What? What do you mean? You mean someone would be retarded enough to write an encryption method that doesn't use ECC or such internally?
Most encryption algorithms, whether implemented on a file or real-time on a disc, are not primarily concerned with ECC. Plenty use hashes, but not for the purpose of correcting errors caused by disk corruption. There are even less of the kind the author is looking for (real-time total disc encryption with ECC seamlessly integrated). It's not my speciality so I don't know of them
But if we're talking about sending and receiving data from long-term storage (rather than real time), that is easily attainable if you separate the encryption and error detection tasks. For error detection, and just as important, being able to fix those errors when they happen (two separate things) the term you're looking for is Forward Error Correction (FEC) software. If you're serious about backing up your data, and it still being around and undamaged in a few years, you should be serious about FEC. It amazes me how many enterprise-level companies frequently back up millions of files, but have no strategy for ECC.
Using vdmfec (my favorite FEC software. For linux), say you have a file that is 1gb that you'd back up with it (Large archive files are especially important to use forward error correction on, because plenty of them, if they get data corruption in the wrong place, get totally screwed up.) So, let's say with vdmfec you select the blocksize to be 5 kb, and then you select two positive whole number parameters, K and N. For every original K blocks, N blocks are written so that if up to N-K fail, you can still recover all original K blocks.
In plain english, if I set a K value of 10 and an N value of 30, then the first 50kb of the file would be transformed into 150kb. There could be quite a few bits accidentally flipped in that 100kb over time, but as long as any 10 of the 30 blocks did not suffer any damage, that set of blocks would be entirely fine. You can pass different K and N arguments according to your needs (reliability v. size) for a reasonably reliable disc over the short term, K=15 and N=20 would do just fine.
For encryption, use whatever you'd like, total disk encryption, folder encryption etc. One concern is that if you use any error detection or correction, it establishes a reliable data pattern which can be used to break the encryption. This concern can be solved by encrypting before applying error correction instead of after, or using encryption of sufficient bitstrength so that it will take another several decades for the hardware to be developed to crack it.
it's true. I moved my all of my old screenplays into my/dev/null drive a year ago, and just recently I decided to have a look at them again so I typed head -n50000/dev/urandom; they came back, and boy was I glad: they actually seem to make more sense now than I remember them making before.
I thought video games were about escaping reality.
If developers start making video game world where success mirrors the player's real-life wealth, rather than their skill, then what would be the point?
If I wanted to see rich people getting what they want, and the average joe getting screwed because they don't have enough money, all I have to do is read the news. I don't see why I should shell out $60 and hours of my time to do that.
Furthermore, wasn't the video-game industry originally about entertaining kids? A kid can't afford to buy power-ups, to pay for new race tracks, and all but the most spoiled won't be able to coax their parents into it. So if a kid sees a game like GT, they get all excited, they wait all year for it, they buy it with their birthday money, they get, what? A couple cars, a few tracks.
You know, for all this talk of next-gen, the gaming experience seems to have gone significantly backwards. It's all about the money these days, and never about the fun.
While that is true, the real concern here (as it is in any court case) is how the law is interpreted. By some recent actions of the patent office (especially in the biomedical industry) you'd think obvious clauses were non-existant, yet there are other fields (basic mechanics, for example) in which the patent office has been much more stringent.
I'm not sure that in this case the supreme court has the power to do anything. Honestly, what power does it have to make sure the patent office enforces patents the way it sees fit? Have a judge breathing over every patent clerk's shoulder? Even if they overhaul and re-structure the entire department, the issue here is the need for a defined policy for each and every field, which is clearly not going to be laid out by the supreme court alone.
Perhaps they could elect a committee to create better patent policy. (Surely more bureaucracy will fix this!)
I cannot wait. (Seriously!)
on
GUADEC 2006
·
· Score: 1
I hear... (And I've seen a seminar description about this)... that all sorts of speed-ups and inefficiency cuts are coming this time around. Guadec '06 is supposedly going to make Gnome very, very quick and clean-cut through the revelation and elimination of many bottlenecks. I really can't wait. I know this is a pipe dream, but I bet in a few months after this, Gnome's going to take up 2/3rds the memory and system resources.
Cross your fingers folks, this meeting is going to be speeding up linux boxes all over the world.
Wow. That's all I have to say. I mean, a new camera. And sony! And lenses which can't be exchanged (trapping you in to their own proprietary products and services), wow!
This is all so surprising!
Why hasn't anybody else said this yet?
on
Yahoo's Geek Statue
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Why has nobody else picked up on this yet?
It's obvious what Yahoo is doing. They're marketing to a demographic(maddox.xmission.com). It's trying to build an image for itself. Companies do this all the time. They figure out what their target demographic is (in this case, they think their desired audience is a bunch of fun-loving technically-inclined computer users) and they market to that demographic. In this case they're trying to hook on the kind of people which work hard to spread gmail and firefox just out of loyalty. They're just pathetically posturing and pandering to this audience, but they don't even know how to do it. All they can do is just jump around like an annoying 5 year old trying to get attention. And when I say jumping around trying to get attention, I mean something like this:
"Hey check out cool we are! We're so hip and funny(slashdot) and in touch with today's teechnology and cool stuff(slashdot), forget gmail, look at us! Look how cool and funny and hip and fresh we are, and how we put a cool, fun spin on technology! Google's just a bunch of old fogeys. But everyone here is just a bunch of cool and smart dudez having a good time!"
