Copy and paste works correctly in the terminal. Control isn't overloaded by meta, so meta-c copies everywhere, control-c sends SIGINT. You don't have some special weird copy and paste behaviour for the terminal that is different to every other app on the system. This is why a Mac is nice for someone who, like me, spends most of their life inside Vim.
Yes, that's one thing I like about OS X. However, to be fair, I was pleasantly surprised to find that gnome-terminal, although constrained by the existing use of the control key, supported shift+control+{X,C,V}, which, although not ideal, is probably the best you can do if you don't have a Command key.
Pop-Quiz: what is the keyboard shortcut to jump to the start of a line you have just typed into Terminal.app? Use-case: you typed "cf/Users/me/work/test/applicationtesting/testsuite/runtestsuite/run1/" and need to fix cf to say cd?
Control-A. But that's because I'm either using bash or using ksh with EDITOR set to gmacs (no, I do not want control-T to swap anything other than the two characters to the left of the cursor, if there are two or more characters to the left of the cursor, thankyouverymuch).
Why do you ask? Is it different, with the same choice of shell and shell environment, with other terminal emulators, such as xterm, Konsole, gnome-terminal, etc.?
In Linux, your method of connecting depends on your distribution; when I used Slackware with ndiswrapper, this involved far more work than was realistic for the general public. I don't know what the state of facility in Kubuntu or Ubuntu is now (they have brought Linux a long way from what it was), but I suspect it still involves some sort of configuration with which the general public won't feel like bothering.
Depends on your distribution and your Wi-Fi adapter; if you needed ndiswrapper, it's probably because your adapter didn't have a Linux driver.
Fedora 9, as I remember, pretty much Just Worked with a Belkin USB stick, discovering the device when it was plugged in, and offering me a list of networks to which to connect; I forget whether Ubuntu 7 also Just Worked.
You say that as if it were a sign that something was wrong.
(Hint: middle-mouse-button is not "copy", it's "paste current selection", and it's quite possible for a GUI to support both ^X/^C/^V cut-copy-paste and middle-mouse-button paste-current-selection.)
The actual plan, in the document, would be better described as taking key peace protesters and replacing them with pro-war government employees.
The actual plan, in the document, would be better described, in that particular situation, as adding to groups of peace protesters pro-war government employees; there's nothing that amounts to "replacing" peace protesters, "key" or otherwise:
How might this tactic work? Recall that extremist networks and groups, including the groups that purvey conspiracy theories, typically suffer from a kind of crippled epistemology. Hearing only conspiratorial accounts of government behavior, their members become ever more prone to believe and generate such accounts. Informational and reputational cascades, group polarization, and selection effects suggest that the generation of ever-more-extreme views within these groups can be dampened or reversed by the introduction of cognitive diversity. We suggest a role for government efforts, and agents, in introducing such diversity. Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action.
I have a distinct warning to all frothy-mouthed Liberals that love the idea of a "Fairness Doctrine" which was used in the past to remove Communist influences in the media
(Which I wish everybody would do before commenting....)
you will learn that a banning of such sites is listed as one of many responses that could be taken, but the author pointedly did not suggest that actually be done.
What the authors (plural - Sunstein has a co-author) said was:
What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the things it can do, what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help. Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions.
so I would not go so far as to say that the authors do not suggest that banning conspiracy sites never be done. However, as you note, the bulk of their discussion is of counter-propaganda efforts; they do not (for better or worse - I'd say "worse" in this case) discuss that option further (to, for example, indicate under what circumstances "[banning] conspiracy theorizing" "would have a place" (maybe there's a "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre" situation where it might be, but, short of that...).
I'm only half-joking when I say this, but of course he doesn't want to associate himself with the stigma of government censorship and COINTELPRO; he wants to make his proposal seem different and more legitimate. What he is proposing, however, is only subtly different.
They (Sunstein isn't the sole author) suggest several different possibilities, some of which are government censorship ("[banning] conspiracy theorizing"), and some of which I would consider far less severe than COINTELPRO under the right conditions (having "government agents" who "would openly proclaim, or at least make no effort to conceal, their institutional affiliations", "enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action." "Under the right conditions" here means raising doubts about factual premises by providing evidence contradicting those premises (evidence that members of those groups can choose to accept or reject - at least they know it's somebody from the government, which means they'll probably reject it, arguably with some justification) and raising doubts about causal logic by pointing out logical flaws.
