No, ZFS doesn't replace a SAN, but ZFS does checksums on every block in-kernel, so you're sure that what you wrote is indeed what you've read.
The performance will be slightly degraded (as opposed to other filesystems), but why wouldn't you want this feature on a SAN to guard against silent firmware defects or media errors?
We find that CO2 emissions resulting from super-plume tectonics could have
produced atmospheric CO2 levels from 3.7 to 14.7 times the modern
pre-industrial value of 285 ppm.
This data is available from a variety of sources, with interesting commentary:
We are talking about carbon dioxide levels 6 to 10 times the present
carbon dioxide level. When you have high amounts of carbon dioxide in an
atmosphere up to a certain limit, which is considerably higher than it is
now, the result is green plants grow very much better... And it is
precisely at this time that the recovery from the first dinosaur
extinction takes place. When the super plumes come and carbon dioxide
increases, and the oxygen correspondingly increases as a result of
photosynthesis... And yet the super plumes did not last forever and they
started to die at the end of Cretaceous.... In any event, large dinosaurs
really required to be living in an oxygen tent. An atmosphere in the
neighborhood of 35 percent oxygen would be considerably more compatible
with large dinosaurs than one in the neighborhood of 28. And so this
suggested to me that this was perhaps a significant reason for the first
dinosaur extinction, and probably one of the major factors in the second,
the terminal dinosaur extinction, other than the birds. It also neatly
tied together all of the really bizarre features about the Cretaceous...
The Cretaceous is clearly a green house period as opposed to the present
ice house that we have... Well, the rich carbon dioxide of course provides
for a much greater biogenic diversity.
There is a great rejection
of the global warming panic in the scientific community (it is unlikely
that "big oil" funds have "bribed" so many faculty members of such
prestigious universities, despite a smear
campaign). Because of the tremendous expense
of implementing Kyoto, should we pause in global warming remediation
efforts that may border on the alarmist? It is not in any way difficult
to find distinguished
scientists who reject all calls for panic.
Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming...
If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate,
Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded
it was not necessary.
Obviously, we went through very different google interview processes. I didn't experience any "oddball" questions, but I had the intense drilling over unix process creation/destruction, shell usage, sorting, etc. I don't know what you faced, but google needs lots of different people, and they obviously don't hire them in a uniform way.
I was recently interviewed by google. I had three technical interviews over the telephone, and for each of these interviews, I spoke with at least two google "recruiters" at each stage, and I would describe this process as extremely disorganized.
At one point, one of these technical interviews was canceled on a half hour notice. When I spoke to the technical interviewer the next week, there was no apology even though I had taken time off work (and I work contract, so that was money out of my pocket). I was positively astounded that any company could behave this way.
My questions about the process became a lot more pointed after this "debacle." I learned that problems with the relocation program were common, and in the end, I didn't trust these people to sell my property and move me, and the job wasn't the best fit anyway.
Some people may have great luck with google, but I would recommend that anyone look carefully before they leap. Despite my initial enthusiasm, they did not earn any special consideration from me.
We arent from the Cretaceous period and we aren't really used to that high of a CO2 level.
Well, that won't be much of a problem. If we have hit or are very near peak oil, then no matter how much we burn we will never come close to the levels in the Cretaceous.
Ever been in a room with 10% CO2 levels?
If you read my original linked interview, the Professor discusses high O2 and CO2 levels.
Now you can barely breathe the air in major cities on a hot day due to pollution.
This problem should be/have been solved by the Clean Air Act. We are now no longer able to enforce this law due to NAFTA, which is a separate issue.
Regardless of the sudden change we may be experiencing in CO2 levels (which may not be all that sudden compared to large volcanic erruptions that the biosphere has previously absorbed), I don't think that humanity has as much power over the environment as it hopes or fears.
