Heck, I documented the entire process... Knoppix itself makes it easy, but I didn't want to be forced to run a knoppix computer whenever I wanted to boot into knoppix.
First read setting up PXE and then PXE Booting Knoppix (less running a knoppix terminal server 24/7, and causing dual DHCP server collisions, and etc. etc. etc.)
"Otherwise, webmasters should design web pages with open standards in mind."
"Should". It's a wonderful word, isn't it? It means something, yet at the same time, means nothing.
I'm not trying to troll, but just remember: we'll ALWAYS have Joe's Mother's Geocities account, and unfortunatley, if relative B can't see this in Firefox, but can in IE, it isn't going to matter.
People SHOULD develop for open standards on the web, I do. However, getting EVERYONE to do so isn't going to happen. Period. Or, at least, it's going to be a heck of a long road before we reach that point.
So, end result, it creates an effective 1:1 copy of the medium in/dev/cdrom.
In the case of a game, copy protection included.
In the case of a DVD, CSS protection included.
End result: the medium has to be read one way or another. The day you make a disc not readable by an optical drive is the day you release something no one will buy. It's also the only way to prevent people from making copies.
I have a friend, who in playing the UT2k4 campaign, was in a 1 on 1 deathmatch with a bot. He stayed one or two ahead of the bot the entire match, up until he was one kill away. The bot then owned his soul, up until the point where he was just one ahead of my friend.
The bot then hid for the entire rest of the round, and waited for the time to expire.
It ran away from him, and waited out the clock, causing it to expire.
They also say that UT2k7, they're completly revamping the AI, to be much, much, much harder. That's perfectly okay with me, I could use a good challenge:)
Yes, reading his logic on the surface level, something is wrong with it.
However, he's not totally wrong.
Google adwrds ads *can* be hosted in an iframe. A large number of sites do this, probably to avoid the delay in doing it server side themselves, and rather wanting to offload it all on google.
There's a reason that he mentioned the iframe thing, that's because it actually is an iframe. Just not always.
It does indeed look like that they're building their own LDAP server. I'd have to search the mailing lists for reasons as to why, but if it's the same quality as their current products, it won't be a let down.
It's called WinEnabled. It essentially sits between IIS and PHP, runs a *lot* of copies of PHP, and then offhands the connection to PHP when one comes in.
That's why it runs at effective speeds. It's already started.
No offense to the AC or anything, but...*checks post left and right for spelling errors*;)
No, in all honesty, grandparent can suck it and die. If BitTorrent was indeed made by a "retarded kike", then I really do wonder where that places the rest of the population on the big scale of intelligence.
There's a difference between having a disorder and being an actual mentally retarded person.
Shamelessly copied from my previous, rather misplaced post:
I wanted to know the differences in the optimization levels, so I made up a script[1] that compiled zlib and libpng with various optimizations on various archs and timed how long it took to run the test suite with 4 various images[2][3][4][5].
The X axis, is in the format "L-Z", where "L" is the libpng optimization level (3, 2, 1, 0, or s (size)), and "Z" is the zlib optimization level (3, 2, 1, 0, or s (size)). The Y axis is in seconds, and for precise values, look at the graph data vs the visual graph.
The google logo[3] was useless, it's far too small to give me accurate results. However, if you compare the comic[5], the difference is 0.665 seconds... while this may not seem *huge*, in the case of a server where every tenth of a second counts, multiply the time by requests and compare the two. In the simple case of a libpng test case (opens a PNG image, re-writes it, compares the old to the new), optimizations matter, and a lot.
Of course, some code can be optimized more than others, and there is a large number of variables to take into account, but I'd hope that booting into single user mode and running this in a terminal should remove as much of that as possible.
The thing is, very few people are going to notice the 2/3rds of a second optimizations give you, vs the hours spent compiling OpenOffice.
