> For one thing, I wonder if this "Magic Lantern" has been ported to Linux. I tend to think not -
Next week's headlines:
SURVEY SHOWS MORE MOBSTERS PREFER LINUX
Also, I'm wondering how long it will be before some enterprising soul catches a copy of the lantern, analyzes it for a.sig, and then tells the (under)world how to add it to the McA virus list by hand? If the morons in the antivirus industry can do it, are we to suppose the gangsters/terrorists/druglords/your-boogyman-here can't figure it out?
Or better yet (for suitable notions of "better"), use McA to detect it, but rather than replacing it just install a script to fake a safe log for the FBI's reading pleasure?
> So where can I pick up my 'Boycott Sid Meier' shirt/Tshirt/bumper sticker?
Research "Tee Shirts" and "Printing", and then you can build them in any city with a textile mill.
Or you may find it easier to just plunder neighboring civilizations that already have them.
> What I always wonder is, in a context like this, what exactly does "consider" mean? It obviously can't mean that the decision has to be entirely determined by the feedback, since that's what the judge is for, but then how much discretion does the judge have?
Simply getting a few thousand messages from people who bluntly state that they think the case was thrown due to political meddling will give the judge -- and administration -- something to think about.
Hopefully the judge will carefully consider the merits of whatever feedback comes in. The administration will most certainly consider the political fallout.
You're right in general, but IMO wrong on the details. For instance, I suspect the various states are less interested in getting a one-time dole out of this than they are in giving their local software industry a boost. This kind of "protectionism" (if you will) helps them bring in jobs (aka "taxes"), catalyzes bribes^w campaign donations from those industries, and gives them something to stir Joe Citizen's patriotism, since at the next election the politicos will point out how they are so dutifully looking out for the interests of Joe Citizen's home state.
Yeah, it's about money, and the interests of big business. That's not to say that I'm against the suit; I just think it was mostly a case of "the right thing for the wrong reasons", and those wrong reasons is why so many parties were so eager to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.
> I really think that our government's resources could be better allocated to fighting a war than listening to a bunch of angry nerds.
Yeah, they wanted to settle because antitrust suits aren't on the national priority anymore, yet I can't help but notice that they haven't said anything about settling the war on citizents^w drugs.
> I started out by being very positive towards ADA - being told that "in ADA you write a little more than in C, but basically you just write what you mean".
More on this further below.
> Then why is an array written in the same way as a function call?
I would also like to have brackets for the array indices, and have even considered writing my own preprocessor to allow that and some other syntactic sugar. But don't confuse a language's choice of syntactic structures with "not saying what you mean". If you want to "say what you mean", you have to do it in the syntax provided by the language in question. None of the syntax for any language "means" anything at all, except by the conventions established by the language specification. So if you do write something in language X, don't assume that the syntax should "mean" what it does in language Y.
> An ADA compiler writer told me that also made it much harder to make the ADA compiler.
That's a rather curious claim. All you have to do is look up the identifier in a table (which you have to do anyway, in any language) and have a peek at its properties (which you have to do anyway, in any type-safe language), and then spill some code depending on what you have found.
The static type-checking and overloading capabilities of Ada will make the compiler more challenging to write than some other compilers would be, but the difference between "(" and "[" is trivial for a parser. (Heck, some implementations of Scheme even let you use them interchangably.)
But back to the "basically you just write what you mean". I say the same thing, almost, but I mean it much differently than your interloqutor apparently did. I phrase it something like -
When you first start Ada you'll hate it, because it makes you say what you mean and mean what you say.
Notice that I left out the word "just". Saying what you mean is a very demanding requirement, and those of us who haven't been through a software engineering program don't take to the requirement too kindly. We'd rather slop together whatever our language of choice allows us to get away with, and pay the price for it later if we're so unfortunate to still be around when the bug reports start coming in.
By analogy, the difference between "saying what you mean" and the way we program when we can get away with it is like the difference, for mathematicians, between a proof and a proof sketch. One is formal and rigorous; the other makes a convincing show, but might not actually be correct.
