Firefox fixed this issue in Firefox 43, not in 44.0.2. In particular, it was "fixed" in Firefox by updating to a version of libgraphite that did not have the problem, and this happend before the issue was even reported to libgraphite.
Hence no CVE for Firefox 43 or 44, because they were never vunerable, and no CVE for Firefox 42, because it was long-superseded by the time the vulnerability was even reported.
The CVE, if you note, is for Firefox 38 ESR, which _was_ vulnerable until the 38.6.1 release.
Or maybe this is the contest organizers trolling? Because I know for a fact Firefox made serious security improvements in the last year; I reviewed some of those patches.
They did both do the calculation. The pilot did the arithmetic wrong and the copilot typed in his result wrong, and the upshot was that the numbers they entered independently agreed with each other... and were both wrong.
A lot of gifted programs, and this one is no exception, only partially rely on a test for selection decisions. They also rely on teacher recommendations to a large extent. And while I'm sympathetic to the view that you have to be able to pass the test if it's reasonable, I would be shocked if there were no bias in the teacher recommendation process.
The key drawback of steam is that building a steam catapult that can vary its power output well enough to launch both large manned planes and (much more fragile) small drones is rather hard. And people _really_ want to launch drones from carriers.
The scenario you describe is pretty much how it worked, with Google and Netflix doing most of the forcing, and Microsoft only helping out a little bit.
The Youtube-only thing is currently being targeted for Firefox 37, and enabling it in general for 38 or 39 once the standards-compliance issues are worked out.
Unfortunately, Stephane Charbonnier is one of the people who were killed in this latest attack. I really hope you're right that Charlie Hebdo will keep going, but it's a lot easier to recover from physical damage to offices than it is from having the staff that make the magazine what it is killed.:(
Browsers are pretty complicated, yes. Things like low-latency high-performance VMs, hardware-accelerated video pipelines, plus the details, like actual HTML parsing, CSS layout, a network stack, and so forth. Also, what matters is not just the complication but how fast you're trying to change things, and people are adding new things (flexbox, more complicated CSS layout modes, mode DOM APIs, etc) faster than ever before.
But also, in addition to a browser Mozilla is working on FirefoxOS, which involves a whole separate bunch of developers, since it's not like the browser developers are writing things like the dialer app for FirefoxOS. Also, you need QA, not just developers.
And yes, Mozilla has 1000-ish employees, for what it's worth.
It's not just Mozilla. If I look at https://www.openhub.net/p/chro... I see on the order of 600 committers with commits in the last month. And that's not even counting whoever is working on the non-open-source parts of Chrome. And not counting, again, QA and so forth.
And the worst part is, this is not a new development. Microsoft had over 1000 people working on IE6 in 1999, according to http://ericsink.com/Browser_Wa...
> So, they're running Android and iOS on your > computer to run the same binaries as those > platforms?
No. "They" are allowing you to connect your Android or iOS device to your computer (likely via USB), then debugging the on-device browser using the Firefox debugger running on your computer. That way you're debugging the thing you actually want to debug, but using the same developer tools you're using for your other debugging, and which therefore you're already familiar with.
He also (correctly) warned about the entanglement of government and scientific research, in the same speach as the military-industrial complex warning. It's funny that people remember one warning, but not the other.
CrimsonAvenger's point was that we've had evidence since the early 1800s that humans (and probably other hominids, in fact) ate mammoths. Nowhere did he say that humans were eating mammoths in the 1800s.
It's really not that complicated. Firefox releases work like this: 6 weeks of development, 12 weeks of testing and stabilization (split up into two 6-week phases called "aurora" and "beta"; the former corresponds more or less to feature freeze and the latter more or less to "code freeze unless we discover a stop-ship issue"), then release.
So right now 31 is released, 32 is beta, 33 is aurora, and development is happening on 34.
Re:I would like (just) a web browser please
on
Firefox 31 Released
·
· Score: 1
I suggest you take that browser from the old days, run it on today's web sites, and see how many hundreds of MB it takes. Assuming it loads them at all.
Looking at the chart at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... and in particular the inflation-adjusted line there tells you pretty much what the story was: at the peak of the Apollo program NASA's budget was about $40 billion/year in today's dollars (the red line in that graph is in 1996 dollars). NASA's budget today is less than $18 billion/year.
Or to put it in relative-to-the-economy terms, in 1966 NASA was 4% of Federal budget expenditures. 4% of the 2013 US expenditures (actual, not requested) would be $138 billion, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2...
I bet if you funded NASA at that level (even just the inflation-adjusted one; I understand that the overall budget structure is quite different now from what it was in 1966, so the $138 billion number is pretty much meaningless), I bet it could produce results a lot quicker than it can at current funding levels...
Slashdot Mirror
Firefox fixed this issue in Firefox 43, not in 44.0.2. In particular, it was "fixed" in Firefox by updating to a version of libgraphite that did not have the problem, and this happend before the issue was even reported to libgraphite.
Hence no CVE for Firefox 43 or 44, because they were never vunerable, and no CVE for Firefox 42, because it was long-superseded by the time the vulnerability was even reported.
The CVE, if you note, is for Firefox 38 ESR, which _was_ vulnerable until the 38.6.1 release.
Or maybe this is the contest organizers trolling? Because I know for a fact Firefox made serious security improvements in the last year; I reviewed some of those patches.
The actual report linked from the article talks about 250 kWh/ft^2/year, which about 29 W/ft^2.
