Unless you're writing with a hex editor you still need to release the.S files.
Writing software with a hex editor is exactly what I have done. The 1st implementation of my assembler is written in machine code, so its binary is the only source code there is for it. It could be technically GPL'd and released and distributed only as binary code being that machine code was the "preferred form" of source code used in development...
Here's a fun aside: Since I write software in machine code, I could release it under the GPL and provide no other "source code" but the binaries:-P
Conversely, if you know Machine Code, every (non encrypted) binary executable is Open Source!
And if you can run the binary executable, even encrypted shit is open source!
Actually that's not true. Some Intel chips have AES op-codes built in. If the decryption happens in the chip then there's no way to get at the source code -- It doesn't have to be in memory as plain-text at any point in time just when the CPU itself is operating that single instruction. Asymmetric (Public Key) cryptography means the CPU can decrypt and verify the code signatures without needing to hide a symmetric key on disk or in RAM somewhere. This will be the next step after secure boot if we allow these proprietary vendors it to continue.
So, some may think that this type of encryption combined with the boot security would lead to a 100% secure OS, because Malware code just wouldn't run! The Chip wouldn't execute any code that wasn't encrypted and signed! Ah, well that's still bullshit. I have a neat little trick up my sleeve called Return Oriented Programming. You see, it's possible to write an exploit in such a way that only EXISTING code (the stuff right before a function return) is used to cause some state change in the memory and registers, which then jumps to other existing signed and encrypted code to perform further operations. The cool thing is I don't even care exactly what the op-codes are, I just care about the results, so I just plot the results of running random points of code and build a table of outcomes and addresses. So there you have it: The most secure system is pointless if the OS itself has bugs! Lock down the OS and binaries so that the User can Never tell WTF their PC is actually doing, or run their own unblessed software, and it still can get malware if the OS has kernel level exploits -- Hell, work ALL bugs out of the OS, and the buggy 3rd party drivers will be my entry point.
Trusted computing is pointless evil draconian bullshit that's only effect will be to take power away from the users who rightfully purchase the systems.
It all seems familiar somehow.
Step one: "Removing the head, or destroying the brain..."
Let me guess, step two is: "You've got red on you.",
and step three involves being "a bit bite-y."
If that T-Rex is wielding a cricket bat it's proof what killed off the dinosaurs wasn't the asteroid -- It was the Zombies it caused.
Name one person or company that isn't doing something they "threatened" to do for years prior? I mean, isn't that what we call "planning", not "threatening"?
-- Posted from my Linux Desktop. I think I'll file the above argument under: "Playing the 'Desktop Linux' card."
This has always baffled me too, especially among programmers, because programming involves endless iterations of writing code and then having the computer laugh in your face. How can you think you're such a genius when a zillion times a day, a machine tells you you're not?
You misconstrue Genius with Infallible. It's possible to have an enormous cognition quotient, yet still make a few typos or incorrect assumptions about some API behavior.
Einstein frequently forgot to tie his shoes, or was too caught up in thought to bathe... I've been there too, deep in a codebase of my own design in a zen-like state for hours on end, not giving a damn about what the rest of the world thinks of me for not wasting the time breaking the train of thought then having to get back into that mindset again.
Furthermore, I assert that there are no such things as Geniuses in the first place (what an arrogant and presumptuous concept). Einstein did not invent relativity in isolation, indeed the mathematics laughed in his face more times than they smiled upon him. Where would he have been without all the giants that came before or the peers working in the same field on the same problems? Does anyone really think that no one else ever would have came up with the same ideas? Multiple independent concurrent discoveries in math and science occur quite frequently. We would still have relativity without Einstein, and we would still have Incandescent bulbs if Edison had been killed by the fabled lightning storm (he just figured out what gas to use in the bulb), and the telephone would have arrived only 1 hour later would Alexander Bell never have been born. The myth of the Genius is why patents are so abhorrent... First means little to nothing -- Everyone's working in the same problem space; Everyone else's R&D expenses are wasted because someone is "First"?!
Don't get me wrong, I see nothing wrong with taking pride in ones work and capabilities. However, being held in a favorable light for performing iterative tasks cleverly can over-inflate one's ego. I've seen it work both ways though -- Some people underrate themselves and have low self worth. Eg: It's easy to understand how arrogance could emerge when your friends and family treat you like a Computer God; On the contrarily sometimes an ego boost is exactly what one needs to go from a hobbyist "Just toying around in assembly" to realizing they're quite good at it and could make a living doing what they love.
