...because it needs to be cheap. You can implement a PS2 keyboard with a single PIC.
I love the new sexy USB/firewire/bwafoodle busses, but I miss being able to wire together some logic straight off my parallel port, and have it do crazy shit no one else was using a computer to do. Like set off fireworks. Damn. I'm 'a' 'splode you!
no, the problem is that when the kernel switches from kernel space to user space, it doesn't bother to save the contents of the floating point registers. This is because there are a lot of registers and saving them takes time...
So, if you do any floating point in the kernel, you fill fuck any other process that also does floating point. Bad scene.
You make a good point. However, the way I see it, I NEED proper encryption on many more things than I currently have them on.
I also need the choose what I leave public. Copy protection does not directly address this... but the more ubiquitous encryption becomes, the more encryption will seem justified in the eyes of Joe Q. Lawmaker, and the more I will be able to blend in. Much of the data contained in my computer can be copyighted to ME... I obviously need "copy protection!"
I want to run all of my Internet services through encrypted channels. See my other post (which was not modded up here. Perhaps I should go to ShouldExist with it, there's less whoring there...)
Let's do our fighting in a way it counts: lobby the right people the right way and educate the public.
And keep inventing new technologies which render the point moot. Napster really is obsolete, that's the funny thing...
For me this REALLY REALLY highlights the need for all network communication to be done through encrypted channels. It needs to happen at IP (internet protocol, not the other IP) level, in such a way that routers cannot discern where the ultimate destination of my packets, only where to send them to next.
I believe people are already working on this at the protocol level in distributed file servers, just because they're hte buzzword of the day.
But that's not enough. A middleman can still sniff otu the type of traffic that is going around. We need to work around the IP protocol so that middlemen (ISPs, corporations, evil) can not tell what data is being sent or recieved from my computer.
I imagine a new service which handles encrypted IP, which sits on one port. When a packet comes in a layer of encryption is stripped off and ONLY THEN can you tell which service the packet is intended for. The packet is then forwarded to the appropriate program.
Kind of like tunneling EVERYTHING through SSH.
The only way we can pull this off is to make it easy to set up on both the client and server side, to that people start running "legit" applications (internet commerce, Web servers, telephony, buzzowrd-of-the-day, etc.) on it at once.
Doing it so that routers will only see the minimum amount of information is another task, but I believe it's technically possible, if not possible under IP protocol.
Does anyone see what I'm getting at in this idea?
We would perform the ultimate Internet route-around-damage, if we could pull this off.
Unix is no longer an operating system. An operating system is the software that comes with a computer (or OS
distribution) that programmers and users need to make themselves productive. (my emphasis)
Well, neither Windows nor MacOS came with any utilities that would make me productive as a programmer. I would have to shell out $$$ to get Visual Studio for Windows, or Codewarrior for MacOS.
Now, to their credit, Apple has made MPW a free download. This was not true in the past. In any case, I would still have to shell out $$$ for an ADC membership (for access to teachnical documentation), a copy of Inside Macintosh, and various random things to make me actually useful as a programmer.
This is the biggest philosophical reason that I stick with Linux on my Powerbook. I want an Operating System that can serve any purpose I give it, both for practicality, and so that I still have a good approximation to a "computer" (in the academic sense, something that can do what a Turing Machine can do).
Given a computer, in the practical sense, which is a piece of electronic hardware that can be programmed and interfaced to other pieces of hardware, I define an operating system as that which enables me to easily create applications, or use applications others have created. I define an application as a program which enables me to use my computer to address a problem in the Real World. Thus my preferred definitions of operating systems and applications are more practical (from my standpoint) than academic.
Now from that standpoint it's perfectly aceptable to refer to a kernel+libraries+basic tools+compiler as an operating system, and, depending on your computer using preferences, another acceptable definition is above+graphical libraries+widget sets (as MacOS does.)
However I do not accept a web browser as part of the OS. It's an application, dammit.:P
(for esoteric scientific data acquisition hardware, nothing you'll see make its way into the kernel tree..)
I was really impressed with the ease of writing drivers in Linux. However there needs to be MUCH MORE end user documentation (that actually tells you how modules are organized and how to set up kerneld to be be the sexy mofo that it is. the mocules-HOWTO at this moment doesn't cut it.)
Yeah, I'm taking about porn (jeeze, at least 5p311 it right...)
But really. If we have personal, vibrating devices that are scriptable (as they naturally would be) by Javascript or somesuch... the porn sites would natuurally have to compete about who would script their mice the best.
Instead of the current mode of competition (see who can collect more banner-ad clickthroughs, leading to more credit card numbers, while giving away the least number of images pirated from Usenet) we would have...
