... If this can prevent security breaches, then I'm all for it. Its being used for the Olympics, not for the average street. An organiser of the games can take whatever steps they feel necessary to ensure the safety of the crowd and the athletes of the games. I'm not sure about anyone else, but I would rather be followed about on camera and be safe, than to have no cameras, and end up killed by some form of security breach.
Actually, what about the England vs Portugal match in the Euro cup we just had? England scored what would of been a game winning goal only for it to be dissalowed by the ref.
Basically everyone agrees that the goal should of stood, even Portugal fans, who also got hit by the same judgement from the ref in the extra time of *the same game*...
Speaking of wings/rotors, what is the maths required to work out how much they can lift? I noted that they specified that on the page, but no information as to how they arrived at the figure.
At 5MB for Firefox (on windows), its far smaller than the average IE 'patch', which normally are around 7 MB or so.
Also consider that this *one* new install fixes what would require from microsoft as *four* patches. (and god know how much time between each)
As a side note, I got 0.9.3 before/. announced it, and got a nice hefty 1500KB/s sustained over a 768bps connection. I would suggest those who want to find out about new releases before a lot of others sign up to mozilla [dash] announce [at] mozilla [dot] org
>> Oddly enough, I rarely make mistakes with hot/shortcut-keys, except I do tend to hit Ctrl+D (shortcut to add a bookmark) rather than Alt+D (transfer focus to a highighted address bar) in Firefox.
You know that F6 will also select the text in the address bar ready for typing?
Although using it will introduce a new error, you will accidently hit F5 rather than F6:P
...but doesn't this sound a bit desperate? IF Microsoft did this, people would be singing from the halls that Microsoft has given in, or getting desperate. (And alot of people would be rich).
All credit to the Mozilla Foundation if they can keep their image with this kind of approch to secuirty.
Now, who's going to be the first to earn their $500?
I'ld check the repeate rate on that keyboard. Seems a bit out of sync if you ask me.
In all seriousness, 64-bit computing by itself means that the General Purpose Registers are 64-bits wide. That means increased dynamic range. Using base 2, a 32-bit processor gives you 4,294,967,296 possible values. (which is where the 4 GB RAM limit of 32-bit processors comes from.) That is it's dynamic range.
A 64-bit processor's dynamic range is approximately 4.3 billion times greater than a 32-bit processor, which simply means, it can work with much larger numbers. Thats Important in applications like rendering, mathmatical calculations, and even database servers.
64-bit computing also allows for more RAM than a 32-bit processor because of it's increased dynamic range. As shown, a 32-bit processor can only handle about 4.3 billion values, which roughly works out to about 4 GB of memory. A 64-bit processor has an upper limit of about 18 million terabytes... (32-bit = 0.0043 terabytes... 64-bit = 18,000,000 terabytes), something that I don't see anyone quite needing, but it does mean that your 64bits will go further:)
AMD changed some more things when they designed the Athlon-64.
To start with they used a 40-bit memory address rather than 64-bit since we're not going to need 18 million terabytes of memory anytime soon. Therefore a 40-bit address allows up to 1 terabyte of memory. Thats enough, considering that you won't find a motherboard with support for 1024 sticks of 1GB ram anytime soon.
Then they doubled the amount of General Purpose Registers so there is now 16. So not only have we doubled the number of addresses, we then make them twice as big again. But they can only be used by 64-bit software, so the benefit of extra registers isn't realized with 32-bit software, which is my point. A 32bit app isn't going to excell on a 64bit processor, hence why benching it isn't fair.
After that they lengthened the pipeline by a few stages. In short, you basically make it so higher clock speeds are easier to reach without having to change the format of the processor.
AMD have also built the memory controller into the core, which eliminates almost all latency issues from the CPU to the memory controller. Basically the memory is now just connected to the CPU by wires, whereas the CPU was connected to the northbridge, and so was the RAM. So the northbridge sat between the RAM and the CPU.
