You have a pretty good argument about SystemD here, and I want to use it to highlight why I consider systemD especially bad, as software goes.
- It breaks expectations of experienced Unix/Linux users. Where somebody was accustomed to interact with the system a certain way, e.g. having console logging and log files available to cat/grep/etc, systemD changes that. Programs should be designed for human usage - if it breaks already established human interfaces, it drives up the learning curve, and that is bad. We are overstressed with too much information as it is.
- Non-deterministic. If reordering the startup daemons breaks the system, systemD is at fault. You're saying that it's my fault for having broken systemD configuration. I want to remind you that a program should help me out, not raise barriers for me. If I write a configuration, test it, verifies that it works, and then two weeks later it refuses to work, nothing changed, this is horrible design - how was I even supposed to know it will break ? When I test a program, get to run through inputs and verify the results, I don't want unexpected surprises with the program changing behaviour without me telling it to do so.
I'm not going into technical merits here. I am talking as a human interacting with a machine - the behaviour of the systemD-driven machine is horrible.
Would you even drive a car that randomly speeds up a bit before breaking when you hit the breaks, because it thought it would get me a bit faster to my destination ? KISS is a principle because experience shows that simpler things work better.
I don't understand why people need to deface sites just to show... what ? their skillz ? the poor security of the website ?! This is beyond childish, and the "authors" are probably no more than script kiddiez.
As tinKode points out on his site, he wants to drive attention to security problems. In fact, if he wanted to do only that, he could privately inform the site owners about the problems he sees. He could make his own security company, and make some nice bucks out of doing this specific job he seems to enjoy.
But what he does now is no better than hooliganism, and I hope he will be tracked and serve some sentence for defacing of private property or anything similar.
My cats would let me know when they are in pain, either chronic or acute. On chronic pain I'd see 'meow' movements of the mouth without sound, curling up on me, or increased keading. Massaging the back of the neck always helps since it triggers serotonin release and calms the cat down. Works on older cats too.
I've never seen any cat making sounds on chronic pain. But this doesn't mean that the signs aren't in there if you look for them.
I could bet that it will run X11 as a separate application (like OSX does).
and, I could bet that it will run something like wine, or CrossOver, to have limited support for windows application - it will even be advertised as such: " Runs Microsoft Office** ! ". Google invested quite a bunch in Wine, and the number one of reasons the Linux netbooks are returned is that Win apps are not supported - so it would be an obvious move from the part of Google to embed wine in the OS.
For the interface, it will probably run a modified version of Chrome with hooks added to control the hardware (D-Bus, much like Nokia did with maemo), and will have some kind of AIR environment to support webish application development.
** somewhat poorly, better try this nice online suite here, mmmkay ?
> * Is the apparent slowing something actually allowing you to do *something* better in that short period of time? Yes. Definitely. The feeling is that you have more time to do some things, not that you do them quicker. Still it seems that other people around you see you like doing things very fast, faster then normal.
> * Does the apparent slowing allow you read numbers more quickly? No. I feel that you can only speed up things that allow you to survive. So unless you're trying to disable a bomb in the 0.10 seconds left, and you depend on correctly reading the disabling code and keying it in, it won't happen.
> * Does the apparent slowing allow you to dodge bullets? Yes. If you do not freeze. From my discussion around this subject, I think lots of people getting themselves in that situation just freeze. I personally believe that the freeze is induced by panic triggered by the slowdown of time, and not by immediate and clear danger that triggered the response in the first phase. In other words, we may be getting too smart for our own safety. I believe that at least cats share the same slowdown, allowing them to have time to take the "air-foil" mode, when falling, even on very short distances, but I don't think they are conscious about it. Maybe only humans use time as subjective reference, thus enabling us to recognize the slowdown, and then panic about it. This is wild speculation at best.
> * Is the apparent slowing only an illusion? No. I actually had time to do lots of things in a very short objective time line, but very long subjective time line.
It happened to me once. I was driving on an express way, at fairly high speed, but not excessive (maybe 120 km/h); there was a stream of cars coming from the opposite direction; all headlight light up, it was pretty dark (around 9PM on summer night). I kept flashing my head lights to warn the incoming drivers that I was there - if you are behind a high-tonnage truck on that section, it's possible to not see the incoming cars and engage in a risky takeover.
