well, sorry, i thought it would be blatantly obvious to anyone looking at the link what i was getting at. since it apparently wasn't, i'll do a line-by-line of each definition.
A specified or indefinite number or amount.
infinity is certainly not specified, and it is not a number or an amount. therefore, this definition does not apply.
A considerable amount or number: sells drugs wholesale and in quantity.
same as above.
An exact amount or number.
same as above.
The measurable, countable, or comparable property or aspect of a thing.
can you measure infinity? can you count it? can you compare it? no? well, then this definition doesn't apply.
Mathematics. Something that serves as the object of an operation.
as any good calculus course will teach you, you do not perform operations with infinity. you yourself mentioned so earlier. therefore this definition does not apply.
it allows access to raw sockets to administrators only. however, the default user account is an administrator. so while technically microsoft has done nothing wrong, its still going to create a large problem simply because most people running XP aren't smart enough to realise they shouldnt be running under administrator all the time.
no, but it helps. the movie skims over a few things that are described in more detail in the books, and certain events make more sense in the movie if you've read the book first.
lol... you are clueless, dude. piracy is HUGE in asia. as in, REAL piracy, not warez-d00dz on IRC.
dont tell me you didnt see the story about winXP being sold for 5bucks a pop in asia, 3 days BEFORE it was officially released here in the states? there is a huge black market of illegally burned software of all sorts over there.
well, i think this is a situation where anecdotal evidence must be excluded. think about it: the geeks you know (and are most likely at least somewhat friendly with) may not be stereotypical hyper-introverted geeks, but then again, if they were hyper-introverted geeks, you wouldn't know them now would you?
it's not unlike a very church-oriented individual proclaiming that "most people aren't religious" is an incorrect generalization, because they know many people, who are mostly religious. (well of course, most people they know are probably known through church.)
as for d&d, it's not just geeks that play it:-) and for the ones that do, i doubt they would fall into the asperger's side of the geek spectrum. an aspergers seems much more likely to spend weeks constructing a very realistic campaign setting, but not be inclined to actually play it out.
hrm... after rereading the above paragraphs, they seem a little stilted in getting my point across. hopefully you see what i'm getting at; i'm at work and don't have time to go back and de-clunkify.
the problem lies in being able to lie to the end user about the filename. you get a dialog asking if you wish to save or open foo.txt
if you choose save, it saves to your harddrive as its real filename, foo.exe
if you choose open, it executes whatever nasty code foo.exe happens to be.
it is indeed a hole/bug/design flaw. just not as serious a flaw as michael makes it out to be - you still have to tell IE to open the file, you are just being given false information as to what type of file you are opening.
since you apparently have no clue how tax deductions work...
a $500 million tax deduction would mean the company does not pay taxes on $500 million of their income, NOT that they can pay the IRS $500 million less.
so if i am sent the "snow white and the seven dwarves... the TRUE story!" message and open it in eudora, and then double click on the attachment, i won't get infected? amazing!
your only valid argument is a case where outlook is set up to automatically execute script attachments. and this argument is a half-assed one, because anyone with half a brain should know to disable this feature. it's not rocket science.
do you blame redhat if your linux box gets r00ted by a 2-year old buffer overrun? no? then explain why this is different. if you don't patch, you suffer the consequences, regardless of what software you run.
If I send someone a VBScript file by e-mail, someone using pine will only see the source of the file. Benign.
In Outlook, the file will be executed. This is how Outlook virii spread. Where have you been the last 18 months?
i think the proper question is, "where have these people with outlook set to automatically execute scripts been the last 18 months?"
any department with proper security measures in place have outlook set to not automatically launch scripts. it's not a complex procedure. you can no more blame microsoft for this, than you can blame microsoft if your NT web server gets r00ted by a 2-year old buffer overrun that has been fixed since sp5.
i suppose i jumped to conclusions in assuming every sysadmin worth their salt made sure to properly configure outlook.
however, once again, if these simple, basic precautions were not taken, then it is the admin's fault for not setting up a proper shop, or the user's fault for undoing the admin's settings.
the situation i was discussing was a case where the user manually opens the attatchment, bungling his system up.
the mail program isn't getting infected. the user's computer is. all outlook does is make it easy for them to execute attachments. it's still the users fault for being too goddamned stupid to realize they shouldn't open unexpected/suspect attachments.
