No. It's likely the paid-for codec does not change anything, it may very well be exactly the same code.
I strongly recommend against attempting to play a DVD that does not work on Linux on your Windows machine. It may be doing something nasty to the system. Stick it in a regular DVD player.
Winmodems are not really a good example of this. The CPU does not have special instructions or hardware added to it to make it act like a modem, it's just that it got fast enough that this was possible.
I think the best example is the FPU. That used to be a seperate chip and it was then incorporated into the CPU.
Hardware that disappeared because the CPU got faster is a different story and not really relevant.
You may be right. Further reading indicates that both Unix and Windows crash the entire process when a thread gets an exception. I thought they were more like processes with shared memory. It is probably not difficult to make just one thread die, just reuse whatever keeps a program crash from crashing all other programs. But it may be that a dead thread causes so many other problems (inconsistent state such as locks left locked) that there is no reason for the os to support it.
I also seem to have Google/Microsoft switched. Apparently it is Chrome that uses different processes, and IE8 that uses different threads. That would be more in keeping with previous design decisions.
Truly separate processes are safer but make communication much more difficult. It seems to me that attempts to solve the communication problems (ie shared memory) would cause all the problems that multiple threads have with inconsistent state in case of a crash. So I really can't see which solution is better.
A thread per tab model does protect you from a rogue Javascript freezing the browser's UI, but it doesn't protect you from a poorly written plugin that does something stupid like dereference a NULL pointer.
Actually threads would protect against a null pointer because it would cause an exception that could then kill only that thread. What threads can't protect against is random memory being used as pointers, if the memory contains a pointer to allocated pages it will write over that memory and nothing can catch it.
Separate processes would be better because of this, but it does slow down communication between the threads. And in reality most of the failures of flash/java/layout appear to be them just screwing up their own logic, not due to accessing random memory locations. So I can see why threads were preferred.
One surprise is that Microsoft's solution is multiple processes, while the Unix solution is threads. This is pretty much the reverse of previous tendencies.
"Everybody should read this" means "I think the set that I am calling "Everybody" will be interested in this paper".
This is followed by the explaination as to why the poster thinks "Everybody" should read the paper: "it includes information on Linux".
Therefore the poster thinks the set "Everybody" includes people who are interested in information on Linux, and that these people are what differentiate "Everybody" from "not Everybody".
The assumption that "not Everybody" and "Everybody" are different sets implies the poster thinks there is a non-zero difference and thus the set of people interested in Linux is non-zero.
In common usage "not everybody" still means a majority (a minority would instead have the difference described as "most people"), so the poster also implies that less than 50% of "Everybody" is the set that is interested in Linux.
This has absolutely nothing to do with whether the original poster's ideas are accurate. And of course their set of "Everybody" only includes people interested in Windows and Linux which is not the normal definition of "everybody". But it in no way implies that "Everybody == people interested in Linux" which is what you are saying. I can't believe I am typing this however. You are the one who made a knee-jerk reaction and you should just admit you made a mistake.
Sorry my typing dropped a word. I meant I can't see anybody applauding for a *commercial*. Yes bars are very noisy and will respond to lots of events on the tv and will laugh at commercials sometimes, but applause for one just still seems completely unreal to me.
It is very common for people using Linux to dismiss a computer column without looking at it because they assume it is going to be Windows-specific information. Why? Because the number of people using Linux is a small minority. So by "Everyone should read that" the poster meant "hey it also includes the tiny number of people running Linux".
The poster directly implied that the number of people running Linux is tiny, but you thought he said the opposite. Let's try reading a little harder next time, ok?
Cooperative actions (ie morals) have already been shown to evolve naturally in a group of robots whose programming is randomly perturbed with the ones that succeed the best in getting "food" propagating the programs.
I am completely baffled why you think there cannot be an explosion of species. All I can figure is that you think there is only one line of evolution and that all the species have to have been arrived at in a straight line, which is the same as saying that there is exactly one animal on earth and it only gives birth to one offspring.
