My guess is they really are planning on using Intel chips - just not processors. Remember, Intel produces wireless chips, Flash memory, Ethernet chips, and Salt and Vinegar chips.
Apple may be planning on using Intel network cards. Or maybe one of intels hardware raid chips. Flash memories, Cellular processors, wireless chips are al possible. But processors? I doubt it.
That question is pretty easy to answer. It is ok to use GPLed code in a beta of your closed source software to 'test stuff' so long as you don't distribute it.
So by the first _public_ beta, that code had better be gone, before that it's all fair play.
Maui does seem to have a new mode of operation here. Whenever somone proves that they stole some source code, they say 'Oh, that... Yeah that was just a bit of test code we borrowed. The new release is clean.' Then they release a new version which is identical to the old version, except maybe they altered some text strings to make the release appear to be different.
Yeah, I don't know enough about the german use of wind power tell whether that article was correct or not, I was merely trying to point out that the OP was completely misrepresenting the contents of the article he was referring to.
And why on earth _should_ we kill the oil industry overnight when a better source of energy arrives? The investment in the infrastructure is already made, both money-wise and environment-wise. Not only would it be economically unsound to just throw away billions worth of investments in oil infrastructure, it would be a major blow to the environment, since building enough wave powered power plants to supply the world with all the power we nned would be very taxing for the environment. The best solution both for the economy _and_ for the environment is to slowly phase out a deprecated technology and make sure any new infrastructure is built using the new technology. Kind of like LCDS have slowly replaced CRTs in the last decade.
I'm sorry, but I find your post very funny. You link to a site that contradicts your own statments. Not only does the site you link to state that the number is 9.3%, not 'roughly 9.4%' (While this is a minor difference, it just goes to show how cerfully you read things), that number is the percentage of energy from 'Wind, hydro and other renewable plants'. According to the poster right above you, you are off by nearly a factor of two. In computer science this may not be much, but in economy, an error factor of two is pretty huge.
If Germany is one of the larger producers of wind power, then I guess 6.5% sounds possible. And still that's barely more than a drop in the ocean. I highly doubt that wind power is the future.
Given that most people know someone who died of cancer, and given that pollution from coal/gas/oil powered power plants is one of the large contributors to cancer, I find it surprising that people take the FUD about the dangers of nuclear power from orginizations like Greenpeace at face value. Yes, nuclear power kills people, but far, far, fewer people die for one kWh of nuclear power than from one kWh of coal power
Yay, another conspiracy theory, this time from someone with the nick FidelCatsro... I think I can guess who's KoolAid you've been sipping.
These 'conglomerats' you talk of are just regular corporations, no more scary than Microsoft. Like Microsoft they play rough and they break laws if the incentive is high enough, but if wave energy ever gets to the point where it is an economically sound investment, it _will_ get used. No amount of FUD from the 'evil' Arab oil conglomerat or the 'evil' US oil companies can put of the inevitable downfall of an inferior idea.
As to your assertion that where you live "a large percentage of the enegry is derived from wind power", I doubt it. It takes years for a wind power generator just to generate the amount of energy used to create a wind power generator...
Might work, if bounty based hit and run development turns out to be sufficiently cheaper than hiring someone to develop and support a piece of software.
My guess is it will only ever work for medium sized and relatively independent projects. We'll see.
Not enough. You still have to make sure the hash functions runtime doesn't depend on the length of the password, or you will still be vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks.
Algorithms like SHA work on blocks of data, so what you need to do is make sure the code for padding the password to full block length doesn't change the runtime.
Easy to miss, huh? Adding a random delay only means that the precision of the meassurments decrese, so you have to do more repeats to get an accurate result. The real solution is to make sure that the data access pattern is always identical.
The normal solution is to store both the the real password and the password supplied by the user in a memory area that is as large as the maximum password length and zero padded and do something like this:
int verify( const char *s ) {
int i, ok=1;
for( i=0; i<MAX_PASSWORD_LENGTH; i++ )
ok &= real_password[i]==s[i];
return ok; }
Note that it is also vital thet the password supplied by the user is zero padded and the calculation time can not depend on how long that password is. If it did, it opens up to man in the middle attacks. Evil, huh?
I'm not to sure about that. Linus says this is a library issue and I agree. The kernel should not try to fix library bugs.
What this bug amounts to is this: When a program is performing calculations using secret data like an RSA key, it is important that the data access patterns do not depend on the secret data, since these patterns can be analyzed by an attacker.
An example of a classical vulnerability of this sort is using the c function strcmp to compare the real and the supplied password. By timing multiple runs you can get a decent estimate of how long time the strcmp function took, which means you can guess which character was first differing character in the password.
The security flaw in HT is that a process running on a HT CPU can get quite a lot of information about the data access patterns of the process on the other virtual CPU on the same chip. In other words, the severity of any library bugs which cause different access patterns on different secret data has been severly increased.
