Seriously, why was this even posted. While we are at it, lets Mod SoulSkill as +1 Revenue Generator so even then this should get scored as -1 "What! Are you fucking kidding me!" ( with apologies to Robbin Williams )
But on a more on-topic note, PHP and C++ are languages for two totally different things and if SoulSkill doesn't know that, he has no business being a "editor".
You may or may not trust Larry and Co. and that of course is your right.
But I gotta say, I don't see ANYTHING in MySQL worth folding into the Oracle Database.
When it comes to pure DB power I have yet to see anything that even comes close to Oracle.
Yes Oracle is not cheap but let me give you a little story on that.
I hade a particularly nasty problem a couple of years back and the client I was working was fully licensed and thus had support, so I picked up the phone and opened an incident and was on with an engineer within about 5 minutes.
As we were working the problem she let me know it was time for her to go home and that she would be taking a few moments to brief the next engineer before handing me off. Now this was around 7pm Pacific time and she was in Colorado. She handed me off to another tech in Hawaii or someplace like that and we continued working the problem. As we worked the problem I was curious and asked how long they would stay on the line? This tech said, well as long as you are willing to be on site we will just keep transferring you as the time zones and shifts change around the world.
When you have a mission critical DB that is the kind of support you want, you don't want to post to a forum, you don't want to send an e-mail, you want someone on the phone, now, that knows what the hell they are doing. So yes Oracle costs a few bucks, but when you really look at the price you pay -v- the service you get and the incredibly stable and incredibly powerful DB you get, it is really not that expensive in the grand scheme of things.
Agreed, on a very level road, with an average coefficient of friction and no head wind, no acceleration,
That being said of the SF Bay bridge 30% of it is about a 1% grade up hill, about 50% of it is level and about 20% is about a.5% grade down hill with winds that increase induced drag so I would guess more like 50 hp so around 3 MW of increased load on the public power grid.
But lets not quibble, that is for only 250,000 cars. The number of registered vehicles in the state of California is about 2.8 million.
So if we can take an average of 21KW ( 30hp ) * 2.8 Million = 58GW ( yes gigawatts ) of additional electrical generating capacity. Contrast with current electrical peak demand for today of the State of California of 32 GW and I gotta tell ya, I just don't see how it is going to happen.
Now you can massage those number, estimate how many cars are going to need recharging overnight, what percentage will be on the road at any one time etc. but if my estimation is to high be even 50% then that still laves us short of about 29GW of Generation capacity.
The best internal combustion engine is about 30% efficient. 60% of the heat energy produced heads out the tail pip or is radiated into the air in cooling the engine. The amount of heat drawn off the coolant loop to heat the car ( forced air heating ) is negligible.
Not picking a fight here so please don't take it that way
Do you realize that using Electricity or Hydrogen is not quiet as green as everyone thinks is?
The combustion of H and O2 yields H2O but I have yet to see the spectrum of the exhaust gases of H - Atmosphere - Oil Vapor combustion.
I suspect it is something quite different then what the public has been sold since our atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases. Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1%.
Until we find a way to isolate H from available sources with an efficiency factor an order of magnitude better then what we have now the cost will stay prohibitive.
Electric cars are great and battery technology is getting there but still quite a ways out for a pure electric ( as opposed to Hybrid ) vehicle that has the range and performance of the most efficient petroleum powered vehicle.
Electric cars are mostly a shift of the pollution problem from individual power generation ( the engine burning petroleum ) to the very very large and new power plants that would have to be built to charge those batteries.
I have never seen a study that shows how many Megawatts are produced by the average number of cars being driven at one time but I suspect it is rather high value. Just a completely off the cuff calculation here but, the San Francisco Bay Bridge has about 250,000 cars crossing it every day.So the average maximum power output of those cars is probably around 149 KW. Assume that each runs about 50% of rated power on average so... 74.5 KW * 250000 = 18.5 MW
So assume that an internal combustion engine is only about 30% efficient and an electric motor can approach about 90% efficiency in the 50 to 100hp power range. so 18 div 3 = 6 MW (give or take). So by that very rough calculation we need to add 6 MW of capacity just for the cars crossing the bay bridge in any 24 hour period.
That additional capacity has to come from someplace. We are pushing a very fine line on hydro power since we are trying to balance fish stocks and habitat -v- building bigger damns, I doubt it can come from there. So what does that leave? Geo-Thermal, Solar, Wind, Nuclear and of course fossil fuel. So the question is, which do we start building more of, and in who's backyard? These are hard problems with no easy answers. People still need to get from point A to points B,C,D etc.
Your sarcasm is appreciated; however, the cell system is a bit of a different system. There is a whole lot of out of band stuff happening between the tower and the phone. This was not so true back in the days of my beloved USR Modem. The POTS network just sent your tones down the line as plain old audio and what happened on the other end was of little concern to the TelCo since your circuit was designed to run full time, all the time with the bandwidth that was provided and if things got a little too busy, you got a busy signal when you went off hook and dialed ( circuit busy, as apposed to the other end being busy ) and so the system was pretty much self regulating.
