MS has long had a policy of not announcing vulerabilities publically until such a time as they have a patch for it. Right or wrong, their reasoning was to not publically identify those vulerabilities to more potential hackers. This new policy does not change that announcement schedule ACCEPT for the premium customers who will get a heads up prior to the public announcement. No changes for the public policy. You still won' know about the hole until they announce a patch, or someone else publicizes the hole.
I agree with your template idea. Not for all executables, but for all instruction sets. They would have to have somekind of a table of translations to load equivelent sets of instructions for the CPUs to successfully translate the code.
For the Amiga, although it is quantifiably a CISC processor. It's age as compared to other processors almost makes it appear as a reduced instruction set processor. That would make it run Applish code more efficiently than '86ish code. Instructions just match up better with less translation needed between them.
First off, yOu are quoting an article that is 6 months old. Second the article is noting the previous years sales numbers making the numbers at least 18 months out of date. You are trying to compare that to last weeks numbers? As far as production capacity. You have to look at it differently than you are now. I have worked at both places building FABS. Sure intel has more production capability, but not to produce the latest chips. Both companies can only produce their latest chips in the newest FABS. That levels the playing field for both of them. When you take into account that intel is on a smaller die size, that is gennerally going to mean that they are producing a lower percentage of 'good' chips. ones that pass the QC checks. You make things smaller, they are more prone to error until you iron out all of the kinks in the process. So FAB per FAB on Latest processor runs, AMD probably can produce more QC passing chips than intel right now.
Sorry friend, but your wrong again.
Yes, that's total sales. And I don't know where you have been hiding, but it's not all intel in business anymore either. Most places I have been in are concerned about the cost and AMD machines have been moving in enforce. Companies who are concerned about their bottom line are not goign to pay more money for a PC that does the same work. You can't use that compatability isse anymore either. The XP core was written for and AMD CPU and then horn swaggled to run on an Intel CPU. Thems the facts, swallow 'em how ya like dude.
What are you trying to say? That a horse is not a horse if you look at it from the ass end? That's silly! If the code was written for a CISC processor and you run it on a RISC processor, it HAS TO take extra clock cycles to tranlate the complex instructions back to reduced instructions. It cannot happen magically and software actually takes clock cycles to run so the emulation has to provide a performance hit in itself. It's simply self delusional to accept anyones claim in this area as truthful. It is a claim that you can get more energy out than you put in. It cannot happen. You cannot make hamburger from steak without putting energy into the crank to turn the grinder. Yes it's still all beef, but it takes extra effort to change it from one packaging to the next. (Silly Goose!, or is it Silly Goose Meat!)
I would question whether it is a lack of understanding of the foundations in the Theories of Gravity and/or perhaps whether the theories are even correct, rather than our understanding of the Laws of Gravity. To my understanding, the probe(s) have not yet violated any of our Laws of Gravity whereas the force that is exerted on them is unknown. The Theories of Gravity are a question here because we assume that it takes and dense mass to produce a gravitational effect.
Besides, violating the law will get you a jail sentence, (at least in the United States). So I would suggest that the probes be careful unless they want to be returned to earth and sent to Guantanamo Bay for questioning and physical abuse, ah, I mean torture, ah, I mean pornography abuse, ah, I mean interrogation, yea that's the right word, Interrogation!
Even with that, the feat is not possible. If one processor (let's say a CISC processor) has an instruction for a function in the target code, and the second processor (let make this one a RISC processor), does not, It will HAVE to take more clock cycles to accomplish the same task. To make open claims that there is no performance hit is simply ridiculous. The facts of how different processors handle the same or similar instructions make that impossible. I'll bet you they claim it can suck a golfball through a garden hose too.
I have to agree that the Slashdot post is misleading at best. This is not anywhere close to being something 'new' at all. Yea maybe it's different, buts thats like saying that an xbox insn't a video game console because it is 'different' than a PS2. The point is that the Slashdot post was allowed to go up with a misleading point of view using an article that is in itself misleading. If you can get into CIA headquarters, or have been there in the last year, they have had an exhibit of their oldest insect bots on display for the last year. They make this thing look stupid and childish. That in turn makes the moderator who allowed this post to look as ill informed and childish. "Mommy look what happens when I put cards in my bicycle spokes! I invented it! Aren't you proud!"
