Implemented simply with a GET request which has some kind of ID number in it. Essentially, though, Cookies are just a more sort of hidden way to do this.
Whenever I see one of those absurdly long URLs with all kinds of session info in it, I wonder why the developers couldn't just use a little JavaScript and an <INPUT TYPE=HIDDEN VALUE="whatever">. When you click on a link, instead of using the HREF, use an onClick="go('thisLink.html')", where the go() function will set the appropriate hidden form values and use a form.submit(). The server will parse all nessesary info, including session info, from the POST request, and redirect or dynamically generate as nessesary. Of course, if the user takes action on an <INPUT TYPE=SUBMIT>, this becomes quite trivial.
Of course, that's a lot of trouble for the same functionality you get from cookies, and in some situations (depending on implementation) could be a little too trusting of the end user as well... I never understood why people where bothered by cookies in the first place.
...if, for example, a user orders something on your site through a NAT firewall, say from a university dorm or something. Now supopose another student on the NAT happens to go to your website at the same time. If you are tracking by IP, these two appear to be the same user (due to the singular IP of the Internet gateway both of them share), so, essentially, you have just given full access to your customer's account to an unauthorized party, which of course, is a Very Bad Thing.
This can also apply to home users, or businesses, or anywhere else a NAT is set up. Uh-oh.
Throw some cookies in there and now suddenly each users request becomes uniquely identifiable, and although not entirely secure, it certainly is much more difficult than "accedentally."
...used to be named the "Arizona Sound Society", but no one would take them seriously.
<rimshot>
*ducks and runs*
Re:10.1.5 on a 400mhz G4, 512MB RAM
on
Is Mac OS X Slow?
·
· Score: 2
Oh believe me, I'd love to switch to a faster CPU, but then again, who WOULDN'T? Bring on the horsepower...
Anyways, I am a Mac defender, but only when there is good cause. Macs are not perfect, but they most definately have a much worse rap than they deserve.
Anything I'm doing when LimeWire is open gets a lil snippy, especially as far as network access goes. Photoshop, however, hasn't slowed a thing down, and I've had 3 people listening to a 128Kbps Shoutcast stream while I was working in Photoshop, and the few skipping problems they had continued even after I quit PS (I'm only on cable, I'm suprised it held 3 users at that speed...).
As for the paltry ammount of RAM, 512MB is plenty for OS X. The 350 G4 with only 128 in it at the time we first installed MacOS X (and that was version 10.0!) didn't lag that much.
I'm starting to thing the general computing public is becoming a little to sensitive to things liek disk access times and application launch times. now before you start spouting nonsense like "Well, by that logic we should all still be using TAPE DRIVES AND PUNCH CARDS!!", just ask yourself: Does that one dock bounce really make that much of a dent in your time to open Explorer? No. The "Loading IE..." (or for that matter, "Loading Mozilla..." *AHEM*) screen takes a bit of time, though, but that is not the fault of Mac OS X. If your app can open a window for a splash screen, it has already been launched, and the app itself is the only thing taking any time. I meant to brng this point up before as I believe it confuses many people, and creates a seperation between those who know better and claim "Launching an app on my G4 whatever happens nice and quick." and those who say "OMFG Photoshop takes FOREVER to launch." Incorrect, Photoshop takes forever to "Load" or "Initialize" - setting up all those things Photoshop does. Mac OS X started PS's code segment long ago and is once again idly passing the time, waiting for it's next task.
...that if I could use used all 5 mod points to +1 Funny, it'd be well worth it.:-)
10.1.5 on a 400mhz G4, 512MB RAM
on
Is Mac OS X Slow?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
At any given time, this machine is doing the following:
It's my web browser (Chimera and/or Explorer)
It's my web server, (Apache/PHP).
It's my webcam.
Running Photoshop.
Running Reason
Running LimeWire
The ONLY time i have ever experienced ANY lag is when a transparent window tries to "Genie" into the Dock. Other than that, it occationally locks up in Explorer with the rainbow CD cursor, which can be fixed by clicking on another running application, the Dock or desktop space (i.e. Finder) included. I also run the same OS on my mother's 350Mhz G4 box, with nearly the same performance.
