Why? He's the consumer. He wants a drive that promises unlimited writes. If the opinion were popular enough then it might motivate the industry to work on developing new tech for SSDs rather than having to only cater to the "lower sighted" people.
The whole point of SSDs is that they have no moving parts, so they don't have the seek time and rotational latency of spinning disks.
Indeed, but it's nice to have some hard numbers to back that claim up. And it's nice to see HOW much faster they are versus a traditional drive.
So what do they measure? Sequential transfer rates.
Actually they measured the performances against each other. They show us that not all SSDs are created equally and they show tell us which SSDs they think are worth the money.
What they measure, then, is value for money. And that's always nice to know before buying something.
So go download Chromium which is the open source project Chrome is based upon. Grab the.ZIP package, unzip, and away you go. No Google update. No nasty EULA.
I hate being turned into a Microsoft apologist on this one, but give them a break. IE8 is still beta. Comparing release quality software to beta quality software is simply unfair.
The Democrats seem to want to attack Palin on experience but, in the minds of many, every attack/criticism they make against Palin will be silently re-asked by viewers about the Democrats' presidential pick.
It's a poor pick. Turn your statement around. McCain and company have blasted Obama on his lack of experience for months now. And McCain, who is 72 years old and has a history with cancer, picks a first-term governor with far less experience than Obama? Every lacking-experience-based attack Republicans have put out there have now been invalidated by their own candidate.
It's also a painfully obvious attempt to woo former Clinton supporters; so obvious, in fact, that it may be taken as an insult by many and help crystalize their support for Obama.
Toothpaste and a cloth used to clean eyeglasses or camera lenses works great for surface scratches. The toothpaste acts as a polish on the plastic and will remove most of the surface scratches.
Put a blob of toothpaste on the CD (data side, obviously) then polish the CD with the toothpaste and cloth. Once you're done, wash it off with water and either use a dry cloth to dry the CD. I've done this myself on several CDs and they've gone from unusable to playing great.
Nowadays I rip the CD as soon as I buy it, then store the CD away so I don't have to deal with scratched CDs.
there close to a billion people on the net that wouldnt tell what to do when faced with such a disastrous looking warning as ff 3 prints out when met with a self signed ca.
Find five. There's nothing disastrous in that message. The icon doesn't even have a red exclamation point. It states quite clearly what's gone wrong and offers the option to get past that. If a small business needs to self-sign their certs then a little education of their users prior to switching over to the SSL channel would quickly remove any reservations they might have about proceeding.
Furthermore, I want to know when I'm encountering a self-signed cert. A man-in-the-middle attack over SSL via self-signed certs is trivial. Spoofing the real, CA signed cert is a bit more difficult. So by notifying the user about the state of the SSL cert Firefox is doing good.
that is the EXACT kind of thing slashdot criticizes almost EVERY government, country, organization, corporation for, yet, you people are actually applauding it in this case.
Slashdot criticizes stupidity. Mozilla has not been stupid here. The problem is a lack of understanding why people SHOULD be notified about self-signed certs before they use them and the security implications thereof. Those who use self-signed certs that are angry at Mozilla should probably do a little research before they start throwing stones.
That's the trouble with real earth-shaking truth, it sounds almost indistinguishable from lunacy. You gotta wonder if there is a percentage of our locked-away crazies who are telling us the truth and we're just too thick to see it.
A broken clock is right twice a day.
You could be absolutely right. But I'm not going to change what I believe because of a "could be". I want proof. As soon as we start believing in "could be"s like this we become one of those crazy conspiracy theorists. Where secrets exist in every shadow and evil forces work against us. Sure, we don't see them, but we know they're there. We know.
Human capacity for belief in the absence of evidence is one of the most important, influential and devastating traits we have. It's a blessing and a curse. I'm not talking just about religion, I'm talking about science too (dark matter, anyone).
Do you oppose all government funded groups that discriminate? There are a lot of atheist/agnostic and gay groups that receive both state and federal funding, do you oppose them as well? Or do you only oppose discrimination sometimes? If the latter is true, then I guess you'd be guilty of discrimination too, you hypocrite.
