I've been chasing cats with lasers for years now! If I'd known I could have made money off it.... I mean I'm sure I could con some kids into paying $5 a pop to play with the cat using a laser, but that's a con! Now getting a patent. ON THAT!? Wow. I could sue everyone who ever bought a laser, and be rich....
I'm just guessing, but those of you who slept through the class, and STILL didn't do drugs were taught by mommy and daddy not to do drugs right? Starting to see the light? (sarcastic, but serious) In case not, let me spell it out. I-t-'s t-h-e p-a-r-e-n-t-'s j-o-b t-o t-e-a-c-h t-h-i-s!
amazing. now if only the rest of society would figure this out, and take responsibility for that biological spill they created by having unprotected sex...
uh... "cannot vote simply because they are not old enough"... there's a good reason for that, which causes it not to be so trivial as your "simply" suggests. Children cannot make rational, informed decisions about how to run a country. If for no other reason, then simply because they haven't lived long enough to have enough experience to possess that kind of wisdom. For that matter, I wonder if 18 is old enough to vote. (I'm 22, so no, this isn't one of those "kids these days...." posts). I certianly don't have the undertanding and wisdom to know the right choices to make, and I doubt if very many people out there do.
Ever read the Bible? It _sort of_ supports socialism. More to the point, that Everyone share all that they own, so that no one lacks anything.
Acts 4:32-35 says of the Christians in jerusalem, that no one said anything they owned was theirs, but instead, sold everyhing and brought the money to the apostles' feet. The apostles then gave it all out again to anyone who had need.
read it for yourself, including God's response to capitalist greed in the next chapter.
Being that I'm only 22, I can speak with a similar amount of authority here.
It depends on how you raise your kids, as to wether they will do things behind your back or not. I personally did many things behind my parent's back, but I know of a few "good eggs" from my youth, that seldom stepped out of line, parents around or no. They understood the trust issues involved in their parents choosing to let the kids out of their sight. Great people those kids are now, and I'm glad I know them.
However, even with kids that are just unruly (ie the strong-willed, non-compliant, my way or no way ones (me, for example)), there are things that can be done. Primarily, community involvement. That's how my parents knew what I was getting into most of the time.
They would frequently get to know my friend's parents, and communicate with them, so that they could keep an eye on me, even when they weren't there. They even told my friends' parents what kind of medical conditions I had (allergies mostly), what I was allowed to watch, when I had to go to bed (no one enforced bedtime, but they were told), etc.
Some would call this spying, but I don't. I call it getting involved in a kid's life. It takes a community to raise a child right, and my parents knew it.
I played violent video games, and watched R rated movies, lots. -Even though my parents objected (call it rebellion). But just think of how much worse it could have been, had mom and dad not been watching over my back all those years. And now? I make my own rules, live my own way, but guess what. My rules are amazingly similar to the ones mom and dad tried to raise me with.
Ever seen a two year old not cry when you rapidly remove the knife from his/her hand?
Fact is, the kid WANTS to play with the knife. if it didn't, it wouldn't have picked it up. so if you take it away, the kid's gonna let you know it didn't appreciate it-by crying.
Let underage kids play with violent video games. Let two year olds play with knives. See the point? You are told "no", because:
a. You will get hurt.
b. You don't even know you will get hurt.
c. The elders who make these decisions have been hurt enough by knives (or whatever, GENERALIZE) to know you will get hurt.
so they say "NO!" and don't ask your permission. If they did, the two year old would say yes to playing with a knife, and the 16 year old would say yes to playing violent video games.
"Well then, explain the situation, and THEN let us decide" you say? try explaining to a two year old that a knife will hurt it.
Because too often, parents WON'T decide. Most of the people I grew up with, did pretty much whatever they wanted to do in their formative years. Why? sometimes (most of the time..) they were from single parent homes, where the mo/fa -ther didn't have time to figure out what the kids were doing. Sometimes the parents simply didn't care, and other parents were too wrapped up in themselves to find out.
