I for one would love to fire up Windows 3.1 with a 15 year old copy of Microsoft Word and print to my Postscript printer, just to see how fast it is on my modern PC.
Amusingly enough, if you run DOS on a virtual machine, it will peg your CPU even when sitting there at a prompt. If you run, say, Windows Server 2003 in a VM, CPU usage hovers around 10% when idle.
I assume there's some busy wait loop in DOS somewhere. One of my friends created a binary patch for Civ2 so that it would call yield or sleep or something like that instead of busy waiting so it would stop eating his CPU.
There is another point, which is right before the second separation events (from the nose; I don't know what it's called and can't get a timecode right now), there's a ring that comes off of the 2nd stage engine. Anyone know if this was normal?
Finally, I'm impressed as hell that they could experience an abort after engine start yet still cycle back and launch in just another hour!
Yeah, I was like "they're done for the day" and turned off the webcast. (Actually I turned it on apparently about 2 minutes after abort...)
Haven't we been sending rockets up into space for quite some time now. I'd think the fundementals should be down pretty pat now, the time for spectacular failures has past.
11 years ago we had been sending rockets up for quite some time too, and yet there was still the little Ariane 5 thing. I have seen two suborbital rocket launches; the second one disintegrated at T+9. (There was another even smaller rocket that I saw go up too; that one failed as well. That makes 2/3 failures.)
What the GP post was getting at is that we can have "trusted and credible" reviewers without involving the journal middlemen.
I'll agree, but it's not trivially established either. I'm not sure how to do it. It's probably something like your blog-like sites, but that's not a complete solution either. Who moderates? You've almost just moved the journal online and allowed comments, with the panel of people who accept/reject papers replaced by the panel of moderators.
And if you want to have a real-world conference instead of talking online, you need people to decide who presents, and we're back to the status quo.
If you say "Because he has been in the journal" then I'm going to say "circular reasoning"
Only somewhat. If you just look at the present state of things, being published in a prestigious journal IS a reasonable indicator that you have a pretty good idea of what you're talking about. It's not 100%, but if you're repeatedly published in, say, PLDI, you're not a slouch and you're almost certainly not a troll.
Quite a few websites such as Wikipedia (and even Slashdot) have a certain level of reliability...
If I'm reading a paper from, say, PLDI, I am pretty sure that it is at least a decent paper. It's probably a pretty good paper. I know that it has been read by the authors, probably by other people in their research groups, possibly by people at other universities, by 3 or 4 reviewers, and at least skimmed by the rest of the panel.
If I read a Wikipedia entry on a non-controversial subject, I'm pretty sure it wasn't crafted maliciously.
It's not the same, sorry.
With no disrespect to the ReactOS developers...
on
ReactOS Revealed
·
· Score: 2, Informative
They might want to look up what "identical" means. There is still a very long way to go. (I could have put a traditional screenshot up there too, from W2K or even W95, and it would still be true.)
The really important stuff is mirrored over 3 hard drives so if one dies, I have 2 copies to create a new one from.
That isn't very reliable unless one of those three drives is kept physically separate. There are a few things that will kill all three drives in one shot, and even more that will kill all your data. RAID doesn't help you with "rm -rf/".
In addition to what my sibling poster said, the reason you can act in self defense is because in so doing you prevent injury to yourself. Viacom, by infringing copyright, is not preventing the injury that YouTube is supposedly doing to it, so it wouldn't be justified under the self defense doctrine.
Apart from that, it's also the case that the self defense doctrine, at least in the US, is explicitly spelled out in the statutes. There isn't any similar affirmative defense for copyright infringement.
What's good about it? At least prior to IE 4.02 (I think it was) you could at least effectively uninstall the POS.
