Well, Opera's market capitalization is $634M, so about $300M to buy a controlling stake. Then you could add all the malware to it you want and the EU'll make sure you're on the browser ballot.
No, when they went to the EU and said 'we're going to ship a browser free version of Windows and let the OEMs install whatever they want' the EU said 'that's not good enough.' Because, see, if they did that the OEMs would just install IE and Firefox and be done with it. This isn't about getting Microsoft's claws off the browser business, it's about improving Opera's desktop market share, by hook or by crook.
You do realize that.NET and ActiveX have very little in common.
One is an extension of COM that allows for dynamic dispatch of function calls, for integration with scripting languages. The other is a JIT compiled, bytecode platform that executes within a sandbox with a common API and typesystem for interoperability between different languages.
Only in the vaguest sense. The secondary stage in a thermonuclear bomb is triggered by a fission primary, however the secondary stage in a thermonuclear bomb is not a purely fusion weapon. It's a multilayer sandwich. The secondary starts off with another fission reaction (the plutonium spark-plug), which helps trigger the fusion reaction (lithium deuteride), which in turn boosts the ongoing fission reaction in the spark plug, which in turn boosts the ongoing fusion reaction. Finally it produces a neutron flux which detonates and consumes the secondary casing (depleted uranium, U-238). Most of the energy in a thermonuclear bomb comes from the fission of the depleted uranium protective casing. Thermonuclear bombs do fission 'better' than purely fission bombs.
For the record, this was discovered accidentally when Castle Bravo was a much bigger bang than the designers expected.
The vast majority of fusion research funds from US government flow through the Department of Energy. The senior guys at the DoE have a few pet approaches to fusion, and 99.9% of the funding goes into those. Innovative, small scale, low cost approaches like this, or IEC polywell fusion are left begging to the Navy for funds, but the Navy has far less money to spend on nuclear research than the DoE.
The browser never sends a request to the CA. The browser has a copy of the CA's public key in a local store, so it can verify the cert itself. And the cert is perfectly valid... it's just for the wrong website! How SSL certs are supposed to work:
The browser checks that the certificate has been signed by a trusted CA, by comparing it against its own local repository of CA public keys.
The browser verifies that the certificate has not expired or been revoked.
The browser verifies that the certificate matches the website it's trying to access.
In this attack, the certificate is valid, and has not expired or been revoked, because the certificate was issued by a valid CA and is compliant with all the rules.So Firefox checks 1 and 2 they pass, as they should. But what's supposed to happen is firefox checks the 3rd part, and should detect the mismatch and generate an error. But firefox implements check #3 wrong, this is the problem. Firefox is improperly treating the domain name as null terminated, when the strings are supposed to be length delimited. This is a browser bug, plain and simple.
Wrong, this is absolutely a browser issue. Suppose someone hijacks DNS and redirects paypal.com to their own server, which is capturing accounts and passwords and you try to go to paypal.com, and get redirected to the evil site. What is supposed to happen is, your browser requests a certificate from the site, check that the certificate matches paypal.com and is signed by a valid CA. If Firefox was doing things correctly, it would immediately flag that the cert is for 'paypal.com\0.badsite.com' not 'paypal.com.'
However, Firefox is being stupid and stopping the comparison at the null character, only reading the 'paypal.com' part of the bad SSL cert. So instead of flagging the certificate as bad, it says it's a valid certificate and now your paypal account has been hijacked.
64-bit hasn't been a bastard child since Vista. You can't get WHQL driver certification without a 100% feature complete 64-bit driver. I haven't seen any hardware without a 64-bit driver in a couple of years now.
I thought the point of netbooks was to have a computer for accessing the internet and that's about it. Last I checked, Windows 7 could access the internet. I don't see the point in putting XP on your netbook at all.
Except the iPhone does use a separate baseband processor. The iPhone 3GS has a Samsung processor for the OS, and an Infineon baseband processor, so what exactly is your point?
There's a difference between jailbreaking and unlocking. Jailbreaking doesn't touch the baseband software and it's what the EFF is trying to affirm the legality of.
What Apple is saying is wrong. Everybody with any knowledge of the system knows it's wrong; even if cell towers were susceptible, jailbreaking doesn't touch the baseband software on the phone. Yet they make the claim anyway, knowing it's false, presumably because they're hoping nobody involved in this process at the Copyright Office has the technical knowledge to know it's BS. Let's call this what it is: it's a lie.
Shouldn't there be some sort of consequences for just lying in a process like this? I know in courts there is perjury, for lying under oath, but what legal consequences are there for lying in this kind of situation?
