Seriously. If their beta team got drunk and send me one of these machines, I'd have the entry put in. My house is on commercial property, so I could probably swing it. It would cost me a fortune to run, but I could lease out space on it.
That just cracks me up: I mean, the debate about forking apache to handle requests is one thing, but hell, why not just boot your own OS for each request!
I read the article on booting 40000+ linuxii on one box almost a year ago, so I might be a little sketchy, but if I remember correctly:
The issue is booting an independent copy of the OS for each 'instance' of a server, NOT FOR EACH REQUEST. This means that they could run, maybe 20,000 machines that look independent on one shared machine, each of the 20,000 virtual machines running independently of the others. 20,000 root accounts, 20,000 userbases, 20,000 sets of allocated memory, etc., all running simultaneously, off of the same machine.
Right now, web hosts can offer cheap web hosting (virtual hosting), where each user shares the OS, and with properly set permissions, and limited user functionality, this is relatively secure. This is generally run off of one, or a small group of IPs all pointing at the same machine, and the webserver figures out which 'instance' of itself should return what resource to the requester.
The problem is that, for instance, if I need to do something outside of my user-sandbox, I can't, or I need to have someone else do it.
This whole multiple instances of one OS one one bigass machine, appears to the user as a co-location. They don't have to worry about other users screwing with their stuff. Essentially, my instance of the OS on that machine is the same thing as my own box being hosted at the ISP.
AND, with virtual hosting, some user cracks root, and every account on that machine can be comprimised. With this, someone cracks root on one of the 20,000 instances, and whoever maintains that instance gets screwed, but the other 19,999 users are unaffected.
However, I suspect that we'll see people offering virtual hosting within an instance, which kind of defeats the purpose, but also allows, say 100 users to be hosted on an instance, which allows for 2million sites to be hosted on one machine.
I wonder if IBM needs beta testers (-: I'd re-wire my house if they sent me a demo unit.
Nothing the MPAA can do about it. They can't force people into a license if you're not using anything of the MPAA's actually make the DVD. You can go out, buy a DVD ROM, use it to get VOBs to run DeCSS on, and thats it. The MPAA has no authority to make you pay licensing fees, except to use their trademarks and "IP" which you wouldn't need if you did it all on your own.
Am I the only one seeing the parallels between the two? If this whole MPAA thing goes through, then we can certainly expect Nintendo to come after users of their products in any way they don't like. Scary stuff.
I find this story vaguely hypocritical considering Slashdot obscured their source code for about 3 years to maintain security.
Wouldn't you find it more hypocritical if Slashdot, the NEWS site, decided not to post this story that they knew their readers would be interested in BECAUSE they obscured their source to maintain security, and people would call them hypocrites?
Seriously, don't argue the point, it was created to swap copies of songs, not to "promote small artists" or whatever.
Not that I mean to beat a dead horse, but The Tobacconist near where I work sells bongs. I'd bet that 99% of people who buy them smoke pot in them, which is illegal. But these "bongs" are 'Tobacco Sampling Devices'. The 1% makes their sale justifiable.
I get regularly pissed off about such things -- I do web programming for a print firm, and they can't seem to grasp the concept of a piece not looking exactly the same everywhere.
In fact, just yesterday, I had to adjust the brightness on the laptop of one of our clients because the suits didn't like that the colors were'nt exactly the same on every monitor. I swear some of those people are going to start referring to me as "the 'THE WEB IS _NOT_ PRINT' guy." I need a better job or something. (-;
Resize the window where you view the comments (netscape, explorer, etc) so that it's really skinny. What happened? Those comments that used to take up 3 lines now take up 25 lines.
View slashdot at 1024x768. Count the lines in a given post. Now change your screen resolution to 640x480. Find that same post (WAY further down the page), and cound the lines in it now.
There's absolutely NO way of determining how many lines a given post contains. The best you can do is measure number of bytes.
The only other thing you could do is set <br>'s to have a value of 75 bytes or something.
That said, what's to stop each running thread from using one or four or whatever processors. I mean, unless the software is specifically to use 512 processors, wouldn't it kind of work as a really great multitasker?