Sites competing on who could physically tease you the best, using advanced algorithms to vibrationally manipulate you into giving your credit card number RIGHT NOW so that you gain instant access to the full, uncensored mouse script archives...
which would be about 20 files pirated from Usenet. Oh, crap.
And when we do, is it going to have the same limitations that the present ones do? Could different light frequencies be used to allow 'fuzzy' rather than binary computation? Or more importantly, could the instantaneous 3D alteration of circuts allow people to 'evolve' intellegent computers like the circut boards that were 'evolved' to recognize a specific tone without a clock.... don't have the link handy. It was in Discover about 2 years ago if anyone knows what I'm talking about. Kind of like evolving an algorithm, but on the hardware scale.
Also, where are the replicators? I want food and all the restaraunts are closed, dammit. If I had a matter transporter I could go somewhere where it was daytime. And a warp drive would be nice, too--cut down on commute time!
Actually, the light coming out of the top of the Luxor in Las Vegas (not a laser, but highly collimated) has been known to kill a few birds now and then.
If they do port to Linux the DOJ can point out that Microsoft
was lying when they said that IE was an integral part of Windows.
False...the existence proof is IE for Macintosh. "IE integral to windows" in this context means "Windows breaks if we remove all traces of IE" as opposed to "IE breaks if we remove it from Windows." (actually, the latter statement is true, but isn't that what porting applications is all about?)
Microsoft can port IE to Linux just like they did to Mac. In the Mac case the result was an application that looked better and rendered CSS better than the Windows version! And it's really no less stable than Netscape.
If you read the kernel-traffic thread, you will notice that RTLinux is discussed at length and found to be inadequate for audio work--the difficulty of programming for it it the main issue. RTLinux is aimed at scientific applications which require latencies in the microsecond range--cancer tratment by synchotron radiation comes to mind--but you cannot access anything in Linux from your realtime process with any guaranteed latency (remember, Linux is a single sub-process of RTLinux, and your RTLinux processes are seperate from Linux.). So, unless you're willing to implement EVERYTHING in your program as RTLinux processes, you're out of luck.
I had my own go at realtime processing this summer when I was trying to write a data collection driver for my research group that would do signal processing in kernel space to achieve low latencies. That stumbled when I found out that you can't do floating point operations in kernel space (and last I checked, you couldn't in RTLinux either.) That KILLS most signal processing. Implementing the filters using integers wasn't fun, and it wound up slower than same filters in user space (though the latency is better.)
The various low-latency patches, on the other hand, just require a process to be setuid root, and to request realtime priority--other than that the implementation is the same as any other program. MUCH MUCH better for audio programming.
Undoubtedly I'm writing a (-1, Flamebait)... You're right, except they dudn't use Linux OR X as the base, which is probably why they're able to actually do revolutionary things.
Those in the Linux camp are fine with revolutionizing interface, as long as it doesn't interfere with legacy (read: awful) programs. As a result no useful interface work gets done except for half-assed attempts to emulate Mac and Windows. But you can skin everything!!!
Don't get me wrong: I use Linux and the CLI 99% of the time and have been doing so for two years now. But whenever I boot MacOS into a window on my machine I get all nostalgic for the days when I could navigate to any file, anywhere, in seconds, using only the keyboard. That's because Apple has worked out reasonable and memorable keyboard shortcuts, like:
Cmd-downarrow to open a folder, Cmd-uparrow to go to the parent folder. If you're in a tree view, Cmd-rightarrow and Cmd-leftarrow expand and collapse the directory subtree.
The concept of selecting a file. so I can rename (hit Return), open (Cmd-O), or do other things to it without typing the filename again.
I can select a file by typing the first few letters. I can also select using the arrowkeys.
Thus if I have three JPG images in a directory named:
FSMHSusNM131_N2.jpg
FSMusNM131_G8.jpg
FSMHSusNM132_N5.jpg
(and I do,) then I can select any one of these using at most two keypresses and two arrowkeys.
On Linux, If I were to do anything to the third file, I would have to type FSMH(tab)2(tab) while squinting to see what was different about the filenames.
Or use a graphical filemanager. But like most Linux wanna-be-cool software, the GUI software for Linux provides all of the look, none of the keyboard shortcuts.
So it's useless for ANYONE who wants to get work done quickly.
True, CLI has its advantages. But for me the speedups only come when I'm so frustrated with the limitations that I start scripting my own solutions. Which I could just as easily do on a GUI machine.
Usability is not a foreign concept, people... why do so few people get it?
Keeping track of the kids is easy in this smart kidswear concept which
incorporates GPS-driven locators and miniature camera's allowing parents
to ensure they're safe, while a computer game console worn on the sleeve
keeps the kids happy.
