When I log into my bank account, my username and password are not in the URL and certainly not passed unencrypted over the wire. They are happily stored in the LastSession.plist file though.
Feel free to supply a suitably masked copy of the lines from your own LastSession.plist that you believe is doing that.
I suspect that someone doesn't know exactly where the autofill passwords come from (Keychain) and assumes that they're in the LastSession properties list.
Oh gosh. Now Slashdot knows. You do realize that, while a decade ago that meant something, now it's meaningless. There aren't enough eyeballs here anymore to Slashdot an IIS4 server running on a 128bps fractional T1. Okay, maybe if it was running NT 3.5.1.
Defining efficiency would be a first step. Self-scavenging and self-modifying code fits into limited resources, but it's still complex. I once asked billg why the MS BASIC interpreter didn't tokenize numeric constants. He claimed that they pulled out the code for that to fit into 4k ROMs. So integers and reals that were encountered by the interpreter had to be parsed at each and every occurrence. The workaround was to create variables for all constants (I'd call them named constants but they were rarely longer than 2 letters). This is an example of being efficient with ROM usage and inefficient with storage (numbers represented in ASCII rather than machine) and inefficient with CPU (the constant reparsing).
The thing is, the absolute worst thing about the Microsoft system is that it *is* so overly backward-compatible. It sticks it with awful crud such as lettered drives, unversioned dlls, and encourages pathetic solutions to architecture changes such as "Program Files (x86)".
Thank you. I was hoping someone would point out how wrong that summary was. While this might be par-for-the-course journalism at the AP, nerds should at least have some inkling of what they're talking about.
Don't you think your example is specious? In the case of the product, the exchange requires that I give them $50. If I do so, then they allow me to take the product out of the store. In the case of an EULA, the exchange requires that I a click on a button. If I do so, then they allow me to use the software.
I don't see that they could be. There's no way (AFAIK) for a company to prove who clicked the "OK" button. Certainly there are arguments that could be made about the likelihood that a certain individual did so within a given scenario (for example, Jane buys a new computer and is the only person with access to said computer; the likelihood is that Jane is the one that installed additional software on it and agreed to the EULA). That said, I don't see how they are realistically enforceable in many (most?) circumstances. Anyway, having someone that is completely anonymous to one of the parties of the contract bind the contract buy anonymously clicking a button seems to be a rather weak contract.
Additionally, the contract as it is submitted to me is inherently non-negotiable. So if I were to go into the EULA text and redline certain features that I don't agree to and then click OK, I've agreed to a different set of circumstances but Adobe (in this case) would then have to have the ability to confirm my agreement. That doesn't happen. So I would think the contract is still in limbo at that point. In the meantime, they've given me access to the software per my modified contract. That seems like implicit agreement. To be honest, I've never tried this so I'm unaware as to whether Adobe does an integrity check of the EULA during the process.
Any IAMA contract lawyers out there that could confiirm or tear apart any/all of my reasoning?
Slashdot Mirror
But, "I call Any Web Loco on that." doesn't have the same ring to it.
When I log into my bank account, my username and password are not in the URL and certainly not passed unencrypted over the wire. They are happily stored in the LastSession.plist file though.
Feel free to supply a suitably masked copy of the lines from your own LastSession.plist that you believe is doing that.
I suspect that someone doesn't know exactly where the autofill passwords come from (Keychain) and assumes that they're in the LastSession properties list.
By definition, trolls intentionally get it wrong so as to evoke a smug response.
The mention of Steve Jobs as an "innovator" makes the article suspect. E.G. the author does not know what she is talking about.
I.E., the AC doesn't know what E.G. means.
Oh gosh. Now Slashdot knows. You do realize that, while a decade ago that meant something, now it's meaningless. There aren't enough eyeballs here anymore to Slashdot an IIS4 server running on a 128bps fractional T1. Okay, maybe if it was running NT 3.5.1.
There was a time when the posters here knew the answer to that question because they were actually programmers.
I have never given my SSN to any of the credit reporting agencies. And yet they have them.
