Technically, you could have flipped the switch and started taking advantage of others using DNSSEC, though at a lower, nearly useless trust level, years ago.
This just ups the trust level to something actually useful.
Really? What does PSI stand for? Is that not a measurement of pressure? It is to us common folk.
It may not be 'technically' correct, but its really not that hard to understand. Made complete sense to me, even if number itself is incorrect.
Yes, they should be using a proper unit of energy.
And yes, with just a one more bit of information, you can convert the two provided to a unit of energy. Stop trying to show how smart you are to everyone, you still haven't asked for the right information to complete the equation.
No, they are, just like everyone else flying over US controlled airspace, they just don't play by the same rules as general aviation, which is why they have different licensing.
You should probably check your FARs.
They also have a higher violation rate because everything they do is on video and recorded by several people who won't loose their job because they strayed more than 500 feet off their flight plan, which, for the record, qualifies as an 'accident' to the FAA. They report the 'accident'.
When Bob and Tom flying their 747 for Delta deviate by a 1,000 feet, no one reports it because that little down draft if reported will ruin a guys career, but that is an accident to the FAA.
From a statistical point of view, they have done nothing wrong.
Their device technically performs better than just about any alternative phone you throw at it.
Nothing about its problem is unique and it is as documented actually LESS of a problem NOW than with the previous 3 generations of the device.
Its just media sensationalism and ignorance by people like yourselves.
If they admit 'they did something wrong', pretty much every cell phone manufacture ever would have to do the same thing since the iPhone 4s TESTED performance is rather high, regardless of what you see written by journalists who read on some blog who needed page hits to sell adds to make the credit card payment for the iPhone 4 he bought and couldn't afford.
Theres no apology because there isn't a problem outside of the media and a few idiots minds.
Show me a phone that doesn't do the same thing in one form or another that compares to the iPhone in price and size. You can't, its simply the laws of physics at work.
Considering what absolutely crappy devices BlackBerry sells, I hardly doubt anyone would notice. They'll be spending too much time trying to get anything accomplished rather than actually using the thing as a phone.
BBs are some of the biggest pieces of shit on the market, the only reason they still exist is because idiots in suites like them and don't realize that just about any other smart phone is light years better across the board.
Uhm, when it comes to Apple, Gizmodo and its Ilk are not just a third party, they are a heavily biased against Apple since Apple gave them a smack down for trying to extort them.
Second, Gizmodo has history of manipulating the story to fit their view point, flat out lying and stealing in some cases. They in essence act like a bunch of 15 year old kids who need a good beating from someone.
There is no one in their organization or their parent organizational group that has provided anything to the world that justifies their use of oxygen and other resources.
Reading Gizmodo is like reading tabloids. You're an idiot if you do, which I mean directly for you, since you seem to think 'consistent' is more important than 'accurate' or 'correct'.
I think the proper way is to "pad" the time so that it's constant.
Which is what anyone with half a clue about writing secure authentication systems has done since at least 70s.
When an attempt fails, you pause for a standard amount of time.
The attacker then doesn't know if the password is good or bad until the system tells them. You can't assume a password is bad just because it doesnt' return instantly due to random system load. You also don't get any info from the failed attempt because every failed attempt is at least X seconds long, longer under high load but never shorter.
A failed authentication for ANY REASON behaves THE EXACT SAME as ANY OTHER REASON so attackers get no data from failed attempts.
This isn't a new discovery or anything, its just standard operating procedure for anyone with a clue about authentication systems.
Yes, because by knowing you use an MD5 hash, they can start attaching with known 'passwords' that generate 'known hashes'.
Since the check on the hashes by mysql is likely a simple string compare they can effectively compare which parts of the hash match and work backwards, one char at a time to find a matching hash.
Then its nothing more than generating a md5 hash to match the one you now know to work. Its rather complicated, but hashing doesn't make it impossible, just a little slower.
GCD combined with OpenCL makes it usable on a GPU, but that would be stupid. GPUs aren't really 'threaded' in any context that someone who hasn't worked with them would think of.
All the threads run simultaneously, and side by side. They all start at the same time and they all end at the same time in a batch (not entirely true, but it is if you want to actually get any boost out of it).
