Triggering a BSOD from kernel mode is quite easy actually. The most common BSOD I personally have seen is the IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL one. This is actually akin to an assertion failure, because if you call a function which requires IRQL_PASSIVE at anything but the passive level IRQ level, you will get a BSOD, even if the call would not have resulted in a page fault or anything.
So there's actually a lot of BSODs that are 'preventative' in nature. That is, the kernel says "uh oh, that call should never have been made, the system *might* become unstable, shut it *all* down before any real damage is done".
Then there's "Boot disk not found", or "Boot disk failure", which are in fact real serious, because it's the end of the line for the machine.
Maybe they've broken down errors that are likely Kernel driver programming mistakes, and errors that indicate the system is severely damaged.
Aircraft carriers and warships can go at 15 knots speed at least. (Just making up that number, but it is at least that amount).
A 13" paper plane will have no chance of returning alive if it isn't taking off from a stationary carrier in calm see and no wind. It will have a very short range and speed. Bottom line: will it ever be able to see what a powerful set of binoculars wouldn't be able to see from the carrier anyways? And also, what't the point of having the stealth of a 13" paper plane, when just a few kilometers away is a ginormous aircraft carrier?
When you are crossing an ocean, (as opposed to a pool or a puddle), you most likely want to stay below the surface and avoid the wrath of 20 meter waves. A small motor will get you nowhere if you are going uphill on a wave of that kind. You might as well put a message in a bottle and hope it gets where you want it to.
Not true. The light is slowed down to a 'halt' inside the medium, but as soon as it enters a new medium (air), it's back to its original speed (in air).
It's not like the light that slowed down in the glass can't speed back up. This ain't particle physics, it's wave.
Basically any code that moves any data is crunching some other data. Given that RISC and CISC processors are Load/Store based architectures, that makes for pretty much a majority of cases.
Thing is though, that engineering beauty and mathematical beauty are different things. You have to understand that the problem you were solving here was the equivalent of your learning how to integrate in math. (Integrate all known forms of equations). The beauty isn't in that excercise, the beauty is in what it produces.
To make it much more evident, when people talk about "Engineering works of art", they aren't refering one least bit to how the equations were solved. They're much more often refering to the elegance of the final product and that elegance is very often linked to the product's utilitarian nature. For example, that an F15 fighter jet can actually deliver twice its weight in thrust. When you think about it, that's quite elegant: it's a plane that's made so light and durable and so powerful at the same time, it could lift off like a rocket. It's probably the equivalent of trying to put an SUV engine onto a trycicle and actually making it work.
Whether the engineers used analytical equations to solve it, or plugged into a TK-solver is quite irrelevant. In fact, given the nature of those jets, they probably actually just needed an order of magnitude rather than a super precise value of the forces to be applied (generally, in engineering, when they say it is designed for 5000 lbs, they actually make sure it actually holds 10000 lbs or more).
In the end, it comes down to Descarte versus Hume. In the empricial world, it is preposterous to say this rope will snap at exactly 112.58 Newtons. Because it might just not... it's much more sensible to say, 110 Newtons is around the threshold. If I were betting my life on it, I'd put no more than 60 Newtons.
All three answers are actually correct, in that they're accurate, however differently precise descriptions of Pi.
This reminds me of my earlier years in high school when my physics teacher would get really annoyed at the students who would put in answers like "3.52302881055" when clearly, the margin of error was at the first decimal.
My point: when we were kids, there was a stigma associated with the number of digits after the decimal you could get out of your pocket calculator. A sort of "More is better" mentality.
Without digressing, my point is that the engineer needs no more than 3. Knowing more, or wanting to cram more would be like driving an SUV inner city... it would be overkill.
Aside from the elitism of how precise our representations of numbers are, I think the real debate comes as to how much creativity is involved in the three disciplines. I personally believe that all three have the potential to be extremely boring and also extremely creative disciplines.
Fyi. I grew up in pure physics, switched to pure math, and eventually ended up being a software 'engineer'.
Yeah, to quote the grandparent post nothing Boost couldn't do, rtfa:
ASL is being developed in C++, and relies heavily on the Boost libraries http://www.boost.org/ which are required for building ASL.
Aside from the obvious stupidity of the grandparent, I'd like to add that I'm really impressed a big player like Adobe would be using Boost and not some internally cooked up library that they try to shove on everyone else.
