On the other hand, there were official export bans on relevant software at the time. If you put up a honey pot machine that actually hacks the attacker, I would consider that fair game.
It's a quite different thing to put this into "properly" sold (eh, licensed) software.
Just pointing out the difference, this may still mean that there are relevant government-ordered backdoors in commercial software. I don't know if I would consider it likely.
Mice exist because they were able to procreate before they were killed. We just keep it that way for inbred lines that wouldn't survive for a day in "reality".
BTW, it's kind of strange to see the same people asserting that (while you didn't do so, explicitely) mice etc are "thinking", feeling creatures just like you and me, while they also state that they are useless as laboratory models, because of "all the differences".
It's even more than that, as Y is a very small chromosome, and even the "missing" copy of X in a male isn't extremely large.
BUT, it provides a powerful enough mechanism to possibly allow divergent evolution within the species, regarding physiological and phsychological properties. If it's really been fitness-increasing to do so in specific cases is the interesting question.
Sorry, but you get no negative gees from falling. This is no less true than being in a permanent orbit all the time. In fact, a plane doing this in the proper way is actually describing a very short part of a very elongated orbit. The only trouble in making it permanent is that this orbit intersects the planet surface.
With an ideal point mass and any second object with any tangential speed as the initial situation will never crash into that point mass, only orbit it. If you are far enough from the point, you'll also experience zero G (if you are close, you'll experience the effects of, say, your feet being farther away from the point mass than your head; and any ball or something you throw will, after time, establish an orbit on its own, distinct from your own -- however, this is also true if you throw something away from ISS or anything).
There is no magic zero G space in space. Remember, the sun is holding the complete solar system together. Still, you can experience zero G, by just leaving Earth, but that is only because continous free fall is practical there. You don't "see" gravity, as the floor, walls and objects you travel with are experiencing the same effect.
Well, as the group of "Linux users wanting to roll their own ROM build on the router" will know that the Linksys model is a good and safe bet, I think it's quite safe to say that this subset of Linux users will be highly overrepresented among the Linksys customers. Also, although I spend most of my time in Windows, I wouldn't think twice to flash a custom ROM image to a Linksys beast if I had access to one and wanted some of the nice functionality. Any attempt to "backtrack" the percentage of Linux users from this data is only slightly more relevant than to do so based on/. httpd logs.
But their whole angle in this test was to test with desktop parts, in a machine with a normal 16x PCI-E GPU. Yonah, especially with both cores working at full speed, will consume far more power than Dothan. It will still consume less than the oxymoron of a mobile P4 and it will certainly do quite a bit better at calculations/watt, which is the only sensible number to look at when you consider the "maxing out" scenario.
BTW, I'm impressed that you actually get useful charge when running CPU and GPU at 100 %. Most systems I've seen will trickle it down, sometimes for lack of power supply, sometimes due to the temperature situation in the battery.
No, they basically don't. However, as noted, any quick and thorough heating will be quite efficient in killing them. It's relevant to keep in mind that if the system was tuned to say 40 deg. C/100 deg. F, we would get no germ-killing effect at all.
1. There is a huge "backlog" of sloppy coding that is either exposed through changes in higher layers, or simply not discovered until now.
2. Many of the web browser vulnerabilities lately (and historically, in IE especially) have not been related to overflowing a buffer. They have more been along the lines of fooling the browser or the user of it that you are in a different security context than you really are. That is possible to do in any language. It just takes a single instance of a piece of code doing something "on behalf of" something with a lower security privilege, like just about anything done in a browser. There are techniques for sandboxing and walling this in, but enforcing something like the logic for when to allow scripting/DOM access between frames in a web browser is not something very well suited to the Java (or.NET, for that matter) security model. You simply have to do the hard work and do it right.
So, in the specific space of browsers, I think that the issue of the language used is not very relevant. What IS relevant is to use a sound design, where the security decisions are made by some components, not all over the place. Componentization, no matter if it's done by XUL/Javascript or by encapsulation into COM/ActiveX are both examples of this. In practice, the execution of the previous have been better than the latter.
Another point would be that moving towards Java or some other VM with interoperability issues, at least when you get into directly calling other code in-process, will force you to rewrite bad C/C++ code. I don't know if that's a bug or a feature. It would rule out buffer overflows, but it would also mean a gigantic, untested, new code base.
Look, in 1998 you got a shitty machine, it wasn't unreasonable to get a 10-20 GB drive in a new machine. In 2002 you got a kickass machine, at least regarding to HD space. You still can't get a single drive providing that amount of storage, and a set of drives giving 750 GB in total may still be more expensive than a good deal on a 6 GB drive in 1998.
Your point is in no way invalid, of course it will be less impressive at the possible production release, but your example only proves that you had more money to spend on hardware, or chose a cheaper CPU to be able to store all your pron. Who cares?
Yeah, and you can NEVER patch it. Sorry, but I also kind of like the idea to keep my own data and userland software. I also like to be able to change or update my OS when I choose to. A draconic policy that
a) won't protect my data against vulnerabilities and
Of course you are right, but you are also ignorant if you don't realize that writing something that seems to interpret every valid file correctly is far easier than writing something that will accept every valid file and reject any invalid file, gracefully. Not to be said that it can't be done or that it shouldn't have been done. Just that it's far more difficult. Even when it's short and seems rather solid. zlib, anyone?
