The thing in the middle always moved up and down, but it was usually a crystalline or squared off thing, very un-Dildo-like, so there was no chance of mistaking it for one. I'm glad to know that, while I have a dirty mind, I'm not the only one sorta vaguely disturbed by the fact that the Tardis looked like it was literally having sex with Time and Space.
I'm with you on Troughton, but Hartnell? I was more amused by his constant messing up of his lines. They really should have chosen an easier name for Ian than "Chesterton" - did Hartnell EVER pronounce it correctly? And, of course, Barbara and Susan were pretty much relegated to sound effects (screams) - especially Susan.
Actually, in a way, it was good they never had the budget for retakes in the early years. You could see the actors and actresses were really trying hard to get it right the first time.
Still, they did a good job of storytelling in the earlier episodes, I agree. The new ones are flashier, hipper, better special effects, but lack that "the special effects suck because we focused on telling a good story" thing that made Doctor Who, well, Doctor Who. Not that I dislike the new ones, but they are a different thing for a newer generation.
The new intro looks like the Tardis is flying through a colon made of plasma, though. Just sayin - maybe they should rename it the Turdis.:)
I'm not talking about testing, I'm talking about design. If you expect a URL in a field and someone puts executable code in there, you should not be executing the code - you should be rejecting the URL. Data of that nature should not be put in a memory area where an instruction can be sent to run it.
Stack overflows, buffer underruns, and things of that nature are not things that should be caught in testing. They are things that should be prevented in the first place. If your code can't write data from strangers in places it can execute it, you can't be caught with your pants around your ankles when someone sends you executable code in a text field.
I'm not saying this testing is a bad thing, it's great, and necessary, and wonderful, and all that! But I sincerely hope Microsoft learned the lesson and Office 2012 or whatever the next version is will at least get some protected mode lovin' so they can separate data space from execution space and stop crossing the streams.
Maybe then Patch Tuesday will stop being so darned exciting.
Programming 102: If you missed the lesson in Programming 101 where you have to test your inputs, you fail and have to repeat Programming 101. Some people never get out of Programming 102. I've worked with a few of them. "It ain't that pretty at all".
This is clumsy after-the-fact testing at best, just throwing random garbage at the program and hoping to hit a condition. Having said that, I do want to applaud Microsoft for at least, finally, taking some steps toward input control. After so many Patch Tuesdays where "stack overflow", "buffer underrun", and other things caused by nothing more and nothing less than careless programming, it's good to see that they are at least going back with a little more rigor and testing for relatively obvious stuff before their code blows up in a customer's face.
I'm thinking of installing a small generator on my abacus powered by the motion of the beads and calling it a minus-1-core processor. I put processing in to it, and I get energy out.
If you want to stop incredibly long journeys, I think you could get by with about 10.
One for the US, one for Canada (two nations with heaviest user base). One for South America. One for Europe (who could get to GB using the Chunnel), one for Asia, one for Africa and Madagascar, one for Australia and surrounds (Indonesia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea). Maybe one for Japan, since they probably have it integrated into their smartphones or maybe even their cerebral cortexes by now. Maybe one for Cuba and the islands in that general vicinity, who can part-time it up to Florida when retirees are "waving" the best Early Bird Specials to each other. And one floater to cover heavy demand during the short period between someone discovering it and implementing it for their project team, then discovering it's a jack of all trades that can't do any of them well enough to be useful. China will have blocked it by now, so no worries there. There's your ten.
The Arctic and Antarctic, Easter Island, the Aleutians, and various and sundry other tiny populations or islands could either hire a taxi driver as needed, or keep a subcontractor, or be covered by spare capacity from the nearest large customer base.
Michael Palin could be the floater, and make money on the side filming a new special "Waving Madly with Michael Palin".
Sarah Palin could use semaphore flags to signal Eastern Russia, since she can see it from her house.
If you're going to fabricate a bunch of quad-core chips, you expect a certain number of them to end up with 1 bad core, a certain number to have 2 bad cores, and some will have 3 bad cores, and some will just be garbage. That's the nature of the beast. AMD is just smart enough to test them until they hit their desired yield of quad cores, then test until they have their desired yield of triples, and test the remaining ones and those either become double-core or get thrown out. I'm not sure if they have any single-core processors that started life as quads.
The benefit to the consumer is that, while the number of cores is lower, the cache is still high, so a quad core with two cores tied behind its back may still be faster than a purpose-built dual core. And, heck, it was a useless part as a quad due to one or more bad cores, so AMD is making some good money selling these "defective" parts as "partly good". They can charge a slight premium over purpose-built duals, and it's pretty much "found money" to them.
The other benefit is that, for some of those units, the triples (and maybe even the doubles) are not "tested bad", they are "untested". AMD needs a certain amount of doubles and triples in those lines to meet demand, so whatever is left once they meet demand for quads is a mix of tested-bad and untested chips.
So the "Lottery Core" CPU is not vaporware. It exists today.
Fair-use rights do not, true, but you might want to look into the casual-sharing provisions of the US No Electronic Theft Act.
