It almost worked on me. The first links made me thing power outage, meh, maybe some websites go down at worst. Now the last sensationalistic link I almost clicked, thinking "is that really a realistic problem?".
I believe ECC can be used in (some?) AMD desktop mobos.
At least up to the Phenom II (don't know about the new stuff), and it requires motherboard support as well. In my very limited experience, 100 % of cheap AMD motherboards support ECC (1 of 1). It has helped me ID a bad DIMM that had a few errors every couple of months.
You are absolutely wrong. 75% of super computers run on Linux. Go and see.
I thought that sounded low, so I went and checked at http://i.top500.org/stats . Linux has 92.4 % of the top 500. Then you have "Unix" at 4.8 and Mixed at 2.2.
It's great that archive.org is doing this, but it's such an important part of history so I thought I would do a mini-version for the pages I visit, just to be able to refer back to stuff. I've been using the Firefox addon called Shelve to save all pages I visit on my home computer for about 2 months now (at most one version for each day). It's a total of 5.8 GB. It's not useful for browsing though, I'd love it if it was better integrated with Firefox such that I could choose among all versions of each page. There's sometimes some excellent information on university pages or cheap hosting, that could be 10 years old, and you never really know how long it's going to stay up..
Anyway, this may give some perspective too; 2 months of daily snapshots of slashdot, other news, some tech stuff and a little Facebook takes just 5.8 GB.
Actually, either that, or go in through Tor and someone else's login and install unicorns on all customer's pages. Then you'll be liable, but people are bound to notice and it will make the web a cornier place.
If it was me, I'd anonymise it so it didn't refer to the particular web host and then post it somewhere, and link to it on some mailing list, with my real email. There is so much to lose by restricting information about security flaws. It makes it much easier for criminals and governments to have illegitimate access to many systems. Like many people said above, if you post it, it could possibly fuck up your life. I'd put up a hell of a fight (hopefully with the help of EFF et al) if they tried to convict me, but I don't have that much to lose by going to jail (no family,etc. and even if they didn't allow me to use a computer I could read and learn about things).
I love how Americans go around the world telling other countries how to do "fair" elections, when they can't even following their own laws and do fair elections themselves.
Tell me again who should have won the last election?
It's better than that. The complaint against other regimes is often specifically that they don't allow independent observers.
There will always be a market for PCs and real internet connections. They may become more expensive, but there's enough people just here on slashdot to make it a viable business. It's a shame that every child will no longer have access to a real PC at home, but hopefully there will be some at schools, where they can learn about programming, etc. This story seems like a "best of" compilation of the replies to the other 10 stories about "the PC is dying" we've had recently. I pretty much agree 100 %, but we've discussed this to death now, and there's nothing we can do. Well there is one thing, to develop great apps which work at the edge of the network and use encryption and all that good stuff, but who has time for that...
Thanks for the info, that makes sense. I'll miss having every application automatically networked, in a way that's much better than anything on windows or mac. Sometimes it's nice to start an instance of dolphin or an image viewer over X11, when I have SSH, and when it would require more work to set up a shared filesystem. Sometimes it's absolutely mission critical to be able to access things over X11, like data analysis tools that only work on certain versions of Linux. I suppose that those things will continue to be compiled for X11 for the foreseeable future.
X11 is a bottleneck in Unix security. It is not safe to run applications from multiple users on the same desktop if you require isolation between them. The applications can listen in on the keystrokes and (I think) read the content of the other applications' windows. Desktop OSes are in some sense trying to catch up to mobile OSes when it comes to application-level sandboxing, so this isolation an important feature.
It would be extremely exciting if Wayland had a sane isolation model, either based on SELinux or on standard user accounts. I wouldn't have to look at things like Qubes OS (which admittedly is much more secure than my Fedora will ever be). I did RTFA and browsed some of the links, and there is no mention of it, so I'm not holding my breath.