It's not such a heavy load, but then again, think about these same activities on a 400Mhz Wintel machine. Ouch.
Does this mean that PPC motherboards will start to become availible? Is there finnaly hope I could one day build my own PPC (read: not nessisarily Mac)?
P.S. Apple CPUs are upgradable, but you usually have to wait for another company to make an upgrade card:-\ Better than nothing, I suppose, but for a server farm the Amiga is the way to go.
Very well put. +1 Virtual Informative for you., and I agree wholeheartedly.
So how can we begin then? This obviously isn't hopeless, we just need some large money pool... Would the Linux dirsto Co's want in on this? Who else has large sums of money?
Without the startup funding, you wind up with GeekPAC. Remember them?
See Sig.
I think the problem with this is
Geeks are not very political, just opinionated.
Linux and Open Source has kind of given way to the attitude of "ehh if I can't get it free then forget it" or "If i can't get it free I'll make my own", and as it applies to software, it begins to apply to all technology-related concepts. I'm looking at my credit card, and thinking "AOTC, or a pizza? Damn, I'm hungry, I can always donate later."
So we have apathy and division, not exactly what I'd call an army ready to march.
But we all have the right ideas. We just need to get organized and motivated. How that will be accomplished, however, is a mystery to me (mostly because I'd have no idea how to do something like that at all, anyway).
Yes, but for simply playing Ogg files, Macamp is fine, Unregistered.
Of course, Apple should include as many file formats as possible. I even think they should license the Real and WIndows Media codecs for Quicktime (playback only, of course).
But the article makes it appear as though it's simply not possible, which is obviously untrue. I'm just trying to keep the lesser informed, well.... informed:-)
Perhaps they created walls between them and projected distant scenery on them until two people where going to make contact?
Then again, this straightforward (i dare not say simple), intuitive idea was probably pushed too far by the writers/directors of the Sci-Fi show which depicted it, which, as I take it from listening to my Sci-Fi fanatic friends' ramblings, occurs quite often...
Another thought occured to me: How can the tractor beams only affect certain objects? If they have to pass through a person, why don't they move that person or object, too? Are two or more beams focused on a single point with different magnitudes/angles, so the sum total magnitude of those vectors results in the desired motion?
This is why I can't watch stuff like Star Trek....I have a hard enough time keeping the Carbon APIs straight...
I have been using Zip disks for over 6 years and never had a problem with one.
Sorry, my friend, but you are the exception, not the rule.
NONE of my zip media has survived. Neither of my Zip drives function properly. I have had to physically opena zip disk and GLUE (!) the medium back to the metal spindle (using a toothpick and nerves of STEEL, let me tell you). It worked just long enough to recover the data and die on me again.
I used to think Zip Disks where awsome, especially when, for the first time ever, I could walk around with 100MB in my pocket! Now, however, it's CD-RW or bust. I have beat on burned CDs more than any Zip disk and the worst I've had to do was use the Skip-Doctor disk repair machine on it.
I took good care of my Zips, they stayed in their cases and they're still all bad, and for that I dont' prefer Iomega products.:-\
WARNING: This is the geekiest question I have ever asked. Ever. I don't even like Star Trek (*shock and dismay*)! But... there was one thing that always puzzled me:
Is that how someone is able to move around within the Holodeck as if it where a full world and never end up walking into a wall, because these same mini-tractor beams kept them in the same position as the world "scrolled" around them?
Damn, we need some replicators and tractor beam technology, quick.
Did anyone else check out the 3D Volumetric Display at Actuality Systems? Very, very cool stuff.
Their marketing department also seems to realize the average consumer will use this for 3D pr0n, as their Photographs page takes special care to include a "last but not least" shot of "[The] pelvic region of female anatomy."
They all support Ogg. And I'm sure I forgot at least a dozen more. Claiming the Mac can't play Ogg because iTunes doesn't support it is about as ridiculous as saying Linux can't do your budget because there is no spreadsheet built into the kernel.
The article poster is trolling on that last sentence, plain and simple.
But, as he stated, the signals are encrypted from the handshake on, and therefore won't mix. They may, however, interefere and cause packet loss.
Could someone really get into a device over bluetooth without authorization? Aren't there passwords or signed ID or something that prevent this? Or at least an "OK" key on devices to confirm a link?
