Well they would be the government if they win the election, so it's good that they're *gah* can't remember the idiom. They're correcting their own behaviour before trying to change others behaviour.
you receive an already rootkited laptop/PC. A jumper wont help in that case, only a signed BIOS would. It sucks because it smells a lot like DRM but very often security and freedom are mutually exclusive.
If the bad guys had access to the internals of the computer, they could just physically replace the ROM chip, no? And they could make the hacked BIOS look exactly like the original. Even if the ROM chip wasn't removable they could connect their flasher device directly to the pins of the chip.
Why would they connect the Ethernet controller over USB. From what I understand, USB has a fair bit of CPU overhead, and the Raspberry Pi has a limited CPU.
The options say "Neither / Not Sure" in the poll. The whole story is ridiculous, it's perfectly reasonable to think that neither Obama nor Romney will help with things like "Access to capital to advance start-ups and business expansion" etc
Steam knows which Steam games you run on your PC, but it does not sneak around monitoring other programs without permission.
I kind of corrupted the ACs point, he was indeed saying that Steam was snooping around the system and reporting the other software (which I think is true). And various anti-cheat software is even worse, monitoring running applications.
My argument was more along the lines of if Steam applications : Steam platform = Windows applications : Windows platform, then steam's monitoring is much worse that windows's
Sorry to change my mind again, but there's not even a need to invoke the "communication" argument. Plenty good reasons above. If you as the customer want the developer to have some kind of liability, write a contract.
Code is not just meant to be run, it also communicates an idea. I just posted a script for benchmarking responsiveness. That may not have been a success, but it's an example of using code for communication. If I could be sued by someone if that created a security problem, I wouldn't post it. The analogy with food doesn't hold, because food doesn't convey any information (except for fortune cookies)
Seems that nobody is *that* interested, which makes sense as it's an old CPU. The comment was also a bit like hyperbole: for long running number crunching CPU work, the difference is <5 % and consistent with no difference.
For running a compilation job (make without "-j"), the difference between the "ondemand" and "performance" scaling governors is indeed 30 %. My test is essentially: time/bin/sh -c "sleep; make clean; make", but I use a python script (can't be used independently; you need some software to "make") The test is intended to be similar to launching an application, where there is a burst of high CPU-usage. The results are at http://www.fa2k.net/misc/results.pdf . The relative delay of ondemand only has a weak dependence on the length of the job (number of makes). This could mean that (a) there is a huge initial delay which is of the order of 0.1 s. This would be very bad news. Alternatively, the make jobs use multiple CPUs intermittently, because there are many small processes being created and killed. These processes may end up on cores which are not running at full speed.
I've been meaning to run the test on my Core i5 laptop and compare, and present it to someone in Fedora, but I've never had the time, so I'm posting it here for now.
After consulting with our readers, we've decided to enable Windows' "Balanced" power profile for the bulk of our desktop processor tests, which means power-saving features like SpeedStep and Cool'n'Quiet are operating. (In the past, we only enabled these features for power consumption testing.) Our spot checks demonstrated to us that, typically, there's no performance penalty for enabling these features on today's CPUs. If there is a real-world penalty to enabling these features, well, we think that's worthy of inclusion in our measurements, since the vast majority of desktop processors these days will spend their lives with these features enabled.
That's wrong for the Phenom II. I find a 30 % difference when enabling frequency scaling on a 965 for a single-threaded workload. It seems that each core is clocked independently and there is some delay when increasing the clock speed. Maybe the Windows frequency scaler is better, but for this CPU there seems to be a real difference. The problem is that they are talking about bursty load, and trying to quantify delays, so they should really try without freq. scaling on the Phenom II.
Ideally they should make it work for both newbies and power users, though that's very difficult. Just like fish in a small tank stop growing, these users will never even think of what should be possible to do with a computer. In the other hand, it's probably better than Windows for multitasking.
I agree with you that there is no obvious agenda (as an outsider), but there is something missing from the questions. They ask about some specific problems that may be solved by science, but there is not much about basic research. As in maths, physics, chemistry and biology, for the sake of expanding the horizon of human understanding, with no specific goal in mind, but with the possibility for amazing new technology to come out. (The closes they come is perhaps "Space")
There are video cards that support 3 outputs. I hope Fedora would expose the multi-seat setup interface to people who don't use USB video. If I was setting up something like that, I'd buy two video cards (I know some ATI can support 3 outputs, but I'd goocle it to see if it has support for multiple cards too)
And even if your video-driver fails, then your kernel-console cannot recover as you probably run fbcon which uses the same drivers as user-space.
Not if I can help it! I don't need a fancy console, I have X for that.
The only fallback would be vgacon which is only accessible from the kernel, but recovering via text-mode doesn’t work in most video-driver-failure-cases either.
Is that fact or guesswork/anecdote? And if it works in 4 out of 10 cases I'd still want it.
Therefore, this whole argument is simply wrong, but most of you probably know that already.
