"In other words, isn't it great that we can swap out pages from an unused process to make room for frequently accessed file data?"
Yes. The problem is _THE OPERATING SYSTEM HAS NO DAMN CLUE WHETHER I'M GOING TO RE-USE THE DATA I READ FROM THE DISK_. It's absolutely retarded to swap out my web browser just because I'm copying a 2 GB file from one drive to another... not only am I not going to be using that file again any time soon, but because I have only 1GB of RAM, it's absolutely certain that if I _did_ immediately open that file that the start of the file would have been over-written by the end.
The design choice of swapping out programs to cache more utterly useless disk files in XP is the main reason why it's so damn slow.
"It was a report on how a fork bomb can take down default Linux installs,"
Yes, and? I don't care about fork bombs, since I don't run them on my PC... being able to run as many processes as I choose on that PC is a feature, not a flaw. I do care about having scumware remotely installed on my PC through security holes in applications and the operating system, which is a flaw, not a feature.
Seriously, if you're letting people log onto your PC and run fork bombs, you have far greater problems than a lack of resource limits in the default install.
Sorry, but this article seems pretty retarded to me. Windows is insecure because people can use IE bugs to install scumware that takes over your entire machine... Linux is insecure because ordinary users who are legitimately logged into your machine can fork off as many processes as they want? Huh?
Sure, maybe if you're running a server that allows remote logins, you want to restrict how many processes a user can run. But as a single-user system, I want to be able to run as many processes as I choose, not be restricted by the distribution author's ideas of what's good for me.
"No before you respond criticising my post how about you come up with some alternative reasons."
Here's the 'alternative reason': the vast majority of women don't like computers and aren't good programmers. I can only presume you're a rabid liberal who's never had a girlfriend if you believe otherwise, because it's incredibly clear to anyone who actually has spent much time with women that computers just aren't there thing.
The difference is that us 'sexist pigs' don't have a problem with women being better than (or more interested) us at some things and worse (or less interested) at others. It's only liberals who think that women should be forced to be programmers even if they don't want to be.
"Properly configured and running properly-written software on decent hardware, XP has uptimes to rival that of any Linux box."
Indeed: if all your PC does is run Minesweeper, and is totally disconnected from the Internet, you can proably keep it running for a year or more. But real Windows PCs doing real work need to be rebooted at least every couple of weeks just to keep up with all the critical security updates (most of which require reboots thanks to Microsoft wiring so much functioanlity into the operating system rather than seperate processes that can be killed and restarted).
It's _one step_ from censorship: first you force ISPs to build the infrastructure to censor content, then you force them to turn it on permanently a few years down the line.
"It's more like the V-Chip we all have to pay for in new televisions"
Which was just as stupid, and another example of backdoor censorship. Made a few bucks for electronics companies, though.
If people want a censored ISP, then they can go to an ISP which chooses to censor content. If they don't want a censored ISP they can go to an ISP that doesn't censor content. It's none of the government's god-damn business whether people choose to have someone else censor their use of the Internet or not.
"it would mean the kids had somewhere else to go that would give them a better education"
They have: it's called libraries and the Internet. All a school needs to do is teach kids the basics of reading, writing and maths, and the rest they can learn from a good library and net connection.
There is simply no justification for 'public schools' these days: they exist to keep teachers and bureaucrats in cushy, well-paid jobs, not to teach anyone anything (other than to turn up on time and do what they're told, like good little corporate drones whose jobs will be outsourced at the first opportunity to cheaper corporate drones abroad).
Um, one slight problem. If you shoot digital and project digigtal, the final projected image is what you shot in the camera with an extra compression step on top.
If you shoot 35mm film, you get your negative, you cut the negative, you create a duplicate of the negative, then you create more duplicate negatives from that, then you finally create prints from those duplicate negatives. So by the time it gets to the cinema screen it's not unusual for a 35mm print to have gone through four or five _analogue_ copying stages from the original film negative.
As a result, the resolution of a final 35mm print is almost certainly substantially less than 2048x1080, whereas digital holds that resolution from start to finish (absent crappy compression schemes).
"3DLabs pixel shader / vertex shader implementation is broken and incomplete."
Maybe you'd like to explain how it's 'broken and incomplete'?
"Forget about DOOM3, Half-Life 2, FarCry, or other modern games rendering properly."
I haven't had a chance to try it on a Realizm 800, but Half-Life 2 and Doom 3 run fine (if slow, by gamers' standards) on the Realizm 100.
The main issue is that dedicated workstation cards generally push vertex throughput, while dedicated gaming cards generally push texture throughput. So don't expect 100fps at 1600x1200 4xAA, but do expect complex CAD models to run better than a gaming card.
