Or even that printing under NT has used different drivers and different stuff in general than 9x. 95 and classic NT device drivers are REALLY different, although 98 and later supported WDM drivers by emulating a (small) subset of the NT kernel.
Put another way: In NT 4 and later, GDI calls are translated to kernel service calls, in 32-bit. In 9x, it's thunking to a globally mapped 16-bit DLL...
Length-prefixing of data is just as much a key to creating errors, as you usually end up testing a couple of invalid values, but you might still use the provided length value in some context. One kind of theory here would be that the abort proc is first set and then called itself when a certain path of invalidity is used, maybe not in the current data blob, but when the length value is used to find the offset of the next block.
I find it far more interesting to know for sure if the abort procs are generally called in a different thread or not. alloca could be used to copy the current object to the stack. The offset to the proc itself could then instead be taken from the a variable indicating the current offset, in some way.
Allocating a short buffer off the stack, with the length specified in the block itself, wouldn't be dangerous it itself, unless there then is a path without checking that the length is valid. The specific length would then be highly critical in both passing the (incomplete) checks and creating the correct offset.
Yeah, I read TFA this time, but Gibson's info is, as always, quite exclamation-heavy, while light on real details. As, for example, is the abort proc, in the end, still launched in the normal manner.
It's not that complicated. Most of the system is probably OK, and I think that some (all?) IA-64 machines used a variation of EFI. Except when entering standby and a few things like that, Windows won't talk to the firmware. What we need is a EFI HAL for 32-bit Windows -- or just an ugly translation hack loaded before Windows boots. It won't slow down much.
The "cheaper to build yourself" argument doesn't apply to laptops. I think Apple machines could attract some Windows professionals there, if Apples has kept the best parts of their engineering in those.
I've tried that. It's not subconscious. Sometimes, I can remember doing it, the desperate hunt for finding the clock, to turn it off, to get back into bed.
I'm awake enough to think about the problem, but like the article says, I lack enough judgement to really realize that I shouldn't stay in bed.
I've even asked people to call me for important situations, figuring that I couldn't fake being awake without that really being the case. I was proven wrong. If that means I always act like a drunk, well, that's another matter...
I would say that it's more important that Java and.NET both basically always give you debug symbols, for the needs of verifying type and memory safety.
I'm not sure about your point of obfuscation, do you mean that it's easy to see through it by using a debugger, or that it's hard to debug already obfuscated code. That's sometimes true for optimized x86, too.
It's not the IL that gives you nice decompilation, it's the metadata.
What Roland does is one thing, but beatles-beatles stories are *all relevant*. It just that his handle link goes to a "illegitimate" site. So the only real issue here is that Google will rank his page higher, and that a few users might get curious about him and go to "his" page. I think CmdrTaco argues quite well for why "nofollow" would constitute unneeded punishment.
What I wonder, though, as mentioned by others: are the specific users who got the stories accepted, while others were rejected, that much better? I could certainly see reason to reject a RP/BB post if there is a just about equivalent post from AC.
Simple: Apple maybe could have swayed Intel into doing a paper release of Yonah in December or even November, if Jobs asked nicely. Nothing at all could make the chips available for real, in volume. I can think of better ways to release a product than a huge Christmas backorder.
The LV chips are more expensive. I certainly share the doubt of a sibling poster of a Mini, with two cores, at that price point. Would a LV version really be needed in the Mini?
You have a point. It's interesting to note that it's technically easier to release a movie in several formats compared to porting games to different consoles. Maybe one important factor here is that even a complete newbie can understand the concept of an "Xbox" being different than a "PlayStation". HD-DVD and Bluray will never have that kind of appeal to the end consumer. They will own a player for oh-what's-the-name-gotta-look-at-the-sticker discs.
It will also be interesting to see if, for example, PC games (and thus PC machines) will end up with one as the de facto standard, while movies being predominantly released in the other format -- probably with most drives compatible with both.
