RTFA: it's run on the qemu emulator. You first boot the host OS, and your qemu session is just a process under that, with no more rights than otherwise.
If you had a boot CD, now that would a problem. Would I let someone boot my laptop from Knoppix? Not unless I would trust them to sysadmin my laptop:-).
As the above poster says, security accepted wisdom is that physical control implies vulnerability.
"TCP assumes all packet losses are due to congestion."
It may be a quibble, but isn't it more accurate to say that TCP reacts to packet losses the same no matter what the cause? The packet, or group of packets, is just lost. I haven't looked into the status of RFC 3168 (ECN, router congestion flag) lately, so maybe I'm wrong.
Since you mention it, the tragedy of the commons would be accentuated by pushing the network past saturation by design. By grabbing bandwidth, the 'haves' can effectively lock out the 'have nots' and their slower hardware, which would eventually result in no one having a usable network.
Their key error
on
Replacing TCP?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Nevertheless, our extended real-life measurements show that highest throughput is generally achieved at speeds with anywhere between 3% and 5% loss.
That's for just them. What if all hosts on the entire Internet were by design stuffing packets at a 3-5% error rate? Meltdown, that's what. Their "real-life" measurements do not scale, suffering from the usual assumed linearity of new designs for complex systems.
Sometimes people fall in love with their new ideas, thinking that the rest of the world missed something obvious.
Integrating the OS and the worldwide search engine is a bad idea. It's even worse than the integration of IE and Windows, taking that mistake to its absurd conclusion. What happens when people learn to write Google viruses? The things could spread like fleas at a dog track.
I thought by now that everyone understood that modularity is what works?
Ok, so there are counter-examples, such as an integrated email/calendar app, or a building with a heliport on its roof. For every such example where integration looks like a winner, there is at least one glaring fault caused by the integration. With integration, each component is open to all of the faults of the other. If your email is broken, will your calendar work? Will a helicopter crash shut down the hospital?
There's always a problem when you integrate. When you do it for functional reasons, such as putting the heliport on top of the hospital to make patient transport efficient, the pluses may outweigh the minuses.
Just integrate because it makes functional sense, and not merely for marketing reasons. Ask if the benefits of integration can be achieved some other way, without its inherent drawbacks.
Maybe. But what if the medium gets cut? No "phone", no "TV", no "IP", until somebody patches the fiber. (The quotes are because with convergence you'll have fuzzy boundaries between the traditional services)
It was a concert on 02/23/82 at the University Of Illinois Auditorium - Champaign, IL. It only seated 1,936 people at the time. It was packed, as I recall. The balcony above our heads was unstable, and the whole place smelled of bong water.
I've been to lots of concerts, and I know they're loud. I liked my music loud even more then than I do now. Could you have missed the point more?
I saw them circa 1980. I brought a girl, hoping to impress her. U2 brought their full stadium sound gear. Trouble was, it was a 4,500 seat auditorium.
I've noticed that as a trend over the years: bands don't tune their sound to the venue very well. The sound guys usually wear headphones, to zero in on this track or that, and don't bother with just how loud the overall band is after the initial sound check.
The overvolume of the show pretty much ruined me on U2 after that. All I could think of when I heard their songs for years was that, uh, rather disappointing evening.
overlords, but I ask what they hope to achieve by spying on us? I am the only one with any important data, and I keep it all in my head. I recently constructed a new piece of security headgear, the plans for which I will make Open Source after my death. Let's just say they don't even know I'm here when I'm wearing it, like right now (so they won't know I'm typing this).
...the system I am describing here IS NOT FAIR and that IT MAKES NO SENSE and that I don't deserve to have the freedom that is accorded a Beowulf writer when many talented and excellent writers---some of them good friends of mine---end up selling small numbers of books and having to cultivate grants....
I understand his position, and why he has to say that, but the system does make sense in this way: he took the risk. The academic writers have worked very hard to get where they are, but their career choices have followed a path of risk avoidance.
I work in academia, and I have made the same decisions they have. Do I work on writing software that people (the masses) will use and pay for, or do I cling to the safety of Alma Mater? I'm still here, clinging, critiquing other people's work instead of taking the risks of failure and rejection by writing my own.
"Yeah, honey, I'll be home around [nnnnnnuuuuuuuuaa] just a second [aaaaaaAAAAAAAAAA] my phone is recharging!!!
[...AAAAAAAAAA...] I said just [...AAAAAAAAAA...] a [...AAAAAAAAAA...] second! no, [...AAAAAAAAAA...] NOT SEVEN, [...AAAAAAAAAA...] SECOND![...AAAAAAAAAA....]"
