I've been managing my keys with a keychain for years! Of course if I leave my keychain accessible for a significant period of time, someone has access to all my resources (provided that they know where they are).
only one thing to say now that my secret is out : ssh... ssh...
Now if they would just invent a digital equivalent of my Homer Simpson key fob.
Aluminum weighs 35 to 40% less than steel, when manufactured to the same strength requirement.
Steel endures much more flex without failure, whereas aluminum reaches its flexibility endurance limit faster. The failure mode of aluminum (bend some and break and absorb energy) is actually safer in the realm of automobile construction.
Aluminum space frames can be manufactured in a single piece, which makes prediction of their real-world behavior much easier to predict through computational models, requiring less physical testing.
Aluminum's lower weight makes it cheaper to transport throughout all phases of automobile manufacture.
If and as the cost per pound can come down enough that the benefits outweigh the costs, or the benefits become more important, we can expect aluminum to have a stronger presence in automotive manufacture.
recently, aluminum has gained ground in niche automotive products like pickup truck tailgates, hood assemblies, engine blocks (with GM introducing their first aluminum block truck engine in 2002)... areas where consumers can see the direct benefits.
I'm not an aluminum grandstander by any means. I just think the "steel is cheaper" argument is way too simple... it's really just a matter of time.
While I don't aim to excuse the behavior of corporations using public money to foot the bill, the bottom line is that someone has to foot it.
You can pay for it through higher product prices or higher taxes. While it would be more economically efficient to have consumers foot the bill for the resources consumed and wasted by the products they purchase, at least the environmental efficiences claimed by this NYT article are in fact being realized. And once realized to be profitable, such practices are more likely to be adopted.
The ultimate reality, in my mind, is that many environmental regulations are passed without regard to their economic impact (would you pay 10x the cost for water with 5x lest arsenic in it, when current levels are KNOWN to be safe?).
Thus, I believe it requires public and private cooperation to realize efficient ways to comply with environmental regulations.
Perhaps the best way would be to treat compliance expenses as research projects in cases where affordable methods are not known for compliance, in which the results (such as the practices mentioned in the NYT article) would be 'open source' published as best practices for compliance, and then future funds cut accordingly as the cost uncertainty is eliminated.
It might help to view this as a choice between funneling public funds to develop best practices which are viable or even profitable, versus hiring a bunch of regulators to monitor compliance (and how the heck do you set a fine when the costs of compliance are not well understood? This invites further gaming inefficienies).
Either requires public money. I for one am willing to invest my tax dollars to helping companies develop efficient compliance mechanisms, as long as those results are open-sourced.
I'd also say that the key is managing expectations of your users. If you're in a commercial development environment, make sure you have plans in your first contract for what guarantees you will or will not provide for future forward compatibility.
And, if your major versions break key compatibilities, provide a migration path! That path can be packaged consulting, scripts that mangle / migrate data and code, whatever you can do to reduce the pain. That is, if you ever want to sell to those customers again...
But again, the best advice is just to listen to your users
Unless you're working one some free open-source thing. Then your users didn't pay you jack, and you're the programmer, so you know best, right?
Several years ago I'd speculated that Microsoft might just pick up and move to Vancouver if the U.S. government wouldn't back off... not that those are necessarily the folks you want north of the 49th;)
Honestly, until oppression or restrictions on freedom become overly egregious, I wouldn't expect to be able to organize the members of a 'working class' that is among the highest paid and best treated in the U.S., and in the world.
Three members of differing minority groups are attempting to complete a menial task.
The first attempts to complete the task, but fails in a manner completely characteristic of the stereotype of his minority group.
The second says, "No, no, you have it entirely wrong," and he attempts to complete the menial task. He, however fails in a manner highly analogous to the failure of the first person, but in a manner characteristic of *HIS* minority group.
The third says, "You both have it ALL wrong." He then attempts the menial task and fails spectacularly, in a manner completely different from the first two, but in a manner that reinforces a commonly held stereotype about his minority group!
Feel free to emit a response (laugh or groan) as your particular sense of humor and minority sensitivities allow.
Given the basic nature of routing, the traffic on these 'free' networks, long-range traffic has to get to an upstream Internet pipe somehow (and the aggregate of traffic in a 'free' internet would be large getting to these pipes).
Who would underwrite the cost of that upstream "last mile" to the Internet from the "free" wireless access net? I'd rather not have the sum total of several thousand "free" wireless access points flowing through my T-1 / T-3 / OC-whatever if the traffic is significant.
The cost should ultimately drop with wireless, obviously, because the end users don't have to underwrite the large infrastructure creation cost required to support them.
You'd expect this with existing shared technology like cable modems, but of course the economics of the monopoly apply here still (telecom regulation yeah right, at least today)
But perhaps the bottleneck would shift from a last mile problem to a first mile problem (with which the average ISP deals quite nicely) in a wireless neighborhood. In cases where frequency of access and bandwidth consumption are low, I'd expect access prices to drop significantly, though.
The shared-resource telecom concepts of Erlangian distribution, and so on become highly relevant again in such a scenario. Is this the PBX / concentrator again?
