and the fact that you've shut up, seem to work well enough.:)
No it doesn't, I hope you don't fly anymore you're making a careless mistake about something that should have been taught to you before you took the ground exam.
The purpose of an End of Transmission marker is so that everyone listening has confirmation that they received ALL of your transmission as intended. So if for some reason my transmission is cut off and it seems like just silence you as a listener know it was cut off because you didn't hear an End of Transmission marker and you can request that it be repeated.
If you think 'silence' is the way to tell, you don't need to be anywhere in an aircraft except the passenger cabin, there are a ridiculous number of airline accidents that result because of just this sort of stupidity, a fine example is a Pan-Am flight which started a takeoff roll after knowing they didn't get a full transmission from the tower... which told them to hold until another aircraft which had to taxis back up the runway itself could clear it. About 500 people died that day because some idiot thought silence was good enough and ignored procedure which would have been to ask for a repeat. Half way down the run way, as their 747 approached rotation speed, out of the fog appeared another jumbo jet, turning off the runway right in front of them. All because they knowingly didn't follow preceedure and ask for a repeat when the cockpit voice recorder clearly shows them noticing, pointing out, and ignoring the missing End of Transmission marker.
The click when you release the mic is there because idiots like you couldnt' follow procedure so they took it out of your hands in order for everyone else that actually has a clue to be safer. Either way, your lack of understanding of why procedure is the way it is gives me a very disturbing feeling.
No, phones have been full duplex for my entire life, hence why when you're talking on a phone, the other person can talk and you can hear them speak while you are talking or making noise. Phones also have no voice activation circuit, they are constantly 'transmitting' from both ends.
You think its okay that you gave them an additional $5 for something you already paid for just so you don't have to worry about them screwing you over and turning off the DRM servers or revoking your license?
Seriously? You're okay with the fact that you paid extra... to get what you already paid for... and which costs them less than a penny to reproduce for you?
The fact that you paid $18 something you could have downloaded via a google search (I don't mean pirating, legitimate free for download info on the exact same thing) and you're happy about it is just frightening.
I commonly run Glympse [glympse.com] while listening to Pandora [pandora.com] on my way home, so my wife knows when to expect me
Might I suggest asking her to loosen the fucking leash on you a little bit? I'm pretty sure you're going to be unhappy with everything in life regardless of the phone if your wife needs up to the second/meter updates on your drive home from work. That isn't healthy.
Thank god their about to make using a phone while driving as bad as a DUI here, you need to stop fucking with your phone and drive instead.
Subscription to network notifications are more efficient for the local CPU, but then you have to keep the phone's radio powered up to maintain the connection and stay open for notifications. If polling frequency is low, you can probably save a lot more juice by only powering up the radio briefly, every hour.
No, it can stay in standby mode, the notifications come in just like an SMS or incoming call. The radio is always powered up to some extent so it can sit and wait for someone to call you or send you a message. Sending a notification to apps along this same line of communication is extremely energy efficient as the radio can stay in low power mode and wait for something to wake it up to do real, two way communications.
You don't think Win3.1 had preemption? It did. It sucked at it, but it did. Generally due to the missing memory protection multitasking as just asking for death, but it was there, Mac OS 8 or 9 got preemption as well
Niether was IE... ever... but go ahead, spout random shit you read on some forum about why Microsoft is evil and by all means continue thinking it makes you look knowledgable. Safari is just as embedded into OSX as IE ever was. Microsoft uses the Trident rendering engine for providing HTML display support through out its apps and to third party software in the EXACT SAME WAY that OSX uses WebKit, KDE too for that matter.
The IE bundling issue was simply due to the way microsoft prevented other browsers from being added by manufactures by special deals and pricing that would go away if you bundled something else.
Now days, even a minor Safari exploit will get you root on OSX... IF you happen to be running something with elevated privledges (i.e. you're root).
Funny story, Windows is the exact same way, since Windows NT you've been able to resolve this problem by simply not running as an admin, the fact that by default users were admins was a hold over from DOS where there were no permissions, and its taken time for them to slowly transition away from that without breaking all the apps out there at one time. Now days, Windows doesn't make users admins by default anymore so its just like OS X and Linux
But hey, don't let facts or reality stand in your way, you go right on spewing things well beyond your level of understanding.
Perhaps you should stop thinking what you learned in your CS class applies to the real world and actually join the real world long enough to notice the fact that phones that blindly multitask fucking suck. Example: Windows Mobile 7... Full on multitasking... and no battery life unless you had perfectly written apps... which is rather rare. Don't stop that shitty app thats eating CPU, welp it doesn't care, its be happy to run in the background while your battery drains because as you said, it can manage the memory and CPU while it happily drains the better because the user forgot its running in the background.