Not linked due to bandwidth reasons (384kbps upstream = teh suck) [1]http://www.brantleyonline.com/sf.sh [2] Tranqulity - @ gallery.artofgregmartin.com - down due to bandwidth, but it's a 1.4MB file (PNG format), 1600x1200, using a large variety of blues and blacks. [3]http://www.google.com/intl/en/images/l ogo.gif [4]Screenshot of OSX on dual monitors, large amount of windows, varied transparancies, 1440x576, 570.2kb. (not linked due to bandwidth) [5]http://www.applegeeks.com/comic_arc hive/viewcom ic.php?issue=134 Note: if you use the script, please, PLEASE, mirror the images LOCALLY and use that instead...
Unless TFA is randomly missing links to articles, I'm lacking a link or other method of information as to how you know this. The article does not detail how it'll defragment on the fly, nor does it say that it'll max out the disk usage.
Really, who's to say that on the install of longhorn, how do you know that it won't benchmark your hard disk for sesquential/random read/write limits, and take those into account? (And, if you replace the hard drive, wait for user activity to stop for 30 minutes, CPU usage to bottom out, and then benchmark the disk?)
"Random moments" of 100% disk activity can be nothing more than sloppy design (hence why ext3 can simply burn).
Re:Is anyone else curious what SSA trees are?
on
GCC 4.0.0 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Not that pertains to SSA trees, but...
I wanted to know the differences in the optimization levels, so I made up a script[1] that compiled zlib and libpng with various optimizations on various archs and timed how long it took to run the test suite with 4 various images[2][3][4][5].
I ran this test on a 2.8GHz Intel P4 HT proc, with 512MB Kingston HyperX DDR-400. Results are here.
The X axis, is in the format "L-Z", where "L" is the libpng optimization level (3, 2, 1, 0, or s (size)), and "Z" is the zlib optimization level (3, 2, 1, 0, or s (size)). The Y axis is in seconds, and for precise values, look at the graph data vs the visual graph.
The google logo[3] was useless, it's far too small to give me accurate results. However, if you compare the comic[5], the difference is 0.665 seconds... while this may not seem *huge*, in the case of a server where every tenth of a second counts, multiply the time by requests and compare the two. In the simple case of a libpng test case (opens a PNG image, re-writes it, compares the old to the new), optimizations matter, and a lot.
Of course, some code can be optimized more than others, and there is a large number of variables to take into account, but I'd hope that booting into single user mode and running this in a terminal should remove as much of that as possible.
The thing is, very few people are going to notice the 2/3rds of a second optimizations give you, vs the hours spent compiling OpenOffice.
Not linked due to bandwidth reasons (384kbps upstream = teh suck)
[1]http://www.brantleyonline.com/sf.sh
[2] Tranqulity - @ gallery.artofgregmartin.com - down due to bandwidth, but it's a 1.4MB file (PNG format), 1600x1200, using a large variety of blues and blacks.
[3]http://www.google.com/intl/en/images/logo.gif
[4]Screenshot of OSX on dual monitors, large amount of windows, varied transparancies, 1440x576, 570.2kb. (not linked due to bandwidth)
[5]http://www.applegeeks.com/comic_archive/viewcom ic.php?issue=134 Note: if you use the script, please, PLEASE, mirror the images LOCALLY and use that instead...
Ctrl+shift+escape, ctrl+tab to the processes tab, end the explorer.exe process(es). Ctrl+tab back to the first tab, tab to the new program button, hit space, type in "explorer", and hit ok.
Congragulations, you just restarted explorer without: -Touching the mouse -Having to worry about explorer responding or not -Rebooting -Closing any open programs -Losing any data
Additionally, switch from the initial craptastic XP theme to the "standard" theme (2k style), and the RAM usage will just plain drop. Disable of of the other "fun" features (like customized menus based on usage), and explorer will only use less memory.
The "svchost" processes are rarely actual "servers" "hosting things", rather they commonly provide access to random bits of explorer and other shell-related functions.
After poking around a bit, I can tell that it's one of those sites that I'd never visit period out of principle.
First off, if you have javascript disabled, you can't view any pages. So you enable it, and the javascript takes over ad checking...
