It's not that I hate life, it's just that there isn't as much excitement when you have enough experience to know the outcome of a set of action.
So, you're the all-knowing, all-seeing Diety, eh? Care to foretell, say, the 2008 US presidential election race, given the actions that have been committed to date?
Besides, what would you do once Alzheimer's set in?
Fix it, preferably before it set in.
Face it. As fast as you can do things and predict things, new things come up. I dare say that you will NEVER be able to predict everything in life, even if certain significant chunks become predictable to the point of automation. You can always find something else to do, so long as you have the resources (including time) to do so. Death is the only way to permanently lose. If your life has become boring, that is only because you have let it, for there will always be some route out of your boredom. Do you care to look, or would you rather just give up on life?
...why has the DOJ taken the extraordinary step of attempting to avoid review by the DC Circuit Court?
In order to expedite things. No matter who wins the DC Circuit Court, chances are the other side would appeal to the Supreme Court anyway. They want this over with now.
Dumb? Try desparate. Their major currency is trust. Their clients trust that they won't arbitrarily change the rules - 'cause if they did, their clients wouldn't be their clients anymore, and they'd go out of business. For clients who may already be under attack under various legal climates, and thus who can not trust the law, this is about the best that can be used...
...and might that not be the point? If you can't actually come up with an exploit, then just saying there is an exploit might cause people to doubt, and thus not use it. Which makes it less available (since some who might need privacy do not use what they do not trust), which cuts down on the numbers of all classes of users - which means less pirates. (It also means less peasant farmers asking for help when the gov't "taxes" so much of their food that they starve, less human rights observers evading the thought police, et cetera, but who cares about that?)
Honorable mention: using Microsoft products at all. (Though they do mention a few by name.)
Ok, ok, a more realistic danger: not caring about security. It's one thing to say, "yeah, we're secure," just because you don't think you've ever been hacked. It's something completely different to actually have someone look around for exploits to use against your site or products, even just at the script kiddie level that untrained people (which includes someone panic-drafted into a "make us secure" effort) can easily do.
Hear, hear. From your comments, you could as easily be working next to me...except that we don't really have "projects", but a library of code which is shared by many product and service lines. Strict separation between these would be suicide.
Oh, and there's also the minor fact - mainly for consultants - that different companies use different IDEs, and it is harder to transition out of an IDE one has learned than from command line tools. In fact, if one insists on using command line tools, one can usually get away with it no matter what environment or language one winds up working with, thus avoiding tool relearning (which cuts into personal productivity, and thus into how fast one can get raises).
As for debugging, printing checkpoint acknowledgements onto the command line or, where there is a GUI, into some reserved box on the GUI tends to work better than IDE checks - especially where one has to compile the code for use on a customer's machine and debug it on the customer's machine, in those cases where the customer's environment activated the bug.
GUI editors have another problem you did not mention. Even if one wishes to use coordinates, rather than geometry/layout, I can usually get better coordinates by measuring the coordinates and typing them in than by trying to match mouse coordinates exactly. For a number of the GUIs I have worked on, it turns out there is a mathematical model for the coordinates of widget placement. The model depends on the GUI, but the important thing is that it is there, and once it is deduced, it can be used to determine the coordinates of new widgets without having to place them and see them first. (It's still a good practice to review them visually once they're in place, if only to make sure the model doesn't need tweaking. But if the coordinates are correct, then nothing further needs to be done: what the reviewers are seeing *is* the actual GUI in implementation, not a rough sketch that then needs to be coded and compared with the model...which makes implementing GUIs significantly faster.)
It may never be possible, but I would just love it if Slashdot could get the Judge to answer questions in an "Ask the Judge anything" article. Come on, Taco, find a way to get him on.
Probably not until after his part of the trial ends, of course, lest he the interview induce something that the appeals court could use to throw out his work.
Now IBM migrating to Linux on the S/390 is just an entirely different argument. Not only are you suggesting that IBM would migrate to Linux, you're suggesting that IBM would dump its huge investment in a specifically NON-UNIX operation systems strategy.
Dump, no. The old ways are still there. But there's this other path now available for new customers, who to date are only used to PC systems like Linux and don't want to dump their investment just because their needs have grown to require a mainframe's power...
Microsoft doesn't have one mascot. It reserves the mascots for its product lines. Like the e-with-an-orbit for IE, usually done in animations as the e under the Earth (perhaps implying where they got their inspiration from?); and the stained-glass-house four boxes for Windows (which everyone throws stones through)...
