Of course, the distilled water *really* wants to be impure, and will therefore corrode the sensitive parts resulting in the combination of the consequences of enveloping things in a conductive material and excessive corrosion on top of that.
Prior art means it isn't patentable. For something to be qualified for a patent, it must be a new and orignal thing. Showing prior art invalidates a patent, whether or not the prior art had bothered with a patent.
This is a great example of how important a highly competent IT staff is to a business. The end of year figures for their finances is going to look horrible, probably in part because they viewed 'cheap guy that happens to have a MCSE' as suitable IT versus seasoned, yet experienced IT experts.
In the face of this, the 15-20k a year extra per IT staffer can be seen as a reasonable insurance rate when this much is at stake. What kind of infrastructure do they have there? Obvious that the development workstations are Windows, the use of Outlook makes me suspect they likely use Exchange and therefore likely a Windows-centric infrastructure through and through, including net-facing systems running open services.
I can understand in Windows game development that Windows workstation is a requirement, but I will kick and scream and point out this incident among many others as examples of why not to use MS products to handle mission critical or sensitive information. You just don't have the control and flexibility required to really adequately secure a MS box.
Maybe a few years ago, this would be frightening, but as it stands, it is far too late to fear the PC industry being locked into Windows. Even if you think the home user base is unimportant, IBM, Dell, HPaq, Sun, Racksaver, and others have a significant investment in Linux in particular, and even if MS managed to get all the current independent motherboard companies on board for this, most any of those players would easily overcome it to keep the Linux revenue stream going.
You have Clustering, server farms, web hosting, and a not so insignificant workstation and desktop market that is heavily leaning in the direction of linux (dominating the first three, and making very serious inroads into workstations and power user desktops). That's a whole lot of revenue for the likes of the big companies to just shrug and give up at Microsoft's whim.
Well, one, this is hardly new to anyone with a decent blade chassis. The blade chassis setups I have dealt with can all manage blades that are off (well, as off as the blades will get anyway), set BIOS settings, power up, power down, monitor voltages, fans, etc, whether the system is powered on or not.
What MS could *possibly* bring to the table by having the BIOS and Windows in the blade scenario I have *no* idea. There is no benefit that I could see. At *best*, they could muck with the filesystems, but that would requiring a) spinning up the disks and b) implementing the fs code in BIOS. At what point does everyone forget what the B in BIOS is supposed to mean?
Easy, the buffer for a period of time is not as big as the struct indicates. So between the time the buffer size variable is set and the time the realloc is performed, there is a window of opportunity to fill that buffer beyond is alloced boundary if another process/thread goes to put stuff in that buffer at the wrong time.
Also, I'm not sure exactly how 'fatal' the fatal is in there, it could be that it breaks out of the function, but leaves the buffer size parameter at too large a value for the alloc in that buffer.
One or both of those problems is exploitable.
Re:One thing I'd love to see in KDE that was added
on
Gnome 2.4 Release(d)
·
· Score: 1
And then watch as precompiled apps that depend on those directories remake them to annoy you but have none of the past state. His post stated he could hide them, but applications would break.
There are tradeoffs actually. This isn't like distributed.net or seti@home, this is a controlled network. They have complete control over the network switches, technology, and topology used and can design the network to accomodate tho problems the cluster will be designed to solve. For example, you could use Myrinet to get 2 Gigabit, super low latency connectivity, or Quadrix, or Infiniband, or just a well laid out Gigabit Ethernet with high end switches.
In multiple processors in a box, the processors have to fight for the resources that box has to offer. NUMA alleviates demand on the memory, but IO operations (when writing to disk or to network) in a multiprocessor box block a good deal as the processor count in a node rises.
The idea with clusters is that inter-node communication in most cases can be kept low. Each system can work on a HUGE chunk of a problem on its own, with its own dedicated hard drive, memory subsystem, and without having too much competition for the network card. A lot of problems are really hard to solve computation wise, but are *very* well suited to distributed computing. A prime example of this is rendering 3D movies. Perhaps oversimplifying things, but for the most part, a central node divides up discrete parts (a segment of video), and each node works without talking to others until done, so the negative impact is minimal. Certain problems (i.e. nuclear explosion simulations where time and spacial chunks interact more with one another) are much more sensitive to latency/throughut. Seti@Home and distributed.net are *extremely* apathetic to throughput/latency issues (not much traffic and very infrequent communication).
