countless amounts of technical and theoretical information was stolen by your comrades which undoubtedly lead to breakthroughs.
Please compare USSR nuclear program with USSR computer engineering (in 80's, post-BESM/Elbrus). Computers actually were based on "stolen" designs, and the whole area of development suffered massive setbacks due to playing catch-up and adapting to the changing direction of development performed elsewhere. As a result, USSR had excellent nuclear program (and theoretical physics), space program (and related science and industry), yet embarrassingly primitive computer/electronics industry. Hell, Russia STILL doesn't have any computer/electronics components industry to speak of. That's how far you can go on "spying".
So, you don't deny that the very reason they got the bomb(at that time) was spying, do you?
Why do you care what, of all people, I, deny or don't deny?
You still believe that the Rosenbergs were innocent?
As far as I know, they did not provide anything of importance. Even if you assume that they somehow sent Russians a diagram of "Fat Man", it was pretty much obvious by then, and couldn't have any effect on further development.
Everything I know about USSR nuclear program suggests that spying had little, if any, effect on it, however there is no reliable way to determine if it played any major role or not. What I do know, is that both USSR and US concentrated their spying efforts on determining what weapons, and how many, each of them had, so they wouldn't accidentally end up with a massive disparity.
The important points are:
1. You can't develop the whole branch of science (or even a nuclear bomb project) from scratch in 4 years on spying -- leave alone on few notes. 2. Nuclear weapons development (and related research programs, and high energy physics, etc.) in USSR went into its own direction, and was advancing at a pace that could not be sustained by "spying". 3. The idiot claimed that the whole nuclear program was actually continuous "stealing" from US, and that it somehow was stopped or damaged when US made their program "more secure".
The USSR propped up its research by doing the same thing (see nuclear weapons) and ultimately lost when better counter measures were taken to stop them.
Really? What else did nice US propaganda workers tell you?
Holy fuck, of all things, USSR had one of the best nuclear research programs in the world.
The bill of rights only applies to citizens, and in some cases, residents of the United States. If you aren't one of us, our constitution does not afford you any protections from government idiocy.
There is absolutely nothing in Bill of Rights that applies to any person -- it applies to US government. In particular, it restricts what US government can do to toward a person -- ANY person.
If so, Internet trolling is the purest form of art, GNAA should be supported by government grants, and survival as a tripfag on 4chan should be a mandatory part of all college-level art courses.
Vertical stripes may be from spoofed addresses -- nothing from real sources, even botnets, can be that uniform across the whole address space. It would make sense to check how much of traffic comes from unallocated address space, as packets from there are guaranteed to be spoofed. Why would anyone do such a thing? As a direct portscan it would be useless (he can't see the responses), however it might be used as a smokescreen to hide a real portscan or attack from some of those addresses. It may even be an attack that floods the DNS servers with fake responses in the attempt to poison DNS cache, thus redirecting some of the traffic to the attackers' addresses.
Then, after whatever kind of discovery was completed, you have seen some targeted host scans, [D]DoS attempts or actual exploits causing large amount of traffic (horizontal stripes).
Another possibility is that those packets are responses caused by something on your network being coerced into sending packets uniformly to the whole address space. It may be something as stupid as a web page with random redirects, however more likely it is a worm on some of your computers looking for other members of his botnet. After such discovery some hosts joined the botnet[s], producing horizontal stripes composed of traffic from other botnet members.
"when a person accesses cyberspace, he or she should be able to connect with any other person that he or she wants to--and that other person should be able to receive his or her message," they write. The 'Net should operate as a place where no "central authority" can make rules that prescribe the possible, and where entrepreneurs and network providers are able to "innovate without permission."
So when a "person" is an ISP, he has a "right" to pick and choose what traffic will he drop or throttle, and users, trapped in his network, don't have any recourse because no "central authority" can smack such ISP with fines and license withdrawals for such "innovation".
Or maybe you are full of shit because no one else sees this "problem". Even Microsoft astroturfers don't claim that Firefox is slower than other Linux GUI applications.
