Experienced professionals don't put programming languages on their resumes, they put job titles and responsabilities. You don't get that kind of resume unless you can do all the work that goes with it, including programming.
Yeah, I thought that too when I read the question, but the I remembered that segmented mode was dropped in 64-bit mode. 64-bit apps run in flat space. To mix different code segments in there, it would have to be through a gate. So whatever software you run would have to be at least partly in the kernel.
The Chicxulub site has been referenced and studied for quite a while now in the context of "the" meteor hit. Most of the meteor impact theory surrounds this one site, not many different sites.
It just gets a newsworthy face lift every time someone finds yet more evidence supporting it.
1. A scientist makes an in depth study of the relationships of certain genes, their affects on humans, and the results of their changes. He discovers that a single gene controls a surprisingly large amount of characteristic of human artistic ability. This alters a prior hypothesis about the time it took to develop these characteristics.
2. In an attempt to summarize this complex relationship for general reading, much of the original concept is left out of the title and some is placed in the actual text of the article. However a clever and informed person might be able to discover it by applying interpretaion of the text and the general knowledge of science.
3. Some Blow Job Pimp comes along and reads the title, thinking that is enough to understand the whole thing. He rants on about how the title was so obvious and stupid. He flames and trolls about how the title doesn't tell him anything he didn't already know, and how the world is so stupid to even care about anything.
4. Blow Job Pimp eventaully reads the whole article and discovers there is a lot more to the discovery than just the title. Maybe something informative was actually discovered.
I'm still waiting for step 4 to happen. It might be a long evolutionary process, or it might happen quickly. Such an interesting scientific observation to see it happen in real time, right in front of us.... But only to those willing to learn.
What makes you think that someone who is concerned with broadcast discovery suddnely believes in "security through obscurity of discovery"?
A protocol like Rendezvous is not passive. It must broadcast queries and respond to broadcast queries for this type of system to work. that goes beyond firewall and obscurity concerns. The responses to those queries must be sufficiently validated so they can't cause problems in the network. Someone could create an intentionally malicious reply that indicates the presents of certain devices that are not really there. Your machine then interfaces with that device with a certain amount of trust. If it is really a trojan on the network, how do you know? A few well times "transmission errors" or inconsistant resource replies can turn into DOS across the board.
Active discovery has to take a lot more risks than simply hunkering down behind a firewall. It must place a certain amount of "Trust but Verify" on its surroundings. You aren't always behind a company firewall. Sometimes you are sitting in the airport waiting for a flight and checking your email through the local wireless hub.
And since this is all supposed to be zero-admin, just how much hands on configuration and oversite do you think the user should be put through?
Actually, a more important question than it sounds on first read.
Rendezvous is a nice trick, and should be lots of fun for the Apple cadre. All of the Apple users in their own little world of friendliness and cooperation against the agression of MS. But if it takes off, eventually you get a critical mass of users, and the script kiddies and crackers invade.
This technology sounds like it could become a loophole for lots of security breaks, or at least an easy path to Denial of Service. I hope it isn't quite as easy to get to other peoples computers as this article makes it sound.
Did Saddam actually think that he could get away with the kuwait thing?
Actually, he did. Prior to invading Kuwait, he specifically asked the United States what their position would be to such an action. The US response? The George Bush Sr. administration replied "We don't care.". So either GB set him up for a fall, or he changed his mind and his policy after the fact. Either way, it looks to Saddam (and probably a few others) like a big fat lie and that the US can't be trusted.
And by the way, the quote to which you are refereing was meant to describe Saddams position and experience after the gulf war, not before. You did read the whole paragraph didn't you?
I wasn't talking about war, the democrats, the DMCA, Iraq or any of that other stuff. But since YOU brought it up....
Saddam is _not_ going to disarm peacefully.
Agreed. That's not my question. My question is: So what? Why is this a reason to start a war?
Some claim that if an "appropriate authority" have made a "solid legal demand" for information and action, and that demand is ignored or rebuffed, then it is an appropriate excuse to "immediately remove by force" the person who failed to obey orders (with "UN", "Disarm Iraq" and "War" being the three example fillers). I happen to believe that there should be some more levels of negotiation in between failure to comply and ALL OUT WAR.
However, if you like that attitude, how about if we reword that with "appropriate authority" being "US Congress" and "solid legal demand" being a request for VP DC to turn over information about his energy policy meetings, and HE OUTRIGHT REFUSED! Is that a sufficient reason to "immediately remove by force" Mr. DC? Apparently not. Hypocracy is so ugly.