Well it adds more complexity, and at the very least it increases the possibility for bugs . I'm just really skeptical, because I have had the graphical boot screens fail on multiple computers. It seems like a nice project, but it should be an additional service like X11, it shouldn't replace the kernel consote. [Though with systemd, the kernel console isn't very useful anyway, as if something goes wrong, you are hosed]
Presumably, you will get into GRUB because that's run before Linux. Hopefully, there will be some kernel command line option you can specify to use a standard graphics mode. I have an old laptop that shows a vertical stripe pattern when the fancy boot screen is enabled, and doesn't get better in X (if it actually gets that far, I don't know), but it will boot when I change the kernel options. It would be madness and extreme hubris to trust in the driver quality enoung to not haev a fallback option.
It's not because of the shipping. Entertainment (bits) costs more than 2x the US price in Scandinavia, because they think people will pay more for it. Is it fair? Don't know... Imagine if they used the US price in China, people would have to take up a mortgage for a CD.
It's been mostly painless to do that for me with some OEM licenses. Just have to go via the automatic phone lady some times. It didn't occur to me at all that the copy of windows that came with my now obsolete laptop was somehow tied to that hardware. I'd be interested to know if such a requirement is enforcible (regardless of whether it's buried in a dense EULA), but I'm not saying it's inconceivalble.
I don't like it. Depends on your foum, but it's much worse than being banned for normal people. So how about a staged solution: As others pointed out, it is necessary to show the filtered posts to users on the same IP address as the spammer, otherwise all spammers will create two accounts and verify that their messages come through. The solution is that *the first time someone spams, they get a proper ban*. Ideally a timed ban, such that normal users who are not spammers can wait for e.g. 1 week and then get back. The spammer can create a new account, and it can be filtered. This may be too complicated, but I find the proposal quite dishonest, in case someone is banned for having an unpopular opinion, etc. Moderators are not always fair. [[ The last time this came up on slashdot I wrote something similar about it being deceptive, then I wrote "How can I even be sure that this message is visible to others?" And someone replied, thanks:D ]]
Agree 100 %. The hosting company is also technically breaking copyright by distributing copies, but there are methods for dealing with that (the good part of DMCA).
Slashdot Mirror
Well they would be the government if they win the election, so it's good that they're *gah* can't remember the idiom. They're correcting their own behaviour before trying to change others behaviour.
you receive an already rootkited laptop/PC. A jumper wont help in that case, only a signed BIOS would. It sucks because it smells a lot like DRM but very often security and freedom are mutually exclusive.
If the bad guys had access to the internals of the computer, they could just physically replace the ROM chip, no? And they could make the hacked BIOS look exactly like the original. Even if the ROM chip wasn't removable they could connect their flasher device directly to the pins of the chip.
Why would they connect the Ethernet controller over USB. From what I understand, USB has a fair bit of CPU overhead, and the Raspberry Pi has a limited CPU.
The options say "Neither / Not Sure" in the poll. The whole story is ridiculous, it's perfectly reasonable to think that neither Obama nor Romney will help with things like "Access to capital to advance start-ups and business expansion" etc
Wow. You're saying that once people are no longer young they can't change or learn. Almost makes me want to die.
Aside from being completely wrong.
Steam knows which Steam games you run on your PC, but it does not sneak around monitoring other programs without permission.
I kind of corrupted the ACs point, he was indeed saying that Steam was snooping around the system and reporting the other software (which I think is true). And various anti-cheat software is even worse, monitoring running applications.
My argument was more along the lines of if Steam applications : Steam platform = Windows applications : Windows platform, then steam's monitoring is much worse that windows's
Sorry to change my mind again, but there's not even a need to invoke the "communication" argument. Plenty good reasons above. If you as the customer want the developer to have some kind of liability, write a contract.
Great point,
Sorry to disappoint, but Steam also takes the installed applications on your PC and returns it to the mothership.
.. along with info on when you launch the steam apps, when you log in to steam (by definition of logging in) and even your settings in the games.
And to the OP, CHECK that the steam games works on Linux before you wipe windows. The Steam app works for me, but none of the 4 games I have.
Code is not just meant to be run, it also communicates an idea. I just posted a script for benchmarking responsiveness. That may not have been a success, but it's an example of using code for communication. If I could be sued by someone if that created a security problem, I wouldn't post it. The analogy with food doesn't hold, because food doesn't convey any information (except for fortune cookies)
Seems that nobody is *that* interested, which makes sense as it's an old CPU. The comment was also a bit like hyperbole: for long running number crunching CPU work, the difference is <5 % and consistent with no difference.
For running a compilation job (make without "-j"), the difference between the "ondemand" and "performance" scaling governors is indeed 30 %. My test is essentially: time /bin/sh -c "sleep; make clean; make", but I use a python script (can't be used independently; you need some software to "make") The test is intended to be similar to launching an application, where there is a burst of high CPU-usage. The results are at http://www.fa2k.net/misc/results.pdf . The relative delay of ondemand only has a weak dependence on the length of the job (number of makes). This could mean that (a) there is a huge initial delay which is of the order of 0.1 s. This would be very bad news. Alternatively, the make jobs use multiple CPUs intermittently, because there are many small processes being created and killed. These processes may end up on cores which are not running at full speed.
