Stop trying to be clever. (You've hooked a couple of naive mods already I see.) If you're going to juggle linguistic terms around, at least use the right ones in the right context.
In "I've read", 'have' is not the past participle, 'read' is. 'Have' is the auxiliary verb which indicates aspect (or 'tense', for those who don't care about the difference).
Germany or eastern Europe eh?
Because, of course, Germanic, Turkic, Slavic, Fenno-Ugric and Caucasian tongues are all/so/ similar.
I've heard Frenchmen use exactly the same wording as Witlog's first sentence, so you'd better add countries with Italic roots too - which covers most of the rest of Europe.
There simply isn't enough information to judge where he's from. The US has _plenty_ of immigrants and natives, with just as poor mastery of the language.
FP (giving up the opportunity to +1 someone else, and -1 you to actually post)
"Essentially, your suggestion is that general security should be sacrificed..."
Complete straw man, drinkypoo suggested nothing of the sort.
The _sacrifice_ in security is the use of insecure clients and/or insecure OSes. Bits are bits, bytes are bytes, no bits or bytes are more insecure than any other bits or bytes - it's the actions performed on those bits or bytes that can be insecure.
The lazy people are the people who don't go to enough effort to install secure software.
""" United States Patent Application 20030028685 Kind Code A1 Smith, Adam W. ; et al. February 6, 2003
Application program interface for network software platform
Abstract
An application program interface (API) provides a set of functions for application developers who build Web applications on Microsoft Corporation's.NET.TM. platform....
[0061] A windows forms namespace 322 ("System.Windows.Forms") containing classes for creating Windows.RTM.-based client applications that take full advantage of the rich user interface features available in the Microsoft Windows.RTM. operating system, such as the ability to drag and drop screen elements.... """
That's method one. If you look at the poly's webpage http://www.rpi.edu/ , you'll see that they've announced _two_ methods for cold fusion this month. Number 2 is: """ New Sonofusion Experiment Produces Results Without External Neutron Source
Troy, N.Y. -- A team of researchers from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Purdue University, and the Russian Academy of Sciences has used sound waves to induce nuclear fusion without the need for an external neutron source, according to a paper in the Jan. 27 issue of Physical Review Letters. """
Sound waves and crystals this month. Next month expect results from diluting deuterium oxide to proportions of 10^-30. You'll be able to detect the fusion using a forked stick.
Pah! Springbank? I'd not give those more than about 9 1/2 out of 10.
Ardbeg? That's the one that has just been so shamefully dismissed from my number 1 slot by a'bunadh. Give it to the peasants!
Mortlach!?!? Nonsense. It's so awful that about a year after finishing my bottle of it, I thought/at least twice/ about trying a half-shot (2cl) of a very limited edition version of it for 16 Euros.
Oh shit... I have to walk past a pub called "The Whisky Bar" on my way home from work, and my own whisky collection is 160km away presently... This doesn't bode well...
It's not just a case of being a different type than the extension "suggests", it's a case of MS software: a) trimming the real extension, permitting the source to provide a fake extension which indicates the type of the file and the expected outcome of double-clicking. The extension didn't suggest anything - the extension was removed by design. By MS's design, that is. b) permitting the source to provide the icon that supposedly indicates the type of the file, and the expected outcome of double clicking. c) upon double-clicking, doing what the source of the file wanted, and not warning the user that there's a disparity between what is shown, and what is to be done.
Even if you want (a) and (b) to continue (which I believe is almost unjustifiable), then at least you could implement (c) as policy. The user must take much of the blame, certainly, but MS have created something that's so open to abuse they must also be considered culpable for such occurances. In the end it is MS software that _lies_ to the user, by propagating the misinformation that the source of the trojan provided to it.
a) Paul didn't write in English, and therefore used no such word.
b) The name, with its use of the proper noun, was adopted _after_ the simple descriptive noun phrase was used. The descriptive noun phrase was obviously _not_ refering to the proper noun. Learn the difference between proper nouns and other nouns please.