Bush talks like Iraq is ready to jump out and take over the world unless we stop him. Go look at what really happened. Iraq attacked in 1990. UN responded. Iraq Defeated. Iraq withdraws. Iraq hasn't peeped outside their borders since 1991. CIA rates Iraq as non-threat unless attacked first. So what does Bush do? He makes a lot of noise. He claims Iraq is about to attack everyone. He says he's going to attack them first. He CREATES the threat situation where there was none before. Sure, Iraq wasn't disarming, but they weren't trying to start a war either. Of all the tin-pot dictators in the world, Saddam knows from personal experience exactly what will happen to him if he does. He may be a mad man, but he isn't stupid. He wants weapons to maintain power inside Iraq, not outside.
Now because of Bush's "Heroic, No non-since, Take control, Total domination threats", we have North Korea, a REAL international threat, breathing down our necks. What is "our hero" George doing about them? NOTHING! I guess he wanted an easy target for his "Pet Project" war, not a "real enemy" that he might actually have to negotiate with. You can't look all powerfull and right if you have to negotiate. Bad for the "Hero" image.
I can't say what the appropriate action is from now forward. Maybe war is the only out. Bush is claiming he can't back down now. It would look weak. But I think it was REALLY BAD to intentionally put us into this situation in the first place. WAR KILLS PEOPLE.
The best way to save American lives is NOT TO GO TO WAR IN THE FIRST PLACE. Why was Bush so desperate to start one where it wasn't necessary? Obviously not to save lives. Probably it was to distract us from all the bad economic news, or maybe to avenge Daddy's image. Great idea. Economy in a slump, severe deficit. So lets make it worse by inventing an expensive war, runnin up the deficit even more and strangling the economy to death.
With Bush and co writing it, it will probably work a lot like this:
1. We (the Bush administration) can do anything we want to anyone else.
2. Noone can not do anything at all to us (the Bush administration).
3. Americans, including American companies, can do anything they want to any foreign country, company or person.
4. No foreign country, company or person can do anything to any american person or company.
Things like this show the transition in IP usage. When the Patent office can't or won't grant someone a patent (as if that ever happens), then the submittor changes to copyright law, and claims whatever they have is copyrighted instead. The standard for copyright has been streached to cover soo much, so just about anything can be claimed to be copyrightable.
This is only really useful now because there was no real legal teeth for this sort of thing in copyright law until the DMCA. It specifically references technological issues, it is vague as to what it covers, and it carries criminal penelties.
Look for more patent style/interoperability contests to be faught through the DMCA.
Push the joy stick forward to accelerate, pull it back to brake, lean it left and right to steer. The trigger is the emergency brake, and the thumb button turns your car back upright when you roll it.
That's one I've actually wanted before.
I'd like to see something where you could specify a list of "Watch" variables, and snapshot points. then let the program run. It takes snaps of all variables at each point. you can then go back and review what happened. Get a nice grid of variable values by point in time.
It's a lot faster then setting watches and breakpoints and having to write or remember what happened at each point.
She said "If you don't play computer games all the time, Yes."
That's Lit/Crit speek of course. I'll have to have it translated into geek speek for you. I'm sure it really means something completely different than what it sounds like... but first, a game.
Re:DID YOU EVEN READ THE ARTICLE!?
on
David Brin On LOTR
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
My Lit/Crit Wife did read the article, and says:
Yes, I did read the whole article. And yes, it is an attack on Tolkein, just as his attack on the philosophy underlying the Star Wars movies was both an intellectual excercise and a genuine attack on attitudes that profoundly trouble Mr Brin.
In fact, both articles attack all fantasy as inherently bad, promoting anti-egalitarian ideas, and he claims in both articles that this inherent evilness comes from (a) oral story-telling, (b) Homeric poetry (the Iliad specifically) and (c) the Romantic movement.
Mr Brin is a science fiction writer but for this argument he seems to have left scientific method somewhere out around Pluto. There is not one shred of truth to his claims, and yet he has been printed three time now in Salon promoting this baloney.
For instance, Brin claims that in the Iliad Achilles kills "10,000" people who are "nameless minions," and that this is typical of how Homer promotes the elite over the masses. Actually, Achilles does not kill that many and EVERY SINGLE PERSON KILLED in the Iliad is named. Not only named, but their whole genealogy and many of their hopes and ambitions are detailed. Even the women are named, treated as real and individual people, and Homer lived in a heavily misogynistic society. Over and over, the supposed "elite" in Homer are trashed -- Agamemnon, for instance, is drawn as an arrogant asshole. Odysseus is admired for being clever, not for being a king. Demigods and god alike are not treated with "reverent awe" as Brin claimed, but treated with contempt when they behave badly, and respect when (which is seldom) they behave well -- such as taking care of the wounded or slaves.
Brin bases his claims against oral storytelling solely on his understanding of Joseph Campbell, a man despised amongst people who actually come out of recent oral traditions and responsible scholars of the topic. Any real study of oral story-telling, including things the feed into Western culture, puts the lie to Mr Brin's claims about oral stories promoting subservience to leaders. Read almost any Native American story, for instance, though their cultures are widely different from each other. Or, read early versions of western fairy-tales, NOT Disney-ified versions, but the real thing involving such topics as cannibalism, incest, and murder. Oral story-telling often involves the tension between the need and drives of the individual versus the needs and drives of the community in which the individual lives. But a mindless adoration of "superior" people does not appear, nor a passive acceptance of the status quo. Oral tales are usually the response to and promoters of questioning society. Questioning is considered good in them.
Romanticism started out as a remarkable egalitarian movement, and despite Mr Brin's claims to the contrary, continued that way. Unlike Mr Brin, I HAVE read Bryon, including soem of his speeches to Parliament, as an MP, promoting the welfare of the impoverished people of Britain, and his poetry promoting the same, and I am aware he DIED fighting with ordinary Greeks who were trying to throw off the tyranny of the Ottoman oligarchy and restore some sort of democracy. Percy Shelley GAVE UP his title to also promote the cause of the ordinary person. Using them to claim Romanticism is elitist is like using Trent Lott to promote good race relations.
Later Romantics were not, as Mr Brin claims, anti-technology because of mindless nostalgia. Rather, they saw firsthand the sheer unrelenting brutality of the technologies of the day -- factories and mills, and the arrogant inhumanity with which the owners and purveyors of this technology brutalized and regarded as un-human the people who powered these technologies.
There are certainly troubling things in Tolkein, his racism for instance. But I dislike the way in which Mr Brin is untruthful, or at least doesn't bother to check his facts, in his attack, and the way in which Mr Brin attacks Tolkein and then tries to evade the consequences of his attack by claiming, "but hey! I just want you to look at things differently."
Mr Brin should look at his own assumptions differently.
Only the three and the one remained to the third age for the events of the Lord of the Rings.
Well, almost. The Nine Rings of Mortal Men were there. They were worn by the nine dark riders who persued Frodo and Co out of the Shire. Yes, The nine men were forever poisened, but they are there, and they will be seen again in The "Return of the King".
As an aside, I would like to know more about what happened to the Dwarven rings. All the elf and human rings remain. you'd think the Dwarfs could keep track of at least a few of theirs.
Also, I'm rather dissapointed in the protrayal of the Dwarves in the movie. I thought they deserved somewhat equal status with the other races, but the movie seemed to use Gimli as comic relief, and not take him seriously enough. Disappointing.
The assertion that other factors cost publishers more, does not change the toll piracy takes.
That isn't the point. The point is that noone really knows exactly what the toll of piracy is. Publishers make up absurd numbers, but there is not a true understanding of what the effect is.
The "assertion of other factors" is the attempt to understand all factors on publishing loss, including piracy. Once you get a list of other factors and the toll of each of those, then you can start making realistic estimates of the loss caused by piracy.
So in effect, The assertion that other factors cost publishers more does change the toll piracy takes. Or at least, it changes the estimated loss associated with piracy, which is as close as you are going to get. Sure the "absolute true" loss may not change but if noone knows what it is, how relevant is it? If you are going to fight publishers in court over abusive laws, unknown "absolute true" costs don't mean a thing. Better estimates make the case.
IIRC, Moore's law says computing power compared to cost will double every so-and-so. This doesn't have anything to do with the specific technology used to generate that power.
If Chip design is at its limit for reduction, then other factors an still come into play. Parallelization and multiprocessing coming to mind. Multiprocessing hasn't reached any type of limit. As chipsets improve, and CPUs play better together, then overall computing power can continue to increase. (Yeah, all you geeks go on and tell me how multiprocessing isn't really doubling and is not as optimized, yadda yadda).
The point is, CPU reduction is not the only path to processing power. It has just been the easiest so far. Watch for other paths to be optimized and utilized as this option peters out.
Slashdot Mirror
What makes you say that?
Experienced professionals don't put programming languages on their resumes, they put job titles and responsabilities. You don't get that kind of resume unless you can do all the work that goes with it, including programming.
Go read it again. (or for the first time, depending...)
