I'm not implying stability or lack thereof... I'm just saying that windows users tend to reboot more.. this is why bootup time was an improvement goal for MS with XP.
OS-X takes a while to boot..but it's generally not percieved as a negative thing, because poeple don't generally reboot macs very often.
I should have mentioned, I guess, that the mac I'm using is a laptop.
I have no problems believing a windows XP desktop stays on for months nowadays.. but I don't believe it if it's a laptop.
I have never seen a windows laptop consistently and properly suspend/resume over time without going screwy and requiring a full reboot. quite often those using windows laptops avoid suspending them for that very reason.
On the other hand, mac users think NOTHING of closing up their laptop and letting it sleep whenever they feel like it, even just to carry it across a room. Takes 2-4 seconds to sleep, 2-4 seconds to wake up.. consistely, reliably, all the time, for months at a time, without destabilizing.
True. OS X does take a while to boot... but it's not that long.
But "slow booting" has never been a complaint from mac users.
because...
we rarely reboot.
It is not uncommon for me to go a month or more without rebooting my ibook, despite lugging it around everywhere, suspending it hundreds of times &c.
Of the dozen or so times I've actually rebooted it since purchasing it, I can only think of one instance where the reboot was actually required due to some kind of malfunction. The rest were either major upgrades, hardware upgrades (adding an airport card) or the geek in me wanting to goof around with OpenFirmware, or kernel modules.
You are in no way obligated to follow it.. that is true.
However, should a situation arise where the composer of the email or his organisation wants to sue you for doing something dodgy.. the presence of the disclaimer makes it difficult for you to claim you didn't know it wasn't for you, and things like that.
It's not that you would get in trouble for not following the instructions in the disclaimer.. you wouldn't.. but it would be fairly hard for you to claim ignorance.
The two have basically nothing to do with each other.
A one time pad:
Generate a random pattern of bits of the same length as the plaintext. XOR the two. The resulting ciphertext and the random field are now both requried to re-generate the plaintext (to call one the ciphertext and one the key is wrong too. they are both statistically equivalent).
Both are also completely useless by themselves, and truly totally, provably, unbreakable.
This is the only form of unbreakable encryption.
The moment you use a pad more than once, though, it ceases to be a one-time pad, and is breakable.
Well, as you can see, lots of people have posted good solid examples, I can't out-do any of them.
The fact is, most car modders WILL do other, simple hardware modifications, as you said.... depending on the model, simple, safe changes can yield nice increases in performance... but the original question was wether or not software modifications could increase performance. It should be clear by now that they can in many, many cases.
Sometimes components are downgraded, yes.. sometimes that just means increased wear.. sometimes boost pressures are lowered for warrantee purposes.. that doesn't mean you can't get more performance out of the vehicle.
Increased power DOES mean increased wear and tear.... that's unavoidable.
Many vehicles out there have the same exact engine and drivetrain, but have timing and whatnot adjusted via computer, one to give better fuel consumption, the other to givemore power.. and the manufactuere advertises one as 120HP engine, and one as 150HP. Same, exact, engine.
Also, the timing on many vehicles is adjusted for a certain low grade of fuel (Even if that low grade isn't the lowest grade available).... making the decision to ALWAYS run on a higher octane fuel, and tuning the timing to take that into account can give you a nice increase in power.
Add to that cars with servo controlled turbo wastegates (if I recall correctly).. boost pressure can also be increased (or decreased, for better fuel efficiency) on the fly.
There are numerous ways to tweak a modern computerized engine management system.
I'm sure they could be rigged.. but such rigging would have to be on a massive scale, on par with rigging a paper election, to be effective, at least, that's my understanding.
The problem with the diebold system is that it would have been far, far too easy to rig the results of a machine with devastating consequences.
VW's are easy to work on; VW is quite open with their specs, including the computerized stuff... you can have all kinds of fun reprogramming your jetta.
I believe the custom tool he needs can be built for about $5.
A car is certainly not an investment.. not a financial one, aynway.
Leasing can make sense.. it all depends on what your long-term intentions are with your vehicle. Do you plan to drive it for 5 years then sell it? You may find it financially better, and more importantly, LESS hassle, to lease it. Or, you may not. Personally, I like the idea that I own my car, that is very important to me, so I didn't lease. I thought about it, and can understand why people do, though.
A house/residence can certainly be an investment, much more so than a car, if you are realistic about the house you buy.
