If you have access to DOS, you have complete control of the machine. About the BIOS setup password: That has a simple solution, perform a software reset of the CMOS memory (set all 128 CMOS registers to 0), write 0 to port 70h, then write 0 to port 71h 128 times (this is a short program you can program with 'debug' in DOS)
About installing Linux 'secretly'. There are two options: A) Install Linux with LILO and hope no Anti-Virus program detects LILO as a virus, and nobody noticing a short LILO prompt (can even be set to 1/10th second timeout). B) Install Linux and load it with loadlin.exe, which can be hidden in a secret location in the DOS hirarchy.
Installing Linux should be possible with any normal Linux CD from DOS.
I don't believe they hate the idea of making money, but rather hate the idea of limiting the freedom of society with what they can do with their software. Opensource advocates believe the value of opensource'ness (freedom) is more important than a company making a few more bucks.
The current twisted way of thinking about computer/OS design and of ACL-based security (UNIX, Windows) simply makes people think it is impossible to have real security and privacy.
This is why I believe people should go and read about EROS (www.eros-os.org), an OS that can SOLVE this problem, if ONLY enough of the well-known GPL effort goes into its implementation. It is not YAO (Yet another OS), it is 'The' OS design. Putting EROS aside and ignoring its design is giving up on ever having real security. EROS has a secure design that achieves the once considered impossible - it can mathamatically prove security (of the software system), which I find quite amazing. What EROS needs right now is for GPL programmers to go and start hacking.
For real security, why mess with traditional ACL systems (UNIX, Windows, etc)?
REAL security can only be achieved with PURE capability systems. EROS-OS implements a HIGH-PERFORMANCE pure capability system as a research project. This is the direction OS's should be going for real security, AND performance, too.
Heh, yeah, EROS is the future, and EROS IS opensource. The 'professionals' don't dick with opensource software, they're too busy creating quick&dirty unstable solutions for Windows.
Thanks for the correction, I did mean exponential.
But if computers increase the constant in Constant^n with time, then after a while, a 4^n solution to the travelling salesman problem would be solved by the 4^n computer.
being an Israeli, I know very well that universities in Israel are, if anything, less religious than others. I know more anti-religion Israelis than Americans (And I know quite a few Americans).
Associating Israel's typical citizens with religion is bull.
There are the extreme religious people in Israel, and the religious legislation, but it is not part of the daily life.
Anyhow, he can claim that it can never be done, because he can prove it.
It might even be provable that you cannot solve the problem of whether a number is prime.
However, algorithms to do this with almost 100% precision emerged.
Should we really cease efforts because it cannot be 100% solved?
All such racists I've ever discussed are either idiot followers who have never really talked to a Jew or black person in their lives, or idiots with an IQ of around 70 and less.
Which one are you?
Currently, computers are sort of turing machines.
As their power increases, their "speed" of computation is a multiplication of the previous "generation".
This means, that polynomenial(SP?) problems will not be solved for large cases even with infinite multiplication of such computing power.
But what about new types of computers, which will increase their power polynomenially with every generation? (Some type of futuristic quantom computer, or DNA computer?) (A computer that solves polynomenial problems [of a complexity of Constant^n] with larger and larger n's, just as current computers solve problems of O(n) complexity with larger and larger n's)
Those might make it feasible to solve problems currently regarded as infinite-time problems.
I'm not sure about infinite memory, but it seems quantom computer can represent 2^x bit-states with just x Qubits.
Who knows what other forms of "Computing" we will find in the future?
The quantom mechanics "proof" that there is no determinism:
1. We cannot, and never will be able to detect a exact location of a particle.
leads to:
2. The exact location of the particle has no detectable impact on the universe.
leads to:
3. The particle's exact location might as well not exist.
leads to:
4. The particle's exact location does not exist (it randomly exists in locations)
leads to:
5. The universe is not deterministic.
Given that the first claim is based on partial knowledge, and the fact there is a logic gap between claim 1 and 2, and between claim 3 and 4, and 4 and 5, I believe this QM "proof" that the universe is not deterministic is fallible.
Partial knowledge: We cannot prove that we will never find new ways to detect a location of a particle (Other than throwing photons at it, for example)
Logical gap between 1 and 2: If we cannot directly measure it by throwing photons at it, it might still affect the universe by playing part in the "equations" that are "running" the universe.
