(Quick way to open - instead of copy/paste - if you use moz and tabs, and there is no blank space in the middle of the URL, double-click it to select, then drag to a new (or existing tab)
I've been told that you can't actually see a lot of the memory usage of IE since it isn't all reported in the iexplore process, but components are used elsewhere.
The thing is, EVERY other string produces a white screen with text on it. about:microsoft gives you a white screen and the word microsoft. about:foobar gives you a white screen and the word foobar. about:mozilla gives you a blank blue screen. changing any one letter of mozilla results in the white screen with the word on it.
One thing I've noticed is that most browsers download HTTP to cache first, so after getting a huge ISO onto one partition (where the cache is), it has to be copied to the other partition (waste of time). With FTP, the file gets downloaded directly.
As the AC who replied to you said, on Athlons, the caches are exclusive. The data will be in only one at a given time, so it is really effectively 640k. On the Intel chips, the data in L1 is also in L2, so the total is exactly the same as just the L2 size.
How does it beat burning a CD? Burning the floppy image to CD takes at most a minute. It takes that long to write a full floppy. At this point, we're equal. BUT... come boot time, teh whole floppy worth of data loads from the CD in a second, whereas it takes another minute of seeking and loading for the actual floppy.
CD-R's are either very slow, one time burns, or very slow, very incompatible CD-RW's. Neither is good if I need to sneakernet a bit of data.
Not really. How long does it take to write a whole floppy? Nearly a minute? And how long to read it back, including seek times? Maybe another minute? Plus a minute for every subsequent read.
How long does it take to burn a CD/CD-RW on a recent drive? Excluding lead-in/out, you can do well over 1800kb/sec (My two year old drive does something like that). Lead-in/out probably don't take more than 30-40 seconds. We're still faster on the write. On the reads, you can read more than the contents of a full floppy in less than a second.
This really isn't a reason to use a floppy. Plus, more and more "normal" CD-ROM drives can read CD-RWs. CD-Rs cost around $0.10 each anyway, so they're cheap, and in my experience floppies are LESS reliable.
Thats because we have MUCH better options than the floppy. TCP still rocks. Keyboards, well, people type "fast enough" on them that dvorak isn't required.
What the heck is with people saying PPC is "elegant" and x86 is "brute force"? The P4 has an EXTREMELY elegant core to execute instructions so fast. What makes PPC elegant? A higher IPC? Is it really that elegant if it costs more to do the same thing?
I use a PIC for some work. Its IPC is 1 - every instruction (except branches) take exactly one clock cycle. Is this PIC elegant? Maybe, by your definition. Is it a good solution for a desktop because it of its IPC? No way! It is 20 MHz.
I just don't get it. I think the whole "elegant" vs. "brute force" claim is just so Mac fanboys can feel good about something they really don't undersatnd.
I haven't written any such program. (Well, a lisp interpreter once a few years ago). Everything I said was based on what I've learned in CE and CS classes. Maybe I am wrong.
decoding x86 is a royal PITA because of the variable length instructions and the different modes. vmware and plex86 running on x86 are very fast because they run a lot of code on the real CPU, but bochs is cross-platform, so EVERYTHING has to be emulated (you have to read the next x bytes and figure out what instruction is there, perform the operation, and repeat. And, you have to fake all the other stuff, such as PCI, IDE, etc.)
Absolutely not. I would NEVER steal an ink refill, because it cost someone something (time and money) to manufacture it. Stealing this incurs extra costs. When someone downloads an MP3, the only cost incurred is bandwidth - specifically, that of the server and the client. The artist isn't actually hurt directly.
You do realize there are some pretty smart people at Microsoft, right? Presumably *nix coders are also intelligent. Could you provide some detailed system specs and benchmark results showing that disabling swap does not harm performance? An intelligent OS would not swap something to disk unnecessarily.
I may just be missing something - but presumably Windows programs would make an API call to get authentication... what stops wine from faking this? Is there some sort of privately signed, publically verified key that needs to be used that wouldn't be possible to obtain?
