Ken Thompson once presented a hack where he modified the C compiler to insert a backdoor in the generated code for the UNIX login code (and only that one specific module!). So trusting the compiler to do what you say is NOT an "of course".
And how can I trust the cpu to actually execute the code as compiled and not insert it's own microcode into the process? And how can I trust the memory chips that hold my data to not clandestinely copy it off someplace else?
No no, the only solution is to catch the butterflies whose wings flapped and waterboard them to learn the truth.
Do you have any idea of what would be involved? What do you think, that the bad guys (or the good ones, at that) have Star Trek-level technology? Methinks that you would do well to learn some physics and engineering.
Just change the gravitational constant of the universe.
The criticism is "Don't over-generalize", and then presents a very specific example that is the exception, not the norm. Your typical open source project is indisputably lacking on documentation.
This case is the test. They threw the book at a guy obviously donating to a terrorist organization pretending to be something it isn't. Prosecutors are building a weapon for future use. This is also why it's focused at an individual, the lots and lots of the others are being ignored so they can slam-dunk this case and make it the example.
In a few years from now, suppose you decide to donate to what is obviously not a terrorist organization, but runs contrary to the goals of the government (an ACLU, an EFF, a Wikileaks, any number of organizations). This weaponized test case can help support throwing the book at you, too.
I'm a paper towel man. Every advance in technology since then has made things worse.
Here, here. And taps with actual knobs on them, too.
1. Soap up 2. Rub hands 3. Turn on water 4. Lather up 5. Rinse 6. Quickly grab paper towel, use it to turn off water 7. Toss, get one drying towel 8. Dry hands, keep towel to use to open restroom door 9. Toss in garbage provided inches from the door.
Perfectly hygenic, no triclosan required. Also, 2 minutes of hate for those awful push-taps that are never open long enough to properly wash your hands, compelling the user to either cut it short or pushing the [unclean] button again.
Buyers are not much at risk. It is the sellers they are after.
Armed with a database, there's no need to rush. They can leisurely arrest everyone if they so choose. Diminishing returns after some point, but it's a "war on drugs" right?
More likely casual buyers are just going to be stored in the domestic spy dossier, just in case their interests ever run contrary to the government's interests (challenge an incumbent in office, protest government policy, whistleblower for wrongdoing, etc).
This is yet more proof that Obama is utterly corrupt. He vetoes a ban on Apple's products but not on Samsung's. How much more blatant can you get?
Does anyone have an armchair-legal analysis of these bans? Off the cuff, I would have questioned being able to veto a court judgment as being a huge stretch of Presidential Pardon privileges. But I don't really know where the bans originate.
Why not just publish their audio extensions to the DVI standard so everyone can use them? No, instead, let's Embrace a standard, Extend it for a feature, and Extinguish those that all of a sudden find themselves unable to cope with the extension.
If that were true why does it work with the magic "AMD" adapter and not others? Smells like "buy apple branded lightning cables or else"...
Because AMD is big enough to get sued and spanked. Generic adapters made by practically anonymous companies at commodity prices are impossible to track down and punish.
See, this is what happens when your only view on international politics is through Hollywood action movies and FPS video games. Simple to understand good guys (Americans, naturally) and bad guys (communist foreigners). The former; all that is right and god fearing in the world. The latter; inhuman, unthinking, immoral evil who eat babies.
Fine fine, it's the bad guys versus the guys that won the war and wrote the history books after the fact.
I was thinking the same thing (FoxAcid, does it run Linux?). Why ANYONE doing anything online a government thinks they shouldn't, would do so running MS Windows is a mystery. The only way I would even consider it is if the machine was completely blocked from internet access with the exception of the TOR proxy ports.
I do ALL my nefarious deeds while running Windows.
Technically, they're compromised machines belonging to someone else who have no idea who I am or what I'm doing, but -- mere technicalities -- they still run Windows!
"Does Nintendo really think they can compete with Atari, Magnavox, Intellivision, and Coleco with their upcoming 'NES'? Can they really elbow their way into this crowded market full of entrenched and experienced companies?"
The bottom fell out of gaming in 1983. The entrenched and experienced companies were all twisting in the wind when the NES arrived. A lot of the secret to Nintendo's success in the west was distancing itself from existing video game systems that plug into a tv and billing itself as a toy you plug into the tv. The loss of a joystick was also great in pushing this image, although a feature of the original Famicom and not a change made for the exclusive benefit of taking market share. They also had a great PR machine that drove customer demand while simultaneously strong arming their partners and retailers: no discounting, no consignment, hardware lockout to enforce licensed developers only and bill it as a "quality" seal.