The guy should be able to air his program on any night of the year that he wants to. If he can make a good arguement and influence people, then so be it. To bar him from speaking or using a medium to project his opinion would be infringing on his freedom of speech in my book. Whether or not he can get a station to sell him the time to do that is a commercial or economic issue. If his arguement is so strong that it will influence the results of the election, then isn't it also wrong to not let us see it?
I guess they forgot to read any technological publication sin the last year or so. Ever here of a Barracuda Spam Firewall. Same thing as they think they just invented, and it has been out for a year or so. They at least have a track record with hundreds if not thosands of customers and a years worth of data to back up their claims.
I think someone should tell Tivo that they are in need of saving. They don't seem to have that impression. In fact, they state that their subscriber growth tripled in the first quarter of the year and inside reports say that has continued in the second quarter. There financial statements are sound and express a healthy business according the Charles Scwabb Co. I don't understand where the statement comes from that Tivo needs saving? Saving from what? Prosperity? I think that statement would be better applied to Replay, not Tivo.
Both EWeek and InfoWorld have run similar articles over their last several issues. Dispute the knashing of teeth over this, the facts remain. What i find very encouraging out of this is that, 1) 5 years ago this wouldn't even have been worth the paper to print a comparison like this, laughable. Shows a great deal of progress has been made by Linux. 2) MS had ought to be taking serious note of this. The amount of ground that has been gained on them by the Linux world is amazing and at this speed, those numbers/differences will be negligible in the next year or so. MS is going to have to push very hard to stay ahead in this game. Competition is good in any arena.
You continuation of that analogy is ridiculously flawed. The continuation would be, should MS be required to hold classes that educate the the buyer about the thieves that are out their trying to steal your car? Is Ford required to hold a class on the proper use of door locks? If people are really concerned about their vehicular property, don't they have alarm systems installed on their own? What do you expect to happen to your car if you park it in a seedy neighborhood? Is the car manufacturer guilty because your car got jacked or is the car jacker at fault? Get real dude! You are too bent on blaming MS for problems that you caused or are responsible for to begin with.
More chicken little stuff in my book. The assumptions in making such a prediction are broad and outright incorrect. The prediction assumes that every port scan would have to result in catastrophic failure of the targeted system. That's simply bunk.
I for one hope that they succeed with this tack. Why? Because if they succeed it will be relatively easy to apply the Sherman Anti-Trust provisions against RIAA itself and take it down for good. Don't believe me? Read it for yourself. History of the AntiTrust Movement
It is my belief that they are running headlong into a direct challenge with the very foundation of these and subsequent acts, "the Sherman Antitrust Act (1890). Its first two provisions made illegal "every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce...". How can anyone say that forcing the Universities to sign up for Napster under the threat of lawsuits is not a violation of this act?
That was my first thought too. Why not just use the scroll wheel for the third dimension, z-axis? I would think that it would be a lot more intuitive after a bit of use. With the configurable controls you have today attached to your mouse you could set your axis any way you want. The article seems to take a Rube Goldberg approach to a 3-D mouse in my eyes. Hey where is the fly swatter attached to the hamster wheel to do the mouse clicks!
Oh, and just because they bought SUSE does not make Novell the second largest. Are you taking SUSE off the list? SUSE remains where it is, Novell just owns them. They don't inherit SUSE's accomplishments, they remain SUSE's along with their titles.
I never meant to suggest that Novell's past products were not good. I don't recall ever mentioning Novell's web server nor what I did for a living. I don't see how that enters into the arguement.
oh, so sorry. I will bow to your suggestion that my reply has no merit because I left an 'n' out of dimension. lol. That is as silly as the first post.
Pc gaming isn't going anywhere. The author's point of view is flawed. The PC is a multifunction platform and because of that it has value in more than one arena than just gaming. The gaming system has only on value point. It's kind of like suggesting that because Pratt and Whitney have just produced the best engine ever, one that has engine enthusiasts drooling, that the car is going to be dead now. The engine does drive the car market, the car drives the engine market. Sure the engine is a very important part, but the driver in the larger picture.