We are talking about carbon dioxide levels 6 to 10 times the present
carbon dioxide level... When you have high amounts of carbon dioxide in an
atmosphere up to a certain limit, which is considerably higher than it is
now, the result is green plants grow very much better... And it is
precisely at this time that the recovery from the first dinosaur
extinction takes place. When the super plumes come and carbon dioxide
increases, and the oxygen correspondingly increases as a result of
photosynthesis... And yet the super plumes did not last forever and they
started to die at the end of Cretaceous.... In any event, large dinosaurs
really required to be living in an oxygen tent. An atmosphere in the
neighborhood of 35 percent oxygen would be considerably more compatible
with large dinosaurs than one in the neighborhood of 28. And so this
suggested to me that this was perhaps a significant reason for the first
dinosaur extinction, and probably one of the major factors in the second,
the terminal dinosaur extinction, other than the birds. It also neatly
tied together all of the really bizarre features about the Cretaceous...
The Cretaceous is clearly a green house period as opposed to the present
ice house that we have... Well, the rich carbon dioxide of course provides
for a much greater biogenic diversity.
As reported by Professor Robert E. Sloan, Department of Geology, University of Minnesota here:
We are talking about carbon dioxide levels 6 to 10 times the present
carbon dioxide level. When you have high amounts of carbon dioxide in an
atmosphere up to a certain limit, which is considerably higher than it is
now, the result is green plants grow very much better... And it is
precisely at this time that the recovery from the first dinosaur
extinction takes place. When the super plumes come and carbon dioxide
increases, and the oxygen correspondingly increases as a result of
photosynthesis... And yet the super plumes did not last forever and they
started to die at the end of Cretaceous.... In any event, large dinosaurs
really required to be living in an oxygen tent. An atmosphere in the
neighborhood of 35 percent oxygen would be considerably more compatible
with large dinosaurs than one in the neighborhood of 28. And so this
suggested to me that this was perhaps a significant reason for the first
dinosaur extinction, and probably one of the major factors in the second,
the terminal dinosaur extinction, other than the birds. It also neatly
tied together all of the really bizarre features about the Cretaceous...
The Cretaceous is clearly a green house period as opposed to the present
ice house that we have... Well, the rich carbon dioxide of course provides
for a much greater biogenic diversity.
I wish there was a way I could mod the linked blog -1, troll. What a ridiculous steaming pile of partisan political horse shit... And where's the evidence that these are actually facts? You're advocating a position which has no supporting evidence beyond an insanely biased political mouthpiece. The source DOES matter, and all this slashdot bullshit cockwaving about how any source is valid is nonsense. Scientific facts remain facts, indeed, but I have absolutely ZERO reason to believe anything on that piece of crap blog has anything to do with facts. If you can provide real evidence to back up your assertion, please do - as it stands now there's nothing to discredit because there's no reputable, peer-reviewed source.
Your dispute was not with my conclusions, but with the facts from which they were drawn. My conclusions may be fallacious, but we will leave that discussion for another time.
Now, we have Professor Robert E. Sloan, Department of Geology, University of Minnesota making the statement that "We are talking about carbon dioxide levels 6 to 10 times the present carbon dioxide level.".
Now, this statement is not exact, and it does not originate in a peer-reviewed journal with supporting experimental evidence. However, if we follow your advice and eschew all science that does not originate in a peer-reviewed journal, we must dispense with textbooks, newspapers, television commentary, trade journals, and all other manner of useful and productive documentation. This is clearly fallacious reasoning, in the most emphatic terms.
Now, at this point, I think you will agree that "We are talking about carbon dioxide levels 6 to 10 times the present carbon dioxide level." seems to be closer to truth than deception.
There comes a time when the weight of fact overwhelms vigorous argument. Especially in view of your (to put it tactfully) "descent into the vernacular," this would seem to be one of those times when "point taken" would be the most appropriate response.
How about this? I realize that this is just an interview, but this guy seems pretty smart.
