I see that Mono has a compiler for C#, not for managed C++, though I'm wondering if it can execute the IML that was compiled from C++ on a Windows box?
You know, there didn't used to be a big "firewall-everything" mentality on the net... it's a shame that inferior products have convinced people that they need extra layers of frivilous security just to do what the OS ought to do on it's own.
There's always been a firewall-everything mentality on the internet, or at least as long as the net has been popular. Do you think a company would be wise to expose their servers (be they unix, windows, whatever) to the internet without a firewall? Even servers running the most hardcore secure operating systems are behind firewalls (excluding the servers that ARE firewalls). Why is that?
It shouldn't be any different with personal computers, except the cost of the firewall, depending on how important and mission-critical you think your home computer is.
The whole thing was an overengineered government boondoggle. It didn't make sense then, and doesn't make sense now, while looking at it logically.
And it's mostly an inherited boondoggle. I don't think that many of the original shuttle designers, managers, engineers, etc. are still working for NASA. Most are retired by now. Or deceased.
Today's engineers and managers are working within the constraints of decisions that were made by an entirely different generation of NASA employees (and politicians).
It doesn't even matter if the foam was still flying 100 mph up or was already doing 10 mph down.
I don't remember the exact speed, but I seem to to recall that the shuttle was travelling in the neighborhood of 2500mph at that point. When the foam broke off, it quickly decelerated due to air resistance. Even though the atmosphere is VERY thin at that altitude, it's fast enough to decelerate the foam to 2000mph in a fraction of a second.
So, even though the foam was still travelling UP at 2000mph at the time of impact, the speed difference between it and the shuttle was 500+ mph.
Easy enough for us, sure. But again, consider the users that the NYT ad aims to convert. On the getfirefox main page, I see a big green download link which immediately downloads the file. However, I do not see any directions on the site as to how to verify the signature or checksum.
Nor do I see any instructions on the Release Notes page, which includes directions for downloading and installing.
My point is that power users will have no problem verifying the checksum or signature if they want to. But if we want Firefox to be a mainstream browser, it has to "seem" mainstream.
And this might include getting a verisign certificate. We can debate all day that verisign is useless, and that certs don't do any good because spyware is signed etc etc. But it DOES add that extra little bit of legitimacy in the minds of the Clueless Users (the ones who will be using Firefox if it is to be "mainstream") because they will see a happy popup message with a big green check sign instead of a scary popup message with a big exclamation point. It's stupid, it's useless as far as we are concerned, but it will go a long way towards making it appear legit to grandma.
Alternatively: How can we trust FireFox if any old fool can go in and install exploits into the source code?
More to the point... how do I know that the unsigned binary Firefox installer, which I'm downloading from a random web server, was actually compiled from the legitimate source code?
I'm a Firefox user and I'm never turning back to IE, but the author of the article does have many valid points. It's the people that were targeted by the NYT ad that we have to think about.
In its current form, Firefox will actually make running unknown, unverified, and unsigned software seem "OK" to the average user. Think about it, your grandma downloads and installs Firefox, because everybody in her family tells her it's more secure and better, but now she's greeted with "This is unsigned!" and "Run at your own risk!" every step of the way. Those messages (OK, not the exact wording) would be rather scary and intimidating to a first-time Firefox user who doesn't know much about computers. So what do we tell grandma? "Just click OK."
THIS is precisely programmers are not the people who should be the sole ones generating requirements for software that is supposed to be used by "everybody." Things that make perfect sense to programmers can boggle the minds of regular users. Did the Firefox contributors do any usability testing with volunteers who didn't know the software? Well if they didn't get that kind of feedback before 1.0, they will certainly get plenty of it in the months to come.
Let's say you have a gas leak in your business, and you don't know where it's coming from.
What do you do? You call the gas company and fire department, and they come and SHUT OFF THE GAS SUPPLY. That way they can reduce the risk of more damage occurring.
Even if your business has a financial dependence on having the gas working (i.e. a restaurant), it has a MUCH GREATER financial dependence on the building not blowing up.
They want to ignore it because it's inconvenient for their business cronies
That's one way of putting it... but guess who runs the economy? "Business cronies." They are the ones that provide jobs.
And it's a valid factor to consider, too. In fact, the president determined that the impact to the U.S. economy would be so severe, that he simply refused to ratify the treaty....oh and by the way, that wasn't Bush-- that was Clinton in 1997. And wasn't our economy booming then?
What do you think the impact on our economy would be these days?
There are tons of fractal generators out there, my favorite is Chaos Pro. It's windows only, but it's free (as in beer). It supports a ton of advanced features like transparent layering/blending, and generating AVI's, and the author claims it's 100% feature-compatible with Ultra Fractal (a commercial package).
It's also compatible with formula and parameter files from other fractal programs (including the legendary FractInt).
