Just one "problem", the temperature of the sun surface is below 6504 K, while above 3300. Or, to be precise, you can't get a black body with a really even distribution, so there is no specific reason to look for 33/33/33.
Not too true. Even in a cold climate, EVEN when you use electric heating, you can get higher efficiency by a phase-change compression system for heat exchange, "pumping out heat" from the air leaving the building.
XP allows you to install it on your machine over and over again, transfer it between HDs, slipstream a service pack into your setup image. Activation is more draconic than previous Windows releases, but compared to for example dongle use, the SafeDisc protection for games or the original CSS scheme, it's kind of benign. It doesn't prevent you to install it on the machine where you want to use it. It doesn't really enforce anything other than not spreading your setup image to just about everyone, which, by incidence, is not covered by fair use for software.
But, on the other hand, the peace prize has some special provisions for organizations. The head of an academic institution won't get the scientific prizes, no matter what the combined results from the school are.
Nah, every object in the HTML DOM and the XML interfaces are based on COM/ActiveX. The Microsoft JScript implementation makes a IDispatch object available. The only issue here is that there is no way to get to the XMLHttpRequest object except for giving the COM ProgID directly in a call to create an object instance.
That's about it. Also add the fact that some updates to the "common controls" library and some other (ring 3) stuff was shipped with IE updates. That means that if you used an application that needed flat toolbar buttons or the improved listview, the recommended way to redistribute it was IE. This was even the case with IE6 for W2K, but it was much more important in the Win 95 and 98 era. The number of useful additions for all kinds of Windows applications introduced by the IE 5 libraries was staggering. (at least if you want UI eyecandy or simple APIs for HTTP/FTP)
Also, and this is quite important, all recent exploits I have seen have had nothing to do with running untrusted ActiveX controls. On the contrary, it's very frequently been buffer overflows. And this isn't a design issue, really, it's a matter of bugs in single lines of code. The only design issue there is the fact that it's written in C(++) by a sloppy coder.
That's what it's like on a XP machine or Vista without the desktop engine or whatever they call it now. If you have the complete compositing engine, it's all rendered by an Avalon-like system. There are still some mappings to good old HWNDs and other things to keep traditional applications happy, but it's not much of a hindrance.
2. Vista is just throwing up one Win32 window and then renders everything inside on its own. If ported to another platform, it would just render the whole thing in the native environment of that platform instead, kind of like Swing in Java.
3. If you don't know the difference between Win32 USER/GDI and MFC, I can understand what a pain it must have been to use it without seeing what was going on.
How the heck can you use qt or GTK in Win32? How can you run Swing apps on several OSes? Well, we can. It doesn't look integrated, it isn't always nice, but it gets the work done. It also simplifies porting, even if you would probably want to at least get some clue about the platform you are porting to.
Cross-platform GUI is better than no cross-platform GUI. A good developer will realize this isn't all you need to be accepted by the other platform.
Please. ActiveX as a way to embed a control in some host is perfectly fine. It's better than the Netscape plugin interface, or the level of it when MS started touting OLE controls for Internet use (along with creating the new name "ActiveX" for them). Keyboard focus, accessibility, possibly non-rectangular shapes are some examples, while the latter is quite complicated.
The problem is the idea that you ever wanted to install them automatically over the net. Ever. The idea was that you would trust some signed things, but it made it all too easy to fool the users or the framework into getting code that wasn't properly signed or signed by another entity than you first expected.
Firefox extensions, Netscape plugins and normal binary executables share the same problems, IF they are allowed in an unauthorized manner. The difference might seem fine, but it is quite important.
Show me how you install, for example, a Flash player in an existing system in a manner that doesn't share the same basic problems, i.e, you gotta trust the code. Java or some other system (.NET) based on code permissions solve it, but implementing Avalon on Java to achieve cross-platformness would be too much of a surprise, don't you think?
At some point, the Office versions for Mac relied quite heavily on their own ActiveX/COM/OLE framework. (The moment you realise that ActiveX is just OLE and that OLE(2) was just the first use of COM with IDispatch, you realize that to support VBA for Mac, the most immediate solution was to port COM in some way.)
Notice he has two parts in the statement. IF we detect life elsewhere, we can make comparisons. Life elsewhere, in itself, wouldn't be the proof, it's just a necessary condition to make observations. Many other theories on the origin and nature of early life could be strengthened or invalidated if we found it elsewhere and had more than a single sample to study. This is not unique to the theory of panspermia, although of course the outcome validating the theory would be that both samples available to us would in fact show enough similarities to indicate a common origin.
1. Win32 isn't the kernel. There are kernel-mode parts of Win32, but Win32 is not the kernel. In WinXP embedded, you can rip out Win32K and still have something that's sort of a functional system...
2. Full Avalon acceleration will only be available on Vista.
3. What the heck do you think it takes to make a consumer upgrade? A new OS that isn't compatible with anything ever released before? Oh, what a success BeOS was.
Damn. I really wish I had modpoints for you here. Yeah, maybe you're getting to hard on Firefox, but it's way, way more insightful than the parent, IMHO. (Combine the two and they're informative, that's why I think it's bad the GP was modded on the skies, but the parent wasn't.)
IE is not, I repeat, it's not kernel level. On the other hand, a change in MSTHML or WinInet will affect many other applications, as they are dynamically linked and used. Some regression problems with IE bug fixes have affected other apps like this. We still have to see the difference between kernel code and library code. Any app integrating Gecko will generally do so by installing their own copy of the engine. Then, we get back to the issue of static or dynamic linking. Both carry problems when patching issues.
As noted by others, it's a wild difference between using your own widgets to achieve something that is pretty similar to the user, and going the route of choosing your own UI logic, both in the sense of code and in the sense of "user experience".
Firefox does also use its own widgets on Windows, but the UI doesn't stand out in a bad way.
Images will generally not be embedded into XAML itself, just like it isn't in HTML, or in a Windows dialog resource (you know, the kind that's been around since Windows 2.0 or even 1.0). They just reference it. XML may get verbose, but it's not that bad.
Re:What sort of security vulnerabilities..
on
Flash, Meet Sparkle
·
· Score: 1
So the holy grail of software security is to avoid standard UI widgets, as that makes mimicking your UI easy? Wow, that's just stupid. The matter of fooling the user through similar graphics is of course a serious one, but that can be done by a simple animating GIF in an ad banner.
Of course it has access to the Windows API. How do you write something, in Windows, which DOESN'T have access to the Windows API, in one way or another?
Finally something pointing this out. However, it's still monolithic (not completely true if combined with ASP.NET, but still), so the point is more that the config can be located together with the files. On the other hand, this requires that you have properly secured a greater number of config files, if you allow it.
Without getting into the details of what the expansion of the universe really means and that there would be no point of origin of the Big Bang, we won't see it, anyway. At high enough temperatures, the photons and matter are regularly interacting. This means that light is constantly absorbed and re-emitted. Compare it to projecting an image on a metal sheet and then trying to look at the image from the other side. You will only see a heated piece of metal and all you can see is the heat energy it has absorbed from the possibly detailed projection.
This is the background radiation, a black-body signature of a high temperature that's then been red-shifted into the area of a few Kelvin. By measuring slight differences in this radiation, we can still make some statements about how quickly the universe expanded before the point of losing the "opacity", but that's about it, unless some genious runs a strange PhotoShop filter on it and reveals the face of the Intelligent Designer. (joke)
Slashdot Mirror
Just one "problem", the temperature of the sun surface is below 6504 K, while above 3300. Or, to be precise, you can't get a black body with a really even distribution, so there is no specific reason to look for 33/33/33.
Not too true. Even in a cold climate, EVEN when you use electric heating, you can get higher efficiency by a phase-change compression system for heat exchange, "pumping out heat" from the air leaving the building.
XP allows you to install it on your machine over and over again, transfer it between HDs, slipstream a service pack into your setup image. Activation is more draconic than previous Windows releases, but compared to for example dongle use, the SafeDisc protection for games or the original CSS scheme, it's kind of benign. It doesn't prevent you to install it on the machine where you want to use it. It doesn't really enforce anything other than not spreading your setup image to just about everyone, which, by incidence, is not covered by fair use for software.
Only if you use it to tunnel a UDP/TCP/IPoSW (UDP/TCP/IP over sound waves) connection...
The Jet engine has been included in Windows for I don't know how long, so I am not sure what your point is.
That depends a lot on the materials used. What makes this necessarily worse than any plastic container or a daily newspaper?
But, on the other hand, the peace prize has some special provisions for organizations. The head of an academic institution won't get the scientific prizes, no matter what the combined results from the school are.
Nah, every object in the HTML DOM and the XML interfaces are based on COM/ActiveX. The Microsoft JScript implementation makes a IDispatch object available. The only issue here is that there is no way to get to the XMLHttpRequest object except for giving the COM ProgID directly in a call to create an object instance.
