95, 98 and NT4 had QBASIC installed by default, the same as DOS 6 did. Its in %WINDIR%\SYSTEM\QBASIC.EXE under 95 or 98, and %WINDIR%\SYSTEM32\QBASIC.EXE on NT.
You just caused me to look for the first time, and I've only just realised it isn't installed on my W2K system.
Does the windows ZIP shell extension support encrypted ZIPs at all, anyway?
BTW: I know a lot of average Windows users who use encryption periodically. A lot of them are shocked to find how easy it is to recover a ZIP file password. I wonder how much better the new format is going to be?
For the record, RAR is the best compression algorithm available today.
Think again. Some other posts in this topic have linked to a program called 7zip which claims to beat RAR. Plus, RAR is a closed format which is only supported by one piece of software. I would avoid using it for fear of vendor lock-in.
Is this deceitful? Yes. Does it prey upon the stupid? Yes. Is it illegal? Nope. These methods produce a certain payout percentage
Let me jump in here.
The problem is that the way the machine is presented to the player makes it look like they're playing a game with substantially different odds to the one they're actually playing.
They are given what looks like a fairly simple, easy to work out probability distribution: The machine reckons it rolled (say) five on two dice. Will the next two be higher or lower? Now, in reality, if this happened, the chances of higher would be substantially greater than the chances of lower. So, if you bet on higher you have > 50% chance of winning, while if you bet on lower you have and the techniques for producing them are "public" knowledge, usually regulated by your state's gambling office.
Maybe in the US. There is no such regulation in the UK, and I think that is what the author is campaigning for.
Once the browser war heated up, you simply couldn't use any of this crap since Microsoft left it only half implemented in IE. I think that invocations from JavaScript to Java worked in IE, but not the other way around (there was no way to access JavaScript from Java).
There may have been issues with IE3. I never tried this kind of thing on there, but when I wrote a Java applet a few years back that interrogated the browsers document object by executing javascript methods, it worked fine with IE4 and NN4. I've also used calls from javascript to java as you described that worked fine in both, so I don't think MS really screwed it up that much. IE3 was a pile of shite anyway.
I don't have the complete details, but I can tell you that there is a lot of software that won't run on NT4 SP4 that works just fine on SP3 or SP5. This includes most Java software that uses networking, and I am lead to believe many versions of Lotus Notes.
In that batchfile you can put the patches, with the correct switches to install them silently and without reboot.
Does anyone know where you can find documentation on what switches are supported by hotfixes? I've tried running them with/? and/help, but that doesn't (usually) work.
Redhat provides patches for everything it distributes.
Microsoft provides patches for everything it distributes.
I fail to see the problem.
Redhat provides one simple program for installing all updates.
Microsoft provide several different programs for installing updates to different products, but only really ever publicises the existence of one of them.
It's not true that ESA is primarily a French project with some British involvement.
Maybe not now. But do you think its a coincidence that the ESA launch vehicle has a French name? That is because it was originally developed by the French long before the ESA existed. Today, most European countries contribute significantly to the ESA, but a large proportion of the ESA's success is due to the technology it inherited from the French national space program when it was founded.
ESA have just announced that they intend to offer Soyuz launch vehicals from the european launch site in south america.
There is a big error in the semantics of the title of that page. It is not a jet-powered beer-cooler, but a beer-cooler powered jet engine: the energy needed to expand the gas from the tank is taken by the water (and the beer cans in the water). Whatever you do with the gas afterwards is irrelevant.
Actually, that's not entirely true. As I understand it, the jet engine will cause suction which enables the gas to leave the tank and expand faster than it would if (for example) you just emptied it into the room. Therefore, some power from the jet engine is being applied to the task of cooling the beer. Of course, the initial power to start the jet engine is coming from the beer. So its a beer-cooling-powered-jet-engine-powered-beer-coole r.
Indeed. There is a lot of potential for technologies like BT in automatic software update distribution. The benefits of P2P software downloading have already been shown by P2P file sharing clients that download updates over their own networks. Now this feature just needs incorporating into other software, and everyone, including the software vendor, will be happy with the results!:-)
RTFA yourself. The products were manufactured in China, but have been sold in at least Taiwan, plus:
It is unclear whether the same groups of products, with an estimated defect rate of 10%, have also been marketed in other parts of the world, sources said.
So who knows where else they've been sold.
Does anyone know what models (hopefully with serial no. ranges) are affected?
Well, the Windows version has the GPL in the 'Accept/Don't accept' stage of installing the app, if that means anything to you.
Which is daft, seeing as you don't have to accept the GPL to use a GPL piece of software:
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
Therefore, you only need to accept the GPL if you want to modify or distribute the code. Installing & running it is not covered.
I actually spotted that a couple of days ago. I did a quick estimate of how much processor power they should have been getting, and it didn't tie up too well with what they claimed (i.e. they claimed their cluster ran substantially faster than I expected).
Then I read their description of the CPU architecture in these things. For those who haven't looked into the maths of it, a PS2 has a theoretical max. throughput of 256,000 million floating point ops per second (as long as the ops you want to do tie in with what its best at...).
Of course, its pretty much impossible to actually reach this figure, but still...!
