"the TLB can't handle threads, so all non-globals need to be flushed when context switching"
Isn't this not true on modern processors, at least up to a point? With some space per TLB entry put aside for a task ID, means that when you switch to a different process, it will won't use TLB entries with a different task ID. Of course the OS has to support this (tell the processor when it's task switching which memory space it's switching to), and I'm not sure how big the space on the TLB is for this (it may be only a few bits, so you might have to flush the TLB still between different processes, but keep not have to flush the kernels TLBs, ie, kernel has pages marked with zero, processes have pages marked with a one, you only ever flush TLBs marked with one, and tell the process when you want the zero or one TBLs). I can't remember where I first read this, it was a few years ago now I think, I'm sure it would have come along a way since though, seemed like a very sensible idea.
So what we need really is a "native" x86 compiler, say, from Intel, that would maybe outperform the multi-platform GCC compiler... an Intel C/C++ Compiler, or 'ICC' we could call it... maybe...
If we lie a pen along a ruler, say between the 5cm mark and 20cm mark, do we say that the pen is being created at 5cm, and destroyed at 20cm? Did something trigger its creation at 5cm? Or does it mearly exist between those two points?
To say that something must have triggered the big bang is to say that there was no beginning to the universe, as there must have been a trigger for that trigger, one before that, etc etc to infinity. But if the universe simply exists, and was not "created" at the big bang, but the big bang is simply the furthest point in the past that the universes existance reaches, then the big bang is the beginning of causality, and doesn't have to have been caused by anything. The universe wasn't created, it simply exists from that point.
Remember our brains are built around being able to find reasons for things, to link cause and effect, so that we can recognise/predict patterns and control the world around us to survive. This can make the idea of something that simply exists, without having been created by something, totally counterintuitive to the point where you can fail to recognise that you're looking for the cause of something, simply because that's what we're used to doing, used to finding, not because a cause is actually required for the universe to exist.
You don't use TCP/IP, you don't send the packet to an IP address. You just send the raw ethernet frame with the MAC address of the machine you wanna wake up hard coded. No IPMAC lookup is performed, you must know the MAC address (with this particular method of WoL)
Let me introduce you to a thing called "CONTEXT"... if you read my post in context, you'll see it means totally the oposite thing.
Original post: "In this case, copying the files to an unencrypted disk will give you unencrypted files" My post: "Unless you backup the volume (take an image) rather than the files"
IOW: Copying the files gives you unencrypted files, unless you backup the volume (take an image), rather than copy the files"
"which would preclude free will since the whole universe is mapped out from creation to destruction"
No it wouldn't, as "you" exist within the system, and so all decisions that you make are still "yours". For example, if I take a 'normal' human being, put them at the edge of a cliff, and ask them to jump, I can predict that they will decide against jumping, before I've even asked them to. So does that mean that they didn't decide to jump just because I already knew they wouldn't? Of cause not, it was still their decision. Just as a computer does run a computer program, even though the computer program can be pre-determined, a human can still make decisions even though those decisions can be pre-determinted.
No, I said if you take an image of the volume instead of copying the files, ie, if you access the raw hdd data, before filesystem driver tries to translate it.
It's existed in the NUL form going right back to early DOS days (and before, in CPM etc I think), which exists whatever directory you're in. Other device names include CON (console), AUX, PRN, COM1, LPT1 etc.
eg: copy con lpt1 -- send anything you type to printer on lpt1 md newdir > nul -- redirect output to nul
Do you think it's beyond everyone else to not notice if they did? The amount of people paranoid about MS, who'll run it behind eg, a linux firewall, watching all the traffic that goes through during installation etc?
I don't think MS would be able to get away with doing anything like that now, too many eyes on packets comin from Windows.
A lot of more advanced AIs aren't just a case of programming them... the base is programmed, and it then has to learn (such as machines that learn to walk - it's easier to program a system that you can teach to walk, than it is to program a system that can walk). This is no different to humans... they're a combination of their genetic brain, and the experiences that change it. If you was to make a silicon version of a brain, right down to all the connection (eg, copy someones brain who was later in their life), you're copying the memories of all their experiences while you're at it, thus everything that allows the person to understand things in the way they do... but that's plenty more difficult.
I don't think there's anything philosphical about it at all.
That's no different at all! That's how I speak to people next to me anyway... hellooo!!!! I'm on slashdot!! Can you read me? *jiggle keyboard* Can you read me now?!
