> The right to vote is a constitutional right. > Nowhere in the constitution does it say that presenting a government issued ID
You've got that precisely backwards. Please go spend a few minutes reading the Constitution. It isn't very long. Here's the relevant portion: -- Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors --
The only people who have a vote under the Constitution are those APPOINTED by the state, not just issued an ID.
States have used different methods for choosing electors. Currently, there are two different systems in use for the "first choice" method, with other methods in place in case the first method doesn't work out.
In 11 states plus DC, the first-choice method is to choose electors who promise to vote for the candidate who received the highest number of votes NATIONWIDE. That method is to be used if and when a few more states pass the same law.
Two states, Nebraska and Maine, choose electors proportionately to the results of an election by the citizens.
In the other 37 states, at the moment the first-choice method is to hold an election in which citizens can vote for electors who intend to vote for a certain candidate, and the state sends electors who are expected to probably support which ever candidate received the most citizen votes in the state. That's a STATE LAW saying they'll have an election, and specifying how that election will be conducted. The US Constitution makes no mention of average people voting.
Individual rights that ARE specified in the Constitution include: Freedom of the press Freedom of religion Freedom of assembly Right of petition Right to bear arms Right to remain silent Right to a fair trial
That list isn't exhaustive. The states and the people also have a Constitutional right to be free of any interference by the federal government outside of the items that the feds are authorized to do in Article 1, section 8. Article 1 says, and the tenth amendment repeats, the the federal government may not do any other things. All other rights and powers are reserved to the states ans the people.
> the attackers used multiple Microsoft services and products when setting up 4 of the 6 domains. My guess is that Microsoft was able to identify the attackers based on the collective information used when setting up the domains and websites.
That, and if the site is on Microsoft infrastructure, MS can see that the submit.asp script sends the logins to bortnikov@fsb.gov.ru or some GRU endpoint. That's a pretty good hint too.:)
Not only how they were set up, using which accounts, from where, but also how the sites operated. Also who they targeted, etc. Those think tanks aren't the top conservative think tanks. If anyone else attacked those two before, it's probably the same people. Other attackers would more likely go after the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute...
> Describing it as more of a hypervisor is along the lines of what I was thinking; although having a full independent kernel on each core is a bit much I think. Perhaps a very limited kernel, without drivers but with limited memory management capabilities is in order.
"Without drivers" is exactly how I use virtualization, and how I believe it's most often done at scale. The guests use virtio, not hardware drivers. The kernel is effectively divided into one thing that ONLY handles hardware, and completely separate thing that is ignorant of the hardware but responsible for scheduling user processes and that sort of thing. The "hardware kernel" is the hypervisor. The other thing that provides kernel-like userland is the guest kernel. The CPU runs the guest in ring 1 (guest mode) rather than ring 0 (supervisor or kernel mode). We CALL it a "guest kernel", but the CPU doesn't run it in the same mode as an actual kernel. The hypervisor is the real kernel, as far as how the CPU treats it.
What we find is that the kernel (or kernel-like thing) performs operations over and over that don't require direct access to CPU registers, but do require one part of the kernel to talk to another part. For efficiency, those needs to run in the same process space, using memory accesses. In other words, that chunk needs to be monolithic. But because it doesn't need direct access to CPU registers, it doesn't have to be THE kernel. It can be a monolithic guest kernel that is oblivious to the hardware, so it doesn't need drivers, just virtio.
I haven't seen yet how Microsoft linked this particular incident, but in general there are many ways. Each group has their own favored tools, techniques, and overall style. When you do it for a living, you get to know them. All combined, it's like a pop radio DJ identifying a new Justin Bieber song, the DJ knows Bieber's sound.
Some groups specialize in certain malware. They have one or two members who are good at actually writing the malware etc. They keep making improvements or variations on the same malware. Other members distribute the malware, repeatedly using the same methods, targeting the same type of targets. They host the malware or other web resources in the same places that worked well last time. Sometimes they talk about things on hacker forums. If you've been a member of such a forum for a few years, most people there assume you're okay - not a cop.
