Just cos you can see a dot on an i doesn't mean that it's using a full pixel to display the dot. Look at this test image on your TV, in full-screen (ie fit to the full screen):
http://www.matoverton.com/video/testcardk_1920.png
Under the solid-gray darkening rectangles, look at the vertical lines -- on the far right set of lines, are they all displayed with equal width? Those lines are 1/1920 of the width of the image. If your TV cannot display this image full-screen with those lines all being equal-width, then it is NOT 1920 pixels wide.
The *software* resolution of HD is 1920x1080. There are practically no TVs available today which have panels with more than 1366x768 pixels on them. The fact that these all advertise themselves as being "Full HD" is pretty obnoxiously misleading marketing.
I don't know what planet you live on that you can display 1080 full resolution dots using 600 pixels, or 1920 full resolutions dots using 1024 pixels, but given that the Samsung Galaxy Pad (10 inch version) has 1024x600 pixels, it's complete marketing BS to claim it can play "Full HD". It can't even do 720i/720p, let alone 1080. This is akin to the "1080p" stickers on every TV at the TV store, when all those LCD panels are 1366x768 at the absolutely biggest (and most are less than that). Yes, you can decode content that has that many dots in it. Yes, you may even have some nice hardware scalers and fancy perceptual algorithms for de-artifacting scaled images. But "Full HD"?? Time for a class action lawsuit, is what I say.
...and by the way, I'm not sure you can say the DNS is "broken" -- it may be in the case of OpenDNS, but I can definitely picture local DNS administrators implementing a staged IPv6 rollout by having some default IPv4 address returned when a DNS query otherwise only yields AAAA records, and then having a host on that IPv4 address that says "Sorry, you can't access that IPv6 site" or something to that effect.
Right. That is a much better test, because it's doing what I suggested: sending an IPv6 packet, and seeing if it gets through. You're still subject to possible shenanigans like traffic filtering which might block ICMPv6 ECHOs but allow TCPv6 through.
Ok.... but without IPv6 connectivity (I turned it off), I type ipv6.google.com in my browser address bar, my DNS lies to me, and my browser magically gets (over IPv4) the google homepage. Using ipv6.google.com in a browser as a test for whether your ipv6 connectivity is working is not a good test. I guess if you're testing specifically for the ability to fetch the bouncy logo from that address, that's one thing -- assuming that bouncy logo isn't available at the ipv4 site that opendns is magically making it look like I'm going to, or redirecting me to, or whatever it's doing (no time right now to sniff traffic and see). But the statement:
ipv6.google.com [google.com] is IPv6 only, and if you can reach it, you are IPv6 enabled.
makes assumptions about your network and its services (like DNS) which are not guaranteed to be true.
Ok. So it's only ipv6 if your DNS provider doesn't return IPv4 records for it... It's still not a good test for IPv6 connectivity. A better test for IPv6 connectivity would be, you know, sending an IPv6 packet and seeing if it gets through.
[craig@Puck:~]$ host ipv6.google.com ipv6.google.com is an alias for ipv6.l.google.com. ipv6.l.google.com has address 208.67.219.132 ipv6.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2001:4860:800b::69 ipv6.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2001:4860:800b::68 ipv6.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2001:4860:800b::63 ipv6.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2001:4860:800b::6a ipv6.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2001:4860:800b::93 ipv6.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2001:4860:800b::67
...which is why Peak Oil is much less scary from the energy angle than it is from the Haber Process angle. Fertilizers and anti-biotics are far more important to maintaining the world's current population levels and density distributions than any particular form of energy storage.
1. Go to any hosting provider which uses VMs (let's say Amazon EC2). 2. Sign up for new account, get your root access on your own VM instance on the shared host. 3. Execute exploit; take control of any other VM on the same physical hardware as you.
There's another "use case" too which is not a kernel crash or power outage (well, not in the sense you mean). I have seen many non-technical computer users power off their machines when they're done using them by just holding down the power button until the screen goes dark. Going through the whole "click menu -> shutdown -> wait 10 minutes" routine is too much trouble. And they're not wrong -- why should I sit there and wait for 10 minutes to turn my machine off when I'm done using it?
This trick is necessary in all multitasking operating systems.
No, only ones which have isolated memory maps per process. You could certainly have a multitasking OS which didn't use virtual memory if you didn't care about different processes being able to access each others' memory.
A shocking number of humans, including many regarded as "average" by testing standards, never actually reach a state of true intelligence. Too many of them are profoundly ignorant and quite determined to remain that way.
It should work without too much trouble (maybe any? Haven't tried it recently) on 2.6
It's better than truecrypt because it overlays multiple encrypted partitions over each other on the same physcial media, with no partition knowing about the others. So if the authorities say "well what about this encrypted partition?", you hand over a key. This key decrypts one "view" of the partition. Let's say it's a 1GB partition. key1 can show you 400MB of data, and key2 shows you 200MB of other data. Given key1, you can't even tell there is a key2 -- it just looks like you have a 1GB partition which is 40% full. Looks like you did turn over your crypto key, and since they find nothing of interest in the 400MB partition, they let you keep your laptop.