And suddenly it happened. One car emerged from the opposite lane from behind a large truck directly in my front, very near me, maybe 100 meters or so. Suddenly everything seemed to slow down. I remember clearly cursing the driver, estimating the braking distance, and seeing it's no way I could stop, never mind the opposite car. Then I started scanning the side of the road, looking for some space where I could clear out. I choose a gap on the side, where I could enter before hitting the front car , and inspected the muddy terrain, since I would have to get at least two wheels (on the right side) out of the road. I remember distinctly plotting the course of each wheel in my head. I braked, not forcefully, but to slow enough to avoid skidding once I'll off the asphalt. Then carefully taking the car out (still at high speed) out of the road, passing by the opposite car, with two wheels out. I remember I felt each wheel one the ground like they were tactile extensions of my body, feeling the terrain beneath them.
I still had time to see details of the driver and occupants of the other car; the driver was clearly frozen in panic, eyes wide open, no reaction behind the wheel. At that time my car started sliding on the mud, I gently took wheel on the other, to return to the road, and applied thrust to curve down the sliding. I re-entered the road, and looked in the rear-view mirror to see what the other car was doing - about few moments later it started to violently break, stopping in mid-road. Then the slow-motion sensation stopped, and I pulled off for a few minutes to calm down. My heart was beating wildly, and I felt just like after an adrenaline rush.
Other occupants of the car told me that they never felt the time expansion, that everything happened in a blink for them - the other car appear, I taking wheel to the right, they were sure there was going to an impact and hold onto the seat belts, and then suddenly returning to the road.
Thinking about it, I don't think it's just a memory recreation. I think that the sudden and clear danger triggered an adrenaline rush, and every bit of attention was devoted to solve the situation. At the same time, maybe more neuro-transmitters were pumped into the brain, and maybe lots of endomorphin too - I remember the feeling of deep calmness and tranquility, even in the moments I was considering the best angle to crash the car into the incoming car to maximize chances of survival, in case I couldn't find a gap between poles on the right to clear the way.
But most amazing thing I think about is that a high-level cognitive process can trigger so sudden response at low-level biochemical reactions in the body. This is what should be studied. If recreating that sense of deep calmness coupled with very fast cognitive processes will be possible by taking a pill, we all could be Neo. Imagine what exam room will look like !
Maybe you oversee the legislative scope of any wanna-be-dictatorship government: to make everyone a criminal so they always be vulnerable some sort of seemingly-legal over-punishment. But not make any law extremely broad because people would notice it and rebel - like it is the case now; no, you have to work in small steps, so when a ludicrously low gets passed, the majority don't bother checking - after all, if the majority isn't concerned, who's gonna fight you ? (not vote you in office next elections). And proceed as needed to get all the population under the expanding umbrella of this para-legal system.
As anyone with experience living in ex-communist country, I can tell you this system works well. You, as government, don't have to actually prosecute (! or even accuse !) everybody, just make sure that your people know anybody can get stepped over at government's will, without much harm to others (so not to be forced to organize themselves against you), because it's impossible to live a normal live and not cross an absurd law with extensive consequences.
The problem is that cryptography and DRM attempt to solve different problems; so using crypto rules for DRM isn't going to work.
To sum it up, crypto is concerned with transferring a secret (by encoding communication) from A to B where the communication channel isn't secure. DRM is concerned to let A control what B does with the communication; current DRM schemes treat "B" as a communication channel between A and C, where C is a "secret" entity, the media player. But this breaks another assumption of crypto rules, that the endpoints (in this case A and C) are safe; but since B (the "consumer attacker") holds physical access to C, it is trivial for B to modify/use C to get the clear communication. Thus DRM will always be broken if it sticks to "rules of good crypto".
The media companies should seek a bit of help from security researches to establish a new paradigm and "good rules" for DRM. But they keep on trashing the universities...
Bad analogy. The shooter would get death sentence because he shot, not because of theft. A more accurate version would be: minor offense for stealing a Slurpee and walking away by the door, very bad offense with big penalty if he come down through the air conditioning system, like in Mission Impossible... why do the means matter, the penalty is sentenced according to end result ?
