Have you been living undera rock. 5.25 inch is ancient, obsolete.
That's the entire point. The PDP-11s and the other hardware they want to emulate are also ancient. And some of that hardware uses 5.25" or 8" disks as part of its daily operation. When emulating a processor they also need a way to emulate the hardware peripherals, including storage.
Of course you can probably guess that you don't even need a shell at all to use a terminal or terminal emulator. You could set it so that when your terminal emulator starts up it launches, say, lynx, instead of bash.
Or there's always the good ol' "screen -dRR" when a session is initiated, thus adding another bridge to your metaphor.
That is amusing. I didn't even bother to look back on my sources since then. Suppose that's a lesson for me to double-check my sources before I reassert a paper. And I will be the first to agree that it is a shameless copy - it was a random research paper for an Advanced Discrete Mathematics course, certainly nothing ever intended to be a reflection of any personal research, so paraphrasing was the name of the game. It was just a convenient pre-written answer to a lot of questions people were posting.
Unfortunately, quantum computers aren't as powerful to the giddy consumer as that cluster describes. They're capable of doing repetitive, simple mathemetical tasks simultaneously on a large number of values. It's extremely complicated how that works, but I have it written in this paper (pdf) that I wrote a few years ago. The paper was focused primarily on quantum physics for the first half (also interesting, and related to the story ran a few weeks ago on the red laser and the parallel universe theory), while the second half deals with explaining how the quantum registers work. It starts in the second paragraph of page 3, though a few terms reference previous topics from the paper. It's only a few pages long and it'll explain a lot of things (some things more technical than others) that none of the articles explained. Especially pay attention to the first full paragraph on page four, which I'll quote here:
Richard Feynman was one of the first to see the potential in quantum superposition for solving such exponentially complicated problems much faster. For example, a system of 500 qubits, which is impossible to simulate with any computer today, represents a quantum superposition of as many as 2^500 states. Each of these states would be equivalent to a single list of 500 1's and 0's in a classical computer. A single quantum operation on such a system would simultaneously operate on all 2^500 states; with a single tick of the quantum computer's clock, the operation would compute not just on one machine state, as our serial computers do, but on all 2^500 machine states at once. Eventually, observing the system would cause it to reduce into a single state corresponding to a single answer, a single list of 500 1's and 0's, as measured by an axiom
of quantum mechanics. A classical super computer would take approximately 10^150 separate processors to accomplish this task in the same amount of time (which is, of course, impossible).
What I can explain without too much trouble is that the cluster is merely emulating the abilities of a quantum computer. A quantum computer, conversely, would be incapable of matching the performance of, say, seti@home on all of those machines. Emulation is taxing on any system - just ask the people who are using PearPC on their brand spankin' new computers only to get sub-G3 performance out of OS X.
If cars are going they way they are (such as the recently mentioned Toyota concept car), they will include the feature to allow someone else outside the vehicle to take control for you.
"I swear, officer, someone hacked into my car and drove it straight through that playground. You should go find them. They're evil."
It seems that chiropractors are all about the bartering of their services. Maybe it's something they're taught to do in their training - since chiropractic is a regular, personalized care, it works well for them to barter services with the patients that they see often and get to know well. From me, my chiropractor got a network installed in his office, DSL set up, a wireless network in his home, and installation of an old PCI TV-out card into a computer that I had lying around with a Ghost-copy of his chiropractic-propoganda slideshow software stuff, as well as all sorts of other troubleshooting work. When I was first offered the bartering he said he did it a lot with other people, like groundskeeping work around his office. I've suspected that the reason why this works so well is because, at least in my observation, the insurance copay is the only thing that is bartered for - he's still paid a whole lot of cash per visit by my health insurance company. It's a rather good idea. More health care providers should do this. It's a nice way to work around the copay system.
If an advertiser were to use Akamai they would be forcing the users to alienate themselves from a whole lot of other services by adding that to their hosts file.
I'm not sure if Akamai has policies against hosting advertising clients or not, because I've never seen any of the like using them, but there might be a similar workaround piggybacking on another service.