What do I mean? If you are paying the same in mortgage payments as you would have been willing to pay in rent, over the years, you are paying yourself.. building equity, rather than burning money. In order for it to be a WORSE deal than renting, the value of the house would have to almost completely crash to nothing. As long as the house is worth at least the value of your down payment, you are no worse off than if you had rented. Anything above that is a bonus.
I mean, they are a democracy that's voting population absolutely dwarfs the US of A.
THey have an electronic system that, although not impervious to fraud, is simple, elegant, and cheap, and gets the job done. The systems are so simple that it would be very difficult in practice to actually cheat.. and if you could doctor one machine, the damage you could do would be quite limited.
That sort of question is up to the VC to ask before investing their money.
"Common Courtesy?"
Give me a break.
If I announce a new product coming out.. I am under NO obligation, not even common courtesy, to tell you all the sources and resources I used in providing that product.
WHEN my product is released, I have to do so under all the appropriate agreements and licenses..
Without having David and seeing how it works, how can we judge? So what if it's based on Wine, what if it's significanlty different? They haven't even determined how much WINE code they are using!
They have not distributed. The code belongs to the company, not the developers.. there has been no distribution.
No rights have been transferred to the other employees regarding the code.. the machines are the property of the company, and the employees are using the code as agents of the company.
If I install code on your computer at my office, like a copy of windows with a non-transferrable license, I am not distributing it, or giving it to you, I am installing it on company property.. it still belongs to the company.
The same goes for development work. I can put all the proprietary code in a GPL app that I want, and use it as much as I want.. a company can do the same thing, and use it wherever they want within that company.
They could also beta-test internally, or with licensed beta testers, without having to give source.
There is a fuzzy line eventually... for instance, what if I, on my own, want to test some of my proprietary code with some GPL code. I am free to do so of course. Now let's say my good friend who happens to be an expert coder is also interested in this project, and wants to help me sort out some bugs... we are separate legal entities, not a company... so it would seem I cannot simply send him the code, ask him not to distribute it, and see if he can help me out, even if he is perfectly willing to do so.. because the GPL forbids it.
IT all comes down to how "Distribution" is determined by the courts.
Common sense says that a few developers working on building a finished product sharing copies is not distribution... if it were it would defeat the purpose of the GPL in the first place.
It's been quite clearly establised and clarified by everyone includin RMS & the FSF that internal copies used by a development group does not constitute distribution.
The company owns the code, therefore use by the company is not distribution. Many organisations use modified GPL code internally; they are under no obligation whatsoever ot share those changes with anyone. However. if they try to sell or give that code away to anyone outside that legal entity, then they have to do so under the terms of the GPL.
The problem isn't that the coffee was hot. Hell, TEA is served BOILING hot usually. "Recommended" temperatures also don't matter.
The problem is that it was served significantly hotter than is commonly done at restaurants and take-out places....
We all know if you spill hot coffee on ourselves we will get burned, but generally if you spill a cup of joe you don't get instant 3rd degree burns and require hospitalization.
It has a defined volume as we see it, and a defined mass.. therefore one can calculate density.
The comcept of a singularity is not all a black hole is about. When we say "black hole" we are not talking about just a singularity, but the entire phenonenon we observe... defined to us by the event horizon. We aren't speaking as to what is "inside" becuase, by definition, we cannot. Our observations are limited by the event horizon.
For any given density, there is a corresponding event horizon.
I've read that if you calculate the swartchild radius based on the average density of our observable universe, you end up with a distance that equals the radius of our observable universe.
If you offer to sell me a turd for $1000, and I buy it, have you committed fraud?
Those doing the purchasing had a duty to make sure they were getting a fair and proper deal, and were spending money wisely. They failed to do this.
That NEC took advantage of it is secondary.
Re:Where many people miss the point...
on
Is Swap Necessary?
·
· Score: 1
Look.
My old system had 256MB of ram, and 256MB of swap.
My NEW system has 512MB of ram.
I do the same tasks.
Now tell me, if I could do EVERYTHING I needed to do on the old system, why is it I *NEED* swap on the new system?
Yes.. different swapping mechanisms can make this an almost moot point... with linux, I'd say, actually, yes, USE swap, because it doens't swap like a punk prematurely.
With windows, I find it works better without it. I'm sure it could also just be tuned.
