A lot of ARM SoCs, particularly in the mobile world, have always had features like this. Apple even explicitly advertises it as a security feature on their iDevices. I think the difference here is because x86/PC has traditionally been one of the more open platforms, so attempts at locking it down are more strongly opposed. The PC is one of the few remaining computing devices where you can still inspect, modify, and develop with relative freedom.
There's a lot of new stuff coming in the ARM world which goes way beyond what they have today. (I know about a couple under NDA, and about the current state of the art, so I have to assume there are others).
The best "demo" of this in a fairly open way is USB Armory; they exposed the best features currently available in a developer friendly way. But there are some other things coming which are even better.
(I care about end users being able to trust remote servers; I don't really care about remote content owners being able to trust local client devices. There are usually no rights issues with the former, and DRM is the obvious (but not only) use case for the latter. I generally believe whoever buys a piece of hardware deserves full rights to it, but there are cases where that's an organization and they have ever right to expect all of their widely-deployed hardware is untampered...for instance, a closed computing environment for processing PII of third parties.)
I live close to switzerland's borders, and it's incredible the disparity in terms of salary/cost of living between switzerland and all it's neighbors.
I do not consider myself poor, but there's no way I can afford any sort of holiday in switzerland.
I have friends and some colleagues in switzerland: for them, a year's rent of my house would equal for roughly a single month of their salary. For those living close to Geneve, sometimes less.
Yeah, in Switzerland I live decently but I am not rich by any means. To visit friends I frequently travel to Germany and everytime I realise just how big a difference it is for many things.
In the beginning I always had the feeling of something wrong when going to a supermarket there, because for me the gap was so crazily big.
Approaches similar to unexec() are quite common in lisp-like environments, so emacs doesn't come as a "surprise" here.
There's no reason emacs needs to use the glibc's malloc implementation though, especially given emacs has it's own built-in (and probably neglected) malloc for other platforms.
Yep. Emacs builds and runs (and presumably unexecs) on many non-glibc platforms. This is more likely an optimization for it on glibc.
"According to Paul Eggert, making unexec more portable has been on the to-do list for a while, "and this will light more of a fire under it". Concerns that Emacs might not build using a new Glibc API (which has not even been written yet) that came up earlier in the thread are not a problem, he said. "Emacs should still build and run even if the glibc API is changed, as Emacs ./configure probes for the glibc malloc-related API and falls back on its own malloc implementation otherwise.""
Well no it does not unexec on other platforms. And the figures in the article suggest it is annoyingly slow to start on other platforms. This is all about making the Gnu editor work well on the Gnu OS. It builds and runs elsewhere but startup is slow.
Note that C++ has "extern C" for the same purpose, and many people do not seem to be aware of it.
You can perfectly write a C++ library and expose a C-safe subset. I've done so many times.
The problem arises if you need to expose objects (with virtual methods), which C obviously doesn't have as the ffi is basically restricted to plain functions and record types.
I wished Qt just split into a different widget set for mobile. The interaction behavior is significantly different that attempting to reuse the same UI for both mobile and desktop will result in a terrible experience on both.
Likewise, QML is just plainly useless on the desktop, and much slower to booth. Unfortunately, the performance regression in Qt5 is there also if you don't use it, and that shouldn't be.
Qt5 being slower than Qt4 is the main reason I've been moving slowly towards copperspice (http://www.copperspice.com/) for newer projects. The fact that moc is no longer necessary removes also the main paint point of qt.
I found QML items to be very useful on the desktop. Unlike the old widgets, they can easily be overlayed over an OpenGL scene. That makes them a great choice for a whole swath of software.
I'm definitely intending to try writing a Doom clone when 5.7 comes out - thats when the QML Compiler is open sourced, and thats the first iteration after Qt3D is API stable, so it should be fun to work with.
I'm just curious of how much force multiplier you can get writing the menus with QML and the game with Qt3d.
How exactly is QML and Qt5 slower? It's quick to start and UI actions are immediate and smooth.