That was by far the funniest post I've read on slashdot in a while. Until, of course, I started to think about it scientifically. (which I tend to do with all jokes eventually).
Unfortunately, with the lack of pressure, the water would instantly vaporize as soon as it got a glimpse of sunlight, and any debris ejected from a collision at that speed will likely not return to the moon's surface due to the low gravity. I doubt it would have any long-term impact on traces for microbial life, with the exception of ejecting any native microbes off the moon during impact.
Simple. A completely unrelated spam conglomerate, so they can send legitimate and important-looking spam.
Why they think it's a good idea to give more options for cybersquatting or general domain masquerading is what confuses me out of all of this.
Not to necessarily throw the snowball down the hill, but once we start getting all of these TLDs added, more strict measures are probably going to be put in place to keep people from abusing the abundant choices in all of these new domains. (mikerowesoft.mail, mikerowesoft.jobs, mikerowesoft.xxx?) I'm not sure what we might see in the future as a result of this, but trademark requirements or ICANN-sanctioned domain auctions are two that come to mind.
The only reason why I assert that they don't care about anything without an academic application is that they haven't re-enabled the UDP, despite the direct academic use it has for accessing the Windows-shared student drives across the network from the dorms. This is especially a pain now because the computers that were ordered new for this year lack the zip drives of the last batch, which means that large file transport requires transfering it with sftp or some other direct TCP connection to my computer. But despite that well-known issue, UDP is still disabled. The detrimental effects on the network of those now-quarantined computers far outweigh the academic usefulness of the protocol to them.
I probably would qualify internet access as an amenity in lines with phone service or cable. It's not necessary, but without it the college would suffer greatly from being unable to use those services as a selling point. Furthermore, the level of services the college would have to provide for ensuring that all on-campus students have readily accessable internet connectivity for academic purposes would far exceed the cost of providing the internet connections in the dorms.
And I do think that being able to do research from elsewhere is relevant, because I've heard that specific reasoning from the horse's mouth.
UDP is disabled in the dorms, but it still works everywhere else. All of that research is still possible, just not from the dorms. There is no pressing need for the dorms to have UDP.
In my experience, colleges that would have already filtered or blocked a P2P protocol don't care remotely about whether it is actually legit or not. The question is whether it is academically justified. UDP was disabled at my college for computers arriving with Blaster, but remains disabled because there is nothing academic that requires the dorms to use UDP traffic. UDP has plenty of practical, legit uses, such as online games or video conferencing, but lacks any important academic use.
For the same reason that UDP is still disabled at my college, one or two game companies using P2P will not change its overall academic value. The academic value, of course, will take something subtantial to make it more than nothing.
I'd presume because with iTunes you can take advantage of their reliable and fast servers from which you're guaranteed to get a quality copy of whatever you want to listen to.
On the other hand, why anyone would want to subject themselves to Pepsi in the process is beyond me.
I think the point that is trying to be made is that assembly, as you said, offers the programmer the ability to understand the hardware. Through that understanding you can better optimize your code. For example, by writing assembly I know how obscenely difficult it is, relatively speaking of course, for bytes to be thrown on and off the stack. Using that knowledge, along with other basic understandings of how the assembly level code works, I can then make a better judgement as to whether I should force a function to be inlined or not.
In the larger scheme of things, assembly won't permit you to write elaborate user interfaces or hardware-intensive functionality, but it will grant you a better understanding of the code you're writing in the higher level languages for these purposes.
I know that a lot more of what I was doing made sense when I finally got to a low-level programming course in my junior year. Even while in that class I made frequent comments that the computer architecture course from the year before would have made a lot more sense if we had the low-level class first.
IMHO this is an excellent concept, and would breed a new set of knowledgable programmers not only being able to program efficiently but knowing why their programs are efficient.
But if he were made of this supercooled Helium junk (0.175 K, or -272.825C), wouldn't he have melted when he was soaked in the significantly warmer liquid Nitrogen (77 K, or -196C)?
Incidentally, the name of the Terminator you're looking for is the T-1000.
