Well thankfully there are people out there who can think of better ways than up to doubling the length of each instruction just to make it harder to transmit code as plain text while causing all other code to be bigger and slower even if it isn't going to be affected by that...
So what would you do about shared libraries? You'd need padded and non-padded versions for supporting both process types, as you couldn't let padded code call unpadded code (like you can have a non-NX protected process call into NX protected pages of code) because that would just stop the whole thing from working.
With a little practice I'm sure you'll get it nailed, I don't find it that difficult and I'm sure I'm not particularly special, and it's a very useful skill to have if you're interested in reality. If you're not, then follow the hype, maybe it's exciting, but if you are, it's very easy to seperate the two, and it will serve you well, because there is always somebody who would love to share their biases with you... which perhaps wouldn't serve you so well.
If they believe they have a good idea that will help in the education of children, why would they choose to withhold that from everybody but one single district, just because that district isn't doing so well? What works for other schools works for other school, "well it worked in DC" shouldn't be the metric used to decide what methods get rolled out.
Hells no, once they're actually accellerating particles fast enough, forget black holes, the collision will actually result in a full working copy of DNF, *that's* how amazing this machine really is.
Your sig: I think you mean "for all intents and purposes" *lol* intensive purposes haha "I REALLY REALLY MEAN TO DO THIS!!!!!!!!!" with eyes bulging out and raised veins... that would be a pretty intensive purpose...
Anyway... what were you saying about the "I'm right/you're wrong" attitude of the internet?:-p
If you've got the ability to market a processor that won't run peoples old software, and using it makes software slower, take up more memory (think for single byte instructions, a single byte of padding is doubling the space it takes up, which is in effect halving the size of your L1/L2 caches), to a level sufficient enough to get people to actually buy it, then you may as well not even bother with the CPU, just convince them to give you money for nothing, as obviously your marketing team are that good that they could do that!
It's a research paper, not an exploit, not instructions on how to make an exploit, not recommendations on how to make an exploit. God what's with you people on this site, you can't just see something for what it is, you have to see it for how it serves no purpose to you or how you can do it so much better.
If they could exploit a machine by sending a point across, they'd get it past you lot every time, you'd never detect that huh.
CPAN functionality is available from your perl code (you can issue commands to install/update modules etc without having to start the interactive CPAN shell)
Or, that it's a different kind of language to C and therefore works in a different kind of way, eg, communication channels rather than function/call/return. After all, if the language is meant to be easy for creating highly concurrent applications, dragging in a load of "old style" libraries really isn't going to help... all of a suddent it's not going to know about what's going on on other cpu/cores.
But AFAIA the term 'giga' came from the intermediate word 'gigantic', which meant it was pronounced as "jigga", however the word that 'gigantic' came from used to be pronounced.
I wouldn't stake my life on this being correct though, feel free anyone who knows better to weigh in.
How about if you want to perform an action on a load of files (copy/move, even delete) it takes a few minutes before it even starts doing it! Yes I know thats needed for the progress bar, but sometimes it can take longer for it to work out how much work there is to be done than it takes to actually do the work, and it's quicker for me to open a dos prompt and do it from the command line by several minutes. Graphical interfaces all well and good, but there shouldn't be/that/ much of a performance penalty for it.
Similar story here, but am on 2003 32bit (as cpu is 32bit), prefer the shell to XP as it's a lot less hand holdy... although Vista takes being parental to the next level (are you sure you wanted to do that? Definitely? Oo tell you what, I'll even remove the scrollbar that used to be at the bottom of this window, and scroll for you! Surely I know better than you what you want to look at)...
Yep, there are different ways of doing things! This just happens to be another way, and whilst you may be right that a ball with a load of wires sticking out the back may not be all too useful, it is a research prototype, with few sections of the material that hardens/softens allowing not a huge amount of control etc... with different shapes/sizes of sections put together in different ways, this obviously changes. Take the example I gave for a skeletal robot using this as artificial muscles... well what if the skeleton was made from the same stuff? It could collapse all gooey (except the core which obviously remains hard) and by inflating the skeleton (or parts of it) take form. Try doing that with pistons.
I've not seen this 'serpentine design' you mentioned, so cannot comment on that.
"[citation needed]"
Would love to provide, but it was a BBC documentary on Noyce (who played a major role in bringing the silicon transistor to market, the silicon IC, and co-founded Intel with Moore), but the documentary's no longer online (and could not be watched anyway if you're outside the UK). But fine, if you need another example, try electricity, or "a computer in every home". Your resistance is not uncommon.
"In other words, you don't know the answer to my question either"
Why must there be a "the answer"?
