There should be a protocol by which a client that knows or strongly suspects it is being handed an obsolete IPADDR can request the DNS server to update its cache. In the case of a timeout or connection refusal at the old address, the request can be automatic with the DNS server responding only if the cached address is more than a few hours old and some number, say a hundered or so, such complaint/requests from different clients have been logged. Browsers and other clients might also have an application layer interface for manual requests as well.
While this might be a new avenue for DOS attacks on DNS servers, they are already open to DOS by ordinary lookup requests anyhow so how much difference could it make?
I was a field radio repairman is the US Army Signal Corp serving in Viet Nam around 1970-71 and as someone who was qualified to work on every model then in use I can tell you that there was NO spread spectrum technology deployed at that time. The latest things then were a single side band set and "modular" plugin components which were nothing more than circuit boards in metal cases incorporating some small scale ICs inside. I was also trained along side National Guardsmen on sets still in use by the NG using vacuum tubes.
I did not closely track advances in radio technology after that since I was more interested in software but I can well believe that spread spectrum technology in general and CDMA in particular were considered revolutionary when pioneered. I have seen other reports of CDMA controversy that are consistent with the account given by Steven Den Beste.
The last time I looked at x86 code the 8086 was the state of the art, but isn't there a problem with overwiting the stack location from which values are POP-ed into the IP register?
An old Red Skelton gag was "I can read reading and I can read writing but this writing is rotten". The significance of your example is that some reading is rotten.
The practice in C is to rely heavily upon NUL terminated strings. For just about any machine architecture this is just about optimal speedwise but it carries a risk of buffer overflows. Since the lenght of a source string is not known ahead of time overflow of a destination buffer area can be guarded against only at the cost of regular tests inserted inside the loop. The alternative is to represent strings as structures consisting of an integer field specifying the stringlenght followed by the actual string data. This way source and destination sizes can be compared at small overhead cost before beginning a transfer loop. This has the drawbacks of the slight pre-looping overhead, a slightly greater memory requirement for each string and an absolute upper bound imposed on string lenght. Some extra logic can work around this last difficulty. In the old days when memory was more expensive and processors slower these disadvantages were more significant. Today, I think the tradeoffs favor greater security. We need a new low level adept language to replace C that implements strings consistently as structures.
I used to love that program. It worked really well with my terminal emulator, (Bitcom), for telnet sessions. The notepad sort feature was also very handy. Unfortunately Sidekick was for a text mode world and could not survive the coming of the GUI.
is that we do not know how the Wrights would have fared without patent protection. They would still have had their knowledge, expertise and reputation to commercially exploit. Would that have brought them a fair return on the hard work and/or inspiration and/or money invested by them? What would they have gotten? What would be "fair"? Noone knows. Non-inventors also invest money and/or effort. Does IP put them at an unfair disadvantage to inventors?
I think the justifications for IP depend critically on the alledged benefits to society rather than to the inventors since noone really knows what is fair for the inventors.
Unfortunately sometimes what is being patented is so basic that it practically amounts to patenting the Pythagorean Theorem. The XOR blinking cursor patent comes to mind as an example. The only possible work arounds are neccessarily inferior.
So is it price? Price for what? I think the basic problem is that what passes for "broadband" today is still too slow. Two hours to download a feature film on "broadband" is no competition to the video rental shop. Real broadband requires fiber, (or coax with negligible contention), to the home. Twisted pair is a stopgap as is sharing bandwidth with cable TV.
Shadowy sets. Supposed to be mood setting I suppose, but I really prefer the well lit Star Trek sets. Why should the making of 100 Watt bulbs be a lost art in the future?
Actually all the major telcom companies have been engaged in massive purchase financing, effectively buying customers. The customers go bankrupt leaving the supplier/lender in the lurch.
Absolutely the human management of the development team counts for much more than the tools.
When last I left Lucent Wireless they where on their third go-round trying to relace the old primative Sablime version control system, (developed in-house at ATT), with Clearcase. The productivity of some of the Sablime using groups was really quite good. Those were the groups with smart managers.
One note of interest, however, is that Rational's make utility, Clearmake, was distinctly inferior in performance to Lucent's in-house nmake, (not to be confused with MS nmake). The decision was made to stick with nmake even in the Clearcase projects even though some Clearcase functionality would be sacrificed.
The term doubleplus is "Newspeak" from Orwell's 1984.
