First of all, this has nothing to do with "Port-80 routing", whatever that means. Second, if you ISP won't allow you to bypass their proxy, then your ISP is screwed, and any workaround you choose to implement will be so fragile and/or cumbersome as to be unusable. There is no third.
Who the fuck are you to determine noble? What makes "stoolpigeon", which sounds like some kind of laxative, know about the girls about his local strip joint that makes him more noble that same?
What are you talking about? Have you ever thought any of this through? Have you ever been to Botswana? India? Kazachstan? Poland? Yemen? Chili? Peru? What the fuck leverage does any of your portentuous bullshit have to do with the real people in those countries?
The question is, are open relays abused by spammers. The answer is yes. We can argue about specifics such as what percentage of open relays is abused by spammers, but until we have that kind of (solid) information, we can infer from experience that, yes, spammers do abuse open relays -- the degree to which this is true being proven simply by the effectiveness of not accepting mail from open relays.
It is fascinating stuff and I do not entertain the notion that a layman's understanding such as my own can add much to the discussion of the physics behind the theory. I have to admit that the results in themselves are interesting enough to warrant consideration of strange creatures like multiverse theory.
From another point of view, however, the notion of "all possible worlds" makes very little sense. All the possible worlds that could conceivably be constructed by applying the rules of physics (but then what is it that creates the differences between repeated applications)? All possible worlds that God had the time to create? All possible worlds that fit on the tip of a needle?
Clearly some or all of that is nonsense. But by whose authority do we determine which one (assuming that there will not be any empirical means to verify any kind of multiverse theory for some time to come)? So I am a bit skeptical. When "we have absolutely no clue" is closer to the truth than "far fetched theory" then it strikes me that "we have no clue" is, well, closer to the truth, even if it is less productive.
But I understand that the mathematical results are very compelling. It would be very interesting to see it established that the creation of something profound like an entire universe were dependant on it being allowed by mathematics. It would be the ultimate triumph for maths, I think.
Do you have a problem sticking to the problem at hand? Why punish people at all? After all even a convicted criminal is only a potential source of abuse.
Uh. If the BSD kernel were not preemptive, then the sshd design would have been different, so that the situation you're describing would not have occurred. Plus most (all?) coop MT systems still have something called "hardware interrupt".
The diffference between preemption/coop is very much like the difference between using threads and blocking I/O (i.e.
On a general purpose system, the cost of preemption is masked by a) the high speeds of today's processors, and b) the fact that although preemption is locally suboptimal, it yields better results globally. Still, for precisely circumscribed domains, coop will deliver better performance.
That 18% is outrageous. Why should it matter whether it is USB audio or not? Did somebody tell you that USB audio is "more difficult on the CPU because it's higher quality" or did you do the convincing all by yourselves?
BTW, I am starting to get a feel for how this whole "power thing" works.
First the government cracks down on civilians trying to weed out obnoxious mail servers. Then a few years later the government concludes that the private sector is not doing enough to curb the abuse of email. Finally the government instates a law outlawing open relays and grants the police the authority to seek and destroy open relays.
Linux has a long-standing "kernel code is not preemptible" tradition and quite a bit of design hinges on that presumption (see/usr/src/linux/Documentation/smp.tex for example). So naturally there has been some resistance against recklessly applying preemption whereever it appears (not) appropriate.
In particular Alan Cox (perhaps not coincidentally also the author of the document referenced above) has been hammering on the fact that preemption can break code that needs to consider the timing requirements of the hardware itself; simply put, you do not want code that is busy interfacing with a device to be preempted for possibly long periods of time because the device might not have that kind of patience. So any kind of preemption patch would need to address these issues, and you end up touching lots of files just like the low-latency patch does.
What kind of accuracy do you need? I find that gettimeofday() will give approx. ~5 ms accuracy (non-root, nice 0). Interfacing directly with the RTC on x86 gives you approx. ~10 usec accuracy (root, SCHED_FIFO, nice 0).
VM swapping. Linux VM still has the propensity to hold onto cached stuff even after phys Mem has been depleted. Get more RAM or tune your VM.
Audio drivers. There are basically three alternatives for sound on Linux, the free OSS drivers, the for-pay OSS drivers, and the ALSA drivers. I've had very good results with the for-pay OSS drivers, but you should collect them all -- the sound distortion remaining even after closing/opening the sound device is a definite driver problem, possibly related to brain-damaged hardware getting DMA transfers wrong.
Disk speed or controller funkiness. Are there any known issues for your chipset/drive?
CPU speed. A mobile celeron 466 is simply not that fast, although your problem seems to be more I/O than CPU related.
This is different from the Nestle stuff. They think they can make it cheaper and better. Here's a link to the article. Oh. Wait. Never mind.
Re:Slashcode's HTML vs. Microsoft HTML
on
SedSokoban
·
· Score: 1
A HTTP server that always returns "YOUR NOSE IS BLEEDING" is bound to result in something that violates the HTML spec. Although perhaps the way HTML is heading in a few years time "YOUR NOSE IS BLEEDING" will be a valid response as well.