This is getting away from the point though. The point is: Real physical memory is preferable to swap. If the total virtual ram you want is 1 gig, it's better to have 1 gig of ram than half a gig of ram and half a gig of swap. That's the ONLY point.
With ram prices being what they are these days, it's quite easy to run a system without swap if you wish.
Re:Where many people miss the point...
on
Is Swap Necessary?
·
· Score: 1
No, it's not "640k is plenty"
I'm saying this because I DO it, on a daily basis.
Photoshop has it's own swapfile mechanism.
I didn't say "it's enough for everyone". I know a number of people that run without swap, and all have no problems.
2 - depends if the phones are wired in parallel or not. I believe they are generally parallel.
Each resistive load (phone) added in parallel reduces the overall resistance of the system. Hypothetically, as you add phones, you approach the equivalent of a short circuit.
If they are all in series, yeah, it wouldn't have any effect at all, other than being too quiet.
Re:Swap thrashing is a symptom, not a cause
on
Is Swap Necessary?
·
· Score: 1
That seems absurd.
The overhead of the swap manager running with nowhere to swap? That's a big assumption... disabling swap does not slow down the machine because it needs to swap...
You will hit a hard limit just about as fast.. with the speed of swap ramdisk.
Instead of 1GB of physical, you have 768MB phys and 384MB of SWAP in RAMDISK.. you STILL have the same amount o f VM.. 1 GB.
It will just be slower accessing that last 384MB of swap in the ramdisk scenario, degrading performance.
That's 384MB you COULD have had for disk caching, otherwise.
SWAP provides better performance only when increased ram for disk caching increases performance.. freeing up unused pages to be used for cache, in other words, which you cannot do without swap. Provided the disk caching is adequate already, with enough free memory, wasing cycles and resources to swap out memory to disk is never going to be FASTER than simply using enough physical memory to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not implying stability or lack thereof... I'm just saying that windows users tend to reboot more.. this is why bootup time was an improvement goal for MS with XP.
.but it's generally not percieved as a negative thing, because poeple don't generally reboot macs very often.
OS-X takes a while to boot.
I should have mentioned, I guess, that the mac I'm using is a laptop.
I have no problems believing a windows XP desktop stays on for months nowadays.. but I don't believe it if it's a laptop.
I have never seen a windows laptop consistently and properly suspend/resume over time without going screwy and requiring a full reboot. quite often those using windows laptops avoid suspending them for that very reason.
On the other hand, mac users think NOTHING of closing up their laptop and letting it sleep whenever they feel like it, even just to carry it across a room. Takes 2-4 seconds to sleep, 2-4 seconds to wake up.. consistely, reliably, all the time, for months at a time, without destabilizing.
Yes.. and the bank will cover the fallout from the mistake, to a degree.
Their liability in that regard cannot be limitless, however.. go look at your contract.
True.
OS X does take a while to boot... but it's not that long.
But "slow booting" has never been a complaint from mac users.
because...
we rarely reboot.
It is not uncommon for me to go a month or more without rebooting my ibook, despite lugging it around everywhere, suspending it hundreds of times &c.
Of the dozen or so times I've actually rebooted it since purchasing it, I can only think of one instance where the reboot was actually required due to some kind of malfunction. The rest were either major upgrades, hardware upgrades (adding an airport card) or the geek in me wanting to goof around with OpenFirmware, or kernel modules.
You are in no way obligated to follow it.. that is true.
However, should a situation arise where the composer of the email or his organisation wants to sue you for doing something dodgy.. the presence of the disclaimer makes it difficult for you to claim you didn't know it wasn't for you, and things like that.
It's not that you would get in trouble for not following the instructions in the disclaimer.. you wouldn't.. but it would be fairly hard for you to claim ignorance.
Isn't that precisely what the article is about?
A scratch-off password list is a password scheme.
a One-time pad is an encryption algorithm.
The two have basically nothing to do with each other.
A one time pad:
Generate a random pattern of bits of the same length as the plaintext. XOR the two. The resulting ciphertext and the random field are now both requried to re-generate the plaintext (to call one the ciphertext and one the key is wrong too. they are both statistically equivalent).
Both are also completely useless by themselves, and truly totally, provably, unbreakable.
This is the only form of unbreakable encryption.
The moment you use a pad more than once, though, it ceases to be a one-time pad, and is breakable.
Well, as you can see, lots of people have posted good solid examples, I can't out-do any of them.
