Code using the managed syntax will not compile in a standard C++ compiler, and code using the unmanaged syntax will compile to CIL that fails verification.
Nothing that can't be fixed through abuse of preprocessor macros, though.
Mod parent up. Most attacks come from the "huge attack surface" from web browser plugins these days.
I, for one, have disabled each and every Firefox add-on and unwanted plugin, and use Windows Vista/7's integrity levels to run the browser in Low Integrity. That way, the worse it can do is trash its profile directory and one designated download directory, both of which are easily wiped and re-created fresh.
The same could be said about any library or OS service Firefox uses [...]
True, but vulnerabilities are found much more often in high-level, complex services such as DirectShow, MSHTML or the JScript engine, than, say, basic stuff like the C Runtime Library.
So next time there is some remote code execution vulnerability in DirectShow and/or its codecs, you want Firefox users to be affected too?
Face it, with the amount of "plugins" installed by default in Firefox these days in the back of the user (Acrobat, Silverlight, WPF, Windows Media Player, etc.), Firefox has become as much vulnerable as Internet Explorer, if not more because of its lack of usage of Vista's integrity levels.
Also, I hope they will keep the tabs on the bottom, and not clutter the titlebar with it. It's the window manager's job to draw the window border and decoration, definitely not the application's.
It seems "themes" or "branding" is the new fad these days. Is it so hard to just leave the window frame's look to be managed by the window manager, as it should?
I like my apps to look consistent. In fact, I usually take matters in my own hands when they insist on not doing it.
Without hormones, the "machine you" would feel no need to watch porn.
Same goes for any "survival instinct" you might have, of which "love" is a derivate. So at most, watching your grandchildren would be a pointless bore.
Slashdot Mirror
[...] Given that Windows 8 demonstrably can execute even in 128MB RAM [...]
And by that you mean in 128MB RAM with 1GB of swap, which is not the same at all.
It has to be decrypted to be displayed. There is always a way to tap into that. DRM fails again.
Developpers needs to stop using int's when unsigned int's would have done the job.
Then all those "oh god, we did not anticipate a negative number here!" bugs would be fixed already.
What other libavcodec-based player would you suggest then?
I believe you could before XP Service Pack 2 (which kinda reinforced security).
Code using the managed syntax will not compile in a standard C++ compiler, and code using the unmanaged syntax will compile to CIL that fails verification.
Nothing that can't be fixed through abuse of preprocessor macros, though.
Damn. I really should have read TFA before posting.
That application will not pass the approval process because it downloads stuff and runs it... quite against the requirements for apps, if I recall.
The problem with old programs are all the unpatched security holes.
I might not want the new and shinier version, but I sure do want to use a version that's still being updated when the next 0-day comes.
But then, crappy programmers misuse them, not knowing about what is done behind their back, and it becomes slow and bloated code.
Having to specify everything explicitely makes you aware of the complexity/memory usage of what you are doing.
As one commenter put it earlier, lots of websites scrape Usenet posts where it ends up on the web, making it "become a linkfarm" as the guy put it.
That would be my guess as why...
Mod parent up. Most attacks come from the "huge attack surface" from web browser plugins these days.
I, for one, have disabled each and every Firefox add-on and unwanted plugin, and use Windows Vista/7's integrity levels to run the browser in Low Integrity. That way, the worse it can do is trash its profile directory and one designated download directory, both of which are easily wiped and re-created fresh.
The same could be said about any library or OS service Firefox uses [...]
True, but vulnerabilities are found much more often in high-level, complex services such as DirectShow, MSHTML or the JScript engine, than, say, basic stuff like the C Runtime Library.
[...] Just delegate it to the OS [...]
So next time there is some remote code execution vulnerability in DirectShow and/or its codecs, you want Firefox users to be affected too?
Face it, with the amount of "plugins" installed by default in Firefox these days in the back of the user (Acrobat, Silverlight, WPF, Windows Media Player, etc.), Firefox has become as much vulnerable as Internet Explorer, if not more because of its lack of usage of Vista's integrity levels.
Let's not add another nail to its coffin.
That would explain what I thought was poor image quality (yellow/blue jaggies around stuff) in that particular episode.
Back then I just thought it was a bad quality rip.
[...] can't they steal that idea from Apple so it would be basically "regutil --remove HKLM_Software_Mozilla_Firefox_Extensions .net"?
Isn't this exactly what reg.exe does already?
This can already be done.
Also, I hope they will keep the tabs on the bottom, and not clutter the titlebar with it. It's the window manager's job to draw the window border and decoration, definitely not the application's.
It seems "themes" or "branding" is the new fad these days. Is it so hard to just leave the window frame's look to be managed by the window manager, as it should?
I like my apps to look consistent. In fact, I usually take matters in my own hands when they insist on not doing it.
Folder windows certainly don't have their full path in the title bar by default.
I, for one, welcome our new hair-eating plant overlords.
Now I just can't wait for my TV to be owned by Flash exploits.
In other news, all Sun software will now start using 2GB of memory and being insanely slow.
Oh, wait...
From my experience, when filling forms that use carbon paper, there's no carbon under the signature area so you have to sign all copies separately.
I'd assume a carbon-copied signature would not be considered binding at all, and would be also be dead easy to spot.
You stupid hippie. Don't you realize that "rights" are just a mere social contract and nothing else?
They are not intrisic, and what we have created, we can destroy if we want to. That includes synthetic brains.
Without hormones, the "machine you" would feel no need to watch porn.
Same goes for any "survival instinct" you might have, of which "love" is a derivate. So at most, watching your grandchildren would be a pointless bore.