Recent blog entries

2 Aug 2015 benad   » (Apprentice)

10s Everywhere

So recently I installed Windows 10 on my MacBook Pro alongside Mac OS X Yosemite 10.10. If you're keeping count, that's four 10s.

Upgrading Windows 8.1 to 10 was a strange experience. First, the Windows 10 notification icon never showed up. Looking at the Event Logs of GWX.exe ("Get Windows 10", I guess), it kept crashing with "data is invalid" for the past few months. Yet, the same logs showed clearly that my license was valid and ready to be upgraded to 10. Luckily, Microsoft now offers the Windows 10 ISO download, and the software used to download and "burn" a USB key also allowed for an in-place upgrade with no need for a USB key or DVD.

Yet, after the upgrade, I noticed that all network connections were disabled. Yes, the Boot Camp drivers were installed correctly, and Windows insisted the drivers were correctly working, but it's as if the entire TCP stack was removed. I tried everything for a few hours, getting lost in regedit, so I gave up and used the option to revert back to Windows 8.1. Once back, it was now worse, with even all keyboards disabled.

Before reverting back to 8.1, I attempted to remove all 3rd-party software that could have an impact on the network, including an old copy of the Cisco VPN client and the Avast anti-virus. The Cisco VPN client refused to be uninstalled for some reason. Back on 8.1, I could easily remove the VPN client (using the on-screen keyboard), but it's as if 8.1 kept trace of the Avast install even though Avast was not there anymore. Luckily, I found the download link to the full offline Avast 2015 installer in the user forums. After doing so, both the keyboard and the network were enabled.

Having learned that VPN and Anti-virus software can break things in Windows 10, I uninstalled all of these, and then upgraded to 10 again. I had to reinstall the Boot Camp drivers for my model of MacBook Pro, and this time everything was working fine. I could restore easily Avast, but the old Cisco VPN driver clearly couldn't work anymore. This isn't a big issue, since I keep a Windows 7 virtual machine for that.

What about using Boot Camp in a virtual machine? Well, there are two workarounds I had to do to make it work with Parallels Desktop. First, Article ID 122808 describes how to patch the file C:\Windows\inf\volume.inf so that Parallels can detect the Windows 10 partition. It just so happens that I already had my copy of Paragon NTFS for Mac, so changing the file when booted in the Mac partition was easy. Then, from Article ID 116582, since I'm using a 64-bit EFI installation of Windows, I had to run their strange script. It needs administrator privileges, so I temporarily enabled that on my user account to run it. After all of this, Windows got a bit confused about the product activation, but after a few reboots between native and virtual machine modes, it somehow picked up the activation.

So, what about Windows 10 itself? For me, It worked fine. It isn't a huge upgrade compared to Windows 8.1, but it's more usable in a desktop environment. For Windows 7 users, I would definitively recommend it, maybe after a few months until they fix the remaining bugs. As usual, backing up your files is highly recommended (even if you don't upgrade).

Syndicated 2015-08-02 19:57:31 from Benad's Blog

2 Aug 2015 mikal   » (Journeyer)

The End of All Things

ISBN: 1447290496
I don't read as much as I should these days, but one author I always make time for is John Scalzi. This is the next book in the Old Man's War universe, and it continues from where The Human Division ended on a cliff hanger. So, let's get that out of the way -- ending a book on a cliff hanger is a dick move and John is a bad bad man. Then again I really enjoyed The Human Division, so I will probably forgive him.

I don't think this book is as good as The Human Division, but its a solid book. I enjoyed reading it and it wasn't a chore like some books this far into a universe can be (I'm looking at you, Asimov share cropped books). The conclusion to the story arc is sensible, and not something I would have predicted, so overall I'm going to put this book on my mental list of the very many non-terrible Scalzi books.

Tags for this post: book john_scalzi combat aliens engineered_human old_mans_war age colonization human_backup cranial_computer personal_ai
Related posts: The Last Colony ; The Human Division; Old Man's War ; The Ghost Brigades ; Old Man's War (2); The Ghost Brigades (2)


Syndicated 2015-08-02 00:39:00 from : Mikal, a geek from Canberra living in Silicon Valley (no blather posts)

2 Aug 2015 mako   » (Master)

Understanding Hydroplane Races for the New Seattleite

It’s Seafair weekend in Seattle. As always, the centerpiece is the H1 Unlimited hydroplane races on Lake Washington.