Speaking of which, in the Boston area, if you have line-of-sight to the Prudential building (and who doesn't in mass of landfill), you can now get wireless (microwave?) 1 megabit guaranteed bandwidth for $300 a month.
Re:But it gets you compact code
on
MenuetOS Debuts
·
· Score: 1
Wonderful observation about elementary computer architecture. But don't assume that fastER code is always desirable, which it isn't always. The poster's point (in mentioning low latency interrupts and OpenGL) was stressing things that require speed.
You see, the bulk of operations don't require that degree of speed. Here's the a reductio ad absurdum argument:
If writing an operating system takes time X in assembly, and has speed Y, and say doing it entirely in C takes time 2x and has speed Y/4 , I'd wager that for most sets of values, I can buy 4 times the hardware cheaper than I can buy 2x the labor to build one 4x faster.
The exception case is where the system requires certain operations with such frequency that their latency causes the entire system to slow down. This would be cases like, driver optimization, or OpenGL implementations.
This of course ignores other issues like time to market (if you intend to have others adopt your product), and portability (if you intend to address a broad market)
I wish I were this clever.
Unfortunately I was limited by slashcode's interpretation of 10010101... as a post entirely in CAPS (even the ascii was not in caps, har har), which forbids its posting.
Many criticisms also make no sense when made without proper context.
An operating system in assembler? Bah! Such high level languages are tools for the weak, macros be damned! You know what I have to say about that? Reminds me of an old joke by Alan Turing :
11100101010100100111010100101010010100101001111 ?
10011010100111011100001 !!!
HA!
With a pick long enough to get around the hammers, would it not operate slowly enough to make you vulnerable to a speedy wedge or flipping bot (which would then get beaten by a Son of Wyashi knockoff n rounds hence)
Using a tired rock, paper, scissors metaphor, is sheer angular momentum (and its inherent power / weight ratio advantage), basically the best all three?
I was in a Starbucks here in Austin, TX which offers 802.11b access (for a fee). Instead of winding up on the provider's network, I was on the Safeway network (the Starbuck's is inside a Randall's / Safeway supermarket). This allowed my Win2000 laptop to browse the supermarket network, which has many shared [and unsecured] systems probably used for re-ordering / EDI, etc.
The real issue is about education of network professionals about wireless security and how to implment it, whether or not they use WEP (Safeway clearly did NOT).
I for one just wanted my 'net access via Starbucks and not Safeway's ultra-slow (probably frame relay) network.
Slashdot Mirror
Then you must have no soul. The number of people killed and the severity of the incident make this much more than "News for Nerds."
They make it "Stuff that matters."
I've been managing my keys with a keychain for years! Of course if I leave my keychain accessible for a significant period of time, someone has access to all my resources (provided that they know where they are).
only one thing to say now that my secret is out : ssh... ssh...
Now if they would just invent a digital equivalent of my Homer Simpson key fob.
Aluminum weighs 35 to 40% less than steel, when manufactured to the same strength requirement.
Steel endures much more flex without failure, whereas aluminum reaches its flexibility endurance limit faster. The failure mode of aluminum (bend some and break and absorb energy) is actually safer in the realm of automobile construction.
Aluminum space frames can be manufactured in a single piece, which makes prediction of their real-world behavior much easier to predict through computational models, requiring less physical testing.
Aluminum's lower weight makes it cheaper to transport throughout all phases of automobile manufacture.
If and as the cost per pound can come down enough that the benefits outweigh the costs, or the benefits become more important, we can expect aluminum to have a stronger presence in automotive manufacture.
recently, aluminum has gained ground in niche automotive products like pickup truck tailgates, hood assemblies, engine blocks (with GM introducing their first aluminum block truck engine in 2002)... areas where consumers can see the direct benefits.
I'm not an aluminum grandstander by any means. I just think the "steel is cheaper" argument is way too simple... it's really just a matter of time.
While I don't aim to excuse the behavior of corporations using public money to foot the bill, the bottom line is that someone has to foot it.
You can pay for it through higher product prices or higher taxes. While it would be more economically efficient to have consumers foot the bill for the resources consumed and wasted by the products they purchase, at least the environmental efficiences claimed by this NYT article are in fact being realized. And once realized to be profitable, such practices are more likely to be adopted.
The ultimate reality, in my mind, is that many environmental regulations are passed without regard to their economic impact (would you pay 10x the cost for water with 5x lest arsenic in it, when current levels are KNOWN to be safe?).
Thus, I believe it requires public and private cooperation to realize efficient ways to comply with environmental regulations.
Perhaps the best way would be to treat compliance expenses as research projects in cases where affordable methods are not known for compliance, in which the results (such as the practices mentioned in the NYT article) would be 'open source' published as best practices for compliance, and then future funds cut accordingly as the cost uncertainty is eliminated.
It might help to view this as a choice between funneling public funds to develop best practices which are viable or even profitable, versus hiring a bunch of regulators to monitor compliance (and how the heck do you set a fine when the costs of compliance are not well understood? This invites further gaming inefficienies).
Either requires public money. I for one am willing to invest my tax dollars to helping companies develop efficient compliance mechanisms, as long as those results are open-sourced.