To provide an ever useful (not) anecdote, in high school, I friend of mine used to have sex regularly in his own bed room. His parents would've shot him if they had known, but they never cared enough to find out what their son was in to.
I concur that the government shouldn't have govern our children like that-parents should. But if parents (in my expereince, this is mostly true) don't govern their children, SOMEONE has to take responsibility.
But perhaps it would be better to pass more laws that force parents to take responsibility... 'course that won't work, because then parents (aka voters) would have to take responsibility for solving the problem theirselves, rather than shove it over on the "evil" game makers who are merely giving the market what it wants...
Perhaps you've never seen a company that doesn't hire people with 4.0 GPA's, because they "have too much book smarts, and not enough life experience"? I've seen BANKS that do this! guess what, they won't be handling MY money... If you don't call that idiotic hiring practices spawned by idiotic managers, perhaps you should re-consider what idiotic means..
Here Here! Good job sir (or madam as the case my be)! Only let me say, that this is the approach I take with my religious studies. In short, I follow 2 axioms: 1. If the Bible (or any religious text) is true, then the historical record (meaning historical documents, artifacts, geology, archaeology, etc) must bear witness to that fact. 2.In general, Scientists have little reason to lie about their findings (none the less, I try to stick with data that has much corroboration). To date, I cannot say that I have found any area in which the Bible and the 'historical record of the earth' (ie science) contadict. -But let me qualify that in saying that I have never studied (nor really had the interest in studying (I'm a programmer, not a biologist, and for good reason))evolution in depth, so I still do not know if it and the Bible agree or no.
Further, I will say that I do believe the Bible to be the unerring word of God (I'm willing to be proven wrong on that point). Thus I see three possibilities for any apparent contradictions I find with the Bible and science: 1. I have my theology wrong (I'm only human) 2. Scientists have misinterpereted their data (they're only human) 3. I'm utterly wrong about God. I do not take any preference in these three, although the first two must be checked before the third.
WOW! first intelligent question I've seen since I started all this. and the answer is: I don't know. Never considered it. Thanks. Now I get to go think for a while.
You're Cool. Left yourself so wide open, I had to think twice about this... (checking Asbestos undies)
First, The reason the religious is explanation has been ditched is not that it can be proven wrong. Instead, the scientific community has refused to believe that anything could happen as a result of miraculous interpositon, and therefore do not consider God (whom they have not ruled out) as a possibility. Let me put that more simply. Science is supposed to look at the facts, consider all the possible explanations, and choose the one that best fits -only these days, we consider every possibility EXCEPT the divine.
"Error: variable 'god' not found"? perhaps he's hiding? I'll merely refer you to the Principle of Sufficient Reason.
"Do you? How can you know if I'm right or wrong? You're caught in your own epistimolgical nihilism. "
No I don't know all things, but I know more than most. Aristotle said that the beginning of Knowledge is to know that you know nothing. This I know. And who cares if you're right, you don't know everything. That I know, because if you did, you'd be God, meaning you contradicted yourself in saying that "variable god not found".
"Wow! So is mass slaughter, infanticide, rape, cruelty to animals, etc"
Apparently, you've never read the Bible. So shut up and go read it, before you criticize what you know nothing about.
Just for reference, the PSR says that every question must be answered, before an explanation can be considered acceptable. IE Where did the universe come from? Why are we here (what caused everythign to be)? Keep asking yourself questions like that, and you'll find that somewhere there had to be a first cause, and creator. Evolution or no, Christianity or no.
Ok, so normally, I'm not one to do this, but my Asbestos underwear is feeling particularly safe today.
First, As has been said, Evolution is simple theory; ie, it is the best explanation, to fit the facts we have. Does that mean its wrong? no. Does that mean its right? no. That simply means that it is science's best guess, at the moment. That being the case, it should be taught as theory, and nothing more. As someone else around here said, let people think for themselves.