These platforms will certainly have a niche and should do well. But their position will not be a leader, but a follower of the larger market.
This article and the replies contained therein clearly demonstrate BIg Brothers ability to polarize the American public on who is the best provider of security while keeping the focus off the real issue at hand, the sytematic destruction of your personal privacy. Who cares which one is better! I don't want either! Who really believes you can catch the bad guys by keeping track of the good guys? We have proven that to be false and flawed, over and over, and that that approach simply doesn't work. The bad guys never abide by the system, but find ways around it. Does gun registration stop people from obtaining illegal guns for use in crimes? Does all the information a bank collects on you stop someone from ripping off your bank account?
Meanwhile the rest of us have more and more laws to abide by, more hoops to jump through, more restrictions on our movements and more eyes watching our every move. Maybe if there were camera's in my house watching me, my neighbor wouldn't kill anyone. Wake up, before it's too late!
I can't find anything what even remotely suggests that novell has surpassed other big vendors. Even Linux world is quoted as stating that Debian, Mandrakesoft, Red Hat, and SUSE are the top four vendors as of April 4th of this year. Here is that link Linux and Security: Forrester Report Flawed, Say Four Top Vendors. Perhaps you could provide a link to support your ridiculous claim that novell is that good at anything anymore?
lol, is this some new theory of yours? Of course ALL information is physical on one level or another. I study this stuff and I don't know what you are eluding to, but I would be interested in you pointing out the basis of your arguement. Secondly, I find your presumtion of existing a third dimesion object in a second dimesion is quite odd and then using it to describe how it holds information? What? I never heard that one before. If information is contained within the dimension, (of which there are many more than three), then that makes it physical by it's very nature of existing whitin or without the dimension. If I can measure information, how can you say that it is not physical? You can't. Perhaps you used the wrong word here? It sounds like you have misinterpreted some of Kip Thorne's work in this regard.
Or is that slashdash. A five second Google search would have told the author of the article and the moderator that they had the wrong name, rotflmao! It's hard to look smart when you make really dumb mistakes like that!
Slashdot Mirror
MS has long had a policy of not announcing vulerabilities publically until such a time as they have a patch for it. Right or wrong, their reasoning was to not publically identify those vulerabilities to more potential hackers. This new policy does not change that announcement schedule ACCEPT for the premium customers who will get a heads up prior to the public announcement. No changes for the public policy. You still won' know about the hole until they announce a patch, or someone else publicizes the hole.
I agree with your template idea. Not for all executables, but for all instruction sets. They would have to have somekind of a table of translations to load equivelent sets of instructions for the CPUs to successfully translate the code.
For the Amiga, although it is quantifiably a CISC processor. It's age as compared to other processors almost makes it appear as a reduced instruction set processor. That would make it run Applish code more efficiently than '86ish code. Instructions just match up better with less translation needed between them.
First off, yOu are quoting an article that is 6 months old. Second the article is noting the previous years sales numbers making the numbers at least 18 months out of date. You are trying to compare that to last weeks numbers? As far as production capacity. You have to look at it differently than you are now. I have worked at both places building FABS. Sure intel has more production capability, but not to produce the latest chips. Both companies can only produce their latest chips in the newest FABS. That levels the playing field for both of them. When you take into account that intel is on a smaller die size, that is gennerally going to mean that they are producing a lower percentage of 'good' chips. ones that pass the QC checks. You make things smaller, they are more prone to error until you iron out all of the kinks in the process. So FAB per FAB on Latest processor runs, AMD probably can produce more QC passing chips than intel right now. Sorry friend, but your wrong again.
Yes, that's total sales. And I don't know where you have been hiding, but it's not all intel in business anymore either. Most places I have been in are concerned about the cost and AMD machines have been moving in enforce. Companies who are concerned about their bottom line are not goign to pay more money for a PC that does the same work. You can't use that compatability isse anymore either. The XP core was written for and AMD CPU and then horn swaggled to run on an Intel CPU. Thems the facts, swallow 'em how ya like dude.
