PAT stands for "Performance Accelerating Technology" and is a CPU/chipset feature available only with Intel's high-end (consumer) chipset. It speeds up memory accesses by cutting out a clock cycle from the CPU/memory controller memory access request, and another clock cycle on the memory controller/DRAM interface. So DRAM accesses are two cycles earlier than they would otherwise be. I think the feature relies on asynchronous timing to eliminate the clock cycles.
The feature is normally enabled only on the 875 chipsets when the FSB is running at 800 MHz, and was thought to be completely disabled on the 865 chipsets (which only support 400 and 533 MHz bus speeds ?). However, the 865 enables PAT enabled for 400 and 533 MHz FSB speeds. The 865 and 875 are the same chip in all other respects (similar to how Celerons were the same chip as their higher-end cousins, with defective/disabled cache).
Asus have found out that the chipset doesn't disable PAT if it thinks the FSB/memory clock is running at 533 MHz, so they tell the chipset that the FSB is only 533 MHz but actually supply an 800 MHz FSB clock. There's a bit more fudging around with the clock generator and chipset register settings, but this is this gist of what happens.
I think the minimum recorded voltage that anyone's been electrocuted from is about 48V DC, a bit higher than the 42V of these batteries, so these batteries probably wouldn't deliver a fatal shock (especially since they're nominally 36V). You can still get a pretty nasty shock from 42V DC if you're stupid, though.
Your parent was a well thought out post. But your reaction was exactly the sort of simplistic thought (where you automatically say U.S.==BAD) that he was specifically attacking. The reality is that a simplistic viewpoint cannot solve the world's problems. Anyway, when responding to such a post, I'd recommend addressing the overall points, rather than just what seem to be vulnerable phrases. Let's look at an example:
What's there to politicize? Science is power, and that makes it a key part of politics. Space exploration isn't some innocent, other-worldly endeavor, it's been part of the power game since day one. And putting fission and fusion reactors into space is definitely a political issue.
Science is power. But here's the point: exploring an icy moon billions of kilometres away with a nuclear-powered spacecraft, which is the topic of the story, will probably not change the global balance of power. We've had nuclear powered submarines for I don't know how long, which are far closer to home. The US has portable fission reactors in trucks that can be driven around the country at will. There's trillions of flipping huge fusion reactors in space already, of which our sun is one (but no sustainable fusion reactors on Earth, I might add, and there won't be one launched into space for quite a while yet). Nuclear power is a more efficient way of storing and harnessing energy than the alternatives, and you wouldn't be objecting if another fuel source was being used. Perhaps you don't know enough about the issues here.
Yeah, you are right, I suppose: in US-style democracy, overwhelming public opinion doesn't matter, all that matters is how many tiny foreign governments the US can bully into giving verbal support to US policies. Sure, for your American sense of democracy, that may not matter. But to the rest of the world, "majority" and "minority" are defined in terms of people.
Right. Firstly, public opinion in the US was never overwhelmingly against the war. Secondly, you're bitter because the US government, together with other governments, made a decision which you don't support. You wouldn't be like that had the decision been for a policy that you do support, even if it had the same amount of public support. And the one thing that anyone with an ounce of sense is learning after Iraq is that most people, whether anti-war or the pro-war, are not psychic. The amount of misinformation flying about before, during and after the war (still) is astounding. But lets get a few things straight: there are a lot of people with strong feelings on the issue, and all of them have at least some of the facts wrong, including you, me, and G. W. Bush. Feelings about the war changed dramatically in many countries when it finished, because there was no even-close-to-unbiased coverage from inside Iraq until that happened. Before the war, I saw on the one hand predictions of millions of casualties, endless street fighting, and a repeat of Vietnam (none of which eventuated); and on the other hand, tales of large stockpiles of weapons and an impending terrorist crisis, which hasn't been substantiated either.
Your arrogance and ignorance is astounding. You seem to really believe that the US is like some shining economic beacon to the rest of the world, preventing starvation in developing nations around the world. Get a clue. US foreign aid is laughable and self-serving. The US has huge foreign debts, an enormous trade imbalance, and a huge budget deficit. Without a stead stream of money (and know-how) coming into the US from Europe and Japan, the US economy would fall apart and the US military couldn't be financed. For both security and economic development, the US is insignificant to the nations of Eastern Europe. And for all their economic and social problems, Eastern Europeans aren't generally starving.