It allows me, as an individual, to copy and distribute up to $1000 retail value of media within any given six month period, provided I do not obligate the recipient(s) to give me anything in return for my largess. That makes P2P file sharing illegal, since I am receiving bits of copyrighted files in return for other bits of copyrighted files, but casual sharing among friends is clearly defined and specifically exempted from criminal prosecution.
I program on "the system formerly known as an AS/400, but has changed names so many times I don't even know what it's called any more" you insensitive clod!
This release also addresses CVE-2010-086, which is no sweat for IE8 on Win7, as you say. But note the term "also addresses". That's an important term.
One or more of the other nine vulnerabilities the fix is being released for is labeled as critical, and can cause remote code execution.
Specifically, CVE-2010-0490 (Uninitialized Memory Vulnerability) and CVE-2010-0492 (HTML Object Memory Corruption Vulnerability) are both listed specifically as "Critical - Remote Code Execution" for Windows 7 (both 32 and 64-bit) for Internet Explorer 8. CVE-2010-0494 (HTML Element Cross-Domain Vulnerability) is listed as "Important - Information Disclosure".
This is an "admission" of nothing. Nowhere does it say that Toyota has asked NASA to help out.
The NHTSA is asking NASA to help out, but the NHTSA has never asserted that this was a pedal or floormat problem. They've just been holding Toyota to the fire to get a fix. And the fixes so far do not appear to be working.
This is a sign that the NTSB is likely suspicious of Toyota's explanation, and frustrated with continuing reports of sudden acceleration even on "fixed" cars, and would like someone without a vested interest in a cheap fix to examine this. Given NASA's experience with writing software that's just gotta work or else, I'd be very hard-pressed to think of no better team of programmers for the job.
Slashdot Mirror
The thing in the middle always moved up and down, but it was usually a crystalline or squared off thing, very un-Dildo-like, so there was no chance of mistaking it for one. I'm glad to know that, while I have a dirty mind, I'm not the only one sorta vaguely disturbed by the fact that the Tardis looked like it was literally having sex with Time and Space.
I'm with you on Troughton, but Hartnell? I was more amused by his constant messing up of his lines. They really should have chosen an easier name for Ian than "Chesterton" - did Hartnell EVER pronounce it correctly? And, of course, Barbara and Susan were pretty much relegated to sound effects (screams) - especially Susan.
Actually, in a way, it was good they never had the budget for retakes in the early years. You could see the actors and actresses were really trying hard to get it right the first time.
Still, they did a good job of storytelling in the earlier episodes, I agree. The new ones are flashier, hipper, better special effects, but lack that "the special effects suck because we focused on telling a good story" thing that made Doctor Who, well, Doctor Who. Not that I dislike the new ones, but they are a different thing for a newer generation.
The new intro looks like the Tardis is flying through a colon made of plasma, though. Just sayin - maybe they should rename it the Turdis. :)
So? My Jetta Diesel gets around 50MPG and set me back around $22,000 new in 2002.
Yes, I've taken that class.
I'm not talking about testing, I'm talking about design. If you expect a URL in a field and someone puts executable code in there, you should not be executing the code - you should be rejecting the URL. Data of that nature should not be put in a memory area where an instruction can be sent to run it.
Stack overflows, buffer underruns, and things of that nature are not things that should be caught in testing. They are things that should be prevented in the first place. If your code can't write data from strangers in places it can execute it, you can't be caught with your pants around your ankles when someone sends you executable code in a text field.
I'm not saying this testing is a bad thing, it's great, and necessary, and wonderful, and all that! But I sincerely hope Microsoft learned the lesson and Office 2012 or whatever the next version is will at least get some protected mode lovin' so they can separate data space from execution space and stop crossing the streams.
Maybe then Patch Tuesday will stop being so darned exciting.
Programming 101: TEST YOUR GODDAMNED INPUTS!
Programming 102: If you missed the lesson in Programming 101 where you have to test your inputs, you fail and have to repeat Programming 101. Some people never get out of Programming 102. I've worked with a few of them. "It ain't that pretty at all".
This is clumsy after-the-fact testing at best, just throwing random garbage at the program and hoping to hit a condition. Having said that, I do want to applaud Microsoft for at least, finally, taking some steps toward input control. After so many Patch Tuesdays where "stack overflow", "buffer underrun", and other things caused by nothing more and nothing less than careless programming, it's good to see that they are at least going back with a little more rigor and testing for relatively obvious stuff before their code blows up in a customer's face.
Oblig. XKCD: http://xkcd.com/327/
I know. I come for the complainers. You guys are even funnier than the attempts at humor.
Yeah, man, think of the KERNELS.
I'm thinking of installing a small generator on my abacus powered by the motion of the beads and calling it a minus-1-core processor. I put processing in to it, and I get energy out.
Who do you think? CowboyNeal, of course. He saw your video, though, and declined. Sorry!
Adblock http://s.fsdn.com/aprilfools/*
If you want to stop incredibly long journeys, I think you could get by with about 10.
