How in the world do you determine that a program is a virus? What about something like a simple program like #include main() { system("cd/; rm -rf *"); } or something similar? What about an unstable program that will at random start to crash and pollute the filesystem with garbage rendering it useless. How about a program that wishes to delete files and deletes the wrong ones through faulty programming techniques?
This whole problem with attatchments is really I think a programming problem with microsoft. One of the best ways to eliminate boot sector viruses and the like is to make a BIOS change that will alert you if the program is in fact trying to access the BIOS. Something similar should be worked out for macros and the like to basically act as a layer between the program and the larger superset of api calls. So if you do wish to view most attachments but don't want the bad from getting through you can simply screen out the "suspicious" calls and alert yourself to them.
In the real world it's really hard to prove that you didn't do something intentionally. Suppose you tried to shoot an apple off my head and you just "accidently" shoot me in the head. Well so now the only other person who saw you shoot me is dead (namely myself) and there is no proof of your intentions wheather innocent or not.
An easy way around this little problem would be to get warez apps to do all your evil deeds. That means that the originator would be the person who put the warez app on the net and not you (as far as they could prove).
That's something I havn't heard yet could you point me at some source for this quote/idea? I thought that from the legal analysis in the original DOJ paper finding that he didn't prefer any one particular thing as long as it wasn't Microsoft.
Well consider these little points. 1. Getting a great deal of money takes skill, guile, cunning, or luck. 2. To keep the money in your posession you have to work hard to have people not deceive you and also further your own agenda while making it subtly appear to not be your own agenda. 3. While doing both 1/2 you also have to appear good to the public and to shareholders. Now this is significantly more complex than this but it illustrates a really good point. That is that people who are at the level of billionaires don't usually do foolish things when their power is on the line. Now taking these logical arguments aside Bill gates may be in fact doing what has been costly for a great many generals, statesmen and politicans for thousands of years and that is not listening to or having competent advisers. Truth be told they are most likely doing the legal equivelent of running scared.
I thought that just like in the fameous episode of the Simpsons where Homer gets "bought out" by Bill Gates Microsoft just takes what it wants:) Well seriously I thought that a company that big would just simply buy the exclusive rights to any program or library that they needed without hassle, fuss or muss.
The solution to all of life's little problems. Just run a freenet server and download and periodically insert data into freenet to make it remain free and anonymous to all. Works great.
Really nice. I once went to an Italian opera La Travita or something like that. Quite nice. Closest thing you get to the feeling of a universal translator.
A really nice device would be a device that can translate in realtime any spoken words to any other language.
The difference between dubbed and subbed?
on
Essential Anime
·
· Score: 1
Does it have to do with the captioning/translating?
I don't mean to sound naive but...
on
Essential Anime
·
· Score: 1
I really havn't seen too much of this stuff in the US. I mean I guess not speaking fluent Japanese or something but that kinds of limits me.
Does Pokemon count? I mean some of the major networks seem to have taken an interest in Japanese animation I guess because a lot of American shows are stupid but I could be wrong.
In everything that we do there is always progress but there is always a waste here and there and usually it's abig one. Programs used to be small, fast, efficient. Now we have programs that do basically the same things but tack some hokey little graphical mess on the front and make everything seem all right while sucking the preformance down the drain. Also the mathmetical requirements to actually program a computer like that would really be quite massive. One of the major stumbling blocks short of maybe latin historically has been mathmetics. I can't tell you how a new breed of people has seen fit to make programming an old boys club like they have with most other sciences. Forcing quantum mechanics into the picture will really set back the development time table significantly because only a small ammount of people will ever be able to grasp concepts like that. Then when people do get it they wil simply just write software that will also appear equally slow and then convince us we "need" to develop something else that really takes even more time. People are constantly changing the spec and generally that's bad for any design process.
Ok like most of the "discoveries" posted to slashdot I have thought oh that's nice but you have to pause and think exactly how will they be able to do any of this? I mean one of the main problems of quantum computing is to get the qubits to functioning within very small tolerances and then to be able to effectively mass produce them in any forseeable way. These two very challenging problems haven't even begun to be addressed. I think when we get closer to the time when all people have at least 64 bit machines or even better 128 bit we just might have a chance but not now. What are the other "hand full" of algorithems besides searching applications? Also pause to think about a few other facts. What is the likelyhood that people will even be able to afford any of this stuff? I think that would surely take about maybe 70 years of more. Also how do you write a compiler or any software for one of these things? Will you have to be a physics major to be a cs major? That would truly such big time.
