Perhaps FTP over an encrypted connection with symmetric keys exchanged before the thing goes into space? There are even special purpose chips to do such things if you want negligible CPU time expended. Check out OpenCores
This reminds me of an idea which I think is a good one: communal movie theaters. Run mostly by volunteers in spare time, so the expenses are low, and sales of tickets go to buy the next movie.
This may sound implausible, but it actually works great in at least one place. In my town (granted, a quite small and out-of-the-way one) the movie theater couldn't make enough profit to stay in business, so now it is volunteer-run. This leads to a general lack of excessive commercials (just a few previews) and the prices are lower than most places. You can watch a movie and get a small drink and popcorn for $5.00.
Now doesn't that sound like the kind of thing you'd like in your area?
Just a thought, but could this same Code Morphing layer be used to implement fake security features? Perhaps someone could make a small, legally questionable business selling reprogrammed CPUs that pretend to support Palladium.
I'm just shooting off an idea here without much knowledge of Palladium or the Crusoe chip, so take this with a grain of salt.
"Suffer", you say? A better description of their lives would be, "Perpetual ecstasy". The way this works is a small signal is put into the rat's brain. The rats are trained to know that if they do what these little signals say, they will be rewarded with a zap to the pleasure center of their brain. There is no negative reinforcement; the rats are never punished. They are taken good care of, and all in all they are some of the luckiest rats ever born.
Alright, I understand. I misunderstood your original post.
Sigh. My point was: A lot of people working for free and one person getting USD 10000 from Google - the for-profit-organization Google - is not too smart from the point of view of the contestants. It's great for Google. If you want to do something for your fellow man on the field of software development, write good open source software. Don't give your ideas and work away for free to a company.
Wasn't one of the terms of the google contest that your entries could still be open-source? You just had to give Google the rights to use your entry. It strikes me as a good idea to enter the contest and release your entry as open source. That way it would still get to the people who need it, and it could help the many people who come to google who would never find it if it weren't on Google.
That was my point, and I apologise for misunderstanding yours.
But if it's a good idea and decent implementation then someone can use it and it might make someone's day more pleasant. Multiply that by the number of people whose days are made more pleasant, and you have something to remind yourself of if you ever wonder if your life was worthwhile.
Then again, if you're a selfish jerk this probably won't appeal to you. Too bad, if that describes you.
Perhaps you were being sarcastic, but believe it or not, the editors actually have gone and fixed it. And BTW, insulting the editors gets annoying after about the millionth time or so.
Or Everything2, another cool site with hyperlinks everywhere. You learn to ignore most of them and not be perturbed by an overabundance of links anywhere.
FYI, There is something like that for Windows, called Terminal Services. It is sort of like connecting to an X server (and yes, it takes some bandwidth; more than SSH) except that the whole thing is proprietary and expensive.
I know that it isn't very hard to make an accessible web site (I make it my general policy) -- but it is a lot harder to make an accessible site that looks snazzy. And I mean the sort of flashy web sites that you see mostly made for large companies, littered with java and flash and pictures for everything, not just a few pictures here and there.
How would you create a web site that is both? Perhaps make two versions of the site?
Yes, it's possible. It has been in the news a bit. It uses Windows messenger service, turned on by default. You can turn it off, though. In Win2k you can just disable the relevant service and be done with it. On unix derivatives (including/or MacOS) it won't be a problem.
I don't know how to disable it on Win95 derivatives.
And perhaps he shouldn't. I'm sure that the Armadillo people got some valuable data before the failure, as well as finding a bad problem in their design that they can easily fix. If they succeeed, they will make it easier to get to space. And if they succeed, it certainly won't be by giving up and playing Quake.
Emacs, last time I checked, was only about 6 megs. The MSVC++ IDE probably takes up several times that without all the added functionality like games and email clients. And if you think that emacs is too bloated for you, there's always vi. Or pico. Or ed. Or cat. Or....
I belive that the parent post was being humorous, rather than an earnest opinion (although that might be interesting to try...) or as a troll.
If you disagree and want to say so, it would be nice if you'd elaborate more on your main point (the bit about evolution and morality) and less on the ad hominem attacks.
Such a post would also have a much better chance of being modded up.
I present for your consideration my (somewhat crazy sounding) idea for fighting spam: make spam, cracking, DoS attacks, et cetera, legal. That will provide an incentive for people to get secure software, IIS may get its act together, the security holes that are posted in various places would gain new relevance, and--this is my favorite part--we could make the spammers pay!