It assembles a list of ads, grabs their name, and via javascript checks visibility. If any of these ads are not as expected, they auto-redirect you to the page you linked. On top of that, the javascript is heavily obfusciated, and they know it.
// While trying to decode this script, please keep in mind that although we require users to// view our ads, WE DO NOT USE POPUPS, POPUNDERS nor rich media ads (e.g. flash).// Without advertising revenues to pay the cost of operating this site, it would not exist.// We simply ask that ALL USERS of this site, do their fair part in helping to pay the bills.// We do not ask users to act on our ads, only that the ads be allowed to display.
On top of that, they run a "BotTrap". see "/BotTrap/DontAccess.html". Note, that if you hit this page, "As a result of your accessing this page, you are now limited to accessing one page on our site every 90 seconds until you you have ceased accessing our pages for 30 minutes. If you try to access pages faster than once every 90 seconds, your pages will intentionally take an exceedingly long time to load. In the near future, we will be implementing measures to deny access to misbehaving software."
The javascript in question more or less just toggles visibilty and a few other things, depending on the status of their ads. However, it's also rather easy to get by. First, disable javascript, then disable CSS. The end.
Or just use lynx. (Irony: lynx will view google ads, but not the ones that this site wants you to view. Gasp shock suprise.)
Slashdot Mirror
I do.
Heck, I documented the entire process... Knoppix itself makes it easy, but I didn't want to be forced to run a knoppix computer whenever I wanted to boot into knoppix.
First read setting up PXE and then PXE Booting Knoppix (less running a knoppix terminal server 24/7, and causing dual DHCP server collisions, and etc. etc. etc.)
"Otherwise, webmasters should design web pages with open standards in mind."
"Should". It's a wonderful word, isn't it? It means something, yet at the same time, means nothing.
I'm not trying to troll, but just remember: we'll ALWAYS have Joe's Mother's Geocities account, and unfortunatley, if relative B can't see this in Firefox, but can in IE, it isn't going to matter.
People SHOULD develop for open standards on the web, I do. However, getting EVERYONE to do so isn't going to happen. Period. Or, at least, it's going to be a heck of a long road before we reach that point.
Daemon Tools does not work with Starforce. Not much does at all, rather.
So, end result, it creates an effective 1:1 copy of the medium in /dev/cdrom.
In the case of a game, copy protection included.
In the case of a DVD, CSS protection included.
End result: the medium has to be read one way or another. The day you make a disc not readable by an optical drive is the day you release something no one will buy. It's also the only way to prevent people from making copies.
I have yet to find something that effectively stops that.
I have a friend, who in playing the UT2k4 campaign, was in a 1 on 1 deathmatch with a bot. He stayed one or two ahead of the bot the entire match, up until he was one kill away. The bot then owned his soul, up until the point where he was just one ahead of my friend.
:)
The bot then hid for the entire rest of the round, and waited for the time to expire.
It ran away from him, and waited out the clock, causing it to expire.
They also say that UT2k7, they're completly revamping the AI, to be much, much, much harder. That's perfectly okay with me, I could use a good challenge
In mozilla suite, it seems to work just fine (user agent switcher owns your soul.)
9 times out of 10, a site that says you need IE really doesn't.
It's the sites that DON'T tell you that you need a different browser that have the problems, more often than not.
Irony: you're currently modded insightful.
;))
(Now, anyone who mods me insightful, don't - it's funny
True, it took it's time to get there, but now that they know what they're doing, I'm not too worried either.
A ~300 line smb.conf file? Maybe if you leave all of the comments in it...or if you have quite a bit of shares...
Yes, reading his logic on the surface level, something is wrong with it.
However, he's not totally wrong.
Google adwrds ads *can* be hosted in an iframe. A large number of sites do this, probably to avoid the delay in doing it server side themselves, and rather wanting to offload it all on google.
There's a reason that he mentioned the iframe thing, that's because it actually is an iframe. Just not always.
It does indeed look like that they're building their own LDAP server. I'd have to search the mailing lists for reasons as to why, but if it's the same quality as their current products, it won't be a let down.