Is it? I suppose to allow any fully open source, reprogrammable computer on the internet is an invitation to disaster. And yet the least open source of OSes, Windows, causes the most havoc. What's your logic in this?
Wow I guess you have never heard of Botnets, DDOS attacks or any other such malicious activity. Here is one for you. How about a completely open phone, that idiot users download anything on and pretty much click through anything to get to the hot teen sucking some guys dick. Now the phone and ALL of its components are completely available to the phone interface, and oh yes they are always talking to the cell tower if they are powered on. Now let me see is there an analogous bit of equipment like that out there in the wild that is completely and totaly open and controled by the same drooling sex deprived maniacs? Wait for it.... Yup, it is called a desktop or laptop computer running windows!!! Now there are millions more cell phones then their are computers. So let us just extend that for a moment. Many cell phone applications can now talk across the internet without any user interference so they can from time to time check in and ask, do it now? Do I really need to take this any further?
Are you saying you successfully hacked the cell system? You breadboarded a GSM modem and bridged your wifi network onto a cell tower, transmitted data via say AT&T's network to a remote destination?
Or are you saying you did all that and then fed it the ESN of your phone and were able to make a call?
Just what exactly are you claiming here?
I agree with you completely, the legit user gets screwed by the losers who think they should not have to pay for anything, that they have had some inalienable right bestowed upon them because they pay their ISP bill and screw the man dude!
So yeah I trust your garden variety user like my neighbor who just wants to make phone calls and read his e-mail. The carrier provides the ability to do that at a price the market will bare and in the US at least all things given it is a pretty decent deal.
I am quite sure many people have tried to hack the tower interface in the spirit of Captain Crunch but who knows how many have tried and succeeded and kept quiet ( although I am quite sure the bragging rights would be legend ), tried and succeeded and ben arrested, tried and succeeded and been paid to be quiet or tried and failed.
Trust me, I am pretty sure we will never know because I am quite sure that the phone companies want that kept quiet.
In Palm's case, they would never sell any phones, not because the software is Open Source but because no carrier would let it on their network.
Just like Android phones, iPhones or any phone for that matter. The TelCo's will only go so far before they say ( and rightly so ) stop, this has to be locked down, we cannot risk the entire cell ecosystem on a phone that can be completely modified to do anything. That is why you can write apps for the iPhone the BackBerry, the Android phone, but there are parts of the phone that you just cannot screw around with and so your app runs in a proprietary sandbox. To allow a completely open source re-programmable phone is to invite disaster. It is one thing when you are talking about jacking up the web for a few hours it is entirely another when you take out a whole cell tower or several cell towers do to either malicious programing or just bad programming. People lives can depend on the cell system, they don't depend on the web.
Yes in fact shops I have run were lovely places to work. We wrote code that was both efficient AND readable, One day you might run a shop and when you have programmers of various skill levels having to follow some who wrote code like that you will appreciate what this whole argument is about.
ss->ss is horrible, it is indefensible, period.
In any linked list the previous node is always [struct]->prev and the next pointer is always [struct]->next. Those two things explain exactly what is going on, no confusion it is crystal clear to anyone reading the code.
Writing struct->next != null might take a few more keystrokes but is is crystal clear, leaves nothing to chance and on top of that it takes no more work for the RTL and I might be mistaken but I think it takes a few less instruction cycles. Although I have never bothered to look at the generated code from the compiler, my guess is that the end result is no different from using the idiom of var++ -v- var = var + 1.
Hmmm, sorry to disagree with you but if you were working in my shop and you wrote something like that, a warning of "That's enough of that shit" would be immediate. Repeating that behavior would result in an invitation to go practice your "craft" elsewhere.
As many many others have pointed out in this and other articles on the same subject there is little to be gained by this type of nonsense and in many cases much to be lost. An as another poster pointed out in a reply to your post, the reliance on a null pointer being treated as boolean is both risky and stupid since form one compiler implementation to another that evaluation is subject to change. even if you wanted to write this statement this way then to make it at least a proper statement then it should be: "for(ss = s->ss; ss!=null; ss = ss->ss);" ss != null is guaranteed to evaluate as boolean ss simply being null is not.
Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a “search” and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.
Since we hold the Thermovision imaging to have been an unlawful search, it will remain for the District Court to determine whether, without the evidence it provided, the search warrant issued in this case was supported by probable cause–and if not, whether there is any other basis for supporting admission of the evidence that the search pursuant to the warrant produced.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed; the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I grock the lib concept, each program gets it's own data segment and the code is run in a single image ( if you will ) and that conserves memory. Each data area is private to the program unless they explicitly share it through some IPC mechanism.
