For procurement contract awards, the US government considers any business with less than 500 employees to be a "small business."
When mesasuring by number of employees, the SBA (Small Business Administration, a department of the US government concerned with the creation and growth of small businesses) defines "small" to be anywhere from 500-1500 employees for all types of industry except wholesaler where it sets the limit at 100 employees.
Dude - you proved his point with your own numbers. If companies larger than 500 employees account for only 50% of employment, then obviously the other 50% are employed by companies smaller than 500 employees. So approximately 50% of the workforce is employed by small businesses.
Alright. Please post right here: Your real name, your age, your home address, your work or school address, your home phone number, your cell phone number, your work phone number, a description and the license plate numbers of any vehicles you own, and a link to a recent photo of yourself.
Don't bother with that kind of didactic approach, there will always be an ignorant fool or two who will gladly give away their personal information in response, and chances are they will not suffer for it either since they are just one post in a sea of millions.
Instead, I believe it makes more sense to point out how the abuse of private information can hurt them indirectly. In the case of telephone calling records it isn't hard to come up with some very easy and simple to implement cases of abuse:
1) A whistleblower who calls a reporter to report some government (or even corporate) malefeasance is squashed before he can get the whole story out. This easy to do with call data - just run a daily search for all calls from employees of various goverment agencies and "friendly" corps to members of the press. Get a hit, feed that info to the caller's supervisor who can do whatever it takes to shut him up.
2) An unscrupulous incumbent politician is facing a sure loss in the next election because of his opponent's popularity. So he has some data-mining done on his opponent's calling patterns and discovers a bunch of calling activity between his opponent and the cancer wing of the local hospital - he then feeds it to a friendly reporter who digs up that the opponent has a cancer that has a good chance of killing him in a year or two and then reports that to the public. Overnight the opponent goes from sure winner to sure loser because people don't want to vote for a guy who might die soon.
2a) Replace cancer with calls to known prostitutes and you get the same effect. You can even get the same effect if you clone the prostitute's cell phone and use the clone to call the politician a few times and talk about something that will keep him on the line for a few minutes. Now you've got "proof" he's talked to a prostitute multiple times which can mean only one thing as far as the public is concerned.
If anyone thinks that these kinds of abuses are unlikely - why do you think that? After all, the current administration is fighting as best as it can to eliminate all over-sight of the collection and use of this data. Lack of over-sight practically guarantees abuse - we get plenty even when oversight is in place - dumping it will only make things worse, and these examples are simple and easy to do with that data in a computer.
we did have the head of our police on the radio the other day clarifying what you can do if you find a burglar in your house: hit him as hard as possible with the biggest thing you can find (eg baseball bat, golf club etc). This seems sufficient to me.
When I was young, I believed it. Maybe not in high school, but in elementary I bought the whole story. it actually ended up having the opposite effect of allegiance.
Tell me about it. I am still made sad when I see the words:...Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me... --The New Colossus
Do we think of hurricanse and wars as "minimal threats"? No, we don't. That's my point.
However, we do not use them to justify broad-based, open-ended, constitutionally dubious programs that are highly vulnerable to exploitation by the ethically-challenged.
It "defaults" to the last one you used, which can be helpful if, say, you use Google most of the time and want to do a bunch of IMDB lookups in a row. (Yes, you can add IMDB as a search engine.)
And, it can be very unhelpful too. As a movie-freak I am always searching imdb for random information during the day to help solve watercooler arguments and whatnot. Thus imdb is often my "default" search engine and I am constantly get really effed up search results for real-work searches. For example - I wanted to learn about the perl bleach module, so searching on "perl bleach" got me back:
Perils of the Beach (1920)
Einstein on the Beach: The Changing Image of Opera (1986)
Beach Beverly Hills (1993)
Cheerleaders' Beach Party (1978)
REAL helpful there, thanks firefox!@#@#%
If IMDB is doing some sort of search keyword analysis for site planing or whatever I sure ain't helping them too since at least half my searches ARE relevant to IMDB so they get lots of meaningful searches mixed in with some totally weird shit.
No, that wasn't EFF's point at all. Their point seems to be that...
No - your misinterpretation of their point seems to be what you wrote. If you are going to be sticking words in their mouth then might as well just go all out and say that the EFF is defending Hitler. If you are going to set up strawmen might as well do it right.
Seriously, would any of the readers here be willing to take a lie detector test in a situation like that? What a piece of nonsense.
