If I understood the whitepaper the answer is 2. You can also store 2 8 bit values in a 64 bit hammer registers. I know the math doesn't hold, but the ISA does; you can't access an arbitrary byte, word or dword section of hammer registers. Ofcourse the number you can just store is 64/r_size of r_sized values, but accessing them (except the lower two) requires rotate or swap operations.
Ditto for MMX (my guess is it's the same for IA64), but it doesn't matter.
You don't need to read and write individual bytes out of the register, the idea is that you have big tables of data you want to process in a loop, and you get to do 64 bits worth at a time, say, 4 16-bit shorts every loop. (reading them into the register by loading 64 bits at the address where the 4 values are stored consecutively) When you've done all the processing (the expensive part) you just write the registers to a memory location and read them like any other data.
I think the confusing part is that the cool thing is not 64-bitness, the cool thing is SIMD. Afaik, there's no instruction that does useful math on 2 independent short values packed into a 32-bit x86 register, for example; instead, you do one 16-bit op at a time and don't get any benefit from the larger register.
I am not saying that one should not try. I am just saying that it is not easy to most people to take this kind of moral stand--the consequences are not light!
Oh, bull. "Just following orders" is a reasonable defense in, say, a military setting, where you could be shot for disobeying orders, but if the worst they do to you is firing you, then you are committing a crime/doing an evil act for money, which looks like pretty much the same thing the decision-makers are doing, hmm?
But I had to endanger all those peoples' lives! I have a car payment to make!
The main problem is that even when a court finds against a corporation and awards damages the corporation doesn't pay, its liability insurer does. In our current capitalist system, profit is privatized, but loss is socialized wherever possible.
Insurance doesn't exist in a vacuum, if you are insuring yourself against lawsuits, you can be damn sure that acting in a fashion likely to get you successfully sued will make that premium go up.
It's actually a really efficient system if you let it go; A few monster lawsuits that make the insurance company take notice, and the insurance company polices their customer directly, at the company's expense instead of at taxpayer expense.
... as long as stupid things like "tort reform", etc. don't get in the way.
You're a nut, man. The `singularity` thing is the most obvious giveaway, two-bit futurists have probably been babbling about computers becoming smarter than humans and going off on their own since Babbage.
Huh? you could do 32 bit addressing long before you could buy 4GB drives, but nobody thought memory mapping your hard drive into your address space was a good idea then... What would be the point?
Don't current processors let you do the same thing? I mean, isn't the whole point of MMX to let you do, say, 4 16-bit operations at a time on a 64-bit register? and then there's SSE and 3dnow for floating-point.
From your description. it seems to me like IA64 is more MMX/SSE registers and an expanded instruction set, which is the same incremental change what we've been getting from each version of intel chips for a while now.
Cool, so if I put a sign up in front of my house saying, "By parking here, you agree to give me your car" (or whatever the legalese for that is), I get all those cars?
I mean, it's right there in front of their face, and anything that's written in legalese is legally binding, right?
I might even get a better haul if I used my T&C sign downtown...
I can't believe you could even attempt to insult someone that has only given to the gaming community, linux community, open source community, coder community... well, and Carmack has given to the entire community.
I know you're just a troll yourself, but the idea that being generous makes you above criticism is an interesting one...
You can either pay for the music and listen to it.
Or you can not listen to the music.
Since recorded music is a luxury item and not a subsistence item, you do not have any inherent moral right to steal it because it is being denied to you.
Thus ends today's lesson on morality.
Let's ignore for a moment the fact that copying music is neither stealing nor immoral:
This is business, which has nothing at all to do with morality. If people find it easier to get your product by stealing it than by buying it, they will steal it. You can either cry and say that it's not fair, or make it easier to get from you, or make it harder to steal.
It's currently easier for someone like me (even if you ignore the price factor) to get music by finding somewhere to copy it from than to buy it, and all this content protection crap is likely to do in the near future is prevent it from getting even easier.
