Yes thats most definately true. However many sites previously used popups to display such content and yet the world hasnt come to an end with the introduction of popup blockers.
Menus and dialogs etc are tricky though, as the browser cant detect when the user has requested it or not, and in some cases you may want it even when you don't manually request it.
Perhaps instead would be a way where you could hold ctrl and click a layer and it would disappear. Too many times Ive seen ads with the little 'x' to close button hidden away, one of these days the ads will start not bothering to even have close buttons. Or the close buttons will count as a click.
I think theres an extension for Firefox that lets you dismiss elements like this already actually.
I do agree with you in most part, and am unsure why you would get modded down. However.. many of those 'floaters' originate from external sites through banner ads placed on the site, which then 'breaks' out of the banner space and interrupts your browsing of the original site.
This tends to happen because ads are 'inlined' rather than iframed, to prevent adblockers and such, and therefore can happily slap layers all over the whole browser window.
If there were an option to turn those layers off, Id certainly use it, I havent seen it used for anything other than ads, and popping up dialogs in hotmail perhaps?.
Im sure there are a few sites which use layers for laying out content legitametly, but Id rather they choose a different design or require to be put on a white list than put up with content flashing about my screen over what Im trying to read.
Yeah, until they start using random names for the floats.
The solution is to not allow layered content like that to cover up the page in the actual browser core.
This is similar to blocking popups using a *popup.html* filter instead of actual logic in the browser to prevent windows from appearing unless the user has clicked the mouse and requested them.
uhm... it is the use of unicode that causes the problem. Without it, there isnt a problem.
Its because some letters look exactly the same but are effectively different unicode characters that lets you register the same 'looking' address but point it to a different site.
I don't see how writing Gnome applications in C# benefits Microsoft any more than writing Gnome applications in C++ or Python.
Those same applications will also run under Windows, which means people dont have to run a competitors OS to run the software. Plus, they can sell MS Office.NET to Linux users too, as it can run on Linux.
Is it really reverse engineering? I mean the full spec for the CLR and various other things with.NET have been published for the very reason to create VMs such as Mono on different platforms.
Thats not a stripped down version of IE with tabs. Thats just IE in another chrome, just like Maxthon is.
If you want IE with tabs, just use Maxthon, it beats Firefox tabbed browing by miles, even with that buggy TBE. IE has been designed to be hosted in another environment if thats what you want.
All these people complaining about tabs in IE need to realise that you are able to use different chromes with IE, such as Maxthon, which enable all those features you want so badly.
Its questionable whether IE will have tabs for that reason. MS have stated this several times, however, there are enough dumbasses who don't realise that applications like Maxthon are really extensions of IE to enable these features, that MS will probably put it in to shut those people up.
Re:Both statements are fine -- salt explained
on
SHA-1 Broken
·
· Score: 1
Using a salt doesnt mean you can use the birthday paradox to your advantage at all. You are still left with the problem of an unknwon plaintext hashing to a known hash.
The birthday paradox is essentially finding *two* plaintexts that hash to the same arbritrary/unknown result. Not *one* plaintext that hashes to a known result.
Knowing part of the plaintext doesnt help at all unless you are doing a brute force dictionary style attack. (ie pre-computed hashed dictionary), as you say.
Actually, if you are using a decent OS such as windows XP, it does smart caching of applications. so it could be faster. It keeps a small meta data record of the disk access of frequently used processes and when you start the application next, windows is able to cache that disk access before it is actually used.
So in theory, over time, applications can get faster, as windows "learns" more about the applications behaviour and disk access.
Not necessarily (in fact unlikely), Adobe image ready is used for getting images 'ready' for the web etc. Its not that suitable for editing images in this way at all. Most likely it was edited in photoshop, then they used image ready to scale the images to a size suitable for the web.
The only difference is the centralised tracker which publishes your ratio, so sometimes people are inclined to share if they are using a community tracker.
You cant deny that if everyones upload is the same with BT as it is in emule, the network as a whole has the same throughput. The amount uploaded=amount downloaded. If they are the same, the throughput is the same. Theres nothing else to it.
People think downloads are slower etc. But it is just because of the amount shared, which causes people to have larger queues etc. If you were to queue up hundreds of files, you will have at least a few downloading at any one time as they reach the start of the queue. Theres very little difference other than the amount shared and the centralised tracker, theres no other argument.
You do realise that the "waiting" in emule is directly related to the amount of stuff shared. The protocols are pretty much exactly the same, except emule encourages sharing more files, and is more distributed.
This is why Ive always found it quite stupid the pirates us BT, edonkey is a much better p2p protocol. Again, it is only because there is so much being shared that you have to wait so long.
