And of course, another loophole is that the US government can go ahead and "censor" anything it wants (e.g., child porn, "terrorism" sites, whatever).
Another loophole where? In the bill in question? I guess that's technically true, in the sense that the bill doesn't say anything one way or the other about the US government blocking Internet access; it neither forbids nor allows it. (In fact, it says nothing about Internet access being blocked in countries other than those designated by the president as "Internet-blocking countries".)
Replace "US" with "Arab nations", "network technology" with "oil," and "US-supported sites" with "Islamist propaganda," and how comfortable are we with it?
I.e., how comfortable would I be with Arab nations refusing to sell oil to countries that block what the latter countries' governments choose to deem "Islamist propaganda"? Pretty comfortable, actually, given that I don't have a particular problem with stuff that some might deem "Islamist propaganda" - or "US-supported sites" or "Chinese-supported sites" or "French-supported sites" or "Russian-supported sites" or..., for that matter - being available to the public without somebody deciding it's Bad And Dangerous for you to pour the contents of those sites into your brain.
(Oh, and the analogy breaks down in any case because the bill doesn't penalize the sale of all networking technology to those countries, just technology used to restrict Internet access.)
In the US, we censor thing, too: through the DCMA. How does one reconcile these two US laws (assuming this one is passed)?
By actually reading the bill and noting that it applies only to US companies tat:
provide "personally identifiable information" to "Internet-restricting countries";
help "Internet-restricting countries" jam US-supported sites (government or government-funded sites);
and realizing that, as the President is the one who designates what countries are "Internet-restricting countries", the US is unlikely ever to be designated such a country.
Do we think that this includes caving to the US government?
Those of us who have RTFB don't think that, as we find it highly unlikely that the President of the US would designate the US an "Internet-restricting country", and TFB only penalizes companies that help "Internet-restricting countries", as designated by the President, do stuff such as jamming Internet sites.
Is there any oversight to ensure that what the president is censoring is actually national security related and not just national embarrassment related?
No, because there's nothing in the bill about the president censoring anything, there's just stuff about the president saying "oh, OK, the {fill in the 'Internet-restricting country'ans} can block this and we won't go after you if you help them".
There is a provision for congressional oversight of the latter; to quote section 207(b) of TFB:
(b) Congressional Notification- Not later than the date of the exercise of a waiver under subsection (a), the President shall notify the appropriate congressional committees of the waiver or the intention to exercise the waiver, together with a detailed justification for the waiver.
But in the name of NATIONAL SECURITY, I'll reserve the right for the President of this (sniff) great land to, as he sees fit, step in and block access to any site he deems a threat to this great land.
You misspelled "to, as he sees fit, step in and not bother to prevent our fine companies from helping other countries block sites they deem a threat to their great lands". RTFB (in particular, RTFS 207, "Presidential Waiver").
now whichever party introduced it can claim on attack ads "this person supports internet censorship" when in reality they oppose the creation of a US "information ministry" designed to oversee and censor america's internet.
Could you cite the parts of the bill that indicate that the Office of Global Internet Freedom is "designed to oversee and censor america's internet"? (Hint: the item the person to whom you're replying referred to is not it.)
If I understand it correctly, it says that the president can prevent information on government or government-funded web sites from being disseminated to other countries.
No - what it says is that he can, for example, override the bill's requirement that US companies not block government or government-funded Web sites from being read in "Internet-restricting countries"; the bill doesn't explicitly say he can block it himself.
Right or wrong, that has nothing to do with the rights of American citizens.
the word "totalitarian" doesn't appear in the bill, just "authoritarian";
the President of the US determines what countries are "Internet-restricting countries" (fat chance that this would include the US or any of the US's friends);
the forms of censorship, etc. it affects are providing personally identifiable information to "Internet-restricting countries", filtering search results at the request of "Internet-restricting countries", and "jamming" "United States-supporting content" (government sites and the like) in "Internet-restricting countries";
the bill doesn't affect whether you can help any country other than an "Internet-restricting country" to censor the Intarweb,
Don't you think that might be happening to your while loop?
No, I don't. The: command is a built-in shell command (a command that ignores its arguments; it was originally the only way to do comments in shell scripts - 4BSD and perhaps even 3BSD, and System V, later added support in the Bourne shell for # as a comment character), and neither a while loop in the shell nor that command need to make any blocking system calls.