We are talking about carbon dioxide levels 6 to 10 times the present carbon dioxide level. When you have high amounts of carbon dioxide in an atmosphere up to a certain limit, which is considerably higher than it is now, the result is green plants grow very much better... And it is precisely at this time that the recovery from the first dinosaur extinction takes place. When the super plumes come and carbon dioxide increases, and the oxygen correspondingly increases as a result of photosynthesis... And yet the super plumes did not last forever and they started to die at the end of Cretaceous.... In any event, large dinosaurs really required to be living in an oxygen tent. An atmosphere in the neighborhood of 35 percent oxygen would be considerably more compatible with large dinosaurs than one in the neighborhood of 28. And so this suggested to me that this was perhaps a significant reason for the first dinosaur extinction, and probably one of the major factors in the second, the terminal dinosaur extinction, other than the birds. It also neatly tied together all of the really bizarre features about the Cretaceous... The Cretaceous is clearly a green house period as opposed to the present ice house that we have... Well, the rich carbon dioxide of course provides for a much greater biogenic diversity.
The "insanely biased political mouthpiece" points at an article on the Center for Global Food Issues. This appears to be an agricultural research journal. It does appear to have a conservative bias ("Claims of Atrazine Harm to Frogs Remain Unsupported"), but I really have no reason to doubt its claim that "there was from five to ten times more CO2 in the atmosphere than today" in the distant past (making the "runaway Venus" effect somewhat unlikely).
When dinosaurs walked the earth (about 70 to 130 million years ago), there was from five to ten times more CO2 in the atmosphere than today. The resulting abundant plant life allowed the huge creatures to thrive. . . . Based on nearly 800 scientific observations around the world, a doubling of CO2 from present levels would improve plant productivity on average by
32 percent across species.
However, this does not obviate the need for research into emergency cooling of the earth and much greater research into the behavior of the sun. It is well agreed that, even before the end of the main sequence (and expansion into a red giant), the sun will burn off our oceans:
As Earth's Sun has a mass of one solar mass, it is expected to become a red giant in about five billion years. It will become sufficiently large enough to engulf the current orbits of some of the solar system's inner planets, including Earth.[5][6][7] However, the gravitational pull of the Sun will have weakened by then due to its loss of mass, and all planets
but Mercury will escape to a wider orbit. On the other hand, Earth's ability to carry life will be gone before the Sun gets brighter as its hydrogen supply becomes depleted. The extra solar energy will cause the oceans to evaporate to space, causing the Earth's atmosphere to become similar to Venus'.[8]
Eventually, cooling technology will be required. Exactly when this will be is anybody's guess (because our understanding of Solar processes is so poor - we spend all our money driving toy cars around on Mars). We should start on it now.
Microsoft SQL Server (which is Sybase in diguise) has an in-memory lock structure; if your transaction acquires too many row locks, your locks are escalated (to page locks or table locks). While these rows are locked, readers are blocked.
Because of this, your are encouraged to keep your SQL Server transactions as short as possible. By default, isql DML commits after every statement, and you must use a BEGIN TRANSACTION/COMMIT if this is not what you want.
Oracle does not use a memory structure for row locks, and Oracle never escalates a lock (although lock types can be converted). Oracle records a pre-DML image of the row in a "rollback" or "undo" area, and any SELECTS against uncommitted DML will silently pull from the old version.
This has a few important implications... you can have long-running transactions and still query the tables safely; transaction volumes are limited not by memory but by disk space; unlike isql, sqlplus requires a "commit" for DML by default; and the "rollback" mechanism has been improved with "undo" segments to allow you to time-travel the database (i.e. show me the contents of this table 3 hours ago).
Synopsis: if you need simultaneous, non-blocking access to the database, steer away from SQL Server (and probably DB2 as well, if I've read correctly).
Since this drug is already used to treat mitchondrial problems in general, aren't toxicity and dosage guidelines already known? Hasn't the FDA already approved the drug for those applications?
If so, can't most of that data be used for this approval, which is re-tasking an existing, known, and approved drug? Is it really a minimum of new clinical data that's required as opposed to a completely new drug?
