SRAM requires more power than DRAM. When the DRAM is not being refreshed, the charge is held in a capacitor next to that one transistor to store a bit, this is why it needs to be refreshed, the charge will leak out of the capacitor. SRAM has power constantly flowing through its transistors, it doesn't need refreshing because the data is encoded in which pathway the power is flowing through.
Flash memory and EEPROM would take less power because they retain data when power is cut, but it has a shorter lifespan and is much slower. Magnetic core memory would also take less power for the same reason.
Second, as soon as he talks about intentionally bypassing a firewall, I start thinking that that sounds suspiciously like "circumventing an access control" which, I believe, is no longer legal.
No, it's worse than that. It's unauthorized use of private systems. This has been illegal for decades.
Ya know, I have no problem with pissing off Microsoft, but how about sticking to methods that are not grossly illegal and likely to get you a heavy fine and/or prison time.
Doing this is abusing Microsoft's systems, it's about the same magnitude as hacking into their web server and taking it down. If you manage to actually accomplish anything, you will not get away with it, and Microsoft will have more ammo in the "all those evil hackers are hurting our business" play.
So yeah, it's amusing that you can do this, but don't make a serious attempt.
Because XML is highly compressible, use of XML does not necessarily increase file size.
This is an incredibly silly argument. Take a set of data, create a binary and XML file format to store the exact same data, compare the two. The XML file will be much larger. Compress them both. The XML file will *still* be larger.
Excel vs. Gnumeric is a flawed comparison. Excel stores a *lot* of junk in its files, probably two copies as well.
Even if you could create some miraculous compression scheme that would shrink down XML files as much as possible, there's always more information in an XML file than in its binary counterpart. Why? The XML file stores descriptive structure, the binary doesn't. Where the binary file can have two numbers, the XML will have two additional strings identifying them as width and height. More information = larger file.
The only way to eliminate this overhead is to throw out all the useful attributes of XML. You might as well just convert the binary file to ASCII hex in that case.
Microsoft Windows, as a platform, is insanely difficult to develop for.
Well, gosh I must be an insanely great programmer to be able to develop with raw Win32 API in C.
The learning curve to get started with C or C++ is insane.
Only if you start out trying to write expert level programs. Create a new project in MSVC, click the "build" button, click the "run" button, poof, instant functional text editor, or nice empty window for you to draw all over, or dialog-based app. Beginner-level programs are a piece of cake.
Nobody expects a toddler to drive a semi, why would they expect you to know 20 different acronyms 3 days after you start learning to program?
getting your code up and running is as simple as make, make install.
Yeah, as opposed to the impossibly difficult "click build." I mean are you serious? Having a visual IDE that saves you the trouble of ever touching a make file is hard? Maybe if you program in braille, but most people don't.
This happens to nearly every display card in existance, it's just not always apparent since usually the screen is cleared immediately after a mode set.
This has nothing to do with static ram, it's all DRAM. The DRAM is kept valid by refresh circuitry that doesn't differentiate between memory that's being used and memory that isn't. It just refreshes all of it. So what you get is that ALL of the video memory stays put, which can be useful if you want to do page flipping, or store bitmaps offscreen in the framebuffer for faster blitting.
It's sometimes useful even running just one app. I use MSVC on two monitors, one has the main IDE window with code in it, the other has the workspace and output toolbax-window thingies. Whenever I have to work on only one monitor it seems so cramped.
For just about anything else, I find that having a good VWM does just as well, and I usually leave the second monitor off.
Its like saying "Our roadways would function just fine, even if all the cars were gone."
More like "Our roadways would function just fine even if all the signs were in latitude/longitude instead of place names." Which is true, the road would do its job, but everyone would be lost, including the post office and any other delivery services.
Both MS and whoever's writing the driver need to be able to test the driver somehow. This means loading it, BEFORE it has been signed. They cannot entirely remove the ability to install unsigned drivers.
I was doing some work for a laser light show company last year in Las Vegas. We were going to try some air effects in the huge conference room in the Paris Hotel. I was told to fill the room with fog, but no one told me how much it would take. (Apparently it takes so little that you can't even see it...)
So I ended up filling a football field sized room with fog so thick you couldn't see the walls and setting off the fire alarm in the Paris Hotel at about 2 AM.
Luckily I was just a pitiful underling, and we did have permission to use fog...