Personally, I think that IE 5 and 5.5 were the best browsers available at their time, at least on Windows, and IE 6 was for a while. Netscape 4 was pretty good, but it was starting to get to the point where it was prohibitively feature-bloated. IE may not have done standard HTML and CSS perfectly, but at the time CSS was fairly newly standardized. Netscape 5 or 6 (I forget which one was released and which was skipped...) was a piece of crap, which left you using either IE 5/5.5/6 or Netscape 4.72, and I felt that IE was the better choice. It wasn't until Mozilla started becoming mature that there was another decent competitor, and not until Firefox became mature that there was something better.
cat works exactly as it should in that example. If you are using "cat" to copy files then you shouldn't be surprised if it doesn't duplicate the file exactly because that's not what it's for. It would be a mistake to make cat dump file attributes to STDOUT since that would break most correct usages of the command.
Oh, I realize that. I don't think that that specific example is that compelling against the idea, but it's an illustration of the sort of problems that you'd expect to find.
That said, I suppose it might be a neat idea if there was something like STDATT in addition to STDOUT and STDERR. That could be a useful way to do what you want.
I'm actually thinking something like multiple named streams. So if you have a file with two attributes and cat'd it, the contents of the file proper would go across stdout, the contents of file:att1 across a pipe named att1, and file:att2 across a pipe named att2. Then the shell would direct the pipes to attributes of the same name as the pipes.
Now that I'm writing this out, this would work splendidly with another project I've thought about doing, which is writing a shell or program that would give Linux/Unix the same pipe capabilities supported by IBM's CMS (the OS that was written to be used with z/VM). Commands can have multiple input streams/output streams, and you can connect them up in arbitrary ways. For example, I think there is a filter that sends alternating lines of the input stream to one of n different output streams. (Amusingly enough, Googling "IBM CMS" brings up their page on pipelines as the first hit.)
For example, I am interested in the question - how would Unix work differently if extended attributes were available in all Unix filesystems from the beginning. Tradition often holds back innovation, I feel
Fully agreed. For instance, NTFS supports alternate data streams, which are essentially really huge extended attributes. (They're a generalized version of HFS's resource and data forks. A number of other filesystems support similar things now too, such as HFS+, ZFS, and ReiserFS4 v4 in a slightly different manner.)
But the problem is that no one uses them because nothing was built to work with them. If you upload a file with the alternate streams, you lose the streams. If you copy a file to a floppy (yeah, I know) or USB drive, you lose the streams. If you dual boot and copy the file to ext3, you lose the streams. If you say 'cat file1 > file2', with the Unix model this is the same as copying a file, but it would lose streams. The same applies for extended attributes, though maybe slightly less. (Like I don't know if copying a file between two ext3 filesystems will lose them or not.)
It's very frustrating, because there are a lot of really neat things that you could envision doing with this sort of metadata, but no one has support for it.
So I've wondered almost the exact same thing myself... if in 1970, someone added extended attributes/streams to Unix, what would it look like today?
(Of course, I also wonder about things like "what would the world be like if water's heat of fusion was a quarter of what it is" brought about by the spring thaw that's in progress...)
The people who work on these separate things are two different groups of people probably. The ones you want working on crypto stuff are your theoretical comp sci people and mathematicians. The ones you want working on the next 802.11 standard are your electrical engineers. It's not like one group is really diverting resources from the other.
There are ways to reasonably secure your network, so people who know and care will still be able to take advantage of n when it's finalized.
(This is over-simplified of course, but the overall point remains.)
A better question would be, if Draft 2.0 is guaranteed to be compliant with the final, what does that mean for the gear certified with earlier drafts? Is it not guaranteed as well?
There are some manufacturers who guaranteed compatibility through either firmware or actual HW changes in order to encourage people to purchase them, but no, it's not guaranteed.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it weirds.
Weirds it!
*smacks self*
Don't verb that adjective! It bad's the language.
;-))
I think it weirds.
(BTW, no apostrophe. That bads the language.
I for one would love to fire up Windows 3.1 with a 15 year old copy of Microsoft Word and print to my Postscript printer, just to see how fast it is on my modern PC.
Amusingly enough, if you run DOS on a virtual machine, it will peg your CPU even when sitting there at a prompt. If you run, say, Windows Server 2003 in a VM, CPU usage hovers around 10% when idle.