From http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/xorionm.html
doubleplus- - A Prefix used to create the superlative form of an adjective or adverb. (i.e. - pluscold and doublepluscold meant, respectively, 'very cold' and 'superlatively cold'.
"If you want a stronger version of "good", what sense is there in having a whole string of vague useless words like "excellent" and "splendid" and all the rest of them? "Plusgood" covers the meaning, or " doubleplusgood" if you want something stronger still. "
There is only so much bandwidth to be had from any reasonable chunk of the electomagnetic spectrum. Cell phones have gotten as far as they have mainly by using "space-division" multiplexing. I.e., the same frequency channel can be reused many time among reciever/transmitter pairs that are sufficienly far separated and use sufficiently low power. But how much greater can the density of cell phone towers go given that it is not even just placement but cost that must be considered?
The article plays up the soap opera angle, but Buffet is far too experienced to let personalities influence his investment decisions. OTOH, he is also famous for sticking to relatively simple businesses that he feels he understands. So does he now understand the ins and outs of fiberoptic telecom? Probably not. He is likely deviating from his normal practice. Let those tempted to follow his lead on the basis of his past success beware. In all liklihood he really is gambling on a relatively quick pickup in bandwidth demand. The denials are to discourage competative bidding for Worldcom's assets. Unfortunately, his guess about future demand is probably not any better than anyone else's. Perhaps he thinks some MS "innovations", maybe in the DRM area, will somehow spur demand.
My most recent work was in engineering build processes for really large builds for a major maker of telecom equipment. Eight hours, even when done overnight, was simply unacceptable. I suspect that Microsoft is making the mistake of trying, at least partially, to eat their own dogfood. PIIIs? Give me a break. I am certain build times could be easily halved if they migrated to real top of the line multi-RISC based enterprise servers from Sun, HP or IBM. Of course, those whould have to be *nix systems.
One problem that usually arises with this approach is that an very large quantity of data must be hand created to test all the paths in the function. This is not IMO a flaw in the procedure you recommend. It points to a design weakness: it means that higher level logic has failed to adequately sort different cases to be dispatched to different functions. This can be a result of abusing the notion of "hiding messy details" at the upper levels and pushing the problems down to the bottom. There must be a balance of hiding/deferring and exposing/processing of situations at every level to keep the complexity burden reasonable at each level.
I believe that what is being suggested in case A is that it may not be sufficient that each individual atom of the teleported person would be chemically identical to the corresponding atom of the pre-teleported person. The fact that they are not actually the same atoms, (as is the case in ordinary transportation), means that the teleported person would not be the same you.
Personally, I think substitution of identical atoms for the originals does not destroy identity, but that does lead to the strange and perhaps uncomfortable conclusions associated with B. Aside from the possiblilty of duplication of identity, (two persons who are both you), it also raises the possibility of a you not made from the usual materials. A you might be made, for example, from computer simulated atoms. Perhaps that is what is supposed to have happened to the humans in the movie "Tron" upon being "teleported" into the system.
The main attraction of C is that it avoids the scariness implicit in B.
1. If materialism were correct, then knowledge about the physical would lead to knowledge of conscious experience. 2. Mary has knowledge of all the physical processes associated with color. 3. Mary does not have knowledge of conscious experience. 4. Materialism is wrong.
If materialism is right then among the things to be known about consciousness would be the, (physical), experience itself. By implicitly excluding that knowledge from "knowledge of all the physical processes", the argument effectively assumes its conclusion. Either that, or "knowledge" means something different in (3) than in (2) in which case the conclusion simply does not follow.
Let me try to sketch out a senario where the theoretical vulnerability could be realized in a serious way.
I have sometimes wished for a simple JPEG cropping program. I might, for example, trim some annoying advertising from an otherwise nifty image. Suppose a malicious cracker wrote just such a program and posted it as freeware. It works fine and by itself shows no viral behaviors. That it because it is secretly scanning JPEG files for payloads. Months go by as the cropping program spreads. The cracker then posts one or more attractive JPEGs marred only by an area that just begs to be trimmed off. These JPEGs, of course, contain whatever disasterous payload you care to imagine. The "harmless" JPEGS pass unimpeded through firewalls and are not scanned by AV software. The cropping program, however, extracts and executes the payload. This allows a large number of infections to come alive in a short span of time.
why are they always so close? Space is vast. Visablility is generally unlimited as is the range of both missle and beam weapons. Both communication and space battles would surely occur over distances far exceeding ordinary visual range.