#define P(X)j=write(1,X,1)
#define C 39
int M[5000]={2},*u=M,N[5000],R=22,a[4],l[]={0,-1,C-1,-1},m[]={1,-C,-1,C},*b=N,
*d=N,c,e,f,g,i,j,k,s;main(){for(M[i=C*R-1]=24;f|d>=b;){c=M[g=i];i=e;for(s=f=0;
s=0&&k=16!=M[k]>=16))a[f++
]=s;if(f){f=M[e=m[s=a[rand()/(1+2147483647/f)]]+g];j=jb++?b[-1]:e;}P(" ");for(s=C;--s;P("_")
)P(" ");for(;P("\n"),R--;P("|"))for(e=C;e--;P("_ "+(*u++/8)%2))P("| "+(*u/4)%2
);}
shapiro.c from IOCC 1985
People that need to scroll hundreds of pages at once.
He's talking about a quarter on edge, not across the front.
ACs aren't granted conditional agreements. Says so in the /. rulebook.
Defining efficiency would be a first step. Self-scavenging and self-modifying code fits into limited resources, but it's still complex. I once asked billg why the MS BASIC interpreter didn't tokenize numeric constants. He claimed that they pulled out the code for that to fit into 4k ROMs. So integers and reals that were encountered by the interpreter had to be parsed at each and every occurrence. The workaround was to create variables for all constants (I'd call them named constants but they were rarely longer than 2 letters). This is an example of being efficient with ROM usage and inefficient with storage (numbers represented in ASCII rather than machine) and inefficient with CPU (the constant reparsing).
Why does timothy seem to get sucked into approving press releases more so than the others?
Sounds more like a heating story.
You're reminding me that I haven't fired up my SPARCcenter 2000E and associated RAID cabinets in far too long.
This comment on a site that gets excited about neon glowing tubes in transparent PC cases...
The thing is, the absolute worst thing about the Microsoft system is that it *is* so overly backward-compatible. It sticks it with awful crud such as lettered drives, unversioned dlls, and encourages pathetic solutions to architecture changes such as "Program Files (x86)".
Well, since this seems to be the place for lots of anecdotal evidence... I've been running 6.1 since the first beta with no issues.
Thank you. I was hoping someone would point out how wrong that summary was. While this might be par-for-the-course journalism at the AP, nerds should at least have some inkling of what they're talking about.
1. Make sure it's not all lowercase in 'file'.
2. In Safari, type a space after the 3rd slash to activate the checking.
Now if they could just make one that didn't run Android. I regret daily the money I spent on my Tab 2.
But from the headline, I'm excited to see that psychosis causes marijuana. Groovy!
Don't you think your example is specious? In the case of the product, the exchange requires that I give them $50. If I do so, then they allow me to take the product out of the store. In the case of an EULA, the exchange requires that I a click on a button. If I do so, then they allow me to use the software.
I don't see that they could be. There's no way (AFAIK) for a company to prove who clicked the "OK" button. Certainly there are arguments that could be made about the likelihood that a certain individual did so within a given scenario (for example, Jane buys a new computer and is the only person with access to said computer; the likelihood is that Jane is the one that installed additional software on it and agreed to the EULA). That said, I don't see how they are realistically enforceable in many (most?) circumstances. Anyway, having someone that is completely anonymous to one of the parties of the contract bind the contract buy anonymously clicking a button seems to be a rather weak contract.
Additionally, the contract as it is submitted to me is inherently non-negotiable. So if I were to go into the EULA text and redline certain features that I don't agree to and then click OK, I've agreed to a different set of circumstances but Adobe (in this case) would then have to have the ability to confirm my agreement. That doesn't happen. So I would think the contract is still in limbo at that point. In the meantime, they've given me access to the software per my modified contract. That seems like implicit agreement. To be honest, I've never tried this so I'm unaware as to whether Adobe does an integrity check of the EULA during the process.
Any IAMA contract lawyers out there that could confiirm or tear apart any/all of my reasoning?
So... how is the code going to get rewritten so that the compiler can then optimize it? If that question confuses you... RTFS.