"Could someone explain to me how you implement carbon paper, "magic envelopes" and invisible ink inside of a computer?"
It's a metaphor. As far as I can see, the bank would calculate a matrix of numbers and send that to Alice, who would use the bit-pattern from her password to find the correct numbers to use for the key.
However, as has been pointed out, if the bank knows her password, it can simply send her the session key encrypted with her password, which will be impossible for the man-in-the-middle to crack (otherwise they could just use the password to log in!). So it's a bit of a pointless exercise.
Exactly. In America you can sue anyone for anything, and provided there's a reasonable chance of winning (or getting an out-of-court settlement) you might as well go for it... if your lawyer is working for a percentage there's little cost to you. In Britain and most other sane nations, if you don't have a good chance you don't sue because you may well be hit with the costs for the person you sue if you lose.
So the simple answer to eliminating such law-suits is to introduce 'loser pays' laws. Of course that's unlikely to happen when lawyers make so much money from suits like this.
"In the USA, we don't crush our children with tanks when they have a party in a public (Tiannenmen) square."
No, you shoot them instead.
Again, China has more economic freedom, but less freedom to criticise the state. But Americans don't exactly have a lot of that left either post-9/11.
Certainly I'd far rather fly to and from China than I would fly to and from America these days with the minimum-wage Nazis on the prowl for 'terrists'. Neither state is anywhere near perfect, but China is heading towards more freedom, whereas America is heading towards less and less.
Indeed. It's not that China is an evil tyranny and America is a glorious bastion of freedom, it's that both are authoritarian states which choose to control and limit _different_ aspects of freedom.
China, for example, has a lot more economic freedom than America (most obviously, I believe the top income tax rate is only 15%), but less freedom of speech (though, today, that difference is rapidly decreasing).
Same here: in Mozilla 1.7.5 the setting works until I exit Mozilla and restart, then it says it's false but still follows the link to the 'phishing' site.
"A lot of games are extremely violent and offensive, and reward indiscriminant violence."
I remember when I was a kid we used to play games like 'soldiers' and 'cowboys and indians' (today I guess, it would be 'cowboys and oppressed native americans'). Those were both violent and rewarded indiscriminate use of violence... the only difference is that they weren't computer games and we got some exercise instead of a fat ass. And I'm sure that liberals today would not only regard 'cowboys and opressed native americans' as offensive, but bordering on 'hate crime'.
The whole idea of banning kids from playing 'violent' games in _DC_ is of course ludicrous. The most violent city in America is hardly that way because of computer games, and it would probably be a much _better_ place if potential teenage gang recruits were playing Doom 3 rather than selling crack and shooting each other. This is just another example of the government legislating while DC burns.
"Surely people agree that the same type of ratings should be applied to video games as are applied to videos/films?"
No. Why the hell should the government be telling me what movies my kids can see and what games they can play? Who made them God?
You would, presumably, also support a law preventing the sale of books like 'American Psycho' to kids?
Odd, isn't it, that the idea of banning books would cause a liberal outcry, yet they're perfectly happy with banning movies or computer games? What a difference a few years of technology makes to human rights.
Re:Waiting for the script templates or tools....
on
Hacking OpenOffice
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I haven't tried their software myself, but this may be worth a look: http://www.celtx.com/
"AI spiteful (ex)-employee could easily encrypt and forever destroy sensitive data that is irreplaceable."
Or they could just del *.*. Or format c:. Or burn down the building.
This whole 'spiteful employee' argument is nonsense. The only reasons to have a 'key recovery agent' are to recover password for clueless employees and to spy on slightly more clued employees.
"In "streaming" applications (hint: 3D rendering like on a graphics card!) the latency doesn't matter nearly as much as bandwidth."
That used to be true: graphics cards had fixed functionality and long pipelines, so if you knew that you'd need pixel (51, 96) of a texture two hundred steps down the pipeline you'd just ask the cache to fetch it in plenty of time.
Today, though, as they become more and more programmable, they're starting to see latency problems similar to CPUs. It's hard to predict what data a shader program will need, and when you find out what data it needs, you want it _now_ not 200 clock cycles later.
Slashdot Mirror
"I wounder how similar this design is to the one he used back then."
Not very. His had a full arm and vest like the real steadicams.
"How about a whole show full of Wesley Crusher teen angst in a Federation uniform."
Bah. Just think about all those hot teenage girls in those tiny little skirts...
"In other words, isn't it great that we can swap out pages from an unused process to make room for frequently accessed file data?"