For a program to call setuid(), it needs to have superuser permissions. For a program to be made setuid via the filesystem, you have to invoke chmod via "su".
If you will notice, I am not calling setuid(), but instead calling setreuid() and seteuid(). I used root to change ownership to nobody and add setuid to nobody, but root is no longer involved in the program after the permission change. Both the real and effective userid have changed to nobody when the program runs, without root permissions at all.
Stevens has a good discussion of what is and is not allowed if you need a refresher.
The one problem with this approach is the "saved set-user-id" - a hostile program might be able to call setreuid() to switch back by guessing the original uid_t of the calling program. On many macs with a single account, this would be a well-known number.
For a program to change UID/EUID to another user, it needs to have superuser permissions. We're not going to gain in security by making Safari setuid-root or encouraging someone to browse the web as root (most likely). Making Safari setuid via the filesystem requires fewer changes and no need for superuser.
x = getuid(); printf("%d\n", x); x = geteuid(); printf("%d\n", x); setreuid(99, 60); seteuid(99); x = getuid(); printf("%d\n", x); x = geteuid(); printf("%d\n", x); } $ su -c "chown nobody uidtest; chmod u+s uidtest" $ ll uidtest -rwsr-xr-x 1 nobody users 4941 Jan 3 15:14 uidtest $./uidtest 60 99 99 99
Re:Because it just creates a false sense of securi
on
Month of Apple Fixes
·
· Score: 1
First, let me make one point clear. This is not "just catching on in IE", it has been used for running potentially exloitable applications in UNIX for decades.
Internet Explorer is currently the only browser that implements this technique, and it does so only on Vista (AFAIK).
I've repeatedly argued that the fact that the local user runs with lower privileges on Mac OS X than on Windows is not nearly as important as Mac fanatics make out.
I run as a restricted user on Windows, and I use RunAs to elevate privilege when necessary. I would prefer the browser to run with even less privilege, so there was low possibility that a hostile process could wipe out My Documents or anything else I own. In any case, I feel much more secure running restricted as a hostile ActiveX component/buffer overflow will have a much harder time escalating privilege, modifying or installing software, or wiping out my hard drive. The idea here is not to be the "low hanging fruit" for a mass attack - a determined attacker might have to spend MUCH more time breaking into my systems, granted that it probably could be done. ssh has been using privsep for some time; the browser should too.
I think that the program must explicitly set a new userid; the real, effective, and saved userids are not changed by the permissions on the file. The file permissions merely allow these functions to be called, they do not change ownership - this must be explicitly done in C. I can verify this in my Stevens book if you want.
So... without help in the Safari binary, it will not be running with less privilege regardless of the permissions.
I realize that the idea is just catching on in IE and has not been implemented anywhere else, but why doesn't Safari setuid() the rendering engine to guest (or some other nonprivileged user)?
Is this feature in the works? I certainly hope so.
Slashdot Mirror
I heard somewhere that certain Core 2 Duo high-performance functions were disabled for 64-bit code.
Given that Vista will be the last 32-bit Microsoft OS, is AMD a better choice, also given the Intel errata?
No, ZFS doesn't replace a SAN, but ZFS does checksums on every block in-kernel, so you're sure that what you wrote is indeed what you've read.
The performance will be slightly degraded (as opposed to other filesystems), but why wouldn't you want this feature on a SAN to guard against silent firmware defects or media errors?
I have learned that past sky-high CO2 concentrations have been documented in peer-reviewed research journals. If we have hit peak oil, I doubt we will ever be able to reach these levels.
This data is available from a variety of sources, with interesting commentary:
RES: Professor Robert E. Sloan, Department of Geology, University of MinnesotaJC: Dr Joe Cain, interviewer
There is a great rejection of the global warming panic in the scientific community (it is unlikely that "big oil" funds have "bribed" so many faculty members of such prestigious universities, despite a smear campaign). Because of the tremendous expense of implementing Kyoto, should we pause in global warming remediation efforts that may border on the alarmist? It is not in any way difficult to find distinguished scientists who reject all calls for panic.