I would disagree even that #1 is legitimately protectable in this case. The discussion was in regards to the entire document - among other things, enabling people to come up with an exhaustive list of defects in Microsoft's spec, so as to make sure they're not missing any details which could trip up, say, an attempted bridge between Microsoft's spec and the official Kerberos spec. (Whether or not such a list was posted, people familiar with the official spec - which almost definitely comprised a significant fraction of the audience in this case, when you consider who the hosting site is aimed at - could come up with their own list in this manner by reading the Microsoft spec.) Note the problems that programmers have run into with incomplete Microsoft documentation on other projects, where those details were termed "hidden APIs": they provided a competitive advantage to the Microsoft programmers who knew them when no one else did, which was one of the points of the antitrust trial.
Therefore, quoting the entire document counts as fair use in this context.
Sorry, but Antarctia's been "claimed" by international treaty. Science expeditions only; no permanent residents. Colonies in orbit/on the Moon/on other planets would be non-sovereign (at least for now), but there are no human agencies with a vested interest in preventing people from living there permanently.
And...some people are seriously suggesting and building habitations in the ocean. Not ocean bottom resorts, but on ships or in mega-buildings anchored near land, where people can still see the sun. Of course, those do not have the promise of minerals and low-g that moon colonies would. The question, as always, is "why would anyone want to live there?"
That said, you're probably right in that we won't have mega-cities off of Earth by mid-century. But mining colonies would be one way to start a permanent human presence.
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but we were discussing Micros~1's deviation from the kerberos protocol. Most of us did not agree that Micros~1's implementation of kerberos did not fit the standard. Therefore in the context of our discussion, it was legal under fair use principles that we analyse the code.
Agreed. Furthermore, some of the comments M$ cited stated how to get the specifications without viewing (and thus, without agreeing to) the license, therefore the specification could have been posted by someone who never agreed to M$'s EULA. (Note that the earliest post they cited about how to extract - 1:47 PM - preceded the earliest post they cited with the spec itself - 2:20 PM, both on 5/2/2000.) So the EULA can not be proven to apply to the copies of the specification posted here, either.
Well, if you had some reliable way to simulate the chips (not emulate: we want more than just functional equivalence here), then you could test out mods virtually before submitting them. Intel would, of course, have to choose which submissions it wanted to test in hardware (most likely after running their own simulations on the submissions), and it would have to have the humility to acknowledge that some submissions by non-Intel engineers could possibly be worth looking at. But with those issues acknowledged, this could work...
Incorrect. Why would you need to use such an insecure language like Java/JavaScript?
Because the suits insist on it for ease of use, totally blind to any and all security issues. Can you point me to this automatic upload JavaScript method?
Not yet, 'cause the features we're talking about don't exist yet. I'm just saying that such would be insisted upon - or, at least, a number of people would assume that such an option was available, even if they did not know how to do it themselves - which would blow a hole in public acceptance.
And of course there would have to be a JavaScript command to automatically upload said authorization without user intervention. Oh, are the pr0n and MakeMoneyFast sites sending out HTML emails with that command repeated several dozen times, which execute automatically when the email is read?
The possibility of such a scenario occuring would severely hamper the chances of any such system being used by many, to the point where Netscape might not think it worth including in their browsers...
Short form? All the problems of C for CGI scripts (re: time to deploy, not as flexible, etc.), and not really any of the benefits. Also relies on MS libraries, with any security holes they may contain.
So, if this one gets asked, we can tell whether we're getting the real answers, or the censored answers their lawyers put out on that "live chat", by analysing the way the answer is phrased? (Assuming - with some reason - that the lawyers might not be capable of phrasing things exactly as Lars would.)
Bringing it down to Earth is totally counterproductive, since in space energy is abundant ( courtesy of the sun ) and materials are scarce.
At least in the beginning, though, you'd have to finance it by selling things on Earth. Dropping rocks of varying composition is easy. Want a ton of gold? Just give us a large enough target area with nothing you want to keep, and a large enough check...
And by the way, CNET considers viewing the contents of a text file stuck in a program directory "child's play", but turning off or viewing a disk cache is "advanced" and "sophisticated".
Oh, but they know exactly what they're talking about. After all, turning off the disk cache is something that needs to be done by the parent, while viewing of the text file has to be done by the child. 9 out of 10 homes, the parent is the more clueless of the two.
I wonder if there's a market for parent filters that knowledgable children could set up, so their parents wouldn't be exposed to dangerous and factually incorrect hype?;)
Slashdot Mirror
Cheating code, made quick. Inelegant unbeauty, But it does the job.
sub haiku { # prints self
...depending on how, exactly, you pronounce the symbols.
open(FOO,"cat haiku.pl");
while > {print $_;}}
It's not that I hate life, it's just that there isn't as much excitement when you have enough experience to know the outcome of a set of action.
