What exactly do you want that for? If it's to allow the user to pick a font to display the page with, all(?) graphical browsers already have a configuration section for that.
Just the bingo game part of the page. Besides, most browsers, the average user doesn't know where to get at the font settings, and the settings are really designed more as preferences than for trying several different fonts to see which looks like it will print up best.
And the trick to this is that you have to give me a good answer, one that I can accept, and that motivates me to believe that life is worth living, among many other things.
Only charisma? I guess you don't know my God.
Although there is this kind of ironic bit that my God is the source of all truth, and so is the source of all that is scientifically true as well. So, if you really accept science as true, in one sense you do know one aspect of my God.
Hmmm.
(What's the emoticon for crossed eyes and a stuck-out tongue?)
And I would say that if a ghost or spirit exists, it is physical, even if its physical nature is in some manner different from the physical existence of this world, such that would would not (normally?) be able to directly interact with it. Well, except in the case of an individual's own spirit, which does seem to have power to directly interact with the individual's body.
Definitely not very subject to technological experimentation, in any case.
what the agnostics and some atheists complain about.
I think.
Those of us who believe can't get together on what we believe.
I don't believe angels switch back and forth between physical form and non-physical form. There are spirits of just men made perfect, and there are resurrected beings. I could explain further, but not in this forum, and I'm not sure I could communicate it well at will, even to a fellow believer, although, if you're interested, you can research more about what I believe on the web.
I think we who believe need to be more circumspect about how we present our beliefs, in particular, we need to be more cognizant that our own understanding of the metaphysical is not complete and may be hard to publicly reconcile with others' understandings. And we have to be more conscious of how much damage has been done historically by those who attempt to force their concepts of the metaphysical on others. If we could, I think we could have much more intelligent discussions with those who don't believe.
We have to acknowledge that, no, it is not a matter of course.
you're being ignorant, and we don't particularly feel like spoon feeding you the information you're ignoring.
That's the way it is over there. The people who contribute to openbsd don't have to be told where to look for things. If the person to whom Theo was responding is really interested in contributing to that project, he's going to have to learn to do his own research.
VMs can be useful for many kinds of end-user applications. Careful use in end-user applications may actually lead to improved security in some cases.
They are also useful for _research_ _into_ security (testing hypotheses about provable systems, implementing honeypots, etc.) People who can do this build their own tools anyway.
You don't want to put your firewalls, DNSses, watchdogs, and routers in VMs.
Yeah, that means that I think that when we finally get to the point where it's recognized that each house needs its own full-blown LAN, we are going to have to put at least three processors in the "broadband modems" that now may or may not come with firewall:
One processor for firewall.
One processor for DNS.
One processor for watchdog.
Each of those could probably be implemented in a low-power, single-chip semi-custom, complete with on-chip flash for logging and setup. Perhaps all three could fit in a single package, as long as the CPU and flash are kept separate.
Some semi-custom processors, I believe, have sufficient cpu support for virtualization that one might be tempted to implement better memory management and combine them. But now we are talking about a completely different world from VMware, XEN, QEMU, etc. And I still wouldn't do it, because, even though none of those need to be fast, they all need to be responsive. And I would prefer to use separate RAM and separable seek and read/write circuits for the flash, rather than add the complexity to the virtualization monitor required to properly enforce separation on the non-volatile store. These kinds of CPUs are not that expensive.
And, of course, if one is not careful when designing such a device, it is really easy to introduce hardware vulnerabilities, (I've mentioned sharing RAM and flash as one temptation.)
whether to use my last mod point this round to mod your post overrated or to respond directly.
Well, yeah, Theo apparently mentioned the penchant for programming holes.
But, no, that's not his argument.
Partitioning isn't perfect in hardware designed for it. The PC is not designed for it. Do you think the software can take up the slack?
Think about iNTEL's first attempts to make CPUs that handle threads better. With all the fufarah about hyperthreading, I don't remember what iNTEL called the stuff, but the only fix was to disable it, which was a no-brainer because it really didn't speed things up worth noticing. PCs have lots and lots of such good-ideas-that-wasn't.
So, you have several such bugs on your CPU. One of your hosted OSses is set up to accept the security risk for some (possibly valid on separate hardware in a separate segment of the LAN) reason. Something core dumps in that hosted OS and some of the garbage in the unallocated areas of the dump contains (!) private keys from some other hosted OS that the admin _thought_ was properly patched.
Lots of complaints about hand-waving, but do we have to burlesque?
Anybody know how to get a font menu on a web page? Besides using the M$haft extenstions, of course.