Forgive me for not knowing, since I've never used Qt Widgets before. I'm writing a desktop app with QML and it's fast and smooth thanks to the OpenGL acceleration.
If you have a classical desktop interface where you reach 100+ widgets (which sounds like a lot but is easily reachable with just a toolbar, some buttons and a form), the difference is noticeable when interacting even on recent hardware (i5+).
For example, since I work in visualization, I often tie data widgets to the GL canvas in order to provide realtime feedback. I also use Qt5 in order to provide keyboard accelerators. With QT5 the rendering latency grew so high that I couldn't provide realtime feedback anymore, and I had to batch requests (and finally reverted to Qt4).
Incidentally Qt5 widgets can be used in a GL context directly, but are way too slow to render and manage events to be used consistently at 60 fps (they're not designed for that, so their scope in this sense is not as broad as it can really be). It's actually faster to give them their own GL context in order not to interfere with your pipeline, which kinds-of defeat the point.
I've also found that the additional JS glue doesn't provide any benefit unless you go entirely QML.
The histogram is actually a ListView, and each delegate is actually not just the bar for each date, but also the background color, the highlight color for the current date, and the date text that's above each bar. Using model updating, it responds nearly instantly even though there are a thousand days in the view, and the source data is a big ol' SQLite query with C++ postprocessing.
I don't know if that's helpful to you, though. Would that count as one widget in your parlance?
By Widget I mean any object which is a QWidget and is bound by some other widget (so I do not count plain QObjects) that you need for your UI.
ListViews are optimized for display of lists, obviously, so they generally instantiate only visible elements in the view, and delegates do not even undergo geometry negotiation so they're a bit lighter than a regular widget.
Still, if you do visualization or animation, the UI must respond within 1ms in order not to be noticeable, and that's very hard to attain with Qt5.
I doubt people using QML on mobile devices really understand the issue either, since when mobile developers speak of "animations" they generally mean some random transition of the UI itself. Often, the operation is not even performed in the background, but rather simply sequenced (so that the animation appears to be smooth, but the actual delay is completely absorbed by the user). In these scenarios, times up to 250ms/300ms might still be felt "instantaneous" as they're shorter than the transition. For me, it's outrageous.
It says it is "derived from" and "inspired by" it. But it also says "Our libraries can be linked directly into any standard C++ application" which the LGPL of Qt 4 disallows (unless your application is open source, but then that isn't any application).
Copperspice is LGPL. Like Qt, it can be dynamically linked into any standard C++ application. The key is that the user needs to be able to instead use their own version of Qt/CS, if they want.
Easy: just provide a certificate that cannot be changed within FF (must be modified by changing a file in the installation directory). No preference needed.
This would allow developers to roll their own, and organizations to allow their custom policy as well (which could mean that the privileges of the user himself aren't sufficient to change the cert).
There's really no reason as of why this couldn't be implemented properly. There' also no reason to not include a switch for it, really. This is all just smoke: most users have the privileges to change the FF binary, meaning that in most contextes malware has too (either through social manipulation or through exploits).
Add-On Signing which can be automated does provide very little added security for the user, and just serves as a big pain the butt for everyone else involved.
I'm routinely questioned to do support for users, and I find malware extensions regularly installed in Chrome which has even stricter requirements. The other day I found a laptop with one extension that redirected google.com to a scraper. Chrome did EVEN include a drop-down warning just below the URL bar that the homepage was being currently redirected by an add-on. Did the user notice? Not a bit.
In fact, Chrome adding a WARNING for it made me feel even more sad: they know this is going on. Is FF going to do the same? If I was an user with an extension that did that for whatever reason I wanted, I would be furious as hell to see an added warning which I need to disable (IF possible), and that will be ignored by most users anyway.
Malware developers will just get by faster, so Mozilla will not be able to keep up with the list of addons to blacklist. At the same time, initial approvals for legitimate addons will get slower. Reporting issues with Addons is clearly insufficient as Chrome Store demonstrates. In fact, I'm also NOT ok with the idea that extensions can be blacklisted at all, in spite of that "added security" aura around it. By the same logic, if extensions are required to be signed, then blacklisting (and blacklisting updates) shouldn't be allowed to be disabled.