But its a very sensible requirement if you have safety in mind. And if you bite the bullet and get used to doing it in a "safe" language that expects is, you'll start reaping rewards for it. The whole point of using a language like Ada is, IMO, that it moves bug-catching earlier in the product's life cycle. The GNAT compiler will catch a lot of things at compile time that most other languages will "catch" by blowing up at run time. And it will catch other things by raising an exception at run time when most other languages would not catch them at all, leaving them to be caught by humans noticing that the program isn't producing the expected results.
Don't get me wrong; Ada (or any other langage, past or future) isn't a magic bullet that's going to kill all the world's software bugs. But it is a language designed for software engineering, and if you have the patience to learn to "say what you mean" they you'll spend way less time chasing bugs, and the time you do spend on debugging will almost always be a matter of making sure your higher-level algorithm is correct.
> The actual bug, as I've heard it told, was that the code wigged out when the physical environment became impossible for the Ariane 4
That's correct. Something like this happened:
A: Let's build a new rocket!
B: Okay!
A: Let's reuse this "smart part" from the old one!
B: Okay!
A: Let's don't review the smart part's code, or even test it on a simulator, since it worked flawlessly on the Ariane IV!
B: Okay!
AV: Crash!
A&B: Ooops!
Hopefully everyone can spot where the plan went awry.
Here's a short from-memory explanation of what happened; you can find the official report on the Web pretty easily with a search engine:
The part in question looked at acceleration/velocity/displacement (I forget which), made some decisions about them, and put some appropriate commands on the control bus. Alas, the Ariane V was so much powerful than the IV that the acceleration/velocity/displacement soon ran up to a number that was physically impossible for the Ariane IV, so the module concluded (correctly, according to its original design) that it was getting garbage in, so it started dumping debug info on the control bus. The engines tried to interpret the debug info as control commands, with predictable results.
In lots of programs you could branch to some failsafe mode rather than dumping debug info on the bus, though it's not clear what the "failsafe mode" is for a rocket during launch. (If there were such a mode, you would just use that for your control logic to begin with!)
There's not a language, compiler, static analyzer, or theorem prover on the planet that can catch this kind of problem, though the engineers should have "caught it" during the earliest phases of the design by specifying appropriate reviews/tests for the software and software specs on the reused part.
> Now, when my employer sends me to classes on C++/java/etc., my most frequent comment in class is "Oh, that's like (blank) in Ada," which usually gets me strange looks from my classmates (and instructors).
Yes, it looks like C --> C++ --> Java --> C# is on a trajectory that is converging toward Ada. Oldtimers grouse that some of the things people rave about in Java are the same things people used to whinge about in Ada, back before Illuvatar changed the world.
> OT, but I think its unpoularity stems from the fact it was designed for DoD use, who then made it MANDATORY for all new projects.
You may be right. Interestingly, now that the DoD is letting it wither it is actually expanding its market a bit, particularly in Europe. (Or so I understand.)
> The biggest problem at the moment is that none of these "safer" languages has yet developed the same raw expressive power of C++.
Take a look at Ada. Extremely safe, extremely powerful, extremely unpopular. Go figure.
It's object-oriented, it supports generic classes ("packages", in Ada terminology), it has built-in support for multitasking and distributed programming, it lets you (optionally) specify even such details as numeric representations for the ultimate in portability, and it has a set of first-class and well-documented bindings for GTK+.
There's a free compiler called GNAT, which is built on gcc and will actually be rolled in to gcc 3.1 or thereabouts. There's also a Linux-specific site for gathering and distributing component packages.
> And now the most important thing of the plot: many coloured things will expode (especially in vacuum with a loud "kaboom !). And some guys will jump around.
And then you'll rush out and buy some action figures.
> As far as I'm concerned, Proximo is the best role he had...
I think he outdid that in his role as Athos in Richard Lester's Three Musketeers and (especially) the "sequel" Four Musketeers, where he was pretty much the focus of the show.
ps - Don't confuse these fine films with the dweebie pretty-boys-who-can't-act version of '93. If you haven't seen them, then waste no time in renting them.
> You can't re-animate Bruce Lee, period.... Also, I think we're overlooking the Martial Arts stars we've already got on the market. Jackie Chan and the ever wired up Jet Li to name a few good ones.