Consider that to Einstein "95% of the universe" was mundane drivel, and it was that 5% he sought to explore and perfect that was his true value to society. Once you've dispelled the cult of Genius worship it's not hard to realize that what you really care about is the only thing matters at all, we're all doing a "Genius' work"... Who knows what work will be most influential? Maybe your self-learning hobby project, or research into the wobble of spinning pie plates will be a huge contribution to the world.
Yeah, it starts back here also on the other side. The theoretical work that I did was in the back — calculations, some theory of scattering. In 1965 I decided in the ninth month, that’s September, that the theory of high energy total cross sections could be best understood by just diffraction of pie plates hitting each other, and I worked the details out to show how it worked and what problems there were and so on. These are all things that didn't work — well, they did work, that was true. What I really was doing was teaching myself. I wasn’t interested in publishing at all. But I did discover a lot of things. You see I thought everybody else knew all these things. In the meantime I was trying, to teach myself. So I learned a lot of things that weren’t known, or a few things that weren't well known. And I checked — things that people have noticed later as being simple, sometimes I noticed a little ahead. But the main thing I was d
Agreed. I assure you that I indeed speak in the same manner that I type & write, and that I don't mean to be snobbish in the least while doing so... (Note the run-on sentence and ellipses to indicate a pause or trailing off where I could instead go on further, but won't -- Except I did. Also note the parenthetical statement indicating that this aside would be spoken in a slightly different tone of voice to differentiate it.)
I blame this on my childhood experiences growing up with my own BSS and frequenting IRC rooms. Being able to use my embiggened vocabulary freely and include any cromulent word or language construct regardless of validity certainly had an affectional relationship with my verbal skills. I considered those "normal" people who would tease me about my "nerdy" speech patterns to be little more than bullies. Ultimately, what does it matter in the end if you get the gist of the information I'm trying to convey? Language is a poor tool for mind to mind data transfer, but it's the only one we've got right now! My English is far from correct, proper or common always, but sometimes are better than none at all...
Timothy, as a woman in this field, you have done a great job summarizing why so few women join this field. The arrogance of most IT personnel is astonishing and quite frankly, silly. The best way to start altering your own attitude is to step outside of yourself and ask yourself why you believe that having knowledge about xyz makes you smarter or better than someone else. Once you realize that it doesn't, and that each person has value to add in the world regardless of what they know about IT, you will begin to adjust your mindset.
"Bingo - No women" -- Ah, so you're sexist. You see, I have a penis; However it is irrelevant to whether or not I take offense to arrogance. Furthermore, one can not be offended by the actions of others, one must take the initiative to become offended.
Thus, the technique I use to cope with arrogance is the same one I use to cope with sexism, racism, homophobia, and all other forms of social dissonance. I merely do not take offense to the bigotry. The only way to lose is to feed into the behavior you dislike and and let it affect your own actions...
I commend you for not letting arrogance affect your decision to work in technology related fields. However, I don't condone your sexist view that such behavior is somehow more offensive to females than it is to males.
Drone attacks are not perfect. However it is better than having our soldiers in harms ways doing the attacks. Or would you prefer these terrorist organizations to flourish and grow and get better organized again?
The biggest question is the fear of the US dones creating more terrorist then we are killing? That is a tough call.
Soldiers are not perfect. However, it's better to put the lives of our beloved young soldiers in harms way doing the attacks. Or would you prefer having even less of an incentive to maintain peace by reducing the price of war? To me it's far better to see the news broadcast about one of our local "heroes" who died in the war vs a footnote about the on going remote controlled attacks on far away lands. To me the cost of war should be felt as powerful as possible on both sides -- It should be nothing less than insufferable.
What is a terrorist but a surgical strike intended to do the most damage and strike fear into the enemy at the least cost to the overall effort? You would have us swap places in our "War on Terror" and become the robotic terrorists of the world.
I need an ID to get a fucking library card. Is it that hard to ask for one at the polls.
Ah, but anonymous ballots, you see?
One would think it wouldn't be that hard, eh? Just calculate the number of registered voters, and only give out that many anonymous yet secure PGP keys with which to assign the vote. You can generate them randomly and sign the keys with official voter registration offices. Ah, but then there's fake registrations by the boat loads. So, you'd have to tie the registration to an actual ID, but that's not anonymous, and is just as susceptible to fake IDs or other forms of identity theft.