Where do you get the stuff from? If downloaded from 'eacademy' or some such, then it isn't a gift, it was paid for by the budgets of the respective departments, so it essentially is hidden away in your tuition. When I went to college, so many people went around saying 'woah, MS is giving the students all this stuff for free download', never realizing that behind the scenes MS was getting paid for everything, just not in any way directly visible to the students..
Saying that if no attacks ever occured, then we would be vunerable is kinda silly. Of course it is true. It's like saying it is bad that elephants aren't falling regularly out of the sky, because it makes it so we are totally unprepared for the situation. Making a world without virus attacks automatically includes the consequence that virus attacks are not to be worried about.
I guess the point is that immediate exploitation of every defect means that, in theory, a devastating attack that exploits everything at once is not possible. But I would say that the frequent, *extremely* impactful exploitation of 'minor' flaws is far more damaging than a rare, totally devastating blow in terms of cost.
Or else he could be saying our culture is being trained in the ways of viruses so that the next unsuspecting invading alien race comes to attack, we can whip out a Powerbook and screw them over because their culture never dealt with viruses and worms...suckers.
Obviously you didn't do any research. Here is a board I've gotten to work with, complete with AMD chipset: http://www.amdboard.com/msi_k8d_master.h tml
And all currently announced chipsets: http://www.amdboard.com/opteron_chipset s.html AMD themselves, nVidia, and VIA.
In general some good ideas, but some flaws. Generally overly anal network policies do more harm to productivity than it does to enhance security.
One questionable practice is thath the change password enforcement just doesn't work. If users can make it the same, they will. If not, they will generally alternate between two. And in all cases, a user that might actually choose a hard password to guess/crack might be less inclined to do so if it is going to change in a week and they have to remember another. I am skeptical of the benefits of enforced password changes...
Also, going too far in securing systems frequently has a far worse consequence: impeding productivity. For example, when a building was seen as having Blaster infected systems at one place, they literally pulled the power cord on the router to that building, completely cutting it off from the company network and internet in the name of security. The result was a lot of people having their productivity destroyed for days while they manually sought out problem systems. Blocking off RPC would have been so much more appropriate, but the panic over it spreading one second longer was just too much... Just like the strategy of unplugging a server from the net in the event of a DOS. You may have a sense of accomplishment from not getting hit directly by the attack, but the end result is more success than the DOS could have ever technically achieved on its own.
Assuming that IM='evil productivity eater/security liability' is also quite a mistake. I have a number of business contacts on my lists. It is an excellent non-intrusive way to keep in contarct with important people. Also, employee morale is not something to be ignored. And on top of that, if they need to communicate, they can either a) be tied up on the phone where it is difficult to work and talk at the same time or b) discuss it in IM in the midst of everything else. The whole strategy of micromanaging how work gets done is just flawed. You can only look at the resultant productivity. If the level of productivity is at a satisfactory or better level, who cares if they spend some time on IM? It probably enhances their non-IM work effort by fighting burn-out. While you are at blocking IM traffic, why not do away with paid vacation, after all, that time is just sucking up company resources and employees would be much more productive if they never took a break, right?
I presume they strip out the JVM as they can't restribute them freely. In the commercial, final package, you get a commercial JRE with the whole thing.
Their strategy with regards to code updates really backfires on them. Their strategy seems to be that sticking to old-as-dirt versions and applying the promiment bug-fixes means the software is more reliable, because they skip the new features. Of course the result is a system that I've seen kill over much more frequently than any other setup. I managed to patch sg.c to get rid of one problem (the fix was folded into the mainstream kernel in September of 2001) that crashed systems under load in only a couple of days.
RH is really going down a foolish path with their pricing. Moving the 'end-user' version to a non-corporate project may seem like a good idea (offloading a lot of development and distribution costs), but it does seem like the move is alienating a lot of suit-types..