This is interesting as it seems like a way to write malware. If I wanted to deliberately run the machine into the ground I could just look for those data area's and keep attempting to write to them and force the OS to keep duplicating them over and over again. Now you could do the same thing by just having a program continue to allocate memory for itself, but this seems to a be a way to do so without having anything being able to detect that you are allocating memory on your own, just using the OS as your proxy to eventually suck up all the machine resources.
Being somewhat ignorant of the inner workings of XEN, VMWare, KVM and the like the very idea that VM's would share memory at all seems rather risky in terms of them being sandboxed from each other. Beside a hypervisor being able to allow many VM's to run basically any OS, it would also seem that there is a security element involved eg: running Windows in a VM and Linux in another and NetWare in yet another the three would not have the ability to know the other were there and therefor be safe from being hacked into from Windows malware or affected by an ABEND ( basically a kernel panic ) from NetWare.
I can see the Hypervisor being able to move each VM's memory footprint around, but why would you desire a VM to mingle memory with another VM, or am I missing some salient fact(s) and or point?
they are talking about Service Oriented Architecture and that translates to the WWW
This is factually wrong, and is a pretty good example of the sort of "talking about something you don't understand" problem that readers have with your post.
Is it? Cloud computing, it is all the rage, it is Software As Service, it is rent me version of software and then there is this Wikipedia article that does seem to support my assertion. As to the main point of me being any of the rather derogatory you used, the reply was keenly about Java, less about SOA, and any amount of research does support my assertions that while Java is a great idea, in practice it is just as problematic as any other language as far as cross platform use goes and as for the various implementations of Java VM's ( of which there are no less then 30 I submit is is even more problematic. I for one am quite happy to have GCC on Linux as it is pretty much the same ( with a very few exceptions ) from distro to distro.
Uhm, well normally I wouldn;t respond to such a vitriolic rant but I can't help myself because I am laughing so hard so here goes, fuck it I got karma to burn as they say...
Unfortunately the implementation is poor.
Can you name a faster and more reliable implementation? Didn't think so.
A faster more reliable implementation of?? I mean if you are going to yell at me at least say what you are yelling about.
Java held out the promise of write it once run it anywhere, but that promise has yet to be fulfilled as there are still differences from platform to platform that make developing in it a chore rather then enjoyable work.
If you use pure java code the cross platform stuff just works. Period.
Tell that to the rest of the people who have said the opposite. Not that they are supporting my argument, but they do seem to be.
Most of the problems are with the various implementations of both JIT's and VM's and mostly having to do with how things are abstracted eg: big -v- little endian, file access and those sorts of things.
What does this nonsensical gibberish mean?
Uhm I don't quite know what to say here. Are you saying you don't know what JIT means? Don't know what VM means?
The tons of lib's that are mentioned as a god send have their own problems as well but that has more to do with programmer quality then anything else, but even the well designed and written ones still overlook the JIT and VM problems and then you end up having damn quirky behavior that can take weeks to track down, hence the problem of everyone sending out a complete JRE with their program and you end up in JRE hell with 14 different versions of JRE's on your system.
If you target older jre's you'll get very good compatibility across the board. There used to be issues caused by Microsoft's JRE... but that's why they built it. If you target a bleeding edge ANYTHING, you're going to have compatibility problems.
That suggestion seems rather counter intuitive since as the various JRE's are updated there are "just gotta have" features that either fix old problems or introduce new functionality, but yes I suppose you can stay with an older version, but the problem is OS's change, kernels change and therefor something that worked in an older version might not work when the OS/kernel changes.
I liked the IDEA of having SUN control Java because at least things would have been consistent but that failed as well with to damn many versions being released. Now we have everyone and their grandmother writing JVM's JIT's and JRE's and none of them do anything exactly the same which has thrown ever more variability into the mix and just made everything messier since suddenly you now had to install vendor X's JRE or VM because some fool decided that it made everything 1% faster and they JUST had to have it or alternatively it had a COOL name.
Why do you keep randomly throwing the acronym "JIT" everywhere? Again, you just poorly restated your earlier comment which isn't true and makes little sense.
Uhmm I am not trying to be insulting, but JIT is a term that is very commonly used to refer to (J)ust (I)n (T)ime compilers in lots of languages, but they really got traction with JAVA because of the dramatic ( an order of magnitude ) increase in performance over interpreted Java
I see the biggest problem with WEB development today as two things. 1. Lack of a statefull connection and 2. The proliferation of languages with linguistic and syntactual differences but little else to set them apart except a fan club. PHP, Ruby, Python, VB, Perl, all of them doing the same thing, serving the content.
1) ???? How does this affect Java in anyway? 2) ???? H
It would be impossible to get everyone to agree on the ONE language, that is a given, just look at the arguments of "pure" C -v- C++ -v- anything else so yes I agree. I think the problem boils down to project management mostly. I mean there is nothing generally wrong with any of them ( my own pet peeve is Python but I digress), each have their pluses and minuses so I think my chief complaint is walking into a project that is implemented in a smörgåsbord of languages, there is some Perl here, some Java there a little Python someplace else and throw in some PHP and a pinch of Ruby just for fun. Likely as not a lot of the original authors are gone and you just have a mess, albeit a mess that works, but a mess never the less. Poke it in the wrong place and the whole thing comes crashing down.
