It was fixed much faster than MS after it was announced.
The latest stable linux kernel release is 2.6.30.4 dated 7-30-2009.
Now, you were saying that "it was fixed" in the past-tense, which is clearly a lie. It hasn't been fixed by any reasonable measure, because almost every linux systems in the world right now is vulnerable to this (now) well known exploit, and even if you download the most recent kernel you are stick fucked.
Your first step, should you man up and drop the religion, is to be honest with yourself. Then you wouldn't so easily run the risk of being dishonest with others.
On the one hand, are you under some delusion that your health insurance company is somehow doing a better job?
Better job or not, I have a CONTRACT with my insurance company with mutualy agreeable terms.
For sure, they government wants to get their mitts on more money, and they might even use most of it for healthcare.. but they are not offering me a replacement for the current system, which has me holding a contract.
The ribbon certainly doesn't aid in getting to specific options, but it does provide an easy to grasp view of the important options that are currently available. Now, for Mr Professional Writer the second part doesnt seem all that important, but for Joe Plumber that second part is actualy informing him of relevant abilities that the software has that he otherwise would have remained completely unaware of. The ribbon takes the place of a user manual that would never have been read. So yes.. groundbreaking.
If it was decided today then the obvious winner is h.264.
But I think Mozilla's point is that we shouldn't make the decision until the winner is not only objectively the best choice, but also Open Forever. I can't say that I entirely disagree, but H264 has widespread low power hardware support already, and I think that trumps everything.
Its in the hardware on everything from cellphones to netbooks. Its already a device that people own, fully licensed, so patents simply dont matter here. If you don't pick h.264 then its equivilent to flipping every single one of these devices the finger, making most of them unfit for the purposes of this decision, voting them off the island.
The first reason to patent something you've developed is defense. If you don't stake your claim, someone else might. If an opportunity comes later on to sue somebody profitably, thats all good too. Defense is the primary concern.
Microsoft vs TomTom ended up as rights swap, with protections to both parties on all the explicitely named patents in both the suit and countersuit. The agreement also makes any litigation between the two parties verboten for 5 years. Both clearly feel that they will be in a better baregaining position at that time. Thats if they dont come to a more permanent agreement sooner. They are both basically juggling for position prior to a patent swap.
Because people keep saying that Microsoft was/is intentionally "holding back web standards", that they introduced "proprietary tags in order to break the web" and other such drivel, and that they "illegally drove netscape out of the market."
You see the quality arguement because it is precisely what refutes that kind of horseshit.
Did they do things which were questionable, ruled illegal, and so forth? Yes they did.
Did they drive netscape out of the market? No, they didn't. Netscape drove itself out of the market, and sold itself to AOL as the final hail mary to salvage the terrible position it put itself in.
Thats why you keep seeing the quality arguement. Because of the zealots that actualy believe that netscape would have been competitive if only Microsoft hadn't paid off all the ISP's. The fact is that the ISP that owned Netscape sued Microsoft for the right to distribute Internet Explorer royalty free, and won the case. ISP's were forcing Microsoft to supply Internet Explorer through legal actions.. which is a lot different than what the zealots keep saying.
It's true that for its time, IE6 was decently standards compliant.
We agree!
But there was still a lot left to implement, and loads of bugs.
We agree!
Because IE6 is the default web browser for a lot of people thanks to it shipping with Windows, we got stuck with it.
We don't agree! A serious alternative wasnt to be found until 2006 (ForeFox 2.0), and low and behold IE7 was also released in 2006. If IE wasnt bundled with windows, it would have still been #1 by a very healthy margin because there wasnt any serious alternatives until 2006. Microsoft couldn't wave its magic wand and make the alternatives any better.
For the record, I have been using Opera since the windows 3.1 days. I watched this all go down as a bystandard. No religion here. If you were a netscape user I understand how much it must hurt that they fucked up so bad, and I also understand how clouded your judgement must be because of it.
You rewriting history in order to make it seem Microsoft actually got where they are through merit is laughable at best.
No, they got there because Netscape fucked up.
Netscape was still the #1 leader when they made the choice to do a complete fucking rewrite that took several years.
This mistake was so terrible that Netscape usage tanked slowly, from the 60% usage share when NN4.0 was released (1997) down to 55% usage share when IE5.0 was released (1999), where it rapidly tanked down to 20% up until NN6.0 (2000)... there was no 5.0... the delay cost it over half of its market, and 6.0 was so bad that by the time IE6.0 was released it was down to less than 10% usage share.
No, it wasn't IE's merit.. it was the complete lack of any merit to the competition. NOBODY wanted to use NN6.. the only people who did were using AOL.
Thats the history. Those are the numbers. If you ever used NN4.0 you know for a fact it didnt hold a candle to IE6.0, and if you ever used NN6.0 you know for a fact that it crashed constantly and due to the rewrite, wasnt even as standards compliant as 4.0.
Firefox wasn't a decent browser until version 1.5 (4 years after IE6), and didnt really have enough competitive features until 2.0 (5 years after IE6).
Look at the timeline.. IE7 was released about the same time as FF2? Well how about that. Microsoft moved as fast as the rest of the market? Fucking amazing.
Cry some moar that you didnt get your free updates to Internet Explorer between 2001 and 2006, when only Opera had anything resembling competition (and was #1 in many countries, and still is)
I would, but every time I run it and select to update my copy, it wants to download Bonjour, iTunes, and QuickTime for me. Since I don't want that shit on my system, I forcefully close the process from task manager.
This reaks completely of "I.E. had no competition *sniff* so they didnt release new versions *sniff* so web developers dealt with what was available *sniff* but now there is competition *sniff* but IE is still buggy *sniff* make them develop products for me for free *sniff* and it better be the way I want *sniff* waaaaaaah!"
You went on and on about free software released in 2001, which wasnt updated for free like you wanted, for 5 years. It didn't have any more proprietary extensions than Netscape did (both were found, in court, the use lots of them) and it was in fact more standards-compliant than Netscape was. People cry about IE6's poor CSS support, but compared to NN6's CSS support its a laughable comparison.. NN6 crashed practically every time it saw even basic CSS.
So you are crying foul that a MORE-standards-complient browser when it was released wasn't updated for 5 years, for free for you to enjoy, at the expense of the shareholders of Microsoft.
I am almost certain that you werent even on the web at the time.. because you obviously don't know that about half the web had a little icon that said "Best viewed with Netscape Navigator['s proprietary extensions]"
Evasion algorithm, when approaching an object at 0.5c?
Lets consider this. The worst-case scenerio would be that the 10m square scross-sectioned ship has to translate to one side by 5 meters, with the average-case being 2.5 meters.
Lets suppose we can detect these bullet-sized rocks at a distance of 1 million meters (high powered radar?) Thats a hell of a distance to be detecting such things, but perhaps this is possible.
The time of impact from detection (1 million meters away) is 1/150th of a second. The required average-case sideways acceleration would be 750 meters per second per second (*), with the worst-case being 1500 meters per second per second. Human-understandable G forces of such magnitudes (75g's to 150g's) would be the very high speed (~180kph) car crashes where formula-1 drivers smash directly into concrete walls. Shattered bones would be assured, with death highly probable.
(*) 750m/sec/sec is derived from 150 * 2.5 * 2. The doubling-factor is because you have to *average* 375m/sec in the alloted time, which means final velocity (after 1 second of such acceleration) must be 750m/sec.
Nothing you quoted backs up your arguement. I'll give you one last opportunity. Its funny that what you are doing, going 'nanaana', is what you accuse me off. Such deflections don't support your arguement, while the personal attacks only show that your arguement is very weak..
Infers? Do you think that I am not capable of saying exactly what I mean? I said *EXACTLY* what I meant. I always do.
The real situation here it that I didnt say what you wanted to attack, so you decided to 'infer' what you wanted.
...that high speed space travel is impossible because of pebbles/shit in space.
No, it doesn't.
It is stating that the speed problem isnt the real problem. Velocity is just the application of force over time. The idea that achieving some velocity is any kind of barrier is stupid. Wanna go faster? Add more time. We've got lots of that. Your arguement is stupid.
The universe is about 14 billion years old, it is very likely that alien races could have gotten started well before us.
If you want to be straight-up rational, about half of the ones that will ever explore space have begun doing so before us, and about half will do so after us. Until we are given evidence otherwise, we should assume that were are in the 50th percentile of things like this.
The big problem is that any craft large enough to hold a human, traveling at 0.5c relative to the stuff around it, is sweeping so much volume that even if there is only 1 small piece of rock for every 1000 mile cube of space, you are going to hit one pretty quickly. Its actualy worse because our solor system is surrounded by a cloud of rocks and ice called the Kiuper Belt.
Ok, so we eventualy invent our own 0.5c space drives and go ahead and try to leave our solar system at 0.5c...