I was addicted to caffeine a few years ago from drinking coffee entirely too frequently throughout the entire day while at work (programming). I was downing almost a quart by the end of the day, in addition to any caffeinated sodas and chocolate bars I had during lunch.
When I quit, the withdrawl symptoms lasted for about a month. The typical length for withdrawl is about a week, but it also depends on the dosage your body is used to. I used the subject to write a few papers on for some college classes I was taking at the time. Both were arguments, one oral and one written, for the regulation and mandatory disclosure of the amount of added caffeine. While I attempt to avoid being preachy (I take caffeine addiction issues to heart and sometimes get overzealous), I'd like to follow up with what blincoln said and point out a few interesting things about caffeine and its addiction. (which I'm mostly paraphrasing from my papers)
- Caffeine constricts the blood vessels in the brain, leading to a marked reduction in cerebral blood flow, and interferes with brain biochemistry. When a test group was taken off of caffeine and were still in the withdrawl stage, the participants were able to perform simple tasks like addition and subtraction faster than those who remained on the caffeine.
- A fair dose of caffeine (100mg, or about the amount in a 20oz bottle of Mountain Dew) can greatly decrease recall and reasoning. Most people score better taking tests based on facts or logic during any stage in withdrawl than on a caffeine high. Many people will confuse their tiredness with an inability to concentrate, which creates an excuse to lose focus on the task at hand.
- Almost any dose of caffeine, even the 7mg a child gets from a carton of chocolate milk from a grade school cafeteria, is enough to induce addiction at some level. Addiction is just the withdrawl symptoms, including tiredness, headaches, or other perceived ailments, which guise as a need for more caffeine.
It should be noted that not everyone fits perfectly with the research data. My sources also noted that some people can be relaxed by caffeine, or be able to take large doses without experiencing any of the withdrawl symptoms. Personally, my exception from the popular research data is the recall and reasoning scores. I find that I work (programming) best while on a caffeine high, even though maintaining that high requires a larger dose each successive time, unless I wait the week for withdrawl symptoms for subside and allow my body to reorient itself.
Oh, Perl can be perfectly readable as long as you use strict. And keep your variable names long. And avoid anything with regexps. And fully qualify all package references. And avoid interpolation. And avoid default variables. And don't use DBI, CGI, or any GUI. And don't use references or typeglobs. And use perltidy religiously.
By this point you'd just be using Java or VB or some other equivalently castrated language. I'm not sure what the moral of the story is. I suppose it could be that Perl is messy because it's useful. And tasty. Like a burrito.
Yeah an official statement of what happened would be nice. I could swear I read a substantiated claim somewhere in the thread but it seems to be lost in a sea of other comments now.
It's not a hole, though. So far we only know it as a login/password that was comprimised. Any system no matter how secure is susceptible to that. Most of Microsoft's holes are much different - they're exploitable and are available from the default recommended installation, meaning the computer grandma bought for Bobby is susceptible and will probably never be patched.
I think it's clear by now that a lot of people agree, whether we think it's overzealous or not, they're free to exercise their right to protect their copyrighted property. But the unfortunate side of the matter is who is actually losing here. They seem to prosecute based on who is sharing files. The issue is now simply who knows that they should be turning off file sharing, and even more importantly how to do it.
This is why a lot of teens will be burned repeatedly in this litigation - this is entirely unfounded in fact, but I don't think it's too far off to assume that a large amount of music piracy is occuring at the hands of cashless students (both grade school and college). I don't think they "scare" as easily as you think - they simply assume that since they are in a crowd the odds are with them. But as more people become aware of the dangers of file sharing, the knowledgable members of this school-age segment will simply start to turn off their file sharing. This will leave only the novices without the knowledge of how to do so sharing their files, which subsequently will result in a lot more teens being targetted. Only once it becomes normal, even expected, to hear that the RIAA is targetting a dozen more minors and their parents for copyright infractions, will music piracy become an underground affair again. Just like anything else illegal, it's inevitable that once it becomes popular and the victim gets wind it is targetted with legal action in any way possible. But that's just my entirely unfounded two cents.