Slashdot Mirror
Let us know when you find a way to make that happen.
There should be a protocol by which a client that knows or strongly suspects it is being handed an obsolete IPADDR can request the DNS server to update its cache. In the case of a timeout or connection refusal at the old address, the request can be automatic with the DNS server responding only if the cached address is more than a few hours old and some number, say a hundered or so, such complaint/requests from different clients have been logged. Browsers and other clients might also have an application layer interface for manual requests as well.
While this might be a new avenue for DOS attacks on DNS servers, they are already open to DOS by ordinary lookup requests anyhow so how much difference could it make?
In situations like this would not a temporary work-around be to advise your clients to directly use the actual IP address.
If your IPADDR is sufficiently stable, that could even be a long term solution -- saves DNS lookup bandwidth and response time too.
If the problem is anticipated, the work-around could be advertised to customers before making the change.
No PC technology is obsolete until it has had sufficient time to migrate from add-on boards onto most of the commonly used motherboards.
I was a field radio repairman is the US Army Signal Corp serving in Viet Nam around 1970-71 and as someone who was qualified to work on every model then in use I can tell you that there was NO spread spectrum technology deployed at that time. The latest things then were a single side band set and "modular" plugin components which were nothing more than circuit boards in metal cases incorporating some small scale ICs inside. I was also trained along side National Guardsmen on sets still in use by the NG using vacuum tubes.
I did not closely track advances in radio technology after that since I was more interested in software but I can well believe that spread spectrum technology in general and CDMA in particular were considered revolutionary when pioneered. I have seen other reports of CDMA controversy that are consistent with the account given by Steven Den Beste.
The last time I looked at x86 code the 8086 was the state of the art, but isn't there a problem with overwiting the stack location from which values are POP-ed into the IP register?
An old Red Skelton gag was "I can read reading and I can read writing but this writing is rotten". The significance of your example is that some reading is rotten.
The practice in C is to rely heavily upon NUL terminated strings. For just about any machine architecture this is just about optimal speedwise but it carries a risk of buffer overflows. Since the lenght of a source string is not known ahead of time overflow of a destination buffer area can be guarded against only at the cost of regular tests inserted inside the loop. The alternative is to represent strings as structures consisting of an integer field specifying the stringlenght followed by the actual string data. This way source and destination sizes can be compared at small overhead cost before beginning a transfer loop. This has the drawbacks of the slight pre-looping overhead, a slightly greater memory requirement for each string and an absolute upper bound imposed on string lenght. Some extra logic can work around this last difficulty. In the old days when memory was more expensive and processors slower these disadvantages were more significant. Today, I think the tradeoffs favor greater security. We need a new low level adept language to replace C that implements strings consistently as structures.
I used to love that program. It worked really well with my terminal emulator, (Bitcom), for telnet sessions. The notepad sort feature was also very handy. Unfortunately Sidekick was for a text mode world and could not survive the coming of the GUI.
is that we do not know how the Wrights would have fared without patent protection. They would still have had their knowledge, expertise and reputation to commercially exploit. Would that have brought them a fair return on the hard work and/or inspiration and/or money invested by them? What would they have gotten? What would be "fair"? Noone knows. Non-inventors also invest money and/or effort. Does IP put them at an unfair disadvantage to inventors?
I think the justifications for IP depend critically on the alledged benefits to society rather than to the inventors since noone really knows what is fair for the inventors.
Unfortunately sometimes what is being patented is so basic that it practically amounts to patenting the Pythagorean Theorem. The XOR blinking cursor patent comes to mind as an example. The only possible work arounds are neccessarily inferior.
So is it price? Price for what? I think the basic problem is that what passes for "broadband" today is still too slow. Two hours to download a feature film on "broadband" is no competition to the video rental shop. Real broadband requires fiber, (or coax with negligible contention), to the home. Twisted pair is a stopgap as is sharing bandwidth with cable TV.
Shadowy sets. Supposed to be mood setting I suppose, but I really prefer the well lit Star Trek sets. Why should the making of 100 Watt bulbs be a lost art in the future?
That depends on what the meanings of "are" are.
and Republican and republican.
Besides, the greater problem are those folks who type "o", (oh), for zero and "l", (ell), for one.
It would be best to firmly establish consistently in all cases that distinguishable characters are indeed different and not interchangeable.
Actually all the major telcom companies have been engaged in massive purchase financing, effectively buying customers. The customers go bankrupt leaving the supplier/lender in the lurch.