"The spreading of the first and all subsequent anthrax mail virii is the fault of the company that designed such an easily infected mail delivery service."
doesnt that look pretty stupid? now explain why your statement is any different.
I would hardly call dry pavement a rare circumstance.
Dry pavement is not a rare circumstance, but ABS increasing your stopping distance on dry pavement IS a rare circumstance. i have a car with ABS, and i brake hard and late. i have yet to have ABS kick in on dry pavement.
First of all, ABS does not sense how close you are to beginning a skid, ABS senses a skid and releases the brakes until the wheels return to near their original speed.
pick nits.... ABS senses when tires first begin to lose traction. this is technically at the beginning of a skid, yes, but it occurs so rapidly that the car never begins what most people would consider a "real" skid.
While you're quite right that ABS has the potential to react much quicker than the driver, this is only useful on slick surfaces at high speeds where a collision cannot be avoided.
no, the whole purpose of ABS is to prevent you from entering a skid so that you CAN avoid a collision.
ABS allows you to steer around obstacles while still braking, as opposed to either [A.]braking and entering a skid and therefore crashing into something, or [B.]not braking and moving too fast to be able to steer around the object.
ABS is beneficial about 0.000001% of the time, harmful about 0.000001% of the time, and completely neutral 99.999998% of the time.
perhaps so for a perfect driver. but nobody is a perfect driver. in the real world, ABS will prevent skids and therefore accidents a lot more often than it will cause accidents by increasing braking distance.
your argument sounds like a rehash of people explaining why they don't wear seatbelts.
"well if blah blah blah happens, i'd rather not have a seatbelt on so i can be thrown clear of the car, if i was wearing a seatbelt i'd be more likely to die, seatbelts can cause more harm than good"
sure, but more often than not, a seatbelt will save your life.
by the same token, ABS may increase your stopping distance under a few rare circumstances, but it's much more likely to prevent you from starting a skid on wet or icy pavement. No matter how good of a driver you are, you can't sense how close you are to beginning a skid as well as your ABS can, and you can't pump your brakes as fast as your ABS can.
if something is beneficial 90% of the time, and harmful 10% of the time, then its a Good Thing®.
Then you will get to experience your first crash (i mean software): the balance system will fail because of some buggy programming - suddenly, you will come to a complete stop from 17mph to zero as the brakes lock in and you will go flying.
thank you for demonstrating your complete lack of knowledge on the subject at hand. anything more than a cursory glance into IT would have revealed to you that they HAVE NO BRAKES. since it is obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about, the rest of your comment can be safely ignored.
also consider survival of the fittest at work. hardier slaves were less likely to die at the hands of mistreatment or overworking by their masters.
not only that, but think about the original stock the slave owners had to work with -- slaves shipped from africa had to endure long, potentially lethal boat trips across the atlantic. weaker individuals were much more likely to perish on the way here.
Slashdot Mirror
well, sorry, i thought it would be blatantly obvious to anyone looking at the link what i was getting at. since it apparently wasn't, i'll do a line-by-line of each definition.
A specified or indefinite number or amount.
infinity is certainly not specified, and it is not a number or an amount. therefore, this definition does not apply.
A considerable amount or number: sells drugs wholesale and in quantity.
same as above.
An exact amount or number.
same as above.
The measurable, countable, or comparable property or aspect of a thing.
can you measure infinity? can you count it? can you compare it? no? well, then this definition doesn't apply.