Like I said, I don't know much about SMP.
Re: Here's the text of index.html
on
Geek Flavor
·
· Score: 1
[feel free to add anything below this line, such as links to uploaded pages, etc.] Am I the first to modify this? -Sean
Hey, look at me, I'm famous (-:
I figured the index.html file was uneditable because nobody else had modded it yet, and it turns out that I'm not a lame first poster. And I didn't even think of it that way (-:
I agree that CSS isn't the problem. If I sounded like I think it IS the problem, then I was in error. The problem is that without [technologies such as] CSS, pages won't look the same. I NEEDed to use CSS and javascript on a project I did a couple weeks ago, because, by default, Mac Netscape displays text a LOT smaller than Windows Netscape, and IE. The client wanted smaller text, and the images were being pushed out of place with the large text, so, when I shrunk the text, it became illegible on the Mac. And I needed to use platform specific CSS to cure this.
It's all about compliance to standards.
(Also, along these notes: Users who don't upgrade their browsers, and are using 1995 piece of crap Netscape 2 should NEVER complain that a site doesn't look right in their browser.)
That's a great theory, and in a perfect world, it would work, but you're obviously not a web developer.
[rant ahead:]
There isn't a single piece of web browsing technology that works properly. I cope with this every day. A client demands a certain look to a site, which is impossible on EVERY browser. They complain that colours don't show up properly on their display, only to find out that their display is set to 8 bit colour mode. Or that the webpage look "different" at 640x480 and 1600x1200. Or that it's "brighter on my other monitor" because they have their brightness knob turned up too much.
Over-expectant clients, coupled with clueless client service people create demand for a specific look to pages, and the only way for developers to create these looks is to use "cutting edge" technologies.
I've said it before: Too many slashdotters think that the web is gopher, and completely shun any site that doesn't work in lynx, and too many client service reps and designers think that the web is television, and we should be able to apply the same design and marketing concepts to it.
The web is its own medium. It's not a business card, or magazine ad, it's not TV, and it's not just a really popular form of gopher. It's a MULTI-media (I hate that term -- it's tired) medium. Sure, ideally it would be browser independent, but it's all about images, and sound, animations and video and it's pretty hard to watch a streaming video broadcast in text mode on a 386 running linux on 2 megs of ram and an EGA graphics board. AND it's about information sharing -- aside from video and images and sound and animations, it's about getting information to its users. It might look like crap, but I can almost ALWAYS read and navigate a site if I try hard enough, even using lynx.
The web is broken, because the W3C too often overlooked. Some day, the web will work properly. When browser authors get a clue, and start conforming to the standards that would make the web work.
Sorry for the rant. It's Monday, and I've already had Coldfusion spit out my "code" (if you can call it that) because it doesn't handle double-quoted SQL properly. Don't get me started on coldfusion. (-:
A country like China is certainly capable of setting up a system to squash protocols that they don't like, and anything encrypted is likely to fall into that category.
While I agree that steganography might be the best way to go about communicating with the foreign party, I wouldn't blindly trust steganography.
As you said, I'm sure that China can detect encrypted messages. And, it's possible to detect steg'ed images.
Sure, security through obscurity might work fine here, but it's not like the gov't of China has never heard of steganography.
Might be best to somehow 'test the waters' before getting in some serious political trouble.
We have a chain of stores here, in Canada called Future Shop -- they're kinda like American Circuit City stores.
Anyway, they have a "DJ" counter where you can listen to ANY CD in their inventory before buying it. It's kind of a cool idea. I really hate it that they re-wrap the CDs before selling them, though. I don't really like buying CDs that have finger prints on them -- I HAVE bought CDs, un-shrink-wrapped them, to discover a bigass fingerprint on the data side of the disc.
Ok, I've gone through this whole thing in my head again, and I'm pretty much wrong. Silly me.
Here's what WOULD work: A guitarist is playing his guitar in Japan. As far as he knows, nobody else is playing with him. He is the leader. He can't hear the other musicians.
It's possible for other musicians to join in. That is, I can play with any musicians who are within the lag period of the guitar.
