An application would just be running in a sandbox that's really just a 'file' sitting in the portion of the address space that's hosted by RAM. If the app doesn't get used, or the kernel needs to 'swap' it to free up resources closer to the 'hot' side of the stack, or gets put to sleep for any other reason, it migrates out of RAM and back to disk.
And you don't need a 64-bit address space to do that, if it was really important we could have done it long ago.
Having decayed into a near-layman when it comes to CS I'm also curious as to why we need those extra bits for said stuff in the first place.
You can't map a complete 2TB disk into a 32-bit address space.
However, I think the idea is kind of bogus, because you don't want every application having access to all blocks on the disk, you don't want every application having to deal with filesystem layout (you can't just write to byte 42 on the disk without ensuring no-one else is going to) and you do want to keep applications' memory separate. And at some point you have to reboot even if just because you upgraded your OS kernel.
hey all state that the Israeli security folks are really detectives, who are very intelligent, ask misleading questions and evaluate the responses. All very "human / personal based." They all felt safe when entering the plane.
Every time I've been to Israel, these 'detectives' have spent a long time searching all my stuff. Since I was doing nothing wrong, clearly their Secret Detective Sense isn't working too good.
Needless to say, I have no desire ever to go back there, and I'm guessing the blonde German girl who was in the aisle alongside me last time crying her eyes out after her 'interview' won't be either.
The growth of the intrusive bureaucratic state has been happening throughout the West since at least WWI. This is just a symptom of that growth, it's nothing new.
None, I repeat NONE of the articles I have ever read actually even remotely begins to touch upon that subject.
How do you know where something is unless you look for it?
It's really that simple: the object is somewhere, but you can't tell where it is unless you look. Until then it could be anywhere.
As for the 'spooky action at a distance', that's merely a consequence of not using the relativistic version of Schrodinger's Equation which gives you two waveforms going in different directions in time. Which is a mathermatical shorthand for 'that object was somewhere but I couldn't tell where until I looked, and now I know where it was since the last time I looked at it'.
Eh, then all you need is a local privilege exploit and you're hosed. And there's no shortage of those on Linux, that's for sure.
No, you need:
1. A hole in the PDF reader that can be exploited. 2. Simultaneously, a local privilege exploit. 3. An actual exploitable file which can exploit that on your particular brand of Linux. 4. Not to be running an Appamor or SELinux configuration which prevents Adobe software from doing anything bad.
#1 is common, #2 is rare and usually my machines have installed patches for me before I even hear about the exploit, #3 is unlikely and #4 should block many exploits before they happen (some exploits have been able to disable Apparmor and SELinux).
I'm surprised that 50% finished ME2; I got bored of ME1's appalling unskippable cutscenes, on-the-rails unavoidable events and repetitive running around (go to talk to someone on one side of the zone, then go back to talk to someone else on the other side, then talk to someone on the side you started from) within a couple of hours and the ME2 demo only offered more of the same plus flashing boxes shown you exactly what to click on to get through the 'game'. I could watch a bad SF B-movie in ninety minutes and get the same effect without as much tedium.
Personally, two of the main reasons why I don't finish all my games are:
1. I have about 300 games of different types, several of them MMOGs, most bought in deep discount sales because they looked interesting. Where am I going to get the time to finish them all? 2. Many, if not most, game designers can't come up with anything more interesting to put at the end of their game than some tedious overpowered boss fight. At that point I usually just give up unless I really, really want to see the end... boss fights are just so 20th century.
Just pull over, stop the car, and make the call. That's what I did in the "crash through the fence" incident I described.
Yeah, this is the best thing about the anti-cellphone laws: now instead of driving along the road while talking on their phone, the morons _STOP THEIR CAR_ no matter where they may be, forcing me to pass them on blind bends or residential streets where they just stopped in the middle of the road.
Morons are morons, trying to stop them being morons just makes them act moronically in a slightly different way.
What kind of reasoning is that? Sounds like a very elite hacking contest...