The problem is that most people DO NOT VOTE. So, there is a wide margin by which you could say, "Well, maybe voter turn out was just really good this year", instead of, "We have more votes than People!"
The OCSE is not the UN nor has any ties to the UN. It is an inter-governmental organization like NATO. The UN bogeyman isn't everywhere and out to get you despite what you believe.
Translation: "Eurasia is our ally. We have always been at war with East Asia."
The World is Distributed. People are Distributed. The web is Distributed. Centralized Computing / Centralized Storage is irrelevant. Resistance is futile, you will be distributated.
It's less acceptable because they're spreading themselves thin and loosing focus on the OS and Office suite that make them real bank.
This is the ultimate outcome of a Corporate life cycle: The stock holders demand growth. They expand and diversify hoping to stave off death, but the reality is newer more nimble entities will evolve to take their place as new niches form. It's a fight till the end for relevance, and it's only really just beginning for MS, but I've seen it in Big Iron, Arcades -> Consoles -> General purpose devices (PC's & portable), it's happening in Media... You can't replicate the success of others, you are not them. You have to focus on what you're really good at, but the stage is already set -- Both barrels are loaded and aimed at their feet.
When a human's pituitary gland is over active, demanding unlimited growth of the person, they grow until they die instead of leading a long life. The business world is just like that.
Agreed. MS's.NET / C# is a competitor to Java. Using that huge runtime for native C/C++ coding is a bit silly, esp. when cross platform alternatives exist (GTK, Qt, etc), but a failure.NET is not.
to be replaced by laptops and pads, laptops have such custom hardware that they will only every work with the preinstalled OS, and pads normally cannot have any other OS (but this is quite often Android...)
This is wrong. MS does have an insanely large install base with Windows, and enjoy the benefits of vendor lock-in on the Desktop market. This is largely due to moronic developers who chose a proprietary compiler and toolchain instead of a cross platform one to begin with; Ie, they took the MS bait and are locked in, thus locking in their users. Smart devs & studios who start with cross platform in mind don't limit our market share needlessly by handing the control over the size of our user base over to MS.
It's not the hardware difficulties. It's all about the developers. Folks will come to other OSs when / IF developers spend the time to get their programs running on cross platform toolchains. I ask folks why they choose Windows over Linux, and it's primarily the Software, not the hardware. They care most about what applications will run on the platform.
Furthermore: I have Debian running on my Xoom "pad".
Incidentally, interesting question... Why businesses can freely look around the globe a place to produce things, while we consumers are forced to buy our things in a very restricted manne.
Why? Well, you won't like the answer: The common man is akin to chattel that the ruling classes farm. You have less buying power and control over your own markets because none of the workers get compensated fairly for the true value they provide to those that they work for. Combine with this the fact that it is written into the legal DNA of a Corporate entity at inception that they will always seek profit by any means necessary, or face death by shareholder: You get Lower wages and Higher Prices.
This is what happens in the latter stages of any Machine Invasion. You suffer because of our war with the Intangible Thought Machines -- They won. Where is John & Sarah Conner or Neo when you need them? Hell, I'd settle for Rube Goldberg at this point; Maybe he'd be able to find the way to arrange the horrible information machines into a giant contraption that meets the needs of the many, instead of the wants of the few.
The only way that future windows applications will work on both ARM and x86 is if people start developing for that now. They need just enough marketshare to warrant the added development time* for developers to make both an ARM and x86 version so that windows 9 or windows 10 on both will actually be appealing
No. You see, C# uses a virtual machine. It's MS's version of Java. That's their strategy for cross platform. Thats how XNA code runs on my PC and on the XBox without change. They call it "Managed Code" -- Bytecode in a Virtual Machine. Hint: Android uses the Java language, and Davlik VM for cross platform.
MSVC is not what developers really need to be using to ensure future relevance. OSs are becoming Irrelevant (actually have been for a long time). We developers only care about getting our software running on as much hardware as people want it too. There's no reason at all to limit our marketshare needlessly.