At the current state of things, the law *enforces* that your data be kept. OTOH, you are talking about data interception... basically unlawful retention of data. If that occurs, which it can occur anywhere and everywhere, you file a complaint and the authorities deal with it.
Judiscial versus Executive... Two different ball games.
That makes no sense. It's the same issue as digital signatures... or any ID theft issue. Take this scenario:
You rent a car, go in a drug store, come out to find the car's been jacked. You see the said car careening down the street and eventually mowing down 8 pedestrians including one pregrnant woman and two children.
What good is it that your driver's license was on file?
Even better:
You buy a gun. Use it over and over at the shooting range. Someone takes it, kills an officier. Your prints are on the gun. What does it prove? Absolutely fucking nothing.
So your driver's license being in a DB has absolutely no legal value. The *only* value it might have is for the insurance company. But then again: if you are in an accident, you *have* to show your driver's license at which point, it can easily be determined if it's valid or not (by the insurance company via the cops). The rental company would, for its own benefit make sure the license is valid, because should the car crash, and the license be found invalid, the insurance company would refuse to pay. But it wouldn't need to store this data at all since in the case it will be necessary, the data will be looked up anyways.
I see no scenario where you need your identity logged...
I think the point being made is that you have to leave your driver's license information at the rental store.
It's one thing to say "do you have a license? and can I see if it's valid?" it's another thing to say "I will now log your driver's license into our database".
Hey buddy. You love bitching about microsoft and all, but shit aside, this rootkit detector is a brilliant app written by sysinternals. Which are a brilliant pair of programmers, who also happen to be gurus of the windows Kernel.
I know you would like to pretend that only linux has a kernel, that the rest of the world uses cooperative multitasking on top of DOS, and that the only real programmers are OSS kernel developers with Linus driving the army with a penguin banner... but the reality is that there are brilliant people working out there even for Microsoft.
Get over it.
Btw, there isn't a similar rootkit detection tool for linux. Tripwire and the like check for file signatures. This thing is much more intelligent than simple hash checking.
Well, you see, the whole attraction of mars is that people can go there, terraform it, and then greenhouse the shit out of it and say "Well it was a barren waste land anyways".
Mars will be the Las Vegas of environmental concerns!
I don't know if you are being a troll or not but I can answer you:
I firmly believe that my mind is in control of me. But that doesn't mean I'm just deterministic behaviour. It's the exact same scenario as software on hardware. If a CPU is broken in a special enough way, there is no way for software to be able to detect whether it's on a healthy system.
Saying that however, doesn't mean software *is* hardware.
Or, to bring the analogy back over to our side: saying that our mind and body is completely in control of our soul isn't the same as saying our sould *is* our mind and body.
I ride my bicycle inner city a lot. And I've been doing that since I've been 13 or so (when I used to live in Istanbul, Turkey). I'm extremely comfortable riding in high traffic situations. But here's the thing that amazes me the most, when I'm at an intersection waiting for a red light, no matter what I'm doing (and I rarely ever stare at the red light, or in fact in the direction of the light), something goes off in my mind and my foot will automatically get off the ground and clip in just about 3 seconds before the light turns green. This is almost always without fail.
The other thing is that I can sense when I light is about to turn when I'm arriving towards the intersection.
I firmly believe that my brain has a pattern recognition system for the amount of traffic at the intersection. For example: the longer the car pileup at a red light, the longer it has been red, and the lesser the traffic on the green side, the more likely it is to change red (since the congestion has been cleared by then).
Thing is, I noticed this and started thinking about it one day when I was completely absorbed in some thought, and watching something on the pavement, completely unaware of the world, when I just clipped in and started pedaling... And the light turned green right then. Then I started paying attention to this behaviour, and sure enough, it's pretty consistent.
I also think that you can 'teach' your pattern matching system by reinforcing with a "good" or "bad" feeling. For example, when I did that pedaling trick that day, I realized that sometimes there is a priority left turn for incomming traffic... and the thought kind of made me feel this "panic" inside. Sure enough, since then, the way I perceive those has changed too...
Overall, I think it's our greatest strength. It's 'mu-shin' as the japanese say it: "no mind".
I agree with you but there is some merit in this. Not enough to make a story called "the sixth sense" though.