Under Windows, I've had a DLL go from 36k to 4k just by not linking with the C runtime library. Using native Win32 calls is just more efficient when you don't care about portability. (which unfortunately is not often)
I think it's usually called "command line interface" or CLI. AFAIK, TBI is something this AC just made up. (I feel like I should throw in some extra acronyms now...)
A good web page should scale gracefully at different resolutions
For graphics this will not truely be possible until SVG are more widely supported. Having graphics that scale gracefully to any res is hell with pixel-based formats.
For text, you have to realize that you can't have paragraphs the full width of the browser window, or even some arbitrary number of pixels short of that. You end up with lines so long that your eyes get lost scanning back to find the next line.
So yeah, it's entirely possible to make a page that works at any res, but it's not easy to make it work well, at least not with current standards.
1. MS make the OS, so any widget they care to make is effectively native, even if it's not available to other applications.
This is debatable. To me, native widget = provided by the OS. The stuff in Office/MP are clearly not provided by the OS. Stuff they add for IE, OTOH...
2. Office for at least the great majority of things does use native widgets, there may be a few things that are custom built but certainly not everything.
Yeah, I think they use the native window frame.
Seriously, haven't you seen that screen shot of Office 97 or whatever running on NT 3.5(4?)? The window frame looks like Win3.1, the rest like Win95. They may use things that *look* like native widgets, but they're all custom drawn.
Re:Except its bullshit...
on
Blender Is GPL
·
· Score: 1
... you can (if you want to) make a userfriendly and efficient interface - the two are not contradictory.
Feel free to offer a solution.
In some cases you can make a user-friends and efficient interface, not necessarily in all. Asserting that it is possible does not make it so.
In particular, it's difficult to imagine an intuitive interface to control a 3d scene with a 2d display and a 2d mouse. I haven't tried blender, but I haven't seen a single 3d package with an easy to use interface. If it's so simple to do that, why hasn't anyone come up with one yet?
You can (if you want to) turn yourself into a poodle that breathes fire - the two are not contradictory.
No kidding! I mean "Speex" for VOIP? That's gonna make people think is has something to do with speech! They should call it something more like "Vlad." Now there's a fine name for a codec.
"Francium's most stable isotope, francium-223, has a half-life of about 22 minutes. It decays into radium-223 through beta decay or into astatine-219 through alpha decay." source
In all three of the most stable isotopes, alpha decay is less likely than beta decay for the first step, and if you look at the decay trees here, you'll see that you are pretty much guaranteed to get some beta decay someplace along the line.
It is very easy to build an active X control that can bypass login sytems on Win boxes.
I'm not sure what your point is... just because you can bypass the group permissions doesn't mean they aren't there. If that's what you meant, you should have said that in the first place. (and I assume you can disable active x for non-admin users anyway)
Not that I'm saying that Windows isn't less secure than Unix, that would be silly.
(and if there's any moderators still around, feel free to mod down this comment of mine, it's done its job)
If it comes up again, I probably will, but it's kind of a dilemma really. I don't want to have to work with code by the people in this class, but I do want their jobs.
At any rate, I did correct him on another issue (that pointers are passed by value, not reference) and he just kept restating his argument in weaker terms until he was saying nothing at all. It makes you wonder what the point is when he doesn't really assert that you are wrong, but he doesn't concede that you're right either.
And the thing is, it's really trivial to avoid buffer overflows in C if you understand how things work. All it takes is a small amount of extra discipline and you don't have to use baby sitter languages.
Of course, what's really awful is sitting in my programming class and hearing the teacher explain that copying a string into a buffer that's too small (with strcpy) will truncate the string. This man will be personally responsible for hundreds of buffer overflows in the next few years.
Windows 1-3x were not OSs, you had to have a DOS OS installed and boot in to DOS before running Windows
This alone does not make Windows a shell running on DOS. An OS may boot from another OS. You can start Linux from DOS, that doesn't make it any less of an OS. (even if it *only* booted from DOS)
The key is whether Windows used DOS functions while it was running or provided its own. Win95 avoided using 16-bit drivers as much as possible. Since DOS is entirely 16-bit, I think that at least begins to qualify it as a separate OS.
Slashdot Mirror
SRAM requires more power than DRAM. When the DRAM is not being refreshed, the charge is held in a capacitor next to that one transistor to store a bit, this is why it needs to be refreshed, the charge will leak out of the capacitor. SRAM has power constantly flowing through its transistors, it doesn't need refreshing because the data is encoded in which pathway the power is flowing through.
