While its true that Mozilla got the fix out pretty fast once someone pointed right at it for them, it is often claimed that Open Source is more secure because there are thousands of eyes looking at the source code.
None of those Mozilla-loving eyes found this bug, yet a researcher unaffiliated with Mozilla but certainly looking for exploits, found it. Now what about all the researchers looking for exploits in order to driveby firefox users.. that will just keep the damn thing a secret?
Yeah.. they got the fix out fast. Bravo. Look at the real significance of these events, tho..
..exploit found ..went unpatched for a month ..only got patched because the person who discovered it pointed right at it.
besides North Korea and Cuba are there any other communistic states left?
China isnt all that communist anymore, and besides you seem to be confused. The censorship of information has very little to do with communism vs capitalism vs socialism vs etc.., or even democracy vs republic vs monarchy vs anarchy vs etc..
Censorship does not play favorites with government styles or economic systems.
How come nobody bothers to ask what the people of China think about this all? Sure, lots of them seem to use Google at least some of the time, but is it because they are bothered by the censorship, or it is because Google gives better results? Do the people of China want Google to fight the good fight for them?
...and millions of people will get obsessive amounts of checkups and tests,... which is one of the things that has driven up health insurance costs in the united states to begin with.
You are an outsider looking in, pretending to know whats going on here. You don't.
You should not work hard to provide health insurance for yourself and your family. You should work hard to provide health care for yourself and your family.
See the difference?
If you are free to choose how you provide that health care, then find a high deductible plan. You pay more out of pocket for any health events that come up, but are still protected from catastrophic ruin. The premiums for these plans are significantly less than the plans that let everyone in them fuck everyone else in them.
Combine a high deductible plan with a health savings account (and tax deductions apply to these) and you can have the opportunity to optimize/minimize monthly expenses. You know what routine care (checkups, etc..) costs you so there is no reason for your premiums to supplement people with higher routine costs (often higher simply because the the disconnect between premiums and actual costs.. they make poor decisions about who performs that routine care, how often they seek out that care, and even about what care is administered)
This is basically the "pay your own way" method and it works. Unless you are chronically unhealthy now, this has become the route to go. Thanks to the pre-existing conditions mandate, there is no risk of this turning into a bad decision.
There are now two classes of people. Generally heathy people who will have high deductable plans and health savings accounts, and the chronically ill who burden each other with their higher costs.
A competitive public option would have pushed down insurance company margins
I'm pretty sure that 4.4% isnt a large profit margin, and certainly could not be altered in any meaningful way to reduce rates. Paying $600 per month? Lets cut out the insurance companies profits.. now you save $28 per month!! woohooo!!!111oneone!!!
You have been sold a lie about where the problem is. The problem is not insurance company profits. The problem is that Americans get every possible test and procedure done, which is what makes the rates high.
The idea that this bill wont effect people that are currently happy with their insurance is nonsense. They are going to end up paying more, now that pre-existing conditions must be covered. Also, what about the people that are unhappy with their insurance coverage? How are they going to feel about higher rates?
You've been sold a lie and you will be bitching about rising insurance rates in about 2 years time, because you will not remember that you were wrong here today. The insurance companies are not raping you. The other people in your plan are.
You could ask the same thing about VBA, yet VBA is unquestionably the most popular development platform ever.
It does look like Windows Media Center is built on.NET, but meh.. its unimportant. Development platforms are tools. Plenty of.NET applications, including games, are out there.
Quick verification: go to NewEgg and bring up the Tablet PC's, sort by lowest price and see that its a whopping $1150 minimum.
For $1150 I can easily build a desktop that is about 10 times faster than my current one, with enough money left over for a companion netbook.
I don't care what form factor it comes in.. I'm simply not spending $1000 on a computer for myself. Period...and there is no chance that apples toy will get the attention of my money, either.
