Which remote scanners do you trust to cause your database to be updated?
Get an animation program to create all the necessary in-between frames between your target victim and your target final fake iris (which should not be the same as the one in your eye unless you want to get caught easily).
In Windows XP, I do not see any process ID either:
(The following are all real errors in my event viewer) Example error #1: Event Type: Error Event Source: Application Error Event Category: (100) Event ID: 1000 Date: 5/26/2012 Time: 2:35:31 AM User: N/A Computer: CORE Description: Faulting application , version 0.0.0.0, faulting module unknown, version 0.0.0.0, fault address 0x00000000.
For more information, see Help and Support Center at http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/events.asp. Data: 0000: 41 70 70 6c 69 63 61 74 Applicat 0008: 69 6f 6e 20 46 61 69 6c ion Fail 0010: 75 72 65 20 20 20 30 2e ure 0. 0018: 30 2e 30 2e 30 20 69 6e 0.0.0 in 0020: 20 75 6e 6b 6e 6f 77 6e unknown 0028: 20 30 2e 30 2e 30 2e 30 0.0.0.0 0030: 20 61 74 20 6f 66 66 73 at offs 0038: 65 74 20 30 30 30 30 30 et 00000 0040: 30 30 30 000
Example #2 Event Type: Error Event Source: Application Hang Event Category: (101) Event ID: 1002 Date: 5/12/2012 Time: 5:32:00 PM User: N/A Computer: CORE Description: Hanging application explorer.exe, version 6.0.2900.5512, hang module hungapp, version 0.0.0.0, hang address 0x00000000.
Example of Syslog style error: Apr 28 23:02:02 mitchell postgres[3447]: [7-1] FATAL: the database system is in recovery mode Apr 28 23:02:02 mitchell postgres[3448]: [6-1] LOG: connection received: host=mitchell.cs.wisc.edu port=37591 Apr 28 23:02:02 mitchell postgres[3448]: [7-1] FATAL: the database system is in recovery mode Apr 28 23:02:23 mitchell postgres[461]: [6-1] LOG: startup process (PID 3446) was terminated by signal 7: Bus error Apr 28 23:02:23 mitchell postgres[461]: [7-1] LOG: aborting startup due to startup process failure
Much better in comparison. So what if it's not in XML, it is a lot more useful than most of the crap that gets puked out in event viewer.
As for the "object reference" errors, in other systems/programming languages you get way more useful error messages like:
(Python example) Traceback (most recent call last):
File "testerror.py", line 12, in [module]
test(myvar)
File "testerror.py", line 5, in test
print 2 + var TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for +: 'int' and 'NoneType'
var is clearly the problem here.
In contrast I see my colleagues working till late at night wrestling with "Object reference not set to an instance of an object.", and it's not always their code they're having to fix. Maybe there's a way of turning on debugging symbols so that message is replaced with something a lot more useful, but so far they seem to get the same useless error message even with debugging on.
FWIW I do write windows programs/services that log more informative "syslog style" error messages (with process AND thread ID- makes debugging multithreaded stuff easier), but Microsoft's own stuff doesn't do it. Stuff that would be simple to do in a unix/linux system would be hard on Windows - for example if there is a problem with an email message amongst a bunch of Microsoft Exchange servers, figuring out the path it took and where the message had problems, and why is so much more difficult than with postfix, qmai
Have you even looked at windows logs? They suck. Too many of them are the equivalent of "Doctor it hurts". They don't tell you where or what. You don't even get the process ID of the stuff that's logging the error.
You can't even easily sort by date then by error type - sorting by error ID causes the date sort to no longer be in order. So what's the frigging point of the stupid fancy log UI?
That crappy attitude to useless logs goes all the way up to the app level with useless messages like "Object reference not set to an instance of an object." even with debug mode turned on. With nonmicrosoft stuff you usually know the name of the object involved, and you may even know what was being attempted that failed (e.g. string concatenation).
Just curious, how much more efficient is this compared to using microwaves? I think with microwaves it doesn't matter that much that there are bubbles - the waves will heat the next available spot - no contact needed.
Can't always use microwaves though e.g. liquid is not suitable, or it's not convenient.
Yeah my suggestion is do NOT install adblockers for everyone. People who can't figure out how to block ads by themselves should get them.