Whatever lack of corporate ethics these hooligans demonstrate today, it's nothing compared to what they did before.
At least the workforce will still be alive when it's all over, unlike last time.
Obviously, we went through very different google interview processes. I didn't experience any "oddball" questions, but I had the intense drilling over unix process creation/destruction, shell usage, sorting, etc. I don't know what you faced, but google needs lots of different people, and they obviously don't hire them in a uniform way.
...and the most famous company in the field is Alcor.
I read their FAQ on ischema and reperfusion injury some time ago.
I was recently interviewed by google. I had three technical interviews over the telephone, and for each of these interviews, I spoke with at least two google "recruiters" at each stage, and I would describe this process as extremely disorganized.
At one point, one of these technical interviews was canceled on a half hour notice. When I spoke to the technical interviewer the next week, there was no apology even though I had taken time off work (and I work contract, so that was money out of my pocket). I was positively astounded that any company could behave this way.
My questions about the process became a lot more pointed after this "debacle." I learned that problems with the relocation program were common, and in the end, I didn't trust these people to sell my property and move me, and the job wasn't the best fit anyway.
Some people may have great luck with google, but I would recommend that anyone look carefully before they leap. Despite my initial enthusiasm, they did not earn any special consideration from me.
You have raised several issues.
Well, that won't be much of a problem. If we have hit or are very near peak oil, then no matter how much we burn we will never come close to the levels in the Cretaceous.
If you read my original linked interview, the Professor discusses high O2 and CO2 levels.
This problem should be/have been solved by the Clean Air Act. We are now no longer able to enforce this law due to NAFTA, which is a separate issue.
Regardless of the sudden change we may be experiencing in CO2 levels (which may not be all that sudden compared to large volcanic erruptions that the biosphere has previously absorbed), I don't think that humanity has as much power over the environment as it hopes or fears.
It does have it's advantages, according to Professor Robert E. Sloan, Department of Geology, University of Minnesota:
...the immigration/customs guy was rather obnoxious in wanting to know why I was in Canada and where I was going.
It wasn't a big thing, but I also haven't been back. Rude border security has a direct deleterious effect on tourism dollars. Go figure.
As reported by Professor Robert E. Sloan, Department of Geology, University of Minnesota here:
Let's step back and frame your original argument:
Your dispute was not with my conclusions, but with the facts from which they were drawn. My conclusions may be fallacious, but we will leave that discussion for another time.
Now, we have Professor Robert E. Sloan, Department of Geology, University of Minnesota making the statement that "We are talking about carbon dioxide levels 6 to 10 times the present carbon dioxide level.".
Now, this statement is not exact, and it does not originate in a peer-reviewed journal with supporting experimental evidence. However, if we follow your advice and eschew all science that does not originate in a peer-reviewed journal, we must dispense with textbooks, newspapers, television commentary, trade journals, and all other manner of useful and productive documentation. This is clearly fallacious reasoning, in the most emphatic terms.
Now, at this point, I think you will agree that "We are talking about carbon dioxide levels 6 to 10 times the present carbon dioxide level." seems to be closer to truth than deception.
There comes a time when the weight of fact overwhelms vigorous argument. Especially in view of your (to put it tactfully) "descent into the vernacular," this would seem to be one of those times when "point taken" would be the most appropriate response.
In any case, thanks for making me check my facts.
It is here.
How about this? I realize that this is just an interview, but this guy seems pretty smart.
The "insanely biased political mouthpiece" points at an article on the Center for Global Food Issues. This appears to be an agricultural research journal. It does appear to have a conservative bias ("Claims of Atrazine Harm to Frogs Remain Unsupported"), but I really have no reason to doubt its claim that "there was from five to ten times more CO2 in the atmosphere than today" in the distant past (making the "runaway Venus" effect somewhat unlikely).