Oh, a file format based on instructions, just like, uh, PostScript?
If you want detailed control over layout, especially with low overhead for rendering, an instruction based approach is quite good. The point is that no GDI call, in itself, should be able to mess things up and simple parameter validation of the WMF input should be enough when spooling the calls.
(Hey, Postscript is even Turing complete. There's nothing wrong with describing a picture as instructions to a state machine with some rendering primitives.)
Besides, WMF is 15+ years old now. The availability of formats for vector graphics that matched the features of GDI (while not being expensive, money-wise or performance-wise, to render by GDI) back then was a bit different. The format has never been used much for real files, but quite a lot for clipboard transfer of vector data (Excel graphs and whatnot).
Changing behavior isn't that feasible, even if you have access to all application sources? Do you want a minor patch to X.org or even the kernel break your existing setup, no matter how easy the fix to get those too working again might be?
Anyway, what you are saying about just introducing new APIs in patches is basically false. They wouldn't be patches if that's what they do. True, some APIs are basically deprecated while still supported, for security reasons. A rare few have been completely retired or turned into no-ops for security reasons. This work was taken place in new OS releases (and pseudo-releases like SP2), not in the form of Patch Tuesdays.
Most of what you mention as unique to Eclipse is actually present in the non-C++ language plugins into Visual Studio (C#, VB.NET, J# alias Java for.NET to a limited degree). I think they weren't even in Eclipse when VS.NET 2002 was first released. Of course, it's better in 2005, but even back in the 2002 release you could get a couple of the things you mention, and I think all of them are present in VS.NET 2005. The actual performance of refactoring in different cases and so on may of course vary, but I think it would be hard to point out a complete "region" of smart-editor goodness missing:-)
You knew all along that it was totally OK for ANYONE to harvest all of it and make money off it, of course while still complying with the license. If you didn't, you are the only to blame.
Agreed, but I would probably count a PC with (only) 5 1/4 floppy drives in, too -- at least the single density ones.
To some degree, maybe we should consider what the specific machines were used for. If it was mainly for coding things yourself and typing in source listings from computer magazines, I would tend to be "forgiving" and count a few PCs, while if they were just used to run Lotus 123 in a business setting, they're out. (Hey, we need to avoid anything Mac*, while including Apple ][:-)
Re:It'll tell us something about greenhouse gases
on
ESA Venus Mission Delayed
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Of course, nature is not all good. However, any statement regarding the natural emissions of CO2 also relates to the question of how different the levels in the biosphere (and atmosphere) have actually been and how it seems somewhat likely that, to some degree, this is an equilibrium system on Earth where, over time, a shift will cause other factors to counteract that shift.
To me, this only means that the risk that we would be able to turn Earth into a Venus-like state is rather small. The problem just happens to be that (current) human cilization and activites are severly affected long before that. The current state of the climate might not be optimal, but many things rely on it. The worst thing is when that reliance on things being a certain way isn't even obvious to those most closely affected by any change, and/or those in power.
Slashdot Mirror
XAML for HTML apps is kind of a bonus, when just about everything that's rewritten in Vista will use it.
It's a quite different thing to put this into "properly" sold (eh, licensed) software.
Just pointing out the difference, this may still mean that there are relevant government-ordered backdoors in commercial software. I don't know if I would consider it likely.
While gravity plates are an everyday physical reality?
BTW, it's kind of strange to see the same people asserting that (while you didn't do so, explicitely) mice etc are "thinking", feeling creatures just like you and me, while they also state that they are useless as laboratory models, because of "all the differences".
BUT, it provides a powerful enough mechanism to possibly allow divergent evolution within the species, regarding physiological and phsychological properties. If it's really been fitness-increasing to do so in specific cases is the interesting question.
With an ideal point mass and any second object with any tangential speed as the initial situation will never crash into that point mass, only orbit it. If you are far enough from the point, you'll also experience zero G (if you are close, you'll experience the effects of, say, your feet being farther away from the point mass than your head; and any ball or something you throw will, after time, establish an orbit on its own, distinct from your own -- however, this is also true if you throw something away from ISS or anything).
There is no magic zero G space in space. Remember, the sun is holding the complete solar system together. Still, you can experience zero G, by just leaving Earth, but that is only because continous free fall is practical there. You don't "see" gravity, as the floor, walls and objects you travel with are experiencing the same effect.
Well, as the group of "Linux users wanting to roll their own ROM build on the router" will know that the Linksys model is a good and safe bet, I think it's quite safe to say that this subset of Linux users will be highly overrepresented among the Linksys customers. Also, although I spend most of my time in Windows, I wouldn't think twice to flash a custom ROM image to a Linksys beast if I had access to one and wanted some of the nice functionality. Any attempt to "backtrack" the percentage of Linux users from this data is only slightly more relevant than to do so based on /. httpd logs.