"Does Sony really think they can compete with Sega, Nintendo, NEC and Neo*Geo with their upcoming 'Playstation'? Can they really elbow their way into this crowded market full of entrenched and experienced companies?"
When you consider that Sony's Playstation is less of a from-scratch built platform than it was really a spin-off the SNES, the analogy doesn't make sense. A better analogy for the period for a from-scratch platform from the time period might be 3DO, which you mistakenly placed in your following section. As far as the competitors? SNK's NeoGeo never really hit any big numbers for home use, and NEC's position was obliterated from the west, and they were so desperate in Japan that they began to encourage out-and-out pornographic games on their PC-FX platform.
"Does Microsoft really think they can compete with Sony, Nintendo, Sega, 3D0 and Atari with their upcoming 'Xbox'? Can they really elbow their way into this crowded market full of entrenched and experienced companies?"
By the time XBox was out, The only real players on the market were Sega, Sony, and Nintendo, and Sega was on it's last legs as a hardware maker. 3DO and Jaguar were already jokes and dental x-ray machine covers. Microsoft still hasn't make dime one on their gaming division, their existence in the market is due mostly to Microsoft's deep pockets.
Yeah, I think history says it can be done.
It can be done, but none of the moments of opportunity are here for Valve to make it the way you suggest. Steambox merely going to wind up a slightly better funded Ouya, a more fondly remembered than OnLive, and a money maker only for ebayers that will hoarde and sell it in 20 years.
If you're wrong, no one will remember, or you can make another prediction about something right around the corner that kept your original prediction from coming true. If, on the other hand, it happens to be right, you get bragging rights and credibility in finding your next job as an outside consultant "expert".
You can't really argue managed code isn't several orders of magnitude slower than native code.
Actually you can, and quite correctly too unless you dont know the meaning of the term 'orders of magnitude', a quick google search turns up a myriad of results that prove you have absolutely no idea and are just making baseless claims. Here is just first one i happened upon.
I suppose you can argue that, if you really are that stupid. Where's the source? I can draw a chart, too, you'd be a moron to draw conclusions about language throughput without seeing what's actually being written. It's very easy to write inefficient code in any language and stuff the ballot box for such a "benchmark." If you weren't a mouthbreather you'd know that.
The defending of managed code because the difference between a user waiting 0.2 seconds versus 2 milliseconds for a window to open
Yet another unsubstantiated random bullshit number.
Correction, a mouthbreather that is incapable of understanding examples and hyperbole. If I was going to use actual numbers, it would be addressed in number of cycles for a given platform. But, hey, believe what you want. You dragging down the average intelligence of all humans has nothing to do with me.
You can't really argue managed code isn't several orders of magnitude slower than native code.
I'd be interested in seeing what makes you so dismissive of even attempting to argue your assertion that managed code is (even at the lowest end definition of 'several') at least 1000 times slower than native code.
Try taking a compiler design course at your local university and educate yourself.
The other day I caught a bit of a documentary on the zombie craze. It ended with the head of some zombie research institute saying something along the lines that deep down, they view the zombie appocolypse as a metaphor for any disaster, manmade or natural. The same tactics, supplies, and training you need for a zombie outbreak can also be used to survive another hurricane Katrina.
It's also a plot convenience to allow the main characters to massacre hundreds of humans without people crying over the race, nationality, or color of the cannon fodder.
While Sparkfun does do some circuit design, looking at the comments on their site, it seems the more their "engineers" worked on it, the more complaints they get. Those that are closest to the sample application circuits are the most reliable.
Also, Sparkfun started a spam campaign a few months ago. Fuck them.
The idea that these platforms and languages (python/php/ruby/.NET/Java) provide "Point-and-stick software development" is fucking retarded, anyone who knows even the slightest bit about them knows immediately that such a statement is objectively false. But that very thing is often said by the sort of people have no understanding of them through choosing to ignore them or genuine inability to comprehend them.
Frankly the runtimes are so lightweight and efficient that if you cant manage to write a GUI control panel in say.Net that performs as well as native then you are just a shit programmer. But of course people who think the programming world begins and ends with C that have no understanding of anything else will immediately blame the language or the tools rather than admit they need to actually learn more.
