Even if it was a stripped down build, how would you, for example, determine which of the several FTP servers that ship with (eg) SuSE is the one to substitute for the IIS FTP server? Which browser do you substitute for IE? Which chat program for MSN messenger? Which web server? Which e-mail server? These are all important questions that are quite hard to answer.
OK, it might be a little simpler with OSX, I've never installed it myself so don't know how many packages come with it, and what kind of variety there is.
The company in question have an "advisory" on the front page of their site... that a web site that uses frames might be able to display content from another site inside it.
Sorry, you seem to have misspelled "Alas, the higher setting highlights Slate's use of insecure and nonstandard features." You might want to have that keyboard checked.
Seems to work fine in Mozilla, so perhaps "Slate's use of features that are broken in Internet Explorer" would be better?
Oh, come on, an article that describe's Microsoft's behaviour during the browser wars as "pushing the bounds of business ethics" isn't thoroughly criticizing them. Thoroughly criticising them would be describing it as "utterly criminal and morally repugnant behaviour designed to destroy the Netscape threat".
The Internet Connection Firewall works well enough to prevent attacks from outside, which is what it was designed to do. The only thing it can't do is stop a trojan from making a connection once it is inside and running.
I've read that document. It doesn't address file mappings. It only discusses code stored in memory allocated using VirtualAlloc, which is useless to me.
I have a program I maintain that memory maps a file (using CreateFileMapping and MapViewOfFile) and executes its contents.
I'm trying to update this for the Page Execute bit settings in XP SP2, but I'm not sure what will work (I don't have a supported processor to test it on).
Should I be using PAGE_EXEC in the permissions of CreateFileMapping, or should I make an additional call to VirtualProtect after creating the mapping to enable execution of it?
I'm currently doing the latter, as the former causes the CreateFileMapping call to fail on Windows NT and 2000 (although not on 98, I suspect because it just ignores the flags), but I'm concerned that it might be necessary to test the OS version and use the former only if XP SP2 or above is detected.
While this is a nice feature, it is strictly (at least for now), syntactic. The difference is that the expense of casting is still occurring under the hood; you just no longer have to bother typing it out.
Are you sure? I understood that it worked by generating implicit subclasses of your generic type that are customized in terms of return type. So if you had say an object of type Iterator, the run-time environment would procede as if the object's next() function was declared as "String next ()" ?
Although I'll admit its a good 6 months since I read it, and am hazy on some of the details.
Not only that, but in my browser (IE 5.0, widened just enough that the horizontal scroll bar disappears), there's an advert in the middle of the text that actually obscures some of the text.
There's a principle that I suspect Nielsen follows. Most sensible web designers do. Design for the most common case. The most common case, unfortunately, is not Firefox users, unless you're mozilla.org's designer.
Come on, 1, 3, and 4 on your list are browser problems that have been fixed in all modern browsers. Number 2 can be easily fixed with just a tiny amount of ingenuity.
There is never a good reason to use a fixed width.
Sometimes using fixed width columns is the only way to achieve correct layout. For instance, most browsers will happily word-break this line in the middle of the hyphenated compound adjective near the start of it, if you choose the correct display width. Doing so is, in fact, typographically incorrect (as it leaves no way of distinguish the fact that it is a compound adjective from a single word that has been broken over the line break). There is no standards compliant way of preventing it, other than selecting a known font and specifying a column width (in terms of 'em's in order to allow for varying font sizes, of course) that ensures it doesn't break in that point.
(Yes, I know about Internet Explorer's NOBR tag. It's a nonstandard extension and as such should not be relied upon)
Also, due to the majority of the world's Internet users using a browser that doesn't have a working alpha-transparent image format, any occasion where images need to be anti-aliased onto a non-constant background requires the use of absolute positioning, which often enforces the use of fixed column widths.
For many applications good visual presentation is almost as important as usability, and breaking a strong "rule" of visual presentation is much worse than breaking a very minor rule of usability, which is what we're talking about here.
I mean, it's not as if we're hijacking your browser and forcibly resizing it to 1024x768 using javascript.
Yeah, but nobody pronounced "ils paradigment" right, but the teacher let it slip anyway, cause he couldn't be bothered to explain why it isn't pronounced that way.
There's an explanation on the site. It's apparently a compromise that doesn't take up as much storage space as a simple lookup table would, but is much faster than a brute-force search would be.
Wouldn't really help, I don't think. This is a technology demonstration, and from what I understand it doesn't rely on any details of the specific hashing algorithm in use. Longer hashes are proportionally more difficult, hashes that take longer to compute are proportionally more difficult, but that's where it ends.
I don't think blowfish is any harder to compute or longer than MD5 (?).
Using a long salt is the answer. And just about everything that uses a password hash for identification does use salt. So, there isn't a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Tell me, what do you think?
Even if it was a stripped down build, how would you, for example, determine which of the several FTP servers that ship with (eg) SuSE is the one to substitute for the IIS FTP server? Which browser do you substitute for IE? Which chat program for MSN messenger? Which web server? Which e-mail server? These are all important questions that are quite hard to answer.
OK, it might be a little simpler with OSX, I've never installed it myself so don't know how many packages come with it, and what kind of variety there is.
The company in question have an "advisory" on the front page of their site ... that a web site that uses frames might be able to display content from another site inside it.
I think we all knew that one.
The article opened with the words "The Microsoft Windows application".
I'm not sure I want to read any further.