The fact is, most car modders WILL do other, simple hardware modifications, as you said.... depending on the model, simple, safe changes can yield nice increases in performance... but the original question was wether or not software modifications could increase performance. It should be clear by now that they can in many, many cases.
Sometimes components are downgraded, yes.. sometimes that just means increased wear.. sometimes boost pressures are lowered for warrantee purposes.. that doesn't mean you can't get more performance out of the vehicle.
Increased power DOES mean increased wear and tear.... that's unavoidable.
No...
Many vehicles out there have the same exact engine and drivetrain, but have timing and whatnot adjusted via computer, one to give better fuel consumption, the other to givemore power.. and the manufactuere advertises one as 120HP engine, and one as 150HP. Same, exact, engine.
Also, the timing on many vehicles is adjusted for a certain low grade of fuel (Even if that low grade isn't the lowest grade available).... making the decision to ALWAYS run on a higher octane fuel, and tuning the timing to take that into account can give you a nice increase in power.
Add to that cars with servo controlled turbo wastegates (if I recall correctly).. boost pressure can also be increased (or decreased, for better fuel efficiency) on the fly.
There are numerous ways to tweak a modern computerized engine management system.
I'm sure they could be rigged.. but such rigging would have to be on a massive scale, on par with rigging a paper election, to be effective, at least, that's my understanding.
The problem with the diebold system is that it would have been far, far too easy to rig the results of a machine with devastating consequences.
He should find a more competent installer.
VW's are easy to work on; VW is quite open with their specs, including the computerized stuff... you can have all kinds of fun reprogramming your jetta.
I believe the custom tool he needs can be built for about $5.
I beg to differ...
A car is certainly not an investment.. not a financial one, aynway.
Leasing can make sense.. it all depends on what your long-term intentions are with your vehicle. Do you plan to drive it for 5 years then sell it? You may find it financially better, and more importantly, LESS hassle, to lease it. Or, you may not. Personally, I like the idea that I own my car, that is very important to me, so I didn't lease. I thought about it, and can understand why people do, though.
A house/residence can certainly be an investment, much more so than a car, if you are realistic about the house you buy.
What do I mean? If you are paying the same in mortgage payments as you would have been willing to pay in rent, over the years, you are paying yourself.. building equity, rather than burning money. In order for it to be a WORSE deal than renting, the value of the house would have to almost completely crash to nothing. As long as the house is worth at least the value of your down payment, you are no worse off than if you had rented. Anything above that is a bonus.
I mean, they are a democracy that's voting population absolutely dwarfs the US of A.
THey have an electronic system that, although not impervious to fraud, is simple, elegant, and cheap, and gets the job done. The systems are so simple that it would be very difficult in practice to actually cheat.. and if you could doctor one machine, the damage you could do would be quite limited.
For practical purposes, yes.
For legal purposes, however, a verbal contract can be binding.
If they promised payment, and then renegged, he may very well have a case.
Not at all.
You are free to distribute proprietary code alongside GPL code, as long as one is not a derivitave work of the other.
EG: Red Hat Advanced Server....
EG: Sun Java Desktop
all of these contain TONS of full-on GPL code.. and full proprietary code, yet they work together as an OS.
Are they asking you for money?
That sort of question is up to the VC to ask before investing their money.
"Common Courtesy?"
Give me a break.
If I announce a new product coming out.. I am under NO obligation, not even common courtesy, to tell you all the sources and resources I used in providing that product.
WHEN my product is released, I have to do so under all the appropriate agreements and licenses..
Without having David and seeing how it works, how can we judge? So what if it's based on Wine, what if it's significanlty different? They haven't even determined how much WINE code they are using!
They have not distributed. The code belongs to the company, not the developers.. there has been no distribution.
No rights have been transferred to the other employees regarding the code.. the machines are the property of the company, and the employees are using the code as agents of the company.
If I install code on your computer at my office, like a copy of windows with a non-transferrable license, I am not distributing it, or giving it to you, I am installing it on company property.. it still belongs to the company.
The same goes for development work. I can put all the proprietary code in a GPL app that I want, and use it as much as I want.. a company can do the same thing, and use it wherever they want within that company.
They could also beta-test internally, or with licensed beta testers, without having to give source.
