Just an interesting point, Yoda's form of speech actually belongs to a (found in many eastern languages), but I didn't look into it too hard.class of languages termed OSV (Object Subject Verb) whereas English is VSO (Verb Subject Object).
Essential to Star Wars' success was its introduction of foreign ideas to mainstream Western audiences. ``The force'', a balance between good and evil, Yoda's grammar, etc.
Since Yoda's grammar was unfamilar, I just assumed he was speaking in SOV, which is found in many eastern languages. *shrug*
Because the first company that tries to implement internet tolls alone is going to be at a
huge competitive disadvantage. So they'd all have to do it at once. But this kind of collusion is illegal.
In a desperate rush for some reading material for the toilet, I grabbed what must be a 5 year old C/C++ User's Journal from a storage room. The theme of that month's issue was MULTITHREADING.
I thumbed through it and came across an interesting article ``ALWAYS HANDLED ERROR CODES''. The idea being that a lot of errors can go undetected because programmers are lazy about checking return values. And why not, who bothers checking printf()'s return value, for instance?
Simple enough design. The object constructor sets the result, the destructor will abort() the application if the Checked variable is false. The overridden == and != operators evaluate the result, and also set the Checked variable.
In your functions, instead of return SUCCESS; you write return ErrorCode(SUCCESS);
Wondering if anybody does this. If I needed something ULTRA STABLE I guess I might...
Is it significant because it's "the first time" someone argued that software ought to be paid for like a shrinkwrapped product?
Are you supposed to laugh at Gates's shortsightedness because "hobbyists" developed enterprise grade software like Linux, Apache, etc. for free? (a myth)
Did this letter have any effect at all? Didn't Gates & Co. just figure out they should sell to businesses instead of hobbyists?
A motion to dismiss would *admit* everything the RIAA says, then contend it still doesn't have a case - so no necessity for evidence, because there are no facts in dispute.
That's fascinating. Does this admission bind only the scope of that motion to dismiss, or are you basically risking your whole case? Which one "Assuming I really did vandalize the fence, plaintiff's case is moot, the fence was public property, not the plaintiff's" or "I confess, I vandalized the fence, but the plaintiff has no right to sue for cleanup, it's public property"?
Wondering how the legal system treats hypotheticals...
As ludicrous as it sounds, the best way for me to stay focused is to speed. Talking 100+ on a 65 limit interstate. When I speed, I have to keep an eye out for turns that might require me to slow down, road conditions that may be hazardous, keep an eye out for cops with radar guns, and closely evaluate every single car I come by for undercover risk factor (Japanese car? Not a cop. American car driving the speed limit? Not a cop. American car speeding but family of four in the car? Not a cop. etc.)
I'm not trying to justify speeding, I guess. It's just hard not to when you have hundreds of miles to go and want to stay as alert as possible.
The only time I've ever gotten in trouble, either from car accidents or police pulling me over for some infraction is when I've let myself start daydreaming. And I'm most likely to do that when I'm in the middle lane between two cars and we all have our cruise control set.
I've heard this one before. You know that defys the laws of physics right? A diet soda is: carbonated water, citric and/or phosphoric acid, flavor and a non-sugar related sweetener. There is nothing there that your body can convert to and store as body fat (or muscle for that matter, though I doubt anyone would complain if that was the case) so unless they are adding chemicals that turn your body photosynthetic and allow you to turn all that CO2 and water into glucose I don't see how this is even remotely possible.
The argument I've heard/read (can't remember) is that diet sodas trigger cravings for other foods. Kind of subjective. It's basically one step from people willfully eating fattier foods to compensate for all the dieting they're doing since they've switched to diet.
This "doctor" is entirely incredible, possibly homophobic, and a quack in the most negative sense of the word. No creedence whatsoever should be given to anything that he's written.
If you take the whole of a human life, you will no doubt find intolerable or contradictory speech. History books are good at filtering out the lunacy and elevating the achievements. But people who live today and don't have the benefit of being seen through history books. They're just the whole ordinary human package, their strengths and their flaws equally visible.
Even the great Richard Feynman is not above reproach. It would be easy to portray him as a sexist womanizer. Imagine if you got hung up on that and refused to read about his life and works. You'd do yourself a disservice. And what a shame that would be. Clearly, it's better to consider the ideas independent of the character.
