Not all crash bug can lead to remote code execution. A null dereference bug is a good example of that. No mater the context, you won't be able to do anything other than crash the software.
You can use services like VirusTotal to do a quick file check if you suspect anything. You can also check what services/program starts on boot (msconfig and services.msc). With that you can already have a good confidence level of not being infected without have an AV draining your computer performance.
The problem is that the Q&A format is a very bad to ask for list of things. A "wiki" would be a much better format to have list of things that everyone can contribute to. Q&A is also a very bad format for discussion. Traditional forum, Reddit or Quora are much better choice for discussion. It's a simple mater of using the best tools for the best job.
It occurs to me--I don't think there's any real "social site" focused on making lists. The closest things we have are social bookmarking tools--but those have a ranking algorithm that highly weights novelty, causing the front page to resemble a stream of ephemeral content mixed with periodic reposts of evergreen content.
---
How could we improve on this?
[Anyone who wants to do the following is welcome to; I've too many startups on the go already.]
Imagine something like Reddit--with each list being a "subreddit"--but:
A. there's no time-weighting in the front-page algorithm (though there is a "new" page); and
B. there are robust mechanisms in place for preventing duplicate entries from being created, and merging duplicates (along with their votes and comments) into the canonical versions.
Additionally, since the lists created will be far more static, you might want to give people greater influence over the ranking system--using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_voting_systems, for example.
I love this idea. Currently my search for, say, a new IRC client is likely to end up on Wikipedia of all places because they're the only people that have a comprehensive list of what's available. There has got to be a better way to do this.
That's an interesting idea. One of the things we are
building is a "reddit like system"[1], and so I could
see building a feature like that. Our current focus is
on enterprise usage, though, not building something for the
public web. But the code is all Open Source, ALv2 licensed and it's done in Groovy and Grails. If anyone is interested on hacking on something like that with us, just shout.
It seems like it would be hard to find additional content after the easier targets are taken up. Once people have put up lists of what they find useful, new lists or useful additions to the list wouldn't appear every day. It might be a good curated reference, but I have a hard time seeing an active community based around it. Maybe you need to expand the scope of the site idea?
> Letter grades from A - F would be a good idea. Their meaning and use has been ingrained since childhood.
In many countries A - F grading system is not commonly used. For example in the country where I was born they use 1 - 5 grading system and A - F means nothing. I think rating with stars is much more widespread and would be wiser choice for any project with global ambitions.
Yeah, but really that was kind of the idea in the beginning. It was to be this Wikipedia-like destination but it was all these subtle micro-management decisions that pushed it away from this.
On some level it is silly to put such constraints.
Here's an other solution. If you simply calculate the first digit and length for N=2, you will see that 2233445566 has a length of 19 and starts with 4, 7788990011 has a length of 20 and starts with 4 and 9988776655 has a length of 20 and starts with 8. If the first number had a length of 20 it could match, but since it has a length of 19 no mater the rest of the digits it can't be equal.
The idea is more about knowing the scale of time it takes to help compare different solution. With those number you can see that it's faster to get data in memory from a distant server than to read the same data from disk. In common application that means using disk storage is less efficient that storing it in a database on an other server, since it usually keeps almost everything in memory. It also tells a lot about why CDN are needed if you are serving client worldwide. A ping from North America to Europe will always takes 100+ ms, so having geographically distributed content is a good idea.
>In common application that means using disk storage is less efficient that storing it in a database on an other server, since it usually keeps almost everything in memory.
Depends on the usage pattern. Database servers generally have more memory than end user machines, but not proportionally more: A database serving a million users won't have a million times more memory. (This matters primarily when each user stores unique or low popularity data, otherwise the shared database has the advantage.) Moreover, data stored "on disk" on user machines will, with modern long-uptime large-memory desktops (and before long mobile devices), have a high probability of having the data cached and retrieved from memory rather than disk.
Thus, if the data is accessed a relatively short period of time after it is written (i.e. within a few hours), storing it locally on disk may be faster. (And storing it nominally on disk even though it's all cached may be preferable to storing it in strictly memory either because some minority of users have insufficient memory to store all necessary data in memory, or because the data should survive a loss of power or other program termination.)
Edit: It's also worth pointing out that latency isn't the sole performance criterion. Local disk generally has more bandwidth than network. If you're bandwidth constrained (either at either endpoint, the database or the user device), or either is getting charged by the byte for network access, that can be an important consideration.
The problem now is that if you do it entirely with WebGL, you won't have as much people who can play it. WebGL support is still far from Flash support. It's however something that will change over time.
The goal of the campaign was to purchase the Wardenclyffe property and prevent its demolition. It's a fundamental step on the road of creating the museum.
With Flash you can use the RTMFP protocol to do the exact same thing (stream audio, video and data in P2P). It's just not a very known technology.
If you really can't wait for P2P technology for browser you can check it : http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/cirrus/. As far as I know, it's the only way to do true P2P in a browser.
