From the Jargon File (heavily summarised):
Gordon Moore first suggested the law in 1964 (although the time was twelve, rather than eighteen, months then), and co-founded Intel in 1968.
(End of summary).
It isn't really a law, but seems to have held for at least the past twenty years, and before that at the higher speed. (Strictly speaking, nothing should be considered a hard and fast "law" in most sciences - they are all unproven conjectures. They start being called laws if they hold for long enough to convince most scientists of their utility and accuracy. But I'm sure you knew that anyway).
As far as I am aware, stock ramfs cannot be swapped. I am not a kernel hacker, but that is what it looks like from the code. Also, if the ramfs expands to far you get a panic that looks very much like you've run out of kernel memory.
If you use ramfs for anything important, make sure resource limits are set up (I forget where the patch is. Perhaps it is in the newest kernels?), or you risk panics.
"I am also agnostic -- "agnostic"... means "thinks that it is immoral to have knowledge that you could not possibly have".
There is no God. There are no gods..."
How can you possibly know there are no gods / is no God? How can you know the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist? I agree that they probably don't, but saying that you consider claiming knowledge that you don't have immoral, and then claiming such knowledge yourself, seems a bit odd.
I've probably misunderstood something here, and this isn't intended as a flame to your set of beliefs, but I don't see how your attitude is consistent.
A few months ago, one of my cousins bought a Windows game that included a simple scripting language (Star Trek Starship Creator, I think), and spent a little while learning that. Sme kind of game scripting system might be appropraite, for rapid gratification? (Don't get Starship Creator - the language is truly appalling. I'm not sure what else is available, but it would certainly be interesting 'research'.) Obvious comment: The best language will depend on the child.
You wouldn't happen to have a website or similar such for the project, would you? (I'm useless at electronics, so wouldn't be much help. I'm just curious.)
I can only say that you are very lucky. Monday of last week, Tzu (our Linux internet proxy) had 11 unkillable Pythons running, 3 dead ls and a host of dead kill commands. None responded to SIGTERM, SIGKILL, or anything else I could think of. I suspect a hardware fault, though, so shouldn't blame the software... At home, I see zombies at least once a fortnight. Admittedly, I have an exceptionaly shoddy motherboard, but zombies arn't exactly rare. One of my textbooks has a 20 line program that creates a zombie process for you. In summary: Zombies and unkillable processes are common on shoddy hardware.
I'm going to be picky here, and possibly wrong, but the plague originated in Asia, not Europe, from where it moved into the Middle East, North Africa, and then Europe. Admittedly, Europe was particularily badly effected, but that didn't make it a Europe-only problem.
Anyway, the Black Death did kill the most people of any event in recorded history, as a percentage of the world population. (We think. Records wern't particularily good back then.)
The big difference, of course, being that the slaves were sentient and could understand what it meant to be slaves. Songs can't. Its quite a serious exageration to try and say the RIAA is as bad as the slave traders were.
I agree with the sentiment, though. But anyone that does pirate music in protest is going to be painted as the bad guys by the media, so you'd have to be quite careful.
Try Tools->Internet Options->Security->Custom Level->ActiveX controls and plugins->Download unsigned ActtiveX controls->Enable. Or just tick 'Never ask this message again' (or whatever it is) when asked whether you want to run an unsigned control.
Of course, for certificates to be of any use, you have to trust the certificate authority
Plus, wasn't there a thing a bit back where a virus used an uncertified ActiveX control (or possibly VBScript, I don't remember which) to get into your Outlook address book and propogate?
Okay, so it was probably a mistake to single out ActiveX - most of that goes for VBScript and Java as well.
At the moment, I can't think of any uses of Gbit ethernet except inside server clusters. To really get the best of something like this for anything other than 2 machine networks, you need gigabit switches, obviously, and these are still rather expensive.
The first usage that springs to mind is supercomputing, but then, how many centres with enough power to saturate 100Mbit ethernet but a tight budget do you know of? The big limiting factor will usually be CPU, I would guess.
100Mbit is easily enough for studio quality video, which would be the other big bandwidth hog.
Its still jolly clever, I just can't think of any uses. But then, I said that about 486s...
The big vulnerability on Windows computers is probably IE (assuming you've disabled sharing). Since about version 3 (if anyone knows otherwise, correct me), web designers have been able to embed ActiveX controls in a web page, and these are then run automatically when the page is loaded. Win95 security isn't worth mentioning once code is on the system, so this gives the webmaster pretty wide rights to the system.
The easiest way to stop it is Tools->Internet Options->Security->Custom level, and set everything to Prompt or disable. This is a bit of a pain, but vastly improves security.
I'm fairly certain I heard somewhere that a PPP connection can be tuneled (sp.?) through an SSH connection. This'd probably be enough to get around most blockages, provided you could find someone on the other side willing to act as an endpoint for the connection.
I didn't pay much attention at the time, so I may have misundertood what was going on.
Surely, mathematics is defined not in terms of the human conciousness, but in terms of a set of axioms. Admittedly, humans (Euclid, to be specific) discovered these, but it seems likely that they have some more fundamental basis. Why else would they describe the real world so well? Of course, you could argue that these are just ways of approximating reality to make it more comprehensible, but this rapidly ends up depending on faith rather than reason. (So does the counter argument, for that matter...)
Apologies for going slightly off-topic.
Re:DNA Replication = mass production of software?
on
RNA Computer
·
· Score: 1
This would certainly surprise everyone trying to evolve software:)
Seriously, this could give you some nice, fast software if you could select the right mutants- I remember seeing an article somewhere that a similar system reduced the transistor count in a chip from ~200 to ~50.
I wonder if it would be possible to evolve a stable Windows? A stress test, so to speak.
I'm not agreeing with the article (as others have said, the 'look-ahead' stuff looks a lot like mumbo-jumbo), but would it be possible to evolve an organism which could select the best mutations for their offspring? This obviously requires some level of conciousness in the organism, so wouldn't be applicable to bacteria or DNA. I can't see any theoretical problems with this, but then I'm not a biologist or a physist.
This would obviously be beneficial to the organism, so would be selected for by evolution. I'd guess that the probablity is too small to be worth considering, though.
Yes, but if we formalise it using mathematics, we are using mathematics to describe it. We therefore don't have the problem of describing a system in terms of itself.
Why do you say that a system cannot describe itself? That may be true of standard mathematical systems, but (as far as I know) no-one has proved that we can't in theory understand our own thought processes. I seriously doubt modern mathematics / neuroscience is powerful enugh for that.
Surely, to violate the license, you would then only have to post a page criticising it? The licensor sues you, you go to court, and get to challenge the license there. If they don't sue, you have a web site to try and organise your campaign with...
Sorry if I sound a bit out of place, but I think this is probably a good idea, if expensive. Surely, no responsible motorist would be speeding anyway, and in a perfect world the police would have enough speed traps to catch them. I don't think I'm alone in the UK- driving fast isn't treated as a fundamental right here. We don't have enough open roads where its safe. This is therefore likely to be a vote-winner, rather than an intrusion on civil liberties.
Apologies if this looks like flamebait, it wasn't intended as such.
At the moment, Probotics don't appear to support Linux, but if you look in the technical section, they actually ask for someone to write a port. Also, the drivers appear to be open-sourced, so if someone wanted to use Cye with Linux, ther shouldn't be any problems.
This is what I think will happen if Mozilla is abandoned:
1. IE will have no desktop competition (at least on Win95, which, at present, is the only OS that counts). Microsoft will realise this. 2. Microsoft will use this monopoly position to push proprietary extensions to HTTP and HTML. Without having to worry about Netscape users not being able to view their pages, webmasters will use these extensions. 3. HTML and HTTP will be effectively owned by Microsoft. 4. Therefore, no web browsers for non-Microsoft OSs, and no servers either. 5. Without Web access, said OSs cannot make any desktop impact. Without HTTP servers, there'll only be very small alternative markets. 6. Linux, FreeBSD etc. become irrelevant.
Of course, this is assuming Mozilla is abandoned, which is as yet far from certain. At present, the worst that can be said is that its a bit behind schedule, which is hardly a sign of a failed project.
How else are SlashDot supposed to stop flames etc. getting onto the discussion stuff? Surely, someone must be able to check that posts are not 'adult', off-topic, blatant lies etc. etc. etc. I'm sure if you could think of a better way, SlashDot would be happy to accept it.
Slashdot Mirror
From the Jargon File (heavily summarised):
Gordon Moore first suggested the law in 1964 (although the time was twelve, rather than eighteen, months then), and co-founded Intel in 1968.