The major performance advantage of totally pure functional languages is that they are implicitly parallel: that is, the compiler can break up programs into very small functional units that execute on parallel processors and pass results up a chain to other processors when those processors are ready for them.
In this way, blindingly fast systems can be built up, hardware implementations are possible, all derived from a piece of source code that can be tested and debugged reasonably quickly and easily on a uniprocessor workstation.
This kind of approach could also be taken to purely functional parts of a hybrid language...
This is partly due to the long focal length of the lens. It distorts perspective, the same way a photographer can make the moon apear much larger by taking the picture with a long telephoto, at a distance from the subject.
Are you sure? I would have thought that the relative sizes of the objects as they appeared at the point from which the picture was taken would have to appear constant.
The strange telephoto effects work by placing an object much further away than you think it is, so the relative appearances are different to what you expect.
No, JPEG doesn't do LZW or similar as a final step. LZW is a dictionary compressor. JPEG uses huffman coding, which is just a single symbol redundancy eliminator. LZW typically achieves substantially better compression than huffman alone. Huffman is usually used with some other compression technique (eg a dictionary, as in deflate, or a lossy encoding as in JPEG) to make up the difference.
The thing that many people still just don't get about Java is that it was designed to supply this kind of safety *without* impacting performance. In Java byte code verification happens statically, before the code is executed using a kind of theorem prover.
I think you miss the point of what 'this kind of safety' is. What we're talking about here is using the reflection API to gain access to a private member. In Java, there is a run time check that prevents this. It doesn't use a theorem prover that checks that all the possible calls to the reflection API cannot result in this, because to do that would require knowing the program's input. The check that.NET is not making here is made at run time in Java, not during class verification.
Re:Another poor API from MS
on
Hijacking .NET
·
· Score: 1
Actually, in this context, OOP encapsulation _is_ a security issue. Like Java,.NET is designed to provide a secure framework within which untrusted code can be run safely. If that code is able to violate encapsulation, it is no longer safe, because it can perform operations with objects that are not advertised, and which therefore might not have been considered when deciding whether it was safe to pass the object to the untrusted code for manipulation.
Re:Maybe the title should be changed
on
Hijacking .NET
·
· Score: 1
That makes you akin to the chat room addict who thinks in third person.
Slashdot Mirror
95, 98 and NT4 had QBASIC installed by default, the same as DOS 6 did. Its in %WINDIR%\SYSTEM\QBASIC.EXE under 95 or 98, and %WINDIR%\SYSTEM32\QBASIC.EXE on NT.
You just caused me to look for the first time, and I've only just realised it isn't installed on my W2K system.
Damn. No more nibbles for me...
Does the windows ZIP shell extension support encrypted ZIPs at all, anyway?
BTW: I know a lot of average Windows users who use encryption periodically. A lot of them are shocked to find how easy it is to recover a ZIP file password. I wonder how much better the new format is going to be?
For the record, RAR is the best compression algorithm available today.
Think again. Some other posts in this topic have linked to a program called 7zip which claims to beat RAR. Plus, RAR is a closed format which is only supported by one piece of software. I would avoid using it for fear of vendor lock-in.
I think that ZIP is more like .bz2.tar instead of .tar.bz2. This means that you can extract individual files without decompressing the whole archive.
.gz.tar you'd be somewhat closer, as ZIP and gzip both use the same compression algorithm (deflate).
Yeah. In fact, if you went with
Is this deceitful? Yes. Does it prey upon the stupid? Yes. Is it illegal? Nope. These methods produce a certain payout percentage
Let me jump in here.
The problem is that the way the machine is presented to the player makes it look like they're playing a game with substantially different odds to the one they're actually playing.
They are given what looks like a fairly simple, easy to work out probability distribution: The machine reckons it rolled (say) five on two dice. Will the next two be higher or lower? Now, in reality, if this happened, the chances of higher would be substantially greater than the chances of lower. So, if you bet on higher you have > 50% chance of winning, while if you bet on lower you have and the techniques for producing them are "public" knowledge, usually regulated by your state's gambling office.
Maybe in the US. There is no such regulation in the UK, and I think that is what the author is campaigning for.
Once the browser war heated up, you simply couldn't use any of this crap since Microsoft left it only half implemented in IE. I think that invocations from JavaScript to Java worked in IE, but not the other way around (there was no way to access JavaScript from Java).
There may have been issues with IE3. I never tried this kind of thing on there, but when I wrote a Java applet a few years back that interrogated the browsers document object by executing javascript methods, it worked fine with IE4 and NN4. I've also used calls from javascript to java as you described that worked fine in both, so I don't think MS really screwed it up that much. IE3 was a pile of shite anyway.
I don't have the complete details, but I can tell you that there is a lot of software that won't run on NT4 SP4 that works just fine on SP3 or SP5. This includes most Java software that uses networking, and I am lead to believe many versions of Lotus Notes.
In that batchfile you can put the patches, with the correct switches to install them silently and without reboot.
/? and /help, but that doesn't (usually) work.
Does anyone know where you can find documentation on what switches are supported by hotfixes? I've tried running them with
Windows even has that "MSI" stuff, then why is a Microsoft patch not distributed as a .MSI file?
