I see no mention of these measures, and am not amused by this ridiculous lack of foresight if in fact they are omitted. These need to be present from the start, not attempted to tack on later.
They are not omitted. RFC5050 discusses the authentication and security requirements in addition to the bundle protocol specification. However, note that it would be inefficient to implement authentication and security on every node -- it's sufficient to implement them on the boundaries of a controlled network.
Since this is designed for use over very expensive, highly controlled links (e.g. the Deep Space Network), anonymity/privacy wasn't really a high priority. However, the protocol doesn't preclude sending encrypted bundles, and AFAICT provides all the necessary infrastructure foranonymous transmission, although making that play nicely with authentication/security might be tricky.
Although I'm not a member of the IETF DTNRG, I am doing a Masters project involving DTN over ad-hoc wireless robotic networks for distributed behaviour applications.
True, but you should also be able to run a popular web application on something less hardened than an OpenBSD server configured by a paranoid schizophrenic.
Fedora 7 was pretty fast when we put it on. Now, at Fedora 9, the UI is painfully laggy and program startup is slow.
Well, let me add another datum: I have a Fedora 7 system and a Fedora 9 system sitting in front of me. Fedora 9 is definitely faster to boot and the UI feels generally snappier. *shrug*
Read the books about what happened to the Romans they empire stretched the known world and culture that build great work, science that was ahead of their time, roads and aqueducts built, funny how their downfall came around the time the "church" came into existence and for the next 1000 years europe was plunged into a feudal dark age
Bahahahaha. Correlation != causation. And anyway, whats a few hundred years of prosperous coexistence between friends?
Note to self: when indulging in righteous indignation on The Internets, double-, triple- and quadruple-check one's spelling and grammar!
Interestingly enough, as my typing has got faster and more fluid, I've seem to find my fingers typing in phonemes rather than letters: I have a higher and higher incidence of thinking a word but typing a homonym.
Um. In git's case, it makes a copy of the 500 MB file, and calculates its SHA1. And that's all it does.
Oh, no, that's not all. Try *changing* said 500MB file, and watch the difference in backend repo size.:3
Try git gc. It initially stores the repository unpacked as a speed optimisation, on the assumption that the latest commits are likely to be accessed frequently. When you run the garbage collection tool occasionally, it 'packs' the commits into delta-compressed files. Why not do it straight away? Because the packing is an expensive process, it defers carrying it out so that when you git commit it completes as fast as possible to allow you to get on with your work.
I hope that explains the 'lack of performance' you perceive.
Why use a heavy metal box to stop the cosmic rays or solar flare protons? They are both positively charged. Just put a positive charge around the computer box, and negative charge around a few "lightning rods" a few feet away and let magnetic forces do the rest. You don't have to stop the high energy particles, you just have to convince them to miss the few square inches of delicate electronics. Launch weight radiation shielding is something that NASA is going to have to tackle soon enough anyway if we ever want to leave our magnetosphere for more than about a week. Why not test it on a modern Hubble CPU, while keeping the remaining legacy chip as a back up?
Young man, in this forum we respect the laws of physics.
Go and find out how strong a magnetic field is required to deflect a proton with 1GeV of kinetic energy by 1 cm over a distance of, say, 2 m. Since you're obviously technically literate, that shouldn't be too difficult.
Hint: the answer is, "An impractically strong field is required, by a couple of orders of magnitude." Ever wondered why CERN use helium-cooled magnets which way tens of tons in their beamline?
The gEDA project has been using git for almost two years, having migrated from CVS. Due to the maintainer of the project having very little time to spend on 'pulling' trees from the various developers, we chose to use a hybrid model, where authorised developers push the changes from their personal repositories into a single 'main' repository.
The primary advantages we saw were:
Changesets, to track changes occurring together (also available in SVN).
The ability to give every developer a sandbox which they can work in privately, with very very cheap branches for trying out experimental stuff.
Tools like stgit to massive improved the quality, clarity and organisation of patches being committed.
Fully-featured offline working.