Anyway, if you have a decent photo printer, and any fractal program that can do high resolutions in 32-bit color, you can make some great wall hangings by rendering a fractal image at a high resolution (I use 4000x3000) and then printing it on 8.5x11 glossy photo paper. I have some hanging around my cubicle.
Z_ doesn't have to approach zero to be in the set... it can also settle down to a finite value, or cycle between 2 or more values, or even jump around randomly within a range of values until you hit your iteration maximum.
All you can safely say is that if the absolute value of Z_ gets above a certain value (4) then it will approach infinity, and that value is NOT in the set.
There's an image of the actual first printout in James Gleick's book [i]Chaos: Making a New Science.[/i]
It didn't have the neato color shading, it basically looked like the cardiod shaped main blob with a bunch of "noise" around the perimeter. He later figured out that the black dots were actually connected-- the entire set is connected.
Yes... I'm imagining all the bits will wind up dancing around on the surface, like those little football players on those old vibrating football games.
Then again, if that were really an issue, we'd also be dealing with hard drives throwing all their data off the edges of the platters.
Many republicans (I dare say "most" even) have listened to Limbaugh over the years, especially during presidential races. I used to listen in the 90's. During election times, he would repeatedly suggest to his listeners that they should LIE to the exit pollers, if polled.
This is for the sole purpose of making the media look bad. Given the millions of people that have listened (or still do) to his show, it's no surprise that the exit polls would be off a few percent, artificially in favor of Kerry.
Slashdot Mirror
Replying to my own post...
I see that Mono has a compiler for C#, not for managed C++, though I'm wondering if it can execute the IML that was compiled from C++ on a Windows box?
As for VC++, you can't run Microsoft's IDE, nor do you actually need to, but you can run managed C++ (.Net) under Mono on OSX.
You know, there didn't used to be a big "firewall-everything" mentality on the net... it's a shame that inferior products have convinced people that they need extra layers of frivilous security just to do what the OS ought to do on it's own.
There's always been a firewall-everything mentality on the internet, or at least as long as the net has been popular. Do you think a company would be wise to expose their servers (be they unix, windows, whatever) to the internet without a firewall? Even servers running the most hardcore secure operating systems are behind firewalls (excluding the servers that ARE firewalls). Why is that?
It shouldn't be any different with personal computers, except the cost of the firewall, depending on how important and mission-critical you think your home computer is.
...and the very first link on the page (under "sponsored sites") is:
www.microsoft.com
Windows outperforms Linux: Industry case studies and test lab results provide insight into the advantages of the Microsoft®...
The whole thing was an overengineered government boondoggle. It didn't make sense then, and doesn't make sense now, while looking at it logically.
And it's mostly an inherited boondoggle.
I don't think that many of the original shuttle designers, managers, engineers, etc. are still working for NASA. Most are retired by now. Or deceased.
Today's engineers and managers are working within the constraints of decisions that were made by an entirely different generation of NASA employees (and politicians).
It doesn't even matter if the foam was still flying 100 mph up or was already doing 10 mph down.
I don't remember the exact speed, but I seem to to recall that the shuttle was travelling in the neighborhood of 2500mph at that point. When the foam broke off, it quickly decelerated due to air resistance. Even though the atmosphere is VERY thin at that altitude, it's fast enough to decelerate the foam to 2000mph in a fraction of a second.
So, even though the foam was still travelling UP at 2000mph at the time of impact, the speed difference between it and the shuttle was 500+ mph.
And so is Dubya, as mentioned in this article. :-)
. shtml
http://www.macobserver.com/editorial/2002/01/16.1
Steve Jobs is annoyed at this.
Also, the crowd is way too liberal for me.
Rush Limbaugh is a die-hard Macintosh fan. Doesn't that kind of average it out?
And if we see job postings for cryogenics engineers, we can assume that the G6 powermacs are being designed.
All of the items on your list would be useless to me unless they also have GPS capability. And perhaps even a thing that tells time.
It's signed using GPGP. There is also a checksum.
It's easy enough to check if bothered.
Easy enough for us, sure. But again, consider the users that the NYT ad aims to convert. On the getfirefox main page, I see a big green download link which immediately downloads the file.
However, I do not see any directions on the site as to how to verify the signature or checksum.
Nor do I see any instructions on the Release Notes page, which includes directions for downloading and installing.
My point is that power users will have no problem verifying the checksum or signature if they want to. But if we want Firefox to be a mainstream browser, it has to "seem" mainstream.
And this might include getting a verisign certificate. We can debate all day that verisign is useless, and that certs don't do any good because spyware is signed etc etc.
But it DOES add that extra little bit of legitimacy in the minds of the Clueless Users (the ones who will be using Firefox if it is to be "mainstream") because they will see a happy popup message with a big green check sign instead of a scary popup message with a big exclamation point. It's stupid, it's useless as far as we are concerned, but it will go a long way towards making it appear legit to grandma.