Having government agents not identifying themselves as government agents do so is something that I would, in fact, consider "only subtly different" from what COINTELPRO did (and I would not be surprised if, in some cases, that's exactly what FBI agents involved in COINTELPRO did).
I'd probably consider myself right of center, but I also don't think World Net Daily is a very unbiased source.
I will give them credit for linking to The Fine Paper, but, yes, saying that "Some 'conspiracy theories' recommended for ban by Sunstein include..." is, indeed, misrepresenting what TFP says. Yes, he and his co-author do speak of "[banning] conspiracy theorizing" (even assuming such a broad goal is attainable, I consider using the power of the state to attempt to ban a mindset wrong), but they don't speak of it as what should be done in all circumstances. The list of theories following that are just some of the theories they mention in the early part of the article; that's not a list of theories they explicitly say should be "banned".
I guess the whole infiltration thing will convince the conspiracy theorists that they were right all along, and anyone who questions their theories can now be dismissed as a government infiltrator:/
The authors explicitly acknowledge that:
In one variant, government agents would openly proclaim, or at least make no effort to conceal, their institutional affiliations. A recent newspaper story recounts that Arabic-speaking Muslim officials from the State Department have participated in dialogues at radical Islamist chat rooms and websites in order to ventilate arguments not usually heard among the groups that cluster around those sites, with some success.68 In another variant, government officials would participate anonymously or even with false identities. Each approach has distinct costs and benefits; the second is riskier but potentially brings higher returns. In the former case, where government officials participate openly as such, hard-core members of the relevant networks, communities and conspiracy-minded organizations may entirely discount what the officials say, right from the beginning. The risk with tactics of anonymous participation, conversely, is that if the tactic becomes known, any true member of the relevant groups who raises doubts may be suspected of government connections.
That WND article links to, err, umm, the paper in question. If you download the paper by clicking the "Download" link and opening the PDF, the precise quote is
What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the things it can do, what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help. Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions.
which doesn't directly speak of "banning websites which post 'right-wing rumors'", although it does speak of "[banning] conspiracy theorizing" as something that "will have a place under imaginable conditions" without bothering to speak of the imaginable conditions under which "[banning] conspiracy theorizing" would "have a place" - or, for that matter, explaining what "[banning] conspiracy theorizing" means.
There's no direct reference to "right-wing rumors" in the paper; the authors speak of various conspiracy theories, at least some of which have supporters some of whom one might consider "left-wing", such as "the view that the Central Intelligence Agency was responsible for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy", "[the view] that Martin Luther King, Jr., was killed by federal agents", and "[the view] that the plane crash that killed Democrat Paul Wellstone was engineered by Republican politicians", as well as those that have supporters some of whom one might consider "right-wing", such as "[the view] that the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud" and the "complex of conspiratorial beliefs about the federal government" held by "the perpetrators" of "the Oklahoma City bombing". (And, yes, each of those sets of theories might have other supporters who would be considered to be on the other side of the political spectrum from the side I mentioned.)
Note also that, in the paper, they don't dismiss all conspiracy theories:
Of course some conspiracy theories, under our definition, have turned out to be true. The Watergate hotel room used by Democratic National Committee was, in fact, bugged by Republican officials, operating at the behest of the White House. In the 1950s, the Central Intelligence Agency did, in fact, administer LSD and related drugs under Project MKULTRA, in an effort to investigate the possibility of “mind control.” Operation Northwoods, a rumored plan by the Department of Defense to simulate acts of terrorism and to blame them on Cuba, really was proposed by high-level officials (though the plan never went into effect).13 In 1947, space aliens did, in fact, land in Roswell, New Mexico, and the government covered it all up. (Well, maybe not.) Our focus throughout is on false conspiracy theories, not true ones. Our ultimate goal is to explore how public officials might undermine such theories, and as a general rule, true accounts should not be undermined.
Also, note that when they speak of "cognitive infiltration", they explicitly acknowledge programs such as COINTELPRO, and say that's not what they have in mind:
By this we do not mean 1960s-style infiltration with a view to surveillance and collecting information, possibly for use in future prosecutions. Rather, we mean that government efforts might succeed in weakening or even breaking up the ideological and epistemological complexes that constitute these networks and groups.
