Recently, as the result of work by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Human Genome Sciences (HGS) learned that a receptor it had previously patented was actually an important pathway for HIV to enter cells. The result: HGS can now stop competitors' aids research.
take that and smoke it. Tell me what it tastes like? Innovation? Further research?
Too bad 70 million is a fart in the wind for these people.
Re:Migration path, opteron, and stuff...
on
Itanium Problems
·
· Score: 1
Ohhh...
I can just see space craft blowing up and heads rolling because of new integer overflow bugs that will be introduced (since 64 bits won't behave the same way as 32 bits)
Whatever you use to connect to the wireless network is something on its own. Security however is not equivalent to encryption.
Most of these offices have a firewall, and behind that, every resource on the network is free for all... read write etc.
Security comes in depth. Single point of failure are bad.. etc etc....
Mang, sometimes I'm just baffled at how the same things get rehashed over and over and over... and nobody takes note of them. Both on/. and in the world in general.
sigh.
Migration path, opteron, and stuff...
on
Itanium Problems
·
· Score: 2, Informative
"It may not be as simple as people think it is to take advantage of a 64-bit processor,"
I think he's very right. Take for instance SMP. A single threaded application running on an SMP system has no advantage over the same app running on a single processor system.
In the same way, most applications aren't even aware of 64 bits. So they will continue adding, multiplying, and addressing memory in 32 bits -- whether they be binary ports, or actually recompiled versions.
For the lazy man's migration path of using the same apps on a 64 bit system, there will be no advantage whatsoever of using a 64 bit system.
On the other hand, if you are recompiling, you might as well switch to the EPIC instruction set (Itanium), and get a defacto performance boost -- even if you don't port the code to be 64 bit aware... that's something you won't get even if you recompile for 64 bit CISC opteron.
And last, if you are refactoring, or re-designing your app for 64 bits, there is no migration path per se.
So I think it all boils down to: power consumption (for google), marketing strategy (ie. hyping strategy), and economy.
With Silicon Valley mired in its worst recession, some technologists there say that Itanium may be the industry's last such huge bet on computer design.
just makes you wonder if we'll still be using x86 compatible chips in the year 3029...
That's kind of harsh. It's not like there's someone else out there (anywhere in the world), that's just sending daily shuttles to the moon.
Look at Russia's space program.
Everything is about money these days, and nobody cares about putting up flags on the sea of tranquility... People only care about themselves and launching their Moft sattelites.
I remember back in the day when IP 'phones' were the hot shit being sold for a 'fortune' (ie, being sold). Today, you can launch any of the most primitive online games (such as CS or even HL), and use voice commands to hear your whole team.
You're already sharing files on a p2p network by playing the game since maps and sounds get downloaded and uploaded.
Fuck, the internet is peer-to-peer when looked at from a certain perspective. This RIAA shit really scares me.
Security vulnerabilities aren't a person going "mirror, mirror, oh randomness mirror, give me a random string to hack this site".
it's all tied in together. For example securely failing is part of it. I personally will almost always check if a website can handle single quotes in HTML fields. Some of them do, some of them don't. Others don't and give away some such glarringly compromising error message that you can actually see the SQL statement.
here's a very simple one, take it home, think of it...
my user name is :
"Adam' \n go \n sp_addlogin 'myhaxx' , 'yourpass' \n go \n select '' = '"
This statement might not even fail if the orginal statement is:
EXISTS( SELECT * FROM myUsers WHERE UserName = $UserName )
It's not as hard as you think it is, and just because you can't think of something, don't go thinking nobody else can.
There's an excellent book called "Writting Secure Code" (by Microsoft Press would you believe it), that talks about security in great depth.
I recommend anyone shooting their mouth off here to read it before they do.
But on topic with the parent post, it says "adopt the idea that examples are actually templates" (or something along those words). What he means is that writting an example that doesn't check for error return codes (or memory overrun issues) will most probably end up in insecure code being written.
Seriously though, anyone talking about security should read such a book before they do.
Wow. That is some of the most ignant shit I've ever heard.
I'll tell you what is secure, and it's easy too: take a building, cover it with 10 feet thick walls of concrete. It's now secure.
It's even more ignant just thinking that 90% of security vulnerabilities these days come from 'script kiddy exploitable' no-brainer-to-fix buffer overrun bugs.
I generally try not to go out flaming people, but... god, you suck.
-I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you log on to your machine today. In fact, I know you're going to try and hurt me by running IM software, so I'm going to hurt you back by deleting your porn collection (chunk chunk chunk) done. And sending out all your gossip emails.
While I'm at it, I will call up a good friend of mine , and hint that you might be a terrorist.
I think I know the limit you are talking about: it's a handle limit in the GDI subsystem.
As for the 200k processes taking time to launch, it is quite normal, as launching a process is much more heavy than just launching a thread.
The 2k threads I created were created in 700ms. which is very acceptable in my books.
And to confirm, yes, creating so many threads ain't the best idea. Someone else mentionned thread pools as being a workaround, but only a workaround. I personally think thread pools are actually a way of doing things, and not a workaround for slow thread creation. In fact there are new WinNT APIs for thread pooling.
yada yada... I don't think anyone will actually ever read this post =)
Riiigggghhhht...because before that company, Kary Mullis was an intellectual midget who never did anything. And he wouldn't have done anything without getting paid for it.
You're missing the point and being bitchy for no reason. The matter of the fact is that who knows, Kary Mullis might have come up with a pocket sized nuclear fusion reactor. He could be the most intelligent person on earth. It doesn't change that if he hadn't worked for this company, HE would probably not have come up with PCR. (Unless of course this thing was his dream that he had one day in the shower, and he just couldn't stop thinking about it... but then again, he would have needed to find someone to support him)
Lets pretend that scientists like him couldn't work in companies. Recognizing his sheer genius, people would buy him lab equipment if he promised to share his future wealth. Why would they do this even though he had no company? Because he's a freakin' genius.
sadly enough, what you are describing here is capitalism. And sorry dude, it don't work that way... Go ahead and try and convince people to lend you 200k and promise them back 10% of the return of your invention. Try.
Try thinking the other way: if Kary Mullis didn't exist, that company wouldn't have lasted very long.
And that's the mindset I'm talking about: we as humans tend to think we are quite unique, but really, I think you overestimate the 'genius'. If that company was serious about what they were doing, they would have *found* another genius (even if it meant going to the depths of hell).
I'm really disapointed to have been moded down on this post, because really, this issue is such a critical problem people of these times have... Look throughout the history of mankind... Most of the great inventions of the 19th century were all from the Great Britain... And that solely because Britain was having an industrial revolution. It's just childish to think that inventions come because people are dreamy geniuses... They come because of economic growth and need. As ugly and unpoetic as that might sound to a geek's ears.
The bottom line is that 'happienes' and measure of wellness these days is all skewed. And as long as that vision remains skewed, everyone (like fireboy) will keep complaining about how they are getting fucked by the corporates.
if you don't like something, change it, or change the way you think about it. And I'm pretty sure you won't be able to change capitalism.
That's the whole point. The person saying this quote in the book (Salvor Hardin) is somewhat of a hardliner... The thing is not that he hides behind that saying to be pacifist...
He just says if you've been cornered into using violence, it's because you were incompetent enough not to see it coming. That's the whole point really... being able to see it coming down the road, and basically reducing your effort by playing intelligently.
I think it's really a war philosophy. Not peace. I'm sure "The art of war" has such ideas in it too.
I'm still against war, even though I find it's quite inevitable actually.
Hey, couldn't email you personally, but that quote about asimov has two ways of interpreting it...
the first is obvious, the second is: the competent leader will plan ahead as to not fall into a situation where he *has* to use violence.
So yes, everyone can be put into situation that calls for violence, but more clever people can avoid it. All along the lines of "in politics, it's best to speak softly and carry a big stick"...
Slashdot Mirror
take that and smoke it. Tell me what it tastes like? Innovation? Further research?
Too bad 70 million is a fart in the wind for these people.
Ohhh...
I can just see space craft blowing up and heads rolling because of new integer overflow bugs that will be introduced (since 64 bits won't behave the same way as 32 bits)
Whatever you use to connect to the wireless network is something on its own. Security however is not equivalent to encryption.
/. and in the world in general.
Most of these offices have a firewall, and behind that, every resource on the network is free for all... read write etc.
Security comes in depth. Single point of failure are bad.. etc etc....
Mang, sometimes I'm just baffled at how the same things get rehashed over and over and over... and nobody takes note of them. Both on
sigh.
I think he's very right. Take for instance SMP. A single threaded application running on an SMP system has no advantage over the same app running on a single processor system.
In the same way, most applications aren't even aware of 64 bits. So they will continue adding, multiplying, and addressing memory in 32 bits -- whether they be binary ports, or actually recompiled versions.
For the lazy man's migration path of using the same apps on a 64 bit system, there will be no advantage whatsoever of using a 64 bit system.
On the other hand, if you are recompiling, you might as well switch to the EPIC instruction set (Itanium), and get a defacto performance boost -- even if you don't port the code to be 64 bit aware... that's something you won't get even if you recompile for 64 bit CISC opteron.
And last, if you are refactoring, or re-designing your app for 64 bits, there is no migration path per se.
So I think it all boils down to: power consumption (for google), marketing strategy (ie. hyping strategy), and economy.
just makes you wonder if we'll still be using x86 compatible chips in the year 3029...
nice... I can just imagine
Doctor places robot arm around chest, says "begin incision"... arm starts cutting downard.
Netsplit
I'll let you think up the gory details...
a laser you should directly look into.
hah.
Probably the idea is to transfer the heat onto some material that can hold a lot of heat ... hence a liquid as opposed to air.
They might be 'injecting' this heat into the fuel right before it gets sent off to the jet engines, where it burns off right away...
That's kind of harsh. It's not like there's someone else out there (anywhere in the world), that's just sending daily shuttles to the moon.
Look at Russia's space program.
Everything is about money these days, and nobody cares about putting up flags on the sea of tranquility... People only care about themselves and launching their Moft sattelites.
I remember back in the day when IP 'phones' were the hot shit being sold for a 'fortune' (ie, being sold).
Today, you can launch any of the most primitive online games (such as CS or even HL), and use voice commands to hear your whole team.
You're already sharing files on a p2p network by playing the game since maps and sounds get downloaded and uploaded.
Fuck, the internet is peer-to-peer when looked at from a certain perspective. This RIAA shit really scares me.
yes yes, mea culpa... 'ignant' is what chris rock uses in one of sketches. sorry for the implicit symbol resolution.
Security vulnerabilities aren't a person going "mirror, mirror, oh randomness mirror, give me a random string to hack this site".
it's all tied in together. For example securely failing is part of it. I personally will almost always check if a website can handle single quotes in HTML fields. Some of them do, some of them don't. Others don't and give away some such glarringly compromising error message that you can actually see the SQL statement.
here's a very simple one, take it home, think of it...
my user name is :
"Adam' \n go \n sp_addlogin 'myhaxx' , 'yourpass' \n go \n select '' = '" This statement might not even fail if the orginal statement is:
EXISTS( SELECT * FROM myUsers WHERE UserName = $UserName )
It's not as hard as you think it is, and just because you can't think of something, don't go thinking nobody else can.
Security is about being humble really.
There's an excellent book called "Writting Secure Code" (by Microsoft Press would you believe it), that talks about security in great depth.
I recommend anyone shooting their mouth off here to read it before they do.
But on topic with the parent post, it says "adopt the idea that examples are actually templates" (or something along those words). What he means is that writting an example that doesn't check for error return codes (or memory overrun issues) will most probably end up in insecure code being written.
Seriously though, anyone talking about security should read such a book before they do.
Wow. That is some of the most ignant shit I've ever heard.
I'll tell you what is secure, and it's easy too: take a building, cover it with 10 feet thick walls of concrete. It's now secure.
It's even more ignant just thinking that 90% of security vulnerabilities these days come from 'script kiddy exploitable' no-brainer-to-fix buffer overrun bugs.
I generally try not to go out flaming people, but... god, you suck.
Palladium/TCPA/DRM support?
-I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you log on to your machine today. In fact, I know you're going to try and hurt me by running IM software, so I'm going to hurt you back by deleting your porn collection (chunk chunk chunk) done. And sending out all your gossip emails.
While I'm at it, I will call up a good friend of mine , and hint that you might be a terrorist.
In the meantime, have a nice day!
Step 1: run your envelope through an industrial shreader.
Step 2: append 10 MAC shreads at the end of mail.
Step 3: permutate shread x with shread perm(x) where perm(x) is the chosen encryption algorithm.
Step 4: glue together
Step 5: shread, unencrypt, reglue.
voila.
Google searches for the news
ZDNet- 1hourago
Google unveiled on Monday an expanded test version of its search engine for current events and news, the latest step in the company's move into new markets.
Google Launches News ServicePCWorld
Google launches news search siteTelecomPaper(subscription)
CNET- and5related
Yes.
Minimum loadable Memory Section in windows is 64K. I guess a thread creation creates a new stack on a newly created section boundary.
I think I know the limit you are talking about: it's a handle limit in the GDI subsystem.
As for the 200k processes taking time to launch, it is quite normal, as launching a process is much more heavy than just launching a thread.
The 2k threads I created were created in 700ms. which is very acceptable in my books.
And to confirm, yes, creating so many threads ain't the best idea.
Someone else mentionned thread pools as being a workaround, but only a workaround. I personally think thread pools are actually a way of doing things, and not a workaround for slow thread creation. In fact there are new WinNT APIs for thread pooling.
yada yada... I don't think anyone will actually ever read this post =)
Very interestingly enough, either windows has a quota, or some sort of memory leak or something...
Max I can create in a process is 2031 threads... That being done in 700ms.
It's odd cause I can create more if I run several processes. It doesn't look like the kernel is choking on thread creation...
will investigate more.
You're missing the point and being bitchy for no reason. The matter of the fact is that who knows, Kary Mullis might have come up with a pocket sized nuclear fusion reactor. He could be the most intelligent person on earth. It doesn't change that if he hadn't worked for this company, HE would probably not have come up with PCR. (Unless of course this thing was his dream that he had one day in the shower, and he just couldn't stop thinking about it... but then again, he would have needed to find someone to support him)
Lets pretend that scientists like him couldn't work in companies. Recognizing his sheer genius, people would buy him lab equipment if he promised to share his future wealth. Why would they do this even though he had no company? Because he's a freakin' genius.
sadly enough, what you are describing here is capitalism. And sorry dude, it don't work that way... Go ahead and try and convince people to lend you 200k and promise them back 10% of the return of your invention. Try.
Try thinking the other way: if Kary Mullis didn't exist, that company wouldn't have lasted very long.
And that's the mindset I'm talking about: we as humans tend to think we are quite unique, but really, I think you overestimate the 'genius'. If that company was serious about what they were doing, they would have *found* another genius (even if it meant going to the depths of hell).
I'm really disapointed to have been moded down on this post, because really, this issue is such a critical problem people of these times have... Look throughout the history of mankind... Most of the great inventions of the 19th century were all from the Great Britain... And that solely because Britain was having an industrial revolution. It's just childish to think that inventions come because people are dreamy geniuses... They come because of economic growth and need. As ugly and unpoetic as that might sound to a geek's ears.
The bottom line is that 'happienes' and measure of wellness these days is all skewed. And as long as that vision remains skewed, everyone (like fireboy) will keep complaining about how they are getting fucked by the corporates.
if you don't like something, change it, or change the way you think about it. And I'm pretty sure you won't be able to change capitalism.
That's the whole point. The person saying this quote in the book (Salvor Hardin) is somewhat of a hardliner... The thing is not that he hides behind that saying to be pacifist...
He just says if you've been cornered into using violence, it's because you were incompetent enough not to see it coming. That's the whole point really... being able to see it coming down the road, and basically reducing your effort by playing intelligently.
I think it's really a war philosophy. Not peace. I'm sure "The art of war" has such ideas in it too.
I'm still against war, even though I find it's quite inevitable actually.
Hey, couldn't email you personally, but that quote about asimov has two ways of interpreting it...
the first is obvious, the second is: the competent leader will plan ahead as to not fall into a situation where he *has* to use violence.
So yes, everyone can be put into situation that calls for violence, but more clever people can avoid it. All along the lines of "in politics, it's best to speak softly and carry a big stick"...
neways. just had to share my pov.