Versus something like multitasking on the iPhone which is really task switching with the capability to run a few very low resource background threads as needed.
You can take any phone that lets apps run away with like a desktop OS and shove it up your ass as it'll probably be more useful there.
Why are you talking about kernel locks? $50 says you don't even know what BKL means (and no, going to google it now doesn't count douchebag) You clearly don't know what you're talking about so you'd probably do well to just STFU before someone schools you, won't be me, I'm just too lazy tonight. Just because you read someones blog doesn't mean you actually have a clue, and those of us with a clue can see through better than the windshield on my car. So linux and NT had shitty kernels in the past, whats your point? They had global locks that killed performance in an SMP environment so it didn't scale for shit, again, whats your point, has nothing to do with Mobile phones and nothing to do with multitask, its related to SMP. 1995 called, they want their clue back. If you think the BKL that is so common to OSes is a piss poor design than you've never worked as a professional where the right technical decision could be the completely wrong practical decision for countless number of reasons. When pretty much everything ran on a single cpu, and you need to tack on SMP support in a hurry, its far more cost effective and efficient to throw some big locks into the kernel and move on... adding proper SMP support to an existing OS takes a lot of time, effort and debugging to get all the things that were never intended to work that way into a state thats safe to do so... which is why Linux for example has taken so long to clean up. For the first 15 years or so of Linux's existence there was no to very little reason you'd bother with SMP, and so coding SMP support would actually be inefficient.
Those kernel locks cause no performance degradation to speak of in a uniprocessor system and are irrelevant to any discussion about phones for that very reason. Maybe later this year or next when we start seeing dual core phones then it might matter, until then it makes no difference.
I really can't understand why anyone would do this FCoE?
Its a crappy protocol to start with, the only useful part of it was the fact that fiber was faster than copper at the time for any reasonable price, now thats no longer true. Fast enough copper is WAY cheaper than fiber and with none of the trouble.
FCoE to me makes about as much sense as PPPoE, when you start talking like that you've clearly very little actual understanding of what you are doing. You can come up with some reasons as to why you might do it, but it just shows you don't actually know the right way to do it and haven't bothered to look. It wreaks of inexperience and incompetence.
So you didn't like iOS and Android because you installed too many apps and needed a bunch of pages to access them all?
Tell me, how did WP7 work around this? Haven't found any apps worth downloading yet?
I have 6 pages of apps on my iPhone, and I take it off the first page once in... well I don't know how long its been because... just like you... all my important apps are on the first page where I put them so I'd have quick access to them. The rest of it is stuff like TomTom, ssh client, rdp client, all the stuff that I want to have with me if I need it, but I rarely ever use since I'm always near a real computer and its far more enjoyable to do so on a real PC than a phone.
You sound exactly like those retarded Microsoft commericials on winmo7... you're claiming a 'feature' of WinMo7 is better... when its exactly the same as what its 'better' than.
How much does MS pay you? I can respew MS commercials too for the right price and I'm not going to be anywhere nearly as transparent about it as you are.
Its not a new OS, its the same old with features hidden from the users and devs so it acts more like iOS because Microsoft doesn't actually understand why people like iOS.
Except your palm didn't have multitasking, it had task switching and due to the way Palm OS worked, there was no 'ram' to speak of, everything ran from flash and stored on flash, your app didn't 'start' and need to initialize itself, it was just ready to go because the state was always saved so switching to something else meant you never lost the state of the previous app. Apps didn't have to do anything to take advantage of it because thats the way the OS was designed. When you switched to another app, the old app just wasn't executed anymore and the new one was.
Don't get me wrong, it was awesome and really far more useful than most multitasking today. Multitasking is silly anyway, what people really want is the ability to have some small background processes running or being run periodically to do things while they work elsewhere. People think they need multitasking because they want to switch between apps and not have to start all over again. Lets be realistic, very few people actually NEED to have 2 apps open with external connections at the same time, but it would be nice if they could play Angry Birds and still get Skype calls without having Skype open and wasting the battery power that goes along with it. Hence why Apple says 'multitasking done right'. Its what the user wants rather than what the user has been told they want from someone else or what they think they want because they don't understanding what the difference between multitasking, background processing and task switching is.