VMS allows a process to map a file into its address space and use the paging mechanism to do the disk i/o. It is kind of like a private page file. You get fast random access. You get persistence if you close the file/map properly when you are finished with it.
It has been a long time since I looked at this stuff, but I think you could share the mapped file with other local processes. You had to roll your own atomic access with mutexes.
All true of modern UN*Xes and Windows as well.
The difference is that in Multics, that was the core disk file I/O mechanism, atop which read/write-style access was built in ring-4 code. In UN*X, Windows, and, I suspect, VMS, you still have {read()/write(), ReadFile()/WriteFile(), QIO-based reads and writes}. The two mechanisms might, or might not, share their {buffer,page} caches, if the second mechanism has a buffer cache (which it does, by default, on UN*X and Windows, although some UN*Xes and Windows allow "direct" I/O, bypassing the buffer cache; I don't know whether VMS has any buffer cache at the QIO level, or leaves that up to RMS).
RMS/Files-11 is a whole different, overly-complex issue. At least FIVE different formats for a simple sequential text file. A whole multi-indexed database in a single file.
--
I think of most of that, if not all of that, as RMS rather than Files-11. I tend to view Files-11 as the "container" level, providing a directory structure, and "files" as arrays of blocks, with RMS implementing the structure inside the file-as-array-of-blocks. ISAM implementations are also available for UN*X and Windows, atop the file-as-array-of-bytes layer provided at the system call layer, although they run in user mode, rather than in executive mode as is done with RMS (well, at least on VAX).
There is no method to provide hints about file usage; for example, you might want to have a hint that says the file will be read sequentially, or a hint that a file might be over written. There are lots of possible hints, but there is no standard way of providing file hints...
Ya, we had that back in the stone-age and Multics would have been poster-child for this type of thinking, but it was a *bitch* and made portability problematic.
No, Multics would have been the poster child for "there's no I/O, there's just paging" - file system I/O was done in Multics by mapping the file into your address space and referring to it as if it were memory. ("Multi-segment files" were just directories with a bunch of real files in them, each no larger than the maximum size of a segment. I/O was done through read/write calls, but those were implemented by mapping the file, or the segments of a multi-segment file, into the address space and copying to/from the mapped segment.)
I think VMS has some of this type of capability with their Files 11 support - any VMS people care to comment. Unix (and most current OS) sees everything as a stream of bytes, in most cases, and this is much simpler.
"Seeing everything as a stream of bytes" is orthogonal to "a hint that the file will be read sequentially". See, for example, fadvise() in Linux, or some of the FILE_FLAG_ options in CreateFile() in Windows (Windows being another OS that shows a file as a seekable stream of bytes).
CDMA uses the CMEA and ORYX algorithms, which are pretty weak as well, as shown in the linked papers.
That's presumably "CDMA" as in "Qualcomm's cdmaOne and CDMA2000", not "CDMA" as in "Code Division Multiple Access".
However, CDMA has somewhat of an advantage, because it's difficult to obtain the encrypted data stream in the first place: the nature of CDMA transmission means you can't pull a signal out of the noise unless you know the codes being used by the base station and handset.
That sounds as if it's referring to "CDMA" as in "Code Division Multiple Access", Does it apply to W-CDMA as used in UMTS 3G networks (such as AT&T in the US and just about everybody in Europe)?
I think I heard of one embedded system that broke due to Y2K, but I've seen many more over the years that got confused over leap years. The year 2000 was especially good for that because that wasn't a leap year even though the common, oversimplified, every-4-year rule says it should have been.
Actually, it was a leap year, even though the common, not-quite-as-oversimplified-but-still-too-simple every-4-year-except-for-every-100-year rule says it shouldn't have been. The really dumb systems with the every-4-year rule lucked out.
Now we can all wait for the end of civilization in February 2100 as every single embedded system crashes....
Why would you think that? How is a phone worthless on another network? Do you even understand what unlocking is?
Do you understand what the tower of Babel of different mobile phone protocols the North American market is? If not, please reread the posting to which you replied, as he mentioned those issues (e.g., "And of course a GSM phone cannot be activated on a CDMA network or vice-versa.")
Here in the UK, lots of little shops offer to unlock your phone. And people pay for it, because its worth moneys to have an unlocked phone.