The actual document at https://www.chelanpud.org/docs... (linked from the article) says 250 kWh/ft^2/year.
So looks like unit confusion on the journalist's part for sure.
They did both do the calculation. The pilot did the arithmetic wrong and the copilot typed in his result wrong, and the upshot was that the numbers they entered independently agreed with each other... and were both wrong.
A lot of gifted programs, and this one is no exception, only partially rely on a test for selection decisions. They also rely on teacher recommendations to a large extent. And while I'm sympathetic to the view that you have to be able to pass the test if it's reasonable, I would be shocked if there were no bias in the teacher recommendation process.
The key drawback of steam is that building a steam catapult that can vary its power output well enough to launch both large manned planes and (much more fragile) small drones is rather hard. And people _really_ want to launch drones from carriers.
The scenario you describe is pretty much how it worked, with Google and Netflix doing most of the forcing, and Microsoft only helping out a little bit.
MSE support isn't in Firefox 36.
The Youtube-only thing is currently being targeted for Firefox 37, and enabling it in general for 38 or 39 once the standards-compliance issues are worked out.
Half of the sample is below the _state_ average. As in, below the average of a different sample.
Ignoring average vs median issues, what this says is that folks in SV are no more likely to get their kids vaccinated than folks in CA in general are.
The funny part is, I bet HTML5Test doesn't measure what you thinks it measures...
Unfortunately, Stephane Charbonnier is one of the people who were killed in this latest attack. I really hope you're right that Charlie Hebdo will keep going, but it's a lot easier to recover from physical damage to offices than it is from having the staff that make the magazine what it is killed. :(
Browsers are pretty complicated, yes. Things like low-latency high-performance VMs, hardware-accelerated video pipelines, plus the details, like actual HTML parsing, CSS layout, a network stack, and so forth. Also, what matters is not just the complication but how fast you're trying to change things, and people are adding new things (flexbox, more complicated CSS layout modes, mode DOM APIs, etc) faster than ever before.
But also, in addition to a browser Mozilla is working on FirefoxOS, which involves a whole separate bunch of developers, since it's not like the browser developers are writing things like the dialer app for FirefoxOS. Also, you need QA, not just developers.
And yes, Mozilla has 1000-ish employees, for what it's worth.
It's not just Mozilla. If I look at https://www.openhub.net/p/chro... I see on the order of 600 committers with commits in the last month. And that's not even counting whoever is working on the non-open-source parts of Chrome. And not counting, again, QA and so forth.
And the worst part is, this is not a new development. Microsoft had over 1000 people working on IE6 in 1999, according to http://ericsink.com/Browser_Wa...
So yes, browsers, complicated.
The "let" keyword is not the same thing as "let blocks" and "let expressions".
The keyword looks like this:
let x = 5;
and is in ES6. A let block or let expression (neither of which is in ES6) looks like this:
let (x = 5) alert(x);
so that "x" is only in scope for the duration of the let block. It's syntactic sugar for:
{
let x = 5;
alert(x);
}
> So you still have to buy an iPhone, an iPad, an
> Android phone, and an Android tablet to test on them,
Sure. The point here is to allow you to use the devtools of your choice, not to create a test environment.
> So, they're running Android and iOS on your
> computer to run the same binaries as those
> platforms?
No. "They" are allowing you to connect your Android or iOS device to your computer (likely via USB), then debugging the on-device browser using the Firefox debugger running on your computer. That way you're debugging the thing you actually want to debug, but using the same developer tools you're using for your other debugging, and which therefore you're already familiar with.
He also (correctly) warned about the entanglement of government and scientific research, in the same speach as the military-industrial complex warning. It's funny that people remember one warning, but not the other.
Ukrainian tanks don't have reactive armor, as the article points out.
And sure, no one is suggesting launching nukes at Russia based on the evidence we have right now.
That's pretty normal for press coverage, for what it's worth: they have to fill up space, so will throw in unrelated pictures all the time...
Getting clear close-ups of stuff in a war zone is hard, of course, especially if the stuff is being hidden.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-... has some photographs if you care.
> [citation please]
http://www.charlesmann.org/art... has a good summary.
CrimsonAvenger's point was that we've had evidence since the early 1800s that humans (and probably other hominids, in fact) ate mammoths. Nowhere did he say that humans were eating mammoths in the 1800s.
It's really not that complicated. Firefox releases work like this: 6 weeks of development, 12 weeks of testing and stabilization (split up into two 6-week phases called "aurora" and "beta"; the former corresponds more or less to feature freeze and the latter more or less to "code freeze unless we discover a stop-ship issue"), then release.
So right now 31 is released, 32 is beta, 33 is aurora, and development is happening on 34.
I suggest you take that browser from the old days, run it on today's web sites, and see how many hundreds of MB it takes. Assuming it loads them at all.
It's a matter of funding.
Looking at the chart at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... and in particular the inflation-adjusted line there tells you pretty much what the story was: at the peak of the Apollo program NASA's budget was about $40 billion/year in today's dollars (the red line in that graph is in 1996 dollars). NASA's budget today is less than $18 billion/year.
Or to put it in relative-to-the-economy terms, in 1966 NASA was 4% of Federal budget expenditures. 4% of the 2013 US expenditures (actual, not requested) would be $138 billion, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2...
I bet if you funded NASA at that level (even just the inflation-adjusted one; I understand that the overall budget structure is quite different now from what it was in 1966, so the $138 billion number is pretty much meaningless), I bet it could produce results a lot quicker than it can at current funding levels...