Actually, you *can* get good virtual desktops on Windows... but to do so, you have to replace the entire window manager. Litestep is a replacement shell for Windows which supports virtual desktops properly. It's also very configurable, which is good, although you may have to try a few themes before you find a usable one.
That's why legitimate mailing lists send a confirmation request before adding to the list. Failing to use such confirmations is considered a blacklistable offense by many, and mailing list software makes it so easy there's no legitimate reason not to.
That's a limitation of consumer routers, using the DMZ feature. You can map individual ports to different places on just about any hardware. And, I can't see much of a reason to map all incoming ports to a DMZ, over a few selected ports.
The problem is you can't always choose which ports inbound connections will use. If you have a game with a hardcoded port number (which is unfortunately very common), then only one person can play that game at a time.
i'm not sure how the gp got the figure of 10^-28% but the figure is still so small that a worm could hit random addresses for a very very long time before having a reasonable chance of hitting anything.
An IPv4 address is 4 bytes (32 bits), an IPv6 address is 16 bytes (128 bits). If about 10% of IPv4 addresses are used currently (which is just an order-of-magnitude estimate), then there are 4x10^8 addresses in use now. There are 2^128=3x10^38 IP addresses in use now, so 4x10^8/3x10^38 = 10^-28% of addresses used.
This thread will of course trigger a bunch of replies from people saying we don't need IPv6, but in fact, we do, badly, and the need is only increasing with time.
NAT helps somewhat, but if you're using NAT your computer can't receive incoming connections. That's a problem for servers, for peer-to-peer networking, for games, and for VoIP. Home users can usually work around this with their firewall configuration, but businesses usually can't (one important reason being that only one computer behind the firewall can receive connections this way, not multiple). And, as someone pointed out in the last IPv6-related thread, merging the networks of two corporations is a nightmare - they both use the same IP addresses.
There are theoretically 4 billion IP addresses total. That sounds like a lot, but an IP address isn't just a number which can be assigned individually; what you do is hand out big consecutive blocks of them, so that routers can say things like "for 123.231.*.*, send packets in this direction". The shortage of IP addresses has introduced lots of special cases, so that internet routers need tons of memory and processing power to figure out the mess.
Finally, switching to IPv6 cuts off one of the major ways worms propagate. The Sapphire worm, for example, worked by picking a random IP address and trying to infect it, repeating for a whole bunch of IPs, and it was able to double every 7 seconds. That works because the odds of finding a computer (not necessarily a vulnerable computer) is about 10%. With IPv6, that changes to 10^-28% - instead of doubling the number of infected computers every 7 seconds, it would've scanned for a few years, never find a single computer, and get disinfected.
ACLs are great if your goal is to set fine-grained permissions on things. However, for simple cases Unix-style permissions are better because with 'ls -l' you can get all the permissions in a directory in one screenful, whereas with ACLs there's basically no way to sanity-check your filesystem.
The point is not to see a randomly pointed laser - that would be silly. Think about it; if an intelligent alien civilization wanted to find other intelligent life, how would they do it? They would look for potentially life-bearing star systems, and try to send a message to them - by, for example, shining a laser that's tight and powerful enough to be detected from the target, and encoding data in the frequency or amplitude of that laser.
It's extremely unlikely that we'll find anyone who isn't trying to contact us, so the goal is to look for something that's trying to make itself stick out. We aren't looking for things that are randomly pointed.
There's absolutely no way this is going to go anywhere in the courts. However, what I _would_ like to see happen is for Congress to legislate that all published software must have its source code either published with it or registered with the Library of Congress in order to receive copyright protection.
No, I'd rather have just "syntax error". Because when compilers attempt to be more detailed than that, they almost always produce details that are wrong. It's just the way parsers work; they can tell you something's wrong, but they can't tell *what* is wrong. In your example, the actual error would be "newline not allowed in string constant", because it has no way of knowing that ' was supposed to be a ".
who's going to notice the difference between 250 frames/sec and 300? 25fps is good enough for TV.
No, it isn't - not for fast motion, anyways. And TV has motion blur, and being much less sharp, both of which reduce the framerate required to avoid jerkiness. And because of how vsync works out, running one fps under the refresh rate of your monitor is nearly as bad as running at _half_ the refresh rate of your monitor.
#!/bin/sh
cat >tmp$$ # Process stdin
cat $* >>tmp$$ # Process files
chmod 600 tmp$$ # Don't let others modify the temp file while you're working on it
gvim tmp$$ # Or use some other X editor.
cat tmp$$ # Send the result to stdout
rm -f tmp$$ # Remove the temp file
[blockquote]A standard implementation of a linked list of integers will now be 50 to 100% larger[/blockquote]
That's assuming each node has a 'next' pointer. That's how they teach it in CS classes, but in the real world it makes more sense to use an index into an allocator. It requires cleverness from the language and library designers, of course, but there isn't necessarily a size increase.
You didn't follow the link, did you? Approval voting is just like regular (plurality) voting, except you can vote for more than one candidate. Condorcet is something else entirely. Approval is *much* simpler than instant runoff, both for the voters and for the poll managers.
