Where this processor truly shines, and this was unfortunately not reflected in their report, is in running 8 concurrent instances of the benchmark suite.
They only perfect score went to an emulator written in Perl. The built-in hash tables, and some smart programming combined with the ease of parsing the microcode and program data created not only the fastest (some classmates used C, C++, lisp, or Java to write their emulators) emulator, but also the easiest to read of the group.
It's the programmer that creates slow, unreadable code, not the language.
Yes, that reminds me a bit about a class I used to teach for a former employer. I was teaching old-time C programmers to use one of these up-and-coming GC-managed, JIT-compiled language/frameworks for some of the newer systems we were building. When we came to the topic of speed and efficiency, the question kept coming up: "Can't we write faster, more efficient code in C?"
Of course, the answer always was, "Yes, you can. In fact, you can write still more efficient code in assembly. The question isn't whether you can, the question is whether you will!"
Except, you know, OSes which don't allow raw access to the hard drive.
Like, for example?
All Windows variations do. All unix-based OSes do. All Mac OSes do (both new and old). Obviously all single-user operating systems do because there's no protection. I would say that covers "nearly every". Can you come up with a significant exception?
Overwriting your MBR is possible only with raw access to the hard drive, and is always possible with raw access to the hard drive. In other words, Vista shares this same flaw with nearly every operating system in existence. Raw device IO is a restricted operation specifically for this reason, because it circumvents all other protection. To gain this access, you need to already have unfettered administrative access, which means you stand to gain nothing further.
GPS is accurate to a few feet, while radar is not.
IIRC, it's also more automated and allows mostly straight-line flights until you reach the airport, reducing distances traveled and fuel consumption. Even a modest reduction in fuel consumption gets a huge number in the end. This ends up in lower fares and more profit for airlines that, in turn, allows them to invest more in more sophisticated technology.
Plains already use GPS. Planes already are allowed to do straight-line flights. This "upgrade" has nothing to do with GPS and "direct to" flight plans. I've flown many a direct flight in my GPS-equipped four-seater.
For what its worth, controllers prefer to route traffic along designated routes because it makes things simpler for them to plan and visualize, and therefore safer. Even in planes that are equipped to fly direct, the controller will override the pilot's proposed direct plan and instead route along airways. The exception is if you're flying much higher or much lower than most commercial jets do. For example, planes that fly in the mid to upper 40,000s can often get direct routing even from LA to NY.
So, it sounds like they're spending $1.8 billion to create an infrastructure to do what our current infrastructure does, except using cell phone towers. How is this better than radar + mode C or mode S?
Related article on the leak: "US violates chemical weapons convention"
You're not going to get much mileage out of that story because most people believe that there's nothing wrong with using tear gas against a wartime enemy, particularly because its perfectly legal and accepted for use on our own civilians.
Furthermore, the waters are muddied by the fact that, technically, wartime combat operations have ceased, and military-related operations have taken more of a policing and crowd-control tenor. And since tear gas is legal for use in policing operations, well....
Lets get back to the subject of torturing innocent Egyptian immigrants. That's something we can all agree to hate.
I don't know what their actual problem is...Design by committee probably. I think one of Apple's greatest strengths right now is that they have a real solid clarity of vision; they have people who know what would be cool and useful and they give them the freedom to make it happen.
A top Microsoft exec (Allchin, i think it was) once described the windows OS code base as "fragile," to a partner interested in doing some security-related enhancements. He then went on to recount an instance in a release candidate for XP where moving one item in the default search path caused the OS to crash on startup.
To this day, when I think about the problems I've seen in Microsoft products and the complexity of the systems involved, the word "fragile" always appears as the best description. Not "poorly written" or "compromising design" -- but rather it's the concept of myriad complex components all built by independent teams, each of which depending on countless other components, and where the only communication between teams are APIs. No developer ever has a complete vision of how the system works as a whole, and faulty assumptions about undocumented aspects of any component can cause a failure that brings the whole system down.
Its not so much poorly designed as it is poorly connected.
I believe the limit is usually 3 miles horizontally OR 1,000 feet vertically, presumably because a pressure-based altimeter is less prone to failure than an electronic lateral navigation system.
Almost. The actual separation distances vary depending on things like the distance from aircraft to the radar antenna in use and what type of radar it is. This required separation distance can be significant.
Vertical separation is based on altimeter reports from the aircraft equipment. This equipment is generally precise within 10s (or at least 100s) of feet. Lateral separation is (at best) based on the location of blips on a radar screen, where the radar installation is often hundreds of miles away from the aircraft involved. The resolution of the radar returns is such that separation of less than a few miles cannot be reliably maintained by ATC facilities.
