mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search > PrimeNet > GPU to 72

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2015-09-22, 18:06   #331
chalsall
If I May
 
chalsall's Avatar
 
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados

28C816 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Heinrich View Post
I'll still need to tweak a number of things, like axis labels and so forth. But it's a start.
Looking great James!

One thing I found I had to do was make the bars relatively thin (on both axis), so you could see all of the ones behind. Also, I had the higher factored bars in front as there are often fewer of those than lower factored.
chalsall is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-09-22, 18:34   #332
alpertron
 
alpertron's Avatar
 
Aug 2002
Buenos Aires, Argentina

26468 Posts
Default

Another suggestion would be to add the bit size of the exponents at the right of the image so the meaning is more clear.

For example: for http://www.mersenne.ca/status/tf/0/0/3/0 you should write 62, 63, 64, ... at the right.
alpertron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-09-23, 05:31   #333
LaurV
Romulan Interpreter
 
LaurV's Avatar
 
"name field"
Jun 2011
Thailand

7·1,423 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chalsall View Post
Looking great James!
+1! B-e-a-utiful! We love the on/off checkboxes on the right!
Still waiting for the movies (just kidding, man, you did a wonderful job!)
LaurV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-09-23, 08:04   #334
Dubslow
Basketry That Evening!
 
Dubslow's Avatar
 
"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 -89<O<-88

3·29·83 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alpertron View Post
I think it is OK to use JavaScript, which is a Web standard and supported by all browsers. Of course if someone wants to disable JavaScript, he will not be able to see the graph, but this is a problem of the person who does not want to see Web pages as they were designed. In the same way, if you want to disable CSS, you will see Web pages incorrectly.
CSS can't (at least not that I know of) be used against the person viewing the website. JS very easily can, retina has nothing against the authors or the websites themselves, he is only in the self protection game.

Edit: The imgur zero-day exploit yesterday was an excellent example.

Last fiddled with by Dubslow on 2015-09-23 at 08:08
Dubslow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-09-23, 12:51   #335
alpertron
 
alpertron's Avatar
 
Aug 2002
Buenos Aires, Argentina

5A616 Posts
Default

It always depends on the type of Web sites you visit. In general you will not find these problems on mathematical or other "boring" (for most people) stuff. Hackers like to attack sites that are visited by most people.

I have visited Web sites for 18 years with JavaScript enabled, and I have never had any incident.
alpertron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-09-23, 17:25   #336
Madpoo
Serpentine Vermin Jar
 
Madpoo's Avatar
 
Jul 2014

52×7×19 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubslow View Post
CSS can't (at least not that I know of) be used against the person viewing the website. JS very easily can, retina has nothing against the authors or the websites themselves, he is only in the self protection game.

Edit: The imgur zero-day exploit yesterday was an excellent example.
I thought there was some exploit a while back that used some CSS maneuvering to put itself over a logon box (for example) and make it seem like you're typing in there, but it's going into an iframe.

Of course there was more to it than that, like the iframe had to be able to interact with the main site, so it really only affected certain sites that were setup poorly, but still...

I may have the details on that wrong, but I recall something like that affecting Facebook?

Okay, I admit, I skimmed the article. But I figured since CSS can position things and a poor iframe implementation could let outside code do something like interact with the parent frame, then maybe, just maybe?
Madpoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-09-24, 15:55   #337
chris2be8
 
chris2be8's Avatar
 
Sep 2009

2·33·43 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alpertron View Post
I have visited Web sites for 18 years with JavaScript enabled, and I have never had any incident.
That's any incident you know of. Security specialists tend to be slightly paranoid, which is generally considered a virtue in the field.

And avoiding "dangerous" web sites is harder than you think. At least skip any site with advertising on it (you can't rely on AdBlock+ to stop all advertising).

Chris
chris2be8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-09-24, 18:44   #338
alpertron
 
alpertron's Avatar
 
Aug 2002
Buenos Aires, Argentina

2·3·241 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris2be8 View Post
That's any incident you know of. Security specialists tend to be slightly paranoid, which is generally considered a virtue in the field.

And avoiding "dangerous" web sites is harder than you think. At least skip any site with advertising on it (you can't rely on AdBlock+ to stop all advertising).

Chris
There is no problem with ads. With time people acquire "ad blindness", so ads are automatically ignored by the brain, and you can concentrate in the Web page subject without even knowing what is the advertisement about.
alpertron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-09-24, 19:21   #339
chalsall
If I May
 
chalsall's Avatar
 
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados

243108 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alpertron View Post
There is no problem with ads.
Incorrect. Ads can come with malicious Javascript.
chalsall is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-09-24, 22:47   #340
Madpoo
Serpentine Vermin Jar
 
Madpoo's Avatar
 
Jul 2014

63758 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chalsall View Post
Incorrect. Ads can come with malicious Javascript.
And often do.

