I think his main point was that virus writing is a trivial task. You can always take an existing virus and tweak it to do what you want. It's low tech and crude to write a virus.
He was basically saying that explicitly teaching how to write virii was a bad idea: (1) It takes no skill, (2) you're horribly accountable for the actions of the students in your class, (3) and you'd be better off teaching more in-depth responses to virii. For example, why does a certain exploit work? What's vunerable,etc.
You're absolutely right. I'll admit I was wrong about that. I had thought that I had read that Iraq only did "active targeting" of planes, and that the only times they fired were on planes that were not in the no-fly zones. I sincerely thank you for straightening me out on that.
Do you believe these targetings justify war? Moreso, do you believe this Administration is using these acts as justification for war? This is the first I've heard of it.
Re:Not necessarily the war yet
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
No, you can and should continue to protest.
If you "support the troops", call for them to return. Don't support them killing innocent people for no good reason. I won't support any aspect of this sensless destruction. No one wins. War is failure. We have failed again.
Wow, I knew Slashdot was 75% fact-free, but this is the first time I've seen a 100% fact-free post:
(1)Saddam has been proven to have a nuclear weapons program. No, no, no, NO! No one has proved that. The UN inspection teams, expatriots, and all available intelligence indicates the ABSENCE of a nuclear weapons program.
(2) Saddam has killed more Muslims than any other nation in history. Huh? The UN embargos have a lot to do with those deaths. Back up your statement with facts.
(3)This is not a preemptive strike. Saddam's forces have fired on US planes in the no fly zones on numerous occasions. Okay: (a) This is a premptive strike. The Adminstration admits as much. (b) Iraq has TARGETED US figter planes, but never fired.
(4) Saddam's regime funds and harbors Al Queda and other terrorise groups. The Administration tried and failed to prove a link. There is NO LINK.
(5) It is illegal, punishable by death, to belong to any other political party than the Bath (sp?) party which is that of Saddam.
Prove it.
(6) Children as young as 3 years old are bombarded with Pro-Saddam propaganda in their schools. As opposed to other contries that use propoganda?
(7)Anyone who doesn't agree that Saddam needs to be removed from power is either a communist, a terrorist, or just plain stupid. What the hell does communism have to do with ANYTHING? no one says that Saddam's a good guy. But there are two things: (i) There are other ways other than war to remove a leader. (ii) There is a strong stink of hypocracy in the Administration's push for war with Iraq and not with N. Korea. Or Saudi Arabia. Or Israel.
Mod Parent Up
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
Absolutely. The Administration tried and tried and failed to convince anyone that there was a connection between Iraq & terrorism.
He could only convince that rather large subset of the American population that believes it just because he said it.
You don't know me. I believe in the ideals that the United States are founded on. I believe strongly in a democratic system. I believe that no matter where I go, there will always be some kind of shortcoming.
I have to make a choice: not between "standing up for what [I] believe in or being a comfortable, spoiled, whining hypocrite"; It's between whether I stand up and fight by trying to change the system from within the United States, or to lodge my protest by severing ties with my home country. I'm trying the former but it's looking like I'll have to go with the latter.
We are extremely out of touch. I know this. I'm an American with Canadian-envy. If I could move to Canada and get a job being a computational linguist, I would. I'm sick of apologizing for my country.
It was still shocking to me, nonetheless, to see how we had these religious zealots representing us to the bigwigs of world capitalism. It's one thing to know that you're out of step, it's another to "see" it. We stick out like a sore thumb.
I hope we do start taking Canada's advice.
I bet you the most common traveler abroad right now is an American claiming to be a Canadian.;)
There is a liberal bastion that opposes the way not because of the people, but because there investments will get screwed.
What? Where's the "liberal bastion"? These are "free-market capitalists".
I found the email fascinating because of how weird and out-of-touch the Americans look. This is supposed to be our swimming pool -- the business elite. Instead well look like religious wackjobs trying to have a 'splendid little war'.
As someone here on Slashdot eloquently said, building bigger roads to deal with a traffic problem is like using a bigger belt to deal with a weight problem.
The charge will encourage people to use public transportation.
Leaving aside your occasional run for president, your columns (and sense of humor in general) are fairly apolitical. Is there a reason that your humor is more -- well, not mundane, but grounded -- in terms of subject (e.g., the pains of turning forty), rather than political/esoteric?
If UFOs/aliens exist, prove it. Show me the "starcraft". Show me the alien. Give me the proof, and then I'll believe it. Science is not based on secondhand accounts and shady eyewitness reports (at least, not the good, solid science). As another poster pointed out, using this same logic, I could prove Elvis is still alive: (1) There are eyewitness accounts of Elvis walking around after his death. (2) QED, Elvis is alive.
That's ridiculous. That's not science, and that's not how human knowledge progresses.