He didn't say that the US was a shining economic beacon, or imply it. There aren't any shining economic beacons in the world, but developing strong trade relations with
Captialism requires a large, strong government to create and enforce property rights on economic resources.
You recognize that political beliefs aren't a simple single-dimensional space. But economic beliefs aren't either.
Capitalism does not require a strong governement. Does communism? Either can exist with or without a government to enforce the system on the population. The origins of lasse-faire capitalism were in societies that had small governments, and capitalism was far more of a social emergence than a politcal imposition. In early 18th century England, for example, government was far smaller than in any developed country these days.
If you're referring to things like copyrights, then take note: Advocating Copyrights or IP rights != capitalism. Having a police force, military, militia or societal traditions that discourage people from stealing other's "stuff" is necessary for capitalism, but does not imply a large, dictatorial government. Having law and order, and not having rampant raping, looting and pillaging, is necessary for virtually any form of civilised society, not just capitalism.
I suppose what I'm saying is that not everyone who advocates "capitalism" is talking about the same thing, just as talking about "liberalism" or "conservatism" can mean a wide variety of different things.
That's very difficult to do. Different graphics cards use slightly different algorithms to render scenes anyway, so there's no "canonical" or "correct" rendering. Many graphics cards also allow the user to enable or disable options such as antialiasing etc.
Even if you did have a correct rendering and tried to look for scenes that look different from the correct version, it's difficult to quantify how much the differences affect the user's perceived quality of the image. And how do you tell that a slight visual degradation is due to a driver cheat rather than a lower-grade graphics card?
Either you're a troll, or you don't know much about digital hardware...
FPGAs are pretty nifty technology, and quite common in the Real World. They're used in many, many products where the volume isn't huge and the time-to-market is important. Have a look at e.g. network cards, controllers, comms hardware, and some home appliances. Every time you see a chip branded "Xilinx" or "Altera", that's probably an FPGA or similar technology. These aren't small companies: Xilinx last year had revenues of over US$1 billion, and Altera had revenues of $91 million.
The point is not that FPGAs replace the functions that are already on GPUs. The point is that they provide more flexibility than a traditional GPU would, so a game can e.g. accelerate its particular physics engine, which may require some unusual combination of operations best done in hardware, but that isn't economical to put on GPUs everywhere 4 years before the game hits the market.
So you think that just because there isn't anything being done militarily about North Korea NOW, that we shouldn't do anything about Iraq? Just because that option isn't on the table yet, it doesn't mean that we should stop doing anything of the sort that could benefit people.
With that logic, would you argue that just because some people in the hospital are terminally ill, we should let everyone else in the hospital die? I didn't think so.
There was an article in the London Times on Tuesday. I think the title speaks for itself:
See men shredded, then say you don't back war.
Ouch. Apparently, if they like you, you go in head first rather than feet first. Remember that people had to plan every one of these executions out, purchase and maintain the human shredding machine, and witness it every day as part of their jobs. This truely is organized cruelty and oppression.
There are many first hand stories of Iraqi torture out there, but they just don't get on CNN much 'cause it doesn't make pleasant viewing to see someone recall the most horrifically painful moments of their life.
According to the (full) article, Windows Update sends a list of hardware installed on your system, but not a list of software. Version numbers for Windows stuff, like IE, are sent, but not any info about other software on your compouter.
Here's the deal on the aluminium tubes: If you don't know why aluminium tubes are needed to enrich uranium, then you probably don't know what you're talking about.
As it happens, those tubes were lined with a particular, very expensive, alloy, which is completely unnecessary when you're not enriching uranium. It has no other uses. The IAEA didn't find the tubes, but it doesn't mean that they weren't intercepted by an intelligence agency or hidden. Saddam did try to buy them.
Let's not forget that it's unlikely that his chemical weapons stocks have reduced since he kicked out weapons inspectors in '99. That stuff doesn't just go off, or disappear. You don't just lose hundreds of tons of nerve gas. He had substantial quantities of nerve gas back then. Keep in mind that biological and chemical weapons are less useful than conventional weapons against a prepared military (which the US is), so the only rationale for such a whole-scale development is to use them against civilians.
You don't think that war is very nice. Neither does anyone else. But watching civilians anywhere in the world die of nerve gas poisoning isn't that nice either. Which would you prefer? Are you willing to take personal responsibility if Saddam does sell these weapons to groups that use them against the US or her allies? This is the situation that the president faces. If he does nothing in the face of so much evidence which he apparently has, then people will be screaming for his blood if their friends and relatives die in such an attack.