Seriously, I write optimized DSP code for x86 and non-x86 architectures, and I see absolutely nothing relevant or meaningful in the above comment.
"x86-friendly code"? Most of the code anyone ever sees is not "friendly" to any architecture -- for example, it uses way, way too much memory to be efficient at cache use, so the only "performance" the user sees is the speed of his RAM. At best someone manages to fit some code into cache sizes (that vary more within the x86 architecture than between architectures), or adapts it to various kinds of parallelism (that are usually portable in general but have to be adapted to particular implementations). The rest if a job for compilers -- and x86 is an architecture with very long history of compiler development, so it may be better supported than some others.
"Query a processor for its capabilities"? Why would you want to do that? What do you think, compiler optimizes for if not "capabilities" of a target CPU -- even if there is no generalized way to represent those "capabilities" in a generalized way?
"Easily present applications with a VM view of the processor to reign in power hungry apps"? If there was a VM (that is, VIRTUAL machine) that can be easily converted into any CPU architecture and such representation also represented the performance of the target architecture, it would be the target of last compiler ever written. The whole "problem" is, progress in CPU technology involves fundamentally different ways CPU treats code (pipelines, cores, non-SIMD parallelism), memory (caches, SIMD) and I/O (bus architectures) that allow to optimize code for those architectures -- sometimes purely by optimized compilation, sometimes by developer consciously adapting the code for particular CPU features.
Right now, none. However, do have quite a few computers and I like to experiment a lot with different distros so I'll often switch periodically to try out different systems. I've installed Gentoo using the old no-install disc method at least half a dozen times on various systems.
Sounds like someone desperately looking for things to complain about.
I'm guessing that you're either less sensitive to the issue, or you're ideologically devoted to the app to the point that you're willing to ignore any flaws regardless.
What flaws? Lack of "snappiness" in GUI (aka long delay after input, quick update, then more long delays while application is absolutely unresponsive) that Windows users are accustomed to?
And Firefox was still sluggish when I opened it up to browse.
So are you talking about startup time or actual GUI responsiveness?
Heck last time I setup Gentoo the first things I emerge'd were x11, then WindowMaker, then Firefox. I always do it in that order so that I can get a working system faster since WindowMaker emerges faster than Gnome (I'll normally emerge Gnome overnight sometime when I'm not using the box for a while). That's it - no daemons and a pretty lightweight window manager.
You "always" install Gentoo on desktops in some particular manner? Just how many Gentoo boxes do you use?
Keep plugging your fingers in your ears and yelling "la la la". It doesn't change the truth.
If what you are claiming is the truth, then how come it works fine when I use it?
Traditional Unix servers/daemons are safe -- they don't do anything when not handling requests.
On the other hand, desktop / file indexers, MythTV transcoding / commercial scanning and similar applications, use massive amount of memory and I/O. Users often don't notice this because those processes don't show up as using large amount of CPU time, however I/O and pages stuck in memory make up for it. This is actually my only complaint about Ubuntu (other than default color scheme, of course) -- default configuration produces way too much I/O, does not disable those services even if computer is obviously overloaded with it, and does not give the user an option to do so other than by going through the session configuration.
Also, Chrome behaves explicitly faster on the same hardware under the same circumstances.
I am sure, you will find the same result with Konqueror (running without the rest of KDE, of course). Usually because Firefox is running all your extensions and keeping all your tabs with Javascript running, and Chrome or Konqueror do not.
Firefox on Linux DOES have performance problems. You can keep trying to weasel your way into blaming it on something else or you can face reality.
If that was the reality, I would be the first to notice.
I am using it now, and it's kinda sluggish. Let me count the tabs... Holy shit, I have exactly 100 tabs open on a box with 768M of RAM, with Thunderbird and four massive PDFs open in evince! Firefox is 225M in RAM, Thunderbird and evince are around 50M each.
Just closed the rest of tabs -- RAM down to 141M, GUI responsiveness back to normal.
