Re:That's great and all, but...
on
Growing Insulin
·
· Score: 1
Naturally, the blue men of Intel have no problem with red-green color blind people.
Re:High Fructose Corn Syrup, demon of the far left
on
Growing Insulin
·
· Score: 1
Honey over HCFS is just stupid. Table sugar is not identical. It will be digested into a similar mixture after passing the stomach, but the uptake profile will be quite different because of this. It's like saying that starch and glucose are the same, after all, it's just some water molecules gone missing/added.
You're missing the point. A battery is two compartments that's partially connected while they undergo a chemical reaction. The partial connection means that you can get an electric current out of it. If you take the compartment isolation away, you need no wire at all -- you'll just get the reaction part. Depending on the kinetic parameters of the reaction, it can be very rapid.
I suppose you're satirical, as the electorate should be able to decide that quite easily. If certain qualifications are desired, they/we have to vote for those who present those qualifications. My point (aside from providing a punchline) is simply that the amount of power/possible accumulated damage is not as relevant as the question of whether an immediate loss of life is a possible outcome. Certificate to hell for specific subsets of medical devices and embedded systems. Few websites are as critical, although the economical damage can certainly be significant.
There are some possibilities if some part of your stack is using UTF-8, for example. What one portion doesn't interpret as a ' will effectively hide or be translated into ' at a later point. You can come up with more variations of the basic idea.
No, it's using the flash for the complete filesystem. You just boot the device again when it's repowered, much like a PC. What's saved is really saved (well, as much as you can trust any flash memory).
Me too, to the grandparent. The locator could be cheap (meaning: having several of them), or even attached to my computer. Or expensive and being able to answer when you call for it (by voice).
You're right that it's been supported since 3.1, but NT 3.1 was released a few years after the original design decisions were made. Just look at the status of the OS/2 and POSIX subsystems (and, for that matter, the whole idea of separate user mode subsystems).
The main point I've seen about the new stack is performance. Focusing solely on what's actually used is part of the degradation of NT that's been going on for years, but if they actually did the profiling and concluded that the problem was in the design of the old stack, a new one might be a better idea than adding some kind of kludgy shortcut bypassing the original design to solve those issues.
I certainly don't know enough to say for sure that this is the case, maybe the same work could provide similar improvements within the existing framework, but performance sure seems like something that logically often conflicts with a very generalized design.
Not true, if the input focus is not in an edit field/list box/combo box, but rather a check box or the dialog itself, you can get away with just pressing the key. Bring up some file property dialog and press "R" for example (for the read-only attribute, if you're using the US English version of XP).
To be fair, the original design of NT networking was focused on IPX and NetBEUI. The bandwidth was 10 Mbit. If you routed in several steps, you didn't expect minimal latencies. You were also supposed to kind of trust the traffic on the network (no SYN attacks or stuff like that.) IPv6 on current Windows versions still has "it will kind of work" status. You don't start with MS-DOS and end up with XP. You end up with Me. Rewriting something because the old version is broken is highly unwise. Rewriting something because the old version is unappropriate for what you currently use it for might make sense. I remember the JWZ article and he talks about all the hidden assumptions you've found through hard work and how those are an essential value in the current codebase. If enough of those assumptions are not true anymore, it can make sense to rewrite something.
AFAIK, he has already been under some NDAs (he has seen non-public [i.e. just about any] parts of the NT source during book research, for example). And I certainly think that some of the existing technical blogs by MS employees are more than just constant praise, although they tend to take on a defensive position when the comments page is/.ed.
Well, Mark has been on good enough foot with MS to have some license to the NT source to write books on NT internals. MS KB has frequently referenced sysinternals tools. I see no real conflict. On the other hand, it makes more sense for MS to buy this company than many previous acquisitions.
To be fair, Intel has talked about being able to tune their prefetch units in the different Core 2 families for the typical workloads. How much that amounts to is hard to tell, but when Woodcrest uses FB-DIMM, I guess that difference could warrant some additional tuning in the prefetch strategy. On the mobile end, it could be wise to adapt to the lower total bandwidth, to avoid saturating the bus. But, overall, you're very right - all of Intel's new offerings will quite soon be very similar.
Then you have obviously never written any code for any Windows version. (3.1 vs 95, 98SE vs 2000, especially) Even between Windows 2003 and normal XP (especially XP without servicepacks) you can run into those tiny things that they finally got right, a single added API that does what you want in a clean way. If you relate 2000 and 98SE, or even XP and Vista in this manner, you find huge sets of APIs that are added or updated. I'm not only talking about managed code Aero in Vista, but better localization/culture handling, sound, memory and more insignifcant adjustments within the existing UI code.