I assume there's some busy wait loop in DOS somewhere. One of my friends created a binary patch for Civ2 so that it would call yield or sleep or something like that instead of busy waiting so it would stop eating his CPU.
Gotcha, thanks.
Can anyone think of anything that the US government is spending money on that it shouldn't?
I can think of about $100bn/yr expense that has been going on far a couple years
Speaking of tags, is it really necessary to tag this BOTH "embraceextend" and "embraceandextend"?
There is another point, which is right before the second separation events (from the nose; I don't know what it's called and can't get a timecode right now), there's a ring that comes off of the 2nd stage engine. Anyone know if this was normal?
Finally, I'm impressed as hell that they could experience an abort after engine start yet still cycle back and launch in just another hour!
Yeah, I was like "they're done for the day" and turned off the webcast. (Actually I turned it on apparently about 2 minutes after abort...)
Haven't we been sending rockets up into space for quite some time now. I'd think the fundementals should be down pretty pat now, the time for spectacular failures has past.
11 years ago we had been sending rockets up for quite some time too, and yet there was still the little Ariane 5 thing. I have seen two suborbital rocket launches; the second one disintegrated at T+9. (There was another even smaller rocket that I saw go up too; that one failed as well. That makes 2/3 failures.)
Rocket science is still a tricky business.
What the GP post was getting at is that we can have "trusted and credible" reviewers without involving the journal middlemen.
I'll agree, but it's not trivially established either. I'm not sure how to do it. It's probably something like your blog-like sites, but that's not a complete solution either. Who moderates? You've almost just moved the journal online and allowed comments, with the panel of people who accept/reject papers replaced by the panel of moderators.
And if you want to have a real-world conference instead of talking online, you need people to decide who presents, and we're back to the status quo.
If you say "Because he has been in the journal" then I'm going to say "circular reasoning"
Only somewhat. If you just look at the present state of things, being published in a prestigious journal IS a reasonable indicator that you have a pretty good idea of what you're talking about. It's not 100%, but if you're repeatedly published in, say, PLDI, you're not a slouch and you're almost certainly not a troll.
Quite a few websites such as Wikipedia (and even Slashdot) have a certain level of reliability...
If I'm reading a paper from, say, PLDI, I am pretty sure that it is at least a decent paper. It's probably a pretty good paper. I know that it has been read by the authors, probably by other people in their research groups, possibly by people at other universities, by 3 or 4 reviewers, and at least skimmed by the rest of the panel.
If I read a Wikipedia entry on a non-controversial subject, I'm pretty sure it wasn't crafted maliciously.
It's not the same, sorry.
They might want to look up what "identical" means. There is still a very long way to go. (I could have put a traditional screenshot up there too, from W2K or even W95, and it would still be true.)
The really important stuff is mirrored over 3 hard drives so if one dies, I have 2 copies to create a new one from.
/".
That isn't very reliable unless one of those three drives is kept physically separate. There are a few things that will kill all three drives in one shot, and even more that will kill all your data. RAID doesn't help you with "rm -rf
In addition to what my sibling poster said, the reason you can act in self defense is because in so doing you prevent injury to yourself. Viacom, by infringing copyright, is not preventing the injury that YouTube is supposedly doing to it, so it wouldn't be justified under the self defense doctrine.
Apart from that, it's also the case that the self defense doctrine, at least in the US, is explicitly spelled out in the statutes. There isn't any similar affirmative defense for copyright infringement.
I wonder if there's some sort of distinction between artistic works and financial documents? I'm going to have to think about that very hard...
For a surprisingly low fee of only $200/hr -- no, for you, $150 -- I will be happy to think about that for you.
They just scrubbed for the day actually... 24 to 48 hr recycle, they're running through the scrub sequence now.
Is it just me, or is T+ is used after launch and T- before?
Or what about a Mac tablet? That's somewhere high on my list.
What's good about it? At least prior to IE 4.02 (I think it was) you could at least effectively uninstall the POS.