It's that sort of thing that convinces me we are a bit ahead of ourselves at all times...
From what I understand, all that will basically happen (besides a few hardware changes to accomodate) is that new commands will be added to the Intel CPUs to allow a portion of memory to be designated as "protected", and I assume possibly even only accessable with a public key perhaps? So, a program can allocate a hardware-locked portion of RAM.
This would not stop Linux from running. Linux would simply not utilize the feature (or, it could even be added to Linux), and run it's own memory management scheme with software as it does now.
It will not stop your MP3s from playing. They'll just play in a protected address space. Or maybe they won't depending on your player software.
This will not stop your DVD ripper from ripping. An alternate driver and ripping program designed to simply not use a feature designed to provide hardware security for applications is not a violation of the DCMA (even if the ripping of a DVD is, which is a different question).
This will stop someone from using an external program to cheat at a game (the game locks off its memory, the cheat program cannot change the data).
This will prevent someone from, say, running a malicious program which essentially "core dumps" your RAM at a specific time, maybe when opening your e-mail reader?
This will possibly stop things like Outlook viruses, as Palladium/LaGrande-aware applications are hardware-isolated into their own address/execution space and cannot interefere with other applications.
Did I miss something? Should I really believe M$ is dumb enough to make a move which will cause outcry and backlash from the most tech-savvy of users all the way down to the e-mail granny, at a time when the DOJ, along with every man, woman, and l33t-preteen on the planet is breathing down their necks in anger?
C'mon people, I hate MS too, but they where smart enough to get this far, even if they did hire Balmer...I think that's an obvious move to NOT be making, if they value their asses (assets?) at all.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, and please post links.
Slashdot Mirror
...and owned by Steve Jobs?
Didn't know he was a big Lucas fan...
Hmm, yes I didn't think about that. Good call.
Implemented simply with a GET request which has some kind of ID number in it. Essentially, though, Cookies are just a more sort of hidden way to do this.
Whenever I see one of those absurdly long URLs with all kinds of session info in it, I wonder why the developers couldn't just use a little JavaScript and an <INPUT TYPE=HIDDEN VALUE="whatever">. When you click on a link, instead of using the HREF, use an onClick="go('thisLink.html')", where the go() function will set the appropriate hidden form values and use a form.submit(). The server will parse all nessesary info, including session info, from the POST request, and redirect or dynamically generate as nessesary. Of course, if the user takes action on an <INPUT TYPE=SUBMIT>, this becomes quite trivial.
Of course, that's a lot of trouble for the same functionality you get from cookies, and in some situations (depending on implementation) could be a little too trusting of the end user as well... I never understood why people where bothered by cookies in the first place.
...if, for example, a user orders something on your site through a NAT firewall, say from a university dorm or something. Now supopose another student on the NAT happens to go to your website at the same time. If you are tracking by IP, these two appear to be the same user (due to the singular IP of the Internet gateway both of them share), so, essentially, you have just given full access to your customer's account to an unauthorized party, which of course, is a Very Bad Thing.
This can also apply to home users, or businesses, or anywhere else a NAT is set up. Uh-oh.
Throw some cookies in there and now suddenly each users request becomes uniquely identifiable, and although not entirely secure, it certainly is much more difficult than "accedentally."
...used to be named the "Arizona Sound Society", but no one would take them seriously.
<rimshot>
*ducks and runs*
Oh believe me, I'd love to switch to a faster CPU, but then again, who WOULDN'T? Bring on the horsepower...
Anyways, I am a Mac defender, but only when there is good cause. Macs are not perfect, but they most definately have a much worse rap than they deserve.
Anything I'm doing when LimeWire is open gets a lil snippy, especially as far as network access goes. Photoshop, however, hasn't slowed a thing down, and I've had 3 people listening to a 128Kbps Shoutcast stream while I was working in Photoshop, and the few skipping problems they had continued even after I quit PS (I'm only on cable, I'm suprised it held 3 users at that speed...).
As for the paltry ammount of RAM, 512MB is plenty for OS X. The 350 G4 with only 128 in it at the time we first installed MacOS X (and that was version 10.0!) didn't lag that much.