I agree with your sentiment, but I'd still like to put in a plug for Jackie's cartoon series, The Jackie Chan Adventures. Made for children, but geeks might like it. No, it isn't like watching his better movies, but it's fun. And funny.
Re:Sad, sad commentary
on
XBox Released
·
· Score: 1
> Next thing you know I'll be sitting on an MS IP Toilet.
I've seen many a toilet bearing a little sticker that said "Designed for Microsoft Windows 95".
> Since full disclosure has become the norm, the computer industry has transformed itself from a group of companies that ignores security and belittles vulnerabilities into one that fixes vulnerabilities as quickly as possible. A few companies are even going further, and taking security seriously enough to attempt to build quality software from the beginning: to fix vulnerabilities before the product is released.
And Microsoft doesn't like fixing problems, let alone building quality in from the start. Those activities don't add anything to their bottom line; it's a waste of resources.
Microsoft doesn't like the new norm, therefore it doesn't like full disclosure. (Where's the surprise?)
To say nothing of the bad PR that hits the world's presses twice a week when the latest MS-specific exploit shows up at the disclosure site.
> A lot of people seem to confuse what the posters say (which is in quotes btw) and what the Slashdot crew says. Of course, either is just as likely to be spelled incorrectly:).
> Up until now... the only "advertising" Linux has received has been the mention of Linux as a possible training route at the computer schools popping up all over the place, as well as...
Being listed by the computer schools is probably a strong indicator that Linux is hot stuff. These schools operate on a for-profit basis; they teach what they think people want to learn. If the people going to these schools think knowing Linux is worth paying for, that's another milestone for visibility, mindshare, and mainstream acceptance.
> Its always refreshing to hear corps stress the benefits of this OS..
Maybe old news, but yesterday I noticed an IBM/Linux commercial on the telly for the first time. I wasn't paying attention when it came on, but the gig was that some execs walked into their datacenter and were shocked to see a big empty room -- thought someone had stolen all their servers. But IBM had merely replaced them all with a single Linux box.
> Whatever happened to Linus saying Linux doesn't care what MS does?
I'm not Linus.
His sentiment is laudable, and I too subscribe to a live-and-let-live policy wherever others are willing to play by that same rule.
But Microsoft isn't willing. They have a long history of paranoia about having any other product competing in, or even adjacent to, their 0wn market space, and an equally long history of killing off those products by fair means or foul.
Idealism is nice, but realism contributes more to survival. Beat your swords into plowshares and you'll find yourself plowing for new masters.
Yes. Linux is cutting off Microsoft's air supply. Microsoft will do everything in its power to kill Linux.
And it won't be sufficient, for them, to merely get Linux out of businesses; as long as it merely exists they will continue to see it as a threat. So expect them to continue throwing money at businesses, OEMs, governments, etc., and to continue "oops"-breaking standards. But most of all, expect them to lobby for laws that will break the OSS paradigm under thinly veiled concern for IP, security, etc.
After the DoJ cave-in it should be obvious that the only way for non-MS products to survive is to proactively destroy Microsoft. Unless you're vested in MSFT, you should be doing everything legal + ethical toward that goal (though there's no reason to suppose that MS will hamstring itself with the "legal + ethical" bit).
One of the most interesting things I ever saw in a nature flick was a clip of an eagle grabing a big fish out of a lake. The fish was so big that the eagle was only able to gain altitude very slowly.
But the interesting thing was the way the eagle handled the fish. It came up from the water with the fish turned sideways in its two feet, but over a period of several seconds it shuffled its grip on the fish and turned it pointing forwards, the way a fish swims in the water -- presumably to reduce the aerodynamic drag on it.
> As registrar for the new TLD Neulevel will undoubtedly make a TON of money as companies with significantly valuable trademarks rush to protect the value of their IP by registering all possible.your_TLD_here preceded by their trademark.
> Or am I just a cynic?
Yeah, it sounds like we're missing out on the latest round of internet-as-get-rich-scheme. We should start our own TLD, call it maybe.scam or something, and do a little MAKE MONEY FASTing of our own.
> EP1 had the same problem. I wouldn't have liked it if it had been the first movie, and I'd never have seen the trailer. It was devoid of ideas and full of empty gimmicks. Marketing is a distant second to craft.
