I did some calculations and I think the space's increasing by about 3.5 MB each day. That's more space than I ever receive at maximum, let alone at average... So for all practical purposes, I consider my gmail account infinite now:)
Re:Is anyone else curious what SSA trees are?
on
GCC 4.0.0 Released
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
An educated guess - are they a move in the direction of making code optimizations in gcc easier to code? I heard that a lot of optimization experts (you need to know a lot of graph theory for example) wouldn't work on gcc because of the difficulty of working with it for optimizations, so they would do their experiments in other compilers...
Nice post, but just a small remark - sometimes the score won't be available, since for example Fugues (which Glenn Gould liked to play) involve some improvisation, and I bet that even in other places he would improvise some times.
And oh, I should mention that no effort to optimize the clients for HT was done - the speedup given by HT was calculated just by running the same program twice, so both programs were doing integer operations only...
Actually this is not true. I was involved in the optimization of the clients of a distributed computing effort (ecc2-109, some of you may remember it), and hyper-threading made the clients about 30% faster.
When I optimized them, the speedup given by HT was smaller, but it was still something like 18% at least...
The reason for this is that all the units in the CPU are more heavily used with HT, which is also why those cpu's heat more than normal P4's...
That doesn't solve the paranoias. People would then say - how do I know that the software being run on their servers is the same software for which source is available?
Well, I was thinking about the thousands of emails being sent to invalid addresses, they could hog some networks of mail servers... Not that spammers don't do that already, but that was the reason behind that X...
Anyone know what's the method used in order to identify asteroids and track their positions. What I mean is - how sure are we that we're tracking every potential threat?
I disagree. Not many people used to play in coop mode, at least compared with the number of people who played deathmatch... Not to mention Quakeworld, which made deathmatch spectacular.
There is no technological way of verifying that the other peer is telling the truth (or at least there won't be unless the whole world implements some sort of Orwellian "Trusted Computing" requirement), aside from downloading the whole file and verifying it against the expected hash.
This is why Bittorrent hashes all the blocks of the file (which aren't very big). All the P2P programs should try to start doing something like this, if possible...
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses ( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it ( ) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers (X) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses ( ) Asshats ( ) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email ( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches (X) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud (X) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Sending email should be free ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses [hey, it's Microsoft... they've probably already submitted the patent...] ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
I suspect that what they really do is look up the "right" hashes from the various hash-checking sites, then have clients that rather than actually calculate the hash from the junk file, simply tell everyone that the junk file hashes to the "right" hash, and nobody would know better until they downloaded it
That's the nice thing about bittorrent - each block of the file (and they're not very big) has it's own hash, so anyone trying to spread bullshit data gets blacklisted pretty fast...
Slashdot Mirror
I did some calculations and I think the space's increasing by about 3.5 MB each day. That's more space than I ever receive at maximum, let alone at average... So for all practical purposes, I consider my gmail account infinite now :)
An educated guess - are they a move in the direction of making code optimizations in gcc easier to code? I heard that a lot of optimization experts (you need to know a lot of graph theory for example) wouldn't work on gcc because of the difficulty of working with it for optimizations, so they would do their experiments in other compilers...
Nice post, but just a small remark - sometimes the score won't be available, since for example Fugues (which Glenn Gould liked to play) involve some improvisation, and I bet that even in other places he would improvise some times.
He's an australian, excuse him... ;)
And oh, I should mention that no effort to optimize the clients for HT was done - the speedup given by HT was calculated just by running the same program twice, so both programs were doing integer operations only...
Actually this is not true. I was involved in the optimization of the clients of a distributed computing effort (ecc2-109, some of you may remember it), and hyper-threading made the clients about 30% faster.
When I optimized them, the speedup given by HT was smaller, but it was still something like 18% at least...
The reason for this is that all the units in the CPU are more heavily used with HT, which is also why those cpu's heat more than normal P4's...
That doesn't solve the paranoias. People would then say - how do I know that the software being run on their servers is the same software for which source is available?
Why don't you suggest that to them?
Well, I was thinking about the thousands of emails being sent to invalid addresses, they could hog some networks of mail servers... Not that spammers don't do that already, but that was the reason behind that X...
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=139986&cid= 11723871
what about this also common mistake?
rm -rf / tmp/dir1
Notice the extra space between / and tmp...
Oh, and the shareware linux part... And the kernel mode programming in VB? Probably some more :D
It's a great troll indeed, but too old...
Well, of course it is a joke/troll. You just had to notice the part where he says that VB code is every bit as fast as C code...
Well, I found something related to this - http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/faq/
Anyone know what's the method used in order to identify asteroids and track their positions. What I mean is - how sure are we that we're tracking every potential threat?
I disagree. Not many people used to play in coop mode, at least compared with the number of people who played deathmatch... Not to mention Quakeworld, which made deathmatch spectacular.
There is no technological way of verifying that the other peer is telling the truth (or at least there won't be unless the whole world implements some sort of Orwellian "Trusted Computing" requirement), aside from downloading the whole file and verifying it against the expected hash.
This is why Bittorrent hashes all the blocks of the file (which aren't very big). All the P2P programs should try to start doing something like this, if possible...
Does anyone know exactly which hash algo they RE'd?
:)
Probably none, since their site seems like a load of total bullshit.
Also, DC++ (my p2p app of choice) uses Tiger Tree hashs... how secure are those?
No one has managed to crack TTH hashes for now
Your post advocates a
(X) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
(X) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(X) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
(X) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses [hey, it's Microsoft... they've probably already submitted the patent...]
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
I suspect that what they really do is look up the "right" hashes from the various hash-checking sites, then have clients that rather than actually calculate the hash from the junk file, simply tell everyone that the junk file hashes to the "right" hash, and nobody would know better until they downloaded it
That's the nice thing about bittorrent - each block of the file (and they're not very big) has it's own hash, so anyone trying to spread bullshit data gets blacklisted pretty fast...
They claim to use "virtual algorithms". Nice eh?
Speak for yourself - my ass is not collective...
Damn typo... s/me/mine
A friend of me prefers to say:
"That which does not kill me... Gets fucked later in the day"
Maybe. That would explain my updated opinion on this.