Methinks you're right. There's money to be made in get-rich-quick schemes. It's a three-tier operation. The first tier makes its money from the second tier, who with any luck, do not make any money from the third tier.
you can simply examine the input and the outputs. The internals are completly blackbox. Thats the whole point of good design techniques. A time bomb passes that test. A self-destruct mechanism listening for its trigger passes that test. Intel's "broken" math Pentium passed that test, for a while at least.
Questions like these have been tricking geniuses for centuries. They prove nothing. Au contraire mon frere (assuming my French isn't too far off). They prove how easy it is for the real world to set up and foil geniuses with something a moron would get right.
Maybe it's just me, but it seems like +5 funny outranks +5 insightful. Some sense of poetic rather than prosaic. I think Microsoft is using "long-term customer value" in the sense of long-term value from a herd of sheep. They are referring to the value *from* their customers rather than the value *to* their customers.
There was a good reason to optimize the disk access. With unblocked standard sequental data sets on early 360's, the disk was within a few percent of the speed of a high-speed card reader or line printer, one record per revolution.
Oh well, that battle is really lost. I don't think so. You need to take a bit of care where and to whom you use the term "hacker", but nothing else captures the meaning. The media is a lost cause, but this is because they have no concept that anyone playing around with a system could be up to anything other than mischief. The media also has a hard time with the idea of scientific curiosity in any field.
Distributing modified versions isn't allowed. I'm free to use qmail. I'm free to modify qmail for whatever purposes for myself. I'm not free to hold Dan Bernstein responsible for my butcheries, whether or not I (or anyone else) is aware of them.
If you want to distribute modified versions of qmail (including ports, no matter how minor the changes are) you'll have to get my approval. This does not mean approval of your distribution method, your intentions, your e-mail address, your haircut, or any other irrelevant information. It means a detailed review of the exact package that you want to distribute.
Close is not very good for security stuff. Can't say I blame him at all.
It's just a GET request, but if the site suffers from SQL Injection problems, which many sites do, stuff may be deleted from the database.
If you think hackers are a problem, imagine that coming accidentally into an inhouse system where it can really do some damage. Me, I think I'm liking the hackers. They may be a bit embarrasing, they try to do it with minimal real damage.
Hogwash. There's money to be made from Linux, but it's not any get rich quick overnight quick scam. If I were a big business CEO, I'd start looking at Linux/Open Source very seriously. While hackers and big business are not particularly friendly to each other, they do share a common enemy, bugs. Given a choice between a hacker's exploit and a shipping clerk's accidental entry that takes out a database, the hacker starts to look very friendly. One reason business will buy such as Red Hat is to both support the hacker community and simultaneously keep a "safe distance".
Right. Remember that symbiosis is really mutual parasitism. From the entire system, both gain. IBM is *not* an "open-source" company, but they recognize the value and have dumped money into Linux. Oddly enough, IBM seems to be the main one actually profiting from Linux, and I can't imagine that was the original intention. IBM can dump money into Linux, never see a red cent direct result, and come out smelling like a rose. 64,000 processors and $100 million do give a pretty strong indication that Linux is enterprise-ready. I wouldn't worry about the big suspiciousness. They're the ones "watching the watchers". They're also why I would tend to trust Open Source even if it were of inferior quality.
Infantile regression? From the kindergarden block of Office 2000 to 2yo temper tantrums? Is this what you want to be responsible for "Trustworthy Computing"?
The time horizon which determines what does and what does not get made is more like a year or two, certainly less than a decade. You don't really think any producer is going to decide what to do based on a 75-year payout, do you?
Winmodem, windows printer, etc. refer to devices which have had their brains removed and use software drivers as a substitute. To save a few bucks, they remove specialized processing from a relatively cheap peripheral and instead use resources of the much more expensive main cpu. Sounds like Microsoft, somehow.
I do, for one. And it's not because I have any intention or significant probability of using the thing. It has to do with where the battles are fought. You want the front lines to be safely distant from general headquarters. This doesn't affect RH 8.0, but does affect what I can reasonably expect from RH 8.2 and RH 9.0. The recent fun&games with OpenSSL and Apache have convinced me that open source, of whatever breed, is the only feasible way to maintain effective security. It's not that they always handle it the "right way", whatever that means. It's that it will be discovered and handled by somebody, somewhere, somehow. Flame wars and such solve the problem of who watches the watchers. You almost feel sorry for the poor worms. I completely agree that millions more people will try Linux by buying Lindows PCs or buying Red Hat, but the scope of the Linux that people will be buying will be determined more by the lunatic fringe doing the battles than by the central soft core. This doesn't open the floodgates. It's just yet another leak in the earthen dam.
Methinks the confusion is in the one degree of separation between the XBox and Microsoft's attempts at enterprise-class computing. Microsoft's sporatic changes... may easily cause confusion to consumers. Frustrated consumers are probably less likely to spend money on... because they are meant for a different version of... The only consumers not likely to be confused are the purchasers of the mod chips.