Well, it's unsurprising Silverlight doesn't have any vulnerabilities. Flash runs in its own, custom built virtual machine. Silverlight runs in the.NET virtual machine, which is designed with a sandbox at its core, and generally has been much, much more rigorously audited and tested.
It's actually quite interesting that they're asking for search terms rather than simply labels. Search engines are the a form of machine learning, and a lot of ML research goes into improving them. So it's interesting to consider what Microsoft is asking, in the context of ML. For example, Google has a game where users play by tagging images. Obviously, they're using some sort of supervised classification algorithm under the hood. But with Bing they're not asking for 'tags,' which would imply a supervised classification system, but search queries which return the page. Now that suggests that Bing is actually built on a bayesian model, which is very different from Google's markov steady state (page rank) model.
The problem with the idealists was they saw the OLPC and Sugar as a new eduational model. New educational models have been successfully introduced into different countries around the world on numerous occasions, but OLPC tried to do it in a retarded way.
Instead of conducting studies, refining the system and demonstrating academically its use in small scale studies, they blew their load all at once. They dumped it on the market assuming everybody would share their idealism. And when people came back and asked 'why is Sugar better than Windows?' they didn't have any data to support their assertions.
Maybe the OP is right in regards to GTA4 specifically, but the OP in general is very very wrong. Personally though, I would be very surprised if the DX10 engine requires a heftier CPU than the DX9; that would indicate very poor programming on the part of Rockstar. DirectX 10 has even less dependency on CPU performance than DX9. It's an API to queue and dispatch commands to GPUs. In fact, it should be less CPU demanding than DX9, since it abandons the fixed-function pipeline, maps more directly to the underlying hardware and most importantly- allows you to offload more of the rendering to the GPU by providing geometry shaders.
So yeah, if a game's DX10 engine is sucking more CPU power than DX9 for equal visual quality, then the game's developers are doing something wrong.
That's what you get for listening to hearsay. Vista removed native hardware acceleration from DirectSound in Vista, but if you have an X-Fi card you still get hardware acceleration through Creative's OpenAL and Alchemy drivers.
No, concepts weren't for the developers of big template libraries, it was for the users. There are large portions of boost which are powerful and useless to your average programmer, because simple mistakes lead to impenetrable error messages.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, Opera's market capitalization is $634M, so about $300M to buy a controlling stake. Then you could add all the malware to it you want and the EU'll make sure you're on the browser ballot.
No, when they went to the EU and said 'we're going to ship a browser free version of Windows and let the OEMs install whatever they want' the EU said 'that's not good enough.' Because, see, if they did that the OEMs would just install IE and Firefox and be done with it. This isn't about getting Microsoft's claws off the browser business, it's about improving Opera's desktop market share, by hook or by crook.
Then where's the Steve Jobs borg?
You can blame his defense if you want, but he sabotaged his own case when he said in court that the RIAA's lawyers were 100% correct.
And your keyboard would cost $200...
You do realize that .NET and ActiveX have very little in common.
One is an extension of COM that allows for dynamic dispatch of function calls, for integration with scripting languages. The other is a JIT compiled, bytecode platform that executes within a sandbox with a common API and typesystem for interoperability between different languages.
Only in the vaguest sense. The secondary stage in a thermonuclear bomb is triggered by a fission primary, however the secondary stage in a thermonuclear bomb is not a purely fusion weapon. It's a multilayer sandwich. The secondary starts off with another fission reaction (the plutonium spark-plug), which helps trigger the fusion reaction (lithium deuteride), which in turn boosts the ongoing fission reaction in the spark plug, which in turn boosts the ongoing fusion reaction. Finally it produces a neutron flux which detonates and consumes the secondary casing (depleted uranium, U-238). Most of the energy in a thermonuclear bomb comes from the fission of the depleted uranium protective casing. Thermonuclear bombs do fission 'better' than purely fission bombs. For the record, this was discovered accidentally when Castle Bravo was a much bigger bang than the designers expected.
The vast majority of fusion research funds from US government flow through the Department of Energy. The senior guys at the DoE have a few pet approaches to fusion, and 99.9% of the funding goes into those. Innovative, small scale, low cost approaches like this, or IEC polywell fusion are left begging to the Navy for funds, but the Navy has far less money to spend on nuclear research than the DoE.
In this attack, the certificate is valid, and has not expired or been revoked, because the certificate was issued by a valid CA and is compliant with all the rules.So Firefox checks 1 and 2 they pass, as they should. But what's supposed to happen is firefox checks the 3rd part, and should detect the mismatch and generate an error. But firefox implements check #3 wrong, this is the problem. Firefox is improperly treating the domain name as null terminated, when the strings are supposed to be length delimited. This is a browser bug, plain and simple.
