As time moves on, the case for supersymmetry keeps getting stronger.
No, it just hasn't been shown to be wrong yet.
Physicsweb is reporting...
How about "Physicsweb reported" (on Jan 8)...
...the most significant deviation to date between experiment and theory in particle physics...
2.8 sigma may be the most significant to date, but it's not particularly significant.
We will know for sure if supersymmetry holds it's ground by 2007, when the Large Hadron Collider will commence operation.
No, it needs to run for a few years. And then it is only guaranteed to add constraints to the space of theories, not to prove/disprove any.
This isn't to say that the g-2 experiment is useless; only that we shouldn't get too excited about it yet. Once things pass 3 sigma then the scientists will start to pay attention. Until then, it will just around speculation. Oh yeah, and yes, I am a particle physicist. But I'm just a lowly theorist. The experimentalists working on g-2 are down the hall.
Nope. I've seen the bottoms get popped out, but I've also seen cold cans explode. We had a very sticky front seat of a car after leaving a can in it for a cold week.
I was more raising the issue since I think it odd that they built in these protections, but apparently they don't always (or even usually) work.
Uhh, I think that's why the bottom of the soda can is concave, rather than convex. If it gets too much pressure, it can pop out. They do similar things with milk jugs, for example.
*sigh* slashdot apparently can't handle a "<" in "plain text"... needs to be "code". Here's the example again from my email, and the other stuff that got dropped:
Congratulations! Your filter just stopped me from saying "blah" to my friends!
That said, here's what I'm doing:
# W32/Mydoom@MM :0 BD * > 30037 * < 40000 * and has been sent as a binary attachment\.$|^Mail transaction failed\. Partial message is available\.$ /root/mydoom.string
The first is based on the text strings that are usually part of the virus. It catches many of them, but runs the slight risk of catching a legitimate eamil. I considered those chances to be sufficiently small.
The second is because not all copies contain those text strings. Sometimes they contain no message text, or it's in some other language (big8 or something). So I filter on a line that matches the.scr/.pif version of the virus.
My filter is only about 90% effective, since a.zip with no identifiable text can still get through. Unfortunately I don't see a way to improve on that, since the filenames in the zip are random, so the entire zip body gets randomized. If anyone has suggestions, I'd be interested to hear them.
Yeah, I saw that hit the incidents list, and followed up immediately with the following (still waiting for moderator approval):
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, lsi wrote:
> The following regular expressions trap this virus dead, no matter > what subject line, message body, or filename it uses: > > If expression body matches "UEsDBAoAAA*" Move [virus folder] > > If expression body matches "TVqQAAMAAA*" Move [virus folder] > > So to find it we merely filter on the MIME strings above, which are > the first 10 bytes of the MIME content section.
And what makes you think those 10 bytes are sufficiently unique to avoid filtering a legitimate email? What if someone sends a legitimate.zip file? How do those begin, when MIME encoded? I'd be very cautious about only filtering on 10 bytes of base64 text, especially when considering that most filetypes begin with some "magic".
Look what happens when I create a random zip file:
menscher@lx2:~> echo blah > blah menscher@lx2:~> zip blah.zip blah updating: blah (stored 0%) menscher@lx2:~> uuencode -m blah.zip.uu 30037 * 30037 * (That two different sigs are required suggests there are two versions > of the virus in circulation.)
No, the first gets the.scr/.pif version, and the second gets the.zip version. Not two viruses, just two forms of spreading.
> No silver bullet for auto-notification messages, unfortunately:(
Kill the admin of the machine that sent them. You may use silver or lead, as you deem economical.
Damian Menscher -- -=#| Physics Grad Student & SysAdmin @ U Illinois Urbana-Champaign |#=- -=#| UIUC CITES Security Group || Beckman Imaging Technology Group |#=- -=#| 488 LLP, 1110 W. Green St, Urbana, IL 61801 Ofc:(217)333-0038 |#=- -=#| www.uiuc.edu/~menscher/ Fax:(217)333-9819 |#=-
Got about 50 emails last night containing warnings (you sent a virus from an IP you don't own!) and bounces (you emailed a nonexistant user from an IP you don't own!).
