I think you'll find that the license fee covers much more than just BBC1 and BBC2. here is how your license is spent:
Viewers pay £10 per month, which is spent in the following way:
£5 - terrestrial TV
£1 - digital
£1.20 - radio
£1.50 - local TV and radio
£0.30 - Online
£1 - transmission and collection of licence fee
When you look at these figures does it really seem like that much to pay when you consider the quality of things like the BBC website and BBC radio? (hell even BBC1 and 2 have been putting out some decent documentary programmes as of late)
has yahoo ever posted a profit in its 10 years? From RTFA it says yahoo is worth $44 billion and last year sales were $3.6 billion, it makes no mention of any profit though which leads me to the conclusion that either
a) the profits really aren't that spectatular
b) they don't make any profit
The most ambitious library, Adam, stems from the intuition that the logic behind a simple human interface can be distilled to a function:
f(x) -> x'
Is it just me but does this not sound a little to broad a definition of a library? I mean I can write anything like this:
My most ambitious library (The_Meaning), stems from the intuition that the logic behind the entire universe can be distilled to a function:
f(x) -> x'
obviously there is much work to be done on "The_Meaning" but when it is finished it will do everything (and the answer will turn out to be a disappointing 42;-) )
not being a compiler writer I honestly couldn't tell you how but I was thinking along the lines of things like it must be possible to recognise certain things in code happen in parallel and you work from there.
Also things like functions that under normal circumstances wait for others to complete because they're running on one cpu could perhaps no longer wait for results and just carry on while the other function runs on the second core (a bit like pipelining isn't it?). Granted the performance increases wouldn't be immense but it'd be a start wouldn't it?
On a side note, how does the whole dual core thing compare on *NIX (which favours processes) and Windows (which favours threads). surely (I'm guessing on this and could be very wrong, this isn't flaimbait!) nix programs as they currently stand would benefit from dual cores more easily than Windows programs?
I think that Nvidia have to release a new version of the driver almost every time a new kernel is released, typically they do it pretty quick but it is a bit of an annoyance.
If they would just drop they're stance of open sourcing the driver will reveal trade secrets the kernel team could take on the driver development and things like this would be avoided
http://www.infinibandta.org/ibta/
I think infinite bandwidth is more thatn a little misleading! but to take an excerpt from their marketing blurb
"The first version of the specification for the technology was completed in October 2000 and the InfiniBand Trade Association is well on its way to establishing a new signaling rate specification beyond 100Gb/s"
but surely with dual core becoming the norm we'll be seing a wave of next generation compilers that automatically optimize (as much as in possible) for dual core?
Then you would have any normal application taking advantage of the dual core with no extra coding hit, but if you really wanted to take full advantage of the dual core then I guess you'd still have to dig in to the extra complexity.
From what I read on the bbc web the devices are going to be recharged each day at school by docking them into cradles that will be powered off a solar panel on the roof.
Why shouldn't these handhelds last 10 years (or more)? I mean most people upgrade simply to have the latest greatest thing. These handhelds already do everything they need to, the only thing I could see being a necessity is changing the rechargable batteries once the original ones begin going flat too quickly
What does this mean? I mean they've rejected the patent issue once which forced the restart, now some dickhead is preventing a restart. Does this mean we're sat in a stalemate with the issue languishing in no-man's land? (doesn't sound so bad to me)
since you seem to know a lot more about this that me could you explain the differences between the two?
I've only limited experience with both (unix and windows that is) and as far as I could tell the windows implementation was the same as the Unix one (I gotta admit I've only really used chown and chmod, so as far as I can see they're the same, since you have an owner and a set of three permissions under Unix and WINNT)
so am I right in thinking this tool would slow things down slightly and up memory usage slightly as well? Or would the performance change be negligible?
Ps whoever modded my original comment as a troll is an an asshole, it was not a troll but in fact a genuine question. But then you'll probably mod this comment as a troll anyways even though I genuinely want to know a bit more about these tools, go ahead mod away!
I was actually writing the comment from a MS point of view, my point being that surely they could find the vulnerabilities using this tool and them fix them *before* they ship. As the first reply pointed out I wrongly assumed it was limited to buffer overflows in windows alone and not third party apps - so shoot me
I gotta admit I'm a bit fuzzy on this but here goes:
I think that it basically boils down to the way the two OS's are written (or their architecture). The original windows was not concieved in the same manner as *NIX, file permissions etc did not even properly exist (as far as I know, but I could be wrong) in Windows until fairly recently
I think the the SELinux approach is a better one, mainly because it seems to tackle the problem before it happens rather than being a reactive response to a compromise. However I doubt this approach is even possible in windows so they are trying to make the best of it.
This may sound really dumb, but isn't it up to the guy who wrote the vulnerability in the first place to fix it? (in other words wouldn't microsoft be better off fixing the code? I mean if they can detect buffer overflows then why not put a box up, infect it with everything under the sun and fix all the problems?)
ps. how the hell do you detect an overflow?