Even those without 'commit access' can use all of the features of the SCM.
We would never go back to using a centralised-model SCM.
As far as git vs. hg is concerned: meh. Both have advantages and disadvantages, but to me they mostly seem superficial.
Gits biggest problems are: Almost total lack of tool integration into existing tools.
The Emacs integration works perfectly for me!
You have a load of data which resides on your filesystem (basically a full repo copy) while SVN keeps only parts of the metadata locally.
This is actually a good thing when you're on the train without internet access and you want to work out how a bug cropped up.
The gEDA project switched to git almost two years ago (at my instigation), and the maintainer has said that he would never, ever go back to a centralized SCM.
Even the 'clean' diesel motors are far more toxic than a good IC engine, AFAIK.
Which set of fanbois do you want to listen to?
IMHO there's no practical difference. The difference in toxicity of petrol and diesel emissions are statistical noise compared to the likelihood of being run down and killed by either type of vehicle.
Oh, and IC stands for "internal combustion". Both diesel and petrol engines are examples of IC engines.
1. Diesels are more expensive.
2. Diesel fuel is more expensive, wiping out much or all of the fuel cost savings.
3. Performance suffers since diesels are heavier and cannot rev as high.
4. At highway speeds they aren't that much more efficient (since the throttle plate in a gasoline engine is more open). Americans do a lot of highway driving.
Supply/demand curve.
Wrong (other posters in the conversation have debunked this): even though you USians pay gouging prices for diesel, the fuel consumption improvement more than makes up for the increase in price.
Define performance. Acceleration is usually better, but top speeds are usually worse. How often do you take your commuter car on a track again? Also, "diesels are heavier" was true in the 1980s, but it's 2008 now.
Highway speeds are what, 50-60 mph? That's just about the optimal speed for a modern diesel.
"It is important to note that Otto cycle engines can be more efficient than Diesel cycle engines, but only when the engine is running at or near maximum power."
How often do you run your petrol ("gas") car at maximum power for an extended period of time? Frequently? I thought not.
Go away and come back when you want to argue thermodynamics rather than out-of-date hearsay.
Management needs someone who can do for businesspeak what Edward Tufte did for the visual presentation of information. It's not just the PowerPoint that kills astronauts, it's the use of phrases like "the stresses imposed by the frozen deposit upon the RCC were in excess of design parameters" as opposed to "Are you fucking nuts? We never tested for that shit, so none of us has any fucking clue how bad the damage is until someone gets the fuck out there and actually looks at it!" (Challenger), and "The performance of the O-ring under this thermal profile is not guaranteed, but is likely to be adequate" over "Well, I'd bet $50 that nobody dies this time, but I sure as fuck wouldn't want to be flying on it. If you really wanna get the teacher in space in time for the State of the Union speech, it's your call, boss. Don't fuckin' blame me if you kill 7 people." (Columbia).
You got those shuttles wrong way round. Just sayin'.
What your asking isn't be very far from asking "will an electric motor generate electricity in a cost efficient way?
You jest, but in hydro/wind power stations where the rotational frequency of the turbine blades doesn't often match the grid frequency, they used to use electric motors and synchronous machines coupled together to convert between the two.
Nowadays the push is towards solid state conversion, usually based on IGBTs, which results in convertors which are smaller, cheaper, more reliable and easier to maintain.
Good luck with that. Not only a nuclear reactor, but a heat exchanger, a turbine, and a generator. That's a lot of complexity for a space mission.
Look up the SP-100, which was an interesting NASA project designing a small nuclear fission reactor specifically for safe space use. One of the nice things about running a reactor in space is the fact that you only need radiation shielding in the direction where you've got sensitive equipment (i.e. crew). One of the bad things about running a reactor in space is trying to keep it cool.
Nearly all the engineers I know on my MEng course -- including the big-time Microsoft fanboys -- use LyX to typeset their reports. I also converted my mathematician fiancee to using it, and she loves the way that LaTeX renders and numbers formulae.