Ditch the "oil war" idea. It's wrong. If the US really wanted Iraq's oil, don't you think that they would have cut a deal with them a long time ago, getting a cheaper price than the OPEC nations' price in return for a bit of slack from the UN on weapons inspections and trade sanctions (ongoing since the end of the gulf war) and some much-needed cash? There are a number of very intelligent people working for the gov't, and at least one of them would have come up with such a simple idea if that was their true objective. I'm sure there's other arrangements they could've negotiated if you don't think that Iraq would've accepted those terms.
You'd probably want to cast a and b to signed long longs before doing the subtraction to ensure that you got the right answer. Even then, an int wouldn't necessarily be large enough to hold the answer. (i.e. what if a=-1u and b=0? You get -1, when it should be 4 billion or so...)
DRM may not be secure even with TPCA: according to the AMI guy, TPCA doesn't support "memory curtaining", so it may be possible to snoop on decrypted data while it's in memory. The memory and protected video hardware stuff is the bit that most annoys me about Palladium and TPCA: there's absolutely no use for this except to the movie/music industries trying to flog per-use "content".
So why does an end user "need" TCPA or DRM or Palladium?
I don't think that they do. There are reasons for TCPA (but not DRM IMHO) on corporate desktops and servers, which account for a large chunk of computer sales. In these situations, the end user doesn't own the computer, and so the user doesn't have the private property rights that you mention. On the server side, if you're processing lots of encrypted data and doing lots of crypto hashes, having crypto facilities in hardware that can deal with large keys could give a performance and security boost.
But an admininstrator can run processes as localsystem. As an administrator, try running regedt32 like this:
at 9:00am/interactive "regedt32"
Change the time in the command to be one minute ahead of the current system time. Regedt32 will run as localsystem. As other users have pointed out, Admins can also create services and run them as localsystem.
I'm not the same person as the AC above. I just wanted to respond to your statement: Huh!?? ALL velocities in relativity depend on an FOR. That is the essence of relativistic doctrine. Are we talking about the same relativity here?
The 4-velocity in relativity is different to what you may be thinking of. Have you studied any relativity beyond 1st level uni physics? This is a geniune question, not an attempt to be patronising.
A 4-vector is a vector (or a tensor if you like) that represents a property of a particle independent of the observer's frame of reference. A simple example is the spacetime 4-vector: (x, y, z, ict). Notice that the Euclidean length (you use Euclidean lengths in special rel, but not general rel) of the 4-vector is indept. of the reference frame, because it represents a spacetime interval (sqrt(x^2 + y^2 + z^2 -(ct)^2)). In another FOR that has x=0, y=0, z=0, t=0 coinciding, the vector is still the same "length", and conceptually is the same vector, but in a different frame of reference the vector has different components. This is similar to a 2-D vector having different components when different axes are defined, but fundamentally is the same vector. Or, if you're familiar with QM, it's similar to being able to use an arbitrary orthogonal complete set of states as a basis.
Anyway, if you differentiate the spacetime 4-vector with respect to the proper time (normal time isn't Lorentz invariant, and the whole point is to get a Lorentz invariant quantity), you get a velocity 4-vector, which is what the original poster was talking about. A 4-vector is Lorentz invariant, i.e. independent of frame of reference. It's components are (gamma v_x, gamma v_y, gamma v_z, c gamma). The velocity of the object being observed may be zero in one of the frames under consideration, but also may not be.
You can similarly define the energy-momentum 4-vector P=m_0 (vel 4-vector) = (p_x, p_y, p_z, E/c). 4-vectors are also defined for many other things: the electromagnetic field, waves (not just EM waves), etc. etc.
I'm not an expert on general rel by any means, but what the grandparent said about general rel and E/M agrees with my understanding.
All this stuff is in kernel mode. The same synchronization routines used outside the kernel probably are used inside the kernel as well.
So it looks like (to me) that IE would call WaitForMultipleObjectsEx, which calls _NtWaitForMultipleObjects. The wait includes an I/O completion routine for the network data. The data was received, and the I/O completion routine needs to be marked as done (_NtRemoveIoCompletion). In the process, the kernel needs a lock on an internal data structure (_NtWaitForSingleObject, which can be called from user mode via WaitForSingleObject), and fails to make progress when it should, repeatedly reading from memory, waiting, reading from memory, etc.