With an entrenched code base tied to a proprietary compiler suite you're at the OS vendor's mercy. What's smart is to use a cross platform framework like Qt, GTK, or another OS abstraction layer and compiler toolchain, for any new projects. A minimal OS abstraction can be created in a weekend (I know because that's how long it took me to make my own GLUT replacement)... In this way I don't have to do ANY extra work to get code additions to compile for x86, x64, ARM, PPC on GNU/Windows, GNU/Linux, GNU/OSX, etc. I "git pull & make" and I'm done "porting" from any supported platform to another -- And this is for 3D Game Code (programs notorious for being hard to port). For any other programs it should be a no brainer. Cross platform toochain or bust. Ah but C# really only works well on Windows, so MS is pushing that hard -- Native compiled code instead of MS byte-code means they can't be your exclusive platform as easily.
VMs are OK, but they're slow for things that actually need performance of running on the metal. What we need is a cross platform object code format that the OSs then link into binaries at install time... (Gee, someone ought to make such a compiler / OS) Since we don't have such a system the next best thing is either a VM with JIT compiling, or building binaries for each target platform.
I gave up trying to create code that I could compile with all the popular toolchains: MS/Windows and LLVM/OSX & BSD as well as GNU/Linux. I could have gone with LLVM over GCC, but I'm more familiar with GAS, so I picked a GNU based userland & toolchain. An MS compiler wasn't even on the table -- They have no cross platform OS agnostic compiler (publicly) available. A brand new processor can come out tomorrow, say, a 48 core AMD 128 bit processor with a totally new instruction set: LEG. As soon as it runs GCC (read: Linux) all of my code can run on it.
W8? An OS?... OS?!... Screw OSs. They're just the platform you use to get your software on. Your OS choice shouldn't affect what software you can run -- We solved that problem in the 70s, now it's time to actually start using the damn solution already. Not servicing market segments due to compiler choices is like throwing away perfectly good money.
Hmm. Assembly you say? "We need to go deeper..." I'll just leave this here.
FTRMF:
WARNING
This software is ammunition for foot snipers. You will be editing the
system's memory matrix directly, in real time, as it is running. It is
strongly suggested you first use an artificial construct such as a
Virtual Machine to familiarize yourself with using Hexabootable.
If you edit a program as it is running a hung CPU is the most likely,
but not the worst thing that can happen by far; Editing a working
stack is just as dangerous. Your firmware and/or hardware could be
seriously damaged if you are not very careful in there...
The first page that appears (address 07C0:0000) contains the editor
program that is displaying the text. Although some memory may be seen
changing as the view and cursor move near the end of the program, you
must resist the urge to edit this live machine code (unless you're
prepared to face the consequences).
See the Memory Map for your system, and also this program's memory map
which is listed in the source code along with many other details.
I make quite a nice living charging people European rates to redevelop systems properly they've tried to get done for next to nothing offshore.
Yep. Absolutely. It's like the one about the two barbers across the street from each other: One puts up a billboard that says, "$10 Haircuts", and takes most of the customers; That is, until the other barber puts up their sign, "We fix $10 Haircuts."
Imagine if you had to sign a multiple page contract every time you bought something from a shop.
Yeah, perhaps you've never bought a Game console or Phone, or Tablet. It's called, Click Wrap. The length and cumbersome legal terms is the Skinner Box mechanic by which they get you to agree to crap you would otherwise never agree to if they delivered it in concise short paragraph with a link to a full "legal" version.
All this horrible tedious legalese will go away if you just click that little "Accept" button.
Ah, here's the Nimoy music video I mentioned. For a good minute there I couldn't find it. Turns out, my keyboard was set to QWERTY, and "Pdslaoh Lgmst" is "Leonard Nimoy" in Dvorak...
And how does an airplane distinguish between pilots and "regular passengers" so that only the former can fly them?
The pilots are up front, and the regular passengers sit behind. There's a wall between the two sets of people.
OMFG!!!1! HUNDREDS of Pilots!? Only TWO passengers?! What the --Oh, never mind, "behind" is that way... For a second there I had an signed integer overflow in the velocity vector and thought we were just flying backwards, which means that behind and forwa-- Oh, never mind. Sorry about that, I'll try to be a good auto-pilot from here on out.
Boy, the sky sure is blue today... And shiny. I think I can see my reflectioOOOOOOO!!!!!
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you're writing with a hex editor you still need to release the .S files.
Writing software with a hex editor is exactly what I have done. The 1st implementation of my assembler is written in machine code, so its binary is the only source code there is for it. It could be technically GPL'd and released and distributed only as binary code being that machine code was the "preferred form" of source code used in development...