I think they were trying to reproduce the quite-successful joke video about Bill Gates leaving Microsoft (where he put all his stuff in a cardboard box and drove off in his beater car). That really worked, and showed that he could laugh at himself, and humanize himself.
The problem is that they probably threw too much money and thought at this version, and the spontaneity was lost.
For the first time the letter pair "MS" has appeared in a story summary. That is not readable, for me it either reads "Miss" or "Multiple Sclerosis". It also is the postal abbreviation for Mississippi, means "manuscript", and even as a company name it is the stock symbol for Morgan Stanley, who also own "MS.com".
I know that a lot of people hate the abbreviation "M$", but the solution is NOT to put "MS" in, but to put in the spelled-out "Microsoft".
Let's stop this nonsense now. Writing "MS" is not some kind of stand against "M$". I'm sorry that "M$" hurts your feelings and makes you cry, but you lose. If you want to fight it, write out "Microsoft".
It's the last text that was selected by the user, not the currently-hilighted text. So switching to the window to drop into does not change it.
Yes you cannot replace a selection with another (unless you select the destination first, but that is not very intuitive and certainly no easier than deleting it first, and as least on Linux it often does not replace it anyway). This is the primary problem with the selection and why a different clipboard mechanism with a copy action is needed.
The problem most people have with this is that it is NOT cut & paste. It is much better to think of it as drag & drop, with the advantage that you can rearrange windows and launch other programs between the "drag" and the "drop". In fact I think the best way to duplicate it on Windows is to somehow mess with the drag & drop. And on Linux they should merge these two as much as possible so that you can be sure that if you can drag & drop, you can also middle-click to get the same effect.
Certainly non-text windows have a concept of "selection". If you can drag & drop anything more complicated than a single object then it must have a selection, so that you can shift+click, ctrl+click, or marquee select the set to drag & drop. Just reuse this.
your proposed policy ("Always leap-of-faith") would mean ANY conventional phishing site could trivially use SSL and present a nice happy lock icon
Maybe you should study reading comprehension. Here is the last paragraph in the grandparent's post just for you to read again:
The only thing you should change is that a self-signed certificate does not display the green status bar and lock, just make it look like a normal every day HTTP site, accept it automatically, and only warn the user if the certificate changed since last visit.
Really, the only argument for Firefox's behavior is that "it makes people trust the site". The answer is to remove the thing that makes people trust the site, not pop up scary warnings that you don't get for completely untrustworth http!
Nobody is saying "no warnings = secure". We're saying "the little padlock icon that indicates the site is secure"
Goddamn it, this has been posted about 1000 times above and you people still refuse to understand:
When you get a self-signed certificate, DON'T SHOW THE PADLOCK!!!
Instead of this bogus argument, I would like to see any kind of argument as to how https is worse than using http, assuming Firefox completely hid the use of https from the user so they could not tell. Face it, there is no such argument, and therefore what Firefox is doing is wrong.
Title should read "stereo", not "3D". Right now it is misleading.
When talking about computer graphics, "3D" generally means that the image is rendered from data that represents a 3-dimensional model. As opposed to "2D" where the data is already images.
What they are talking about is depth perception of the final film, and "stereo" is probably the best way to describe that, even if you use a technology that results in more than 2 pictures.
I think the idea is you pay for the bandwidth used. So if you set up a popular web server, you will get a bigger bill for how much data it sends. And uploaded bandwidth probably costs more than downloaded, since there is less of it available, like you say.