Sorry, you seem to have misspelled "Alas, the higher setting highlights Slate's use of insecure and nonstandard features." You might want to have that keyboard checked.
Seems to work fine in Mozilla, so perhaps "Slate's use of features that are broken in Internet Explorer" would be better?
Oh, come on, an article that describe's Microsoft's behaviour during the browser wars as "pushing the bounds of business ethics" isn't thoroughly criticizing them. Thoroughly criticising them would be describing it as "utterly criminal and morally repugnant behaviour designed to destroy the Netscape threat".
Aha. Thank you. That page has been updated since I last looked (about 2 weeks ago).
Yes. However they have since abandoned that policy. Hence Service Pack is a better name, because it isn't a bugfix or patch.
The Internet Connection Firewall works well enough to prevent attacks from outside, which is what it was designed to do. The only thing it can't do is stop a trojan from making a connection once it is inside and running.
Is a Linux disc or download packed with Mozilla?
Most Linux distributions include Mozilla, yes.
I've read that document. It doesn't address file mappings. It only discusses code stored in memory allocated using VirtualAlloc, which is useless to me.
I always wondered if SERVICEPACKS should be called as PATCHES or BUGFIXES.
Nah, MS calls patches/bugfixes 'hotfixes'. Service packs generally contain new features, so the term doesn't apply to them.
I have a program I maintain that memory maps a file (using CreateFileMapping and MapViewOfFile) and executes its contents.
I'm trying to update this for the Page Execute bit settings in XP SP2, but I'm not sure what will work (I don't have a supported processor to test it on).
Should I be using PAGE_EXEC in the permissions of CreateFileMapping, or should I make an additional call to VirtualProtect after creating the mapping to enable execution of it?
I'm currently doing the latter, as the former causes the CreateFileMapping call to fail on Windows NT and 2000 (although not on 98, I suspect because it just ignores the flags), but I'm concerned that it might be necessary to test the OS version and use the former only if XP SP2 or above is detected.
Has anyone tried doing anything like this?
It might be enough of a clue to prevent moderators from applying 'interesting' to an obvious joke. But then again, maybe not.
Damn it, should have switched to Extrans.
That should be Iterator<String>, of course.
I think they're dropping the 2. In fact, when it's released, it'll probably be as "Java 5 1.5", just like we had "Java 2 1.2".
While this is a nice feature, it is strictly (at least for now), syntactic. The difference is that the expense of casting is still occurring under the hood; you just no longer have to bother typing it out.
Are you sure? I understood that it worked by generating implicit subclasses of your generic type that are customized in terms of return type. So if you had say an object of type Iterator, the run-time environment would procede as if the object's next() function was declared as "String next ()" ?
Although I'll admit its a good 6 months since I read it, and am hazy on some of the details.
Think of it this way:
"Java 2" is the name of the platform, which was designed as a successor to and was backwards-compatible with the "Java" platform.
JRE / JDK 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 were Sun's products that implemented the Java 2 platform.
Similarly, WJE 1.0 is an internal product my company worked on that is a partial implementation of Java 2 customized for our needs.
Do you get it now?
Not only that, but in my browser (IE 5.0, widened just enough that the horizontal scroll bar disappears), there's an advert in the middle of the text that actually obscures some of the text.
There's a principle that I suspect Nielsen follows. Most sensible web designers do. Design for the most common case. The most common case, unfortunately, is not Firefox users, unless you're mozilla.org's designer.
Come on, 1, 3, and 4 on your list are browser problems that have been fixed in all modern browsers. Number 2 can be easily fixed with just a tiny amount of ingenuity.
There is never a good reason to use a fixed width.
Sometimes using fixed width columns is the only way to achieve correct layout. For instance, most browsers will happily word-break this line in the middle of the hyphenated compound adjective near the start of it, if you choose the correct display width. Doing so is, in fact, typographically incorrect (as it leaves no way of distinguish the fact that it is a compound adjective from a single word that has been broken over the line break). There is no standards compliant way of preventing it, other than selecting a known font and specifying a column width (in terms of 'em's in order to allow for varying font sizes, of course) that ensures it doesn't break in that point.
(Yes, I know about Internet Explorer's NOBR tag. It's a nonstandard extension and as such should not be relied upon)
Also, due to the majority of the world's Internet users using a browser that doesn't have a working alpha-transparent image format, any occasion where images need to be anti-aliased onto a non-constant background requires the use of absolute positioning, which often enforces the use of fixed column widths.
For many applications good visual presentation is almost as important as usability, and breaking a strong "rule" of visual presentation is much worse than breaking a very minor rule of usability, which is what we're talking about here.
I mean, it's not as if we're hijacking your browser and forcibly resizing it to 1024x768 using javascript.
Yeah, but this is a layer on top of JDBC, I think. You're still using JDBC, but indirectly.
Yeah, but nobody pronounced "ils paradigment" right, but the teacher let it slip anyway, cause he couldn't be bothered to explain why it isn't pronounced that way.
There's an explanation on the site. It's apparently a compromise that doesn't take up as much storage space as a simple lookup table would, but is much faster than a brute-force search would be.
Wouldn't really help, I don't think. This is a technology demonstration, and from what I understand it doesn't rely on any details of the specific hashing algorithm in use. Longer hashes are proportionally more difficult, hashes that take longer to compute are proportionally more difficult, but that's where it ends.
I don't think blowfish is any harder to compute or longer than MD5 (?).
Using a long salt is the answer. And just about everything that uses a password hash for identification does use salt. So, there isn't a problem.