The reason podiums are that way is so the first-place person is in the middle. The other two are arbitrary, but, being in a right-handed world, it makes sense that the 2nd-place person is to the winner's right. That's all.
Re:Does Vista have anything we need?
on
Is Vista a Trap?
·
· Score: 1
Right, graphics have absolutely nothing to do with the kernel... code in userspace just magically talks to the hardware. Either you're very pessimistic about process isolation in Windows, or you're seriously misinformed about how operating systems work.
Yes, in Vista they're moving most of the driver code into userspace, but not all. At the very least (even in the exokernel model), there will be stubs in kernel space to proxy I/O reads and writes from user space to kernel space. So yes, graphics has plenty to do with the hardware.
Exactly. BitTorrent does one thing: co-ordinating clients so they can distribute data. Everything else for creating a complete file-sharing system -- search, accounting (enforcing ratios, etc.), authentication, whatever -- can be layered on top of this, but the hard part is taken care of by BT.
Saying that BT is "incomplete" because it doesn't do stuff like that is like saying that a coffee grinder is incomplete because it doesn't also brew the coffee
ARP poisoning of any kind only works on one network segment, not on the Internet. You can still be located to the network segment, and from the network segment probably located by tracing your MAC address.
"Relaying" is functionally the same as a proxy server, except that the proxy doesn't know they're a proxy.
As an AC said said above, NATs also doesn't help for hiding your location. Really, it's also, for this purpose, a proxy. The only difference is that you're probably close geographically to the gateway, which means you're also easier to locate.
Whether any of these methods are good enough entirely depends on your privacy needs, but none of them are very secure. You can't disguise your identity on the public Internet. Even proxy servers can be raided/subpeonead/hacked, exposing your identity. The only secure solutions are darknets using onion routing or similar.
That's exactly what I meant by communication: "Embarrassingly parallel" algorithms do not require communication between work units to complete. Of course you still need to stitch the units together into a final solution.
Do you even have the foggiest understanding of how the IP protocol works? You can't "alias" an IP address to make it look like you're coming from somewhere you can't. That's like saying, "I'm going to send a letter to you, but tell you I'm from New Jersey, and hope to God that the response finds its way back to London, England."
You want either a proxy or a tunnel, both of which exist.
The GP was just another example on/. of "I'm going to seem smart by discrediting the article, and the easiest way to do so is make something up without reading the article".
Don't forget about "... and hopefully get moderated up in the process".
I'm not even talking about releasing the GPU design specifications, which would contain highly competitive information. I'm talking about the instruction set and interface specifications... I've read those documents for some of ATI's video cards for a project I used to work on, and I honestly don't see what sort of insight a competitor could get from them.
Presuming equal knowledge of the hardware, a good kernel hacker would write a better driver than the manufacturer. They know better how this is supposed to be integrated into the rest of the kernel.
If manufacturers would publish complete specifications (which they have internally anyways), this wouldn't be a problem. This is what this offer is all about: you give them the specs, they write the driver.
Maybe we have that because you buy more than litre at a time? Measuring prices to the tenth of a cent makes sense when you buy more than ten units at a time. When you pay, they round the result (up?) to the nearest cent anyways.
Why does the kernel loader have to be GPL-derivative? All they would have had to do is write their own bootloader (it's not hard to make a simple one, especially if you only have one platform it has to work on), or modified a non-GPL one.
Or how about this idea: in developed countries, sell them at a fairly significant profit, and put those profits into subsidizing the cost to the governments of these countries? If the cost is around $100 (it's higher now, but $100 is the target) to manufacture these laptops, they could even double the cost, turning the mass market sales into a kind of sponsorship, where buying one of these means also "buying" one for a child somewhere.
I'm with other people here when they say that these sound like sweet little devices for web browsing and other low-powered computing.
The key point is that an atheist believes there is no supreme being, whereas an agnostic believes there may be one, but it really doesn't matter whether one exists or not. As an atheist, your example of a laissez-faire god is, in fact, the only god I would accept to exist. I am still an atheist, however, because I believe that such a powerless god has no impact whatsoever on my life. It would be like if some hermit in a cave proclaimed himself King over everyone in the world. Would I consider myself his subject?
Although you're picking on atheists here, the same argument could be said for theists as well. All phenomenon in the known, visible universe (that is, what people currently living have directly experienced) can be explained, or conceivably explained, whether you accept or deny the existence of the supernatural. It is up to the individual to determine which they believe is more likely. Even the most die-hard theist would admit there is a remote possibility that any given phenomenon exists without the influence of anything supernatural.
I don't know about you, but it seems to me that there is more than one language that runs on top of the Java VM. Even if you debate whether it was "designed" to allow this or not, the other example I quoted was a generic system does meet your criteria.
Except, you know, that little-known platform and language called 'Java'... or maybe you want to go a little further back to the UCSD p-System (circa 1978)?