You may recall a few years ago someone called "Stonetewr" was asking on Reddit about how to delete evidence from a server for "a very VIP". Paul Combetta, who worked on Clinton's server, used the email address stonetear@gmail.com and used the name Stonetear on Etsy. Knowing that Stonetear wanted to wipe a server for "a very VIP" a day or two before someone at Combetta's company wiped Hillary's server, and knowing that Combetta goes by Stonetear, it's not hard to figure out that Combetta was working on wiping Hillary's server. No IP tracing required, and it doesn't matter how many proxies and VPNs he used.
On Slashdot, if a new account popped up called JelloLover and they uses ten times as many commas as grammar would indicate, while randomly capitalizing a few words for no reason and saying the things that Jellomizer says, some of us would recognize that's probably Jellomizer's new account. It's similar with the crackers - you get to know them.
Before the US government publicly accuses the Russian government of a specific attack, we can expect the NSA and others would make use of their rather significant data collection capabilities to make some even firmer connections. That's not necessary in order in order for someone who follows the Russian hackers every day to be able to recognize them, though.
Someone might say "it could be a false flag! Someone could impersonate the FSB, just like someone could impersonate Jellomizer or MDSolar!" Yeah, someone COULD post something silly about solar electric, breathlessly pitching whatever MDSolar's company is selling this month. Which would make it look like - MDSolar is spamming his products again? We'd think it was MDSolar because the impersonator was acting like MDSolar, which would fool us into thinking that MDSolar acts like MDSolar. The job of the FSB is to do cyberattacks on Russia's rivals. If someone were being tricky and trying to make a hack look like the work of the FSB, they'd be making it look like FSB is doing their job. I guess maybe the NSA wants Alexander Bortnikov to get a raise?
I notice that Governor Jerry Brown, the leading proponent of this boondoggle, accidentally told the truth in his recent State of State speech. Again voicing his support for the never-ending building project, he said it would last over a hundred years.
The page you linked to mentions that Brandenburg (1969) held that political speech which may be politically dangerous is protected. That's because the first amendment was written with political speech in mind. Brandenburg in no affects the proverbial "shouting fire in a crowded theater".
Just five years later, SCOTUS held in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), there is "no constitutional value in false statements of fact".
Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater would be a "false statement of fact" for which there is little protection, and the government has a strong legitimate interest in protecting from deaths and injuries from trampling and other injuries caused by such an action.
I'm an American, so I am accustomed to American English. Maths makes perfect sense to me.
The symbols "cue" can mean completely different things in different languages. The arrow symbol means completely different, unrelated, things in different algebras. I literally do relational algebra in my sleep, and barely remember linear algebra at all. Relational algebra and linear algebra have pretty much nothing at all to do one one another, yet both are algebras. Much like Japanese and German and both spoken languages.
Number theory and geometry are pretty much unrelated topics. Just as chemistry and geography are sciences, number theory and geometry are maths.
To me, "maths" is just as logical as "sciences". It makes little sense to act like astronomy and biology are the same thing. They are different sciences. Ternary logic is a very different math than trigonometry, though both study a triad.
The measurement from the left edge to right edge determines the resolution - even if there are gaps. Telescopes for longer wavelengths often have gaps of several meters, I order to stretch out each dimension. Have a look at thr VLA - it's shaped like a Y, with nothing over most of the surface area.
While the max dimension edge-to-edge determines the resolution, the surface area determines the minimum brightness of objects the telescope can see. That is, how faint/weak something can be and still be detected by the telescope.
* Yes, the VLA operates on colors (wavelengths) beyond what the human eye can see. We call those colors radio. This makes no difference - its just another wavelength of EMR.
Context switching with core pinning on a 12 core, hyperthreaded processor takes several microseconds in total. 1600ns for the actual switch, then a multiple of that for for LLC, etc. Contrast in-context memory access of 1ns with cache hit, up to 12ns for cache miss. Micro-kernel with many cores is 100-1,000 times slower.
So then maybe you start making changes to the micro-kernel model in order to have it work well on physical processors. Maybe you ask "how CAN we use SMP to separate concerns, putting aside any old assumptions from ukernel religion and instead trying to accomplish the goals by using many cores effectively?" Starting with the goals of micro-kernel evangelists and then going where the facts take you, you end up writing a hypervisor.