But think about this, if everyones upstream is the same in both BT and emule (which it is), then the overall throughput of the network must be the same. It is just because there is so many more files that there are more people in queues ahead of you etc. If you were to limit the servers to only letting you connect with a few files, you would have exactly the same as exeem claims to offer, only much better as its free and doesnt rely on trackers.
The UI problem. As many have noticed, MSN Search is a near copy of Google's interface: even the "Settings" look identical. At best, making Google "switchers" comfortable will aid in driving traffic, but at worst it's an admission that "Google has done it right, and it can't be done better."
Innovation: Microsoft should research how to make the UI better than Google. If it's possible, they should do it. It'll pay off even if people have to learn a new paradigm (ugh, hate that word).
In the sense that it has a box where you enter your search query? I think you'll find every search engine has that, its a bit hard not to. If you are talking about the rest of the stuff, MS's page is actually quite different, and their query builder is a lot easier to use than Googles 'take a look at the help page and use some arcane 'filetype:' or 'link:' etc syntax.
2) - agreed.
3) - You are forgetting the fiher-price feel msn search has. Thats your branding right there, its exactly like WinXP.
Another point: Using the fisher-price colours and theme of Windows XP was a clever choice by MS.
A lot more people are going to trust and use the ms search because it looks like it is part of the OS and "official" in terms of looking like the OS portal to the rest of the Internet. Pretty wise move.
But again, the url is crap. You can "google" a search term. "just google it" etc. But you can't do the same with msn.search.
Google and search.msn are pretty much the same size. But you make a good point, most people are as stupid as you, and will go to msn.com instead of the proper page.
I personnaly have found msn search to have a few more results which google couldnt find for some specific searches. So for that particular search, msn was better, as it found all the stuff google did and more. Those are the facts and can't be denied.
However, I have to say that google has a better URL to remember for people on a kiosk etc and need to just pull up a search engine.
Most people think of a web site as 'word' dot com. ie, to remmeber google all you need to remember is the word google.
But for msn search, you have two words, separated by dots, which could be in any order. In fact, the logical order of "msn" then "search" isn't correct. If I were search.com, Id put an entry for the msn sub domain and get some hits. Or sell it to Microsoft, cause most people are going to be typing 'msn.search.com' instead of search.msn.
That said, msnsearch.com does work, though searchmsn.com is registered by someone else.
What is with this samzenpus character? Using an RSS feed, Ive had many duplicate news items due to small corrections like a full stop after the article title. The spam article had 3 corrections = 3 news items, with nothing more changed than a couple punctuation marks.
It does do it, maybe not as bigger dictionary as google, but Im sure that will come with time.
mods: Stop modding people up who havent bothered to actually check facts, or at least check the facts yourself first.
Ive found search.msn to return quite a few missing results from google for some things Ive serched for, and quite like the interface. I certainly will add it to the list of sites I use for finding stuff on the web.
It is completely wrong. It is comparing the msn portal site instead of the search site.
Besides which, perhaps the sparseness of bytes on googles site could be more to do with googles 'cheapness' rather than trying to speed up your download. Seriously, with packet switched networks the way they are, a few extra bytes isnt going to mean much to the end user, but probably quite a bit to the search service provider.
As I said in another post, wouldnt it have been faster, more accurate etc to have just taken the wires of the piezo and hooked that up to some reader and read it all digitally, instead of mod-demoding the sound? They really dont know whether what they have is even accurate, unless they put a fair bit of CRC stuff in there.
Yeerr right. Id sooner hire someone who just took the wires of the piezo and decoded that digitally instead of having that error prone analog step in there. Shit, hed probably have the spaceshuttle running through some 2400 baud modem with that kind of thinking.
Thats just stupid. You do realise that google just lists every site which uses those terms, and doesnt actually look up a vulnerability database and give you the counts.
ie, searching for 'windows buffer overflow' would also return:
"OSS MySQL for Windows has a buffer overflow"
So thats pretty damn dumb. Also, keep in mind a BO in windows is going to be listed in a lot more news outlets than sendmail. Your logic is so flawed its ridiculous.
By single development environment, I think he meant, a single environment to do all tasks. ie, Visual Studio handles many different languages, XML editing, database connectivity, web services uploads, source debugging, building etc etc etc. Whereas under Linux you have to switch between heaps of different tools to get the job done, which is a PITA.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes thats most definately true. However many sites previously used popups to display such content and yet the world hasnt come to an end with the introduction of popup blockers.