Java held out the promise of write it once run it anywhere, but that promise has yet to be fulfilled as there are still differences from platform to platform that make developing in it a chore rather then enjoyable work.
Most of the problems are with the various implementations of both JIT's and VM's and mostly having to do with how things are abstracted eg: big -v- little endian, file access and those sorts of things.
The tons of lib's that are mentioned as a god send have their own problems as well but that has more to do with programmer quality then anything else, but even the well designed and written ones still overlook the JIT and VM problems and then you end up having damn quirky behavior that can take weeks to track down, hence the problem of everyone sending out a complete JRE with their program and you end up in JRE hell with 14 different versions of JRE's on your system.
I liked the IDEA of having SUN control Java because at least things would have been consistent but that failed as well with to damn many versions being released. Now we have everyone and their grandmother writing JVM's JIT's and JRE's and none of them do anything exactly the same which has thrown ever more variability into the mix and just made everything messier since suddenly you now had to install vendor X's JRE or VM because some fool decided that it made everything 1% faster and they JUST had to have it or alternatively it had a COOL name.
I see the biggest problem with WEB development today as two things. 1. Lack of a statefull connection and 2. The proliferation of languages with linguistic and syntactual differences but little else to set them apart except a fan club. PHP, Ruby, Python, VB, Perl, all of them doing the same thing, serving the content.
The fundamental paradigm of the web is broken and needs repair badly. The solution is to split it, as I have said before, into two distinct camps, the Application Web and the Text and Pretty Picture Web because trying to mix the two has proven to be a miserable failure.
Perhaps HTML5 will provide some relief but I think it will simply complicate things more and cause more problems then it is worth when trying to mix the two, but we will see.
Ever looked at the water coming down the Mississippi? I wonder what the silt content per liter of water is?
Now I am not a RO expert, not by a long shot, but I know that the water coming to the membrane has to be fairly particulate free.
I really cannot fathom what kind of pre-filtering would have to be done to make this work in such a river basin. Perhaps in am area where there is a huge glacier run off that is pretty clean to begin with. <shrug>
Don't get me wrong, I wasn't objecting, merely opining based upon what information I had and the history of usenet.
It will be interesting to watch as freenet matures to see if it really catches on, and then what the unintended side affects of it popularity will be, if any.
From what you have described it sounds like FidoNet with a lemmon twist.
Ok, you missed something in your A to D to A conversion classes.
Take a 440 hz tone, make it a perfect sign wave, no distortion, it is theoretically perfect in every sense of the term and lasts exactly one second.
Now take that same sine wave and digitize it and the theoretical result is a perfect digital representation of that sine wave that lasts for exactly one second.
Now this is embossed onto a pressed CD.
Now here were are at playback time. The laser emits a beam that either reflects or not for a given period of time, thereby recreating the digital bit stream.
Now introduce a poor quality lens, a misaligned lens or perhaps even a diffamp that is out of balance, or some logic gates that were poorly manufactured so that their rise and or decay time is slow and you end up distorting the "perfect digital stream" that is fed to the the next set of components and the the problems just cascade from there.
The notion that one set of bits is different from the other is a very real situation if one of those sets of bits has their timing stretched or compressed which can lead to very audible artifacts in the playback, aka distortion.
Remember in digital we only have two basic elements in which to encode information and that is the ON/OFF ( digital 1 and 0 ) and the amount of time the "1" is present or the amount of time the "0" is present. When the timing gets flaky then things start to go wrong with the final result. If you don't believe me ask anyone who has ever designed a digital device and they will refer you to a very large drawing of the timing diagrams that are absolutely critical to the device functioning properly, if at all.
Digital is either in sync and functioning or it is not with a very small amount of variability. Analog on the other hand has billions of nuanced variations on "working or not". Get a little fur on your square wave, who cares, it makes no difference to the on/of state. Get a little fur on the sine wave and it makes a LOT of difference in the final product.
Then it will suffer that same fate as usenet did with massive amounts of spam and drive the coasts of keeping it up and running until it collapses under it's own weight, much like usenet did.
Distributed systems work well when they are controlled or at least carefully health monitored.
Bandwidth isn't free and never will be and so someone or some group of people must bear the costs and at some point it will be like usenet and become prohibitively expensive because you are not just moving text ( as was initially envisioned by usenet ( with some minor binary file movement ) you are moving massive amounts of data in the form of large binaries..
As long as Freenet stays in the background noise it will survive, after that it will be shutdown, not by any central authority, but by the users themselves.
If TPB had been quiet, under the radar ( picked a different name ) and not been thumbing their noses at the rest of the world they might still be there.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, why was this even posted. While we are at it, lets Mod SoulSkill as +1 Revenue Generator so even then this should get scored as -1 "What! Are you fucking kidding me!" ( with apologies to Robbin Williams )
But on a more on-topic note, PHP and C++ are languages for two totally different things and if SoulSkill doesn't know that, he has no business being a "editor".