It's called WinEnabled. It essentially sits between IIS and PHP, runs a *lot* of copies of PHP, and then offhands the connection to PHP when one comes in.
That's why it runs at effective speeds. It's already started.
Touche.
PARENT IS NOT INFORMATIVE.
Parent is "funny."
But the COMPLETLY brain-dead mods apparently don't know this...
Command+click.
:))
(In all honesty, that's one troll that never made much sense... though, I guess that's the point of trolling
For the record, you can sign up to beta this product....I did, and if it's worth anything at all,...
"&spell=1"
;)
You, from the looks of it.
No offense to the AC or anything, but...*checks post left and right for spelling errors*
No, in all honesty, grandparent can suck it and die. If BitTorrent was indeed made by a "retarded kike", then I really do wonder where that places the rest of the population on the big scale of intelligence.
There's a difference between having a disorder and being an actual mentally retarded person.
True, it SHOULD only apply to XPI's, but it also prevents this 0day from happening period.
I blame DNS. Seeing as you can still access it via IP, and the DNS doesn't enjoy resolving at the current point in time...
Shamelessly copied from my previous, rather misplaced post:
w .
] Tranqulity - @ gallery.artofgregmartin.com - down due to bandwidth, but it's a 1.4MB file (PNG format), 1600x1200, using a large variety of blues and blacks.l ogo.gifc hive/viewcom ic.php?issue=134
I wanted to know the differences in the optimization levels, so I made up a script[1] that compiled zlib and libpng with various optimizations on various archs and timed how long it took to run the test suite with 4 various images[2][3][4][5].
I ran this test on a 2.8GHz Intel P4 HT proc, with 512MB Kingston HyperX DDR-400. Results are at http://www.brantleyonline.com/school/sf/graph1.sx
The X axis, is in the format "L-Z", where "L" is the libpng optimization level (3, 2, 1, 0, or s (size)), and "Z" is the zlib optimization level (3, 2, 1, 0, or s (size)). The Y axis is in seconds, and for precise values, look at the graph data vs the visual graph.
The google logo[3] was useless, it's far too small to give me accurate results. However, if you compare the comic[5], the difference is 0.665 seconds... while this may not seem *huge*, in the case of a server where every tenth of a second counts, multiply the time by requests and compare the two. In the simple case of a libpng test case (opens a PNG image, re-writes it, compares the old to the new), optimizations matter, and a lot.
Of course, some code can be optimized more than others, and there is a large number of variables to take into account, but I'd hope that booting into single user mode and running this in a terminal should remove as much of that as possible.
The thing is, very few people are going to notice the 2/3rds of a second optimizations give you, vs the hours spent compiling OpenOffice.
Not linked due to bandwidth reasons (384kbps upstream = teh suck)
[1]http://www.brantleyonline.com/sf.sh
[2
[3]http://www.google.com/intl/en/images/
[4]Screenshot of OSX on dual monitors, large amount of windows, varied transparancies, 1440x576, 570.2kb. (not linked due to bandwidth)
[5]http://www.applegeeks.com/comic_ar
Note: if you use the script, please, PLEASE, mirror the images LOCALLY and use that instead...
Unless TFA is randomly missing links to articles, I'm lacking a link or other method of information as to how you know this. The article does not detail how it'll defragment on the fly, nor does it say that it'll max out the disk usage.
Really, who's to say that on the install of longhorn, how do you know that it won't benchmark your hard disk for sesquential/random read/write limits, and take those into account? (And, if you replace the hard drive, wait for user activity to stop for 30 minutes, CPU usage to bottom out, and then benchmark the disk?)
"Random moments" of 100% disk activity can be nothing more than sloppy design (hence why ext3 can simply burn).
Not that pertains to SSA trees, but...
m ic.php?issue=134
I wanted to know the differences in the optimization levels, so I made up a script[1] that compiled zlib and libpng with various optimizations on various archs and timed how long it took to run the test suite with 4 various images[2][3][4][5].