All the FAA publications and standards are available online. Google "radar separation minima" and "lateral separation minima" to read the official rules.
I can not see why is it a stupid idea. Forking the Kernel in desktop and server forks will mean that each specific kernel is optimized for such tasks and that the distribution makers have just a subset of the huge kernel to care about when creating their distributions.
If you've read any of the myriad mailing list messages Linus has posted on the subject, you'll already know that Linus strongly advocates that anyone who thinks forking the kernel is a good idea just go ahead and do it. This is why he chose the GPL as his license. If you have an idea, an alternate direction for the software, you've already got the code and the permission to make with it what you can. And here's the best part: if it turns out that you've got something going and have accomplished something important, then Linus has the right to take your changes and incorporate them into his kernel too.
Most project leaders fear forks because they split an already thin development force between two competing projects. Linux, on the other hand, has no shortage of willing developers. Instead of begging for help, Linus and his "lieutenants" spend their time sorting through lists of patches looking for those they want to keep. A fork in the Linux project would probably not significantly hinder development.
The critically important thing for PHBs to understand about sysadmin work is that it's largely preventative and responsive. Use the analogy that a sysadmin is like a security guard, but he there to safeguard your productivity instead of your building. This is in stark contrast to, say, an engineer, who is there to produce something.
The best thing to do is find out what metrics are used to quantify the performance of your physical security team. It could deal with monitoring load, response time, client satisfaction (where clients are the other employees), or whatever would be deemed appropriate for that type of work. Don't get shoehorned into being treated like engineers, because you're not.
In most environments, you wouldn't expect the PHBs to pie-chart the performance of their security guards. It may be that when faced with this analogy, they drop the idea altogether.
(F) Platform Limitation- The licenses granted in sections 2(A) & 2(B) extend only to the software or derivative works that you create that run on a Microsoft Windows operating system product.
8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product
The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original software distribution.
And...
10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral
No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface.
So, in other words, yes. If someone wants to compile, run, and distribute Open Source software on some other operating system, the license must allow it. And the MS-LPL is therefore not compatible with the Open Source Definition.
In fact, it seems that the reverse is true. As we've become more hygenic, the immune system, strong as ever, goes looking for soft targets to beat up. It becomes hypersensitive, creating conditions like allergies and athsma.
That's not quite how it works, but you've at least matched cause and effect correctly.
The cause of allergies isn't so much an immune system with nothing to do. Rather, it's caused by the body producing the wrong type of antibodies for a given foreign substance. I realize this is a bit of a simplification, but the two general methods your immune system uses in attacking a foreign object are, either attacking it directly, like you would a virus or bacteria, or trying to flush it out, like you would a parasite. People with allergies have incorrectly classified the allergen as a sign of a parasite, and activate their Immunoglobulin E antibodies in an attempt to flush it out. Since it's not a parasite, the exposure isn't localized, so the resulting reaction can be disastrous, even deadly.
Though we still don't know why, we've noticed that people whose immune system has experienced more attacks at a very young age are better at classifying these intruders. In particular, they're less likely to produce IgE antibodies, and therefore less prone to allergies.
Re:Countdown until AoMP3 reappears in China/Brasil
on
Allofmp3 Shut Down, Again
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Actually, it seems that http://www.mp3sparks.com/ already offers all the music from AoMP3.
So I guess AoMP3 has already reincarnated.
From what I understand, the RIAA...I mean, US Government...I mean, WTO actually named AllOfMp3 by name, rather than specifying that a specific class of service be suspended.
So even though MP3Sparks is the same site, run by the same company, offering the same service, since the name is different, they've successfully satisfied the WTO request in this regard.
FWIW, you can't pay by credit card at MP3Sparks either.
Why are they running these experiments on mouse cells? Why aren't they starting with human skin cells and developing their techniques there? It would avoid the secondary step of having to transfer the technique from mouse tissue to human tissue.
Simplicity. Protocol. Reproducibility.
Labs that experiment on mice use specific inbred genetic lines that are widely available with limited genetic diversity. This limits the amount of experimental error that can be attributed to the variations in the traits of the animals. It also means that other labs attempting to reproduce the same results will have a greater chance of success because they'll be starting with an organism that genetically is nearly identical to the ones used elsewhere.
Trade sanctions hurt both countries involved. They generally work because the target has the weaker economy.
The US exports, primarily, raw materials, and imports manufactured products. The country as a whole uses foreign trade to outsource manufacturing. That's not the sort of country you can impose sanctions against and expect traditional results. The collateral damage to the imposing counties would likely exceed the damage to the US economy. That's not the sort of arrangement most countries can afford to get into.
