I've been running my desktop on an encrypted root partition using LUKS (on Gentoo via dm-crypt) for over 6 months now.
I was afraid that heavy IO access might cause high CPU usage or that some FS might not play all that well with the encryption.
So far, I've had no problems. Even copying from one encrypted partition to another encrypted partition causes no noticeable lag due to encryption and normal usage of my disk, even with heavy uses such as DBs or backups seems to take place just like before. I've been using LUKS with xfs (and reiserfs to a lesser extent). I have a P4 3.2Ghz, don't remember the disk specs.
Being able to have several passphrases is a good thing (you can even change them later on) and the assurance that a weak passphrase will not cause the key being easily guessed via crypto-analysis is another plus.
The downside is that booting from an encrypted partition can be a little difficult to setup for a novice, but that has been improving and at least Gentoo now offers this on the current genkernel with little extra hassle.
If you want the whole package, you can even encrypt the swap partition with a randomly generated key at boot time.
What do you get from all this?
Suppose your computer has an hardware malfunction and you have to send to be repaired (warranty for instance). You can be sure no one will find the financial data you saved there, or some less flaterring photo (or something more embarrassing you didn't even remember). Using an encrypted partition to save sensitive data might be enough, but many programs end up saving temporary data in unexpected places so all that care might be useless in the end. If everything is encrypted that risk is gone with just a little bit of extra work (once).
Like someone wrote, this won't protect you from having you computer hacked while the partition is mounted and stealing data.
This has the huge advantage of not using bash, awk, cut to get the usernames gets the right home directory less memory intensive since if you had a machine with lots of users you'd be reading all of the data into memory and this one processes it one at a time. Works with NIS (or should at least, not 100% sure)
Have a look for perldoc -f getpwent man getpwent
Of course in practice you would only iterate through some users of a defined group. A little less trivial but easily doable.
"Now, evidently, most high school computer classes are about Word (tm) and Excel (tm). Is this a bad thing? Should we care?"
Assuming this is true, the answers are:
"Is this a bad thing": Yes! Just wait until you share your workplace with these people who now are only kids but 5 to 10 years from now will be integrated in the workforce. Then we'll experimentally verify whether it's a bad thing or not.
Plus I thought web2.0 implied the use of AJAX, youtube doesn't seem to use it. Does it qualify as web2.0?
http://www.slate.com/id/2138951/ (in the article) does mention AJAX, but apparently it's not very important, because "Ajax without participation doesn't make for Web 2.0,"
On a k dimensional vector space you can't come up with l>k (non null) mutually orthogonal vectors. After all k non null mutually orthogonal vector will form a basis for the vector space.
"However, if you take a k dimensional vector and compute the dot product with l mutually orthogonal vectors (where l > k), then any k dot products are enough to reconstruct the original vector."
Do you mean that we have a k-dimensional vector space V, a vector on this vector space and calculate the dot product with l mutually orthogonal vectors where l>k?
Is that it? Because if it is it's strange to say the least.
First, Fourier analysis like you wrote is not the only way to go. Second the theorem in question is of little practical impact in these kinds of problems. I was just mentioning the fact that someone really wrote that this was indeed responsible for the ipod (at least in part).
"The simplest tensor calculus equations require thousands of lines of computer coding. The expansions, called formulations, can be written in many ways. Through mathematical intuition, the Goddard team has found the appropriate formulations to lead to suitable simulations."
Does anyone have further info on this apparently new way of implementing tensor calculus on a computer?
Saying that this has "been helpful in creating iPod" is at least weird. It's like saying Einstein's special theory of relativity helped to invent the automobile. After all it deals with motion.
For practical purposes lot's of convergence theorems for Fourier series had been known before this one and those would be more than enough to show that in practice things would work.
And before that even others, though this one is quite nice.
Second saying that a continuous function is "(one with a connected graph)" is not very accurate but can be understandable given the expected audience, using "negligible points" is not understandable since using the right term "almost everywhere" would be more understandable for the layman and since the "negligible points" gives the idea that the points are somewhat special (at least to me) when in reality it should mean that when you calculate the measure of these points it's zero.