GCD is multithreading on a General Processing Unit, like your Intel CoreWhateverThisWeek processor. Code paths are ran and scheduled on different cores as needed and don't really run side by side, but they can run at the same time which is practical and useful in A LOT of cases.
OpenCL is multithreading on a graphics chip. It lets you do the same calculation over and over again or on a very large data set, side by side. You can calculate 128 encryption keys in one pass, but you can't calculate one encryption key, the average of your monthly bills, and draw a circle because the graphics chip doesn't do random processing side by side, it runs a whole bunch of the same instructions side by side and goes to hell in a handbasket the INSTANT you break its ability to run all the 'threads' side by side, executing the same instruction in each at the same time.
I really don't think you understand either standard GP multithreading or what GPUs are practically capable of doing.
And read it, not just look at the pictures. Nothing external to the camera that you can see has anything to do with SLR, its all internal mechanics and not the fact that you can screw on a different lens.
This isn't slashdot: News for idiots by idiots
Its Slashdot: news for nerds.
Timothy, you have never been a nerd for a split second of your life.
That entirely depends on how fast trash is flowing into the collection. The patch is constantly being fed with new crap thanks to our amazing lack of ability to throw it in the trash.
Initial production may consume whats there now to build the installation/boat/whatever it turns out to be, but then it lowers to something sustainable over time eventually leveling off.
Its not like if everything out there disappears it won't be back in a couple of years.
Until its in a spec someone can access, what they talk about really is irrelevant. The SVG working group is a pain in the ass for SVG adoption. You have the Inkscape devs saying 'well the SVG WG is talking about doing this, so we're not going to do anything else because thats the way the spec is HEADING'. Then you have the batik devs who are saying 'we implemented most of the last published draft for the 1.2 spec, we're not doing anything else on the extended features unless it solidifies because it looks like its going to change'.
Batik has implemented the vast majority of the 1.1 spec and most of the last 1.2 drafts, inkscape is somewhere trailing behind, and getting either group to do anything relating to new features is next to impossible since no one wants to be obsoleted by the SVG WG.
I say, fuck the SVG WG at this point. Lets take the last published 1.2 full draft and continue on without them. I'm talking to you Inkscape and Batik devs! Stop using the spec as an excuse, code to the working draft and the SVG WG can either get their ass in gear or not be a group that anyone cares about and they'll be replaced by someone else.
As for Phishing, banks have moved to authentication systems that use graphics on the page to tell you that the password-entry box you're looking at is legit.
You clearly have no idea how utterly silly those images. They provide 0 additional security. I simply setup my phishing site to suck in your image from the banks website when you try to login, there are multiple ways to do this without the browser alerting you or the bank to anything fishy. This all works because... people get the wrong URL.
You can still give out a key that will only map to you, and return a URI that is clearly you
Really? You're going to create a unique key, that has some sort of meaning to it so it can be remembered thats going to map to any address I want? How do you propose to avoid collisions with no structure? Are you planning on using keys that people can't remember, therefor making them only useful when being transmitted or stored, in which case you can just as easily use URLS. This is a stupid idea.
If you want deep linking, you don't get pretty URLS that are still human usable.
If you want shitty linking like the telephone system than sure, we can hand out some 15-20 digit keys instead of domains cause those will certainly be far far easier than using urls.
Reality check: The unique key is already there, its an IP/Port combination, and it fucking sucks for normal people. Thats why we have URLs, so normal people have something they can use and remember reasonably easy.
People will screw up some random silly key you make up for them just as often as the screw up a URL, if not more. The same scamming will happen it just won't be targeted as well.
Everytime someone says URIs are bad, they come and spit out some analog to an existing system that are significantly less useful than a URI and then pretend they had a thought. You didn't. URIs are fine. You don't have any suggestion at all on making them better, you're just repeating what someone else said. You won't fix stupid no matter what you come up with to 'replace the inferior URI', the same problems will still apply. Someone eventually will come up with its replacement, but it won't be anytime soon because there isn't a real problem with URIs and there most certainly hasn't been an alternative that qualifies as 'better' come around yet.
Do we stop trying to find better ways? No. But seriously, anyone who says URIs suck and are 'a problem' is an idiot. They can be made dead simple and convey almost no information of extremely complex and contain a lifes history. The person creating the URI is the problem, not the URI.