Because the software needed to support MSI isn't installed as part of the base OS package, so they can't be sure it would work.
Redhat provides patches for everything it distributes.
Microsoft provides patches for everything it distributes.
I fail to see the problem.
Redhat provides one simple program for installing all updates.
Microsoft provide several different programs for installing updates to different products, but only really ever publicises the existence of one of them.
I think I see it.
It's not true that ESA is primarily a French project with some British involvement.
Maybe not now. But do you think its a coincidence that the ESA launch vehicle has a French name? That is because it was originally developed by the French long before the ESA existed. Today, most European countries contribute significantly to the ESA, but a large proportion of the ESA's success is due to the technology it inherited from the French national space program when it was founded.
ESA have just announced that they intend to offer Soyuz launch vehicals from the european launch site in south america.
You mean French Guiana, I believe.
There is a big error in the semantics of the title of that page. It is not a jet-powered beer-cooler, but a beer-cooler powered jet engine: the energy needed to expand the gas from the tank is taken by the water (and the beer cans in the water). Whatever you do with the gas afterwards is irrelevant.
e r.
Actually, that's not entirely true. As I understand it, the jet engine will cause suction which enables the gas to leave the tank and expand faster than it would if (for example) you just emptied it into the room. Therefore, some power from the jet engine is being applied to the task of cooling the beer. Of course, the initial power to start the jet engine is coming from the beer. So its a beer-cooling-powered-jet-engine-powered-beer-cool
Better?
Indeed. There is a lot of potential for technologies like BT in automatic software update distribution. The benefits of P2P software downloading have already been shown by P2P file sharing clients that download updates over their own networks. Now this feature just needs incorporating into other software, and everyone, including the software vendor, will be happy with the results! :-)
RTFA yourself. The products were manufactured in China, but have been sold in at least Taiwan, plus:
It is unclear whether the same groups of products, with an estimated defect rate of 10%, have also been marketed in other parts of the world, sources said.
So who knows where else they've been sold.
Does anyone know what models (hopefully with serial no. ranges) are affected?
Which is daft, seeing as you don't have to accept the GPL to use a GPL piece of software:
Therefore, you only need to accept the GPL if you want to modify or distribute the code. Installing & running it is not covered.
I meant 25,600 million fl.ops, of course...! :-)
I actually spotted that a couple of days ago. I did a quick estimate of how much processor power they should have been getting, and it didn't tie up too well with what they claimed (i.e. they claimed their cluster ran substantially faster than I expected).
Then I read their description of the CPU architecture in these things. For those who haven't looked into the maths of it, a PS2 has a theoretical max. throughput of 256,000 million floating point ops per second (as long as the ops you want to do tie in with what its best at...).
Of course, its pretty much impossible to actually reach this figure, but still...!
OK, so where do I get one of these "place T Shaun 2" things they're talking about?
The major performance advantage of totally pure functional languages is that they are implicitly parallel: that is, the compiler can break up programs into very small functional units that execute on parallel processors and pass results up a chain to other processors when those processors are ready for them.
In this way, blindingly fast systems can be built up, hardware implementations are possible, all derived from a piece of source code that can be tested and debugged reasonably quickly and easily on a uniprocessor workstation.
This kind of approach could also be taken to purely functional parts of a hybrid language...
This is partly due to the long focal length of the lens. It distorts perspective, the same way a photographer can make the moon apear much larger by taking the picture with a long telephoto, at a distance from the subject.
Are you sure? I would have thought that the relative sizes of the objects as they appeared at the point from which the picture was taken would have to appear constant.
The strange telephoto effects work by placing an object much further away than you think it is, so the relative appearances are different to what you expect.
No, JPEG doesn't do LZW or similar as a final step. LZW is a dictionary compressor. JPEG uses huffman coding, which is just a single symbol redundancy eliminator. LZW typically achieves substantially better compression than huffman alone. Huffman is usually used with some other compression technique (eg a dictionary, as in deflate, or a lossy encoding as in JPEG) to make up the difference.
Some old Sun workstations that my University had had a socket on the back labelled 'Ant Feed'. We always wondered what that was about...
The thing that many people still just don't get about Java is that it was designed to supply this kind of safety *without* impacting performance. In Java byte code verification happens statically, before the code is executed using a kind of theorem prover.
.NET is not making here is made at run time in Java, not during class verification.
I think you miss the point of what 'this kind of safety' is. What we're talking about here is using the reflection API to gain access to a private member. In Java, there is a run time check that prevents this. It doesn't use a theorem prover that checks that all the possible calls to the reflection API cannot result in this, because to do that would require knowing the program's input. The check that
Actually, in this context, OOP encapsulation _is_ a security issue. Like Java, .NET is designed to provide a secure framework within which untrusted code can be run safely. If that code is able to violate encapsulation, it is no longer safe, because it can perform operations with objects that are not advertised, and which therefore might not have been considered when deciding whether it was safe to pass the object to the untrusted code for manipulation.
That makes you akin to the chat room addict who thinks in third person.
/me thinks you might be just a little bit...)
(eg.