Not knowing how to _safely_ get a font menu appropriate for the user's machine is one reason I find myself trying to use Java instead of Javascript.
With Javascript, the browser presents a runtime which includes a "pretty decent" default event-handling and printing environment, whereas with Java I find myself re-building the event-handling from something that is anything but scratch, and a bit contrary to my expectations. I think my frustrations with printing have something to do with my not really understanding the event handling, and the logic behind the various traditional methods of assembling JComponents.
Anyway, anybody know how to assemble a useful font menu?
Whose definition of ghost do we use when we argue about this?
The scary things that go bump in the night?
The not-very-tangible non-physical essence of human nature and/or identity?
Demons from hell?
The "souls" which are for various reasons lost between heaven and hell and thus find themselves wandering the earth? (See wikipedia's jack-o-lantern article if unfamiliar with this class of legend.)
Are angels in the same class as ghosts?
What about "advanced" extra-terrestrial races who have "done away with the need for physical existence"? (As if there were something evil about physical existence.
I mean, sure, if you ride the trains in Japan, you do tend to cross paths with about 10,000 different people in a week or two. Or, at least, if there are one such person in 10,000, you've probably ridden the same train as one of them once or twice in the last month.
But the odds against you actually working with any of them are still pretty high. Likewise the odds against having gone to the same elementary, junior high, or high school (or whatever equivalent you attended) as one of them.
Same college? Depends on where you went.
Look again. How many of the people at your companies are members of IEEE? If the number is high, why do you persist in thinking your company is _not_ unique? And how many of those members of the IEEE are actually any better than paper engineers when it comes to designing hardware and writing software without basic tools?
Updates and removal tools are kind of like shutting the gate after the cows have gone. Or, should I say, after the wooden horse has come and gone?
Seriously, guys, yeah, if it's borrowing a copy from your buddy, I suppose the probability is not so high, but there are a huge number of people running copies of MSWindows that buy from the same guys that sell v1a g ra via e-mail.
Well, the "features" in the addressing modes were a bit intimidating. Yes.
64K of address is nowhere near as intimidating as 2G+ real RAM.
Character sets with less than 256 code points are nowhere near as intimidating as Unicode.
(I hand-built a kana font once back then, pixel-by-pixel. I'm _not_ going to try to build a Kanji font by hand. If I had to build a Kanji font, I wouldn't want to do it alone, even if I had good tools. That's a lot of time on a single art project.)
Yes, group projects are not evil. But it's a different feeling when you know that going the cowboy route simply doesn't work any more.
Restrict the domain of discussion to the US and you get a better sense of the uniqueness.
Why restrict the domain to the US?
Nowhere else in the world of that time could this kind of talent have been expressed. (I'm not sure there is _any_ place in the present world where such talent could be expressed.)
Only sixty thousand people like him among six billion may not be unique if you are talking about, say, the Midland, Texas of the same time period. (One city full of truly unique individuals, matched in uniqueness only by its slightly larger neighbor a half-hour to the west, but we aren't talking about engineering genius any more. Wait, the analogy is slipping here.)
Okay, let's try it this way: If you put all sixty thousand people theoretically like Woz into one small city in the southwest US, perhaps none of them would any longer seem so unique. (Maybe?)
But when you spread sixty thousand "similar" people across the world, you really can't say that, because there are sixty-thousand of them, they must not be unique. How often in one day are you going to meet one of those sixty thousand people?
I look back with nostalgia at the time myself, in part because it was a time when a young guy with an engineering bent could still believe he could change the world for the better just be inventing something. You could get your mind around a 64K address space and a character set smaller than 256 encoding points in a way that you can't with 2G+ actual RAM and, erm, well, Unicode. (Bad pronoun transitions, I know. Bad topic transition, too.)
Anyway, Woz is unique. So is Jobs. Gates and Ballmer, however, are a wannabees, still trying for something that six-ty billion _dollars_ can't buy.
Slashdot Mirror
Just the bingo game part of the page. Besides, most browsers, the average user doesn't know where to get at the font settings, and the settings are really designed more as preferences than for trying several different fonts to see which looks like it will print up best.
Along with the refusal of some people to believe that there science is still built on quite a number of axioms that remain unproven.
Emperical, emperical!
Well, I have emperical, too.
And the trick to this is that you have to give me a good answer, one that I can accept, and that motivates me to believe that life is worth living, among many other things.
Only charisma? I guess you don't know my God.
Although there is this kind of ironic bit that my God is the source of all truth, and so is the source of all that is scientifically true as well. So, if you really accept science as true, in one sense you do know one aspect of my God.