With more and more knowledge about the universe's state, we may learn more and more information leadings us to be able to reduce the number of solutions to the equations, perhaps even indirectly know the exact location of a particle.
Logical gap between 3 and 4: If the particle's exact location "might as well not exist" (because it will not have any detectable impact on the universe) that is not to say it does not exist. Consider simulating the universe in a computer, ever since the big bang, until the present (obviously we cannot simulate into the future). We might be able to use a single completely known state such as the singularity of the big bang, and thus be able to know an exact location of a particle, even if its effect is not detectable.
The logical gap between 4 and 5 is pretty much the same as 3 and 4. If we cannot know the location or its effect (and with such simulation we might be able to), it does not mean the universe has to guess as well, it may very well be applying known rules, even if we have to guess what the rules are applying to.
If this refutation of QM's "determinism" is not correct, please feel free to correct me, I'd love to see a real "proof" of the unvierse not being deterministic. Especially with even mainsteam physics acknowledging the possibility of "hidden variants" explaining the "weirdness".
If I recall correctly, there are "transfinite" number of real numbers (a larger infinity than the infinity of rationals), and thus even with infinite memory you couldn't represent all real numbers.
He was merely exaggurating to explain a concept.
Consiousness is not true randomness, that does not necessarily exist in the brain.
Chemical reactions can explain the brain, and your question is similar to:
- Computer CPU's are made of silicon.
And the numbers they crunch and their results, are just made of silicon? Yeah right.
But it depends on the input, which is itself unpredictable.
I could use the example that was already used above, a human is just as predictable if you map the finite neural networks (as you can map the program's code). Problem is, the input is not predictable.
Kind of defeats the purpose of using C\C++, doesn't it?
Firstly, C\C++ gc'ers are conservative (wrong, slow).
Secondly, writing in C\C++ usually means the programmer handles most of the management in the fastest possible way. Conservative GC's are very slow. If he's not writing for performance, why write in C\C++?
They're afraid they'll be outdone by programmers who can offer better quality-per-price ratio?
Too bad they're not good enough for this level of quality-per-price.
Lots of companies who sell products for Linux think/know they can keep up with it.
If, however, the quality-per-price of the free-world exceeds all of the propriety world, its all great for us users.
No memory checking tool for C and C++ do that. Yes, Insure does. While costing quite a lot, it does detect all(?) memory leaks, and all invalid memory accesses. Slows down the program to hell, but produces all the valuable output you may need.
You absolutely can not prohibit someone with a scanner from eavsedropping on wireless communications.
You obviously haven't heard about cryptology.
Secure connections are impossible to interpret externally. You can always increase the difficulty of understanding encrypted data, by adding bits/etc.
I don't think he meant efficient, as in the efficiency of the video display adapter, but even if he did, my P120 runs the WMaker GUI much faster than in Windows, and I find it much more predictable, and easier to use than Windows. My major problem with Windows - 1 workspace by default, and windows are handled by their applications completely - you can't move/minimize a window of a busy program, that really can piss off.. The GUI is pretty damn ugly if you compare it to Enligthenment + GNome + GTK themes, and IS easy to use, but so is WMaker's GUI, and after getting to know both, working with WMaker is smoother and faster for me.
It was mentioned multiple times about pixmaps. Dealing with them on the server side is much faster, but it works not just for pixmaps, but all widgets. X could supply more than just primitives, but a widget set (as a library its dynmically linked to, for example), and most of the operations on the widgets could be dealt/drawn by the X server without the clients intervention. A lot of bandwidth on the client/server connection would be saved, and drawing widgets can more easily be accelerated than drawing primitives. I think it was referred to as a 'widget server' somewhere, that could be external to the windowing system, but would be better performance-wise to integrate in the windowed system. In other words, have the window-system mess more with the GUI, leaving the client to its more important tasks, and saving lots of bandwidth.
Slashdot Mirror
Many users just want to install and run, not to search for tar.gz files on the internet, download, compile and then figure out what went wrong.
:), installing 99% of the packages is a few clicks away.
Hmm.. last time I checked, it was Windows where I needed to go search for packages, download, setup, and then figure out which DLL is broken.