"I'm asking why this design might be expected to be superior to more conventional ones"
Once it can get rid of the external wires, it can disguise itself as a football (or soccer ball for those in the states) perhaps? Maybe it's more resistent to damage, as it can be made air/water tight, withstand shock (as components are surrounded in effectively an air bag). The fact it can be used in any orientation is probably an advantage, and all this while remaining mechanically very simple, so there aren't any hinges, joints, ball bearings etc that can break or sieze up. They could also be used in non-ball form, as artificial muscles for a skeletal robot, depending on how much force it can be made to exert.
Once technology's available, people find uses for it. No one could think of any uses for the integrated circuit when that was first invented. I'm sure if you put your mind to it you could think of some situations it would be superior too, but as this is DARPA funded, any long term plans or goals already in mind for it may not be made public.
"I just want a fossil of one of those grandparents"
I'm sure there are some out there, possible already even found (I don't keep fully up to date with all the discoveries in this area). But do remember through all this that fossilisation is a fairly rare occurance, creature can and usually will die in ways that inhibit fossil creation, or inhibit creation of fossils in reachable rock. Note also that as you get further back, demonstrating linearage gets more difficult. The ascendant of two different species that are alive today may be so unlike either of the two species that it's impossible to say that it is a common ascendant without middle pieces that can be linked both ways by common features found in the fossil (remember DNA isn't usually part of what can be recovered from a fossil, which makes all this a lot harder!)
Whether something is pretty, or tastes great, is opinion. Whether something works or not is fact. Statements based on ignoring (or simply, having not yet been exposed to) facts should be shown as being such, so that others are less likely to believe the false statements.
The effect is based more on the value you give it than the value that it is given... eg, if something costs 1 money to buy, then you're only losing 1 money if it doesn't work... but you wouldn't throw 200 monies away on something unless you were a lot more certain it would work. It's that certainty that translates into the placebo effect (except for me, as I'm placebo resistant).
Slashdot Mirror
What a load of trash. People aren't suggesting keeping religious education & philosophy out of schools, just out of the science class.
But hey, I guess you can always make your opponents views seem ridiculous if you misrepresent them.
Yep, it can translate from English to Italian, AND Italian! And I thought Italian was one language, but apparently you get to count it as two!
"Reality is all about looking down and sometimes humanity needs to be looking up"
In your non-reality world that may be true, but in reality it's not.
Well thankfully there are people out there who can think of better ways than up to doubling the length of each instruction just to make it harder to transmit code as plain text while causing all other code to be bigger and slower even if it isn't going to be affected by that...
So what would you do about shared libraries? You'd need padded and non-padded versions for supporting both process types, as you couldn't let padded code call unpadded code (like you can have a non-NX protected process call into NX protected pages of code) because that would just stop the whole thing from working.
Perhaps you could tell me where you take your :-p detector in for its workover, ya know... so I can make sure I avoid the same place?
With a little practice I'm sure you'll get it nailed, I don't find it that difficult and I'm sure I'm not particularly special, and it's a very useful skill to have if you're interested in reality. If you're not, then follow the hype, maybe it's exciting, but if you are, it's very easy to seperate the two, and it will serve you well, because there is always somebody who would love to share their biases with you... which perhaps wouldn't serve you so well.
If they believe they have a good idea that will help in the education of children, why would they choose to withhold that from everybody but one single district, just because that district isn't doing so well? What works for other schools works for other school, "well it worked in DC" shouldn't be the metric used to decide what methods get rolled out.
Where did you learn to come up with such insightful arguments, DC? *lololololzzz*
No. We're talking realising that exageration. This CPU wouldn't even run those.
What have logical arguments got to do with scared idiots?
Hells no, once they're actually accellerating particles fast enough, forget black holes, the collision will actually result in a full working copy of DNF, *that's* how amazing this machine really is.
Your sig: I think you mean "for all intents and purposes" *lol* intensive purposes haha "I REALLY REALLY MEAN TO DO THIS!!!!!!!!!" with eyes bulging out and raised veins... that would be a pretty intensive purpose...
Anyway... what were you saying about the "I'm right/you're wrong" attitude of the internet? :-p
If you've got the ability to market a processor that won't run peoples old software, and using it makes software slower, take up more memory (think for single byte instructions, a single byte of padding is doubling the space it takes up, which is in effect halving the size of your L1/L2 caches), to a level sufficient enough to get people to actually buy it, then you may as well not even bother with the CPU, just convince them to give you money for nothing, as obviously your marketing team are that good that they could do that!
Well then that won't be the x86 instruction set, will it?
It's a research paper, not an exploit, not instructions on how to make an exploit, not recommendations on how to make an exploit. God what's with you people on this site, you can't just see something for what it is, you have to see it for how it serves no purpose to you or how you can do it so much better.