Stuff I would like to see, all of which is really simple:
1. A "0" type. The typename is "0" and the only value is the constant "0". This would expose the C fact that "0" can be cast to more types than "1" or void* can. The following allows fast compile-time initialization without an if statement and without having to put these functions inline (or the typical kludge of allowing the object to be initialized with any integer, which is silly but I have seen it done):
class Foo {
A* p;
public:
Foo(0) { p = 0; }
Foo(A* pp) { p = do_expensive_stuff(pp); }
};
2. Partial classes. You can already put "class Foo;" in a header file. The following syntax would allow all the same things as that statement, plus allow the getX() and setX() methods to be efficiently run:
class Foo {
int x;
public:
int getX() const {return x;}
void setX(int v) {x = v;}
static Foo& makeone();...// this ellipsis must be last
};
Implementation would do this to finish the Foo class:
class Foo {...// ellipsis must be first
int more_stuff;
Foo() : x(0), more_stuff(1) {}
};
Foo& Foo::makeone() {return new Foo;}
Yes I know you can do something like this with a derived class but I think that is stupid to have to make two names for what is really one type of object.
3. Even without the ellipsis shown above, you can define private inline functions outside the class definition. This allows implementation details to be hidden from the header file. Again I know it can be done with a derived class but the need for an extra dummy classname is really annoying.
class Foo {
public:
int f();
int g();
};
The following would be in an implementation file. It would act exactly as though the method implementation_detail() was declared in the private part of Foo:
int Foo::implementation_detail(int) { return stuff_used_by_both_f_and_g();}
int Foo::f() { return implementation_detail(1); }
int Foo::g() { return implementation_detail(2)*5; }
Slashdot Mirror
No. It's likely the paid-for codec does not change anything, it may very well be exactly the same code.
I strongly recommend against attempting to play a DVD that does not work on Linux on your Windows machine. It may be doing something nasty to the system. Stick it in a regular DVD player.
GPU's have been using the main memory for a long time, now.
Winmodems are not really a good example of this. The CPU does not have special instructions or hardware added to it to make it act like a modem, it's just that it got fast enough that this was possible.
I think the best example is the FPU. That used to be a seperate chip and it was then incorporated into the CPU.
Hardware that disappeared because the CPU got faster is a different story and not really relevant.
I think you missed the words "graphics programming students" in the parent post.
They use OpenGL, whether or not it is better or worse than DirectX.
You may be right. Further reading indicates that both Unix and Windows crash the entire process when a thread gets an exception. I thought they were more like processes with shared memory. It is probably not difficult to make just one thread die, just reuse whatever keeps a program crash from crashing all other programs. But it may be that a dead thread causes so many other problems (inconsistent state such as locks left locked) that there is no reason for the os to support it.
I also seem to have Google/Microsoft switched. Apparently it is Chrome that uses different processes, and IE8 that uses different threads. That would be more in keeping with previous design decisions.
Truly separate processes are safer but make communication much more difficult. It seems to me that attempts to solve the communication problems (ie shared memory) would cause all the problems that multiple threads have with inconsistent state in case of a crash. So I really can't see which solution is better.
A thread per tab model does protect you from a rogue Javascript freezing the browser's UI, but it doesn't protect you from a poorly written plugin that does something stupid like dereference a NULL pointer.
Actually threads would protect against a null pointer because it would cause an exception that could then kill only that thread. What threads can't protect against is random memory being used as pointers, if the memory contains a pointer to allocated pages it will write over that memory and nothing can catch it.
Separate processes would be better because of this, but it does slow down communication between the threads. And in reality most of the failures of flash/java/layout appear to be them just screwing up their own logic, not due to accessing random memory locations. So I can see why threads were preferred.
One surprise is that Microsoft's solution is multiple processes, while the Unix solution is threads. This is pretty much the reverse of previous tendencies.
"Everybody should read this" means "I think the set that I am calling "Everybody" will be interested in this paper".
This is followed by the explaination as to why the poster thinks "Everybody" should read the paper: "it includes information on Linux".
Therefore the poster thinks the set "Everybody" includes people who are interested in information on Linux, and that these people are what differentiate "Everybody" from "not Everybody".
