I mean, with MSVC, you can do a lot of cool shit.
on
Microsoft's new CLI
·
· Score: 1
You can make your own "special folders", user level file systems, etc. with very little coding. Access to the internals wasn't that hard, but you needed to do a bit of coding. The problem being MSVC doesn't come with Windows. Now, with this push for lots of.NET stuff in the OS, you don't really need it. For a non-microsoft developer who's forced to use Windows at times, I'm really intrigued by this.
It's like proc on steroids. You can throw around system objects and play with them like javascript (ecmascript, whatever).
Have you ever used javascript? Imagine there was a posix base object. And a socket base object. And a vfs base object that you can extend with other objects so you can use read/write type calls on them.
Now imagine all this in an interpretive command shell.
msh exploits the transparency and "reflection" abilities of the object oriented features of the OS.
Read down the article for details on how they can now do things like mount the registry as a drive and walk it like a filesystem. Yegads!
bash (or some sh-variant) would have to be adapted to know specific things about linux to compete at that feature level, but it would become non-portable.
This is what the new sysfs interface is supposed to help with. Still, bash isn't object oriented (yet). The closest thing would be like perlsh.
I think people don't give MS enough credit for where they stand even today, frankly.
... you'd know that they only have to lookup a few cyphertexts from keys on the disc (usually no more than t) to trace back to the original. Most of the heavy collision detection between key chains are done before the CD-ROM is made. So they can use depths of something like t=4000 (?) and it's got a high hit rate. Re-checking other chains happens enough that you don't hammer the CD-ROM so much and they can maintain they're average time of 5 seconds.
Internally, you still have a secret key and your input from the passpicture or biometric scanning software still has to go through some function to match it (it's probably less "hard" than a pure hash function). From that derived input, you can figure out what kind of finger print you need to "send" to the scanner using a serial dongle, or what pictures to press.
Hopefully the passpicture program increases the password choice complexity above 2^37 to about 2^48 or more. But you might be sitting there all day clicking photos or rosarchs. I don't know.
Unlike LANMAN, which uses DES (64-bit) for 7-bytes at a time, (+ assumptions), which makes it within reverse-lookupable reach with some cleverness (as they have shown)
MD5 doesn't provide you an oppurtunity to trivially break the hash into pieces you can analyse seperately, nor does it as easily preserve the relationship between characters composing the password and effects on the hash. This makes it less trivial to guess the password.
And good riddance: nano isn't just some clone, nano is about fifty times better than pico. It has regular expression search/replace, color syntax hilight, and multibuffers. If you need anything more, you should be using vim.
Then the idiots with bad records who speed will get slammed on insurance rates, while I get to cruise around speed lim + 10 without worry. I'd say that's fair, and probably safer, wouldn't you?
Should I forced to sit through them, as "payment" for watching the rest of the show?
FUCK NO
What are you, some kind of media-empire-ass-whipped ninny? Grow a sack of balls man.
Let's be realistic, at what point did you become a customer of NBC to purchase their TV programming?
Oh wait, that's right, you didn't. It came out of the air (or from your cable provider), and you bought equipment that lets you decode it.
Meanwhile, all the broadcasting companies are paying the bills by making arrangements with Nelson and the ad agencies. AT NO POINT IS ANY AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEWER EVEN IN THE PICTURE.
The ad companies trust the ratings company. The consumer is only in the loop in as much as you agree to take surveys. There's no wording even on the survey that you agree to not lie (that I've ever seen).
So when a media giant gets pissed that you are purposefully removing ads from what you watch, you can tell them to tell their ad agency that those numbers they presented are tainted by a loss of eyeballs do to ad removal, and that they should scale pay appropriately. I bet they LOVE that but there's nothing they can do to you about it, and it's THE MEDIA GIANT'S PROBLEM TO SOLVE, not yours. They overpromise, they can't hold you responsible, you never promised them anything!!!!!!!!!!
So she paid for all the other stuff on the desktop (Office, OS, etc.) right?
I think the issue is it irks people to have to make a transaction, period.
It sticks out there on your credit card bill, reminding you that you paid money too, esp. if you are afraid you won't like it.
There should be some way to pay a low yearly fee to enter a software subscription service, sort of like what Lindows is offering. How much software does the average person really need (and to pay for) on their system yearly anyway? I'm sure it could be evened out somehow.
You think any reputable website would hook up with an ISP started by a marketing company and thus get accidentally blacklisted? I assure you it is probably nothing of value.
I don't see what the issue is there really. I imagine it implemented as follows:
virtual union { int i; float j; } k;
Where i === k.i, j === k.j in the current namespace and scope.
If i is ambigous because an int i already exists outside the union in a similar scope, the behavior is to favor the "inner" scope provided by the union.
Similarly, we can have:
struct outer_t { int member; virtual struct inner_t { int member; int data; } inner; } outer;
Where outer.member === outer.inner.member (there is no seperate memory allocated for names that collide). However, inner_t structs can be seperately allocated, and for example:
inner_t x = outer.inner;
is a valid statement doing exactly what you expect.
I'm tired of that attitude. Christ, you think every AI student in our Universities is a self-serving, conniving, asshole?
That's a pretty close description (as the field has been sort of shunned at lots of those guys have chips on their shoulders), but GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK! If you've never met them, how would you know this?
The sad truth: anything even remotely that sophisticated is about 20 years off. So lets not start making predictions that far out, eh?
Slashdot Mirror
You need help.
You can make your own "special folders", user level file systems, etc. with very little coding. Access to the internals wasn't that hard, but you needed to do a bit of coding. .NET stuff in the OS, you don't really need it.
The problem being MSVC doesn't come with Windows. Now, with this push for lots of
For a non-microsoft developer who's forced to use Windows at times, I'm really intrigued by this.
It's like proc on steroids. You can throw around system objects and play with them like javascript (ecmascript, whatever).
Have you ever used javascript? Imagine there was a posix base object. And a socket base object. And a vfs base object that you can extend with other objects so you can use read/write type calls on them.
Now imagine all this in an interpretive command shell.
Of course, the interactive mode is quite usuable. Hmmm...
usermod -s 'which python' yourname anyone?
msh exploits the transparency and "reflection" abilities of the object oriented features of the OS.
Read down the article for details on how they can now do things like mount the registry as a drive and walk it like a filesystem. Yegads!
bash (or some sh-variant) would have to be adapted to know specific things about linux to compete at that feature level, but it would become non-portable.
This is what the new sysfs interface is supposed to help with. Still, bash isn't object oriented (yet). The closest thing would be like perlsh.
I think people don't give MS enough credit for where they stand even today, frankly.
I'm there. Where do I submit my resume?
You shouldn't need to rename an extension to make tar or gzip work.
gunzip -c ungzipped_file
works OK, without extensions.
Also:
weird_command_spitting_out_tar_format | tar xf -
works fine for me too....
In fact:
gunzip -c funny_stuff.tgz | tar xvf -
Or even better
tar xvfz funny_stuff.tgz
Don't give up yet!
Plenty of people
have gotten it to work
... you'd know that they only have to lookup a few cyphertexts from keys on the disc (usually no more than t) to trace back to the original. Most of the heavy collision detection between key chains are done before the CD-ROM is made. So they can use depths of something like t=4000 (?) and it's got a high hit rate. Re-checking other chains happens enough that you don't hammer the CD-ROM so much and they can maintain they're average time of 5 seconds.
Internally, you still have a secret key and your input from the passpicture or biometric scanning software still has to go through some function to match it (it's probably less "hard" than a pure hash function). From that derived input, you can figure out what kind of finger print you need to "send" to the scanner using a serial dongle, or what pictures to press.
Hopefully the passpicture program increases the password choice complexity above 2^37 to about 2^48 or more. But you might be sitting there all day clicking photos or rosarchs. I don't know.
Unlike LANMAN, which uses DES (64-bit) for 7-bytes at a time, (+ assumptions), which makes it within reverse-lookupable reach with some cleverness (as they have shown)
MD5 doesn't provide you an oppurtunity to trivially break the hash into pieces you can analyse seperately, nor does it as easily preserve the relationship between characters composing the password and effects on the hash. This makes it less trivial to guess the password.