"GUI responsiveness" that you and other poster mentioned is a time of memory allocation. You are running way too much crap, so system had to get rid of allocated pages before giving RAM to Firefox process.
Now, Firefox on Windows isn't that bad. Pretty snappy. Firefox on Mac isn't as good, but still OK. Firefox on Linux drags along at a speed slow enough for you to think someone is intentionally sabotaging it. I don't care how much memory it's using, but if the UI feels draggy I don't want it.
That's because you run Windows on your shiny new box with >4G of RAM, your Mac is the last model that used PPC, and you run Linux on a throwaway computer that can't run any other OS that you know about.
I know it seems like a cop-out to say "it's not us, it's them", but it really isn't the Linux developer's fault in this case.
No, it should be "It's not us, it's YOU!
The guy found his "response" by a google search, what indicates that more likely than not he is a paid Microsoft astroturfer. So since Microsoft is responsible for "discouraging" equipment manufacturers from providing Linux drivers AND for NDIS not being portable, it's only fair to remind Microsofties that all "Linux problems" are created by none other than their own employer.
Because it's a forum. It's easier to post a solution in command line than to describe what is supposed to happen on the screen when you are clicking on stuff in GUI, and the stuff you are supposed to click on while GUI is trying to guess WTF are you trying to do with it. Am I supposed to post 20 screenshots when three-line script will do the same?
(here goes your Microsoft-provided salary, you astroturfing dumbass).
Slashdot Mirror
So you never heard of the atom spies have you,
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1524310&cid=30904470
countless amounts of technical and theoretical information was stolen by your comrades which undoubtedly lead to breakthroughs.
Please compare USSR nuclear program with USSR computer engineering (in 80's, post-BESM/Elbrus). Computers actually were based on "stolen" designs, and the whole area of development suffered massive setbacks due to playing catch-up and adapting to the changing direction of development performed elsewhere. As a result, USSR had excellent nuclear program (and theoretical physics), space program (and related science and industry), yet embarrassingly primitive computer/electronics industry. Hell, Russia STILL doesn't have any computer/electronics components industry to speak of. That's how far you can go on "spying".
So, you don't deny that the very reason they got the bomb(at that time) was spying, do you?
Why do you care what, of all people, I, deny or don't deny?
You still believe that the Rosenbergs were innocent?
As far as I know, they did not provide anything of importance. Even if you assume that they somehow sent Russians a diagram of "Fat Man", it was pretty much obvious by then, and couldn't have any effect on further development.
Everything I know about USSR nuclear program suggests that spying had little, if any, effect on it, however there is no reliable way to determine if it played any major role or not. What I do know, is that both USSR and US concentrated their spying efforts on determining what weapons, and how many, each of them had, so they wouldn't accidentally end up with a massive disparity.
The important points are:
1. You can't develop the whole branch of science (or even a nuclear bomb project) from scratch in 4 years on spying -- leave alone on few notes.
2. Nuclear weapons development (and related research programs, and high energy physics, etc.) in USSR went into its own direction, and was advancing at a pace that could not be sustained by "spying".
3. The idiot claimed that the whole nuclear program was actually continuous "stealing" from US, and that it somehow was stopped or damaged when US made their program "more secure".
For anyone who is not a Christian fundamentalist (or insane), all those things are equally stupid.
The USSR propped up its research by doing the same thing (see nuclear weapons) and ultimately lost when better counter measures were taken to stop them.
Really? What else did nice US propaganda workers tell you?
Holy fuck, of all things, USSR had one of the best nuclear research programs in the world.
rival 'emerging' nations such as India, Russia, and Brazil.
It was 18th century when Russia was "emerging" in scientific research.
It took me until the end of the comic to realize it wasn't a joke. WTF?
THIS IS WHAT CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS ACTUALLY BELIEVE.
The bill of rights only applies to citizens, and in some cases, residents of the United States. If you aren't one of us, our constitution does not afford you any protections from government idiocy.