There is a fuzzy line eventually... for instance, what if I, on my own, want to test some of my proprietary code with some GPL code. I am free to do so of course. Now let's say my good friend who happens to be an expert coder is also interested in this project, and wants to help me sort out some bugs... we are separate legal entities, not a company... so it would seem I cannot simply send him the code, ask him not to distribute it, and see if he can help me out, even if he is perfectly willing to do so.. because the GPL forbids it.
IT all comes down to how "Distribution" is determined by the courts.
Common sense says that a few developers working on building a finished product sharing copies is not distribution... if it were it would defeat the purpose of the GPL in the first place.
It's been quite clearly establised and clarified by everyone includin RMS & the FSF that internal copies used by a development group does not constitute distribution.
The company owns the code, therefore use by the company is not distribution. Many organisations use modified GPL code internally; they are under no obligation whatsoever ot share those changes with anyone. However. if they try to sell or give that code away to anyone outside that legal entity, then they have to do so under the terms of the GPL.
The problem isn't that the coffee was hot. Hell, TEA is served BOILING hot usually. "Recommended" temperatures also don't matter.
The problem is that it was served significantly hotter than is commonly done at restaurants and take-out places....
We all know if you spill hot coffee on ourselves we will get burned, but generally if you spill a cup of joe you don't get instant 3rd degree burns and require hospitalization.
It's all relative to your point of view.
To an outside observer. a black hole has density.
It has a defined volume as we see it, and a defined mass.. therefore one can calculate density.
The comcept of a singularity is not all a black hole is about. When we say "black hole" we are not talking about just a singularity, but the entire phenonenon we observe... defined to us by the event horizon. We aren't speaking as to what is "inside" becuase, by definition, we cannot. Our observations are limited by the event horizon.
For any given density, there is a corresponding event horizon.
I've read that if you calculate the swartchild radius based on the average density of our observable universe, you end up with a distance that equals the radius of our observable universe.
Just because there are more black holes does not mean there is more mass than previously thought.
It just means there are more black holes.
Remmeber, black holes are all about density, not mass. For any given density, there is a size at which a black hole would be seen to an outsider.
Because what they did was sleazy, not illegal.
If you offer to sell me a turd for $1000, and I buy it, have you committed fraud?
Those doing the purchasing had a duty to make sure they were getting a fair and proper deal, and were spending money wisely. They failed to do this.
That NEC took advantage of it is secondary.
Look.
My old system had 256MB of ram, and 256MB of swap.
My NEW system has 512MB of ram.
I do the same tasks.
Now tell me, if I could do EVERYTHING I needed to do on the old system, why is it I *NEED* swap on the new system?
Yes.. different swapping mechanisms can make this an almost moot point... with linux, I'd say, actually, yes, USE swap, because it doens't swap like a punk prematurely.
With windows, I find it works better without it. I'm sure it could also just be tuned.
This is getting away from the point though.
The point is:
Real physical memory is preferable to swap. If the total virtual ram you want is 1 gig, it's better to have 1 gig of ram than half a gig of ram and half a gig of swap. That's the ONLY point.
With ram prices being what they are these days, it's quite easy to run a system without swap if you wish.
No, it's not "640k is plenty"
I'm saying this because I DO it, on a daily basis.
Photoshop has it's own swapfile mechanism.
I didn't say "it's enough for everyone".
I know a number of people that run without swap, and all have no problems.
1 - I dunno
2 - depends if the phones are wired in parallel or not. I believe they are generally parallel.
Each resistive load (phone) added in parallel reduces the overall resistance of the system. Hypothetically, as you add phones, you approach the equivalent of a short circuit.
If they are all in series, yeah, it wouldn't have any effect at all, other than being too quiet.
That seems absurd.
The overhead of the swap manager running with nowhere to swap? That's a big assumption... disabling swap does not slow down the machine because it needs to swap...
You will hit a hard limit just about as fast.. with the speed of swap ramdisk.
Instead of 1GB of physical, you have 768MB phys and 384MB of SWAP in RAMDISK.. you STILL have the same amount o f VM.. 1 GB.
It will just be slower accessing that last 384MB of swap in the ramdisk scenario, degrading performance.
That's 384MB you COULD have had for disk caching, otherwise.
SWAP provides better performance only when increased ram for disk caching increases performance.. freeing up unused pages to be used for cache, in other words, which you cannot do without swap. Provided the disk caching is adequate already, with enough free memory, wasing cycles and resources to swap out memory to disk is never going to be FASTER than simply using enough physical memory to begin with.
All it will do is slow you down.