"well, private research doesn't really count as private because it doesn't *feel* private".
Well, other readers can read parent posts and see that I NEVER WROTE THIS.
All my quotations of your posts are factually accurate yours isn't.
And don't say it's the idea of my post (which in my oppinion isn't) because if that were the case, then you shouldn't have used quotation marks.
This is proof that you distort my speech in order to suit your aims. Not very honest! Discussion under these terms is pointless.
Just to finish you wrote (notice quotation marks)
" How the fuck can I even have a dialogue with you if you're going use loose, ambiguous terms that middle management wouldn't tolerate"
Really, I defined (pointed to a definition) Private Corporation did you?
Did you say it was a wrong definition? I don't see it.
These are rhetorical questions.
Maybe there are worthy examples I don't know of or am not remembering right now. I don't exclude that possibility, but until now you have given us nothing but "straw".
"Newton's Laws of Motion? Kepler's Laws? Mendelian genetics? I don't think you can get much more basic than that."
You must be joking!
What possible profit did Newton expect from doing his work? He did his work while being supported by what can only be described as public funding.
"" I refuse to use non-standard English to placate you. "Private" means "non-government", irrespective of profit motive. ""
Semantics apart, your "example" hasn't supported your previous claims.
Not all of that so-called "basic research" has been government funded though. And even to the extent that it is, so what? Private companies anticipate, and then respond to the actions of others, like government, in researching other areas.
I emphasise "Private companies". None of the examples you gave can certainly fit into that category. Most came from universities and thus public/common funding and Mendel was a part of a religious order.
[Private Company
A company whose ownership is private and, thus, do not need to meet the strict SEC filing requirements of public companies.] in http://www.answers.com/private+company&r=67
It's as simple as this:
* To do applied research you usually (not allways but almost) need a solid background of basic "pure" science * That "pure" science by itself is anything but profitable but is essential for other things to generate profit
It's the classic scenario, it's a dirty job, but someone has got to do it. I can assure you, private companies will have nothing to do with that because it's simply not profitable.
I don't care whether it's the government or some other entity. What I'm saying is that assuming greed and profit *alone* is the best way to keep science evolving is just not realistic.
"Not all of that so-called "basic research" has been government funded though"
Could you be so kind a to give an importante/relevant example of a "basic research" breakthrough in science steaming from private funding alone or in the greatest part?
And by private funding I mean with an intent to generate profit, not grants and fellowships and other kind of funding that just happens to be applied in science but could have equally been applied to the arts.
Slashdot Mirror
I chose "mask as Mozilla" and it did work.
I don't known whether everything works as well as in Firefox but I got the job done (changed font size, alignments, etc).
I've been running my desktop on an encrypted root partition using LUKS (on Gentoo via dm-crypt) for over 6 months now.
I was afraid that heavy IO access might cause high CPU usage or that some FS might not play all that well with the encryption.
So far, I've had no problems. Even copying from one encrypted partition to another encrypted partition causes no noticeable lag due to encryption and normal usage of my disk, even with heavy uses such as DBs or backups seems to take place just like before.
I've been using LUKS with xfs (and reiserfs to a lesser extent). I have a P4 3.2Ghz, don't remember the disk specs.
Being able to have several passphrases is a good thing (you can even change them later on) and the assurance that a weak passphrase will not cause the key being easily guessed via crypto-analysis is another plus.
The downside is that booting from an encrypted partition can be a little difficult to setup for a novice, but that has been improving and at least Gentoo now offers this on the current genkernel with little extra hassle.
If you want the whole package, you can even encrypt the swap partition with a randomly generated key at boot time.
What do you get from all this?
Suppose your computer has an hardware malfunction and you have to send to be repaired (warranty for instance). You can be sure no one will find the financial data you saved there, or some less flaterring photo (or something more embarrassing you didn't even remember). Using an encrypted partition to save sensitive data might be enough, but many programs end up saving temporary data in unexpected places so all that care might be useless in the end. If everything is encrypted that risk is gone with just a little bit of extra work (once).