I'm in my 3rd year as a Computer Science undergrad student at the University of Guelph, in Ontario, and the core curriculum for a Bachelor of Computing here has 3 Software Engineering-type courses, starting in 2nd year. Forgive me while I plug my school, but I think Guelph does a fine job in this area.
The first is a course (numbered CIS*2750), that leads you through developing an application, where each assignment is a milestone along the way. When I took the course, it was to develop a GIS-themed application. The first assignment was a DXF library for reading, writing, and manipulating (removing layers, etc.) DXF files. The second was to write command-line programs to use the library, and also to add more ways to manipulate the DXF files in memory (merging two files, for example). The third was to write Python wrappers for the library and a GUI using Tkinter. The final part was to interface with a database to add notes (and display them on-screen). The end-result was a fairly rudimentary DXF viewer.
I'm currently taking the second course (numbered CIS*3750), which is a group project (groups of 5-6, chosen by the students). The groups each pick a board game, and must write a computer version of it. There are three milestones for this course: the first two are documentation (subject matter model and technical model), and the final one is implementation. We just submitted the second milestone yesterday. Dealing with interpersonal issues, and the sheer size of the documentation (the documentation for the first milestone was 68 pages, and I think the second milestone was around 40 pages), are most of the challenge in this course. Of course, we haven't even gotten to the implementation yet.
I don't know much about the next course, except that it's called Software Engineering and that I'll be taking in the summer (I think). I know that Guelph tries to be fairly "practical", with streams like this, but I assumed that at most Computer Science programs included some courses like this. At any rate, there *are* universities that teach team programming and project management.
You've got that backwards. Having a monopoly increases the barrier to entry to a market; removing the monopoly decreases it. How do you expect a company to enter a market that is already occupied by a monopoly?
On the other hand, if you meant that Libertarianism necessarily leads to a monopoly, that is also not true. Everything I've read about Libertarianism says that they want free markets -- "free" here does not mean "anything goes"; a free market must be regulated to prevent monopolies for it to be truly free.
Slashdot Mirror
we need to realise that nothing lasts forever
Tell that to the Egyptians, the Romans, or any other ancient civilization. Many of their creations still exist today. Can the same be said for ours?
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Mohandas Ghandi
This article is a sign we're deep in the fighting stage now.
The reason podiums are that way is so the first-place person is in the middle. The other two are arbitrary, but, being in a right-handed world, it makes sense that the 2nd-place person is to the winner's right. That's all.
Right, graphics have absolutely nothing to do with the kernel... code in userspace just magically talks to the hardware. Either you're very pessimistic about process isolation in Windows, or you're seriously misinformed about how operating systems work.
Yes, in Vista they're moving most of the driver code into userspace, but not all. At the very least (even in the exokernel model), there will be stubs in kernel space to proxy I/O reads and writes from user space to kernel space. So yes, graphics has plenty to do with the hardware.
How about http://www.rsync.net/?
I have no affiliation with them, and I've never used their service, but it sounds like what you asked for.
Exactly. BitTorrent does one thing: co-ordinating clients so they can distribute data. Everything else for creating a complete file-sharing system -- search, accounting (enforcing ratios, etc.), authentication, whatever -- can be layered on top of this, but the hard part is taken care of by BT.
Saying that BT is "incomplete" because it doesn't do stuff like that is like saying that a coffee grinder is incomplete because it doesn't also brew the coffee
ARP poisoning of any kind only works on one network segment, not on the Internet. You can still be located to the network segment, and from the network segment probably located by tracing your MAC address.
"Relaying" is functionally the same as a proxy server, except that the proxy doesn't know they're a proxy.
As an AC said said above, NATs also doesn't help for hiding your location. Really, it's also, for this purpose, a proxy. The only difference is that you're probably close geographically to the gateway, which means you're also easier to locate.
Whether any of these methods are good enough entirely depends on your privacy needs, but none of them are very secure. You can't disguise your identity on the public Internet. Even proxy servers can be raided/subpeonead/hacked, exposing your identity. The only secure solutions are darknets using onion routing or similar.
That's exactly what I meant by communication: "Embarrassingly parallel" algorithms do not require communication between work units to complete. Of course you still need to stitch the units together into a final solution.
Do you even have the foggiest understanding of how the IP protocol works? You can't "alias" an IP address to make it look like you're coming from somewhere you can't. That's like saying, "I'm going to send a letter to you, but tell you I'm from New Jersey, and hope to God that the response finds its way back to London, England."
You want either a proxy or a tunnel, both of which exist.
"Embarrassingly parallel" is a term for such problems, where each step or component is independent and requires no communication.
l el
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embarrassingly_paral
The GP was just another example on /. of "I'm going to seem smart by discrediting the article, and the easiest way to do so is make something up without reading the article".