That could be possible. The first RC was released around mid-99, so 5 years as of today isn't as absurd as it sounds. You would have had to have access to the later stages of the beta test, which means you'd likely work for Microsoft and undoubtedly all of your knowledge from the time signed away by contract, but who cares about those things anyway.
Furthermore, as a paradoxical business practice, why are they developing popup blocking when many free services ran under the name of Microsoft (such as hotmail.com) use popup ads themselves. Of course, I had to actually re-enabled my popups to verify this, but I wonder what remifications they will get from their advertisers if they catch on that Microsoft is both condoning the blocking the ad and the subsequent purpose of said ads that the advertisers are paying good money for.
Slashdot Mirror
Or so they want you to believe! We've all seen those cheesy movies with the "is the test ever over" secret-government-organization recruit.
*console beep/flash* You are overusing your left arrow key.
:s/// to search and replace on the current line.
Tip: Use b to move quickly past words in reverse.
*console beep/flash* Are you sure you want to d2bibite me^[?
Tip: Use
Or how about one that already exists, sans Clippy:
*console beep/flash* Are you sure you want to ZZ? You still have more files to edit.
That is amusing. I didn't even bother to look back on my sources since then. Suppose that's a lesson for me to double-check my sources before I reassert a paper. And I will be the first to agree that it is a shameless copy - it was a random research paper for an Advanced Discrete Mathematics course, certainly nothing ever intended to be a reflection of any personal research, so paraphrasing was the name of the game. It was just a convenient pre-written answer to a lot of questions people were posting.
What I can explain without too much trouble is that the cluster is merely emulating the abilities of a quantum computer. A quantum computer, conversely, would be incapable of matching the performance of, say, seti@home on all of those machines. Emulation is taxing on any system - just ask the people who are using PearPC on their brand spankin' new computers only to get sub-G3 performance out of OS X.
If cars are going they way they are (such as the recently mentioned Toyota concept car), they will include the feature to allow someone else outside the vehicle to take control for you.
"I swear, officer, someone hacked into my car and drove it straight through that playground. You should go find them. They're evil."
Yeah. It's called ncurses.
You know slashdot is nothing but a mess of geeks when this gets modded funny so quickly.
It seems that chiropractors are all about the bartering of their services. Maybe it's something they're taught to do in their training - since chiropractic is a regular, personalized care, it works well for them to barter services with the patients that they see often and get to know well. From me, my chiropractor got a network installed in his office, DSL set up, a wireless network in his home, and installation of an old PCI TV-out card into a computer that I had lying around with a Ghost-copy of his chiropractic-propoganda slideshow software stuff, as well as all sorts of other troubleshooting work. When I was first offered the bartering he said he did it a lot with other people, like groundskeeping work around his office. I've suspected that the reason why this works so well is because, at least in my observation, the insurance copay is the only thing that is bartered for - he's still paid a whole lot of cash per visit by my health insurance company. It's a rather good idea. More health care providers should do this. It's a nice way to work around the copay system.
If an advertiser were to use Akamai they would be forcing the users to alienate themselves from a whole lot of other services by adding that to their hosts file. I'm not sure if Akamai has policies against hosting advertising clients or not, because I've never seen any of the like using them, but there might be a similar workaround piggybacking on another service.
That was by far the funniest post I've read on slashdot in a while. Until, of course, I started to think about it scientifically. (which I tend to do with all jokes eventually).
Unfortunately, with the lack of pressure, the water would instantly vaporize as soon as it got a glimpse of sunlight, and any debris ejected from a collision at that speed will likely not return to the moon's surface due to the low gravity. I doubt it would have any long-term impact on traces for microbial life, with the exception of ejecting any native microbes off the moon during impact.
Simple. A completely unrelated spam conglomerate, so they can send legitimate and important-looking spam.
Why they think it's a good idea to give more options for cybersquatting or general domain masquerading is what confuses me out of all of this.