With my favourite Linux (Debian, ofcourse
The REALLY interesting issue is what makes a system an EROS-like system :)
If you have access to DOS, you have complete control of the machine.
About the BIOS setup password: That has a simple solution, perform a software reset of the CMOS memory (set all 128 CMOS registers to 0), write 0 to port 70h, then write 0 to port 71h 128 times (this is a short program you can program with 'debug' in DOS)
About installing Linux 'secretly'. There are two options:
A) Install Linux with LILO and hope no Anti-Virus program detects LILO as a virus, and nobody noticing a short LILO prompt (can even be set to 1/10th second timeout).
B) Install Linux and load it with loadlin.exe, which can be hidden in a secret location in the DOS hirarchy.
Installing Linux should be possible with any normal Linux CD from DOS.
I don't believe they hate the idea of making money, but rather hate the idea of limiting the freedom of society with what they can do with their software. Opensource advocates believe the value of opensource'ness (freedom) is more important than a company making a few more bucks.
I believe so too.
What are 'truly random sequences'?
The current twisted way of thinking about computer/OS design and of ACL-based security (UNIX, Windows) simply makes people think it is impossible to have real security and privacy.
This is why I believe people should go and read about EROS (www.eros-os.org), an OS that can SOLVE this problem, if ONLY enough of the well-known GPL effort goes into its implementation. It is not YAO (Yet another OS), it is 'The' OS design. Putting EROS aside and ignoring its design is giving up on ever having real security. EROS has a secure design that achieves the once considered impossible - it can mathamatically prove security (of the software system), which I find quite amazing.
What EROS needs right now is for GPL programmers to go and start hacking.
Save the privacy, save security, develop EROS!
For real security, why mess with traditional ACL systems (UNIX, Windows, etc)?
REAL security can only be achieved with PURE capability systems.
EROS-OS implements a HIGH-PERFORMANCE pure capability system as a research project. This is the direction OS's should be going for real security, AND performance, too.
Heh, yeah, EROS is the future, and EROS IS opensource. The 'professionals' don't dick with opensource software, they're too busy creating quick&dirty unstable solutions for Windows.
Thanks for the correction, I did mean exponential.
But if computers increase the constant in Constant^n with time, then after a while, a 4^n solution to the travelling salesman problem would be solved by the 4^n computer.
being an Israeli, I know very well that universities in Israel are, if anything, less religious than others. I know more anti-religion Israelis than Americans (And I know quite a few Americans).
Associating Israel's typical citizens with religion is bull.
There are the extreme religious people in Israel, and the religious legislation, but it is not part of the daily life.
Anyhow, he can claim that it can never be done, because he can prove it.
It might even be provable that you cannot solve the problem of whether a number is prime.
However, algorithms to do this with almost 100% precision emerged.
Should we really cease efforts because it cannot be 100% solved?
All such racists I've ever discussed are either idiot followers who have never really talked to a Jew or black person in their lives, or idiots with an IQ of around 70 and less.
Which one are you?
Currently, computers are sort of turing machines.
As their power increases, their "speed" of computation is a multiplication of the previous "generation".
This means, that polynomenial(SP?) problems will not be solved for large cases even with infinite multiplication of such computing power.
But what about new types of computers, which will increase their power polynomenially with every generation? (Some type of futuristic quantom computer, or DNA computer?) (A computer that solves polynomenial problems [of a complexity of Constant^n] with larger and larger n's, just as current computers solve problems of O(n) complexity with larger and larger n's)
Those might make it feasible to solve problems currently regarded as infinite-time problems.
I'm not sure about infinite memory, but it seems quantom computer can represent 2^x bit-states with just x Qubits.
Who knows what other forms of "Computing" we will find in the future?
The quantom mechanics "proof" that there is no determinism:
1. We cannot, and never will be able to detect a exact location of a particle.
leads to:
2. The exact location of the particle has no detectable impact on the universe.
leads to:
3. The particle's exact location might as well not exist.
leads to:
4. The particle's exact location does not exist (it randomly exists in locations)
leads to:
5. The universe is not deterministic.
Given that the first claim is based on partial knowledge, and the fact there is a logic gap between claim 1 and 2, and between claim 3 and 4, and 4 and 5, I believe this QM "proof" that the universe is not deterministic is fallible.