So, you're the all-knowing, all-seeing Diety, eh? Care to foretell, say, the 2008 US presidential election race, given the actions that have been committed to date?
Besides, what would you do once Alzheimer's set in?
Fix it, preferably before it set in.
Face it. As fast as you can do things and predict things, new things come up. I dare say that you will NEVER be able to predict everything in life, even if certain significant chunks become predictable to the point of automation. You can always find something else to do, so long as you have the resources (including time) to do so. Death is the only way to permanently lose. If your life has become boring, that is only because you have let it, for there will always be some route out of your boredom. Do you care to look, or would you rather just give up on life?
...why has the DOJ taken the extraordinary step of attempting to avoid review by the DC Circuit Court?
In order to expedite things. No matter who wins the DC Circuit Court, chances are the other side would appeal to the Supreme Court anyway. They want this over with now.
Dumb? Try desparate. Their major currency is trust. Their clients trust that they won't arbitrarily change the rules - 'cause if they did, their clients wouldn't be their clients anymore, and they'd go out of business. For clients who may already be under attack under various legal climates, and thus who can not trust the law, this is about the best that can be used...
...and might that not be the point? If you can't actually come up with an exploit, then just saying there is an exploit might cause people to doubt, and thus not use it. Which makes it less available (since some who might need privacy do not use what they do not trust), which cuts down on the numbers of all classes of users - which means less pirates. (It also means less peasant farmers asking for help when the gov't "taxes" so much of their food that they starve, less human rights observers evading the thought police, et cetera, but who cares about that?)
Honorable mention: using Microsoft products at all. (Though they do mention a few by name.)
Ok, ok, a more realistic danger: not caring about security. It's one thing to say, "yeah, we're secure," just because you don't think you've ever been hacked. It's something completely different to actually have someone look around for exploits to use against your site or products, even just at the script kiddie level that untrained people (which includes someone panic-drafted into a "make us secure" effort) can easily do.
Hear, hear. From your comments, you could as easily be working next to me...except that we don't really have "projects", but a library of code which is shared by many product and service lines. Strict separation between these would be suicide.
Oh, and there's also the minor fact - mainly for consultants - that different companies use different IDEs, and it is harder to transition out of an IDE one has learned than from command line tools. In fact, if one insists on using command line tools, one can usually get away with it no matter what environment or language one winds up working with, thus avoiding tool relearning (which cuts into personal productivity, and thus into how fast one can get raises).
As for debugging, printing checkpoint acknowledgements onto the command line or, where there is a GUI, into some reserved box on the GUI tends to work better than IDE checks - especially where one has to compile the code for use on a customer's machine and debug it on the customer's machine, in those cases where the customer's environment activated the bug.
GUI editors have another problem you did not mention. Even if one wishes to use coordinates, rather than geometry/layout, I can usually get better coordinates by measuring the coordinates and typing them in than by trying to match mouse coordinates exactly. For a number of the GUIs I have worked on, it turns out there is a mathematical model for the coordinates of widget placement. The model depends on the GUI, but the important thing is that it is there, and once it is deduced, it can be used to determine the coordinates of new widgets without having to place them and see them first. (It's still a good practice to review them visually once they're in place, if only to make sure the model doesn't need tweaking. But if the coordinates are correct, then nothing further needs to be done: what the reviewers are seeing *is* the actual GUI in implementation, not a rough sketch that then needs to be coded and compared with the model...which makes implementing GUIs significantly faster.)
It may never be possible, but I would just love it if Slashdot could get the Judge to answer questions in an "Ask the Judge anything" article. Come on, Taco, find a way to get him on.
Probably not until after his part of the trial ends, of course, lest he the interview induce something that the appeals court could use to throw out his work.
Now IBM migrating to Linux on the S/390 is just an entirely different argument. Not only are you suggesting that IBM would migrate to Linux, you're suggesting that IBM would dump its huge investment in a specifically NON-UNIX operation systems strategy.
Dump, no. The old ways are still there. But there's this other path now available for new customers, who to date are only used to PC systems like Linux and don't want to dump their investment just because their needs have grown to require a mainframe's power...
Microsoft doesn't have one mascot. It reserves the mascots for its product lines. Like the e-with-an-orbit for IE, usually done in animations as the e under the Earth (perhaps implying where they got their inspiration from?); and the stained-glass-house four boxes for Windows (which everyone throws stones through)...
a new meta-Katz category
;)
We could call it "Dawgs".
(No offense to Jon, who has undoubtedly seen stuff like this before.)