> A NDA would be acceptable if it allows you to release fully commented code.
If you just replicate all the specs and documentation you got from company X in code comments you've made the NDA totally pointless from that companies point of view. So unless you can convince them that NDA's are in fact point they are never going to allow this to happen.
Though it doesn't seem to make sense, that's still exactly what happens. The spec contains much more than just what goes into the driver, and the company would probably be willing to release the subset of the spec that deals with just the driver interface if they could get it cleaned up enough to not contain any unnecessary secrets. However, work costs money, and they'd much rather just get their driver developers to work under NDA.
What this process yields is a high-quality driver which contains no trade secrets, because those secrets are irrelevant to the driver. After that, developers of other OSes (such as BSD) can use this first driver as a reference for building their own drivers without having to be burdened by an NDA.
Writing this first driver in a restricted environment bootstraps the whole process of getting free drivers out into the community for the product in question. Rather than having to sanitize the spec for public use, they instead get a free driver released, which accomplishes essentially the same task. This ends up happening more often than you think.
While one developer of a competing open source operating system has criticized the NDA approach...
While no mention was made of the identity of the criticizing developer, 10:1 says that the "competing" operating system has the letters *BS* right there in the name.
"is now seen as mostly fighting to make people refer to a free system as GNU/Linux..."
If he's seen that way it's inaccurate. rms is as cogent as he's ever been, and still tackles large, complicated issues.
Like, for example? Perhaps he just doesn't get any coverage when he's acting in a socially tolerable manner, but I really, truly haven't heard of anything important that RMS has actually accomplished in over a decade. I know that he (like so many others) has made some wholly ineffective forays against software patents, and I remember him raising a ruckus about wearing an RFID-equipped ID badge at the UN because it allowed him to be "tracked."
I know that he makes a lot of noise, but I haven't heard of any instances where he's made a difference. Can you please list a few examples? I'm really interested to know.
Windows has fork(), as well as all the other POSIX calls.
Originally, Windows NT had 4 separate APIs: the NT API, Win32, POSIX, and OS/2. The NT API was (and still is) the one used by the kernel. It has all the capabilities necessary to support the other three, and is never (well, rarely at least) used directly by applications. Win32 was, at the time, very new and hadn't seen wide use--it was designed as the primary API for Windows 95, and Microsoft wasn't yet sure whether it would catch on in the NT world.
The other two APIs have the same level of explicit support in the kernel as Win32, but there's a catch: you have to pick which subsystem you want to use for a given application. Win32 programs can't make calls to the POSIX subsystem, nor vice-versa. Over time, it became clear that only Win32 was being used for NT programming, and the other two APIs disappeared. The OS/2 API is, as far as I know, completely unavailable for modern versions of NT (i.e. 2000, XP, and Vista), while the POSIX API is still supported, but isn't available by default.
...recommended that females 11-26 years old be vaccinated. The governor of Texas has already signed an executive order making its use mandatory for schoolgirls.
Does this statement sound absurd to anyone but me? Sexual expectations may have changed since I was that age, but I'm fairly confident that our 11-year-old schoolgirls aren't getting this virus from each other.
If you have reason to vaccinate the girls, then you have even more reason to vaccinate the boys too. According to the 2005 statistics, boys start younger, have a higher sexual activity rate, and have more partners (almost twice as likely to have more than 4) than girls. By vaccinating the boys, you protect the girls you couldn't vaccinate.
I agree with this in principle, as any encyclopedia is a tertiary source. But if a student wants to read and cite a primary source that the institution's library doesn't have an annual subscription to, what should the student do?
Wikipedia's officialpolicy is that no article may contain information that isn't also published somewhere else. The correct response would be to follow the references cited in the Wikipedia article to the original source of the information. If no source is cited for a given piece of information, then it should not be assumed to be factual.
Slashdot Mirror
*blink*blink*
What was that now? Something BETTER than 'make menuconfig'?
Clearly you've been following developments closer than I.
Scratch that -- the exploit WORKS on my Centos 5 servers, but fails on 4.4. Sorry for my confusion!
I don't have KVM installed on any of them (KVM on a production server? are you serious?) so that might help.
Where this processor truly shines, and this was unfortunately not reflected in their report, is in running 8 concurrent instances of the benchmark suite.
Yes, that reminds me a bit about a class I used to teach for a former employer. I was teaching old-time C programmers to use one of these up-and-coming GC-managed, JIT-compiled language/frameworks for some of the newer systems we were building. When we came to the topic of speed and efficiency, the question kept coming up: "Can't we write faster, more efficient code in C?"