This is a test. Once this is mature, you will have all of these advantages:
Watch programs that are several years old, whenever you want, without having to record them. Watch three or more programs which all originally ran at the same time. Set up playlists of arbitrary programs, i.e. 'show me season two of Buffy'.
This is all assuming the BBC continues to try and develop it's offerings. I sure hope they do.
It's on. I'm sure the respective marketing departments will keep trying to one-up each other like this all the way until release.
I seem to remember a colossal amount of BS from the marketing departments of Sony and MS before the release of the PS2 and the Xbox. Claims that the Emotion engine of the PS2 would be so powerful that you could model individual hairs in a persons head, the Xbox was originally to be release at roughly the same time as the PS2, etc., etc..
The PS3 screenies look amazing. And an X-box 360 launch this christmas sounds great. But until I can buy a console and check out the games for myself, I'll remain a bit sceptical. Or not. They got me. DAMN thos PS3 screenies looked good.
I love both the button layout and the tactile feel of the PS2 controller. As to the trigger vs. shoulder buttons, I find the triggers are better for racers but worse for most other types of games.
If I'm not mistaken, altering a webpage makes it derived art. There are boatloads of limitations WRT redistributing derived art, but the limitations to what you can do with it as long as you don't redistribute it are more lax. It's called fair use.
If my memory serves me correctly (please correct me if I'm wrong), even the GPL has to abide by this. You can alter GPL:ed software to your hearts content, without showing anyone the code. But if you want anyone else to use it, you have to give them full access to the source.
You are right. People just don't grasp the difference between altering a work and redistributing the altered work. Anyone can use a tool like the Gimp or Greasemonkey to make new art from old art for your own enjoyment. But you do not automatically have the right to redistribute such derived art. Maybe the failiure to grasp these concepts is typical of the Open Source crowd?
Yeah, but that's a bit of a retcon. If you follow the links, you'll notice that the disk format is referred to as DIVX, Divx and various other spellings. The original name of the codec was 'DivX;-)', as a pun on the defunct disk format.
Re:Miguel's take on Harmony
on
Open source Java?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Yeah, ask the main PR man for a competing product what he thinks of more competition. You're bound to get some unbiased answers.
Personally I don't see how anyone can care about.Net vs. Java, they are so close to identical it's not even funny. As to the implementation, neither GCJ, Kaffe or Mono is 'there' yet in terms of quality, at least not in my experience. If we just leave people to do their hacking, evolution will weed out the bad implementations and we'll have the best tools available.
Slashdot Mirror
My guess is they really are planning on using Intel chips - just not processors. Remember, Intel produces wireless chips, Flash memory, Ethernet chips, and Salt and Vinegar chips.
Yeah, but both the OP and my answer specifically mentioned _closed_ source.
Apple may be planning on using Intel network cards. Or maybe one of intels hardware raid chips. Flash memories, Cellular processors, wireless chips are al possible. But processors? I doubt it.
That question is pretty easy to answer. It is ok to use GPLed code in a beta of your closed source software to 'test stuff' so long as you don't distribute it.
So by the first _public_ beta, that code had better be gone, before that it's all fair play.
Maui does seem to have a new mode of operation here. Whenever somone proves that they stole some source code, they say 'Oh, that... Yeah that was just a bit of test code we borrowed. The new release is clean.' Then they release a new version which is identical to the old version, except maybe they altered some text strings to make the release appear to be different.
Yeah, I don't know enough about the german use of wind power tell whether that article was correct or not, I was merely trying to point out that the OP was completely misrepresenting the contents of the article he was referring to.
That grass looks pretty green to me...
Just because humans can't live there without getting cancer doesn't mean that other life forms aren't able to.
And why on earth _should_ we kill the oil industry overnight when a better source of energy arrives? The investment in the infrastructure is already made, both money-wise and environment-wise. Not only would it be economically unsound to just throw away billions worth of investments in oil infrastructure, it would be a major blow to the environment, since building enough wave powered power plants to supply the world with all the power we nned would be very taxing for the environment. The best solution both for the economy _and_ for the environment is to slowly phase out a deprecated technology and make sure any new infrastructure is built using the new technology. Kind of like LCDS have slowly replaced CRTs in the last decade.
I'm sorry, but I find your post very funny. You link to a site that contradicts your own statments. Not only does the site you link to state that the number is 9.3%, not 'roughly 9.4%' (While this is a minor difference, it just goes to show how cerfully you read things), that number is the percentage of energy from 'Wind, hydro and other renewable plants'. According to the poster right above you, you are off by nearly a factor of two. In computer science this may not be much, but in economy, an error factor of two is pretty huge.
If Germany is one of the larger producers of wind power, then I guess 6.5% sounds possible. And still that's barely more than a drop in the ocean. I highly doubt that wind power is the future.