Yea, except, Windows Mobile had multitasking before Android or iOS were even a wet spot in someones underwear. They just made it unavailable in WinMo7 so they could copy Apple, without actually understanding WHY Apple didn't support it.
Its not new to WinMo either, its been in every pervious version EXCEPT this one. And is every version of WinCE before the 'split' if you want to call it that. I'd be willing to bet its just been masked from users to copy Apple rather than unavailable.
Everyone is just trying to copy Apple without understanding WHY people by Apple products.
Except he can't do it, his idea isn't new, I actually DEALT with this exact type of problem in 96 due to my own ignorance and the solution is painfully simple, flapping route dampening. Done, game over, the Internet moves on and the DDoS kiddies have just added someone else to the list of people getting tired of their shit. Eventually it will end, its going to be a few years though.
It doesn't dampen links, it dampens routes. Doesn't matter what link goes up or down, the updates relating to it won't be transmitted if it happens repeatedly, those routes will be ignored and not propagated, effectively taking whatever 'link' the route uses out of the equation until it stabilizes.
The DDoS-ing would then stop, traffic resume on the link and new BGP updates being sent
Only works once, then BGP route flap dampening kicks in and the route can come back up, but it will still be considered down until it has sat long enough to be considered stable, if when the dampened routes are released it happens again, the next hold time for the dampening will longer.
And lets be clear, when you take down a link the size that matters enough for this to work if BGP dampening didn't exist, several someones would notice the big red alarms about the link being saturated and they could just filter the DDoS and be done with it, so it would work for all of 30 minutes if they guy watching the alarms happens to be asleep when it starts, far less if he's paying attention.
There are millions of ways you can take down a network ran by a slashdotter or New Scientist reader, pretty much all of it goes out the door when you start talking to people who actually run the Internet. We've seen it, its not impressive, and you aren't the first to try it, hence why there are already protections in place to deal with this particular type of problem.
If you'd like to stop the specific retarded 'attack' posted in the actual story... turn on route flap dampening on your router... which is probably already on, which will stop his 'attack' cold.
Its not even a BGP attack, its just a DDoS that some how is mysteriously going to work better because of BGP route flapping... which won't happen since the route will just get dampened into oblivion more and more each time it bounces.
Slashdot Mirror
No it doesn't, I hope you don't fly anymore you're making a careless mistake about something that should have been taught to you before you took the ground exam.
The purpose of an End of Transmission marker is so that everyone listening has confirmation that they received ALL of your transmission as intended. So if for some reason my transmission is cut off and it seems like just silence you as a listener know it was cut off because you didn't hear an End of Transmission marker and you can request that it be repeated.
If you think 'silence' is the way to tell, you don't need to be anywhere in an aircraft except the passenger cabin, there are a ridiculous number of airline accidents that result because of just this sort of stupidity, a fine example is a Pan-Am flight which started a takeoff roll after knowing they didn't get a full transmission from the tower ... which told them to hold until another aircraft which had to taxis back up the runway itself could clear it. About 500 people died that day because some idiot thought silence was good enough and ignored procedure which would have been to ask for a repeat. Half way down the run way, as their 747 approached rotation speed, out of the fog appeared another jumbo jet, turning off the runway right in front of them. All because they knowingly didn't follow preceedure and ask for a repeat when the cockpit voice recorder clearly shows them noticing, pointing out, and ignoring the missing End of Transmission marker.
The click when you release the mic is there because idiots like you couldnt' follow procedure so they took it out of your hands in order for everyone else that actually has a clue to be safer. Either way, your lack of understanding of why procedure is the way it is gives me a very disturbing feeling.
No, phones have been full duplex for my entire life, hence why when you're talking on a phone, the other person can talk and you can hear them speak while you are talking or making noise. Phones also have no voice activation circuit, they are constantly 'transmitting' from both ends.
Yea, but he sold 3 copies after giving 35 away!
Would you apply it to your self? Seems appropriate, I would.
You think its okay that you gave them an additional $5 for something you already paid for just so you don't have to worry about them screwing you over and turning off the DRM servers or revoking your license?
Seriously? You're okay with the fact that you paid extra ... to get what you already paid for ... and which costs them less than a penny to reproduce for you?
The fact that you paid $18 something you could have downloaded via a google search (I don't mean pirating, legitimate free for download info on the exact same thing) and you're happy about it is just frightening.
What about the kids and houses that are also along that road?
What about traffic that must turn onto that road from those houses or side streets?
Might I suggest asking her to loosen the fucking leash on you a little bit? I'm pretty sure you're going to be unhappy with everything in life regardless of the phone if your wife needs up to the second/meter updates on your drive home from work. That isn't healthy.