I would disagree even that #1 is legitimately protectable in this case. The discussion was in regards to the entire document - among other things, enabling people to come up with an exhaustive list of defects in Microsoft's spec, so as to make sure they're not missing any details which could trip up, say, an attempted bridge between Microsoft's spec and the official Kerberos spec. (Whether or not such a list was posted, people familiar with the official spec - which almost definitely comprised a significant fraction of the audience in this case, when you consider who the hosting site is aimed at - could come up with their own list in this manner by reading the Microsoft spec.) Note the problems that programmers have run into with incomplete Microsoft documentation on other projects, where those details were termed "hidden APIs": they provided a competitive advantage to the Microsoft programmers who knew them when no one else did, which was one of the points of the antitrust trial.
Therefore, quoting the entire document counts as fair use in this context.
Sorry, but Antarctia's been "claimed" by international treaty. Science expeditions only; no permanent residents. Colonies in orbit/on the Moon/on other planets would be non-sovereign (at least for now), but there are no human agencies with a vested interest in preventing people from living there permanently.
And...some people are seriously suggesting and building habitations in the ocean. Not ocean bottom resorts, but on ships or in mega-buildings anchored near land, where people can still see the sun. Of course, those do not have the promise of minerals and low-g that moon colonies would. The question, as always, is "why would anyone want to live there?"
That said, you're probably right in that we won't have mega-cities off of Earth by mid-century. But mining colonies would be one way to start a permanent human presence.
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but we were discussing Micros~1's deviation from the kerberos protocol. Most of us did not agree that Micros~1's implementation of kerberos did not fit the standard. Therefore in the context of our discussion, it was legal under fair use principles that we analyse the code.
Agreed. Furthermore, some of the comments M$ cited stated how to get the specifications without viewing (and thus, without agreeing to) the license, therefore the specification could have been posted by someone who never agreed to M$'s EULA. (Note that the earliest post they cited about how to extract - 1:47 PM - preceded the earliest post they cited with the spec itself - 2:20 PM, both on 5/2/2000.) So the EULA can not be proven to apply to the copies of the specification posted here, either.
Ok, ok, the CPU time and $ are a bit intense given the state of the tools right now. My point was just that it's theoretically possible...
Well, if you had some reliable way to simulate the chips (not emulate: we want more than just functional equivalence here), then you could test out mods virtually before submitting them. Intel would, of course, have to choose which submissions it wanted to test in hardware (most likely after running their own simulations on the submissions), and it would have to have the humility to acknowledge that some submissions by non-Intel engineers could possibly be worth looking at. But with those issues acknowledged, this could work...
Was that the sound of Moore's Law accelerating?
Incorrect. Why would you need to use such an insecure language like Java/JavaScript?
Because the suits insist on it for ease of use, totally blind to any and all security issues. Can you point me to this automatic upload JavaScript method?
Not yet, 'cause the features we're talking about don't exist yet. I'm just saying that such would be insisted upon - or, at least, a number of people would assume that such an option was available, even if they did not know how to do it themselves - which would blow a hole in public acceptance.
And of course there would have to be a JavaScript command to automatically upload said authorization without user intervention. Oh, are the pr0n and MakeMoneyFast sites sending out HTML emails with that command repeated several dozen times, which execute automatically when the email is read?
The possibility of such a scenario occuring would severely hamper the chances of any such system being used by many, to the point where Netscape might not think it worth including in their browsers...
Who could have guessed...
Short form? All the problems of C for CGI scripts (re: time to deploy, not as flexible, etc.), and not really any of the benefits. Also relies on MS libraries, with any security holes they may contain.
So, if this one gets asked, we can tell whether we're getting the real answers, or the censored answers their lawyers put out on that "live chat", by analysing the way the answer is phrased? (Assuming - with some reason - that the lawyers might not be capable of phrasing things exactly as Lars would.)
Nothing gets the point across faster than more money, no?
Bringing it down to Earth is totally counterproductive, since in space energy is abundant ( courtesy of the sun ) and materials are scarce.
At least in the beginning, though, you'd have to finance it by selling things on Earth. Dropping rocks of varying composition is easy. Want a ton of gold? Just give us a large enough target area with nothing you want to keep, and a large enough check...
Oh, but they know exactly what they're talking about. After all, turning off the disk cache is something that needs to be done by the parent, while viewing of the text file has to be done by the child. 9 out of 10 homes, the parent is the more clueless of the two.
I wonder if there's a market for parent filters that knowledgable children could set up, so their parents wouldn't be exposed to dangerous and factually incorrect hype? ;)