There's only one reason for using high level languages at all. More efficient development, easier to support, and better cross compatibility. But all that is on one side of the equation. Execution is always going to be slower, and it gets worse the higher up you go.
You can't really argue managed code isn't several orders of magnitude slower than native code. Boxing/unboxing, automatic garbage collection, all of it's other benefits: none of it comes free.
The defending of managed code because the difference between a user waiting 0.2 seconds versus 2 milliseconds for a window to open for a window that is rarely (if ever) opened is just good economy if it's going to be cheaper to develop. That actually isn't really a testament to a programmer's skill, it's really a testament that computers are so powerful now that we can afford to waste that much computing power in forcing the machine to unravel all these human abstractions, when really it just wants to run machine code.
That said, I assure anyone that the actual business-end (not any human interface) of a video card's drivers is most certainly using C or C++, tops.
Plus, it's fairly descriptive - it's almost 4000 pixels wide, and it's 4 x the resolution of HD.
I don't see the problem here, and I don't think it's "just marketing". People would come up with their own shorthand anyway if it was marketed at 3840x2160.
It's also completely backwards to what the established systems are. Resolution for television has always been specified in the number of horizontal lines. This is a consequence of early CRT raster displays only caring how many times HSYNC and VSYNC are flickered. However many distinct analog values you can toss out on the display wires per line is completely open. This is why we talk about 1080p and not "2K" even though a 16:9 display with square pixels will have 1920 pixels per line.
For TV resolution to be rightfully called 4K, it really should have 4000 horizontal lines.
Slashdot Mirror
Ken Thompson once presented a hack where he modified the C compiler to insert a backdoor in the generated code for the UNIX login code (and only that one specific module!). So trusting the compiler to do what you say is NOT an "of course".
And how can I trust the cpu to actually execute the code as compiled and not insert it's own microcode into the process? And how can I trust the memory chips that hold my data to not clandestinely copy it off someplace else?
No no, the only solution is to catch the butterflies whose wings flapped and waterboard them to learn the truth.
Just like regular users can make edits, regular users can revert edits.
They should have edited it themselves to fix the error, but are you sure it wasn't just a newbie making a process mistake?
Reverting edits isn't very intuitive without any plugin helpers, it's hard to believe it would be the first thing newbies would do.
Do you have any idea of what would be involved? What do you think, that the bad guys (or the good ones, at that) have Star Trek-level technology? Methinks that you would do well to learn some physics and engineering.
Just change the gravitational constant of the universe.
How many posts have you made for this article that revolves around imaginary internet points? Ignore karma, you'll have a better time.
The criticism is "Don't over-generalize", and then presents a very specific example that is the exception, not the norm. Your typical open source project is indisputably lacking on documentation.
Open-source documentation is like an insomniac cat. Theoretically it exists somewhere, but no one's ever seen it.
Don't over-generalize. The open-source PostgreSQL project has the best documentation of a software project that I have ever seen, open- or closed-source.
Which is great news, if you happen to be having a problem with PostgreSQL.
This case is the test. They threw the book at a guy obviously donating to a terrorist organization pretending to be something it isn't. Prosecutors are building a weapon for future use. This is also why it's focused at an individual, the lots and lots of the others are being ignored so they can slam-dunk this case and make it the example.
In a few years from now, suppose you decide to donate to what is obviously not a terrorist organization, but runs contrary to the goals of the government (an ACLU, an EFF, a Wikileaks, any number of organizations). This weaponized test case can help support throwing the book at you, too.
I'm a paper towel man. Every advance in technology since then has made things worse.
Here, here. And taps with actual knobs on them, too.
1. Soap up
2. Rub hands
3. Turn on water
4. Lather up
5. Rinse
6. Quickly grab paper towel, use it to turn off water
7. Toss, get one drying towel
8. Dry hands, keep towel to use to open restroom door
9. Toss in garbage provided inches from the door.
Perfectly hygenic, no triclosan required. Also, 2 minutes of hate for those awful push-taps that are never open long enough to properly wash your hands, compelling the user to either cut it short or pushing the [unclean] button again.
Buyers are not much at risk. It is the sellers they are after.
Armed with a database, there's no need to rush. They can leisurely arrest everyone if they so choose. Diminishing returns after some point, but it's a "war on drugs" right?
More likely casual buyers are just going to be stored in the domestic spy dossier, just in case their interests ever run contrary to the government's interests (challenge an incumbent in office, protest government policy, whistleblower for wrongdoing, etc).
in the 'new america' you can't know if this kind of article is a fishing trap to find people who vocally disagree with the NSA.