I use -Os on my laptop with 128 MB RAM, and it has been a lifesaver in avoiding swap. On a laptop hard drive at 4200 RPM, swap is too painful to endure. It does significantly shave quite a bit off of the size of applications. But if you have plenty of memory and you are trying to reduce program load times, I don't think -Os will buy you much. The difference is at best 2-3 MB of difference on large programs. That 2-3 MB is rather trivial even on a 5400 RPM drive.
Of course, your drive RPM should have little to do with a good deal of load time unless your filesystem has really scattered things about, and there is a lot of seeking involved.
Of course, my final question is, assuming you are in the world of IDE, why do you call 7200 RPM slow?
I started playing around with kernel 2.6 and I *think* I'm seeing the cause of your occasional multiple xterms, and that is the keyboard repeat seems to be somehow different, i.e. holding a key shortcut for a small moment will repeatedly send the events for the shortcut. I didn't notice it under 2.4 if it does a similar thing, but I could see that if your xterms are starting slowly, you may be holding the shortcut keys longer than you are used to.
I personally have not seen the slow performance or network issues you have seen, but at least that diffference with the repeated shortcuts may have a rational explanation.
First off, when the hell did the parent mention feeding Africa? That was just totally pulled out of your ass. Next time you post a ranting response, at least *try* to stick to the parent post's issues.
Aside from that, I would not classify the typical feeling towards gaming as jealousy, but genuine concern. If truly a misunderstanding of the fulfillment offered by gaming, jealousy would not be the result. Online gaming by no means excludes people from playing. If they truly believed gamers have an unbelievably satisfying lifestyle, they would just join in, nothing really lost.
I would also dare say that while there may be a general misunderstanding of how genuinely fulfilling the online gaming experience can be by outsiders, that you also have a misunderstanding of how much you are missing out on. The depth of real life interaction and experience cannot be matched in any way by *any* online gaming experience.
You say that you interact with each other and have very real feelings and effects on one another. While this may be true, it is but a small degree of the experience of real life. When you interact through an avatar that speaks almost exclusively through text, there are just so many things missing. Among the most obvious is tactile sensation. Feeling your mouse and keyboard is nothing like receiving a hug, shaking hands, giving a real high-five, etc...
Of course, another thing wrong is that everything can be thought out thoroughly before any conversation occurs. All emotions can be completely hidden or faked. You can type something like '/me cries.' But ultimately if you are in the condition of crying, you probably wouldn't bother typing it. Similarly, 95 times out of 100, when I type something along the lines of 'lol' or 'rotfl', I am rarely laughing at the time, but instead merely acknowledging that something someone typed is at least mildly entertaining. Nothing is real or even a good approximation of the true state of mind or emotion of anyone participating. When someone has true sorrow but tries to hide it, a potentially concerned friend would never see it online, but would see it in real life despite attempts to hide it. It is a form of interaction heavily filtered and greatly divorced from the reality they live in.
This is not a 'dying and decrepit world', it is a living and vibrant one, full of deep experience and interaction. Maybe reading internet news sites and watching the media on TV will make you feel that this is a dying and decrepit world, but actually experiencing it will, if you give it a chance over time, prove to provide a true depth that online games lack. It is true that there is more sorrow in real life than a gaming life, but the happiness to be had is so great as to truly offset the problems of sorrow.
That is not to say games are totally inferior either. There are feelings and experiences that can feel pretty good that real life really cannot provide to the average person (being in grand adventures, influencing epic events, stuff like that), and offer images of power, beauty, and sorrow that most people will not see in ordinary life. Gaming provides a way for the ordinary person to experience extraordinary things (to an extent). However, real life allows otherwise ordinary things to be experienced in extraordinary ways, and I think this is the part that you fail to understand.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, the distilled water *really* wants to be impure, and will therefore corrode the sensitive parts resulting in the combination of the consequences of enveloping things in a conductive material and excessive corrosion on top of that.
