Neither of these guys really "invented" the segway. I'd give the credit to Heinlein.
... It had been a long time since the Chief Engineer had ridden one of these silly-looking vehicles, and he felt awkward. A tumblebug does not give a man dignity, since it is about the size and shape of a kitchen stool, gyro-stabilized on a single wheel. But it is perfectly adapted to patrolling the maze of machinery 'down inside', since it can go through an opening the width of a man's shoulders, is easily controlled, and will stand patiently upright, waiting, should its rider dismount.
The Roads Must Roll, Robert Heinlein, 1940
OK, so he called for one wheel instead of two, but still... gotta give him credit.
The thing is that Jupiter is much closer than normal, so it will appear brighter. Also, being directly overhead at midnight will make it easier than normal for the novice stargazer to locate it.
See also this Star Gazer script.
Me, I'm going to head out with binoculars and see if I can spot any of its moons. That'd be a personal first.
Taking into account your own disclaimer-reply, I still wonder about the last sentence of your first paragraph. How do you figure that LCDs are subtractive? AFAIK, the only difference is that the phosphor arrangement is different than on CRTs. If the color theory were different, then a magnifier would show CMY color elements, instead of the same RGB as on a standard TV.
BTW, the proof of the pudding is in the eating... the proof is not in the pudding.
Indeed. That's just the question I'd like to see answered. How does this fit in to the world of telnet/rsh/ssh?
I may have this super-spiffy graphical workstation on my desk at the office, but what fills the bulk of the screen? Xterms. And I may have my linux laptop at home, but what do I get before I log in and type `startx'? Right again. And even after I start X, half of my screen is going to contain an xterm window, ssh'd into the office to check my mail.
It may seem odd, but a few years ago, before I had the laptop, I used to bring a VT102 + modem with me when I travelled. This is about the size of a 21" monitor, and I picked it up used from my old school for $3. It was great to travel with because it was (1) theftproof (not worth stealing), (2) unbreakable and (3) secure, since it didn't contain any data itself. The dialup number and password were kept in my brain.
Since so much of what we do is still tied to textual applications, I'm interested to know how this concept maps.
And another question... with the help of my Palm and an encryption application, I can keep track of 50+ text passwords without much trouble. (In fact, it bugs me when I sign up with a site that won't let me use a password as secure as I'd like, perhaps enforcing "alphanumerics only"...) But how many different sequences of images could I keep track of in my head? And how would I tie a particular image sequence to a particular secure application or site?
Re:For everyone who wants to learn perl too..
on
Happy Birthday Perl!
·
· Score: 1
Not the most robust site. I filled out the registration form, found that the Submit button didn't do anything with Javascript disabled, enabled JS, filled it out again and got the enlightening response:
That's basically a fair criticism. But I'd like
to point out that since Solaris works so well out of the box, a not small number of Solaris admins I know have never had to change a kernel parameter. Unlike SunOS, and indeed Linux, where kernel rebuilds are practically de rigeur, Solaris generally just works, without tweaking. No doubt this has a lot to do with the fairly homogenous hardware (speaking only of Sparc here, not x86 Solaris.)
It's too bad a crack has been found for even this protection, but it was probably inevitable. Crackers tend to start with a lot of ingenuity; mix in a deep knowledge of the machine and they
will find the weak spots, eventually.
Re:It's hard to exploit buffer overflows in Solari
on
Solaris, AIX Login Hole
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Dang it, I was all set to moderate, but this needs a followup instead since Dimwit left something out. Namely that those set commands belong in/etc/system.
Back when we had 16 bit computers, this created limits that we had to actively work around, all the time. 64K was a hard limit all over the place.
On older machines, this was either an absolute hard limit (64K, period) or kludged in some way (Apple//c had a special bit to bankswitch in one or the other 64K memories, but both couldn't be used at the same time.)
The IBM PC had its segment registers and so could address 1MB, but it was far from transparent. There was no way to declare, say, a 200K array of strings. The programmer's data structures had to be tied
quite closely to the peculiarities of the architecture. We spent as much time working around the limitations as we did writing useful code.
When 32 bit computing came along, bam! What a change! Want to declare a 20MB data structure? Go for it! In terms of articifial
restrictions, there just weren't any practical limits to run into, or around, day in and day out.
The reason 64 bits won't be as revolutionary as 32 bits is that, for the most part, 32 bits is still good enough. Even with the bloated software we have these days, 4 billion is still plenty when it comes down to most things. Take time_t; that's still not going to overflow for another 30 years. 4 billion is a lot.