No I think there's certainly a place for spanking your child, but the thing is, you don't need to do it hard, it doesn't even have to hurt the child, because it should be used to send them a message, not punish them. If done correctly, you'll find you rarely have to do it at all, because you've already got your childs respect as the authority figure, and the child will stop doing whatever before you'd reach the point of having to spank them. You should never be angry when you do it. You should be calm and in control. People who are "against spanking" (100%) tend to be because they don't realise the difference, and don't realise that it can do the child more harm than good if you don't do what it takes to enforce yourself as the authority figure. It sounds like you have the balance just right, as you can see by the result.
(Until they hit pubity of cause, then there's basically nothing you can do but ride it through!!! Oh, and reinforce the hindges of the doors in your home, especially with girls, they take the whole "slamming the door on exit" to a whole new level!):-)
I don't get this whole deal with people on mobile phones, as if it's any different from sitting next to two people talking directly to each other. The only difference is whether you can hear the other side of the converstation or not. All I can figure out is that not being able to hear the other side of the conversation makes the brain curious and fix on what's being said more, making you more aware of it. Personally I don't really care, so I have no more of a problem tuning it out as I would do if I was sitting next to two people having the same conversation.
If the artificial neurons worked the same as the original ones (result wise anyway) then you'd feel no difference... if you did, then they're obviously inperfect simulations of the actual neurons, as we're not aware of our structure in an individual neuron manner, only the overall effect.
It would still be your mind, thus your brain, but not your original brain.
As to whether it's still "you"... well that depends on whether your definition of the word "you" (or "me") includes the original brain... if it does, then it breaks the definition and so is no longer you, and if it doesn't, then the definition isn't broken so it is still you.
Your brain, thus who you are, changes every single day (every hour, every minute, every second...), it's part of being alive. What's important is whether you consider those changes a good or bad thing, whether the resulting person is someone you like more or less. Whether it's chemicals, hardware, or good old fasioned "experiences" that causes your changes, doesn't really make much difference.
Christians have killed plenty in the name of their religion, and used terror tactics on plenty of non-believers. Maybe different weapons and on different scales, but fundamentally, still the same.
Slashdot Mirror
"the TLB can't handle threads, so all non-globals need to be flushed when context switching"
Isn't this not true on modern processors, at least up to a point? With some space per TLB entry put aside for a task ID, means that when you switch to a different process, it will won't use TLB entries with a different task ID. Of course the OS has to support this (tell the processor when it's task switching which memory space it's switching to), and I'm not sure how big the space on the TLB is for this (it may be only a few bits, so you might have to flush the TLB still between different processes, but keep not have to flush the kernels TLBs, ie, kernel has pages marked with zero, processes have pages marked with a one, you only ever flush TLBs marked with one, and tell the process when you want the zero or one TBLs). I can't remember where I first read this, it was a few years ago now I think, I'm sure it would have come along a way since though, seemed like a very sensible idea.
So what we need really is a "native" x86 compiler, say, from Intel, that would maybe outperform the multi-platform GCC compiler... an Intel C/C++ Compiler, or 'ICC' we could call it... maybe...
Oh who am I kidding, that could never happen.
In theory, 'in theory' and 'in practice' are the same, but in practice they're different...
If we lie a pen along a ruler, say between the 5cm mark and 20cm mark, do we say that the pen is being created at 5cm, and destroyed at 20cm? Did something trigger its creation at 5cm? Or does it mearly exist between those two points?
To say that something must have triggered the big bang is to say that there was no beginning to the universe, as there must have been a trigger for that trigger, one before that, etc etc to infinity. But if the universe simply exists, and was not "created" at the big bang, but the big bang is simply the furthest point in the past that the universes existance reaches, then the big bang is the beginning of causality, and doesn't have to have been caused by anything. The universe wasn't created, it simply exists from that point.
Remember our brains are built around being able to find reasons for things, to link cause and effect, so that we can recognise/predict patterns and control the world around us to survive. This can make the idea of something that simply exists, without having been created by something, totally counterintuitive to the point where you can fail to recognise that you're looking for the cause of something, simply because that's what we're used to doing, used to finding, not because a cause is actually required for the universe to exist.
Doesn't matter when it was granted; matters when the application was filed.
You don't use TCP/IP, you don't send the packet to an IP address. You just send the raw ethernet frame with the MAC address of the machine you wanna wake up hard coded. No IPMAC lookup is performed, you must know the MAC address (with this particular method
of WoL)
or /proc/sys/vm/laptop_mode
echo 5 >
for those that didn't figure it out.
You can also mount drives with the noatime option. This stops writes to update the last accessed time for files/dirs.
Let me introduce you to a thing called "CONTEXT"... if you read my post in context, you'll see it means totally the oposite thing.