Then you have added support for SSE2, so applications designed to take advantage of Intel's SSE2 instructions can now also take advantage of those instructions on an Athlon-64. So now Intel isn't holding the upper hand again.
Finally they are using SOI, which in short, reduces current leakage within the processor, making switching of the transistors more efficent, which means faster speeds and less power consumption.
They've made other changes as well, quite alot more than listed here, but those are the main ones that effect performance.
While I'm no fan of windows, much like others here, I do see the need to have a *fair* test, and at *many* points through the tests, I saw this:
"Again, we had to use 32-bit binaries for the Win-64 beta"
"Unfortunately, there is only a 32-bit version of the game, so we must settle with 32-bit performance benchmarks, even on our 64-bit platforms."
"We noticed the Windows XP 64-bit MySQL running slower than its 32-bit counterpart; unfortunately, this is due to the lack of a 64-bit Windows binary - we had to test using a 32-bit binary on the 64-bit platform. "
Therefore, who is going to be surprised that the windows benchmark for 32 and 64 bit performance under such apps is going to be nearly exactly the same?
Oh, and one last part. The writer of the article doesn't quite get that 64bit binarys *should* be faster than 32bit ones, with this little gem:
"Here shows another case of 64-bit optimized binaries working faster than 32-bit binaries"
We shall be sending him his qualification in the bleeding obvious soon.
>>water should still boil if you toss superheated stuff into it.
Depends...
In theory it should, but remember, the specific heat capacity of water is (approximately) 4200 J kg^-1 K^-1 (as in 4200 joules of energy to raise 1kg of water by 1 degree Kelvin)
So, if there was a sufficient amount of water, then the net effect of a heated material being dropped in there would be low. It does also rely on the specific heat capacity and temperature of our super heated objects. (The one could work out how much energy is in our super heated objects, and then work out what rise in temperature the water will experience)...
For those who still might be missing something, here is an example:
1kg of water gets an object with 8400 joules of energy dropped into it. Thus, the temperature of that 1kg of water should only go up 2 degrees Kelvin.
Evidently you are lacking the Toshiba laptop repair and service guide. Toshiba actually have a book on how to replace any part on any Toshiba model that is in the book.
Not only that, but Toshiba number their screw holes and the guide of which screw size to which hole is in the guide.
Toshiba have got it right, most internal parts are either clearly labled, or the diagram in the service guide is clear enough to follow to the last screw. The guide even covers how to put it all back together with notes on the tricky parts.
I would actualy wager that you could use the guide and order all the parts seperatly, and build your own Toshiba laptop...
For the PDF's, I've found a semi-fix. First, open a PDF as normal in firefox. Read/use/save/etc PDF. Before closing the tab/window with the PDF in it, open up task manager (ctr-alt-del on XP, or for 9x find one that lists *all* tasks), and kill the process named AcroRd32.exe
Once done, the tab should be perfectly empty, and all you have to do is close it, and firefox will not complain/crash.
>> I would be grateful to anyone if they can show me how to open www.eenadu.net in Firefox.
[Insert joke about typing it in the address bar here]
Serously though. I just looked at that page, seeing as its an encoding problem. Firefox reports that its defining *five* encoding schemes in its meta info. I'ld gather the problem at bad website design. Either that or firefox is missing an encoding needed. (Which I doubt)
>>Should the virus writers and hackers be found to be using Linux to do their dirty work, we can blame Linux as the root cause of the issue, and have it declared a terrorist tool and banned from the USA...
No, because thats just stupid. It's also not what I was arguing. I don't care what platform they wrote it on. Its up to the vendor that is under attack to be prompt and provide a patch. For all I care, this latest exploit could of been written on a C64, but if it attacks IE, and IE is owned by MS, then MS should provide a patch.
>>sooooo, the blame isn't with the people that wrote the virus, nor is it with the people that hacked the high level site, it rest soley on the OS creater...
Quite frankly, yes. It should be expected that your OS maker should support its product, especially when it comes to secuirty holes. If Firefox had this type of exploit, I doubt that it would take any longer than 12 hours from point of report to get a working patch. Yet Microsoft have dragged their heels. They must patch this or loose people using their browser.