What are you trying to say? That a horse is not a horse if you look at it from the ass end? That's silly! If the code was written for a CISC processor and you run it on a RISC processor, it HAS TO take extra clock cycles to tranlate the complex instructions back to reduced instructions. It cannot happen magically and software actually takes clock cycles to run so the emulation has to provide a performance hit in itself. It's simply self delusional to accept anyones claim in this area as truthful. It is a claim that you can get more energy out than you put in. It cannot happen. You cannot make hamburger from steak without putting energy into the crank to turn the grinder. Yes it's still all beef, but it takes extra effort to change it from one packaging to the next. (Silly Goose!, or is it Silly Goose Meat!)
I would question whether it is a lack of understanding of the foundations in the Theories of Gravity and/or perhaps whether the theories are even correct, rather than our understanding of the Laws of Gravity. To my understanding, the probe(s) have not yet violated any of our Laws of Gravity whereas the force that is exerted on them is unknown. The Theories of Gravity are a question here because we assume that it takes and dense mass to produce a gravitational effect.
Besides, violating the law will get you a jail sentence, (at least in the United States). So I would suggest that the probes be careful unless they want to be returned to earth and sent to Guantanamo Bay for questioning and physical abuse, ah, I mean torture, ah, I mean pornography abuse, ah, I mean interrogation, yea that's the right word, Interrogation!
Even with that, the feat is not possible. If one processor (let's say a CISC processor) has an instruction for a function in the target code, and the second processor (let make this one a RISC processor), does not, It will HAVE to take more clock cycles to accomplish the same task. To make open claims that there is no performance hit is simply ridiculous. The facts of how different processors handle the same or similar instructions make that impossible. I'll bet you they claim it can suck a golfball through a garden hose too.
I have to agree that the Slashdot post is misleading at best. This is not anywhere close to being something 'new' at all. Yea maybe it's different, buts thats like saying that an xbox insn't a video game console because it is 'different' than a PS2. The point is that the Slashdot post was allowed to go up with a misleading point of view using an article that is in itself misleading. If you can get into CIA headquarters, or have been there in the last year, they have had an exhibit of their oldest insect bots on display for the last year. They make this thing look stupid and childish. That in turn makes the moderator who allowed this post to look as ill informed and childish. "Mommy look what happens when I put cards in my bicycle spokes! I invented it! Aren't you proud!"
isn't that an oxymoron? ;)
The guy should be able to air his program on any night of the year that he wants to. If he can make a good arguement and influence people, then so be it. To bar him from speaking or using a medium to project his opinion would be infringing on his freedom of speech in my book. Whether or not he can get a station to sell him the time to do that is a commercial or economic issue. If his arguement is so strong that it will influence the results of the election, then isn't it also wrong to not let us see it?
I guess they forgot to read any technological publication sin the last year or so. Ever here of a Barracuda Spam Firewall. Same thing as they think they just invented, and it has been out for a year or so. They at least have a track record with hundreds if not thosands of customers and a years worth of data to back up their claims.
I think someone should tell Tivo that they are in need of saving. They don't seem to have that impression. In fact, they state that their subscriber growth tripled in the first quarter of the year and inside reports say that has continued in the second quarter. There financial statements are sound and express a healthy business according the Charles Scwabb Co. I don't understand where the statement comes from that Tivo needs saving? Saving from what? Prosperity? I think that statement would be better applied to Replay, not Tivo.
Both EWeek and InfoWorld have run similar articles over their last several issues. Dispute the knashing of teeth over this, the facts remain. What i find very encouraging out of this is that, 1) 5 years ago this wouldn't even have been worth the paper to print a comparison like this, laughable. Shows a great deal of progress has been made by Linux. 2) MS had ought to be taking serious note of this. The amount of ground that has been gained on them by the Linux world is amazing and at this speed, those numbers/differences will be negligible in the next year or so. MS is going to have to push very hard to stay ahead in this game. Competition is good in any arena.
You continuation of that analogy is ridiculously flawed. The continuation would be, should MS be required to hold classes that educate the the buyer about the thieves that are out their trying to steal your car? Is Ford required to hold a class on the proper use of door locks? If people are really concerned about their vehicular property, don't they have alarm systems installed on their own? What do you expect to happen to your car if you park it in a seedy neighborhood? Is the car manufacturer guilty because your car got jacked or is the car jacker at fault? Get real dude! You are too bent on blaming MS for problems that you caused or are responsible for to begin with.
More chicken little stuff in my book. The assumptions in making such a prediction are broad and outright incorrect. The prediction assumes that every port scan would have to result in catastrophic failure of the targeted system. That's simply bunk.
I for one hope that they succeed with this tack. Why? Because if they succeed it will be relatively easy to apply the Sherman Anti-Trust provisions against RIAA itself and take it down for good. Don't believe me? Read it for yourself. History of the AntiTrust Movement
It is my belief that they are running headlong into a direct challenge with the very foundation of these and subsequent acts, "the Sherman Antitrust Act (1890). Its first two provisions made illegal "every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce...". How can anyone say that forcing the Universities to sign up for Napster under the threat of lawsuits is not a violation of this act?
That was my first thought too. Why not just use the scroll wheel for the third dimension, z-axis? I would think that it would be a lot more intuitive after a bit of use. With the configurable controls you have today attached to your mouse you could set your axis any way you want. The article seems to take a Rube Goldberg approach to a 3-D mouse in my eyes. Hey where is the fly swatter attached to the hamster wheel to do the mouse clicks!
Oh, and just because they bought SUSE does not make Novell the second largest. Are you taking SUSE off the list? SUSE remains where it is, Novell just owns them. They don't inherit SUSE's accomplishments, they remain SUSE's along with their titles.
I never meant to suggest that Novell's past products were not good. I don't recall ever mentioning Novell's web server nor what I did for a living. I don't see how that enters into the arguement.
oh, so sorry. I will bow to your suggestion that my reply has no merit because I left an 'n' out of dimension. lol. That is as silly as the first post.
Pc gaming isn't going anywhere. The author's point of view is flawed. The PC is a multifunction platform and because of that it has value in more than one arena than just gaming. The gaming system has only on value point. It's kind of like suggesting that because Pratt and Whitney have just produced the best engine ever, one that has engine enthusiasts drooling, that the car is going to be dead now. The engine does drive the car market, the car drives the engine market. Sure the engine is a very important part, but the driver in the larger picture. These platforms will certainly have a niche and should do well. But their position will not be a leader, but a follower of the larger market.
This article and the replies contained therein clearly demonstrate BIg Brothers ability to polarize the American public on who is the best provider of security while keeping the focus off the real issue at hand, the sytematic destruction of your personal privacy. Who cares which one is better! I don't want either! Who really believes you can catch the bad guys by keeping track of the good guys? We have proven that to be false and flawed, over and over, and that that approach simply doesn't work. The bad guys never abide by the system, but find ways around it. Does gun registration stop people from obtaining illegal guns for use in crimes? Does all the information a bank collects on you stop someone from ripping off your bank account? Meanwhile the rest of us have more and more laws to abide by, more hoops to jump through, more restrictions on our movements and more eyes watching our every move. Maybe if there were camera's in my house watching me, my neighbor wouldn't kill anyone. Wake up, before it's too late!
I can't find anything what even remotely suggests that novell has surpassed other big vendors. Even Linux world is quoted as stating that Debian, Mandrakesoft, Red Hat, and SUSE are the top four vendors as of April 4th of this year. Here is that link Linux and Security: Forrester Report Flawed, Say Four Top Vendors. Perhaps you could provide a link to support your ridiculous claim that novell is that good at anything anymore?
lol, is this some new theory of yours? Of course ALL information is physical on one level or another. I study this stuff and I don't know what you are eluding to, but I would be interested in you pointing out the basis of your arguement. Secondly, I find your presumtion of existing a third dimesion object in a second dimesion is quite odd and then using it to describe how it holds information? What? I never heard that one before. If information is contained within the dimension, (of which there are many more than three), then that makes it physical by it's very nature of existing whitin or without the dimension. If I can measure information, how can you say that it is not physical? You can't. Perhaps you used the wrong word here? It sounds like you have misinterpreted some of Kip Thorne's work in this regard.
Or is that slashdash. A five second Google search would have told the author of the article and the moderator that they had the wrong name, rotflmao! It's hard to look smart when you make really dumb mistakes like that!