Do you think that oh, maybe that is the EFF's point? If the people who are already under contract aren't willing to play along with such invasive tactics, why then should the website owners, who have no contract with Apple, be required to do so?
Before you claim it is not the same thing, think about it - leaks are the bread and butter of a rumours website, thus the identity of leakers is probably one of their closest held secrets. While for employees, if they did not leak the document then they barely even have a dog in the fight.
he film is a different media. If the film can't stand on its own 2 feet, than as a film it's a horrible failure.
You assert that, but other than saying that you hate such movies, you give no supporting criticism as to why a movie that only appeals to 50,000 is a huge failure. Do you equate sales to success? If so, then what if 50,000 sales was enough to be profitable, would it then be a success?
You'll forgive me for taking that with a grain of salt so long as memory over-commit remains the default mode of operation within Linux.
The default mode for memory over-commit is that obvious over-commits are disallowed. This behaviour is less tolerant than simply allowing any and all over-commits.
This seems to match the original poster's contention that Linus is getting less tolerant rather than completely intolerant of "sloppy programming."
n8_f is correct that the parent post is full of bunk.,
No, the OP is correct, just obtuse and a little sloppy, probably because he knows what he is talking about and didn't bother to explain enough background info for non-experts to easily come up to speed.
In addition to what n8_f said, the cost isn't cache coherency... Messing with the page tables is especially expensive when you need to syncronize this across multiple processors.
You are talking about the same thing the OP meant when he said "cache coherency." You both are talking about the TLB which is a cache of page table entries, although not what most people think of when talking about cache.
When I need to fork(), I do not have the time to think of all the memory management invovled with fork().
This has NOTHING to do with fork(). You are used to CoW (copy-on-write for anyone else reading along) only applying to fork(), but that is not the issue under discussion at all. You, and probably 95% of the responders here, need to go RTFA.
The issue is implementing zero-copy IO. FreeBSD's way of doing it do a setsockopt() that causes any write() on that socket to mark the buffer CoW so that it can use it exclusively for handing down to the device driver. The "magic" is that if the programmer tries to use that buffer while the device driver owns it he will get a copy. BUT, the programmer has no way of knowing when that buffer is available again.
Linus's point is that marking a page CoW is very expensive - especially in an SMP environment, almost as expensive as just copying that page to begin with would be. He also argues that taking a page-fault to invoke the CoW to a new page, or simply to turn off the CoW attribute, is orders of magnitude more expensive than just copying it in the first place.
So that means the CoW for sockets is only really useful if you rarely or never reuse your buffers again. And the only place that happens is in synthetic benchmarks.
If Linus had said "Microsoft is a bunch of idiots for implementing a feature that only looks good on benchmarks" everybody would be nodding their heads in agreement. I think the reason people are not doing the same here is because they just don't understand the details.
Instead, he was astounded to see that by sheer chance, the resulting random text had turned out to be apparently intelligible English, "ID BY ROWS", although that was not what was intended.
what are the odds of that?
Precisely 100% - because that is exactly what happened.
So you would not mind, say, having your drinking water contaminated with fuel for nuclear reactors?
Maybe you missed the point - after 300 years there is no net increase in radioactivity.
Put the waste back where the original fuel came from and there is no change in radiation levels. If you want to argue about externals having an impact and that you can't just put it back without additional effects on the environment, then sit on the stuff for 900 years and you are down way BELOW the original level of radioactivity. 900 years is still hugely easier to manage than 90,000 years.
No, we don't. The technology is pretty much the same.
Yes we do! It hasn't seen much commercial development (none inside the US) but the Integral Fast Reactor produces waste that only takes about 300 years to return to the original level of radioactivity as the fuel that went into the reactor.
Storing radioactive waste for only 300 years is is many orders of mangitude more feasible than the storage of current waste for tens of thousands of years.
Just use HDMI connectors. They are electrically the same as single-channel DVI. If the monitor is DVI, just use a HDMI-to-DVI cable which should not cost much more than a regular DVI-to-DVI cable.
Slashdot Mirror
RedHat Enterprise includes lots of Redhat only software that isn't GPL.
Whaaa?
What are you talking about? Got a list, because I don't believe you.
The only things non-GPL are Redhat's trademarks, oh and glibc which is LGPL.
For procurement contract awards, the US government considers any business with less than 500 employees to be a "small business."
When mesasuring by number of employees, the SBA (Small Business Administration, a department of the US government concerned with the creation and growth of small businesses) defines "small" to be anywhere from 500-1500 employees for all types of industry except wholesaler where it sets the limit at 100 employees.
http://www.sba.gov/size/sizetable2002.html
Dude - you proved his point with your own numbers. If companies larger than 500 employees account for only 50% of employment, then obviously the other 50% are employed by companies smaller than 500 employees. So approximately 50% of the workforce is employed by small businesses.
More attacks are being tried now, and not just in the US.
You need to back that one up. How many "attempted" attacks have there been in the USA before 9/11 and after 9/11?
Alright. Please post right here: Your real name, your age, your home address, your work or school address, your home phone number, your cell phone number, your work phone number, a description and the license plate numbers of any vehicles you own, and a link to a recent photo of yourself.
Don't bother with that kind of didactic approach, there will always be an ignorant fool or two who will gladly give away their personal information in response, and chances are they will not suffer for it either since they are just one post in a sea of millions.
Instead, I believe it makes more sense to point out how the abuse of private information can hurt them indirectly. In the case of telephone calling records it isn't hard to come up with some very easy and simple to implement cases of abuse:
1) A whistleblower who calls a reporter to report some government (or even corporate) malefeasance is squashed before he can get the whole story out. This easy to do with call data - just run a daily search for all calls from employees of various goverment agencies and "friendly" corps to members of the press. Get a hit, feed that info to the caller's supervisor who can do whatever it takes to shut him up.
2) An unscrupulous incumbent politician is facing a sure loss in the next election because of his opponent's popularity. So he has some data-mining done on his opponent's calling patterns and discovers a bunch of calling activity between his opponent and the cancer wing of the local hospital - he then feeds it to a friendly reporter who digs up that the opponent has a cancer that has a good chance of killing him in a year or two and then reports that to the public. Overnight the opponent goes from sure winner to sure loser because people don't want to vote for a guy who might die soon.
2a) Replace cancer with calls to known prostitutes and you get the same effect. You can even get the same effect if you clone the prostitute's cell phone and use the clone to call the politician a few times and talk about something that will keep him on the line for a few minutes. Now you've got "proof" he's talked to a prostitute multiple times which can mean only one thing as far as the public is concerned.
If anyone thinks that these kinds of abuses are unlikely - why do you think that? After all, the current administration is fighting as best as it can to eliminate all over-sight of the collection and use of this data. Lack of over-sight practically guarantees abuse - we get plenty even when oversight is in place - dumping it will only make things worse, and these examples are simple and easy to do with that data in a computer.
Due to the previously mentioned facts that hardly anyone has a gun in their house, and they're illegal, burglars here don't carry them.
Why, I do declare, you must have such well-mannered and law-abiding burglars over there.
we did have the head of our police on the radio the other day clarifying what you can do if you find a burglar in your house: hit him as hard as possible with the biggest thing you can find (eg baseball bat, golf club etc). This seems sufficient to me.
Even if he has a gun?
When I was young, I believed it. Maybe not in high school, but in elementary I bought the whole story. it actually ended up having the opposite effect of allegiance.
...Give me your tired, your poor,
Tell me about it. I am still made sad when I see the words:
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me...
--The New Colossus
4,000 people died in September, 2001.
Huh? I think you mean less than 3,000.
Do we think of hurricanse and wars as "minimal threats"? No, we don't. That's my point.
However, we do not use them to justify broad-based, open-ended, constitutionally dubious programs that are highly vulnerable to exploitation by the ethically-challenged.
you can't however be a republic and a monarchy.
Unless, of course, the monarch is part of the royal anarchy.
I don't think I have to tell Slashdotters that if you don't know how to delete a file under UNIX, you DON'T know UNIX!
The correct real-world answer is: "Who cares? Disk is cheap!"
And, it can be very unhelpful too. As a movie-freak I am always searching imdb for random information during the day to help solve watercooler arguments and whatnot. Thus imdb is often my "default" search engine and I am constantly get really effed up search results for real-work searches. For example - I wanted to learn about the perl bleach module, so searching on "perl bleach" got me back:
REAL helpful there, thanks firefox!@#@#%
If IMDB is doing some sort of search keyword analysis for site planing or whatever I sure ain't helping them too since at least half my searches ARE relevant to IMDB so they get lots of meaningful searches mixed in with some totally weird shit.
The only people who will see any serious monrey froma settlment like this will be (like always) the class-action attorneys.
While the affected musicians will each receive eletronic coupons good for 100 free downloads from iTunes...
No, that wasn't EFF's point at all. Their point seems to be that ...
No - your misinterpretation of their point seems to be what you wrote. If you are going to be sticking words in their mouth then might as well just go all out and say that the EFF is defending Hitler. If you are going to set up strawmen might as well do it right.
Seriously, would any of the readers here be willing to take a lie detector test in a situation like that? What a piece of nonsense.
Do you think that oh, maybe that is the EFF's point? If the people who are already under contract aren't willing to play along with such invasive tactics, why then should the website owners, who have no contract with Apple, be required to do so?
Before you claim it is not the same thing, think about it - leaks are the bread and butter of a rumours website, thus the identity of leakers is probably one of their closest held secrets. While for employees, if they did not leak the document then they barely even have a dog in the fight.
he film is a different media. If the film can't stand on its own 2 feet, than as a film it's a horrible failure.
You assert that, but other than saying that you hate such movies, you give no supporting criticism as to why a movie that only appeals to 50,000 is a huge failure. Do you equate sales to success? If so, then what if 50,000 sales was enough to be profitable, would it then be a success?
You'll forgive me for taking that with a grain of salt so long as memory over-commit remains the default mode of operation within Linux.
The default mode for memory over-commit is that obvious over-commits are disallowed.
This behaviour is less tolerant than simply allowing any and all over-commits.
This seems to match the original poster's contention that Linus is getting less tolerant rather
than completely intolerant of "sloppy programming."
n8_f is correct that the parent post is full of bunk.,
...
No, the OP is correct, just obtuse and a little sloppy, probably because he knows what he is talking about and didn't bother to explain enough background info for non-experts to easily come up to speed.
In addition to what n8_f said, the cost isn't cache coherency
Messing with the page tables is especially expensive when you need to syncronize this across multiple processors.
You are talking about the same thing the OP meant when he said "cache coherency." You both are talking about the TLB which is a cache of page table entries, although not what most people think of when talking about cache.
If it's zero copy, why would there be copy on write? That's a non-sequitur.
Roflcopter!
Now don't you feel dumb for writing that huge post about something totally unrelated to the fine article?
But you did get +5 for it, I guess all those mods didn't read it either.
When I need to fork(), I do not have the time to think of all the memory management invovled with fork().
This has NOTHING to do with fork(). You are used to CoW (copy-on-write for anyone else reading along) only applying to fork(), but that is not the issue under discussion at all. You, and probably 95% of the responders here, need to go RTFA.
The issue is implementing zero-copy IO. FreeBSD's way of doing it do a setsockopt() that causes any write() on that socket to mark the buffer CoW so that it can use it exclusively for handing down to the device driver. The "magic" is that if the programmer tries to use that buffer while the device driver owns it he will get a copy. BUT, the programmer has no way of knowing when that buffer is available again.
Linus's point is that marking a page CoW is very expensive - especially in an SMP environment, almost as expensive as just copying that page to begin with would be. He also argues that taking a page-fault to invoke the CoW to a new page, or simply to turn off the CoW attribute, is orders of magnitude more expensive than just copying it in the first place.
So that means the CoW for sockets is only really useful if you rarely or never reuse your buffers again. And the only place that happens is in synthetic benchmarks.
If Linus had said "Microsoft is a bunch of idiots for implementing a feature that only looks good on benchmarks" everybody would be nodding their heads in agreement. I think the reason people are not doing the same here is because they just don't understand the details.
Instead, he was astounded to see that by sheer chance, the resulting random text had turned out to be apparently intelligible English, "ID BY ROWS", although that was not what was intended.
what are the odds of that?
Precisely 100% - because that is exactly what happened.
So you would not mind, say, having your drinking water contaminated with fuel for nuclear reactors?
Maybe you missed the point - after 300 years there is no net increase in radioactivity.
Put the waste back where the original fuel came from and there is no change in radiation levels. If you want to argue about externals having an impact and that you can't just put it back without additional effects on the environment, then sit on the stuff for 900 years and you are down way BELOW the original level of radioactivity. 900 years is still hugely easier to manage than 90,000 years.
No, we don't. The technology is pretty much the same.
Yes we do! It hasn't seen much commercial development (none inside the US) but the Integral Fast Reactor produces waste that only takes about 300 years to return to the original level of radioactivity as the fuel that went into the reactor.
Storing radioactive waste for only 300 years is is many orders of mangitude more feasible than the storage of current waste for tens of thousands of years.
Just use HDMI connectors. They are electrically the same as single-channel DVI. If the monitor is DVI, just use a HDMI-to-DVI cable which should not cost much more than a regular DVI-to-DVI cable.