Yeah, I thought that too when I read the question, but the I remembered that segmented mode was dropped in 64-bit mode. 64-bit apps run in flat space. To mix different code segments in there, it would have to be through a gate. So whatever software you run would have to be at least partly in the kernel.
The Chicxulub site has been referenced and studied for quite a while now in the context of "the" meteor hit. Most of the meteor impact theory surrounds this one site, not many different sites.
It just gets a newsworthy face lift every time someone finds yet more evidence supporting it.
1. A scientist makes an in depth study of the relationships of certain genes, their affects on humans, and the results of their changes. He discovers that a single gene controls a surprisingly large amount of characteristic of human artistic ability. This alters a prior hypothesis about the time it took to develop these characteristics.
2. In an attempt to summarize this complex relationship for general reading, much of the original concept is left out of the title and some is placed in the actual text of the article. However a clever and informed person might be able to discover it by applying interpretaion of the text and the general knowledge of science.
3. Some Blow Job Pimp comes along and reads the title, thinking that is enough to understand the whole thing. He rants on about how the title was so obvious and stupid. He flames and trolls about how the title doesn't tell him anything he didn't already know, and how the world is so stupid to even care about anything.
4. Blow Job Pimp eventaully reads the whole article and discovers there is a lot more to the discovery than just the title. Maybe something informative was actually discovered.
I'm still waiting for step 4 to happen. It might be a long evolutionary process, or it might happen quickly. Such an interesting scientific observation to see it happen in real time, right in front of us.... But only to those willing to learn.
A protocol like Rendezvous is not passive. It must broadcast queries and respond to broadcast queries for this type of system to work. that goes beyond firewall and obscurity concerns. The responses to those queries must be sufficiently validated so they can't cause problems in the network. Someone could create an intentionally malicious reply that indicates the presents of certain devices that are not really there. Your machine then interfaces with that device with a certain amount of trust. If it is really a trojan on the network, how do you know? A few well times "transmission errors" or inconsistant resource replies can turn into DOS across the board.
Active discovery has to take a lot more risks than simply hunkering down behind a firewall. It must place a certain amount of "Trust but Verify" on its surroundings. You aren't always behind a company firewall. Sometimes you are sitting in the airport waiting for a flight and checking your email through the local wireless hub.
And since this is all supposed to be zero-admin, just how much hands on configuration and oversite do you think the user should be put through?
Actually, a more important question than it sounds on first read.
Rendezvous is a nice trick, and should be lots of fun for the Apple cadre. All of the Apple users in their own little world of friendliness and cooperation against the agression of MS. But if it takes off, eventually you get a critical mass of users, and the script kiddies and crackers invade.
This technology sounds like it could become a loophole for lots of security breaks, or at least an easy path to Denial of Service. I hope it isn't quite as easy to get to other peoples computers as this article makes it sound.
Actually, he did. Prior to invading Kuwait, he specifically asked the United States what their position would be to such an action. The US response? The George Bush Sr. administration replied "We don't care.". So either GB set him up for a fall, or he changed his mind and his policy after the fact. Either way, it looks to Saddam (and probably a few others) like a big fat lie and that the US can't be trusted.
And by the way, the quote to which you are refereing was meant to describe Saddams position and experience after the gulf war, not before. You did read the whole paragraph didn't you?
Saddam is _not_ going to disarm peacefully.
Agreed. That's not my question. My question is: So what? Why is this a reason to start a war?
Some claim that if an "appropriate authority" have made a "solid legal demand" for information and action, and that demand is ignored or rebuffed, then it is an appropriate excuse to "immediately remove by force" the person who failed to obey orders (with "UN", "Disarm Iraq" and "War" being the three example fillers). I happen to believe that there should be some more levels of negotiation in between failure to comply and ALL OUT WAR. However, if you like that attitude, how about if we reword that with "appropriate authority" being "US Congress" and "solid legal demand" being a request for VP DC to turn over information about his energy policy meetings, and HE OUTRIGHT REFUSED! Is that a sufficient reason to "immediately remove by force" Mr. DC? Apparently not. Hypocracy is so ugly.
Bush talks like Iraq is ready to jump out and take over the world unless we stop him. Go look at what really happened. Iraq attacked in 1990. UN responded. Iraq Defeated. Iraq withdraws. Iraq hasn't peeped outside their borders since 1991. CIA rates Iraq as non-threat unless attacked first. So what does Bush do? He makes a lot of noise. He claims Iraq is about to attack everyone. He says he's going to attack them first. He CREATES the threat situation where there was none before. Sure, Iraq wasn't disarming, but they weren't trying to start a war either. Of all the tin-pot dictators in the world, Saddam knows from personal experience exactly what will happen to him if he does. He may be a mad man, but he isn't stupid. He wants weapons to maintain power inside Iraq, not outside.
