Agreed. I saw the head and looked in on the assumption that somebody had got around to building a floating rocket base, to get away from populations and to get closer to the Equator. Wer-ronggg!
Thanks to Richard Stallman, all past development methods are now obsolete.
What you do is, you write a language suited to the job at hand -- a "language" being a hi-falutin' word for a bunch of macros written in LISP, something anybody can learn to do in maybe 45 minutes flat.
So your project is making powered streets work? OK, you create a language full of macros like "IsLightRed" or "AvoidDogShit" or whatever you need, and you use this language to write all the stuff to make your system work.
Then you use GCC to compile your thingie into whatever machine code you need for your target machine.
Everybody has commented that SCO's case is weak. It seems to me weaker than that: it's all been tried before, by AT&T's subsidiary UDL, I think it was, about ten years ago when they tried to shut down Berkeley's BSD. They lost with humiliating totality. The court records are referenced on Dennis Ritchie's home page http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/who/dmr/, a slightly wicked example of Dennis at least nipping the hand that feeds.
One sorry oddity in this whole silly interlude in computer history: SCO is obviously going to end up down the drain, and there won't be enough left of either it or McBride to pay off all the shareholders suits for the manifest fiduciary violations of SCO's own shareholders' rights.
I think this shows that even the crackers must have a bit of hacker in them, i.e. they never wanted to bring the system down, just be pests a little bit.
It's been obvious for years that if you wanted to do any real damage you'd go after the routers and bridges, (and possibly a couple of other things that are obvious to anybody who thinks, but don't need any more grief from script kiddies).
Almost all cracking has gone on at the level of leaves, i.e. sites, rather than trunks, i.e. trunks. The highest up the food chain the crackers got was the distributed, and the pre-distributed zombie, denial of service attacks -- and both of these were invented by white-hats and CERT people months before black-hat stupidoes got around to stumbling across the ideas and trying them out.
I think this all shows us something rather nice about the human race: the bad guys are mostly incompetent. The good guys are on the whole smart, hard-working, imaginative and effective.
And the mischievous folks keep their mischief to where it doesn't do any harm.
For anybody reallyinterested in this subject, the classic piece is probably the appendix in Lasker's "My Life In Chess," I think it is, anyway, in his autobiography. The Appendix is on how to teach chess, and I re-read it recently before teaching a seven year-old nephew the game.
The essence of it is simple -- and agree with the article that started this thread: you build up from a coherent subset of the game until you have the whole thing.
In Lasker's example you start out playing two rooks and a king against the learner's king, and drive it to a mate at the edge. You encourage the poor guy as you go along, and since there are a whole lot of escapes for a little while, they don't get the feeling of being beat up on.
Then you turn it around, and let the learned beat you, which is nice for them. Then you play king and one rook against King, and again let the kid beat you.
And so it goes. In a couple of hours you have the full board set up, the kid knows all the rules, and you're ready to discuss principles of development, pawn structure, and what-not.
This thing is financed by the same geniuses in Ottawa who put up the money for the plastic internal combustion engine. Combustion engines run more efficiently at low temperatures, you understand. yeah, right.
It's supposed to vibrate less than a Wankel. That's why the power-take-off from the toroidal rotor is through hammering on this two-bladed offset wedge. Hey, there's another winning idea.
Still, it's a definite leap forward in one regard: it's better than the $27 million in genetic engineering the Ottawa folks spent trying to develop a red heifer. Sounded Biblical, so it must be sound, right? What they didn't notice was that all the ones that were one or more hair short of being fully red were being sold off as beef, with the "developers" pocketing the money.
Slashdot Mirror
Zenaku,
Congratulations -- on a job well done, and on what I consider a sensible attitude toward the cops.
-dlj.
Agreed. I saw the head and looked in on the assumption that somebody had got around to building a floating rocket base, to get away from populations and to get closer to the Equator. Wer-ronggg!
Thanks to Richard Stallman, all past development methods are now obsolete.
What you do is, you write a language suited to the job at hand -- a "language" being a hi-falutin' word for a bunch of macros written in LISP, something anybody can learn to do in maybe 45 minutes flat.