New Labour is on the _right_ of the political compass. They leapfrogged past the politically central LibDems about a decade ago. John Smith was probably the last bastion of sensible left-wing Labour.
It's a good question, however there is a simple answer.
There are at least 2 parts to each exploit. One is the route in (a buffer overrun, for example), and the other is the payload. You can test vulnerability by using the same route in, but with a harmless, or simply information-gathering payload. Other alternatives can include a patching payload.
I'd say that the only interesting thing about this announcement is an opportunity for geeks to analyse this new product and see if it contains any ripped off GPL'ed code.
I've worked very close with DSP manufacturers a few times in the last few years. What you've said resonated very strongly with what I've witnessed. It was no joke. It's insightful.
A company I don't wish to name here gave (permanent loan) me a dual processor machine because I was a vociferous fanboy of their microprocessor architecture. (OK, my code ran fastest on it, and I was telling everyone and their mother this.) A month later they decided they'd drop that processor and move to another totally different architecture.
I believe I was only the 5th person to have benefitted from this scheme. And the last!
It's more contrived than your example, if I understand the issue correctly (who does, presently?). Gibson explicitly mentioned the creation of a new thread in order to execute the payload.
This certainly wasn't the fluke outcome of incompetant work.
"Out of the box"? There is no "the box" for linux. There are a million boxes. Sure - they grabbed alf a dozen of the most bloaty linuxes available, and probably opted for the "I don't know what I'm doing - install everything" box.
I bet a ferrari ain't to fast if you leave the handbrake on either.
In almost every company I've worked[*], there have always been at least 3 times as many windows support team members than unix sysadmins, despite the fact that there were often more Unix machines than windows machines. (e.g. one each per desk, but all the core infrastructure was Unix servers.) Unix is _seriously_ easier to admin effectively.
And it takes no time at all to install a simple debian system, I think you're confusing months for hours.
[* I only work at unix-friendly places by design.]
Actually, the precision is irrelevant to my original point - which was that windows calc was notorious for inaccuracy far greater than its limited precision could account for. I actually remember trying "12.52-12.51" when it was first announced.
Anyway, you are right that 512 bits of is actually utterly pointless for a desktop calculator. 64 should be more than most people ever need, and only rarely would anyone not specifically working in a numeric field even encounter anything that requires 96 bits of precision. MS actually trying to do a half-hearted attempt at an arbitrary precision arithmetic package was therefore addition of a completely unnecessary feature. And the fact that any transcendental operation is performed to a far more limited precision means that the effort isn't even half-hearted - it's a pathetic sham. One square root, and most of your signal is noise - useless.
They should have stuck to just long doubles, and got the answer right for those.
""" If it were fixed-precision, then the 3's would eventually stop coming.)
Thirty-two positions of precision for inexact results not good enough? The Power Calculator PowerToy uses the same arithmetic engine as Calc and lets you crank the precision to an unimaginable 512 digits. """
So it _is_ fixed precision. What bleedin' idiot wrote that article?
And 512 is pretty crap; but then again, I contribute to the Pari/GP project, and as a user thereof I regularly deal with numbers that require nearly 400000 digits of precision, often more.
Slashdot Mirror
Stop trying to be clever. (You've hooked a couple of naive mods already I see.)
/so/ similar.
If you're going to juggle linguistic terms around, at least use the right ones in the right context.
In "I've read", 'have' is not the past participle, 'read' is. 'Have' is the auxiliary verb which indicates aspect (or 'tense', for those who don't care about the difference).
Germany or eastern Europe eh?
Because, of course, Germanic, Turkic, Slavic, Fenno-Ugric and Caucasian tongues are all
I've heard Frenchmen use exactly the same wording as Witlog's first sentence, so you'd better add countries with Italic roots too - which covers most of the rest of Europe.
There simply isn't enough information to judge where he's from. The US has _plenty_ of immigrants and natives, with just as poor mastery of the language.