EllstromManufacturingHydroplaneIn my social circle, I’m nearly the only person I know who grew up in area. None of the newcomers I know had heard of hydroplane racing before moving to Seattle. Even after I explain it to them — i.e., boats with 3,000+ horse power airplane engines that fly just above the water at more than 320kph (200mph) leaving 10m+ (30ft) wakes behind them! — most people seem more puzzled than interested.

I grew up near the shore of Lake Washington and could see (and hear!) the races from my house. I don’t follow hydroplane racing throughout the year but I do enjoy watching the races at Seafair. Here’s my attempt to explain and make the case for the races to new Seattleites.

Before Microsoft, Amazon, Starbucks, etc., there were basically three major Seattle industries: (1) logging and lumber based industries like paper manufacturing; (2) maritime industries like fishing, shipbuilding, shipping, and the navy; (3) aerospace (i.e., Boeing). Vintage hydroplane racing represented the Seattle trifecta: Wooden boats with airplane engines!

The wooden U-60 Miss Thriftway circa 1955 (Thriftway is a Washinton-based supermarket that nobody outside has heard of) below is a picture of old-Seattle awesomeness. Modern hydroplanes are now made of fiberglass but two out of three isn’t bad.

miss_thriftwayAlthough the boats are racing this year in events in Indiana, San Diego, and Detroit in addition to the two races in Washington, hydroplane racing retains deep ties to the region. Most of the drivers are from the Seattle area. Many or most of the teams and boats are based in Washington throughout the year. Many of the sponsors are unknown outside of the state. This parochialness itself cultivates a certain kind of appeal among locals.

In addition to old-Seattle/new-Seattle cultural divide, there’s a class divide that I think is also worth challenging. Although the demographics of hydro-racing fans is surprisingly broad, it can seem like Formula One or NASCAR on the water. It seems safe to suggest that many of the demographic groups moving to Seattle for jobs in the tech industry are not big into motorsports. Although I’m no follower of motorsports in general, I’ve written before cultivated disinterest in professional sports, and it remains something that I believe is worth taking on.

It’s not all great. In particular, the close relationship between Seafair and the military makes me very uneasy. That said, even with the military-heavy airshow, I enjoy the way that Seafair weekend provides a little pocket of old-Seattle that remains effectively unchanged from when I was a kid. I’d encourage others to enjoy it as well!

Syndicated 2015-08-02 02:45:05 (Updated 2015-08-02 03:22:12) from copyrighteous

1 Aug 2015 mcr   » (Journeyer)

This is try two

Had to tweak some things in muse mode to generate things into the right directory, still think it is probably broken.

Syndicated 2015-08-01 19:43:00 from Michael's musings

1 Aug 2015 sye   » (Journeyer)

tar cvzf - Pictures/ |ssh sye@gogoclub "dd of=From1015PM.Picture.tar.gz"

783469+1 records in
783469+1 records out
401136581 bytes transferred in 148.714045 secs (2697369 bytes/sec)

1 Aug 2015 mcr   » (Journeyer)

This is try two

Had to tweak some things in muse mode to generate things into the right directory, still think it is probably broken.

Syndicated 2015-08-01 19:04:00 from Michael's musings

1 Aug 2015 marnanel   » (Journeyer)

Privation of good

I've always heard that the idea of "privation of good" was something Augustine came up with. (Summary: evil is not a thing in itself, but only the absence of good-- like how darkness is the absence of light.) But 300 years earlier, Epictetus was saying:

"As a mark is not set up for the sake of missing the aim, so neither does the nature of evil exist in the world." (Enchiridion, 27)

Isn't that the same idea?

This entry was originally posted at Please comment there using OpenID.

Syndicated 2015-08-01 09:47:02 from Monument

31 Jul 2015 dyork   » (Master)

Firewalls Now Looking At Intercepting SSH Traffic Via A MITM Attack

conexion manual ssh


Syndicated 2015-07-28 16:38:00 from : Mikal, a geek from Canberra living in Silicon Valley (no blather posts)

28 Jul 2015 bagder   » (Master)

HTTP Workshop, second day

All 37 of us gathered again on the 3rd floor in the Factory hotel here in Münster. Day two of the HTTP Workshop.

Jana Iyengar (from Google) kicked off this morning with his presentations on HTTP and the Transport Layer and QUIC. Very interesting area if you ask me – if you’re interested in this, you really should check out the video recording from the barbof they did on this topic in the recent Prague IETF. It is clear that a team with dedication, a clear use-case, a fearless view on keeping layers and a handy control of widely used servers and clients can do funky experiments with new transport protocols.

