allows accelerating D3D9 natively by Gallium3D drivers and there's patches for Wine so that Windows games can utilize this state tracker without having to go through Wine's costly D3D-to-OGL translator
So what do we need? We need a really good web server that you can put in your pocket and plug in any place. It shouldn't be any larger than the charger for your cellphone. You should be able to plug it into any power jack in the world or sync it up with any wi-fi router that happens to be in this neighborhood... It should have a couple of USB ports that attach it to things. It should know how to bring itself up; how to start its web server; how to go and collect your stuff from all the social networking places you've got it.
It should know how to send an encrypted backup of everything to your friends' servers. It should know how to micro-blog, It should now how to make some noise that's like tweet but doesn't infringe on anyone's trademark. It should know how to... be your avatar in a free net that works for you and keeps the logs. You can always tell what's happening in your server and if anybody else wants to know they can get a search warrant.
Any code that doesn't await the user's consent before running is malware, and should be handled as such by any means available.
That's overly broad. I run NoScript, and I like the idea of a world without JavaScript-based ads (or any unjustified use of JavaScript, ideally) but I'd hardly call such adverts 'malware'.
IE is dying anyway and they could save tons of money by embedding WebKit instead.
MS are way too proud to do that. Anyway, I'd far rather IE just be well-maintained and keep some variety in the web: a 'monoculture' world of WebKit (well, and Gecko) isn't good for the web.
The results [coverity.com] reveal that, yes, Open Source (at least the pieces tested) *really are* more secure
What's really secure and what's not isn't something a static-analysis tool gets to decide. At least, not when we have real-life track-records to look at.
Every company in that list needs a massive boycott.
If some major players (Amazon/eBay/Google/Facebook) took part in, say, putting a banner in their webpages when viewed over such a connection, that would at least raise awareness.
Steve Gibson (yes, Steve Gibson) did a podcast on why 'clever' tricks to choose memorable passwords, might not be such a good idea.
Short version: the bad guys know all the little tricks like replacing 'a' by '@'. Whether this is particular trick would be more resistant, I'm not sure.
Again, not really. You can't have proper duck-typing in C or C++. Macros and templates can provide a compile-time semblance of duck-typing, but it's not the really same. In Ruby, an array can hold instances of anything. That will never be the case with C++.
A C++ Vector looks somewhat like a List: they both have a push_back member-function, say, but you can't create a 'pointer to either a Vector or a List' type. It has to resolve at compile-time, even with concepts (though I admit I don't know a lot about them).
You could get proper duck typing using hash-maps mapping strings to function-pointers, but afaik that's about it.
It's not a matter of just 'having inheritance'. Java and C++ have inheritance, but Carpenter#createTable is distinct from CSVReader#createTable (assuming no common ancestor class or interface), as the languages have static binding.
In, Ruby or Objective-C, which have late binding, you can 'pun' the createTable method name/signature: you can pass in a reference to any object which has a method by the name createTable (i.e. it 'looks like a duck and quacks like a duck'). Not so in Java or C++.
To simulate duck-typing in Java, you'd have to create an interface for each method, such as a HasCreateTableMethod interface, to be implemented by each class which has a createTable method (of the appropriate signature).
Another ignorant idiot that has never heard of Omega Drivers.
No need to be an asshole. Also, you're wrong on all three counts.
Do modern AMD cards still have soft-disabled capabilities? Years back I played about with drivers to unlock pixel/vertex pipelines on cards, but I read nVidia took to physically disabling their disabled pipelines. I assumed - perhaps wrongly - that unlocking in drivers was a thing of the past.
You falsely assume that drivers can necessarily be used to 'unlock' cards. It's possible that drivers can indeed do this for AMD's cards, but you'll have to provide evidence that that's the case; it's not self-evident.
I've discovered that, outside of mathematics, it is quite difficult to prove something.
Huh. I always found it hard to prove things inside of mathematics:P
To your first paragraph: indeed, that may be so, but my points stand: I demand to be convinced.
Or they'll say that someone would talk and expose the plot, or that such a level of organization isn't possible, or some such comforting rationale.
Indeed. This sort of reasoning can be safely dismissed, due to the existence of secret military projects all round the world. Missile bases in Cuba, say - it wasn't due to leaks from staff that the USA found out about them.
What if the AC above provided links to documents from a Bilderberg meeting where they talked about using fear to control the population?
That would be damning evidence if its authenticity were reasonably assured, and I would concede. You're right that 'proving' it to be the real deal wouldn't be easy.
I guess I'm saying: fair points, but I'm still unconvinced. My own suspicion is that there's a combination of countries just blindly following the USA's lead, and cynical power-grabs as politicians see how effective bullshit fear campaigns can be.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the idea behind the it's a compatibility-layer not an emulator thing is to emphasise that it doesn't emulate the underlying CPU architecture.
Want to use Wine to run Windows programs on Linux-on-ARM (MIPS/PowerPC etc)? That's beyond the scope of the Wine project.
RTFS.
allows accelerating D3D9 natively by Gallium3D drivers and there's patches for Wine so that Windows games can utilize this state tracker without having to go through Wine's costly D3D-to-OGL translator
(Emphasis mine.)
Reminds me of something Eben Moglen says in one of his Freedom in the Cloud talks:
So what do we need? We need a really good web server that you can put in your pocket and plug in any place. It shouldn't be any larger than the charger for your cellphone. You should be able to plug it into any power jack in the world or sync it up with any wi-fi router that happens to be in this neighborhood ... It should have a couple of USB ports that attach it to things. It should know how to bring itself up; how to start its web server; how to go and collect your stuff from all the social networking places you've got it.