Example: guitarist plays in Africa. 5 seconds of lag between him, and me, in Canada. Some dude in South america joins in on drums. He's only 3 seconds lag from me, and 2 seconds lag from the guitarist, so he can hear himself, and the guitarist (albeit, 2 seconds AFTER the guitarist plays). He can't hear me. I, though, can hear both of them, 3 seconds after the drummer plays, and 5 seconds after the guitarist, so I can play my bass along with them. Neither of them can hear me.
I know that this really isn't an ensemble, or a 'band', but it would work, so long as you don't try to pump bass back to the guitarist, which would be 10 seconds too late.
Sorry for being dumb earlier (-: I wish it was Friday.
F'rinstance Instrument on channel is in Australia. 2.5 seconds of lag, delay all other channels for 2.5 seconds.
This could also work on the monitoring system, delay the musicians' mixes by different amounts, based on where they're from.
I'm SURE it could work, given the right ammount of bandwidth, and latency (or lack thereof).
Big stadium, and outdoor shows often already use a delay in their separate house mixes when running more than one set of speakers, so that the people at the back (in front of, say, 2 SETS of speakers) don't hear an echo.
Slashdot Mirror
What are miller columns?
I did some quick searching, and came up with nothing but a bunch of newspaper columns by some dude with the last name Miller.
Are they a new GUI item? Like the text box, or the drop-down list box? but something new?
Is there a site that describes GUI items, somewhere?
Seriously. If their beta team got drunk and send me one of these machines, I'd have the entry put in. My house is on commercial property, so I could probably swing it. It would cost me a fortune to run, but I could lease out space on it.
*Drool* free s/390
That just cracks me up: I mean, the debate about forking apache to handle requests is one thing, but hell, why not just boot your own OS for each request!
I read the article on booting 40000+ linuxii on one box almost a year ago, so I might be a little sketchy, but if I remember correctly:
The issue is booting an independent copy of the OS for each 'instance' of a server, NOT FOR EACH REQUEST. This means that they could run, maybe 20,000 machines that look independent on one shared machine, each of the 20,000 virtual machines running independently of the others. 20,000 root accounts, 20,000 userbases, 20,000 sets of allocated memory, etc., all running simultaneously, off of the same machine.
Right now, web hosts can offer cheap web hosting (virtual hosting), where each user shares the OS, and with properly set permissions, and limited user functionality, this is relatively secure. This is generally run off of one, or a small group of IPs all pointing at the same machine, and the webserver figures out which 'instance' of itself should return what resource to the requester.
The problem is that, for instance, if I need to do something outside of my user-sandbox, I can't, or I need to have someone else do it.
This whole multiple instances of one OS one one bigass machine, appears to the user as a co-location. They don't have to worry about other users screwing with their stuff. Essentially, my instance of the OS on that machine is the same thing as my own box being hosted at the ISP.
AND, with virtual hosting, some user cracks root, and every account on that machine can be comprimised. With this, someone cracks root on one of the 20,000 instances, and whoever maintains that instance gets screwed, but the other 19,999 users are unaffected.
However, I suspect that we'll see people offering virtual hosting within an instance, which kind of defeats the purpose, but also allows, say 100 users to be hosted on an instance, which allows for 2million sites to be hosted on one machine.
I wonder if IBM needs beta testers (-: I'd re-wire my house if they sent me a demo unit.
I don't think it was a hoax, but AFAIK, it never made it past planning.
The fine people of Freedows are already trying something along this line. The project seems to be stalled, though..
Uh..
Nothing the MPAA can do about it. They can't force people into a license if you're not using anything of the MPAA's actually make the DVD. You can go out, buy a DVD ROM, use it to get VOBs to run DeCSS on, and thats it. The MPAA has no authority to make you pay licensing fees, except to use their trademarks and "IP" which you wouldn't need if you did it all on your own.
Am I the only one seeing the parallels between the two? If this whole MPAA thing goes through, then we can certainly expect Nintendo to come after users of their products in any way they don't like. Scary stuff.
Flamebait?
Drummers don't read slashdot. (-:
Ouch. My karma hurts.
alright.. whole list here
sorry again.