What is the music industry going to do to make buying music from them competitive with copying it?
As an interesting note, Antigua is building a call center that will house 800+ employees, with the express purpose of delivering outgoing telemarketing to the US and Canada. It's billed here as a wonderful project to provide "high tech" employment (really), with no thought given to how telemarketing is seen by Americans/Canadians. It will be very interesting to see how US telemarketing laws are applied to incoming international calls.
----
Can you say "Afghanistan"?
Can you say "daisy cutter"?
This isn't the only citizen who has been held for days without being charged; some aren't even allowed to contact their lawyer.
It's not enough that this new bill not curtail our freedom (although it does); it has to have some benefit for it to be a good thing. How does this law help?
Why does the Justice department need more power? Is there any reason to believe this law will help the DoJ fight terrorism?
Actually, I was reading that, in the US, there is some law.. I forget the name. Something about declaring a state of national emergency. In such a state, the president has power to, well, basically, do anything, and ignore the constitution.
--
FEMA extends the president the abitlity to stop the constitution. It's a good law! It aids workers get help to where it needs and alows the army to operate on US soil which it is not constitutionaly allowed to. It also alow for marshal law so looters can get shoot immediately.
--
This is called the Elastic Clause... Certain parts of the constitution can be ignored if it is used.
For example, it was used during WWII to send all those Japanese Americans to camps out in the midwest.
Do any of you have the slightest idea of how the US government works? Not the hard stuff, even public education should have managed to teach you this...
"National Emergency?"
Deploy the National Guard. Call up the reserves. Spend that disaster money. That's the sort of thing a National Emergency lets you do (actually, it usually isn't even a national emergency, more like a local one). It does not allow the President "to, well, basically, do anything, and ignore the constitution." Where did that come from?
"Marshal Law"
It's actually spelled "martial law", but it doesn't exist in the US, thank god. If a soldier with a gun tells you otherwise, shoot him. We've been invaded... btw, the US army is already allowed to operate on US soil, what do you think we'd do if we were invaded, move to Canada?
"Elastic Clause"
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers..." It's allowed to slip by federal powers that are just barely constitutional. Why do people keep thinking there's a magic back door in the Constitution that lets anybody do whatever the hell they want if they invoke it? The Japanese Concentration Camps weren't legal; we knew it then and we know it now. After the war, there were apologies and reparations (too little, far to late for something that shouldn't have happened in the first place though.)
Please, people. Read your Constitution. Pay attention. This is a Republic, the only hope for the future is an informed population that understands their rights and the place and history of their government.
P.S. Apologies to the non-US readers of slashdot for the waste of your bytes.
2. Of course FISA is secret. Of course, if this court deals with network surveillance it should be, too. There isn't much of a point in tipping off a suspect by telling them that they're under surveillance. What, you'd rather that they use TEMPEST ELINT from vans prominently marked, "Flowers By Irene?
Wouldn't any investigation need to be secret? How is this different from, say, a racketeering or murder or fraud investigation? Should we have secret courts for them, too?
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" seems to apply here.
The reason you had to show your ID before you got on a plane previous to Sept. 11 was because airlines wanted to keep people from transferring tickets or splitting up round-trips (a very common practice before they started demanding ID).
When you say it's optional, that means I don't have to pay for it, right? As long as the costs of the card system are paid for by the cardholders and/or the businesses scanning the card, then they can go right ahead for all I care. (for that matter, why does ellison need the government's permission to do this? He could just start minting the things and offering it to people and organizations...)
Oh, yeah, 'optional' also means that you're not required by law (either by written law or just government agency pressure) to have a card to do anything (like travel, buy whatever, get a passport...)
btw, is there any evidince that any of the people involved in the Sept. 11 events used a false identity?
You are wrong. The very thing that makes freenet work so well in caching oft requested content where it is needed is the very thing that makes it easy to exploit the finite cache space of nodes.