Paranoia and Unjustified Privacy Restrictions != Responsible Parenting.
And, goddamnit, no one was going to force such things on me when I was a kid. I don't want to think about this. You've ruined my day.
C is a standard industry abbreviation for microcontroller. The name C-SIMM seems pretty obvious in derivation, and is obviously pronounced either as you-see-simm or (my preference) mew-see-simm.
Seriously, why would you want to control your TV from a web browser in the first place? Are some people so
lazy that they can't even budge from their computer to adjust the volume?
Haven't you ever realized that you had forgotten to program the VCR to record something, but you were too far away to do anything about it?
Seriously: Any time you think about saying "why would anyone want to do XXX?" it's a sign that you haven't paid enough attention to the issue yet.
Slashdot Mirror
Try it:
For example, someone surfing the Web with filtering software installed could access "sex.com" by typing:
http://a1.g.akamaitech.net/6/6/6/6/sex. com/.
Anyone know of pr0n sites that are served thorough Akamai?
I love the new sexy USB/firewire/bwafoodle busses, but I miss being able to wire together some logic straight off my parallel port, and have it do crazy shit no one else was using a computer to do. Like set off fireworks. Damn. I'm 'a' 'splode you!
Pumping up the font size isn't going to work for everything. Is there an open Display Postscript? If not someone should get on it real quick.
On the other hand, no, on the SAME hand, I can't wait until my display device has comparable resolution to my hardcopy device.
So, if you do any floating point in the kernel, you fill fuck any other process that also does floating point. Bad scene.
Slashdot needs to have a "Correction" field for comments, just like the always have for stories. :P
You make a good point. However, the way I see it, I NEED proper encryption on many more things than I currently have them on.
I also need the choose what I leave public. Copy protection does not directly address this... but the more ubiquitous encryption becomes, the more encryption will seem justified in the eyes of Joe Q. Lawmaker, and the more I will be able to blend in. Much of the data contained in my computer can be copyighted to ME... I obviously need "copy protection!"
I want to run all of my Internet services through encrypted channels. See my other post (which was not modded up here. Perhaps I should go to ShouldExist with it, there's less whoring there...)
Let's do our fighting in a way it counts: lobby the right people the right way and educate the public. And keep inventing new technologies which render the point moot. Napster really is obsolete, that's the funny thing...
no, you need to change IP. Read my post.
I believe people are already working on this at the protocol level in distributed file servers, just because they're hte buzzword of the day. But that's not enough. A middleman can still sniff otu the type of traffic that is going around. We need to work around the IP protocol so that middlemen (ISPs, corporations, evil) can not tell what data is being sent or recieved from my computer. I imagine a new service which handles encrypted IP, which sits on one port. When a packet comes in a layer of encryption is stripped off and ONLY THEN can you tell which service the packet is intended for. The packet is then forwarded to the appropriate program. Kind of like tunneling EVERYTHING through SSH.
The only way we can pull this off is to make it easy to set up on both the client and server side, to that people start running "legit" applications (internet commerce, Web servers, telephony, buzzowrd-of-the-day, etc.) on it at once.
Doing it so that routers will only see the minimum amount of information is another task, but I believe it's technically possible, if not possible under IP protocol.
Does anyone see what I'm getting at in this idea? We would perform the ultimate Internet route-around-damage, if we could pull this off.
Well, neither Windows nor MacOS came with any utilities that would make me productive as a programmer. I would have to shell out $$$ to get Visual Studio for Windows, or Codewarrior for MacOS.
Now, to their credit, Apple has made MPW a free download. This was not true in the past. In any case, I would still have to shell out $$$ for an ADC membership (for access to teachnical documentation), a copy of Inside Macintosh, and various random things to make me actually useful as a programmer.
This is the biggest philosophical reason that I stick with Linux on my Powerbook. I want an Operating System that can serve any purpose I give it, both for practicality, and so that I still have a good approximation to a "computer" (in the academic sense, something that can do what a Turing Machine can do).
Given a computer, in the practical sense, which is a piece of electronic hardware that can be programmed and interfaced to other pieces of hardware, I define an operating system as that which enables me to easily create applications, or use applications others have created. I define an application as a program which enables me to use my computer to address a problem in the Real World. Thus my preferred definitions of operating systems and applications are more practical (from my standpoint) than academic.
Now from that standpoint it's perfectly aceptable to refer to a kernel+libraries+basic tools+compiler as an operating system, and, depending on your computer using preferences, another acceptable definition is above+graphical libraries+widget sets (as MacOS does.)
