The Hollywood Entertainment Museum had a ST:TNG set (and Cheers bar) so I'm left wondering which set that was unless it was reconstructed from the destroyed remnants.
Don't require someone to be a compiler or makefile or package expert to "install" an app, get X to perform decently on a heavily loaded system, get power management/sleep/hibernate to perform decently/reliably, and don't make it a pain to do basic configuration changes like change screen resolution. Also stop thinking that having so many distros doing things in different ways is a good idea. I prefer MSFT's one set of rules over the chaos and disorganization of Linux.
This is only noteworthy or nonobvious if you only have a basic understanding of computers. RTP allowed extension headers, and IPv4 does as well so you could embed extra data for almost any type of traffic on the Internet.
WoL doesn't have to a specific packet. On Windows you have a choice between a magic packet (which is special), or just allowing the system to wake on any ARP or IP packet that's sent to the system's IP address. What was added in Windows 7 was a way for NICs to respond to ARP, ping, NDP while the system is in low power so the system doesn't wake for these. Seems like MSFT research should have factored this into their, um, "research".
The other thing they added was that waking on ARP/IP has historically been designed around using a sequence of bits and a mask as a filter to decide which frames should wake the system. This approach was changed so that more generic concepts like "TCP SYN" can be used to match packets. The difference is that you need multiple filters to handle TCP frames that use different extension lengths, while the latter approach only needs one.
Others have mentioned file size, but another good approach is to look at the quantization tables in the image as an overall quality factor. E.g., JPEG over RTP (RFC 2435) uses a quantization factor to represent the actual tables, and the value of 'Q' generally maps to quality of the image. Wikipedia's doc on JPEG has a less technical discussion of the topic, although the Q it uses is probably different from the example RFC.
Virtual Server does BT (it has to in order to work on non-VT processors), but Xen doesn't do BT (which is why Xen needs paravirtualiztion support in Linux, and VT processors for Windows).
It's TBD on whether "Windows Server Virtualization" will use BT, but I suspect they'll drop it. With Intel processors it's not possible to do BT when using VT on x64 processors in 64-bit mode (however it is possible on AMD processors).
Your premise is completely wrong -- it`s not like the other vendors are using hardware virtualization because they`re using software too. The difference is about a hypervisor written entirely in software versus one that is written in software but hardware-assisted. Most of the other vendors are using the hardware-assisted approach because it makes it easier for them to write their own hypervisor, and this paper is pointing out that those who take that shortcut (or took that route because they thought it would give a performance advantage) will end up with a slower hypervisor.
If the hardware-assisted approach was faster then VMware wouldn`t have issue issue with going that route -- this is not a situation where VMware did a software implementation and would have to play catchup to implement a hardware-assisted version. In fact, the paper point points out that using a mix of the different approaches, based on the workload of the VM, is the best way to go. While VMware is in the best position to go this route because they have already implemented the different types of hypervisors, this by itself isn`t a good reason to slander the authors as being biased.
bookpool.com is great for technical books, although they don't always stock what you might want. Here's a few examples for some common CS textbooks, compared to Amazon:
"Computer Organization and Design: The Hardware/Software Interface": $73.95 versus $84.95 ($11 less) "Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach": $77.95 versus $89.95 ($12 less) "Introduction to Algorithms": $62.50 versus $79.95 ($17.47 less) "Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools": $84.50 versus $96.00 ($11.50 less)
For even lower prices, consider used books from powells.com.
For Oregon, you can apply to several local scholarships using a single application from the OSAC (Oregon Student Assistance Commision, a state agency).
I was awarded a scholarship this way, and it paid 90% of "unmet" need.
The actual application is at http://www.getcollegefunds.org/pdf/scholarship_app 0405.pdf . There are dozens of scholarships available on the form; some are statewide, but most are specific to certain companies, counties, high schools, etc.
Their sales sites are broken too. It is just a co-incidence that UUnet's problems are particularly bad in Texas (according to http://www.internetpulse.net/1/UUNet_to_UUNet/)?
Why not just place a series of dominos in a circle/loop, and then devise something to raise them back up as fast as they fall. The sequence would (theorically) never end.
Okay, it's not as exciting and I'm probably missing the "spirit" of dominos, but it doesn't take as much work and gives you an escalating record.
Many DVDs are already coded at a fairly minimal 2Mbps or so*, so this really isn't as big a deal as people might think. If someone developed a truely intelligent encoder (for starters, one that didn't follow a static frame type pattern such as I-B-P-B-I) and fed it a really clean signal then we could really make progress.
* ZThe bitrate is according to an industry insider who gave a talk at UC Berekeley. The bitrate is low so that they can fit all the extras on a DVD, which most consumers value more than movie quality.
If you're concerned about the AT&T price increase then do what I did and sign up for their annual plan. The net result is that I'll be paying an average of $33/month instead of the current $36 for month-to-month.