And, let's remind ourselves, that most of the extensions I've seen installed were side-loaded with other software (with "extras") that was installed in the system with the same privileges of the browsers. So really, I do expect malware to simply patch the FF binary to either disable the check or change the public key, or change it entirely with a patched version.
I do not support walled gardens of any kind.
Use a fork.
... or, you could ask everybody to walk, thereby "quadrupling" the effective capacity.
I've been in UK many times, and being able to effectively walk up all escalators due to the diligence of the people always impressed me. Coming from a country that doesn't have such respect for basic rules, it feels just wrong despite the gain of average efficiency.
That assumes that everyone is capable of walking on an escalator. I, for one, am not. I get vertigo, and am on the brink of a panic attack for the entire duration of my ride. I can barely step on one, let alone walk, particularly when going down.
I do look for an elevator whenever possible, but there are times when one is not available and I have to work myself up to the task. I have to grip the handrail with both hands, and focus on a point on the steps themselves.
I'm sure there other issues that people have - like being able to walk but not climb - that would prevent them from being able to walk. Therefore, it's best to have the option to stand on one side and walk on the other.
waves hand Knee problems here. I can walk up the escalator, but I really don't want to. There's a reason I'm on the escalator instead of the stairs next to them.
The current proposal (stand on both sides) assumes everybody is capable of standing on an escalator. I, for one, am not. I get vertigo, I get mad, I get sad. My body doesn't handle being stuck deep below the surface for very long times, so I must walk up. I usually don't do very long underground trips because of that condition.
I love the vertigo feeling in long escalators. When I go up, I tilt my head back and stare at the ceiling somewhat above the line of sight to the top. I almost have the sensation that the tube is vertical and I could free-fall backwards at any moment.
Anyway, I'm guessing the answer to your question is: control. You know that you can at any moment tilt your head forward and lose the vertigo sensation. So you are safe and in control and you also feel safe and in control. That makes the experience enjoyable (I assume).
Ah. See, I have this vertigo too, but it's always on. And I stumbled on escalators a couple of time already, so that increasing my vertigo with 30-50 meters below me doesn't feel like a particularly good idea.
Probably the same way that some people enjoy roller coasters, sky diving, walking tightropes, climbing vertical walls, ski jumping, flying trapeze, skating or boarding down a "half pipe" and various other "extreme sports" without getting a panic attack.
I get vertigo when I'm on a stopped escalator! The habit of seeing the world move is incredibly sticky and makes me dizzy, even if I take the broken escalator twice a day.
OTOH I love stepping down an escalator 2-by-2, the brain has to calculate how far the foot should jump given the size of the steps and the pace of the landscape, it's fun.
When traveling down, would turning around and facing the other direction help?
It might also allow you to start a short conversation with the traveler above you, eg. "I have vertigo which makes going down escalators tough"... would that sort of distraction be helpful or not?
I've violated that rule pretty much every time I've been on the tube and I never had anything but positive responses (and my head is still firmly attached).
I long ago made a decision that saves me enormous amounts of headache: if you say or do something I will interpret that in the simplest and most straightforward way possible without trying to second-guess ulterior motives or secondary (or further) layers.
Exceptions: poetry, music, jokes and other cultural expressions.
Before then I was always chasing my own tail with 'what do they mean?', which is pointless, if they meant something they could say that particular thing outright and get it over with.
This is symmetrical, so, I don't want to 'wash my hands', I would like to use the toilet. When I'm hungry I say so and when I say 'no problem' it really means that so we can move on.
All in all this made life a lot easier, though from time to time it can make for comedy.
Honestly, I don't know. The anxiety overtakes me to the point where I can barely communicate with the people I know, mush less those I don't. Also, once I'm on, I'm frozen. I've worked up all my nerve just to get on, so I couldn't see myself turning around.
As I say, I try to avoid the escalator, if nothing other than to be courteous. However, sometimes I use it out of courtesy as well, such as when I'm with a group of friends, and don't want them to have to wait on me. When I do need to use it, I've developed a pretty good system of keeping the anxiety in check - sort of a deer in the headlights approach, where my gaze is focused on my shoes.