Might pick up a notebook for ~$550, or build a new desktop for ~$650, or even sink ~$300 into a fast SSD.. drop the tablet price to $400 and it might be an interesting alternative to a notebook
GDI+ is independent of.NET, essentially an API targeted at C++ developers (GDI+ is based on classes compatible with VC++ classes)
Its just that.NET uses it extensively for its own stock graphics classes, which is why many graphically intensive.NET applications that use the stock classes dont run well on XP (especially obvious with any sort of intensive alpha blending.)
The.NET libraries could be redesigned to use DirectX, XNA, or OpenGL or whatever.. but that wont help the C++ developers using GDI+
What is hardware accelerated in Vista and 7 but not in XP? Why that none other than the GDI+ API.
While XP had a fine hardware accelerated GDI interface (provided by video card drivers), hardware acceleration was never implemented for GDI+.
Basically on XP, GDI+ is sort of a hack on top of GDI. While on 7 and Vista, both GDI and GDI+ runs on top of the new accelerated compositing system. To implement accelerated GDI+ for XP, it is essentially a crap load of work either porting over the compositing system, or implementing both GDI and GDI+ directly on top of DirectX. All this, and not all of the GDI+ features can be accelerated with older video hardware (pixel shader 1.0? no vertex shaders? voodoo? yeah right)
IE9 obviously uses GDI+ extensively, and so do many newer.NET applications. You will note how crappily some of them run on XP precisely because GDI+ isnt accelerated.
Re:A false choice, of course...
on
Health Care Reform
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Make Microsoft and Bill Gates pay the same 15% of Gates' yearly income (as well as everyone else making more than $75k/yr) that I and my employer do and the SS solvency problem is gone.
The idea that if we raised taxes on the rich then we would have enough money is a lie told by liberals preaching to the poor.
There is not enough rich people. The size of the predicted (by the CBO) shortfalls we are discussing here is 14+ digit numbers (more than the GNP.) We are talking about sizable percentages of the countries entire net worth.
You would have to start taxing the assets of the people, not their income, before you would come close. Not that there is much of an alternative.. its either fuck people this way, or fuck people that way.. cause someone is going to get fucked.
My vote is to fuck the people that made the fucking inevitable, the boomers, which means cancel their social security and their medicare and every other entitlement they arent actually entitled to.
We should stand there and watch with tears in our eyes, at the horror that will be their future, never lifting a finger to help them on a federal or state level. We can help our family, and our friends, and anyone else we feel deserves it on a personal level.. but they are NOT entitled to the sweat of our brows through mandate.
The question is, though: To whom would they be selling those gobs of bandwidth?
The people who would be running a net bandwidth deficit on Google's lines if it werent for the youtube bandwidth being piped over theirs.
Everyone else is not saying "sure google, no cost buddy! you rock!".. they are saying "You seem to be sending us as much as we are sending you".. remove youtube from the equation and its "holy crap we owe google a lot of money"
So, you're saying that Apple's publicly documented method for syncing with iTunes is going to be "easily broken" compared to a totally hackish USB-ID spoofing where a Palm Pre pretends to be an iPod. Come on!
sigh.. totally hackish indeed.. unbelievable that they know how to look like a generic drive..
Considering the way the linux software ecosystem works, it's hard to say that it's horrible for all cases yes?
its not that hard at all. You are only focusing on a specific portion of the linux ecosystem, that being distribution specific repositories.
Its all fun and games when someone else has made sure all the dependencies are there, and that they are compatible with everything. Then its real easy to declare that dynamic linking rocks, because you didnt have to do any of the actual work to make it 'just work'
Missing Sync is not integrated into itunes, nor is it possible for it to be. You know how you "sync" with Missing Sync? You drag files from itunes into a folder, because missing sync presents devices as folders.
It is not integrated into itunes sync features.
You ARE being disingenuous because there is a difference between "capable of syncing" and "integrated with itunes" and you fucking know it. You are a bigger asshole that I gave you credit for.