Yes. The problem is _THE OPERATING SYSTEM HAS NO DAMN CLUE WHETHER I'M GOING TO RE-USE THE DATA I READ FROM THE DISK_. It's absolutely retarded to swap out my web browser just because I'm copying a 2 GB file from one drive to another... not only am I not going to be using that file again any time soon, but because I have only 1GB of RAM, it's absolutely certain that if I _did_ immediately open that file that the start of the file would have been over-written by the end.
The design choice of swapping out programs to cache more utterly useless disk files in XP is the main reason why it's so damn slow.
"It was a report on how a fork bomb can take down default Linux installs,"
Yes, and? I don't care about fork bombs, since I don't run them on my PC... being able to run as many processes as I choose on that PC is a feature, not a flaw. I do care about having scumware remotely installed on my PC through security holes in applications and the operating system, which is a flaw, not a feature.
Seriously, if you're letting people log onto your PC and run fork bombs, you have far greater problems than a lack of resource limits in the default install.
Sorry, but this article seems pretty retarded to me. Windows is insecure because people can use IE bugs to install scumware that takes over your entire machine... Linux is insecure because ordinary users who are legitimately logged into your machine can fork off as many processes as they want? Huh?
Sure, maybe if you're running a server that allows remote logins, you want to restrict how many processes a user can run. But as a single-user system, I want to be able to run as many processes as I choose, not be restricted by the distribution author's ideas of what's good for me.
"No before you respond criticising my post how about you come up with some alternative reasons."
Here's the 'alternative reason': the vast majority of women don't like computers and aren't good programmers. I can only presume you're a rabid liberal who's never had a girlfriend if you believe otherwise, because it's incredibly clear to anyone who actually has spent much time with women that computers just aren't there thing.
The difference is that us 'sexist pigs' don't have a problem with women being better than (or more interested) us at some things and worse (or less interested) at others. It's only liberals who think that women should be forced to be programmers even if they don't want to be.
"Properly configured and running properly-written software on decent hardware, XP has uptimes to rival that of any Linux box."
Indeed: if all your PC does is run Minesweeper, and is totally disconnected from the Internet, you can proably keep it running for a year or more. But real Windows PCs doing real work need to be rebooted at least every couple of weeks just to keep up with all the critical security updates (most of which require reboots thanks to Microsoft wiring so much functioanlity into the operating system rather than seperate processes that can be killed and restarted).
"This is a far cry from censorship."
It's _one step_ from censorship: first you force ISPs to build the infrastructure to censor content, then you force them to turn it on permanently a few years down the line.
"It's more like the V-Chip we all have to pay for in new televisions"
Which was just as stupid, and another example of backdoor censorship. Made a few bucks for electronics companies, though.
If people want a censored ISP, then they can go to an ISP which chooses to censor content. If they don't want a censored ISP they can go to an ISP that doesn't censor content. It's none of the government's god-damn business whether people choose to have someone else censor their use of the Internet or not.
"hm. I've lost a machine.. literally _lost_"
:).
We've done that before at work: our solution was to rlogin and play music, then listen for which machine was making the noise
But who in their right mind would use a video format that 'phones home' every time you watch 'Anal Love Dog HD: Director's cut'?
WMV-HD kind of sucks anyway: there are some horrid compression artifacts in the roller-coaster shots in one of the sample WMV-HD files.
"it would mean the kids had somewhere else to go that would give them a better education"
They have: it's called libraries and the Internet. All a school needs to do is teach kids the basics of reading, writing and maths, and the rest they can learn from a good library and net connection.
There is simply no justification for 'public schools' these days: they exist to keep teachers and bureaucrats in cushy, well-paid jobs, not to teach anyone anything (other than to turn up on time and do what they're told, like good little corporate drones whose jobs will be outsourced at the first opportunity to cheaper corporate drones abroad).
"Someone once mentioned to me that the frames that Pixar renders out for it's films are something on the order of 4000 x Something resolution"
Much of 'Toy Story 2' was rendered at 1280 x n resolution... I doubt anyone in the cinema noticed.
Um, one slight problem. If you shoot digital and project digigtal, the final projected image is what you shot in the camera with an extra compression step on top.
If you shoot 35mm film, you get your negative, you cut the negative, you create a duplicate of the negative, then you create more duplicate negatives from that, then you finally create prints from those duplicate negatives. So by the time it gets to the cinema screen it's not unusual for a 35mm print to have gone through four or five _analogue_ copying stages from the original film negative.
As a result, the resolution of a final 35mm print is almost certainly substantially less than 2048x1080, whereas digital holds that resolution from start to finish (absent crappy compression schemes).
"3DLabs pixel shader / vertex shader implementation is broken and incomplete."
Maybe you'd like to explain how it's 'broken and incomplete'?
"Forget about DOOM3, Half-Life 2, FarCry, or other modern games rendering properly."