It also ignores that the density of people in an hypothetical all-walking escalator has to be much lower, because walking people maintain a larger personal space. The graphics imply the density on the walking half of a split elevator is something like a 1/10th the standing half.
Sure, but most people do not walk ten times as fast (or even twice as fast) as their escalators lift them.
Visual inspection of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fNDgwp_w_s suggests that when two people enter the escalator side by side, the walker exits the escalator at about the same time as the stander is 75% of the way up it (~=133% of the rate of speed). The density of the walking side is surprisingly high to me (maybe accounted for by the short span relative to the monsters I'm used to on WMATA MetroRail), about 60% of the standing side. This leaves 80% throughput for the walking side of short-span split escalators relative to the standing side, only a ten percent overall cut in capacity for this one escalator in Singapore.
That number will probably go down the taller the escalator is, as the walking side slows down due to personal stamina (adjusted walking speed and percent willing to walk), and bunching, a phenomena we're familiar with from busses.
If walking is just 50% faster than riding (i.e. walkers go at half the speed of the escalator), but requires 50% more space, then it's a break-even situation for capacity. And a win for latency.
It doesn't look like a very busy time, in that video. I count about 10 people standing on one of the escalators while there are 8 walkers going by them. There are some irregular gaps among the walkers; more walkers could easily be accomodated; it's just not busy enough; I don't really see a backlog of people waiting at the bottom; everyone is just marching naturally toward the escalator and getting on.
In the graphics, they are spread apart because they are substantially less than half (all the others choose to stand). Walking sure requires a larger spacing, but I would say 1.5-2 times the regular one, not 10.
I'm reminded of the escalators and NY Penn station. People wait in big huddles to get on the escalator, stand crowded and unable to move with none of that "pass on the left" bit. Meanwhile, a massively wide flight of stairs stands in the middle of the escalators that will often be quite empty even as the crowds to go up the escalator start forming. Hell, they're empty enough people are putting ads on those stairs: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/165/364250541_49959802e8.jpg?...
If there are stairs as an alternative to an escalator I always take the stairs unless it's completely empty or I'm carrying something very heavy. I've yet to encounter a staircase built as a part of modern, public transit infrastructure that was too long for a healthy adult to walk.
If you'd like to encounter one, visit Covent Garden. One of London's deepest tube stations, it has a spiral staircase with 193 steps - the equivalent of a 15-storey building.
That's no problem for an athletic 30-year-old like me - but it'd probably be difficult for a tired elderly fat person wearing high heels while carrying a child and a suitcase.
I used to get my daily exercise walking the ~150 stairs at Goodge Street, and I hadn't ever thought to do the maths to turn that into a building. Strangely I'd never even consider climbing a building that tall, but as a single flight of stairs it was fine.
I would have liked to take those stairs when I last visited London, but I didn't want to keep my family waiting. They preferred to take the lift. At least I think it was that station. It had a lift and a very tall spiral staircase.
I guess I can call an elevator in London a lift...
Ooh, I used to do that as well. Seemed sensible since I was normally being tremendously lazy and getting the tube to there from CHX (in my flimsy defence, even before they buggered everything up around TCR station, the walk from CHX to Goodge Street was mildly unpleasant.)
I get really disorientated doing those stairs. You get into a zone about 2/3 the way up where you just assume it goes on for ever as it's just a uniform spiral dotted with the occasional tourist who can't read "15 story building".
I I see a bottleneck at an escalator, I like to take the stairs and then watch where I would be in the bottlekneck to estimate how long it would have taken me to take the escalator to validate my choice of taking the stairs.
Yes, stairs. I use stairs everywhere. However, some places don't have stairs. It seems the public transit infrastructure doesn't think there are people who can and want to walk in the cities nowadays.
The first time you ride that you are not going to want to walk down it, let alone be forced to walk down it!
Other replies to your comment also show a lack of understanding that there are often no stairs because it's an underground station. Like deep underground so they didn't bother with stairs.