One for the US, one for Canada (two nations with heaviest user base). One for South America. One for Europe (who could get to GB using the Chunnel), one for Asia, one for Africa and Madagascar, one for Australia and surrounds (Indonesia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea). Maybe one for Japan, since they probably have it integrated into their smartphones or maybe even their cerebral cortexes by now. Maybe one for Cuba and the islands in that general vicinity, who can part-time it up to Florida when retirees are "waving" the best Early Bird Specials to each other. And one floater to cover heavy demand during the short period between someone discovering it and implementing it for their project team, then discovering it's a jack of all trades that can't do any of them well enough to be useful. China will have blocked it by now, so no worries there. There's your ten.
The Arctic and Antarctic, Easter Island, the Aleutians, and various and sundry other tiny populations or islands could either hire a taxi driver as needed, or keep a subcontractor, or be covered by spare capacity from the nearest large customer base.
Michael Palin could be the floater, and make money on the side filming a new special "Waving Madly with Michael Palin".
Sarah Palin could use semaphore flags to signal Eastern Russia, since she can see it from her house.
Add the following filter to Adblock: http://s.fsdn.com/aprilfools/*
Done. Enjoy your April 1 merriment (and the one or two actual stories today) without all those odd (sometimes funny, but odd) videos.
But the triple cores truly are a lottery.
If you're going to fabricate a bunch of quad-core chips, you expect a certain number of them to end up with 1 bad core, a certain number to have 2 bad cores, and some will have 3 bad cores, and some will just be garbage. That's the nature of the beast. AMD is just smart enough to test them until they hit their desired yield of quad cores, then test until they have their desired yield of triples, and test the remaining ones and those either become double-core or get thrown out. I'm not sure if they have any single-core processors that started life as quads.
The benefit to the consumer is that, while the number of cores is lower, the cache is still high, so a quad core with two cores tied behind its back may still be faster than a purpose-built dual core. And, heck, it was a useless part as a quad due to one or more bad cores, so AMD is making some good money selling these "defective" parts as "partly good". They can charge a slight premium over purpose-built duals, and it's pretty much "found money" to them.
The other benefit is that, for some of those units, the triples (and maybe even the doubles) are not "tested bad", they are "untested". AMD needs a certain amount of doubles and triples in those lines to meet demand, so whatever is left once they meet demand for quads is a mix of tested-bad and untested chips.
So the "Lottery Core" CPU is not vaporware. It exists today.
No, it's people who use the command line. After all, you don't see a lot of bash bashing.
Gnome "rebooted" like the Star Trek franchise. Apparently they hired Abrams, because what you see is lens flare.
Actually, law here (USA) DOES.
Fair-use rights do not, true, but you might want to look into the casual-sharing provisions of the US No Electronic Theft Act.
It allows me, as an individual, to copy and distribute up to $1000 retail value of media within any given six month period, provided I do not obligate the recipient(s) to give me anything in return for my largess. That makes P2P file sharing illegal, since I am receiving bits of copyrighted files in return for other bits of copyrighted files, but casual sharing among friends is clearly defined and specifically exempted from criminal prosecution.
17 U.S.C. 506
As Mark Twain once said, "Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial 'we.'"
Peter does not appear to be a king, is unlikely to be a president, and he's probably not an editor...
Unless he applied to the virtual government and got a virtual bailout. Then it'd be time for a promotion and a big fat virtual bonus!
I program on "the system formerly known as an AS/400, but has changed names so many times I don't even know what it's called any more" you insensitive clod!
Actually, it is.
This release also addresses CVE-2010-086, which is no sweat for IE8 on Win7, as you say. But note the term "also addresses". That's an important term.
One or more of the other nine vulnerabilities the fix is being released for is labeled as critical, and can cause remote code execution.
Specifically, CVE-2010-0490 (Uninitialized Memory Vulnerability) and CVE-2010-0492 (HTML Object Memory Corruption Vulnerability) are both listed specifically as "Critical - Remote Code Execution" for Windows 7 (both 32 and 64-bit) for Internet Explorer 8. CVE-2010-0494 (HTML Element Cross-Domain Vulnerability) is listed as "Important - Information Disclosure".
Hence the name "National Aeronautics and Space Administration", eh? ;)
Seriously, yes, you are correct. The FAA regulates, but NASA is responsible for a lot of the research.
Except that Toyota is not hiring NASA. A US Government office is.
Or drop by and purchase one so he can be killed.
This is an "admission" of nothing. Nowhere does it say that Toyota has asked NASA to help out.
The NHTSA is asking NASA to help out, but the NHTSA has never asserted that this was a pedal or floormat problem. They've just been holding Toyota to the fire to get a fix. And the fixes so far do not appear to be working.
This is a sign that the NTSB is likely suspicious of Toyota's explanation, and frustrated with continuing reports of sudden acceleration even on "fixed" cars, and would like someone without a vested interest in a cheap fix to examine this. Given NASA's experience with writing software that's just gotta work or else, I'd be very hard-pressed to think of no better team of programmers for the job.
In the immortal words of F. Leghorn: "It's a joke, Son."