I imagine it felt worse because you had to make sure you wanted to commit - the default action would presumably be to not commit (if you don't do anything), whereas with undo, you act as if what you have is correct, and only do something extra if you catch an error.
Assuming your garage can hold 40881828809168530591375819139956085989380020574938 1512491823325275367\ 0039983761093737657581366182 3437132028369300928737 2136090488973662885\ 0749520857823194202487813723 5281529166119647272954 3623272112620364581\ 9171026696185476725881661520 6188703489047492973236 7903825810597884676\ 0087066526446068063036669029 6494498088117693882712 8484532375726579806\ 8929812355659309066834995984 8375737098966810233408 2736619960338101994\ 5191141043929531602040535969 8321364177283871960956 9923672820142531423\ 1154135179174732484135445198 3247750938845967420404 6551928328834053889\ 0325273138153871592525085498 7565463644 machines, your garage alone, assuming each machine is a laptop (1 foot by 10.5 inches by.75 inches =.055 cu ft), is 22485005845042691825256700526975847294159011316215 98318705028289014518521991068601555711669751400289 04226156031155108054674849768935514586791223647180 27568113682975479404841041365806000124899279966194 12005200544064682902012199234913836340378691897612 11352802347104195828836571804788658954533743467016 79663071973948464731635492066649280664961889379113 96795612619986759247791660665540443174562837455051 40978185956096985512757416124238112229478340767502 97506129578526345802005107839228271347743485461028 66274494859078626301636528208122256035605808587296 389678900225984629375888797024316100500 cu ft, or 1527535236702389162673723920219749205081264399 3997 94854961724120329145966644337960324143415902552971 01026348539927449571224231277983755226968934762883 30131192099041893874203522455126277928716888646789 13471024749083929443537501958528496605970911808346 43237972731512049725281892376321009516853701515505 32213295993376636606761683794791710597279158733889 15625410752988437806384466996891670866835727072514 84706924425210063732923007056672984301764158218385 38559374507144193012960606842701365401974808359445 55991169536841535880632719814010901480209322876514 1988381062706528888227254663 cubic miles.
13600000000 light years for the observed universe: 186000 mps * 3600 sph = 669600000mph * 24hpd * 365.25dpy = 5869713600000 miles per light year. Thus, the farthest observed object is 79828104960000000000000 miles away.
The volume of a sphere extending from the Sun to this object 13.6b light years away is approximately 20348268066000324435755076157440000000000000000000 00000000000000000000 cubic miles.
Therefore, your garage is 7506954556268743857175731713285829597245889967 6737 67278409202199204184199626823913221118601230384789 69615772672230618996386111621561776499129478319286 64756117518223656440512561382444347413642325197110 56738823839270223873000969599844183353687342203120 56527978054364910636301046261986873080375457073203 06038764208187242347396911934568567073598816809777 57333465244156873121011927106030406077422213778744 80769462038768245779346227201445299292993670038386 15124565775569113763528356856665926430955287721778 43293464 times larger than the observable universe. Damn, you own a LOT of land:-)
Well, XBox seems to be a precursor to Palladium. If he cracks it, then the break could be used as an example of the problems with such security measures, and it would have major repercussions (sp?).
However, based on what my friends who understand crypto say, a 2048-bit key is pretty tough to crack, so success is unlikely even with a distributed project.
Actually you are somewhat wrong. The cards themselves are fixed, as you said, but the drivers can do certain things in software. That is how my geforce2 (DX7 card) can play newer games (DX8) - some of the features are done in software (as in, on the CPU - not programmable parts of the card)
Slashdot Mirror
And how about this very annoying bug?
9 33
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=184
(Quick way to open - instead of copy/paste - if you use moz and tabs, and there is no blank space in the middle of the URL, double-click it to select, then drag to a new (or existing tab)
I've been told that you can't actually see a lot of the memory usage of IE since it isn't all reported in the iexplore process, but components are used elsewhere.