Of course, this is based on an outsider's knowledge of the Windows API and the NT API. I've never seen the Windows source code, but the above scenario is plausible.
That looks like it might be a bug in NT's implementation of synchronization primitives. The combo of _NtReadVirtualMemory and _NTDelayExecution looks like a spinlock that's starving or not resolving itself properly.
Erm... I hate to spoil this, but quantum computers don't scale at the moment. You can expect maybe a 10 qbit machine this year or next. According to the quantum computing profs at my uni, you won't be factorizing reasonable-sized RSA keys with quantum computers for at least 10 years. They reckon the wait will probably be more than 20 years.
3. Get the current date from one of a number of trusted time servers on the Internet using crypto techniques.
4. Check to see if it was more than ~10 years since the computer was last booted up. If so, don't trust this computer's date and don't allow access to the media.
Changing-date attacks are pretty rudimentary. 30-day demo software authors have solved this problem already.
This is really more of the same stuff that's been discussed before. However, I'd like to point out a few issues that irk me about Microsoft's anti-GPL arguments.
Indirectly, they suggest that merely using GPL software could cause "viral" licensing problems for commercial companies. It doesn't. Of course, one only has to look at what Microsoft's business aim is: to sell software. If they can associate "GPL" with "bad", then their software will have an edge over GPL software where there is competition (in MS's biggest markets).
Their suggestion that Microsoft's licensing and "shared source" programs provide all of the freedoms with none of the downsides of GPL-like licenses. Of course, this is patently false: you're never allowed to just copy Microsoft shared source code and plonk it into your own product, which is the only time that the GPL kicks in. But virtually any other license has more freedoms than Microsoft's, including: the right to refuse automatic software updates; the right to transfer all copies of the software and the licence more than once; (in the case of a compiler) the right to license compiled programs under any licence of your choosing that doesn't require the library source code to be distributed; and the right to create competing implementations after seeing the source code. Of course, free software comes with more freedoms that just those listed above. They make a token statement that they've re-thought their licensing in response to the GPL, but mostly it's just gotten more restrictive, and attempted to shut out Windows GPL programs as much as possible. (Have a look at the Windows Media SDK licensing terms. Very very restrictive.)
Their suggestion that the GPL stifles innovation and creativity. Microsoft is using many of the ideas that were developed in the Linux kernel in recent years, which is fine, but then they suggest that the GPL stifles creativity, when in fact GPL-licenced code has inspired some of their ideas. Some of the most bleeding-edge stuff is developed as free software. Examples: ReiserFS, many other kernel projects, Mozilla, and KDE/Gnome.
The idea that publishing sample code for a standard under a GPL license is bad. Microsoft are free to read the source code and get ideas from it, but they aren't allowed to copy it if they don't want to distribute source code with their product. So it's a reference implementation that they can't copy and distribute under conditions of their chosing, so what? They suggest that TCP/IP wouldn't have gotten the widespread adoption that it did had the code been GPL licensed. Microsoft were late on the bandwagon with TCP/IP, and they don't use the BSD implementation in NT anyway, contrary to popular myth. They didn't copy the BSD implementation, so they wouldn't have had problems if the canonical implementation was GPL licensed either.
The bottom line is this: There are certainly reasons why businesses or individuals would not want to release their software under the GPL, but Microsoft wants to convince you of more than this. They want you to avoid using GPL software even if it's appropriate, they want governements to discourage (or prevent!) its use in acedemia even if it's appropriate, and they want to stamp out any and all development under the GPL on Windows.
Did you add on Win32K.sys (1.7MB in Win2k)? It's the USER and GDI parts of Win32 running in kernel mode. And there still isn't any filesystem, device driver or network stack code included in that...
Slashdot Mirror
PAT stands for "Performance Accelerating Technology" and is a CPU/chipset feature available only with Intel's high-end (consumer) chipset. It speeds up memory accesses by cutting out a clock cycle from the CPU/memory controller memory access request, and another clock cycle on the memory controller/DRAM interface. So DRAM accesses are two cycles earlier than they would otherwise be. I think the feature relies on asynchronous timing to eliminate the clock cycles.
