I hope they do make the source code available, it'd be great to be able to figure out what those "Door" things are doing..
Re:The freezer trick does work though
on
Creative Data Loss
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Your mother!!
Re:You might try it before expressing disbelief.
on
Creative Data Loss
·
· Score: 1
Be sure to keep your lavatory receipts, or the data will be surgically extracted when you leave.
Re:The freezer trick does work though
on
Creative Data Loss
·
· Score: 1
RTFA. How many of those files you recovered had been deleted by the user beforehand? Note that the drive was in perfect working order BEFORE the guy put it in the freezer.
Firstly let me say that I'm not a kernel programmer, and I respect the fact that you have decided against using exceptions. However I'd like to attack your arguments anyway, based on my (limited) point of view, so if you could correct me then that would be good.
The article said that they had modified exception handling to make it efficient time-wise, so the complaint that it's slower than using error returns no longer applies. (Recall that exceptions only should be thrown in exceptional circumstances, not as an expected part of processing; and exceptional circumstances will usually include some handling such as printk() which they noted takes an order of magnitude more time to run than the process of propagating an exception).
So let's return to your main point: the risk of an uncaught exception causing a kernel panic is too high. (BTW how is this different to the risk of a divide by zero causing a kernel panic in C ? )
I'd like to make a 'case study': accessing the elements of a std::vector. If you're unfamiliar, then writing:
v[n] is equivalent to using that syntax on an array of ints. However, writing:
v.at(n) is equivalent to writing in C:
if (n > v_size)
return some_error_code;
v[n] and then having handling in the caller function for the possibility of that error. Much more concise, don't you think? Especially if you have several of these accesses in one expression.
(Presumably the 'n' would come from some external source that is expected to be in bounds but occasionally may not be. )
So you have reduced code complexity by not having to do a manual bounds check everywhere. You have no added runtime overhead in the case of the value being in range. Also, the case of the uncaught exception is just as bad as the case of an out-of-range array access -- maybe even worse, as it will take longer to find the bug. And perhaps the most important: you have the flexibility of being able to put the error handling code at a higher level than just the parent function. In the cause of the completely uncaught exception, at least you have the exception error message to indicate exactly what went wrong. If the kernel crashes from an out-of-range array access you may have no idea what went wrong, especially if it is in a tricky bit to use a debugger.
He said the site may see no reason to distribute content to people who will not be voting next week.
Is that insane or what ?! For example there are 10,000 eligible US voters living in New Zealand. And wasn't there only about 500 votes between Gore and victory last time ?
Just a note on this interpretation of the PD: 'C' (Cooperate) corresponds to 'deny' and 'D' (defect) corresponds to 'confess' under this explanation, don't get confused if you read some other analysis of the problem that refers to C and D and you have this interpretation in mind.
The unfortunate side of this coin is that 'smart' cards don't actually offer a lot of added security. Most of the objections people haev raised to magstripe cards still apply to smartcards. Also, most smartcards get their security hacked within a few months of coming out (meaning that the manufacturers are continually in a cycle of sending new cards out). Their only benefit is that the unwashed masses feel safer.
This is really a great fraud which makes money for the people developing smart-card processing systems and the general public pay for it (well, the merchants pay for it, and they usually pass the costs onto the customers).
What's stopping Mr Shopkeeper from altering the device to record a copy of the PIN you enter ?
The banks won't certify any particular device for use in shops (and thus, they won't be able to process transactions successfully) if it allows this.
Also, if a shopkeeper perpetrated the fraud by the other means you suggest, it would be simple to trace it to that shop, by examining the transaction records.
Finally, later versions of the terminal software do not actually record the card number, to avoid this very problem. You should see on the receipt something like "49997........0452" , enough digits to identify the card well enough for audit purposes but not to allow someone to commit fraud with it. And as before, a terminal modification which steals card numbers, would not pass certification.
NB. This is how it works in New Zealand, if other countries don't implement security measures then they are stupid.