Second, are you God? Do you know all things? Can YOU satisfy the Principle of Sufficient Reason (if you don't know what that is, then shut up before you make a fool out of yourself)? If you can answer yes to any of these questions, then I'll believe that religious people are "hoaxters"-but then if you can answer yes to the first question, then please accept my worship. To the second question, either you already make yourself a fool in your arrogance, or you are God (worshipping again).And if you can affirm the third, then you are still God-obviously you are not, for to be so, would mean you contradict yourself.
Third, Since you are not God, how can you know for any certianty that religion and creation science are purely fantasy? Granted, there is much error in creation science, both scientifically, and theologically (I don't put much stock in it personally -however, I don't fully doubt evolution either)
Now try some reasoning for a moment:
1. No one was there when the beginning happend
2. We only have scarce clues, on which to guess at what happened
3. The Principle of Sufficient reason must be answered
4. It is impossible to prove that God does not exist (Reference point 3)
Therefore, We don't really know what happened, but we know something happened. We know that something had to start it all (even if infinite regression of causality-Liebniz anyone?). So we can only Guess-But The PSR at least hints at something greater than we know-Big bang does too (which by the way is fully supported by the Bible0
Ok, flame away, I'm ready. -oh! Your parents, were they ever religious?
OK so you opened my eyes a bit to a few things. I never really thought about the use of the word "free" in RMS's propaganda, in quite the light he cast upon it. I liked that. Nor had I ever really considered what free really meant (ie Govn't funded, Sponsored, etc). I liked that too.
In fact, I find that I must respond to the article by reforming many views and opinions that I had previously held (I STILL HATE MICROSOFT!!! -though even there I must acknowledge credit...). I also find that some of my own questions about what to do with software I develop will be easier to answer now.
But GEESH! Dude, get offa that soap box! You're starting to sound like a Fundamentalist! ok, there's my rant. Now I critique.
First, Condescending is old hat. Went out of style with Sceptres and phrases like "Your Highness". Second, you commit a serious faux pas by discrediting ESR's views on software by attacking his person. I mean really! gun control and software only belong in the same sentence on the Enterprise (the only software controlling my Smith & Wesson is the padding in my trigger finger). Third, if you're gonna cite stuff, document it okay? You did a good job, mostly, except for when you attacked RMS's personality with the dinner incident (that same faux pas again). And finally, at least try to LOOK objective, when you're attempting to critique an opposing point of view. You criticized RMS for his strong criticism, but in so doing, you repeated his error. Remember grasshopper! one catches more flies with honey than with vinegar.
I just had to comment. I think you are right on target here. The whole online craze is (pardon the pun) insane. I mean when is the last time something substantial came along, that made the internet more enjoyable than real life?
Sure sure, mp3, Linux, Slashdot (well...), etc. But when was there something on the internet that made it REALLY great? All the time, I see companies doing partnering with this online, hyped up product, or developing that hyped up prodcut, but all in all, its just hype- just to make them look like they are "embracing the future". But its all noise to me.
When I go to a website, I go looking for information, not pretty pictures, flashy java scripts, and loud, highly contrasting colors (been to computershopper.com lately?). In fact, Slashdot is the most complex page I normally visit. Most of the stuff I look at is plain text ( ie digested information, hold the fluff).
I know all that stuff is great, but does it convey the information any better? does it make things easier to look at? does it help me find what I'm looking for? If not, then throw it away, and give me plain old text; in fact, just give me a book, and go away, so I can concentrate on pure data, without distraction (or Java, or shockwave...).
Lets get back to basics here. If it doesn't improve things (read make more enjoyable/easier to use), then chuck it. Serve me data, with a good interface on the side-oh, and hold the hype!
Tape worm. noun 1. The 10GB storage unit that canbe invisibly stuck to anything. 2. Nasty parasite that invades small children, and lives in their intestines, eating the child's food before it can fully digest it.
HA! I should download it, so they will have to block Eastern Kentucky University.... That'd make them a real winner! blocking a college.. And think they can find me? doubt it. All the world sees is the ip of my firewall....