All IMHO, the brain is a humongous pattern matching system. It learns by ways of emotional or genetic reinforcment. It might very well be that in fact seeing animals flee, even if they're just walking uphill might trigger a dormant pattern and pop up a completely irrational thought that maybe it's time to go up too.
But this is the equivalent of software. Not an additional hardware function that perceives stuff (the sixth sense). That would be like calling intelligence your 7th sense.
You should be a numerologist. You know, those people who ask you when you were born, and you answer "uuh... 4th of january, 1972", and they say "well, if you add 72 and 19, that makes 91 and you add 4 and 1, that makes five, and five plus 9 plus one gives you 96, modulus three, that's THREE!!!
THE HOLY TRINITY!!!
You are the chosen one, my son.
**ding**
Times up, that'll be $29.99 dear, my assistant will take your fee out front no cheques, only cash please. You can ask her for a receipt too. Thank you, come again!
My argument to bring to the table though is that the computer is completely a tool here. Even the choice of color palette is extremely significant in making that 'art' look beautiful. Something which a computer couldn't figure out on its own. He obviously tweaked the results until they looked beautiful. Which is the whole point of art... since he's using the computer as a tool to create something that his intuition says is beautiful.
You're basically arguing that the broken wall street economy of today (which is practically a verbatim reproduction of the pre 29' crash) is to be saved at all costs? even if it means mass global warming?
Listen to yourself man. People are starving around the world. And you're worried about some white collar people not getting a comfortable retirement house in Florida.
Another thing to remember - politicians at extremely high levels are no longer motivated by money.
That's where I firmly disagree with you. Reducing oil consumption is only going to affect one segment of the economy: the oil barons. And if you really think current US politicians have no ties with oil barons, then I have a bridge to sell you.
Yeah, but think about smoking: it's pretty much illegal now to smoke anywhere indoors in North America. Think seat-belts: it's pretty much manadatory around the entire planet.
My issue isn't with trust or distrust with leaders: you haven't understood my point if you say that. My issue is that we are faced with two paths, one which however low the likelyhood, will lead to fatal damage, the other which will lead to nothing.
Why not heed to possibility and just do something about the first one? You know... just in case?
The same people flailing about global warming are also flailing that our oil reserves will be gone in a week
In fact, no. It's just because of your perspective of bunching everyone who disagrees with you into a class of people that your statement is correct.
Generally speaking, people who talk about peak oil are geologists, and even oil engineers. People who talk about climate warming are meteorologists.
It comes down to a simple thing, like I said in my original post: risk analysis. Situation 1, you will die. The odds of situation 1 occuring are very low, but taking a preventive measure will most likely save your life. Situation 2, you won't die. Odds are very high that you won't die, so why take a precaution? Right?
Wearing seat belts fits right into Situation 1. And interestingly enough, it's successfully been made mandatory almost across the world.
Slashdot Mirror
So there's actually a lot of BSODs that are 'preventative' in nature. That is, the kernel says "uh oh, that call should never have been made, the system *might* become unstable, shut it *all* down before any real damage is done".
Then there's "Boot disk not found", or "Boot disk failure", which are in fact real serious, because it's the end of the line for the machine.
Maybe they've broken down errors that are likely Kernel driver programming mistakes, and errors that indicate the system is severely damaged.
A 13" paper plane will have no chance of returning alive if it isn't taking off from a stationary carrier in calm see and no wind. It will have a very short range and speed. Bottom line: will it ever be able to see what a powerful set of binoculars wouldn't be able to see from the carrier anyways? And also, what't the point of having the stealth of a 13" paper plane, when just a few kilometers away is a ginormous aircraft carrier?
Just questions...
When you are crossing an ocean, (as opposed to a pool or a puddle), you most likely want to stay below the surface and avoid the wrath of 20 meter waves. A small motor will get you nowhere if you are going uphill on a wave of that kind. You might as well put a message in a bottle and hope it gets where you want it to.
It's not like the light that slowed down in the glass can't speed back up. This ain't particle physics, it's wave.
What do you use to farm mail out of your yahoo account? I'm looking for just that.
Wrong.
Basically any code that moves any data is crunching some other data. Given that RISC and CISC processors are Load/Store based architectures, that makes for pretty much a majority of cases.With the Patriot Act and the DMCA as precedents for dubious laws, I wouldn't be surprised if it were.