Slashdot Mirror
Just cos you can see a dot on an i doesn't mean that it's using a full pixel to display the dot. Look at this test image on your TV, in full-screen (ie fit to the full screen):
http://www.matoverton.com/video/testcardk_1920.png
Under the solid-gray darkening rectangles, look at the vertical lines -- on the far right set of lines, are they all displayed with equal width? Those lines are 1/1920 of the width of the image. If your TV cannot display this image full-screen with those lines all being equal-width, then it is NOT 1920 pixels wide.
Let me flip that on you: find me ANY tv which has a 1920x1080 panel.
I said "TV" not "Monitor"
The *software* resolution of HD is 1920x1080. There are practically no TVs available today which have panels with more than 1366x768 pixels on them. The fact that these all advertise themselves as being "Full HD" is pretty obnoxiously misleading marketing.
I don't know what planet you live on that you can display 1080 full resolution dots using 600 pixels, or 1920 full resolutions dots using 1024 pixels, but given that the Samsung Galaxy Pad (10 inch version) has 1024x600 pixels, it's complete marketing BS to claim it can play "Full HD". It can't even do 720i/720p, let alone 1080. This is akin to the "1080p" stickers on every TV at the TV store, when all those LCD panels are 1366x768 at the absolutely biggest (and most are less than that). Yes, you can decode content that has that many dots in it. Yes, you may even have some nice hardware scalers and fancy perceptual algorithms for de-artifacting scaled images. But "Full HD"?? Time for a class action lawsuit, is what I say.
WARNING
...you may get this result.
If you leave this unattended...
...and by the way, I'm not sure you can say the DNS is "broken" -- it may be in the case of OpenDNS, but I can definitely picture local DNS administrators implementing a staged IPv6 rollout by having some default IPv4 address returned when a DNS query otherwise only yields AAAA records, and then having a host on that IPv4 address that says "Sorry, you can't access that IPv6 site" or something to that effect.
Right. That is a much better test, because it's doing what I suggested: sending an IPv6 packet, and seeing if it gets through. You're still subject to possible shenanigans like traffic filtering which might block ICMPv6 ECHOs but allow TCPv6 through.
ipv6.google.com [google.com] is IPv6 only, and if you can reach it, you are IPv6 enabled.
makes assumptions about your network and its services (like DNS) which are not guaranteed to be true.
Ok. So it's only ipv6 if your DNS provider doesn't return IPv4 records for it... It's still not a good test for IPv6 connectivity. A better test for IPv6 connectivity would be, you know, sending an IPv6 packet and seeing if it gets through.
> The software's main advance is a user-friendly search tool that can scan multiple data sources at once, something previous search tools couldn't do
OMG! Did someone finally discover the hidden "UNION" conjunction in SQL?
...which is why Peak Oil is much less scary from the energy angle than it is from the Haber Process angle. Fertilizers and anti-biotics are far more important to maintaining the world's current population levels and density distributions than any particular form of energy storage.
I hope you dutifully backed up a copy of the HD-wiping virus!
It would sink to the bottom of the soup pot though, so as long as you just scoop from the top, you'll be OK.
So we end up with a computer simulating a human pretending to be a robot, that is disguising itself as a human!
Steps to reproduce at no effort:
1. Go to any hosting provider which uses VMs (let's say Amazon EC2).
2. Sign up for new account, get your root access on your own VM instance on the shared host.
3. Execute exploit; take control of any other VM on the same physical hardware as you.
There, that wasn't so hard now, was it?
This is why I always use blank passwords! Take that, keyloggers!
There's another "use case" too which is not a kernel crash or power outage (well, not in the sense you mean). I have seen many non-technical computer users power off their machines when they're done using them by just holding down the power button until the screen goes dark. Going through the whole "click menu -> shutdown -> wait 10 minutes" routine is too much trouble. And they're not wrong -- why should I sit there and wait for 10 minutes to turn my machine off when I'm done using it?
This trick is necessary in all multitasking operating systems.
No, only ones which have isolated memory maps per process. You could certainly have a multitasking OS which didn't use virtual memory if you didn't care about different processes being able to access each others' memory.
A shocking number of humans, including many regarded as "average" by testing standards, never actually reach a state of true intelligence. Too many of them are profoundly ignorant and quite determined to remain that way.
...and about 50% are below average.
Geeks often equate problem-solving skills with intelligence, hence the (not unreasonable) impression that many people are not very smart.
Well geeks are also occasionally OK at mathematics, and realize that somewhere around 50% of the population is of below average intelligence.
It's not any better. I didn't know that Truecrypt had that feature.
It should work without too much trouble (maybe any? Haven't tried it recently) on 2.6
It's better than truecrypt because it overlays multiple encrypted partitions over each other on the same physcial media, with no partition knowing about the others. So if the authorities say "well what about this encrypted partition?", you hand over a key. This key decrypts one "view" of the partition. Let's say it's a 1GB partition. key1 can show you 400MB of data, and key2 shows you 200MB of other data. Given key1, you can't even tell there is a key2 -- it just looks like you have a 1GB partition which is 40% full. Looks like you did turn over your crypto key, and since they find nothing of interest in the 400MB partition, they let you keep your laptop.
If you're worried about having to give up the password to your encrypted drive, try Rubberhose:
http://iq.org/~proff/rubberhose.org/