Have you seen the Combos snack food? It's a little tube of cracker or pretzel filled with cheese flavored filling, or pizza flavored filling. They are sold at gas stations next to the chips and crackers. That idea started out as a croissant stuffed with crab meat. Through product development, it became something rather different - ans successful.
It's not that what the ukernel advocates we're trying to accomplish was wrong, or even that their implementation was completely bananas. It's just that as you revise and extend the micro-kernel ideas to have them work well, it develops into virtualization, with what was the kernel becoming the hypervisor. That works well. What doesn't work is a religious attachment to the initial ideas of how a micro-kernel could be implemented and how it might work. Those were just ideas, like the croissant with crab meat idea. Developing it into something that works requires letting go of the emotional attachment to crab.
The thing is, it's not about time to market. It's about time to execute an operation. Fifty years is enough time to bring something to market.
Memory access takes half a tick, Double Data Rate RAM (DDR) transfers data on the rising and falling edge.
Context switching is an order of magnitude slower, theoretically, and two orders of magnitude in real life. As Meltdown and Spectre remind us, when switching context you have to flush all the caches, meaning everything is going to cache miss after a switch.
Microsoft and Apple didn't give up on the micro-kernel idea because they wanted to get something out the door, they gave up on that idea because it does not work. Operations take around 50 times longer to complete, especially on larger multi-tasking systems. Anywhere performance matters at all, message passing fails miserably.
It's not a matter of "It's always been that way". In fact the opposite - the point is they DID try micro-kernel, many people tried it, and every time they found out (again) that it does not work.
It reminds me of the policy debates that come up and people want the federal government to try policy X. Someone points out that because policy X sounds like an interesting idea to try, it WAS tried in California, New York, Chicago, the UK, and elsewhere. Everywhere it was tried, the effect it had was exactly the opposite of what was intended. Yet some people can't give up on evangelizing enforcing policy X on the federal level, because it sounded good. Yeah maybe it did sound interesting, that's why numerous people tried it, and it turns it it did not work. Time to try things that can work well.
Congratulations on finding one oddball application for which someone decided to use a micro-kernel. Specifically where it's not a general-purpose computer, performance doesn't matter, and there's no need to run more than one application at a time.
The next time I'm trying to build a slow as hell access KVM on specially designed hardware, I'll consider a micro-kernel. Only, of course, if I can't use a GPL kernel because I'm trying to keep everything secret.
Doesn't exist? Micro kernels have to existed since 1969. They were a fad, a buzz word, in the early 1980s, like block chain in now. Then again in the 1990s, a resurgence of micro-kernel articles in the trade mags, and academic research. Some of the largest companies tried micro-kernel. They found out it doesn't work. The services that run in kernel mode, within the kernel address space, on all successful kernels are there for a reason. Multiple separate kernel THREADS work, and even a monolithic kernel like Linux has separate kernel threads.
What eventaully happened to achieve many of the goals of micro-kernel advocates, using some of the same ideas, is supervisors. Hypervisor's can be pretty small (or very large), and run a kernel as a process (not many processes) on top.
> from people who know even less than you do.
One of us is a kernel developer, the other thinks micro-kernels (many of them, btw) don't exist. I enjoy talking to someone who has a different point of view than I, but next time you come to insult me please bring a clue. I see you don't have one today.
Security isn't just confidentiality. It's Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availably (CIA). If the machine isn't running, it isn't provide secure services to the users.
The micro-kernel architecture ala Tanenbaum fails the security requirement of Availability; micro-kernel systems don't provide what people need. People use Linux because the design works well for building what people need.
> It also makes maintainence easier. Each application protocol having its own encryption leads to a lot of wheel reinventing and unnecessary man hours maintaining software.
I do vulnerability scanning and weak encryption issues are very common. Weak protocols, weak certs, etc. Often these are on devices or services that people don't think about very often. Using an ipsec or similar VPN tunnel between sites means EVERYTHING going over the wire is encrypted properly, by maintaining just one configuration. You may also want some things encrypted on the local network.
Now that you pointed it out, all of Jellomizer's posts are really annoying to read.
Jellomizer:
A comma is used when you have a complete sentence and add a few additional words the clarify the sentence (but not completely change the meaning). The "few additional words" can't be a sentence on their own. Those two parts are called the "independent clause" (independent sentence) and the "dependent clause" (added words).
If the two parts are each complete sentences you separate them with a period. Occasionally you can use a semicolon when grammatically they could be separate but you want to put them together.
For example only one of commas should be there -- The Ampex sign, is a local landmark. While Ampex may had done some important innovation, I wouldn't deem it historic, worthy of presentation. Landmarks change. The blue barn was just painted red, The sports stadium had changed sponsors. Just because something is well known or had done important things, doesn't mean it needs to be preserved for prosperity. --
"The Ampex sign is a local landmark." Not "The Ampex sign, is a local landmark."
That's because neither "the Ampex sign" nor "is a local landmark" is a sentence.
"change. The blue barn was just painted red, The sports stadium had changed sponsors."
Two separate sentences. Use a period. The parallel structure here indicates this might be intended to be basically a short poem so a semicolon could be used to separate the two "lines" of the poem.
"While Ampex may had done some important innovation, I wouldn't deem it historic, worthy of presentation."
Here is the one place a comma makes sense. "While Ampex may had done some important innovation, I wouldn't deem it historic" is a complete sentence. Adding "worthy of presentation" enhances the meaning so it should be separated by a comma.
The government has no compelling interest to get everybody who drove through the neighborhood 30 minutes after the crime. Only people who were actually very near the crime scene at the time it happened.
People who happened to go through the area have not consented to having the government examine their location history and there is no probable cause for the government to do so.
An unrelated issue is how well informed they may be with their "informed consent" about what information Google keeps. That ends up in whataboutism, a fallacy. Anyway, Google doesn't send guys with guns to raid my house at 2AM when they screw up, the FBI does that. Google just shows me the wrong ads when they get it wrong. So I may reasonably consent to different things re Google vs the FBI.
> I don't think you should be able to request information about a large number of people, most of whom are innocent, to maybe find just one guy.
Agreed.
> If you have *a* suspect and you want to build a case by requesting information regarding his whereabouts from his cell phone company, plus google, I agree.
IF they have probable cause and a warrant, agreed.
Here we have a class that doesn't fit either of the above. They don't need info about many people. They don't have the name of a suspect.
They have evidence that the (one) perpetrator or team repeated the crime in several locations at known times. They can ask Google for the name of the ONE person who was at all crimes. Google can run a quick database query to get one name, the very likely perp. Obviously then police would follow up and gather appropriate evidence.
I (and SCOTUS) think there is an interesting distinction between the government saying "give us data on everyone so we can see if any of it is interesting" vs "here are some criteria which will identify the armed robber. Let us know if you have the name of the person who fits these very specific criteria."
By way of analogy, it would generally be unconstitutional for the FBI to subpoena all of my emails in order to see if I ever talked to Paul Combetta. It would be legal for them to ask for "any emails you exchanged with Paul Combetta in July 2014 about wiping servers". Specificity matters.
Of the nine robberies, I would bet only one person was at three or more of them.
The 30 minutes time frame before and after, and two of nine, seems a bit broad to me. Suppose the FBI had asked Google:
Please let us know if you have records of one person being at at least three of these armed robberies, within 5-10 minutes of when the robbery occurred.
That would identify approximately one person, the armed robber. If Google has that information, I don't see why the FBI shouldn't ask for it.
Sounds like perhaps swimming is very popular in Canada? So kids learn how to swim, and therefore don't drown easily? Parents grew up swimming and enjoy it, so they get in the water with their kids?
Slashdot Mirror
> The right to vote is a constitutional right.
> Nowhere in the constitution does it say that presenting a government issued ID
You've got that precisely backwards. Please go spend a few minutes reading the Constitution. It isn't very long. Here's the relevant portion:
--
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors
--
The only people who have a vote under the Constitution are those APPOINTED by the state, not just issued an ID.