I'm starting to thing the general computing public is becoming a little to sensitive to things liek disk access times and application launch times. now before you start spouting nonsense like "Well, by that logic we should all still be using TAPE DRIVES AND PUNCH CARDS!!", just ask yourself: Does that one dock bounce really make that much of a dent in your time to open Explorer? No. The "Loading IE..." (or for that matter, "Loading Mozilla..." *AHEM*) screen takes a bit of time, though, but that is not the fault of Mac OS X. If your app can open a window for a splash screen, it has already been launched, and the app itself is the only thing taking any time. I meant to brng this point up before as I believe it confuses many people, and creates a seperation between those who know better and claim "Launching an app on my G4 whatever happens nice and quick." and those who say "OMFG Photoshop takes FOREVER to launch." Incorrect, Photoshop takes forever to "Load" or "Initialize" - setting up all those things Photoshop does. Mac OS X started PS's code segment long ago and is once again idly passing the time, waiting for it's next task.
...that if I could use used all 5 mod points to +1 Funny, it'd be well worth it. :-)
- It's my web browser (Chimera and/or Explorer)
- It's my web server, (Apache/PHP).
- It's my webcam.
- Running Photoshop.
- Running Reason
- Running LimeWire
The ONLY time i have ever experienced ANY lag is when a transparent window tries to "Genie" into the Dock. Other than that, it occationally locks up in Explorer with the rainbow CD cursor, which can be fixed by clicking on another running application, the Dock or desktop space (i.e. Finder) included. I also run the same OS on my mother's 350Mhz G4 box, with nearly the same performance.It's not such a heavy load, but then again, think about these same activities on a 400Mhz Wintel machine. Ouch.
Does this mean that PPC motherboards will start to become availible? Is there finnaly hope I could one day build my own PPC (read: not nessisarily Mac)?
:-\ Better than nothing, I suppose, but for a server farm the Amiga is the way to go.
P.S. Apple CPUs are upgradable, but you usually have to wait for another company to make an upgrade card
Very well put. +1 Virtual Informative for you., and I agree wholeheartedly.
So how can we begin then? This obviously isn't hopeless, we just need some large money pool... Would the Linux dirsto Co's want in on this? Who else has large sums of money?
That's a rather depressing thought...
See Sig.
I think the problem with this is
- Geeks are not very political, just opinionated.
- Linux and Open Source has kind of given way to the attitude of "ehh if I can't get it free then forget it" or "If i can't get it free I'll make my own", and as it applies to software, it begins to apply to all technology-related concepts. I'm looking at my credit card, and thinking "AOTC, or a pizza? Damn, I'm hungry, I can always donate later."
So we have apathy and division, not exactly what I'd call an army ready to march.But we all have the right ideas. We just need to get organized and motivated. How that will be accomplished, however, is a mystery to me (mostly because I'd have no idea how to do something like that at all, anyway).
...but I couldn't help but break in into a Beavis & Butthead-style laugh when I read "blow the rubber bung"...
Coincidentally, this also happens everytime one of my C++ buddies mentions "member functions".
...maybe I should RTFM ;-)
Yes, but for simply playing Ogg files, Macamp is fine, Unregistered.
:-)
Of course, Apple should include as many file formats as possible. I even think they should license the Real and WIndows Media codecs for Quicktime (playback only, of course).
But the article makes it appear as though it's simply not possible, which is obviously untrue. I'm just trying to keep the lesser informed, well.... informed
Perhaps they created walls between them and projected distant scenery on them until two people where going to make contact?
Then again, this straightforward (i dare not say simple), intuitive idea was probably pushed too far by the writers/directors of the Sci-Fi show which depicted it, which, as I take it from listening to my Sci-Fi fanatic friends' ramblings, occurs quite often...
Another thought occured to me: How can the tractor beams only affect certain objects? If they have to pass through a person, why don't they move that person or object, too? Are two or more beams focused on a single point with different magnitudes/angles, so the sum total magnitude of those vectors results in the desired motion?
This is why I can't watch stuff like Star Trek....I have a hard enough time keeping the Carbon APIs straight...
Realized it, still think it's cool, still wish I had thought if it being that simple about oh 10 years ago....