I think there was general agreement with Jana’s statement that “Engagement with the transport community is critical” for us to really be able to bring better web protocols now and in the future. Jana’s excellent presentations were interrupted a countless number of times with questions, elaborations, concerns and sub-topics from attendees.

Gaetano Carlucci followed up with a presentation of their QUIC evaluations, showing how it performs under various situations like packet loss etc in comparison to HTTP/2. Lots of transport related discussions followed.

We rounded off the afternoon with a walk through the city (the rain stopped just minutes before we took off) to the town center where we tried some of the local beers while arguing their individual qualities. We then took off in separate directions and had dinner in smaller groups across the city.


Syndicated 2015-07-28 20:06:21 from

28 Jul 2015 wingo   » (Master)

loop optimizations in guile

Sup peeps. So, after the slog to update Guile's intermediate language, I wanted to land some new optimizations before moving on to the next thing. For years I've been meaning to do some loop optimizations, and I was finally able to land a few of them.

loop peeling

For a long time I have wanted to do "loop peeling". Loop peeling means peeling off the first iteration of a loop. If you have a source program that looks like this:

while foo:

Loop peeling turns it into this:

if foo:
  while foo:

You wouldn't think that this is actually an optimization, would you? Well on its own, it's not. But if you combine it with common subexpression elimination, then it means that the loop body is now dominated by all effects and all loop-invariant expressions that must be evaluated for the expression to loop.

In dynamic languages, this is most useful when one source expression expands to a number of low-level steps. So for example if your language runtime implements top-level variable references in three parts, one where it gets a reference to a mutable box, then it checks if the box has a value, and and the third where it unboxes it, then we would have:

if foo:
  bar_location = lookup("bar")
  bar_value = dereference(bar_location)
  if bar_value is null: throw NotFound("bar")

  baz_location = lookup("baz")
  baz_value = dereference(baz_location)
  if baz_value is null: throw NotFound("baz")

  while foo:
    bar_value = dereference(bar_location)

    baz_value = dereference(baz_location)

The result is that we have hoisted the lookups and null checks out of the loop (if a box can never transition from full back to empty). It's a really powerful transformation that can even hoist things that traditional loop-invariant code motion can't, but more on that later.

Now, the problem with loop peeling is that usually values will escape your loop. For example:

while foo:
  x = qux()
  if x then return x

In this little example, there is a value x, and the return x statement is actually not in the loop. It's syntactically in the loop, but the underlying representation that the compiler uses looks more like this:

function qux(k):
  label loop_header():
    fetch(foo) -gt; loop_test
  label loop_test(foo_value):
    if foo_value then -> exit else -> body
  label body():
    fetch(x) -gt; have_x
  label have_x(x_value):
    if x_value then -> return_x else -> loop_header
  label return_x():
    values(x) -> k
  label exit():

This is the "CPS soup" I described in my last post. Point being, if we peel off the first iteration, then there are two possible values for x that we would return:

if foo:
  x1 = qux()
  if x1 then return x1
  while foo:
    x2 = qux()
    if x2 then return x2

I have them marked as x1 and x2. But I've also duplicated the return x terms, which is not what we want. We want to peel off the first iteration, which will cause code growth equal to the size of the loop body, but we don't want to have to duplicate everything that's after the loop. What we have to do is re-introduce a join point that defines x:

if foo:
  x1 = qux()
  if x1 then join(x1)
  while foo:
    x2 = qux()
    if x2 then join(x2)
label join(x)
  return x

Here I'm playing fast and loose with notation because the real terms are too gnarly. What I'm trying to get across is that for each value that flows out of a loop, you need a join point. That's fine, it's a bit more involved, but what if your loop exits to two different points, but one value is live in both of them? A value can only be defined in one place, in CPS or SSA. You could re-place a whole tree of phi variables, in SSA parlance, with join blocks and such, but it's just too hard.

However we can still get the benefits of peeling in most cases if we restrict ourselves to loops that exit to only one continuation. In that case the live variable set is the intersection of all variables defined in the loop that are live at the exit points. Easy enough, and that's what we have in Guile now. Peeling causes some code growth but the loops are smaller so it should still be a win. Check out the source, if that's your thing.

loop-invariant code motion

Usually when people are interested in moving code out of loops they talk about loop-invariant code motion, or LICM. Contrary to what you might think, LICM is complementary to peeling: some things that peeling+CSE can hoist are not hoistable by LICM, and vice versa.