Menus and dialogs etc are tricky though, as the browser cant detect when the user has requested it or not, and in some cases you may want it even when you don't manually request it.
Perhaps instead would be a way where you could hold ctrl and click a layer and it would disappear. Too many times Ive seen ads with the little 'x' to close button hidden away, one of these days the ads will start not bothering to even have close buttons. Or the close buttons will count as a click.
I think theres an extension for Firefox that lets you dismiss elements like this already actually.
I do agree with you in most part, and am unsure why you would get modded down. However.. many of those 'floaters' originate from external sites through banner ads placed on the site, which then 'breaks' out of the banner space and interrupts your browsing of the original site.
This tends to happen because ads are 'inlined' rather than iframed, to prevent adblockers and such, and therefore can happily slap layers all over the whole browser window.
If there were an option to turn those layers off, Id certainly use it, I havent seen it used for anything other than ads, and popping up dialogs in hotmail perhaps?.
Im sure there are a few sites which use layers for laying out content legitametly, but Id rather they choose a different design or require to be put on a white list than put up with content flashing about my screen over what Im trying to read.
Yeah, until they start using random names for the floats.
The solution is to not allow layered content like that to cover up the page in the actual browser core.
This is similar to blocking popups using a *popup.html* filter instead of actual logic in the browser to prevent windows from appearing unless the user has clicked the mouse and requested them.
uhm... it is the use of unicode that causes the problem. Without it, there isnt a problem.
Its because some letters look exactly the same but are effectively different unicode characters that lets you register the same 'looking' address but point it to a different site.
I don't see how writing Gnome applications in C# benefits Microsoft any more than writing Gnome applications in C++ or Python.
Those same applications will also run under Windows, which means people dont have to run a competitors OS to run the software. Plus, they can sell MS Office.NET to Linux users too, as it can run on Linux.
Is it really reverse engineering? I mean the full spec for the CLR and various other things with .NET have been published for the very reason to create VMs such as Mono on different platforms.
Thats not a stripped down version of IE with tabs. Thats just IE in another chrome, just like Maxthon is.
If you want IE with tabs, just use Maxthon, it beats Firefox tabbed browing by miles, even with that buggy TBE. IE has been designed to be hosted in another environment if thats what you want.
All these people complaining about tabs in IE need to realise that you are able to use different chromes with IE, such as Maxthon, which enable all those features you want so badly.
Its questionable whether IE will have tabs for that reason. MS have stated this several times, however, there are enough dumbasses who don't realise that applications like Maxthon are really extensions of IE to enable these features, that MS will probably put it in to shut those people up.
Using a salt doesnt mean you can use the birthday paradox to your advantage at all. You are still left with the problem of an unknwon plaintext hashing to a known hash.
The birthday paradox is essentially finding *two* plaintexts that hash to the same arbritrary/unknown result. Not *one* plaintext that hashes to a known result.
Knowing part of the plaintext doesnt help at all unless you are doing a brute force dictionary style attack. (ie pre-computed hashed dictionary), as you say.
Actually, if you are using a decent OS such as windows XP, it does smart caching of applications. so it could be faster. It keeps a small meta data record of the disk access of frequently used processes and when you start the application next, windows is able to cache that disk access before it is actually used.
So in theory, over time, applications can get faster, as windows "learns" more about the applications behaviour and disk access.
so there.
Not necessarily (in fact unlikely), Adobe image ready is used for getting images 'ready' for the web etc. Its not that suitable for editing images in this way at all. Most likely it was edited in photoshop, then they used image ready to scale the images to a size suitable for the web.
The only difference is the centralised tracker which publishes your ratio, so sometimes people are inclined to share if they are using a community tracker.
You cant deny that if everyones upload is the same with BT as it is in emule, the network as a whole has the same throughput. The amount uploaded=amount downloaded. If they are the same, the throughput is the same. Theres nothing else to it.
People think downloads are slower etc. But it is just because of the amount shared, which causes people to have larger queues etc. If you were to queue up hundreds of files, you will have at least a few downloading at any one time as they reach the start of the queue. Theres very little difference other than the amount shared and the centralised tracker, theres no other argument.
You do realise that the "waiting" in emule is directly related to the amount of stuff shared. The protocols are pretty much exactly the same, except emule encourages sharing more files, and is more distributed.
This is why Ive always found it quite stupid the pirates us BT, edonkey is a much better p2p protocol. Again, it is only because there is so much being shared that you have to wait so long.
But think about this, if everyones upstream is the same in both BT and emule (which it is), then the overall throughput of the network must be the same. It is just because there is so many more files that there are more people in queues ahead of you etc. If you were to limit the servers to only letting you connect with a few files, you would have exactly the same as exeem claims to offer, only much better as its free and doesnt rely on trackers.