Of course, the answer always was, "Yes, you can. In fact, you can write still more efficient code in assembly. The question isn't whether you can, the question is whether you will!"
Like, for example?
All Windows variations do. All unix-based OSes do. All Mac OSes do (both new and old). Obviously all single-user operating systems do because there's no protection. I would say that covers "nearly every". Can you come up with a significant exception?
Overwriting your MBR is possible only with raw access to the hard drive, and is always possible with raw access to the hard drive. In other words, Vista shares this same flaw with nearly every operating system in existence. Raw device IO is a restricted operation specifically for this reason, because it circumvents all other protection. To gain this access, you need to already have unfettered administrative access, which means you stand to gain nothing further.
Plains already use GPS. Planes already are allowed to do straight-line flights. This "upgrade" has nothing to do with GPS and "direct to" flight plans. I've flown many a direct flight in my GPS-equipped four-seater.
For what its worth, controllers prefer to route traffic along designated routes because it makes things simpler for them to plan and visualize, and therefore safer. Even in planes that are equipped to fly direct, the controller will override the pilot's proposed direct plan and instead route along airways. The exception is if you're flying much higher or much lower than most commercial jets do. For example, planes that fly in the mid to upper 40,000s can often get direct routing even from LA to NY.
So, it sounds like they're spending $1.8 billion to create an infrastructure to do what our current infrastructure does, except using cell phone towers. How is this better than radar + mode C or mode S?
You're not going to get much mileage out of that story because most people believe that there's nothing wrong with using tear gas against a wartime enemy, particularly because its perfectly legal and accepted for use on our own civilians.
Furthermore, the waters are muddied by the fact that, technically, wartime combat operations have ceased, and military-related operations have taken more of a policing and crowd-control tenor. And since tear gas is legal for use in policing operations, well....
Lets get back to the subject of torturing innocent Egyptian immigrants. That's something we can all agree to hate.
A top Microsoft exec (Allchin, i think it was) once described the windows OS code base as "fragile," to a partner interested in doing some security-related enhancements. He then went on to recount an instance in a release candidate for XP where moving one item in the default search path caused the OS to crash on startup.
To this day, when I think about the problems I've seen in Microsoft products and the complexity of the systems involved, the word "fragile" always appears as the best description. Not "poorly written" or "compromising design" -- but rather it's the concept of myriad complex components all built by independent teams, each of which depending on countless other components, and where the only communication between teams are APIs. No developer ever has a complete vision of how the system works as a whole, and faulty assumptions about undocumented aspects of any component can cause a failure that brings the whole system down.
Its not so much poorly designed as it is poorly connected.
Almost. The actual separation distances vary depending on things like the distance from aircraft to the radar antenna in use and what type of radar it is. This required separation distance can be significant.
Vertical separation is based on altimeter reports from the aircraft equipment. This equipment is generally precise within 10s (or at least 100s) of feet. Lateral separation is (at best) based on the location of blips on a radar screen, where the radar installation is often hundreds of miles away from the aircraft involved. The resolution of the radar returns is such that separation of less than a few miles cannot be reliably maintained by ATC facilities.
All the FAA publications and standards are available online. Google "radar separation minima" and "lateral separation minima" to read the official rules.
If you've read any of the myriad mailing list messages Linus has posted on the subject, you'll already know that Linus strongly advocates that anyone who thinks forking the kernel is a good idea just go ahead and do it. This is why he chose the GPL as his license. If you have an idea, an alternate direction for the software, you've already got the code and the permission to make with it what you can. And here's the best part: if it turns out that you've got something going and have accomplished something important, then Linus has the right to take your changes and incorporate them into his kernel too.
Most project leaders fear forks because they split an already thin development force between two competing projects. Linux, on the other hand, has no shortage of willing developers. Instead of begging for help, Linus and his "lieutenants" spend their time sorting through lists of patches looking for those they want to keep. A fork in the Linux project would probably not significantly hinder development.
The critically important thing for PHBs to understand about sysadmin work is that it's largely preventative and responsive. Use the analogy that a sysadmin is like a security guard, but he there to safeguard your productivity instead of your building. This is in stark contrast to, say, an engineer, who is there to produce something.
The best thing to do is find out what metrics are used to quantify the performance of your physical security team. It could deal with monitoring load, response time, client satisfaction (where clients are the other employees), or whatever would be deemed appropriate for that type of work. Don't get shoehorned into being treated like engineers, because you're not.
In most environments, you wouldn't expect the PHBs to pie-chart the performance of their security guards. It may be that when faced with this analogy, they drop the idea altogether.
