From what I remember on the Linux-Kernel lists, on i386 the execute permission is set per segment, not per page. Yes, despite 32-bit addressing, we still use segments. They just don't act quite the same way they did in 16bit realmode, where you could find multiple ways to access the same address by playing with the segment and offset registers. Tho that's not quite true either. You can... but memory protection comes into effect here.
Often, DS=SS, so this causes problems with self-modifying code if you set DS to be non-executable. Thus some interpreters and emulators will barf if you do this. Because of this, various workarounds (actually, the ability to set legacy behaviour) have been implemented for the x86 platform, as well as the x86-64 x86-32 compatibility-mode/personality.
Feel free to check my facts. This is just what I remember from having read some of the threads on this subject.
Are you assuming they're returning it back to the same depth? That seems naive, if only b/c it would likely be more expensive that way. It is more likely that they are taking water from 87 metres, and then returning it to the surface. So, yes, this may mix waters that wouldn't otherwise mix, but it is not adding warmer water at that same 87 metre depth. I think they would rather use all pipes that are at that depth for pulling, not half for pulling, half for draining/pushing.
Don't mind me, I just know basic economics, I never bothered with Biology past reading a couple books or articles when bored.
Your point? Unfortunately for you, if you look up 'pay' in dictionary.com, and look for the 'past tense and a past participle of pay' you get BOTH 'payed' and 'paid'. So if you were arguing over spelling... your point has been totally lost.
v. tr. 10. Past tense and past participle paid or payed (pd)
If you are making some argument over the meaning of 'pay' then you have also lost your audience by not explaining your nitpick.
We would all be better served by your explanation of your nitpick rather than leaving it fully open for misinterpretation.
The point of this action (and this article) is NOT the blocking of spam on the receiving side.
This is an action, by an ISP, to prevent their networks (and their customer's computers) to be used as spambots/drones. This is a legitimate (if possibly "burn the village to save it") action.
I'd even go so far as to say that it is quite likely that the use of their (Comcast's) networks for the sending of spam would be against the AUP/TOS. The only reason this is NOT dealt with by canceling service is b/c the customers are not doing it on purpose (As in, their computers were exploited by a trojan). Yet, such an action may very well be legitimate according to their contracts (tho obviously bad for their PR/CR image).
Yes. blocking spam is kinda pointless, on the receiving side. even spamfiltering is pointless (in the long run). But, your suggestion of legislation is to address on the sending side. Which is what this is. Is this not the side we truly need to deal with?
It seems nowadays that one must pay money to get a wellpaying job. Ok. that's fair. right?
So, you pay the money, you put in the time, you get out of school. You look for a job. You find out that all the jobs that you qualify for... are outsourced. You just wasted 10K, or 50K, or more... and get no job. Sure. mebbe it's not entitlement, but we're just making people kill themselves otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
From what I remember on the Linux-Kernel lists, on i386 the execute permission is set per segment, not per page. Yes, despite 32-bit addressing, we still use segments. They just don't act quite the same way they did in 16bit realmode, where you could find multiple ways to access the same address by playing with the segment and offset registers. Tho that's not quite true either. You can... but memory protection comes into effect here.
Often, DS=SS, so this causes problems with self-modifying code if you set DS to be non-executable. Thus some interpreters and emulators will barf if you do this. Because of this, various workarounds (actually, the ability to set legacy behaviour) have been implemented for the x86 platform, as well as the x86-64 x86-32 compatibility-mode/personality.
Feel free to check my facts. This is just what I remember from having read some of the threads on this subject.
Are you assuming they're returning it back to the same depth? That seems naive, if only b/c it would likely be more expensive that way. It is more likely that they are taking water from 87 metres, and then returning it to the surface. So, yes, this may mix waters that wouldn't otherwise mix, but it is not adding warmer water at that same 87 metre depth. I think they would rather use all pipes that are at that depth for pulling, not half for pulling, half for draining/pushing.
Don't mind me, I just know basic economics, I never bothered with Biology past reading a couple books or articles when bored.
Your point? Unfortunately for you, if you look up 'pay' in dictionary.com, and look for the 'past tense and a past participle of pay' you get BOTH 'payed' and 'paid'. So if you were arguing over spelling... your point has been totally lost.
v. tr. 10. Past tense and past participle paid or payed (pd)
If you are making some argument over the meaning of 'pay' then you have also lost your audience by not explaining your nitpick.
We would all be better served by your explanation of your nitpick rather than leaving it fully open for misinterpretation.
> Enough with this blocking of spam!
The point of this action (and this article) is NOT the blocking of spam on the receiving side.
This is an action, by an ISP, to prevent their networks (and their customer's computers) to be used as spambots/drones. This is a legitimate (if possibly "burn the village to save it") action.
I'd even go so far as to say that it is quite likely that the use of their (Comcast's) networks for the sending of spam would be against the AUP/TOS. The only reason this is NOT dealt with by canceling service is b/c the customers are not doing it on purpose (As in, their computers were exploited by a trojan). Yet, such an action may very well be legitimate according to their contracts (tho obviously bad for their PR/CR image).
Yes. blocking spam is kinda pointless, on the receiving side. even spamfiltering is pointless (in the long run). But, your suggestion of legislation is to address on the sending side. Which is what this is. Is this not the side we truly need to deal with?
>Does that mean there will be significantly fewer articles about Transmeta?
Actually, he left Transmeta... over a year ago, in order to concentrate more on his Linux kernel work.
http://lwn.net/Articles/36577/-- tabris
-
Bet nobody with modpoints will read this.
the problem is more than this however.
It seems nowadays that one must pay money to get a wellpaying job. Ok. that's fair. right?
So, you pay the money, you put in the time, you get out of school. You look for a job. You find out that all the jobs that you qualify for... are outsourced. You just wasted 10K, or 50K, or more... and get no job. Sure. mebbe it's not entitlement, but we're just making people kill themselves otherwise.
It's rather a losing proposition.