Consider cases like the console interpreter for Python or Perl, you could do malicious things with them, but I wouldn't call them code injection attacks. Mind you, using a REPL in a more complex piece of code that has other functions is probably a bad idea, but I think the REPL is more of an easy demo to show what it can do, not the intended use.
Oh? I run it on Windows, Linux, FreeBSD and MacOS.
I run it on x86 and ARM.
Seems pretty damn independent to me.
Regarding what the GP stated though, with the right libraries and a little clever coding, a similar independent 'partially compiled' method could be used with C as well. Of course the partial compile of the windows version would have to check for a C compiler, and download/install one if it isn't available. Java and Flash could conceivably be used to do the same. So, it's really not adding a whole lot of new threats to the ecosystem.
Filling in a few blanks and tweaks, that can be done on ANY unix system. It allows ANY software to feed source code to a compiler. Nobody has complained of this as a security risk before.
Now, it might be a *slight* security risk if it is running as a background process that is always on, and therefore corrupting it once could potentially corrupt all future output, but I doubt MS means it as that type of service. As long as it doesn't run in that method, it's no worse than having the GCC binary callable as I showed above.
They'll probably do exactly what they've done with the past 2 or 3 releases of Visual Studio.
Roll it out, have something that's actually pretty damn good, and as long as you aren't making a commercial product, it is all free (except for a couple reporting tools and their code repository server, the latter of which can easily be replaced with 90% of the features by using Mercurial using VisualHG + TortoiseHG, which are free and better suited for most non-corporate development models anyway).
Now, if you want to use it commercially, that's $750 or so a seat. For the quality of the software, I think it is worth it, but others may disagree.
I think the idea is that it will be easier than the current methods. Also, if I remember correctly from previous articles, there will be more profiling information available to help with optimization tasks.
They may not necessarily mean 'service' as runtime service (the Windows world equivalent of a Daemon), but rather more a sense of a software library (provides a service to other applications, without actually being standalone itself).
In this case, it's not much different from python/ruby on any system. I could execute arbitrary python code from a C executable without much difficulty. That doesn't mean that there is a problem with how, C, Python or the underlying OS is written.
There's a difference between quantity and quality.
10-20 years of STRONG copyright is fine. 70 years is pretty absurd, if for nothing else, except for a few rarities, only books have much value if over 20 years old.
People tend to want "fresh" media. How many people do you know that go out and by movies 40 years old? 20 years old? 10 years old? less than 5 years old? How about movies? This still holds fairly well for music, though it does break down for books.
As the older stuff reduces in sales, the content creators still need to make more media, so they can actually live off of their work.
My bigger point, though I didn't explicitly state it, was that piracy, and a system that helps/encourages it doesn't help at all. I removes any incentive for content creators to create, other than the joy of creation, and you can't use that to buy dinner or a roof over your head.
Also, it's only when indie work is good (which in my experience, it rarely is, even compared to the shit produced by content mills), will it be sufficient motivator to produce better stuff.
What we need is more content publishing companies, that way these companies *really* have to compete with each other for their artists, and maybe support more artists overall - which means competing with each other for peoples money, and lowering prices as well.
I didn't say that copyright wasn't broken. I said that piracy is not the solution. Even so, that incentive of profit, EVEN AFTER THE DEATH OF THE CREATOR, is part of the incentive of these investors to help fund the creators in the first place.
Is the system being abused by those on top: hell yes. Should copyright laws be fixed to prevent this: again, hell yes. Piracy doesn't fix them.
I look forward to living in this dream "utopia" of yours, where to find any good art (be it book, movie, music) whatever, means I have to sift through thousands of pieces of indie crap, because nobody can afford to make anything good because they don't get compensated for it. Yes, I know, most of the profit is gouged by those at the top, and there is something wrong there, however - enough still goes to the people who make the art, to help them continue and make more, without having them need to be side tracked with other things. I'm glad my favorite authors, musicians and movie-creators of various sub-occupations don't have to work 9-5 jobs outside of their creative jobs, just so they can survive. This allows them to produce more stuff worth my time (and in the latter case, tools to make special effects that help with suspension of disbelief)
Mind you, the mass produced stuff of Hollywood and the record companies is usually garbage, but I have a better time finding the few good bits they produce as compared to the swathes of crap produced by the indie culture, who's only "value" is that it's not mainstream, providing their audiences with a nice feeling of rebellion without risk.
It is about protecting the public, but not in the sense that the GP believes.
It is about protecting the public by keeping an incentive for the produces of works of art, to keep producing. That incentive is financial compensation. It allows them to produce these works as a job, rather than in their free time, allowing them to produce more. This then provides more options for public consumption. There's arguments for some kind of patronage system - but what incentive do the patrons have - if it is a painting, something where the original can be easily determined and have a set value, something displayable on a wall for all to see, with appreciating value, then that is one thing. But with books, music and movies, that doesn't work so well. These patrons usually don't won't money by dumb luck, they have it because they want to make it - that means they are not going to pay thousands to millions of dollars for something that will give them a few hours of enjoyment, unless they can expect to get some financial compensation back - usually in excess of what they pay.
Conversely, we have businesses funding it, which will have the same issue.
At least, since their goals are not completely aligned, there will be a better cross section covered with both government and business funding. A good argument to keep BOTH in the science business.
To the mods, that is not racist, Ahmanedijad, or however you spell that fucktards name, is the only Persian I have that opinion of. Given I've run into quite a few Persians (Iranians) with that opinion of him also, I wouldn't call that racism, just an idiot who likes to wave his arms around like a fool... and fling poo.
Relativity isn't quantum physics, and quantum physics isn't relativity. But relativity is not limited to quantum physics. It affects macroscopic things as well.
A reference frame is like the stage in a theater, not the props on the stage, THE STAGE. It just gives a point of reference, it clues you where/how to look, no more. (Unless the play is one of the oddball ones where the actors actually go amongst the audience some times).
Two popular reference frames (which can be treated as inertial, in the right context): "Stationary with respect to the surface of the earth" (for using this one, the problem will have to be large enough in scale / short enough in time, such that geological activity provides negligible effect. Also be careful only approximately inertial, depends on problem scope/scale). "Floating in space, without acceleration" (this is an imaginary, spot in empty space)
Some non inertial reference frames: "From the perspective of an object falling into a [some gravity source], with no rotational velocity around [some gravity source]" "From the perspective of a point on the edge of a 1M radius wheel spinning at 50hz."
In any of these reference frames, you can have an object traveling any any arbitrary velocity or pattern of motion. That is does or does not make physical sense is irrelevant. In fact, it is VERY important that these can take inputs that don't make physical sense - because you can then tell from irrational results, that the input is not possible. For example: if something is traveling faster than light (whether or not to the point of going arriving before leaving) from the point of view of your reference frame, the length of the object will be an imaginary number.
Keeping things safe and secure where I work is a challenge, and we have mandates (that are followed) that ALL of our software be within the manufacturers 'actively supported' lifecycle, plus no more than 90 days out of date in patches. Working things as out of date as described in TFS seems like a nightmare in terms of reliability, security and lack of features,
What about the 20-30% (probably more than that) of that 99% who actually work and are productive for a living, rather than focusing on getting every penny they can?
Our society prizes people who fight in the rat-race for money and are lucky/persistent enough to succeed, not those that actually benefit it.
Slashdot Mirror
Consider cases like the console interpreter for Python or Perl, you could do malicious things with them, but I wouldn't call them code injection attacks. Mind you, using a REPL in a more complex piece of code that has other functions is probably a bad idea, but I think the REPL is more of an easy demo to show what it can do, not the intended use.
Oh?
I run it on Windows, Linux, FreeBSD and MacOS.
I run it on x86 and ARM.
Seems pretty damn independent to me.
Regarding what the GP stated though, with the right libraries and a little clever coding, a similar independent 'partially compiled' method could be used with C as well. Of course the partial compile of the windows version would have to check for a C compiler, and download/install one if it isn't available. Java and Flash could conceivably be used to do the same. So, it's really not adding a whole lot of new threats to the ecosystem.
Filling in a few blanks and tweaks, that can be done on ANY unix system. It allows ANY software to feed source code to a compiler. Nobody has complained of this as a security risk before.
Now, it might be a *slight* security risk if it is running as a background process that is always on, and therefore corrupting it once could potentially corrupt all future output, but I doubt MS means it as that type of service. As long as it doesn't run in that method, it's no worse than having the GCC binary callable as I showed above.
They'll probably do exactly what they've done with the past 2 or 3 releases of Visual Studio.
Roll it out, have something that's actually pretty damn good, and as long as you aren't making a commercial product, it is all free (except for a couple reporting tools and their code repository server, the latter of which can easily be replaced with 90% of the features by using Mercurial using VisualHG + TortoiseHG, which are free and better suited for most non-corporate development models anyway).
Now, if you want to use it commercially, that's $750 or so a seat. For the quality of the software, I think it is worth it, but others may disagree.
I think the idea is that it will be easier than the current methods. Also, if I remember correctly from previous articles, there will be more profiling information available to help with optimization tasks.
They may not necessarily mean 'service' as runtime service (the Windows world equivalent of a Daemon), but rather more a sense of a software library (provides a service to other applications, without actually being standalone itself).
In this case, it's not much different from python/ruby on any system. I could execute arbitrary python code from a C executable without much difficulty. That doesn't mean that there is a problem with how, C, Python or the underlying OS is written.
There's a difference between quantity and quality.
10-20 years of STRONG copyright is fine. 70 years is pretty absurd, if for nothing else, except for a few rarities, only books have much value if over 20 years old.
No, I'm not.
People tend to want "fresh" media. How many people do you know that go out and by movies 40 years old? 20 years old? 10 years old? less than 5 years old? How about movies? This still holds fairly well for music, though it does break down for books.
As the older stuff reduces in sales, the content creators still need to make more media, so they can actually live off of their work.
My bigger point, though I didn't explicitly state it, was that piracy, and a system that helps/encourages it doesn't help at all. I removes any incentive for content creators to create, other than the joy of creation, and you can't use that to buy dinner or a roof over your head.
Oh, and indie work isn't piracy.
Also, it's only when indie work is good (which in my experience, it rarely is, even compared to the shit produced by content mills), will it be sufficient motivator to produce better stuff.
What we need is more content publishing companies, that way these companies *really* have to compete with each other for their artists, and maybe support more artists overall - which means competing with each other for peoples money, and lowering prices as well.
I didn't say that copyright wasn't broken. I said that piracy is not the solution. Even so, that incentive of profit, EVEN AFTER THE DEATH OF THE CREATOR, is part of the incentive of these investors to help fund the creators in the first place.
Is the system being abused by those on top: hell yes. Should copyright laws be fixed to prevent this: again, hell yes.
Piracy doesn't fix them.
I look forward to living in this dream "utopia" of yours, where to find any good art (be it book, movie, music) whatever, means I have to sift through thousands of pieces of indie crap, because nobody can afford to make anything good because they don't get compensated for it. Yes, I know, most of the profit is gouged by those at the top, and there is something wrong there, however - enough still goes to the people who make the art, to help them continue and make more, without having them need to be side tracked with other things. I'm glad my favorite authors, musicians and movie-creators of various sub-occupations don't have to work 9-5 jobs outside of their creative jobs, just so they can survive. This allows them to produce more stuff worth my time (and in the latter case, tools to make special effects that help with suspension of disbelief)
Mind you, the mass produced stuff of Hollywood and the record companies is usually garbage, but I have a better time finding the few good bits they produce as compared to the swathes of crap produced by the indie culture, who's only "value" is that it's not mainstream, providing their audiences with a nice feeling of rebellion without risk.
It is about protecting the public, but not in the sense that the GP believes.
It is about protecting the public by keeping an incentive for the produces of works of art, to keep producing. That incentive is financial compensation. It allows them to produce these works as a job, rather than in their free time, allowing them to produce more. This then provides more options for public consumption. There's arguments for some kind of patronage system - but what incentive do the patrons have - if it is a painting, something where the original can be easily determined and have a set value, something displayable on a wall for all to see, with appreciating value, then that is one thing. But with books, music and movies, that doesn't work so well. These patrons usually don't won't money by dumb luck, they have it because they want to make it - that means they are not going to pay thousands to millions of dollars for something that will give them a few hours of enjoyment, unless they can expect to get some financial compensation back - usually in excess of what they pay.
Conversely, we have businesses funding it, which will have the same issue.
At least, since their goals are not completely aligned, there will be a better cross section covered with both government and business funding. A good argument to keep BOTH in the science business.
Maybe a better solution would have the upper eschelon(s) of these groups be elected officials then?
It's a low-rez 3d pixel - see minecraft!
To the mods, that is not racist, Ahmanedijad, or however you spell that fucktards name, is the only Persian I have that opinion of. Given I've run into quite a few Persians (Iranians) with that opinion of him also, I wouldn't call that racism, just an idiot who likes to wave his arms around like a fool... and fling poo.
Given they tried to launch, I suspect the rocket crashed.
Obviously they have some seriously advanced tech, since the monkey not only survived, but could talk to state media about it within a month or two.
Who knew that Iranian technology in crash safety was so advanced?
Or make dollar signs light up in their eyes. I hope it's the latter, because that will hopefully do to them what similar crap did to SCO.
Mr. Pratchett, is that you?
I think you only managed to emphasize my point there.
I don't know much about the geology, but could it possibly be the result of a shield volcano?
Relativity isn't quantum physics, and quantum physics isn't relativity. But relativity is not limited to quantum physics. It affects macroscopic things as well.
A reference frame is like the stage in a theater, not the props on the stage, THE STAGE. It just gives a point of reference, it clues you where/how to look, no more. (Unless the play is one of the oddball ones where the actors actually go amongst the audience some times).
Two popular reference frames (which can be treated as inertial, in the right context):
"Stationary with respect to the surface of the earth" (for using this one, the problem will have to be large enough in scale / short enough in time, such that geological activity provides negligible effect. Also be careful only approximately inertial, depends on problem scope/scale).
"Floating in space, without acceleration" (this is an imaginary, spot in empty space)
Some non inertial reference frames:
"From the perspective of an object falling into a [some gravity source], with no rotational velocity around [some gravity source]"
"From the perspective of a point on the edge of a 1M radius wheel spinning at 50hz."
In any of these reference frames, you can have an object traveling any any arbitrary velocity or pattern of motion. That is does or does not make physical sense is irrelevant. In fact, it is VERY important that these can take inputs that don't make physical sense - because you can then tell from irrational results, that the input is not possible. For example: if something is traveling faster than light (whether or not to the point of going arriving before leaving) from the point of view of your reference frame, the length of the object will be an imaginary number.
I'd have to agree.
Keeping things safe and secure where I work is a challenge, and we have mandates (that are followed) that ALL of our software be within the manufacturers 'actively supported' lifecycle, plus no more than 90 days out of date in patches. Working things as out of date as described in TFS seems like a nightmare in terms of reliability, security and lack of features,
What about the 20-30% (probably more than that) of that 99% who actually work and are productive for a living, rather than focusing on getting every penny they can?
Our society prizes people who fight in the rat-race for money and are lucky/persistent enough to succeed, not those that actually benefit it.
Given that around half the people that ever lived are alive now (assuming 100k years of human past, I believe).
That would mean this top 20% is the top 10% not the top .0000000000001%.
Or were you going back to the first organism?