The feature is normally enabled only on the 875 chipsets when the FSB is running at 800 MHz, and was thought to be completely disabled on the 865 chipsets (which only support 400 and 533 MHz bus speeds ?). However, the 865 enables PAT enabled for 400 and 533 MHz FSB speeds. The 865 and 875 are the same chip in all other respects (similar to how Celerons were the same chip as their higher-end cousins, with defective/disabled cache).
Asus have found out that the chipset doesn't disable PAT if it thinks the FSB/memory clock is running at 533 MHz, so they tell the chipset that the FSB is only 533 MHz but actually supply an 800 MHz FSB clock. There's a bit more fudging around with the clock generator and chipset register settings, but this is this gist of what happens.
I think the minimum recorded voltage that anyone's been electrocuted from is about 48V DC, a bit higher than the 42V of these batteries, so these batteries probably wouldn't deliver a fatal shock (especially since they're nominally 36V). You can still get a pretty nasty shock from 42V DC if you're stupid, though.
What's there to politicize? Science is power, and that makes it a key part of politics. Space exploration isn't some innocent, other-worldly endeavor, it's been part of the power game since day one. And putting fission and fusion reactors into space is definitely a political issue.
Science is power. But here's the point: exploring an icy moon billions of kilometres away with a nuclear-powered spacecraft, which is the topic of the story, will probably not change the global balance of power. We've had nuclear powered submarines for I don't know how long, which are far closer to home. The US has portable fission reactors in trucks that can be driven around the country at will. There's trillions of flipping huge fusion reactors in space already, of which our sun is one (but no sustainable fusion reactors on Earth, I might add, and there won't be one launched into space for quite a while yet). Nuclear power is a more efficient way of storing and harnessing energy than the alternatives, and you wouldn't be objecting if another fuel source was being used. Perhaps you don't know enough about the issues here.
Yeah, you are right, I suppose: in US-style democracy, overwhelming public opinion doesn't matter, all that matters is how many tiny foreign governments the US can bully into giving verbal support to US policies. Sure, for your American sense of democracy, that may not matter. But to the rest of the world, "majority" and "minority" are defined in terms of people.
Right. Firstly, public opinion in the US was never overwhelmingly against the war. Secondly, you're bitter because the US government, together with other governments, made a decision which you don't support. You wouldn't be like that had the decision been for a policy that you do support, even if it had the same amount of public support. And the one thing that anyone with an ounce of sense is learning after Iraq is that most people, whether anti-war or the pro-war, are not psychic. The amount of misinformation flying about before, during and after the war (still) is astounding. But lets get a few things straight: there are a lot of people with strong feelings on the issue, and all of them have at least some of the facts wrong, including you, me, and G. W. Bush. Feelings about the war changed dramatically in many countries when it finished, because there was no even-close-to-unbiased coverage from inside Iraq until that happened. Before the war, I saw on the one hand predictions of millions of casualties, endless street fighting, and a repeat of Vietnam (none of which eventuated); and on the other hand, tales of large stockpiles of weapons and an impending terrorist crisis, which hasn't been substantiated either.
Your arrogance and ignorance is astounding. You seem to really believe that the US is like some shining economic beacon to the rest of the world, preventing starvation in developing nations around the world. Get a clue. US foreign aid is laughable and self-serving. The US has huge foreign debts, an enormous trade imbalance, and a huge budget deficit. Without a stead stream of money (and know-how) coming into the US from Europe and Japan, the US economy would fall apart and the US military couldn't be financed. For both security and economic development, the US is insignificant to the nations of Eastern Europe. And for all their economic and social problems, Eastern Europeans aren't generally starving.
He didn't say that the US was a shining economic beacon, or imply it. There aren't any shining economic beacons in the world, but developing strong trade relations with
Sorry to point this out, but Mozilla just recently dropped its MNG support from the trunk until it's a bit more mature and MNG is more accepted.
You recognize that political beliefs aren't a simple single-dimensional space. But economic beliefs aren't either.
Capitalism does not require a strong governement. Does communism? Either can exist with or without a government to enforce the system on the population. The origins of lasse-faire capitalism were in societies that had small governments, and capitalism was far more of a social emergence than a politcal imposition. In early 18th century England, for example, government was far smaller than in any developed country these days.
If you're referring to things like copyrights, then take note: Advocating Copyrights or IP rights != capitalism. Having a police force, military, militia or societal traditions that discourage people from stealing other's "stuff" is necessary for capitalism, but does not imply a large, dictatorial government. Having law and order, and not having rampant raping, looting and pillaging, is necessary for virtually any form of civilised society, not just capitalism.