Prior art means it isn't patentable. For something to be qualified for a patent, it must be a new and orignal thing. Showing prior art invalidates a patent, whether or not the prior art had bothered with a patent.
This is a great example of how important a highly competent IT staff is to a business. The end of year figures for their finances is going to look horrible, probably in part because they viewed 'cheap guy that happens to have a MCSE' as suitable IT versus seasoned, yet experienced IT experts.
In the face of this, the 15-20k a year extra per IT staffer can be seen as a reasonable insurance rate when this much is at stake. What kind of infrastructure do they have there? Obvious that the development workstations are Windows, the use of Outlook makes me suspect they likely use Exchange and therefore likely a Windows-centric infrastructure through and through, including net-facing systems running open services.
I can understand in Windows game development that Windows workstation is a requirement, but I will kick and scream and point out this incident among many others as examples of why not to use MS products to handle mission critical or sensitive information. You just don't have the control and flexibility required to really adequately secure a MS box.
Maybe a few years ago, this would be frightening, but as it stands, it is far too late to fear the PC industry being locked into Windows. Even if you think the home user base is unimportant, IBM, Dell, HPaq, Sun, Racksaver, and others have a significant investment in Linux in particular, and even if MS managed to get all the current independent motherboard companies on board for this, most any of those players would easily overcome it to keep the Linux revenue stream going.
You have Clustering, server farms, web hosting, and a not so insignificant workstation and desktop market that is heavily leaning in the direction of linux (dominating the first three, and making very serious inroads into workstations and power user desktops). That's a whole lot of revenue for the likes of the big companies to just shrug and give up at Microsoft's whim.
Well, one, this is hardly new to anyone with a decent blade chassis. The blade chassis setups I have dealt with can all manage blades that are off (well, as off as the blades will get anyway), set BIOS settings, power up, power down, monitor voltages, fans, etc, whether the system is powered on or not.
What MS could *possibly* bring to the table by having the BIOS and Windows in the blade scenario I have *no* idea. There is no benefit that I could see. At *best*, they could muck with the filesystems, but that would requiring a) spinning up the disks and b) implementing the fs code in BIOS. At what point does everyone forget what the B in BIOS is supposed to mean?
Certainly not, it would have really sucked if it was a near miss, it was a near hit ;)
(Shamelessly ripped off from George Carlin)
You are forgetting the 'Buddy Holly' video on the Windows 95 CDs...
Easy, the buffer for a period of time is not as big as the struct indicates. So between the time the buffer size variable is set and the time the realloc is performed, there is a window of opportunity to fill that buffer beyond is alloced boundary if another process/thread goes to put stuff in that buffer at the wrong time.
Also, I'm not sure exactly how 'fatal' the fatal is in there, it could be that it breaks out of the function, but leaves the buffer size parameter at too large a value for the alloc in that buffer.
One or both of those problems is exploitable.
And then watch as precompiled apps that depend on those directories remake them to annoy you but have none of the past state. His post stated he could hide them, but applications would break.
There are tradeoffs actually. This isn't like distributed.net or seti@home, this is a controlled network. They have complete control over the network switches, technology, and topology used and can design the network to accomodate tho problems the cluster will be designed to solve.
For example, you could use Myrinet to get 2 Gigabit, super low latency connectivity, or Quadrix, or Infiniband, or just a well laid out Gigabit Ethernet with high end switches.
In multiple processors in a box, the processors have to fight for the resources that box has to offer. NUMA alleviates demand on the memory, but IO operations (when writing to disk or to network) in a multiprocessor box block a good deal as the processor count in a node rises.
The idea with clusters is that inter-node communication in most cases can be kept low. Each system can work on a HUGE chunk of a problem on its own, with its own dedicated hard drive, memory subsystem, and without having too much competition for the network card. A lot of problems are really hard to solve computation wise, but are *very* well suited to distributed computing. A prime example of this is rendering 3D movies. Perhaps oversimplifying things, but for the most part, a central node divides up discrete parts (a segment of video), and each node works without talking to others until done, so the negative impact is minimal. Certain problems (i.e. nuclear explosion simulations where time and spacial chunks interact more with one another) are much more sensitive to latency/throughut. Seti@Home and distributed.net are *extremely* apathetic to throughput/latency issues (not much traffic and very infrequent communication).