It's pathetic. They don't even have attention, because they've been so stagnant and moronic and lazy for the past, oh, I dunno, 4 years, that they've lost all loyalty form anyone who's even slightly technically inclined to bigger and better services (and remember, those are the people who really help a website get attention). But Yahoo is finally feeling that it can't just act like a lazy monopolistic conglomerate anymore, because it's realizing that its shares are slipping to the cooler, fresher, more in touch, and much more useful google. Yahoo realizes that if it doesn't get its ass in gear, its going to be losing its members to google soon. So, like the stupid, slow, lazy, and out of touch corporate conglomerate it is, it tries to get the attention that google has from being cool, fresh, and in touch. Yahoo tries to get this attention by making itself out to be cool, fresh, and in touch. By jumping up and down and saying "look how cool I am! I'm so cool!"
The difference is, google looks cool without even trying. Google is cool not because it spends time trying to bolster its personal image (although it does focus on image some) of being a relaxed, good natured company. Google is cool because it is a relaxed, good natured company. It doesn't just pretend to have those plastic balls all around, or have that big, open, cafeteria. That 20% of all employees time which must go to projects of their liking isn't all just a hoax. Google is actually a company based on relaxed, good natured principles.
But yahoo, which I'm sure is still based around a traditional business model, with CEOs and departments, and 8 levels of management and corporate beauracracy, a company whose goals are mostly sluggish and monopolistic paradigms (such as being the king of online TV(wired.com), which it has now failed miserably at due to iTunes jumping out of nowhere and kicking its ass.), is most obviously not cool and fresh and funny and funky. This is all just showy propaganda. Yahoo's upper management have just given the OK for the marketing department to play up this major 100+ employee corporation as being this cool, fresh, hip group of fun tech guys just cooperating for the heck of it to create good stuff. That is everything yahoo is not. I imagine we'll see more bullshit like this as yahoo makes more and more desperate attempts to get a hold on its slipping popularity, perhaps some of them may work. But all the make-up in the world won't hide the fact that yahoo is an ugly, decrepit, slow moving and out-of-shape hag of a corporation. Unless yahoo chan
After reading that page, which describes how bittorrent works, you might want to go to the following page, where you can download a bittorrent client and learn more about the system.
Slashdot Mirror
What? What do you mean? You mean someone would be retarded enough to write an encryption method that doesn't use ECC or such internally?
Most encryption algorithms, whether implemented on a file or real-time on a disc, are not primarily concerned with ECC. Plenty use hashes, but not for the purpose of correcting errors caused by disk corruption. There are even less of the kind the author is looking for (real-time total disc encryption with ECC seamlessly integrated). It's not my speciality so I don't know of them
But if we're talking about sending and receiving data from long-term storage (rather than real time), that is easily attainable if you separate the encryption and error detection tasks. For error detection, and just as important, being able to fix those errors when they happen (two separate things) the term you're looking for is Forward Error Correction (FEC) software. If you're serious about backing up your data, and it still being around and undamaged in a few years, you should be serious about FEC. It amazes me how many enterprise-level companies frequently back up millions of files, but have no strategy for ECC.
Using vdmfec (my favorite FEC software. For linux), say you have a file that is 1gb that you'd back up with it (Large archive files are especially important to use forward error correction on, because plenty of them, if they get data corruption in the wrong place, get totally screwed up.) So, let's say with vdmfec you select the blocksize to be 5 kb, and then you select two positive whole number parameters, K and N. For every original K blocks, N blocks are written so that if up to N-K fail, you can still recover all original K blocks.
In plain english, if I set a K value of 10 and an N value of 30, then the first 50kb of the file would be transformed into 150kb. There could be quite a few bits accidentally flipped in that 100kb over time, but as long as any 10 of the 30 blocks did not suffer any damage, that set of blocks would be entirely fine. You can pass different K and N arguments according to your needs (reliability v. size) for a reasonably reliable disc over the short term, K=15 and N=20 would do just fine.
For encryption, use whatever you'd like, total disk encryption, folder encryption etc. One concern is that if you use any error detection or correction, it establishes a reliable data pattern which can be used to break the encryption. This concern can be solved by encrypting before applying error correction instead of after, or using encryption of sufficient bitstrength so that it will take another several decades for the hardware to be developed to crack it.
it's true. I moved my all of my old screenplays into my /dev/null drive a year ago, and just recently I decided to have a look at them again so I typed head -n50000 /dev/urandom; they came back, and boy was I glad: they actually seem to make more sense now than I remember them making before.