Ok so I'm not any sort of Linux god, but I eat X86 assembly for breakfast. Hence, I have spent countless hours reverse engineering viruses, as well as removing them from M$ boxes by hand, as well as writing them. I even collect them (don't even ask. If you want one, go catch it yourself!). So here's the deal. Viruses are at best very dificult on Linux, and certianly so complicated as to be too big to survive long as a virus.
But lets talk about the technical side. Viruses replicate by attaching itself to other files. In Linux, that cannot happen (at least, its difficult to do). First, Linux uses very nice file protection, so that J RAndom User cant modify/bin, and neither can any of his processes. Second, a virus, if it gets executed, will exist only inside on the process of the program it is attached to, meaning, first, that its difficult to modify other processes (ever wonder why when Linux programs crash, the system is unaffected). Second, that it is restricted to the same privledges as the process it is in (ie the privledges of the user at execution time), so it cannot write to any files the user does not have access to (sure, some idiot could get infected running as root, but that's no epidemic..). So viruses cant spread through the system.
That being said, it is possible that the virus could wait on the user to for example su to root, but given the permissions of the process it is in, I don't think it'd have much luck anyway, outside sniffing the passwd to root. Also, there is the possibility of exploits, but as it has been repeatitively said, those get closed FAST.
So can viruses get into a system? yes, can it get far? no. even it if infects everything in a user's permission domain, the system is still functional (yes, some idiots.. but I'm not worried about them, they'll likely break their system faster than the virus anyway).-Just delete the infected stuff from their permisson domain, slap them on the wrist, and go administrate on some other task.
If you don't get it yet, chew on this. I've considered experimenting with a Linux virus, just to see what one would look like, but I trashed the idea. Why? not that Linux viruses cant be written, that's easy. But because the barriers it would have to break in order to spread are too difficult to do in 5K of code (optimal size for a really nasty virus).
Once again, I know that there are stupid people out there running Linux, who haven't a clue how to keep it secure (I admit, I'm not so contientous myself), but that's not a matter of AV software, or anything so foolish, that's a matter of educating them about security. -And in any case, there's no worry for virus attacks on an epidemic scale.
note: All viruses I have worked on are EXPERIMENTAL ONLY. I worked on an isolated machine, so I could learn more about them. So don't go telling others I spread viruses.
heh. don't know about you, but I LIKE the idea of erring on the side of caution. Better it tell me the sys is 10 deg hotter than it really is, than to tell me its 10 deg cooler....
Oi! I think that's a little TOO far. I mean really, with a program like that, our future games will be totally addicting, and appeal to every sense we have (except that common one). -and be so bloated with bad code, it will make M$ complain. Forget it. Teach me algorithms! Teach me Assembly optimizations! teach me how to run the machine with my bare hands (we don't need no steenkin OS). Then I will posess the knowledge to pick up game programming, and make it blindingly fast. Besides that, what else will these kids be able to do? "I'd like to work for your company as a DB manager, and I think my Quake skills give me just the edge you need to blow your competition into huge blood soaked chunks of dead flesh..." uh, no.
Sorry, I did not make myself clear enough. The point is that if by some means (such as those mentioned in my previous post), the compiler learns bad optimization techniques, then it is possible, and even lileky that its optimizations will notn work. Instead, when the compiler tries to optimize code, it will generate binary code that is actually slower/bigger, buggy (code that does not handle every possible input, for example), or even just plain wrong.
If that occured, then debugging would be even more difficult than it already is. We would no longer have to worry about errors in our own code, but errors in the compiler's output. We would have to decompile/reverse engineer our programs before we could ever know the source of the error- and even at that, disassembling would prove difficult, because we would have to figure out how the compiler mangled our code, instead of knowing what to expect, based on what we initially wrote.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been chasing cats with lasers for years now! If I'd known I could have made money off it.... I mean I'm sure I could con some kids into paying $5 a pop to play with the cat using a laser, but that's a con! Now getting a patent. ON THAT!? Wow. I could sue everyone who ever bought a laser, and be rich....
