I was trying to explain why the same behavior is NOT true of car repairmen, valets, dry cleaners, etc... they can't misappropriate what you leave with them without your noticing.
IT guys can do it without evidence of wrongdoing... so... it happens.
As an IT guy, if you make a copy of the porn, you haven't taken it from the guy. The valet guy can't "copy" your spare change; you'll probably notice it missing, which would be bad for him.
OTH if I were a valet I'd be making copies of all the CDs I found in people's visors.:-)
AES-256 is recommended for TS/SCI. Of course, it has to be a NSA-vetted implementation, and requires the use of the existing key management infrastructure. But uh, those old classified ciphers should go away eventually.
In my defense I was reading the thread backwards, starting at bottom (having accidentally hit "End" on the keyboard); I missed the parent and grandparent posts. I'm sure the satire would have been much more evident (and funny too) had I not read it so.
divided instead of multiplied there. So if due to the swirling magman in the Earth's core, if the magnetic field were to do a complete 180 (pole flip, not a variation) in one second (impossible), you could get an EMF of.00034 volts through a coil around that 25 square foot area.
the geological magnetic flux at sealevel traveling through a footprint the size of the device (say 25 square feet) is not even close (by a few orders of magnitude) to the power that can be supplied by some alkaline batteries. Something like 1.2 webers?
You got your name in a bunch of cut-rate PC rags. *claps* Your software was featured among inane, page-filler, "top whatever" lists and shareware-of-the-week blurbs. That's like "winning" a poetry contest.
And the interview with John Enck doesn't give you much credibility. This is from the guy that sells software which duplicates/circumvents built-in functionality in the operating system. Anyone can be a certified Microsoft partner. It means absolutely jack in terms of credibility. OTH, if you told me the guy had lunch with Andrew Tridgell while on vacation down under... WELL! Then that's something. Rubbing shoulders with GIANTS!!!
As to the relative benefit or drawback of seeing CLSIDs... I'm glad you took three seconds to consider human factors. That being said, a person would have to be motivated to look for a tool to resolve such registry issues and so they'd already have a passing knowledge of the registry-- ergo they probably think you're babying them.
This is all assuming CLSID cleaniness actually matters (it doesn't... time spent worrying about it is more time wasted then all the CPU cycles consumed by the issue).
As for me? The stuff I do never again sees the light of day. I design systems and software for a company you've probably never heard of (Bechtel, Fair Issac, SAIC, any of this ringing a bell?). I regularly spec, design, build, and administer systems that cost more than the sum of your lifetime income and net worth.
For example... I designed (hardware, architecture) and coded a video recording and wireless switching system for sensitive meetings and conferences. 2 million dollar budget.
So, uh, go home and play with your lacrosse stick. Us geeks have work to do.
You know, that agent-based modeler that Weta used for LOTR? It's essentially the same thing. Only the variables are socio-economic and they're trying to measure aggregate "feelings", the movement of crowds during a riot or demonstration, spread of diseased carriers during an urban pandemic outbreak, etc.
You're right. I haven't felt the urge to take on big bad Symantec, JV or Microsoft toe-to-toe and try to best them at something. Maybe I don't feel the need to validate myself by beating them at obscure task that no one cares about?
It's like saying I'm the most efficient maker of lamp oil from whale blubber. It's a messy, patented process that does it better than anyone else. If you got a dead whale, I'll get you some cheap amines. Five bucks a gallon.
But Ayanami, we don't use whale blubber for lamp oil anymore. Kerosene is only three dollars a gallon... and we don't even use oil lamps. We have electricity and flash lights for when the power goes out.
Rei: WHALE OIL!!!
You: DANGLING CLSID!!!
You: THE INTERNET AND THE ARS FORUMS ARE OUT TO GET ME
Please take off your tin foil hat and insert it into your mouth.
Timeframe to the stuttering of your codec will be in the same generation window of the lower cost version of the same model CPU. You just push back the need to upgrade by about a year. So instead of a 3 year upgrade cycle you're on a 4 year cycle. Yet you're not paying 33% more, but 50-80% more for the priviledge.
