> Unless you are a web designer who wants to make sure that his site looks correctly when viewed with a browser that adheres to STANDARDS
Standards are defined by commitees, but are only truly made standards in the real world. Witness the totally inaccurate OSI model... Witness all of the unused HTTP methods... etc etc... Because of it's usage, IE *is* the standard.
> or unless you are a person who believes that the web should be easy to navigate and not overwhelmed with pop-up advertisements,
A half-assed solution to a half-assed problem.
> or unless you believe that you should have the ability to modify the code to your browser for timely fixes to security flaws.
Oh I love guys like you- Have you *ever* modified the code of some app you use to fix a security hole? C'mon- really... have you? I'm guessing no. You wait for one of the developers to fix the problem like 99.8% of all OSS users.
> Nope, no major reasons there...."
Hey you said it- Jut for the record- I use Mozilla *because* of it's interface- but I guess I'm kind of a weirdo like that:)
> It is almost unimaginable that a public company could turn to its shareholders and say: we have a sustainable business that makes about $1 billion a year and isn't under threat. We're going to throw that away and go into this other business, with Microsoft as our main competitor, and we might be profitable again in a decade.
"sustainable" and "isn't under threat" could both be *very* strenuously debated...
"In this Yahoo finance article, Reuters asked Apple's CEO Steve Jobs about the possible abandonment by Apple of Motorola and IBM's processors (PowerPC G3's & G4's), and the possibility of Intel processor-equipped Macs. Steve Jobs didn't exclude the possibility. He noticed that, during the year 2002, Apple had to finish the OS X transition and, this done, there would be a lot of amazing possibilities, which he finds exciting."
Am I the only one who thinks that this should be an *entirely* obvious step that should be taken immediately?
It would almost be like FreeBSD with a complete GUI and hardcore device support running on commodity hardware.
I think with that, I could *finally* completely kiss Windows goodbye...
> This is a LAST DITCH EFFORT to assert their right to exist.
I don't think it is... In one of the many previous discussions ala RIAA VS p2p- It was mentioned that perhaps the RIAA *knows* beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is never going to stop p2p systems as they exist today, and is merely arming itself with "evidence"-
Like "We tried suing the companies, it didn't work- then we tried suing the individual users, and that didn't work either- we've tried everything! And so you see- this is why law xyz(palladium?) *must* be passed- we've demonstrated that there is literally NO way to control this- other than a mandatory technical solution."
If you don't notice that much BW erroneously movving around on your network, you've got other problems to worry about...
Re:Devices hostile to 3rd party peripherals
on
Analyzing Palladium
·
· Score: 1
I know here in the US, there are laws specifically *preventing* this sort of thing for automobiles.
This prevents the "you have to buy our outrageously-overpriced part to keep your warranty valid" situation.
To me- this cellphone crap follows the same logic. If they purposely make their phones only work with their own batteries, then they can charge whatever they want for their batteries.
> Unless the first move for instance contains some random factor the games should be exactly the same, no matter which processor is running the program.
Eh?
While I'm not certain- in the case of a "no certain best move" I believe both programs will choose amongst the top moves randomly.
IE: There's no guarantee at all that the games will be the same every time.
Since the human eye can't see more than about 30 fps, anything over is just a safety buffer.
Not *entirely* true...
Read here for good info on motion-blur:
http://www.ping.be/powervr/fps_discus.htm
Re:Counterfeiting, Dark Taxis, and Natioanl Image
on
Greenbacks No More
·
· Score: 1
I think it is a great idea, because it finally allows the US Treasury to put some decent anti-counterfeiting into their bills. I mean you think they would be embarassed to be the most successfully counterfeited currency in the world.
Well duh- perhaps that's because it's the most widely-accepted currency in the world?
With buying power almost anywhere?
*ahem*
In all the various discussions there is the notion of "nothing is being copied" etc etc.
My question has always been- what exactly is a "copy"?
Various ambiguities follow:
When watching streaming media, there is a good chance that it will at some time be stored in its entirety in memory or on disk. Have I then "made a copy" of it?
Say I take it and re-encode it to another format- have I "made a copy"? (The argument is "no I haven't- look the 2 files' binary contents are totally different")
Say I modify it in some way, through some filter or something. Is it not then my own work?
There's all sorts of semantic shit that can be pulled here- heheh
I've been using Mozilla on and off for a *long* time-
Ive stuck with it exclusively since RC1-
I wouldn't say the fact that they're calling this "1.0" is anything signifigant.
(side note, can *anyone* find the "what's new" from RC3 to 1.0?
I sure as hell can't...
Anyway- there's still a long way to go-
It's still slow in general (anxious to try out Beonex at home).
The Flash and Java performane is *horrendous*-
And it doesn't render many sites "correctly"-
Yes- I put "correctly" in quotes because I'm fully aware that the offending sites probably aren't rendering correctly because they're not entirely standards-compliant...