Not to necessarily throw the snowball down the hill, but once we start getting all of these TLDs added, more strict measures are probably going to be put in place to keep people from abusing the abundant choices in all of these new domains. (mikerowesoft.mail, mikerowesoft.jobs, mikerowesoft.xxx?) I'm not sure what we might see in the future as a result of this, but trademark requirements or ICANN-sanctioned domain auctions are two that come to mind.
The only reason why I assert that they don't care about anything without an academic application is that they haven't re-enabled the UDP, despite the direct academic use it has for accessing the Windows-shared student drives across the network from the dorms. This is especially a pain now because the computers that were ordered new for this year lack the zip drives of the last batch, which means that large file transport requires transfering it with sftp or some other direct TCP connection to my computer. But despite that well-known issue, UDP is still disabled. The detrimental effects on the network of those now-quarantined computers far outweigh the academic usefulness of the protocol to them.
I probably would qualify internet access as an amenity in lines with phone service or cable. It's not necessary, but without it the college would suffer greatly from being unable to use those services as a selling point. Furthermore, the level of services the college would have to provide for ensuring that all on-campus students have readily accessable internet connectivity for academic purposes would far exceed the cost of providing the internet connections in the dorms.
And I do think that being able to do research from elsewhere is relevant, because I've heard that specific reasoning from the horse's mouth.
I think you misunderstood what I said.
UDP is disabled in the dorms, but it still works everywhere else. All of that research is still possible, just not from the dorms. There is no pressing need for the dorms to have UDP.
In my experience, colleges that would have already filtered or blocked a P2P protocol don't care remotely about whether it is actually legit or not. The question is whether it is academically justified. UDP was disabled at my college for computers arriving with Blaster, but remains disabled because there is nothing academic that requires the dorms to use UDP traffic. UDP has plenty of practical, legit uses, such as online games or video conferencing, but lacks any important academic use. For the same reason that UDP is still disabled at my college, one or two game companies using P2P will not change its overall academic value. The academic value, of course, will take something subtantial to make it more than nothing.
I'd presume because with iTunes you can take advantage of their reliable and fast servers from which you're guaranteed to get a quality copy of whatever you want to listen to. On the other hand, why anyone would want to subject themselves to Pepsi in the process is beyond me.
I think the point that is trying to be made is that assembly, as you said, offers the programmer the ability to understand the hardware. Through that understanding you can better optimize your code. For example, by writing assembly I know how obscenely difficult it is, relatively speaking of course, for bytes to be thrown on and off the stack. Using that knowledge, along with other basic understandings of how the assembly level code works, I can then make a better judgement as to whether I should force a function to be inlined or not.
In the larger scheme of things, assembly won't permit you to write elaborate user interfaces or hardware-intensive functionality, but it will grant you a better understanding of the code you're writing in the higher level languages for these purposes.
I know that a lot more of what I was doing made sense when I finally got to a low-level programming course in my junior year. Even while in that class I made frequent comments that the computer architecture course from the year before would have made a lot more sense if we had the low-level class first.
IMHO this is an excellent concept, and would breed a new set of knowledgable programmers not only being able to program efficiently but knowing why their programs are efficient.
But if he were made of this supercooled Helium junk (0.175 K, or -272.825C), wouldn't he have melted when he was soaked in the significantly warmer liquid Nitrogen (77 K, or -196C)?
Incidentally, the name of the Terminator you're looking for is the T-1000.
I was addicted to caffeine a few years ago from drinking coffee entirely too frequently throughout the entire day while at work (programming). I was downing almost a quart by the end of the day, in addition to any caffeinated sodas and chocolate bars I had during lunch.
When I quit, the withdrawl symptoms lasted for about a month. The typical length for withdrawl is about a week, but it also depends on the dosage your body is used to. I used the subject to write a few papers on for some college classes I was taking at the time. Both were arguments, one oral and one written, for the regulation and mandatory disclosure of the amount of added caffeine. While I attempt to avoid being preachy (I take caffeine addiction issues to heart and sometimes get overzealous), I'd like to follow up with what blincoln said and point out a few interesting things about caffeine and its addiction. (which I'm mostly paraphrasing from my papers)
- Caffeine constricts the blood vessels in the brain, leading to a marked reduction in cerebral blood flow, and interferes with brain biochemistry. When a test group was taken off of caffeine and were still in the withdrawl stage, the participants were able to perform simple tasks like addition and subtraction faster than those who remained on the caffeine.