WTF. Flash didn't get any h264 support until flash 9, long after online video was popular.
The moment H.264 was a viable delivery method, everyone began switching, because if they didnt switch but their competitors did.. they would be fucked hard by offering less quality at higher costs. The landscape is littered with failed video sites.
Even now, sites like Hulu are struggling to be profitable. Downgrading codecs would kill them almost instantly.
If you had to recommend only one textbook to a person more interested in the understanding (as opposed to the application) of statistics and statistical methods (they wish to "grok"), what would it be?
Why? Closed formats don't seem to operate under that constraint. In fact, technical qualities seem to be a non-issue as far as success goes in general.
"Its the money, stupid!"
No, not kickbacks, or payola, or licensing fees.
Lets start at the top. Content providers have been banging their head into the bandwidth wall for a decade, starting when the notion of streaming high quality video really took off. Their cost, primarily, is bandwidth. Their product, primarily, is eyeballs. Their revenue, primarily, is advertisers.
To make this work, they need to offer competitive quality in order to maximize the number of eyeballs, and they need to do it with the least bandwidth in order to offer competitive pricing to advertisers.
H.264 was a big improvement over the previous generation of codecs, which finally allowed what might finally be viable online video streaming businesses.
In this case, technically better still matters... its just about the only thing that matters. These businesses don't have the margin to fuck around. If they drop the ball then they lose their shot at #1.
Hate to break it to ya, but many C compilers dont use compatible ABI's.
If you've been in the Linux world for awhile, then you might know that Intel's C compiler (and anything it produced) wasnt compatible with GCC until version 10 or so.. so yeah.. about that standard library sharing...
In the Windows world, C compilers default to CDECL but the standard API calling convention is STDCALL.
Why do C compilers on windows default to something that isnt the standard for the platform? Its because the C standard library has a couple functions which require a CDECL or a CDECL-like calling convention in order to work, such as printf().. and this is why the C standard library is an outrageously terrible interface to the OS: it dictates what features the calling convention must support, instead of the OS dictating what the convention will be.
Yes you wouldn't be writing it yourself, but you are distributing hundreds of the exact same library, in a place (in binary) where it cannot be updated
You've obviously never dealt with actual program distribution on a large scale and my guess is that if you've done any at all, its been to the open source world where its expected that someone somewhere will have to hunt down all the dependencies that you so flagrantly didnt bother to include.
Even in the case of fairly standard dependencies, such as MSVCR80, you want to ship a version of it known to not have issues with your program because not everyone will have the most up-to-date copy, others may have an even later version that breaks your shit, and others may not have any copy of MSVCR80 at all.
Shipping naked executables with none of its dependencies is amateur and unrealistic, so in the real world dynamic linking does not reduce the number of bytes needing to be distributed, that quite the contrary it increases the number of bytes needed.
I for one, do not want the gigantic mess that is having everything statically compiled. From a deployment perspective on a system that likely won't have installed libraries, it's useful, but the real solution is to.. install the libraries.
Listen to yourself.. you dont like gigantic messes, but have the gall to suggest that someone whos program just needs printf() and getc() should ship the entire library!
You have not thought this through. You offering up scenarios where it makes sense to dynamic link, but completely ignoring all the cases where it makes no sense at all.
You realize that a programmer is expected to make rational decisions, right? The problem under discussion is that the decision to static link is much worse than it should be, even much worse than it used to be.. that static linking has gone downhill into bloatedness for no good reason other than lazy library organization and poorly written linkers.
Slashdot Mirror
While its true that Mozilla got the fix out pretty fast once someone pointed right at it for them, it is often claimed that Open Source is more secure because there are thousands of eyes looking at the source code.
..exploit found
..went unpatched for a month
..only got patched because the person who discovered it pointed right at it.