If those athiest, agnostic and gay groups don't allow membership because someone is straight or believes in God then, yes, they absolutely should NOT be receiving federal money.
However there is a difference between a group that offers support for a specific population (gays, athiests, etc.) and a group that does not allow involvement ONLY because that person is straight or believes in God. And I think the groups you may have in mind fall into the former category, not the latter.
Silverlight is going to allow.NET code, not just Ruby. Do we really need this? Do we really need to introduce multiple client-side languages like this? We're just creating more avenues to exploit clients. Adobe has had years to get Flash right and we're still finding exploits that can be used to install malware in the background.
Couple that with injection attacks being discovered on popular web sites and the growing use of Deep Packet Inspection and, honestly, we might as well just allow everyone in the world root access to all of our machines.
This is not a step forwards, it's a major step backwards. We can't be blinded by the prospect of client-side Ruby. We have to look past that and see that there are some very real security risks involved. It's less a cause for celebration and more a cause for caution towards installing Silverlight (or Flash, or any other type of embedded object that allows for client scripting).
or is it something NASA arbitrarily adds to impress viewers with notions about "the red planet"
It's a fairly accurate representation of what Mars would look like to the human eye.
The thing is none of the cameras on board the rovers or Phoenix take pictures in a "conventional" manner. Instead the imaging devices have a series of filters designed to focus on a specific range of wavelengths (ultraviolet, infrared, etc.). Those black and white images you see are the results of a picture being taken through one of those filters. This is why some images of the same scene will appear darker than others.
First off, the web isn't even stable. Why try to bloat it further? Didn't anyone take a lesson from Microsoft? Bloating before you've stabilized what you have IS BAD and leads to Vista.
JavaScript, ActionScript, embedded video, even IMAGES, can all be exploited with quite a bit of ease. Ever wonder where all those botnets come from? It ain't from e-mail attachments. People have had that lesson drained into their heads for over a decade now.
No, the botnets come from loading exploited web sites that ask the user to install something (usually an ActiveX control) in order to continue. That something is typically a virus, trojan, zombie client, etc.
How did we get to the point that web sites can install malicious software on PCs?!
The answer: The Brad Neubergs from 20 years ago. The advocates to pair some sort of client-side scripting language with HTML to create an infinite number of possibilities. And now every user has a technology built-into their browser that they should have disabled by default. But if they get proactive and disable it half the web's functionality goes away now because we've had nearly 20 years of web development with the assumption of a javascript on the client.
What we need is a push away from this stuff. Get back to what the web was originally created for: serving hypertext document. If you want a thin client into your application WRITE THE THIN CLIENT APPLICATION. You want compatibility? Write it in JAVA. Or MONO. Or whatever.
Just ask yourself this: did we need Javascript on the web 20 years ago. If we didn't have javascript embedded into every browser out there today would we have anything like the Storm botnet? Would we have as much installed malware out there today?
I say no. And I think it's a pretty safe and obvious no.
So instead of creating new attack vectors for kids and crackers, how about we look at securing what we have now? How about we start advocating white-lists built into each browser that allow things like Javascript and the like. How about we, BY DEFAULT, keep Javascript disabled.
Ah, but mister Brad won't be so keen on that. A user will go to one of his web sites without Javascript, won't see ANYTHING and the site will simply not work, and they'll move on to another web page.
So let's keep bloating the web! Let's keep bloating the browser. And say FUCK ALL to protecting the end user.
This looks and sounds a lot like what John Carmack is doing at Armadillo. Except Carmack's development has focused a lot on engines and these guys seem to be skipping that step.
I have to wonder how flight software developed around a mock-up using pressurized air is going to fair when migrated to a live system with a conventional rocket engine. Especially the fact that they're developing the software indoors. How will they test/account for wind shear and other weather effects?
In 18 months they've created a frame, put a couple SCUBA tanks in there with a nozzle/valve they can control remotely. I'm sure any mech. engineer student could do the same and in probably less time.
FTFA: Currently, there is no such protection for IE users, and disallowing Javascript entirely isn't really an option on today's World Wide Web.