If they could exploit a machine by sending a point across, they'd get it past you lot every time, you'd never detect that huh.
CPAN functionality is available from your perl code (you can issue commands to install/update modules etc without having to start the interactive CPAN shell)
http://search.cpan.org/~andk/CPAN-1.9402/lib/CPAN.pm
Or, that it's a different kind of language to C and therefore works in a different kind of way, eg, communication channels rather than function/call/return. After all, if the language is meant to be easy for creating highly concurrent applications, dragging in a load of "old style" libraries really isn't going to help... all of a suddent it's not going to know about what's going on on other cpu/cores.
But AFAIA the term 'giga' came from the intermediate word 'gigantic', which meant it was pronounced as "jigga", however the word that 'gigantic' came from used to be pronounced.
I wouldn't stake my life on this being correct though, feel free anyone who knows better to weigh in.
How about if you want to perform an action on a load of files (copy/move, even delete) it takes a few minutes before it even starts doing it! Yes I know thats needed for the progress bar, but sometimes it can take longer for it to work out how much work there is to be done than it takes to actually do the work, and it's quicker for me to open a dos prompt and do it from the command line by several minutes. Graphical interfaces all well and good, but there shouldn't be /that/ much of a performance penalty for it.
Similar story here, but am on 2003 32bit (as cpu is 32bit), prefer the shell to XP as it's a lot less hand holdy... although Vista takes being parental to the next level (are you sure you wanted to do that? Definitely? Oo tell you what, I'll even remove the scrollbar that used to be at the bottom of this window, and scroll for you! Surely I know better than you what you want to look at)...
Yep, there are different ways of doing things! This just happens to be another way, and whilst you may be right that a ball with a load of wires sticking out the back may not be all too useful, it is a research prototype, with few sections of the material that hardens/softens allowing not a huge amount of control etc... with different shapes/sizes of sections put together in different ways, this obviously changes. Take the example I gave for a skeletal robot using this as artificial muscles... well what if the skeleton was made from the same stuff? It could collapse all gooey (except the core which obviously remains hard) and by inflating the skeleton (or parts of it) take form. Try doing that with pistons.
I've not seen this 'serpentine design' you mentioned, so cannot comment on that.
"[citation needed]"
Would love to provide, but it was a BBC documentary on Noyce (who played a major role in bringing the silicon transistor to market, the silicon IC, and co-founded Intel with Moore), but the documentary's no longer online (and could not be watched anyway if you're outside the UK). But fine, if you need another example, try electricity, or "a computer in every home". Your resistance is not uncommon.
"In other words, you don't know the answer to my question either"
Why must there be a "the answer"?
"I'm asking why this design might be expected to be superior to more conventional ones"
Once it can get rid of the external wires, it can disguise itself as a football (or soccer ball for those in the states) perhaps? Maybe it's more resistent to damage, as it can be made air/water tight, withstand shock (as components are surrounded in effectively an air bag). The fact it can be used in any orientation is probably an advantage, and all this while remaining mechanically very simple, so there aren't any hinges, joints, ball bearings etc that can break or sieze up. They could also be used in non-ball form, as artificial muscles for a skeletal robot, depending on how much force it can be made to exert.
Once technology's available, people find uses for it. No one could think of any uses for the integrated circuit when that was first invented. I'm sure if you put your mind to it you could think of some situations it would be superior too, but as this is DARPA funded, any long term plans or goals already in mind for it may not be made public.
"I just want a fossil of one of those grandparents"
I'm sure there are some out there, possible already even found (I don't keep fully up to date with all the discoveries in this area). But do remember through all this that fossilisation is a fairly rare occurance, creature can and usually will die in ways that inhibit fossil creation, or inhibit creation of fossils in reachable rock. Note also that as you get further back, demonstrating linearage gets more difficult. The ascendant of two different species that are alive today may be so unlike either of the two species that it's impossible to say that it is a common ascendant without middle pieces that can be linked both ways by common features found in the fossil (remember DNA isn't usually part of what can be recovered from a fossil, which makes all this a lot harder!)
Whether something is pretty, or tastes great, is opinion. Whether something works or not is fact. Statements based on ignoring (or simply, having not yet been exposed to) facts should be shown as being such, so that others are less likely to believe the false statements.
The effect is based more on the value you give it than the value that it is given... eg, if something costs 1 money to buy, then you're only losing 1 money if it doesn't work... but you wouldn't throw 200 monies away on something unless you were a lot more certain it would work. It's that certainty that translates into the placebo effect (except for me, as I'm placebo resistant).