None of those Mozilla-loving eyes found this bug, yet a researcher unaffiliated with Mozilla but certainly looking for exploits, found it. Now what about all the researchers looking for exploits in order to driveby firefox users.. that will just keep the damn thing a secret?
Yeah.. they got the fix out fast. Bravo. Look at the real significance of these events, tho..
besides North Korea and Cuba are there any other communistic states left?
China isnt all that communist anymore, and besides you seem to be confused. The censorship of information has very little to do with communism vs capitalism vs socialism vs etc.., or even democracy vs republic vs monarchy vs anarchy vs etc..
Censorship does not play favorites with government styles or economic systems.
How come nobody bothers to ask what the people of China think about this all? Sure, lots of them seem to use Google at least some of the time, but is it because they are bothered by the censorship, or it is because Google gives better results? Do the people of China want Google to fight the good fight for them?
...and millions of people will get obsessive amounts of checkups and tests, ... which is one of the things that has driven up health insurance costs in the united states to begin with.
You are an outsider looking in, pretending to know whats going on here. You don't.
Your lack of understanding is deeper than I thought.
Sharing the burden is not what gives you those things. Its just the health care part that does.
AOL would be out of business, thats how.
Not on my dime, and over time on fewer and fewer peoples dimes.
High Deductible plans + Health Savings Accounts = chronically ill people are all alone in that Low Deductible world of sharing the burden.
Most people don't understand insurance, or their options in that regard. My guess is that you are one of them.
You should not work hard to provide health insurance for yourself and your family. You should work hard to provide health care for yourself and your family.
See the difference?
If you are free to choose how you provide that health care, then find a high deductible plan. You pay more out of pocket for any health events that come up, but are still protected from catastrophic ruin. The premiums for these plans are significantly less than the plans that let everyone in them fuck everyone else in them.
Combine a high deductible plan with a health savings account (and tax deductions apply to these) and you can have the opportunity to optimize/minimize monthly expenses. You know what routine care (checkups, etc..) costs you so there is no reason for your premiums to supplement people with higher routine costs (often higher simply because the the disconnect between premiums and actual costs.. they make poor decisions about who performs that routine care, how often they seek out that care, and even about what care is administered)
This is basically the "pay your own way" method and it works. Unless you are chronically unhealthy now, this has become the route to go. Thanks to the pre-existing conditions mandate, there is no risk of this turning into a bad decision.
There are now two classes of people. Generally heathy people who will have high deductable plans and health savings accounts, and the chronically ill who burden each other with their higher costs.
A competitive public option would have pushed down insurance company margins
I'm pretty sure that 4.4% isnt a large profit margin, and certainly could not be altered in any meaningful way to reduce rates. Paying $600 per month? Lets cut out the insurance companies profits.. now you save $28 per month!! woohooo!!!111oneone!!!
You have been sold a lie about where the problem is. The problem is not insurance company profits. The problem is that Americans get every possible test and procedure done, which is what makes the rates high.
The idea that this bill wont effect people that are currently happy with their insurance is nonsense. They are going to end up paying more, now that pre-existing conditions must be covered. Also, what about the people that are unhappy with their insurance coverage? How are they going to feel about higher rates?
You've been sold a lie and you will be bitching about rising insurance rates in about 2 years time, because you will not remember that you were wrong here today. The insurance companies are not raping you. The other people in your plan are.
The shame is that even though you put so much time into that post, you didn't bother knowing what the fuck you were talking about.
Which part of their development chain do you suspect as not being one of their tools?
I suspect that 100% of it is.
You could ask the same thing about VBA, yet VBA is unquestionably the most popular development platform ever.
.NET, but meh.. its unimportant. Development platforms are tools. Plenty of .NET applications, including games, are out there.
It does look like Windows Media Center is built on
This.
..and there is no chance that apples toy will get the attention of my money, either.
Quick verification: go to NewEgg and bring up the Tablet PC's, sort by lowest price and see that its a whopping $1150 minimum.
