The method, invented by either Bruce Perens or someone before him - we are into 1993 or earlier here - and implemented by me (in 2001, under Win32) and I am sure by many others, is about placing an inaccessible page (4K) right before or after your just malloc-ed region. This way, if the user code reads or writes beyond the boundary, an exception is raised. In the case of my implementation, the "before" or "after" was a compile-time switch. In the case of Bruce Peren's Efence, it was an environment variable. Having that in mind, can anyone see any improvements in any of the claims?

Run Firefox4 and Chrome9 on your machine, and report back... :-)

I am a newbie, Javascript-wise - so if this is true, it was purely coincidental :-)

It's just plain math and a "plotpixel" function... so I'd be happy to know what to change to make it run faster in other browsers - any suggestions?

(the good thing about Javascript - the code is open-source by nature)

Verified with my SW-only Javascript 3D renderer, try it on your own here, or just look at the submitted benchark results:

On my aging PentiumD/2.8GHz:

• 13 frames per second with Firefox 3.6
• 18 frames per second with Chrome 7
• 27 frames per second with Opera 10.6
• 44 frames per second with Firefox 4.0beta

Thank you - and as for CUDA, I imagine it will take some time :-) Seriously though, WebGL will do just fine :-)

I, too, saw the speed of Firefox 4 in a pretty simple, math-only benchmark that rotated a 3D object. Run it for yourself and/or see the gathered statistics (bottom of the page). Here is the Reddit discussion where many people run it and confirmed Firefox 4 supremacy.

My naive Python simulator of gravity (200 lines) reached the same conclusion - expansion occurs. See the video and get the code from here: http://users.softlab.ntua.gr/~ttsiod/gravity.html

Which UPnP server SW did you use under your Linux?

I was clearly right, but unfortunately, someone at Slashdot closed the thread I tried to open about this, 6 months ago: http://slashdot.org/submission/1094437/Why-isnt-Google-allowing-searches-over-HTTPS

Use ZFS if you are in OpenSolaris/FreeBSD land, or use a Reed-Solomon tool - a GPL implementation of mine was Slashdotted 2 years ago, here: http://users.softlab.ntua.gr/~ttsiod/rsbep.html

Sorry mate, you're wrong. You can happily get unsecured content from any place you like, store it on your server and then serve it to anyone you please over HTTPS - from your *own* servers. This is what Google does when you click on "show me the cached content". Do you really think that the summaries written under the search results are obtained in real-time from the original servers and "woven" into your results the moment you search? No, the content IS scanned daily by Googlebots and stored in Google's machines - they are already serving the query RESULTS from their own servers, and this is what I am talking about - simply returning the RESULTS over HTTPS - whether you'll click on them and proceed over HTTP would then be your own choice. Regardless, some Slashdot moderator closed this thread - I can't for the life of me understand why, I think it's a valid question, and one many tech people would love to talk about...