States have used different methods for choosing electors. Currently, there are two different systems in use for the "first choice" method, with other methods in place in case the first method doesn't work out.
In 11 states plus DC, the first-choice method is to choose electors who promise to vote for the candidate who received the highest number of votes NATIONWIDE. That method is to be used if and when a few more states pass the same law.
Two states, Nebraska and Maine, choose electors proportionately to the results of an election by the citizens.
In the other 37 states, at the moment the first-choice method is to hold an election in which citizens can vote for electors who intend to vote for a certain candidate, and the state sends electors who are expected to probably support which ever candidate received the most citizen votes in the state. That's a STATE LAW saying they'll have an election, and specifying how that election will be conducted. The US Constitution makes no mention of average people voting.
Individual rights that ARE specified in the Constitution include:
Freedom of the press
Freedom of religion
Freedom of assembly
Right of petition
Right to bear arms
Right to remain silent
Right to a fair trial
That list isn't exhaustive. The states and the people also have a Constitutional right to be free of any interference by the federal government outside of the items that the feds are authorized to do in Article 1, section 8. Article 1 says, and the tenth amendment repeats, the the federal government may not do any other things. All other rights and powers are reserved to the states ans the people.
> the attackers used multiple Microsoft services and products when setting up 4 of the 6 domains. My guess is that Microsoft was able to identify the attackers based on the collective information used when setting up the domains and websites.
That, and if the site is on Microsoft infrastructure, MS can see that the submit.asp script sends the logins to bortnikov@fsb.gov.ru or some GRU endpoint. That's a pretty good hint too. :)
Not only how they were set up, using which accounts, from where, but also how the sites operated. Also who they targeted, etc. Those think tanks aren't the top conservative think tanks. If anyone else attacked those two before, it's probably the same people. Other attackers would more likely go after the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute ...
> It is not possible to read this and honestly believe it to say that it wall take over a hundred years to build it.
In other news, Politifact says that Trump is not actually an Oompa Loompa. To the non-ideologically blinded, this is easy to understand.
https://www.dictionary.com/bro...
> Describing it as more of a hypervisor is along the lines of what I was thinking; although having a full independent kernel on each core is a bit much I think. Perhaps a very limited kernel, without drivers but with limited memory management capabilities is in order.
"Without drivers" is exactly how I use virtualization, and how I believe it's most often done at scale. The guests use virtio, not hardware drivers. The kernel is effectively divided into one thing that ONLY handles hardware, and completely separate thing that is ignorant of the hardware but responsible for scheduling user processes and that sort of thing. The "hardware kernel" is the hypervisor. The other thing that provides kernel-like userland is the guest kernel. The CPU runs the guest in ring 1 (guest mode) rather than ring 0 (supervisor or kernel mode). We CALL it a "guest kernel", but the CPU doesn't run it in the same mode as an actual kernel. The hypervisor is the real kernel, as far as how the CPU treats it.
What we find is that the kernel (or kernel-like thing) performs operations over and over that don't require direct access to CPU registers, but do require one part of the kernel to talk to another part. For efficiency, those needs to run in the same process space, using memory accesses. In other words, that chunk needs to be monolithic. But because it doesn't need direct access to CPU registers, it doesn't have to be THE kernel. It can be a monolithic guest kernel that is oblivious to the hardware, so it doesn't need drivers, just virtio.
I haven't seen yet how Microsoft linked this particular incident, but in general there are many ways. Each group has their own favored tools, techniques, and overall style. When you do it for a living, you get to know them. All combined, it's like a pop radio DJ identifying a new Justin Bieber song, the DJ knows Bieber's sound.
Some groups specialize in certain malware. They have one or two members who are good at actually writing the malware etc. They keep making improvements or variations on the same malware. Other members distribute the malware, repeatedly using the same methods, targeting the same type of targets. They host the malware or other web resources in the same places that worked well last time. Sometimes they talk about things on hacker forums. If you've been a member of such a forum for a few years, most people there assume you're okay - not a cop.