Good point, but this, to a degree, still counteracts the argument that it can be very well hidden. If it is an abnormal copy of one of the more normal data streams, it will conversely get at least a bit easier to find. On the other hand, a malformed stream with a "summary" string for a file might seem more innocent than the single odd file with a stream name that's not found anywhere else.
You can come with quite clever ways to hide data. The point is that the rootkit, to be an infection, must also have some way for a standard Windows routine to actually read that data and load it as code. In practice, it means that the real, non-rootkit-mangled, version of the registry will probably contain a reference, or that the normal data stream of some system binary will be changed as well.
Except, of course, that ray tracing is not easily parallelizable as you need a significant amount of data to each of those postage stamp size pieces (hey, that's one of the reasons that "just" rendering triangles is so much easier, you take a global problem and make it local). Wiring all those transistors would be hard. Adding cache and cores is also, to some degree, the solution when you are out of ideas. It will make things better, but it's a quite expensive way to get the scaling (especially cache).
True in a sense, the long, supposedly identical, sequences, might help chromosomes align during meiosis (creating of sex cells), but that's the case anyway, one will keep lines and do repeated inbreeding until we've a homozygothic line for the new trait. (Germ line modification of humans without IVF would of course also introduce this, but that's far away.)
Well, isn't the most important part of pro-insulin that it's ONE amino-acid chain that's then cleaved, with retained cystein bindings? Posttranscriptional modifications are easy, "just" give the host a cDNA. Post-translational modificatins are harder.
Anyway, your description might lead people to assume that most of the DNA present in a human that's not an exon would be an intron or a sequence of direct regulatory use. That's obviously not the case, or at least the regulatory effect is very limited in, for example, extremely long repeats and other sections devoid of transcriptional activity. If those have any other effect than "just" modifying the chemical environment slightly by their sheer presence, that's a great unknown to us right now.
Good that at least someone made this point. What's more interesting is of course that for structural regulatory purposes, the effects of single point mutations can be quite minimal. If we need to put exactly one histone package between a binding site and the gene itself for the regulation to work properly, then it might be totally irrelevant what that sequence contains, but it's still not possible to just remove it and get no change in function.
Uh, if you believe DirectX, a JVM or the.NET CLR will be able to split any serious workload onto several cores by pure magic, you're way off base. You can offload some async operations easily, but if you really write singlethreaded code without even thinking about how it will perform on several cores, nice multitasking performance is all you get.
Slashdot Mirror
Naturally, the blue men of Intel have no problem with red-green color blind people.
Honey over HCFS is just stupid. Table sugar is not identical. It will be digested into a similar mixture after passing the stomach, but the uptake profile will be quite different because of this. It's like saying that starch and glucose are the same, after all, it's just some water molecules gone missing/added.
You're missing the point. A battery is two compartments that's partially connected while they undergo a chemical reaction. The partial connection means that you can get an electric current out of it. If you take the compartment isolation away, you need no wire at all -- you'll just get the reaction part. Depending on the kinetic parameters of the reaction, it can be very rapid.
Surface area (relevant for vaporization and oxygen supply) vs. volume.
No one raises an eyebrow right now, since it's 50 years too late to stop the French nuclear arsenal.
I suppose you're satirical, as the electorate should be able to decide that quite easily. If certain qualifications are desired, they/we have to vote for those who present those qualifications. My point (aside from providing a punchline) is simply that the amount of power/possible accumulated damage is not as relevant as the question of whether an immediate loss of life is a possible outcome. Certificate to hell for specific subsets of medical devices and embedded systems. Few websites are as critical, although the economical damage can certainly be significant.
There are some possibilities if some part of your stack is using UTF-8, for example. What one portion doesn't interpret as a ' will effectively hide or be translated into ' at a later point. You can come up with more variations of the basic idea.
Politicians don't.
No, it's using the flash for the complete filesystem. You just boot the device again when it's repowered, much like a PC. What's saved is really saved (well, as much as you can trust any flash memory).
Me too, to the grandparent. The locator could be cheap (meaning: having several of them), or even attached to my computer. Or expensive and being able to answer when you call for it (by voice).
The main point I've seen about the new stack is performance. Focusing solely on what's actually used is part of the degradation of NT that's been going on for years, but if they actually did the profiling and concluded that the problem was in the design of the old stack, a new one might be a better idea than adding some kind of kludgy shortcut bypassing the original design to solve those issues.
I certainly don't know enough to say for sure that this is the case, maybe the same work could provide similar improvements within the existing framework, but performance sure seems like something that logically often conflicts with a very generalized design.