It should know how to send an encrypted backup of everything to your friends' servers. It should know how to micro-blog, It should now how to make some noise that's like tweet but doesn't infringe on anyone's trademark. It should know how to ... be your avatar in a free net that works for you and keeps the logs. You can always tell what's happening in your server and if anybody else wants to know they can get a search warrant.
he has a day job as a Perl programmer
And yet, so readable!
Which of course means any clock rate comparison with a CISC architecture is mostly irrelevant.
Well, CISC machines are generally RISC on the inside, but yes, blindly comparing clock-rates is almost always inappropriate.
No, that's still nothing like duck-typing. There's no dynamic dispatch.
Any code that doesn't await the user's consent before running is malware, and should be handled as such by any means available.
That's overly broad. I run NoScript, and I like the idea of a world without JavaScript-based ads (or any unjustified use of JavaScript, ideally) but I'd hardly call such adverts 'malware'.
The point is valid, but two other ACs have already made it.
Or maybe they're all you, who can say.
IE is dying anyway and they could save tons of money by embedding WebKit instead.
MS are way too proud to do that. Anyway, I'd far rather IE just be well-maintained and keep some variety in the web: a 'monoculture' world of WebKit (well, and Gecko) isn't good for the web.
It doesn't seem fair to laugh at them for being late to adopt this particular technique.
What really matters is the overall performance, compatibility, etc.
Two-tiered compilation has pros and cons, it's not a silver bullet.
It's called Coverity, not Covarity, and no, it's not funded by the US government., other than that the government hired them to check some Open Source packages. I wasn't aware that had happened. The article you link shows that Coverity pointed out a good number of real issues.
The results [coverity.com] reveal that, yes, Open Source (at least the pieces tested) *really are* more secure
What's really secure and what's not isn't something a static-analysis tool gets to decide. At least, not when we have real-life track-records to look at.
The two languages are not incompatible
That's vague. The real question is whether C++ is a strict superset of C. Answer: it is not.
Some constructs valid in C are invalid in C++. Some valid C code is also valid C++, but behaves differently.
See Section 1 and Section 2 of this Wikipedia article.
Every company in that list needs a massive boycott.
If some major players (Amazon/eBay/Google/Facebook) took part in, say, putting a banner in their webpages when viewed over such a connection, that would at least raise awareness.
Steve Gibson (yes, Steve Gibson) did a podcast on why 'clever' tricks to choose memorable passwords, might not be such a good idea.
Short version: the bad guys know all the little tricks like replacing 'a' by '@'. Whether this is particular trick would be more resistant, I'm not sure.
I'd agree if the word denies were used in place of bans. When using bans, it doesn't seem correct to omit the from.
Again, not really. You can't have proper duck-typing in C or C++. Macros and templates can provide a compile-time semblance of duck-typing, but it's not the really same. In Ruby, an array can hold instances of anything. That will never be the case with C++.
A C++ Vector looks somewhat like a List: they both have a push_back member-function, say, but you can't create a 'pointer to either a Vector or a List' type. It has to resolve at compile-time, even with concepts (though I admit I don't know a lot about them).
You could get proper duck typing using hash-maps mapping strings to function-pointers, but afaik that's about it.
Well... not really. The PS3 was the Cell, which features a PowerPC core to feed the SPEs. It's not helpful to just call it PowerPC.
The Xbox 360's Xenon CPU, on the other hand, was a 'conventional' tri-core PowerPC (6 logical cores).
*looks like I should have used 'dynamic binding' rather than 'late binding'.
Which term I should have used instead of 'static binding', I'm not sure.
Not really.
It's not a matter of just 'having inheritance'. Java and C++ have inheritance, but Carpenter#createTable is distinct from CSVReader#createTable (assuming no common ancestor class or interface), as the languages have static binding.
In, Ruby or Objective-C, which have late binding, you can 'pun' the createTable method name/signature: you can pass in a reference to any object which has a method by the name createTable (i.e. it 'looks like a duck and quacks like a duck'). Not so in Java or C++.
To simulate duck-typing in Java, you'd have to create an interface for each method, such as a HasCreateTableMethod interface, to be implemented by each class which has a createTable method (of the appropriate signature).
Another ignorant idiot that has never heard of Omega Drivers.
No need to be an asshole. Also, you're wrong on all three counts.
Do modern AMD cards still have soft-disabled capabilities? Years back I played about with drivers to unlock pixel/vertex pipelines on cards, but I read nVidia took to physically disabling their disabled pipelines. I assumed - perhaps wrongly - that unlocking in drivers was a thing of the past.
Was wondering if I'd see that linked here.
The Onion really hit the nail on the head sometimes.
Not necessarily.
You falsely assume that drivers can necessarily be used to 'unlock' cards. It's possible that drivers can indeed do this for AMD's cards, but you'll have to provide evidence that that's the case; it's not self-evident.
Indeed.
I've discovered that, outside of mathematics, it is quite difficult to prove something.
Huh. I always found it hard to prove things inside of mathematics :P
To your first paragraph: indeed, that may be so, but my points stand: I demand to be convinced.
Or they'll say that someone would talk and expose the plot, or that such a level of organization isn't possible, or some such comforting rationale.
Indeed. This sort of reasoning can be safely dismissed, due to the existence of secret military projects all round the world. Missile bases in Cuba, say - it wasn't due to leaks from staff that the USA found out about them.
What if the AC above provided links to documents from a Bilderberg meeting where they talked about using fear to control the population?
That would be damning evidence if its authenticity were reasonably assured, and I would concede. You're right that 'proving' it to be the real deal wouldn't be easy.
I guess I'm saying: fair points, but I'm still unconvinced. My own suspicion is that there's a combination of countries just blindly following the USA's lead, and cynical power-grabs as politicians see how effective bullshit fear campaigns can be.
Granted, but my points stand.
I invoke Hitchens's Razor: What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.