"Install on Demand". Sounds good, but turns out to be a major pain. Do a Custom install, and set everything either to Not Available or to Run from My Computer or possibly from Network. Now you get to play the guessing game of what you do and do not want installed. This is what is known as "user friendly".
Right. Basic rule of floating point is that numbers are NOT equal. Specifically, an input number is not necessarily equal to the same number expressed as a constant. Your example works well with integers, but the fun comes when they change the rules and you have other things that depend on those intermediate numbers. One problem with holding number to more places that shown is you get columns of numbers that do not add up to the total shown.
Fortran is a sort of universal machine language. If you are willing to be non-portable, it is quite feasable to program *anything* in Fortran. With the help of some asm code, I've even done top-down functional programming in Fortran. This was *after* the compiler became "unsupported". The code depended on *exactly* what the compiler did. The strange thing is that the functional code was not as slow as one would expect.
While hardly invulnerable, there are a couple of things about Linux that make it a much worse medium for propagating viruses than Microsoft Windows. Linux is intrinsically "multi-user" which means there are mechanisms and attitudes in place to protect the system from users and users from each other. Even if you trust everybody, accidents happen and it's a good idea to limit the damage. Linux, and more so the BSDs, have the idea that the user should actually know what is going on. Microsoft Windows wants to be smarter than the user and hides stuff from the user. You can get some idea of the effect from the latest rounds. The community may be fragmented and disorganized, but somebody notices, and if they didn't, somebody else would. The poor worm doesn't stand much of a chance. Dunno if it's still true, but last time I was there, Windows software could be had real cheap (complete with viruses on the CDs) while it was full price for Red Flag Linux. Probably something to do with the printed documentation.
Add 1.23 to 3.45 and store the result with one decimal place. IBM's Packed Decimal maxes out at 15 digits plus sign. COBOL does a good job of keeping track of the (implicit) decimal points. If you need predictable results, you need to be aware of rounding issues. In general the round of the sum is not equal to the sum of the rounds. In business calculations, if you add a list of numbers from top to bottom and add the same list of numbers from bottom to top, you get the same answers, both right. In some scientific calculations, if you add a list of numbers from top to bottom and add the same list of numbers from bottom to top, you get different answers, both wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Methinks you're right.
There's money to be made in get-rich-quick schemes. It's a three-tier operation. The first tier makes its money from the second tier, who with any luck, do not make any money from the third tier.
you can simply examine the input and the outputs. The internals are completly blackbox. Thats the whole point of good design techniques.
A time bomb passes that test.
A self-destruct mechanism listening for its trigger passes that test.
Intel's "broken" math Pentium passed that test, for a while at least.
Questions like these have been tricking geniuses for centuries. They prove nothing.
Au contraire mon frere (assuming my French isn't too far off).
They prove how easy it is for the real world to set up and foil geniuses with something a moron would get right.
Maybe it's just me, but it seems like +5 funny outranks +5 insightful. Some sense of poetic rather than prosaic.
I think Microsoft is using "long-term customer value" in the sense of long-term value from a herd of sheep. They are referring to the value *from* their customers rather than the value *to* their customers.
There was a good reason to optimize the disk access. With unblocked standard sequental data sets on early 360's, the disk was within a few percent of the speed of a high-speed card reader or line printer, one record per revolution.
Seems like some of the best photographs currently in existence were taken in the Civil War (USA) era. Large glass negatives. Large!
Oh well, that battle is really lost.
I don't think so. You need to take a bit of care where and to whom you use the term "hacker", but nothing else captures the meaning. The media is a lost cause, but this is because they have no concept that anyone playing around with a system could be up to anything other than mischief. The media also has a hard time with the idea of scientific curiosity in any field.
Distributing modified versions isn't allowed.
I'm free to use qmail.
I'm free to modify qmail for whatever purposes for myself.
I'm not free to hold Dan Bernstein responsible for my butcheries, whether or not I (or anyone else) is aware of them.
If you want to distribute modified versions of qmail (including ports, no matter how minor the changes are) you'll have to get my approval. This does not mean approval of your distribution method, your intentions, your e-mail address, your haircut, or any other irrelevant information. It means a detailed review of the exact package that you want to distribute.
Close is not very good for security stuff. Can't say I blame him at all.
It's just a GET request, but if the site suffers from SQL Injection problems, which many sites do, stuff may be deleted from the database.
If you think hackers are a problem, imagine that coming accidentally into an inhouse system where it can really do some damage. Me, I think I'm liking the hackers. They may be a bit embarrasing, they try to do it with minimal real damage.
Hogwash.
There's money to be made from Linux, but it's not any get rich quick overnight quick scam. If I were a big business CEO, I'd start looking at Linux/Open Source very seriously. While hackers and big business are not particularly friendly to each other, they do share a common enemy, bugs. Given a choice between a hacker's exploit and a shipping clerk's accidental entry that takes out a database, the hacker starts to look very friendly. One reason business will buy such as Red Hat is to both support the hacker community and simultaneously keep a "safe distance".