Just because somethings that are open to the public are useful, doesn't mean everything being open to the public is useful. Specifically, Linux and other successful OSS projects are an exception to the rule, not the rule.
As someone who does custom hardware I can safely say there is little value to OSH. The basic blocks are already 'open' as in everyone already knows how to do the standard things.
You aren't going to design better or even comparable OSH because the guys who have the machines and knowledge to make the hardware in the first place, also know that giving away their bread maker is retarded so they'll be inclined to stay employed.
You can't make OSH in your home workshop that compares to hardware done in a proper facility. Software you can write and distribute from start to finish for a few hundred dollars. Hell, it can take that much just to make PCBs that don't suck complete ass, not including the drilling.
OSS is cost effective to those working on it because it takes almost nothing to get started from scratch, even without owning a computer, and there is no cost other than your own time and minor amounts of electricity to it.
OSH isn't cost effective because you pay for every mistake you make, and there are much higher startup costs as well as consumables during the development process.
OSS works because it doesn't really cost anyone to develop it.
OSH requires spending resources other than your time and minor electrical costs to actually do anything, most people when faced with spending money tend to try to figure out a way to recover the cost (Except college students which don't seem to have any understanding economics and usefulness of product).
The problem is that people quote random bullshit about the number of cells in the body.
For example, the article states that the gut has more foreign cells than human cells, which with very specific limits, is true.
Unfortunately, the statement falls apart entirely when you get your head out of the microscope long enough to realize that the 0.1mm by 0.1mm area you're looking at on the microscope slide DOES NOT REPRESENT THE ENTIRE INTESTINAL TRACT.
Yes, if you look in specific clusters and locations you'll find more external types of cells. Likewise, after you eat some chicken, you'll find spots in your gut that are over run with cells from the foul... but that doesn't mean you're actually more chicken cells than human cells.
Its all a matter of perspective, and any perspective that says there are more 'xxx cells than human cells in the human body' is a very narrow and probably utterly warped perspective.
FPGAs are great for prototyping and when you actually do need dynamic reconfiguration of low level code (gates).
In reality they are slower and more expensive to the point that they really aren't useful outside of specialized applications, which is why your PC uses an intel x86 microprocessor and an nVida or ATI GPU rather than some random FPGA.
And the end result is that you're STILL making software, not hardware.
FPGAs are cool and useful, but to think they can be used in a generalized way shows you have no idea what they are used for.
Uhm, this is rather well known and well established. You have good AND 'bad' ones inside of you at any given time. Some are useful, even required as the body depends on them to get the job done, ESPECIALLY in the gut. Some can make you sick, some can even kill you.
The 'germs' you have in you are heavily influenced by your environment as that is often the source of their replenishment. They mostly come from your environment so of course they are wildly different between people. Genetic twins are the same genetically, once you leave that the environment makes them unique and different as soon as the egg splits. Theres no such thing as 'identical twins' in the general, only the genetic.
Doctors have been prescribing 'pro-botics' to make up for using anti-botics to kill bacteria for years so people can take heavy anti-biotics and still have a mostly functional balanced gut and vagina. Yes those are for bacteria, not viruses but its not because they haven't known about viruses.
Of course, I wrote all this before I bothered to notice Timothy pushed the story to the front page. Just stop man, seriously, just freaking stop.
Really... spammers are moving to disposable domains...
All those fja3lgah12.com email addresses I've been seeing for the last 10 or so years have been bots on real domains then eh?
Seriously Tim, if you think something is new and exciting then you are experiencing one of two things, either its not really old and its actually common knowledge to everyone BUT you and the website your viewing... or... the website you're viewing is wrong.
Think that EVERY TIME you go to post stories to the front page and we'll do a lot better. I'll make it simplier, just based on your history as an editor... when you think a story is good to post, you're wrong.
Okay, obviously not, its got its fair share of the market.
My thought here is however, instead of working on things that aren't really that important, how about they step back and focus on making Firefox not suck.
You know, like back when it was simple and didn't try to be the worlds browser testbed?
I embed Gecko in a couple applications, using it because I get a 'web' rendering engine (lets face it, HTML isn't enough anymore) AND XUL which means I can create a common GUI using XUL and not maintain different bits of code between MacOS and Windows.