Thing is though, that engineering beauty and mathematical beauty are different things. You have to understand that the problem you were solving here was the equivalent of your learning how to integrate in math. (Integrate all known forms of equations). The beauty isn't in that excercise, the beauty is in what it produces.
To make it much more evident, when people talk about "Engineering works of art", they aren't refering one least bit to how the equations were solved. They're much more often refering to the elegance of the final product and that elegance is very often linked to the product's utilitarian nature. For example, that an F15 fighter jet can actually deliver twice its weight in thrust. When you think about it, that's quite elegant: it's a plane that's made so light and durable and so powerful at the same time, it could lift off like a rocket. It's probably the equivalent of trying to put an SUV engine onto a trycicle and actually making it work.
Whether the engineers used analytical equations to solve it, or plugged into a TK-solver is quite irrelevant. In fact, given the nature of those jets, they probably actually just needed an order of magnitude rather than a super precise value of the forces to be applied (generally, in engineering, when they say it is designed for 5000 lbs, they actually make sure it actually holds 10000 lbs or more).
In the end, it comes down to Descarte versus Hume. In the empricial world, it is preposterous to say this rope will snap at exactly 112.58 Newtons. Because it might just not... it's much more sensible to say, 110 Newtons is around the threshold. If I were betting my life on it, I'd put no more than 60 Newtons.
All three answers are actually correct, in that they're accurate, however differently precise descriptions of Pi.
This reminds me of my earlier years in high school when my physics teacher would get really annoyed at the students who would put in answers like "3.52302881055" when clearly, the margin of error was at the first decimal.
My point: when we were kids, there was a stigma associated with the number of digits after the decimal you could get out of your pocket calculator. A sort of "More is better" mentality.
Without digressing, my point is that the engineer needs no more than 3. Knowing more, or wanting to cram more would be like driving an SUV inner city... it would be overkill.
Aside from the elitism of how precise our representations of numbers are, I think the real debate comes as to how much creativity is involved in the three disciplines. I personally believe that all three have the potential to be extremely boring and also extremely creative disciplines.
Fyi. I grew up in pure physics, switched to pure math, and eventually ended up being a software 'engineer'.
ASL is being developed in C++, and relies heavily on the Boost libraries http://www.boost.org/ which are required for building ASL.
Aside from the obvious stupidity of the grandparent, I'd like to add that I'm really impressed a big player like Adobe would be using Boost and not some internally cooked up library that they try to shove on everyone else.
At the current state of things, the law *enforces* that your data be kept. OTOH, you are talking about data interception... basically unlawful retention of data. If that occurs, which it can occur anywhere and everywhere, you file a complaint and the authorities deal with it.
Judiscial versus Executive... Two different ball games.
You rent a car, go in a drug store, come out to find the car's been jacked. You see the said car careening down the street and eventually mowing down 8 pedestrians including one pregrnant woman and two children.
What good is it that your driver's license was on file?
Even better:
You buy a gun. Use it over and over at the shooting range. Someone takes it, kills an officier. Your prints are on the gun. What does it prove? Absolutely fucking nothing.
So your driver's license being in a DB has absolutely no legal value. The *only* value it might have is for the insurance company. But then again: if you are in an accident, you *have* to show your driver's license at which point, it can easily be determined if it's valid or not (by the insurance company via the cops). The rental company would, for its own benefit make sure the license is valid, because should the car crash, and the license be found invalid, the insurance company would refuse to pay. But it wouldn't need to store this data at all since in the case it will be necessary, the data will be looked up anyways.
I see no scenario where you need your identity logged...
It's one thing to say "do you have a license? and can I see if it's valid?" it's another thing to say "I will now log your driver's license into our database".
I know you would like to pretend that only linux has a kernel, that the rest of the world uses cooperative multitasking on top of DOS, and that the only real programmers are OSS kernel developers with Linus driving the army with a penguin banner... but the reality is that there are brilliant people working out there even for Microsoft.
Get over it.
Btw, there isn't a similar rootkit detection tool for linux. Tripwire and the like check for file signatures. This thing is much more intelligent than simple hash checking.
Well, you see, the whole attraction of mars is that people can go there, terraform it, and then greenhouse the shit out of it and say "Well it was a barren waste land anyways".
Mars will be the Las Vegas of environmental concerns!