There is absolutely nothing in Bill of Rights that applies to any person -- it applies to US government. In particular, it restricts what US government can do to toward a person -- ANY person.
If so, Internet trolling is the purest form of art, GNAA should be supported by government grants, and survival as a tripfag on 4chan should be a mandatory part of all college-level art courses.
Vertical stripes may be from spoofed addresses -- nothing from real sources, even botnets, can be that uniform across the whole address space. It would make sense to check how much of traffic comes from unallocated address space, as packets from there are guaranteed to be spoofed. Why would anyone do such a thing? As a direct portscan it would be useless (he can't see the responses), however it might be used as a smokescreen to hide a real portscan or attack from some of those addresses. It may even be an attack that floods the DNS servers with fake responses in the attempt to poison DNS cache, thus redirecting some of the traffic to the attackers' addresses.
Then, after whatever kind of discovery was completed, you have seen some targeted host scans, [D]DoS attempts or actual exploits causing large amount of traffic (horizontal stripes).
Another possibility is that those packets are responses caused by something on your network being coerced into sending packets uniformly to the whole address space. It may be something as stupid as a web page with random redirects, however more likely it is a worm on some of your computers looking for other members of his botnet. After such discovery some hosts joined the botnet[s], producing horizontal stripes composed of traffic from other botnet members.
Moar liek BASIC understanding of a python.
...what does the scouter say about his altitude?!
It says, gb2/b/.
"when a person accesses cyberspace, he or she should be able to connect with any other person that he or she wants to--and that other person should be able to receive his or her message," they write. The 'Net should operate as a place where no "central authority" can make rules that prescribe the possible, and where entrepreneurs and network providers are able to "innovate without permission."
So when a "person" is an ISP, he has a "right" to pick and choose what traffic will he drop or throttle, and users, trapped in his network, don't have any recourse because no "central authority" can smack such ISP with fines and license withdrawals for such "innovation".
Amirite?
Or maybe you are full of shit because no one else sees this "problem". Even Microsoft astroturfers don't claim that Firefox is slower than other Linux GUI applications.
ludicrous standards as possessing the basic infrastructure necessary to prevent millions from starving to death?
I see, Americans still didn't develop knowledge of history, and think that 1930's lasted until 1980's in USSR.
What is this, I don't even...
Seriously, I write optimized DSP code for x86 and non-x86 architectures, and I see absolutely nothing relevant or meaningful in the above comment.
"x86-friendly code"? Most of the code anyone ever sees is not "friendly" to any architecture -- for example, it uses way, way too much memory to be efficient at cache use, so the only "performance" the user sees is the speed of his RAM. At best someone manages to fit some code into cache sizes (that vary more within the x86 architecture than between architectures), or adapts it to various kinds of parallelism (that are usually portable in general but have to be adapted to particular implementations). The rest if a job for compilers -- and x86 is an architecture with very long history of compiler development, so it may be better supported than some others.
"Query a processor for its capabilities"? Why would you want to do that? What do you think, compiler optimizes for if not "capabilities" of a target CPU -- even if there is no generalized way to represent those "capabilities" in a generalized way?
"Easily present applications with a VM view of the processor to reign in power hungry apps"? If there was a VM (that is, VIRTUAL machine) that can be easily converted into any CPU architecture and such representation also represented the performance of the target architecture, it would be the target of last compiler ever written. The whole "problem" is, progress in CPU technology involves fundamentally different ways CPU treats code (pipelines, cores, non-SIMD parallelism), memory (caches, SIMD) and I/O (bus architectures) that allow to optimize code for those architectures -- sometimes purely by optimized compilation, sometimes by developer consciously adapting the code for particular CPU features.
Quite frankly Russia hasn't been a comfortable place for arrogant Americans for the entirety of its history, regardless of the regime.
And I hope, it's going to stay that way.
Oh yeah, you told them!
I am another person who grew up in USSR, and can confirm that starvation was unheard of in post-WWII times.