Fancy, animated interface of iPhone have to use the Full Power of CPU to be efficient. Allow Background Processing, it will suck like hell.
Gee, I ran a background job on my iPhone - I nohupped a shell script doing
while: do : done
and, while I was running, looked at some Wikipedia pages, pinched them up and down, scrolled them up and down, played one of the songs in the music collection, and played a YouTube video; it was minimally slower than when I kill -9ed the shell running the script. (Yes, ps said the script was in R state.)
Hint: modern OSes, including those that can draw at least some of their heritage from something called "The Unix Time-Sharing System", tend to have something called a "scheduler" which can share the CPU in such a way that interactive programs get more of the CPU than background jobs.
Note also that background jobs might well be blocked in what, in modern OSes, is often called a "system call", and don't consume any CPU while in that blocked state.
I can make a strong case that negative integers are invented.
Given that the post to which you were replying referred to the Peano axioms, methinks the person who wrote said post meant to say "natural numbers were discovered" (which would then lead to the negative integers being invented), although perhaps he was citing Leopold Kronecker.
SAN is block storage, NAS is file storage. Simply put, if you send packets requesting blocks of data, like you would send over your local bus to your local hard drive, it is block storage. If you send packets requesting whole files, it is file storage.
No. If you send packets requesting blocks of data on a region of disk space, without any indication of a file to which they belong, that's block storage. If you send packets opening (or otherwise getting a handle for) a file, packets to read particular regions from a file, packets to write particular regions to a file, packets to create, remove, rename files, etc. that's file storage.
Most of the file access protocols out there (NFS, SMB/CIFS, AFP, NCP, etc.) permit you to read or write particular regions of a file (they don't even have to be aligned on block boundaries; they don't require whole file access. That's NAS, not SAN.
There are protocols used on SANs that mix file and block access, e.g. the protocols used by Quantum's StorNext, where create, delete, rename, open, etc. operations go to a metadata server and involve files, but reads and writes are done directly to the disk blocks in question over the SAN (you ask the metadata server for information to let you know what blocks on the SAN corresponds to particular data within a file).
I mean that if you built a 32-bit executable on Digital UNIX (-xtaso/-taso), you got "Unaligned access" traps. Whether the compiler didn't generate good code, or it was simply because we started with the 21064
Probably a compiler bug, then, as the LDL/STL instructions date all the way back to the 21064.
I assumed that this was either due to better instruction scheduling on AMD or better hardware register allocation (register coloring, etc) on Intel in Intel's 32-bit model.
By "instruction scheduling" I assume you mean the scheduling done by the processor, not by the compiler, and by "hardware register allocation" I assume you mean assigning hardware registers to architectural registers (register renaming) rather than register allocation done by the compiler, unless you're saying that the compiler or compilers being used were not optimizing correctly for the processors being used.
On the Alpha, the problem was that 32-bit mode requires trapping many accesses because the CPU is *purely* 64-bit.
If by "*purely* 64-bit" you mean "has no instructions that directly load and store 32-bit words on 32-bit boundaries in memory", that's false (LDL/STL, where a "longword" is 32 bits even though "long int" is 64 bits on UN*Xes on Alpha - although it's 32 bits Windows for Alpha; a 64-bit quantity is a "quadword", as in LDQ/STQ). (I'll leave out the BWX instructions to load or store 8-bit or 16-bit quantities directly, as they showed up later, although 8-bit and 16-bit loads and stores weren't done by trapping, they were done by the compiler synthesizing them out of other instructions or by the assembler programmer doing so.)
With AMD64, AMD implemented a large register file efficiently, so a good compiler can generate better code for it. Intel's implementation of AMD64 doesn't seem to be as good,
Presumably you're talking about code scheduling, etc. issues rather than instruction set issues. What issues are you referring to?
$ ls/usr/lib | wc -l 278 $ ls/usr/lib/*.dylib | sed 's/\.[0-9.]*\.dylib/.dylib/' | sort -u | wc -l 120 $ sw_vers ProductName: Mac OS X ProductVersion: 10.4.11 BuildVersion: 8S2167
Less than thousands - and less than half if you rule out files that aren't shared libraries or that are just links to the same shared library - although that leaves out frameworks:
Less than thousands if you rule out files that aren't shared libraries or that are just links to the same shared library; that includes the equivalents of the OS X frameworks.