Granted, those who wrote the virus are not in the right. Neither are those who hacked the high level site (or the secuirty managers of these sites as well). However, that is not my point. My point is simple. You make the product, you support it. If it has secuirty holes, you patch them, and you do it fast, or you shall loose people using your product.
>>Extreme narrow minded views and opinions are easy to create
It is an opinion, granted, however it is not narrow minded. Its an opinion derived from logic. (as pointed out in my last paragraph above)
>>it takes wisdom and insite to relize the problem isnt the software, it is the attention starved childish hackers and virus writers
No, the problem is the software. Granted, the problem is also those who write these viruses and do these attacks; however if the software makers were on their feet, then they should have and could have patched this exploit before it got out of hand; before it made the news, with the reccomendation to use another competing product.
>>placed in front of a firing squad as an example of what will happen to their kind when caught.
Well, you're buggerd if you don't know your local laws on crimes... however, this is a bit extreme. there are *few* places anymore that execute for crimes such as the one we are talking about; if you happen to be in one of those places, more mug you for not knowing the law that you are about to break.
Sounds harsh, but its true. In other countries you normally get a hefty fine, and/or jail time between 2 and 15 years. I'ld doubt that you would get longer.
Its fairly simple where the blame lies here. With Microsoft. No matter how you view it, by not providing a patch, they are the ones to blame. If there was a patch avalible, then yes, blame the users.
If its still hard to see, consider this. Say a car had a problem by which it would be easy to break into even when locked, without any signs of breakin. You would *expect* the manafacture of the car to recall all the cars and fix them. If they didn't then the blame (and possible lawsuits) lie with the manafacture.
Its the same with this instance. You would *expect* Microsoft to release a patch ASAP. They haven't and thus the blame lies with them.
Well, I've not yet tried that trick, I might do that when I update the firefox to version 0.9. However, they always seem to notice when something is slighty diffrent. Also, its not easy to lie to them. Probibaly because I'm a bad at lying.
Although they do know enough to know that Microsoft has nothing to do with Mozilla, and thus your method might not work.
Who knows, mabey this could become an 'Ask Slashdot' question; how to get your familly away from IE without resorting to shooting the computer or installing linux...
>> Well the simple solution is, unless you're into just microsoft bashing, is to PATCH YOUR SYSTEMS.
That would work, but the article states that there are no patches as of yet for these two secuirty holes...
From the article:
"The researchers believe that online organized crime groups are breaking into Web servers and surreptitiously inserting code that takes advantage of two flaws in Internet Explorer that Microsoft has not yet fixed."
Slashdot Mirror
... If this can prevent security breaches, then I'm all for it. Its being used for the Olympics, not for the average street.
An organiser of the games can take whatever steps they feel necessary to ensure the safety of the crowd and the athletes of the games.
I'm not sure about anyone else, but I would rather be followed about on camera and be safe, than to have no cameras, and end up killed by some form of security breach.
NeoThermic
... It might not.
Place your bet?
NeoThermic
Actually, what about the England vs Portugal match in the Euro cup we just had?
England scored what would of been a game winning goal only for it to be dissalowed by the ref.
Basically everyone agrees that the goal should of stood, even Portugal fans, who also got hit by the same judgement from the ref in the extra time of *the same game*...
NeoThermic
>> Now that the HST is effectively blind, it can look forward to a long and promising career as an NFL referee.
Or if FIFA get their hands on it, it can referee the next England match...
NeoThermic
Speaking of wings/rotors, what is the maths required to work out how much they can lift?
I noted that they specified that on the page, but no information as to how they arrived at the figure.
NeoThermic
Care to explain why you've linked a `Security Update for Windows 2000`?
We are talking about IE here, not 2K.
As for a IE patch that is large?