You may recall a few years ago someone called "Stonetewr" was asking on Reddit about how to delete evidence from a server for "a very VIP". Paul Combetta, who worked on Clinton's server, used the email address stonetear@gmail.com and used the name Stonetear on Etsy. Knowing that Stonetear wanted to wipe a server for "a very VIP" a day or two before someone at Combetta's company wiped Hillary's server, and knowing that Combetta goes by Stonetear, it's not hard to figure out that Combetta was working on wiping Hillary's server. No IP tracing required, and it doesn't matter how many proxies and VPNs he used.
On Slashdot, if a new account popped up called JelloLover and they uses ten times as many commas as grammar would indicate, while randomly capitalizing a few words for no reason and saying the things that Jellomizer says, some of us would recognize that's probably Jellomizer's new account. It's similar with the crackers - you get to know them.
Before the US government publicly accuses the Russian government of a specific attack, we can expect the NSA and others would make use of their rather significant data collection capabilities to make some even firmer connections. That's not necessary in order in order for someone who follows the Russian hackers every day to be able to recognize them, though.
Someone might say "it could be a false flag! Someone could impersonate the FSB, just like someone could impersonate Jellomizer or MDSolar!" Yeah, someone COULD post something silly about solar electric, breathlessly pitching whatever MDSolar's company is selling this month. Which would make it look like - MDSolar is spamming his products again? We'd think it was MDSolar because the impersonator was acting like MDSolar, which would fool us into thinking that MDSolar acts like MDSolar. The job of the FSB is to do cyberattacks on Russia's rivals. If someone were being tricky and trying to make a hack look like the work of the FSB, they'd be making it look like FSB is doing their job. I guess maybe the NSA wants Alexander Bortnikov to get a raise?
I notice that Governor Jerry Brown, the leading proponent of this boondoggle, accidentally told the truth in his recent State of State speech. Again voicing his support for the never-ending building project, he said it would last over a hundred years.
The page you linked to mentions that Brandenburg (1969) held that political speech which may be politically dangerous is protected. That's because the first amendment was written with political speech in mind. Brandenburg in no affects the proverbial "shouting fire in a crowded theater".
Just five years later, SCOTUS held in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), there is "no constitutional value in false statements of fact".
Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater would be a "false statement of fact" for which there is little protection, and the government has a strong legitimate interest in protecting from deaths and injuries from trampling and other injuries caused by such an action.
I'm an American, so I am accustomed to American English. Maths makes perfect sense to me.
The symbols "cue" can mean completely different things in different languages. The arrow symbol means completely different, unrelated, things in different algebras. I literally do relational algebra in my sleep, and barely remember linear algebra at all. Relational algebra and linear algebra have pretty much nothing at all to do one one another, yet both are algebras. Much like Japanese and German and both spoken languages.
Number theory and geometry are pretty much unrelated topics. Just as chemistry and geography are sciences, number theory and geometry are maths.
To me, "maths" is just as logical as "sciences". It makes little sense to act like astronomy and biology are the same thing. They are different sciences. Ternary logic is a very different math than trigonometry, though both study a triad.
The measurement from the left edge to right edge determines the resolution - even if there are gaps. Telescopes for longer wavelengths often have gaps of several meters, I order to stretch out each dimension. Have a look at thr VLA - it's shaped like a Y, with nothing over most of the surface area.
While the max dimension edge-to-edge determines the resolution, the surface area determines the minimum brightness of objects the telescope can see. That is, how faint/weak something can be and still be detected by the telescope.
* Yes, the VLA operates on colors (wavelengths) beyond what the human eye can see. We call those colors radio. This makes no difference - its just another wavelength of EMR.
Context switching with core pinning on a 12 core, hyperthreaded processor takes several microseconds in total. 1600ns for the actual switch, then a multiple of that for for LLC, etc. Contrast in-context memory access of 1ns with cache hit, up to 12ns for cache miss. Micro-kernel with many cores is 100-1,000 times slower.
So then maybe you start making changes to the micro-kernel model in order to have it work well on physical processors. Maybe you ask "how CAN we use SMP to separate concerns, putting aside any old assumptions from ukernel religion and instead trying to accomplish the goals by using many cores effectively?" Starting with the goals of micro-kernel evangelists and then going where the facts take you, you end up writing a hypervisor.