[notice my no score +1 this time? (-: ]
Are Bassists Smarter Than Drummers?
What do you call the guy in the band who can't read music?
The drummer.
What do you call the guy who hangs out with musicians?
The drummer.
Heh, sorry, I know, OT. I couldn't resist, one of my roommates is a drummer. (-:
I find this story vaguely hypocritical considering Slashdot obscured their source code for about 3 years to maintain security.
Wouldn't you find it more hypocritical if Slashdot, the NEWS site, decided not to post this story that they knew their readers would be interested in BECAUSE they obscured their source to maintain security, and people would call them hypocrites?
Seriously, don't argue the point, it was created to swap copies of songs, not to "promote small artists" or whatever.
Not that I mean to beat a dead horse, but The Tobacconist near where I work sells bongs. I'd bet that 99% of people who buy them smoke pot in them, which is illegal. But these "bongs" are 'Tobacco Sampling Devices'. The 1% makes their sale justifiable.
Like I said, I didn't mean to flame.
I get regularly pissed off about such things -- I do web programming for a print firm, and they can't seem to grasp the concept of a piece not looking exactly the same everywhere.
In fact, just yesterday, I had to adjust the brightness on the laptop of one of our clients because the suits didn't like that the colors were'nt exactly the same on every monitor. I swear some of those people are going to start referring to me as "the 'THE WEB IS _NOT_ PRINT' guy." I need a better job or something. (-;
Anyway, sorry about the pseudo-flamage.
I don't mean to flame here, but:
Do me a favor?
Resize the window where you view the comments (netscape, explorer, etc) so that it's really skinny. What happened? Those comments that used to take up 3 lines now take up 25 lines.
View slashdot at 1024x768. Count the lines in a given post. Now change your screen resolution to 640x480. Find that same post (WAY further down the page), and cound the lines in it now.
There's absolutely NO way of determining how many lines a given post contains. The best you can do is measure number of bytes.
The only other thing you could do is set <br>'s to have a value of 75 bytes or something.
I don't know a whole lot about SMP.
That said, what's to stop each running thread from using one or four or whatever processors. I mean, unless the software is specifically to use 512 processors, wouldn't it kind of work as a really great multitasker?
Like I said, I don't know much about SMP.
[feel free to add anything below this line, such as links to uploaded pages, etc.]
Am I the first to modify this? -Sean
Hey, look at me, I'm famous (-:
I figured the index.html file was uneditable because nobody else had modded it yet, and it turns out that I'm not a lame first poster. And I didn't even think of it that way (-:
I agree that CSS isn't the problem. If I sounded like I think it IS the problem, then I was in error. The problem is that without [technologies such as] CSS, pages won't look the same. I NEEDed to use CSS and javascript on a project I did a couple weeks ago, because, by default, Mac Netscape displays text a LOT smaller than Windows Netscape, and IE. The client wanted smaller text, and the images were being pushed out of place with the large text, so, when I shrunk the text, it became illegible on the Mac. And I needed to use platform specific CSS to cure this.
It's all about compliance to standards.
(Also, along these notes: Users who don't upgrade their browsers, and are using 1995 piece of crap Netscape 2 should NEVER complain that a site doesn't look right in their browser.)
Sorry.. ranting again (-:
That's a great theory, and in a perfect world, it would work, but you're obviously not a web developer.
[rant ahead:]
There isn't a single piece of web browsing technology that works properly. I cope with this every day. A client demands a certain look to a site, which is impossible on EVERY browser. They complain that colours don't show up properly on their display, only to find out that their display is set to 8 bit colour mode. Or that the webpage look "different" at 640x480 and 1600x1200. Or that it's "brighter on my other monitor" because they have their brightness knob turned up too much.
Over-expectant clients, coupled with clueless client service people create demand for a specific look to pages, and the only way for developers to create these looks is to use "cutting edge" technologies.
I've said it before: Too many slashdotters think that the web is gopher, and completely shun any site that doesn't work in lynx, and too many client service reps and designers think that the web is television, and we should be able to apply the same design and marketing concepts to it.