However I do not accept a web browser as part of the OS. It's an application, dammit. :P
implicit? don't you mean explicit?
I was really impressed with the ease of writing drivers in Linux. However there needs to be MUCH MORE end user documentation (that actually tells you how modules are organized and how to set up kerneld to be be the sexy mofo that it is. the mocules-HOWTO at this moment doesn't cut it.)
But really. If we have personal, vibrating devices that are scriptable (as they naturally would be) by Javascript or somesuch... the porn sites would natuurally have to compete about who would script their mice the best.
Instead of the current mode of competition (see who can collect more banner-ad clickthroughs, leading to more credit card numbers, while giving away the least number of images pirated from Usenet) we would have...
Sites competing on who could physically tease you the best, using advanced algorithms to vibrationally manipulate you into giving your credit card number RIGHT NOW so that you gain instant access to the full, uncensored mouse script archives...
which would be about 20 files pirated from Usenet. Oh, crap.
Would special effects count as "prior art"?
And when we do, is it going to have the same limitations that the present ones do? Could different light frequencies be used to allow 'fuzzy' rather than binary computation? Or more importantly, could the instantaneous 3D alteration of circuts allow people to 'evolve' intellegent computers like the circut boards that were 'evolved' to recognize a specific tone without a clock. ... don't have the link handy. It was in Discover about 2 years ago if anyone knows what I'm talking about. Kind of like evolving an algorithm, but on the hardware scale.
Also, where are the replicators? I want food and all the restaraunts are closed, dammit. If I had a matter transporter I could go somewhere where it was daytime. And a warp drive would be nice, too--cut down on commute time!
Actually, the light coming out of the top of the Luxor in Las Vegas (not a laser, but highly collimated) has been known to kill a few birds now and then.
Sorry, couldnt resist.
False...the existence proof is IE for Macintosh. "IE integral to windows" in this context means "Windows breaks if we remove all traces of IE" as opposed to "IE breaks if we remove it from Windows." (actually, the latter statement is true, but isn't that what porting applications is all about?)
Microsoft can port IE to Linux just like they did to Mac. In the Mac case the result was an application that looked better and rendered CSS better than the Windows version! And it's really no less stable than Netscape.
heheheh.
I had my own go at realtime processing this summer when I was trying to write a data collection driver for my research group that would do signal processing in kernel space to achieve low latencies. That stumbled when I found out that you can't do floating point operations in kernel space (and last I checked, you couldn't in RTLinux either.) That KILLS most signal processing. Implementing the filters using integers wasn't fun, and it wound up slower than same filters in user space (though the latency is better.)
The various low-latency patches, on the other hand, just require a process to be setuid root, and to request realtime priority--other than that the implementation is the same as any other program. MUCH MUCH better for audio programming.
Those in the Linux camp are fine with revolutionizing interface, as long as it doesn't interfere with legacy (read: awful) programs. As a result no useful interface work gets done except for half-assed attempts to emulate Mac and Windows. But you can skin everything!!! Don't get me wrong: I use Linux and the CLI 99% of the time and have been doing so for two years now. But whenever I boot MacOS into a window on my machine I get all nostalgic for the days when I could navigate to any file, anywhere, in seconds, using only the keyboard. That's because Apple has worked out reasonable and memorable keyboard shortcuts, like:
Thus if I have three JPG images in a directory named:
- FSMHSusNM131_N2.jpg
- FSMusNM131_G8.jpg
- FSMHSusNM132_N5.jpg
(and I do,) then I can select any one of these using at most two keypresses and two arrowkeys. On Linux, If I were to do anything to the third file, I would have to type FSMH(tab)2(tab) while squinting to see what was different about the filenames.Or use a graphical filemanager. But like most Linux wanna-be-cool software, the GUI software for Linux provides all of the look, none of the keyboard shortcuts.
So it's useless for ANYONE who wants to get work done quickly.
True, CLI has its advantages. But for me the speedups only come when I'm so frustrated with the limitations that I start scripting my own solutions. Which I could just as easily do on a GUI machine.
Usability is not a foreign concept, people... why do so few people get it?
Paranoia and Unjustified Privacy Restrictions != Responsible Parenting.
And, goddamnit, no one was going to force such things on me when I was a kid. I don't want to think about this. You've ruined my day.
C is a standard industry abbreviation for microcontroller. The name C-SIMM seems pretty obvious in derivation, and is obviously pronounced either as you-see-simm or (my preference) mew-see-simm.
Haven't you ever realized that you had forgotten to program the VCR to record something, but you were too far away to do anything about it?
Seriously: Any time you think about saying "why would anyone want to do XXX?" it's a sign that you haven't paid enough attention to the issue yet.