Does anyone know if a current DVD mastering pipeline can also produce plain old CDs? I've mostly seen notes of the fact that HD-DVD is an easy transtition if you have DVD equipment, but what if you want to go back? For manufacturers of smaller volumes, the committing of a production line to only next-gen discs might be a significant step.
Don't you see any contradiction between saying that he has copied the stuff of others and bashing IP laws? I mean, coding your own graphical shell to DOS after coding MacWrite and seeing MacOS and the Xerox Parc stuff is far more original than getting a corporate serial for WinXP. Still, you seem to think that doing the first is bad and trying to stop the latter is also bad.
I would consider you a troll, but you currently have an "insightful" so I thought I would at least point this out.
Isn't the backlight actually more likely to go before any individual pixel dies/gets stuck? I have to admit that I have seen pixels die after a while, but the user has generally admitted that he accidentally dropped the whole screen or applied direct force on the panel. In the few cases where they didn't admit it, you could see the physical damage on the frame, so I still consider it happening without mistreatment as very rare. I would be interested in the experiences of other readers...
OTOH, this is a widescreen. It will not have the nice aspect ratio of 8:3, but the 8:3 setup carries the slight disadvantage of a thick, or thin, bezel right in the middle of the field of vision. I've actually decided to avoid triple-mon just because the bezels have distracted me even more on the few configurations I've actually seen of that sort.
One issue that's still bugging me is the fact that even when you buy the monitors at the same time, it can be non-trivial to get the color reproduction identical enough at all times. Even if they look good in the beginning, and there are no huge differences in the total running time, individual backlights/panels seem to age at different rates. That would be one reason for me to go back to a single display.
Maybe I should just get some real calibration equipment and to that once in a while...
Anandtech says it's a newer panel with higher contrast ratio* and lower response times.
* A higher contrast ratio is of course also possible if you get a different backlight and chooses the measuring point to give you that number, but if the response times are indeed lower, or different, it seems they realyy have a different panel. On the other hand, one could technically squeeze a bit of response time difference from using a different signal chip in the monitor.
One might be able to deconvolute (anti-anti-alias, so to say) the picture from the sensor, but I would imagine that to achieve a stable 800 DPI resolution, one would actually need a sensor with a comparable, or better, sensor... unless the 800 DPI figure is a VaporNumber (TM).
You're right about DVD => HD, if you count the full resolution in pixels. I think it's fair to say that the perception of quality is more like linear to the resolution change in one dimension. That means that while 1920 * 1080 is A LOT compared to 640 * 480, you often just get the impression of 1080/480 = 2,25. That is still enough to mean a lot in quality. The step between 576 and 720 (PAL => cheap HD) is not as impressive, though.
The problem with your comparison is that while VHS has no real horizontal resolution, being analog, it's generally accepted to consider a 320x240 video to be of VCR quality. I think that's a fair approximation. Again, this means 4x in number of pixels, but only 2x in each dimension. You can't state 6x between DVD and HD AND 2x between VHS and DVD. That's mixing apples and oranges.
That single layer will presumably only contain 4.7 GB, which might be fine for the feature itself, but it means no special material in SD. It might still be good enough, as one might expect those most interested in HD to be identical to those using all the extras.
Slashdot Mirror
The reviewer mentioned that he didn't want to void his warranty on this piece of hardware. I guess we'll have to wait for someone not so careful.
Put another way: In NT 4 and later, GDI calls are translated to kernel service calls, in 32-bit. In 9x, it's thunking to a globally mapped 16-bit DLL...
In a way they are, in a way they are not. Before SetAbortProc was introduced, Escape/SETABORTPROC was the only way to do it in print jobs.
I find it far more interesting to know for sure if the abort procs are generally called in a different thread or not. alloca could be used to copy the current object to the stack. The offset to the proc itself could then instead be taken from the a variable indicating the current offset, in some way.
Allocating a short buffer off the stack, with the length specified in the block itself, wouldn't be dangerous it itself, unless there then is a path without checking that the length is valid. The specific length would then be highly critical in both passing the (incomplete) checks and creating the correct offset.