If the 'elite hackers' can break into Windows and MacOS but not Ubuntu, that should tell you something.
Besides, there have been countless amount of Linux hacks and exploits.
No there haven't:
a) the number is clearly countable. b) the number is far, far less than the number of Windows hacks and exploits. c) the Linux exploits are generally fixed much faster: my Ubuntu machines are normally patched automatically before the exploit hits the media. d) Windows has staggering amounts of insecure backwards compatibility crud which guarantees security holes. For example, including the current directory on the DLL search path by default... that is quite simply insane, but Microsoft won't change it in case they break WhizzbangSoft-95 and those users complain about it.
It's pretty brazen of you to imply that Windows is less secure than Linux. Put a desktop distro on linux and connect it to the internet, give it Window's marketshare and watch hackers make swiss cheese of it.
LOL. Where do all these 'there is no difference in security between operating system' trolls come from?
Wasn't Ubuntu pulled from OS cracking contests recently because it was too hard to crack when compared to Windows and MacOS?
and in other news this virus had an industrial target. It wasn't simply looking to disrupt internet traffic. Once a malware writer decides they want to disrupt internet traffic in general I'm sure we'll see things written to affect those linux machines.
You're right: owning a DNS server, or amazon.com, or google would be of no value whatsoever to a bad guy. That's obviously why they haven't hacked those servers, not because they're vastly more secure than Windows.
This whole 'no OS is any more secure than any other' nonsense is one of the reasons why we see these kind of problems.
The virus was written for windows because that's what the system runs. If it ran Linux it would have been a Linux virus.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, much of the most important Internet infrastructure runs on Linux and yet it seems remarkably lacking in virus infections.
Of the more recent films, long takes from Children of Men(brilliant), and Four Rooms (dark/light comedy) really stand out in my mind. There are others, but with those 2 films, I can recall the scenes automatically.
But do you recall those scenes because they were great storytelling, or because the director was showing off?
There's a John Woo movie where there's about a five minute Steadicam shot with numerous shootouts and explosions which I don't expect to forget any time soon, but I couldn't even tell you which movie it's in because all I remember about it is that it's five minutes he'd have to reshoot if there was a single screwup.
See, for example, David Mamet's 'On Directing' if you don't understand why.
In fact, one of the biggest problems with CGI is that it's often used in long shots which couldn't possibly be filmed without it, and therefore it's insanely, blatantly, in-your-face screaming 'this was created in a computer, none of this ever happened, tremble in awe at my l33t CGI budget!'
I've no idea of Windows has similar issues because I don't have it installed, so perhaps somebody else will comment.
From what I remember, when I booted XP on my netbook and ran Windows Update there were about two lines of useful text visible in the window between the huge expanse of IE crud at top and bottom and then the huge expanse of Microsoft crud on the web page it was displaying.
I don't think either OS is really designed for small screens, and far too many application designers don't even think about how it's going to look on a screen that's at most 600 pixels high. For example, I seem to remember that using the Nvidia control panel to change screen resolution from 640x480 to sometihng usable is an exercise in extreme frustration.
And one of the most important specifications of a netbook was ignored: battery life.
Which, sadly, is where XP wins over Ubuntu; mostly because of the custom software that the manufacturer shipped with my netbook to give best possible life in Windows... that seems to eek out another hour or two over Ubuntu before the battery dies.
However, it still lasts long enough that I had no problem removing XP from the machine recently when I replaced the HD with an SSD.
Because I can throw it in my bag to carry around without really noticing the space or weight it takes up, and if it gets lost or stolen I won't be as upset as I would be if I'd taken my $1200 laptop with me.
Salt won't help you in that case. It just requires more compute power which has now become available thanks to the EC2 GPU instances that Amazon is offering.
Not using a salt means you can check a complete file of passwords in the same run, since you just hash the password and check whether it matches any entry in the file. Using a salt means you can only check one password at a time, since the password will hash to a completely different value when used with a different salt (absent blind luck finding a collision).