Dr. Batmanghelidj's AIDS paper is decades old, written when what little information was available was hard to trust and his peers had alternate theories. We know much more today. Maybe he stuck to it out of hubris, but irregardless, that should not disqualify his other studies. Character attacks are never good science.
And if John Kerry or anyone remotely connected to him was spied on (sillier things have happened, think Nixon) it's curtains for the Bush administration.
Unless the administration says that the Demorats are being spied on because they're terrorists who hate America and orders them arrested and shipped to gitmo. It's still curtains alright, only for America.
and I've never once contracted a disease. I find that they spoil the experience too much.
Other uses of source code
on
Mitnick on OSS
·
· Score: 1
Get ahold of Digital Equipment Corporation's source code and use it to blackmail DEC employees into doing what you want or else you'll distribute the code.
So, before you start lecturing people on fixing their "racist culture", why don't you try and not lump all Americans together as if there was one homogenous culture here?
Oh, well all know that MS has an affinity for BSD-licenced software -- is it any surprise that their attempt at "write xor execute" memory came after OpenBSD's did?
In 1999 I tried to add this functionality to the Linux kernel.
The actual code changes were quite easy, in fact.
Easy, but it didn't work.
It wasn't until I picked up Inside Windows NT 4.0 that this exact issue was mentioned, how you might just think to yourself to do this, and how you'd fail. The Intel and Alpha processors of the generation treated pages as executable if they were marked readable. They did not honor any "execute" bit.
The support here comes from hardware, and even if it works, just wait until you find all of the applications that you've broken because they tried to rewrite their program code on the fly.
But maybe in that alterate universe, Microsoft would still somehow be the Great Satan because that no execute patch breaks your cherished copy of Tonka Firefighter.
If my limited experience has taught me anything about computer reliability, it's that a single mis-set bit somewhere can bring down a system. Maybe the bit got there by user error, maybe it got there because of RAM or disk failure, maybe it got there from a bug in the application, OS, or firmware. Maybe a component on the motherboard shorted out. Maybe it's the climate. Maybe it's the phase of the moon.
I've seen it happen with discount ghetto hardware, I've seen it happen with high end hardware. I've seen it happen on Windows. On Linux. On FreeBSD. On Solaris. I've seen servers go down due to catastrophic hardware failure and I've seen them go down because a $2 fan died. I've seen people come inches from major power supply caused injury working on a desktop PC.
Everything will break.
There's just too much freaking complexity. Now I just buy whatever's cheapest so I can buy way more than I need. Mix up the configurations a bit so you get some bio-diversity; if one drive manufacturer has a bad year, you don't want all of your eggs invested in them.
Most important of all, at the first sign of trouble, throw it away.
Try to resist the urge to fix it. I mean it. You cost more than that piece of junk. Put in a purchase request and move on.
...for your career, but it's not something your employer should be counting on.
If you've been assigned to do a job you were never originally hired for, your employer should be biting the bullet on training.
On the other hand, they could totally lay you off and hire someone else with the skills they need, but they'd spend much less money just sending you to a few classes.
We, as customers, demand convenience. If I have a funny video, interesting application, or useful document that my friend or business associate needs to see, I want him to be able to get it as easily as possible. I want to drag it onto my IM window, or drop it onto an email message, or maybe even stick it onto his desktop so he sees it first thing when he comes back.
I crave this kind of tight integration between components. It makes life easier, reduces overhead, saves me time and money. Microsoft has no doubt been very successful at delivering this kind of infrastructure and reaps the benefits of it.
But there are some dishonest people in the world, and this tight integration and ease of use makes it especially convenient for dishonest people to get malicious software on my computer that pilfers my files, seizes my computer for use in some denial of service army, or watches my keystrokes to give someone the information they need to empty my bank account.
When a new worm finds its way into the open, 99.99% of the code being executed is code that Microsoft has written.
Forgive me for being blunt, but how does Microsoft stand a chance? I don't see a way to make Microsoft software more secure without making it less convenient to use. And anything that makes Microsoft software less convenient to use attacks its bread and butter.
I thought your question was too asinine in itself, so I wondered if you simply misunderstood me. I re-read my original post and supposed there could've been room for misunderstanding, so I brought Gibson's conspiracy theory into it.