Here in the US, you can unlock a phone you got for, for example, the AT&T mobile phone network, and you will not be able to use it on, for example, the Verizon Wireless mobile phone network, for purely technical reasons - AT&T uses GSM and UMTS, Verizon use cdmaOne and CDMA2000. There in the UK, all providers, as far as I know, use GSM and UMTS.
That's why he said "unlocked US cellphone", not "unlocked cellphone". He wasn't saying "unlocked cellphones aren't useful anywhere", he was saying "unlocked cell phones aren't useful in the US market".
Any new vanilla box company would kill for any kind of brand recognition.
...because they'd die without it. The question is whether they'd also die with it; I'm not sure "hey, we're the guys who used to make hackintoshes" would make much of a difference to their chances of survival. Perhaps they really do have a business plan of
Get the market to think of you as "the guys who tried to make hackintoshes and got sued out of the business by Apple, and are now just making white boxes just like everybody else's white boxes"
???
Profit!
but I wouldn't invest in somebody with that business plan.
My guess is that the guy who said they're trying to be the equivalent of a smoke shop selling "tobacco" pipes nudge nudge wink wink has it right, although that would presumably imply that the real money would be made by selling dope^WRebel EFI.
Slashdot Mirror
Copy and paste works correctly in the terminal. Control isn't overloaded by meta, so meta-c copies everywhere, control-c sends SIGINT. You don't have some special weird copy and paste behaviour for the terminal that is different to every other app on the system. This is why a Mac is nice for someone who, like me, spends most of their life inside Vim.
Yes, that's one thing I like about OS X. However, to be fair, I was pleasantly surprised to find that gnome-terminal, although constrained by the existing use of the control key, supported shift+control+{X,C,V}, which, although not ideal, is probably the best you can do if you don't have a Command key.
Pop-Quiz: what is the keyboard shortcut to jump to the start of a line you have just typed into Terminal.app? Use-case: you typed "cf /Users/me/work/test/applicationtesting/testsuite/runtestsuite/run1/" and need to fix cf to say cd?
Control-A. But that's because I'm either using bash or using ksh with EDITOR set to gmacs (no, I do not want control-T to swap anything other than the two characters to the left of the cursor, if there are two or more characters to the left of the cursor, thankyouverymuch).
Why do you ask? Is it different, with the same choice of shell and shell environment, with other terminal emulators, such as xterm, Konsole, gnome-terminal, etc.?
In Linux, your method of connecting depends on your distribution; when I used Slackware with ndiswrapper, this involved far more work than was realistic for the general public. I don't know what the state of facility in Kubuntu or Ubuntu is now (they have brought Linux a long way from what it was), but I suspect it still involves some sort of configuration with which the general public won't feel like bothering.
Depends on your distribution and your Wi-Fi adapter; if you needed ndiswrapper, it's probably because your adapter didn't have a Linux driver.
Fedora 9, as I remember, pretty much Just Worked with a Belkin USB stick, discovering the device when it was plugged in, and offering me a list of networks to which to connect; I forget whether Ubuntu 7 also Just Worked.
Does it use Ctrl-C to copy?
You say that as if it were a sign that something was wrong.
(Hint: middle-mouse-button is not "copy", it's "paste current selection", and it's quite possible for a GUI to support both ^X/^C/^V cut-copy-paste and middle-mouse-button paste-current-selection.)
The actual plan, in the document, would be better described as taking key peace protesters and replacing them with pro-war government employees.
The actual plan, in the document, would be better described, in that particular situation, as adding to groups of peace protesters pro-war government employees; there's nothing that amounts to "replacing" peace protesters, "key" or otherwise:
How might this tactic work? Recall that extremist networks and groups, including the groups that purvey conspiracy theories, typically suffer from a kind of crippled epistemology. Hearing only conspiratorial accounts of government behavior, their members become ever more prone to believe and generate such accounts. Informational and reputational cascades, group polarization, and selection effects suggest that the generation of ever-more-extreme views within these groups can be dampened or reversed by the introduction of cognitive diversity. We suggest a role for government efforts, and agents, in introducing such diversity. Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action.