I think this statement about new the javascript engine is my final nail in the coffin for switching off Gecko to WebKit. (No, its not a new statement nor is my decision a new one)
Embedding Gecko is an absolute mess. You've got the nasty XUL runner distro you need to embed in your app, you've got path issues to worry about so your app can FIND all the mozilla DLLs and thats just Windows. Have fun embedding Gecko into a plugin bundle used by another app on Mac OSX. Yes, I've done it, but holy shit is it a complete mess.
I've got 5k lines of code or more just to make a wrapper around gecko that will let me load gecko on Windows in multiple apps without having to write the same thing over and over again to do nothing more than load gecko, get a XUL window and get a result from it.
I started transitioning my first app to webkit last night. In a few hours I had about 8 lines of code that got me a browser window to preview html in.
Mozilla spends all their time playing with new stuff, which is fine and good for the web, but I'm done tracking Mozilla sources and dealing with their bugs. Without a real commercial drive behind them, Mozilla is simply two unreliable for me as a developer to depend on them. If I had more resources on my end to work around issues in their code base it might work.
Mozilla spends time doing silly shit like new ways to make themes and other silly crap that generally isn't ever a good idea, regardless of how you implement it ('theming' and 'skinning' apps is retarded, sorry if you're one of those people but it should be such a low priority that it should never get time devoted to it). The result is that Mozilla's code base is a bloated, buggy, mess of code that no one can figure out.
Its filled with GREAT ideas, but no one stopped to ask if the ideas where GREAT in the context of 'a web browser'.
Mozilla is simply a sandbox a bunch of devs use to try out their latest code on the unsuspecting masses, this is just another example.
Great, your javascript engine is faster. How about you stop worrying about beating someone elses javascript engine and start fixing the bugs and bloat that cases it to crash before finishing the test 2 times in a row.
Your browser is fucking worthless if its too much of a mess to be usable, regardless of how fast one little bit runs.
Slashdot Mirror
Technically, you could have flipped the switch and started taking advantage of others using DNSSEC, though at a lower, nearly useless trust level, years ago.
This just ups the trust level to something actually useful.
Nope, tried and true sailing techniques won't work in a vacuum. Neither do solar sails either, so thats not really relevant.
Space is not a vacuum, its just not very dense.
Really? What does PSI stand for? Is that not a measurement of pressure? It is to us common folk.
It may not be 'technically' correct, but its really not that hard to understand. Made complete sense to me, even if number itself is incorrect.
Yes, they should be using a proper unit of energy.
And yes, with just a one more bit of information, you can convert the two provided to a unit of energy. Stop trying to show how smart you are to everyone, you still haven't asked for the right information to complete the equation.
Really? They aren't, but the Air Force is?
No, they are, just like everyone else flying over US controlled airspace, they just don't play by the same rules as general aviation, which is why they have different licensing.
You should probably check your FARs.
They also have a higher violation rate because everything they do is on video and recorded by several people who won't loose their job because they strayed more than 500 feet off their flight plan, which, for the record, qualifies as an 'accident' to the FAA. They report the 'accident'.
When Bob and Tom flying their 747 for Delta deviate by a 1,000 feet, no one reports it because that little down draft if reported will ruin a guys career, but that is an accident to the FAA.
From a statistical point of view, they have done nothing wrong.
Their device technically performs better than just about any alternative phone you throw at it.
Nothing about its problem is unique and it is as documented actually LESS of a problem NOW than with the previous 3 generations of the device.
Its just media sensationalism and ignorance by people like yourselves.
If they admit 'they did something wrong', pretty much every cell phone manufacture ever would have to do the same thing since the iPhone 4s TESTED performance is rather high, regardless of what you see written by journalists who read on some blog who needed page hits to sell adds to make the credit card payment for the iPhone 4 he bought and couldn't afford.
Theres no apology because there isn't a problem outside of the media and a few idiots minds.
Show me a phone that doesn't do the same thing in one form or another that compares to the iPhone in price and size. You can't, its simply the laws of physics at work.
Considering what absolutely crappy devices BlackBerry sells, I hardly doubt anyone would notice. They'll be spending too much time trying to get anything accomplished rather than actually using the thing as a phone.
BBs are some of the biggest pieces of shit on the market, the only reason they still exist is because idiots in suites like them and don't realize that just about any other smart phone is light years better across the board.