5. Computer Programs and Other Digital Works for Purposes of Reverse Engineering
Does that mean its illegal to use gdb? how 'bout Borland Turbo Debugger?
what about developing them? they ARE after all, tools that allow circumvention of both copy control and access control...
I'm just guessing, but those of you who slept through the class, and STILL didn't do drugs were taught by mommy and daddy not to do drugs right? Starting to see the light? (sarcastic, but serious) In case not, let me spell it out. I-t-'s t-h-e p-a-r-e-n-t-'s j-o-b t-o t-e-a-c-h t-h-i-s!
amazing. now if only the rest of society would figure this out, and take responsibility for that biological spill they created by having unprotected sex...
uh... "cannot vote simply because they are not old enough"... there's a good reason for that, which causes it not to be so trivial as your "simply" suggests. Children cannot make rational, informed decisions about how to run a country. If for no other reason, then simply because they haven't lived long enough to have enough experience to possess that kind of wisdom. For that matter, I wonder if 18 is old enough to vote. (I'm 22, so no, this isn't one of those "kids these days...." posts). I certianly don't have the undertanding and wisdom to know the right choices to make, and I doubt if very many people out there do.
Ever read the Bible? It _sort of_ supports socialism. More to the point, that Everyone share all that they own, so that no one lacks anything.
Acts 4:32-35 says of the Christians in jerusalem, that no one said anything they owned was theirs, but instead, sold everyhing and brought the money to the apostles' feet. The apostles then gave it all out again to anyone who had need.
read it for yourself, including God's response to capitalist greed in the next chapter.
Being that I'm only 22, I can speak with a similar amount of authority here.
It depends on how you raise your kids, as to wether they will do things behind your back or not. I personally did many things behind my parent's back, but I know of a few "good eggs" from my youth, that seldom stepped out of line, parents around or no. They understood the trust issues involved in their parents choosing to let the kids out of their sight. Great people those kids are now, and I'm glad I know them.
However, even with kids that are just unruly (ie the strong-willed, non-compliant, my way or no way ones (me, for example)), there are things that can be done. Primarily, community involvement. That's how my parents knew what I was getting into most of the time.
They would frequently get to know my friend's parents, and communicate with them, so that they could keep an eye on me, even when they weren't there. They even told my friends' parents what kind of medical conditions I had (allergies mostly), what I was allowed to watch, when I had to go to bed (no one enforced bedtime, but they were told), etc.
Some would call this spying, but I don't. I call it getting involved in a kid's life. It takes a community to raise a child right, and my parents knew it.
I played violent video games, and watched R rated movies, lots. -Even though my parents objected (call it rebellion). But just think of how much worse it could have been, had mom and dad not been watching over my back all those years. And now? I make my own rules, live my own way, but guess what. My rules are amazingly similar to the ones mom and dad tried to raise me with.
Ever seen a two year old not cry when you rapidly remove the knife from his/her hand?
Fact is, the kid WANTS to play with the knife. if it didn't, it wouldn't have picked it up. so if you take it away, the kid's gonna let you know it didn't appreciate it-by crying.
Let underage kids play with violent video games. Let two year olds play with knives. See the point? You are told "no", because:
a. You will get hurt.
b. You don't even know you will get hurt.
c. The elders who make these decisions have been hurt enough by knives (or whatever, GENERALIZE) to know you will get hurt.
so they say "NO!" and don't ask your permission. If they did, the two year old would say yes to playing with a knife, and the 16 year old would say yes to playing violent video games.
"Well then, explain the situation, and THEN let us decide" you say? try explaining to a two year old that a knife will hurt it.
Because too often, parents WON'T decide. Most of the people I grew up with, did pretty much whatever they wanted to do in their formative years. Why? sometimes (most of the time..) they were from single parent homes, where the mo/fa -ther didn't have time to figure out what the kids were doing. Sometimes the parents simply didn't care, and other parents were too wrapped up in themselves to find out.