I think that it would probably be more secure than the current state of law-induced complacence. And the idea of cracking into open relays and making them closed relays is a fun one.
I just don't think that in order for people to think of a page as "good" it should be made a hard-to-navigate nightmare.
The one using the "current standard", as you amusingly put it, is not slick by my definition. When I think of a "slick" web site, I think of one which is fairly easy to look at and which allows you to see the content without waiting a full minute (128 Kbps) for an overly-ornamented page to load which only devotes about a third of the screen space to content.
The reason I like w3c standard pages, in general, is not because of the magic word "standard", but because these standards lead to well-designed pages.
Web pages can look like laughable science ficton movie GUIs. But I don't want them to. My personal web site doesn't have much content (just who I am, a few links, and something about RISC, CISC, and MISC), so I don't try to trick users into thinking that it does by using lots of pictures, javascript, and wiggling animations. Web sites that do this give a bad name to the internet.
And as for the people who assume that any page which has a clean layout isn't worth their time, they are simply punishing themselves.
You're probably right about the x66 instruction set being a nasty remnant from days gone by that has lingered to haunt us like the stench of a dead skunk, to paraphrase what you said. IIRC, most modern x86 chips translate x86 into an internal RISC instruction set before processing them.
Is there any way that the rest of you slashdotters can see for the x86 instruction set, a remnant of times when CISC partly made sense, to give way to more modern RISC (real RISC, not watered down CISC masquerading as RISC) instruction sets?
I know that RISC is fairly common in microcontrollers, which aren't encumbered as much by old CISC instruction sets. RISC is good for low power chips (smaller chip, less heat dissipation); perhaps if we see computers getting really small and being embedded into everything we can leave x86 behind.
Your apache server ought to run pretty well on an SMP system. If you want to be sure to get plenty of performance, I would recommend using apache 2.x, which uses threads and processes, AFAIK. These can be split among your two processors by the kernel. Your email software is probably also multiprocess (or multithreaded, which under current linux versions is mostly the same thing), so it can also take advantage of SMP.
Your text editor probably won't get any boost from another processor, but if you're setting up a server then there's nothing to worry about.
In my archive.org link I was referring more to the design of the entire site than I was to the design of the front page which, I admit, is pretty bad. They really should split it up more, but overall the site is easy to use. Nice hyperlinks that you click to get to another place, without the whole page moving around as if animated by evil web designers from hell.
But yes, you're completely right--but only on the front page.
Despite that, the W3C still has significant voice in what happens. Check out some of the stuff at W3Schools and you will see the way the w3c is pushing--toward technical excellence with the ability to make your pages look good and gracefully degrade. And these technologies are being adopted! If you compare the Distributed Proofreaders site to the Cartoon Network site, there is no doubt which is more usable. (note for those of you who may be so dense that you have doubts: not cartoon network). Guess who uses more w3c-friendly html?
Sited like that are everywhere because many web sites are made by people who care about such things, rather than fawning over browser-specific stuff.
That would be a good idea. But one thing: the same people should make the Hobbit movie. I know that there is already an animated mutilation of The Hobbit, and I would like to see a well made version.
While we're at it, why not make a movie for the Silmarilion?
That sounds like a much better alternative to using nukes for that purpose. It might also accomplish another good thing: these people might be able to get their hands on some relatively miniscule portion of the US military budget, which would be a lot of funding. That would lead to further development of something which is really cool, if nothing else.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps FTP over an encrypted connection with symmetric keys exchanged before the thing goes into space? There are even special purpose chips to do such things if you want negligible CPU time expended. Check out OpenCores
This may sound implausible, but it actually works great in at least one place. In my town (granted, a quite small and out-of-the-way one) the movie theater couldn't make enough profit to stay in business, so now it is volunteer-run. This leads to a general lack of excessive commercials (just a few previews) and the prices are lower than most places. You can watch a movie and get a small drink and popcorn for $5.00.
Now doesn't that sound like the kind of thing you'd like in your area?
I'm just shooting off an idea here without much knowledge of Palladium or the Crusoe chip, so take this with a grain of salt.
"Suffer", you say? A better description of their lives would be, "Perpetual ecstasy". The way this works is a small signal is put into the rat's brain. The rats are trained to know that if they do what these little signals say, they will be rewarded with a zap to the pleasure center of their brain. There is no negative reinforcement; the rats are never punished. They are taken good care of, and all in all they are some of the luckiest rats ever born.