Mathematics. Something that serves as the object of an operation.
as any good calculus course will teach you, you do not perform operations with infinity. you yourself mentioned so earlier. therefore this definition does not apply.
no, infinity is not a number at all. you should have learned that in any intro calculus type course, if not beforehand.
unbounded quantity is most certainly an oxymoron.
definition of quantity
see?
on the same note, infinity is not a quantity. unbounded, sure, by definition. but its a concept, not a quantity.
unbounded sequence works.
it allows access to raw sockets to administrators only. however, the default user account is an administrator. so while technically microsoft has done nothing wrong, its still going to create a large problem simply because most people running XP aren't smart enough to realise they shouldnt be running under administrator all the time.
uh... look again, smart guy.
now a 7 qbit computer in December 2001....they've still got another couple of months to get the 8th qbit....
(emphasis mine)
no. please reread his post. he was assigning the value of zero to x. the result was infinity. your argument does not even apply.
p.s.:
(it's obvious that two unbounded quantities do not have to be equal to each other.)
unbounded quantities = oxymoron. if something is unbounded, it cannot be quantified.
uhm... grossly misinterpret what he was saying, why don't you?
context, please. he was NOT implying he would not be at fault in that situation.
no, but it helps. the movie skims over a few things that are described in more detail in the books, and certain events make more sense in the movie if you've read the book first.
lol... you are clueless, dude. piracy is HUGE in asia. as in, REAL piracy, not warez-d00dz on IRC.
dont tell me you didnt see the story about winXP being sold for 5bucks a pop in asia, 3 days BEFORE it was officially released here in the states? there is a huge black market of illegally burned software of all sorts over there.
well, i think this is a situation where anecdotal evidence must be excluded. think about it: the geeks you know (and are most likely at least somewhat friendly with) may not be stereotypical hyper-introverted geeks, but then again, if they were hyper-introverted geeks, you wouldn't know them now would you?
:-) and for the ones that do, i doubt they would fall into the asperger's side of the geek spectrum. an aspergers seems much more likely to spend weeks constructing a very realistic campaign setting, but not be inclined to actually play it out.
it's not unlike a very church-oriented individual proclaiming that "most people aren't religious" is an incorrect generalization, because they know many people, who are mostly religious. (well of course, most people they know are probably known through church.)
as for d&d, it's not just geeks that play it
hrm... after rereading the above paragraphs, they seem a little stilted in getting my point across. hopefully you see what i'm getting at; i'm at work and don't have time to go back and de-clunkify.
"Most geeks lack social skills and are poor at picking up social clues."
I'm a "no I don't want to go out tonight, I'd rather solve a few equations and write some code"-type geek.
So I think you're generalising somewhat.
please read those two excerpts until you understand what boobery you have performed.
hint: most != all,
most != you
no. please read the article.
the problem lies in being able to lie to the end user about the filename. you get a dialog asking if you wish to save or open foo.txt
if you choose save, it saves to your harddrive as its real filename, foo.exe
if you choose open, it executes whatever nasty code foo.exe happens to be.
it is indeed a hole/bug/design flaw. just not as serious a flaw as michael makes it out to be - you still have to tell IE to open the file, you are just being given false information as to what type of file you are opening.
since you apparently have no clue how tax deductions work...
a $500 million tax deduction would mean the company does not pay taxes on $500 million of their income, NOT that they can pay the IRS $500 million less.
so if i am sent the "snow white and the seven dwarves... the TRUE story!" message and open it in eudora, and then double click on the attachment, i won't get infected? amazing!
your only valid argument is a case where outlook is set up to automatically execute script attachments. and this argument is a half-assed one, because anyone with half a brain should know to disable this feature. it's not rocket science.
do you blame redhat if your linux box gets r00ted by a 2-year old buffer overrun? no? then explain why this is different. if you don't patch, you suffer the consequences, regardless of what software you run.
If I send someone a VBScript file by e-mail, someone using pine will only see the source of the file. Benign.