I have a distinct warning to all frothy-mouthed Liberals that love the idea of a "Fairness Doctrine" which was used in the past to remove Communist influences in the media
[citation needed]
When was the "Fairness Doctrine" ever specifically used to remove any influences in the media, much less "Communist" influences, as opposed to, for example, give an author the chance to reply to an attack by a right-wing broadcaster who had accused the author of "[having] been fired by a newspaper for making false charges against city officials; [having] then worked for a Communist-affiliated publication; [having] defended Alger Hiss and attacked J. Edgar Hoover and the Central Intelligence Agency, and [having] now written a "book to smear and destroy Barry Goldwater.""
Now, in practice, there were concerns raised that enforcing the "Fairness Doctrine" might cause stations to avoid saying anything that might trigger "Fairness Doctrine" enforcement, having a "chilling effect" on free speech.
If you read the damn paper,
(Which I wish everybody would do before commenting....)
you will learn that a banning of such sites is listed as one of many responses that could be taken, but the author pointedly did not suggest that actually be done.
What the authors (plural - Sunstein has a co-author) said was:
What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the things it can do, what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help. Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions.
so I would not go so far as to say that the authors do not suggest that banning conspiracy sites never be done. However, as you note, the bulk of their discussion is of counter-propaganda efforts; they do not (for better or worse - I'd say "worse" in this case) discuss that option further (to, for example, indicate under what circumstances "[banning] conspiracy theorizing" "would have a place" (maybe there's a "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre" situation where it might be, but, short of that...).
You're changing his suggestion to support your position, which is why your argument works.
should a CDC representative, after identifying themselves, offer a counter point?
Yep.
should a CDC representative, posing as a concerned mother, deliberately sabotage the discussion?
Nope.
The former is what the suggestion advocates AGAINST. The latter is what is actually being proposed.
Actually, if you read TFP, both are offered as possibilities.
I'm only half-joking when I say this, but of course he doesn't want to associate himself with the stigma of government censorship and COINTELPRO; he wants to make his proposal seem different and more legitimate. What he is proposing, however, is only subtly different.
They (Sunstein isn't the sole author) suggest several different possibilities, some of which are government censorship ("[banning] conspiracy theorizing"), and some of which I would consider far less severe than COINTELPRO under the right conditions (having "government agents" who "would openly proclaim, or at least make no effort to conceal, their institutional affiliations", "enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action." "Under the right conditions" here means raising doubts about factual premises by providing evidence contradicting those premises (evidence that members of those groups can choose to accept or reject - at least they know it's somebody from the government, which means they'll probably reject it, arguably with some justification) and raising doubts about causal logic by pointing out logical flaws.
Having government agents not identifying themselves as government agents do so is something that I would, in fact, consider "only subtly different" from what COINTELPRO did (and I would not be surprised if, in some cases, that's exactly what FBI agents involved in COINTELPRO did).
I'd probably consider myself right of center, but I also don't think World Net Daily is a very unbiased source.
I will give them credit for linking to The Fine Paper, but, yes, saying that "Some 'conspiracy theories' recommended for ban by Sunstein include..." is, indeed, misrepresenting what TFP says. Yes, he and his co-author do speak of "[banning] conspiracy theorizing" (even assuming such a broad goal is attainable, I consider using the power of the state to attempt to ban a mindset wrong), but they don't speak of it as what should be done in all circumstances. The list of theories following that are just some of the theories they mention in the early part of the article; that's not a list of theories they explicitly say should be "banned".
Don't you merely confirm their conspiracy theories with this dunderheaded plan?
Sunstein and Vermeule explicitly acknowledge that possibility. See an earlier posting of mine in this thread.
I guess the whole infiltration thing will convince the conspiracy theorists that they were right all along, and anyone who questions their theories can now be dismissed as a government infiltrator :/
The authors explicitly acknowledge that:
In one variant, government agents would openly proclaim, or at least make no effort to conceal, their institutional affiliations. A recent newspaper story recounts that Arabic-speaking Muslim officials from the State Department have participated in dialogues at radical Islamist chat rooms and websites in order to ventilate arguments not usually heard among the groups that cluster around those sites, with some success.68 In another variant, government officials would participate anonymously or even with false identities. Each approach has distinct costs and benefits; the second is riskier but potentially brings higher returns. In the former case, where government officials participate openly as such, hard-core members of the relevant networks, communities and conspiracy-minded organizations may entirely discount what the officials say, right from the beginning. The risk with tactics of anonymous participation, conversely, is that if the tactic becomes known, any true member of the relevant groups who raises doubts may be suspected of government connections.