Why isn't it really an option? It sure as hell should be. Anyone interested in creating a good, accessible, usable web site would do well to make sure their site works fine without javascript or flash or java or any other embedded tech that could be used to exploit users.
As these sorts of attacks increase in popularity the awareness and education of end-users will increase as well. Eventually browsers will come stock with features similar to noscript and web pages will be loaded, by default, without javascript or any other embedded tech enabled.
the medium is CG or cel animation. anime is the genre of japanese animation. the genre is also cyberpunk. amazingly enough movies can belong to more than one genre.
If someone started masking these kinds of links as legit links and sent them out in e-mails and such you could wind up with a lot of innocent people being raided by the FBI. And then how do you prove you didn't mean to click on the link?
What about hidden frames that open these kinds of links?
What about use of javascript, flash, java, or other embedded technology to make http requests in the background?
It just seems way too easy to get innocent people caught up in this sort of trap.
I'm almost willing to believe the G-Archive excuse that its debug code. From the screenshots posted online of the inbox (before it was deleted) I only see e-mails marked as unread. If the entire inbox is filled with unread e-mails then I'm willing to believe it was a throw-away e-mail account used for testing/debugging. Also this kind of "bug" seems really blatant and certainly headed for an easy discovery. I'd expect a more obfuscated means of transmitting the username and password, were one so inclined to bug the software.
However 1,777 seems a bit small for "popular software" if this represents every install since the bugged software was released. Furthermore, how does e-mailing a password to a random account help in debugging the software?
I'm almost willing to believe in human stupidity as the reason this happened, but not quite.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you want lower your sights jut a tad?
Why? He's the consumer. He wants a drive that promises unlimited writes. If the opinion were popular enough then it might motivate the industry to work on developing new tech for SSDs rather than having to only cater to the "lower sighted" people.
The whole point of SSDs is that they have no moving parts, so they don't have the seek time and rotational latency of spinning disks.
Indeed, but it's nice to have some hard numbers to back that claim up. And it's nice to see HOW much faster they are versus a traditional drive.
So what do they measure? Sequential transfer rates.
Actually they measured the performances against each other. They show us that not all SSDs are created equally and they show tell us which SSDs they think are worth the money.
What they measure, then, is value for money. And that's always nice to know before buying something.
So go download Chromium which is the open source project Chrome is based upon. Grab the .ZIP package, unzip, and away you go. No Google update. No nasty EULA.
I hate being turned into a Microsoft apologist on this one, but give them a break. IE8 is still beta. Comparing release quality software to beta quality software is simply unfair.
The Democrats seem to want to attack Palin on experience but, in the minds of many, every attack/criticism they make against Palin will be silently re-asked by viewers about the Democrats' presidential pick.
It's a poor pick. Turn your statement around. McCain and company have blasted Obama on his lack of experience for months now. And McCain, who is 72 years old and has a history with cancer, picks a first-term governor with far less experience than Obama? Every lacking-experience-based attack Republicans have put out there have now been invalidated by their own candidate.
It's also a painfully obvious attempt to woo former Clinton supporters; so obvious, in fact, that it may be taken as an insult by many and help crystalize their support for Obama.
Did the guy sue you yet?
Toothpaste and a cloth used to clean eyeglasses or camera lenses works great for surface scratches. The toothpaste acts as a polish on the plastic and will remove most of the surface scratches.
Put a blob of toothpaste on the CD (data side, obviously) then polish the CD with the toothpaste and cloth. Once you're done, wash it off with water and either use a dry cloth to dry the CD. I've done this myself on several CDs and they've gone from unusable to playing great.
Nowadays I rip the CD as soon as I buy it, then store the CD away so I don't have to deal with scratched CDs.
there close to a billion people on the net that wouldnt tell what to do when faced with such a disastrous looking warning as ff 3 prints out when met with a self signed ca.
Find five. There's nothing disastrous in that message. The icon doesn't even have a red exclamation point. It states quite clearly what's gone wrong and offers the option to get past that. If a small business needs to self-sign their certs then a little education of their users prior to switching over to the SSL channel would quickly remove any reservations they might have about proceeding.