I thought video games were about escaping reality. If developers start making video game world where success mirrors the player's real-life wealth, rather than their skill, then what would be the point? If I wanted to see rich people getting what they want, and the average joe getting screwed because they don't have enough money, all I have to do is read the news. I don't see why I should shell out $60 and hours of my time to do that. Furthermore, wasn't the video-game industry originally about entertaining kids? A kid can't afford to buy power-ups, to pay for new race tracks, and all but the most spoiled won't be able to coax their parents into it. So if a kid sees a game like GT, they get all excited, they wait all year for it, they buy it with their birthday money, they get, what? A couple cars, a few tracks. You know, for all this talk of next-gen, the gaming experience seems to have gone significantly backwards. It's all about the money these days, and never about the fun.
While that is true, the real concern here (as it is in any court case) is how the law is interpreted. By some recent actions of the patent office (especially in the biomedical industry) you'd think obvious clauses were non-existant, yet there are other fields (basic mechanics, for example) in which the patent office has been much more stringent. I'm not sure that in this case the supreme court has the power to do anything. Honestly, what power does it have to make sure the patent office enforces patents the way it sees fit? Have a judge breathing over every patent clerk's shoulder? Even if they overhaul and re-structure the entire department, the issue here is the need for a defined policy for each and every field, which is clearly not going to be laid out by the supreme court alone. Perhaps they could elect a committee to create better patent policy. (Surely more bureaucracy will fix this!)
I hear... (And I've seen a seminar description about this) ... that all sorts of speed-ups and inefficiency cuts are coming this time around. Guadec '06 is supposedly going to make Gnome very, very quick and clean-cut through the revelation and elimination of many bottlenecks. I really can't wait. I know this is a pipe dream, but I bet in a few months after this, Gnome's going to take up 2/3rds the memory and system resources.
Cross your fingers folks, this meeting is going to be speeding up linux boxes all over the world.
Wow. That's all I have to say. I mean, a new camera. And sony! And lenses which can't be exchanged (trapping you in to their own proprietary products and services), wow! This is all so surprising!
Why has nobody else picked up on this yet? It's obvious what Yahoo is doing. They're marketing to a demographic(maddox.xmission.com). It's trying to build an image for itself. Companies do this all the time. They figure out what their target demographic is (in this case, they think their desired audience is a bunch of fun-loving technically-inclined computer users) and they market to that demographic. In this case they're trying to hook on the kind of people which work hard to spread gmail and firefox just out of loyalty. They're just pathetically posturing and pandering to this audience, but they don't even know how to do it. All they can do is just jump around like an annoying 5 year old trying to get attention. And when I say jumping around trying to get attention, I mean something like this: "Hey check out cool we are! We're so hip and funny(slashdot) and in touch with today's teechnology and cool stuff(slashdot), forget gmail, look at us! Look how cool and funny and hip and fresh we are, and how we put a cool, fun spin on technology! Google's just a bunch of old fogeys. But everyone here is just a bunch of cool and smart dudez having a good time!" It's pathetic. They don't even have attention, because they've been so stagnant and moronic and lazy for the past, oh, I dunno, 4 years, that they've lost all loyalty form anyone who's even slightly technically inclined to bigger and better services (and remember, those are the people who really help a website get attention). But Yahoo is finally feeling that it can't just act like a lazy monopolistic conglomerate anymore, because it's realizing that its shares are slipping to the cooler, fresher, more in touch, and much more useful google. Yahoo realizes that if it doesn't get its ass in gear, its going to be losing its members to google soon. So, like the stupid, slow, lazy, and out of touch corporate conglomerate it is, it tries to get the attention that google has from being cool, fresh, and in touch. Yahoo tries to get this attention by making itself out to be cool, fresh, and in touch. By jumping up and down and saying "look how cool I am! I'm so cool!" The difference is, google looks cool without even trying. Google is cool not because it spends time trying to bolster its personal image (although it does focus on image some) of being a relaxed, good natured company. Google is cool because it is a relaxed, good natured company. It doesn't just pretend to have those plastic balls all around, or have that big, open, cafeteria. That 20% of all employees time which must go to projects of their liking isn't all just a hoax. Google is actually a company based on relaxed, good natured principles. But yahoo, which I'm sure is still based around a traditional business model, with CEOs and departments, and 8 levels of management and corporate beauracracy, a company whose goals are mostly sluggish and monopolistic paradigms (such as being the king of online TV(wired.com), which it has now failed miserably at due to iTunes jumping out of nowhere and kicking its ass.), is most obviously not cool and fresh and funny and funky. This is all just showy propaganda. Yahoo's upper management have just given the OK for the marketing department to play up this major 100+ employee corporation as being this cool, fresh, hip group of fun tech guys just cooperating for the heck of it to create good stuff. That is everything yahoo is not. I imagine we'll see more bullshit like this as yahoo makes more and more desperate attempts to get a hold on its slipping popularity, perhaps some of them may work. But all the make-up in the world won't hide the fact that yahoo is an ugly, decrepit, slow moving and out-of-shape hag of a corporation. Unless yahoo chan
What's a bittorrent file?
g .html#HowBTWorks
http://userpages.umbc.edu/~hamilton/btclientconfi
After reading that page, which describes how bittorrent works, you might want to go to the following page, where you can download a bittorrent client and learn more about the system.
http://www.bittorrent.com/