I firmly believe that my mind is in control of me. But that doesn't mean I'm just deterministic behaviour. It's the exact same scenario as software on hardware. If a CPU is broken in a special enough way, there is no way for software to be able to detect whether it's on a healthy system.
Saying that however, doesn't mean software *is* hardware.
Or, to bring the analogy back over to our side: saying that our mind and body is completely in control of our soul isn't the same as saying our sould *is* our mind and body.
I ride my bicycle inner city a lot. And I've been doing that since I've been 13 or so (when I used to live in Istanbul, Turkey). I'm extremely comfortable riding in high traffic situations. But here's the thing that amazes me the most, when I'm at an intersection waiting for a red light, no matter what I'm doing (and I rarely ever stare at the red light, or in fact in the direction of the light), something goes off in my mind and my foot will automatically get off the ground and clip in just about 3 seconds before the light turns green. This is almost always without fail.
The other thing is that I can sense when I light is about to turn when I'm arriving towards the intersection.
I firmly believe that my brain has a pattern recognition system for the amount of traffic at the intersection. For example: the longer the car pileup at a red light, the longer it has been red, and the lesser the traffic on the green side, the more likely it is to change red (since the congestion has been cleared by then).
Thing is, I noticed this and started thinking about it one day when I was completely absorbed in some thought, and watching something on the pavement, completely unaware of the world, when I just clipped in and started pedaling... And the light turned green right then. Then I started paying attention to this behaviour, and sure enough, it's pretty consistent.
I also think that you can 'teach' your pattern matching system by reinforcing with a "good" or "bad" feeling. For example, when I did that pedaling trick that day, I realized that sometimes there is a priority left turn for incomming traffic... and the thought kind of made me feel this "panic" inside. Sure enough, since then, the way I perceive those has changed too...
Overall, I think it's our greatest strength. It's 'mu-shin' as the japanese say it: "no mind".
All IMHO, the brain is a humongous pattern matching system. It learns by ways of emotional or genetic reinforcment. It might very well be that in fact seeing animals flee, even if they're just walking uphill might trigger a dormant pattern and pop up a completely irrational thought that maybe it's time to go up too.
But this is the equivalent of software. Not an additional hardware function that perceives stuff (the sixth sense). That would be like calling intelligence your 7th sense.
You should be a numerologist. You know, those people who ask you when you were born, and you answer "uuh... 4th of january, 1972", and they say "well, if you add 72 and 19, that makes 91 and you add 4 and 1, that makes five, and five plus 9 plus one gives you 96, modulus three, that's THREE!!!
THE HOLY TRINITY!!!
You are the chosen one, my son.
**ding**
Times up, that'll be $29.99 dear, my assistant will take your fee out front no cheques, only cash please. You can ask her for a receipt too. Thank you, come again!
My argument to bring to the table though is that the computer is completely a tool here. Even the choice of color palette is extremely significant in making that 'art' look beautiful. Something which a computer couldn't figure out on its own. He obviously tweaked the results until they looked beautiful. Which is the whole point of art... since he's using the computer as a tool to create something that his intuition says is beautiful.
I'm just as skeptical about your prophecy as you are about global warming.
I guess we're at a stale mate on a slashdot forum. which means, have a nice day =)
Listen to yourself man. People are starving around the world. And you're worried about some white collar people not getting a comfortable retirement house in Florida.
That's where I firmly disagree with you. Reducing oil consumption is only going to affect one segment of the economy: the oil barons. And if you really think current US politicians have no ties with oil barons, then I have a bridge to sell you.
My issue isn't with trust or distrust with leaders: you haven't understood my point if you say that. My issue is that we are faced with two paths, one which however low the likelyhood, will lead to fatal damage, the other which will lead to nothing.
Why not heed to possibility and just do something about the first one? You know... just in case?
In fact, no. It's just because of your perspective of bunching everyone who disagrees with you into a class of people that your statement is correct.
Generally speaking, people who talk about peak oil are geologists, and even oil engineers. People who talk about climate warming are meteorologists.
It comes down to a simple thing, like I said in my original post: risk analysis. Situation 1, you will die. The odds of situation 1 occuring are very low, but taking a preventive measure will most likely save your life. Situation 2, you won't die. Odds are very high that you won't die, so why take a precaution? Right?
Wearing seat belts fits right into Situation 1. And interestingly enough, it's successfully been made mandatory almost across the world.