Partial knowledge: We cannot prove that we will never find new ways to detect a location of a particle (Other than throwing photons at it, for example)
Logical gap between 1 and 2: If we cannot directly measure it by throwing photons at it, it might still affect the universe by playing part in the "equations" that are "running" the universe.
With more and more knowledge about the universe's state, we may learn more and more information leadings us to be able to reduce the number of solutions to the equations, perhaps even indirectly know the exact location of a particle.
Logical gap between 3 and 4: If the particle's exact location "might as well not exist" (because it will not have any detectable impact on the universe) that is not to say it does not exist. Consider simulating the universe in a computer, ever since the big bang, until the present (obviously we cannot simulate into the future). We might be able to use a single completely known state such as the singularity of the big bang, and thus be able to know an exact location of a particle, even if its effect is not detectable.
The logical gap between 4 and 5 is pretty much the same as 3 and 4. If we cannot know the location or its effect (and with such simulation we might be able to), it does not mean the universe has to guess as well, it may very well be applying known rules, even if we have to guess what the rules are applying to.
If this refutation of QM's "determinism" is not correct, please feel free to correct me, I'd love to see a real "proof" of the unvierse not being deterministic. Especially with even mainsteam physics acknowledging the possibility of "hidden variants" explaining the "weirdness".
If I recall correctly, there are "transfinite" number of real numbers (a larger infinity than the infinity of rationals), and thus even with infinite memory you couldn't represent all real numbers.
He was merely exaggurating to explain a concept.
:)
Consiousness is not true randomness, that does not necessarily exist in the brain.
Chemical reactions can explain the brain, and your question is similar to:
- Computer CPU's are made of silicon.
And the numbers they crunch and their results, are just made of silicon? Yeah right.
In other words, its bull
But it depends on the input, which is itself unpredictable.
I could use the example that was already used above, a human is just as predictable if you map the finite neural networks (as you can map the program's code). Problem is, the input is not predictable.
"Free will that is not random and independent of the will of its maker"?
What is that exactly?
Free will IS a random-want/thought creating mechanism. What else would it be? How could you define it?
Kind of defeats the purpose of using C\C++, doesn't it?
Firstly, C\C++ gc'ers are conservative (wrong, slow).
Secondly, writing in C\C++ usually means the programmer handles most of the management in the fastest possible way. Conservative GC's are very slow. If he's not writing for performance, why write in C\C++?
They're afraid they'll be outdone by programmers who can offer better quality-per-price ratio?
Too bad they're not good enough for this level of quality-per-price.
Lots of companies who sell products for Linux think/know they can keep up with it.
If, however, the quality-per-price of the free-world exceeds all of the propriety world, its all great for us users.
kill -9 properiety
No memory checking tool for C and C++ do that.
Yes, Insure does. While costing quite a lot, it does detect all(?) memory leaks, and all invalid memory accesses. Slows down the program to hell, but produces all the valuable output you may need.
You absolutely can not prohibit someone with a scanner from eavsedropping on wireless communications.
You obviously haven't heard about cryptology. Secure connections are impossible to interpret externally. You can always increase the difficulty of understanding encrypted data, by adding bits/etc.
I don't think he meant efficient, as in the efficiency of the video display adapter, but even if he did, my P120 runs the WMaker GUI much faster than in Windows, and I find it much more predictable, and easier to use than Windows.
My major problem with Windows - 1 workspace by default, and windows are handled by their applications completely - you can't move/minimize a window of a busy program, that really can piss off.. The GUI is pretty damn ugly if you compare it to Enligthenment + GNome + GTK themes, and IS easy to use, but so is WMaker's GUI, and after getting to know both, working with WMaker is smoother and faster for me.
It was mentioned multiple times about pixmaps.
Dealing with them on the server side is much faster, but it works not just for pixmaps, but all widgets. X could supply more than just primitives, but a widget set (as a library its dynmically linked to, for example), and most of the operations on the widgets could be dealt/drawn by the X server without the clients intervention. A lot of bandwidth on the client/server connection would be saved, and drawing widgets can more easily be accelerated than drawing primitives.
I think it was referred to as a 'widget server' somewhere, that could be external to the windowing system, but would be better performance-wise to integrate in the windowed system.
In other words, have the window-system mess more with the GUI, leaving the client to its more important tasks, and saving lots of bandwidth.