You may or may not trust Larry and Co. and that of course is your right.
But I gotta say, I don't see ANYTHING in MySQL worth folding into the Oracle Database.
When it comes to pure DB power I have yet to see anything that even comes close to Oracle.
Yes Oracle is not cheap but let me give you a little story on that.
I hade a particularly nasty problem a couple of years back and the client I was working was fully licensed and thus had support, so I picked up the phone and opened an incident and was on with an engineer within about 5 minutes.
As we were working the problem she let me know it was time for her to go home and that she would be taking a few moments to brief the next engineer before handing me off. Now this was around 7pm Pacific time and she was in Colorado. She handed me off to another tech in Hawaii or someplace like that and we continued working the problem. As we worked the problem I was curious and asked how long they would stay on the line? This tech said, well as long as you are willing to be on site we will just keep transferring you as the time zones and shifts change around the world.
When you have a mission critical DB that is the kind of support you want, you don't want to post to a forum, you don't want to send an e-mail, you want someone on the phone, now, that knows what the hell they are doing. So yes Oracle costs a few bucks, but when you really look at the price you pay -v- the service you get and the incredibly stable and incredibly powerful DB you get, it is really not that expensive in the grand scheme of things.
Agreed, on a very level road, with an average coefficient of friction and no head wind, no acceleration,
That being said of the SF Bay bridge 30% of it is about a 1% grade up hill, about 50% of it is level and about 20% is about a .5% grade down hill with winds that increase induced drag so I would guess more like 50 hp so around 3 MW of increased load on the public power grid.
But lets not quibble, that is for only 250,000 cars. The number of registered vehicles in the state of California is about 2.8 million.
So if we can take an average of 21KW ( 30hp ) * 2.8 Million = 58GW ( yes gigawatts ) of additional electrical generating capacity. Contrast with current electrical peak demand for today of the State of California of 32 GW and I gotta tell ya, I just don't see how it is going to happen.
Now you can massage those number, estimate how many cars are going to need recharging overnight, what percentage will be on the road at any one time etc. but if my estimation is to high be even 50% then that still laves us short of about 29GW of Generation capacity.
The best internal combustion engine is about 30% efficient. 60% of the heat energy produced heads out the tail pip or is radiated into the air in cooling the engine. The amount of heat drawn off the coolant loop to heat the car ( forced air heating ) is negligible.
Not picking a fight here so please don't take it that way
Do you realize that using Electricity or Hydrogen is not quiet as green as everyone thinks is?
The combustion of H and O2 yields H2O but I have yet to see the spectrum of the exhaust gases of H - Atmosphere - Oil Vapor combustion.
I suspect it is something quite different then what the public has been sold since our atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases. Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1%.
Until we find a way to isolate H from available sources with an efficiency factor an order of magnitude better then what we have now the cost will stay prohibitive.
Electric cars are great and battery technology is getting there but still quite a ways out for a pure electric ( as opposed to Hybrid ) vehicle that has the range and performance of the most efficient petroleum powered vehicle.
Electric cars are mostly a shift of the pollution problem from individual power generation ( the engine burning petroleum ) to the very very large and new power plants that would have to be built to charge those batteries.
I have never seen a study that shows how many Megawatts are produced by the average number of cars being driven at one time but I suspect it is rather high value. Just a completely off the cuff calculation here but, the San Francisco Bay Bridge has about 250,000 cars crossing it every day.So the average maximum power output of those cars is probably around 149 KW. Assume that each runs about 50% of rated power on average so... 74.5 KW * 250000 = 18.5 MW
So assume that an internal combustion engine is only about 30% efficient and an electric motor can approach about 90% efficiency in the 50 to 100hp power range. so 18 div 3 = 6 MW (give or take). So by that very rough calculation we need to add 6 MW of capacity just for the cars crossing the bay bridge in any 24 hour period.
That additional capacity has to come from someplace. We are pushing a very fine line on hydro power since we are trying to balance fish stocks and habitat -v- building bigger damns, I doubt it can come from there. So what does that leave? Geo-Thermal, Solar, Wind, Nuclear and of course fossil fuel. So the question is, which do we start building more of, and in who's backyard? These are hard problems with no easy answers. People still need to get from point A to points B,C,D etc.
Your sarcasm is appreciated; however, the cell system is a bit of a different system. There is a whole lot of out of band stuff happening between the tower and the phone. This was not so true back in the days of my beloved USR Modem. The POTS network just sent your tones down the line as plain old audio and what happened on the other end was of little concern to the TelCo since your circuit was designed to run full time, all the time with the bandwidth that was provided and if things got a little too busy, you got a busy signal when you went off hook and dialed ( circuit busy, as apposed to the other end being busy ) and so the system was pretty much self regulating.
Oh like because dude, there is totally like no profit in that, fer sure!