Does the time-cost of more frequent upgrades have a value that exceeds 15% of the purchase price of a new system? I should hope not. Perhaps you should use a different approach to migration -- for example, keeping your hard drive between builds and upgrading that as space demands independantly.
Thank you for that spot-on response; save me the trouble.
Can you also inform Slashdot about the benefits of overclocked Santa Ana cores from AMD, and the different between software RAID, fake hardware RAID, and real hardware RAID?
one would need to adopt a non-algorithmic, synchronous, signal-based software model That's like, wires, filters, negative feedback loops. You know, audio electronics and radio. Been around since the 19th century. Technology comes full circle, eh?
Do you have any basis for the value of a non-algorithmic model, or would you like to explain better what you mean by that?
You're not talking about stuff like LabVIEW G, are you?
The hack does not specifically concern the TPM, from what I understand it just fools Vista into thinking the TPM validated it. But any further operations using the TPM would fail, so...
I think that's a pretty good reason to pull the presentation.
You can't even paint the window properly. Your latest and greatest tool, this registry cleaner, has dubious value. CLSID and GUID verification is useless unless you're installing and uninstalling an egregious variety of shittily packaged applications. You need more than a few dozen dangling CLSID references to slow down regsrv32 or the shell. Also your product is one of many that do this, and most others check and fix a lot of other common problems that you don't address.
It's not innovative or unique in any way. So why do you insist everyone praise you and your opinions
I also love how you reply twice to my post, claiming the second time to be a different person in defense of Alex.
That's just lovely. I do enjoy seeing you get your panties in a twist and spend time banging out frustrated retorts (which I barely skim).
I'm not sure what motivated you to post to Slashdot yesterday, but all I had to do was google your name in your rant and I realized you were a basket case.
How could I not poke a hornet's nest through the anonymity of the internet? What better way to prove my point?
You only get mad on the Internet if you try to make it like real life. I say and start shit just for the LULZ.
You know, autovectorization looks good on paper. But for most tasks, it really doesn't net you any benefit unless you can separate all your work into non-overlapping chunks. You can't have any interdependancies on your working set (or risk expensive, non-scalable locking), and if you're all pulling from a single data source to split up the analysis work you'll spend a lot of time in contention for the pipe to that resource.
For example, it wouldn't make searching a database (scratch that, searching any data set) any faster unless the index was already pre-split among the processing units.
In this architecture the processing units have the same bus to RAM and disk on the front and back ends and have to deal with contention.
Your system is only as fast as the slowest serial part. Typically this is storage media, a network connection, or a memory crossbar. Processors really are fast enough for the non-embarrasingly parallel stuff. They are at the right ratio with respect to the other slower busses to do most general purpose work.
If you want to do more than that then its other things; storage media, memory, I/O busses -- that need to be multiplied in density and number. Only then can we see higher throughput.
Autovectorization is only good for things we already have offloading for anyway (TCP encryption, graphics, sound)... and for those general purpose cases like in Game AI where you might want a linear algebra boost NVidia has beaten these guys to the punch with the GP stream processing in the newest chips and the very flexible Cg language/environment.
There is a framebuffer layer. Xorg supports the framebuffer driver (under Linux and other OSs)
OTH X does cool stuff like accelerated scaling and blitting and 3d acceleration only because it has permission to map memory arbitrarily and interface with the video card at a low level.
It would be very difficult to formally codify all such interfaces through a set of block and characeter devices with IOCTLs and shared memory areas -- these interfaces might even be variable between cards or change over time -- and it's actually not worth it since you're going to be using X anyway and no other app wants to directly control the framebuffer.
I don't mean to sound down on it but the novelty and cleanliness of mapping the linear 2d framebuffer into a block device metaphor was appropriate 10 years ago.
RISC for RISC's sake is stupid. All of the supposed upsides to RISC have been thrown aside, using the CISC techniques for performance's sake. Look at the UltraSPARCs. Or the POWER architecture. Out-of-order execution, write barriers, speculative prefetch, branch predictors, SIMD instruction set extensions, all eating up chip real estate. But they need it to wring the appropriate perfomance out of the chip and keep those ALUs doing meaningful work.