The article keeps saying Linux.. I'm a bit worried about compatibility with other systems such as BSD. And even Windows, will there be Wayland servers for Windows just like there's a couple of X servers now? Maybe we'll still use X for the networked stuff, and Linux will be just like Windows and Mac, with a compatibility layer to display X11 applications.
Yeah i came to say the same thing. Two recent stories are the people who stored things on MegaUpload and the journalist who got his email, iCloud etc. hacked and then wiped. Data loss like in the SIdekick incident doesn't happen frequently, but temporary outages happen a lot, and political or legal BS can also affect innocent people.
People use phones to report drug dealers to the police; do you want this done to you when it turns out that the policeman is working for the cartel?
This argument seems bogus. If you hide the number, the police can't see it directly on their display, but I'm sure they could get it if they wanted to, by talking to the carriers, etc. It's just a bad idea to rely on a hidden number for anonymity in any case.
You could get rid of some switches. Because 60 GHz doesn't penetrate through metal well, you can have your own little private network inside the rack cylinder without a switch. Each pair of computers could communicate on a separate frequancy, so you'd get the equivalent of a switched network (one coudl do full duplex to, by using more frequencies). The wireless approach would be more resiliant to failure too. You could use N! wires between the N computers instead, possibly using even less power.
For inter-rack communication, you'd get a mesh configuration where each computer naturally has a direct connection with some other racks, as the 60 GHz is approximately line-of-sight. You could probably install a switch instead of each wireless frequency used, to get better bandwidth and slightly worse resiliancy, and maybe higher power usage. I think that's the conclusion, that you can implement this with a reasonable number of wires, but you're more prone to failure because the switches can die. Or you can implement it with a ridiculous number of wires, one for each pair of servers that would communicate wirelessly, and you'd get an even better performance. Assuming you can buy NICs with 8 or more ports, of course.
Depending on your requirements, the Arduino board may be better for hardware work. The AVR microcontroller has much much lower specs than the R.Pi, but the electrical connections of Arduino are much better, with more pins and an ADC. R. Pi go out of their way to warn you about experimenting with the GPIO pins, because they are not protected and can fry your Pi. You can add something called a Gertboard to the Pi and that has a huge number of connections, but I couldn't figure out how to get one or if it was available at all. I agree that Raspberry has its place though, as it's a credible computer, which can do things like image processing, and the Arduino is not (nor does it pretend to be)
Ah bloody hell there's so much wrong in my post. I think the idea is valid, that you can use the difference of time between when the signals were received as an additional constraint. The quadratic equations have a two-fold ambiguity, so I don't know if both solutions would be physically valid, but at worst you've narrowed your position down to one of two (maybe four) points in 3D.
Oh, right, ti is the time at which the signal was sent, sorry.
Assume you know the difference in time between the receipt of the signals, you can solve for the time at which the second satellite sent the signal. The receipt time difference dt1i = ti' - t1' Where t1', ti' is the time when you received the signal i, on some arbitrary clock. Then this is the equation for t2: t2 = c*sqrt( (x-xi)^2 + (y-yi)^2 + (z-zi)^2 ) - c*sqrt( (x-xi)^2 + (y-yi)^2 + (z-zi)^2 ) + dt12. This second order equation in lets you solve for either x,y or z as a function of the other y and z. Now do the same for satellites 1 and 3, and 2 and 3, and you have two more equations.
Slashdot Mirror
It almost worked on me. The first links made me thing power outage, meh, maybe some websites go down at worst. Now the last sensationalistic link I almost clicked, thinking "is that really a realistic problem?".
I believe ECC can be used in (some?) AMD desktop mobos.
At least up to the Phenom II (don't know about the new stuff), and it requires motherboard support as well. In my very limited experience, 100 % of cheap AMD motherboards support ECC (1 of 1). It has helped me ID a bad DIMM that had a few errors every couple of months.
Ram drives are great performance wise.