"UFO-ology" and "cryptozoology" don't deserve to have "ology" attached to them.
I was under the understanding that Hitler was for abortion. An easier way to get rid of those he wanted. Much like the founder of planned parenthood. She was for abortion so the riff-raff wouldn't reproduce.
Just because Hitler was 'for' something doesn't make it invalid. Hitler also (probably) believed 2+2 == 4. Should we rewrite mathematics since an evil person believed this and espoused this view?
If someone arrives at a conclusion by faulty/evil/misinformed logic, the conclusion could still be true. You just have to find the right path to get to that conclusion. Perhaps it is true that the founder of Planned Parenthood wanted to control breeding in the 'riff-raff', but the right to control your own reproductive abilities is a good thing. And it's good for both ends of the spectrum: those that are infertile can take fertility drugs (if they wish); those that do not want offspring can ensure that they will have none.
What I really want to know is what constitutes "good" copying, versus "bad" copying. Clearly, it's fine to make backup copies and all other "personal use" copies. It starts to get bad when you start giving things out to friends. Sure, one or two is fine, bu twhat if you just sit outside and give a free CD to everyone that walks by? Is that bad?
In my opinion, if one copies for self-gain, then it's bad. So, an artist has control over someone using their music for monetary gain or for associative value (I don't want the neo nazis to use my work). But they don't have control over the distribution of copies of the work.
I don't think many can argue that the overall experience of downloading/ripping/burning music is still prohibitive to many. People will still buy CDs and whatnot because the current technology does not allow for immediate, complete, high-quality copies to be made. In that way, modern filesharing is very much like sharing tapes. This, in my opinion, does help artists.
However, let's take a look into the future. Let's say that technology has evolved to the point where one can transfer complete, same as CD-quality albums in less than a second, and imprint them onto CD (or whatever the current technology is) in even less time. One click allows me to fully reproduce Janis Ian's latest release - liner notes & all.
At that point, should artists be worried? Or, to put it more generally, should artists always permit the reproducing of their works?
Perl is like the castle built by the king in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, that fell over and sank into the swamp. So he built another one. And that fell over and sank into the swamp too. And then he built another and another, and they all fell over and sank into the swamp. Then finally, he built a really big one, and that burned down, fell over, and sank into the swamp.
Don't forget, the last one stayed up. And it was the strongest castle in all of Britian.
Slashdot Mirror
Jesus, it's about a bunch of Quebecois! Who cares? Nuke 'em all, let God sort em out.
Come to lovely Los Angeles and visit the Golden Apple, on Melrose. You may even see Stan Lee.
That's probably because taxes are due April 15th.
I think his main point was that virus writing is a trivial task. You can always take an existing virus and tweak it to do what you want. It's low tech and crude to write a virus.
He was basically saying that explicitly teaching how to write virii was a bad idea:
(1) It takes no skill,
(2) you're horribly accountable for the actions of the students in your class,
(3) and you'd be better off teaching more in-depth responses to virii. For example, why does a certain exploit work? What's vunerable,etc.
I have to agree with him...
Don't you mean Freedom Telecom?
You have the best job!
You're absolutely right. I'll admit I was wrong about that. I had thought that I had read that Iraq only did "active targeting" of planes, and that the only times they fired were on planes that were not in the no-fly zones. I sincerely thank you for straightening me out on that.
Do you believe these targetings justify war? Moreso, do you believe this Administration is using these acts as justification for war? This is the first I've heard of it.
No, you can and should continue to protest.
If you "support the troops", call for them to return. Don't support them killing innocent people for no good reason. I won't support any aspect of this sensless destruction. No one wins. War is failure. We have failed again.
And, by the way, there were no soldiers being spit on after Vietnam.
Wow, I knew Slashdot was 75% fact-free, but this is the first time I've seen a 100% fact-free post:
(1)Saddam has been proven to have a nuclear weapons program. No, no, no, NO! No one has proved that. The UN inspection teams, expatriots, and all available intelligence indicates the ABSENCE of a nuclear weapons program.
(2) Saddam has killed more Muslims than any other nation in history. Huh? The UN embargos have a lot to do with those deaths. Back up your statement with facts.
(3)This is not a preemptive strike. Saddam's forces have fired on US planes in the no fly zones on numerous occasions.
Okay:
(a) This is a premptive strike. The Adminstration admits as much.
(b) Iraq has TARGETED US figter planes, but never fired.
(4) Saddam's regime funds and harbors Al Queda and other terrorise groups.
The Administration tried and failed to prove a link. There is NO LINK.
(5) It is illegal, punishable by death, to belong to any other political party than the Bath (sp?) party which is that of Saddam.
Prove it.
(6) Children as young as 3 years old are bombarded with Pro-Saddam propaganda in their schools.
As opposed to other contries that use propoganda?