By the time that they get one getting more and more anonymous will be almost trivial. Remember what pgp/gpg/etc has done to e-mail communications? Various anonymizing services are also in place. This utterly prevents people from gaining access to your personal data unless you are sloppy with it.
Programs have to allocate memory. The programs we use currently need memory. This memory is usually finite in a computer. If I am to increase the complexity and size of programs that my computer uses how exactly does it help to increase the speed of the memory? Try running say quake in a machine with 4Mb of ram? Kinda hard isn't it. I say the cheaper the ram you can make and the more of it you can get the better. I can't tell you have much I hate the sound of my machine's hd grinding for lack of ram.
I usually get almost no personal e-mail in any form. Most of my mail is from mailinglits or other sources. This nullifies most of the use of various internet media. Just having access to the intetnet dosn't mean that you suddently are connected to millions.
Has anyone bothered with a free isp for linux?
on
Universal Access
·
· Score: 1
Perhaps something like juno but with a linux client that would kick ass. Anyone know of one?
The internet is not really useful in it's current.
on
Universal Access
·
· Score: 1
state. The information that is avaible online pales in comparison to the wealth of information that is avaible in the traditional world. The only thing that has really changes is the method to deliver information has increased in complexity. So why do we focus on tools and not on content. Focus on allowing infrastructures within their respective countries and not on extrateritoriality. For example the United States has a large population and not many of them can take advantage of having a true IP address on their machine. Basically all the internet boils down to is a little toy for most. Compare the most popular means of things that people do on the inetnet send meaningless little messages back and forth to each other, play demented little computer games that waste thousands of hours of time with futility of never gaining victory (usually one person dominates the scene). How does this help. What would be truly interesting is to have say a nice OSS massive text document that deliniated say step by step teaching of computer programming languages, history, art, music, sports or just about any science that is currently bottled up in traditional books and only makes it's way onto the internet via incomphrensible research papers for Phd candiates.
It just isn't there. The internet content that is truly interesting that is actually nice costs big bucks in the form of subscription services. This is not good at all.
Strategic directed methods of gaining access to a targeted demographic for purposes of currying favor have never been frowned upon at least in the United States.
Seriously not many places outside of Silicon Valley (and even that's a stretch) have each and every person in a large area wired to the net unless it's a small street or perhaps an apartment building. Don't you have any of the typical reclusive old people who just sit in their house all day doing something like reading? Statistically odds are against you.
To tell you the truth the internet really isn't that vast source of any possible kind of information that one could want. Many, many, many times I have wondered why someone didn't put up such and such information on the net. Also I would love the government to do one thing. Automatically rid the local telephone network of the restrictions of being forced to use analog equipment and perhaps actually get off their collective asses and allow for each telephone connection to act as an always on internet connection. Right now we are alredy creating software via linux that is essentially server based unless you have a connection to match all this wonderful software just fails. But you know what I think terrifies most people who say that universal access shouldn't be here? I'll tell you why it isn't the miniscule charge to get the stuff working or the cost of slightly raising taxes say $0.50 for every American but it's the thought that little Billy could actually have a chance to create content that say Rob Malda can create with all sorts of magical dynamically generated content and the like.
Your four points intrigue me but I disagree with some of them. 1. The knowledge is good but programmers aren't cheap. The ammount of money to learn to program as well as the people who program the apps or pay someone even more it still costs several thousand dollars. Being self taught is nice but still that learning paradigm dosn't work very well for most (that's why we have schools to teach people). 2. I don't know that just because the medium changes to open source programming that means that the programmers are any better. While I don't agree with everything in the world I can see intelligence where it is due. The people who designed the QNX core and everything are probably the smartest programmers that are there. 3. I really doubt that. Most people today are attracted to wizbang features and are not interested in content. This means that unnecessary features like network features, blaring sound affects, massive system bogging 3d rendering graphics. Very little data generation or stability, or minimal resources. In short nothing that people are traditionally taught as programming practice. This I think is the problem today. This is also why computers are always going to be slow and always going to be expensive. Also it's the reason that CS is becomming almost impossible to master. When you get into the realm of doing fancy wizbang features you get into more caotic phenomena meaning that you really, really have to be a pro. Why do you think C++ was developed why were massive 3d graphics cards developed, all of the superflous Microsoft APIs. Even the stuff with GNOME. All bad karma. 4. This is usually not done or it changes the character of the project. It has potential but still falls short.