It doesn't matter how gruesomely I kill someone, I still get death sentence, does it matter if I would shoot the victim in the head, or just merely cut the throat ?
Hot water on tap is not essential to your existence, but it's nice to have it. Electric light at the flick of a finger is not essential to your life, but it's also nice to have it...
You know what, let's us all move in some caverns...
Let me say goodbye to positive karma: Welcome back, dear Internet Explorer 3 days...
Mozilla head #1> Umm, MS copies our tabs in their so-called browser ! Mozilla head #2> Ok, let's make a version without tabs... and while we're at it, let's remove that pesky Back button - and we'll have a fix for the memory leak too !!!
IMHO Greenpeace is just a bunch of media whores that only seek to attract funding for their "green concern". I'm not a troll, and I agree we must be friendlier to our environment, but for God's sake, go plant a tree, don't go make a bunch of losers chain themselves to nuclear waste trains.
If they were in fact nature-friendly activists they claim to be, they would've seen (and I'm sure they know) that the nuclear energy is much more clean then oil energy, and promote it, but they're exploiting that on the mentioning of the N word everyone goes ballistic, while nobody cares (yet) about another oil refinery being build. The only one message they want to send is "give us more donations so we can fight the polluters, and while we're at it, buy a ship or two to go swim with the dolphins".
Now, mod me into oblivion, and then go out and plant a tree - that will ensure you paid your oxygen debt for the rest of your life.
IANAP, but reading down the incomplete and rounded-off-for-the-masses information that makes everything seems to be obvious to everyone but the involved people;) I have a confusion. Maybe someone can enlighten me:)
It seems to me that photon detection on the lower-arm (at D1 in the article) is influenced by the coincidence condition posed upon by the experiment. What I mean is that we have selected for analysis only those photons detected at the same time as D2. In out-of-focus mode, we detect the same pattern of interference lines on same detectors, which is expected. In focus mode, on D2 we detect only the image of the double-slits. By selecting at D1 only photons which arrive in coincidence with the photons that render the image at D2 (selection done through the time coincidence requirement), I think it's obvious that we'll have some other photon distribution recorded.
In other words, I think that the prior knowledge assumed by observer in classic EPR experiments (to account for no-signal theorems) is subtly traded for an overlooked part in experimental setup, the coincidence detector (which has enough "knowledge" to substitute for an advised observer).
I don't know enough math to compute what part of the total photons are selected through the coincidence, but I think that the 15% drop mentioned is not at all accurate. I would predict that in Cramer's experiment we'll see that at D1 there is no interference pattern change no matter how the detector is position at D2, if the coincidence requirement is not followed. Just because God really likes playing us like toys:)
I must bring to Slashdot attention that at some point authorithies in Romania started to heavily break down on software without a license. Which licence must've been bought from somewhere. Belive it or not, this crackdown didn't focus on pirated Windows or Adobe software; it focused on in-house development and Linux and GPL'ed programs! To this day a law still stands that _requires_ that every program ever made in the country be registered with a central authority, which would license it to the developer (for a fee), so that developer and the users have it "Licensed". Now, I'm not sure if this was somehow forced by local BSA (a rumour said so) or anything like it, but now it's still good that nobody enforces anymore that bill.
I used for a while 3 17" monitors, and drived me crazy. Head movement was too much, and I often missed events (IM, new email notifications) for my right-most monitor (used to have 2 centered left and right , and one on far right). Now I'm back to two, and feels a lot more comfortable. The screen size also makes a difference for me. On 19" screens it makes me search for a place on a monitor too hard, especially at late (or early?) hours. 2-17" seems the best setup for me.
As side note, Samsung monitors beat for me anything else. CRTs are best, but heavy and take a lot of room, and LCDs are quite nice.
Slashdot Mirror
Joke ---> Whooosh
You
You have a pretty good argument about SystemD here, and I want to use it to highlight why I consider systemD especially bad, as software goes.
- It breaks expectations of experienced Unix/Linux users. Where somebody was accustomed to interact with the system a certain way, e.g. having console logging and log files available to cat/grep/etc, systemD changes that. Programs should be designed for human usage - if it breaks already established human interfaces, it drives up the learning curve, and that is bad. We are overstressed with too much information as it is.