Where do you get the stuff from? If downloaded from 'eacademy' or some such, then it isn't a gift, it was paid for by the budgets of the respective departments, so it essentially is hidden away in your tuition. When I went to college, so many people went around saying 'woah, MS is giving the students all this stuff for free download', never realizing that behind the scenes MS was getting paid for everything, just not in any way directly visible to the students..
Saying that if no attacks ever occured, then we would be vunerable is kinda silly. Of course it is true. It's like saying it is bad that elephants aren't falling regularly out of the sky, because it makes it so we are totally unprepared for the situation. Making a world without virus attacks automatically includes the consequence that virus attacks are not to be worried about.
I guess the point is that immediate exploitation of every defect means that, in theory, a devastating attack that exploits everything at once is not possible. But I would say that the frequent, *extremely* impactful exploitation of 'minor' flaws is far more damaging than a rare, totally devastating blow in terms of cost.
Or else he could be saying our culture is being trained in the ways of viruses so that the next unsuspecting invading alien race comes to attack, we can whip out a Powerbook and screw them over because their culture never dealt with viruses and worms...suckers.
Obviously you didn't do any research. Here is a board I've gotten to work with, complete with AMD chipset:h tml
t s.html
http://www.amdboard.com/msi_k8d_master.
And all currently announced chipsets:
http://www.amdboard.com/opteron_chipse
AMD themselves, nVidia, and VIA.
In general some good ideas, but some flaws. Generally overly anal network policies do more harm to productivity than it does to enhance security.
One questionable practice is thath the change password enforcement just doesn't work. If users can make it the same, they will. If not, they will generally alternate between two. And in all cases, a user that might actually choose a hard password to guess/crack might be less inclined to do so if it is going to change in a week and they have to remember another. I am skeptical of the benefits of enforced password changes...
Also, going too far in securing systems frequently has a far worse consequence: impeding productivity. For example, when a building was seen as having Blaster infected systems at one place, they literally pulled the power cord on the router to that building, completely cutting it off from the company network and internet in the name of security. The result was a lot of people having their productivity destroyed for days while they manually sought out problem systems. Blocking off RPC would have been so much more appropriate, but the panic over it spreading one second longer was just too much... Just like the strategy of unplugging a server from the net in the event of a DOS. You may have a sense of accomplishment from not getting hit directly by the attack, but the end result is more success than the DOS could have ever technically achieved on its own.
Assuming that IM='evil productivity eater/security liability' is also quite a mistake. I have a number of business contacts on my lists. It is an excellent non-intrusive way to keep in contarct with important people. Also, employee morale is not something to be ignored. And on top of that, if they need to communicate, they can either a) be tied up on the phone where it is difficult to work and talk at the same time or b) discuss it in IM in the midst of everything else. The whole strategy of micromanaging how work gets done is just flawed. You can only look at the resultant productivity. If the level of productivity is at a satisfactory or better level, who cares if they spend some time on IM? It probably enhances their non-IM work effort by fighting burn-out. While you are at blocking IM traffic, why not do away with paid vacation, after all, that time is just sucking up company resources and employees would be much more productive if they never took a break, right?
I presume they strip out the JVM as they can't restribute them freely. In the commercial, final package, you get a commercial JRE with the whole thing.
They didn't name them 'W32.Godzilla' and 'W32.Mothra', that would put things into perspective better..
They'll remove one MILLION lines of code...
Their strategy with regards to code updates really backfires on them. Their strategy seems to be that sticking to old-as-dirt versions and applying the promiment bug-fixes means the software is more reliable, because they skip the new features. Of course the result is a system that I've seen kill over much more frequently than any other setup. I managed to patch sg.c to get rid of one problem (the fix was folded into the mainstream kernel in September of 2001) that crashed systems under load in only a couple of days.
RH is really going down a foolish path with their pricing. Moving the 'end-user' version to a non-corporate project may seem like a good idea (offloading a lot of development and distribution costs), but it does seem like the move is alienating a lot of suit-types..