This is a well known exploit in Freenet, but fortunately it has not been implemented and freenet itself has remained rather small.
This isn't really a practical attack, at the very best case, you'd need to be able to upload 1/100th of the entire storage space usable by Freenet in a reasonably small amount of time... In reality, you'd need a lot more than that, since you would overwrite the storage of some nodes repeatedly, and it isn't really possible to reliably send one file thru 100 nodes at a pass... and you only pick the first node, not any of the rest.
You would also need a nearly exhaustive list of the nodes, that would be nontrivial, but not impossible.
There is a trivial way to stop this from destroying popular data anyway, having a 'high-water mark' where the x% most popular data cannot be overwritten by new inserts. Freenet either does this now or could be easily modified to do so (i don't remember off the top of my head). In order to overcome the high-water mark system, you have to insert and successfully request the same junk data, which gives you substantially less leverage over the network for the amount of bandwidth used.
The maximum cache file size (due to architecture contraints) is 2G. Very within the realm of exploitability.
No, that's not true. The Freenet 0.3 java node can use up to the maximum bytes/files a single directory in the underlying filesystem. The Freenet 0.4 java node can use up to the maximum size of a single file in the underlying file system (or 2^63-1 bytes, whichever is less).
Well, sort of. The file itself would indeed be copied around based on the request, but you could prevent a node from being accessed by other nodes (thus keeping it from contributing its storage and bandwidth to the network) by doing that... I think the default incoming connection limit is like 50, and it's not practical to increase it by very much (consumes too much memory/cpu).
So you'd have to attack the entire network, not just one file... I guess it depends on how much bandwidth you need to make a lot of TCP connections sending very little data.
How do you reduce the quality of life of a man that lives in caves and bunkers and must move everyday for fear of capture (it is believed that he has about 5-10 lookalikes trained to confuse American intelligence)?
Hmm. We could publish nice doctored photos/videos of him partying with israeli politicians or seducing little boys or something, maybe?
I know that was a rhetorical question, but it's just too fun of an idea to pass up...
Do you really think laws against owning nuclear weapons are what keeps your neighbor from owning one?
I'm fairly sure that the expense, (relative) scarcity and uslessness of nuclear weapons are a much bigger hurdle to getting one than any laws that may apply.
Seems like a rather improbable example to argue from to me...
So you admit that the law is, at best, a waste of time and money? Shouldn't the burden of proof be on the supporters of the change, not those who think things are alright the way they are?
The fact that the law is being rushed through rather than being carefully debated is enough to be against it regardless of content, as well, IMHO.
Woah, I'm not a Christian fundamentalist, and I disagree with much of what they say, but it seems rather overboard to lump them together with terrorists... I don't recall them organizing and carrying out mass murder, and I fail to see how they are not entitled to the same freedoms as everyone else to believe what they believe and live the life they want.
How is this relevant here? I read the excerpt on adbusters, but that didn't help... How is this law better explained as government "dominated by corporate interests" than a simple case of law enforcement agencies exploiting tragedy to get a wish-list of new powers passed?
I think the other big ego behind mandatory national ID cards (Ellison) put it best (from the San Jose Mercury News:
``Let me ask you. There are two different airlines. Airline A says before you board that airplane you prove you are who you say you are. Airline B, no problem. Anyone who wants the price of a ticket, they can go on that airline. Which airplane do you get on?''
I think this is a great, free-markety solution, no? Ellison, McNealy, and all the paranoids who want to be tagged, identified, background-checked, searched, folded, spindled, and/or mutilated can sign up for a authoritative ID card and go on airline A (and preferably pay for said security with their tickets); those of us who think the convenience of a (hopefully cheaper) no questions-asked cash ticket is worth sacrificing the illusion of security can fly airline B, arrive 15 minutes before takeoff and hop on a plane to wherever we're going like the daring free risk-takers we are.