You obviously didn't deal much with Win 3.x. Registry is much better than config files scattered throughout. I wouldn't mind if it were replaced, but it needs to be a step forward, not back. Linux still has config files scattered in a zillion different places. It would be nice if all configs went into an organized hierarchy.
Um. All the configs do go into an "organized hierarchy"! It just happens to be a filesystem hierarchy (/etc) rather than an impenetrable binary file.
XML files located in a couple of standardized locations. As in one location for machine level configs, and one location each for user level configs.
XML sucks for configuration files, to be honest. Trying to hand-edit XML in a 40x80 nano session in single-user mode... no thanks. Not to mention that XML is decidedly grep-unfriendly.
I think I'm going to have to assume that you don't have a clue what you're talking about, I'm afraid. Try harder!
Nowadays, I fire up Steam, browse to the game I want, click "Buy", enter my details, confirm the order, go away, come back a couple of hours later, and play it.
This is a heck of a lot easier, especially as I can look up reviews while browsing.
Oh wait! I'm defending Steam. That must make me (-1, IDon'tAgreeWithYou), I suppose!
Also, environmental factors. For example, I've been in various cubes over the years and the ones where there was a light fixture visible from my chair as I looked at my monitor caused fatigue faster than when the fixture was not visible (this includes when the fixture was behind me....basically visible in any direction from a sitting position at my desk). Also, for a while, they allowed us to dim the fixtures (turn off/remove one bulb) which helped too (not completely dark, but more cavelike).
For those of you in the UK: if you are experiencing a problem like this in the UK and your employer refuses to fix it properly (providing decent lighting with diffusers, for instance), they are violating workplace health and safety regulations and can be liable to large fines. Don't put up with it -- get it fixed.
I imagine that traveling to Mars and staying there to do serious research would, without significant advances, mean a shorter lifespan and for some; a martian burial. And then we could monitor the body decompose. If there is no bacteria on Mars, then the body should decompose in a rather interesting way that may be beneficial to study.
Your body contains plenty enough bacteria for it to decompose by itself.
Slashdot Mirror
I see no mention of these measures, and am not amused by this ridiculous lack of foresight if in fact they are omitted. These need to be present from the start, not attempted to tack on later.
They are not omitted. RFC5050 discusses the authentication and security requirements in addition to the bundle protocol specification. However, note that it would be inefficient to implement authentication and security on every node -- it's sufficient to implement them on the boundaries of a controlled network.
Since this is designed for use over very expensive, highly controlled links (e.g. the Deep Space Network), anonymity/privacy wasn't really a high priority. However, the protocol doesn't preclude sending encrypted bundles, and AFAICT provides all the necessary infrastructure foranonymous transmission, although making that play nicely with authentication/security might be tricky.
Although I'm not a member of the IETF DTNRG, I am doing a Masters project involving DTN over ad-hoc wireless robotic networks for distributed behaviour applications.
True, but you should also be able to run a popular web application on something less hardened than an OpenBSD server configured by a paranoid schizophrenic.
...but you repeat yourself!
Fedora 7 was pretty fast when we put it on. Now, at Fedora 9, the UI is painfully laggy and program startup is slow.
Well, let me add another datum: I have a Fedora 7 system and a Fedora 9 system sitting in front of me. Fedora 9 is definitely faster to boot and the UI feels generally snappier. *shrug*
Read the books about what happened to the Romans they empire stretched the known world and culture that build great work, science that was ahead of their time, roads and aqueducts built, funny how their downfall came around the time the "church" came into existence and for the next 1000 years europe was plunged into a feudal dark age
Bahahahaha. Correlation != causation. And anyway, whats a few hundred years of prosperous coexistence between friends?
Note to self: when indulging in righteous indignation on The Internets, double-, triple- and quadruple-check one's spelling and grammar!
Interestingly enough, as my typing has got faster and more fluid, I've seem to find my fingers typing in phonemes rather than letters: I have a higher and higher incidence of thinking a word but typing a homonym.