- A fair dose of caffeine (100mg, or about the amount in a 20oz bottle of Mountain Dew) can greatly decrease recall and reasoning. Most people score better taking tests based on facts or logic during any stage in withdrawl than on a caffeine high. Many people will confuse their tiredness with an inability to concentrate, which creates an excuse to lose focus on the task at hand.
- Almost any dose of caffeine, even the 7mg a child gets from a carton of chocolate milk from a grade school cafeteria, is enough to induce addiction at some level. Addiction is just the withdrawl symptoms, including tiredness, headaches, or other perceived ailments, which guise as a need for more caffeine.
It should be noted that not everyone fits perfectly with the research data. My sources also noted that some people can be relaxed by caffeine, or be able to take large doses without experiencing any of the withdrawl symptoms. Personally, my exception from the popular research data is the recall and reasoning scores. I find that I work (programming) best while on a caffeine high, even though maintaining that high requires a larger dose each successive time, unless I wait the week for withdrawl symptoms for subside and allow my body to reorient itself.
Oh, Perl can be perfectly readable as long as you use strict. And keep your variable names long. And avoid anything with regexps. And fully qualify all package references. And avoid interpolation. And avoid default variables. And don't use DBI, CGI, or any GUI. And don't use references or typeglobs. And use perltidy religiously.
By this point you'd just be using Java or VB or some other equivalently castrated language. I'm not sure what the moral of the story is. I suppose it could be that Perl is messy because it's useful. And tasty. Like a burrito.
Yeah an official statement of what happened would be nice. I could swear I read a substantiated claim somewhere in the thread but it seems to be lost in a sea of other comments now.
It's not a hole, though. So far we only know it as a login/password that was comprimised. Any system no matter how secure is susceptible to that. Most of Microsoft's holes are much different - they're exploitable and are available from the default recommended installation, meaning the computer grandma bought for Bobby is susceptible and will probably never be patched.
I think it's clear by now that a lot of people agree, whether we think it's overzealous or not, they're free to exercise their right to protect their copyrighted property. But the unfortunate side of the matter is who is actually losing here. They seem to prosecute based on who is sharing files. The issue is now simply who knows that they should be turning off file sharing, and even more importantly how to do it.
This is why a lot of teens will be burned repeatedly in this litigation - this is entirely unfounded in fact, but I don't think it's too far off to assume that a large amount of music piracy is occuring at the hands of cashless students (both grade school and college). I don't think they "scare" as easily as you think - they simply assume that since they are in a crowd the odds are with them. But as more people become aware of the dangers of file sharing, the knowledgable members of this school-age segment will simply start to turn off their file sharing. This will leave only the novices without the knowledge of how to do so sharing their files, which subsequently will result in a lot more teens being targetted. Only once it becomes normal, even expected, to hear that the RIAA is targetting a dozen more minors and their parents for copyright infractions, will music piracy become an underground affair again. Just like anything else illegal, it's inevitable that once it becomes popular and the victim gets wind it is targetted with legal action in any way possible. But that's just my entirely unfounded two cents.
That could be possible. The first RC was released around mid-99, so 5 years as of today isn't as absurd as it sounds. You would have had to have access to the later stages of the beta test, which means you'd likely work for Microsoft and undoubtedly all of your knowledge from the time signed away by contract, but who cares about those things anyway.
Furthermore, as a paradoxical business practice, why are they developing popup blocking when many free services ran under the name of Microsoft (such as hotmail.com) use popup ads themselves. Of course, I had to actually re-enabled my popups to verify this, but I wonder what remifications they will get from their advertisers if they catch on that Microsoft is both condoning the blocking the ad and the subsequent purpose of said ads that the advertisers are paying good money for.