What's wrong with that? It isn't a security risk to read what's written on the card or to create a new card, and it's a very minor risk to duplicate a card (the risk being that the attacker could gradually guess the PIN over time).
Shifting into park ought to only kill the transmission, not the engine.
Also , I doubt that crap through the air filter would affect the throttle (the point of throttle activation is in the fuel line, before the fuel and air combine). Perhaps there was crap in the fuel (accidental or malicious -- have you been changing your fuel filter every 10,000km?) , or maybe something else gummed up the throttle (eg. stuck spring) and the mechanic was incompetent.
HIV is a very unique disease with a most difficult set of transmission routes requiring definite HUMAN intervention for these to be achieved.
Sex is difficult? Oh yeah, this is Slashdot..
Every time HIV spreads we find people engaging in behaviors which we know spread the disease.
Sex is a biological imperative of all animals. Maybe your attitude would change if you got some. Oh wait, is it beneath your lofty moral high horse? [In other words, any attempt at prevention which involves restriction of sex, is doomed to fail before it even starts]
They are both 'static percents' at any one point in time, but I write 'N' because I have no idea what an accurate value is (replace 'N' by '30%' if that would make you happier).
You missed the biggest point -- HIV is contagious and incurable. The number of people dying from starvation etc. will stay roughly in proportion to the population, but the HIV base will continue to grow and grow if nothing is done. There was a time in the past (maybe only 15-20 years ago) when African countries had 1% HIV and N % starvation (for some large value of N), look at them now.
How is this, in any way, better than electricity doing the same thing?
The only thing that comes to my mind is that you can 'push' the fluids along with something more practical than a battery (currently, a limitation on micro-electronic devices is the large size needed for electric batteries).
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks, that was good to know.
I hope they do make the source code available, it'd be great to be able to figure out what those "Door" things are doing..
Your mother!!
Be sure to keep your lavatory receipts, or the data will be surgically extracted when you leave.
RTFA. How many of those files you recovered had been deleted by the user beforehand? Note that the drive was in perfect working order BEFORE the guy put it in the freezer.
Freezing DOES NOT slow down the electrons. If anything, it would speed them up (think superconductors).
The point of freezing electronics is so that the board contracts -- turning hairline fractures into joins.
I have a witty well-worded response too, but it is too big to fit in the margin.
All names containing double-underscores are reserved for use by the implementation, if you want to be portable then you should switch them to singles.
The article mentioned that this has "thrown scientists for loop". WTF does that mean? Is it something like:
for (;;)
{
launch_satellite();
if (strange_discovery)
throw "we've got hello from outer space!"
}
Firstly let me say that I'm not a kernel programmer, and I respect the fact that you have decided against using exceptions. However I'd like to attack your arguments anyway, based on my (limited) point of view, so if you could correct me then that would be good.
The article said that they had modified exception handling to make it efficient time-wise, so the complaint that it's slower than using error returns no longer applies. (Recall that exceptions only should be thrown in exceptional circumstances, not as an expected part of processing; and exceptional circumstances will usually include some handling such as printk() which they noted takes an order of magnitude more time to run than the process of propagating an exception).
So let's return to your main point: the risk of an uncaught exception causing a kernel panic is too high.
(BTW how is this different to the risk of a divide by zero causing a kernel panic in C ? )
I'd like to make a 'case study': accessing the elements of a std::vector. If you're unfamiliar, then writing:
v[n]
is equivalent to using that syntax on an array of ints. However, writing:
v.at(n)
is equivalent to writing in C:
if (n > v_size)
return some_error_code;
v[n]
and then having handling in the caller function for the possibility of that error. Much more concise, don't you think? Especially if you have
several of these accesses in one expression.
(Presumably the 'n' would come from some external source that is expected to be in bounds but occasionally may not be. )
So you have reduced code complexity by not having to do a manual bounds check everywhere. You have no added runtime overhead in the case of the value being in range.
Also, the case of the uncaught exception is just as bad as the case of an out-of-range array access -- maybe even worse, as it will take longer to find the bug.