The only thing different between them and X86s is that X86s have a slightly more involved instruction decoding step. (But not by much, and the modern RISC descendants have instruction decoders too.) On the other hand the X86 instruction set has built-in instruction compression which keeps the size of the cache needed for code smaller. Most RISC-derived chips have larger, word sized instructions which demands larger caches.
The one thing that made the 32-bit ISA retarded is that many instructions weren't orthogonal, and you didn't have enough GP registers to play with. That was fixed with x86_64, and you get some speed gains, but it ain't much. And some code is slower just because immediate operands (now 64 bit) are larger and eat up cache.
And this isn't a problem unique to Intel. Everyone goes through this, everyone uses microcode.
UltraSPARC needs microcode too. It needs it to implement the IA. (You know, task switching, page fault handling, etc.) It just so happens that Intel rushed the Core and there's bugs in that stuff, bugs that needed to be fixed ASAP. If it happened to Sun it's not such a big deal, they just release a patch for the Solaris kernel that takes care of it (either through OS workarounds or microcode patching, or both).
virtual box is basically QEMU with a much better KQEMU component that they developed on their own. This isn't very interesting because this is the same thing as VMWare or any other closed source Ring0-in-Ring1 emulation using polymorphic code.
Do you really know what you're talking about? Can you be more specific about the specific data paths between components and how the operating system controlled them or interfaced with them?
I mean, for example, if you wanted to make a video playback or slideshow program could you get the hard disk controller to blit directly to the screen bypassing main memory, or perhaps over the system bus, or a secondary channel? (I doubt it). Or could you describe a similar type of resource-saving scenario?
Slashdot Mirror
I was trying to explain why the same behavior is NOT true of car repairmen, valets, dry cleaners, etc... they can't misappropriate what you leave with them without your noticing.
IT guys can do it without evidence of wrongdoing... so... it happens.
As an IT guy, if you make a copy of the porn, you haven't taken it from the guy. The valet guy can't "copy" your spare change; you'll probably notice it missing, which would be bad for him.
:-)
OTH if I were a valet I'd be making copies of all the CDs I found in people's visors.
AES-256 is recommended for TS/SCI. Of course, it has to be a NSA-vetted implementation, and requires the use of the existing key management infrastructure. But uh, those old classified ciphers should go away eventually.
that's pretty neat if you ask me...
In my defense I was reading the thread backwards, starting at bottom (having accidentally hit "End" on the keyboard); I missed the parent and grandparent posts. I'm sure the satire would have been much more evident (and funny too) had I not read it so.
divided instead of multiplied there. So if due to the swirling magman in the Earth's core, if the magnetic field were to do a complete 180 (pole flip, not a variation) in one second (impossible), you could get an EMF of .00034 volts through a coil around that 25 square foot area.
the geological magnetic flux at sealevel traveling through a footprint the size of the device (say 25 square feet) is not even close (by a few orders of magnitude) to the power that can be supplied by some alkaline batteries. Something like 1.2 webers?
So I don't think that's it.
Just... wow. Slashdot is full of nutcases!
You got your name in a bunch of cut-rate PC rags. *claps* Your software was featured among inane, page-filler, "top whatever" lists and shareware-of-the-week blurbs. That's like "winning" a poetry contest.
And the interview with John Enck doesn't give you much credibility. This is from the guy that sells software which duplicates/circumvents built-in functionality in the operating system. Anyone can be a certified Microsoft partner. It means absolutely jack in terms of credibility. OTH, if you told me the guy had lunch with Andrew Tridgell while on vacation down under... WELL! Then that's something. Rubbing shoulders with GIANTS!!!
As to the relative benefit or drawback of seeing CLSIDs... I'm glad you took three seconds to consider human factors. That being said, a person would have to be motivated to look for a tool to resolve such registry issues and so they'd already have a passing knowledge of the registry-- ergo they probably think you're babying them.
This is all assuming CLSID cleaniness actually matters (it doesn't... time spent worrying about it is more time wasted then all the CPU cycles consumed by the issue).