This article was written independantly and it just so happens to have appeared in Slate later.
Note he never mentions MS in the article. So lets leave out the MSN speculation. I'm tired of reading such speculation this far down the threads.
I was preparing to roll out shell access and free email to personal friends on my server.
Let's see those Aussies come 'n get sum. Lazy bums.
And good riddance: nano isn't just some clone, nano is about fifty times better than pico. It has regular expression search/replace, color syntax hilight, and multibuffers. If you need anything more, you should be using vim.
You discovered the ruse. Click here to claim your prize. *
* Prize not guaranteed
I went off on ya, when I didn't hear the sarcasm in your voice. I guess I just wanted to vent.
toodles
The 2 party system must be abolished. Great. I can no longer take this child-minded bullshit.
I almost wish everyone had those black boxes.
Then the idiots with bad records who speed will get slammed on insurance rates, while I get to cruise around speed lim + 10 without worry. I'd say that's fair, and probably safer, wouldn't you?
Should I forced to sit through them, as "payment" for watching the rest of the show?
FUCK NO
What are you, some kind of media-empire-ass-whipped ninny? Grow a sack of balls man.
Let's be realistic, at what point did you become a customer of NBC to purchase their TV programming?
Oh wait, that's right, you didn't. It came out of the air (or from your cable provider), and you bought equipment that lets you decode it.
Meanwhile, all the broadcasting companies are paying the bills by making arrangements with Nelson and the ad agencies. AT NO POINT IS ANY AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEWER EVEN IN THE PICTURE.
The ad companies trust the ratings company. The consumer is only in the loop in as much as you agree to take surveys. There's no wording even on the survey that you agree to not lie (that I've ever seen).
So when a media giant gets pissed that you are purposefully removing ads from what you watch, you can tell them to tell their ad agency that those numbers they presented are tainted by a loss of eyeballs do to ad removal, and that they should scale pay appropriately. I bet they LOVE that but there's nothing they can do to you about it, and it's THE MEDIA GIANT'S PROBLEM TO SOLVE, not yours. They overpromise, they can't hold you responsible, you never promised them anything!!!!!!!!!!
So she paid for all the other stuff on the desktop (Office, OS, etc.) right?
I think the issue is it irks people to have to make a transaction, period.
It sticks out there on your credit card bill, reminding you that you paid money too, esp. if you are afraid you won't like it.
There should be some way to pay a low yearly fee to enter a software subscription service, sort of like what Lindows is offering. How much software does the average person really need (and to pay for) on their system yearly anyway? I'm sure it could be evened out somehow.
it makes it all the easier to block.
You think any reputable website would hook up with an ISP started by a marketing company and thus get accidentally blacklisted? I assure you it is probably nothing of value.
I don't see what the issue is there really. I imagine it implemented as follows:
virtual union {
int i;
float j;
} k;
Where i === k.i, j === k.j in the current namespace and scope.
If i is ambigous because an int i already exists outside the union in a similar scope, the behavior is to favor the "inner" scope provided by the union.
Similarly, we can have:
struct outer_t {
int member;
virtual struct inner_t {
int member;
int data;
} inner;
} outer;
Where outer.member === outer.inner.member (there is no seperate memory allocated for names that collide). However, inner_t structs can be seperately allocated, and for example:
inner_t x = outer.inner;
is a valid statement doing exactly what you expect.
I'm tired of that attitude. Christ, you think every AI student in our Universities is a self-serving, conniving, asshole?
That's a pretty close description (as the field has been sort of shunned at lots of those guys have chips on their shoulders), but GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK! If you've never met them, how would you know this?
The sad truth: anything even remotely that sophisticated is about 20 years off. So lets not start making predictions that far out, eh?
Also, go fuck a duck.
Is to put crazy shit in the title like you are a 11 year old boy!!!
I don't want to give them a clue, I'm just feeling vindictive. It's like those Japanese game shows or Fear Factor where they punish the slow-witted.
I just don't want to see the replies. >:{