Um. In git's case, it makes a copy of the 500 MB file, and calculates its SHA1. And that's all it does.
Oh, no, that's not all. Try *changing* said 500MB file, and watch the difference in backend repo size. :3
Try git gc. It initially stores the repository unpacked as a speed optimisation, on the assumption that the latest commits are likely to be accessed frequently. When you run the garbage collection tool occasionally, it 'packs' the commits into delta-compressed files. Why not do it straight away? Because the packing is an expensive process, it defers carrying it out so that when you git commit it completes as fast as possible to allow you to get on with your work.
I hope that explains the 'lack of performance' you perceive.
Why use a heavy metal box to stop the cosmic rays or solar flare protons? They are both positively charged. Just put a positive charge around the computer box, and negative charge around a few "lightning rods" a few feet away and let magnetic forces do the rest. You don't have to stop the high energy particles, you just have to convince them to miss the few square inches of delicate electronics. Launch weight radiation shielding is something that NASA is going to have to tackle soon enough anyway if we ever want to leave our magnetosphere for more than about a week. Why not test it on a modern Hubble CPU, while keeping the remaining legacy chip as a back up?
Young man, in this forum we respect the laws of physics.
Go and find out how strong a magnetic field is required to deflect a proton with 1GeV of kinetic energy by 1 cm over a distance of, say, 2 m. Since you're obviously technically literate, that shouldn't be too difficult.
Hint: the answer is, "An impractically strong field is required, by a couple of orders of magnitude." Ever wondered why CERN use helium-cooled magnets which way tens of tons in their beamline?
The gEDA project has been using git for almost two years, having migrated from CVS. Due to the maintainer of the project having very little time to spend on 'pulling' trees from the various developers, we chose to use a hybrid model, where authorised developers push the changes from their personal repositories into a single 'main' repository.
The primary advantages we saw were:
We would never go back to using a centralised-model SCM.
As far as git vs. hg is concerned: meh. Both have advantages and disadvantages, but to me they mostly seem superficial.
Gits biggest problems are: Almost total lack of tool integration into existing tools.
The Emacs integration works perfectly for me!
You have a load of data which resides on your filesystem (basically a full repo copy) while SVN keeps only parts of the metadata locally.
This is actually a good thing when you're on the train without internet access and you want to work out how a bug cropped up.
The gEDA project switched to git almost two years ago (at my instigation), and the maintainer has said that he would never, ever go back to a centralized SCM.
Try checking a 500M file into git, mercurial or bazaar sometime.
Um. In git's case, it makes a copy of the 500 MB file, and calculates its SHA1. And that's all it does.
So when you check into SVN, it doesn't bother with the SHA1?
Gold is useless except as decoration.
Tell me, sir, do you own a computer?
Even the 'clean' diesel motors are far more toxic than a good IC engine, AFAIK.
Which set of fanbois do you want to listen to?
IMHO there's no practical difference. The difference in toxicity of petrol and diesel emissions are statistical noise compared to the likelihood of being run down and killed by either type of vehicle.
Oh, and IC stands for "internal combustion". Both diesel and petrol engines are examples of IC engines.
1. Diesels are more expensive. 2. Diesel fuel is more expensive, wiping out much or all of the fuel cost savings. 3. Performance suffers since diesels are heavier and cannot rev as high. 4. At highway speeds they aren't that much more efficient (since the throttle plate in a gasoline engine is more open). Americans do a lot of highway driving.
"It is important to note that Otto cycle engines can be more efficient than Diesel cycle engines, but only when the engine is running at or near maximum power."
How often do you run your petrol ("gas") car at maximum power for an extended period of time? Frequently? I thought not.
Go away and come back when you want to argue thermodynamics rather than out-of-date hearsay.
At the moment, Christianity isn't run for profit (Roman Catholic church notwithstanding).
Citation needed.