Slashdot Mirror
If I understood the whitepaper the answer is 2. You can also store 2 8 bit values in a 64 bit hammer registers. I know the math doesn't hold, but the ISA does; you can't access an arbitrary byte, word or dword section of hammer registers. Ofcourse the number you can just store is 64/r_size of r_sized values, but accessing them (except the lower two) requires rotate or swap operations.
Ditto for MMX (my guess is it's the same for IA64), but it doesn't matter.
You don't need to read and write individual bytes out of the register, the idea is that you have big tables of data you want to process in a loop, and you get to do 64 bits worth at a time, say, 4 16-bit shorts every loop. (reading them into the register by loading 64 bits at the address where the 4 values are stored consecutively) When you've done all the processing (the expensive part) you just write the registers to a memory location and read them like any other data.
I think the confusing part is that the cool thing is not 64-bitness, the cool thing is SIMD. Afaik, there's no instruction that does useful math on 2 independent short values packed into a 32-bit x86 register, for example; instead, you do one 16-bit op at a time and don't get any benefit from the larger register.
--
Benjamin Coates
I am not saying that one should not try. I am just saying that it is not easy to most people to take this kind of moral stand--the consequences are not light!
Oh, bull. "Just following orders" is a reasonable defense in, say, a military setting, where you could be shot for disobeying orders, but if the worst they do to you is firing you, then you are committing a crime/doing an evil act for money, which looks like pretty much the same thing the decision-makers are doing, hmm?
But I had to endanger all those peoples' lives! I have a car payment to make!
--
Benjamin Coates
The main problem is that even when a court finds against a corporation and awards damages the corporation doesn't pay, its liability insurer does. In our current capitalist system, profit is privatized, but loss is socialized wherever possible.
Insurance doesn't exist in a vacuum, if you are insuring yourself against lawsuits, you can be damn sure that acting in a fashion likely to get you successfully sued will make that premium go up.
It's actually a really efficient system if you let it go; A few monster lawsuits that make the insurance company take notice, and the insurance company polices their customer directly, at the company's expense instead of at taxpayer expense.
... as long as stupid things like "tort reform", etc. don't get in the way.
--
Benjamin Coates
You're a nut, man. The `singularity` thing is the most obvious giveaway, two-bit futurists have probably been babbling about computers becoming smarter than humans and going off on their own since Babbage.
--
Benjamin Coates
Huh? you could do 32 bit addressing long before you could buy 4GB drives, but nobody thought memory mapping your hard drive into your address space was a good idea then... What would be the point?
--
Benjamin Coates
Don't current processors let you do the same thing? I mean, isn't the whole point of MMX to let you do, say, 4 16-bit operations at a time on a 64-bit register? and then there's SSE and 3dnow for floating-point.
From your description. it seems to me like IA64 is more MMX/SSE registers and an expanded instruction set, which is the same incremental change what we've been getting from each version of intel chips for a while now.
--
Benjamin Coates
Cool, so if I put a sign up in front of my house saying, "By parking here, you agree to give me your car" (or whatever the legalese for that is), I get all those cars?
I mean, it's right there in front of their face, and anything that's written in legalese is legally binding, right?
I might even get a better haul if I used my T&C sign downtown...
--
Benjamin Coates
I can't believe you could even attempt to insult someone that has only given to the gaming community, linux community, open source community, coder community... well, and Carmack has given to the entire community.
I know you're just a troll yourself, but the idea that being generous makes you above criticism is an interesting one...
--
Benjamin Coates
*YOU* have a choice.
You can either pay for the music and listen to it.
Or you can not listen to the music.
Since recorded music is a luxury item and not a subsistence item, you do not have any inherent moral right to steal it because it is being denied to you.
Thus ends today's lesson on morality.
Let's ignore for a moment the fact that copying music is neither stealing nor immoral:
This is business, which has nothing at all to do with morality. If people find it easier to get your product by stealing it than by buying it, they will steal it. You can either cry and say that it's not fair, or make it easier to get from you, or make it harder to steal.