Like someone wrote, this won't protect you from having you computer hacked while the partition is mounted and stealing data.
Where I wrote
my ($user, $id, $home) = @u[0,1,7];
I should have written
my ($user, $id, $home) = @u[0,2,7];
Sorry
When you mean "quick and dirty" you do mean *quick and dirty*!
/root
doing awk, cut inside a perl program is not the best thing to do, even when doing things quick and dirty.
Your script has a major flaw. It assumes that the home of user $user is "/home/$user" and this is not always so. My root user has home
proper way to get the homes would be:
while(my @u = getpwent){
my ($user, $id, $home) = @u[0,1,7];
if($id>=1000){
#do something
}
}
This has the huge advantage of not using bash, awk, cut to get the usernames
gets the right home directory
less memory intensive since if you had a machine with lots of users you'd be reading all of the data into memory and this one processes it one at a time.
Works with NIS (or should at least, not 100% sure)
Have a look for
perldoc -f getpwent
man getpwent
Of course in practice you would only iterate through some users of a defined group.
A little less trivial but easily doable.
"Although the feature can be modified to use Google or other search engine"
It can be modified! Not through some obscure registry setting but using a regular configuration screen?
How can this even be considered foulplay?
"Now, evidently, most high school computer classes are about Word (tm) and Excel (tm). Is this a bad thing? Should we care?"
Assuming this is true, the answers are:
"Is this a bad thing": Yes! Just wait until you share your workplace with these people who now are only kids but 5 to 10 years from now will be integrated in the workforce. Then we'll experimentally verify whether it's a bad thing or not.
"Should we care?" Yes! (see previous point)
Any takers on this?
Plus I thought web2.0 implied the use of AJAX, youtube doesn't seem to use it.
Does it qualify as web2.0?
http://www.slate.com/id/2138951/ (in the article) does mention AJAX, but apparently it's not very important, because "Ajax without participation doesn't make for Web 2.0,"
http://planetmath.org/ should do the trick.
l
"many formulations of linear algebra use the maximum number of linearly independent vectors as the DEFINITION of the dimension of that vector space"
http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/Dimension2.htm
Thank you.
It's a shame the original poster never tried to clarify any of this.
A k dimensional vector space doesn't have l>k linearly independent vectors.
I suspect the original poster expressed himself incompletely because this is nonsense.
The only way this can make any sense is if the vector belongs to a k dimensional vector *subspace* of another vector space of at least dimension l>k.
In that scenario the subspace can't be orthogonal any of the l mutually orthogonal vectors for things to work as described.
This needs further clarification.
Just to make things clear.
On a k dimensional vector space you can't come up with l>k (non null) mutually orthogonal vectors. After all k non null mutually orthogonal vector will form a basis for the vector space.
"However, if you take a k dimensional vector and compute the dot product with l mutually orthogonal vectors (where l > k), then any k dot products are enough to reconstruct the original vector."
Do you mean that we have a k-dimensional vector space V, a vector on this vector space and calculate the dot product with l mutually orthogonal vectors where l>k?
Is that it? Because if it is it's strange to say the least.
I tested 5 generated paper and got 4 authentic (>85%) and one inauthentic (24.5%).
I knew this:
i /fsi.cgi
http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo
Just keep hitting refresh and you get a different paper each time.
Curious point, pasting one of these articles on the page at
http://montana.informatics.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/fs
I got this result:
"This text had been classified as
AUTHENTIC
with a 93.7% chance of being an authentic paper"
Either the generator is very good or the authenticator very bad.
you do realize I was joking right?
First, Fourier analysis like you wrote is not the only way to go.
Second the theorem in question is of little practical impact in these kinds of problems.
I was just mentioning the fact that someone really wrote that this was indeed responsible for the ipod (at least in part).
The Swedish mathematician who proved a convergence theorem for Fourier series.