A few months ago I was living in the Charter Cable region, where they increased the speed this year from 500Kbps to 750Kbps (fast for living in the middle of nowhere) without a price increase.
JPEG does have a lossless mode
on
JPEG2000 Coming Soon
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
What is also important about the technology is its ability to send files without loss of data, which is not the case with current JPEG files.
JPEG does support a lossless mode, it's just that no one uses it. To paraphrase, JPEG supports a lossless spatial algorithm that operates in the pixel domain. Some amount of prediction is used, resulting in about 2:1 compression, but the error terms for the predictions are included in the data stream (encoded using either Huffman or arithmetic coding), resulting in no net errors.
What's a lot more exciting is JPEG2000's use of wavelet compression, which isn't mentioned at all.
This author for this article, even for September 1997, seems a bit biased. He doesn't have much regard for the IBM/MS agreements (the companies did try to make the relationship work, at least initially), and doesn't even point out that MS did release software to customers call "Microsoft OS/2" (which I have a copy of).
His timeline also ignores NT--many people don't see to be aware of (or ignore) the fact that NT 3.1 came out in 1993, and he doesn't make any mention of NT until the timeline reaches 1996. NT factored a lot more into people's decisions than Windows 3.1 did.
Last month there was a presentation by the Berkeley campus net. admin regarding the issues that are being discuessed here. It shows the traffic flows, how they increased when the students came, how problems occured when controlling traffic, and more!
In fact, you can look here to get the story on what various universities are doing to manage traffic.
One possible solution is to run SETI proxies at other universities that will route the traffic to Berkeley via Internet2, since that traffic is free and isn't being regulated/restricted. However, this may not work given that the problem is with transmitting the large data sets to clients, rather than receiving their relatively small responses.
Actually they have admitted it publically. This presentation is from the Berkeley Net Admin. The problem has to do with flooding *out* traffic. They tried various solutions and ended up lowering the SETI traffic to a lower priority class.
Slashdot Mirror
The Hollywood Entertainment Museum had a ST:TNG set (and Cheers bar) so I'm left wondering which set that was unless it was reconstructed from the destroyed remnants.
Don't require someone to be a compiler or makefile or package expert to "install" an app, get X to perform decently on a heavily loaded system, get power management/sleep/hibernate to perform decently/reliably, and don't make it a pain to do basic configuration changes like change screen resolution. Also stop thinking that having so many distros doing things in different ways is a good idea. I prefer MSFT's one set of rules over the chaos and disorganization of Linux.
This is only noteworthy or nonobvious if you only have a basic understanding of computers. RTP allowed extension headers, and IPv4 does as well so you could embed extra data for almost any type of traffic on the Internet.
WoL doesn't have to a specific packet. On Windows you have a choice between a magic packet (which is special), or just allowing the system to wake on any ARP or IP packet that's sent to the system's IP address. What was added in Windows 7 was a way for NICs to respond to ARP, ping, NDP while the system is in low power so the system doesn't wake for these. Seems like MSFT research should have factored this into their, um, "research".
The other thing they added was that waking on ARP/IP has historically been designed around using a sequence of bits and a mask as a filter to decide which frames should wake the system. This approach was changed so that more generic concepts like "TCP SYN" can be used to match packets. The difference is that you need multiple filters to handle TCP frames that use different extension lengths, while the latter approach only needs one.
Others have mentioned file size, but another good approach is to look at the quantization tables in the image as an overall quality factor. E.g., JPEG over RTP (RFC 2435) uses a quantization factor to represent the actual tables, and the value of 'Q' generally maps to quality of the image. Wikipedia's doc on JPEG has a less technical discussion of the topic, although the Q it uses is probably different from the example RFC.
Virtual Server does BT (it has to in order to work on non-VT processors), but Xen doesn't do BT (which is why Xen needs paravirtualiztion support in Linux, and VT processors for Windows).
It's TBD on whether "Windows Server Virtualization" will use BT, but I suspect they'll drop it. With Intel processors it's not possible to do BT when using VT on x64 processors in 64-bit mode (however it is possible on AMD processors).
Your premise is completely wrong -- it`s not like the other vendors are using hardware virtualization because they`re using software too. The difference is about a hypervisor written entirely in software versus one that is written in software but hardware-assisted. Most of the other vendors are using the hardware-assisted approach because it makes it easier for them to write their own hypervisor, and this paper is pointing out that those who take that shortcut (or took that route because they thought it would give a performance advantage) will end up with a slower hypervisor.
If the hardware-assisted approach was faster then VMware wouldn`t have issue issue with going that route -- this is not a situation where VMware did a software implementation and would have to play catchup to implement a hardware-assisted version. In fact, the paper point points out that using a mix of the different approaches, based on the workload of the VM, is the best way to go. While VMware is in the best position to go this route because they have already implemented the different types of hypervisors, this by itself isn`t a good reason to slander the authors as being biased.