I don't believe the supposition of this question is true, and if it were true I don't believe there's much that can be done which isn't already being done at the state level.
Three problems with that. First, they're often constructed piecewise at run time, which means they won't be in the executable at all. Second, there are a bunch of different formats (ASCII, UTF-16, compressed) that the keys might be in, and strings won't get them all. And third, you get a whole lot of unrelated junk to sift through.
...except that in this case, the problem was a broken driver for CPU power-saving which, literally, reduced the CPU's clock speed from 2.6ghz to 300mhz. So in this particular case, it's a valid measurement.
The text file itself is only a script. The script + interpreter is a full program (also worth nothing that several people have whipped up programs that allows you to compile Perl scripts in to native binaries)
By that logic, you would also have to include the operating system and libraries. Note that the definition you cited says nothing about/how/ the computer interprets and executes the instructions.
I hear about Linux exploits just as often as Windows exploits. There's kernel exploits that can get a remote user root. But it always gets brushed off as not a big deal, because hey, there's gonna be a patch out in a few days, right?
Bad example. The kernel exploits you're talking about are privelege escalation vulnerabilities, not remote root. The Windows user privelege model is (a) broken and (b) rarely used for anything important, so no one cares about or reports that type of vulnerability (and there most certainly are a lot more of them than Linux has.)
People compress from DVD to CD with minimal loss of quality because DVDs use MPEG2 compression, which isn't very dense, while pirates use MPEG4 which is much more efficient. But burning from an MPEG4 HD-DVDs onto a CD-R or DVD-R wouldn't be able to use that trick, so there would be a drastic quality difference between the two. (The quality of pirated copies would stay the same while the quality of official disks would increase).
Most of the work is writing the linker and the C library. Though if they're anything like TIGCC, they'll start accumulating patches to the compiler itself after awhile. Not because the compiler itself needs to be changed, but to work around mismanagement of the gcc main branch.
In theory that's great, and it's certainly a big improvement over giant switch statements, but in reality object orientation is only marginally better than using hand-made function tables. The biggest drawback is scripting; usually, the details of specific monsters are written in a different (specialized scripting) language, and getting the OO systems of two different languages to play nice with eachother is just about impossible. While very nice for small- to medium projects, ironically, it doesn't scale like it should, and classes tend to end up as nothing more than glorified namespaces.
It's the only text editor I've ever used which doesn't read Unix-style linefeeds. That alone is enough to make it unusable. It doesn't have multi-level undo, which makes it easy to toast your data. It's notorious for screwing up file extensions when you're saving. Some versions of it are unable to open large files. It is completely devoid of the many useful and necessary features which other text editors.
One thing that has always bothered me is the lack of standards for basic syntax. Why not just have a standard for basic operators? For example does anyone really lose flexibility if we say statements are delimited by ';'? Or a standard syntax for if-then-else? e.g. perl's syntax is a pointless departure that adds no value.
You've obviously never tried writing a language grammar. Give every language the same syntax and you have... a bunch of dialects of the same language. Standardize a few control structures and many languages won't be able to adopt your standard because it introduces conflicts or (even worse) keywords.
In my opinion I would like a C language variation that let me specify how many bits i would like to use for a variable, because it would save a lot time because of memory bandwidth (cache space included) and is very boring to make a good implementation of that in assembly.
You're joking, right? C has officially had that (bit-fields) since '99. And any time the number of bits is not either 1 or a multiple of 8, it's much, much slower than it would be otherwise, because despite any difference in memory/cache usage, extracting strangely-aligned data is slow and awkward. Variable sizes that aren't powers-of-2 number of bytes are bad not because of any language, but because no sensible hardware supports it in any reasonable sense.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, you *can* get good virtual desktops on Windows... but to do so, you have to replace the entire window manager. Litestep is a replacement shell for Windows which supports virtual desktops properly. It's also very configurable, which is good, although you may have to try a few themes before you find a usable one.
That's why legitimate mailing lists send a confirmation request before adding to the list. Failing to use such confirmations is considered a blacklistable offense by many, and mailing list software makes it so easy there's no legitimate reason not to.
An IPv4 address is 4 bytes (32 bits), an IPv6 address is 16 bytes (128 bits). If about 10% of IPv4 addresses are used currently (which is just an order-of-magnitude estimate), then there are 4x10^8 addresses in use now. There are 2^128=3x10^38 IP addresses in use now, so 4x10^8/3x10^38 = 10^-28% of addresses used.
This thread will of course trigger a bunch of replies from people saying we don't need IPv6, but in fact, we do, badly, and the need is only increasing with time.
NAT helps somewhat, but if you're using NAT your computer can't receive incoming connections. That's a problem for servers, for peer-to-peer networking, for games, and for VoIP. Home users can usually work around this with their firewall configuration, but businesses usually can't (one important reason being that only one computer behind the firewall can receive connections this way, not multiple). And, as someone pointed out in the last IPv6-related thread, merging the networks of two corporations is a nightmare - they both use the same IP addresses.