The thing is, EVERY other string produces a white screen with text on it. about:microsoft gives you a white screen and the word microsoft. about:foobar gives you a white screen and the word foobar. about:mozilla gives you a blank blue screen. changing any one letter of mozilla results in the white screen with the word on it.
Can someone explain what exactly Meta is supposed to be, compared to Ctrl and Alt?
One thing I've noticed is that most browsers download HTTP to cache first, so after getting a huge ISO onto one partition (where the cache is), it has to be copied to the other partition (waste of time). With FTP, the file gets downloaded directly.
As the AC who replied to you said, on Athlons, the caches are exclusive. The data will be in only one at a given time, so it is really effectively 640k. On the Intel chips, the data in L1 is also in L2, so the total is exactly the same as just the L2 size.
A p3 has full size L2, 8-way associative. a celery has half-size L2, 4-way associative. An xbox chip is half-size but still 8-way associative.
n-way associative has something to do with letting you find something in the cache fast. more = better, but takes more chip area.
How does it beat burning a CD? Burning the floppy image to CD takes at most a minute. It takes that long to write a full floppy. At this point, we're equal. BUT... come boot time, teh whole floppy worth of data loads from the CD in a second, whereas it takes another minute of seeking and loading for the actual floppy.
CD-R's are either very slow, one time burns, or very slow, very incompatible CD-RW's. Neither is good if I need to sneakernet a bit of data.
Not really. How long does it take to write a whole floppy? Nearly a minute? And how long to read it back, including seek times? Maybe another minute? Plus a minute for every subsequent read.
How long does it take to burn a CD/CD-RW on a recent drive? Excluding lead-in/out, you can do well over 1800kb/sec (My two year old drive does something like that). Lead-in/out probably don't take more than 30-40 seconds. We're still faster on the write. On the reads, you can read more than the contents of a full floppy in less than a second.
This really isn't a reason to use a floppy. Plus, more and more "normal" CD-ROM drives can read CD-RWs. CD-Rs cost around $0.10 each anyway, so they're cheap, and in my experience floppies are LESS reliable.
Thats because we have MUCH better options than the floppy. TCP still rocks. Keyboards, well, people type "fast enough" on them that dvorak isn't required.
What the heck is with people saying PPC is "elegant" and x86 is "brute force"? The P4 has an EXTREMELY elegant core to execute instructions so fast. What makes PPC elegant? A higher IPC? Is it really that elegant if it costs more to do the same thing?
I use a PIC for some work. Its IPC is 1 - every instruction (except branches) take exactly one clock cycle. Is this PIC elegant? Maybe, by your definition. Is it a good solution for a desktop because it of its IPC? No way! It is 20 MHz.
I just don't get it. I think the whole "elegant" vs. "brute force" claim is just so Mac fanboys can feel good about something they really don't undersatnd.
I haven't written any such program. (Well, a lisp interpreter once a few years ago). Everything I said was based on what I've learned in CE and CS classes. Maybe I am wrong.
decoding x86 is a royal PITA because of the variable length instructions and the different modes. vmware and plex86 running on x86 are very fast because they run a lot of code on the real CPU, but bochs is cross-platform, so EVERYTHING has to be emulated (you have to read the next x bytes and figure out what instruction is there, perform the operation, and repeat. And, you have to fake all the other stuff, such as PCI, IDE, etc.)
As long as they can't get the key, it is actually secure. So you should just need to delete the private key (well, overwrite it a bunch of times).
security through obscurity? tsk tsk.
You should check out MemTest86 if you are having any ram trouble. It detects pretty much EVERY ram problem, including intermittent failures.
If bad ram is preventing you from booting, well, then it should be pretty obvious which stick is bad.
Absolutely not. I would NEVER steal an ink refill, because it cost someone something (time and money) to manufacture it. Stealing this incurs extra costs. When someone downloads an MP3, the only cost incurred is bandwidth - specifically, that of the server and the client. The artist isn't actually hurt directly.