Given that most people know someone who died of cancer, and given that pollution from coal/gas/oil powered power plants is one of the large contributors to cancer, I find it surprising that people take the FUD about the dangers of nuclear power from orginizations like Greenpeace at face value. Yes, nuclear power kills people, but far, far, fewer people die for one kWh of nuclear power than from one kWh of coal power
Yay, another conspiracy theory, this time from someone with the nick FidelCatsro... I think I can guess who's KoolAid you've been sipping.
These 'conglomerats' you talk of are just regular corporations, no more scary than Microsoft. Like Microsoft they play rough and they break laws if the incentive is high enough, but if wave energy ever gets to the point where it is an economically sound investment, it _will_ get used. No amount of FUD from the 'evil' Arab oil conglomerat or the 'evil' US oil companies can put of the inevitable downfall of an inferior idea.
As to your assertion that where you live "a large percentage of the enegry is derived from wind power", I doubt it. It takes years for a wind power generator just to generate the amount of energy used to create a wind power generator...
Might work, if bounty based hit and run development turns out to be sufficiently cheaper than hiring someone to develop and support a piece of software.
My guess is it will only ever work for medium sized and relatively independent projects. We'll see.
Not enough. You still have to make sure the hash functions runtime doesn't depend on the length of the password, or you will still be vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks.
Algorithms like SHA work on blocks of data, so what you need to do is make sure the code for padding the password to full block length doesn't change the runtime.
Meh. Dell started offering computers with builtin batteries this months ago. And they even include a monitor.
The normal solution is to store both the the real password and the password supplied by the user in a memory area that is as large as the maximum password length and zero padded and do something like this:
Note that it is also vital thet the password supplied by the user is zero padded and the calculation time can not depend on how long that password is. If it did, it opens up to man in the middle attacks. Evil, huh?
I'm not to sure about that. Linus says this is a library issue and I agree. The kernel should not try to fix library bugs.
What this bug amounts to is this: When a program is performing calculations using secret data like an RSA key, it is important that the data access patterns do not depend on the secret data, since these patterns can be analyzed by an attacker.
An example of a classical vulnerability of this sort is using the c function strcmp to compare the real and the supplied password. By timing multiple runs you can get a decent estimate of how long time the strcmp function took, which means you can guess which character was first differing character in the password.
The security flaw in HT is that a process running on a HT CPU can get quite a lot of information about the data access patterns of the process on the other virtual CPU on the same chip. In other words, the severity of any library bugs which cause different access patterns on different secret data has been severly increased.
This is a test. Once this is mature, you will have all of these advantages:
Watch programs that are several years old, whenever you want, without having to record them. Watch three or more programs which all originally ran at the same time. Set up playlists of arbitrary programs, i.e. 'show me season two of Buffy'.
This is all assuming the BBC continues to try and develop it's offerings. I sure hope they do.
It's on. I'm sure the respective marketing departments will keep trying to one-up each other like this all the way until release.
I seem to remember a colossal amount of BS from the marketing departments of Sony and MS before the release of the PS2 and the Xbox. Claims that the Emotion engine of the PS2 would be so powerful that you could model individual hairs in a persons head, the Xbox was originally to be release at roughly the same time as the PS2, etc., etc..
The PS3 screenies look amazing. And an X-box 360 launch this christmas sounds great. But until I can buy a console and check out the games for myself, I'll remain a bit sceptical. Or not. They got me. DAMN thos PS3 screenies looked good.
I love both the button layout and the tactile feel of the PS2 controller. As to the trigger vs. shoulder buttons, I find the triggers are better for racers but worse for most other types of games.
Yep. The old controller don't have this problem, since they aren't wireless. You can just pull them back by the cord.
If I'm not mistaken, altering a webpage makes it derived art. There are boatloads of limitations WRT redistributing derived art, but the limitations to what you can do with it as long as you don't redistribute it are more lax. It's called fair use.
If my memory serves me correctly (please correct me if I'm wrong), even the GPL has to abide by this. You can alter GPL:ed software to your hearts content, without showing anyone the code. But if you want anyone else to use it, you have to give them full access to the source.
You are right. People just don't grasp the difference between altering a work and redistributing the altered work. Anyone can use a tool like the Gimp or Greasemonkey to make new art from old art for your own enjoyment. But you do not automatically have the right to redistribute such derived art. Maybe the failiure to grasp these concepts is typical of the Open Source crowd?
Yeah, but that's a bit of a retcon. If you follow the links, you'll notice that the disk format is referred to as DIVX, Divx and various other spellings. The original name of the codec was 'DivX ;-)', as a pun on the defunct disk format.
Yeah, ask the main PR man for a competing product what he thinks of more competition. You're bound to get some unbiased answers.
.Net vs. Java, they are so close to identical it's not even funny. As to the implementation, neither GCJ, Kaffe or Mono is 'there' yet in terms of quality, at least not in my experience. If we just leave people to do their hacking, evolution will weed out the bad implementations and we'll have the best tools available.
Personally I don't see how anyone can care about