To provide an ever useful (not) anecdote, in high school, I friend of mine used to have sex regularly in his own bed room. His parents would've shot him if they had known, but they never cared enough to find out what their son was in to.
I concur that the government shouldn't have govern our children like that-parents should. But if parents (in my expereince, this is mostly true) don't govern their children, SOMEONE has to take responsibility.
But perhaps it would be better to pass more laws that force parents to take responsibility... 'course that won't work, because then parents (aka voters) would have to take responsibility for solving the problem theirselves, rather than shove it over on the "evil" game makers who are merely giving the market what it wants...
Correct you are sir! (or Madam...) I'm glad to see that SOMEONE around here can read between the lines!
Perhaps you've never seen a company that doesn't hire people with 4.0 GPA's, because they "have too much book smarts, and not enough life experience"? I've seen BANKS that do this! guess what, they won't be handling MY money... If you don't call that idiotic hiring practices spawned by idiotic managers, perhaps you should re-consider what idiotic means..
Here Here! Good job sir (or madam as the case my be)! Only let me say, that this is the approach I take with my religious studies. In short, I follow 2 axioms: 1. If the Bible (or any religious text) is true, then the historical record (meaning historical documents, artifacts, geology, archaeology, etc) must bear witness to that fact. 2.In general, Scientists have little reason to lie about their findings (none the less, I try to stick with data that has much corroboration). To date, I cannot say that I have found any area in which the Bible and the 'historical record of the earth' (ie science) contadict. -But let me qualify that in saying that I have never studied (nor really had the interest in studying (I'm a programmer, not a biologist, and for good reason))evolution in depth, so I still do not know if it and the Bible agree or no.
Further, I will say that I do believe the Bible to be the unerring word of God (I'm willing to be proven wrong on that point). Thus I see three possibilities for any apparent contradictions I find with the Bible and science: 1. I have my theology wrong (I'm only human) 2. Scientists have misinterpereted their data (they're only human) 3. I'm utterly wrong about God. I do not take any preference in these three, although the first two must be checked before the third.
WOW! first intelligent question I've seen since I started all this. and the answer is: I don't know. Never considered it. Thanks. Now I get to go think for a while.
You're Cool. Left yourself so wide open, I had to think twice about this... (checking Asbestos undies)
First, The reason the religious is explanation has been ditched is not that it can be proven wrong. Instead, the scientific community has refused to believe that anything could happen as a result of miraculous interpositon, and therefore do not consider God (whom they have not ruled out) as a possibility. Let me put that more simply. Science is supposed to look at the facts, consider all the possible explanations, and choose the one that best fits -only these days, we consider every possibility EXCEPT the divine.
"Error: variable 'god' not found"? perhaps he's hiding? I'll merely refer you to the Principle of Sufficient Reason.
"Do you? How can you know if I'm right or wrong? You're caught in your own epistimolgical nihilism. "
No I don't know all things, but I know more than most. Aristotle said that the beginning of Knowledge is to know that you know nothing. This I know. And who cares if you're right, you don't know everything. That I know, because if you did, you'd be God, meaning you contradicted yourself in saying that "variable god not found".
"Wow! So is mass slaughter, infanticide, rape, cruelty to animals, etc"
Apparently, you've never read the Bible. So shut up and go read it, before you criticize what you know nothing about.
Just for reference, the PSR says that every question must be answered, before an explanation can be considered acceptable. IE Where did the universe come from? Why are we here (what caused everythign to be)? Keep asking yourself questions like that, and you'll find that somewhere there had to be a first cause, and creator. Evolution or no, Christianity or no.
Ok, so normally, I'm not one to do this, but my Asbestos underwear is feeling particularly safe today.
First, As has been said, Evolution is simple theory; ie, it is the best explanation, to fit the facts we have. Does that mean its wrong? no. Does that mean its right? no. That simply means that it is science's best guess, at the moment. That being the case, it should be taught as theory, and nothing more. As someone else around here said, let people think for themselves.