I've been meaning to run the test on my Core i5 laptop and compare, and present it to someone in Fedora, but I've never had the time, so I'm posting it here for now.
(from TFA)
After consulting with our readers, we've decided to enable Windows' "Balanced" power profile for the bulk of our desktop processor tests, which means power-saving features like SpeedStep and Cool'n'Quiet are operating. (In the past, we only enabled these features for power consumption testing.) Our spot checks demonstrated to us that, typically, there's no performance penalty for enabling these features on today's CPUs. If there is a real-world penalty to enabling these features, well, we think that's worthy of inclusion in our measurements, since the vast majority of desktop processors these days will spend their lives with these features enabled.
That's wrong for the Phenom II. I find a 30 % difference when enabling frequency scaling on a 965 for a single-threaded workload. It seems that each core is clocked independently and there is some delay when increasing the clock speed. Maybe the Windows frequency scaler is better, but for this CPU there seems to be a real difference. The problem is that they are talking about bursty load, and trying to quantify delays, so they should really try without freq. scaling on the Phenom II.
Hm, maybe too strict. Comcast wouldn't be high speed then: http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&output=search&q=250+gb+%2F1+month+in+bits+%2F+second
Strike that suggestion, but they should definitely include the caps in the consideration
They should use: is high speed = min( advertised instantaneous speed, cap bytes * 8 / cap period ) > 3 Mbit/s
Ideally they should make it work for both newbies and power users, though that's very difficult. Just like fish in a small tank stop growing, these users will never even think of what should be possible to do with a computer. In the other hand, it's probably better than Windows for multitasking.
"AT&T is wasting no time hitting back at critics of its decision to limit the use of popular video chat app FaceTime
..and no real people were affected
I agree with you that there is no obvious agenda (as an outsider), but there is something missing from the questions. They ask about some specific problems that may be solved by science, but there is not much about basic research. As in maths, physics, chemistry and biology, for the sake of expanding the horizon of human understanding, with no specific goal in mind, but with the possibility for amazing new technology to come out. (The closes they come is perhaps "Space")
There are video cards that support 3 outputs. I hope Fedora would expose the multi-seat setup interface to people who don't use USB video. If I was setting up something like that, I'd buy two video cards (I know some ATI can support 3 outputs, but I'd goocle it to see if it has support for multiple cards too)
You can configure most monitors to show a small 640x480 image in the centre of the screen instead of stretching it, if it's truly unreadable
what's puzzling about the demo is why they didn't do it with 10 verizon links to achieve something 100mbit+.
Wireless doesn't work like that
And even if your video-driver fails, then your kernel-console cannot recover as you probably run fbcon which uses the same drivers as user-space.
Not if I can help it! I don't need a fancy console, I have X for that.
The only fallback would be vgacon which is only accessible from the kernel, but recovering via text-mode doesn’t work in most video-driver-failure-cases either.
Is that fact or guesswork/anecdote? And if it works in 4 out of 10 cases I'd still want it.
Therefore, this whole argument is simply wrong, but most of you probably know that already.
Well it adds more complexity, and at the very least it increases the possibility for bugs . I'm just really skeptical, because I have had the graphical boot screens fail on multiple computers. It seems like a nice project, but it should be an additional service like X11, it shouldn't replace the kernel consote. [Though with systemd, the kernel console isn't very useful anyway, as if something goes wrong, you are hosed]
Presumably, you will get into GRUB because that's run before Linux. Hopefully, there will be some kernel command line option you can specify to use a standard graphics mode. I have an old laptop that shows a vertical stripe pattern when the fancy boot screen is enabled, and doesn't get better in X (if it actually gets that far, I don't know), but it will boot when I change the kernel options. It would be madness and extreme hubris to trust in the driver quality enoung to not haev a fallback option.
It's not because of the shipping. Entertainment (bits) costs more than 2x the US price in Scandinavia, because they think people will pay more for it. Is it fair? Don't know... Imagine if they used the US price in China, people would have to take up a mortgage for a CD.
It's been mostly painless to do that for me with some OEM licenses. Just have to go via the automatic phone lady some times. It didn't occur to me at all that the copy of windows that came with my now obsolete laptop was somehow tied to that hardware. I'd be interested to know if such a requirement is enforcible (regardless of whether it's buried in a dense EULA), but I'm not saying it's inconceivalble.
I don't like it. Depends on your foum, but it's much worse than being banned for normal people. So how about a staged solution: As others pointed out, it is necessary to show the filtered posts to users on the same IP address as the spammer, otherwise all spammers will create two accounts and verify that their messages come through. The solution is that *the first time someone spams, they get a proper ban*. Ideally a timed ban, such that normal users who are not spammers can wait for e.g. 1 week and then get back. The spammer can create a new account, and it can be filtered. This may be too complicated, but I find the proposal quite dishonest, in case someone is banned for having an unpopular opinion, etc. Moderators are not always fair. [[ The last time this came up on slashdot I wrote something similar about it being deceptive, then I wrote "How can I even be sure that this message is visible to others?" And someone replied, thanks :D ]]
Agree 100 %. The hosting company is also technically breaking copyright by distributing copies, but there are methods for dealing with that (the good part of DMCA).