The web is its own medium. It's not a business card, or magazine ad, it's not TV, and it's not just a really popular form of gopher. It's a MULTI-media (I hate that term -- it's tired) medium. Sure, ideally it would be browser independent, but it's all about images, and sound, animations and video and it's pretty hard to watch a streaming video broadcast in text mode on a 386 running linux on 2 megs of ram and an EGA graphics board. AND it's about information sharing -- aside from video and images and sound and animations, it's about getting information to its users. It might look like crap, but I can almost ALWAYS read and navigate a site if I try hard enough, even using lynx.
The web is broken, because the W3C too often overlooked. Some day, the web will work properly. When browser authors get a clue, and start conforming to the standards that would make the web work.
Sorry for the rant. It's Monday, and I've already had Coldfusion spit out my "code" (if you can call it that) because it doesn't handle double-quoted SQL properly. Don't get me started on coldfusion. (-:
Actually it's web designers who ruin the web as a whole.
No, it's clients who demand that the site look perfect in every browser, thus forcing the use of things like CSS who ruin the web as a whole.
A country like China is certainly capable of setting up a system to squash protocols that they don't like, and anything encrypted is likely to fall into that category.
While I agree that steganography might be the best way to go about communicating with the foreign party, I wouldn't blindly trust steganography.
As you said, I'm sure that China can detect encrypted messages. And, it's possible to detect steg'ed images.
Sure, security through obscurity might work fine here, but it's not like the gov't of China has never heard of steganography.
Might be best to somehow 'test the waters' before getting in some serious political trouble.
The process of encrypting information in another medium is called steganography.
Karma whorish links ahead:
http://www.jjtc.com/Steganography/
http://www.thur.de/ulf/stegano/
http://freshmeat.net/appind ex/1999/10/16/940080510.html
We have a chain of stores here, in Canada called Future Shop -- they're kinda like American Circuit City stores.
Anyway, they have a "DJ" counter where you can listen to ANY CD in their inventory before buying it. It's kind of a cool idea. I really hate it that they re-wrap the CDs before selling them, though. I don't really like buying CDs that have finger prints on them -- I HAVE bought CDs, un-shrink-wrapped them, to discover a bigass fingerprint on the data side of the disc.
Ok, I've gone through this whole thing in my head again, and I'm pretty much wrong. Silly me.
Here's what WOULD work:
A guitarist is playing his guitar in Japan. As far as he knows, nobody else is playing with him. He is the leader. He can't hear the other musicians.
It's possible for other musicians to join in. That is, I can play with any musicians who are within the lag period of the guitar.
Example: guitarist plays in Africa. 5 seconds of lag between him, and me, in Canada. Some dude in South america joins in on drums. He's only 3 seconds lag from me, and 2 seconds lag from the guitarist, so he can hear himself, and the guitarist (albeit, 2 seconds AFTER the guitarist plays). He can't hear me. I, though, can hear both of them, 3 seconds after the drummer plays, and 5 seconds after the guitarist, so I can play my bass along with them. Neither of them can hear me.
I know that this really isn't an ensemble, or a 'band', but it would work, so long as you don't try to pump bass back to the guitarist, which would be 10 seconds too late.
Sorry for being dumb earlier (-: I wish it was Friday.
I think they could deal with lag at the mixer.
F'rinstance
Instrument on channel is in Australia. 2.5 seconds of lag, delay all other channels for 2.5 seconds.
This could also work on the monitoring system, delay the musicians' mixes by different amounts, based on where they're from.
I'm SURE it could work, given the right ammount of bandwidth, and latency (or lack thereof).
Big stadium, and outdoor shows often already use a delay in their separate house mixes when running more than one set of speakers, so that the people at the back (in front of, say, 2 SETS of speakers) don't hear an echo.
yeah, it's true, actually.
Read this it talks about the loophole, and it's kinda what nVida is doing, except, the reviewers seem to be keeping the.. uh.. "merch."
No, but I looked it up (sorry, if this is common knowledge, I had never heard the quote:
He was Prime Minister of Great Britain from 1874-1880.
I like it. (-:
Sounds a bit like payola to me.
Didn't we decide that that was illegal for record companies. Shouldn't those laws carry over?