The assumption that "not Everybody" and "Everybody" are different sets implies the poster thinks there is a non-zero difference and thus the set of people interested in Linux is non-zero.
In common usage "not everybody" still means a majority (a minority would instead have the difference described as "most people"), so the poster also implies that less than 50% of "Everybody" is the set that is interested in Linux.
This has absolutely nothing to do with whether the original poster's ideas are accurate. And of course their set of "Everybody" only includes people interested in Windows and Linux which is not the normal definition of "everybody". But it in no way implies that "Everybody == people interested in Linux" which is what you are saying. I can't believe I am typing this however. You are the one who made a knee-jerk reaction and you should just admit you made a mistake.
Sorry my typing dropped a word. I meant I can't see anybody applauding for a *commercial*. Yes bars are very noisy and will respond to lots of events on the tv and will laugh at commercials sometimes, but applause for one just still seems completely unreal to me.
Funny I can believe. I just cannot see anybody applauding in a bar, for anything. It just sounds impossibly surreal.
Are you really really saying they hit their hands against each other to make noise in response to a commercial?
It is very common for people using Linux to dismiss a computer column without looking at it because they assume it is going to be Windows-specific information. Why? Because the number of people using Linux is a small minority. So by "Everyone should read that" the poster meant "hey it also includes the tiny number of people running Linux".
The poster directly implied that the number of people running Linux is tiny, but you thought he said the opposite. Let's try reading a little harder next time, ok?
Cooperative actions (ie morals) have already been shown to evolve naturally in a group of robots whose programming is randomly perturbed with the ones that succeed the best in getting "food" propagating the programs.
I am completely baffled why you think there cannot be an explosion of species. All I can figure is that you think there is only one line of evolution and that all the species have to have been arrived at in a straight line, which is the same as saying that there is exactly one animal on earth and it only gives birth to one offspring.
I think they were trying to reproduce the quite-successful joke video about Bill Gates leaving Microsoft (where he put all his stuff in a cardboard box and drove off in his beater car). That really worked, and showed that he could laugh at himself, and humanize himself.
The problem is that they probably threw too much money and thought at this version, and the spontaneity was lost.
Some bar patrons applauded the ad?
Really?
In what parallel Earth?
Either this is some kind of joke, or Microsoft has really gone downhill in that they hire such poor astroturfers as you.
For the first time the letter pair "MS" has appeared in a story summary. That is not readable, for me it either reads "Miss" or "Multiple Sclerosis". It also is the postal abbreviation for Mississippi, means "manuscript", and even as a company name it is the stock symbol for Morgan Stanley, who also own "MS.com".
I know that a lot of people hate the abbreviation "M$", but the solution is NOT to put "MS" in, but to put in the spelled-out "Microsoft".
Let's stop this nonsense now. Writing "MS" is not some kind of stand against "M$". I'm sorry that "M$" hurts your feelings and makes you cry, but you lose. If you want to fight it, write out "Microsoft".
It's the last text that was selected by the user, not the currently-hilighted text. So switching to the window to drop into does not change it.
Yes you cannot replace a selection with another (unless you select the destination first, but that is not very intuitive and certainly no easier than deleting it first, and as least on Linux it often does not replace it anyway). This is the primary problem with the selection and why a different clipboard mechanism with a copy action is needed.
The problem most people have with this is that it is NOT cut & paste. It is much better to think of it as drag & drop, with the advantage that you can rearrange windows and launch other programs between the "drag" and the "drop". In fact I think the best way to duplicate it on Windows is to somehow mess with the drag & drop. And on Linux they should merge these two as much as possible so that you can be sure that if you can drag & drop, you can also middle-click to get the same effect.
Certainly non-text windows have a concept of "selection". If you can drag & drop anything more complicated than a single object then it must have a selection, so that you can shift+click, ctrl+click, or marquee select the set to drag & drop. Just reuse this.
If this is a concern, firefox could actually hide the 's' in the url bar.