A 64-bit CPU working with 32-bit data is being slightly inefficent, but don't worry too much about a slowdown from that, as they'll tend to be inherently faster over time, which should more than make up for it.
There are non-computer Easter eggs tabulated here, covering everything from Timex watches to chocolate dispensing machines, from oscilloscopes to Furbys. The site's a pain to navigate, but there's good stuff to be had.
Lets assume your number is 1-800-867-5309.. just dial it like this.. 18008675309* or 18008675309# yup.. guess what.. new tone sequence.. deal with it.
Guess what... under copyright law, that would be considered creating a derivative work. And guess what... the copyright holder has the rights to determine who is allowed to make derivative works, and under what conditions.
So we're still screwed. Good thing this was done by someone with a sense of humor, instead of by an actual Big Evil Entity.
I finally got through... only to find I'm not allowed to use 6.0. The license agreement specifically prohibits commercial use. Pretty funny restriction for a product called StarOffice.
Yeah, yeah, this restriction probably won't be in the 6.0 final release, but for now I've got to stick with 5.2 and its annoying desktop. Bah.
Some jurisdictions (like mine) charge property tax on the value of your car, due annually. It usually ranges between $150 and $200 for me. Though fortunately, in Connecticut I get the same amount as a writeoff on my income tax, so it's a wash. Still a hassle, though.
Okay, I see where I was being led astray. I was presuming that the year was in fact 1984 when the claim was being made. That reduces down to A equals A, which is perfectly all right.
With 2+2=5, we have an A equals B scenario, which is so clearly wrong that we don't even need to discuss it. Same scenario as claiming that it's 1984 when in fact it's 2001 or 2040.
I never even thought to question the year in the story. But of course that regime would have no qualms about setting the date to any number they happened to feel like. Or, today is the third third day of the month of Fish. Absolutely anything.
The realization that _1984_ can _still_ be next year if we make the wrong decisions has never been lost on me. The point I'd overlooked is that the powers that be might even mess with the calendar just for the hell of it.
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts. I'm also on the East Coast, but not quite ready to fly again anytime too soon.
The point of the book is that A is A? I don't understand.
Did you mean to write, whereever they say 1984 they meant 1948? That was the year it was written. But that wouldn't fit your pattern, because Orwell wasn't saying that 1948 was like that at all...
the ordering of the members of the struct would be different
Not likely. These structs represent hardware interfaces, I'm presuming. As such, the order isn't a matter of style but of function. A driver expects to see, say, a block number four bytes wide at byte offset 20 in a read command. If the order is changed, the driver doesn't work.
But the struct names and member names are up for grabs and should most likely be different by chance.
Find a candidate you like and WORK to get them elected. If you can't find a candidate you like, then RUN YOURSELF.
A candidate I like? In most elections, the choice is, do you want this evil man in office, or this differently evil man? And libertarian candidates have practically no chance in most elections. Maybe this will change one day.
But your call that we run for office ourselves is simply naive. I, personally, am well acquainted with the fact that I don't have what it takes to make a good legislator. Nor do I have the thousands upon thousands of dollars I'd need to build an organization large enough to get myself on the ballots. In the case of the Presidential elections, this process needs to happen in each of the 50 states. Can you say unwieldy? Discriminatory? Even undemocratic?
Not voting is as much a legitimate political statement as voting. I am registered, and I do vote, but 50% of us don't, and I don't believe that that's all because of apathy. Some of that has got to be because the `choices' we are given so often stink.
There will be no - I repeat, no - evictions from.org for failure to meet some criteria
But didn't the original scary announcement also say that they wished to re-restrict.com domains to truly commercial websites? Do I still have to worry?
Naw, I didn't forget it. On the contrary, I said that this was the other main problem found at that code review, as indeed the routine intToChar() was being called with a char[10] argument!
It would surely have blown up by now... except that we caught it... and then that the project was eventually cancelled, partially because these consultants kept making the same sorts of errors and we just weren't getting anywhere. Sigh.
Novice programmers do all sorts of nutty things. I've caught in code review people using char[10] to hold timestamps as recently as a year ago, blithely unaware that this would soon overflow. In that particular case, it was even more ironic as it would have been more efficient to simply pass the 4-byte int between the processes in question. The decimal conversion was completely unnecessary.