Slashdot Mirror
I think you'll find that the license fee covers much more than just BBC1 and BBC2. here is how your license is spent:
Viewers pay £10 per month, which is spent in the following way:
£5 - terrestrial TV
£1 - digital
£1.20 - radio
£1.50 - local TV and radio
£0.30 - Online
£1 - transmission and collection of licence fee
When you look at these figures does it really seem like that much to pay when you consider the quality of things like the BBC website and BBC radio? (hell even BBC1 and 2 have been putting out some decent documentary programmes as of late)
has anyone seen the yahoo page from '95!?! http://www.yahoo.com/_ylh=X3oDMTEwdnZjMjFhBF9TAzI3 MTYxNDkEdGVzdAMwBHRtcGwDaW5kZXgtY3Nz/s/231504
has yahoo ever posted a profit in its 10 years? From RTFA it says yahoo is worth $44 billion and last year sales were $3.6 billion, it makes no mention of any profit though which leads me to the conclusion that either
a) the profits really aren't that spectatular
b) they don't make any profit
from the webpage:
;-) )
The most ambitious library, Adam, stems from the intuition that the logic behind a simple human interface can be distilled to a function:
f(x) -> x'
Is it just me but does this not sound a little to broad a definition of a library? I mean I can write anything like this:
My most ambitious library (The_Meaning), stems from the intuition that the logic behind the entire universe can be distilled to a function:
f(x) -> x'
obviously there is much work to be done on "The_Meaning" but when it is finished it will do everything (and the answer will turn out to be a disappointing 42
Someone mod the parent up as insightful!
I had no idea on this, I wrongly assumed (as most people probably do) that the driver was completely closed
not being a compiler writer I honestly couldn't tell you how but I was thinking along the lines of things like it must be possible to recognise certain things in code happen in parallel and you work from there. Also things like functions that under normal circumstances wait for others to complete because they're running on one cpu could perhaps no longer wait for results and just carry on while the other function runs on the second core (a bit like pipelining isn't it?). Granted the performance increases wouldn't be immense but it'd be a start wouldn't it?
On a side note, how does the whole dual core thing compare on *NIX (which favours processes) and Windows (which favours threads). surely (I'm guessing on this and could be very wrong, this isn't flaimbait!) nix programs as they currently stand would benefit from dual cores more easily than Windows programs?
I think that Nvidia have to release a new version of the driver almost every time a new kernel is released, typically they do it pretty quick but it is a bit of an annoyance.
If they would just drop they're stance of open sourcing the driver will reveal trade secrets the kernel team could take on the driver development and things like this would be avoided
http://www.infinibandta.org/ibta/ I think infinite bandwidth is more thatn a little misleading! but to take an excerpt from their marketing blurb "The first version of the specification for the technology was completed in October 2000 and the InfiniBand Trade Association is well on its way to establishing a new signaling rate specification beyond 100Gb/s"
but surely with dual core becoming the norm we'll be seing a wave of next generation compilers that automatically optimize (as much as in possible) for dual core?
Then you would have any normal application taking advantage of the dual core with no extra coding hit, but if you really wanted to take full advantage of the dual core then I guess you'd still have to dig in to the extra complexity.
the mac mini 2 is intended to have an ipod dock.
A nice idea but isn't magnetic stripe rapidly becoming obsolete (and being replaced by Chip and Pin)
to find out that your pin is stored in plain text on the magnetic stripe :-|
From what I read on the bbc web the devices are going to be recharged each day at school by docking them into cradles that will be powered off a solar panel on the roof.
Why shouldn't these handhelds last 10 years (or more)? I mean most people upgrade simply to have the latest greatest thing. These handhelds already do everything they need to, the only thing I could see being a necessity is changing the rechargable batteries once the original ones begin going flat too quickly
What does this mean? I mean they've rejected the patent issue once which forced the restart, now some dickhead is preventing a restart. Does this mean we're sat in a stalemate with the issue languishing in no-man's land? (doesn't sound so bad to me)
since you seem to know a lot more about this that me could you explain the differences between the two?
I've only limited experience with both (unix and windows that is) and as far as I could tell the windows implementation was the same as the Unix one (I gotta admit I've only really used chown and chmod, so as far as I can see they're the same, since you have an owner and a set of three permissions under Unix and WINNT)
so am I right in thinking this tool would slow things down slightly and up memory usage slightly as well? Or would the performance change be negligible?
Ps whoever modded my original comment as a troll is an an asshole, it was not a troll but in fact a genuine question. But then you'll probably mod this comment as a troll anyways even though I genuinely want to know a bit more about these tools, go ahead mod away!
right on, that's exactly what I think!
I was actually writing the comment from a MS point of view, my point being that surely they could find the vulnerabilities using this tool and them fix them *before* they ship. As the first reply pointed out I wrongly assumed it was limited to buffer overflows in windows alone and not third party apps - so shoot me
I gotta admit I'm a bit fuzzy on this but here goes:
I think that it basically boils down to the way the two OS's are written (or their architecture). The original windows was not concieved in the same manner as *NIX, file permissions etc did not even properly exist (as far as I know, but I could be wrong) in Windows until fairly recently
I think the the SELinux approach is a better one, mainly because it seems to tackle the problem before it happens rather than being a reactive response to a compromise. However I doubt this approach is even possible in windows so they are trying to make the best of it.
Just my 2 Cents
This may sound really dumb, but isn't it up to the guy who wrote the vulnerability in the first place to fix it? (in other words wouldn't microsoft be better off fixing the code? I mean if they can detect buffer overflows then why not put a box up, infect it with everything under the sun and fix all the problems?) ps. how the hell do you detect an overflow?