My understanding is that the lead developer started working on Ethereal while working at one company (as an F/OSS project), and then left
Yes.
for a competitor
No - Network Integration Services is a company providing various networking services, while CACE Technologies provides various products and services for network traffic capture and analysis. They're not competitors.
but continued working on it. Although the codebase was undisturbed, since it was GPL, the first company retained the rights to the 'Ethereal' name.
Which work very differently from a Unix terminal, as you probably know.
Yes, they work more like a Web form.:-)
However, they work even more differently from a card reader, which was my point; calling mainframes and iSeries midranges batch machines is more than a bit behind the times.
The OS has to be a microkernel, and it can't change much. The amount of trusted code must be minimized. IBM's VM has been stable for decades now, even though the applications have changed drastically.
Yup, OS/360^WOS/VS2^WMVS^Wz/OS has changed drastically over the decades.:-) ("VM" in the sense of "VM/CMS" is an "OS" that provides a virtual machines to the "applications" running on it; those "applications" are full-blown OSes, whether they're full-blown OSes that can also run on bare hardware, such as z/OS or Linux, or single-user OSes such as CMS.)
I don't know how "micro" the nucleus (kernel) of z/OS is.
The QNX kernel changes little from year to year
...and doesn't run on mainframes (the QNX Neutrino product brief lists x86, SH-4, PowerPC, ARM, and MIPS as processor architectures on which it runs; it doesn't list S/390 or z/Architecture, for example). It's an interesting system, but not really relevant to the engineering of mainframe OSes (real-time OSes, yes, but not mainframe OSes).
Slashdot Mirror
Another loophole where? In the bill in question? I guess that's technically true, in the sense that the bill doesn't say anything one way or the other about the US government blocking Internet access; it neither forbids nor allows it. (In fact, it says nothing about Internet access being blocked in countries other than those designated by the president as "Internet-blocking countries".)
I.e., how comfortable would I be with Arab nations refusing to sell oil to countries that block what the latter countries' governments choose to deem "Islamist propaganda"? Pretty comfortable, actually, given that I don't have a particular problem with stuff that some might deem "Islamist propaganda" - or "US-supported sites" or "Chinese-supported sites" or "French-supported sites" or "Russian-supported sites" or..., for that matter - being available to the public without somebody deciding it's Bad And Dangerous for you to pour the contents of those sites into your brain.
(Oh, and the analogy breaks down in any case because the bill doesn't penalize the sale of all networking technology to those countries, just technology used to restrict Internet access.)
By actually reading the bill and noting that it applies only to US companies tat:
and realizing that, as the President is the one who designates what countries are "Internet-restricting countries", the US is unlikely ever to be designated such a country.
Those of us who have RTFB don't think that, as we find it highly unlikely that the President of the US would designate the US an "Internet-restricting country", and TFB only penalizes companies that help "Internet-restricting countries", as designated by the President, do stuff such as jamming Internet sites.
No, because there's nothing in the bill about the president censoring anything, there's just stuff about the president saying "oh, OK, the {fill in the 'Internet-restricting country'ans} can block this and we won't go after you if you help them".
There is a provision for congressional oversight of the latter; to quote section 207(b) of TFB:
You misspelled "to, as he sees fit, step in and not bother to prevent our fine companies from helping other countries block sites they deem a threat to their great lands". RTFB (in particular, RTFS 207, "Presidential Waiver").
Could you cite the parts of the bill that indicate that the Office of Global Internet Freedom is "designed to oversee and censor america's internet"? (Hint: the item the person to whom you're replying referred to is not it.)
Only to the extent that they don't exercise the veto. The bill doesn't say they get to add terms to lists of filtered searches, for example.
No - what it says is that he can, for example, override the bill's requirement that US companies not block government or government-funded Web sites from being read in "Internet-restricting countries"; the bill doesn't explicitly say he can block it himself.
Exactly.
Here's The Fine Bill, as can be found if you follow enough links, and here's the entry for it on the THOMAS web site at the Library of Congress. Please read before commenting on the bill. In particular, note that:
No, I don't. The : command is a built-in shell command (a command that ignores its arguments; it was originally the only way to do comments in shell scripts - 4BSD and perhaps even 3BSD, and System V, later added support in the Bourne shell for # as a comment character), and neither a while loop in the shell nor that command need to make any blocking system calls.