FP (giving up the opportunity to +1 someone else, and -1 you to actually post)
"Essentially, your suggestion is that general security should be sacrificed ..."
Complete straw man, drinkypoo suggested nothing of the sort.
The _sacrifice_ in security is the use of insecure clients and/or insecure OSes. Bits are bits, bytes are bytes, no bits or bytes are more insecure than any other bits or bytes - it's the actions performed on those bits or bytes that can be insecure.
The lazy people are the people who don't go to enough effort to install secure software.
FP.
Maybe RETARD = REad The Actual Referenced Document?
Not much better, but maybe a little.
Hmmm...
.NET.TM. platform. ...
...
"""
United States Patent Application 20030028685
Kind Code A1
Smith, Adam W. ; et al. February 6, 2003
Application program interface for network software platform
Abstract
An application program interface (API) provides a set of functions for application developers who build Web applications on Microsoft Corporation's
[0061] A windows forms namespace 322 ("System.Windows.Forms") containing classes for creating Windows.RTM.-based client applications that take full advantage of the rich user interface features available in the Microsoft Windows.RTM. operating system, such as the ability to drag and drop screen elements.
"""
That's method one. If you look at the poly's webpage http://www.rpi.edu/ , you'll see that they've announced _two_ methods for cold fusion this month. Number 2 is:
"""
New Sonofusion Experiment Produces Results Without External Neutron Source
Troy, N.Y. -- A team of researchers from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Purdue University, and the Russian Academy of Sciences has used sound waves to induce nuclear fusion without the need for an external neutron source, according to a paper in the Jan. 27 issue of Physical Review Letters.
"""
Sound waves and crystals this month. Next month expect results from diluting deuterium oxide to proportions of 10^-30. You'll be able to detect the fusion using a forked stick.
The principle (it's _not_ just a theory) of Conservation of Leverage says that the middle example should have been transformed into:
World Wind uses satellite imagery and elevation data to allow leveragers to experience Earth terrain in visually rich 3D...
HTH.
FP.
Pah! Springbank? I'd not give those more than about 9 1/2 out of 10.
/at least twice/ about trying a half-shot (2cl) of a very limited edition version of it for 16 Euros.
Ardbeg? That's the one that has just been so shamefully dismissed from my number 1 slot by a'bunadh. Give it to the peasants!
Mortlach!?!? Nonsense. It's so awful that about a year after finishing my bottle of it, I thought
Oh shit... I have to walk past a pub called "The Whisky Bar" on my way home from work, and my own whisky collection is 160km away presently... This doesn't bode well...
FP.
It's not just a case of being a different type than the extension "suggests", it's a case of MS software:
a) trimming the real extension, permitting the source to provide a fake extension which indicates the type of the file and the expected outcome of double-clicking. The extension didn't suggest anything - the extension was removed by design. By MS's design, that is.
b) permitting the source to provide the icon that supposedly indicates the type of the file, and the expected outcome of double clicking.
c) upon double-clicking, doing what the source of the file wanted, and not warning the user that there's a disparity between what is shown, and what is to be done.
Even if you want (a) and (b) to continue (which I believe is almost unjustifiable), then at least you could implement (c) as policy.
The user must take much of the blame, certainly, but MS have created something that's so open to abuse they must also be considered culpable for such occurances. In the end it is MS software that _lies_ to the user, by propagating the misinformation that the source of the trojan provided to it.
FP.
a) Paul didn't write in English, and therefore used no such word.
b) The name, with its use of the proper noun, was adopted _after_ the simple descriptive noun phrase was used. The descriptive noun phrase was obviously _not_ refering to the proper noun. Learn the difference between proper nouns and other nouns please.
Well said - possibly only beaten in the overhyped/overpriced category by Chivas.
Whisky-du-jour chez FatPhil is definitely this: http://www.aberlour.com/abunadh/
(and that comes from a died-in-the-wool Islay lover!)
Since when have powerbooks been exclusively PPC powered?