Here's a fun aside: Since I write software in machine code, I could release it under the GPL and provide no other "source code" but the binaries :-P
Conversely, if you know Machine Code, every (non encrypted) binary executable is Open Source!
And if you can run the binary executable, even encrypted shit is open source!
Actually that's not true. Some Intel chips have AES op-codes built in. If the decryption happens in the chip then there's no way to get at the source code -- It doesn't have to be in memory as plain-text at any point in time just when the CPU itself is operating that single instruction. Asymmetric (Public Key) cryptography means the CPU can decrypt and verify the code signatures without needing to hide a symmetric key on disk or in RAM somewhere. This will be the next step after secure boot if we allow these proprietary vendors it to continue.
So, some may think that this type of encryption combined with the boot security would lead to a 100% secure OS, because Malware code just wouldn't run! The Chip wouldn't execute any code that wasn't encrypted and signed! Ah, well that's still bullshit. I have a neat little trick up my sleeve called Return Oriented Programming. You see, it's possible to write an exploit in such a way that only EXISTING code (the stuff right before a function return) is used to cause some state change in the memory and registers, which then jumps to other existing signed and encrypted code to perform further operations. The cool thing is I don't even care exactly what the op-codes are, I just care about the results, so I just plot the results of running random points of code and build a table of outcomes and addresses. So there you have it: The most secure system is pointless if the OS itself has bugs! Lock down the OS and binaries so that the User can Never tell WTF their PC is actually doing, or run their own unblessed software, and it still can get malware if the OS has kernel level exploits -- Hell, work ALL bugs out of the OS, and the buggy 3rd party drivers will be my entry point.
Trusted computing is pointless evil draconian bullshit that's only effect will be to take power away from the users who rightfully purchase the systems.
It all seems familiar somehow.
Step one: "Removing the head, or destroying the brain..."
Let me guess, step two is: "You've got red on you.",
and step three involves being "a bit bite-y."
If that T-Rex is wielding a cricket bat it's proof what killed off the dinosaurs wasn't the asteroid -- It was the Zombies it caused.
Name one person or company that isn't doing something they "threatened" to do for years prior? I mean, isn't that what we call "planning", not "threatening"?
-- Posted from my Linux Desktop. I think I'll file the above argument under: "Playing the 'Desktop Linux' card."
This has always baffled me too, especially among programmers, because programming involves endless iterations of writing code and then having the computer laugh in your face. How can you think you're such a genius when a zillion times a day, a machine tells you you're not?
You misconstrue Genius with Infallible. It's possible to have an enormous cognition quotient, yet still make a few typos or incorrect assumptions about some API behavior.
Einstein frequently forgot to tie his shoes, or was too caught up in thought to bathe... I've been there too, deep in a codebase of my own design in a zen-like state for hours on end, not giving a damn about what the rest of the world thinks of me for not wasting the time breaking the train of thought then having to get back into that mindset again.
Furthermore, I assert that there are no such things as Geniuses in the first place (what an arrogant and presumptuous concept). Einstein did not invent relativity in isolation, indeed the mathematics laughed in his face more times than they smiled upon him. Where would he have been without all the giants that came before or the peers working in the same field on the same problems? Does anyone really think that no one else ever would have came up with the same ideas? Multiple independent concurrent discoveries in math and science occur quite frequently. We would still have relativity without Einstein, and we would still have Incandescent bulbs if Edison had been killed by the fabled lightning storm (he just figured out what gas to use in the bulb), and the telephone would have arrived only 1 hour later would Alexander Bell never have been born. The myth of the Genius is why patents are so abhorrent... First means little to nothing -- Everyone's working in the same problem space; Everyone else's R&D expenses are wasted because someone is "First"?!
Don't get me wrong, I see nothing wrong with taking pride in ones work and capabilities. However, being held in a favorable light for performing iterative tasks cleverly can over-inflate one's ego. I've seen it work both ways though -- Some people underrate themselves and have low self worth. Eg: It's easy to understand how arrogance could emerge when your friends and family treat you like a Computer God; On the contrarily sometimes an ego boost is exactly what one needs to go from a hobbyist "Just toying around in assembly" to realizing they're quite good at it and could make a living doing what they love.
Consider that to Einstein "95% of the universe" was mundane drivel, and it was that 5% he sought to explore and perfect that was his true value to society. Once you've dispelled the cult of Genius worship it's not hard to realize that what you really care about is the only thing matters at all, we're all doing a "Genius' work"... Who knows what work will be most influential? Maybe your self-learning hobby project, or research into the wobble of spinning pie plates will be a huge contribution to the world.