Gee, I ran a background job on my iPhone - I nohupped a shell script doing
and, while I was running, looked at some Wikipedia pages, pinched them up and down, scrolled them up and down, played one of the songs in the music collection, and played a YouTube video; it was minimally slower than when I kill -9ed the shell running the script. (Yes, ps said the script was in R state.)
Hint: modern OSes, including those that can draw at least some of their heritage from something called "The Unix Time-Sharing System", tend to have something called a "scheduler" which can share the CPU in such a way that interactive programs get more of the CPU than background jobs.
Note also that background jobs might well be blocked in what, in modern OSes, is often called a "system call", and don't consume any CPU while in that blocked state.
Given that the post to which you were replying referred to the Peano axioms, methinks the person who wrote said post meant to say "natural numbers were discovered" (which would then lead to the negative integers being invented), although perhaps he was citing Leopold Kronecker.
I didn't get it, because I'm too old.
And it turns out I can produce 80-column cards on my Apple computer.
No. If you send packets requesting blocks of data on a region of disk space, without any indication of a file to which they belong, that's block storage. If you send packets opening (or otherwise getting a handle for) a file, packets to read particular regions from a file, packets to write particular regions to a file, packets to create, remove, rename files, etc. that's file storage.
Most of the file access protocols out there (NFS, SMB/CIFS, AFP, NCP, etc.) permit you to read or write particular regions of a file (they don't even have to be aligned on block boundaries; they don't require whole file access. That's NAS, not SAN.
There are protocols used on SANs that mix file and block access, e.g. the protocols used by Quantum's StorNext, where create, delete, rename, open, etc. operations go to a metadata server and involve files, but reads and writes are done directly to the disk blocks in question over the SAN (you ask the metadata server for information to let you know what blocks on the SAN corresponds to particular data within a file).
Yes, but are you Buddy Guy?
Probably a compiler bug, then, as the LDL/STL instructions date all the way back to the 21064.
By "instruction scheduling" I assume you mean the scheduling done by the processor, not by the compiler, and by "hardware register allocation" I assume you mean assigning hardware registers to architectural registers (register renaming) rather than register allocation done by the compiler, unless you're saying that the compiler or compilers being used were not optimizing correctly for the processors being used.
Another part that's not 64-bit is usually called "the kernel":
If by "*purely* 64-bit" you mean "has no instructions that directly load and store 32-bit words on 32-bit boundaries in memory", that's false (LDL/STL, where a "longword" is 32 bits even though "long int" is 64 bits on UN*Xes on Alpha - although it's 32 bits Windows for Alpha; a 64-bit quantity is a "quadword", as in LDQ/STQ). (I'll leave out the BWX instructions to load or store 8-bit or 16-bit quantities directly, as they showed up later, although 8-bit and 16-bit loads and stores weren't done by trapping, they were done by the compiler synthesizing them out of other instructions or by the assembler programmer doing so.)
Presumably you're talking about code scheduling, etc. issues rather than instruction set issues. What issues are you referring to?
Less than thousands - and less than half if you rule out files that aren't shared libraries or that are just links to the same shared library - although that leaves out frameworks:
OK, now let's try that on Ubuntu 7.10:
Less than thousands if you rule out files that aren't shared libraries or that are just links to the same shared library; that includes the equivalents of the OS X frameworks.
Yes.
No - Network Integration Services is a company providing various networking services, while CACE Technologies provides various products and services for network traffic capture and analysis. They're not competitors.
Yes.
Yes, they work more like a Web form. :-)
However, they work even more differently from a card reader, which was my point; calling mainframes and iSeries midranges batch machines is more than a bit behind the times.
Batch/punchcard user model? What were the IBM 3270 and IBM 5250 terminals for, then?
Yup, OS/360^WOS/VS2^WMVS^Wz/OS has changed drastically over the decades. :-) ("VM" in the sense of "VM/CMS" is an "OS" that provides a virtual machines to the "applications" running on it; those "applications" are full-blown OSes, whether they're full-blown OSes that can also run on bare hardware, such as z/OS or Linux, or single-user OSes such as CMS.)
I don't know how "micro" the nucleus (kernel) of z/OS is.
...and doesn't run on mainframes (the QNX Neutrino product brief lists x86, SH-4, PowerPC, ARM, and MIPS as processor architectures on which it runs; it doesn't list S/390 or z/Architecture, for example). It's an interesting system, but not really relevant to the engineering of mainframe OSes (real-time OSes, yes, but not mainframe OSes).
An explosive event in space named after Clarke? Oh, great....