The websites I manage run ads. Some come from Google Adsense, some are direct buys, and they all get checked to make sure they're cool.

The problem comes about when an advertiser buys a placement using some benign looking stuff, and then once it's approved, they change up what they serve from their own system. The old bait and switch.

End result is someone visits our site and gets one of those bogus "you've got a virus!" things that takes over the window and can't be closed using conventional means. It's annoying, we hate it, our customers hate it, Google hates it, and they do end up getting banned for life, but these are sock puppets and show up again somewhere else.

I just got my first Chrome on Android "you've got a virus" pop-up... super annoying. I normally root my phones and install an ad-blocker, but in this case I haven't done that yet, and sure enough, the darn thing pops up and even made my phone vibrate at max intensity... super annoying.

Of course the idiot who gets these and then says "oh noes, I better click on that shiny flashy button and type in my credit card #" really only has himself to blame at that point. Worst case is when the malicious ad has zero-day stuff or redirects you somewhere that does.
Madpoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-09-25, 03:49   #341
LaurV
Romulan Interpreter
 
LaurV's Avatar
 
"name field"
Jun 2011
Thailand

26E916 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Madpoo View Post
and can't be closed using conventional means
One more reasons to love Firefox. We used to go endless roundabouts to avoid clicking on popping stuff like (when you click the red x) "this page asks you to confirm that you want to close it". One can do strange stuff with those popups, if you allow it (by clicking on it, because you don't know what you are clicking on, they can overpose pictures over the real popups)... Sometime using escape key closes the popup but you still could not close the page, because when clicking the red x, you get the popup again. With the old FF we could drag the tab on the desktop, where another instance of FF would open (move the current tab to new browser window) and we closed the other instance from the task manager, this way avoiding to close all open tabs. Since people claimed to the company and suggested patches - advantages of having an open source browser - they changed last year: now you just click once more on the red x and the bad tab, together with all malefic popups, is gone. We hate when a site asks us "are you sure you want to close me?" after we click the red x, forcing us to click an "yes" on an uncertain popup window.
LaurV is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Requests? Xyzzy Forum Feedback 104 2017-04-02 22:20
Collaboration Requests robert44444uk Prime Gap Searches 2 2017-01-17 07:57
Requests for change... WraithX FactorDB 32 2014-12-18 03:40
Manual Requests tului GPU Computing 15 2014-06-24 06:22
a few simple requests for v5 ixfd64 PrimeNet 44 2010-01-11 20:21

All times are UTC. The time now is 21:24.


Mon May 16 21:24:24 UTC 2022 up 32 days, 19:25, 1 user, load averages: 1.03, 1.35, 1.63

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.

≠ ± ∓ ÷ × · − √ ‰ ⊗ ⊕ ⊖ ⊘ ⊙ ≤ ≥ ≦ ≧ ≨ ≩ ≺ ≻ ≼ ≽ ⊏ ⊐ ⊑ ⊒ ² ³ °
∠ ∟ ° ≅ ~ ‖ ⟂ ⫛
≡ ≜ ≈ ∝ ∞ ≪ ≫ ⌊⌋ ⌈⌉ ∘ ∏ ∐ ∑ ∧ ∨ ∩ ∪ ⨀ ⊕ ⊗ 𝖕 𝖖 𝖗 ⊲ ⊳
∅ ∖ ∁ ↦ ↣ ∩ ∪ ⊆ ⊂ ⊄ ⊊ ⊇ ⊃ ⊅ ⊋ ⊖ ∈ ∉ ∋ ∌ ℕ ℤ ℚ ℝ ℂ ℵ ℶ ℷ ℸ 𝓟
¬ ∨ ∧ ⊕ → ← ⇒ ⇐ ⇔ ∀ ∃ ∄ ∴ ∵ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊨ ⫤ ⊣ … ⋯ ⋮ ⋰ ⋱
∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∯ ∰ ∇ ∆ δ ∂ ℱ ℒ ℓ
𝛢𝛼 𝛣𝛽 𝛤𝛾 𝛥𝛿 𝛦𝜀𝜖 𝛧𝜁 𝛨𝜂 𝛩𝜃𝜗 𝛪𝜄 𝛫𝜅 𝛬𝜆 𝛭𝜇 𝛮𝜈 𝛯𝜉 𝛰𝜊 𝛱𝜋 𝛲𝜌 𝛴𝜎𝜍 𝛵𝜏 𝛶𝜐 𝛷𝜙𝜑 𝛸𝜒 𝛹𝜓 𝛺𝜔