Skill without imagination is craftsmanship and gives us many useful objects such as wicker-work picnic baskets. Imagination without skill gives us modern art. (Tom Stoppard)
And sequels and prequels, I might add.
On an almost related note, Salon is currently an article about the so-called Phantom Edit of E1.
Slashdot Mirror
Next week's headlines:Also, I'm wondering how long it will be before some enterprising soul catches a copy of the lantern, analyzes it for a
Or better yet (for suitable notions of "better"), use McA to detect it, but rather than replacing it just install a script to fake a safe log for the FBI's reading pleasure?
> So where can I pick up my 'Boycott Sid Meier' shirt/Tshirt/bumper sticker?
Research "Tee Shirts" and "Printing", and then you can build them in any city with a textile mill.
Or you may find it easier to just plunder neighboring civilizations that already have them.
> What I always wonder is, in a context like this, what exactly does "consider" mean? It obviously can't mean that the decision has to be entirely determined by the feedback, since that's what the judge is for, but then how much discretion does the judge have?
Simply getting a few thousand messages from people who bluntly state that they think the case was thrown due to political meddling will give the judge -- and administration -- something to think about.
Hopefully the judge will carefully consider the merits of whatever feedback comes in. The administration will most certainly consider the political fallout.
> It was about money.
You're right in general, but IMO wrong on the details. For instance, I suspect the various states are less interested in getting a one-time dole out of this than they are in giving their local software industry a boost. This kind of "protectionism" (if you will) helps them bring in jobs (aka "taxes"), catalyzes bribes^w campaign donations from those industries, and gives them something to stir Joe Citizen's patriotism, since at the next election the politicos will point out how they are so dutifully looking out for the interests of Joe Citizen's home state.
Yeah, it's about money, and the interests of big business. That's not to say that I'm against the suit; I just think it was mostly a case of "the right thing for the wrong reasons", and those wrong reasons is why so many parties were so eager to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.
> I really think that our government's resources could be better allocated to fighting a war than listening to a bunch of angry nerds.
Yeah, they wanted to settle because antitrust suits aren't on the national priority anymore, yet I can't help but notice that they haven't said anything about settling the war on citizents^w drugs.
> Silly DoJ, they should've spam-protected their email address.
The actual address is microsoft.NOSPAM.atr@usdoj.gov. They figured spammers would never think to add "NOSPAM" to an address.
> I started out by being very positive towards ADA - being told that "in ADA you write a little more than in C, but basically you just write what you mean".
More on this further below.
> Then why is an array written in the same way as a function call?
I would also like to have brackets for the array indices, and have even considered writing my own preprocessor to allow that and some other syntactic sugar. But don't confuse a language's choice of syntactic structures with "not saying what you mean". If you want to "say what you mean", you have to do it in the syntax provided by the language in question. None of the syntax for any language "means" anything at all, except by the conventions established by the language specification. So if you do write something in language X, don't assume that the syntax should "mean" what it does in language Y.
> An ADA compiler writer told me that also made it much harder to make the ADA compiler.
That's a rather curious claim. All you have to do is look up the identifier in a table (which you have to do anyway, in any language) and have a peek at its properties (which you have to do anyway, in any type-safe language), and then spill some code depending on what you have found.
The static type-checking and overloading capabilities of Ada will make the compiler more challenging to write than some other compilers would be, but the difference between "(" and "[" is trivial for a parser. (Heck, some implementations of Scheme even let you use them interchangably.)
But back to the "basically you just write what you mean". I say the same thing, almost, but I mean it much differently than your interloqutor apparently did. I phrase it something like -Notice that I left out the word "just". Saying what you mean is a very demanding requirement, and those of us who haven't been through a software engineering program don't take to the requirement too kindly. We'd rather slop together whatever our language of choice allows us to get away with, and pay the price for it later if we're so unfortunate to still be around when the bug reports start coming in.
By analogy, the difference between "saying what you mean" and the way we program when we can get away with it is like the difference, for mathematicians, between a proof and a proof sketch. One is formal and rigorous; the other makes a convincing show, but might not actually be correct.