Hmmm.
(What's the emoticon for crossed eyes and a stuck-out tongue?)
And I would say that if a ghost or spirit exists, it is physical, even if its physical nature is in some manner different from the physical existence of this world, such that would would not (normally?) be able to directly interact with it. Well, except in the case of an individual's own spirit, which does seem to have power to directly interact with the individual's body.
Definitely not very subject to technological experimentation, in any case.
what the agnostics and some atheists complain about.
I think.
Those of us who believe can't get together on what we believe.
I don't believe angels switch back and forth between physical form and non-physical form. There are spirits of just men made perfect, and there are resurrected beings. I could explain further, but not in this forum, and I'm not sure I could communicate it well at will, even to a fellow believer, although, if you're interested, you can research more about what I believe on the web.
I think we who believe need to be more circumspect about how we present our beliefs, in particular, we need to be more cognizant that our own understanding of the metaphysical is not complete and may be hard to publicly reconcile with others' understandings. And we have to be more conscious of how much damage has been done historically by those who attempt to force their concepts of the metaphysical on others. If we could, I think we could have much more intelligent discussions with those who don't believe.
We have to acknowledge that, no, it is not a matter of course.
you're being ignorant, and we don't particularly feel like spoon feeding you the information you're ignoring.
That's the way it is over there. The people who contribute to openbsd don't have to be told where to look for things. If the person to whom Theo was responding is really interested in contributing to that project, he's going to have to learn to do his own research.
VMs can be useful for many kinds of end-user applications. Careful use in end-user applications may actually lead to improved security in some cases.
They are also useful for _research_ _into_ security (testing hypotheses about provable systems, implementing honeypots, etc.) People who can do this build their own tools anyway.
You don't want to put your firewalls, DNSses, watchdogs, and routers in VMs.
Yeah, that means that I think that when we finally get to the point where it's recognized that each house needs its own full-blown LAN, we are going to have to put at least three processors in the "broadband modems" that now may or may not come with firewall:
One processor for firewall.
One processor for DNS.
One processor for watchdog.
Each of those could probably be implemented in a low-power, single-chip semi-custom, complete with on-chip flash for logging and setup. Perhaps all three could fit in a single package, as long as the CPU and flash are kept separate.
Some semi-custom processors, I believe, have sufficient cpu support for virtualization that one might be tempted to implement better memory management and combine them. But now we are talking about a completely different world from VMware, XEN, QEMU, etc. And I still wouldn't do it, because, even though none of those need to be fast, they all need to be responsive. And I would prefer to use separate RAM and separable seek and read/write circuits for the flash, rather than add the complexity to the virtualization monitor required to properly enforce separation on the non-volatile store. These kinds of CPUs are not that expensive.
And, of course, if one is not careful when designing such a device, it is really easy to introduce hardware vulnerabilities, (I've mentioned sharing RAM and flash as one temptation.)
Hey?
I'll call you on my cellphone when I'm ready for you to open it for me.
;->
Kind of you to volunteer.
Elsewhere, lists of vulnerabilities to do exactly what you describe have been mentioned.
And I suspect, as the first comment to your post points out, that you misunderstand the level of virtualization being obtained in software VMs.
VMs should be restricted to the soft inner arena?
(Many others have suggested this already, I know.)
But, yeah, the systems where they run those proofs are most likely to be either
(1) enclosed within a sandbox so they can qualify their results (formal proofs can't deal with unscheduled input like a real attack.), or
(2) running as honeypots in the real world.
Neither of the above is production networking equipment.
Now I wish I hadn't posted to this thread.
(Maybe I should do like so many others and get another account just for accumulating and using mod points.)
do you think you are emotionally mature?
is what management is thinking.
is not much of a security argument.
whether to use my last mod point this round to mod your post overrated or to respond directly.
Well, yeah, Theo apparently mentioned the penchant for programming holes.
But, no, that's not his argument.
Partitioning isn't perfect in hardware designed for it. The PC is not designed for it. Do you think the software can take up the slack?
Think about iNTEL's first attempts to make CPUs that handle threads better. With all the fufarah about hyperthreading, I don't remember what iNTEL called the stuff, but the only fix was to disable it, which was a no-brainer because it really didn't speed things up worth noticing. PCs have lots and lots of such good-ideas-that-wasn't.
So, you have several such bugs on your CPU. One of your hosted OSses is set up to accept the security risk for some (possibly valid on separate hardware in a separate segment of the LAN) reason. Something core dumps in that hosted OS and some of the garbage in the unallocated areas of the dump contains (!) private keys from some other hosted OS that the admin _thought_ was properly patched.