Second, are you God? Do you know all things? Can YOU satisfy the Principle of Sufficient Reason (if you don't know what that is, then shut up before you make a fool out of yourself)? If you can answer yes to any of these questions, then I'll believe that religious people are "hoaxters"-but then if you can answer yes to the first question, then please accept my worship. To the second question, either you already make yourself a fool in your arrogance, or you are God (worshipping again).And if you can affirm the third, then you are still God-obviously you are not, for to be so, would mean you contradict yourself.
Third, Since you are not God, how can you know for any certianty that religion and creation science are purely fantasy? Granted, there is much error in creation science, both scientifically, and theologically (I don't put much stock in it personally -however, I don't fully doubt evolution either)
Now try some reasoning for a moment:
1. No one was there when the beginning happend
2. We only have scarce clues, on which to guess at what happened
3. The Principle of Sufficient reason must be answered
4. It is impossible to prove that God does not exist (Reference point 3)
Therefore, We don't really know what happened, but we know something happened. We know that something had to start it all (even if infinite regression of causality-Liebniz anyone?). So we can only Guess-But The PSR at least hints at something greater than we know-Big bang does too (which by the way is fully supported by the Bible0
Ok, flame away, I'm ready. -oh! Your parents, were they ever religious?
[This space unintentionally left blank]
OK so you opened my eyes a bit to a few things. I never really thought about the use of the word "free" in RMS's propaganda, in quite the light he cast upon it. I liked that. Nor had I ever really considered what free really meant (ie Govn't funded, Sponsored, etc). I liked that too.
In fact, I find that I must respond to the article by reforming many views and opinions that I had previously held (I STILL HATE MICROSOFT!!! -though even there I must acknowledge credit...). I also find that some of my own questions about what to do with software I develop will be easier to answer now.
But GEESH! Dude, get offa that soap box! You're starting to sound like a Fundamentalist! ok, there's my rant. Now I critique.
First, Condescending is old hat. Went out of style with Sceptres and phrases like "Your Highness". Second, you commit a serious faux pas by discrediting ESR's views on software by attacking his person. I mean really! gun control and software only belong in the same sentence on the Enterprise (the only software controlling my Smith & Wesson is the padding in my trigger finger). Third, if you're gonna cite stuff, document it okay? You did a good job, mostly, except for when you attacked RMS's personality with the dinner incident (that same faux pas again).
And finally, at least try to LOOK objective, when you're attempting to critique an opposing point of view. You criticized RMS for his strong criticism, but in so doing, you repeated his error. Remember grasshopper! one catches more flies with honey than with vinegar.
What are you talking about, Micro$haft IS the main stream... ;-)
2 Kilometers is not 10 miles, its less than 2 miles....
I just had to comment. I think you are right on target here. The whole online craze is (pardon the pun) insane. I mean when is the last time something substantial came along, that made the internet more enjoyable than real life?
Sure sure, mp3, Linux, Slashdot (well...), etc. But when was there something on the internet that made it REALLY great? All the time, I see companies doing partnering with this online, hyped up product, or developing that hyped up prodcut, but all in all, its just hype- just to make them look like they are "embracing the future". But its all noise to me.
When I go to a website, I go looking for information, not pretty pictures, flashy java scripts, and loud, highly contrasting colors (been to computershopper.com lately?). In fact, Slashdot is the most complex page I normally visit. Most of the stuff I look at is plain text ( ie digested information, hold the fluff).
I know all that stuff is great, but does it convey the information any better? does it make things easier to look at? does it help me find what I'm looking for? If not, then throw it away, and give me plain old text; in fact, just give me a book, and go away, so I can concentrate on pure data, without distraction (or Java, or shockwave...).
Lets get back to basics here. If it doesn't improve things (read make more enjoyable/easier to use), then chuck it. Serve me data, with a good interface on the side-oh, and hold the hype!
Tape worm. noun 1. The 10GB storage unit that canbe invisibly stuck to anything. 2. Nasty parasite that invades small children, and lives in their intestines, eating the child's food before it can fully digest it.