(7)Anyone who doesn't agree that Saddam needs to be removed from power is either a communist, a terrorist, or just plain stupid.
What the hell does communism have to do with ANYTHING? no one says that Saddam's a good guy. But there are two things:
(i) There are other ways other than war to remove a leader.
(ii) There is a strong stink of hypocracy in the Administration's push for war with Iraq and not with N. Korea. Or Saudi Arabia. Or Israel.
Absolutely. The Administration tried and tried and failed to convince anyone that there was a connection between Iraq & terrorism.
He could only convince that rather large subset of the American population that believes it just because he said it.
Wow.
Now that's some good trolling.
I'll bite.
You don't know me. I believe in the ideals that the United States are founded on. I believe strongly in a democratic system. I believe that no matter where I go, there will always be some kind of shortcoming.
I have to make a choice: not between "standing up for what [I] believe in or being a comfortable, spoiled, whining hypocrite"; It's between whether I stand up and fight by trying to change the system from within the United States, or to lodge my protest by severing ties with my home country. I'm trying the former but it's looking like I'll have to go with the latter.
But these aren't real free-market capitalists. That's why I put it in quotes.
We are extremely out of touch. I know this. I'm an American with Canadian-envy. If I could move to Canada and get a job being a computational linguist, I would. I'm sick of apologizing for my country.
;)
It was still shocking to me, nonetheless, to see how we had these religious zealots representing us to the bigwigs of world capitalism. It's one thing to know that you're out of step, it's another to "see" it. We stick out like a sore thumb.
I hope we do start taking Canada's advice.
I bet you the most common traveler abroad right now is an American claiming to be a Canadian.
What? Where's the "liberal bastion"? These are "free-market capitalists".
I found the email fascinating because of how weird and out-of-touch the Americans look. This is supposed to be our swimming pool -- the business elite. Instead well look like religious wackjobs trying to have a 'splendid little war'.
I'd watch it so I'd know when a @#$)(^@ cop was about to ticket my car!
As someone here on Slashdot eloquently said, building bigger roads to deal with a traffic problem is like using a bigger belt to deal with a weight problem.
The charge will encourage people to use public transportation.
Leaving aside your occasional run for president, your columns (and sense of humor in general) are fairly apolitical. Is there a reason that your humor is more -- well, not mundane, but grounded -- in terms of subject (e.g., the pains of turning forty), rather than political/esoteric?
If UFOs/aliens exist, prove it. Show me the "starcraft". Show me the alien. Give me the proof, and then I'll believe it. Science is not based on secondhand accounts and shady eyewitness reports (at least, not the good, solid science). As another poster pointed out, using this same logic, I could prove Elvis is still alive:
(1) There are eyewitness accounts of Elvis walking around after his death.
(2) QED, Elvis is alive.
That's ridiculous. That's not science, and that's not how human knowledge progresses.
"UFO-ology" and "cryptozoology" don't deserve to have "ology" attached to them.
Just because Hitler was 'for' something doesn't make it invalid. Hitler also (probably) believed 2+2 == 4. Should we rewrite mathematics since an evil person believed this and espoused this view?
If someone arrives at a conclusion by faulty/evil/misinformed logic, the conclusion could still be true. You just have to find the right path to get to that conclusion. Perhaps it is true that the founder of Planned Parenthood wanted to control breeding in the 'riff-raff', but the right to control your own reproductive abilities is a good thing. And it's good for both ends of the spectrum: those that are infertile can take fertility drugs (if they wish); those that do not want offspring can ensure that they will have none.
One of my coworks was in an ad:
Gautem
I think they are quite real.
they're halfway there...
What I really want to know is what constitutes "good" copying, versus "bad" copying. Clearly, it's fine to make backup copies and all other "personal use" copies. It starts to get bad when you start giving things out to friends. Sure, one or two is fine, bu twhat if you just sit outside and give a free CD to everyone that walks by? Is that bad?
In my opinion, if one copies for self-gain, then it's bad. So, an artist has control over someone using their music for monetary gain or for associative value (I don't want the neo nazis to use my work). But they don't have control over the distribution of copies of the work.
I don't think many can argue that the overall experience of downloading/ripping/burning music is still prohibitive to many. People will still buy CDs and whatnot because the current technology does not allow for immediate, complete, high-quality copies to be made. In that way, modern filesharing is very much like sharing tapes. This, in my opinion, does help artists.
However, let's take a look into the future. Let's say that technology has evolved to the point where one can transfer complete, same as CD-quality albums in less than a second, and imprint them onto CD (or whatever the current technology is) in even less time. One click allows me to fully reproduce Janis Ian's latest release - liner notes & all.
At that point, should artists be worried? Or, to put it more generally, should artists always permit the reproducing of their works?
Don't forget, the last one stayed up. And it was the strongest castle in all of Britian.