Um, ok, then this is bad! Bad bad bad! I hope the NSA fixes their problems soon.
Love,
-A loyal civilian
This is yet more proof that Obama is utterly corrupt. He vetoes a ban on Apple's products but not on Samsung's. How much more blatant can you get?
Does anyone have an armchair-legal analysis of these bans? Off the cuff, I would have questioned being able to veto a court judgment as being a huge stretch of Presidential Pardon privileges. But I don't really know where the bans originate.
EEE - Embrace Extend Extinguish
Why not just publish their audio extensions to the DVI standard so everyone can use them? No, instead, let's Embrace a standard, Extend it for a feature, and Extinguish those that all of a sudden find themselves unable to cope with the extension.
If that were true why does it work with the magic "AMD" adapter and not others? Smells like "buy apple branded lightning cables or else"...
Because AMD is big enough to get sued and spanked. Generic adapters made by practically anonymous companies at commodity prices are impossible to track down and punish.
These "laws" only hamper the good guys.
See, this is what happens when your only view on international politics is through Hollywood action movies and FPS video games. Simple to understand good guys (Americans, naturally) and bad guys (communist foreigners). The former; all that is right and god fearing in the world. The latter; inhuman, unthinking, immoral evil who eat babies.
Fine fine, it's the bad guys versus the guys that won the war and wrote the history books after the fact.
Bigger battery, 'Gooooorgeous' 5.2" screen, 'traditional smartphone' buttons... dude, it's a telephone, not a woman.
Clearly. I won't look at a woman that doesn't have at least a 6" screen.
I was thinking the same thing (FoxAcid, does it run Linux?). Why ANYONE doing anything online a government thinks they shouldn't, would do so running MS Windows is a mystery. The only way I would even consider it is if the machine was completely blocked from internet access with the exception of the TOR proxy ports.
I do ALL my nefarious deeds while running Windows.
Technically, they're compromised machines belonging to someone else who have no idea who I am or what I'm doing, but -- mere technicalities -- they still run Windows!
"Does Nintendo really think they can compete with Atari, Magnavox, Intellivision, and Coleco with their upcoming 'NES'? Can they really elbow their way into this crowded market full of entrenched and experienced companies?"
The bottom fell out of gaming in 1983. The entrenched and experienced companies were all twisting in the wind when the NES arrived. A lot of the secret to Nintendo's success in the west was distancing itself from existing video game systems that plug into a tv and billing itself as a toy you plug into the tv. The loss of a joystick was also great in pushing this image, although a feature of the original Famicom and not a change made for the exclusive benefit of taking market share. They also had a great PR machine that drove customer demand while simultaneously strong arming their partners and retailers: no discounting, no consignment, hardware lockout to enforce licensed developers only and bill it as a "quality" seal.
"Does Sony really think they can compete with Sega, Nintendo, NEC and Neo*Geo with their upcoming 'Playstation'? Can they really elbow their way into this crowded market full of entrenched and experienced companies?"
When you consider that Sony's Playstation is less of a from-scratch built platform than it was really a spin-off the SNES, the analogy doesn't make sense. A better analogy for the period for a from-scratch platform from the time period might be 3DO, which you mistakenly placed in your following section. As far as the competitors? SNK's NeoGeo never really hit any big numbers for home use, and NEC's position was obliterated from the west, and they were so desperate in Japan that they began to encourage out-and-out pornographic games on their PC-FX platform.
"Does Microsoft really think they can compete with Sony, Nintendo, Sega, 3D0 and Atari with their upcoming 'Xbox'? Can they really elbow their way into this crowded market full of entrenched and experienced companies?"
By the time XBox was out, The only real players on the market were Sega, Sony, and Nintendo, and Sega was on it's last legs as a hardware maker. 3DO and Jaguar were already jokes and dental x-ray machine covers. Microsoft still hasn't make dime one on their gaming division, their existence in the market is due mostly to Microsoft's deep pockets.
Yeah, I think history says it can be done.
It can be done, but none of the moments of opportunity are here for Valve to make it the way you suggest. Steambox merely going to wind up a slightly better funded Ouya, a more fondly remembered than OnLive, and a money maker only for ebayers that will hoarde and sell it in 20 years.
I'm more offended by the article's picture. Crappy chinese plastic chips and a rounded-off red die?