Original post: "In this case, copying the files to an unencrypted disk will give you unencrypted files"
My post: "Unless you backup the volume (take an image) rather than the files"
IOW: Copying the files gives you unencrypted files, unless you backup the volume (take an image), rather than copy the files"
Make sense now?
"which would preclude free will since the whole universe is mapped out from creation to destruction"
No it wouldn't, as "you" exist within the system, and so all decisions that you make are still "yours". For example, if I take a 'normal' human being, put them at the edge of a cliff, and ask them to jump, I can predict that they will decide against jumping, before I've even asked them to. So does that mean that they didn't decide to jump just because I already knew they wouldn't? Of cause not, it was still their decision. Just as a computer does run a computer program, even though the computer program can be pre-determined, a human can still make decisions even though those decisions can be pre-determinted.
"and you copy files from your computer"
No, I said if you take an image of the volume instead of copying the files, ie, if you access the raw hdd data, before filesystem driver tries to translate it.
"That's okay, we were working on an image we took directly off the drive... try again"
Unless you backup the volume (take an image) rather than the files, then you get the raw encrypted data.
It's existed in the NUL form going right back to early DOS days (and before, in CPM etc I think), which exists whatever directory you're in. Other device names include CON (console), AUX, PRN, COM1, LPT1 etc.
eg:
copy con lpt1 -- send anything you type to printer on lpt1
md newdir > nul -- redirect output to nul
Do you think it's beyond everyone else to not notice if they did? The amount of people paranoid about MS, who'll run it behind eg, a linux firewall, watching all the traffic that goes through during installation etc?
I don't think MS would be able to get away with doing anything like that now, too many eyes on packets comin from Windows.
No it happened now but it took us that long to get to the light it emitted.
No you're thinking of uranus.
A lot of more advanced AIs aren't just a case of programming them... the base is programmed, and it then has to learn (such as machines that learn to walk - it's easier to program a system that you can teach to walk, than it is to program a system that can walk). This is no different to humans... they're a combination of their genetic brain, and the experiences that change it. If you was to make a silicon version of a brain, right down to all the connection (eg, copy someones brain who was later in their life), you're copying the memories of all their experiences while you're at it, thus everything that allows the person to understand things in the way they do... but that's plenty more difficult.
I don't think there's anything philosphical about it at all.
That's no different at all! That's how I speak to people next to me anyway... hellooo!!!! I'm on slashdot!! Can you read me? *jiggle keyboard* Can you read me now?!
No I think there's certainly a place for spanking your child, but the thing is, you don't need to do it hard, it doesn't even have to hurt the child, because it should be used to send them a message, not punish them. If done correctly, you'll find you rarely have to do it at all, because you've already got your childs respect as the authority figure, and the child will stop doing whatever before you'd reach the point of having to spank them. You should never be angry when you do it. You should be calm and in control. People who are "against spanking" (100%) tend to be because they don't realise the difference, and don't realise that it can do the child more harm than good if you don't do what it takes to enforce yourself as the authority figure. It sounds like you have the balance just right, as you can see by the result.
:-)
(Until they hit pubity of cause, then there's basically nothing you can do but ride it through!!! Oh, and reinforce the hindges of the doors in your home, especially with girls, they take the whole "slamming the door on exit" to a whole new level!)
I don't get this whole deal with people on mobile phones, as if it's any different from sitting next to two people talking directly to each other. The only difference is whether you can hear the other side of the converstation or not. All I can figure out is that not being able to hear the other side of the conversation makes the brain curious and fix on what's being said more, making you more aware of it. Personally I don't really care, so I have no more of a problem tuning it out as I would do if I was sitting next to two people having the same conversation.
If the artificial neurons worked the same as the original ones (result wise anyway) then you'd feel no difference... if you did, then they're obviously inperfect simulations of the actual neurons, as we're not aware of our structure in an individual neuron manner, only the overall effect.
It would still be your mind, thus your brain, but not your original brain.
As to whether it's still "you"... well that depends on whether your definition of the word "you" (or "me") includes the original brain... if it does, then it breaks the definition and so is no longer you, and if it doesn't, then the definition isn't broken so it is still you.
Your brain, thus who you are, changes every single day (every hour, every minute, every second...), it's part of being alive. What's important is whether you consider those changes a good or bad thing, whether the resulting person is someone you like more or less. Whether it's chemicals, hardware, or good old fasioned "experiences" that causes your changes, doesn't really make much difference.
Christians have killed plenty in the name of their religion, and used terror tactics on plenty of non-believers. Maybe different weapons and on different scales, but fundamentally, still the same.
"would "you" still be "you""
Sounds very philosophical, but it isn't really... it's a language question: what do you define the word "you" to mean?