Furthermore, I want to know when I'm encountering a self-signed cert. A man-in-the-middle attack over SSL via self-signed certs is trivial. Spoofing the real, CA signed cert is a bit more difficult. So by notifying the user about the state of the SSL cert Firefox is doing good.
that is the EXACT kind of thing slashdot criticizes almost EVERY government, country, organization, corporation for, yet, you people are actually applauding it in this case.
Slashdot criticizes stupidity. Mozilla has not been stupid here. The problem is a lack of understanding why people SHOULD be notified about self-signed certs before they use them and the security implications thereof. Those who use self-signed certs that are angry at Mozilla should probably do a little research before they start throwing stones.
That's the trouble with real earth-shaking truth, it sounds almost indistinguishable from lunacy. You gotta wonder if there is a percentage of our locked-away crazies who are telling us the truth and we're just too thick to see it.
A broken clock is right twice a day.
You could be absolutely right. But I'm not going to change what I believe because of a "could be". I want proof. As soon as we start believing in "could be"s like this we become one of those crazy conspiracy theorists. Where secrets exist in every shadow and evil forces work against us. Sure, we don't see them, but we know they're there. We know.
Human capacity for belief in the absence of evidence is one of the most important, influential and devastating traits we have. It's a blessing and a curse. I'm not talking just about religion, I'm talking about science too (dark matter, anyone).
What a pain in the ass it is.
Do you oppose all government funded groups that discriminate? There are a lot of atheist/agnostic and gay groups that receive both state and federal funding, do you oppose them as well? Or do you only oppose discrimination sometimes? If the latter is true, then I guess you'd be guilty of discrimination too, you hypocrite.
If those athiest, agnostic and gay groups don't allow membership because someone is straight or believes in God then, yes, they absolutely should NOT be receiving federal money.
However there is a difference between a group that offers support for a specific population (gays, athiests, etc.) and a group that does not allow involvement ONLY because that person is straight or believes in God. And I think the groups you may have in mind fall into the former category, not the latter.
Silverlight is going to allow .NET code, not just Ruby. Do we really need this? Do we really need to introduce multiple client-side languages like this? We're just creating more avenues to exploit clients. Adobe has had years to get Flash right and we're still finding exploits that can be used to install malware in the background.
Couple that with injection attacks being discovered on popular web sites and the growing use of Deep Packet Inspection and, honestly, we might as well just allow everyone in the world root access to all of our machines.
This is not a step forwards, it's a major step backwards. We can't be blinded by the prospect of client-side Ruby. We have to look past that and see that there are some very real security risks involved. It's less a cause for celebration and more a cause for caution towards installing Silverlight (or Flash, or any other type of embedded object that allows for client scripting).
Firefox @ 16%
Firefox @ 18%
Firefox @ 40%
So which one is right?
Would the OP or someone else in the community care to take a moment to explain the beauty of the math for us non math-majors?
or is it something NASA arbitrarily adds to impress viewers with notions about "the red planet"
It's a fairly accurate representation of what Mars would look like to the human eye.
The thing is none of the cameras on board the rovers or Phoenix take pictures in a "conventional" manner. Instead the imaging devices have a series of filters designed to focus on a specific range of wavelengths (ultraviolet, infrared, etc.). Those black and white images you see are the results of a picture being taken through one of those filters. This is why some images of the same scene will appear darker than others.
NASA can then take these images and composite them together to give a representation of what the surface would look like to the human eye.
First off, the web isn't even stable. Why try to bloat it further? Didn't anyone take a lesson from Microsoft? Bloating before you've stabilized what you have IS BAD and leads to Vista.
JavaScript, ActionScript, embedded video, even IMAGES, can all be exploited with quite a bit of ease. Ever wonder where all those botnets come from? It ain't from e-mail attachments. People have had that lesson drained into their heads for over a decade now.
No, the botnets come from loading exploited web sites that ask the user to install something (usually an ActiveX control) in order to continue. That something is typically a virus, trojan, zombie client, etc.
How did we get to the point that web sites can install malicious software on PCs?!