Yeah, I read TFA this time, but Gibson's info is, as always, quite exclamation-heavy, while light on real details. As, for example, is the abort proc, in the end, still launched in the normal manner.
The "cheaper to build yourself" argument doesn't apply to laptops. I think Apple machines could attract some Windows professionals there, if Apples has kept the best parts of their engineering in those.
I'm awake enough to think about the problem, but like the article says, I lack enough judgement to really realize that I shouldn't stay in bed.
I've even asked people to call me for important situations, figuring that I couldn't fake being awake without that really being the case. I was proven wrong. If that means I always act like a drunk, well, that's another matter...
It's only a matter of time until you are able to do that in some kind of pseudo-sleep and still get back to bed. I know that I am able to do that.
I'm not sure about your point of obfuscation, do you mean that it's easy to see through it by using a debugger, or that it's hard to debug already obfuscated code. That's sometimes true for optimized x86, too.
It's not the IL that gives you nice decompilation, it's the metadata.
What I wonder, though, as mentioned by others: are the specific users who got the stories accepted, while others were rejected, that much better? I could certainly see reason to reject a RP/BB post if there is a just about equivalent post from AC.
Sure you can, this is an obvious fake. Ok, it's kind of good visually, but NO DUPES. Who do they think they are kidding?
Simple: Apple maybe could have swayed Intel into doing a paper release of Yonah in December or even November, if Jobs asked nicely. Nothing at all could make the chips available for real, in volume. I can think of better ways to release a product than a huge Christmas backorder.
The LV chips are more expensive. I certainly share the doubt of a sibling poster of a Mini, with two cores, at that price point. Would a LV version really be needed in the Mini?
Greetings from the future.
It will also be interesting to see if, for example, PC games (and thus PC machines) will end up with one as the de facto standard, while movies being predominantly released in the other format -- probably with most drives compatible with both.
Does anyone know if a current DVD mastering pipeline can also produce plain old CDs? I've mostly seen notes of the fact that HD-DVD is an easy transtition if you have DVD equipment, but what if you want to go back? For manufacturers of smaller volumes, the committing of a production line to only next-gen discs might be a significant step.
That's surely going to improve your mood, right?
I would consider you a troll, but you currently have an "insightful" so I thought I would at least point this out.
Isn't the backlight actually more likely to go before any individual pixel dies/gets stuck? I have to admit that I have seen pixels die after a while, but the user has generally admitted that he accidentally dropped the whole screen or applied direct force on the panel. In the few cases where they didn't admit it, you could see the physical damage on the frame, so I still consider it happening without mistreatment as very rare. I would be interested in the experiences of other readers...
(3200 * 1200 rocks, so does 1920*1200 laptops)
Maybe I should just get some real calibration equipment and to that once in a while...
* A higher contrast ratio is of course also possible if you get a different backlight and chooses the measuring point to give you that number, but if the response times are indeed lower, or different, it seems they realyy have a different panel. On the other hand, one could technically squeeze a bit of response time difference from using a different signal chip in the monitor.
One might be able to deconvolute (anti-anti-alias, so to say) the picture from the sensor, but I would imagine that to achieve a stable 800 DPI resolution, one would actually need a sensor with a comparable, or better, sensor... unless the 800 DPI figure is a VaporNumber (TM).
The problem with your comparison is that while VHS has no real horizontal resolution, being analog, it's generally accepted to consider a 320x240 video to be of VCR quality. I think that's a fair approximation. Again, this means 4x in number of pixels, but only 2x in each dimension. You can't state 6x between DVD and HD AND 2x between VHS and DVD. That's mixing apples and oranges.
That single layer will presumably only contain 4.7 GB, which might be fine for the feature itself, but it means no special material in SD. It might still be good enough, as one might expect those most interested in HD to be identical to those using all the extras.
Or Google.
A phishing/spoofing attack where even the browser or separate "form storage" tool will mistake a fraud site for the real one?