1) Normal users don't care about signed code, as
they happily click on "Yes, download this!"
without bothering to check anything.
So is this what we want to encourage users to do?
Alternatively: How can we trust FireFox if any old fool can go in and install exploits into the source code?
More to the point... how do I know that the unsigned binary Firefox installer, which I'm downloading from a random web server, was actually compiled from the legitimate source code?
I'm a Firefox user and I'm never turning back to IE, but the author of the article does have many valid points.
It's the people that were targeted by the NYT ad that we have to think about.
In its current form, Firefox will actually make running unknown, unverified, and unsigned software seem "OK" to the average user. Think about it, your grandma downloads and installs Firefox, because everybody in her family tells her it's more secure and better, but now she's greeted with "This is unsigned!" and "Run at your own risk!" every step of the way. Those messages (OK, not the exact wording) would be rather scary and intimidating to a first-time Firefox user who doesn't know much about computers. So what do we tell grandma? "Just click OK."
THIS is precisely programmers are not the people who should be the sole ones generating requirements for software that is supposed to be used by "everybody." Things that make perfect sense to programmers can boggle the minds of regular users. Did the Firefox contributors do any usability testing with volunteers who didn't know the software? Well if they didn't get that kind of feedback before 1.0, they will certainly get plenty of it in the months to come.
Let's say you have a gas leak in your business, and you don't know where it's coming from.
What do you do? You call the gas company and fire department, and they come and SHUT OFF THE GAS SUPPLY.
That way they can reduce the risk of more damage occurring.
Even if your business has a financial dependence on having the gas working (i.e. a restaurant), it has a MUCH GREATER financial dependence on the building not blowing up.
They want to ignore it because it's inconvenient for their business cronies
...oh and by the way, that wasn't Bush-- that was Clinton in 1997. And wasn't our economy booming then?
That's one way of putting it... but guess who runs the economy? "Business cronies." They are the ones that provide jobs.
And it's a valid factor to consider, too. In fact, the president determined that the impact to the U.S. economy would be so severe, that he simply refused to ratify the treaty.
What do you think the impact on our economy would be these days?
Were people permitted to use paper and pencil/pen or more trusted/tried solutions instead of these machines?
In light of the 2000 election, how do you define "tried and trusted?"
Anyone who thinks the levels in Doom 3 were "slapped together" to show off the engine should spend a little time designing levels.
I agree. id meticulously designed one map, and then used it for the first 20 levels of the game.
There are tons of fractal generators out there, my favorite is Chaos Pro. It's windows only, but it's free (as in beer). It supports a ton of advanced features like transparent layering/blending, and generating AVI's, and the author claims it's 100% feature-compatible with Ultra Fractal (a commercial package).
It's also compatible with formula and parameter files from other fractal programs (including the legendary FractInt).
Anyway, if you have a decent photo printer, and any fractal program that can do high resolutions in 32-bit color, you can make some great wall hangings by rendering a fractal image at a high resolution (I use 4000x3000) and then printing it on 8.5x11 glossy photo paper. I have some hanging around my cubicle.
Z_ doesn't have to approach zero to be in the set... it can also settle down to a finite value, or cycle between 2 or more values, or even jump around randomly within a range of values until you hit your iteration maximum.
All you can safely say is that if the absolute value of Z_ gets above a certain value (4) then it will approach infinity, and that value is NOT in the set.
There's an image of the actual first printout in James Gleick's book [i]Chaos: Making a New Science.[/i]
It didn't have the neato color shading, it basically looked like the cardiod shaped main blob with a bunch of "noise" around the perimeter.
He later figured out that the black dots were actually connected-- the entire set is connected.
Normally the customers try like hell to get unsubscribed from AOL - apparently, the tables have turned!
If only the customers could make it as difficult for AOL to disconnect them as AOL makes it for customers to cancel their own accounts.
http://search.msn.com was running Microsoft-IIS on Linux when last queried at 10-Nov-2004 16:48:55 GMT
...IIS on Linux? *scratches head*
Yes... I'm imagining all the bits will wind up dancing around on the surface, like those little football players on those old vibrating football games.
Then again, if that were really an issue, we'd also be dealing with hard drives throwing all their data off the edges of the platters.
If all else fails, you can simulate it on your own PC.
Many republicans (I dare say "most" even) have listened to Limbaugh over the years, especially during presidential races. I used to listen in the 90's.
During election times, he would repeatedly suggest to his listeners that they should LIE to the exit pollers, if polled.
This is for the sole purpose of making the media look bad. Given the millions of people that have listened (or still do) to his show, it's no surprise that the exit polls would be off a few percent, artificially in favor of Kerry.