Big IC manufacturers hate adopting radically new and risky technologies before they are forced to.
Are you sure it isn't engineering staffs being slow to implement the new technology? I don't think companies hate new technology, they just don't like investment risk. They want to be where the profit is, which is being "fast followers". As a rule they like to emulate what works. They want to be sure that the design libraries used in the new technology are debugged and working, whether they design the library or license it from someone.
I work in a university VLSI design group. When our grad students get jobs at the big chip makers, what are they going to do when they get there? The same things they've spent a year or seven learning how to do REALLY WELL: design chips using CMOS for ever-smaller manufacturing processes.
That's not to say they won't have the skills needed to design circuits using electron spin, photoresistive antipolar velocity differential, quantum-based philatelics, or whatever. (Don't look those up, I just invented them.)
The point is that it takes time for design libraries to be built for new technologies. Then the applications engineers convince their bosses to get the design libraries so they can start using them. In the case of a radically different technology, that usually means the boss has to hear that some risk-tolerant company is about to take his sales away by using the newer technology.
Looking back at what you said, I guess you're right. Mod me redundant.
But as we will see, the impact on the exogenous environment of remittable activities of autonomous agents can be profound indeed.
At first I thought, "Of course! Everybody knows that." My wife and I were just chatting about that last night before bed. (Maybe the rest of you should use romantic talk like that, and you'd get some more often.)
Then I realized that the author knew way more words than I do. He must be right.
This is for... our... children. How can we send them to school knowing that the other kids all have everything they want because they have kind, successful parents when we give them NOTHING?
There's no way to call that anything but neglect.
What's next, no car on their 16th birthday? Or worse, a used car? *shudder*.
I don't do that. I don't use Windows servers. If a Windows client breaks to the extent that it needs a bootable CD to fix, I wipe it. Users know this drill.
But still and all, it's a good idea to have set aside just in case someone's life just will *end* if they can't get that Powerpoint file out of My Documents.
Slashdot Mirror
"You are people too."
:-).
You can't prove that
But seriously, I'm always befuddled when I don't understand something.
Your point?
The clamor will be, at best, "Make Google stop!"
People who don't understand how things should be done are befuddled when confronted with the way they are done.
RTFA: it's run on the qemu emulator. You first boot the host OS, and your qemu session is just a process under that, with no more rights than otherwise.
:-).
If you had a boot CD, now that would a problem. Would I let someone boot my laptop from Knoppix? Not unless I would trust them to sysadmin my laptop
As the above poster says, security accepted wisdom is that physical control implies vulnerability.
"TCP assumes all packet losses are due to congestion."
It may be a quibble, but isn't it more accurate to say that TCP reacts to packet losses the same no matter what the cause? The packet, or group of packets, is just lost. I haven't looked into the status of RFC 3168 (ECN, router congestion flag) lately, so maybe I'm wrong.
Since you mention it, the tragedy of the commons would be accentuated by pushing the network past saturation by design. By grabbing bandwidth, the 'haves' can effectively lock out the 'have nots' and their slower hardware, which would eventually result in no one having a usable network.
That's for just them. What if all hosts on the entire Internet were by design stuffing packets at a 3-5% error rate? Meltdown, that's what. Their "real-life" measurements do not scale, suffering from the usual assumed linearity of new designs for complex systems.
Sometimes people fall in love with their new ideas, thinking that the rest of the world missed something obvious.
Integrating the OS and the worldwide search engine is a bad idea. It's even worse than the integration of IE and Windows, taking that mistake to its absurd conclusion. What happens when people learn to write Google viruses? The things could spread like fleas at a dog track.
I thought by now that everyone understood that modularity is what works?
Ok, so there are counter-examples, such as an integrated email/calendar app, or a building with a heliport on its roof. For every such example where integration looks like a winner, there is at least one glaring fault caused by the integration. With integration, each component is open to all of the faults of the other. If your email is broken, will your calendar work? Will a helicopter crash shut down the hospital?
There's always a problem when you integrate. When you do it for functional reasons, such as putting the heliport on top of the hospital to make patient transport efficient, the pluses may outweigh the minuses.
Just integrate because it makes functional sense, and not merely for marketing reasons. Ask if the benefits of integration can be achieved some other way, without its inherent drawbacks.
"one connection for everything"
Maybe. But what if the medium gets cut? No "phone", no "TV", no "IP", until somebody patches the fiber. (The quotes are because with convergence you'll have fuzzy boundaries between the traditional services)
Ok, googling ...
It was a concert on 02/23/82 at the University Of Illinois Auditorium - Champaign, IL. It only seated 1,936 people at the time. It was packed, as I recall. The balcony above our heads was unstable, and the whole place smelled of bong water.