The ones who can figure out how to block ads and choose to block them typically aren't the target market for those ads, so there's no real loss to the advertiser (and in fact the wise advertisers might prefer it that way since they may get charged if the ad is shown or if the person accidentally clicks on the ad).
Perhaps the driver could become the vehicle in another way. Imagine if a soldier with full battle gear and weaponry could "sprint" for 30 minutes without getting tired. He would be more formidable in many scenarios than most conventional ground vehicles including tanks.
That might be possible if scientists can come up with a cybernetic augmentation that prevents soldiers from getting tired until they run out of fuel[1]. Most soldiers can be very strong for a few seconds, the problem is they get tired.
[1] Peak sprinter/cyclist output is about 2 kilowatts. The amount of energy in a litre of oil or cooking oil is about 30-35 megajoules. Which is enough for 4 hours assuming 100% efficiency- impossible of course, but just to give an idea of the ballpark figures.
Why would you want to do that (transmit emotions)?
1) There are already brain computer interfaces. 2) There's already wireless communication 3) Wearable computers, displays, sensors are possible
So sending messages to your team using thoughts is not a big step. Why would sending emotions be better in a battle than sending messages?
Once you have that controlling devices remotely would just be a matter of sending the right messages to the right stuff. Then you have your telekinesis too.
Sure, windfall now, but next month when IPv6 day comes and all the IPv6 sites stay lit, they'll be worth a rapidly diminishing amount.
Really? There are still tons of IPv4 only sites in the world. Tell me how is a client going to access those IPv4 only sites without an IPv4 address being involved?
Those sites may want to support IPv6, but they can't do this if: a) their ISP or hosting provider (EC2, Azure) does not provide them with publicly accessible IPv6 addresses b) their DNS registrar does not have servers listening on publicly accessible IPv6 (so users cannot look up the IPv6 address of your server if nobody has an IPv4 address to talk to your registrar).
IPv4 addresses will be valuable as long as an IPv4 address is involved in any of the many steps it takes for a user to connect to a server (getting an IP, gateway, getting a resolving DNS server, using that DNS resolver, DNS resolver doing all the lookups over the internet, etc).
When I go to a funeral, I go there to visit the living. Not the dead. If you really cared that much about the person you'd visit or communicate with him while he was alive. Otherwise what sort of caring is that?
1) in my post is about teaching drivers as part of the curriculum.
Maybe should even make it as a compulsory part of the exam (compulsory to take, not to pass), even though they won't pass. More drivers should know how crap they are before they are allowed on the roads.
Something that is nearly universally reckless should be banned from public roads just the same as something that can be scientifically proven to be universally reckless.
Isn't it ALREADY banned in most places? Just like DUI etc.
My suggestion is about getting people to actually _learn_ to drive better. See 1) in my OP.
Slashdot Mirror
Huh? His point was not all waste is of the same level of harmfulness. And it's true. Heavy metals are more toxic than flint.
So what does NATURAL have to do with it?
If it matches your iris it does not mean it's you, unless there is a well trained guard standing there making sure you're not doing strange things...
So all of them means you need to secure all of the scanners to prevent your database from getting falsified data.
Which remote scanners do you trust to cause your database to be updated?
Get an animation program to create all the necessary in-between frames between your target victim and your target final fake iris (which should not be the same as the one in your eye unless you want to get caught easily).
Would it be possible to filter out sites like this? I personally don't want to find sites like these in my Google search results.
And only steal 87k? Amateurs.
What's the process ID of the nfssvr in this Windows Server 2008 log: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc731909(v=ws.10).aspx
Or this log: http://www.petri.co.il/images/ie7_on_ex2003_1.gif
In Windows XP, I do not see any process ID either:
(The following are all real errors in my event viewer)
Example error #1:
Event Type: Error
Event Source: Application Error
Event Category: (100)
Event ID: 1000
Date: 5/26/2012
Time: 2:35:31 AM
User: N/A
Computer: CORE
Description:
Faulting application , version 0.0.0.0, faulting module unknown, version 0.0.0.0, fault address 0x00000000.
For more information, see Help and Support Center at http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/events.asp.