Is it? I suppose to allow any fully open source, reprogrammable computer on the internet is an invitation to disaster. And yet the least open source of OSes, Windows, causes the most havoc. What's your logic in this?
Wow I guess you have never heard of Botnets, DDOS attacks or any other such malicious activity. Here is one for you. How about a completely open phone, that idiot users download anything on and pretty much click through anything to get to the hot teen sucking some guys dick. Now the phone and ALL of its components are completely available to the phone interface, and oh yes they are always talking to the cell tower if they are powered on. Now let me see is there an analogous bit of equipment like that out there in the wild that is completely and totaly open and controled by the same drooling sex deprived maniacs? Wait for it.... Yup, it is called a desktop or laptop computer running windows!!! Now there are millions more cell phones then their are computers. So let us just extend that for a moment. Many cell phone applications can now talk across the internet without any user interference so they can from time to time check in and ask, do it now? Do I really need to take this any further?
Are you saying you successfully hacked the cell system? You breadboarded a GSM modem and bridged your wifi network onto a cell tower, transmitted data via say AT&T's network to a remote destination?
Or are you saying you did all that and then fed it the ESN of your phone and were able to make a call?
Just what exactly are you claiming here?
I agree with you completely, the legit user gets screwed by the losers who think they should not have to pay for anything, that they have had some inalienable right bestowed upon them because they pay their ISP bill and screw the man dude!
So yeah I trust your garden variety user like my neighbor who just wants to make phone calls and read his e-mail. The carrier provides the ability to do that at a price the market will bare and in the US at least all things given it is a pretty decent deal.
I am quite sure many people have tried to hack the tower interface in the spirit of Captain Crunch but who knows how many have tried and succeeded and kept quiet ( although I am quite sure the bragging rights would be legend ), tried and succeeded and ben arrested, tried and succeeded and been paid to be quiet or tried and failed.
Trust me, I am pretty sure we will never know because I am quite sure that the phone companies want that kept quiet.
In Palm's case, they would never sell any phones, not because the software is Open Source but because no carrier would let it on their network.
Just like Android phones, iPhones or any phone for that matter. The TelCo's will only go so far before they say ( and rightly so ) stop, this has to be locked down, we cannot risk the entire cell ecosystem on a phone that can be completely modified to do anything. That is why you can write apps for the iPhone the BackBerry, the Android phone, but there are parts of the phone that you just cannot screw around with and so your app runs in a proprietary sandbox. To allow a completely open source re-programmable phone is to invite disaster. It is one thing when you are talking about jacking up the web for a few hours it is entirely another when you take out a whole cell tower or several cell towers do to either malicious programing or just bad programming. People lives can depend on the cell system, they don't depend on the web.
Yes in fact shops I have run were lovely places to work. We wrote code that was both efficient AND readable, One day you might run a shop and when you have programmers of various skill levels having to follow some who wrote code like that you will appreciate what this whole argument is about.
ss->ss is horrible, it is indefensible, period.
In any linked list the previous node is always [struct]->prev and the next pointer is always [struct]->next. Those two things explain exactly what is going on, no confusion it is crystal clear to anyone reading the code.
Writing struct->next != null might take a few more keystrokes but is is crystal clear, leaves nothing to chance and on top of that it takes no more work for the RTL and I might be mistaken but I think it takes a few less instruction cycles. Although I have never bothered to look at the generated code from the compiler, my guess is that the end result is no different from using the idiom of var++ -v- var = var + 1.
Hmmm, sorry to disagree with you but if you were working in my shop and you wrote something like that, a warning of "That's enough of that shit" would be immediate. Repeating that behavior would result in an invitation to go practice your "craft" elsewhere.
As many many others have pointed out in this and other articles on the same subject there is little to be gained by this type of nonsense and in many cases much to be lost. An as another poster pointed out in a reply to your post, the reliance on a null pointer being treated as boolean is both risky and stupid since form one compiler implementation to another that evaluation is subject to change. even if you wanted to write this statement this way then to make it at least a proper statement then it should be: "for(ss = s->ss; ss!=null; ss = ss->ss);" ss != null is guaranteed to evaluate as boolean ss simply being null is not.
The Supreme Court is not going to let this just slide on by. This type of technology has been dealt with. See KYLLO V. UNITED STATES (99-8508) 533 U.S. 27 (2001) . The decision was summarized as:
Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a “search” and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.
Since we hold the Thermovision imaging to have been an unlawful search, it will remain for the District Court to determine whether, without the evidence it provided, the search warrant issued in this case was supported by probable cause–and if not, whether there is any other basis for supporting admission of the evidence that the search pursuant to the warrant produced.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed; the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
I grock the lib concept, each program gets it's own data segment and the code is run in a single image ( if you will ) and that conserves memory. Each data area is private to the program unless they explicitly share it through some IPC mechanism.