Second, I think your choice of the word "stupid" was quite abusive. A much better word would be "uninformed".
Being uninformed is one thing.
Being uninformed then proceeding to bash a product/service/etc you are uninformed about is stupidity IMHO. And pretty typical of most "bashers".
The UI problem. As many have noticed, MSN Search is a near copy of Google's interface: even the "Settings" look identical. At best, making Google "switchers" comfortable will aid in driving traffic, but at worst it's an admission that "Google has done it right, and it can't be done better."
Innovation: Microsoft should research how to make the UI better than Google. If it's possible, they should do it. It'll pay off even if people have to learn a new paradigm (ugh, hate that word).
In the sense that it has a box where you enter your search query? I think you'll find every search engine has that, its a bit hard not to. If you are talking about the rest of the stuff, MS's page is actually quite different, and their query builder is a lot easier to use than Googles 'take a look at the help page and use some arcane 'filetype:' or 'link:' etc syntax.
2) - agreed.
3) - You are forgetting the fiher-price feel msn search has. Thats your branding right there, its exactly like WinXP.
Go to Google Suggest and type the words "msn search" in the search box and nothing more...
Take a look at the bottom suggestion....
Another point: Using the fisher-price colours and theme of Windows XP was a clever choice by MS.
A lot more people are going to trust and use the ms search because it looks like it is part of the OS and "official" in terms of looking like the OS portal to the rest of the Internet. Pretty wise move.
But again, the url is crap. You can "google" a search term. "just google it" etc. But you can't do the same with msn.search.
Uhm... are you using msn.com or search.msn.com?
Google and search.msn are pretty much the same size. But you make a good point, most people are as stupid as you, and will go to msn.com instead of the proper page.
I personnaly have found msn search to have a few more results which google couldnt find for some specific searches. So for that particular search, msn was better, as it found all the stuff google did and more. Those are the facts and can't be denied.
However, I have to say that google has a better URL to remember for people on a kiosk etc and need to just pull up a search engine.
Most people think of a web site as 'word' dot com. ie, to remmeber google all you need to remember is the word google.
But for msn search, you have two words, separated by dots, which could be in any order. In fact, the logical order of "msn" then "search" isn't correct. If I were search.com, Id put an entry for the msn sub domain and get some hits. Or sell it to Microsoft, cause most people are going to be typing 'msn.search.com' instead of search.msn.
That said, msnsearch.com does work, though searchmsn.com is registered by someone else.
What is with this samzenpus character? Using an RSS feed, Ive had many duplicate news items due to small corrections like a full stop after the article title. The spam article had 3 corrections = 3 news items, with nothing more changed than a couple punctuation marks.
sigh.
It does do it, maybe not as bigger dictionary as google, but Im sure that will come with time.
mods: Stop modding people up who havent bothered to actually check facts, or at least check the facts yourself first.
Ive found search.msn to return quite a few missing results from google for some things Ive serched for, and quite like the interface. I certainly will add it to the list of sites I use for finding stuff on the web.
It is completely wrong. It is comparing the msn portal site instead of the search site.
Besides which, perhaps the sparseness of bytes on googles site could be more to do with googles 'cheapness' rather than trying to speed up your download. Seriously, with packet switched networks the way they are, a few extra bytes isnt going to mean much to the end user, but probably quite a bit to the search service provider.
As I said in another post, wouldnt it have been faster, more accurate etc to have just taken the wires of the piezo and hooked that up to some reader and read it all digitally, instead of mod-demoding the sound? They really dont know whether what they have is even accurate, unless they put a fair bit of CRC stuff in there.
Yeerr right. Id sooner hire someone who just took the wires of the piezo and decoded that digitally instead of having that error prone analog step in there. Shit, hed probably have the spaceshuttle running through some 2400 baud modem with that kind of thinking.
Thats just stupid. You do realise that google just lists every site which uses those terms, and doesnt actually look up a vulnerability database and give you the counts.
ie, searching for 'windows buffer overflow' would also return:
"OSS MySQL for Windows has a buffer overflow"
So thats pretty damn dumb. Also, keep in mind a BO in windows is going to be listed in a lot more news outlets than sendmail. Your logic is so flawed its ridiculous.
By single development environment, I think he meant, a single environment to do all tasks. ie, Visual Studio handles many different languages, XML editing, database connectivity, web services uploads, source debugging, building etc etc etc. Whereas under Linux you have to switch between heaps of different tools to get the job done, which is a PITA.