problems seem to be difficult is because our brains have evolved to deal with parsing in an efficient manner.
For a given person not being able to divide a 3 digit number by a 2 digit number quickly isn't much of a handicap, but not being able to speak and understand speech quickly and easily is a big problem. In our past, being able to communicate without effort would be more advantageous if you were hunting something than being able to do complex math problems.
Given an appropriate setting and some help, I could, by following several psycholinguistics methods that I worked on at the University of Chicago and access to an online thesarus based database, get working mechanical translation going within six months. Problem is I don't do generative linguistics and all of Noam Chomsky's followers would rather not have a working system than see his theories disproven.I'm sure that others have tried using other methods to do translations/parsing but so far it hasn't been very successful. To tell the truth, using a generative grammer is probably the best method available in computer science. It has a solid theoretical/mathematical framework and its problems/benefits are relatively well understood. In any case, I don't believe that language semantics are well enough understood/adequately modeled in linguistics that a mechanical translation system would be possible right now (e.g. idioms and cultural references that cause problems for professional translators).
HF is also used to keep ultrapure water sterile and free of bacteria. Ultrapure water is really, really pure water (double distilled and filtered). It has an resistance of 19 megaohms per cm and is used to wash board/components. Unfortunately bacteria grow like crazy in it so companies use a weak HF solution in the water to keep it sterile.
ACtually, HF is a lot worse than that. HF exposure causes nasty burns that can't really be treated. Plus high exposures to HF will leach calcium from your cardiac muscles leading to cardiac failure. There really isn't any treatment for this so you'll die in a few hours after the exposure.
The article doesn't go into converting SDRAM into RDRAM at all. It's about making an EMI shielding for your SDRAM chips. This doesn't make the SDRAM into RDRAM although it make look like it. It's sort of like taking a saturn and putting a porsche body on top of it and expecting it to perform like a porsche.
RDRAM uses a 8 or 16 bit channel running at 300 to 400+ MHz with data being sent on the rising and falling edges of the clock. SDRAM runs at 100MHz on a 32bit bus that sends data on the rising edge only. Turning SDRAM into RDRAM would involve replacing the memory interface and control circuits on the SDRAM and changing the packing to fit in a RIMM. If you can do this, you'll probably do better to work as a chip designer for a semiconductor company and using the money you earn to buy some RDRAM.
Wait, I doubt Gilliam was thinking hacker and the hacker ethic when he filmed Brazil. I think he was thinking more about dystopia's and the stupidity of bureaucracy. I'm not even sure Harry Tuttle was actually there past the first scene since alot of the scenes in the film were things that Sam imagines in order to avoid the facing the reality of his everyday life. Sam is an inept cog in the bureaucracy that obtains his position through his mother's influence, tries to escape his life in daydreams where he is a brave and courageous hero who fights the system, and finally dies because of some errors that he made.
Actually the next alpha 21364 chips will have a rambus memory controller integrated onto to the chip die.
Really? It may be difficult to put a typical backdoor but how about placing a buffer overrun in a program and then using that overrun to get a shell. That can be done by the author and if it's found, the author can say it was a mistake.
Actually Gates has only about 10% of the MSFT stock according to microsoft's 10Q so its share price wouldn't drop that much. However in the current climate it would proabably plummet since investors would think that MSFT was in trouble and would then dump it
Actually the real day traders probably made money on the correction. Day traders do well in volatile markets since they can short into the slides and then cover at lower prices. On minirallies they can go long and then sell as the rally begins to top out. If the market isn't volatile then a stock price doesn't move much and traders can't grind out enough on the price movements to cover commissions and fees.
Technical analysts and momentum players usually do a good job on making money on stocks without looking at the fundamentals. So you don't necessarily need to know much about the company in order to know what you're doing.
The people who got screwed are the people who bought on margin and decided to play the market without a coherent strategy, an understanding of the risks, or a discplined exit strategy. And no holding a stock and trying to wait out a correction/slump isn't a discplined exit strategy if you're buying on margin.
Day traders account for roughly 20-30 percent of the market volume on the exchanges. That's a significant chunk. Ironically, day traders do better in volatile markets since large and frequent changes in direction allow day traders to ride stocks up and down making money each way. It's the people who bought stocks on margin that are screwed.
There are also bugs/races in open source program that were sitting around for several years. I believe a few months ago there was a exploit for redhat/debian systems that slackware that fixed 2 years before. Right now Lynx has a bunch of races in file creation that won't be fixed because the code is so bad and the authors aren't addressing it. So opensource is not the cure that ESR makes it out to be since not many people with the knowledge of whats happening look at the code they're compiling
What bothered me was not that slashdot got it wrong but that they had an entire article by ESR about how this proves closed source is totally insecure and open source is the cure.
Other news sources reported this but did not hav extensive articles bashing microsoft and imply that microsoft designed the backdoor and placed it in the program.
What slashdot did is sort of like a paper writing an extensive article explaining how the cuban community in miami is evil because they killed Elian rather than give him to his father then writing another article saying that they were wrong and Elian wasn't dead after all.
Seriously, how many people examine all the code for all the programs on their machine? Yeah, with open source you can look at the source but no one really has the time to examine the several hundred MB of source that their system was compiled from.
I'm not sure what this gets you. If you're a developer then you can already execute the code. The only situation where this is a benefit is if the machine is hosting multiple independent sites, then a developer for one site could read the code for another site. This is a problem but not as serious as others such as buffer overruns, and real backdoors.
The backdoor isn't as bad as ESR is implying. In order to exploit the code, the attacker needs to be given authoring privileges on the server. So this is primarily restricted to developers and only lets the attackers read .asp or .asa files.
Also the dll was present in interdev 1.0 but isn't found in later versions or in the releases on other platforms besides windows on x86. There are also questions about whether microsoft or whether the original developer vemeer technologies put it in. Therefore saying that microsoft designed this is irresponsible on the part of ESR and Slashdot.
I also have objections to ESR saying that webmasters are going be pulling out their hair over this. If the sites had upgraded to a latter version of InterDev then there's no problem. Plus, only web developers can exploit this and then only to view .asp/.asa files so its not as serious as ESR makes it out to be. Even those sites running InterDev 1.0, can get rid of the backdoor by deleting the dll since it codes for a view links feature which is not essential.
The original posting about the exploit is here
It's a great show!
Lexx is really just soft-core porn without the porn. All the bad acting and plots and none of the nudity and/or sex.
You couldn't put a linux box up there since it wouldn't have enough hardware fault tolerance to be reliable enough. Also I belive you'll probably want a rad-hardened system if its going to be up there for a while. This means that whatever you put up there will not be off-the-self stuff unless you want to go up there and fix it after every solar flare and gamma ray burst that occurs.