In Outlook, the file will be executed. This is how Outlook virii spread. Where have you been the last 18 months?
i think the proper question is, "where have these people with outlook set to automatically execute scripts been the last 18 months?"
any department with proper security measures in place have outlook set to not automatically launch scripts. it's not a complex procedure. you can no more blame microsoft for this, than you can blame microsoft if your NT web server gets r00ted by a 2-year old buffer overrun that has been fixed since sp5.
i suppose i jumped to conclusions in assuming every sysadmin worth their salt made sure to properly configure outlook.
however, once again, if these simple, basic precautions were not taken, then it is the admin's fault for not setting up a proper shop, or the user's fault for undoing the admin's settings.
the situation i was discussing was a case where the user manually opens the attatchment, bungling his system up.
the mail program isn't getting infected. the user's computer is. all outlook does is make it easy for them to execute attachments. it's still the users fault for being too goddamned stupid to realize they shouldn't open unexpected/suspect attachments.
"The spreading of the first and all subsequent anthrax mail virii is the fault of the company that designed such an easily infected mail delivery service."
doesnt that look pretty stupid? now explain why your statement is any different.
wtf are you talking about? Outlook doesn't "transform" anything. What, it turns non-executable, attachments into executables?
no, it doesn't. jeez, think before you post...
All outlook provides is an easy method of transport.
The situation is no different than if you were mailed a package with a piece of candy in it, ate the candy, got sick, and then blamed the USPS.
I would hardly call dry pavement a rare circumstance.
Dry pavement is not a rare circumstance, but ABS increasing your stopping distance on dry pavement IS a rare circumstance. i have a car with ABS, and i brake hard and late. i have yet to have ABS kick in on dry pavement.
First of all, ABS does not sense how close you are to beginning a skid, ABS senses a skid and releases the brakes until the wheels return to near their original speed.
pick nits.... ABS senses when tires first begin to lose traction. this is technically at the beginning of a skid, yes, but it occurs so rapidly that the car never begins what most people would consider a "real" skid.
While you're quite right that ABS has the potential to react much quicker than the driver, this is only useful on slick surfaces at high speeds where a collision cannot be avoided.
no, the whole purpose of ABS is to prevent you from entering a skid so that you CAN avoid a collision.
ABS allows you to steer around obstacles while still braking, as opposed to either [A.]braking and entering a skid and therefore crashing into something, or [B.]not braking and moving too fast to be able to steer around the object.
ABS is beneficial about 0.000001% of the time, harmful about 0.000001% of the time, and completely neutral 99.999998% of the time.
perhaps so for a perfect driver. but nobody is a perfect driver. in the real world, ABS will prevent skids and therefore accidents a lot more often than it will cause accidents by increasing braking distance.
your argument sounds like a rehash of people explaining why they don't wear seatbelts.
"well if blah blah blah happens, i'd rather not have a seatbelt on so i can be thrown clear of the car, if i was wearing a seatbelt i'd be more likely to die, seatbelts can cause more harm than good"
sure, but more often than not, a seatbelt will save your life.
by the same token, ABS may increase your stopping distance under a few rare circumstances, but it's much more likely to prevent you from starting a skid on wet or icy pavement. No matter how good of a driver you are, you can't sense how close you are to beginning a skid as well as your ABS can, and you can't pump your brakes as fast as your ABS can.
if something is beneficial 90% of the time, and harmful 10% of the time, then its a Good Thing®.
right, because you can pump your brakes just as fast as an ABS can?
mmhm.
Driver Licensing vs. the Right to Travel
how stupid are you?
asc(chr(x)) is the same as -5000 + 5000
you are performing an action on x, and then performing an inverse to that action
you make it sound complex but really its quite simple.
RTFA. they don't need brakes.
Then you will get to experience your first crash (i mean software): the balance system will fail because of some buggy programming - suddenly, you will come to a complete stop from 17mph to zero as the brakes lock in and you will go flying.
thank you for demonstrating your complete lack of knowledge on the subject at hand. anything more than a cursory glance into IT would have revealed to you that they HAVE NO BRAKES. since it is obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about, the rest of your comment can be safely ignored.
also consider survival of the fittest at work. hardier slaves were less likely to die at the hands of mistreatment or overworking by their masters.
not only that, but think about the original stock the slave owners had to work with -- slaves shipped from africa had to endure long, potentially lethal boat trips across the atlantic. weaker individuals were much more likely to perish on the way here.