They could have the ALL STAND rule for some stations, ALL WALK for others.
Since the government is willing to FORCE people to things they don't want effectively breaking a COMMON RULE OF THE TRADITION they shouldn't bother being reasonable.
Perhaps they should also set optimal speeds and force people to comply. Wait, that's what they're doing!
It's not possible to walk up them for a lot of people (health reasons). Even fit people have trouble in some stations as the escalators can be very steep and very long.
Even fit people have trouble in some stations as the escalators can be very steep and very long.
Also, the ambient temperature and other atmospheric properties are far from ideal for physical exertion in many of these stations.
That doesn't matter so much if you're generally fit and completely healthy. If, however, you have something like asthma, the environment potentially exacerbates the condition even if you're otherwise in good shape for that kind of exercise.
More likely, that would reduce the capacity even further, as walking people need to have more space between them than standing people, in order to avoid stepping on each others heels.
Given that there are two escalators per direction, making the middle ones purely for walkers would probably create the necessary incentives to get ~2/3 walking to bypass the longer queues on the sides..
Well, the point of the article was that if people are standing on one side, you've only got half efficiency, so if they take a whole escalator and make it walkers only and double up the other one, nothing is gained. At least if the outer was stand only and the middle was current rule, there's a 25% increase.
I think the article is missing the obvious point that the queue at the bottom affects walkers as well as standers even though it is being formed by the delays caused by standers needing more time on the escalator. Allow walkers up the middle well separated escalator without interference and many more people would walk.
I doubt it. Even if you are relatively fit, many of these escalators are equivalent to 2 - 3 flights of stairs, after sitting standing in a hot carriage for 30mins plus.
The speed that you are expected to ascend as a "walker" is high. I know, because I used to climb every day, and I would get disapproving noises/looks if I failed to climb with sufficient speed.
That doesn't apply everywhere - e.g. Cutty Sark DLR only has two escalators and I can think of a few places which have three shared between up/down (split on morning/evening peak traffic.)
People walking have to keep some space between them, and people also walk/climb stairs at different rates. You can only climb the escalator as fast as the person in front of you, and them the person in front of them. It only takes one slow-poke to hold everyone up.
So people not walking might in fact, on average, increase the throughput vs. all-walking.
why not have stairs between the escalators with arrows painted on them indicating up/down if not two sets clearly divided by the escalators themselves?
One thing to take into mind, you have to set your rules based on the lowest common denominator or the most disruptive. When people don't have any expectation of being punished for not respecting others or the rules they are in the most disruptive category. Hence they will stand on the left regardless and as such you need to adjust for it. Face it, there are just too many rude or don't care people in this world from a generation or two of being told its not your fault or others will adjust to you.
The reason I said roll isn't counted is because I meant rolling the pen along the long axis (like the way it would roll off of a table)[1] - that I presume isn't being tracked? (If you hold its orientation and pressure and location of tip constant, but kind of roll it between your fingers, that wouldn't cause a detectable change would it?)
Is that what musesum meant though by 5 axes? namely x/y on the screen, pressure on the screen, and 2 of the 3 of pitch, roll, and yaw?....
One trick is to use the eraser as a tip and to cover the tablet with a neoprene skin stretched tight. The result is a really light and spongy stroke. Has a very sensual feel.
It's awesome, but if it weren't for patents, we would have pens on every device with a touch screen now. I use wacom styluses for work, and mind, they're egregiously fine, but wacom is trying to protect their own interest with the cintiq series.
It's about time there's some active competition in the field.
The new X1 Yoga, shipping with a pen, makes me think it's actively the best device for notekeeping just besides the Microsoft Surface (and comparatively cheaper to booth).
I only wonder if they improved on their pen accuracy though.
I also found the 256 pressure levels offered by n-trig to be generally insufficient for artistic work (for comparison, even the cheapest wacom tablet has 2k).
That being said, it's awesome that we're finally getting a pen in these devices, and not some toy that you need to use with a glove.
I expect AMD to clean up Intel's act on this.