We run through the Kuiper Belt where we collide with a tiny pebble that is lazily orbiting our solar system
The relative velocity of a bullet, fired from a low velocity pistol, when it hits something is generally between 300meters/second and 600meters/second. Now imagine a bullet with a relative velocity of 150,000,000meters/second. The problem isnt the space drives.... its that the "vacuum of space" has shit in it.
At equal levels of microcode-per-clock, the RISC machine needs to fetch quite a bit more instructions-per-clock out of cache/ram, which is actualy problematic when the instruction fetching unit runs at the same speed as the CPU. The instruction fetcher is highly parallel, which in turn means that the pipeline must also be highly parallel to accomodate, and so on..
Yes CISC machines have more complicated decoding logic, but its offset to a large extent by various RISC-punishing factors.
KnightCap and ExChess were two such engines which did. THey go even further, and learn what a specific piece is worth on specific squares. Normally this is implemented as Temporal-Difference-Learning which is exactly as you describe: Try it, then update weights.
Other engines don't have to, since the works been done.
Vista did not introduce a new security model, it improved the UI around the same security model that it's had since 1993
..you mean.. before Windows 95? Windows 3.1?
Thats a mighty big typo.. or you're stupid (for commenting) and uninformed (for being extremely wrong.)
and it was most certainly not the reason the audio stack was rewritten.
Didn't say it was. Didn't mention the audio stack at all. THe person I replied to didn't mention the audio stack either. The person he had replied to did go on about SB Live drivers. Even if the audio stack wasn't rewritten, the drivers wouldn't work. New security model, you see. No drivers survived.
Slashdot Mirror
It was fixed much faster than MS after it was announced.
The latest stable linux kernel release is 2.6.30.4 dated 7-30-2009.
Now, you were saying that "it was fixed" in the past-tense, which is clearly a lie. It hasn't been fixed by any reasonable measure, because almost every linux systems in the world right now is vulnerable to this (now) well known exploit, and even if you download the most recent kernel you are stick fucked.
Your first step, should you man up and drop the religion, is to be honest with yourself. Then you wouldn't so easily run the risk of being dishonest with others.
On the one hand, are you under some delusion that your health insurance company is somehow doing a better job?
Better job or not, I have a CONTRACT with my insurance company with mutualy agreeable terms.
For sure, they government wants to get their mitts on more money, and they might even use most of it for healthcare.. but they are not offering me a replacement for the current system, which has me holding a contract.
But isnt putting search-engine needs into the HTML spec sort of silly?
The ribbon certainly doesn't aid in getting to specific options, but it does provide an easy to grasp view of the important options that are currently available. Now, for Mr Professional Writer the second part doesnt seem all that important, but for Joe Plumber that second part is actualy informing him of relevant abilities that the software has that he otherwise would have remained completely unaware of. The ribbon takes the place of a user manual that would never have been read. So yes.. groundbreaking.
I agree.
If it was decided today then the obvious winner is h.264.
But I think Mozilla's point is that we shouldn't make the decision until the winner is not only objectively the best choice, but also Open Forever. I can't say that I entirely disagree, but H264 has widespread low power hardware support already, and I think that trumps everything.
Its in the hardware on everything from cellphones to netbooks. Its already a device that people own, fully licensed, so patents simply dont matter here. If you don't pick h.264 then its equivilent to flipping every single one of these devices the finger, making most of them unfit for the purposes of this decision, voting them off the island.
The first reason to patent something you've developed is defense. If you don't stake your claim, someone else might. If an opportunity comes later on to sue somebody profitably, thats all good too. Defense is the primary concern.
Microsoft vs TomTom ended up as rights swap, with protections to both parties on all the explicitely named patents in both the suit and countersuit. The agreement also makes any litigation between the two parties verboten for 5 years. Both clearly feel that they will be in a better baregaining position at that time. Thats if they dont come to a more permanent agreement sooner. They are both basically juggling for position prior to a patent swap.
We americans already have had an electric car on the market for a year and a half now that nails 231 miles per charge.
You are going on about 100 mile range? ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS?
We are moving into generation 2 of these electric vehicles, and these Japs are still on generation 1, and it sucks? ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS?
'Netscape after 6.0'
..but..
So 6.1, and 6.2? Umm, no.
'Mozilla since 1.0'
aka Netscape 7.0. Didnt offer anything significant over IE6.
Firefox didnt start getting awards until 2005. Hmm.. I wonder what year Firefox 1.5 was released...