HA! I should download it, so they will have to block Eastern Kentucky University.... That'd make them a real winner! blocking a college.. And think they can find me? doubt it. All the world sees is the ip of my firewall....
Ok so I'm not any sort of Linux god, but I eat X86 assembly for breakfast. Hence, I have spent countless hours reverse engineering viruses, as well as removing them from M$ boxes by hand, as well as writing them. I even collect them (don't even ask. If you want one, go catch it yourself!). So here's the deal. Viruses are at best very dificult on Linux, and certianly so complicated as to be too big to survive long as a virus.
/bin, and neither can any of his processes. Second, a virus, if it gets executed, will exist only inside on the process of the program it is attached to, meaning, first, that its difficult to modify other processes (ever wonder why when Linux programs crash, the system is unaffected). Second, that it is restricted to the same privledges as the process it is in (ie the privledges of the user at execution time), so it cannot write to any files the user does not have access to (sure, some idiot could get infected running as root, but that's no epidemic..). So viruses cant spread through the system.
But lets talk about the technical side. Viruses replicate by attaching itself to other files. In Linux, that cannot happen (at least, its difficult to do). First, Linux uses very nice file protection, so that J RAndom User cant modify
That being said, it is possible that the virus could wait on the user to for example su to root, but given the permissions of the process it is in, I don't think it'd have much luck anyway, outside sniffing the passwd to root. Also, there is the possibility of exploits, but as it has been repeatitively said, those get closed FAST.
So can viruses get into a system? yes, can it get far? no. even it if infects everything in a user's permission domain, the system is still functional (yes, some idiots.. but I'm not worried about them, they'll likely break their system faster than the virus anyway).-Just delete the infected stuff from their permisson domain, slap them on the wrist, and go administrate on some other task.
If you don't get it yet, chew on this. I've considered experimenting with a Linux virus, just to see what one would look like, but I trashed the idea. Why? not that Linux viruses cant be written, that's easy. But because the barriers it would have to break in order to spread are too difficult to do in 5K of code (optimal size for a really nasty virus).
Once again, I know that there are stupid people out there running Linux, who haven't a clue how to keep it secure (I admit, I'm not so contientous myself), but that's not a matter of AV software, or anything so foolish, that's a matter of educating them about security. -And in any case, there's no worry for virus attacks on an epidemic scale.
note: All viruses I have worked on are EXPERIMENTAL ONLY. I worked on an isolated machine, so I could learn more about them. So don't go telling others I spread viruses.
Make music free. and to compensate the artists, don't make them pay taxes...
heh. don't know about you, but I LIKE the idea of erring on the side of caution. Better it tell me the sys is 10 deg hotter than it really is, than to tell me its 10 deg cooler....
Oi! I think that's a little TOO far. I mean really, with a program like that, our future games will be totally addicting, and appeal to every sense we have (except that common one). -and be so bloated with bad code, it will make M$ complain. Forget it. Teach me algorithms! Teach me Assembly optimizations! teach me how to run the machine with my bare hands (we don't need no steenkin OS). Then I will posess the knowledge to pick up game programming, and make it blindingly fast. Besides that, what else will these kids be able to do? "I'd like to work for your company as a DB manager, and I think my Quake skills give me just the edge you need to blow your competition into huge blood soaked chunks of dead flesh..." uh, no.
Sorry, I did not make myself clear enough. The point is that if by some means (such as those mentioned in my previous post), the compiler learns bad optimization techniques, then it is possible, and even lileky that its optimizations will notn work. Instead, when the compiler tries to optimize code, it will generate binary code that is actually slower/bigger, buggy (code that does not handle every possible input, for example), or even just plain wrong.
If that occured, then debugging would be even more difficult than it already is. We would no longer have to worry about errors in our own code, but errors in the compiler's output. We would have to decompile/reverse engineer our programs before we could ever know the source of the error- and even at that, disassembling would prove difficult, because we would have to figure out how the compiler mangled our code, instead of knowing what to expect, based on what we initially wrote.