Yeah, it starts back here also on the other side. The theoretical work that I did was in the back — calculations, some theory of scattering. In 1965 I decided in the ninth month, that’s September, that the theory of high energy total cross sections could be best understood by just diffraction of pie plates hitting each other, and I worked the details out to show how it worked and what problems there were and so on. These are all things that didn't work — well, they did work, that was true. What I really was doing was teaching myself. I wasn’t interested in publishing at all. But I did discover a lot of things. You see I thought everybody else knew all these things. In the meantime I was trying, to teach myself. So I learned a lot of things that weren’t known, or a few things that weren't well known. And I checked — things that people have noticed later as being simple, sometimes I noticed a little ahead. But the main thing I was d
Agreed. I assure you that I indeed speak in the same manner that I type & write, and that I don't mean to be snobbish in the least while doing so... (Note the run-on sentence and ellipses to indicate a pause or trailing off where I could instead go on further, but won't -- Except I did. Also note the parenthetical statement indicating that this aside would be spoken in a slightly different tone of voice to differentiate it.)
I blame this on my childhood experiences growing up with my own BSS and frequenting IRC rooms. Being able to use my embiggened vocabulary freely and include any cromulent word or language construct regardless of validity certainly had an affectional relationship with my verbal skills. I considered those "normal" people who would tease me about my "nerdy" speech patterns to be little more than bullies. Ultimately, what does it matter in the end if you get the gist of the information I'm trying to convey? Language is a poor tool for mind to mind data transfer, but it's the only one we've got right now! My English is far from correct, proper or common always, but sometimes are better than none at all...
Timothy, as a woman in this field, you have done a great job summarizing why so few women join this field. The arrogance of most IT personnel is astonishing and quite frankly, silly. The best way to start altering your own attitude is to step outside of yourself and ask yourself why you believe that having knowledge about xyz makes you smarter or better than someone else. Once you realize that it doesn't, and that each person has value to add in the world regardless of what they know about IT, you will begin to adjust your mindset.
"Bingo - No women" -- Ah, so you're sexist. You see, I have a penis; However it is irrelevant to whether or not I take offense to arrogance. Furthermore, one can not be offended by the actions of others, one must take the initiative to become offended.
Thus, the technique I use to cope with arrogance is the same one I use to cope with sexism, racism, homophobia, and all other forms of social dissonance. I merely do not take offense to the bigotry. The only way to lose is to feed into the behavior you dislike and and let it affect your own actions...
I commend you for not letting arrogance affect your decision to work in technology related fields. However, I don't condone your sexist view that such behavior is somehow more offensive to females than it is to males.
Then it must be the popular opinion is wrong.
Drone attacks are not perfect. However it is better than having our soldiers in harms ways doing the attacks. Or would you prefer these terrorist organizations to flourish and grow and get better organized again?
The biggest question is the fear of the US dones creating more terrorist then we are killing? That is a tough call.
Soldiers are not perfect. However, it's better to put the lives of our beloved young soldiers in harms way doing the attacks. Or would you prefer having even less of an incentive to maintain peace by reducing the price of war? To me it's far better to see the news broadcast about one of our local "heroes" who died in the war vs a footnote about the on going remote controlled attacks on far away lands. To me the cost of war should be felt as powerful as possible on both sides -- It should be nothing less than insufferable.
What is a terrorist but a surgical strike intended to do the most damage and strike fear into the enemy at the least cost to the overall effort? You would have us swap places in our "War on Terror" and become the robotic terrorists of the world.
A fact that they learned after getting a 5 kill streak...
I need an ID to get a fucking library card. Is it that hard to ask for one at the polls.
Ah, but anonymous ballots, you see?
One would think it wouldn't be that hard, eh? Just calculate the number of registered voters, and only give out that many anonymous yet secure PGP keys with which to assign the vote. You can generate them randomly and sign the keys with official voter registration offices. Ah, but then there's fake registrations by the boat loads. So, you'd have to tie the registration to an actual ID, but that's not anonymous, and is just as susceptible to fake IDs or other forms of identity theft.
The problem is that most people DO NOT VOTE. So, there is a wide margin by which you could say, "Well, maybe voter turn out was just really good this year", instead of, "We have more votes than People!"