That same
code review turned up another ignorance-borne gem.
void intToChar(int pTime, char spTime[])
{
int i, sign;
if ((sign = pTime) < 0)
pTime = -pTime;
i = 0;
do
{
spTime[i++] = pTime % 10 + '0';
} while ((pTime/= 10) > 0;
if (sign <0)
spTime[i++] = '-';
spTime[i] = '\0';
reverse(spTime);
}
void reverse(char spTime[])
{
int c,i,j;
for (i=0,j=strlen(spTime)-1; i<j; i++,j--)
{
c = spTime[i];
spTime[i] = spTime[j];
spTime[j] = c;
}
}
If you look at this, it's actually almost ingenious. But no seasoned programmer would write this, since it all boils down to sprintf (spTime, "%d", pTime);. There's no substitute for experience.
Which brings me back to my point. How much code must there be out there that was written by low-level programmers who are assigned the simpler and more tedious sections of the code? Usually the architects and designers concentrate on the "big picture" and most difficult sections of code,
but invariably there are parts left for the junior
developers, who by definition are still on the road to programming common sense.
So we are bound to see this manifest. Most likely, like y2k, nothing critical will fall over and blow up. But also like y2k, we'll be finding the cosmetic (and more occasionally, serious) consequences of this bug in all sorts of places, and for quite some time.
Slashdot Mirror
It's up to 96% now. Ouch. Sucks to be you, Bern.
Me, I'm going to head out with binoculars and see if I can spot any of its moons. That'd be a personal first.
BTW, the proof of the pudding is in the eating... the proof is not in the pudding.
I may have this super-spiffy graphical workstation on my desk at the office, but what fills the bulk of the screen? Xterms. And I may have my linux laptop at home, but what do I get before I log in and type `startx'? Right again. And even after I start X, half of my screen is going to contain an xterm window, ssh'd into the office to check my mail.
It may seem odd, but a few years ago, before I had the laptop, I used to bring a VT102 + modem with me when I travelled. This is about the size of a 21" monitor, and I picked it up used from my old school for $3. It was great to travel with because it was (1) theftproof (not worth stealing), (2) unbreakable and (3) secure, since it didn't contain any data itself. The dialup number and password were kept in my brain.
Since so much of what we do is still tied to textual applications, I'm interested to know how this concept maps.
And another question... with the help of my Palm and an encryption application, I can keep track of 50+ text passwords without much trouble. (In fact, it bugs me when I sign up with a site that won't let me use a password as secure as I'd like, perhaps enforcing "alphanumerics only"...) But how many different sequences of images could I keep track of in my head? And how would I tie a particular image sequence to a particular secure application or site?
Um, gee, thanks for the enlightenment, guys.
That's basically a fair criticism. But I'd like to point out that since Solaris works so well out of the box, a not small number of Solaris admins I know have never had to change a kernel parameter. Unlike SunOS, and indeed Linux, where kernel rebuilds are practically de rigeur, Solaris generally just works, without tweaking. No doubt this has a lot to do with the fairly homogenous hardware (speaking only of Sparc here, not x86 Solaris.)
It's too bad a crack has been found for even this protection, but it was probably inevitable. Crackers tend to start with a lot of ingenuity; mix in a deep knowledge of the machine and they will find the weak spots, eventually.
Dang it, I was all set to moderate, but this needs a followup instead since Dimwit left something out. Namely that those set commands belong in /etc/system.
(This is character 0xbe; it displays as 3/4 in my Solaris xterms. It may appear differently in other fonts or locales.)
You don't mean this book, do you? It doesn't appear to be out of print...
On older machines, this was either an absolute hard limit (64K, period) or kludged in some way (Apple //c had a special bit to bankswitch in one or the other 64K memories, but both couldn't be used at the same time.)
The IBM PC had its segment registers and so could address 1MB, but it was far from transparent. There was no way to declare, say, a 200K array of strings. The programmer's data structures had to be tied quite closely to the peculiarities of the architecture. We spent as much time working around the limitations as we did writing useful code.
When 32 bit computing came along, bam! What a change! Want to declare a 20MB data structure? Go for it! In terms of articifial restrictions, there just weren't any practical limits to run into, or around, day in and day out.
The reason 64 bits won't be as revolutionary as 32 bits is that, for the most part, 32 bits is still good enough. Even with the bloated software we have these days, 4 billion is still plenty when it comes down to most things. Take time_t; that's still not going to overflow for another 30 years. 4 billion is a lot.
A 64-bit CPU working with 32-bit data is being slightly inefficent, but don't worry too much about a slowdown from that, as they'll tend to be inherently faster over time, which should more than make up for it.