So your project is making powered streets work? OK, you create a language full of macros like "IsLightRed" or "AvoidDogShit" or whatever you need, and you use this language to write all the stuff to make your system work.
Then you use GCC to compile your thingie into whatever machine code you need for your target machine.
Voila.
Thank you, Richard.
Faedle's version of things has already been put in the public domain, by Mark Twain, I think it was:
"George Washington slept here. There's the bed that proves it."
Everybody has commented that SCO's case is weak. It seems to me weaker than that: it's all been tried before, by AT&T's subsidiary UDL, I think it was, about ten years ago when they tried to shut down Berkeley's BSD. They lost with humiliating totality. The court records are referenced on Dennis Ritchie's home page http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/who/dmr/, a slightly wicked example of Dennis at least nipping the hand that feeds.
One sorry oddity in this whole silly interlude in computer history: SCO is obviously going to end up down the drain, and there won't be enough left of either it or McBride to pay off all the shareholders suits for the manifest fiduciary violations of SCO's own shareholders' rights.
-dlj.
I think this shows that even the crackers must have a bit of hacker in them, i.e. they never wanted to bring the system down, just be pests a little bit.
It's been obvious for years that if you wanted to do any real damage you'd go after the routers and bridges, (and possibly a couple of other things that are obvious to anybody who thinks, but don't need any more grief from script kiddies).
Almost all cracking has gone on at the level of leaves, i.e. sites, rather than trunks, i.e. trunks. The highest up the food chain the crackers got was the distributed, and the pre-distributed zombie, denial of service attacks -- and both of these were invented by white-hats and CERT people months before black-hat stupidoes got around to stumbling across the ideas and trying them out.
I think this all shows us something rather nice about the human race: the bad guys are mostly incompetent. The good guys are on the whole smart, hard-working, imaginative and effective.
And the mischievous folks keep their mischief to where it doesn't do any harm.
For anybody reallyinterested in this subject, the classic piece is probably the appendix in Lasker's "My Life In Chess," I think it is, anyway, in his autobiography. The Appendix is on how to teach chess, and I re-read it recently before teaching a seven year-old nephew the game.
The essence of it is simple -- and agree with the article that started this thread: you build up from a coherent subset of the game until you have the whole thing.
In Lasker's example you start out playing two rooks and a king against the learner's king, and drive it to a mate at the edge. You encourage the poor guy as you go along, and since there are a whole lot of escapes for a little while, they don't get the feeling of being beat up on.
Then you turn it around, and let the learned beat you, which is nice for them. Then you play king and one rook against King, and again let the kid beat you.
And so it goes. In a couple of hours you have the full board set up, the kid knows all the rules, and you're ready to discuss principles of development, pawn structure, and what-not.
Granny Grammar (aka DavidLJ) was worried about this -- and was grossly relieved to find that the editors of SlashDot are of Granny's class and clan.
-dlj.
It's the records from a suit just about ten years ago when AT&T tried to put BSDI out of business. AT&T lost.
Ver-ree interesting.
Fortunately Dennis has tenure at Bell^h^h^h^h wherever it is he works, so he can post what he likes on his site.
This thing is financed by the same geniuses in Ottawa who put up the money for the plastic internal combustion engine. Combustion engines run more efficiently at low temperatures, you understand. yeah, right.
It's supposed to vibrate less than a Wankel. That's why the power-take-off from the toroidal rotor is through hammering on this two-bladed offset wedge. Hey, there's another winning idea.
Still, it's a definite leap forward in one regard: it's better than the $27 million in genetic engineering the Ottawa folks spent trying to develop a red heifer. Sounded Biblical, so it must be sound, right? What they didn't notice was that all the ones that were one or more hair short of being fully red were being sold off as beef, with the "developers" pocketing the money.
Let's hear it for government financed research!
To feed four, forget the baking powder, but add four whipped egg whites, perhaps with a pinch of cream of tartar to help stiffen them to good peaks.
Serve with Champagne as the Sun comes up after a night on the town.