Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Wait a mintue (Score 4, Informative) 234

The former. All modern browsers except Firefox have decomposed their browser into multiple processes, so that a compromise from one site will only gain control over an unprivileged (i.e. isolated from other stuff the user cares about) process. They also run plugins in separate processes and have fairly narrow communication paths between them. Firefox is still a massive monolithic process, including all add-ons, plugins, and so on.

This basically means that you just need one arbitrary code execution vulnerability in Firefox and it's game over. In contrast, if you have the same in Chrome, Edge, or Safari, then it's just the first step - you now have an environment where you can run arbitrary exploit code, but you can't make (most) system calls and you have to find another exploit to escape from the sandbox. Typical Chrome compromises are the result of chaining half a dozen vulnerabilities together.

Comment Re:This is a big bitchslap to Mozilla (Score 4, Interesting) 234

It also scales based on processor resources. They hit serious TLB scalability issues at around 17 processes (varies a bit between CPUs, in some systems - particularly mobile - you'll hit RAM limits sooner), so if you have more tabs open than this, you will start having multiple independent sites share the same renderer process.

Comment Re:tom (Score 1) 119

Typically not to end users though. Microsoft sold the BASIC that computer vendors (including Apple) burned into ROM. Microsoft QuickBASIC for DOS contained a compiler that could produce stand-alone .exe or .com binaries, though the free QBASIC that they bundled with DOS 5 and later was a cut-down version that only included the interpreter.

Comment Re:Turing Evolved (Score 2) 202

Robots don't feel those emotions, and have committed no massacres on that scale. I trust robots more than I trust humans.

Do you trust a gun? Do you trust a bomb? Of course not, because the concept is meaningless: neither will cause harm without instructions from a human. Both can magnify the amount of harm that a human can do. Autonomous weapons, of which landmines are the simplest possible case, expand both the quantity that a person can do harm and the time over which they can do it.

During the cold war, there were at least two incidents where humans refused to follow legitimate orders to launch nuclear weapons - in either case, the likely outcome of following the orders would have been the deaths of many millions. The worst atrocities of the second world war were caused by people 'just following orders'. And you think that it's a good idea to remove the part of the chain of command capable of disobeying orders.

Comment Re:Uh... let me think about it (Score 1) 539

The person in your story was relying on his ability to read a map, which sounds pretty reasonable, and his ability to read a compass (which was not such a good plan, if he didn't sanity check it with the direction of the sun). The people in TFA, however, are carrying a device that tells them their precise position in the world to within a few metres. If you're not periodically checking and saying 'hmm, I want to get from here to here and I'm nowhere between the two points' then I think that counts as a bit stupid.

Comment Re:"you don't have to be very accurate" (Score 1) 255

A nuke hitting somewhere in your country at more-or-less random is still a nuke hitting your country.

Sure, you might luck out and have it land somewhere completely uninhabited. But then again, you might not. And you still have radiation and fallout issues.

Not to mention the whole 'now we either MUST nuke them back, potentially kicking off a war with China, or admit that deterrence is a huge bluff, and watch everybody rush the tech tree to nukes.'

Comment Re:Heavy??? (Score 1) 255

In this context, think of 'a reasonably stable orbit' as 'an over-enthusiastic ballistic launch.' Or, think of a ballistic launch intended to land on a continent on the other side of the planet as 'something with a really short orbital period.' In other words, if they can get something that high, they can put it slightly less high, and have it come back down.

Comment Re:Cores Schmores (Score 1) 136

They didn't, the fastest P4 Xeon outperformed the fastest Athlons, but for any given Athlon the equivalent speed P4 was a lot more expensive. Once the Opterons came out, that changed: if you wanted the fastest x86 chip you could buy, you bought from AMD, especially in multi-socket configurations (quad-processor Opterons wiped the floor with memory-starved quad Xeons until Intel integrated the memory controller on die). Worse (for Intel), if you were willing to recompile your code you could get another 20+% out of the Opterons using the x86-64 ISA (more GPRs and cheaper PIC made a big difference, and a floating point ABI that used SSE exclusively and not x87 could give you a 100% speedup in float-heavy code, where even if the x86-32 compiler was using SSE registers for compute it was still losing performance moving them to and from the x87 register stack for function calls / returns).

Comment Re:Cores Schmores (Score 3, Informative) 136

The Thunderbird was nice, but it was more of a price/performance winner than overall performance. A 1GHz Thunderbird ran stable at 1.3GHz and was similar performance to a 2GHz Pentium 4 at a fraction of the cost (particularly as the P4 required RAMBUS DRAM, so you could stick twice as much DDR in Athlon for the same money). It wasn't until the Opteron that AMD really started winning on performance. The integrated DRAM controller was a big win and being first to 64 bits (which, on x86, means more GPRs, sane floating point ISA, and PC-relative addressing) gave them a huge advantage. Unfortunately, they haven't really been competitive since the Core 2, except in market segments where Intel intentionally cripples their offerings (e.g. no more than 2 SATA ports on the Atom Mini-ITX boards to avoid competition with the i3 boards, making AMD the only viable option).

Slashdot Top Deals

Politics: A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage. -- Ambrose Bierce

Working...