My powerbook 210 certainly didn't.
http://www.classiccomputer.de/apple/app210.htm
New Labour is on the _right_ of the political compass.
They leapfrogged past the politically central LibDems about
a decade ago. John Smith was probably the last bastion of
sensible left-wing Labour.
FP.
It's a good question, however there is a simple answer.
There are at least 2 parts to each exploit. One is the route in (a buffer overrun, for example), and the other is the payload. You can test vulnerability by using the same route in, but with a harmless, or simply information-gathering payload. Other alternatives can include a patching payload.
FP.
The publicity disaster will be when some crackers hack this company's website, and pw|\|x0R (is that how you spell it?) it.
(Or just some good old fashioned DNS poisoning at the root servers - if that's good enough for RSA.com, it's good enough for these guys.)
... and several other ones already axist.
I'd say that the only interesting thing about this announcement is an opportunity for geeks to analyse this new product and see if it contains any ripped off GPL'ed code.
FP.
I've worked very close with DSP manufacturers a few times in
the last few years. What you've said resonated very strongly
with what I've witnessed. It was no joke. It's insightful.
A company I don't wish to name here gave (permanent loan) me a
dual processor machine because I was a vociferous fanboy of their
microprocessor architecture. (OK, my code ran fastest on it,
and I was telling everyone and their mother this.) A month
later they decided they'd drop that processor and move to
another totally different architecture.
I believe I was only the 5th person to have benefitted from
this scheme. And the last!
Is this, in the related links section, also part of Taco's new system:
* Compare prices on Funny Stuff
Subtle - I can't get adblock to remove those...
It's more contrived than your example, if I understand the issue correctly (who does, presently?). Gibson explicitly mentioned the creation of a new thread in order to execute the payload.
This certainly wasn't the fluke outcome of incompetant work.
That's because he turned his old Zip drive into a web-server.
"Out of the box"? There is no "the box" for linux. There are a million boxes.
Sure - they grabbed alf a dozen of the most bloaty linuxes available, and probably opted for the "I don't know what I'm doing - install everything" box.
I bet a ferrari ain't to fast if you leave the handbrake on either.
In almost every company I've worked[*], there have always been at least 3 times as many windows support team members than unix sysadmins, despite the fact that there were often more Unix machines than windows machines. (e.g. one each per desk, but all the core infrastructure was Unix servers.) Unix is _seriously_ easier to admin effectively.
And it takes no time at all to install a simple debian system, I think you're confusing months for hours.
[* I only work at unix-friendly places by design.]
Actually, the precision is irrelevant to my original point - which was that windows calc was notorious for inaccuracy far greater than its limited precision could account for. I actually remember trying "12.52-12.51" when it was first announced.
Anyway, you are right that 512 bits of is actually utterly pointless for a desktop calculator. 64 should be more than most people ever need, and only rarely would anyone not specifically working in a numeric field even encounter anything that requires 96 bits of precision. MS actually trying to do a half-hearted attempt at an arbitrary precision arithmetic package was therefore addition of a completely unnecessary feature.
And the fact that any transcendental operation is performed to a far more limited precision means that the effort isn't even half-hearted - it's a pathetic sham. One square root, and most of your signal is noise - useless.
They should have stuck to just long doubles, and got the answer right for those.
You forgot to add that the whole article could have been replaced with:
"""
I hate the videogame press.
So I don't read it.
"""
And _everyone_ would have been demonstrably happier.
"""
If it were fixed-precision, then the 3's would eventually stop coming.)
Thirty-two positions of precision for inexact results not good enough? The Power Calculator PowerToy uses the same arithmetic engine as Calc and lets you crank the precision to an unimaginable 512 digits.
"""
So it _is_ fixed precision. What bleedin' idiot wrote that article?
And 512 is pretty crap; but then again, I contribute to the Pari/GP project,
and as a user thereof I regularly deal with numbers that require nearly
400000 digits of precision, often more.