- Non-deterministic. If reordering the startup daemons breaks the system, systemD is at fault. You're saying that it's my fault for having broken systemD configuration. I want to remind you that a program should help me out, not raise barriers for me. If I write a configuration, test it, verifies that it works, and then two weeks later it refuses to work, nothing changed, this is horrible design - how was I even supposed to know it will break ? When I test a program, get to run through inputs and verify the results, I don't want unexpected surprises with the program changing behaviour without me telling it to do so.
I'm not going into technical merits here. I am talking as a human interacting with a machine - the behaviour of the systemD-driven machine is horrible.
Would you even drive a car that randomly speeds up a bit before breaking when you hit the breaks, because it thought it would get me a bit faster to my destination ? KISS is a principle because experience shows that simpler things work better.
What do you mean "_was_ _first_ implemented" ?
I don't understand why people need to deface sites just to show ... what ? their skillz ? the poor security of the website ?! This is beyond childish, and the "authors" are probably no more than script kiddiez.
As tinKode points out on his site, he wants to drive attention to security problems. In fact, if he wanted to do only that, he could privately inform the site owners about the problems he sees. He could make his own security company, and make some nice bucks out of doing this specific job he seems to enjoy.
But what he does now is no better than hooliganism, and I hope he will be tracked and serve some sentence for defacing of private property or anything similar.
My cats would let me know when they are in pain, either chronic or acute. On chronic pain I'd see 'meow' movements of the mouth without sound, curling up on me, or increased keading. Massaging the back of the neck always helps since it triggers serotonin release and calms the cat down. Works on older cats too. I've never seen any cat making sounds on chronic pain. But this doesn't mean that the signs aren't in there if you look for them.
I could bet that it will run X11 as a separate application (like OSX does).
and, I could bet that it will run something like wine, or CrossOver, to have limited support for windows application - it will even be advertised as such: " Runs Microsoft Office** ! ". Google invested quite a bunch in Wine, and the number one of reasons the Linux netbooks are returned is that Win apps are not supported - so it would be an obvious move from the part of Google to embed wine in the OS.
For the interface, it will probably run a modified version of Chrome with hooks added to control the hardware (D-Bus, much like Nokia did with maemo), and will have some kind of AIR environment to support webish application development.
** somewhat poorly, better try this nice online suite here, mmmkay ?
That says he whom can't get hot chicks :)
From my experience (posted above)
> * Is the apparent slowing something actually allowing you to do *something* better in that short period of time?
Yes. Definitely. The feeling is that you have more time to do some things, not that you do them quicker. Still it seems that other people around you see you like doing things very fast, faster then normal.
> * Does the apparent slowing allow you read numbers more quickly?
No. I feel that you can only speed up things that allow you to survive. So unless you're trying to disable a bomb in the 0.10 seconds left, and you depend on correctly reading the disabling code and keying it in, it won't happen.
> * Does the apparent slowing allow you to dodge bullets?
Yes. If you do not freeze. From my discussion around this subject, I think lots of people getting themselves in that situation just freeze. I personally believe that the freeze is induced by panic triggered by the slowdown of time, and not by immediate and clear danger that triggered the response in the first phase. In other words, we may be getting too smart for our own safety. I believe that at least cats share the same slowdown, allowing them to have time to take the "air-foil" mode, when falling, even on very short distances, but I don't think they are conscious about it. Maybe only humans use time as subjective reference, thus enabling us to recognize the slowdown, and then panic about it. This is wild speculation at best.
> * Is the apparent slowing only an illusion?
No. I actually had time to do lots of things in a very short objective time line, but very long subjective time line.
It happened to me once. I was driving on an express way, at fairly high speed, but not excessive (maybe 120 km/h); there was a stream of cars coming from the opposite direction; all headlight light up, it was pretty dark (around 9PM on summer night). I kept flashing my head lights to warn the incoming drivers that I was there - if you are behind a high-tonnage truck on that section, it's possible to not see the incoming cars and engage in a risky takeover.