IE6 SP1 - 8.7 MB to 12.7MB
IE5 SP2 for ME - 6MB to 17MB
Internet Explorer 6 SP1 Update: "HTTP 404 - File Not Found" Error Message When You Try to Visit Web Pages That Are Opened by JavaScript Functions in Frames or in Windows - 1.3MB
October 2003, Cumulative Patch for Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1 - 2.1MB
October 2003, Cumulative Patch for Internet Explorer for Windows Server 2003 - 4.2MB
October 2003, Cumulative Patch for Internet Explorer 6 - 2.5MB
Need me to continue? Or have I proved my point?
NeoThermic
>>What the initial poster was talking about was a motherfucking update, NOT a service pack.
Since when is a service pack not an update?
Update:
1. Information that updates something.
2. The act or an instance of bringing something up to date.
3. An updated version of something.
Now. Please. Tell me how a Service pack doesn't count as an update?
NeoThermic
Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1
I quote:
Thats just *one*, and its larger than the 5MB 0.9.3 release.
NeoThermic
At 5MB for Firefox (on windows), its far smaller than the average IE 'patch', which normally are around 7 MB or so.
/. announced it, and got a nice hefty 1500KB/s sustained over a 768bps connection. I would suggest those who want to find out about new releases before a lot of others sign up to mozilla [dash] announce [at] mozilla [dot] org
Also consider that this *one* new install fixes what would require from microsoft as *four* patches. (and god know how much time between each)
As a side note, I got 0.9.3 before
NeoThermic
>> Oddly enough, I rarely make mistakes with hot/shortcut-keys, except I do tend to hit Ctrl+D (shortcut to add a bookmark) rather than Alt+D (transfer focus to a highighted address bar) in Firefox.
:P
You know that F6 will also select the text in the address bar ready for typing?
Although using it will introduce a new error, you will accidently hit F5 rather than F6
NeoThermic
>> Imagine if /. paid a nickle for every 503 error.
I'd beat you to death with a sack of them...
NeoThermic
...but doesn't this sound a bit desperate? IF Microsoft did this, people would be singing from the halls that Microsoft has given in, or getting desperate. (And alot of people would be rich).
All credit to the Mozilla Foundation if they can keep their image with this kind of approch to secuirty.
Now, who's going to be the first to earn their $500?
NeoThermic
>> Rutan apparently has an orbital vehicle on the drawing board that is a scaled up version of SS1
Not exactly a rumor. SpaceShipTwo and SpaceShipThree are on the boards, the latter being orbital IIRC.
There was an information page on their timelines, but its seeminly vanished...
NeoThermic
This was annouced at about 1:20am BST, when I was about 200MB into disk 1 of 2004.1
So now I've got to downoad 2004.2 from the beginning, and trash 2004.1
If only I had warning...
NeoThermic
>> According to pricewatch.com the price for a 200GB hard drive is at about $100, which comes to a very nice $1 per GB
Hmm. Back to maths classes for you!
That is *actually* $0.50 per GB
NeoThermic
>>HHooww iiss iitt ""bblleeeeddiinngg oobbvviioouuss??""
.
:)
I'ld check the repeate rate on that keyboard. Seems a bit out of sync if you ask me.
In all seriousness, 64-bit computing by itself means that the General Purpose Registers are 64-bits wide. That means increased dynamic range. Using base 2, a 32-bit processor gives you 4,294,967,296 possible values. (which is where the 4 GB RAM limit of 32-bit processors comes from.) That is it's dynamic range.
A 64-bit processor's dynamic range is approximately 4.3 billion times greater than a 32-bit processor, which simply means, it can work with much larger numbers. Thats Important in applications like rendering, mathmatical calculations, and even database servers
64-bit computing also allows for more RAM than a 32-bit processor because of it's increased dynamic range. As shown, a 32-bit processor can only handle about 4.3 billion values, which roughly works out to about 4 GB of memory. A 64-bit processor has an upper limit of about 18 million terabytes... (32-bit = 0.0043 terabytes... 64-bit = 18,000,000 terabytes), something that I don't see anyone quite needing, but it does mean that your 64bits will go further
AMD changed some more things when they designed the Athlon-64.