If you want to crack 50,000 passwords, then you'll have to buy 50,000 times more power to do that if they're salted than if they're not.
If google have performance issue, smaller sites (that have real users) may well suffer too.
Didn't Google recently claim that https: adds about a whole 1% to the load on their servers? The only computationally intensive part is the initial key exchange.
Intel bought into Atom big time, which combined with Windows put the chill on Linux/ARM based netbooks before it got enough traction to become 'a threat' to the status quo, though I doubt Intel makes nearly as much as it does when compared to a standard Notebook computer, residuals are better than nothing, though its yet to be seen just how low end (power and affordability) that Intel can scale down the chip line.
As I understand it, margins on Atoms are pretty good, and an Atom-based netbook usually uses Intel chipset hardware so I suspect they're making a decent profit on the overall system.
I'm sure they'd prefer to be selling i7 laptops, but I doubt they're too upset about selling millions of netbooks.
The article mentioned this benefitting up to 40 million Americans. That's actually a pretty decent bump in potential customer base.
In which case, only a stupid company would put up a web site they can't buy from, and therefore it's not a problem, and there's no need for government to be interfering.
Surely the next step will be to require Ford and GM to build cars which can be driven by blind people, and then we'll need drive-through fast food menus in braille.
Which part of "The market will always decide for whatever's cheaper, and will bias itself to cheaper now even if that costs it money over the long run" is proving hard for you to understand? While I would agree that it's not the best example of the English language ever committed to the Internet, clearly the market does not _ALWAYS_ go for the cheap option, as even you seem to agree.
And again, even Hyundai doesn't sell 900cc tricycles in North America even though they'd be cheaper than an Accent.
Slashdot Mirror
An application would just be running in a sandbox that's really just a 'file' sitting in the portion of the address space that's hosted by RAM. If the app doesn't get used, or the kernel needs to 'swap' it to free up resources closer to the 'hot' side of the stack, or gets put to sleep for any other reason, it migrates out of RAM and back to disk.
And you don't need a 64-bit address space to do that, if it was really important we could have done it long ago.
Having decayed into a near-layman when it comes to CS I'm also curious as to why we need those extra bits for said stuff in the first place.
You can't map a complete 2TB disk into a 32-bit address space.
However, I think the idea is kind of bogus, because you don't want every application having access to all blocks on the disk, you don't want every application having to deal with filesystem layout (you can't just write to byte 42 on the disk without ensuring no-one else is going to) and you do want to keep applications' memory separate. And at some point you have to reboot even if just because you upgraded your OS kernel.
hey all state that the Israeli security folks are really detectives, who are very intelligent, ask misleading questions and evaluate the responses. All very "human / personal based." They all felt safe when entering the plane.
Every time I've been to Israel, these 'detectives' have spent a long time searching all my stuff. Since I was doing nothing wrong, clearly their Secret Detective Sense isn't working too good.
Needless to say, I have no desire ever to go back there, and I'm guessing the blonde German girl who was in the aisle alongside me last time crying her eyes out after her 'interview' won't be either.
The growth of the intrusive bureaucratic state has been happening throughout the West since at least WWI. This is just a symptom of that growth, it's nothing new.
None, I repeat NONE of the articles I have ever read actually even remotely begins to touch upon that subject.
How do you know where something is unless you look for it?
It's really that simple: the object is somewhere, but you can't tell where it is unless you look. Until then it could be anywhere.
As for the 'spooky action at a distance', that's merely a consequence of not using the relativistic version of Schrodinger's Equation which gives you two waveforms going in different directions in time. Which is a mathermatical shorthand for 'that object was somewhere but I couldn't tell where until I looked, and now I know where it was since the last time I looked at it'.
Eh, then all you need is a local privilege exploit and you're hosed. And there's no shortage of those on Linux, that's for sure.