(End of summary).
It isn't really a law, but seems to have held for at least the past twenty years, and before that at the higher speed. (Strictly speaking, nothing should be considered a hard and fast "law" in most sciences - they are all unproven conjectures. They start being called laws if they hold for long enough to convince most scientists of their utility and accuracy. But I'm sure you knew that anyway).
As far as I am aware, stock ramfs cannot be swapped. I am not a kernel hacker, but that is what it looks like from the code. Also, if the ramfs expands to far you get a panic that looks very much like you've run out of kernel memory.
If you use ramfs for anything important, make sure resource limits are set up (I forget where the patch is. Perhaps it is in the newest kernels?), or you risk panics.
I don't like mocking people's beliefs, but,
... means "thinks that it is immoral to have knowledge that you could not possibly have".
"I am also agnostic -- "agnostic"
There is no God. There are no gods..."
How can you possibly know there are no gods / is no God? How can you know the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist? I agree that they probably don't, but saying that you consider claiming knowledge that you don't have immoral, and then claiming such knowledge yourself, seems a bit odd.
I've probably misunderstood something here, and this isn't intended as a flame to your set of beliefs, but I don't see how your attitude is consistent.
A few months ago, one of my cousins bought a Windows game that included a simple scripting language (Star Trek Starship Creator, I think), and spent a little while learning that. Sme kind of game scripting system might be appropraite, for rapid gratification? (Don't get Starship Creator - the language is truly appalling. I'm not sure what else is available, but it would certainly be interesting 'research'.) Obvious comment: The best language will depend on the child.
You wouldn't happen to have a website or similar such for the project, would you? (I'm useless at electronics, so wouldn't be much help. I'm just curious.)
I can only say that you are very lucky. Monday of last week, Tzu (our Linux internet proxy) had 11 unkillable Pythons running, 3 dead ls and a host of dead kill commands. None responded to SIGTERM, SIGKILL, or anything else I could think of. I suspect a hardware fault, though, so shouldn't blame the software... At home, I see zombies at least once a fortnight. Admittedly, I have an exceptionaly shoddy motherboard, but zombies arn't exactly rare. One of my textbooks has a 20 line program that creates a zombie process for you. In summary: Zombies and unkillable processes are common on shoddy hardware.
I'm going to be picky here, and possibly wrong, but the plague originated in Asia, not Europe, from where it moved into the Middle East, North Africa, and then Europe. Admittedly, Europe was particularily badly effected, but that didn't make it a Europe-only problem.
Anyway, the Black Death did kill the most people of any event in recorded history, as a percentage of the world population. (We think. Records wern't particularily good back then.)
The big difference, of course, being that the slaves were sentient and could understand what it meant to be slaves. Songs can't. Its quite a serious exageration to try and say the RIAA is as bad as the slave traders were.
I agree with the sentiment, though. But anyone that does pirate music in protest is going to be painted as the bad guys by the media, so you'd have to be quite careful.
Its freenet.sourceforge.net. (Assuming this is the same FreeNet)
Try Tools->Internet Options->Security->Custom Level->ActiveX controls and plugins->Download unsigned ActtiveX controls->Enable. Or just tick 'Never ask this message again' (or whatever it is) when asked whether you want to run an unsigned control.
Of course, for certificates to be of any use, you have to trust the certificate authority
Plus, wasn't there a thing a bit back where a virus used an uncertified ActiveX control (or possibly VBScript, I don't remember which) to get into your Outlook address book and propogate?
Okay, so it was probably a mistake to single out ActiveX - most of that goes for VBScript and Java as well.
At the moment, I can't think of any uses of Gbit ethernet except inside server clusters. To really get the best of something like this for anything other than 2 machine networks, you need gigabit switches, obviously, and these are still rather expensive.
The first usage that springs to mind is supercomputing, but then, how many centres with enough power to saturate 100Mbit ethernet but a tight budget do you know of? The big limiting factor will usually be CPU, I would guess.
100Mbit is easily enough for studio quality video, which would be the other big bandwidth hog.
Its still jolly clever, I just can't think of any uses. But then, I said that about 486s...
The big vulnerability on Windows computers is probably IE (assuming you've disabled sharing). Since about version 3 (if anyone knows otherwise, correct me), web designers have been able to embed ActiveX controls in a web page, and these are then run automatically when the page is loaded. Win95 security isn't worth mentioning once code is on the system, so this gives the webmaster pretty wide rights to the system.