Those ice caps are nothing more than disguises for mobile WMD labs. They have probably moved underground now, due to the increased surveillance.
Also, and this is quite important, all recent exploits I have seen have had nothing to do with running untrusted ActiveX controls. On the contrary, it's very frequently been buffer overflows. And this isn't a design issue, really, it's a matter of bugs in single lines of code. The only design issue there is the fact that it's written in C(++) by a sloppy coder.
That's what it's like on a XP machine or Vista without the desktop engine or whatever they call it now. If you have the complete compositing engine, it's all rendered by an Avalon-like system. There are still some mappings to good old HWNDs and other things to keep traditional applications happy, but it's not much of a hindrance.
2. Vista is just throwing up one Win32 window and then renders everything inside on its own. If ported to another platform, it would just render the whole thing in the native environment of that platform instead, kind of like Swing in Java.
3. If you don't know the difference between Win32 USER/GDI and MFC, I can understand what a pain it must have been to use it without seeing what was going on.
Cross-platform GUI is better than no cross-platform GUI. A good developer will realize this isn't all you need to be accepted by the other platform.
The problem is the idea that you ever wanted to install them automatically over the net. Ever. The idea was that you would trust some signed things, but it made it all too easy to fool the users or the framework into getting code that wasn't properly signed or signed by another entity than you first expected.
Firefox extensions, Netscape plugins and normal binary executables share the same problems, IF they are allowed in an unauthorized manner. The difference might seem fine, but it is quite important.
Show me how you install, for example, a Flash player in an existing system in a manner that doesn't share the same basic problems, i.e, you gotta trust the code. Java or some other system (.NET) based on code permissions solve it, but implementing Avalon on Java to achieve cross-platformness would be too much of a surprise, don't you think?
At some point, the Office versions for Mac relied quite heavily on their own ActiveX/COM/OLE framework. (The moment you realise that ActiveX is just OLE and that OLE(2) was just the first use of COM with IDispatch, you realize that to support VBA for Mac, the most immediate solution was to port COM in some way.)
Notice he has two parts in the statement. IF we detect life elsewhere, we can make comparisons. Life elsewhere, in itself, wouldn't be the proof, it's just a necessary condition to make observations. Many other theories on the origin and nature of early life could be strengthened or invalidated if we found it elsewhere and had more than a single sample to study. This is not unique to the theory of panspermia, although of course the outcome validating the theory would be that both samples available to us would in fact show enough similarities to indicate a common origin.
2. Full Avalon acceleration will only be available on Vista.
3. What the heck do you think it takes to make a consumer upgrade? A new OS that isn't compatible with anything ever released before? Oh, what a success BeOS was.
4. ????
5. Profit!
Damn. I really wish I had modpoints for you here. Yeah, maybe you're getting to hard on Firefox, but it's way, way more insightful than the parent, IMHO. (Combine the two and they're informative, that's why I think it's bad the GP was modded on the skies, but the parent wasn't.)
IE is not, I repeat, it's not kernel level. On the other hand, a change in MSTHML or WinInet will affect many other applications, as they are dynamically linked and used. Some regression problems with IE bug fixes have affected other apps like this. We still have to see the difference between kernel code and library code. Any app integrating Gecko will generally do so by installing their own copy of the engine. Then, we get back to the issue of static or dynamic linking. Both carry problems when patching issues.
Firefox does also use its own widgets on Windows, but the UI doesn't stand out in a bad way.
Images will generally not be embedded into XAML itself, just like it isn't in HTML, or in a Windows dialog resource (you know, the kind that's been around since Windows 2.0 or even 1.0). They just reference it. XML may get verbose, but it's not that bad.
Of course it has access to the Windows API. How do you write something, in Windows, which DOESN'T have access to the Windows API, in one way or another?
Finally something pointing this out. However, it's still monolithic (not completely true if combined with ASP.NET, but still), so the point is more that the config can be located together with the files. On the other hand, this requires that you have properly secured a greater number of config files, if you allow it.
This is the background radiation, a black-body signature of a high temperature that's then been red-shifted into the area of a few Kelvin. By measuring slight differences in this radiation, we can still make some statements about how quickly the universe expanded before the point of losing the "opacity", but that's about it, unless some genious runs a strange PhotoShop filter on it and reveals the face of the Intelligent Designer. (joke)
This is news for NERDS, stuff that MATTERS. The code license and development approach are far more important than the results.