But who cares?
Do "standards" matter when you're on a crashing plane?
Hell no- you use what you have around you and make the best of it.
Making Mozilla "standards compliant" at the expense of ill rendering only hurts it. Hey guess what- Forget about the "standards", IE by virtue of market share has *become* THE standard. Mozilla should render to that, not some worthess pieces of paper... Oh- and if you'd like a lovely reference site for Mozilla's deficiencies- hit up my favorite site in Mozilla: http://www.consumptionjunction.com (Make sure you have the flash plugin)
a) notice it doesn't render correctly at all
b) notice the animated ad on the left (the flash one)
So when I watch the movies there, I go to the "movies" tab and then open each movie in a new tab (in the background) and then go through each tab and download the movie, then close the tab.
Do this and watch your CPU bog heavily as each tab has that embedded flash ad in it, churning away whether you can actually see it or not.
Then do the same thing in IE...
"Years ago, I picked a password that's random as hell and was very difficult to remember. No password cracker-- dictionary *or* brute force-- has broken it yet. I use this password on about ten systems."
Methinks you better look up the definition of "brute force":)
That's always been one of my big problems with the whole source/binary code thing.
Going from source to binary is nothing more than a translation.
Hey RMS- I'll give you the source code alright... it's in a language I wrote, and compiles on a compiler I wrote- and no you can't have the compiler.
What's that? You say that the sourcecode appears to be nothing more than a random sequence of words and numbers? Well I don't give a shit- in *my* language on *my* compiler it makes this "binary"- prove me wrong:)
Slashdot Mirror
> Unless you are a web designer who wants to make sure that his site looks correctly when viewed with a browser that adheres to STANDARDS
:)
Standards are defined by commitees, but are only truly made standards in the real world.
Witness the totally inaccurate OSI model...
Witness all of the unused HTTP methods...
etc etc...
Because of it's usage, IE *is* the standard.
> or unless you are a person who believes that the web should be easy to navigate and not overwhelmed with pop-up advertisements,
A half-assed solution to a half-assed problem.
> or unless you believe that you should have the ability to modify the code to your browser for timely fixes to security flaws.
Oh I love guys like you-
Have you *ever* modified the code of some app you use to fix a security hole?
C'mon- really... have you?
I'm guessing no.
You wait for one of the developers to fix the problem like 99.8% of all OSS users.
> Nope, no major reasons there...."
Hey you said it-
Jut for the record- I use Mozilla *because* of it's interface- but I guess I'm kind of a weirdo like that
That's not how it works-
The waveform outputs will look TOTALLY different-
That's what compression does- remove parts of the waveform (data) that you can't hear anyway.
The goal is to *sound* the same, not *look* the same.
> It is almost unimaginable that a public company could turn to its shareholders and say: we have a sustainable business that makes about $1 billion a year and isn't under threat. We're going to throw that away and go into this other business, with Microsoft as our main competitor, and we might be profitable again in a decade.
"sustainable" and "isn't under threat" could both be *very* strenuously debated...
"In this Yahoo finance article, Reuters asked Apple's CEO Steve Jobs about the possible abandonment by Apple of Motorola and IBM's processors (PowerPC G3's & G4's), and the possibility of Intel processor-equipped Macs. Steve Jobs didn't exclude the possibility. He noticed that, during the year 2002, Apple had to finish the OS X transition and, this done, there would be a lot of amazing possibilities, which he finds exciting."
Am I the only one who thinks that this should be an *entirely* obvious step that should be taken immediately?
It would almost be like FreeBSD with a complete GUI and hardcore device support running on commodity hardware.
I think with that, I could *finally* completely kiss Windows goodbye...
Come on man-
.dll conflict?
Really- when's the last time you had a
For me, it's been *years*...
Maybe there was a "misconficuration" with the power switch?
> This is a LAST DITCH EFFORT to assert their right to exist.
I don't think it is...
In one of the many previous discussions ala RIAA VS p2p-
It was mentioned that perhaps the RIAA *knows* beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is never going to stop p2p systems as they exist today, and is merely arming itself with "evidence"-
Like "We tried suing the companies, it didn't work- then we tried suing the individual users, and that didn't work either- we've tried everything! And so you see- this is why law xyz(palladium?) *must* be passed- we've demonstrated that there is literally NO way to control this- other than a mandatory technical solution."
Now is the time to *shudder*
Dead kittens indeed...
Hmmm what happened to the earth's foreskin after Drake "circumcised" it?
Well "right" and all-
I totally agree- my original point being that WEP is useless.
And here- WEP also does nothing to obscure network traffic.
The SSH "timing" attack is:
a) Impractical- and all it gives you is the *length* of the password.
Which for all intents and purposes is almost worthless.
b) Not stopped by WEP- the fact that the packets are encrypted doesn't stop you from seeing the timing between them.