As for me? The stuff I do never again sees the light of day. I design systems and software for a company you've probably never heard of (Bechtel, Fair Issac, SAIC, any of this ringing a bell?). I regularly spec, design, build, and administer systems that cost more than the sum of your lifetime income and net worth.
For example... I designed (hardware, architecture) and coded a video recording and wireless switching system for sensitive meetings and conferences. 2 million dollar budget.
So, uh, go home and play with your lacrosse stick. Us geeks have work to do.
You know, that agent-based modeler that Weta used for LOTR? It's essentially the same thing. Only the variables are socio-economic and they're trying to measure aggregate "feelings", the movement of crowds during a riot or demonstration, spread of diseased carriers during an urban pandemic outbreak, etc.
You're right.
I haven't felt the urge to take on big bad Symantec, JV or Microsoft toe-to-toe and try to best them at something. Maybe I don't feel the need to validate myself by beating them at obscure task that no one cares about?
It's like saying I'm the most efficient maker of lamp oil from whale blubber. It's a messy, patented process that does it better than anyone else. If you got a dead whale, I'll get you some cheap amines. Five bucks a gallon.
But Ayanami, we don't use whale blubber for lamp oil anymore. Kerosene is only three dollars a gallon... and we don't even use oil lamps. We have electricity and flash lights for when the power goes out.
Rei: WHALE OIL!!!
You: DANGLING CLSID!!!
You: THE INTERNET AND THE ARS FORUMS ARE OUT TO GET ME
Please take off your tin foil hat and insert it into your mouth.
Timeframe to the stuttering of your codec will be in the same generation window of the lower cost version of the same model CPU. You just push back the need to upgrade by about a year. So instead of a 3 year upgrade cycle you're on a 4 year cycle. Yet you're not paying 33% more, but 50-80% more for the priviledge.
Does the time-cost of more frequent upgrades have a value that exceeds 15% of the purchase price of a new system? I should hope not. Perhaps you should use a different approach to migration -- for example, keeping your hard drive between builds and upgrading that as space demands independantly.
Thank you for that spot-on response; save me the trouble.
Can you also inform Slashdot about the benefits of overclocked Santa Ana cores from AMD, and the different between software RAID, fake hardware RAID, and real hardware RAID?
one would need to adopt a non-algorithmic, synchronous, signal-based software model
That's like, wires, filters, negative feedback loops. You know, audio electronics and radio. Been around since the 19th century. Technology comes full circle, eh?
Do you have any basis for the value of a non-algorithmic model, or would you like to explain better what you mean by that?
You're not talking about stuff like LabVIEW G, are you?
The hack does not specifically concern the TPM, from what I understand it just fools Vista into thinking the TPM validated it. But any further operations using the TPM would fail, so...
I think that's a pretty good reason to pull the presentation.
You can't even paint the window properly.
Your latest and greatest tool, this registry cleaner, has dubious value. CLSID and GUID verification is useless unless you're installing and uninstalling an egregious variety of shittily packaged applications. You need more than a few dozen dangling CLSID references to slow down regsrv32 or the shell.
Also your product is one of many that do this, and most others check and fix a lot of other common problems that you don't address.
It's not innovative or unique in any way. So why do you insist everyone praise you and your opinions
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22a nonymous+is+legion%22+%22nevar+forget%22
I only mispel wurds fer a reason.
I also love how you reply twice to my post, claiming the second time to be a different person in defense of Alex.
That's just lovely. I do enjoy seeing you get your panties in a twist and spend time banging out frustrated retorts (which I barely skim).
I'm not sure what motivated you to post to Slashdot yesterday, but all I had to do was google your name in your rant and I realized you were a basket case.
How could I not poke a hornet's nest through the anonymity of the internet? What better way to prove my point?
You only get mad on the Internet if you try to make it like real life. I say and start shit just for the LULZ.
Reimer was right. You need to hang up your little Delphi rollerskates and go home.
Don't use your real name on the Internet unless you're otherwise famous.
Because frankly we don't give a flying fuck.
This is how people like you get your panties in a twist.
You stake your reputation on it. You try to make a name for yourself.
But you forget. Nothing on the internet is reputable. Everyone is anonymous. Everyone who tries to rise above without merit is ridiculed into dust.
