Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:I still don't see what's wrong with X (Score 1) 224

by Pinhedd (#48174129) Attached to: Lead Mir Developer: 'Mir More Relevant Than Wayland In Two Years'

The compositor is the program that stitches the framebuffers for each element on the screen together into the final image. It is usually a part of, or closely related to, the window manager.

Modern drawing APIs typically work by allowing the application to ask the windowing system for a buffer (may be hardware accelerated) to which the application will perform all of its draw calls. The compositor then gathers all of the frame buffers and uses attributes to draw the final image into its own frame buffer that is then sent to the graphics adapter's swap chain. The compositor handles things like window order, overlapping, decoration, translation (movement), projection, magnification, resizing, rotation, etc...

The advantage of using a compositor is that an application need not worry about competing with other applications for screen space. Each application renders to its own buffer while remaining blissfully unaware of the existence of other applications.

Comment: Re:You are DAMN RIGHT she should be charged (Score 1) 274

by Pinhedd (#48050595) Attached to: Could Maroney Be Prosecuted For Her Own Hacked Pictures?

You're right.

About 6 years ago some girl named Amanda got her own number confused with mine (I imagine that it was pretty close) and started giving it out to all of her friends. I would constantly get text messages meant for her and no matter how many times I told them that they had the wrong number it took about a year for them to end. This was in the days before MMS became affordable and the cameras on phones became non-shit so I didn't get any pictures but I imagine that if the same thing were to happen today that may not be true.

Comment: Re:Beards and suspenders. (Score 1) 637

by Pinhedd (#47617963) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: "Real" Computer Scientists vs. Modern Curriculum?

Imagine the following:

int A[10];
int* B = 0;

Evaluating A yields the address of the first element in the array. Evaluating the address of A also yields the address of the first element in the array.

&A == (int*)&A[0]
&A == A
(int*)&A[0] == A

All three of these expressions will evaluate to true

B = A;
B = (int*)

The above three statements are all equivalent because array references behave like pointers when they are evaluated as part of an expression.

Unlike pointers, the array reference itself is not assigned memory, only the array elements are assigned memory. The array reference is used as a handle to the first element in the array and all references are resolved at compile time. A pointer can be reseated (assigned a new value), an array cannot.

B = A; is valid

A = B; is not valid

looking at this another way

int A[10]; will consume 40 bytes of memory assuming a 4 byte integer

int* B = malloc(sizeof(int) * 10); will consume 44 bytes of memory assuming 4 byte integers and 4 byte addresses

Comment: Re:Legal Precedent? (Score 1) 495

by Pinhedd (#47357851) Attached to: Microsoft Takes Down Domains

I'd be incredibly surprised if the ruling was carte blanche as you describe. All that we have to go on is one press release and a news report, not the text of the ruling itself, so it's a bit premature to rush to judgement. Many of the stipulations that you suggest were most likely conditions imposed on Microsoft as a part of the ex parte TRO. Even if they weren't required to document some things they would be very wise to do so as it is sure to be brought up at the hearing. In any case, I find it unlikely that Microsoft would want to bite the hand that feeds.

Comment: Re:Legal Precedent? (Score 2) 495

by Pinhedd (#47357449) Attached to: Microsoft Takes Down Domains

I'm sure that you're absolutely correct about that. The vast majority of no-ip's customers are using the service legitimately, I'm certain of this. However, no-ip has certain legal responsibilities as a service provider and if they don't meet them their legitimate customers may end up getting caught in the crossfire.

For the record, I'm not taking a side as I have no idea what evidence Microsoft presented to get the ruling. I'm just pointing out the legal basis for what occurred.

Comment: Re:Legal Precedent? (Score 5, Informative) 495

by Pinhedd (#47357257) Attached to: Microsoft Takes Down Domains

property used to engage in criminal activity is subject to seizure and/or forfeiture. Domains have been seized in the past due to criminal activity but this has usually accompanied a criminal complaint by a law enforcement agency.

In this case, despite what the article may imply, Microsoft hasn't seized ownership of the domains. Rather, they used an ex parte temporary restraining order to seize control of the domains so that they may neutralize the source of the maliciousness. The ex-parte aspect is why no-ip wasn't notified. Microsoft managed to convince a judge to grant the order without informing the other party (most likely to prevent no-ip from notifying the malicious users). This will be followed up by a formal hearing, and full control of the domains will be restored to no-ip eventually.

If Microsoft abuses this, judges won't be so inclined to grant such requests in the future.

Whenever a system becomes completely defined, some damn fool discovers something which either abolishes the system or expands it beyond recognition.