No, you need:
1. A hole in the PDF reader that can be exploited.
2. Simultaneously, a local privilege exploit.
3. An actual exploitable file which can exploit that on your particular brand of Linux.
4. Not to be running an Appamor or SELinux configuration which prevents Adobe software from doing anything bad.
#1 is common, #2 is rare and usually my machines have installed patches for me before I even hear about the exploit, #3 is unlikely and #4 should block many exploits before they happen (some exploits have been able to disable Apparmor and SELinux).
I'm surprised that 50% finished ME2; I got bored of ME1's appalling unskippable cutscenes, on-the-rails unavoidable events and repetitive running around (go to talk to someone on one side of the zone, then go back to talk to someone else on the other side, then talk to someone on the side you started from) within a couple of hours and the ME2 demo only offered more of the same plus flashing boxes shown you exactly what to click on to get through the 'game'. I could watch a bad SF B-movie in ninety minutes and get the same effect without as much tedium.
Personally, two of the main reasons why I don't finish all my games are:
1. I have about 300 games of different types, several of them MMOGs, most bought in deep discount sales because they looked interesting. Where am I going to get the time to finish them all?
2. Many, if not most, game designers can't come up with anything more interesting to put at the end of their game than some tedious overpowered boss fight. At that point I usually just give up unless I really, really want to see the end... boss fights are just so 20th century.
Just pull over, stop the car, and make the call. That's what I did in the "crash through the fence" incident I described.
Yeah, this is the best thing about the anti-cellphone laws: now instead of driving along the road while talking on their phone, the morons _STOP THEIR CAR_ no matter where they may be, forcing me to pass them on blind bends or residential streets where they just stopped in the middle of the road.
Morons are morons, trying to stop them being morons just makes them act moronically in a slightly different way.
What kind of reasoning is that? Sounds like a very elite hacking contest...
If the 'elite hackers' can break into Windows and MacOS but not Ubuntu, that should tell you something.
Besides, there have been countless amount of Linux hacks and exploits.
No there haven't:
a) the number is clearly countable.
b) the number is far, far less than the number of Windows hacks and exploits.
c) the Linux exploits are generally fixed much faster: my Ubuntu machines are normally patched automatically before the exploit hits the media.
d) Windows has staggering amounts of insecure backwards compatibility crud which guarantees security holes. For example, including the current directory on the DLL search path by default... that is quite simply insane, but Microsoft won't change it in case they break WhizzbangSoft-95 and those users complain about it.
It's pretty brazen of you to imply that Windows is less secure than Linux. Put a desktop distro on linux and connect it to the internet, give it Window's marketshare and watch hackers make swiss cheese of it.
LOL. Where do all these 'there is no difference in security between operating system' trolls come from?
Wasn't Ubuntu pulled from OS cracking contests recently because it was too hard to crack when compared to Windows and MacOS?
and in other news this virus had an industrial target. It wasn't simply looking to disrupt internet traffic. Once a malware writer decides they want to disrupt internet traffic in general I'm sure we'll see things written to affect those linux machines.
You're right: owning a DNS server, or amazon.com, or google would be of no value whatsoever to a bad guy. That's obviously why they haven't hacked those servers, not because they're vastly more secure than Windows.
This whole 'no OS is any more secure than any other' nonsense is one of the reasons why we see these kind of problems.
The virus was written for windows because that's what the system runs. If it ran Linux it would have been a Linux virus.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, much of the most important Internet infrastructure runs on Linux and yet it seems remarkably lacking in virus infections.
Of the more recent films, long takes from Children of Men(brilliant), and Four Rooms (dark/light comedy) really stand out in my mind. There are others, but with those 2 films, I can recall the scenes automatically.
But do you recall those scenes because they were great storytelling, or because the director was showing off?
There's a John Woo movie where there's about a five minute Steadicam shot with numerous shootouts and explosions which I don't expect to forget any time soon, but I couldn't even tell you which movie it's in because all I remember about it is that it's five minutes he'd have to reshoot if there was a single screwup.