Don't forget about "... and hopefully get moderated up in the process".
I'm not even talking about releasing the GPU design specifications, which would contain highly competitive information. I'm talking about the instruction set and interface specifications... I've read those documents for some of ATI's video cards for a project I used to work on, and I honestly don't see what sort of insight a competitor could get from them.
Presuming equal knowledge of the hardware, a good kernel hacker would write a better driver than the manufacturer. They know better how this is supposed to be integrated into the rest of the kernel.
If manufacturers would publish complete specifications (which they have internally anyways), this wouldn't be a problem. This is what this offer is all about: you give them the specs, they write the driver.
Maybe we have that because you buy more than litre at a time? Measuring prices to the tenth of a cent makes sense when you buy more than ten units at a time. When you pay, they round the result (up?) to the nearest cent anyways.
Why does the kernel loader have to be GPL-derivative? All they would have had to do is write their own bootloader (it's not hard to make a simple one, especially if you only have one platform it has to work on), or modified a non-GPL one.
Right, that's why those limits should be put in /etc/limits
Or how about this idea: in developed countries, sell them at a fairly significant profit, and put those profits into subsidizing the cost to the governments of these countries? If the cost is around $100 (it's higher now, but $100 is the target) to manufacture these laptops, they could even double the cost, turning the mass market sales into a kind of sponsorship, where buying one of these means also "buying" one for a child somewhere.
I'm with other people here when they say that these sound like sweet little devices for web browsing and other low-powered computing.
Or how about Facebook?
Nope, the BOFH would have first piped it to his home directory so he could grep for juicy bits.
The key point is that an atheist believes there is no supreme being, whereas an agnostic believes there may be one, but it really doesn't matter whether one exists or not. As an atheist, your example of a laissez-faire god is, in fact, the only god I would accept to exist. I am still an atheist, however, because I believe that such a powerless god has no impact whatsoever on my life. It would be like if some hermit in a cave proclaimed himself King over everyone in the world. Would I consider myself his subject?
Although you're picking on atheists here, the same argument could be said for theists as well. All phenomenon in the known, visible universe (that is, what people currently living have directly experienced) can be explained, or conceivably explained, whether you accept or deny the existence of the supernatural. It is up to the individual to determine which they believe is more likely. Even the most die-hard theist would admit there is a remote possibility that any given phenomenon exists without the influence of anything supernatural.
See: http://www.robert-tolksdorf.de/vmlanguages.html
I don't know about you, but it seems to me that there is more than one language that runs on top of the Java VM. Even if you debate whether it was "designed" to allow this or not, the other example I quoted was a generic system does meet your criteria.
Except, you know, that little-known platform and language called 'Java'... or maybe you want to go a little further back to the UCSD p-System (circa 1978)?
Quit your trolling.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Looks like we've moved to the 'fight' stage.
I'm in my 3rd year as a Computer Science undergrad student at the University of Guelph, in Ontario, and the core curriculum for a Bachelor of Computing here has 3 Software Engineering-type courses, starting in 2nd year. Forgive me while I plug my school, but I think Guelph does a fine job in this area.
The first is a course (numbered CIS*2750), that leads you through developing an application, where each assignment is a milestone along the way. When I took the course, it was to develop a GIS-themed application. The first assignment was a DXF library for reading, writing, and manipulating (removing layers, etc.) DXF files. The second was to write command-line programs to use the library, and also to add more ways to manipulate the DXF files in memory (merging two files, for example). The third was to write Python wrappers for the library and a GUI using Tkinter. The final part was to interface with a database to add notes (and display them on-screen). The end-result was a fairly rudimentary DXF viewer.
I'm currently taking the second course (numbered CIS*3750), which is a group project (groups of 5-6, chosen by the students). The groups each pick a board game, and must write a computer version of it. There are three milestones for this course: the first two are documentation (subject matter model and technical model), and the final one is implementation. We just submitted the second milestone yesterday. Dealing with interpersonal issues, and the sheer size of the documentation (the documentation for the first milestone was 68 pages, and I think the second milestone was around 40 pages), are most of the challenge in this course. Of course, we haven't even gotten to the implementation yet.
I don't know much about the next course, except that it's called Software Engineering and that I'll be taking in the summer (I think). I know that Guelph tries to be fairly "practical", with streams like this, but I assumed that at most Computer Science programs included some courses like this. At any rate, there *are* universities that teach team programming and project management.
You've got that backwards. Having a monopoly increases the barrier to entry to a market; removing the monopoly decreases it. How do you expect a company to enter a market that is already occupied by a monopoly?
On the other hand, if you meant that Libertarianism necessarily leads to a monopoly, that is also not true. Everything I've read about Libertarianism says that they want free markets -- "free" here does not mean "anything goes"; a free market must be regulated to prevent monopolies for it to be truly free.