Yeah I think that was the point of "Are there any cheap products on the market which can take a huge number of DIMMs?". So, are there?
You are absolutely wrong. 75% of super computers run on Linux. Go and see.
I thought that sounded low, so I went and checked at http://i.top500.org/stats . Linux has 92.4 % of the top 500. Then you have "Unix" at 4.8 and Mixed at 2.2.
It's a total of 5.8 GB.
Seems I forgot the most important part: It's a total of over 6,000,000,000 bytes!!1
It's great that archive.org is doing this, but it's such an important part of history so I thought I would do a mini-version for the pages I visit, just to be able to refer back to stuff. I've been using the Firefox addon called Shelve to save all pages I visit on my home computer for about 2 months now (at most one version for each day). It's a total of 5.8 GB. It's not useful for browsing though, I'd love it if it was better integrated with Firefox such that I could choose among all versions of each page. There's sometimes some excellent information on university pages or cheap hosting, that could be 10 years old, and you never really know how long it's going to stay up..
Anyway, this may give some perspective too; 2 months of daily snapshots of slashdot, other news, some tech stuff and a little Facebook takes just 5.8 GB.
For some reason they said they would do it for free if the university started doing military research
Actually, either that, or go in through Tor and someone else's login and install unicorns on all customer's pages. Then you'll be liable, but people are bound to notice and it will make the web a cornier place.
If it was me, I'd anonymise it so it didn't refer to the particular web host and then post it somewhere, and link to it on some mailing list, with my real email. There is so much to lose by restricting information about security flaws. It makes it much easier for criminals and governments to have illegitimate access to many systems. Like many people said above, if you post it, it could possibly fuck up your life. I'd put up a hell of a fight (hopefully with the help of EFF et al) if they tried to convict me, but I don't have that much to lose by going to jail (no family,etc. and even if they didn't allow me to use a computer I could read and learn about things).
I love how Americans go around the world telling other countries how to do "fair" elections, when they can't even following their own laws and do fair elections themselves.
Tell me again who should have won the last election?
It's better than that. The complaint against other regimes is often specifically that they don't allow independent observers.
There will always be a market for PCs and real internet connections. They may become more expensive, but there's enough people just here on slashdot to make it a viable business. It's a shame that every child will no longer have access to a real PC at home, but hopefully there will be some at schools, where they can learn about programming, etc. This story seems like a "best of" compilation of the replies to the other 10 stories about "the PC is dying" we've had recently. I pretty much agree 100 %, but we've discussed this to death now, and there's nothing we can do. Well there is one thing, to develop great apps which work at the edge of the network and use encryption and all that good stuff, but who has time for that...
Not data compression, more like ECC or forward error correction
Thanks for the info, that makes sense. I'll miss having every application automatically networked, in a way that's much better than anything on windows or mac. Sometimes it's nice to start an instance of dolphin or an image viewer over X11, when I have SSH, and when it would require more work to set up a shared filesystem. Sometimes it's absolutely mission critical to be able to access things over X11, like data analysis tools that only work on certain versions of Linux. I suppose that those things will continue to be compiled for X11 for the foreseeable future.
X11 is a bottleneck in Unix security. It is not safe to run applications from multiple users on the same desktop if you require isolation between them. The applications can listen in on the keystrokes and (I think) read the content of the other applications' windows. Desktop OSes are in some sense trying to catch up to mobile OSes when it comes to application-level sandboxing, so this isolation an important feature.
It would be extremely exciting if Wayland had a sane isolation model, either based on SELinux or on standard user accounts. I wouldn't have to look at things like Qubes OS (which admittedly is much more secure than my Fedora will ever be). I did RTFA and browsed some of the links, and there is no mention of it, so I'm not holding my breath.
The article keeps saying Linux.. I'm a bit worried about compatibility with other systems such as BSD. And even Windows, will there be Wayland servers for Windows just like there's a couple of X servers now? Maybe we'll still use X for the networked stuff, and Linux will be just like Windows and Mac, with a compatibility layer to display X11 applications.