You do realize there are some pretty smart people at Microsoft, right? Presumably *nix coders are also intelligent. Could you provide some detailed system specs and benchmark results showing that disabling swap does not harm performance? An intelligent OS would not swap something to disk unnecessarily.
I may just be missing something - but presumably Windows programs would make an API call to get authentication... what stops wine from faking this? Is there some sort of privately signed, publically verified key that needs to be used that wouldn't be possible to obtain?
I imagine it felt worse because you had to make sure you wanted to commit - the default action would presumably be to not commit (if you don't do anything), whereas with undo, you act as if what you have is correct, and only do something extra if you catch an error.
Disclaimer: I've never used that program
Assuming your garage can hold 40881828809168530591375819139956085989380020574938 1512491823325275367\2 3437132028369300928737 2136090488973662885\3 5281529166119647272954 3623272112620364581\0 6188703489047492973236 7903825810597884676\9 6494498088117693882712 8484532375726579806\4 8375737098966810233408 2736619960338101994\9 8321364177283871960956 9923672820142531423\8 3247750938845967420404 6551928328834053889\8 7565463644 machines, your garage alone, assuming each machine is a laptop (1 foot by 10.5 inches by .75 inches = .055 cu ft), is 22485005845042691825256700526975847294159011316215 98318705028289014518521991068601555711669751400289 04226156031155108054674849768935514586791223647180 27568113682975479404841041365806000124899279966194 12005200544064682902012199234913836340378691897612 11352802347104195828836571804788658954533743467016 79663071973948464731635492066649280664961889379113 96795612619986759247791660665540443174562837455051 40978185956096985512757416124238112229478340767502 97506129578526345802005107839228271347743485461028 66274494859078626301636528208122256035605808587296 3896789002259846293758887970243161005009 3997 94854961724120329145966644337960324143415902552971 01026348539927449571224231277983755226968934762883 30131192099041893874203522455126277928716888646789 13471024749083929443537501958528496605970911808346 43237972731512049725281892376321009516853701515505 32213295993376636606761683794791710597279158733889 15625410752988437806384466996891670866835727072514 84706924425210063732923007056672984301764158218385 38559374507144193012960606842701365401974808359445 55991169536841535880632719814010901480209322876514 1988381062706528888227254663
0 00000000000000000000 cubic miles.
7 6737 67278409202199204184199626823913221118601230384789 69615772672230618996386111621561776499129478319286 64756117518223656440512561382444347413642325197110 56738823839270223873000969599844183353687342203120 56527978054364910636301046261986873080375457073203 06038764208187242347396911934568567073598816809777 57333465244156873121011927106030406077422213778744 80769462038768245779346227201445299292993670038386 15124565775569113763528356856665926430955287721778 43293464 :-)
003998376109373765758136618
074952085782319420248781372
917102669618547672588166152
008706652644606806303666902
892981235565930906683499598
519114104392953160204053596
115413517917473248413544519
032527313815387159252508549
cu ft, or
152753523670238916267372392021974920508126439
cubic miles.
13600000000 light years for the observed universe: 186000 mps * 3600 sph = 669600000mph * 24hpd * 365.25dpy = 5869713600000 miles per light year.
Thus, the farthest observed object is 79828104960000000000000 miles away.
The volume of a sphere extending from the Sun to this object 13.6b light years away is approximately 2034826806600032443575507615744000000000000000000
Therefore, your garage is
750695455626874385717573171328582959724588996
times larger than the observable universe. Damn, you own a LOT of land
No, it is about 8 times faster. That is a LOT less than 8 orders of magnitude.
Well, XBox seems to be a precursor to Palladium. If he cracks it, then the break could be used as an example of the problems with such security measures, and it would have major repercussions (sp?).
However, based on what my friends who understand crypto say, a 2048-bit key is pretty tough to crack, so success is unlikely even with a distributed project.
Actually you are somewhat wrong. The cards themselves are fixed, as you said, but the drivers can do certain things in software. That is how my geforce2 (DX7 card) can play newer games (DX8) - some of the features are done in software (as in, on the CPU - not programmable parts of the card)
shit-fountain link