This is interesting as it seems like a way to write malware. If I wanted to deliberately run the machine into the ground I could just look for those data area's and keep attempting to write to them and force the OS to keep duplicating them over and over again. Now you could do the same thing by just having a program continue to allocate memory for itself, but this seems to a be a way to do so without having anything being able to detect that you are allocating memory on your own, just using the OS as your proxy to eventually suck up all the machine resources.
Being somewhat ignorant of the inner workings of XEN, VMWare, KVM and the like the very idea that VM's would share memory at all seems rather risky in terms of them being sandboxed from each other. Beside a hypervisor being able to allow many VM's to run basically any OS, it would also seem that there is a security element involved eg: running Windows in a VM and Linux in another and NetWare in yet another the three would not have the ability to know the other were there and therefor be safe from being hacked into from Windows malware or affected by an ABEND ( basically a kernel panic ) from NetWare.
I can see the Hypervisor being able to move each VM's memory footprint around, but why would you desire a VM to mingle memory with another VM, or am I missing some salient fact(s) and or point?
Not so much.
I do however completely agree with your sig.
they are talking about Service Oriented Architecture and that translates to the WWW
This is factually wrong, and is a pretty good example of the sort of "talking about something you don't understand" problem that readers have with your post.
Is it? Cloud computing, it is all the rage, it is Software As Service, it is rent me version of software and then there is this Wikipedia article that does seem to support my assertion. As to the main point of me being any of the rather derogatory you used, the reply was keenly about Java, less about SOA, and any amount of research does support my assertions that while Java is a great idea, in practice it is just as problematic as any other language as far as cross platform use goes and as for the various implementations of Java VM's ( of which there are no less then 30 I submit is is even more problematic. I for one am quite happy to have GCC on Linux as it is pretty much the same ( with a very few exceptions ) from distro to distro.
Uhm, well normally I wouldn;t respond to such a vitriolic rant but I can't help myself because I am laughing so hard so here goes, fuck it I got karma to burn as they say...
Unfortunately the implementation is poor.
Can you name a faster and more reliable implementation? Didn't think so.
A faster more reliable implementation of?? I mean if you are going to yell at me at least say what you are yelling about.
Java held out the promise of write it once run it anywhere, but that promise has yet to be fulfilled as there are still differences from platform to platform that make developing in it a chore rather then enjoyable work.
If you use pure java code the cross platform stuff just works. Period.
Tell that to the rest of the people who have said the opposite. Not that they are supporting my argument, but they do seem to be.
Most of the problems are with the various implementations of both JIT's and VM's and mostly having to do with how things are abstracted eg: big -v- little endian, file access and those sorts of things.
What does this nonsensical gibberish mean?
Uhm I don't quite know what to say here. Are you saying you don't know what JIT means? Don't know what VM means?
The tons of lib's that are mentioned as a god send have their own problems as well but that has more to do with programmer quality then anything else, but even the well designed and written ones still overlook the JIT and VM problems and then you end up having damn quirky behavior that can take weeks to track down, hence the problem of everyone sending out a complete JRE with their program and you end up in JRE hell with 14 different versions of JRE's on your system.
If you target older jre's you'll get very good compatibility across the board. There used to be issues caused by Microsoft's JRE... but that's why they built it. If you target a bleeding edge ANYTHING, you're going to have compatibility problems.
That suggestion seems rather counter intuitive since as the various JRE's are updated there are "just gotta have" features that either fix old problems or introduce new functionality, but yes I suppose you can stay with an older version, but the problem is OS's change, kernels change and therefor something that worked in an older version might not work when the OS/kernel changes.
I liked the IDEA of having SUN control Java because at least things would have been consistent but that failed as well with to damn many versions being released. Now we have everyone and their grandmother writing JVM's JIT's and JRE's and none of them do anything exactly the same which has thrown ever more variability into the mix and just made everything messier since suddenly you now had to install vendor X's JRE or VM because some fool decided that it made everything 1% faster and they JUST had to have it or alternatively it had a COOL name.
Why do you keep randomly throwing the acronym "JIT" everywhere? Again, you just poorly restated your earlier comment which isn't true and makes little sense.
Uhmm I am not trying to be insulting, but JIT is a term that is very commonly used to refer to (J)ust (I)n (T)ime compilers in lots of languages, but they really got traction with JAVA because of the dramatic ( an order of magnitude ) increase in performance over interpreted Java
I see the biggest problem with WEB development today as two things. 1. Lack of a statefull connection and 2. The proliferation of languages with linguistic and syntactual differences but little else to set them apart except a fan club. PHP, Ruby, Python, VB, Perl, all of them doing the same thing, serving the content.
1) ???? How does this affect Java in anyway? 2) ???? H
It would be impossible to get everyone to agree on the ONE language, that is a given, just look at the arguments of "pure" C -v- C++ -v- anything else so yes I agree. I think the problem boils down to project management mostly. I mean there is nothing generally wrong with any of them ( my own pet peeve is Python but I digress), each have their pluses and minuses so I think my chief complaint is walking into a project that is implemented in a smörgåsbord of languages, there is some Perl here, some Java there a little Python someplace else and throw in some PHP and a pinch of Ruby just for fun. Likely as not a lot of the original authors are gone and you just have a mess, albeit a mess that works, but a mess never the less. Poke it in the wrong place and the whole thing comes crashing down.