One requirement is "royalty-free distribution", so it excludes Microsoft (I bet VMware doesn't mind that).
I'm glad to see that VMware finally got an advertising budget, but looks like they blew it all in one promotion.
For CS what really counts is CSAB accreditation (http://www.csab.org/ ), and Northface University doesn't have this.
/ schoolall.asp
CSAB is now part of ABET (i.e., the accreditation organization for CE and EE). The list of accredited schools is at:
http://www.abet.org/accredited_programs/computing
bookpool.com is great for technical books, although they don't always stock what you might want. Here's a few examples for some common CS textbooks, compared to Amazon:
"Computer Organization and Design: The Hardware/Software Interface": $73.95 versus $84.95 ($11 less)
"Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach": $77.95 versus $89.95 ($12 less)
"Introduction to Algorithms": $62.50 versus $79.95 ($17.47 less)
"Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools": $84.50 versus $96.00 ($11.50 less)
For even lower prices, consider used books from powells.com.
For Oregon, you can apply to several local scholarships using a single application from the OSAC (Oregon Student Assistance Commision, a state agency).
p 0405.pdf . There are dozens of scholarships available on the form; some are statewide, but most are specific to certain companies, counties, high schools, etc.
I was awarded a scholarship this way, and it paid 90% of "unmet" need.
The actual application is at http://www.getcollegefunds.org/pdf/scholarship_ap
Uh, look at where kma works (VMware); that should be sufficient proof.
Their sales sites are broken too. It is just a co-incidence that UUnet's problems are particularly bad in Texas (according to http://www.internetpulse.net/1/UUNet_to_UUNet/)?
Makes sense, although MS still hasn't got it right in practice. The last time I looked, "Works Suite 2003" was shipping with "Streets & Trips 2002".
S&T hardly changes, so it boggles the mind how MS could miss the schedule for including S&T 2003 in the suite.
You guys deally have to wait for Windows ME to die before you can proclaim DOS dead.
The one date companies are concerned about is the non-supported date for NT4, which is this coming June 2003.
Why not just place a series of dominos in a circle/loop, and then devise something to raise them back up as fast as they fall. The sequence would (theorically) never end.
Okay, it's not as exciting and I'm probably missing the "spirit" of dominos, but it doesn't take as much work and gives you an escalating record.
Many DVDs are already coded at a fairly minimal 2Mbps or so*, so this really isn't as big a deal as people might think. If someone developed a truely intelligent encoder (for starters, one that didn't follow a static frame type pattern such as I-B-P-B-I) and fed it a really clean signal then we could really make progress.
* ZThe bitrate is according to an industry insider who gave a talk at UC Berekeley. The bitrate is low so that they can fit all the extras on a DVD, which most consumers value more than movie quality.
If you're concerned about the AT&T price increase then do what I did and sign up for their annual plan. The net result is that I'll be paying an average of $33/month instead of the current $36 for month-to-month.
A few months ago I was living in the Charter Cable region, where they increased the speed this year from 500Kbps to 750Kbps (fast for living in the middle of nowhere) without a price increase.
What is also important about the technology is its ability to send files without loss of data, which is not the case with current JPEG files.
JPEG does support a lossless mode, it's just that no one uses it. To paraphrase, JPEG supports a lossless spatial algorithm that operates in the pixel domain. Some amount of prediction is used, resulting in about 2:1 compression, but the error terms for the predictions are included in the data stream (encoded using either Huffman or arithmetic coding), resulting in no net errors.
What's a lot more exciting is JPEG2000's use of wavelet compression, which isn't mentioned at all.
This author for this article, even for September 1997, seems a bit biased. He doesn't have much regard for the IBM/MS agreements (the companies did try to make the relationship work, at least initially), and doesn't even point out that MS did release software to customers call "Microsoft OS/2" (which I have a copy of).
His timeline also ignores NT--many people don't see to be aware of (or ignore) the fact that NT 3.1 came out in 1993, and he doesn't make any mention of NT until the timeline reaches 1996. NT factored a lot more into people's decisions than Windows 3.1 did.
Last month there was a presentation by the Berkeley campus net. admin regarding the issues that are being discuessed here. It shows the traffic flows, how they increased when the students came, how problems occured when controlling traffic, and more!
In fact, you can look here to get the story on what various universities are doing to manage traffic.
One possible solution is to run SETI proxies at other universities that will route the traffic to Berkeley via Internet2, since that traffic is free and isn't being regulated/restricted. However, this may not work given that the problem is with transmitting the large data sets to clients, rather than receiving their relatively small responses.
Actually they have admitted it publically. This presentation is from the Berkeley Net Admin. The problem has to do with flooding *out* traffic. They tried various solutions and ended up lowering the SETI traffic to a lower priority class.