1.5 brought CSS2 and CSS3 support, for a start. Finally a reason to switch.
Because people keep saying that Microsoft was/is intentionally "holding back web standards", that they introduced "proprietary tags in order to break the web" and other such drivel, and that they "illegally drove netscape out of the market."
You see the quality arguement because it is precisely what refutes that kind of horseshit.
Did they do things which were questionable, ruled illegal, and so forth? Yes they did.
Did they drive netscape out of the market? No, they didn't. Netscape drove itself out of the market, and sold itself to AOL as the final hail mary to salvage the terrible position it put itself in.
Thats why you keep seeing the quality arguement. Because of the zealots that actualy believe that netscape would have been competitive if only Microsoft hadn't paid off all the ISP's. The fact is that the ISP that owned Netscape sued Microsoft for the right to distribute Internet Explorer royalty free, and won the case. ISP's were forcing Microsoft to supply Internet Explorer through legal actions.. which is a lot different than what the zealots keep saying.
It's true that for its time, IE6 was decently standards compliant.
We agree!
But there was still a lot left to implement, and loads of bugs.
We agree!
Because IE6 is the default web browser for a lot of people thanks to it shipping with Windows, we got stuck with it.
We don't agree! A serious alternative wasnt to be found until 2006 (ForeFox 2.0), and low and behold IE7 was also released in 2006. If IE wasnt bundled with windows, it would have still been #1 by a very healthy margin because there wasnt any serious alternatives until 2006. Microsoft couldn't wave its magic wand and make the alternatives any better.
For the record, I have been using Opera since the windows 3.1 days. I watched this all go down as a bystandard. No religion here. If you were a netscape user I understand how much it must hurt that they fucked up so bad, and I also understand how clouded your judgement must be because of it.
You rewriting history in order to make it seem Microsoft actually got where they are through merit is laughable at best.
No, they got there because Netscape fucked up.
... there was no 5.0 ... the delay cost it over half of its market, and 6.0 was so bad that by the time IE6.0 was released it was down to less than 10% usage share.
Netscape was still the #1 leader when they made the choice to do a complete fucking rewrite that took several years.
This mistake was so terrible that Netscape usage tanked slowly, from the 60% usage share when NN4.0 was released (1997) down to 55% usage share when IE5.0 was released (1999), where it rapidly tanked down to 20% up until NN6.0 (2000)
No, it wasn't IE's merit.. it was the complete lack of any merit to the competition. NOBODY wanted to use NN6.. the only people who did were using AOL.
Thats the history. Those are the numbers. If you ever used NN4.0 you know for a fact it didnt hold a candle to IE6.0, and if you ever used NN6.0 you know for a fact that it crashed constantly and due to the rewrite, wasnt even as standards compliant as 4.0.
Firefox wasn't a decent browser until version 1.5 (4 years after IE6), and didnt really have enough competitive features until 2.0 (5 years after IE6).
Look at the timeline.. IE7 was released about the same time as FF2? Well how about that. Microsoft moved as fast as the rest of the market? Fucking amazing.
Cry some moar that you didnt get your free updates to Internet Explorer between 2001 and 2006, when only Opera had anything resembling competition (and was #1 in many countries, and still is)
I would, but every time I run it and select to update my copy, it wants to download Bonjour, iTunes, and QuickTime for me. Since I don't want that shit on my system, I forcefully close the process from task manager.
This reaks completely of "I.E. had no competition *sniff* so they didnt release new versions *sniff* so web developers dealt with what was available *sniff* but now there is competition *sniff* but IE is still buggy *sniff* make them develop products for me for free *sniff* and it better be the way I want *sniff* waaaaaaah!"
You went on and on about free software released in 2001, which wasnt updated for free like you wanted, for 5 years. It didn't have any more proprietary extensions than Netscape did (both were found, in court, the use lots of them) and it was in fact more standards-compliant than Netscape was. People cry about IE6's poor CSS support, but compared to NN6's CSS support its a laughable comparison.. NN6 crashed practically every time it saw even basic CSS.
So you are crying foul that a MORE-standards-complient browser when it was released wasn't updated for 5 years, for free for you to enjoy, at the expense of the shareholders of Microsoft.
I am almost certain that you werent even on the web at the time.. because you obviously don't know that about half the web had a little icon that said "Best viewed with Netscape Navigator['s proprietary extensions]"
Evasion algorithm, when approaching an object at 0.5c?
Lets consider this. The worst-case scenerio would be that the 10m square scross-sectioned ship has to translate to one side by 5 meters, with the average-case being 2.5 meters.