And suddenly it happened. One car emerged from the opposite lane from behind a large truck directly in my front, very near me, maybe 100 meters or so. Suddenly everything seemed to slow down. I remember clearly cursing the driver, estimating the braking distance, and seeing it's no way I could stop, never mind the opposite car. Then I started scanning the side of the road, looking for some space where I could clear out. I choose a gap on the side, where I could enter before hitting the front car , and inspected the muddy terrain, since I would have to get at least two wheels (on the right side) out of the road. I remember distinctly plotting the course of each wheel in my head. I braked, not forcefully, but to slow enough to avoid skidding once I'll off the asphalt. Then carefully taking the car out (still at high speed) out of the road, passing by the opposite car, with two wheels out. I remember I felt each wheel one the ground like they were tactile extensions of my body, feeling the terrain beneath them.
I still had time to see details of the driver and occupants of the other car; the driver was clearly frozen in panic, eyes wide open, no reaction behind the wheel. At that time my car started sliding on the mud, I gently took wheel on the other, to return to the road, and applied thrust to curve down the sliding. I re-entered the road, and looked in the rear-view mirror to see what the other car was doing - about few moments later it started to violently break, stopping in mid-road. Then the slow-motion sensation stopped, and I pulled off for a few minutes to calm down. My heart was beating wildly, and I felt just like after an adrenaline rush.
Other occupants of the car told me that they never felt the time expansion, that everything happened in a blink for them - the other car appear, I taking wheel to the right, they were sure there was going to an impact and hold onto the seat belts, and then suddenly returning to the road.
Thinking about it, I don't think it's just a memory recreation. I think that the sudden and clear danger triggered an adrenaline rush, and every bit of attention was devoted to solve the situation. At the same time, maybe more neuro-transmitters were pumped into the brain, and maybe lots of endomorphin too - I remember the feeling of deep calmness and tranquility, even in the moments I was considering the best angle to crash the car into the incoming car to maximize chances of survival, in case I couldn't find a gap between poles on the right to clear the way.
But most amazing thing I think about is that a high-level cognitive process can trigger so sudden response at low-level biochemical reactions in the body. This is what should be studied. If recreating that sense of deep calmness coupled with very fast cognitive processes will be possible by taking a pill, we all could be Neo. Imagine what exam room will look like !
Maybe you oversee the legislative scope of any wanna-be-dictatorship government: to make everyone a criminal so they always be vulnerable some sort of seemingly-legal over-punishment. But not make any law extremely broad because people would notice it and rebel - like it is the case now; no, you have to work in small steps, so when a ludicrously low gets passed, the majority don't bother checking - after all, if the majority isn't concerned, who's gonna fight you ? (not vote you in office next elections). And proceed as needed to get all the population under the expanding umbrella of this para-legal system.
As anyone with experience living in ex-communist country, I can tell you this system works well. You, as government, don't have to actually prosecute (! or even accuse !) everybody, just make sure that your people know anybody can get stepped over at government's will, without much harm to others (so not to be forced to organize themselves against you), because it's impossible to live a normal live and not cross an absurd law with extensive consequences.
It's called falling asleep...
The problem is that cryptography and DRM attempt to solve different problems; so using crypto rules for DRM isn't going to work. To sum it up, crypto is concerned with transferring a secret (by encoding communication) from A to B where the communication channel isn't secure. DRM is concerned to let A control what B does with the communication; current DRM schemes treat "B" as a communication channel between A and C, where C is a "secret" entity, the media player. But this breaks another assumption of crypto rules, that the endpoints (in this case A and C) are safe; but since B (the "consumer attacker") holds physical access to C, it is trivial for B to modify/use C to get the clear communication. Thus DRM will always be broken if it sticks to "rules of good crypto". The media companies should seek a bit of help from security researches to establish a new paradigm and "good rules" for DRM. But they keep on trashing the universities...
Bad analogy. The shooter would get death sentence because he shot, not because of theft. A more accurate version would be: minor offense for stealing a Slurpee and walking away by the door, very bad offense with big penalty if he come down through the air conditioning system, like in Mission Impossible... why do the means matter, the penalty is sentenced according to end result ? It doesn't matter how gruesomely I kill someone, I still get death sentence, does it matter if I would shoot the victim in the head, or just merely cut the throat ?