But its a very sensible requirement if you have safety in mind. And if you bite the bullet and get used to doing it in a "safe" language that expects is, you'll start reaping rewards for it. The whole point of using a language like Ada is, IMO, that it moves bug-catching earlier in the product's life cycle. The GNAT compiler will catch a lot of things at compile time that most other languages will "catch" by blowing up at run time. And it will catch other things by raising an exception at run time when most other languages would not catch them at all, leaving them to be caught by humans noticing that the program isn't producing the expected results.
Don't get me wrong; Ada (or any other langage, past or future) isn't a magic bullet that's going to kill all the world's software bugs. But it is a language designed for software engineering, and if you have the patience to learn to "say what you mean" they you'll spend way less time chasing bugs, and the time you do spend on debugging will almost always be a matter of making sure your higher-level algorithm is correct.
> The actual bug, as I've heard it told, was that the code wigged out when the physical environment became impossible for the Ariane 4
That's correct. Something like this happened:
A: Let's build a new rocket!
B: Okay!
A: Let's reuse this "smart part" from the old one!
B: Okay!
A: Let's don't review the smart part's code, or even test it on a simulator, since it worked flawlessly on the Ariane IV!
B: Okay!
AV: Crash!
A&B: Ooops!
Hopefully everyone can spot where the plan went awry.
Here's a short from-memory explanation of what happened; you can find the official report on the Web pretty easily with a search engine:
The part in question looked at acceleration/velocity/displacement (I forget which), made some decisions about them, and put some appropriate commands on the control bus. Alas, the Ariane V was so much powerful than the IV that the acceleration/velocity/displacement soon ran up to a number that was physically impossible for the Ariane IV, so the module concluded (correctly, according to its original design) that it was getting garbage in, so it started dumping debug info on the control bus. The engines tried to interpret the debug info as control commands, with predictable results.
In lots of programs you could branch to some failsafe mode rather than dumping debug info on the bus, though it's not clear what the "failsafe mode" is for a rocket during launch. (If there were such a mode, you would just use that for your control logic to begin with!)
There's not a language, compiler, static analyzer, or theorem prover on the planet that can catch this kind of problem, though the engineers should have "caught it" during the earliest phases of the design by specifying appropriate reviews/tests for the software and software specs on the reused part.
> Now, when my employer sends me to classes on C++/java/etc., my most frequent comment in class is "Oh, that's like (blank) in Ada," which usually gets me strange looks from my classmates (and instructors).
Yes, it looks like C --> C++ --> Java --> C# is on a trajectory that is converging toward Ada. Oldtimers grouse that some of the things people rave about in Java are the same things people used to whinge about in Ada, back before Illuvatar changed the world.
> OT, but I think its unpoularity stems from the fact it was designed for DoD use, who then made it MANDATORY for all new projects.
You may be right. Interestingly, now that the DoD is letting it wither it is actually expanding its market a bit, particularly in Europe. (Or so I understand.)
> The biggest problem at the moment is that none of these "safer" languages has yet developed the same raw expressive power of C++.
Take a look at Ada. Extremely safe, extremely powerful, extremely unpopular. Go figure.
It's object-oriented, it supports generic classes ("packages", in Ada terminology), it has built-in support for multitasking and distributed programming, it lets you (optionally) specify even such details as numeric representations for the ultimate in portability, and it has a set of first-class and well-documented bindings for GTK+.
There's a free compiler called GNAT, which is built on gcc and will actually be rolled in to gcc 3.1 or thereabouts. There's also a Linux-specific site for gathering and distributing component packages.
And pace ESR, it wasn't designed by a committee.
> And now the most important thing of the plot: many coloured things will expode (especially in vacuum with a loud "kaboom !). And some guys will jump around.
And then you'll rush out and buy some action figures.
> As far as I'm concerned, Proximo is the best role he had...
I think he outdid that in his role as Athos in Richard Lester's Three Musketeers and (especially) the "sequel" Four Musketeers , where he was pretty much the focus of the show.
ps - Don't confuse these fine films with the dweebie pretty-boys-who-can't-act version of '93. If you haven't seen them, then waste no time in renting them.
> You can't re-animate Bruce Lee, period.
I agree with your sentiment, but I'd still like to put in a plug for Jackie's cartoon series, The Jackie Chan Adventures. Made for children, but geeks might like it. No, it isn't like watching his better movies, but it's fun. And funny.
> Next thing you know I'll be sitting on an MS IP Toilet.
I've seen many a toilet bearing a little sticker that said "Designed for Microsoft Windows 95".
> "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
Apparently, he didn't report to a middle manager.
> Since full disclosure has become the norm, the computer industry has transformed itself from a group of companies that ignores security and belittles vulnerabilities into one that fixes vulnerabilities as quickly as possible. A few companies are even going further, and taking security seriously enough to attempt to build quality software from the beginning: to fix vulnerabilities before the product is released.
And Microsoft doesn't like fixing problems, let alone building quality in from the start. Those activities don't add anything to their bottom line; it's a waste of resources.
Microsoft doesn't like the new norm, therefore it doesn't like full disclosure. (Where's the surprise?)
To say nothing of the bad PR that hits the world's presses twice a week when the latest MS-specific exploit shows up at the disclosure site.
> A lot of people seem to confuse what the posters say (which is in quotes btw) and what the Slashdot crew says. Of course, either is just as likely to be spelled incorrectly
Your logic is too deeb for me to fathom.
> Up until now
Being listed by the computer schools is probably a strong indicator that Linux is hot stuff. These schools operate on a for-profit basis; they teach what they think people want to learn. If the people going to these schools think knowing Linux is worth paying for, that's another milestone for visibility, mindshare, and mainstream acceptance.
> Its always refreshing to hear corps stress the benefits of this OS
Maybe old news, but yesterday I noticed an IBM/Linux commercial on the telly for the first time. I wasn't paying attention when it came on, but the gig was that some execs walked into their datacenter and were shocked to see a big empty room -- thought someone had stolen all their servers. But IBM had merely replaced them all with a single Linux box.
> Whatever happened to Linus saying Linux doesn't care what MS does?
I'm not Linus.
His sentiment is laudable, and I too subscribe to a live-and-let-live policy wherever others are willing to play by that same rule.
But Microsoft isn't willing. They have a long history of paranoia about having any other product competing in, or even adjacent to, their 0wn market space, and an equally long history of killing off those products by fair means or foul.
Idealism is nice, but realism contributes more to survival. Beat your swords into plowshares and you'll find yourself plowing for new masters.
> Is Microsoft *the* threat to Linux?
Yes. Linux is cutting off Microsoft's air supply. Microsoft will do everything in its power to kill Linux.
And it won't be sufficient, for them, to merely get Linux out of businesses; as long as it merely exists they will continue to see it as a threat. So expect them to continue throwing money at businesses, OEMs, governments, etc., and to continue "oops"-breaking standards. But most of all, expect them to lobby for laws that will break the OSS paradigm under thinly veiled concern for IP, security, etc.
After the DoJ cave-in it should be obvious that the only way for non-MS products to survive is to proactively destroy Microsoft. Unless you're vested in MSFT, you should be doing everything legal + ethical toward that goal (though there's no reason to suppose that MS will hamstring itself with the "legal + ethical" bit).
One of the most interesting things I ever saw in a nature flick was a clip of an eagle grabing a big fish out of a lake. The fish was so big that the eagle was only able to gain altitude very slowly.
But the interesting thing was the way the eagle handled the fish. It came up from the water with the fish turned sideways in its two feet, but over a period of several seconds it shuffled its grip on the fish and turned it pointing forwards, the way a fish swims in the water -- presumably to reduce the aerodynamic drag on it.
> As registrar for the new TLD Neulevel will undoubtedly make a TON of money as companies with significantly valuable trademarks rush to protect the value of their IP by registering all possible
> Or am I just a cynic?
Yeah, it sounds like we're missing out on the latest round of internet-as-get-rich-scheme. We should start our own TLD, call it maybe
OK, execs, get ready to pay off another round of squatters.
How this going to get?
> EP1 had the same problem. I wouldn't have liked it if it had been the first movie, and I'd never have seen the trailer. It was devoid of ideas and full of empty gimmicks. Marketing is a distant second to craft.
And sequels and prequels, I might add.
On an almost related note, Salon is currently an article about the so-called Phantom Edit of E1.