I have been using Zip disks for over 6 years and never had a problem with one.
:-\
Sorry, my friend, but you are the exception, not the rule.
NONE of my zip media has survived. Neither of my Zip drives function properly. I have had to physically opena zip disk and GLUE (!) the medium back to the metal spindle (using a toothpick and nerves of STEEL, let me tell you). It worked just long enough to recover the data and die on me again.
I used to think Zip Disks where awsome, especially when, for the first time ever, I could walk around with 100MB in my pocket! Now, however, it's CD-RW or bust. I have beat on burned CDs more than any Zip disk and the worst I've had to do was use the Skip-Doctor disk repair machine on it.
I took good care of my Zips, they stayed in their cases and they're still all bad, and for that I dont' prefer Iomega products.
WARNING: This is the geekiest question I have ever asked. Ever. I don't even like Star Trek (*shock and dismay*)! But... there was one thing that always puzzled me:
Is that how someone is able to move around within the Holodeck as if it where a full world and never end up walking into a wall, because these same mini-tractor beams kept them in the same position as the world "scrolled" around them?
Damn, we need some replicators and tractor beam technology, quick.
http://www.actuality-systems.com/
Commence drooling: A 3D Volumetric display. Granted it's not exactly Trinitron quality, but this is a step in the right direction...
Did anyone else check out the 3D Volumetric Display at Actuality Systems? Very, very cool stuff.
Their marketing department also seems to realize the average consumer will use this for 3D pr0n, as their Photographs page takes special care to include a "last but not least" shot of "[The] pelvic region of female anatomy."
w00t!
Why can't you play your Ogg files with Audion?
Or Unsanity Mint Audio?
Or Macamp?
They all support Ogg. And I'm sure I forgot at least a dozen more. Claiming the Mac can't play Ogg because iTunes doesn't support it is about as ridiculous as saying Linux can't do your budget because there is no spreadsheet built into the kernel.
The article poster is trolling on that last sentence, plain and simple.
Actually Doom 3 isn't released yet. 0-Day = before release date. Sorry to burst your bubble.
The convenience of being able to sit in my bad and...
;-)
...Yes, it was, wasn't it?
But, as he stated, the signals are encrypted from the handshake on, and therefore won't mix. They may, however, interefere and cause packet loss.
Could someone really get into a device over bluetooth without authorization? Aren't there passwords or signed ID or something that prevent this? Or at least an "OK" key on devices to confirm a link?
It's that sort of thing that convinces me we are a bit ahead of ourselves at all times...
From what I understand, all that will basically happen (besides a few hardware changes to accomodate) is that new commands will be added to the Intel CPUs to allow a portion of memory to be designated as "protected", and I assume possibly even only accessable with a public key perhaps? So, a program can allocate a hardware-locked portion of RAM.
This would not stop Linux from running. Linux would simply not utilize the feature (or, it could even be added to Linux), and run it's own memory management scheme with software as it does now.
It will not stop your MP3s from playing. They'll just play in a protected address space. Or maybe they won't depending on your player software.
This will not stop your DVD ripper from ripping. An alternate driver and ripping program designed to simply not use a feature designed to provide hardware security for applications is not a violation of the DCMA (even if the ripping of a DVD is, which is a different question).
This will stop someone from using an external program to cheat at a game (the game locks off its memory, the cheat program cannot change the data).
This will prevent someone from, say, running a malicious program which essentially "core dumps" your RAM at a specific time, maybe when opening your e-mail reader?
This will possibly stop things like Outlook viruses, as Palladium/LaGrande-aware applications are hardware-isolated into their own address/execution space and cannot interefere with other applications.
Did I miss something? Should I really believe M$ is dumb enough to make a move which will cause outcry and backlash from the most tech-savvy of users all the way down to the e-mail granny, at a time when the DOJ, along with every man, woman, and l33t-preteen on the planet is breathing down their necks in anger?
C'mon people, I hate MS too, but they where smart enough to get this far, even if they did hire Balmer...I think that's an obvious move to NOT be making, if they value their asses (assets?) at all.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, and please post links.
imagine...a cpu powerplant
a large GRID of Deep Blues. that is definatly worth selling.
...now imagine a beowulf cluster of those.