Slashdot Mirror
How in the world do you determine that a program is a virus? What about something like a simple program like /; rm -rf *");
#include
main()
{
system("cd
}
or something similar?
What about an unstable program that will at random start to crash and pollute the filesystem with garbage rendering it useless. How about a program that wishes to delete files and deletes the wrong ones through faulty programming techniques?
This whole problem with attatchments is really I think a programming problem with microsoft. One of the best ways to eliminate boot sector viruses and the like is to make a BIOS change that will alert you if the program is in fact trying to access the BIOS. Something similar should be worked out for macros and the like to basically act as a layer between the program and the larger superset of api calls. So if you do wish to view most attachments but don't want the bad from getting through you can simply screen out the "suspicious" calls and alert yourself to them.
In the real world it's really hard to prove that you didn't do something intentionally. Suppose you tried to shoot an apple off my head and you just "accidently" shoot me in the head. Well so now the only other person who saw you shoot me is dead (namely myself) and there is no proof of your intentions wheather innocent or not.
An easy way around this little problem would be to get warez apps to do all your evil deeds. That means that the originator would be the person who put the warez app on the net and not you (as far as they could prove).
That's something I havn't heard yet could you point me at some source for this quote/idea? I thought that from the legal analysis in the original DOJ paper finding that he didn't prefer any one particular thing as long as it wasn't Microsoft.
Well consider these little points. 1. Getting a great deal of money takes skill, guile, cunning, or luck. 2. To keep the money in your posession you have to work hard to have people not deceive you and also further your own agenda while making it subtly appear to not be your own agenda. 3. While doing both 1/2 you also have to appear good to the public and to shareholders. Now this is significantly more complex than this but it illustrates a really good point. That is that people who are at the level of billionaires don't usually do foolish things when their power is on the line. Now taking these logical arguments aside Bill gates may be in fact doing what has been costly for a great many generals, statesmen and politicans for thousands of years and that is not listening to or having competent advisers. Truth be told they are most likely doing the legal equivelent of running scared.
Any one have a good synopsis of the main points. I'm too tired to read it all right now.
I thought that just like in the fameous episode of the Simpsons where Homer gets "bought out" by Bill Gates Microsoft just takes what it wants :) Well seriously I thought that a company that big would just simply buy the exclusive rights to any program or library that they needed without hassle, fuss or muss.
The solution to all of life's little problems. Just run a freenet server and download and periodically insert data into freenet to make it remain free and anonymous to all. Works great.
Look at http://freenet.sourceforge.net
Really nice. I once went to an Italian opera La Travita or something like that. Quite nice. Closest thing you get to the feeling of a universal translator.
A really nice device would be a device that can translate in realtime any spoken words to any other language.
Does it have to do with the captioning/translating?
I really havn't seen too much of this stuff in the US. I mean I guess not speaking fluent Japanese or something but that kinds of limits me.
Does Pokemon count? I mean some of the major networks seem to have taken an interest in Japanese animation I guess because a lot of American shows are stupid but I could be wrong.
Where do you persue this type of thing?
A site some data?
really this sounds interesting, but I don't believe it until I see it.
In everything that we do there is always progress but there is always a waste here and there and usually it's abig one. Programs used to be small, fast, efficient. Now we have programs that do basically the same things but tack some hokey little graphical mess on the front and make everything seem all right while sucking the preformance down the drain. Also the mathmetical requirements to actually program a computer like that would really be quite massive. One of the major stumbling blocks short of maybe latin historically has been mathmetics. I can't tell you how a new breed of people has seen fit to make programming an old boys club like they have with most other sciences. Forcing quantum mechanics into the picture will really set back the development time table significantly because only a small ammount of people will ever be able to grasp concepts like that. Then when people do get it they wil simply just write software that will also appear equally slow and then convince us we "need" to develop something else that really takes even more time. People are constantly changing the spec and generally that's bad for any design process.
Ok like most of the "discoveries" posted to slashdot I have thought oh that's nice but you have to pause and think exactly how will they be able to do any of this? I mean one of the main problems of quantum computing is to get the qubits to functioning within very small tolerances and then to be able to effectively mass produce them in any forseeable way. These two very challenging problems haven't even begun to be addressed. I think when we get closer to the time when all people have at least 64 bit machines or even better 128 bit we just might have a chance but not now. What are the other "hand full" of algorithems besides searching applications? Also pause to think about a few other facts. What is the likelyhood that people will even be able to afford any of this stuff? I think that would surely take about maybe 70 years of more. Also how do you write a compiler or any software for one of these things? Will you have to be a physics major to be a cs major? That would truly such big time.
By the time that they get one getting more and more anonymous will be almost trivial. Remember what pgp/gpg/etc has done to e-mail communications? Various anonymizing services are also in place. This utterly prevents people from gaining access to your personal data unless you are sloppy with it.
Programs have to allocate memory. The programs we use currently need memory. This memory is usually finite in a computer. If I am to increase the complexity and size of programs that my computer uses how exactly does it help to increase the speed of the memory? Try running say quake in a machine with 4Mb of ram? Kinda hard isn't it. I say the cheaper the ram you can make and the more of it you can get the better. I can't tell you have much I hate the sound of my machine's hd grinding for lack of ram.
Most of the problems I have had are more easily solved with a $5 book than a stupid web site any day.
I usually get almost no personal e-mail in any form. Most of my mail is from mailinglits or other sources. This nullifies most of the use of various internet media. Just having access to the intetnet dosn't mean that you suddently are connected to millions.
Perhaps something like juno but with a linux client that would kick ass. Anyone know of one?
state.
The information that is avaible online pales in comparison to the wealth of information that is avaible in the traditional world.
The only thing that has really changes is the method to deliver information has increased in complexity. So why do we focus on tools and not on content. Focus on allowing infrastructures within their respective countries and not on extrateritoriality.
For example the United States has a large population and not many of them can take advantage of having a true IP address on their machine. Basically all the internet boils down to is a little toy for most. Compare the most popular means of things that people do on the inetnet send meaningless little messages back and forth to each other, play demented little computer games that waste thousands of hours of time with futility of never gaining victory (usually one person dominates the scene). How does this help.
What would be truly interesting is to have say a nice OSS massive text document that deliniated say step by step teaching of computer programming languages, history, art, music, sports or just about any science that is currently bottled up in traditional books and only makes it's way onto the internet via incomphrensible research papers for Phd candiates.
It just isn't there. The internet content that is truly interesting that is actually nice costs big bucks in the form of subscription services. This is not good at all.
Strategic directed methods of gaining access to a targeted demographic for purposes of currying favor have never been frowned upon at least in the United States.
Seriously not many places outside of Silicon Valley (and even that's a stretch) have each and every person in a large area wired to the net unless it's a small street or perhaps an apartment building. Don't you have any of the typical reclusive old people who just sit in their house all day doing something like reading? Statistically odds are against you.
To tell you the truth the internet really isn't that vast source of any possible kind of information that one could want. Many, many, many times I have wondered why someone didn't put up such and such information on the net. Also I would love the government to do one thing. Automatically rid the local telephone network of the restrictions of being forced to use analog equipment and perhaps actually get off their collective asses and allow for each telephone connection to act as an always on internet connection. Right now we are alredy creating software via linux that is essentially server based unless you have a connection to match all this wonderful software just fails. But you know what I think terrifies most people who say that universal access shouldn't be here? I'll tell you why it isn't the miniscule charge to get the stuff working or the cost of slightly raising taxes say $0.50 for every American but it's the thought that little Billy could actually have a chance to create content that say Rob Malda can create with all sorts of magical dynamically generated content and the like.
Your four points intrigue me but I disagree with some of them. 1. The knowledge is good but programmers aren't cheap. The ammount of money to learn to program as well as the people who program the apps or pay someone even more it still costs several thousand dollars. Being self taught is nice but still that learning paradigm dosn't work very well for most (that's why we have schools to teach people). 2. I don't know that just because the medium changes to open source programming that means that the programmers are any better. While I don't agree with everything in the world I can see intelligence where it is due. The people who designed the QNX core and everything are probably the smartest programmers that are there. 3. I really doubt that. Most people today are attracted to wizbang features and are not interested in content. This means that unnecessary features like network features, blaring sound affects, massive system bogging 3d rendering graphics. Very little data generation or stability, or minimal resources. In short nothing that people are traditionally taught as programming practice. This I think is the problem today. This is also why computers are always going to be slow and always going to be expensive. Also it's the reason that CS is becomming almost impossible to master. When you get into the realm of doing fancy wizbang features you get into more caotic phenomena meaning that you really, really have to be a pro. Why do you think C++ was developed why were massive 3d graphics cards developed, all of the superflous Microsoft APIs. Even the stuff with GNOME. All bad karma. 4. This is usually not done or it changes the character of the project. It has potential but still falls short.