Rather pissed off at Windows lusers right about now....
Bounce the headers of the message, and possibly some text. Do not bounce any attachments.
I'd actually prefer if you bounced the entire attachment. In the case of virus outbreaks, it's a lot easier to filter out the unwanted bounces based on an attachment, than having to read all the headers and wonder if I (or a user) sent an email to someone with a subject line of "Hi".
Yes, it wastes bandwidth. But it saves human time. If you're that concerned about bandwidth, don't bounce known-spoofed-From:-header virus email at all.
The companies that are doing this know very well that the viruses forge the From: header. If they wanted to warn senders, it would be trivial to put in a check of whether this virus, which they can identify, has the "forges-the-From:-header" bit set, and not respond to those.
But this doesn't serve their purposes. Their goal, in the event of a virus outbreak, is to advertise. When people are getting viruses, they start looking for AV software, and that's the perfect advertising opportunity.
I always write back to the postmaster@domain to complain that their software is advertising, and I include a Cc: to the AV vendor, so they can see the negative publicity that results. It might help if everyone else did the same....
Parent is being helpful; the original poster does not seem to know about dhcp, and this (probably correct, by my experience) assessment....
As the original poster, I can assure you that I know about DHCP. But it should have been obvious that DHCP was irrelevant since I said I was having trouble mounting NFS filesystems. And I've never heard of anyone exporting NFS filesystems to a DHCP range....;)
Didn't we just (a few months ago) have a/. story about how to speed up linux boottimes (by parallelizing stuff) so it could stay competitive with WinXP? Somehow I don't think this is going to help.
Meanwhile, my shiny new RHEL 3.0 box isn't mounting NFS filesystems on boot because the network hasn't finished initializing yet. Apparently it takes the network about 30 seconds to come up. Wonder if that's a gigE thing.:(
I tried something similar... I slept for 2 hours every 12. So, 4 hours of each 24-hour period. It was pretty amazing. I was always alert. Never had the problem of being tired at the end of the day. And it works well with a schedule, since you can go to work in the day, take a nap, then work all night, take a nap, and be ready the next day.
Only one problem. After 2 weeks I realized my body wasn't keeping up with my brain. Even though I could think through things quickly (which is fine if you have a desk job) my body seemed to be physically deteriorating. So I went back to the "normal" sleep schedule.
Still, I'd recommend this if you ever have a "crunch time", like when an important project is due, or possible for finals week, or something.
Yes, I am. Though I should note that my specialty is in particle physics, not astrophysics.
how do you know that one theory or the other can't be proven, or atleast supported, by mathematics? Perhaps through investigating these, scientists could find that point-like black holes are in fact mathematically impossible.
The event horizon implies that the mathematics are no longer relevant. The rules of mathematics might be different past the event horizon.
Science is to the point where we think about lots of things that can't be observed.
You're only partially right here. We think about things that can't be observed, but that allow us to make predictions about things that can be observed. Take particle physics, for example. It's impossible to observe a quark or a gluon. However, it's entirely possible to predict the bound states they will form. Because we can predict the bound states, we have can have confidence in the quark model.
My complaint with the current article is not that we don't currently have the ability to test their theory. It's that we never will.
They're predicting something that can't be observed. From outside the event horizon, both a point-like black hole and the sphere-like black hole will look identical. Theories that cannot be disproved are boring. Move along, nothing to see here.
Let's say you're SCO, and you're looking for that fatal flaw in IBM's argument, but just can't find it. Why not get others to help? Post to/. and wait for the response. Many eyes....
I had the problem when trying to post the "article text" of the 6,000,000-digit prime number a few weeks ago. I think it's something to do with the size of the post.;) I was using Mozilla under RH9 at the time. IE under Win2k just hung.