Have you seen the Combos snack food? It's a little tube of cracker or pretzel filled with cheese flavored filling, or pizza flavored filling. They are sold at gas stations next to the chips and crackers. That idea started out as a croissant stuffed with crab meat. Through product development, it became something rather different - ans successful.
It's not that what the ukernel advocates we're trying to accomplish was wrong, or even that their implementation was completely bananas. It's just that as you revise and extend the micro-kernel ideas to have them work well, it develops into virtualization, with what was the kernel becoming the hypervisor. That works well. What doesn't work is a religious attachment to the initial ideas of how a micro-kernel could be implemented and how it might work. Those were just ideas, like the croissant with crab meat idea. Developing it into something that works requires letting go of the emotional attachment to crab.
Thanks for your thoughtful post.
The thing is, it's not about time to market. It's about time to execute an operation. Fifty years is enough time to bring something to market.
Memory access takes half a tick, Double Data Rate RAM (DDR) transfers data on the rising and falling edge.
Context switching is an order of magnitude slower, theoretically, and two orders of magnitude in real life. As Meltdown and Spectre remind us, when switching context you have to flush all the caches, meaning everything is going to cache miss after a switch.
Microsoft and Apple didn't give up on the micro-kernel idea because they wanted to get something out the door, they gave up on that idea because it does not work. Operations take around 50 times longer to complete, especially on larger multi-tasking systems. Anywhere performance matters at all, message passing fails miserably.
It's not a matter of "It's always been that way". In fact the opposite - the point is they DID try micro-kernel, many people tried it, and every time they found out (again) that it does not work.
It reminds me of the policy debates that come up and people want the federal government to try policy X. Someone points out that because policy X sounds like an interesting idea to try, it WAS tried in California, New York, Chicago, the UK, and elsewhere. Everywhere it was tried, the effect it had was exactly the opposite of what was intended. Yet some people can't give up on evangelizing enforcing policy X on the federal level, because it sounded good. Yeah maybe it did sound interesting, that's why numerous people tried it, and it turns it it did not work. Time to try things that can work well.
Congratulations on finding one oddball application for which someone decided to use a micro-kernel. Specifically where it's not a general-purpose computer, performance doesn't matter, and there's no need to run more than one application at a time.
The next time I'm trying to build a slow as hell access KVM on specially designed hardware, I'll consider a micro-kernel. Only, of course, if I can't use a GPL kernel because I'm trying to keep everything secret.
Doesn't exist? Micro kernels have to existed since 1969. They were a fad, a buzz word, in the early 1980s, like block chain in now. Then again in the 1990s, a resurgence of micro-kernel articles in the trade mags, and academic research. Some of the largest companies tried micro-kernel. They found out it doesn't work. The services that run in kernel mode, within the kernel address space, on all successful kernels are there for a reason. Multiple separate kernel THREADS work, and even a monolithic kernel like Linux has separate kernel threads.
What eventaully happened to achieve many of the goals of micro-kernel advocates, using some of the same ideas, is supervisors. Hypervisor's can be pretty small (or very large), and run a kernel as a process (not many processes) on top.
> from people who know even less than you do.
One of us is a kernel developer, the other thinks micro-kernels (many of them, btw) don't exist.
I enjoy talking to someone who has a different point of view than I, but next time you come to insult me please bring a clue. I see you don't have one today.
Security isn't just confidentiality. It's Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availably (CIA). If the machine isn't running, it isn't provide secure services to the users.
The micro-kernel architecture ala Tanenbaum fails the security requirement of Availability; micro-kernel systems don't provide what people need. People use Linux because the design works well for building what people need.
> It also makes maintainence easier. Each application protocol having its own encryption leads to a lot of wheel reinventing and unnecessary man hours maintaining software.
I do vulnerability scanning and weak encryption issues are very common. Weak protocols, weak certs, etc. Often these are on devices or services that people don't think about very often. Using an ipsec or similar VPN tunnel between sites means EVERYTHING going over the wire is encrypted properly, by maintaining just one configuration. You may also want some things encrypted on the local network.