But if you're still sticking to your original question, here's how I replied to a similar question:
The cat's out of the bag now. There's very little to be gained by lying about it, but so much to be lost if there's evidence of malicious intent and Microsoft covers it up. If there is malicious intent, Microsoft's obligated to investigate, take disciplinary action, and say so. Managers/employees responsible get fired.
Or maybe you think Bill Gates walked into some developer's office one day 12 years ago and said "put this subtle vulnerability into the WMF handling routine; 9 years from now when our OS is going to support a multi-user security model, this routine will be exposed to something called INTERNET EXPLORER, which will allow for indirect remote root. It'll be glorious! In the meantime, keep it under your hat. K? Cool. Thanks."?
The cat's out of the bag now. There's very little to be gained by lying about it, but so much to be lost if there's evidence of malicious intent and Microsoft covers it up. If there is malicious intent, Microsoft's obligated to investigate, take disciplinary action, and say so. Managers/employees responsible get fired.
Or maybe you think Bill Gates walked into some developer's office one day 12 years ago and said "put this subtle vulnerability into the WMF handling routine; 9 years from now when our OS is going to support a multi-user security model, this routine will be exposed to something called INTERNET EXPLORER, which will allow for indirect remote root. It'll be glorious! In the meantime, keep it under your hat. K? Cool. Thanks."?
The vulnerable code has been there since 3.0, but it wasn't exploitable until very recently.
Gibson's claim that it was an intentional vulnerability is bogus (it was bogus before, but just in case you needed confirmation, here it is from Microsoft)
The problem with mobile devices isn't that they have low bandwidth or weak hardware (well, arguably), but that network access is extremely high latency. Most web sites are a chore to use through a mobile interface. If Opera's Mobile Browser has full blown ``AJAX'' support, some sites become much more pleasant to use. Notably, GMAIL. No doubt this is what Google has in mind...
AJAX's problems, however, are compounded when the underlying transport is so slow. If a user navigates away from a page with an outstanding background request, or if they issue a second request while the first is outstanding, the results are effectively undefined. : /
The really great mobile applications won't come around until industry stops trying to cram PC oriented web pages at pocket devices.
Slashdot Mirror
Just an interesting point, Yoda's form of speech actually belongs to a (found in many eastern languages), but I didn't look into it too hard.class of languages termed OSV (Object Subject Verb) whereas English is VSO (Verb Subject Object).
Essential to Star Wars' success was its introduction of foreign ideas to mainstream Western audiences. ``The force'', a balance between good and evil, Yoda's grammar, etc.
Since Yoda's grammar was unfamilar, I just assumed he was speaking in SOV, which is found in many eastern languages. *shrug*
are through collusion or law.
Because the first company that tries to implement internet tolls alone is going to be at a huge competitive disadvantage. So they'd all have to do it at once. But this kind of collusion is illegal.
But law isn't. :(
Put an extremely successful but rather tame computer consulting career on hold to work for these clowns ;)
Pushing it to the limit!
In a desperate rush for some reading material for the toilet, I grabbed what must be a 5 year old C/C++ User's Journal from a storage room. The theme of that month's issue was MULTITHREADING.
I thumbed through it and came across an interesting article ``ALWAYS HANDLED ERROR CODES''. The idea being that a lot of errors can go undetected because programmers are lazy about checking return values. And why not, who bothers checking printf()'s return value, for instance?
Simple enough design. The object constructor sets the result, the destructor will abort() the application if the Checked variable is false. The overridden == and != operators evaluate the result, and also set the Checked variable.
In your functions, instead of return SUCCESS; you write return ErrorCode(SUCCESS);
Wondering if anybody does this. If I needed something ULTRA STABLE I guess I might...
I don't get it.
Is it significant because it's "the first time" someone argued that software ought to be paid for like a shrinkwrapped product?
Are you supposed to laugh at Gates's shortsightedness because "hobbyists" developed enterprise grade software like Linux, Apache, etc. for free? (a myth)
Did this letter have any effect at all? Didn't Gates & Co. just figure out they should sell to businesses instead of hobbyists?
A motion to dismiss would *admit* everything the RIAA says, then contend it still doesn't have a case - so no necessity for evidence, because there are no facts in dispute.