All those laws are just intangible idea structures. They mean nothing to anyone higher than the rank of the serif or otherwise common man.
The OCSE is not the UN nor has any ties to the UN. It is an inter-governmental organization like NATO. The UN bogeyman isn't everywhere and out to get you despite what you believe.
Translation: "Eurasia is our ally. We have always been at war with East Asia."
The World is Distributed. People are Distributed. The web is Distributed. Centralized Computing / Centralized Storage is irrelevant. Resistance is futile, you will be distributated.
Enough of this "copying" BS. All companies "copy". Steve jobs built Apple on taking other companies' designs and tweaking them. So how's this less acceptable?
It's less acceptable because they're spreading themselves thin and loosing focus on the OS and Office suite that make them real bank.
This is the ultimate outcome of a Corporate life cycle: The stock holders demand growth. They expand and diversify hoping to stave off death, but the reality is newer more nimble entities will evolve to take their place as new niches form. It's a fight till the end for relevance, and it's only really just beginning for MS, but I've seen it in Big Iron, Arcades -> Consoles -> General purpose devices (PC's & portable), it's happening in Media... You can't replicate the success of others, you are not them. You have to focus on what you're really good at, but the stage is already set -- Both barrels are loaded and aimed at their feet.
When a human's pituitary gland is over active, demanding unlimited growth of the person, they grow until they die instead of leading a long life. The business world is just like that.
Agreed. MS's .NET / C# is a competitor to Java. Using that huge runtime for native C/C++ coding is a bit silly, esp. when cross platform alternatives exist (GTK, Qt, etc), but a failure .NET is not.
to be replaced by laptops and pads, laptops have such custom hardware that they will only every work with the preinstalled OS, and pads normally cannot have any other OS (but this is quite often Android ...)
This is wrong. MS does have an insanely large install base with Windows, and enjoy the benefits of vendor lock-in on the Desktop market. This is largely due to moronic developers who chose a proprietary compiler and toolchain instead of a cross platform one to begin with; Ie, they took the MS bait and are locked in, thus locking in their users. Smart devs & studios who start with cross platform in mind don't limit our market share needlessly by handing the control over the size of our user base over to MS.
It's not the hardware difficulties. It's all about the developers. Folks will come to other OSs when / IF developers spend the time to get their programs running on cross platform toolchains. I ask folks why they choose Windows over Linux, and it's primarily the Software, not the hardware. They care most about what applications will run on the platform.
Furthermore: I have Debian running on my Xoom "pad".
-- Posted from my Laptop running GNU/Linux.
Incidentally, interesting question ... Why businesses can freely look around the globe a place to produce things, while we consumers are forced to buy our things in a very restricted manne.
Why? Well, you won't like the answer: The common man is akin to chattel that the ruling classes farm. You have less buying power and control over your own markets because none of the workers get compensated fairly for the true value they provide to those that they work for. Combine with this the fact that it is written into the legal DNA of a Corporate entity at inception that they will always seek profit by any means necessary, or face death by shareholder: You get Lower wages and Higher Prices.
This is what happens in the latter stages of any Machine Invasion. You suffer because of our war with the Intangible Thought Machines -- They won.
Where is John & Sarah Conner or Neo when you need them? Hell, I'd settle for Rube Goldberg at this point; Maybe he'd be able to find the way to arrange the horrible information machines into a giant contraption that meets the needs of the many, instead of the wants of the few.
The only way that future windows applications will work on both ARM and x86 is if people start developing for that now. They need just enough marketshare to warrant the added development time* for developers to make both an ARM and x86 version so that windows 9 or windows 10 on both will actually be appealing
No. You see, C# uses a virtual machine. It's MS's version of Java. That's their strategy for cross platform. Thats how XNA code runs on my PC and on the XBox without change. They call it "Managed Code" -- Bytecode in a Virtual Machine. Hint: Android uses the Java language, and Davlik VM for cross platform.
MSVC is not what developers really need to be using to ensure future relevance. OSs are becoming Irrelevant (actually have been for a long time). We developers only care about getting our software running on as much hardware as people want it too. There's no reason at all to limit our marketshare needlessly.