I ran this test on a 2.8GHz Intel P4 HT proc, with 512MB Kingston HyperX DDR-400. Results are here.
The X axis, is in the format "L-Z", where "L" is the libpng optimization level (3, 2, 1, 0, or s (size)), and "Z" is the zlib optimization level (3, 2, 1, 0, or s (size)). The Y axis is in seconds, and for precise values, look at the graph data vs the visual graph.
The google logo[3] was useless, it's far too small to give me accurate results. However, if you compare the comic[5], the difference is 0.665 seconds... while this may not seem *huge*, in the case of a server where every tenth of a second counts, multiply the time by requests and compare the two. In the simple case of a libpng test case (opens a PNG image, re-writes it, compares the old to the new), optimizations matter, and a lot.
Of course, some code can be optimized more than others, and there is a large number of variables to take into account, but I'd hope that booting into single user mode and running this in a terminal should remove as much of that as possible.
The thing is, very few people are going to notice the 2/3rds of a second optimizations give you, vs the hours spent compiling OpenOffice.
Not linked due to bandwidth reasons (384kbps upstream = teh suck)
[1]http://www.brantleyonline.com/sf.sh
[2] Tranqulity - @ gallery.artofgregmartin.com - down due to bandwidth, but it's a 1.4MB file (PNG format), 1600x1200, using a large variety of blues and blacks.
[3]http://www.google.com/intl/en/images/logo.gif
[4]Screenshot of OSX on dual monitors, large amount of windows, varied transparancies, 1440x576, 570.2kb. (not linked due to bandwidth)
[5]http://www.applegeeks.com/comic_archive/viewco
Note: if you use the script, please, PLEASE, mirror the images LOCALLY and use that instead...
Ctrl+shift+escape, ctrl+tab to the processes tab, end the explorer.exe process(es). Ctrl+tab back to the first tab, tab to the new program button, hit space, type in "explorer", and hit ok.
Congragulations, you just restarted explorer without:
-Touching the mouse
-Having to worry about explorer responding or not
-Rebooting
-Closing any open programs
-Losing any data
Additionally, switch from the initial craptastic XP theme to the "standard" theme (2k style), and the RAM usage will just plain drop. Disable of of the other "fun" features (like customized menus based on usage), and explorer will only use less memory.
The "svchost" processes are rarely actual "servers" "hosting things", rather they commonly provide access to random bits of explorer and other shell-related functions.
After poking around a bit, I can tell that it's one of those sites that I'd never visit period out of principle.
// While trying to decode this script, please keep in mind that although we require users to // view our ads, WE DO NOT USE POPUPS, POPUNDERS nor rich media ads (e.g. flash). // Without advertising revenues to pay the cost of operating this site, it would not exist. // We simply ask that ALL USERS of this site, do their fair part in helping to pay the bills. // We do not ask users to act on our ads, only that the ads be allowed to display.
First off, if you have javascript disabled, you can't view any pages. So you enable it, and the javascript takes over ad checking...
It assembles a list of ads, grabs their name, and via javascript checks visibility. If any of these ads are not as expected, they auto-redirect you to the page you linked. On top of that, the javascript is heavily obfusciated, and they know it.
On top of that, they run a "BotTrap". see "/BotTrap/DontAccess.html". Note, that if you hit this page, "As a result of your accessing this page, you are now limited to accessing one page on our site every 90 seconds until you you have ceased accessing our pages for 30 minutes. If you try to access pages faster than once every 90 seconds, your pages will intentionally take an exceedingly long time to load. In the near future, we will be implementing measures to deny access to misbehaving software."
The javascript in question more or less just toggles visibilty and a few other things, depending on the status of their ads. However, it's also rather easy to get by. First, disable javascript, then disable CSS. The end.
Or just use lynx. (Irony: lynx will view google ads, but not the ones that this site wants you to view. Gasp shock suprise.)
Mod parent up insightful. (Aww, some of this " This exact comment has already been posted. Try to be more original..." BS...)