> 'nobody ever got fired for buying IBM'
Well here you go.
See link here
This one is an IBM made one. Pretty interesting.
I use -Os on my laptop with 128 MB RAM, and it has been a lifesaver in avoiding swap. On a laptop hard drive at 4200 RPM, swap is too painful to endure. It does significantly shave quite a bit off of the size of applications. But if you have plenty of memory and you are trying to reduce program load times, I don't think -Os will buy you much. The difference is at best 2-3 MB of difference on large programs. That 2-3 MB is rather trivial even on a 5400 RPM drive.
Of course, your drive RPM should have little to do with a good deal of load time unless your filesystem has really scattered things about, and there is a lot of seeking involved.
Of course, my final question is, assuming you are in the world of IDE, why do you call 7200 RPM slow?
I started playing around with kernel 2.6 and I *think* I'm seeing the cause of your occasional multiple xterms, and that is the keyboard repeat seems to be somehow different, i.e. holding a key shortcut for a small moment will repeatedly send the events for the shortcut. I didn't notice it under 2.4 if it does a similar thing, but I could see that if your xterms are starting slowly, you may be holding the shortcut keys longer than you are used to.
I personally have not seen the slow performance or network issues you have seen, but at least that diffference with the repeated shortcuts may have a rational explanation.
MMOG: massively multiplayer offline game, so MMOG is fine. You said so yourself.
First off, when the hell did the parent mention feeding Africa? That was just totally pulled out of your ass. Next time you post a ranting response, at least *try* to stick to the parent post's issues.
Aside from that, I would not classify the typical feeling towards gaming as jealousy, but genuine concern. If truly a misunderstanding of the fulfillment offered by gaming, jealousy would not be the result. Online gaming by no means excludes people from playing. If they truly believed gamers have an unbelievably satisfying lifestyle, they would just join in, nothing really lost.
I would also dare say that while there may be a general misunderstanding of how genuinely fulfilling the online gaming experience can be by outsiders, that you also have a misunderstanding of how much you are missing out on. The depth of real life interaction and experience cannot be matched in any way by *any* online gaming experience.
You say that you interact with each other and have very real feelings and effects on one another. While this may be true, it is but a small degree of the experience of real life. When you interact through an avatar that speaks almost exclusively through text, there are just so many things missing. Among the most obvious is tactile sensation. Feeling your mouse and keyboard is nothing like receiving a hug, shaking hands, giving a real high-five, etc...
Of course, another thing wrong is that everything can be thought out thoroughly before any conversation occurs. All emotions can be completely hidden or faked. You can type something like '/me cries.' But ultimately if you are in the condition of crying, you probably wouldn't bother typing it. Similarly, 95 times out of 100, when I type something along the lines of 'lol' or 'rotfl', I am rarely laughing at the time, but instead merely acknowledging that something someone typed is at least mildly entertaining. Nothing is real or even a good approximation of the true state of mind or emotion of anyone participating. When someone has true sorrow but tries to hide it, a potentially concerned friend would never see it online, but would see it in real life despite attempts to hide it. It is a form of interaction heavily filtered and greatly divorced from the reality they live in.
This is not a 'dying and decrepit world', it is a living and vibrant one, full of deep experience and interaction. Maybe reading internet news sites and watching the media on TV will make you feel that this is a dying and decrepit world, but actually experiencing it will, if you give it a chance over time, prove to provide a true depth that online games lack. It is true that there is more sorrow in real life than a gaming life, but the happiness to be had is so great as to truly offset the problems of sorrow.
That is not to say games are totally inferior either. There are feelings and experiences that can feel pretty good that real life really cannot provide to the average person (being in grand adventures, influencing epic events, stuff like that), and offer images of power, beauty, and sorrow that most people will not see in ordinary life. Gaming provides a way for the ordinary person to experience extraordinary things (to an extent). However, real life allows otherwise ordinary things to be experienced in extraordinary ways, and I think this is the part that you fail to understand.
He *did* mention clusters....