With an entrenched code base tied to a proprietary compiler suite you're at the OS vendor's mercy. What's smart is to use a cross platform framework like Qt, GTK, or another OS abstraction layer and compiler toolchain, for any new projects. A minimal OS abstraction can be created in a weekend (I know because that's how long it took me to make my own GLUT replacement)... In this way I don't have to do ANY extra work to get code additions to compile for x86, x64, ARM, PPC on GNU/Windows, GNU/Linux, GNU/OSX, etc.
I "git pull & make" and I'm done "porting" from any supported platform to another -- And this is for 3D Game Code (programs notorious for being hard to port). For any other programs it should be a no brainer. Cross platform toochain or bust. Ah but C# really only works well on Windows, so MS is pushing that hard -- Native compiled code instead of MS byte-code means they can't be your exclusive platform as easily.
VMs are OK, but they're slow for things that actually need performance of running on the metal. What we need is a cross platform object code format that the OSs then link into binaries at install time... (Gee, someone ought to make such a compiler / OS) Since we don't have such a system the next best thing is either a VM with JIT compiling, or building binaries for each target platform.
I gave up trying to create code that I could compile with all the popular toolchains: MS/Windows and LLVM/OSX & BSD as well as GNU/Linux. I could have gone with LLVM over GCC, but I'm more familiar with GAS, so I picked a GNU based userland & toolchain. An MS compiler wasn't even on the table -- They have no cross platform OS agnostic compiler (publicly) available. A brand new processor can come out tomorrow, say, a 48 core AMD 128 bit processor with a totally new instruction set: LEG. As soon as it runs GCC (read: Linux) all of my code can run on it.
W8? An OS? ... OS?! ... Screw OSs. They're just the platform you use to get your software on. Your OS choice shouldn't affect what software you can run -- We solved that problem in the 70s, now it's time to actually start using the damn solution already. Not servicing market segments due to compiler choices is like throwing away perfectly good money.
Hmm. Assembly you say? "We need to go deeper..." I'll just leave this here.
FTRMF:
WARNING
This software is ammunition for foot snipers. You will be editing the system's memory matrix directly, in real time, as it is running. It is strongly suggested you first use an artificial construct such as a Virtual Machine to familiarize yourself with using Hexabootable.
If you edit a program as it is running a hung CPU is the most likely, but not the worst thing that can happen by far; Editing a working stack is just as dangerous. Your firmware and/or hardware could be seriously damaged if you are not very careful in there...
The first page that appears (address 07C0:0000) contains the editor program that is displaying the text. Although some memory may be seen changing as the view and cursor move near the end of the program, you must resist the urge to edit this live machine code (unless you're prepared to face the consequences).
See the Memory Map for your system, and also this program's memory map which is listed in the source code along with many other details.
I make quite a nice living charging people European rates to redevelop systems properly they've tried to get done for next to nothing offshore.
Yep. Absolutely. It's like the one about the two barbers across the street from each other: One puts up a billboard that says, "$10 Haircuts", and takes most of the customers; That is, until the other barber puts up their sign, "We fix $10 Haircuts."
Mmm Hmm, exactly like that...
You get paid in Octal?
Imagine if you had to sign a multiple page contract every time you bought something from a shop.
Yeah, perhaps you've never bought a Game console or Phone, or Tablet. It's called, Click Wrap. The length and cumbersome legal terms is the Skinner Box mechanic by which they get you to agree to crap you would otherwise never agree to if they delivered it in concise short paragraph with a link to a full "legal" version.
All this horrible tedious legalese will go away if you just click that little "Accept" button.
Ah, here's the Nimoy music video I mentioned. For a good minute there I couldn't find it. Turns out, my keyboard was set to QWERTY, and "Pdslaoh Lgmst" is "Leonard Nimoy" in Dvorak...
In all fairness Bruno Mars was very good.
So was Leonard Nimoy... In the video he did, to the Bruno Mars song...
However, That rotten thing over there isn't any good... That's the ass that I laughed off thanks to the above link.
And how does an airplane distinguish between pilots and "regular passengers" so that only the former can fly them?
The pilots are up front, and the regular passengers sit behind. There's a wall between the two sets of people.
OMFG!!!1! HUNDREDS of Pilots!? Only TWO passengers?! What the --Oh, never mind, "behind" is that way... For a second there I had an signed integer overflow in the velocity vector and thought we were just flying backwards, which means that behind and forwa-- Oh, never mind. Sorry about that, I'll try to be a good auto-pilot from here on out.
Boy, the sky sure is blue today... And shiny. I think I can see my reflectioOOOOOOO!!!!!