I appreciate your comments. And it touches on one of the reasons I did the benchmarking in the first place: we noticed our new machines were running as slowly as old machines. As you can see from my original post, icc7 ran 15% slower than icc5. The new machines were 15% faster (CPU) but had a slower compiler. I'm hoping that this was fixed in the recent release of the intel compilers, but haven't had time to benchmark them yet.
Don't trust them for reminders to pay
on
Paperless Billing?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I've got a credit card (Citibank) and when I went paperless I asked that they email me each month to remind me to pay it. Worked wonderfully for a year or two, and I saved a few dollars on stamps and checks. Then one month they never sent the email, and I didn't pay. They charged a late fee. Fortunately, I log *all* my incoming email, and I could prove they never sent the reminder. They decided to waive the fee THIS time, but if there is a next time I'm responsible. Yeah right. There hasn't been a "next time" yet, fortunately.
Subject says it all. TrippLite UPSes come with 15-foot cord. Similar with other brands, I expect. Of course, you're still screwed, because a single outlet will only give you 15 amps (or 20, if you got good power). Which is not enough for a serious rack.
How bloated are the static binaries ICC produces ?
About the same size as the static binaries that gcc produced. I should mention that the reason I compiled with -static was because I was testing the speed on three different computers with different hardware (and different libraries) so I needed something widely compatible.
If you dont care about code portability and all you want speed write in assembler, not C or C++
Sorry, I didn't try running these on our Athlon boxes since they won't be running there anyway. I'd try it, but I don't feel like taking the hour or two to test that right now. Maybe you could try it. The Intel compilers are free for a 30-day evaluation.
Oh, and ROFL about coding in assembler. I think you're missing the point here. The code is portable. I really don't care if the binaries are.
I should have mentioned: the slow timings with icc (entries 4,5,6 in the table above) were done with -O0 (optimization turned off).
And ignore the word "superior" in the last entry. That's just an internal note that I forgot to remove... has nothing to do with the timing test.
And for those who were wondering... the various tests comparing RH8 libraries (2.2.93 vs 2.3.2) were done because the 7.0 version of the Intel compiler did not support RedHat 9 (so we were forced to copy libraries over from a RedHat 8.0 box). I'm really looking forward to getting Intel's 8.0 compilers so we can stop doing that ugly hack!
Ok, I think that covers just about everything I left out. Now back to your regularly-scheduled programming....
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't to say that the g-2 experiment is useless; only that we shouldn't get too excited about it yet. Once things pass 3 sigma then the scientists will start to pay attention. Until then, it will just around speculation. Oh yeah, and yes, I am a particle physicist. But I'm just a lowly theorist. The experimentalists working on g-2 are down the hall.
http://bugscope.itg.uiuc.edu/
Of course, you might be thinking a little smaller than a million-dollar microscope (estimated cost, since it didn't come out of my pocket).
How is that reasonable? Isn't that just going to cause a DDoS on the nameservers that have to look up the new host info every minute?
Nope. I've seen the bottoms get popped out, but I've also seen cold cans explode. We had a very sticky front seat of a car after leaving a can in it for a cold week.
I was more raising the issue since I think it odd that they built in these protections, but apparently they don't always (or even usually) work.
Uhh, I think that's why the bottom of the soda can is concave, rather than convex. If it gets too much pressure, it can pop out. They do similar things with milk jugs, for example.
*sigh* slashdot apparently can't handle a "<" in "plain text"... needs to be "code". Here's the example again from my email, and the other stuff that got dropped:
A BUAYmxhaFVUCQADEkYYQLJFA hcDCgAAAAAAzYs8MC0yxFAFAAAABQAAAAQAA KSBAAAAAGJsYWhVVAUAAxJGGEBVeAAAUEsFBgAAAAABAAEA
P wAAADwAAAAAAA==
T B0TrDQatwCd28P8Oht5dYcztFr
.scr/.pif
.zip with no identifiable
menscher@lx2:~> echo blah > blah
menscher@lx2:~> zip blah.zip blah
updating: blah (stored 0%)
menscher@lx2:~> uuencode -m blah.zip.uu < blah.zip
begin-base64 644 blah.zip.uu
UEsDBAoAAAAAAM2LPDAtMsRQBQAAAAUAAAAE
GEBVeAQAMQy4C2JsYWgKUEsB
DQAAAAAAAQAA
====
Now notice the first few bytes: "UEsDBAoAAA".