The easiest way to stop it is Tools->Internet Options->Security->Custom level, and set everything to Prompt or disable. This is a bit of a pain, but vastly improves security.
I'm fairly certain I heard somewhere that a PPP connection can be tuneled (sp.?) through an SSH connection. This'd probably be enough to get around most blockages, provided you could find someone on the other side willing to act as an endpoint for the connection.
I didn't pay much attention at the time, so I may have misundertood what was going on.
Surely, mathematics is defined not in terms of the human conciousness, but in terms of a set of axioms. Admittedly, humans (Euclid, to be specific) discovered these, but it seems likely that they have some more fundamental basis. Why else would they describe the real world so well?
Of course, you could argue that these are just ways of approximating reality to make it more comprehensible, but this rapidly ends up depending on faith rather than reason. (So does the counter argument, for that matter...)
Apologies for going slightly off-topic.
This would certainly surprise everyone trying to evolve software:)
Seriously, this could give you some nice, fast software if you could select the right mutants- I remember seeing an article somewhere that a similar system reduced the transistor count in a chip from ~200 to ~50.
I wonder if it would be possible to evolve a stable Windows? A stress test, so to speak.
I'm not agreeing with the article (as others have said, the 'look-ahead' stuff looks a lot like mumbo-jumbo), but would it be possible to evolve an organism which could select the best mutations for their offspring? This obviously requires some level of conciousness in the organism, so wouldn't be applicable to bacteria or DNA. I can't see any theoretical problems with this, but then I'm not a biologist or a physist.
This would obviously be beneficial to the organism, so would be selected for by evolution. I'd guess that the probablity is too small to be worth considering, though.
Yes, but if we formalise it using mathematics, we are using mathematics to describe it. We therefore don't have the problem of describing a system in terms of itself.
I may not have phrased that very well.
What might also be nice would be an easily-accessible button for toggling this limited JS on and off...
Why do you say that a system cannot describe itself? That may be true of standard mathematical systems, but (as far as I know) no-one has proved that we can't in theory understand our own thought processes. I seriously doubt modern mathematics / neuroscience is powerful enugh for that.
Surely, to violate the license, you would then only have to post a page criticising it? The licensor sues you, you go to court, and get to challenge the license there. If they don't sue, you have a web site to try and organise your campaign with...
Apologies for the spelling
Sorry if I sound a bit out of place, but I think this is probably a good idea, if expensive. Surely, no responsible motorist would be speeding anyway, and in a perfect world the police would have enough speed traps to catch them.
I don't think I'm alone in the UK- driving fast isn't treated as a fundamental right here. We don't have enough open roads where its safe. This is therefore likely to be a vote-winner, rather than an intrusion on civil liberties.
Apologies if this looks like flamebait, it wasn't intended as such.
At the moment, Probotics don't appear to support Linux, but if you look in the technical section, they actually ask for someone to write a port. Also, the drivers appear to be open-sourced, so if someone wanted to use Cye with Linux, ther shouldn't be any problems.
This is what I think will happen if Mozilla is abandoned:
1. IE will have no desktop competition (at least on Win95, which, at present, is the only OS that counts). Microsoft will realise this.
2. Microsoft will use this monopoly position to push proprietary extensions to HTTP and HTML. Without having to worry about Netscape users not being able to view their pages, webmasters will use these extensions.
3. HTML and HTTP will be effectively owned by Microsoft.
4. Therefore, no web browsers for non-Microsoft OSs, and no servers either.
5. Without Web access, said OSs cannot make any desktop impact. Without HTTP servers, there'll only be very small alternative markets.
6. Linux, FreeBSD etc. become irrelevant.
Of course, this is assuming Mozilla is abandoned, which is as yet far from certain. At present, the worst that can be said is that its a bit behind schedule, which is hardly a sign of a failed project.
How else are SlashDot supposed to stop flames etc. getting onto the discussion stuff? Surely, someone must be able to check that posts are not 'adult', off-topic, blatant lies etc. etc. etc. I'm sure if you could think of a better way, SlashDot would be happy to accept it.
Surely, if SlashDot censored posts, they would not have let this one through? Plus, is it possible that the posts just fell below your threshold?