Wrong, this is absolutely a browser issue. Suppose someone hijacks DNS and redirects paypal.com to their own server, which is capturing accounts and passwords and you try to go to paypal.com, and get redirected to the evil site. What is supposed to happen is, your browser requests a certificate from the site, check that the certificate matches paypal.com and is signed by a valid CA. If Firefox was doing things correctly, it would immediately flag that the cert is for 'paypal.com\0.badsite.com' not 'paypal.com.' However, Firefox is being stupid and stopping the comparison at the null character, only reading the 'paypal.com' part of the bad SSL cert. So instead of flagging the certificate as bad, it says it's a valid certificate and now your paypal account has been hijacked.
Yes, but those are 5+ years old and there are no Vista drivers at all, neither 32-bit nor 64-bit. So your post is completely irrelevant.
64-bit hasn't been a bastard child since Vista. You can't get WHQL driver certification without a 100% feature complete 64-bit driver. I haven't seen any hardware without a 64-bit driver in a couple of years now.
I thought the point of netbooks was to have a computer for accessing the internet and that's about it. Last I checked, Windows 7 could access the internet. I don't see the point in putting XP on your netbook at all.
Except the iPhone does use a separate baseband processor. The iPhone 3GS has a Samsung processor for the OS, and an Infineon baseband processor, so what exactly is your point?
There's a difference between jailbreaking and unlocking. Jailbreaking doesn't touch the baseband software and it's what the EFF is trying to affirm the legality of.
What Apple is saying is wrong. Everybody with any knowledge of the system knows it's wrong; even if cell towers were susceptible, jailbreaking doesn't touch the baseband software on the phone. Yet they make the claim anyway, knowing it's false, presumably because they're hoping nobody involved in this process at the Copyright Office has the technical knowledge to know it's BS. Let's call this what it is: it's a lie.
Shouldn't there be some sort of consequences for just lying in a process like this? I know in courts there is perjury, for lying under oath, but what legal consequences are there for lying in this kind of situation?
Well, it's unsurprising Silverlight doesn't have any vulnerabilities. Flash runs in its own, custom built virtual machine. Silverlight runs in the .NET virtual machine, which is designed with a sandbox at its core, and generally has been much, much more rigorously audited and tested.
It's actually quite interesting that they're asking for search terms rather than simply labels. Search engines are the a form of machine learning, and a lot of ML research goes into improving them. So it's interesting to consider what Microsoft is asking, in the context of ML. For example, Google has a game where users play by tagging images. Obviously, they're using some sort of supervised classification algorithm under the hood. But with Bing they're not asking for 'tags,' which would imply a supervised classification system, but search queries which return the page. Now that suggests that Bing is actually built on a bayesian model, which is very different from Google's markov steady state (page rank) model.
Good analysis!
The problem with the idealists was they saw the OLPC and Sugar as a new eduational model. New educational models have been successfully introduced into different countries around the world on numerous occasions, but OLPC tried to do it in a retarded way. Instead of conducting studies, refining the system and demonstrating academically its use in small scale studies, they blew their load all at once. They dumped it on the market assuming everybody would share their idealism. And when people came back and asked 'why is Sugar better than Windows?' they didn't have any data to support their assertions.
Maybe the OP is right in regards to GTA4 specifically, but the OP in general is very very wrong. Personally though, I would be very surprised if the DX10 engine requires a heftier CPU than the DX9; that would indicate very poor programming on the part of Rockstar. DirectX 10 has even less dependency on CPU performance than DX9. It's an API to queue and dispatch commands to GPUs. In fact, it should be less CPU demanding than DX9, since it abandons the fixed-function pipeline, maps more directly to the underlying hardware and most importantly- allows you to offload more of the rendering to the GPU by providing geometry shaders.
So yeah, if a game's DX10 engine is sucking more CPU power than DX9 for equal visual quality, then the game's developers are doing something wrong.
That's what you get for listening to hearsay. Vista removed native hardware acceleration from DirectSound in Vista, but if you have an X-Fi card you still get hardware acceleration through Creative's OpenAL and Alchemy drivers.
No, concepts weren't for the developers of big template libraries, it was for the users. There are large portions of boost which are powerful and useless to your average programmer, because simple mistakes lead to impenetrable error messages.
Absolutely. C++ is a very complex language, and concepts were a feature that was going to be critical in reducing that complexity.
Ah yes, the inevitable -1 Troll moderations arrive.