Congratulations! Your filter just stopped me from saying "blah" to my
friends!
That said, here's what I'm doing:
# W32/Mydoom@MM
:0 BD
* > 30037
* < 40000
* and has been sent as a binary attachment\.$|^Mail transaction failed\.
Partial message is available\.$
/root/mydoom.string
# W32/Mydoom@MM
:0 BD
* > 30037
* < 40000
* 3NreW2Fmc9UACmhsoy12gVd8LmRsbLPdUXUmbsnK9nlfQQtkG
/root/mydoom
The first is based on the text strings that are usually part of the
virus. It catches many of them, but runs the slight risk of catching a
legitimate eamil. I considered those chances to be sufficiently small.
The second is because not all copies contain those text strings.
Sometimes they contain no message text, or it's in some other language
(big8 or something). So I filter on a line that matches the
version of the virus.
My filter is only about 90% effective, since a
text can still get through. Unfortunately I don't see a way to improve
on that, since the filenames in the zip are random, so the entire zip
body gets randomized. If anyone has suggestions, I'd be interested to
hear them.
Yeah, I saw that hit the incidents list, and followed up immediately with the following (still waiting for moderator approval):
.zip
.scr/.pif version, and the second gets the .zip
:(
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, lsi wrote:
> The following regular expressions trap this virus dead, no matter
> what subject line, message body, or filename it uses:
>
> If expression body matches "UEsDBAoAAA*" Move [virus folder]
>
> If expression body matches "TVqQAAMAAA*" Move [virus folder]
>
> So to find it we merely filter on the MIME strings above, which are
> the first 10 bytes of the MIME content section.
And what makes you think those 10 bytes are sufficiently unique to avoid
filtering a legitimate email? What if someone sends a legitimate
file? How do those begin, when MIME encoded? I'd be very cautious
about only filtering on 10 bytes of base64 text, especially when
considering that most filetypes begin with some "magic".
Look what happens when I create a random zip file:
menscher@lx2:~> echo blah > blah
menscher@lx2:~> zip blah.zip blah
updating: blah (stored 0%)
menscher@lx2:~> uuencode -m blah.zip.uu 30037
* 30037
* (That two different sigs are required suggests there are two versions
> of the virus in circulation.)
No, the first gets the
version. Not two viruses, just two forms of spreading.
> No silver bullet for auto-notification messages, unfortunately
Kill the admin of the machine that sent them. You may use silver or
lead, as you deem economical.
Damian Menscher
--
-=#| Physics Grad Student & SysAdmin @ U Illinois Urbana-Champaign |#=-
-=#| UIUC CITES Security Group || Beckman Imaging Technology Group |#=-
-=#| 488 LLP, 1110 W. Green St, Urbana, IL 61801 Ofc:(217)333-0038 |#=-
-=#| www.uiuc.edu/~menscher/ Fax:(217)333-9819 |#=-
RedHat grew from 1,231,986 to 1,451,505, a difference of 219519.
So an alternate headline could have been "RedHat grows 2.5 times as fast as Debian".
Please stop feeding the trolls, slashdot.
Rather pissed off at Windows lusers right about now....
I'd actually prefer if you bounced the entire attachment. In the case of virus outbreaks, it's a lot easier to filter out the unwanted bounces based on an attachment, than having to read all the headers and wonder if I (or a user) sent an email to someone with a subject line of "Hi".
Yes, it wastes bandwidth. But it saves human time. If you're that concerned about bandwidth, don't bounce known-spoofed-From:-header virus email at all.
But this doesn't serve their purposes. Their goal, in the event of a virus outbreak, is to advertise. When people are getting viruses, they start looking for AV software, and that's the perfect advertising opportunity.