I haven't had a chance to try it on a Realizm 800, but Half-Life 2 and Doom 3 run fine (if slow, by gamers' standards) on the Realizm 100.
The main issue is that dedicated workstation cards generally push vertex throughput, while dedicated gaming cards generally push texture throughput. So don't expect 100fps at 1600x1200 4xAA, but do expect complex CAD models to run better than a gaming card.
"Could someone explain to me how you implement carbon paper, "magic envelopes" and invisible ink inside of a computer?"
It's a metaphor. As far as I can see, the bank would calculate a matrix of numbers and send that to Alice, who would use the bit-pattern from her password to find the correct numbers to use for the key.
However, as has been pointed out, if the bank knows her password, it can simply send her the session key encrypted with her password, which will be impossible for the man-in-the-middle to crack (otherwise they could just use the password to log in!). So it's a bit of a pointless exercise.
Exactly. In America you can sue anyone for anything, and provided there's a reasonable chance of winning (or getting an out-of-court settlement) you might as well go for it... if your lawyer is working for a percentage there's little cost to you. In Britain and most other sane nations, if you don't have a good chance you don't sue because you may well be hit with the costs for the person you sue if you lose.
So the simple answer to eliminating such law-suits is to introduce 'loser pays' laws. Of course that's unlikely to happen when lawyers make so much money from suits like this.
"In the USA, we don't crush our children with tanks when they have a party in a public (Tiannenmen) square."
No, you shoot them instead.
Again, China has more economic freedom, but less freedom to criticise the state. But Americans don't exactly have a lot of that left either post-9/11.
Certainly I'd far rather fly to and from China than I would fly to and from America these days with the minimum-wage Nazis on the prowl for 'terrists'. Neither state is anywhere near perfect, but China is heading towards more freedom, whereas America is heading towards less and less.
Indeed. It's not that China is an evil tyranny and America is a glorious bastion of freedom, it's that both are authoritarian states which choose to control and limit _different_ aspects of freedom.
China, for example, has a lot more economic freedom than America (most obviously, I believe the top income tax rate is only 15%), but less freedom of speech (though, today, that difference is rapidly decreasing).
Same here: in Mozilla 1.7.5 the setting works until I exit Mozilla and restart, then it says it's false but still follows the link to the 'phishing' site.
"who's banning anything?"
Um, the government are banning kids from buying video games that they don't like. What exactly is so hard to understand about that, Mr Coward?
"A lot of games are extremely violent and offensive, and reward indiscriminant violence."
I remember when I was a kid we used to play games like 'soldiers' and 'cowboys and indians' (today I guess, it would be 'cowboys and oppressed native americans'). Those were both violent and rewarded indiscriminate use of violence... the only difference is that they weren't computer games and we got some exercise instead of a fat ass. And I'm sure that liberals today would not only regard 'cowboys and opressed native americans' as offensive, but bordering on 'hate crime'.
The whole idea of banning kids from playing 'violent' games in _DC_ is of course ludicrous. The most violent city in America is hardly that way because of computer games, and it would probably be a much _better_ place if potential teenage gang recruits were playing Doom 3 rather than selling crack and shooting each other. This is just another example of the government legislating while DC burns.
"Surely people agree that the same type of ratings should be applied to video games as are applied to videos/films?"
No. Why the hell should the government be telling me what movies my kids can see and what games they can play? Who made them God?
You would, presumably, also support a law preventing the sale of books like 'American Psycho' to kids?
Odd, isn't it, that the idea of banning books would cause a liberal outcry, yet they're perfectly happy with banning movies or computer games? What a difference a few years of technology makes to human rights.
I haven't tried their software myself, but this may be worth a look: http://www.celtx.com/
"Imagine the damage that could be done."
Such as, exactly?
"AI spiteful (ex)-employee could easily encrypt and forever destroy sensitive data that is irreplaceable."
Or they could just del *.*. Or format c:. Or burn down the building.
This whole 'spiteful employee' argument is nonsense. The only reasons to have a 'key recovery agent' are to recover password for clueless employees and to spy on slightly more clued employees.
"In "streaming" applications (hint: 3D rendering like on a graphics card!) the latency doesn't matter nearly as much as bandwidth."
That used to be true: graphics cards had fixed functionality and long pipelines, so if you knew that you'd need pixel (51, 96) of a texture two hundred steps down the pipeline you'd just ask the cache to fetch it in plenty of time.
Today, though, as they become more and more programmable, they're starting to see latency problems similar to CPUs. It's hard to predict what data a shader program will need, and when you find out what data it needs, you want it _now_ not 200 clock cycles later.
"Anyone care to enlighten me on what this can do that others cannot?"
:) !
You can add fancy 3D effects to your home movies, just like a real wedding video editor