Personally, I think that IE 5 and 5.5 were the best browsers available at their time, at least on Windows, and IE 6 was for a while. Netscape 4 was pretty good, but it was starting to get to the point where it was prohibitively feature-bloated. IE may not have done standard HTML and CSS perfectly, but at the time CSS was fairly newly standardized. Netscape 5 or 6 (I forget which one was released and which was skipped...) was a piece of crap, which left you using either IE 5/5.5/6 or Netscape 4.72, and I felt that IE was the better choice. It wasn't until Mozilla started becoming mature that there was another decent competitor, and not until Firefox became mature that there was something better.
Actually this does show some maturity from M$ if this is a "approved" statement.
Unlike your oh-so-clever use of "M$".
cat works exactly as it should in that example. If you are using "cat" to copy files then you shouldn't be surprised if it doesn't duplicate the file exactly because that's not what it's for. It would be a mistake to make cat dump file attributes to STDOUT since that would break most correct usages of the command.
Oh, I realize that. I don't think that that specific example is that compelling against the idea, but it's an illustration of the sort of problems that you'd expect to find.
That said, I suppose it might be a neat idea if there was something like STDATT in addition to STDOUT and STDERR. That could be a useful way to do what you want.
I'm actually thinking something like multiple named streams. So if you have a file with two attributes and cat'd it, the contents of the file proper would go across stdout, the contents of file:att1 across a pipe named att1, and file:att2 across a pipe named att2. Then the shell would direct the pipes to attributes of the same name as the pipes.
Now that I'm writing this out, this would work splendidly with another project I've thought about doing, which is writing a shell or program that would give Linux/Unix the same pipe capabilities supported by IBM's CMS (the OS that was written to be used with z/VM). Commands can have multiple input streams/output streams, and you can connect them up in arbitrary ways. For example, I think there is a filter that sends alternating lines of the input stream to one of n different output streams. (Amusingly enough, Googling "IBM CMS" brings up their page on pipelines as the first hit.)
For example, I am interested in the question - how would Unix work differently if extended attributes were available in all Unix filesystems from the beginning. Tradition often holds back innovation, I feel
Fully agreed. For instance, NTFS supports alternate data streams, which are essentially really huge extended attributes. (They're a generalized version of HFS's resource and data forks. A number of other filesystems support similar things now too, such as HFS+, ZFS, and ReiserFS4 v4 in a slightly different manner.)
But the problem is that no one uses them because nothing was built to work with them. If you upload a file with the alternate streams, you lose the streams. If you copy a file to a floppy (yeah, I know) or USB drive, you lose the streams. If you dual boot and copy the file to ext3, you lose the streams. If you say 'cat file1 > file2', with the Unix model this is the same as copying a file, but it would lose streams. The same applies for extended attributes, though maybe slightly less. (Like I don't know if copying a file between two ext3 filesystems will lose them or not.)
It's very frustrating, because there are a lot of really neat things that you could envision doing with this sort of metadata, but no one has support for it.
So I've wondered almost the exact same thing myself... if in 1970, someone added extended attributes/streams to Unix, what would it look like today?
(Of course, I also wonder about things like "what would the world be like if water's heat of fusion was a quarter of what it is" brought about by the spring thaw that's in progress...)
Could this be a sign of overconfidence in the Linux community?
Nope.
Now, it might be a sign of overconfidence in the BSD community...
(But in reality almost everyone has had moments like this.)
Slow, insecure by definition, and inconsistent
It's only insecure if you don't secure it. (It *is* possible to do even if almost no one does.) WHy do you say it's inconsistent?
The people who work on these separate things are two different groups of people probably. The ones you want working on crypto stuff are your theoretical comp sci people and mathematicians. The ones you want working on the next 802.11 standard are your electrical engineers. It's not like one group is really diverting resources from the other.
There are ways to reasonably secure your network, so people who know and care will still be able to take advantage of n when it's finalized.
(This is over-simplified of course, but the overall point remains.)
A better question would be, if Draft 2.0 is guaranteed to be compliant with the final, what does that mean for the gear certified with earlier drafts? Is it not guaranteed as well?
There are some manufacturers who guaranteed compatibility through either firmware or actual HW changes in order to encourage people to purchase them, but no, it's not guaranteed.