For $1150 I can easily build a desktop that is about 10 times faster than my current one, with enough money left over for a companion netbook.
I don't care what form factor it comes in.. I'm simply not spending $1000 on a computer for myself. Period.
Might pick up a notebook for ~$550, or build a new desktop for ~$650, or even sink ~$300 into a fast SSD.. drop the tablet price to $400 and it might be an interesting alternative to a notebook
Nah, IE9 is probably not .NET.
.NET, essentially an API targeted at C++ developers (GDI+ is based on classes compatible with VC++ classes)
.NET uses it extensively for its own stock graphics classes, which is why many graphically intensive .NET applications that use the stock classes dont run well on XP (especially obvious with any sort of intensive alpha blending.)
.NET libraries could be redesigned to use DirectX, XNA, or OpenGL or whatever.. but that wont help the C++ developers using GDI+
GDI+ is independent of
Its just that
The
What is hardware accelerated in Vista and 7 but not in XP? Why that none other than the GDI+ API.
.NET applications. You will note how crappily some of them run on XP precisely because GDI+ isnt accelerated.
While XP had a fine hardware accelerated GDI interface (provided by video card drivers), hardware acceleration was never implemented for GDI+.
Basically on XP, GDI+ is sort of a hack on top of GDI. While on 7 and Vista, both GDI and GDI+ runs on top of the new accelerated compositing system. To implement accelerated GDI+ for XP, it is essentially a crap load of work either porting over the compositing system, or implementing both GDI and GDI+ directly on top of DirectX. All this, and not all of the GDI+ features can be accelerated with older video hardware (pixel shader 1.0? no vertex shaders? voodoo? yeah right)
IE9 obviously uses GDI+ extensively, and so do many newer
Make Microsoft and Bill Gates pay the same 15% of Gates' yearly income (as well as everyone else making more than $75k/yr) that I and my employer do and the SS solvency problem is gone.
The idea that if we raised taxes on the rich then we would have enough money is a lie told by liberals preaching to the poor.
There is not enough rich people. The size of the predicted (by the CBO) shortfalls we are discussing here is 14+ digit numbers (more than the GNP.) We are talking about sizable percentages of the countries entire net worth.
You would have to start taxing the assets of the people, not their income, before you would come close. Not that there is much of an alternative.. its either fuck people this way, or fuck people that way.. cause someone is going to get fucked.
My vote is to fuck the people that made the fucking inevitable, the boomers, which means cancel their social security and their medicare and every other entitlement they arent actually entitled to.
We should stand there and watch with tears in our eyes, at the horror that will be their future, never lifting a finger to help them on a federal or state level. We can help our family, and our friends, and anyone else we feel deserves it on a personal level.. but they are NOT entitled to the sweat of our brows through mandate.
The question is, though: To whom would they be selling those gobs of bandwidth?
The people who would be running a net bandwidth deficit on Google's lines if it werent for the youtube bandwidth being piped over theirs.
.. they are saying "You seem to be sending us as much as we are sending you" .. remove youtube from the equation and its "holy crap we owe google a lot of money"
Everyone else is not saying "sure google, no cost buddy! you rock!"
So, you're saying that Apple's publicly documented method for syncing with iTunes is going to be "easily broken" compared to a totally hackish USB-ID spoofing where a Palm Pre pretends to be an iPod. Come on!
sigh.. totally hackish indeed.. unbelievable that they know how to look like a generic drive..
Considering the way the linux software ecosystem works, it's hard to say that it's horrible for all cases yes?
its not that hard at all. You are only focusing on a specific portion of the linux ecosystem, that being distribution specific repositories.
Its all fun and games when someone else has made sure all the dependencies are there, and that they are compatible with everything. Then its real easy to declare that dynamic linking rocks, because you didnt have to do any of the actual work to make it 'just work'
Missing Sync is not integrated into itunes, nor is it possible for it to be. You know how you "sync" with Missing Sync? You drag files from itunes into a folder, because missing sync presents devices as folders.