To start with they used a 40-bit memory address rather than 64-bit since we're not going to need 18 million terabytes of memory anytime soon. Therefore a 40-bit address allows up to 1 terabyte of memory. Thats enough, considering that you won't find a motherboard with support for 1024 sticks of 1GB ram anytime soon.
Then they doubled the amount of General Purpose Registers so there is now 16. So not only have we doubled the number of addresses, we then make them twice as big again. But they can only be used by 64-bit software, so the benefit of extra registers isn't realized with 32-bit software, which is my point. A 32bit app isn't going to excell on a 64bit processor, hence why benching it isn't fair.
After that they lengthened the pipeline by a few stages. In short, you basically make it so higher clock speeds are easier to reach without having to change the format of the processor.
AMD have also built the memory controller into the core, which eliminates almost all latency issues from the CPU to the memory controller. Basically the memory is now just connected to the CPU by wires, whereas the CPU was connected to the northbridge, and so was the RAM. So the northbridge sat between the RAM and the CPU.
Then you have added support for SSE2, so applications designed to take advantage of Intel's SSE2 instructions can now also take advantage of those instructions on an Athlon-64. So now Intel isn't holding the upper hand again.
Finally they are using SOI, which in short, reduces current leakage within the processor, making switching of the transistors more efficent, which means faster speeds and less power consumption.
They've made other changes as well, quite alot more than listed here, but those are the main ones that effect performance.
NeoThermic
Thats exactly what I was thinking.
While I'm no fan of windows, much like others here, I do see the need to have a *fair* test, and at *many* points through the tests, I saw this:
"Again, we had to use 32-bit binaries for the Win-64 beta"
"Unfortunately, there is only a 32-bit version of the game, so we must settle with 32-bit performance benchmarks, even on our 64-bit platforms."
"We noticed the Windows XP 64-bit MySQL running slower than its 32-bit counterpart; unfortunately, this is due to the lack of a 64-bit Windows binary - we had to test using a 32-bit binary on the 64-bit platform. "
Therefore, who is going to be surprised that the windows benchmark for 32 and 64 bit performance under such apps is going to be nearly exactly the same?
Oh, and one last part. The writer of the article doesn't quite get that 64bit binarys *should* be faster than 32bit ones, with this little gem:
"Here shows another case of 64-bit optimized binaries working faster than 32-bit binaries"
We shall be sending him his qualification in the bleeding obvious soon.
NeoThermic
>>water should still boil if you toss superheated stuff into it.
Depends...
In theory it should, but remember, the specific heat capacity of water is (approximately) 4200 J kg^-1 K^-1 (as in 4200 joules of energy to raise 1kg of water by 1 degree Kelvin)
So, if there was a sufficient amount of water, then the net effect of a heated material being dropped in there would be low. It does also rely on the specific heat capacity and temperature of our super heated objects. (The one could work out how much energy is in our super heated objects, and then work out what rise in temperature the water will experience)...
For those who still might be missing something, here is an example:
1kg of water gets an object with 8400 joules of energy dropped into it. Thus, the temperature of that 1kg of water should only go up 2 degrees Kelvin.
NeoThermic
Evidently you are lacking the Toshiba laptop repair and service guide. Toshiba actually have a book on how to replace any part on any Toshiba model that is in the book.
Not only that, but Toshiba number their screw holes and the guide of which screw size to which hole is in the guide.
Toshiba have got it right, most internal parts are either clearly labled, or the diagram in the service guide is clear enough to follow to the last screw. The guide even covers how to put it all back together with notes on the tricky parts.
I would actualy wager that you could use the guide and order all the parts seperatly, and build your own Toshiba laptop...
NeoThermic
For the PDF's, I've found a semi-fix. First, open a PDF as normal in firefox.
Read/use/save/etc PDF. Before closing the tab/window with the PDF in it, open up task manager (ctr-alt-del on XP, or for 9x find one that lists *all* tasks), and kill the process named AcroRd32.exe
Once done, the tab should be perfectly empty, and all you have to do is close it, and firefox will not complain/crash.