Right now, none. However, do have quite a few computers and I like to experiment a lot with different distros so I'll often switch periodically to try out different systems. I've installed Gentoo using the old no-install disc method at least half a dozen times on various systems.
Sounds like someone desperately looking for things to complain about.
I'm guessing that you're either less sensitive to the issue, or you're ideologically devoted to the app to the point that you're willing to ignore any flaws regardless.
What flaws? Lack of "snappiness" in GUI (aka long delay after input, quick update, then more long delays while application is absolutely unresponsive) that Windows users are accustomed to?
And Firefox was still sluggish when I opened it up to browse.
So are you talking about startup time or actual GUI responsiveness?
Heck last time I setup Gentoo the first things I emerge'd were x11, then WindowMaker, then Firefox. I always do it in that order so that I can get a working system faster since WindowMaker emerges faster than Gnome (I'll normally emerge Gnome overnight sometime when I'm not using the box for a while). That's it - no daemons and a pretty lightweight window manager.
You "always" install Gentoo on desktops in some particular manner? Just how many Gentoo boxes do you use?
Keep plugging your fingers in your ears and yelling "la la la". It doesn't change the truth.
If what you are claiming is the truth, then how come it works fine when I use it?
Postfix, sendmail, Samba, Mysq
Traditional Unix servers/daemons are safe -- they don't do anything when not handling requests.
On the other hand, desktop / file indexers, MythTV transcoding / commercial scanning and similar applications, use massive amount of memory and I/O. Users often don't notice this because those processes don't show up as using large amount of CPU time, however I/O and pages stuck in memory make up for it. This is actually my only complaint about Ubuntu (other than default color scheme, of course) -- default configuration produces way too much I/O, does not disable those services even if computer is obviously overloaded with it, and does not give the user an option to do so other than by going through the session configuration.
Also, Chrome behaves explicitly faster on the same hardware under the same circumstances.
I am sure, you will find the same result with Konqueror (running without the rest of KDE, of course). Usually because Firefox is running all your extensions and keeping all your tabs with Javascript running, and Chrome or Konqueror do not.
Firefox on Linux DOES have performance problems. You can keep trying to weasel your way into blaming it on something else or you can face reality.
If that was the reality, I would be the first to notice.
I am using it now, and it's kinda sluggish. Let me count the tabs... Holy shit, I have exactly 100 tabs open on a box with 768M of RAM, with Thunderbird and four massive PDFs open in evince! Firefox is 225M in RAM, Thunderbird and evince are around 50M each.
Just closed the rest of tabs -- RAM down to 141M, GUI responsiveness back to normal.
"GUI responsiveness" that you and other poster mentioned is a time of memory allocation. You are running way too much crap, so system had to get rid of allocated pages before giving RAM to Firefox process.
Now, Firefox on Windows isn't that bad. Pretty snappy. Firefox on Mac isn't as good, but still OK. Firefox on Linux drags along at a speed slow enough for you to think someone is intentionally sabotaging it. I don't care how much memory it's using, but if the UI feels draggy I don't want it.
That's because you run Windows on your shiny new box with >4G of RAM, your Mac is the last model that used PPC, and you run Linux on a throwaway computer that can't run any other OS that you know about.
Stop running Linux on crappy hardware.
Yarteries.
I know it seems like a cop-out to say "it's not us, it's them", but it really isn't the Linux developer's fault in this case.
No, it should be "It's not us, it's YOU!
The guy found his "response" by a google search, what indicates that more likely than not he is a paid Microsoft astroturfer. So since Microsoft is responsible for "discouraging" equipment manufacturers from providing Linux drivers AND for NDIS not being portable, it's only fair to remind Microsofties that all "Linux problems" are created by none other than their own employer.
Because it's a forum. It's easier to post a solution in command line than to describe what is supposed to happen on the screen when you are clicking on stuff in GUI, and the stuff you are supposed to click on while GUI is trying to guess WTF are you trying to do with it. Am I supposed to post 20 screenshots when three-line script will do the same?
(here goes your Microsoft-provided salary, you astroturfing dumbass).