:p
2 7/0548252
without him there would be no IPOD.
That is, according to the article in
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/
"The simplest tensor calculus equations require thousands of lines of computer coding. The expansions, called formulations, can be written in many ways. Through mathematical intuition, the Goddard team has found the appropriate formulations to lead to suitable simulations."
Does anyone have further info on this apparently new way of implementing tensor calculus on a computer?
Could it be At First Sight?
neutrinos?!
Maybe you meant neutrons?
Neutrinos are remarkably difficult to detect since their interaction with matter is extremely "improbable".
The patient would barely "see" anything.
And don't forget, soon you'll also need a new new EU approved drivers licence.
Saying that this has "been helpful in creating iPod" is at least weird.
m
It's like saying Einstein's special theory of relativity helped to invent the automobile. After all it deals with motion.
For practical purposes lot's of convergence theorems for Fourier series had been known before this one and those would be more than enough to show that in practice things would work.
Take for instance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riesz-Fischer_theore
from 1907.
And before that even others, though this one is quite nice.
Second
saying that a continuous function is "(one with a connected graph)" is not very accurate but can be understandable given the expected audience, using "negligible points" is not understandable since using the right term "almost everywhere" would be more understandable for the layman and since the "negligible points" gives the idea that the points are somewhat special (at least to me) when in reality it should mean that when you calculate the measure of these points it's zero.
"well, private research doesn't really count as private because it doesn't *feel* private".
Well, other readers can read parent posts and see that I NEVER WROTE THIS.
All my quotations of your posts are factually accurate yours isn't. And don't say it's the idea of my post (which in my oppinion isn't) because if that were the case, then you shouldn't have used quotation marks.
This is proof that you distort my speech in order to suit your aims. Not very honest! Discussion under these terms is pointless.
Just to finish you wrote (notice quotation marks) " How the fuck can I even have a dialogue with you if you're going use loose, ambiguous terms that middle management wouldn't tolerate"
Really, I defined (pointed to a definition) Private Corporation did you? Did you say it was a wrong definition? I don't see it. These are rhetorical questions.
Have fun.
"Yeah, I agree, beating strawmen is easy."
Stop acting like one and give us an example.
"Private Companies" your own words remember?
Maybe there are worthy examples I don't know of or am not remembering right now. I don't exclude that possibility, but until now you have given us nothing but "straw".
You made the claim, you have the burden of proof.
"Newton's Laws of Motion? Kepler's Laws? Mendelian genetics? I don't think you can get much more basic than that."
You must be joking!
What possible profit did Newton expect from doing his work? He did his work while being supported by what can only be described as public funding.
"" I refuse to use non-standard English to placate you. "Private" means "non-government", irrespective of profit motive. ""
Semantics apart, your "example" hasn't supported your previous claims.
Not all of that so-called "basic research" has been government funded though. And even to the extent that it is, so what? Private companies anticipate, and then respond to the actions of others, like government, in researching other areas.
I emphasise "Private companies". None of the examples you gave can certainly fit into that category.
Most came from universities and thus public/common funding and Mendel was a part of a religious order.
[Private Company
A company whose ownership is private and, thus, do not need to meet the strict SEC filing requirements of public companies.] in http://www.answers.com/private+company&r=67
It's as simple as this:
* To do applied research you usually (not allways but almost) need a solid background of basic "pure" science
* That "pure" science by itself is anything but profitable but is essential for other things to generate profit
It's the classic scenario, it's a dirty job, but someone has got to do it.
I can assure you, private companies will have nothing to do with that because it's simply not profitable.
I don't care whether it's the government or some other entity. What I'm saying is that assuming greed and profit *alone* is the best way to keep science evolving is just not realistic.
"Not all of that so-called "basic research" has been government funded though"
Could you be so kind a to give an importante/relevant example of a "basic research" breakthrough in science steaming from private funding alone or in the greatest part?
And by private funding I mean with an intent to generate profit, not grants and fellowships and other kind of funding that just happens to be applied in science but could have equally been applied to the arts.