Thank god their about to make using a phone while driving as bad as a DUI here, you need to stop fucking with your phone and drive instead.
No, it can stay in standby mode, the notifications come in just like an SMS or incoming call. The radio is always powered up to some extent so it can sit and wait for someone to call you or send you a message. Sending a notification to apps along this same line of communication is extremely energy efficient as the radio can stay in low power mode and wait for something to wake it up to do real, two way communications.
This is the way any app with a clue works.
You don't think Win3.1 had preemption? It did. It sucked at it, but it did. Generally due to the missing memory protection multitasking as just asking for death, but it was there, Mac OS 8 or 9 got preemption as well
Niether was IE ... ever ... but go ahead, spout random shit you read on some forum about why Microsoft is evil and by all means continue thinking it makes you look knowledgable. Safari is just as embedded into OSX as IE ever was. Microsoft uses the Trident rendering engine for providing HTML display support through out its apps and to third party software in the EXACT SAME WAY that OSX uses WebKit, KDE too for that matter.
The IE bundling issue was simply due to the way microsoft prevented other browsers from being added by manufactures by special deals and pricing that would go away if you bundled something else.
Now days, even a minor Safari exploit will get you root on OSX ... IF you happen to be running something with elevated privledges (i.e. you're root).
Funny story, Windows is the exact same way, since Windows NT you've been able to resolve this problem by simply not running as an admin, the fact that by default users were admins was a hold over from DOS where there were no permissions, and its taken time for them to slowly transition away from that without breaking all the apps out there at one time. Now days, Windows doesn't make users admins by default anymore so its just like OS X and Linux
But hey, don't let facts or reality stand in your way, you go right on spewing things well beyond your level of understanding.
Perhaps you should stop thinking what you learned in your CS class applies to the real world and actually join the real world long enough to notice the fact that phones that blindly multitask fucking suck. Example: Windows Mobile 7 ... Full on multitasking ... and no battery life unless you had perfectly written apps ... which is rather rare. Don't stop that shitty app thats eating CPU, welp it doesn't care, its be happy to run in the background while your battery drains because as you said, it can manage the memory and CPU while it happily drains the better because the user forgot its running in the background.
Versus something like multitasking on the iPhone which is really task switching with the capability to run a few very low resource background threads as needed.
You can take any phone that lets apps run away with like a desktop OS and shove it up your ass as it'll probably be more useful there.
Why are you talking about kernel locks? $50 says you don't even know what BKL means (and no, going to google it now doesn't count douchebag) You clearly don't know what you're talking about so you'd probably do well to just STFU before someone schools you, won't be me, I'm just too lazy tonight. Just because you read someones blog doesn't mean you actually have a clue, and those of us with a clue can see through better than the windshield on my car. So linux and NT had shitty kernels in the past, whats your point? They had global locks that killed performance in an SMP environment so it didn't scale for shit, again, whats your point, has nothing to do with Mobile phones and nothing to do with multitask, its related to SMP. 1995 called, they want their clue back. If you think the BKL that is so common to OSes is a piss poor design than you've never worked as a professional where the right technical decision could be the completely wrong practical decision for countless number of reasons. When pretty much everything ran on a single cpu, and you need to tack on SMP support in a hurry, its far more cost effective and efficient to throw some big locks into the kernel and move on ... adding proper SMP support to an existing OS takes a lot of time, effort and debugging to get all the things that were never intended to work that way into a state thats safe to do so ... which is why Linux for example has taken so long to clean up. For the first 15 years or so of Linux's existence there was no to very little reason you'd bother with SMP, and so coding SMP support would actually be inefficient.
Those kernel locks cause no performance degradation to speak of in a uniprocessor system and are irrelevant to any discussion about phones for that very reason. Maybe later this year or next when we start seeing dual core phones then it might matter, until then it makes no difference.
I really can't understand why anyone would do this FCoE?
Its a crappy protocol to start with, the only useful part of it was the fact that fiber was faster than copper at the time for any reasonable price, now thats no longer true. Fast enough copper is WAY cheaper than fiber and with none of the trouble.
FCoE to me makes about as much sense as PPPoE, when you start talking like that you've clearly very little actual understanding of what you are doing. You can come up with some reasons as to why you might do it, but it just shows you don't actually know the right way to do it and haven't bothered to look. It wreaks of inexperience and incompetence.
So you didn't like iOS and Android because you installed too many apps and needed a bunch of pages to access them all?