Is this post.
I'd also say that the key is managing expectations of your users. If you're in a commercial development environment, make sure you have plans in your first contract for what guarantees you will or will not provide for future forward compatibility.
And, if your major versions break key compatibilities, provide a migration path! That path can be packaged consulting, scripts that mangle / migrate data and code, whatever you can do to reduce the pain. That is, if you ever want to sell to those customers again...
But again, the best advice is just to listen to your users
Unless you're working one some free open-source thing. Then your users didn't pay you jack, and you're the programmer, so you know best, right?
Several years ago I'd speculated that Microsoft might just pick up and move to Vancouver if the U.S. government wouldn't back off... not that those are necessarily the folks you want north of the 49th ;)
:)
Honestly, until oppression or restrictions on freedom become overly egregious, I wouldn't expect to be able to organize the members of a 'working class' that is among the highest paid and best treated in the U.S., and in the world.
When that day comes, see you in Costa Rica!
Three members of differing minority groups are attempting to complete a menial task.
The first attempts to complete the task, but fails in a manner completely characteristic of the stereotype of his minority group.
The second says, "No, no, you have it entirely wrong," and he attempts to complete the menial task. He, however fails in a manner highly analogous to the failure of the first person, but in a manner characteristic of *HIS* minority group.
The third says, "You both have it ALL wrong." He then attempts the menial task and fails spectacularly, in a manner completely different from the first two, but in a manner that reinforces a commonly held stereotype about his minority group!
Feel free to emit a response (laugh or groan) as your particular sense of humor and minority sensitivities allow.
> NT will be totally gone and multi-media will be done in dedicated memory on FPGA boards.
Multimedia, or at least common streaming protocols, are already going to silicon.
check out Vividon
Given the basic nature of routing, the traffic on these 'free' networks, long-range traffic has to get to an upstream Internet pipe somehow (and the aggregate of traffic in a 'free' internet would be large getting to these pipes).
Who would underwrite the cost of that upstream "last mile" to the Internet from the "free" wireless access net? I'd rather not have the sum total of several thousand "free" wireless access points flowing through my T-1 / T-3 / OC-whatever if the traffic is significant.
The cost should ultimately drop with wireless, obviously, because the end users don't have to underwrite the large infrastructure creation cost required to support them.
You'd expect this with existing shared technology like cable modems, but of course the economics of the monopoly apply here still (telecom regulation yeah right, at least today)
But perhaps the bottleneck would shift from a last mile problem to a first mile problem (with which the average ISP deals quite nicely) in a wireless neighborhood. In cases where frequency of access and bandwidth consumption are low, I'd expect access prices to drop significantly, though.
The shared-resource telecom concepts of Erlangian distribution, and so on become highly relevant again in such a scenario. Is this the PBX / concentrator again?
Speaking of which, in the Boston area, if you have line-of-sight to the Prudential building (and who doesn't in mass of landfill), you can now get wireless (microwave?) 1 megabit guaranteed bandwidth for $300 a month.
Wonderful observation about elementary computer architecture. But don't assume that fastER code is always desirable, which it isn't always. The poster's point (in mentioning low latency interrupts and OpenGL) was stressing things that require speed.
You see, the bulk of operations don't require that degree of speed. Here's the a reductio ad absurdum argument:
If writing an operating system takes time X in assembly, and has speed Y, and say doing it entirely in C takes time 2x and has speed Y/4 , I'd wager that for most sets of values, I can buy 4 times the hardware cheaper than I can buy 2x the labor to build one 4x faster.
The exception case is where the system requires certain operations with such frequency that their latency causes the entire system to slow down. This would be cases like, driver optimization, or OpenGL implementations.
This of course ignores other issues like time to market (if you intend to have others adopt your product), and portability (if you intend to address a broad market)
I wish I were this clever. Unfortunately I was limited by slashcode's interpretation of 10010101... as a post entirely in CAPS (even the ascii was not in caps, har har), which forbids its posting. Many criticisms also make no sense when made without proper context.
An operating system in assembler? Bah! Such high level languages are tools for the weak, macros be damned! You know what I have to say about that? Reminds me of an old joke by Alan Turing : 11100101010100100111010100101010010100101001111 ? 10011010100111011100001 !!! HA!
With a pick long enough to get around the hammers, would it not operate slowly enough to make you vulnerable to a speedy wedge or flipping bot (which would then get beaten by a Son of Wyashi knockoff n rounds hence)
Using a tired rock, paper, scissors metaphor, is sheer angular momentum (and its inherent power / weight ratio advantage), basically the best all three?
I was in a Starbucks here in Austin, TX which offers 802.11b access (for a fee). Instead of winding up on the provider's network, I was on the Safeway network (the Starbuck's is inside a Randall's / Safeway supermarket). This allowed my Win2000 laptop to browse the supermarket network, which has many shared [and unsecured] systems probably used for re-ordering / EDI, etc. The real issue is about education of network professionals about wireless security and how to implment it, whether or not they use WEP (Safeway clearly did NOT). I for one just wanted my 'net access via Starbucks and not Safeway's ultra-slow (probably frame relay) network.