Microsoft's Limited Permissive license states that:
Whereas the Open Source Definition states that:
And...
So, in other words, yes. If someone wants to compile, run, and distribute Open Source software on some other operating system, the license must allow it. And the MS-LPL is therefore not compatible with the Open Source Definition.
That's not quite how it works, but you've at least matched cause and effect correctly.
The cause of allergies isn't so much an immune system with nothing to do. Rather, it's caused by the body producing the wrong type of antibodies for a given foreign substance. I realize this is a bit of a simplification, but the two general methods your immune system uses in attacking a foreign object are, either attacking it directly, like you would a virus or bacteria, or trying to flush it out, like you would a parasite. People with allergies have incorrectly classified the allergen as a sign of a parasite, and activate their Immunoglobulin E antibodies in an attempt to flush it out. Since it's not a parasite, the exposure isn't localized, so the resulting reaction can be disastrous, even deadly.
Though we still don't know why, we've noticed that people whose immune system has experienced more attacks at a very young age are better at classifying these intruders. In particular, they're less likely to produce IgE antibodies, and therefore less prone to allergies.
From what I understand, the RIAA...I mean, US Government...I mean, WTO actually named AllOfMp3 by name, rather than specifying that a specific class of service be suspended.
So even though MP3Sparks is the same site, run by the same company, offering the same service, since the name is different, they've successfully satisfied the WTO request in this regard.
FWIW, you can't pay by credit card at MP3Sparks either.
Simplicity. Protocol. Reproducibility.
Labs that experiment on mice use specific inbred genetic lines that are widely available with limited genetic diversity. This limits the amount of experimental error that can be attributed to the variations in the traits of the animals. It also means that other labs attempting to reproduce the same results will have a greater chance of success because they'll be starting with an organism that genetically is nearly identical to the ones used elsewhere.
See Model Organism.
The US exports, primarily, raw materials, and imports manufactured products. The country as a whole uses foreign trade to outsource manufacturing. That's not the sort of country you can impose sanctions against and expect traditional results. The collateral damage to the imposing counties would likely exceed the damage to the US economy. That's not the sort of arrangement most countries can afford to get into.
Though it doesn't seem to make sense, that's still exactly what happens. The spec contains much more than just what goes into the driver, and the company would probably be willing to release the subset of the spec that deals with just the driver interface if they could get it cleaned up enough to not contain any unnecessary secrets. However, work costs money, and they'd much rather just get their driver developers to work under NDA.
What this process yields is a high-quality driver which contains no trade secrets, because those secrets are irrelevant to the driver. After that, developers of other OSes (such as BSD) can use this first driver as a reference for building their own drivers without having to be burdened by an NDA.
Writing this first driver in a restricted environment bootstraps the whole process of getting free drivers out into the community for the product in question. Rather than having to sanitize the spec for public use, they instead get a free driver released, which accomplishes essentially the same task. This ends up happening more often than you think.
I know that he makes a lot of noise, but I haven't heard of any instances where he's made a difference. Can you please list a few examples? I'm really interested to know.
Windows has fork(), as well as all the other POSIX calls.
Originally, Windows NT had 4 separate APIs: the NT API, Win32, POSIX, and OS/2. The NT API was (and still is) the one used by the kernel. It has all the capabilities necessary to support the other three, and is never (well, rarely at least) used directly by applications. Win32 was, at the time, very new and hadn't seen wide use--it was designed as the primary API for Windows 95, and Microsoft wasn't yet sure whether it would catch on in the NT world.
The other two APIs have the same level of explicit support in the kernel as Win32, but there's a catch: you have to pick which subsystem you want to use for a given application. Win32 programs can't make calls to the POSIX subsystem, nor vice-versa. Over time, it became clear that only Win32 was being used for NT programming, and the other two APIs disappeared. The OS/2 API is, as far as I know, completely unavailable for modern versions of NT (i.e. 2000, XP, and Vista), while the POSIX API is still supported, but isn't available by default.
Check out Windows Services for Unix. This packages installs (and uses) the NT POSIX API.
For more information, read Microsoft Windows Internals
Does this statement sound absurd to anyone but me? Sexual expectations may have changed since I was that age, but I'm fairly confident that our 11-year-old schoolgirls aren't getting this virus from each other.
If you have reason to vaccinate the girls, then you have even more reason to vaccinate the boys too. According to the 2005 statistics, boys start younger, have a higher sexual activity rate, and have more partners (almost twice as likely to have more than 4) than girls. By vaccinating the boys, you protect the girls you couldn't vaccinate.