Do you find some reason to distrust this journal?
Scientific facts remain facts, whether published in a peer-reviewed journal, or on the back of a box of Lucky Charms.
If you can disprove the assertion, please do so. I don't want to advocate an erroneous position.
It appears that we are well within tolerances of atmospheric co2:
However, this does not obviate the need for research into emergency cooling of the earth and much greater research into the behavior of the sun. It is well agreed that, even before the end of the main sequence (and expansion into a red giant), the sun will burn off our oceans:
Eventually, cooling technology will be required. Exactly when this will be is anybody's guess (because our understanding of Solar processes is so poor - we spend all our money driving toy cars around on Mars). We should start on it now.
Microsoft SQL Server (which is Sybase in diguise) has an in-memory lock structure; if your transaction acquires too many row locks, your locks are escalated (to page locks or table locks). While these rows are locked, readers are blocked.
Because of this, your are encouraged to keep your SQL Server transactions as short as possible. By default, isql DML commits after every statement, and you must use a BEGIN TRANSACTION/COMMIT if this is not what you want.
Oracle does not use a memory structure for row locks, and Oracle never escalates a lock (although lock types can be converted). Oracle records a pre-DML image of the row in a "rollback" or "undo" area, and any SELECTS against uncommitted DML will silently pull from the old version.
This has a few important implications... you can have long-running transactions and still query the tables safely; transaction volumes are limited not by memory but by disk space; unlike isql, sqlplus requires a "commit" for DML by default; and the "rollback" mechanism has been improved with "undo" segments to allow you to time-travel the database (i.e. show me the contents of this table 3 hours ago).
Synopsis: if you need simultaneous, non-blocking access to the database, steer away from SQL Server (and probably DB2 as well, if I've read correctly).
Since this drug is already used to treat mitchondrial problems in general, aren't toxicity and dosage guidelines already known? Hasn't the FDA already approved the drug for those applications?
If so, can't most of that data be used for this approval, which is re-tasking an existing, known, and approved drug? Is it really a minimum of new clinical data that's required as opposed to a completely new drug?
...as they sold their Xscale business to Marvel.
If you will notice, I am not calling setuid(), but instead calling setreuid() and seteuid(). I used root to change ownership to nobody and add setuid to nobody, but root is no longer involved in the program after the permission change. Both the real and effective userid have changed to nobody when the program runs, without root permissions at all.
Stevens has a good discussion of what is and is not allowed if you need a refresher.
The one problem with this approach is the "saved set-user-id" - a hostile program might be able to call setreuid() to switch back by guessing the original uid_t of the calling program. On many macs with a single account, this would be a well-known number.
It most certainly does not:
Internet Explorer is currently the only browser that implements this technique, and it does so only on Vista (AFAIK).
I run as a restricted user on Windows, and I use RunAs to elevate privilege when necessary. I would prefer the browser to run with even less privilege, so there was low possibility that a hostile process could wipe out My Documents or anything else I own. In any case, I feel much more secure running restricted as a hostile ActiveX component/buffer overflow will have a much harder time escalating privilege, modifying or installing software, or wiping out my hard drive. The idea here is not to be the "low hanging fruit" for a mass attack - a determined attacker might have to spend MUCH more time breaking into my systems, granted that it probably could be done. ssh has been using privsep for some time; the browser should too.
I think that the program must explicitly set a new userid; the real, effective, and saved userids are not changed by the permissions on the file. The file permissions merely allow these functions to be called, they do not change ownership - this must be explicitly done in C. I can verify this in my Stevens book if you want.
So... without help in the Safari binary, it will not be running with less privilege regardless of the permissions.
I realize that the idea is just catching on in IE and has not been implemented anywhere else, but why doesn't Safari setuid() the rendering engine to guest (or some other nonprivileged user)?
Is this feature in the works? I certainly hope so.