If you're going to fake a casino "moneyshot" picture, you might want to visit one prior to doing so.
Make a prediction. Any prediction.
If you're wrong, no one will remember, or you can make another prediction about something right around the corner that kept your original prediction from coming true. If, on the other hand, it happens to be right, you get bragging rights and credibility in finding your next job as an outside consultant "expert".
You can't really argue managed code isn't several orders of magnitude slower than native code.
Actually you can, and quite correctly too unless you dont know the meaning of the term 'orders of magnitude', a quick google search turns up a myriad of results that prove you have absolutely no idea and are just making baseless claims. Here is just first one i happened upon.
I suppose you can argue that, if you really are that stupid. Where's the source? I can draw a chart, too, you'd be a moron to draw conclusions about language throughput without seeing what's actually being written. It's very easy to write inefficient code in any language and stuff the ballot box for such a "benchmark." If you weren't a mouthbreather you'd know that.
The defending of managed code because the difference between a user waiting 0.2 seconds versus 2 milliseconds for a window to open
Yet another unsubstantiated random bullshit number.
Correction, a mouthbreather that is incapable of understanding examples and hyperbole. If I was going to use actual numbers, it would be addressed in number of cycles for a given platform. But, hey, believe what you want. You dragging down the average intelligence of all humans has nothing to do with me.
You can't really argue managed code isn't several orders of magnitude slower than native code.
I'd be interested in seeing what makes you so dismissive of even attempting to argue your assertion that managed code is (even at the lowest end definition of 'several') at least 1000 times slower than native code.
Try taking a compiler design course at your local university and educate yourself.
The other day I caught a bit of a documentary on the zombie craze. It ended with the head of some zombie research institute saying something along the lines that deep down, they view the zombie appocolypse as a metaphor for any disaster, manmade or natural. The same tactics, supplies, and training you need for a zombie outbreak can also be used to survive another hurricane Katrina.
It's also a plot convenience to allow the main characters to massacre hundreds of humans without people crying over the race, nationality, or color of the cannon fodder.
While Sparkfun does do some circuit design, looking at the comments on their site, it seems the more their "engineers" worked on it, the more complaints they get. Those that are closest to the sample application circuits are the most reliable.
Also, Sparkfun started a spam campaign a few months ago. Fuck them.
The idea that these platforms and languages (python/php/ruby/.NET/Java) provide "Point-and-stick software development" is fucking retarded, anyone who knows even the slightest bit about them knows immediately that such a statement is objectively false. But that very thing is often said by the sort of people have no understanding of them through choosing to ignore them or genuine inability to comprehend them.
Frankly the runtimes are so lightweight and efficient that if you cant manage to write a GUI control panel in say .Net that performs as well as native then you are just a shit programmer. But of course people who think the programming world begins and ends with C that have no understanding of anything else will immediately blame the language or the tools rather than admit they need to actually learn more.
There's only one reason for using high level languages at all. More efficient development, easier to support, and better cross compatibility. But all that is on one side of the equation. Execution is always going to be slower, and it gets worse the higher up you go.
You can't really argue managed code isn't several orders of magnitude slower than native code. Boxing/unboxing, automatic garbage collection, all of it's other benefits: none of it comes free.
The defending of managed code because the difference between a user waiting 0.2 seconds versus 2 milliseconds for a window to open for a window that is rarely (if ever) opened is just good economy if it's going to be cheaper to develop. That actually isn't really a testament to a programmer's skill, it's really a testament that computers are so powerful now that we can afford to waste that much computing power in forcing the machine to unravel all these human abstractions, when really it just wants to run machine code.
That said, I assure anyone that the actual business-end (not any human interface) of a video card's drivers is most certainly using C or C++, tops.
It's easier to say.
Plus, it's fairly descriptive - it's almost 4000 pixels wide, and it's 4 x the resolution of HD.
I don't see the problem here, and I don't think it's "just marketing". People would come up with their own shorthand anyway if it was marketed at 3840x2160.
It's also completely backwards to what the established systems are. Resolution for television has always been specified in the number of horizontal lines. This is a consequence of early CRT raster displays only caring how many times HSYNC and VSYNC are flickered. However many distinct analog values you can toss out on the display wires per line is completely open. This is why we talk about 1080p and not "2K" even though a 16:9 display with square pixels will have 1920 pixels per line.
For TV resolution to be rightfully called 4K, it really should have 4000 horizontal lines.