Unlike peeling, LICM does not cause code growth. Instead, for each expression in a loop, LICM tries to hoist it out of the loop if it can. An expression can be hoisted if all of these conditions are true:

  1. It doesn't cause the creation of an observably new object. In Scheme, the definition of "observable" is quite subtle, so in practice in Guile we don't hoist expressions that can cause any allocation. We could use alias analysis to improve this.

  2. The expression cannot throw an exception, or the expression is always evaluated for every loop iteration.

  3. The expression makes no writes to memory, or if it writes to memory, other expressions in the loop cannot possibly read from that memory. We use effects analysis for this.

  4. The expression makes no reads from memory, or if it reads from memory, no other expression in the loop can clobber those reads. Again, effects analysis.

  5. The expression uses only loop-invariant variables.

This definition is inductive, so once an expression is hoisted, the values it defines are then considered loop-invariant, so you might be able to hoist a whole chain of values.

Compared to loop peeling, this has the gnarly aspect of having to explicitly reason about loop invariance and manually move code, which is a pain. (Really LICM would be better named "artisanal code motion".) However it causes no code growth, which is a plus, though like peeling it can increase register pressure. But the big difference is that LICM can hoist effect-free expressions that aren't always executed. Consider:

while foo:
  x = qux() ? "hi" : "ho"

Here for some reason it could be faster to cache "hi" or "ho" in registers, which is what LICM allows:

hi, ho = "hi", "ho"
while foo:
  x = qux() ? hi : ho

On the other hand, LICM alone can't hoist the if baz is null checks in this example from above:

while foo:

The issue is that the call to bar() might not return, so the error that might be thrown if baz is null shouldn't be observed until bar is called. In general we can't hoist anything that might throw an exception past some non-hoisted code that might throw an exception. This specific situation happens in Guile but there are similar ones in any language, I think.

More formally, LICM will hoist effectful but loop-invariant expressions that postdominate the loop header, whereas peeling hoists those expressions that dominate all back-edges. I think? We'll go with that. Again, the source.

loop inversion

Loop inversion is a little hack to improve code generation, and again it's a little counterintuitive. If you have this loop:

while n < x:

Loop inversion turns it into:

if n < x:
  while n < x

The goal is that instead of generating code that looks like this:

  test n, x;
  branch-if-greater-than-or-equal done;
  x = x + 1
  goto header

You make something that looks like this:

  test n, x;
  branch-if-greater-than-or-equal done;
  x = x + 1
  test n, x;
  branch-if-less-than header;

The upshot is that the loop body now contains one branch instead of two. It's mostly helpful for tight loops.

It turns out that you can express this transformation on CPS (or SSA, or whatever), but that like loop peeling the extra branch introduces an extra join point in your program. If your loop exits to more than one label, then we have the same problems as loop peeling. For this reason Guile restricts loop inversion (which it calls "loop rotation" at the moment; I should probably fix that) to loops with only one exit continuation.

Loop inversion has some other caveats, but probably the biggest one is that in Guile it doesn't actually guarantee that each back-edge is a conditional branch. The reason is that usually a loop has some associated loop variables, and it could be that you need to reshuffle those variables when you jump back to the top. Mostly Guile's compiler manages to avoid shuffling, allowing inversion to have the right effect, but it's not guaranteed. Fixing this is not straightforward, since the shuffling of values is associated with the predecessor of the loop header and not the loop header itself. If instead we reshuffled before the header, that might work, but each back-edge might have a different shuffling to make... anyway. In practice inversion seems to work out fine; I haven't yet seen a case where it doesn't work. Source code here.

loop identification

One final note: what is a loop anyway? Turns out this is a somewhat hard problem, especially once you start trying to identify nested loops. Guile currently does the simple thing and just computes strongly-connected components in a function's flow-graph, and says that a loop is a non-trivial SCC with a single predecessor. That won't tease apart loop nests but oh wells! I spent a lot of time last year or maybe two years ago with that "Loop identification via D-J graphs" paper but in the end simple is best, at least for making incremental steps.

Okeysmokes, until next time, loop on!

Syndicated 2015-07-28 08:10:36 from wingolog

28 Jul 2015 mikal   » (Journeyer)

Chet and I went on an adventure to LA-96

So, I've been fascinated with American nuclear history for ages, and Chet and I got talking about what if any nuclear launch facilities there were in LA. We found LA-96 online and set off on an expedition to explore. An interesting site, its a pity there are no radars left there. Apparently SF-88 is the place to go for tours from vets and radars.


See more thumbnails

I also made a quick and dirty 360 degree video of the view of LA from the top of the nike control radar tower: