Well - sorbs has a few different blacklists. I know that if I used the one containing dynamic ip ranges I would block lots of legit mail.
I use spamhaus + greylisting, and a few of the confirmed compromises lists from sorbs. It has reduced spam on the server I run by 99% at least. Rejected mail gets a full error message explaining things, and I'm pretty sure that if I rutinely blocked legit mail, I'd know by now - as our users would let us know by other means (these are tech savvy people).
This shitty subthread is nothing but astroturfing!
This isn't even a denial of service bug. Hey, this can be only considered a bug if you are a fucking pedantic retard. All an "attacker" can do is find out wether some image file exists.
And, all versions of IE and NN are ""vulnerable"" (add more quotes, please) too.
Standard methods for doing this have existed for ages. The problem is well understood and many many methods are known for solving this problem.
You cannot get numerical solutions to every polynomial. You can write polynomials whose roots vary wildly if you change one coefficient by only a very tiny amount, which means that inexact arithmetic (floating point) can only give you meaningless results in those cases.
The fact that they have bad patents is still a "good thing" for Microsoft as once patents are granted they have to be fought and that can consume great quantities of money. Money is one resource that Microsoft has more than enough of to grind most everyone else into the ground.
Whatever they do, it is immaterial. In the end, it will look bad (because it is bad. Their nature is deeply evil), and that will be the beginning of their end. Mark my words.
The only hope for RIAA/MS/ETC is to take over total control of the world. Everything short of that will do a lot of damage, but will end with their downfall. And they cannot take over total control of the world.
Most C++ compilers will issue a diagnostic for the example you gave, and most decent editors make the mistake obvious anyways.
It was a simple example, meant to illustrate a point. One can construct arbitrarily subtle and convoluted examples. If you have programmed C++ long enough, you know that they come up just by themselves.
I'm not sure if you are actually trying to convince anybody that they shouldn't be using C++, but you come across as little more than a child throwing a temper tantrum.
If you don't like the message, attack the messenger. Anonymous Coward indeed.
All sorts of things. The 7 different ways (or so) of calling a function, the whacky precedence rules, the syntax for templates, etc.
It is also far too easy to write some crap which executes but is useless. Consider
double a=5.0,b=3.0;
a=0,5*b;
I got sick of looking for this kind of idiotic mistake, which is only made possible by a needlessly terse syntax. The convoluted syntax from hell conspires against the programmer in other ways, for instance by producing error messages that make no sense even to experts.
What would you replace it with?
With a large gapping hole of oblivion. This madness should have never happened. I know people who have lost themselves and ruined their careers in this convoluted monstruosity called C++. Fairly experienced programmers who did actually believe and follow all the hype and lost badly.
Do you favor LISP/Scheme syntax?
I do, yes. Keep in mind that modern Common Lisp is pretty much an imperative multipurpose OO language, while (appart from C# and Java, which just look like C++; I know them not too well) the other options you mention are rather "functional" in orientation. There are other fairly sane syntaxes; I'm thinking of delphi here, or python, if people get dizzy with the parenthesis (although this effect usually only lasts a week, if you use a decent editor).
Anybody who thinks languages like Haskell or ML are fundamentally more powerful than C++ must be unaware of the Boost Lambda library, and of FC++, a set of header files that implements Haskell language semantics for C++ programs. They get along fine without GC, as well
You have misunderstood the whole thing completely. A GC lets you program more freely. So yes, you sweep stuff under the carpet, which stays there and gets rid of itself, and unless you do really stupid things, it does so at almost no performance cost. What makes almost any other language more powerfull than C++ is simply that C++ has a rotten and sick notation.
But why am I telling you this? If you were interested in a sane notation, and in the ability of programming more freely, you would certainly not be programming in C++.
Side note: Boost Lambda and FC++ are impressive but ugly hacks with horrible syntax, lots of "gotchas" that make code not work (often related to operator precedence and order of evaluation), and compiler errors from hell. Probably not the best examples of the power of C++. (OTOH, maybe that makes them the perfect examples of the "power" of C++;-)
Very well said. C++ should be a member of the Turing tarpit.
So... if they do find the ark there, my guess is that you will have to rethink the assumptions made on "the geologic record", now won't you?
Well, if they find a large ship there, they have just found a large ship there. It doesn't mean anything else. But - hmmm.... what *WILL* it take you to realize that you believe in fairy tales without any basis in reality?
Religion is just a cognitive disorder.
Re:New and Elegant "foreach" ?
on
A Taste of Qt 4
·
· Score: 1
>If you want to find joy and productivity in programming, use Scheme, Common Lisp . . .
I would, but runtime type errors keep me up at night.
Of course, there are no runtime errors in C++ programs. They are called features.
I'm still looking for one with static types.
Flexibility and static typing do not like each other. And static typing only gives you the illusion that it is avoiding errors.
A specific algorithm that represents a truly novel solution to a problem should be patentable, no matter how it is implemented.
I disagree with you: Patenting algorithms is just patenting mathematical expressions. The only effect that would have is to actually stiffle innovation and research.
Think like an 8 year old who's never seen a programming construct. If the language isn't simple and able to provide immediate feedback without needing to learn all the details of a language, your average 8 year old is gonna lose interest.
Well, something interactive, then. Like -- Scheme or Common Lisp.
Having the simplest and most regular notation should help too.
procedural yes yes yes yes yes
object-oriented no partly mostly* yes partly
event-oriented no ? yes yes no
list-oriented no no yes yes yes
functional no no yes ? yes
logical no no no* ? no
Why do you say lisp is "partly" object oriented? It has one of the more flexible and complete object systems around (clos)
[...]
BTW, Lisp isn't even a VHLL, just a regular third-generation HLL, and older than Cowboy Neal's grandfather, but I threw it in just to show how C suffers from comparison with even half-decent languages, if you compare it on the basis of something other than raw speed. Which brings me to my next point...
IF you mean lisp 1.5 (end of the 50s) then you _might_ be right. But modern Common Lisp is a completely different beast altogether! It is the most HLL i've seen so far. It is in fact the most flexible language I've used.
There is a nice book online that includes an overview of the CLOS object system.
As a matter of fact, I failed to recognize *any* point in this article. The author brabbles, quotes two sides, and... nothing.
rmstar
I cleared the dust off my ole cristal ball...
on
Analyzing Palladium
·
· Score: 1
...and I tell you this:
It is going to be rather hard to sell this to consumers. It is going to be buggy, so it will be a support nightmare at both ends. No, it's not only because MS can't code, it's because code is buggy - allways. And buggy fascist DRM code is the absolute nightmare.
And the user experience will be enjoyable only to really masochistic sort of types. "You can't do that". "You are not allowed to do that". "That 'll cost you 5 bucks extra [Cancel] [OK]".
I mean...
Also, this sort of things would convince any government agency in the world who has heard the word security that MS is Mordor, and Bill Sauron.
I liked the Yahoo article better that the theregister one, btw.
I don't plan to be picky, but in fact there are some linux distros out there that don't have the r- suite in their base install. Try gentoo for example.
I mean, what you say is realy scary. I've seen this sort of stuff. The other day a guy I know, which holds some high position in the IT department of a HUGE german TV station told me
"well, you won't find any AMDs in a serious company, because all business aplications are for intel processors"
What an idiot. And he's a boss. Good he's not my boss.
The sad thing about Joe User is that he does not want to understand anything, and starts bitching immediatly if things dont work the way he wants them to work. He doesnt want to remember passwords, and much less to turn on the brain for a minute while installing something he just downloaded from the internet. His disgrace is thus of his own making, and I can only hope he gets a tenth of a clue someday (Mind you, I'm not saying he is supposed to be a guru. He just should have basic knowledge about what is going on)
But I don't want me nor anybody to be forced to this way of doing things, and I insist on Joe User having a chance of changing his ways. Viewed this way, linux and OSS have been very successfull.
If the formats used by microsoft were really open, if they didn't insist on being on every computer sold (and thus forcing me to buy what I consider a disaster of a software), and did not seem to have this facist urge of dominating the world and imposing their philosophy on everybody, then nobody would be making a fuzz about this.
Slashdot Mirror
Well - sorbs has a few different blacklists. I know that if I used the one containing dynamic ip ranges I would block lots of legit mail.
I use spamhaus + greylisting, and a few of the confirmed compromises lists from sorbs. It has reduced spam on the server I run by 99% at least. Rejected mail gets a full error message explaining things, and I'm pretty sure that if I rutinely blocked legit mail, I'd know by now - as our users would let us know by other means (these are tech savvy people).
This shitty subthread is nothing but astroturfing!
This isn't even a denial of service bug. Hey, this can be only considered a bug if you are a fucking pedantic retard. All an "attacker" can do is find out wether some image file exists.
And, all versions of IE and NN are ""vulnerable"" (add more quotes, please) too.
Standard methods for doing this have existed for ages. The problem is well understood and many many methods are known for solving this problem.
You cannot get numerical solutions to every polynomial. You can write polynomials whose roots vary wildly if you change one coefficient by only a very tiny amount, which means that inexact arithmetic (floating point) can only give you meaningless results in those cases.
The fact that they have bad patents is still a "good thing" for Microsoft as once patents are granted they have to be fought and that can consume great quantities of money. Money is one resource that Microsoft has more than enough of to grind most everyone else into the ground.
Whatever they do, it is immaterial. In the end, it will look bad (because it is bad. Their nature is deeply evil), and that will be the beginning of their end. Mark my words.
The only hope for RIAA/MS/ETC is to take over total control of the world. Everything short of that will do a lot of damage, but will end with their downfall. And they cannot take over total control of the world.
It was a simple example, meant to illustrate a point. One can construct arbitrarily subtle and convoluted examples. If you have programmed C++ long enough, you know that they come up just by themselves.
I'm not sure if you are actually trying to convince anybody that they shouldn't be using C++, but you come across as little more than a child throwing a temper tantrum.
If you don't like the message, attack the messenger. Anonymous Coward indeed.
All sorts of things. The 7 different ways (or so) of calling a function, the whacky precedence rules, the syntax for templates, etc.
It is also far too easy to write some crap which executes but is useless. Consider
I got sick of looking for this kind of idiotic mistake, which is only made possible by a needlessly terse syntax. The convoluted syntax from hell conspires against the programmer in other ways, for instance by producing error messages that make no sense even to experts.
What would you replace it with?
With a large gapping hole of oblivion. This madness should have never happened. I know people who have lost themselves and ruined their careers in this convoluted monstruosity called C++. Fairly experienced programmers who did actually believe and follow all the hype and lost badly.
Do you favor LISP/Scheme syntax?
I do, yes. Keep in mind that modern Common Lisp is pretty much an imperative multipurpose OO language, while (appart from C# and Java, which just look like C++; I know them not too well) the other options you mention are rather "functional" in orientation. There are other fairly sane syntaxes; I'm thinking of delphi here, or python, if people get dizzy with the parenthesis (although this effect usually only lasts a week, if you use a decent editor).
You have misunderstood the whole thing completely. A GC lets you program more freely. So yes, you sweep stuff under the carpet, which stays there and gets rid of itself, and unless you do really stupid things, it does so at almost no performance cost. What makes almost any other language more powerfull than C++ is simply that C++ has a rotten and sick notation.
But why am I telling you this? If you were interested in a sane notation, and in the ability of programming more freely, you would certainly not be programming in C++.
Very well said. C++ should be a member of the Turing tarpit.
Well, if they find a large ship there, they have just found a large ship there. It doesn't mean anything else. But - hmmm.... what *WILL* it take you to realize that you believe in fairy tales without any basis in reality?
Religion is just a cognitive disorder.
I would, but runtime type errors keep me up at night.
Of course, there are no runtime errors in C++ programs. They are called features.
I'm still looking for one with static types.
Flexibility and static typing do not like each other. And static typing only gives you the illusion that it is avoiding errors.
Yeah, but did they use XML for it?
I disagree with you: Patenting algorithms is just patenting mathematical expressions. The only effect that would have is to actually stiffle innovation and research.
What's wrong with
(format t "Hello Johnny!!~%")
Think like an 8 year old who's never seen a programming construct. If the language isn't simple and able to provide immediate feedback without needing to learn all the details of a language, your average 8 year old is gonna lose interest.
Well, something interactive, then. Like -- Scheme or Common Lisp.