Sunstein has also recently advocated banning websites which post 'right-wing rumors'
That WND article links to, err, umm, the paper in question. If you download the paper by clicking the "Download" link and opening the PDF, the precise quote is
What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the things it can do, what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help. Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions.
which doesn't directly speak of "banning websites which post 'right-wing rumors'", although it does speak of "[banning] conspiracy theorizing" as something that "will have a place under imaginable conditions" without bothering to speak of the imaginable conditions under which "[banning] conspiracy theorizing" would "have a place" - or, for that matter, explaining what "[banning] conspiracy theorizing" means.
There's no direct reference to "right-wing rumors" in the paper; the authors speak of various conspiracy theories, at least some of which have supporters some of whom one might consider "left-wing", such as "the view that the Central Intelligence Agency was responsible for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy", "[the view] that Martin Luther King, Jr., was killed by federal agents", and "[the view] that the plane crash that killed Democrat Paul Wellstone was engineered by Republican politicians", as well as those that have supporters some of whom one might consider "right-wing", such as "[the view] that the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud" and the "complex of conspiratorial beliefs about the federal government" held by "the perpetrators" of "the Oklahoma City bombing". (And, yes, each of those sets of theories might have other supporters who would be considered to be on the other side of the political spectrum from the side I mentioned.)
Note also that, in the paper, they don't dismiss all conspiracy theories:
Of course some conspiracy theories, under our definition, have turned out to be true. The Watergate hotel room used by Democratic National Committee was, in fact, bugged by Republican officials, operating at the behest of the White House. In the 1950s, the Central Intelligence Agency did, in fact, administer LSD and related drugs under Project MKULTRA, in an effort to investigate the possibility of “mind control.” Operation Northwoods, a rumored plan by the Department of Defense to simulate acts of terrorism and to blame them on Cuba, really was proposed by high-level officials (though the plan never went into effect).13 In 1947, space aliens did, in fact, land in Roswell, New Mexico, and the government covered it all up. (Well, maybe not.) Our focus throughout is on false conspiracy theories, not true ones. Our ultimate goal is to explore how public officials might undermine such theories, and as a general rule, true accounts should not be undermined.
Also, note that when they speak of "cognitive infiltration", they explicitly acknowledge programs such as COINTELPRO, and say that's not what they have in mind:
By this we do not mean 1960s-style infiltration with a view to surveillance and collecting information, possibly for use in future prosecutions. Rather, we mean that government efforts might succeed in weakening or even breaking up the ideological and epistemological complexes that constitute these networks and groups.
Read the paper and draw your own conclusions.
VMS allows a process to map a file into its address space and use the paging mechanism to do the disk i/o. It is kind of like a private page file. You get fast random access. You get persistence if you close the file/map properly when you are finished with it.
It has been a long time since I looked at this stuff, but I think you could share the mapped file with other local processes. You had to roll your own atomic access with mutexes.
All true of modern UN*Xes and Windows as well.
The difference is that in Multics, that was the core disk file I/O mechanism, atop which read/write-style access was built in ring-4 code. In UN*X, Windows, and, I suspect, VMS, you still have {read()/write(), ReadFile()/WriteFile(), QIO-based reads and writes}. The two mechanisms might, or might not, share their {buffer,page} caches, if the second mechanism has a buffer cache (which it does, by default, on UN*X and Windows, although some UN*Xes and Windows allow "direct" I/O, bypassing the buffer cache; I don't know whether VMS has any buffer cache at the QIO level, or leaves that up to RMS).
RMS/Files-11 is a whole different, overly-complex issue. At least FIVE different formats for a simple sequential text file. A whole multi-indexed database in a single file. --
I think of most of that, if not all of that, as RMS rather than Files-11. I tend to view Files-11 as the "container" level, providing a directory structure, and "files" as arrays of blocks, with RMS implementing the structure inside the file-as-array-of-blocks. ISAM implementations are also available for UN*X and Windows, atop the file-as-array-of-bytes layer provided at the system call layer, although they run in user mode, rather than in executive mode as is done with RMS (well, at least on VAX).
Because some people have applications that need Windows to run for work, school, home, etc. that don't run nicely in VirtualBox.
And not on Parallels Workstation or VMWare Fusion either, presumably.