Management needs someone who can do for businesspeak what Edward Tufte did for the visual presentation of information. It's not just the PowerPoint that kills astronauts, it's the use of phrases like "the stresses imposed by the frozen deposit upon the RCC were in excess of design parameters" as opposed to "Are you fucking nuts? We never tested for that shit, so none of us has any fucking clue how bad the damage is until someone gets the fuck out there and actually looks at it!" (Challenger), and "The performance of the O-ring under this thermal profile is not guaranteed, but is likely to be adequate" over "Well, I'd bet $50 that nobody dies this time, but I sure as fuck wouldn't want to be flying on it. If you really wanna get the teacher in space in time for the State of the Union speech, it's your call, boss. Don't fuckin' blame me if you kill 7 people." (Columbia).
You got those shuttles wrong way round. Just sayin'.
Interestingly, one of the ways that solar panel lifetime can be extended in a high-radiation environment is to run them at about 400 K...
What your asking isn't be very far from asking "will an electric motor generate electricity in a cost efficient way?
You jest, but in hydro/wind power stations where the rotational frequency of the turbine blades doesn't often match the grid frequency, they used to use electric motors and synchronous machines coupled together to convert between the two.
Nowadays the push is towards solid state conversion, usually based on IGBTs, which results in convertors which are smaller, cheaper, more reliable and easier to maintain.
Good luck with that. Not only a nuclear reactor, but a heat exchanger, a turbine, and a generator. That's a lot of complexity for a space mission.
Look up the SP-100, which was an interesting NASA project designing a small nuclear fission reactor specifically for safe space use. One of the nice things about running a reactor in space is the fact that you only need radiation shielding in the direction where you've got sensitive equipment (i.e. crew). One of the bad things about running a reactor in space is trying to keep it cool.
Nearly all the engineers I know on my MEng course -- including the big-time Microsoft fanboys -- use LyX to typeset their reports. I also converted my mathematician fiancee to using it, and she loves the way that LaTeX renders and numbers formulae.
You forgot LyX. Also, the 'txfonts' package is made of awesome, and I highly recommend it.
You obviously didn't deal much with Win 3.x. Registry is much better than config files scattered throughout. I wouldn't mind if it were replaced, but it needs to be a step forward, not back. Linux still has config files scattered in a zillion different places. It would be nice if all configs went into an organized hierarchy.
Um. All the configs do go into an "organized hierarchy"! It just happens to be a filesystem hierarchy (/etc) rather than an impenetrable binary file.
XML files located in a couple of standardized locations. As in one location for machine level configs, and one location each for user level configs.
XML sucks for configuration files, to be honest. Trying to hand-edit XML in a 40x80 nano session in single-user mode... no thanks. Not to mention that XML is decidedly grep-unfriendly.
I think I'm going to have to assume that you don't have a clue what you're talking about, I'm afraid. Try harder!
I frankly stopped buying PC games.
I stopped buying PC games in shops.
Nowadays, I fire up Steam, browse to the game I want, click "Buy", enter my details, confirm the order, go away, come back a couple of hours later, and play it.
This is a heck of a lot easier, especially as I can look up reviews while browsing.
Oh wait! I'm defending Steam. That must make me (-1, IDon'tAgreeWithYou), I suppose!
Kids being disinterested in school is not a problem. It is a good thing. Anyone who believes that school is good for kids is delusional.
Agreed. On the other hand, school should be good for kids. If it's not, we're doing it wrong.
Also, environmental factors. For example, I've been in various cubes over the years and the ones where there was a light fixture visible from my chair as I looked at my monitor caused fatigue faster than when the fixture was not visible (this includes when the fixture was behind me....basically visible in any direction from a sitting position at my desk). Also, for a while, they allowed us to dim the fixtures (turn off/remove one bulb) which helped too (not completely dark, but more cavelike).
For those of you in the UK: if you are experiencing a problem like this in the UK and your employer refuses to fix it properly (providing decent lighting with diffusers, for instance), they are violating workplace health and safety regulations and can be liable to large fines. Don't put up with it -- get it fixed.
Your body contains plenty enough bacteria for it to decompose by itself.