Flash memory and EEPROM would take less power because they retain data when power is cut, but it has a shorter lifespan and is much slower. Magnetic core memory would also take less power for the same reason.
Second, as soon as he talks about intentionally bypassing a firewall, I start thinking that that sounds suspiciously like "circumventing an access control" which, I believe, is no longer legal.
No, it's worse than that. It's unauthorized use of private systems. This has been illegal for decades.
Ya know, I have no problem with pissing off Microsoft, but how about sticking to methods that are not grossly illegal and likely to get you a heavy fine and/or prison time.
Doing this is abusing Microsoft's systems, it's about the same magnitude as hacking into their web server and taking it down. If you manage to actually accomplish anything, you will not get away with it, and Microsoft will have more ammo in the "all those evil hackers are hurting our business" play.
So yeah, it's amusing that you can do this, but don't make a serious attempt.
Because XML is highly compressible, use of XML does not necessarily increase file size.
This is an incredibly silly argument. Take a set of data, create a binary and XML file format to store the exact same data, compare the two. The XML file will be much larger. Compress them both. The XML file will *still* be larger.
Excel vs. Gnumeric is a flawed comparison. Excel stores a *lot* of junk in its files, probably two copies as well.
Even if you could create some miraculous compression scheme that would shrink down XML files as much as possible, there's always more information in an XML file than in its binary counterpart. Why? The XML file stores descriptive structure, the binary doesn't. Where the binary file can have two numbers, the XML will have two additional strings identifying them as width and height. More information = larger file.
The only way to eliminate this overhead is to throw out all the useful attributes of XML. You might as well just convert the binary file to ASCII hex in that case.
Microsoft Windows, as a platform, is insanely difficult to develop for.
Well, gosh I must be an insanely great programmer to be able to develop with raw Win32 API in C.
The learning curve to get started with C or C++ is insane.
Only if you start out trying to write expert level programs. Create a new project in MSVC, click the "build" button, click the "run" button, poof, instant functional text editor, or nice empty window for you to draw all over, or dialog-based app. Beginner-level programs are a piece of cake.
Nobody expects a toddler to drive a semi, why would they expect you to know 20 different acronyms 3 days after you start learning to program?
getting your code up and running is as simple as make, make install.
Yeah, as opposed to the impossibly difficult "click build." I mean are you serious? Having a visual IDE that saves you the trouble of ever touching a make file is hard? Maybe if you program in braille, but most people don't.
No.
This happens to nearly every display card in existance, it's just not always apparent since usually the screen is cleared immediately after a mode set.
This has nothing to do with static ram, it's all DRAM. The DRAM is kept valid by refresh circuitry that doesn't differentiate between memory that's being used and memory that isn't. It just refreshes all of it. So what you get is that ALL of the video memory stays put, which can be useful if you want to do page flipping, or store bitmaps offscreen in the framebuffer for faster blitting.
Why is antimatter so hard to produce?
E = mc^2
It takes a LOT of energy to create matter or antimatter. With matter you can cheat and just use the existing stuff.
(BTW, I think both 2 and 3 are questionable, but no doubt one of these extremely wordy people have shredded them apart already.)
It's sometimes useful even running just one app. I use MSVC on two monitors, one has the main IDE window with code in it, the other has the workspace and output toolbax-window thingies. Whenever I have to work on only one monitor it seems so cramped.
For just about anything else, I find that having a good VWM does just as well, and I usually leave the second monitor off.
Its like saying "Our roadways would function just fine, even if all the cars were gone."
More like "Our roadways would function just fine even if all the signs were in latitude/longitude instead of place names." Which is true, the road would do its job, but everyone would be lost, including the post office and any other delivery services.
Both MS and whoever's writing the driver need to be able to test the driver somehow. This means loading it, BEFORE it has been signed. They cannot entirely remove the ability to install unsigned drivers.
That's nothing.
I was doing some work for a laser light show company last year in Las Vegas. We were going to try some air effects in the huge conference room in the Paris Hotel. I was told to fill the room with fog, but no one told me how much it would take. (Apparently it takes so little that you can't even see it...)
So I ended up filling a football field sized room with fog so thick you couldn't see the walls and setting off the fire alarm in the Paris Hotel at about 2 AM.
Luckily I was just a pitiful underling, and we did have permission to use fog...
Under Windows, I've had a DLL go from 36k to 4k just by not linking with the C runtime library. Using native Win32 calls is just more efficient when you don't care about portability. (which unfortunately is not often)
I think it's usually called "command line interface" or CLI. AFAIK, TBI is something this AC just made up. (I feel like I should throw in some extra acronyms now...)