There are theoretically 4 billion IP addresses total. That sounds like a lot, but an IP address isn't just a number which can be assigned individually; what you do is hand out big consecutive blocks of them, so that routers can say things like "for 123.231.*.*, send packets in this direction". The shortage of IP addresses has introduced lots of special cases, so that internet routers need tons of memory and processing power to figure out the mess.
Finally, switching to IPv6 cuts off one of the major ways worms propagate. The Sapphire worm, for example, worked by picking a random IP address and trying to infect it, repeating for a whole bunch of IPs, and it was able to double every 7 seconds. That works because the odds of finding a computer (not necessarily a vulnerable computer) is about 10%. With IPv6, that changes to 10^-28% - instead of doubling the number of infected computers every 7 seconds, it would've scanned for a few years, never find a single computer, and get disinfected.
ACLs are great if your goal is to set fine-grained permissions on things. However, for simple cases Unix-style permissions are better because with 'ls -l' you can get all the permissions in a directory in one screenful, whereas with ACLs there's basically no way to sanity-check your filesystem.
The point is not to see a randomly pointed laser - that would be silly. Think about it; if an intelligent alien civilization wanted to find other intelligent life, how would they do it? They would look for potentially life-bearing star systems, and try to send a message to them - by, for example, shining a laser that's tight and powerful enough to be detected from the target, and encoding data in the frequency or amplitude of that laser.
It's extremely unlikely that we'll find anyone who isn't trying to contact us, so the goal is to look for something that's trying to make itself stick out. We aren't looking for things that are randomly pointed.
There's absolutely no way this is going to go anywhere in the courts. However, what I _would_ like to see happen is for Congress to legislate that all published software must have its source code either published with it or registered with the Library of Congress in order to receive copyright protection.
No, I'd rather have just "syntax error". Because when compilers attempt to be more detailed than that, they almost always produce details that are wrong. It's just the way parsers work; they can tell you something's wrong, but they can't tell *what* is wrong. In your example, the actual error would be "newline not allowed in string constant", because it has no way of knowing that ' was supposed to be a ".
#!/bin/sh
cat >tmp$$ # Process stdin
cat $* >>tmp$$ # Process files
chmod 600 tmp$$ # Don't let others modify the temp file while you're working on it
gvim tmp$$ # Or use some other X editor.
cat tmp$$ # Send the result to stdout
rm -f tmp$$ # Remove the temp file
[blockquote]A standard implementation of a linked list of integers will now be 50 to 100% larger[/blockquote]
That's assuming each node has a 'next' pointer. That's how they teach it in CS classes, but in the real world it makes more sense to use an index into an allocator. It requires cleverness from the language and library designers, of course, but there isn't necessarily a size increase.
You didn't follow the link, did you? Approval voting is just like regular (plurality) voting, except you can vote for more than one candidate. Condorcet is something else entirely. Approval is *much* simpler than instant runoff, both for the voters and for the poll managers.
I don't believe the supposition of this question is true, and if it were true I don't believe there's much that can be done which isn't already being done at the state level.
I'd rather approval voting was suggested rather than the hard-to-understand instant runoff voting.
Three problems with that. First, they're often constructed piecewise at run time, which means they won't be in the executable at all. Second, there are a bunch of different formats (ASCII, UTF-16, compressed) that the keys might be in, and strings won't get them all. And third, you get a whole lot of unrelated junk to sift through.
...except that in this case, the problem was a broken driver for CPU power-saving which, literally, reduced the CPU's clock speed from 2.6ghz to 300mhz. So in this particular case, it's a valid measurement.
By that logic, you would also have to include the operating system and libraries. Note that the definition you cited says nothing about
Bad example. The kernel exploits you're talking about are privelege escalation vulnerabilities, not remote root. The Windows user privelege model is (a) broken and (b) rarely used for anything important, so no one cares about or reports that type of vulnerability (and there most certainly are a lot more of them than Linux has.)
People compress from DVD to CD with minimal loss of quality because DVDs use MPEG2 compression, which isn't very dense, while pirates use MPEG4 which is much more efficient. But burning from an MPEG4 HD-DVDs onto a CD-R or DVD-R wouldn't be able to use that trick, so there would be a drastic quality difference between the two. (The quality of pirated copies would stay the same while the quality of official disks would increase).
Most of the work is writing the linker and the C library. Though if they're anything like TIGCC, they'll start accumulating patches to the compiler itself after awhile. Not because the compiler itself needs to be changed, but to work around mismanagement of the gcc main branch.
In theory that's great, and it's certainly a big improvement over giant switch statements, but in reality object orientation is only marginally better than using hand-made function tables. The biggest drawback is scripting; usually, the details of specific monsters are written in a different (specialized scripting) language, and getting the OO systems of two different languages to play nice with eachother is just about impossible. While very nice for small- to medium projects, ironically, it doesn't scale like it should, and classes tend to end up as nothing more than glorified namespaces.
It's the only text editor I've ever used which doesn't read Unix-style linefeeds. That alone is enough to make it unusable. It doesn't have multi-level undo, which makes it easy to toast your data. It's notorious for screwing up file extensions when you're saving. Some versions of it are unable to open large files. It is completely devoid of the many useful and necessary features which other text editors.