Lets suppose we can detect these bullet-sized rocks at a distance of 1 million meters (high powered radar?) Thats a hell of a distance to be detecting such things, but perhaps this is possible.
The time of impact from detection (1 million meters away) is 1/150th of a second. The required average-case sideways acceleration would be 750 meters per second per second (*), with the worst-case being 1500 meters per second per second. Human-understandable G forces of such magnitudes (75g's to 150g's) would be the very high speed (~180kph) car crashes where formula-1 drivers smash directly into concrete walls. Shattered bones would be assured, with death highly probable.
(*) 750m/sec/sec is derived from 150 * 2.5 * 2. The doubling-factor is because you have to *average* 375m/sec in the alloted time, which means final velocity (after 1 second of such acceleration) must be 750m/sec.
Nothing you quoted backs up your arguement. I'll give you one last opportunity. Its funny that what you are doing, going 'nanaana', is what you accuse me off. Such deflections don't support your arguement, while the personal attacks only show that your arguement is very weak..
Point of reference:
The volume of the earth is only about 1 trillion cubic meters, which this craft will sweep every 66 seconds.
Lets suppose that we design a small craft with a forward cross section of 10m square. Lets further suppose that craft is traveling at 0.5c.
This craft sweeps a volume of space equivilent to 15 billion cubic meters / second.
Thats 9 quadrillion cubic meters / week.
The *nearest* star will be 8 years away, at 0.5c.
The chance of hitting such a small piece of rock approaches 100%
You didn't say that?
I did say it.
Your statement infers that..
Infers? Do you think that I am not capable of saying exactly what I mean? I said *EXACTLY* what I meant. I always do.
The real situation here it that I didnt say what you wanted to attack, so you decided to 'infer' what you wanted.
...that high speed space travel is impossible because of pebbles/shit in space.
No, it doesn't.
It is stating that the speed problem isnt the real problem. Velocity is just the application of force over time. The idea that achieving some velocity is any kind of barrier is stupid. Wanna go faster? Add more time. We've got lots of that. Your arguement is stupid.
The universe is about 14 billion years old, it is very likely that alien races could have gotten started well before us.
If you want to be straight-up rational, about half of the ones that will ever explore space have begun doing so before us, and about half will do so after us. Until we are given evidence otherwise, we should assume that were are in the 50th percentile of things like this.
The big problem is that any craft large enough to hold a human, traveling at 0.5c relative to the stuff around it, is sweeping so much volume that even if there is only 1 small piece of rock for every 1000 mile cube of space, you are going to hit one pretty quickly. Its actualy worse because our solor system is surrounded by a cloud of rocks and ice called the Kiuper Belt.
My line of thinking?
No sir. You went on about something I didn't say. Its your line of thinking that you are shooting down.
Ok, so we eventualy invent our own 0.5c space drives and go ahead and try to leave our solar system at 0.5c ...
We run through the Kuiper Belt where we collide with a tiny pebble that is lazily orbiting our solar system
The relative velocity of a bullet, fired from a low velocity pistol, when it hits something is generally between 300meters/second and 600meters/second. Now imagine a bullet with a relative velocity of 150,000,000meters/second. The problem isnt the space drives.... its that the "vacuum of space" has shit in it.
At equal levels of microcode-per-clock, the RISC machine needs to fetch quite a bit more instructions-per-clock out of cache/ram, which is actualy problematic when the instruction fetching unit runs at the same speed as the CPU. The instruction fetcher is highly parallel, which in turn means that the pipeline must also be highly parallel to accomodate, and so on..
Yes CISC machines have more complicated decoding logic, but its offset to a large extent by various RISC-punishing factors.
Chess engines have done that.
KnightCap and ExChess were two such engines which did. THey go even further, and learn what a specific piece is worth on specific squares. Normally this is implemented as Temporal-Difference-Learning which is exactly as you describe: Try it, then update weights.
Other engines don't have to, since the works been done.
Vista did not introduce a new security model, it improved the UI around the same security model that it's had since 1993
Thats a mighty big typo.. or you're stupid (for commenting) and uninformed (for being extremely wrong.)
and it was most certainly not the reason the audio stack was rewritten.
Didn't say it was. Didn't mention the audio stack at all. THe person I replied to didn't mention the audio stack either. The person he had replied to did go on about SB Live drivers. Even if the audio stack wasn't rewritten, the drivers wouldn't work. New security model, you see. No drivers survived.