I always write back to the postmaster@domain to complain that their software is advertising, and I include a Cc: to the AV vendor, so they can see the negative publicity that results. It might help if everyone else did the same....
Whoa, I just learned something useful from Slashdot. Thanks!
As the original poster, I can assure you that I know about DHCP. But it should have been obvious that DHCP was irrelevant since I said I was having trouble mounting NFS filesystems. And I've never heard of anyone exporting NFS filesystems to a DHCP range.... ;)
Meanwhile, my shiny new RHEL 3.0 box isn't mounting NFS filesystems on boot because the network hasn't finished initializing yet. Apparently it takes the network about 30 seconds to come up. Wonder if that's a gigE thing. :(
Only one problem. After 2 weeks I realized my body wasn't keeping up with my brain. Even though I could think through things quickly (which is fine if you have a desk job) my body seemed to be physically deteriorating. So I went back to the "normal" sleep schedule.
Still, I'd recommend this if you ever have a "crunch time", like when an important project is due, or possible for finals week, or something.
My complaint with the current article is not that we don't currently have the ability to test their theory. It's that we never will.
They're predicting something that can't be observed. From outside the event horizon, both a point-like black hole and the sphere-like black hole will look identical. Theories that cannot be disproved are boring. Move along, nothing to see here.
Let's say you're SCO, and you're looking for that fatal flaw in IBM's argument, but just can't find it. Why not get others to help? Post to /. and wait for the response. Many eyes....
I had the problem when trying to post the "article text" of the 6,000,000-digit prime number a few weeks ago. I think it's something to do with the size of the post. ;) I was using Mozilla under RH9 at the time. IE under Win2k just hung.
I appreciate your comments. And it touches on one of the reasons I did the benchmarking in the first place: we noticed our new machines were running as slowly as old machines. As you can see from my original post, icc7 ran 15% slower than icc5. The new machines were 15% faster (CPU) but had a slower compiler. I'm hoping that this was fixed in the recent release of the intel compilers, but haven't had time to benchmark them yet.
I've got a credit card (Citibank) and when I went paperless I asked that they email me each month to remind me to pay it. Worked wonderfully for a year or two, and I saved a few dollars on stamps and checks. Then one month they never sent the email, and I didn't pay. They charged a late fee. Fortunately, I log *all* my incoming email, and I could prove they never sent the reminder. They decided to waive the fee THIS time, but if there is a next time I'm responsible. Yeah right. There hasn't been a "next time" yet, fortunately.
Subject says it all. TrippLite UPSes come with 15-foot cord. Similar with other brands, I expect. Of course, you're still screwed, because a single outlet will only give you 15 amps (or 20, if you got good power). Which is not enough for a serious rack.
About the same size as the static binaries that gcc produced. I should mention that the reason I compiled with -static was because I was testing the speed on three different computers with different hardware (and different libraries) so I needed something widely compatible.
If you dont care about code portability and all you want speed write in assembler, not C or C++
Sorry, I didn't try running these on our Athlon boxes since they won't be running there anyway. I'd try it, but I don't feel like taking the hour or two to test that right now. Maybe you could try it. The Intel compilers are free for a 30-day evaluation.
Oh, and ROFL about coding in assembler. I think you're missing the point here. The code is portable. I really don't care if the binaries are.
Execute times. Sorry if that wasn't clear. The program was fairly small, so compile times were considered insignificant.
And ignore the word "superior" in the last entry. That's just an internal note that I forgot to remove... has nothing to do with the timing test.
And for those who were wondering... the various tests comparing RH8 libraries (2.2.93 vs 2.3.2) were done because the 7.0 version of the Intel compiler did not support RedHat 9 (so we were forced to copy libraries over from a RedHat 8.0 box). I'm really looking forward to getting Intel's 8.0 compilers so we can stop doing that ugly hack!
Ok, I think that covers just about everything I left out. Now back to your regularly-scheduled programming....