It is not integrated into itunes sync features.
You ARE being disingenuous because there is a difference between "capable of syncing" and "integrated with itunes" and you fucking know it. You are a bigger asshole that I gave you credit for.
WTF. Flash didn't get any h264 support until flash 9, long after online video was popular.
The moment H.264 was a viable delivery method, everyone began switching, because if they didnt switch but their competitors did.. they would be fucked hard by offering less quality at higher costs. The landscape is littered with failed video sites.
Even now, sites like Hulu are struggling to be profitable. Downgrading codecs would kill them almost instantly.
Hello Mr Profession.
If you had to recommend only one textbook to a person more interested in the understanding (as opposed to the application) of statistics and statistical methods (they wish to "grok"), what would it be?
Why? Closed formats don't seem to operate under that constraint. In fact, technical qualities seem to be a non-issue as far as success goes in general.
"Its the money, stupid!"
No, not kickbacks, or payola, or licensing fees.
Lets start at the top. Content providers have been banging their head into the bandwidth wall for a decade, starting when the notion of streaming high quality video really took off. Their cost, primarily, is bandwidth. Their product, primarily, is eyeballs. Their revenue, primarily, is advertisers.
To make this work, they need to offer competitive quality in order to maximize the number of eyeballs, and they need to do it with the least bandwidth in order to offer competitive pricing to advertisers.
H.264 was a big improvement over the previous generation of codecs, which finally allowed what might finally be viable online video streaming businesses.
In this case, technically better still matters... its just about the only thing that matters. These businesses don't have the margin to fuck around. If they drop the ball then they lose their shot at #1.
Hate to break it to ya, but many C compilers dont use compatible ABI's.
.. and this is why the C standard library is an outrageously terrible interface to the OS: it dictates what features the calling convention must support, instead of the OS dictating what the convention will be.
If you've been in the Linux world for awhile, then you might know that Intel's C compiler (and anything it produced) wasnt compatible with GCC until version 10 or so.. so yeah.. about that standard library sharing...
In the Windows world, C compilers default to CDECL but the standard API calling convention is STDCALL.
Why do C compilers on windows default to something that isnt the standard for the platform? Its because the C standard library has a couple functions which require a CDECL or a CDECL-like calling convention in order to work, such as printf()
Well then, lets have some untargeted killing then. Thats much better for everyone.
Yes you wouldn't be writing it yourself, but you are distributing hundreds of the exact same library, in a place (in binary) where it cannot be updated
You've obviously never dealt with actual program distribution on a large scale and my guess is that if you've done any at all, its been to the open source world where its expected that someone somewhere will have to hunt down all the dependencies that you so flagrantly didnt bother to include.
Even in the case of fairly standard dependencies, such as MSVCR80, you want to ship a version of it known to not have issues with your program because not everyone will have the most up-to-date copy, others may have an even later version that breaks your shit, and others may not have any copy of MSVCR80 at all.
Shipping naked executables with none of its dependencies is amateur and unrealistic, so in the real world dynamic linking does not reduce the number of bytes needing to be distributed, that quite the contrary it increases the number of bytes needed.
I for one, do not want the gigantic mess that is having everything statically compiled. From a deployment perspective on a system that likely won't have installed libraries, it's useful, but the real solution is to.. install the libraries.
Listen to yourself.. you dont like gigantic messes, but have the gall to suggest that someone whos program just needs printf() and getc() should ship the entire library!
You have not thought this through. You offering up scenarios where it makes sense to dynamic link, but completely ignoring all the cases where it makes no sense at all.
You realize that a programmer is expected to make rational decisions, right? The problem under discussion is that the decision to static link is much worse than it should be, even much worse than it used to be.. that static linking has gone downhill into bloatedness for no good reason other than lazy library organization and poorly written linkers.