Unfortunately the implementation is poor.
Java held out the promise of write it once run it anywhere, but that promise has yet to be fulfilled as there are still differences from platform to platform that make developing in it a chore rather then enjoyable work.
Most of the problems are with the various implementations of both JIT's and VM's and mostly having to do with how things are abstracted eg: big -v- little endian, file access and those sorts of things.
The tons of lib's that are mentioned as a god send have their own problems as well but that has more to do with programmer quality then anything else, but even the well designed and written ones still overlook the JIT and VM problems and then you end up having damn quirky behavior that can take weeks to track down, hence the problem of everyone sending out a complete JRE with their program and you end up in JRE hell with 14 different versions of JRE's on your system.
I liked the IDEA of having SUN control Java because at least things would have been consistent but that failed as well with to damn many versions being released. Now we have everyone and their grandmother writing JVM's JIT's and JRE's and none of them do anything exactly the same which has thrown ever more variability into the mix and just made everything messier since suddenly you now had to install vendor X's JRE or VM because some fool decided that it made everything 1% faster and they JUST had to have it or alternatively it had a COOL name.
I see the biggest problem with WEB development today as two things. 1. Lack of a statefull connection and 2. The proliferation of languages with linguistic and syntactual differences but little else to set them apart except a fan club. PHP, Ruby, Python, VB, Perl, all of them doing the same thing, serving the content.
The fundamental paradigm of the web is broken and needs repair badly. The solution is to split it, as I have said before, into two distinct camps, the Application Web and the Text and Pretty Picture Web because trying to mix the two has proven to be a miserable failure.
Perhaps HTML5 will provide some relief but I think it will simply complicate things more and cause more problems then it is worth when trying to mix the two, but we will see.
Ever looked at the water coming down the Mississippi? I wonder what the silt content per liter of water is?
Now I am not a RO expert, not by a long shot, but I know that the water coming to the membrane has to be fairly particulate free.
I really cannot fathom what kind of pre-filtering would have to be done to make this work in such a river basin. Perhaps in am area where there is a huge glacier run off that is pretty clean to begin with. <shrug>
Don't get me wrong, I wasn't objecting, merely opining based upon what information I had and the history of usenet.
It will be interesting to watch as freenet matures to see if it really catches on, and then what the unintended side affects of it popularity will be, if any.
From what you have described it sounds like FidoNet with a lemmon twist.
Ok, you missed something in your A to D to A conversion classes.
Take a 440 hz tone, make it a perfect sign wave, no distortion, it is theoretically perfect in every sense of the term and lasts exactly one second.
Now take that same sine wave and digitize it and the theoretical result is a perfect digital representation of that sine wave that lasts for exactly one second.
Now this is embossed onto a pressed CD.
Now here were are at playback time. The laser emits a beam that either reflects or not for a given period of time, thereby recreating the digital bit stream.
Now introduce a poor quality lens, a misaligned lens or perhaps even a diffamp that is out of balance, or some logic gates that were poorly manufactured so that their rise and or decay time is slow and you end up distorting the "perfect digital stream" that is fed to the the next set of components and the the problems just cascade from there.
The notion that one set of bits is different from the other is a very real situation if one of those sets of bits has their timing stretched or compressed which can lead to very audible artifacts in the playback, aka distortion.
Remember in digital we only have two basic elements in which to encode information and that is the ON/OFF ( digital 1 and 0 ) and the amount of time the "1" is present or the amount of time the "0" is present. When the timing gets flaky then things start to go wrong with the final result. If you don't believe me ask anyone who has ever designed a digital device and they will refer you to a very large drawing of the timing diagrams that are absolutely critical to the device functioning properly, if at all.
Digital is either in sync and functioning or it is not with a very small amount of variability. Analog on the other hand has billions of nuanced variations on "working or not". Get a little fur on your square wave, who cares, it makes no difference to the on/of state. Get a little fur on the sine wave and it makes a LOT of difference in the final product.
It will work, for a while.
Then it will suffer that same fate as usenet did with massive amounts of spam and drive the coasts of keeping it up and running until it collapses under it's own weight, much like usenet did.
Distributed systems work well when they are controlled or at least carefully health monitored.
Bandwidth isn't free and never will be and so someone or some group of people must bear the costs and at some point it will be like usenet and become prohibitively expensive because you are not just moving text ( as was initially envisioned by usenet ( with some minor binary file movement ) you are moving massive amounts of data in the form of large binaries..
As long as Freenet stays in the background noise it will survive, after that it will be shutdown, not by any central authority, but by the users themselves.
If TPB had been quiet, under the radar ( picked a different name ) and not been thumbing their noses at the rest of the world they might still be there.