I personally have my shit set up like the other guy says- with the wireless net completely untrusted- and using a VPN to come in.
But for some architectures, that's just not practical- which is why I'd like to see much stiffer access controls.
Sensitive data that needs protection should be encrypted at the app level anyway.
I'm *far* more interested in robust access-control rather than someone peeping in to my packets...
If you don't notice that much BW erroneously movving around on your network, you've got other problems to worry about...
I know here in the US, there are laws specifically *preventing* this sort of thing for automobiles.
This prevents the "you have to buy our outrageously-overpriced part to keep your warranty valid" situation.
To me- this cellphone crap follows the same logic.
If they purposely make their phones only work with their own batteries, then they can charge whatever they want for their batteries.
> Unless the first move for instance contains some random factor the games should be exactly the same, no matter which processor is running the program.
Eh?
While I'm not certain- in the case of a "no certain best move" I believe both programs will choose amongst the top moves randomly.
IE: There's no guarantee at all that the games will be the same every time.
This is entirely ridiculous, and is patent evidence of the dangers of non-technical people making technical decisions.
Depending on the nature of the "DOS" attack, there may or may not be any distinction between "DOS" traffic and "legitimate" traffic.
Example: Google could be sued for putting site "x" at the top of their results- causing an influx of traffic and slowing it down.
Utterly Fucking Ridiculous
Since the human eye can't see more than about 30 fps, anything over is just a safety buffer.
Not *entirely* true...
Read here for good info on motion-blur:
http://www.ping.be/powervr/fps_discus.htm
I think it is a great idea, because it finally allows the US Treasury to put some decent anti-counterfeiting into their bills. I mean you think they would be embarassed to be the most successfully counterfeited currency in the world.
Well duh- perhaps that's because it's the most widely-accepted currency in the world? With buying power almost anywhere? *ahem*
"collision domain"?
:)
As if *anyone* using 10Gbps NICs would be using them in a shared-medium "hub" environment?
Please...
Well of course- nobody needs "anti-gravity".
Simply focus your gravity *away* from the earth and gee, you can fly.
In all the various discussions there is the notion of "nothing is being copied" etc etc.
My question has always been- what exactly is a "copy"?
Various ambiguities follow:
When watching streaming media, there is a good chance that it will at some time be stored in its entirety in memory or on disk.
Have I then "made a copy" of it?
Say I take it and re-encode it to another format- have I "made a copy"? (The argument is "no I haven't- look the 2 files' binary contents are totally different")
Say I modify it in some way, through some filter or something. Is it not then my own work?
There's all sorts of semantic shit that can be pulled here- heheh
I've been using Mozilla on and off for a *long* time- Ive stuck with it exclusively since RC1- I wouldn't say the fact that they're calling this "1.0" is anything signifigant. (side note, can *anyone* find the "what's new" from RC3 to 1.0? I sure as hell can't... Anyway- there's still a long way to go- It's still slow in general (anxious to try out Beonex at home). The Flash and Java performane is *horrendous*- And it doesn't render many sites "correctly"- Yes- I put "correctly" in quotes because I'm fully aware that the offending sites probably aren't rendering correctly because they're not entirely standards-compliant... But who cares? Do "standards" matter when you're on a crashing plane? Hell no- you use what you have around you and make the best of it. Making Mozilla "standards compliant" at the expense of ill rendering only hurts it. Hey guess what- Forget about the "standards", IE by virtue of market share has *become* THE standard. Mozilla should render to that, not some worthess pieces of paper... Oh- and if you'd like a lovely reference site for Mozilla's deficiencies- hit up my favorite site in Mozilla: http://www.consumptionjunction.com (Make sure you have the flash plugin) a) notice it doesn't render correctly at all b) notice the animated ad on the left (the flash one) So when I watch the movies there, I go to the "movies" tab and then open each movie in a new tab (in the background) and then go through each tab and download the movie, then close the tab. Do this and watch your CPU bog heavily as each tab has that embedded flash ad in it, churning away whether you can actually see it or not. Then do the same thing in IE...
http://www.sciam.com/2000/0900issue/0900scicit6.ht ml
"Years ago, I picked a password that's random as hell and was very difficult to remember. No password cracker-- dictionary *or* brute force-- has broken it yet. I use this password on about ten systems."
:)
Methinks you better look up the definition of "brute force"
BWAHAHAHAHHA!
i named my cat "japscat"
That's always been one of my big problems with the whole source/binary code thing.
:)
Going from source to binary is nothing more than a translation.
Hey RMS- I'll give you the source code alright... it's in a language I wrote, and compiles on a compiler I wrote- and no you can't have the compiler.
What's that?
You say that the sourcecode appears to be nothing more than a random sequence of words and numbers?
Well I don't give a shit- in *my* language on *my* compiler it makes this "binary"- prove me wrong