Now because of Bush's "Heroic, No non-since, Take control, Total domination threats", we have North Korea, a REAL international threat, breathing down our necks. What is "our hero" George doing about them? NOTHING! I guess he wanted an easy target for his "Pet Project" war, not a "real enemy" that he might actually have to negotiate with. You can't look all powerfull and right if you have to negotiate. Bad for the "Hero" image.
I can't say what the appropriate action is from now forward. Maybe war is the only out. Bush is claiming he can't back down now. It would look weak. But I think it was REALLY BAD to intentionally put us into this situation in the first place. WAR KILLS PEOPLE. The best way to save American lives is NOT TO GO TO WAR IN THE FIRST PLACE. Why was Bush so desperate to start one where it wasn't necessary? Obviously not to save lives. Probably it was to distract us from all the bad economic news, or maybe to avenge Daddy's image. Great idea. Economy in a slump, severe deficit. So lets make it worse by inventing an expensive war, runnin up the deficit even more and strangling the economy to death.
Forking Stupid Arrogant Idiot.
1. We (the Bush administration) can do anything we want to anyone else.
2. Noone can not do anything at all to us (the Bush administration).
3. Americans, including American companies, can do anything they want to any foreign country, company or person.
4. No foreign country, company or person can do anything to any american person or company.
There, that sounds about right.
I've occasionally gone to the bathroom during popup adds.
Maybe they are planning to kill off the technology.
AMD is not the competition here. IBM PPC and Sun Sparc are.
This is only really useful now because there was no real legal teeth for this sort of thing in copyright law until the DMCA. It specifically references technological issues, it is vague as to what it covers, and it carries criminal penelties.
Look for more patent style/interoperability contests to be faught through the DMCA.
No No No. You only get machine guns on the military or the Australian versions of the car.
Push the joy stick forward to accelerate, pull it back to brake, lean it left and right to steer. The trigger is the emergency brake, and the thumb button turns your car back upright when you roll it.
What else do you need?
That's one I've actually wanted before. I'd like to see something where you could specify a list of "Watch" variables, and snapshot points. then let the program run. It takes snaps of all variables at each point. you can then go back and review what happened. Get a nice grid of variable values by point in time.
It's a lot faster then setting watches and breakpoints and having to write or remember what happened at each point.
Not only that, but the car is backing up for another pass...
The article immediately before this one on IDE/ATAPI to SCSI Converters was a dupe from October.
Happy now?
She said "If you don't play computer games all the time, Yes."
That's Lit/Crit speek of course. I'll have to have it translated into geek speek for you. I'm sure it really means something completely different than what it sounds like... but first, a game.
Well, almost. The Nine Rings of Mortal Men were there. They were worn by the nine dark riders who persued Frodo and Co out of the Shire. Yes, The nine men were forever poisened, but they are there, and they will be seen again in The "Return of the King".
As an aside, I would like to know more about what happened to the Dwarven rings. All the elf and human rings remain. you'd think the Dwarfs could keep track of at least a few of theirs.
Also, I'm rather dissapointed in the protrayal of the Dwarves in the movie. I thought they deserved somewhat equal status with the other races, but the movie seemed to use Gimli as comic relief, and not take him seriously enough. Disappointing.
That isn't the point. The point is that noone really knows exactly what the toll of piracy is. Publishers make up absurd numbers, but there is not a true understanding of what the effect is.
The "assertion of other factors" is the attempt to understand all factors on publishing loss, including piracy. Once you get a list of other factors and the toll of each of those, then you can start making realistic estimates of the loss caused by piracy.
So in effect, The assertion that other factors cost publishers more does change the toll piracy takes. Or at least, it changes the estimated loss associated with piracy, which is as close as you are going to get. Sure the "absolute true" loss may not change but if noone knows what it is, how relevant is it? If you are going to fight publishers in court over abusive laws, unknown "absolute true" costs don't mean a thing. Better estimates make the case.
If Chip design is at its limit for reduction, then other factors an still come into play. Parallelization and multiprocessing coming to mind. Multiprocessing hasn't reached any type of limit. As chipsets improve, and CPUs play better together, then overall computing power can continue to increase. (Yeah, all you geeks go on and tell me how multiprocessing isn't really doubling and is not as optimized, yadda yadda).
The point is, CPU reduction is not the only path to processing power. It has just been the easiest so far. Watch for other paths to be optimized and utilized as this option peters out.
And that is why they win.