The answer: The Brad Neubergs from 20 years ago. The advocates to pair some sort of client-side scripting language with HTML to create an infinite number of possibilities. And now every user has a technology built-into their browser that they should have disabled by default. But if they get proactive and disable it half the web's functionality goes away now because we've had nearly 20 years of web development with the assumption of a javascript on the client.
What we need is a push away from this stuff. Get back to what the web was originally created for: serving hypertext document. If you want a thin client into your application WRITE THE THIN CLIENT APPLICATION. You want compatibility? Write it in JAVA. Or MONO. Or whatever.
Just ask yourself this: did we need Javascript on the web 20 years ago. If we didn't have javascript embedded into every browser out there today would we have anything like the Storm botnet? Would we have as much installed malware out there today?
I say no. And I think it's a pretty safe and obvious no.
So instead of creating new attack vectors for kids and crackers, how about we look at securing what we have now? How about we start advocating white-lists built into each browser that allow things like Javascript and the like. How about we, BY DEFAULT, keep Javascript disabled.
Ah, but mister Brad won't be so keen on that. A user will go to one of his web sites without Javascript, won't see ANYTHING and the site will simply not work, and they'll move on to another web page.
So let's keep bloating the web! Let's keep bloating the browser. And say FUCK ALL to protecting the end user.
This looks and sounds a lot like what John Carmack is doing at Armadillo. Except Carmack's development has focused a lot on engines and these guys seem to be skipping that step.
I have to wonder how flight software developed around a mock-up using pressurized air is going to fair when migrated to a live system with a conventional rocket engine. Especially the fact that they're developing the software indoors. How will they test/account for wind shear and other weather effects?
In 18 months they've created a frame, put a couple SCUBA tanks in there with a nozzle/valve they can control remotely. I'm sure any mech. engineer student could do the same and in probably less time.
Time to go farming in Burning Steppes for this new material.
FTFA: Currently, there is no such protection for IE users, and disallowing Javascript entirely isn't really an option on today's World Wide Web.
Why isn't it really an option? It sure as hell should be. Anyone interested in creating a good, accessible, usable web site would do well to make sure their site works fine without javascript or flash or java or any other embedded tech that could be used to exploit users.
As these sorts of attacks increase in popularity the awareness and education of end-users will increase as well. Eventually browsers will come stock with features similar to noscript and web pages will be loaded, by default, without javascript or any other embedded tech enabled.
That's like saying "You still use a manual gearbox? Holy crap, you ARE old!"
Sure, there are easier-to-use alternatives, but the connoisseur is more refined in her choices.
The original GitS movie is like the original Matrix. Unique (when you first saw it), exciting, fun, and a total mind fuck.
Then the sequels came.
The gold has been polished off this statue. Now it's just a lump of lead.
the medium is CG or cel animation. anime is the genre of japanese animation. the genre is also cyberpunk. amazingly enough movies can belong to more than one genre.
by that thinking Sailor Moon and Dragon Ball Z should be next.
If someone started masking these kinds of links as legit links and sent them out in e-mails and such you could wind up with a lot of innocent people being raided by the FBI. And then how do you prove you didn't mean to click on the link?
What about hidden frames that open these kinds of links?
What about use of javascript, flash, java, or other embedded technology to make http requests in the background?
It just seems way too easy to get innocent people caught up in this sort of trap.
Here is a video from ACC made in December 2007 in which he reflects upon his life and how he will be remembered.
His Kipling quote at the end should help bring closure to all his fans.
I'm almost willing to believe the G-Archive excuse that its debug code. From the screenshots posted online of the inbox (before it was deleted) I only see e-mails marked as unread. If the entire inbox is filled with unread e-mails then I'm willing to believe it was a throw-away e-mail account used for testing/debugging. Also this kind of "bug" seems really blatant and certainly headed for an easy discovery. I'd expect a more obfuscated means of transmitting the username and password, were one so inclined to bug the software.
However 1,777 seems a bit small for "popular software" if this represents every install since the bugged software was released. Furthermore, how does e-mailing a password to a random account help in debugging the software?
I'm almost willing to believe in human stupidity as the reason this happened, but not quite.