Absolutely, that's it :-)
Not true, if the input focus is not in an edit field/list box/combo box, but rather a check box or the dialog itself, you can get away with just pressing the key. Bring up some file property dialog and press "R" for example (for the read-only attribute, if you're using the US English version of XP).
To be fair, the original design of NT networking was focused on IPX and NetBEUI. The bandwidth was 10 Mbit. If you routed in several steps, you didn't expect minimal latencies. You were also supposed to kind of trust the traffic on the network (no SYN attacks or stuff like that.) IPv6 on current Windows versions still has "it will kind of work" status. You don't start with MS-DOS and end up with XP. You end up with Me. Rewriting something because the old version is broken is highly unwise. Rewriting something because the old version is unappropriate for what you currently use it for might make sense. I remember the JWZ article and he talks about all the hidden assumptions you've found through hard work and how those are an essential value in the current codebase. If enough of those assumptions are not true anymore, it can make sense to rewrite something.
AFAIK, he has already been under some NDAs (he has seen non-public [i.e. just about any] parts of the NT source during book research, for example). And I certainly think that some of the existing technical blogs by MS employees are more than just constant praise, although they tend to take on a defensive position when the comments page is /.ed.
Well, Mark has been on good enough foot with MS to have some license to the NT source to write books on NT internals. MS KB has frequently referenced sysinternals tools. I see no real conflict. On the other hand, it makes more sense for MS to buy this company than many previous acquisitions.
To be fair, Intel has talked about being able to tune their prefetch units in the different Core 2 families for the typical workloads. How much that amounts to is hard to tell, but when Woodcrest uses FB-DIMM, I guess that difference could warrant some additional tuning in the prefetch strategy. On the mobile end, it could be wise to adapt to the lower total bandwidth, to avoid saturating the bus. But, overall, you're very right - all of Intel's new offerings will quite soon be very similar.
Then you have obviously never written any code for any Windows version. (3.1 vs 95, 98SE vs 2000, especially) Even between Windows 2003 and normal XP (especially XP without servicepacks) you can run into those tiny things that they finally got right, a single added API that does what you want in a clean way. If you relate 2000 and 98SE, or even XP and Vista in this manner, you find huge sets of APIs that are added or updated. I'm not only talking about managed code Aero in Vista, but better localization/culture handling, sound, memory and more insignifcant adjustments within the existing UI code.
Good point, but this, to a degree, still counteracts the argument that it can be very well hidden. If it is an abnormal copy of one of the more normal data streams, it will conversely get at least a bit easier to find. On the other hand, a malformed stream with a "summary" string for a file might seem more innocent than the single odd file with a stream name that's not found anywhere else.
You can come with quite clever ways to hide data. The point is that the rootkit, to be an infection, must also have some way for a standard Windows routine to actually read that data and load it as code. In practice, it means that the real, non-rootkit-mangled, version of the registry will probably contain a reference, or that the normal data stream of some system binary will be changed as well.
Except, of course, that ray tracing is not easily parallelizable as you need a significant amount of data to each of those postage stamp size pieces (hey, that's one of the reasons that "just" rendering triangles is so much easier, you take a global problem and make it local). Wiring all those transistors would be hard. Adding cache and cores is also, to some degree, the solution when you are out of ideas. It will make things better, but it's a quite expensive way to get the scaling (especially cache).
True in a sense, the long, supposedly identical, sequences, might help chromosomes align during meiosis (creating of sex cells), but that's the case anyway, one will keep lines and do repeated inbreeding until we've a homozygothic line for the new trait. (Germ line modification of humans without IVF would of course also introduce this, but that's far away.)
Anyway, your description might lead people to assume that most of the DNA present in a human that's not an exon would be an intron or a sequence of direct regulatory use. That's obviously not the case, or at least the regulatory effect is very limited in, for example, extremely long repeats and other sections devoid of transcriptional activity. If those have any other effect than "just" modifying the chemical environment slightly by their sheer presence, that's a great unknown to us right now.
Good that at least someone made this point. What's more interesting is of course that for structural regulatory purposes, the effects of single point mutations can be quite minimal. If we need to put exactly one histone package between a binding site and the gene itself for the regulation to work properly, then it might be totally irrelevant what that sequence contains, but it's still not possible to just remove it and get no change in function.
Uh, if you believe DirectX, a JVM or the .NET CLR will be able to split any serious workload onto several cores by pure magic, you're way off base. You can offload some async operations easily, but if you really write singlethreaded code without even thinking about how it will perform on several cores, nice multitasking performance is all you get.