See, for example, David Mamet's 'On Directing' if you don't understand why.
In fact, one of the biggest problems with CGI is that it's often used in long shots which couldn't possibly be filmed without it, and therefore it's insanely, blatantly, in-your-face screaming 'this was created in a computer, none of this ever happened, tremble in awe at my l33t CGI budget!'
I've no idea of Windows has similar issues because I don't have it installed, so perhaps somebody else will comment.
From what I remember, when I booted XP on my netbook and ran Windows Update there were about two lines of useful text visible in the window between the huge expanse of IE crud at top and bottom and then the huge expanse of Microsoft crud on the web page it was displaying.
I don't think either OS is really designed for small screens, and far too many application designers don't even think about how it's going to look on a screen that's at most 600 pixels high. For example, I seem to remember that using the Nvidia control panel to change screen resolution from 640x480 to sometihng usable is an exercise in extreme frustration.
And one of the most important specifications of a netbook was ignored: battery life.
Which, sadly, is where XP wins over Ubuntu; mostly because of the custom software that the manufacturer shipped with my netbook to give best possible life in Windows... that seems to eek out another hour or two over Ubuntu before the battery dies.
However, it still lasts long enough that I had no problem removing XP from the machine recently when I replaced the HD with an SSD.
really...
Because I can throw it in my bag to carry around without really noticing the space or weight it takes up, and if it gets lost or stolen I won't be as upset as I would be if I'd taken my $1200 laptop with me.
Salt won't help you in that case. It just requires more compute power which has now become available thanks to the EC2 GPU instances that Amazon is offering.
Not using a salt means you can check a complete file of passwords in the same run, since you just hash the password and check whether it matches any entry in the file. Using a salt means you can only check one password at a time, since the password will hash to a completely different value when used with a different salt (absent blind luck finding a collision).
If you want to crack 50,000 passwords, then you'll have to buy 50,000 times more power to do that if they're salted than if they're not.
If google have performance issue, smaller sites (that have real users) may well suffer too.
Didn't Google recently claim that https: adds about a whole 1% to the load on their servers? The only computationally intensive part is the initial key exchange.
Intel bought into Atom big time, which combined with Windows put the chill on Linux/ARM based netbooks before it got enough traction to become 'a threat' to the status quo, though I doubt Intel makes nearly as much as it does when compared to a standard Notebook computer, residuals are better than nothing, though its yet to be seen just how low end (power and affordability) that Intel can scale down the chip line.
As I understand it, margins on Atoms are pretty good, and an Atom-based netbook usually uses Intel chipset hardware so I suspect they're making a decent profit on the overall system.
I'm sure they'd prefer to be selling i7 laptops, but I doubt they're too upset about selling millions of netbooks.
Of course AMD want to play in the mobile space and to do this they need an OS.
Surely they need a mobile CPU first? Do they have anything that can compete with ARM or Atom at the low-power end of the market?
It also sucks if you want to avoid smoke, but you can't afford to quit your job and find a smoke-free workplace to get hired at.
If you don't like smoke, then perhaps, just perhaps, you should have picked a career where most of your customers don't smoke.
Just an idea.
The article mentioned this benefitting up to 40 million Americans. That's actually a pretty decent bump in potential customer base.
In which case, only a stupid company would put up a web site they can't buy from, and therefore it's not a problem, and there's no need for government to be interfering.
Right?
Drive-through fast-food menus in Braille?
Surely the next step will be to require Ford and GM to build cars which can be driven by blind people, and then we'll need drive-through fast food menus in braille.
That's a terribly analogy.
Which part of "The market will always decide for whatever's cheaper, and will bias itself to cheaper now even if that costs it money over the long run" is proving hard for you to understand? While I would agree that it's not the best example of the English language ever committed to the Internet, clearly the market does not _ALWAYS_ go for the cheap option, as even you seem to agree.
And again, even Hyundai doesn't sell 900cc tricycles in North America even though they'd be cheaper than an Accent.