A good web page should scale gracefully at different resolutions
For graphics this will not truely be possible until SVG are more widely supported. Having graphics that scale gracefully to any res is hell with pixel-based formats.
For text, you have to realize that you can't have paragraphs the full width of the browser window, or even some arbitrary number of pixels short of that. You end up with lines so long that your eyes get lost scanning back to find the next line.
So yeah, it's entirely possible to make a page that works at any res, but it's not easy to make it work well, at least not with current standards.
1. MS make the OS, so any widget they care to make is effectively native, even if it's not available to other applications.
This is debatable. To me, native widget = provided by the OS. The stuff in Office/MP are clearly not provided by the OS. Stuff they add for IE, OTOH...
2. Office for at least the great majority of things does use native widgets, there may be a few things that are custom built but certainly not everything.
Yeah, I think they use the native window frame.
Seriously, haven't you seen that screen shot of Office 97 or whatever running on NT 3.5(4?)? The window frame looks like Win3.1, the rest like Win95. They may use things that *look* like native widgets, but they're all custom drawn.
Feel free to offer a solution.
In some cases you can make a user-friends and efficient interface, not necessarily in all. Asserting that it is possible does not make it so.
In particular, it's difficult to imagine an intuitive interface to control a 3d scene with a 2d display and a 2d mouse. I haven't tried blender, but I haven't seen a single 3d package with an easy to use interface. If it's so simple to do that, why hasn't anyone come up with one yet?
You can (if you want to) turn yourself into a poodle that breathes fire - the two are not contradictory.
Get some better names for your projects!
No kidding! I mean "Speex" for VOIP? That's gonna make people think is has something to do with speech! They should call it something more like "Vlad." Now there's a fine name for a codec.
Where did you check?
"Francium's most stable isotope, francium-223, has a half-life of about 22 minutes. It decays into radium-223 through beta decay or into astatine-219 through alpha decay." source
In all three of the most stable isotopes, alpha decay is less likely than beta decay for the first step, and if you look at the decay trees here, you'll see that you are pretty much guaranteed to get some beta decay someplace along the line.
It is very easy to build an active X control that can bypass login sytems on Win boxes.
I'm not sure what your point is... just because you can bypass the group permissions doesn't mean they aren't there. If that's what you meant, you should have said that in the first place. (and I assume you can disable active x for non-admin users anyway)
Not that I'm saying that Windows isn't less secure than Unix, that would be silly.
(and if there's any moderators still around, feel free to mod down this comment of mine, it's done its job)
Somebody mod up the parent of this comment.
"lugonn" has apparently never used an NT-based Windows.
If you are using IE, your computer is vunerable to numerous security breaches
Yes. If you're not downloading security updates.
"2 October 2002: There are currently 20 unpatched vulnerabilities." - tho it looks like that's counting a few that are patched in 6 but not 5.5, which is rather strange. I mean why would you keep 5.5 if you're patching everything?
Because, you know the Chinese or any of those other Asian countries have no originality. Only Westerners are creative.
No, because it would be stupid to start from scratch when so much work has been done for you.
(IHBT, I guess...)
You mean you didn't correct him?
If it comes up again, I probably will, but it's kind of a dilemma really. I don't want to have to work with code by the people in this class, but I do want their jobs.
At any rate, I did correct him on another issue (that pointers are passed by value, not reference) and he just kept restating his argument in weaker terms until he was saying nothing at all. It makes you wonder what the point is when he doesn't really assert that you are wrong, but he doesn't concede that you're right either.
And the thing is, it's really trivial to avoid buffer overflows in C if you understand how things work. All it takes is a small amount of extra discipline and you don't have to use baby sitter languages.
Of course, what's really awful is sitting in my programming class and hearing the teacher explain that copying a string into a buffer that's too small (with strcpy) will truncate the string. This man will be personally responsible for hundreds of buffer overflows in the next few years.
Windows 1-3x were not OSs, you had to have a DOS OS installed and boot in to DOS before running Windows
This alone does not make Windows a shell running on DOS. An OS may boot from another OS. You can start Linux from DOS, that doesn't make it any less of an OS. (even if it *only* booted from DOS)
The key is whether Windows used DOS functions while it was running or provided its own. Win95 avoided using 16-bit drivers as much as possible. Since DOS is entirely 16-bit, I think that at least begins to qualify it as a separate OS.