BTW, I'm impressed that you actually get useful charge when running CPU and GPU at 100 %. Most systems I've seen will trickle it down, sometimes for lack of power supply, sometimes due to the temperature situation in the battery.
No, they basically don't. However, as noted, any quick and thorough heating will be quite efficient in killing them. It's relevant to keep in mind that if the system was tuned to say 40 deg. C/100 deg. F, we would get no germ-killing effect at all.
1. There is a huge "backlog" of sloppy coding that is either exposed through changes in higher layers, or simply not discovered until now.
2. Many of the web browser vulnerabilities lately (and historically, in IE especially) have not been related to overflowing a buffer. They have more been along the lines of fooling the browser or the user of it that you are in a different security context than you really are. That is possible to do in any language. It just takes a single instance of a piece of code doing something "on behalf of" something with a lower security privilege, like just about anything done in a browser. There are techniques for sandboxing and walling this in, but enforcing something like the logic for when to allow scripting/DOM access between frames in a web browser is not something very well suited to the Java (or .NET, for that matter) security model. You simply have to do the hard work and do it right.
So, in the specific space of browsers, I think that the issue of the language used is not very relevant. What IS relevant is to use a sound design, where the security decisions are made by some components, not all over the place. Componentization, no matter if it's done by XUL/Javascript or by encapsulation into COM/ActiveX are both examples of this. In practice, the execution of the previous have been better than the latter.
Another point would be that moving towards Java or some other VM with interoperability issues, at least when you get into directly calling other code in-process, will force you to rewrite bad C/C++ code. I don't know if that's a bug or a feature. It would rule out buffer overflows, but it would also mean a gigantic, untested, new code base.
Your point is in no way invalid, of course it will be less impressive at the possible production release, but your example only proves that you had more money to spend on hardware, or chose a cheaper CPU to be able to store all your pron. Who cares?
The program generates byte stream A and B, both having the same hash C. You can't input C and get an arbitrary B out (with this algorithm).
a) won't protect my data against vulnerabilities and
b) won't let me change the OS
is
c) the worst of both worlds.
Or were you only trying to be funny?
Of course you are right, but you are also ignorant if you don't realize that writing something that seems to interpret every valid file correctly is far easier than writing something that will accept every valid file and reject any invalid file, gracefully. Not to be said that it can't be done or that it shouldn't have been done. Just that it's far more difficult. Even when it's short and seems rather solid. zlib, anyone?
If you want detailed control over layout, especially with low overhead for rendering, an instruction based approach is quite good. The point is that no GDI call, in itself, should be able to mess things up and simple parameter validation of the WMF input should be enough when spooling the calls.
(Hey, Postscript is even Turing complete. There's nothing wrong with describing a picture as instructions to a state machine with some rendering primitives.)
Besides, WMF is 15+ years old now. The availability of formats for vector graphics that matched the features of GDI (while not being expensive, money-wise or performance-wise, to render by GDI) back then was a bit different. The format has never been used much for real files, but quite a lot for clipboard transfer of vector data (Excel graphs and whatnot).
Anyway, what you are saying about just introducing new APIs in patches is basically false. They wouldn't be patches if that's what they do. True, some APIs are basically deprecated while still supported, for security reasons. A rare few have been completely retired or turned into no-ops for security reasons. This work was taken place in new OS releases (and pseudo-releases like SP2), not in the form of Patch Tuesdays.
Most of what you mention as unique to Eclipse is actually present in the non-C++ language plugins into Visual Studio (C#, VB.NET, J# alias Java for .NET to a limited degree). I think they weren't even in Eclipse when VS.NET 2002 was first released. Of course, it's better in 2005, but even back in the 2002 release you could get a couple of the things you mention, and I think all of them are present in VS.NET 2005. The actual performance of refactoring in different cases and so on may of course vary, but I think it would be hard to point out a complete "region" of smart-editor goodness missing :-)
Nah, he generally tries to get rid of one boss at a time, possibly the head of IT sometimes, but not all execs at once...
Beagle 2 wasn't even a rover, it was a lander with a robotic drilling arm (I think) hitchhiking its journey to Mars on Mars Express.
You knew all along that it was totally OK for ANYONE to harvest all of it and make money off it, of course while still complying with the license. If you didn't, you are the only to blame.
Real nerds put pride into always being specific. IPv4 or IPv6, please. Everything else is intangible, just like the blurb indicates.
A full analysis of the TCO will tell you why.
To some degree, maybe we should consider what the specific machines were used for. If it was mainly for coding things yourself and typing in source listings from computer magazines, I would tend to be "forgiving" and count a few PCs, while if they were just used to run Lotus 123 in a business setting, they're out. (Hey, we need to avoid anything Mac*, while including Apple ][ :-)
I guess it should read 1991, not 1981?
To me, this only means that the risk that we would be able to turn Earth into a Venus-like state is rather small. The problem just happens to be that (current) human cilization and activites are severly affected long before that. The current state of the climate might not be optimal, but many things rely on it. The worst thing is when that reliance on things being a certain way isn't even obvious to those most closely affected by any change, and/or those in power.