Guns smuns. I know where my guns are. Can it find my keys?
Democrat voters.
Now that you pointed it out, all of Jellomizer's posts are really annoying to read.
Jellomizer:
A comma is used when you have a complete sentence and add a few additional words the clarify the sentence (but not completely change the meaning). The "few additional words" can't be a sentence on their own. Those two parts are called the "independent clause" (independent sentence) and the "dependent clause" (added words).
If the two parts are each complete sentences you separate them with a period. Occasionally you can use a semicolon when grammatically they could be separate but you want to put them together.
For example only one of commas should be there
--
The Ampex sign, is a local landmark. While Ampex may had done some important innovation, I wouldn't deem it historic, worthy of presentation. Landmarks change. The blue barn was just painted red, The sports stadium had changed sponsors. Just because something is well known or had done important things, doesn't mean it needs to be preserved for prosperity.
--
"The Ampex sign is a local landmark."
Not
"The Ampex sign, is a local landmark."
That's because neither "the Ampex sign" nor "is a local landmark" is a sentence.
"change. The blue barn was just painted red, The sports stadium had changed sponsors."
Two separate sentences. Use a period. The parallel structure here indicates this might be intended to be basically a short poem so a semicolon could be used to separate the two "lines" of the poem.
"While Ampex may had done some important innovation, I wouldn't deem it historic, worthy of presentation."
Here is the one place a comma makes sense. "While Ampex may had done some important innovation, I wouldn't deem it historic" is a complete sentence. Adding "worthy of presentation" enhances the meaning so it should be separated by a comma.
Tiny "neighborhood cars" with electric motors, for driving around the neighborhood, are common in many areas. They are called "golf carts".
Let the difference between two and three, jackass.
My daughter was two years old when she knew the difference.
The government has no compelling interest to get everybody who drove through the neighborhood 30 minutes after the crime. Only people who were actually very near the crime scene at the time it happened.
People who happened to go through the area have not consented to having the government examine their location history and there is no probable cause for the government to do so.
An unrelated issue is how well informed they may be with their "informed consent" about what information Google keeps. That ends up in whataboutism, a fallacy. Anyway, Google doesn't send guys with guns to raid my house at 2AM when they screw up, the FBI does that. Google just shows me the wrong ads when they get it wrong. So I may reasonably consent to different things re Google vs the FBI.
> I don't think you should be able to request information about a large number of people, most of whom are innocent, to maybe find just one guy.
Agreed.
> If you have *a* suspect and you want to build a case by requesting information regarding his whereabouts from his cell phone company, plus google, I agree.
IF they have probable cause and a warrant, agreed.
Here we have a class that doesn't fit either of the above.
They don't need info about many people. They don't have the name of a suspect.
They have evidence that the (one) perpetrator or team repeated the crime in several locations at known times. They can ask Google for the name of the ONE person who was at all crimes. Google can run a quick database query to get one name, the very likely perp. Obviously then police would follow up and gather appropriate evidence.
I (and SCOTUS) think there is an interesting distinction between the government saying "give us data on everyone so we can see if any of it is interesting" vs "here are some criteria which will identify the armed robber. Let us know if you have the name of the person who fits these very specific criteria."
By way of analogy, it would generally be unconstitutional for the FBI to subpoena all of my emails in order to see if I ever talked to Paul Combetta. It would be legal for them to ask for "any emails you exchanged with Paul Combetta in July 2014 about wiping servers". Specificity matters.
Of the nine robberies, I would bet only one person was at three or more of them.
The 30 minutes time frame before and after, and two of nine, seems a bit broad to me. Suppose the FBI had asked Google:
Please let us know if you have records of one person being at at least three of these armed robberies, within 5-10 minutes of when the robbery occurred.
That would identify approximately one person, the armed robber. If Google has that information, I don't see why the FBI shouldn't ask for it.
If you fall through that ice layer, you better know how to get - fast :)
Sounds like perhaps swimming is very popular in Canada? So kids learn how to swim, and therefore don't drown easily? Parents grew up swimming and enjoy it, so they get in the water with their kids?