Lots of complaints about hand-waving, but do we have to burlesque?
Anybody know how to get a font menu on a web page? Besides using the M$haft extenstions, of course.
Not knowing how to _safely_ get a font menu appropriate for the user's machine is one reason I find myself trying to use Java instead of Javascript.
With Javascript, the browser presents a runtime which includes a "pretty decent" default event-handling and printing environment, whereas with Java I find myself re-building the event-handling from something that is anything but scratch, and a bit contrary to my expectations. I think my frustrations with printing have something to do with my not really understanding the event handling, and the logic behind the various traditional methods of assembling JComponents.
Anyway, anybody know how to assemble a useful font menu?
Whose definition of ghost do we use when we argue about this?
The scary things that go bump in the night?
The not-very-tangible non-physical essence of human nature and/or identity?
Demons from hell?
The "souls" which are for various reasons lost between heaven and hell and thus find themselves wandering the earth? (See wikipedia's jack-o-lantern article if unfamiliar with this class of legend.)
Are angels in the same class as ghosts?
What about "advanced" extra-terrestrial races who have "done away with the need for physical existence"? (As if there were something evil about physical existence.
(Yeah, mark this troll. It is.)
you just named it.
impossible, but microsoft will try to make it look that way.
rambling, sure, but offtopic?
Are people so jeolous of Woz that they have to pretend that what he did was meaningless?
if you ask me.
I mean, sure, if you ride the trains in Japan, you do tend to cross paths with about 10,000 different people in a week or two. Or, at least, if there are one such person in 10,000, you've probably ridden the same train as one of them once or twice in the last month.
But the odds against you actually working with any of them are still pretty high. Likewise the odds against having gone to the same elementary, junior high, or high school (or whatever equivalent you attended) as one of them.
Same college? Depends on where you went.
Look again. How many of the people at your companies are members of IEEE? If the number is high, why do you persist in thinking your company is _not_ unique? And how many of those members of the IEEE are actually any better than paper engineers when it comes to designing hardware and writing software without basic tools?
joudanzuki
I'm surprised at the fixation on updates here.
(Or maybe I just wish I were surprised.)
Updates and removal tools are kind of like shutting the gate after the cows have gone. Or, should I say, after the wooden horse has come and gone?
Seriously, guys, yeah, if it's borrowing a copy from your buddy, I suppose the probability is not so high, but there are a huge number of people running copies of MSWindows that buy from the same guys that sell v1a g ra via e-mail.
Does this have to be spelled out?
Well, the "features" in the addressing modes were a bit intimidating. Yes.
64K of address is nowhere near as intimidating as 2G+ real RAM.
Character sets with less than 256 code points are nowhere near as intimidating as Unicode.
(I hand-built a kana font once back then, pixel-by-pixel. I'm _not_ going to try to build a Kanji font by hand. If I had to build a Kanji font, I wouldn't want to do it alone, even if I had good tools. That's a lot of time on a single art project.)
Yes, group projects are not evil. But it's a different feeling when you know that going the cowboy route simply doesn't work any more.
joudanzuki
Restrict the domain of discussion to the US and you get a better sense of the uniqueness.
Why restrict the domain to the US?
Nowhere else in the world of that time could this kind of talent have been expressed. (I'm not sure there is _any_ place in the present world where such talent could be expressed.)
Only sixty thousand people like him among six billion may not be unique if you are talking about, say, the Midland, Texas of the same time period. (One city full of truly unique individuals, matched in uniqueness only by its slightly larger neighbor a half-hour to the west, but we aren't talking about engineering genius any more. Wait, the analogy is slipping here.)
Okay, let's try it this way: If you put all sixty thousand people theoretically like Woz into one small city in the southwest US, perhaps none of them would any longer seem so unique. (Maybe?)
But when you spread sixty thousand "similar" people across the world, you really can't say that, because there are sixty-thousand of them, they must not be unique. How often in one day are you going to meet one of those sixty thousand people?
I look back with nostalgia at the time myself, in part because it was a time when a young guy with an engineering bent could still believe he could change the world for the better just be inventing something. You could get your mind around a 64K address space and a character set smaller than 256 encoding points in a way that you can't with 2G+ actual RAM and, erm, well, Unicode. (Bad pronoun transitions, I know. Bad topic transition, too.)
Anyway, Woz is unique. So is Jobs. Gates and Ballmer, however, are a wannabees, still trying for something that six-ty billion _dollars_ can't buy.
joudanzuki
what the twinkies will mutate into.