Uhm, when it comes to Apple, Gizmodo and its Ilk are not just a third party, they are a heavily biased against Apple since Apple gave them a smack down for trying to extort them.
Second, Gizmodo has history of manipulating the story to fit their view point, flat out lying and stealing in some cases. They in essence act like a bunch of 15 year old kids who need a good beating from someone.
There is no one in their organization or their parent organizational group that has provided anything to the world that justifies their use of oxygen and other resources.
Reading Gizmodo is like reading tabloids. You're an idiot if you do, which I mean directly for you, since you seem to think 'consistent' is more important than 'accurate' or 'correct'.
Which is what anyone with half a clue about writing secure authentication systems has done since at least 70s.
When an attempt fails, you pause for a standard amount of time.
The attacker then doesn't know if the password is good or bad until the system tells them. You can't assume a password is bad just because it doesnt' return instantly due to random system load. You also don't get any info from the failed attempt because every failed attempt is at least X seconds long, longer under high load but never shorter.
A failed authentication for ANY REASON behaves THE EXACT SAME as ANY OTHER REASON so attackers get no data from failed attempts.
This isn't a new discovery or anything, its just standard operating procedure for anyone with a clue about authentication systems.
Yes, because by knowing you use an MD5 hash, they can start attaching with known 'passwords' that generate 'known hashes'.
Since the check on the hashes by mysql is likely a simple string compare they can effectively compare which parts of the hash match and work backwards, one char at a time to find a matching hash.
Then its nothing more than generating a md5 hash to match the one you now know to work. Its rather complicated, but hashing doesn't make it impossible, just a little slower.
Its not slashdot, just a particular 3 editors slashdot has that I like to refer to as the 3 stooges. timothy, kdawson, and samzenpus.
GCD combined with OpenCL makes it usable on a GPU, but that would be stupid. GPUs aren't really 'threaded' in any context that someone who hasn't worked with them would think of.
All the threads run simultaneously, and side by side. They all start at the same time and they all end at the same time in a batch (not entirely true, but it is if you want to actually get any boost out of it).
GCD is multithreading on a General Processing Unit, like your Intel CoreWhateverThisWeek processor. Code paths are ran and scheduled on different cores as needed and don't really run side by side, but they can run at the same time which is practical and useful in A LOT of cases.
OpenCL is multithreading on a graphics chip. It lets you do the same calculation over and over again or on a very large data set, side by side. You can calculate 128 encryption keys in one pass, but you can't calculate one encryption key, the average of your monthly bills, and draw a circle because the graphics chip doesn't do random processing side by side, it runs a whole bunch of the same instructions side by side and goes to hell in a handbasket the INSTANT you break its ability to run all the 'threads' side by side, executing the same instruction in each at the same time.
I really don't think you understand either standard GP multithreading or what GPUs are practically capable of doing.
Never heard of posix eh?
Moron, SLR requires that it has a few mirrors and some moving parts.
Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_single-lens_reflex_camera
And read it, not just look at the pictures. Nothing external to the camera that you can see has anything to do with SLR, its all internal mechanics and not the fact that you can screw on a different lens.
This isn't slashdot: News for idiots by idiots
Its Slashdot: news for nerds.
Timothy, you have never been a nerd for a split second of your life.
Uhm, IPv6 and IPv4 are not really any different from a practical perspective of DNS.
You won't see IPs floating around anymore with ipv6 than you do now, people will still use domains.
My mail servers are already blocking based on ipv4 addresses, as well as domain names.
You really don't understand what ipv6 is.
That entirely depends on how fast trash is flowing into the collection. The patch is constantly being fed with new crap thanks to our amazing lack of ability to throw it in the trash.
Initial production may consume whats there now to build the installation/boat/whatever it turns out to be, but then it lowers to something sustainable over time eventually leveling off.
Its not like if everything out there disappears it won't be back in a couple of years.
Until its in a spec someone can access, what they talk about really is irrelevant. The SVG working group is a pain in the ass for SVG adoption. You have the Inkscape devs saying 'well the SVG WG is talking about doing this, so we're not going to do anything else because thats the way the spec is HEADING'. Then you have the batik devs who are saying 'we implemented most of the last published draft for the 1.2 spec, we're not doing anything else on the extended features unless it solidifies because it looks like its going to change'.