That's fascinating. Does this admission bind only the scope of that motion to dismiss, or are you basically risking your whole case? Which one "Assuming I really did vandalize the fence, plaintiff's case is moot, the fence was public property, not the plaintiff's" or "I confess, I vandalized the fence, but the plaintiff has no right to sue for cleanup, it's public property"?
Wondering how the legal system treats hypotheticals...
As ludicrous as it sounds, the best way for me to stay focused is to speed. Talking 100+ on a 65 limit interstate. When I speed, I have to keep an eye out for turns that might require me to slow down, road conditions that may be hazardous, keep an eye out for cops with radar guns, and closely evaluate every single car I come by for undercover risk factor (Japanese car? Not a cop. American car driving the speed limit? Not a cop. American car speeding but family of four in the car? Not a cop. etc.)
I'm not trying to justify speeding, I guess. It's just hard not to when you have hundreds of miles to go and want to stay as alert as possible.
The only time I've ever gotten in trouble, either from car accidents or police pulling me over for some infraction is when I've let myself start daydreaming. And I'm most likely to do that when I'm in the middle lane between two cars and we all have our cruise control set.
Driving sucks.
I've heard this one before. You know that defys the laws of physics right? A diet soda is: carbonated water, citric and/or phosphoric acid, flavor and a non-sugar related sweetener. There is nothing there that your body can convert to and store as body fat (or muscle for that matter, though I doubt anyone would complain if that was the case) so unless they are adding chemicals that turn your body photosynthetic and allow you to turn all that CO2 and water into glucose I don't see how this is even remotely possible.
The argument I've heard/read (can't remember) is that diet sodas trigger cravings for other foods. Kind of subjective. It's basically one step from people willfully eating fattier foods to compensate for all the dieting they're doing since they've switched to diet.
This "doctor" is entirely incredible, possibly homophobic, and a quack in the most negative sense of the word. No creedence whatsoever should be given to anything that he's written.
If you take the whole of a human life, you will no doubt find intolerable or contradictory speech. History books are good at filtering out the lunacy and elevating the achievements. But people who live today and don't have the benefit of being seen through history books. They're just the whole ordinary human package, their strengths and their flaws equally visible.
Even the great Richard Feynman is not above reproach. It would be easy to portray him as a sexist womanizer. Imagine if you got hung up on that and refused to read about his life and works. You'd do yourself a disservice. And what a shame that would be. Clearly, it's better to consider the ideas independent of the character.
Dr. Batmanghelidj's AIDS paper is decades old, written when what little information was available was hard to trust and his peers had alternate theories. We know much more today. Maybe he stuck to it out of hubris, but irregardless, that should not disqualify his other studies. Character attacks are never good science.
His study on Peptic Ulcers in a rather unique environment is more worthy of consideration: http://216.122.230.12/pdf/peptic_ulcer.pdf
Also, there's no evidence that he has an anti-gay agenda, no matter how much of his research says sticking it in the bum may make boo boo.
It's all about surfacing the query log.
Who's in it and why?
And if John Kerry or anyone remotely connected to him was spied on (sillier things have happened, think Nixon) it's curtains for the Bush administration.
Unless the administration says that the Demorats are being spied on because they're terrorists who hate America and orders them arrested and shipped to gitmo. It's still curtains alright, only for America.
and I've never once contracted a disease. I find that they spoil the experience too much.
Get ahold of Digital Equipment Corporation's source code and use it to blackmail DEC employees into doing what you want or else you'll distribute the code.
So, Mitnick, were you ever indicted for that one?
So, before you start lecturing people on fixing their "racist culture", why don't you try and not lump all Americans together as if there was one homogenous culture here?
Pop culture is the only kind of culture we have.
(I'm not the OP)
Oh, well all know that MS has an affinity for BSD-licenced software -- is it any surprise that their attempt at "write xor execute" memory came after OpenBSD's did?
In 1999 I tried to add this functionality to the Linux kernel. The actual code changes were quite easy, in fact.
Easy, but it didn't work.
It wasn't until I picked up Inside Windows NT 4.0 that this exact issue was mentioned, how you might just think to yourself to do this, and how you'd fail. The Intel and Alpha processors of the generation treated pages as executable if they were marked readable. They did not honor any "execute" bit.
The support here comes from hardware, and even if it works, just wait until you find all of the applications that you've broken because they tried to rewrite their program code on the fly.