NeoThermic
>> I would be grateful to anyone if they can show me how to open www.eenadu.net in Firefox.
[Insert joke about typing it in the address bar here]
Serously though. I just looked at that page, seeing as its an encoding problem. Firefox reports that its defining *five* encoding schemes in its meta info. I'ld gather the problem at bad website design. Either that or firefox is missing an encoding needed. (Which I doubt)
NeoThermic
>>Should the virus writers and hackers be found to be using Linux to do their dirty work, we can blame Linux as the root cause of the issue, and have it declared a terrorist tool and banned from the USA...
No, because thats just stupid. It's also not what I was arguing. I don't care what platform they wrote it on. Its up to the vendor that is under attack to be prompt and provide a patch. For all I care, this latest exploit could of been written on a C64, but if it attacks IE, and IE is owned by MS, then MS should provide a patch.
>>sooooo, the blame isn't with the people that wrote the virus, nor is it with the people that hacked the high level site, it rest soley on the OS creater...
Quite frankly, yes. It should be expected that your OS maker should support its product, especially when it comes to secuirty holes. If Firefox had this type of exploit, I doubt that it would take any longer than 12 hours from point of report to get a working patch. Yet Microsoft have dragged their heels. They must patch this or loose people using their browser.
Granted, those who wrote the virus are not in the right. Neither are those who hacked the high level site (or the secuirty managers of these sites as well). However, that is not my point. My point is simple. You make the product, you support it. If it has secuirty holes, you patch them, and you do it fast, or you shall loose people using your product.
>>Extreme narrow minded views and opinions are easy to create
It is an opinion, granted, however it is not narrow minded. Its an opinion derived from logic. (as pointed out in my last paragraph above)
>>it takes wisdom and insite to relize the problem isnt the software, it is the attention starved childish hackers and virus writers
No, the problem is the software. Granted, the problem is also those who write these viruses and do these attacks; however if the software makers were on their feet, then they should have and could have patched this exploit before it got out of hand; before it made the news, with the reccomendation to use another competing product.
>>placed in front of a firing squad as an example of what will happen to their kind when caught.
Well, you're buggerd if you don't know your local laws on crimes... however, this is a bit extreme. there are *few* places anymore that execute for crimes such as the one we are talking about; if you happen to be in one of those places, more mug you for not knowing the law that you are about to break.
Sounds harsh, but its true. In other countries you normally get a hefty fine, and/or jail time between 2 and 15 years. I'ld doubt that you would get longer.
NeoThermic
>>Why not?
Its fairly simple where the blame lies here. With Microsoft. No matter how you view it, by not providing a patch, they are the ones to blame. If there was a patch avalible, then yes, blame the users.
If its still hard to see, consider this.
Say a car had a problem by which it would be easy to break into even when locked, without any signs of breakin. You would *expect* the manafacture of the car to recall all the cars and fix them. If they didn't then the blame (and possible lawsuits) lie with the manafacture.
Its the same with this instance. You would *expect* Microsoft to release a patch ASAP. They haven't and thus the blame lies with them.
NeoThermic
Well, I've not yet tried that trick, I might do that when I update the firefox to version 0.9. However, they always seem to notice when something is slighty diffrent. Also, its not easy to lie to them. Probibaly because I'm a bad at lying.
Although they do know enough to know that Microsoft has nothing to do with Mozilla, and thus your method might not work.
Who knows, mabey this could become an 'Ask Slashdot' question; how to get your familly away from IE without resorting to shooting the computer or installing linux...
NeoThermic
>> Well the simple solution is, unless you're into just microsoft bashing, is to PATCH YOUR SYSTEMS.
That would work, but the article states that there are no patches as of yet for these two secuirty holes...
From the article:
"The researchers believe that online organized crime groups are breaking into Web servers and surreptitiously inserting code that takes advantage of two flaws in Internet Explorer that Microsoft has not yet fixed."
NeoThermic