Batik has implemented the vast majority of the 1.1 spec and most of the last 1.2 drafts, inkscape is somewhere trailing behind, and getting either group to do anything relating to new features is next to impossible since no one wants to be obsoleted by the SVG WG.
I say, fuck the SVG WG at this point. Lets take the last published 1.2 full draft and continue on without them. I'm talking to you Inkscape and Batik devs! Stop using the spec as an excuse, code to the working draft and the SVG WG can either get their ass in gear or not be a group that anyone cares about and they'll be replaced by someone else.
You clearly have no idea how utterly silly those images. They provide 0 additional security. I simply setup my phishing site to suck in your image from the banks website when you try to login, there are multiple ways to do this without the browser alerting you or the bank to anything fishy. This all works because ... people get the wrong URL.
Really? You're going to create a unique key, that has some sort of meaning to it so it can be remembered thats going to map to any address I want? How do you propose to avoid collisions with no structure? Are you planning on using keys that people can't remember, therefor making them only useful when being transmitted or stored, in which case you can just as easily use URLS. This is a stupid idea.
If you want deep linking, you don't get pretty URLS that are still human usable.
If you want shitty linking like the telephone system than sure, we can hand out some 15-20 digit keys instead of domains cause those will certainly be far far easier than using urls.
Reality check: The unique key is already there, its an IP/Port combination, and it fucking sucks for normal people. Thats why we have URLs, so normal people have something they can use and remember reasonably easy.
People will screw up some random silly key you make up for them just as often as the screw up a URL, if not more. The same scamming will happen it just won't be targeted as well.
Everytime someone says URIs are bad, they come and spit out some analog to an existing system that are significantly less useful than a URI and then pretend they had a thought. You didn't. URIs are fine. You don't have any suggestion at all on making them better, you're just repeating what someone else said. You won't fix stupid no matter what you come up with to 'replace the inferior URI', the same problems will still apply. Someone eventually will come up with its replacement, but it won't be anytime soon because there isn't a real problem with URIs and there most certainly hasn't been an alternative that qualifies as 'better' come around yet.
Do we stop trying to find better ways? No. But seriously, anyone who says URIs suck and are 'a problem' is an idiot. They can be made dead simple and convey almost no information of extremely complex and contain a lifes history. The person creating the URI is the problem, not the URI.
Just because somethings that are open to the public are useful, doesn't mean everything being open to the public is useful. Specifically, Linux and other successful OSS projects are an exception to the rule, not the rule.
As someone who does custom hardware I can safely say there is little value to OSH. The basic blocks are already 'open' as in everyone already knows how to do the standard things.
You aren't going to design better or even comparable OSH because the guys who have the machines and knowledge to make the hardware in the first place, also know that giving away their bread maker is retarded so they'll be inclined to stay employed.
You can't make OSH in your home workshop that compares to hardware done in a proper facility. Software you can write and distribute from start to finish for a few hundred dollars. Hell, it can take that much just to make PCBs that don't suck complete ass, not including the drilling.
OSS is cost effective to those working on it because it takes almost nothing to get started from scratch, even without owning a computer, and there is no cost other than your own time and minor amounts of electricity to it.
OSH isn't cost effective because you pay for every mistake you make, and there are much higher startup costs as well as consumables during the development process.
OSS works because it doesn't really cost anyone to develop it.
OSH requires spending resources other than your time and minor electrical costs to actually do anything, most people when faced with spending money tend to try to figure out a way to recover the cost (Except college students which don't seem to have any understanding economics and usefulness of product).
The problem is that people quote random bullshit about the number of cells in the body.
For example, the article states that the gut has more foreign cells than human cells, which with very specific limits, is true.
Unfortunately, the statement falls apart entirely when you get your head out of the microscope long enough to realize that the 0.1mm by 0.1mm area you're looking at on the microscope slide DOES NOT REPRESENT THE ENTIRE INTESTINAL TRACT.
Yes, if you look in specific clusters and locations you'll find more external types of cells. Likewise, after you eat some chicken, you'll find spots in your gut that are over run with cells from the foul ... but that doesn't mean you're actually more chicken cells than human cells.
Its all a matter of perspective, and any perspective that says there are more 'xxx cells than human cells in the human body' is a very narrow and probably utterly warped perspective.
You already are.