But maybe in that alterate universe, Microsoft would still somehow be the Great Satan because that no execute patch breaks your cherished copy of Tonka Firefighter.
If my limited experience has taught me anything about computer reliability, it's that a single mis-set bit somewhere can bring down a system. Maybe the bit got there by user error, maybe it got there because of RAM or disk failure, maybe it got there from a bug in the application, OS, or firmware. Maybe a component on the motherboard shorted out. Maybe it's the climate. Maybe it's the phase of the moon.
I've seen it happen with discount ghetto hardware, I've seen it happen with high end hardware. I've seen it happen on Windows. On Linux. On FreeBSD. On Solaris. I've seen servers go down due to catastrophic hardware failure and I've seen them go down because a $2 fan died. I've seen people come inches from major power supply caused injury working on a desktop PC.
Everything will break.
There's just too much freaking complexity. Now I just buy whatever's cheapest so I can buy way more than I need. Mix up the configurations a bit so you get some bio-diversity; if one drive manufacturer has a bad year, you don't want all of your eggs invested in them.
Most important of all, at the first sign of trouble, throw it away.
Try to resist the urge to fix it. I mean it. You cost more than that piece of junk. Put in a purchase request and move on.
...for your career, but it's not something your employer should be counting on.
If you've been assigned to do a job you were never originally hired for, your employer should be biting the bullet on training.
On the other hand, they could totally lay you off and hire someone else with the skills they need, but they'd spend much less money just sending you to a few classes.
Proceed with caution.
We, as customers, demand convenience. If I have a funny video, interesting application, or useful document that my friend or business associate needs to see, I want him to be able to get it as easily as possible. I want to drag it onto my IM window, or drop it onto an email message, or maybe even stick it onto his desktop so he sees it first thing when he comes back.
I crave this kind of tight integration between components. It makes life easier, reduces overhead, saves me time and money. Microsoft has no doubt been very successful at delivering this kind of infrastructure and reaps the benefits of it.
But there are some dishonest people in the world, and this tight integration and ease of use makes it especially convenient for dishonest people to get malicious software on my computer that pilfers my files, seizes my computer for use in some denial of service army, or watches my keystrokes to give someone the information they need to empty my bank account.
When a new worm finds its way into the open, 99.99% of the code being executed is code that Microsoft has written.
Forgive me for being blunt, but how does Microsoft stand a chance? I don't see a way to make Microsoft software more secure without making it less convenient to use. And anything that makes Microsoft software less convenient to use attacks its bread and butter.
Why isn't this a losing battle?
In this particular case, they have much more to lose by lying about it now that the cat's out of the bag. It has nothing to do with conscience.
I thought your question was too asinine in itself, so I wondered if you simply misunderstood me. I re-read my original post and supposed there could've been room for misunderstanding, so I brought Gibson's conspiracy theory into it.
But if you're still sticking to your original question, here's how I replied to a similar question:
but its not a backdoor because MS say so.
The cat's out of the bag now. There's very little to be gained by lying about it, but so much to be lost if there's evidence of malicious intent and Microsoft covers it up. If there is malicious intent, Microsoft's obligated to investigate, take disciplinary action, and say so. Managers/employees responsible get fired.
Or maybe you think Bill Gates walked into some developer's office one day 12 years ago and said "put this subtle vulnerability into the WMF handling routine; 9 years from now when our OS is going to support a multi-user security model, this routine will be exposed to something called INTERNET EXPLORER, which will allow for indirect remote root. It'll be glorious! In the meantime, keep it under your hat. K? Cool. Thanks."?
Gibson was conspiracy theorizing that it was some kind of insidious backdoor that Microsoft put in there.
Thanks.
No wonder consumers are rejecting it.
The machine's wearing out.
Accept it.
The problem with mobile devices isn't that they have low bandwidth or weak hardware (well, arguably), but that network access is extremely high latency. Most web sites are a chore to use through a mobile interface. If Opera's Mobile Browser has full blown ``AJAX'' support, some sites become much more pleasant to use. Notably, GMAIL. No doubt this is what Google has in mind...
AJAX's problems, however, are compounded when the underlying transport is so slow. If a user navigates away from a page with an outstanding background request, or if they issue a second request while the first is outstanding, the results are effectively undefined. : /
The really great mobile applications won't come around until industry stops trying to cram PC oriented web pages at pocket devices.