I've been to lots of concerts, and I know they're loud. I liked my music loud even more then than I do now. Could you have missed the point more?
I saw them circa 1980. I brought a girl, hoping to impress her. U2 brought their full stadium sound gear. Trouble was, it was a 4,500 seat auditorium.
I've noticed that as a trend over the years: bands don't tune their sound to the venue very well. The sound guys usually wear headphones, to zero in on this track or that, and don't bother with just how loud the overall band is after the initial sound check.
The overvolume of the show pretty much ruined me on U2 after that. All I could think of when I heard their songs for years was that, uh, rather disappointing evening.
overlords, but I ask what they hope to achieve by spying on us? I am the only one with any important data, and I keep it all in my head. I recently constructed a new piece of security headgear, the plans for which I will make Open Source after my death. Let's just say they don't even know I'm here when I'm wearing it, like right now (so they won't know I'm typing this).
I understand his position, and why he has to say that, but the system does make sense in this way: he took the risk. The academic writers have worked very hard to get where they are, but their career choices have followed a path of risk avoidance.
I work in academia, and I have made the same decisions they have. Do I work on writing software that people (the masses) will use and pay for, or do I cling to the safety of Alma Mater? I'm still here, clinging, critiquing other people's work instead of taking the risks of failure and rejection by writing my own.
Real programmer? Ha.
Exactly. I think I'll check out that ad for cheap North American software from Venezuela while I'm setting up online bill-pay.
In other words, don't visit untrusted sites?
Now what am I going to do -- how am I supposed to reply to my email?
A probably unoriginal analogy for the INDUCE Act: what if GM and Ford got sued because their vehicles can go faster than the speed limit?
I don't see the rationale for that, as long as they file a flight plan for their coat.
What's top speed for a London Fog?
"Yeah, honey, I'll be home around [nnnnnnuuuuuuuuaa] just a second [aaaaaaAAAAAAAAAA] my phone is recharging!!! [...AAAAAAAAAA...] I said just [...AAAAAAAAAA...] a [...AAAAAAAAAA...] second! no, [...AAAAAAAAAA...] NOT SEVEN, [...AAAAAAAAAA...] SECOND![...AAAAAAAAAA....]"
Site's been slash-elipsized ("/....").
Duh: Linux.
"Stop being lemmings. Question your leaders. Listen to Jon Stewart!"
...
Yes, Jon Stewart is the Great One. Must Follow Jon Stewart.
Yes, Jon Stewart is the Great One. Must Follow Jon Stewart.
Yes, Jon
Are you sure it isn't engineering staffs being slow to implement the new technology? I don't think companies hate new technology, they just don't like investment risk. They want to be where the profit is, which is being "fast followers". As a rule they like to emulate what works. They want to be sure that the design libraries used in the new technology are debugged and working, whether they design the library or license it from someone.
I work in a university VLSI design group. When our grad students get jobs at the big chip makers, what are they going to do when they get there? The same things they've spent a year or seven learning how to do REALLY WELL: design chips using CMOS for ever-smaller manufacturing processes.
That's not to say they won't have the skills needed to design circuits using electron spin, photoresistive antipolar velocity differential, quantum-based philatelics, or whatever. (Don't look those up, I just invented them.)
The point is that it takes time for design libraries to be built for new technologies. Then the applications engineers convince their bosses to get the design libraries so they can start using them. In the case of a radically different technology, that usually means the boss has to hear that some risk-tolerant company is about to take his sales away by using the newer technology.
Looking back at what you said, I guess you're right. Mod me redundant.
Don't use a glass, use a tippy cup. Otherwise you'll spill your vodka all down your shirt.
TFA and TFV didn't say much about the specs.
I wonder what the display output will be?
It's obviously powered by thought-wave absorbtion, so that's the good news. No batteries!
At first I thought, "Of course! Everybody knows that." My wife and I were just chatting about that last night before bed. (Maybe the rest of you should use romantic talk like that, and you'd get some more often.)
Then I realized that the author knew way more words than I do. He must be right.
You're just hard.
This is for ... our ... children. How can we send them to school knowing that the other kids all have everything they want because they have kind, successful parents when we give them NOTHING?
There's no way to call that anything but neglect.
What's next, no car on their 16th birthday? Or worse, a used car? *shudder*.
I don't do that. I don't use Windows servers. If a Windows client breaks to the extent that it needs a bootable CD to fix, I wipe it. Users know this drill.
But still and all, it's a good idea to have set aside just in case someone's life just will *end* if they can't get that Powerpoint file out of My Documents.