It's currently easier for someone like me (even if you ignore the price factor) to get music by finding somewhere to copy it from than to buy it, and all this content protection crap is likely to do in the near future is prevent it from getting even easier.
What is the music industry going to do to make buying music from them competitive with copying it?
--
Benjamin Coates
----
Can you say "Afghanistan"?
Can you say "daisy cutter"?
Sounds like a plan to me...
--
Ben Coates
Clearly, if civil rights have been "trashed", there must be endless examples. And by the way, "potential" abuses don't count. I want REAL examples.
3 68_1.html
A few seconds of searching yahoo's news archives:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/wesh/20011003/lo/919
This isn't the only citizen who has been held for days without being charged; some aren't even allowed to contact their lawyer.
It's not enough that this new bill not curtail our freedom (although it does); it has to have some benefit for it to be a good thing. How does this law help?
Why does the Justice department need more power? Is there any reason to believe this law will help the DoJ fight terrorism?
Snipped from parent and various replies...
Actually, I was reading that, in the US, there is some law.. I forget the name. Something about declaring a state of national emergency. In such a state, the president has power to, well, basically, do anything, and ignore the constitution.
--
FEMA extends the president the abitlity to stop the constitution. It's a good law! It aids workers get help to where it needs and alows the army to operate on US soil which it is not constitutionaly allowed to. It also alow for marshal law so looters can get shoot immediately.
--
This is called the Elastic Clause... Certain parts of the constitution can be ignored if it is used.
For example, it was used during WWII to send all those Japanese Americans to camps out in the midwest.
Do any of you have the slightest idea of how the US government works? Not the hard stuff, even public education should have managed to teach you this...
"National Emergency?"
Deploy the National Guard. Call up the reserves. Spend that disaster money. That's the sort of thing a National Emergency lets you do (actually, it usually isn't even a national emergency, more like a local one). It does not allow the President "to, well, basically, do anything, and ignore the constitution." Where did that come from?
"Marshal Law"
It's actually spelled "martial law", but it doesn't exist in the US, thank god. If a soldier with a gun tells you otherwise, shoot him. We've been invaded... btw, the US army is already allowed to operate on US soil, what do you think we'd do if we were invaded, move to Canada?
"Elastic Clause"
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers..." It's allowed to slip by federal powers that are just barely constitutional. Why do people keep thinking there's a magic back door in the Constitution that lets anybody do whatever the hell they want if they invoke it? The Japanese Concentration Camps weren't legal; we knew it then and we know it now. After the war, there were apologies and reparations (too little, far to late for something that shouldn't have happened in the first place though.)
Please, people. Read your Constitution. Pay attention. This is a Republic, the only hope for the future is an informed population that understands their rights and the place and history of their government.
P.S. Apologies to the non-US readers of slashdot for the waste of your bytes.
Is there a way of tracking people who say this and getting some estimates on how many actually follow through with it?
2. Of course FISA is secret. Of course, if this court deals with network surveillance it should be, too. There isn't much of a point in tipping off a suspect by telling them that they're under surveillance. What, you'd rather that they use TEMPEST ELINT from vans prominently marked, "Flowers By Irene?
Wouldn't any investigation need to be secret? How is this different from, say, a racketeering or murder or fraud investigation? Should we have secret courts for them, too?
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" seems to apply here.
The reason you had to show your ID before you got on a plane previous to Sept. 11 was because airlines wanted to keep people from transferring tickets or splitting up round-trips (a very common practice before they started demanding ID).
When you say it's optional, that means I don't have to pay for it, right? As long as the costs of the card system are paid for by the cardholders and/or the businesses scanning the card, then they can go right ahead for all I care. (for that matter, why does ellison need the government's permission to do this? He could just start minting the things and offering it to people and organizations...)
Oh, yeah, 'optional' also means that you're not required by law (either by written law or just government agency pressure) to have a card to do anything (like travel, buy whatever, get a passport...)
btw, is there any evidince that any of the people involved in the Sept. 11 events used a false identity?