Sigh. My point was: A lot of people working for free and one person getting USD 10000 from Google - the for-profit-organization Google - is not too smart from the point of view of the contestants. It's great for Google. If you want to do something for your fellow man on the field of software development, write good open source software. Don't give your ideas and work away for free to a company.
Wasn't one of the terms of the google contest that your entries could still be open-source? You just had to give Google the rights to use your entry. It strikes me as a good idea to enter the contest and release your entry as open source. That way it would still get to the people who need it, and it could help the many people who come to google who would never find it if it weren't on Google.
That was my point, and I apologise for misunderstanding yours.
Then again, if you're a selfish jerk this probably won't appeal to you. Too bad, if that describes you.
Perhaps you were being sarcastic, but believe it or not, the editors actually have gone and fixed it. And BTW, insulting the editors gets annoying after about the millionth time or so.
As for the robots doing what I wouldn't--you're right. And robots charge a darn sight less for their services than humans do.
Or Everything2, another cool site with hyperlinks everywhere. You learn to ignore most of them and not be perturbed by an overabundance of links anywhere.
FYI, There is something like that for Windows, called Terminal Services. It is sort of like connecting to an X server (and yes, it takes some bandwidth; more than SSH) except that the whole thing is proprietary and expensive.
How would you create a web site that is both? Perhaps make two versions of the site?
I don't know how to disable it on Win95 derivatives.
They cause people to distrust each other. I am very cautious about giving a web site my email address for fear that it will be abused.
They both make email less pleasant.
Their creators all seem to be unremorseful. If only we could send viruses and trojans to them all.
And perhaps he shouldn't. I'm sure that the Armadillo people got some valuable data before the failure, as well as finding a bad problem in their design that they can easily fix. If they succeeed, they will make it easier to get to space. And if they succeed, it certainly won't be by giving up and playing Quake.
Emacs, last time I checked, was only about 6 megs. The MSVC++ IDE probably takes up several times that without all the added functionality like games and email clients. And if you think that emacs is too bloated for you, there's always vi. Or pico. Or ed. Or cat. Or....
If you disagree and want to say so, it would be nice if you'd elaborate more on your main point (the bit about evolution and morality) and less on the ad hominem attacks.
Such a post would also have a much better chance of being modded up.
I think that it would probably be more secure than the current state of law-induced complacence. And the idea of cracking into open relays and making them closed relays is a fun one.
A good engineer leaves good slop on measurements. When the meter on you car's gas tank reads empty, it probably isn't empty yet.
The one using the "current standard", as you amusingly put it, is not slick by my definition. When I think of a "slick" web site, I think of one which is fairly easy to look at and which allows you to see the content without waiting a full minute (128 Kbps) for an overly-ornamented page to load which only devotes about a third of the screen space to content.
The reason I like w3c standard pages, in general, is not because of the magic word "standard", but because these standards lead to well-designed pages.
Web pages can look like laughable science ficton movie GUIs. But I don't want them to. My personal web site doesn't have much content (just who I am, a few links, and something about RISC, CISC, and MISC), so I don't try to trick users into thinking that it does by using lots of pictures, javascript, and wiggling animations. Web sites that do this give a bad name to the internet.
And as for the people who assume that any page which has a clean layout isn't worth their time, they are simply punishing themselves.
Is there any way that the rest of you slashdotters can see for the x86 instruction set, a remnant of times when CISC partly made sense, to give way to more modern RISC (real RISC, not watered down CISC masquerading as RISC) instruction sets?
I know that RISC is fairly common in microcontrollers, which aren't encumbered as much by old CISC instruction sets. RISC is good for low power chips (smaller chip, less heat dissipation); perhaps if we see computers getting really small and being embedded into everything we can leave x86 behind.
Your text editor probably won't get any boost from another processor, but if you're setting up a server then there's nothing to worry about.
But yes, you're completely right--but only on the front page.
Sited like that are everywhere because many web sites are made by people who care about such things, rather than fawning over browser-specific stuff.
While we're at it, why not make a movie for the Silmarilion?
That sounds like a much better alternative to using nukes for that purpose. It might also accomplish another good thing: these people might be able to get their hands on some relatively miniscule portion of the US military budget, which would be a lot of funding. That would lead to further development of something which is really cool, if nothing else.