Absolutely the human management of the development team counts for much more than the tools.
When last I left Lucent Wireless they where on their third go-round trying to relace the old primative Sablime version control system, (developed in-house at ATT), with Clearcase. The productivity of some of the Sablime using groups was really quite good. Those were the groups with smart managers.
One note of interest, however, is that Rational's make utility, Clearmake, was distinctly inferior in performance to Lucent's in-house nmake, (not to be confused with MS nmake). The decision was made to stick with nmake even in the Clearcase projects even though some Clearcase functionality would be sacrificed.
From http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/xorionm.html
There is only so much bandwidth to be had from any reasonable chunk of the electomagnetic spectrum. Cell phones have gotten as far as they have mainly by using "space-division" multiplexing. I.e., the same frequency channel can be reused many time among reciever/transmitter pairs that are sufficienly far separated and use sufficiently low power. But how much greater can the density of cell phone towers go given that it is not even just placement but cost that must be considered?
The article plays up the soap opera angle, but Buffet is far too experienced to let personalities influence his investment decisions. OTOH, he is also famous for sticking to relatively simple businesses that he feels he understands. So does he now understand the ins and outs of fiberoptic telecom? Probably not. He is likely deviating from his normal practice. Let those tempted to follow his lead on the basis of his past success beware. In all liklihood he really is gambling on a relatively quick pickup in bandwidth demand. The denials are to discourage competative bidding for Worldcom's assets. Unfortunately, his guess about future demand is probably not any better than anyone else's. Perhaps he thinks some MS "innovations", maybe in the DRM area, will somehow spur demand.
My most recent work was in engineering build processes for really large builds for a major maker of telecom equipment. Eight hours, even when done overnight, was simply unacceptable. I suspect that Microsoft is making the mistake of trying, at least partially, to eat their own dogfood. PIIIs? Give me a break. I am certain build times could be easily halved if they migrated to real top of the line multi-RISC based enterprise servers from Sun, HP or IBM. Of course, those whould have to be *nix systems.
One problem that usually arises with this approach is that an very large quantity of data must be hand created to test all the paths in the function. This is not IMO a flaw in the procedure you recommend. It points to a design weakness: it means that higher level logic has failed to adequately sort different cases to be dispatched to different functions. This can be a result of abusing the notion of "hiding messy details" at the upper levels and pushing the problems down to the bottom. There must be a balance of hiding/deferring and exposing/processing of situations at every level to keep the complexity burden reasonable at each level.
I believe that what is being suggested in case A is that it may not be sufficient that each individual atom of the teleported person would be chemically identical to the corresponding atom of the pre-teleported person. The fact that they are not actually the same atoms, (as is the case in ordinary transportation), means that the teleported person would not be the same you.
Personally, I think substitution of identical atoms for the originals does not destroy identity, but that does lead to the strange and perhaps uncomfortable conclusions associated with B. Aside from the possiblilty of duplication of identity, (two persons who are both you), it also raises the possibility of a you not made from the usual materials. A you might be made, for example, from computer simulated atoms. Perhaps that is what is supposed to have happened to the humans in the movie "Tron" upon being "teleported" into the system.
The main attraction of C is that it avoids the scariness implicit in B.
If materialism is right then among the things to be known about consciousness would be the, (physical), experience itself. By implicitly excluding that knowledge from "knowledge of all the physical processes", the argument effectively assumes its conclusion. Either that, or "knowledge" means something different in (3) than in (2) in which case the conclusion simply does not follow.
Either way, the argument is garbage.
Let me try to sketch out a senario where the theoretical vulnerability could be realized in a serious way.
I have sometimes wished for a simple JPEG cropping program. I might, for example, trim some annoying advertising from an otherwise nifty image. Suppose a malicious cracker wrote just such a program and posted it as freeware. It works fine and by itself shows no viral behaviors. That it because it is secretly scanning JPEG files for payloads. Months go by as the cropping program spreads. The cracker then posts one or more attractive JPEGs marred only by an area that just begs to be trimmed off. These JPEGs, of course, contain whatever disasterous payload you care to imagine. The "harmless" JPEGS pass unimpeded through firewalls and are not scanned by AV software. The cropping program, however, extracts and executes the payload. This allows a large number of infections to come alive in a short span of time.
why are they always so close? Space is vast. Visablility is generally unlimited as is the range of both missle and beam weapons. Both communication and space battles would surely occur over distances far exceeding ordinary visual range.