And perhaps the most important: you have the flexibility of being able to put the error handling code at a higher level than just the parent function. In the cause of the completely uncaught exception, at least you have the exception error message to indicate exactly what went wrong. If the kernel crashes from an out-of-range array access you may have no idea what went wrong, especially if it is in a tricky bit to use a debugger.
He said the site may see no reason to distribute content to people who will not be voting next week.
Is that insane or what ?! For example there are 10,000 eligible US voters living in New Zealand. And wasn't there only about 500 votes between Gore and victory last time ?
I thought Southpark invented that
I have a worse CD.. if you put it in the drive then it starts to install Windows 98 :(
Just a note on this interpretation of the PD: 'C' (Cooperate) corresponds to 'deny' and 'D' (defect) corresponds to 'confess' under this explanation, don't get confused if you read some other analysis of the problem that refers to C and D and you have this interpretation in mind.
> Running MacOS using CherryOS on Windows using VMWare on FreeBSD using Linux binary compatibility.
On an X-Box.
On a Beowulf cluster of X-Boxes.
They can't buy items with it, the merchant would have to effectively give them the item for free.
The unfortunate side of this coin is that 'smart' cards don't actually offer a lot of added security. Most of the objections people haev raised to magstripe cards still apply to smartcards. Also, most smartcards get their security hacked within a few months of coming out (meaning that the manufacturers are continually in a cycle of sending new cards out). Their only benefit is that the unwashed masses feel safer.
This is really a great fraud which makes money for the people developing smart-card processing systems and the general public pay for it (well, the merchants pay for it, and they usually pass the costs onto the customers).
What's stopping Mr Shopkeeper from altering the device to record a copy of the PIN you enter ?
The banks won't certify any particular device for use in shops (and thus, they won't be able to process transactions successfully) if it allows this.
Also, if a shopkeeper perpetrated the fraud by the other means you suggest, it would be simple to trace it to that shop, by examining the transaction records.
Finally, later versions of the terminal software do not actually record the card number, to avoid this very problem. You should see on the receipt something like "49997........0452" , enough digits to identify the card well enough for audit purposes but not to allow someone to commit fraud with it. And as before, a terminal modification which steals card numbers, would not pass certification.
NB. This is how it works in New Zealand, if other countries don't implement security measures then they are stupid.
What's wrong with that? It isn't a security risk to read what's written on the card or to create a new card, and it's a very minor risk to duplicate a card (the risk being that the attacker could gradually guess the PIN over time).
Shifting into park ought to only kill the transmission, not the engine.
Also , I doubt that crap through the air filter would affect the throttle (the point of throttle activation is in the fuel line, before the fuel and air combine). Perhaps there was crap in the fuel (accidental or malicious -- have you been changing your fuel filter every 10,000km?) , or maybe something else gummed up the throttle (eg. stuck spring) and the mechanic was incompetent.
(IANAM, so this could all be bollocks)
Is this accessible outside of the US ?
HIV is a very unique disease with a most difficult set of transmission routes requiring definite HUMAN intervention for these to be achieved.
Sex is difficult? Oh yeah, this is Slashdot..
Every time HIV spreads we find people engaging in behaviors which we know spread the disease.
Sex is a biological imperative of all animals. Maybe your attitude would change if you got some. Oh wait, is it beneath your lofty moral high horse?
[In other words, any attempt at prevention which involves restriction of sex, is doomed to fail before it even starts]
They are both 'static percents' at any one point in time, but I write 'N' because I have no idea what an accurate value is (replace 'N' by '30%' if that would make you happier).
You missed the biggest point -- HIV is contagious and incurable. The number of people dying from starvation etc. will stay roughly in proportion to the population, but the HIV base will continue to grow and grow if nothing is done.
There was a time in the past (maybe only 15-20 years ago) when African countries had 1% HIV and N % starvation (for some large value of N), look at them now.
How is this, in any way, better than electricity doing the same thing?
The only thing that comes to my mind is that you can 'push' the fluids along with something more practical than a battery (currently, a limitation on micro-electronic devices is the large size needed for electric batteries).