Don't show the colored bar and lock icon for self-signed certificates.
There. Problem solved.
Of course this has been mentioned about 1000 times above in this discussion and people arguing for Firefox's behavior still refuse to acknoledge it.
your proposed policy ("Always leap-of-faith") would mean ANY conventional phishing site could trivially use SSL and present a nice happy lock icon
Maybe you should study reading comprehension. Here is the last paragraph in the grandparent's post just for you to read again:
The only thing you should change is that a self-signed certificate does not display the green status bar and lock, just make it look like a normal every day HTTP site, accept it automatically, and only warn the user if the certificate changed since last visit.
Really, the only argument for Firefox's behavior is that "it makes people trust the site". The answer is to remove the thing that makes people trust the site, not pop up scary warnings that you don't get for completely untrustworth http!
Nobody is saying "no warnings = secure". We're saying "the little padlock icon that indicates the site is secure"
Goddamn it, this has been posted about 1000 times above and you people still refuse to understand:
When you get a self-signed certificate, DON'T SHOW THE PADLOCK!!!
Instead of this bogus argument, I would like to see any kind of argument as to how https is worse than using http, assuming Firefox completely hid the use of https from the user so they could not tell. Face it, there is no such argument, and therefore what Firefox is doing is wrong.
How about:
1. Self-signed or unrecognized authority: just show the "https:" in the url display. No lock icon.
2. Signed with a recognized authoity: lock icon and yellow color, like now
3. Signed with one of those new authoirties: lock icon and green color.
In fact prehaps they can put the color into the authorities database, so we can get more than yellow and green. Or let the lock icon change.
Title should read "stereo", not "3D". Right now it is misleading.
When talking about computer graphics, "3D" generally means that the image is rendered from data that represents a 3-dimensional model. As opposed to "2D" where the data is already images.
What they are talking about is depth perception of the final film, and "stereo" is probably the best way to describe that, even if you use a technology that results in more than 2 pictures.
I think the idea is you pay for the bandwidth used. So if you set up a popular web server, you will get a bigger bill for how much data it sends. And uploaded bandwidth probably costs more than downloaded, since there is less of it available, like you say.
Stuff I would like to see, all of which is really simple:
1. A "0" type. The typename is "0" and the only value is the constant "0". This would expose the C fact that "0" can be cast to more types than "1" or void* can. The following allows fast compile-time initialization without an if statement and without having to put these functions inline (or the typical kludge of allowing the object to be initialized with any integer, which is silly but I have seen it done):
class Foo {
A* p;
public:
Foo(0) { p = 0; }
Foo(A* pp) { p = do_expensive_stuff(pp); }
};
2. Partial classes. You can already put "class Foo;" in a header file. The following syntax would allow all the same things as that statement, plus allow the getX() and setX() methods to be efficiently run:
... // this ellipsis must be last
class Foo {
int x;
public:
int getX() const {return x;}
void setX(int v) {x = v;}
static Foo& makeone();
};
Implementation would do this to finish the Foo class:
... // ellipsis must be first
class Foo {
int more_stuff;
Foo() : x(0), more_stuff(1) {}
};
Foo& Foo::makeone() {return new Foo;}
Yes I know you can do something like this with a derived class but I think that is stupid to have to make two names for what is really one type of object.
3. Even without the ellipsis shown above, you can define private inline functions outside the class definition. This allows implementation details to be hidden from the header file. Again I know it can be done with a derived class but the need for an extra dummy classname is really annoying.
class Foo {
public:
int f();
int g();
};
The following would be in an implementation file. It would act exactly as though the method implementation_detail() was declared in the private part of Foo:
int Foo::implementation_detail(int) { return stuff_used_by_both_f_and_g();}
int Foo::f() { return implementation_detail(1); }
int Foo::g() { return implementation_detail(2)*5; }
Shipping coal is certainly not cheap. There is a reason ships changed from coal to oil as fast as possible, you know.