Fuck this kind of bullshit. When Apple repackages some frizzy new tech widget and slaps the Apple logo on it the hype is enough to make you think that Steve Jobs had just personally shit a golden turd, but when these con artists fail to ship, suddenly it's the fault of the suppliers? What a piece of crap. Thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, this has nothing to do with "Port-80 routing", whatever that means. Second, if you ISP won't allow you to bypass their proxy, then your ISP is screwed, and any workaround you choose to implement will be so fragile and/or cumbersome as to be unusable. There is no third.
! ALWAYS THOUGHT NUTSACK INDUSTRY DEAD OR DYING?!?&yel ling;
Stick gizmos up your ass for all I care. Death is not the end of the world kiddo.
Jezus holy christ. We were having this whole Internet thing going on, and you still haven't figured it out. Sad.
"really neat"? God. I'd love to put a pacemaker into your doubtlessly miserable bod.
Oh goodness. It makes a hell of a lot of difference whether you implant a chip or put in in your pocket.
Who the fuck are you to determine noble? What makes "stoolpigeon", which sounds like some kind of laxative, know about the girls about his local strip joint that makes him more noble that same?
What are you talking about? Have you ever thought any of this through? Have you ever been to Botswana? India? Kazachstan? Poland? Yemen? Chili? Peru? What the fuck leverage does any of your portentuous bullshit have to do with the real people in those countries?
Shit. If it weren't for you we would just forget the laws of the street. Shit. Shit.
The question is, are open relays abused by spammers. The answer is yes. We can argue about specifics such as what percentage of open relays is abused by spammers, but until we have that kind of (solid) information, we can infer from experience that, yes, spammers do abuse open relays -- the degree to which this is true being proven simply by the effectiveness of not accepting mail from open relays.
From another point of view, however, the notion of "all possible worlds" makes very little sense. All the possible worlds that could conceivably be constructed by applying the rules of physics (but then what is it that creates the differences between repeated applications)? All possible worlds that God had the time to create? All possible worlds that fit on the tip of a needle?
Clearly some or all of that is nonsense. But by whose authority do we determine which one (assuming that there will not be any empirical means to verify any kind of multiverse theory for some time to come)? So I am a bit skeptical. When "we have absolutely no clue" is closer to the truth than "far fetched theory" then it strikes me that "we have no clue" is, well, closer to the truth, even if it is less productive.
But I understand that the mathematical results are very compelling. It would be very interesting to see it established that the creation of something profound like an entire universe were dependant on it being allowed by mathematics. It would be the ultimate triumph for maths, I think.
Do you have a problem sticking to the problem at hand? Why punish people at all? After all even a convicted criminal is only a potential source of abuse.
The diffference between preemption/coop is very much like the difference between using threads and blocking I/O (i.e. On a general purpose system, the cost of preemption is masked by a) the high speeds of today's processors, and b) the fact that although preemption is locally suboptimal, it yields better results globally. Still, for precisely circumscribed domains, coop will deliver better performance.
Nope, that's not true.
That 18% is outrageous. Why should it matter whether it is USB audio or not? Did somebody tell you that USB audio is "more difficult on the CPU because it's higher quality" or did you do the convincing all by yourselves?
BTW, I am starting to get a feel for how this whole "power thing" works.
First the government cracks down on civilians trying to weed out obnoxious mail servers. Then a few years later the government concludes that the private sector is not doing enough to curb the abuse of email. Finally the government instates a law outlawing open relays and grants the police the authority to seek and destroy open relays.
It's an unbeatable deal.
No, the fact that they used the word "duplicate" shows that they do not, in fact, "get it".
In particular Alan Cox (perhaps not coincidentally also the author of the document referenced above) has been hammering on the fact that preemption can break code that needs to consider the timing requirements of the hardware itself; simply put, you do not want code that is busy interfacing with a device to be preempted for possibly long periods of time because the device might not have that kind of patience. So any kind of preemption patch would need to address these issues, and you end up touching lots of files just like the low-latency patch does.
What kind of accuracy do you need? I find that gettimeofday() will give approx. ~5 ms accuracy (non-root, nice 0). Interfacing directly with the RTC on x86 gives you approx. ~10 usec accuracy (root, SCHED_FIFO, nice 0).
There is no surprise. Just published findings.
x86 machines are personal computers. Apples and Ataris and Commodores are home computers.
This is different from the Nestle stuff. They think they can make it cheaper and better. Here's a link to the article. Oh. Wait. Never mind.
A HTTP server that always returns "YOUR NOSE IS BLEEDING" is bound to result in something that violates the HTML spec. Although perhaps the way HTML is heading in a few years time "YOUR NOSE IS BLEEDING" will be a valid response as well.
Fuck this kind of bullshit. When Apple repackages some frizzy new tech widget and slaps the Apple logo on it the hype is enough to make you think that Steve Jobs had just personally shit a golden turd, but when these con artists fail to ship, suddenly it's the fault of the suppliers? What a piece of crap. Thanks.