This is a well known exploit in Freenet, but fortunately it has not been implemented and freenet itself has remained rather small.
This isn't really a practical attack, at the very best case, you'd need to be able to upload 1/100th of the entire storage space usable by Freenet in a reasonably small amount of time... In reality, you'd need a lot more than that, since you would overwrite the storage of some nodes repeatedly, and it isn't really possible to reliably send one file thru 100 nodes at a pass... and you only pick the first node, not any of the rest.
You would also need a nearly exhaustive list of the nodes, that would be nontrivial, but not impossible.
There is a trivial way to stop this from destroying popular data anyway, having a 'high-water mark' where the x% most popular data cannot be overwritten by new inserts. Freenet either does this now or could be easily modified to do so (i don't remember off the top of my head). In order to overcome the high-water mark system, you have to insert and successfully request the same junk data, which gives you substantially less leverage over the network for the amount of bandwidth used.
The maximum cache file size (due to architecture contraints) is 2G. Very within the realm of exploitability.
No, that's not true. The Freenet 0.3 java node can use up to the maximum bytes/files a single directory in the underlying filesystem. The Freenet 0.4 java node can use up to the maximum size of a single file in the underlying file system (or 2^63-1 bytes, whichever is less).
Well, sort of. The file itself would indeed be copied around based on the request, but you could prevent a node from being accessed by other nodes (thus keeping it from contributing its storage and bandwidth to the network) by doing that... I think the default incoming connection limit is like 50, and it's not practical to increase it by very much (consumes too much memory/cpu).
So you'd have to attack the entire network, not just one file... I guess it depends on how much bandwidth you need to make a lot of TCP connections sending very little data.
How do you reduce the quality of life of a man that lives in caves and bunkers and must move everyday for fear of capture (it is believed that he has about 5-10 lookalikes trained to confuse American intelligence)?
Hmm. We could publish nice doctored photos/videos of him partying with israeli politicians or seducing little boys or something, maybe?
I know that was a rhetorical question, but it's just too fun of an idea to pass up...
Do you really think laws against owning nuclear weapons are what keeps your neighbor from owning one?
I'm fairly sure that the expense, (relative) scarcity and uslessness of nuclear weapons are a much bigger hurdle to getting one than any laws that may apply.
Seems like a rather improbable example to argue from to me...
So you admit that the law is, at best, a waste of time and money? Shouldn't the burden of proof be on the supporters of the change, not those who think things are alright the way they are?
The fact that the law is being rushed through rather than being carefully debated is enough to be against it regardless of content, as well, IMHO.
Woah, I'm not a Christian fundamentalist, and I disagree with much of what they say, but it seems rather overboard to lump them together with terrorists... I don't recall them organizing and carrying out mass murder, and I fail to see how they are not entitled to the same freedoms as everyone else to believe what they believe and live the life they want.
How is this relevant here? I read the excerpt on adbusters, but that didn't help... How is this law better explained as government "dominated by corporate interests" than a simple case of law enforcement agencies exploiting tragedy to get a wish-list of new powers passed?
``Let me ask you. There are two different airlines. Airline A says before you board that airplane you prove you are who you say you are. Airline B, no problem. Anyone who wants the price of a ticket, they can go on that airline. Which airplane do you get on?''
I think this is a great, free-markety solution, no? Ellison, McNealy, and all the paranoids who want to be tagged, identified, background-checked, searched, folded, spindled, and/or mutilated can sign up for a authoritative ID card and go on airline A (and preferably pay for said security with their tickets); those of us who think the convenience of a (hopefully cheaper) no questions-asked cash ticket is worth sacrificing the illusion of security can fly airline B, arrive 15 minutes before takeoff and hop on a plane to wherever we're going like the daring free risk-takers we are.
If you think the BATF isn't a critically important government agency, try going without booze, guns or cigarettes for a week!