From TFA:
Ya, we had that back in the stone-age and Multics would have been poster-child for this type of thinking, but it was a *bitch* and made portability problematic.
No, Multics would have been the poster child for "there's no I/O, there's just paging" - file system I/O was done in Multics by mapping the file into your address space and referring to it as if it were memory. ("Multi-segment files" were just directories with a bunch of real files in them, each no larger than the maximum size of a segment. I/O was done through read/write calls, but those were implemented by mapping the file, or the segments of a multi-segment file, into the address space and copying to/from the mapped segment.)
I think VMS has some of this type of capability with their Files 11 support - any VMS people care to comment. Unix (and most current OS) sees everything as a stream of bytes, in most cases, and this is much simpler.
"Seeing everything as a stream of bytes" is orthogonal to "a hint that the file will be read sequentially". See, for example, fadvise() in Linux, or some of the FILE_FLAG_ options in CreateFile() in Windows (Windows being another OS that shows a file as a seekable stream of bytes).
The 1st thing that comes to my mind is electronic test equipment (VOMs, signal generators) where HP stands for High Priced
Actually, it now stands for "Agilent".
CDMA uses the CMEA and ORYX algorithms, which are pretty weak as well, as shown in the linked papers.
That's presumably "CDMA" as in "Qualcomm's cdmaOne and CDMA2000", not "CDMA" as in "Code Division Multiple Access".
However, CDMA has somewhat of an advantage, because it's difficult to obtain the encrypted data stream in the first place: the nature of CDMA transmission means you can't pull a signal out of the noise unless you know the codes being used by the base station and handset.
That sounds as if it's referring to "CDMA" as in "Code Division Multiple Access", Does it apply to W-CDMA as used in UMTS 3G networks (such as AT&T in the US and just about everybody in Europe)?
IIRC, NTFS is a descendent of something called HPFS, which is what IBM developed for OS/2.
If I remember correctly, HPFS was designed by Gordon Letwin, who was a Microsoft employee.
I think I heard of one embedded system that broke due to Y2K, but I've seen many more over the years that got confused over leap years. The year 2000 was especially good for that because that wasn't a leap year even though the common, oversimplified, every-4-year rule says it should have been.
Actually, it was a leap year, even though the common, not-quite-as-oversimplified-but-still-too-simple every-4-year-except-for-every-100-year rule says it shouldn't have been. The really dumb systems with the every-4-year rule lucked out.
Now we can all wait for the end of civilization in February 2100 as every single embedded system crashes....
and race car drivers with towing loads of 7,000+ pounds.
So what kind of racing involves towing 7000+ pounds on the track?
Why would you think that? How is a phone worthless on another network? Do you even understand what unlocking is?
Do you understand what the tower of Babel of different mobile phone protocols the North American market is? If not, please reread the posting to which you replied, as he mentioned those issues (e.g., "And of course a GSM phone cannot be activated on a CDMA network or vice-versa.")
Here in the UK, lots of little shops offer to unlock your phone. And people pay for it, because its worth moneys to have an unlocked phone.
Here in the US, you can unlock a phone you got for, for example, the AT&T mobile phone network, and you will not be able to use it on, for example, the Verizon Wireless mobile phone network, for purely technical reasons - AT&T uses GSM and UMTS, Verizon use cdmaOne and CDMA2000. There in the UK, all providers, as far as I know, use GSM and UMTS.
That's why he said "unlocked US cellphone", not "unlocked cellphone". He wasn't saying "unlocked cellphones aren't useful anywhere", he was saying "unlocked cell phones aren't useful in the US market".
Any new vanilla box company would kill for any kind of brand recognition.
...because they'd die without it. The question is whether they'd also die with it; I'm not sure "hey, we're the guys who used to make hackintoshes" would make much of a difference to their chances of survival. Perhaps they really do have a business plan of
but I wouldn't invest in somebody with that business plan.
My guess is that the guy who said they're trying to be the equivalent of a smoke shop selling "tobacco" pipes nudge nudge wink wink has it right, although that would presumably imply that the real money would be made by selling dope^WRebel EFI.
Could this whole debacle be just a publicity stunt to launch a company that ends up selling vanilla Windows systems?
Now there's a market without a lot of competition! It should be easy for them to break into that market.
Or maybe they'll try pan-fried carp - the sauce includes apples, after all....