ARM9 at 200MHz is quite slow if it's gonna run a full-featured Linux w/ X interface, if we compare to Nokia 770 - which is quite in the same range.
but 500% heat doesn't translate to 500% hotter (heat is not temperature)
now, give me my nobel
PS> captcha: cannabis.. how desirable
Hot water on tap is not essential to your existence, but it's nice to have it. Electric light at the flick of a finger is not essential to your life, but it's also nice to have it...
You know what, let's us all move in some caverns...
That's because nobody wanted to see the darn movie...
Shhht, don't give'em ideas!
Let me say goodbye to positive karma: Welcome back, dear Internet Explorer 3 days...
Mozilla head #1> Umm, MS copies our tabs in their so-called browser !
Mozilla head #2> Ok, let's make a version without tabs... and while we're at it, let's remove that pesky Back button - and we'll have a fix for the memory leak too !!!
IMHO Greenpeace is just a bunch of media whores that only seek to attract funding for their "green concern". I'm not a troll, and I agree we must be friendlier to our environment, but for God's sake, go plant a tree, don't go make a bunch of losers chain themselves to nuclear waste trains.
If they were in fact nature-friendly activists they claim to be, they would've seen (and I'm sure they know) that the nuclear energy is much more clean then oil energy, and promote it, but they're exploiting that on the mentioning of the N word everyone goes ballistic, while nobody cares (yet) about another oil refinery being build. The only one message they want to send is "give us more donations so we can fight the polluters, and while we're at it, buy a ship or two to go swim with the dolphins".
Now, mod me into oblivion, and then go out and plant a tree - that will ensure you paid your oxygen debt for the rest of your life.
IANAP, but reading down the incomplete and rounded-off-for-the-masses information that makes everything seems to be obvious to everyone but the involved people ;) I have a confusion. Maybe someone can enlighten me :)
:)
It seems to me that photon detection on the lower-arm (at D1 in the article) is influenced by the coincidence condition posed upon by the experiment. What I mean is that we have selected for analysis only those photons detected at the same time as D2. In out-of-focus mode, we detect the same pattern of interference lines on same detectors, which is expected. In focus mode, on D2 we detect only the image of the double-slits. By selecting at D1 only photons which arrive in coincidence with the photons that render the image at D2 (selection done through the time coincidence requirement), I think it's obvious that we'll have some other photon distribution recorded.
In other words, I think that the prior knowledge assumed by observer in classic EPR experiments (to account for no-signal theorems) is subtly traded for an overlooked part in experimental setup, the coincidence detector (which has enough "knowledge" to substitute for an advised observer).
I don't know enough math to compute what part of the total photons are selected through the coincidence, but I think that the 15% drop mentioned is not at all accurate. I would predict that in Cramer's experiment we'll see that at D1 there is no interference pattern change no matter how the detector is position at D2, if the coincidence requirement is not followed. Just because God really likes playing us like toys
Actually, if you look into the javascript code you'll see Safari-specific code in there...
I guess they went for a roll-out before everything was ready.
I must bring to Slashdot attention that at some point authorithies in Romania started to heavily break down on software without a license. Which licence must've been bought from somewhere.
Belive it or not, this crackdown didn't focus on pirated Windows or Adobe software; it focused on in-house development and Linux and GPL'ed programs!
To this day a law still stands that _requires_ that every program ever made in the country be registered with a central authority, which would license it to the developer (for a fee), so that developer and the users have it "Licensed".
Now, I'm not sure if this was somehow forced by local BSA (a rumour said so) or anything like it, but now it's still good that nobody enforces anymore that bill.
My 55 cents,
well, technically not six words, but still one of the best short stories I ever heard:
Checkmate in 3 moves: black takes queen, queen grabs money, white gets AIDS.
And then there's the one involving high class, religion, mistery and sexuality:
"Oh my God", said the baroness, "I'm pregnant again, and I don't know with whom".
I used for a while 3 17" monitors, and drived me crazy. Head movement was too much, and I often missed events (IM, new email notifications) for my right-most monitor (used to have 2 centered left and right , and one on far right). Now I'm back to two, and feels a lot more comfortable.
The screen size also makes a difference for me. On 19" screens it makes me search for a place on a monitor too hard, especially at late (or early?) hours. 2-17" seems the best setup for me.
As side note, Samsung monitors beat for me anything else. CRTs are best, but heavy and take a lot of room, and LCDs are quite nice.