I suppose what I'm saying is that not everyone who advocates "capitalism" is talking about the same thing, just as talking about "liberalism" or "conservatism" can mean a wide variety of different things.
Even if you did have a correct rendering and tried to look for scenes that look different from the correct version, it's difficult to quantify how much the differences affect the user's perceived quality of the image. And how do you tell that a slight visual degradation is due to a driver cheat rather than a lower-grade graphics card?
FPGAs are pretty nifty technology, and quite common in the Real World. They're used in many, many products where the volume isn't huge and the time-to-market is important. Have a look at e.g. network cards, controllers, comms hardware, and some home appliances. Every time you see a chip branded "Xilinx" or "Altera", that's probably an FPGA or similar technology. These aren't small companies: Xilinx last year had revenues of over US$1 billion, and Altera had revenues of $91 million.
The point is not that FPGAs replace the functions that are already on GPUs. The point is that they provide more flexibility than a traditional GPU would, so a game can e.g. accelerate its particular physics engine, which may require some unusual combination of operations best done in hardware, but that isn't economical to put on GPUs everywhere 4 years before the game hits the market.
With that logic, would you argue that just because some people in the hospital are terminally ill, we should let everyone else in the hospital die? I didn't think so.
See men shredded, then say you don't back war.
Ouch. Apparently, if they like you, you go in head first rather than feet first. Remember that people had to plan every one of these executions out, purchase and maintain the human shredding machine, and witness it every day as part of their jobs. This truely is organized cruelty and oppression.
There are many first hand stories of Iraqi torture out there, but they just don't get on CNN much 'cause it doesn't make pleasant viewing to see someone recall the most horrifically painful moments of their life.
According to the (full) article, Windows Update sends a list of hardware installed on your system, but not a list of software. Version numbers for Windows stuff, like IE, are sent, but not any info about other software on your compouter.
As it happens, those tubes were lined with a particular, very expensive, alloy, which is completely unnecessary when you're not enriching uranium. It has no other uses. The IAEA didn't find the tubes, but it doesn't mean that they weren't intercepted by an intelligence agency or hidden. Saddam did try to buy them.
Let's not forget that it's unlikely that his chemical weapons stocks have reduced since he kicked out weapons inspectors in '99. That stuff doesn't just go off, or disappear. You don't just lose hundreds of tons of nerve gas. He had substantial quantities of nerve gas back then. Keep in mind that biological and chemical weapons are less useful than conventional weapons against a prepared military (which the US is), so the only rationale for such a whole-scale development is to use them against civilians.
You don't think that war is very nice. Neither does anyone else. But watching civilians anywhere in the world die of nerve gas poisoning isn't that nice either. Which would you prefer? Are you willing to take personal responsibility if Saddam does sell these weapons to groups that use them against the US or her allies? This is the situation that the president faces. If he does nothing in the face of so much evidence which he apparently has, then people will be screaming for his blood if their friends and relatives die in such an attack.
Ditch the "oil war" idea. It's wrong. If the US really wanted Iraq's oil, don't you think that they would have cut a deal with them a long time ago, getting a cheaper price than the OPEC nations' price in return for a bit of slack from the UN on weapons inspections and trade sanctions (ongoing since the end of the gulf war) and some much-needed cash? There are a number of very intelligent people working for the gov't, and at least one of them would have come up with such a simple idea if that was their true objective. I'm sure there's other arrangements they could've negotiated if you don't think that Iraq would've accepted those terms.
You'd probably want to cast a and b to signed long longs before doing the subtraction to ensure that you got the right answer. Even then, an int wouldn't necessarily be large enough to hold the answer. (i.e. what if a=-1u and b=0? You get -1, when it should be 4 billion or so...)
That ZDNet story is a 2001 article. I just checked ZDNet, and they don't seem to have a story on this problem yet.
DRM may not be secure even with TPCA: according to the AMI guy, TPCA doesn't support "memory curtaining", so it may be possible to snoop on decrypted data while it's in memory. The memory and protected video hardware stuff is the bit that most annoys me about Palladium and TPCA: there's absolutely no use for this except to the movie/music industries trying to flog per-use "content".