So, basically, you heard right. I think.
So why not review that Rushdie book yourself?
You didn't read his FAQ very carefully, did you?
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GPA d--(---) s:- a- C++++ UL P>++ L+>++++ E-- W+++
N+ o- K- w++++>----
O-- M+ V-- PS++(+++) PE Y++ PGP++>+++ t++@($) 5
X+++ R++ tv-- b+++ DI+ D++
G++ e*>++++ h---- r+++ y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
The decoder link he provides doesn't work. But if you go here, cut and paste will be your friend.
There are non-computer Easter eggs tabulated here, covering everything from Timex watches to chocolate dispensing machines, from oscilloscopes to Furbys. The site's a pain to navigate, but there's good stuff to be had.
Guess what... under copyright law, that would be considered creating a derivative work. And guess what... the copyright holder has the rights to determine who is allowed to make derivative works, and under what conditions.
So we're still screwed. Good thing this was done by someone with a sense of humor, instead of by an actual Big Evil Entity.
Yeah, yeah, this restriction probably won't be in the 6.0 final release, but for now I've got to stick with 5.2 and its annoying desktop. Bah.
Sure it does. You forgot the -c switch.
.. 0 Oct 2 16:09 test.c
... 488 Oct 2 16:09 test.o
$ touch test.c
$ gcc -c test.c
$ ls -l test.?
-rw-r--r-- 1
-rw-r--r-- 1
Null code will compile.. it just won't link on its own.
Some jurisdictions (like mine) charge property tax on the value of your car, due annually. It usually ranges between $150 and $200 for me. Though fortunately, in Connecticut I get the same amount as a writeoff on my income tax, so it's a wash. Still a hassle, though.
With 2+2=5, we have an A equals B scenario, which is so clearly wrong that we don't even need to discuss it. Same scenario as claiming that it's 1984 when in fact it's 2001 or 2040.
I never even thought to question the year in the story. But of course that regime would have no qualms about setting the date to any number they happened to feel like. Or, today is the third third day of the month of Fish. Absolutely anything.
The realization that _1984_ can _still_ be next year if we make the wrong decisions has never been lost on me. The point I'd overlooked is that the powers that be might even mess with the calendar just for the hell of it.
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts. I'm also on the East Coast, but not quite ready to fly again anytime too soon.
Did you mean to write, whereever they say 1984 they meant 1948? That was the year it was written. But that wouldn't fit your pattern, because Orwell wasn't saying that 1948 was like that at all...
Not likely. These structs represent hardware interfaces, I'm presuming. As such, the order isn't a matter of style but of function. A driver expects to see, say, a block number four bytes wide at byte offset 20 in a read command. If the order is changed, the driver doesn't work.
But the struct names and member names are up for grabs and should most likely be different by chance.
A candidate I like? In most elections, the choice is, do you want this evil man in office, or this differently evil man? And libertarian candidates have practically no chance in most elections. Maybe this will change one day.
But your call that we run for office ourselves is simply naive. I, personally, am well acquainted with the fact that I don't have what it takes to make a good legislator. Nor do I have the thousands upon thousands of dollars I'd need to build an organization large enough to get myself on the ballots. In the case of the Presidential elections, this process needs to happen in each of the 50 states. Can you say unwieldy? Discriminatory? Even undemocratic?
Not voting is as much a legitimate political statement as voting. I am registered, and I do vote, but 50% of us don't, and I don't believe that that's all because of apathy. Some of that has got to be because the `choices' we are given so often stink.
But didn't the original scary announcement also say that they wished to re-restrict .com domains to truly commercial websites? Do I still have to worry?
It would surely have blown up by now... except that we caught it... and then that the project was eventually cancelled, partially because these consultants kept making the same sorts of errors and we just weren't getting anywhere. Sigh.
That same code review turned up another ignorance-borne gem.
If you look at this, it's actually almost ingenious. But no seasoned programmer would write this, since it all boils down to sprintf (spTime, "%d", pTime);. There's no substitute for experience.
Which brings me back to my point. How much code must there be out there that was written by low-level programmers who are assigned the simpler and more tedious sections of the code? Usually the architects and designers concentrate on the "big picture" and most difficult sections of code, but invariably there are parts left for the junior developers, who by definition are still on the road to programming common sense.
So we are bound to see this manifest. Most likely, like y2k, nothing critical will fall over and blow up. But also like y2k, we'll be finding the cosmetic (and more occasionally, serious) consequences of this bug in all sorts of places, and for quite some time.