Having the simplest and most regular notation should help too.
rmstar
rmstar
paradigm C C++ Perl Python Lisp
procedural yes yes yes yes yes
object-oriented no partly mostly* yes partly
event-oriented no ? yes yes no
list-oriented no no yes yes yes
functional no no yes ? yes
logical no no no* ? no
Why do you say lisp is "partly" object oriented? It has one of the more flexible and complete object systems around (clos)
[...]
BTW, Lisp isn't even a VHLL, just a regular third-generation HLL, and older than Cowboy Neal's grandfather, but I threw it in just to show how C suffers from comparison with even half-decent languages, if you compare it on the basis of something other than raw speed. Which brings me to my next point...
IF you mean lisp 1.5 (end of the 50s) then you _might_ be right. But modern Common Lisp is a completely different beast altogether! It is the most HLL i've seen so far. It is in fact the most flexible language I've used.
There is a nice book online that includes an overview of the CLOS object system.
As a matter of fact, I failed to recognize *any* point in this article. The author brabbles, quotes two sides, and... nothing.
rmstar
...and I tell you this:
It is going to be rather hard to sell this to consumers. It is going to be buggy, so it will be a support nightmare at both ends. No, it's not only because MS can't code, it's because code is buggy - allways. And buggy fascist DRM code is the absolute nightmare.
And the user experience will be enjoyable only to really masochistic sort of types. "You can't do that". "You are not allowed to do that". "That 'll cost you 5 bucks extra [Cancel] [OK]".
I mean...
Also, this sort of things would convince any government agency in the world who has heard the word security that MS is Mordor, and Bill Sauron.
I liked the Yahoo article better that the theregister one, btw.
rmstar
It is funny. They want to charge per seat for a product you can legaly copy from the media it is delivered on, and that doesn't even belong to them.
Sorry, but I don't get it.
Then they hope to make money with this when you can get an equivalent product without these "restrictions" for free.
huh??
These people are simply nuts.
rmstar
If somebody is wondering what LSB is, well no, its not the pre-precursor of LSD; it is the Linux Standard Base
cheers
rmstar
I don't plan to be picky, but in fact there are some linux distros out there that don't have the r- suite in their base install. Try gentoo for example.
regards
rmstar
any person who knows how to run linux worth a damn can get around The firewalls that the district has set into place.
any administrator worth a damn can stop their users from doing this on a linux box.
On Windoze, btw, it is impossible to stop them.
True! Paper is patient, they say.
They could just have written, "Add to the number of PCs twice the number of urinaries in the boy's restrooms"
Thing is, this doesn't make it right.
Ch33rs
rmstar
For those who just tuned in, here is the proposal for the creation of GeekPAC and the AMERICAN OPEN TECHNOLOGY CONSORTIUM (capitals not mine)
:-)
rmstar
P.D: why's there an l missing in the extension of that web document?? Huh???
Yikes.
I mean, what you say is realy scary. I've seen this sort of stuff. The other day a guy I know, which holds some high position in the IT department of a HUGE german TV station told me
"well, you won't find any AMDs in a serious company, because all business aplications are for intel processors"
What an idiot. And he's a boss. Good he's not my boss.
rmstar
...but to make sure that there are alternatives, and to ensure that people have the right to choose. If you love to surf without security, and have no problem with microsoft 0wning your computer, or give a shit about you computer being hijacked by spyware (see if you can find one spyware program for linux) then go ahead, use Microsoft.
I, honestly, deeply, do not give half a rats ass.
The sad thing about Joe User is that he does not want to understand anything, and starts bitching immediatly if things dont work the way he wants them to work. He doesnt want to remember passwords, and much less to turn on the brain for a minute while installing something he just downloaded from the internet. His disgrace is thus of his own making, and I can only hope he gets a tenth of a clue someday (Mind you, I'm not saying he is supposed to be a guru. He just should have basic knowledge about what is going on)
But I don't want me nor anybody to be forced to this way of doing things, and I insist on Joe User having a chance of changing his ways. Viewed this way, linux and OSS have been very successfull.
If the formats used by microsoft were really open, if they didn't insist on being on every computer sold (and thus forcing me to buy what I consider a disaster of a software), and did not seem to have this facist urge of dominating the world and imposing their philosophy on everybody, then nobody would be making a fuzz about this.
rmstar