Tell me, how did WP7 work around this? Haven't found any apps worth downloading yet?
I have 6 pages of apps on my iPhone, and I take it off the first page once in ... well I don't know how long its been because ... just like you ... all my important apps are on the first page where I put them so I'd have quick access to them. The rest of it is stuff like TomTom, ssh client, rdp client, all the stuff that I want to have with me if I need it, but I rarely ever use since I'm always near a real computer and its far more enjoyable to do so on a real PC than a phone.
You sound exactly like those retarded Microsoft commericials on winmo7 ... you're claiming a 'feature' of WinMo7 is better ... when its exactly the same as what its 'better' than.
How much does MS pay you? I can respew MS commercials too for the right price and I'm not going to be anywhere nearly as transparent about it as you are.
Its not a new OS, its the same old with features hidden from the users and devs so it acts more like iOS because Microsoft doesn't actually understand why people like iOS.
Except your palm didn't have multitasking, it had task switching and due to the way Palm OS worked, there was no 'ram' to speak of, everything ran from flash and stored on flash, your app didn't 'start' and need to initialize itself, it was just ready to go because the state was always saved so switching to something else meant you never lost the state of the previous app. Apps didn't have to do anything to take advantage of it because thats the way the OS was designed. When you switched to another app, the old app just wasn't executed anymore and the new one was.
Don't get me wrong, it was awesome and really far more useful than most multitasking today. Multitasking is silly anyway, what people really want is the ability to have some small background processes running or being run periodically to do things while they work elsewhere. People think they need multitasking because they want to switch between apps and not have to start all over again. Lets be realistic, very few people actually NEED to have 2 apps open with external connections at the same time, but it would be nice if they could play Angry Birds and still get Skype calls without having Skype open and wasting the battery power that goes along with it. Hence why Apple says 'multitasking done right'. Its what the user wants rather than what the user has been told they want from someone else or what they think they want because they don't understanding what the difference between multitasking, background processing and task switching is.
Yea, except, Windows Mobile had multitasking before Android or iOS were even a wet spot in someones underwear. They just made it unavailable in WinMo7 so they could copy Apple, without actually understanding WHY Apple didn't support it.
Its not new to WinMo either, its been in every pervious version EXCEPT this one. And is every version of WinCE before the 'split' if you want to call it that. I'd be willing to bet its just been masked from users to copy Apple rather than unavailable.
Everyone is just trying to copy Apple without understanding WHY people by Apple products.
Right, because everyone hasn't been playing MeToo against iOS for the last 4 years.
Except he can't do it, his idea isn't new, I actually DEALT with this exact type of problem in 96 due to my own ignorance and the solution is painfully simple, flapping route dampening. Done, game over, the Internet moves on and the DDoS kiddies have just added someone else to the list of people getting tired of their shit. Eventually it will end, its going to be a few years though.
It doesn't dampen links, it dampens routes. Doesn't matter what link goes up or down, the updates relating to it won't be transmitted if it happens repeatedly, those routes will be ignored and not propagated, effectively taking whatever 'link' the route uses out of the equation until it stabilizes.
Only works once, then BGP route flap dampening kicks in and the route can come back up, but it will still be considered down until it has sat long enough to be considered stable, if when the dampened routes are released it happens again, the next hold time for the dampening will longer.
And lets be clear, when you take down a link the size that matters enough for this to work if BGP dampening didn't exist, several someones would notice the big red alarms about the link being saturated and they could just filter the DDoS and be done with it, so it would work for all of 30 minutes if they guy watching the alarms happens to be asleep when it starts, far less if he's paying attention.
There are millions of ways you can take down a network ran by a slashdotter or New Scientist reader, pretty much all of it goes out the door when you start talking to people who actually run the Internet. We've seen it, its not impressive, and you aren't the first to try it, hence why there are already protections in place to deal with this particular type of problem.
Did anyone bother to quote for you how BGP route dampening works and how it entirely stops this 'attack' already?
Thats called flapping route dampening, and it already is in use, and its why what the article is about doesn't happen already.
I have to agree, its the only time I've ever put a CD from a game in my car to listen to.
Didn't actually know what it was though, it just sounded good and reminded me of some Deep Forest.
If you'd like to stop the specific retarded 'attack' posted in the actual story ... turn on route flap dampening on your router ... which is probably already on, which will stop his 'attack' cold.
Its not even a BGP attack, its just a DDoS that some how is mysteriously going to work better because of BGP route flapping ... which won't happen since the route will just get dampened into oblivion more and more each time it bounces.