Data:
0000: 41 70 70 6c 69 63 61 74 Applicat
0008: 69 6f 6e 20 46 61 69 6c ion Fail
0010: 75 72 65 20 20 20 30 2e ure 0.
0018: 30 2e 30 2e 30 20 69 6e 0.0.0 in
0020: 20 75 6e 6b 6e 6f 77 6e unknown
0028: 20 30 2e 30 2e 30 2e 30 0.0.0.0
0030: 20 61 74 20 6f 66 66 73 at offs
0038: 65 74 20 30 30 30 30 30 et 00000
0040: 30 30 30 000
Example #2
Event Type: Error
Event Source: Application Hang
Event Category: (101)
Event ID: 1002
Date: 5/12/2012
Time: 5:32:00 PM
User: N/A
Computer: CORE
Description:
Hanging application explorer.exe, version 6.0.2900.5512, hang module hungapp, version 0.0.0.0, hang address 0x00000000.
For more information, see Help and Support Center at http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/events.asp.
Data: (useless crap omitted to pass Slashdot lameness filter)
Example of Syslog style error:
Apr 28 23:02:02 mitchell postgres[3447]: [7-1] FATAL: the database system is in recovery mode
Apr 28 23:02:02 mitchell postgres[3448]: [6-1] LOG: connection received: host=mitchell.cs.wisc.edu port=37591
Apr 28 23:02:02 mitchell postgres[3448]: [7-1] FATAL: the database system is in recovery mode
Apr 28 23:02:23 mitchell postgres[461]: [6-1] LOG: startup process (PID 3446) was terminated by signal 7: Bus error
Apr 28 23:02:23 mitchell postgres[461]: [7-1] LOG: aborting startup due to startup process failure
Much better in comparison. So what if it's not in XML, it is a lot more useful than most of the crap that gets puked out in event viewer.
As for the "object reference" errors, in other systems/programming languages you get way more useful error messages like:
(Python example)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "testerror.py", line 12, in [module]
test(myvar)
File "testerror.py", line 5, in test
print 2 + var
TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for +: 'int' and 'NoneType'
var is clearly the problem here.
In contrast I see my colleagues working till late at night wrestling with "Object reference not set to an instance of an object.", and it's not always their code they're having to fix. Maybe there's a way of turning on debugging symbols so that message is replaced with something a lot more useful, but so far they seem to get the same useless error message even with debugging on.
FWIW I do write windows programs/services that log more informative "syslog style" error messages (with process AND thread ID- makes debugging multithreaded stuff easier), but Microsoft's own stuff doesn't do it. Stuff that would be simple to do in a unix/linux system would be hard on Windows - for example if there is a problem with an email message amongst a bunch of Microsoft Exchange servers, figuring out the path it took and where the message had problems, and why is so much more difficult than with postfix, qmai
Have you even looked at windows logs? They suck. Too many of them are the equivalent of "Doctor it hurts". They don't tell you where or what. You don't even get the process ID of the stuff that's logging the error.
You can't even easily sort by date then by error type - sorting by error ID causes the date sort to no longer be in order. So what's the frigging point of the stupid fancy log UI?
That crappy attitude to useless logs goes all the way up to the app level with useless messages like "Object reference not set to an instance of an object." even with debug mode turned on. With nonmicrosoft stuff you usually know the name of the object involved, and you may even know what was being attempted that failed (e.g. string concatenation).
Just curious, how much more efficient is this compared to using microwaves? I think with microwaves it doesn't matter that much that there are bubbles - the waves will heat the next available spot - no contact needed.
Can't always use microwaves though e.g. liquid is not suitable, or it's not convenient.
Yeah my suggestion is do NOT install adblockers for everyone. People who can't figure out how to block ads by themselves should get them.
The ones who can figure out how to block ads and choose to block them typically aren't the target market for those ads, so there's no real loss to the advertiser (and in fact the wise advertisers might prefer it that way since they may get charged if the ad is shown or if the person accidentally clicks on the ad).
I think I've seen a +5 flamebait before.
:)
Has there been a +5 offtopic?
How many ISPs would use NAT64s instead of IPv4 NATs? IPv4 NATs are proven tech (with known limitations).
I believe Big Media and some ISPs will be happy with a proliferation of NATs, since that will cut down on pesky P2P.
That sounds more like tunneling IPv6 over IPv4.
How does that help if one side _only_ has IPv4 (no IPv6 at all) and the other side only has IPv6 (no IPv4 at all).
To talk to IPv4 only hosts you need IPv4 at two ends.
One end is the IPv4 only host, the other end is the client or proxy or translation device.
Perhaps the driver could become the vehicle in another way. Imagine if a soldier with full battle gear and weaponry could "sprint" for 30 minutes without getting tired. He would be more formidable in many scenarios than most conventional ground vehicles including tanks.
That might be possible if scientists can come up with a cybernetic augmentation that prevents soldiers from getting tired until they run out of fuel[1]. Most soldiers can be very strong for a few seconds, the problem is they get tired.
Possible ways of reducing fatigue:
a) modifying various stuff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_fatigue#Metabolic_fatigue
b) Regulating the temperature of the blood and muscles:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.03/bemore_pr.html
[1] Peak sprinter/cyclist output is about 2 kilowatts. The amount of energy in a litre of oil or cooking oil is about 30-35 megajoules. Which is enough for 4 hours assuming 100% efficiency- impossible of course, but just to give an idea of the ballpark figures.
Why would you want to do that (transmit emotions)?
1) There are already brain computer interfaces.
2) There's already wireless communication
3) Wearable computers, displays, sensors are possible
So sending messages to your team using thoughts is not a big step. Why would sending emotions be better in a battle than sending messages?
Once you have that controlling devices remotely would just be a matter of sending the right messages to the right stuff. Then you have your telekinesis too.
See also:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2848877&cid=39996993
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1291427&cid=28577835
http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=101132&cid=8626482
She's pretty stupid if she thinks sane people on the battlefield will want to have a "I'm here, shoot me" tag.
If you can ID a person from far away without their cooperation you can usually detect that person from even further away.
Whereas if you have to be next to someone to ID him, either/both of you are dead/neutralized already if he is an enemy.
Sure, windfall now, but next month when IPv6 day comes and all the IPv6 sites stay lit, they'll be worth a rapidly diminishing amount.
Really? There are still tons of IPv4 only sites in the world. Tell me how is a client going to access those IPv4 only sites without an IPv4 address being involved?
Those sites may want to support IPv6, but they can't do this if:
a) their ISP or hosting provider (EC2, Azure) does not provide them with publicly accessible IPv6 addresses
b) their DNS registrar does not have servers listening on publicly accessible IPv6 (so users cannot look up the IPv6 address of your server if nobody has an IPv4 address to talk to your registrar).
IPv4 addresses will be valuable as long as an IPv4 address is involved in any of the many steps it takes for a user to connect to a server (getting an IP, gateway, getting a resolving DNS server, using that DNS resolver, DNS resolver doing all the lookups over the internet, etc).
Spotify shareholders and investors include EMI, Sony BMG and Universal Music Group.
Aren't those the old music bosses? So not a good example.
Why don't YOU just change it to whatever you like? Or get your browser to do it automatically.
e.g.
http://cpu6502.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2869843
or even:
http://too.much.typing.for.cpu6502.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2869843
Yes and what I said was:
Yeah what I'd actually want is for someone to do to Perl 5 what Google did with Javascript: make it run much faster.
Not run faster than early javascript engines. Try to keep up please.
Perl is slower than Javascript for many things- 30 to 100 times slower:
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=v8&lang2=perl
And how many of the people were telling the truth? Did the researchers check that?
Yeah what I'd actually want is for someone to do to Perl 5 what Google did with Javascript: make it run much faster.
And what are you doing here reading Slashdot?
When I go to a funeral, I go there to visit the living. Not the dead. If you really cared that much about the person you'd visit or communicate with him while he was alive. Otherwise what sort of caring is that?
1) in my post is about teaching drivers as part of the curriculum.
Maybe should even make it as a compulsory part of the exam (compulsory to take, not to pass), even though they won't pass. More drivers should know how crap they are before they are allowed on the roads.
Something that is nearly universally reckless should be banned from public roads just the same as something that can be scientifically proven to be universally reckless.
Isn't it ALREADY banned in most places? Just like DUI etc.
My suggestion is about getting people to actually _learn_ to drive better. See 1) in my OP.