Right.
Remember that symbiosis is really mutual parasitism. From the entire system, both gain. IBM is *not* an "open-source" company, but they recognize the value and have dumped money into Linux. Oddly enough, IBM seems to be the main one actually profiting from Linux, and I can't imagine that was the original intention. IBM can dump money into Linux, never see a red cent direct result, and come out smelling like a rose.
64,000 processors and $100 million do give a pretty strong indication that Linux is enterprise-ready.
I wouldn't worry about the big suspiciousness. They're the ones "watching the watchers". They're also why I would tend to trust Open Source even if it were of inferior quality.
Infantile regression?
From the kindergarden block of Office 2000 to 2yo temper tantrums?
Is this what you want to be responsible for "Trustworthy Computing"?
The time horizon which determines what does and what does not get made is more like a year or two, certainly less than a decade. You don't really think any producer is going to decide what to do based on a 75-year payout, do you?
Winmodem, windows printer, etc. refer to devices which have had their brains removed and use software drivers as a substitute. To save a few bucks, they remove specialized processing from a relatively cheap peripheral and instead use resources of the much more expensive main cpu. Sounds like Microsoft, somehow.
I do, for one. And it's not because I have any intention or significant probability of using the thing. It has to do with where the battles are fought. You want the front lines to be safely distant from general headquarters. This doesn't affect RH 8.0, but does affect what I can reasonably expect from RH 8.2 and RH 9.0.
The recent fun&games with OpenSSL and Apache have convinced me that open source, of whatever breed, is the only feasible way to maintain effective security. It's not that they always handle it the "right way", whatever that means. It's that it will be discovered and handled by somebody, somewhere, somehow. Flame wars and such solve the problem of who watches the watchers. You almost feel sorry for the poor worms.
I completely agree that millions more people will try Linux by buying Lindows PCs or buying Red Hat, but the scope of the Linux that people will be buying will be determined more by the lunatic fringe doing the battles than by the central soft core. This doesn't open the floodgates. It's just yet another leak in the earthen dam.
Methinks the confusion is in the one degree of separation between the XBox and Microsoft's attempts at enterprise-class computing. ... may easily cause confusion to consumers. ... because they are meant for a different version of ...
Microsoft's sporatic changes
Frustrated consumers are probably less likely to spend money on
The only consumers not likely to be confused are the purchasers of the mod chips.
"Install on Demand".
Sounds good, but turns out to be a major pain.
Do a Custom install, and set everything either to Not Available or to Run from My Computer or possibly from Network.
Now you get to play the guessing game of what you do and do not want installed.
This is what is known as "user friendly".
If loop unrolling thrashes the cache, ....
I think execution speed is rather faster than memory access.
Right.
Basic rule of floating point is that numbers are NOT equal.
Specifically, an input number is not necessarily equal to the same number expressed as a constant.
Your example works well with integers, but the fun comes when they change the rules and you have other things that depend on those intermediate numbers.
One problem with holding number to more places that shown is you get columns of numbers that do not add up to the total shown.
Fortran is a sort of universal machine language. If you are willing to be non-portable, it is quite feasable to program *anything* in Fortran. With the help of some asm code, I've even done top-down functional programming in Fortran. This was *after* the compiler became "unsupported". The code depended on *exactly* what the compiler did. The strange thing is that the functional code was not as slow as one would expect.
While hardly invulnerable, there are a couple of things about Linux that make it a much worse medium for propagating viruses than Microsoft Windows.
Linux is intrinsically "multi-user" which means there are mechanisms and attitudes in place to protect the system from users and users from each other. Even if you trust everybody, accidents happen and it's a good idea to limit the damage.
Linux, and more so the BSDs, have the idea that the user should actually know what is going on. Microsoft Windows wants to be smarter than the user and hides stuff from the user. You can get some idea of the effect from the latest rounds. The community may be fragmented and disorganized, but somebody notices, and if they didn't, somebody else would. The poor worm doesn't stand much of a chance.
Dunno if it's still true, but last time I was there, Windows software could be had real cheap (complete with viruses on the CDs) while it was full price for Red Flag Linux. Probably something to do with the printed documentation.
Add 1.23 to 3.45 and store the result with one decimal place.
IBM's Packed Decimal maxes out at 15 digits plus sign.
COBOL does a good job of keeping track of the (implicit) decimal points.
If you need predictable results, you need to be aware of rounding issues. In general the round of the sum is not equal to the sum of the rounds.
In business calculations, if you add a list of numbers from top to bottom and add the same list of numbers from bottom to top, you get the same answers, both right.
In some scientific calculations, if you add a list of numbers from top to bottom and add the same list of numbers from bottom to top, you get different answers, both wrong.
Sounds like Microsoft is catching up to where *nix was five years ago.
Actually, it's Cygwin and bash if you want some degree of competency.
Competency. There is no way to make "ease of use" a viable substitute except for a few simple special cases.
grep
pipe
tail
not to mention back-quotes and hard and soft links.