FPGAs are great for prototyping and when you actually do need dynamic reconfiguration of low level code (gates).
In reality they are slower and more expensive to the point that they really aren't useful outside of specialized applications, which is why your PC uses an intel x86 microprocessor and an nVida or ATI GPU rather than some random FPGA.
And the end result is that you're STILL making software, not hardware.
FPGAs are cool and useful, but to think they can be used in a generalized way shows you have no idea what they are used for.
Contrary to what you might believe, speakeasies didn't provide free beer either.
Uhm, this is rather well known and well established. You have good AND 'bad' ones inside of you at any given time. Some are useful, even required as the body depends on them to get the job done, ESPECIALLY in the gut. Some can make you sick, some can even kill you.
The 'germs' you have in you are heavily influenced by your environment as that is often the source of their replenishment. They mostly come from your environment so of course they are wildly different between people. Genetic twins are the same genetically, once you leave that the environment makes them unique and different as soon as the egg splits. Theres no such thing as 'identical twins' in the general, only the genetic.
Doctors have been prescribing 'pro-botics' to make up for using anti-botics to kill bacteria for years so people can take heavy anti-biotics and still have a mostly functional balanced gut and vagina. Yes those are for bacteria, not viruses but its not because they haven't known about viruses.
Of course, I wrote all this before I bothered to notice Timothy pushed the story to the front page. Just stop man, seriously, just freaking stop.
Really ... spammers are moving to disposable domains ...
All those fja3lgah12.com email addresses I've been seeing for the last 10 or so years have been bots on real domains then eh?
Seriously Tim, if you think something is new and exciting then you are experiencing one of two things, either its not really old and its actually common knowledge to everyone BUT you and the website your viewing ... or ... the website you're viewing is wrong.
Think that EVERY TIME you go to post stories to the front page and we'll do a lot better. I'll make it simplier, just based on your history as an editor ... when you think a story is good to post, you're wrong.
Mules at a known valid address are far easier to trace than stolen credit cards.
Okay, obviously not, its got its fair share of the market.
My thought here is however, instead of working on things that aren't really that important, how about they step back and focus on making Firefox not suck.
You know, like back when it was simple and didn't try to be the worlds browser testbed?
I embed Gecko in a couple applications, using it because I get a 'web' rendering engine (lets face it, HTML isn't enough anymore) AND XUL which means I can create a common GUI using XUL and not maintain different bits of code between MacOS and Windows.
I think this statement about new the javascript engine is my final nail in the coffin for switching off Gecko to WebKit. (No, its not a new statement nor is my decision a new one)
Embedding Gecko is an absolute mess. You've got the nasty XUL runner distro you need to embed in your app, you've got path issues to worry about so your app can FIND all the mozilla DLLs and thats just Windows. Have fun embedding Gecko into a plugin bundle used by another app on Mac OSX. Yes, I've done it, but holy shit is it a complete mess.
I've got 5k lines of code or more just to make a wrapper around gecko that will let me load gecko on Windows in multiple apps without having to write the same thing over and over again to do nothing more than load gecko, get a XUL window and get a result from it.
I started transitioning my first app to webkit last night. In a few hours I had about 8 lines of code that got me a browser window to preview html in.
Mozilla spends all their time playing with new stuff, which is fine and good for the web, but I'm done tracking Mozilla sources and dealing with their bugs. Without a real commercial drive behind them, Mozilla is simply two unreliable for me as a developer to depend on them. If I had more resources on my end to work around issues in their code base it might work.
Mozilla spends time doing silly shit like new ways to make themes and other silly crap that generally isn't ever a good idea, regardless of how you implement it ('theming' and 'skinning' apps is retarded, sorry if you're one of those people but it should be such a low priority that it should never get time devoted to it). The result is that Mozilla's code base is a bloated, buggy, mess of code that no one can figure out.
Its filled with GREAT ideas, but no one stopped to ask if the ideas where GREAT in the context of 'a web browser'.
Mozilla is simply a sandbox a bunch of devs use to try out their latest code on the unsuspecting masses, this is just another example.
Great, your javascript engine is faster. How about you stop worrying about beating someone elses javascript engine and start fixing the bugs and bloat that cases it to crash before finishing the test 2 times in a row.
Your browser is fucking worthless if its too much of a mess to be usable, regardless of how fast one little bit runs.