I don't think that they do. There are reasons for TCPA (but not DRM IMHO) on corporate desktops and servers, which account for a large chunk of computer sales. In these situations, the end user doesn't own the computer, and so the user doesn't have the private property rights that you mention. On the server side, if you're processing lots of encrypted data and doing lots of crypto hashes, having crypto facilities in hardware that can deal with large keys could give a performance and security boost.
Just curious... can you assign rights to bind to a privilaged port (1024) by user?
at 9:00am
Change the time in the command to be one minute ahead of the current system time. Regedt32 will run as localsystem. As other users have pointed out, Admins can also create services and run them as localsystem.
The 4-velocity in relativity is different to what you may be thinking of. Have you studied any relativity beyond 1st level uni physics? This is a geniune question, not an attempt to be patronising.
A 4-vector is a vector (or a tensor if you like) that represents a property of a particle independent of the observer's frame of reference. A simple example is the spacetime 4-vector: (x, y, z, ict). Notice that the Euclidean length (you use Euclidean lengths in special rel, but not general rel) of the 4-vector is indept. of the reference frame, because it represents a spacetime interval (sqrt(x^2 + y^2 + z^2 -(ct)^2)). In another FOR that has x=0, y=0, z=0, t=0 coinciding, the vector is still the same "length", and conceptually is the same vector, but in a different frame of reference the vector has different components. This is similar to a 2-D vector having different components when different axes are defined, but fundamentally is the same vector. Or, if you're familiar with QM, it's similar to being able to use an arbitrary orthogonal complete set of states as a basis.
Anyway, if you differentiate the spacetime 4-vector with respect to the proper time (normal time isn't Lorentz invariant, and the whole point is to get a Lorentz invariant quantity), you get a velocity 4-vector, which is what the original poster was talking about. A 4-vector is Lorentz invariant, i.e. independent of frame of reference. It's components are (gamma v_x, gamma v_y, gamma v_z, c gamma). The velocity of the object being observed may be zero in one of the frames under consideration, but also may not be.
You can similarly define the energy-momentum 4-vector P=m_0 (vel 4-vector) = (p_x, p_y, p_z, E/c). 4-vectors are also defined for many other things: the electromagnetic field, waves (not just EM waves), etc. etc.
I'm not an expert on general rel by any means, but what the grandparent said about general rel and E/M agrees with my understanding.
- _NtWaitForMultipleObjects@20 (multiple threads)
- _NtReplyWaitReceivePortEx@20 (2 threads)
- _NtRemoveIoCompletion@20 (2 threads)
- _NtWaitForSingleObject@12 (multiple threads)
All this stuff is in kernel mode. The same synchronization routines used outside the kernel probably are used inside the kernel as well.So it looks like (to me) that IE would call WaitForMultipleObjectsEx, which calls _NtWaitForMultipleObjects. The wait includes an I/O completion routine for the network data. The data was received, and the I/O completion routine needs to be marked as done (_NtRemoveIoCompletion). In the process, the kernel needs a lock on an internal data structure (_NtWaitForSingleObject, which can be called from user mode via WaitForSingleObject), and fails to make progress when it should, repeatedly reading from memory, waiting, reading from memory, etc.
Of course, this is based on an outsider's knowledge of the Windows API and the NT API. I've never seen the Windows source code, but the above scenario is plausible.
That looks like it might be a bug in NT's implementation of synchronization primitives. The combo of _NtReadVirtualMemory and _NTDelayExecution looks like a spinlock that's starving or not resolving itself properly.
Erm... I hate to spoil this, but quantum computers don't scale at the moment. You can expect maybe a 10 qbit machine this year or next. According to the quantum computing profs at my uni, you won't be factorizing reasonable-sized RSA keys with quantum computers for at least 10 years. They reckon the wait will probably be more than 20 years.
4. Check to see if it was more than ~10 years since the computer was last booted up. If so, don't trust this computer's date and don't allow access to the media.
Changing-date attacks are pretty rudimentary. 30-day demo software authors have solved this problem already.
The bottom line is this: There are certainly reasons why businesses or individuals would not want to release their software under the GPL, but Microsoft wants to convince you of more than this. They want you to avoid using GPL software even if it's appropriate, they want governements to discourage (or prevent!) its use in acedemia even if it's appropriate, and they want to stamp out any and all development under the GPL on Windows.
Did you add on Win32K.sys (1.7MB in Win2k)? It's the USER and GDI parts of Win32 running in kernel mode. And there still isn't any filesystem, device driver or network stack code included in that...