[Chromebooks] don't expose their contained data when lost or stolen.
Just to save anyone else the trouble of checking, the parent is right, and I'm a bit impressed with Google (just a bit, many OSes have options for data encryption now).
http://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/chromiumos-design-docs/security-overview
Yeah i came to say the same thing. Two recent stories are the people who stored things on MegaUpload and the journalist who got his email, iCloud etc. hacked and then wiped. Data loss like in the SIdekick incident doesn't happen frequently, but temporary outages happen a lot, and political or legal BS can also affect innocent people.
People use phones to report drug dealers to the police; do you want this done to you when it turns out that the policeman is working for the cartel?
This argument seems bogus. If you hide the number, the police can't see it directly on their display, but I'm sure they could get it if they wanted to, by talking to the carriers, etc. It's just a bad idea to rely on a hidden number for anonymity in any case.
I don't want to discount this as I'm just an amateur, but could you have had some kind of lightning strike or other power anomaly at that time?
You could use N! wires between the N computers instead, possibly using even less power.
OK I promise not to use maths on slashdot ever again. It's not N!, it's N + (N-1) + ... + 2 + 1. It probably can be written more easily somehow.
You could get rid of some switches. Because 60 GHz doesn't penetrate through metal well, you can have your own little private network inside the rack cylinder without a switch. Each pair of computers could communicate on a separate frequancy, so you'd get the equivalent of a switched network (one coudl do full duplex to, by using more frequencies). The wireless approach would be more resiliant to failure too. You could use N! wires between the N computers instead, possibly using even less power.
For inter-rack communication, you'd get a mesh configuration where each computer naturally has a direct connection with some other racks, as the 60 GHz is approximately line-of-sight. You could probably install a switch instead of each wireless frequency used, to get better bandwidth and slightly worse resiliancy, and maybe higher power usage. I think that's the conclusion, that you can implement this with a reasonable number of wires, but you're more prone to failure because the switches can die. Or you can implement it with a ridiculous number of wires, one for each pair of servers that would communicate wirelessly, and you'd get an even better performance. Assuming you can buy NICs with 8 or more ports, of course.
Depending on your requirements, the Arduino board may be better for hardware work. The AVR microcontroller has much much lower specs than the R.Pi, but the electrical connections of Arduino are much better, with more pins and an ADC. R. Pi go out of their way to warn you about experimenting with the GPIO pins, because they are not protected and can fry your Pi. You can add something called a Gertboard to the Pi and that has a huge number of connections, but I couldn't figure out how to get one or if it was available at all. I agree that Raspberry has its place though, as it's a credible computer, which can do things like image processing, and the Arduino is not (nor does it pretend to be)
Ah bloody hell there's so much wrong in my post. I think the idea is valid, that you can use the difference of time between when the signals were received as an additional constraint. The quadratic equations have a two-fold ambiguity, so I don't know if both solutions would be physically valid, but at worst you've narrowed your position down to one of two (maybe four) points in 3D.
Now do the same for satellites 1 and 3, and 2 and 3, and you have two more equations.
Only two equations. Strike that "2 and 3"
Oh, right, ti is the time at which the signal was sent, sorry.
Assume you know the difference in time between the receipt of the signals, you can solve for the time at which the second satellite sent the signal.
The receipt time difference
dt1i = ti' - t1'
Where t1', ti' is the time when you received the signal i, on some arbitrary clock.
Then this is the equation for t2:
t2 = c*sqrt( (x-xi)^2 + (y-yi)^2 + (z-zi)^2 ) - c*sqrt( (x-xi)^2 + (y-yi)^2 + (z-zi)^2 ) + dt12.
This second order equation in lets you solve for either x,y or z as a function of the other y and z. Now do the same for satellites 1 and 3, and 2 and 3, and you have two more equations.
Does that make sense?