ANONYMOUS IS LEGION. ANONYMOUS NEVAR FORGETS!
BEND OVER AND TAKE IT IN THE ASS AND LIKE IT.
You know, autovectorization looks good on paper. But for most tasks, it really doesn't net you any benefit unless you can separate all your work into non-overlapping chunks. You can't have any interdependancies on your working set (or risk expensive, non-scalable locking), and if you're all pulling from a single data source to split up the analysis work you'll spend a lot of time in contention for the pipe to that resource.
For example, it wouldn't make searching a database (scratch that, searching any data set) any faster unless the index was already pre-split among the processing units.
In this architecture the processing units have the same bus to RAM and disk on the front and back ends and have to deal with contention.
Your system is only as fast as the slowest serial part. Typically this is storage media, a network connection, or a memory crossbar. Processors really are fast enough for the non-embarrasingly parallel stuff. They are at the right ratio with respect to the other slower busses to do most general purpose work.
If you want to do more than that then its other things; storage media, memory, I/O busses -- that need to be multiplied in density and number. Only then can we see higher throughput.
Autovectorization is only good for things we already have offloading for anyway (TCP encryption, graphics, sound)... and for those general purpose cases like in Game AI where you might want a linear algebra boost NVidia has beaten these guys to the punch with the GP stream processing in the newest chips and the very flexible Cg language/environment.
There is a framebuffer layer.
Xorg supports the framebuffer driver (under Linux and other OSs)
OTH X does cool stuff like accelerated scaling and blitting and 3d acceleration only because it has permission to map memory arbitrarily and interface with the video card at a low level.
It would be very difficult to formally codify all such interfaces through a set of block and characeter devices with IOCTLs and shared memory areas -- these interfaces might even be variable between cards or change over time -- and it's actually not worth it since you're going to be using X anyway and no other app wants to directly control the framebuffer.
I don't mean to sound down on it but the novelty and cleanliness of mapping the linear 2d framebuffer into a block device metaphor was appropriate 10 years ago.
GO TO BED, ALEX!!!
Everything to do with the Q965 chipset.
RISC for RISC's sake is stupid.
All of the supposed upsides to RISC have been thrown aside, using the CISC techniques for performance's sake.
Look at the UltraSPARCs. Or the POWER architecture. Out-of-order execution, write barriers, speculative prefetch, branch predictors, SIMD instruction set extensions, all eating up chip real estate. But they need it to wring the appropriate perfomance out of the chip and keep those ALUs doing meaningful work.
The only thing different between them and X86s is that X86s have a slightly more involved instruction decoding step. (But not by much, and the modern RISC descendants have instruction decoders too.) On the other hand the X86 instruction set has built-in instruction compression which keeps the size of the cache needed for code smaller. Most RISC-derived chips have larger, word sized instructions which demands larger caches.
The one thing that made the 32-bit ISA retarded is that many instructions weren't orthogonal, and you didn't have enough GP registers to play with. That was fixed with x86_64, and you get some speed gains, but it ain't much. And some code is slower just because immediate operands (now 64 bit) are larger and eat up cache.
And this isn't a problem unique to Intel. Everyone goes through this, everyone uses microcode.
UltraSPARC needs microcode too. It needs it to implement the IA. (You know, task switching, page fault handling, etc.) It just so happens that Intel rushed the Core and there's bugs in that stuff, bugs that needed to be fixed ASAP. If it happened to Sun it's not such a big deal, they just release a patch for the Solaris kernel that takes care of it (either through OS workarounds or microcode patching, or both).
virtual box is basically QEMU with a much better KQEMU component that they developed on their own. This isn't very interesting because this is the same thing as VMWare or any other closed source Ring0-in-Ring1 emulation using polymorphic code.
The same argument was made for the Commodore 64.
Do you really know what you're talking about? Can you be more specific about the specific data paths between components and how the operating system controlled them or interfaced with them?
I mean, for example, if you wanted to make a video playback or slideshow program could you get the hard disk controller to blit directly to the screen bypassing main memory, or perhaps over the system bus, or a secondary channel? (I doubt it). Or could you describe a similar type of resource-saving scenario?