I find the combo
emacs with nxhtml and CEDET (for php)
very nice and powerful (the only inconvenience is the startup time with CEDET, but that is what you get if you want semantic analysis performed by the editor).
I seem to remember there should be also something running under eclipse, though.
regards,
lg
Writing parallel code is difficult. Writing parallel code which makes sense even more. Actually, if you have a quad-core CPU and do ECB instead of CBC, then you can manage a 4x increase in performance
(The reason is that ECB encryptions might be done in parallel, as each of them is independent; for CBC you need to know
the encryption of textblock-1 in order to produce that of a block).
A counter mode (CTR) might make sense for ecryptfs, but the security analysis is definitely non-trivial to make.
Actually, it is amateurish at best to say that this implementation of ecryptfs "is not a toy"
(per http://code.google.com/p/kgpu/wiki/IozoneBenchmarkResults )
it is, in fact, something which seriously compromises security.
Actually, to build a cryptosystem off an NP-complete problem would be a very bad idea indeed.
It is worth observing that while NP problems are believed to be hard in general, most of the `average' instances
can be solved quite easily. There are several papers (Levin84 was the first, but see also
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.39.8775 ) on the topic.
A further remark: people seem to assume that "NP complete" means "as hard as conceivable". This is utterly
false. A solution to an NP problem can, by definition, be verified by a Turing machine in polynomial time; this
is not the case for more general classes of problems (for example those in class PR or R).
The linked article seems to be quite devoid of propercontent
Not quite what I would call an accurate and scientific approach!
This being said, there might be a grain of truth in the very fact that the more popular the browser the more "corner cases" are exercised (and thus have to be implemented). By corner cases, I do not mean what the standard dictates, but what you find (ab)used on way too many pages.
Compaq had changed its name to Digital when it still had time
[just being nostalgic and wondering who had the "bright" idea to dump development of the Alpha line in favour of ia64 ! ]
The point of this exploit is not to install a rootkit, but to do it without altering the kernel or the executables at all; this is clever & nice.
Yet, there is the "trascurable detail" that you have to become root first; this seems to be lost to the author of the second piece in the summary.
As the poster says, once you are root you can do anything you want (including, but not limited to, reflash the bios in many cases) and hide all your tracks; to get a rootkit hidden without messing the system, that is definitely more challenging.
To prepare a critical edition requires a non-trivial amount of effort and work, and it makes sense that it is counted as a creative activity: it is not just to "recover what is there", but also to propose and suggest a model in which a text might fit. Actually, the original text itself may not be subject to copyright (nor anybody might claim so) but the actual compilation does. So, while copyright on the texts of Homer has definitely expired (and it cannot be claimed by, for example, the Greek government as "rightful heir"), a critical edition of the Iliad is protected.
Actually, if one just wants to read an ancient work the point might have limited relevance
(since -usually- it might be possible to find late XIX century critical editions which are "good enough"). However, for scholarly study it is of the utmost importance to determine which lectio is being followed (and why).
For a paradoxical example of "what a commentator might do", I point out the novel "Pale Fire" by Nabukov [a short description is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_Fire ]
This is not supposed to happen in real life, though [even if some "comments" on sacred texts might have had even more radical effects]
I would like to add a further remark: most libraries and galleries control reproduction rights for their possessions (e.g. by forbidding to take pictures); this is something quite different from the copyright of the author.
For example, consider this page on the National Gallery web site:
http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/home/copyright.htm
The National gallery has copyright FOR ALL THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PAINTINGS [...] ON THE WEBSITE
and then they notice that
"For some more recent works in the collection the work itself will also be in copyright. "
There are already several project to scan and/or make available ancient texts [see, for example,
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ or http://www.archive.org/ , not to say of the more specialist sites like http://www.etana.org/ (for ancient near-east history) or the impressive Posner Collection at
http://posner.library.cmu.edu/Posner/ ]
However, most of these (with the remarkable exception of gallica and cmu)
mostly present late XIX
early XX century editions of the texts. This is good, but I feel it is definitely interesting to get also some "primary texts" online, which is what this project is doing [I don't quite like that la "Description de l'Egypte" is under 8000 BC- 499 AD, rather than 1800 AD - 1849 AD: the books are ABOUT Egyptian Antiquities, yet they were written after the Napoleonic expedition!]
I was going to complain about the need to use wget to get the books to browse off line, yet I have just seen that there actually is an option to download the texts as pdf files (alas not djvu); this is really a nice surprise; actually, I was expecting the donating libraries to try their utmost to prevent this [not that it would ever works]
I would say that this is really a worthy project.
P.S.
There is a small editorial here as well, but I don't know if it requires subscription to be read:
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090420/full/news.2009.377.html
If I well remember, there are ways to get a maximum of 3 processes in several other OS as well:
in VMS: set MAXPROCESSCNT to 5 (obviously);
in some old version of Linux (pre 2.4): set NR_TASKS to a suitable small number [I guess 10-something should work; there were not that may kernel threads back then]
To set the limits on v6 for the pdp11, just look at line 0144 on Lions' book:
#define NPROC 4
should do the trick, hopefully.
As such, I blame once more this product for its utter failure to innovate!
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz
