It's almost the same, excepts "artists" isn't the real term - say "soldiers". Ultra is the war effort kiddies. You get the rest. Hence Paragraph 1 is relevant, but a bit of teaser.
The movie seems interesting. Is it me, or would a serious 2 hours spent on just the cracking of the code have been more entertaining? I understand the made-for-TV versions are there (probably better), but there's something important to give the public a sense of just how difficult, important and exciting hacking can be. And I'm not talking about having numbers and letters glow as in A Beautiful Mind - sheesh.
With that said, by the time these are well-documented, they are old. I don't expect a movie of The Cuckoo's Egg or the fun of the young Doug Hofstadler's (sp.) GEB.
If this movies gets some attention, maybe Wolfenstien v?.0 will have an Engima machine in there somewhere, althought I don't expect it to beyond a puzzle of Myst-level.
But in the payment for the book is supposed to be the money for this effort. You are assuming once it's published that no more work should be paid for its correction?
Publishing errors, then not rewarding those (IMHO really helpful) readers who submit corrections are the 2 best ways to drop a book review from a 8 to a 7.
In reality, there WILL be backlash, but they are prepared to weather this storm.
So I believe this will blow over, the scheme will be hacked, and music will continue to flow to the technically saavy while the money flows from the musically hungry.
So, in 6 months, we'll all be reading about the latest buzz about someone who publish a hack to the UMG copy-protection and got some litigation.
This is silly. You give them credit for writing mounds of code to deliver product (a strong one i agree) but so forgiving for writing an inhumane EULA?
This can at least get that short set of legal English right. This totally smacks of "better to ask forgiveness than permission"
I CONTINUE the age of predictions here, and expect their next "revolutionary" product line to come with another silly fascist EULA.
Code Reuse and extensibility is (IMHO) the largest advantage of OO. By (trying) to demark a dotted line around the box of code you want to (re)use and separating out your new code, you realize gains in writing and testing. Communicating what code actually does is also much cleaner in a componentized view.
So take a look at many programs writting in Windows these days. Anything written that uses COM. Almost all *ix shell scripting. While they all follow different aspects of "object" reuse, you are benefitting from using a block of solid code without having to retest it. I'm abstracting the definition many people have of "object" as such, but in the end all the goals are similar: Get it done better, faster.
MS bashing can be a bad habit as a sort-of "bandwagon"/"troll" mode people use - even when less than adequately informed. There is criticism warranted, but not every article about MS is an open chance to bash.
Linux as desktop OS is a model that can be used to study every aspect of computer science, hands on. This is its origin, after all! MS can publish.Net mags and white papers galore, but in the end, their solutions are proprietary.
This difference comes to knowing the machine versus pressing the buttons. For some development, people don't need to know the guts. Frankly, some of them are best kept away from it. Conversely, systems programmers can sometimes over-utitilize low level toolsets and prematuely reject wrapper tools that get the job done. Specialization has to occur.
So more students come out knowing how to put their baseball card colleciton on the web in 15 minutes with VB. Whoopie! They will immediately sick to the bottom of the skillset pool when compared to a Linux network hacker that runs a web site in the dorm room - once they both get to the job market place AND the task is right.
But the MS.Net newbie will also find a job! Trust me, they will be slapping up ActiveX charts onto MS-laden pages for businesses for a long time. The internals of development will remain a mystery to them. Is this a bad thing? I'm not sure, can any of you tune up your car engine?
If you've seen the movies and music that are hacked the "cheap way" overseas, you know that they're going to put up with a few DAC loops to get the music out. Copy protection takes a whole step downward once pushed through pipes like that (although its not impossible).
I WILL buy CDs from artists I like, but only buy downloading/ripping the ones I like and mailing a personal check to the band (via member,fan club/agent) for how much I think its worth.
Yes, I also pay for shareware. I can't code and sleep at night otherwise. Call me the fool, but I want the SOURCES of things I like to continue, even through the nutjob management decisions.
Right now, bands make the most money from you directly when you organize your friends to hit the club and pay the cover and then leave with discs and t-shirts.
The model of bandwidth as commodity already exists: Power. You can put deals and caps on it, but its merely metered usage of bandwidth over time.
You have a "max pipe size" you pay for. You also have a $/unit of measure charge. Flat, tiered or what-not you are going to be using metered bandwidth.
This is fine for device connectivity (believe it - they WANT you to use bandwidth), but here's the real knot in the panties for this model: On the web - you start paying for all the freakshow ads, intros, spam and other fluff spinning around there. Don't like it?
Start migrating towards smarter and more extensible programs to purge nonsense. And thus we have arrived at the mouse vs. trap circle we are in now, but YOU have a wallet that is concerned.
The sick part is that these providers WANT to shove fluff through the pipe to you in a metered bandwidth model. Hell, you're paying for it. It becomes just another level of service comparison. "How much shite will you email me...in MB?"
Think about this combined with the Gatesian World of.NET sucking every Office function through the wire dynamically. Trust me, Bill's gonna come out with a "deal you can't refuse" that combines cheaper metered bandwidth with a catch.
And WHAMMO we have arrived. Portal, bandwidth deal, and protocol support all bundled. Amazon, Yahoo, MSN, ATT, Dell, IBM, Your Mom's Poker Club all selling services. We have this today, but its not TIME that they rob from you ("hey 1/3 of my time is downloading NetZero ads") - its true $ ("hey 1/3 of my GB meter is crap Earthlink email").
To me, there's already a big source of this type of information. The members there would also help.
I'd like to think there's interesting analogies in some of the following most popular books:
Dick Tracey/Batman/Superman comics - compare that gear to today. Law enforcement isn't too far from it.
Brave New World - Tech advances versus the animalistic nature of mankind
1984 - modern homoginization of media and the "social herd" concept.
Day Of the Triffids - agricultural bioengineering driven by money, although quite a bit of B-movie sci-fi in there.
Foundation - psychohistory akin to reviewing patterns of internet usage and predicting outcomes
2001 et. al - Moon mining and the possibility of so-called precious metals becoming commonplace
Clarke, Asimov, Huxley - these were some of the earliest predictive sci-fi writers - even if they didn't know it at the time. There were TONS of pulp sci-fi books in the 50's though (giant radioactive _fill_in_blank_, etc)
Since the 80's there's been a bandwagon effect for writing like this.
Sounds like all the "right tools for the job" boiled down to one language (C) just for a port.
There is a great concept that its *not* the laguage at all that matters, but in modular design.
Any OS has libraries written in a slew of langs, and making system calls available to more than 1 language has been the purpose of some of these libraries for many designs.
For a long time, many of the readers of/. have laboured to put together a private, then public "Framework"
While not discussing the merits of such an endeavor, they almost always have a productivity gain result, with the added propeller-head feature of making the dev team "kings of the castle" of How It Should Be Done.
Every OS is merely an minimal acceptable level of a framework.
By writing applications in a single language, platform or environment, you leverage your knowledge in the language. BFD. BUT! When you organize it on a grand scale as a Framework, you can make extraordinary differences...and you avoid the hodge podge of applications that may or may not live as long as your users need them.
In my world, enterprise applications written in a massive and ever-more-portable / feature-filled / wrappable C++ framework are the norm. They last years and become somewhat of a family hierloom that we take pride in.
We have budding frameworks (both built and purchased) for VB and Delphi - but they slip and slide through versions way too often. Ever 3 years the language is updated to take advantage of the Next Big Thing. In a lower-level framework, you can add in these features because you're closer to the understanding of basic toolset.
Combined with a Component take on development, one can merely add a object to the mix and suddenly the security model, status reporting, version control and documentation stay compatible.
If you are trying to use different frameworks to achieve solid goals merely from your single opinion of "best for the job" - you are missing a lot of management skills.
Language improvements have historicially opened the door to new productivity - in real terms - of apps getting cranked out. Higher and higher encapsulation in text or GUI worlds...but they don't all stick to the wall.
One cannot always tell beforehand how big the impact will be. Small movements have exploded once given a niche to fill... and then die once it was swallowed up by a new contender.
If the benefit of C# is only whats in this article, then I'm not convinced its going to change the world. I'll keep to my "unsafe" code blocks and maintain interoperability with non-Gatesian worlds.
I'll wait for at least a committee for standardization to form for this mess.
This effort and inginuity behind Borland's development products is notable.
However, as they push in the Linux world, can they really make enough money, even with market share? As any feature they have is soon to be incorporated into the existing cheaper (in many both of the word) IDEs. How do you win with this?
Borland may have to settle for always being a day late and a dollar short. In the big world of dev. tools, this is still a big win.
Slashdot Mirror
It's almost the same, excepts "artists" isn't the real term - say "soldiers". Ultra is the war effort kiddies. You get the rest. Hence Paragraph 1 is relevant, but a bit of teaser.
The movie seems interesting. Is it me, or would a serious 2 hours spent on just the cracking of the code have been more entertaining? I understand the made-for-TV versions are there (probably better), but there's something important to give the public a sense of just how difficult, important and exciting hacking can be. And I'm not talking about having numbers and letters glow as in A Beautiful Mind - sheesh.
With that said, by the time these are well-documented, they are old. I don't expect a movie of The Cuckoo's Egg or the fun of the young Doug Hofstadler's (sp.) GEB.
If this movies gets some attention, maybe Wolfenstien v?.0 will have an Engima machine in there somewhere, althought I don't expect it to beyond a puzzle of Myst-level.
mug
On the farm in SW, uncle owen was the related family member. Was this "uncle" in name only?
(1) But the time you finish, those books will be obsolete. Hint: Don't buy any more.
(2) What will you read in the crapper? Get a wireless card and laptop?
Oh, so buying UNIX is still a good idea? Perhaps that ad campaign should have a footnote.
YOU: modded down - not very informative - and from a coward to boot.
are you claiming to be an authority on trolls? write us an interesting article doughboy
what prevents the verifier from being reverse-engineered and the flaws/holes in its checking are exploited?
The holes would be ubiquitous, and a CLR update would have to be pushed out through the usual bump-n-grind channels after the virus struck.
the smart hacker would move to the next hole in the found list and exploint that...on and on. exploint one at a time.
demand permissions / unsafe checks / etc. are par for the course. its the holes inside there that are the fun spots.
You can bet that if ONE company holds the design of the CLR, there isn't going to be much we can do to avoid these holes.
Except pick a different methodology.
-----------
unsafe by mere existance
But in the payment for the book is supposed to be the money for this effort. You are assuming once it's published that no more work should be paid for its correction?
Publishing errors, then not rewarding those (IMHO really helpful) readers who submit corrections are the 2 best ways to drop a book review from a 8 to a 7.
So by this argument, HTML and XML would be an even bigger, more revolutionary, format.
PDF is no better than DOC - and as MS's market share shows, not used as much as DOC. However, I understand they serve different purposes.
In reality, there WILL be backlash, but they are prepared to weather this storm.
So I believe this will blow over, the scheme will be hacked, and music will continue to flow to the technically saavy while the money flows from the musically hungry.
So, in 6 months, we'll all be reading about the latest buzz about someone who publish a hack to the UMG copy-protection and got some litigation.
mug
They already have[cached]
mug
This is silly. You give them credit for writing mounds of code to deliver product (a strong one i agree) but so forgiving for writing an inhumane EULA?
This can at least get that short set of legal English right. This totally smacks of "better to ask forgiveness than permission"
I CONTINUE the age of predictions here, and expect their next "revolutionary" product line to come with another silly fascist EULA.
MARK MY WORDS.
..always wanted to say that
mug
Code Reuse and extensibility is (IMHO) the largest advantage of OO. By (trying) to demark a dotted line around the box of code you want to (re)use and separating out your new code, you realize gains in writing and testing. Communicating what code actually does is also much cleaner in a componentized view.
So take a look at many programs writting in Windows these days. Anything written that uses COM. Almost all *ix shell scripting. While they all follow different aspects of "object" reuse, you are benefitting from using a block of solid code without having to retest it. I'm abstracting the definition many people have of "object" as such, but in the end all the goals are similar: Get it done better, faster.
mug
MS bashing can be a bad habit as a sort-of "bandwagon"/"troll" mode people use - even when less than adequately informed. There is criticism warranted, but not every article about MS is an open chance to bash.
.Net mags and white papers galore, but in the end, their solutions are proprietary.
.Net newbie will also find a job! Trust me, they will be slapping up ActiveX charts onto MS-laden pages for businesses for a long time. The internals of development will remain a mystery to them. Is this a bad thing? I'm not sure, can any of you tune up your car engine?
.sig
Linux as desktop OS is a model that can be used to study every aspect of computer science, hands on. This is its origin, after all! MS can publish
This difference comes to knowing the machine versus pressing the buttons. For some development, people don't need to know the guts. Frankly, some of them are best kept away from it. Conversely, systems programmers can sometimes over-utitilize low level toolsets and prematuely reject wrapper tools that get the job done. Specialization has to occur.
So more students come out knowing how to put their baseball card colleciton on the web in 15 minutes with VB. Whoopie! They will immediately sick to the bottom of the skillset pool when compared to a Linux network hacker that runs a web site in the dorm room - once they both get to the job market place AND the task is right.
But the MS
mug
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
capitalist
If you've seen the movies and music that are hacked the "cheap way" overseas, you know that they're going to put up with a few DAC loops to get the music out. Copy protection takes a whole step downward once pushed through pipes like that (although its not impossible).
I WILL buy CDs from artists I like, but only buy downloading/ripping the ones I like and mailing a personal check to the band (via member,fan club/agent) for how much I think its worth.
Yes, I also pay for shareware. I can't code and sleep at night otherwise. Call me the fool, but I want the SOURCES of things I like to continue, even through the nutjob management decisions.
Right now, bands make the most money from you directly when you organize your friends to hit the club and pay the cover and then leave with discs and t-shirts.
mug
+/-
pickle me elmo
The model of bandwidth as commodity already exists: Power. You can put deals and caps on it, but its merely metered usage of bandwidth over time.
.NET sucking every Office function through the wire dynamically. Trust me, Bill's gonna come out with a "deal you can't refuse" that combines cheaper metered bandwidth with a catch.
You have a "max pipe size" you pay for. You also have a $/unit of measure charge. Flat, tiered or what-not you are going to be using metered bandwidth.
This is fine for device connectivity (believe it - they WANT you to use bandwidth), but here's the real knot in the panties for this model: On the web - you start paying for all the freakshow ads, intros, spam and other fluff spinning around there. Don't like it?
Start migrating towards smarter and more extensible programs to purge nonsense. And thus we have arrived at the mouse vs. trap circle we are in now, but YOU have a wallet that is concerned.
The sick part is that these providers WANT to shove fluff through the pipe to you in a metered bandwidth model. Hell, you're paying for it. It becomes just another level of service comparison. "How much shite will you email me...in MB?"
Think about this combined with the Gatesian World of
And WHAMMO we have arrived. Portal, bandwidth deal, and protocol support all bundled. Amazon, Yahoo, MSN, ATT, Dell, IBM, Your Mom's Poker Club all selling services. We have this today, but its not TIME that they rob from you ("hey 1/3 of my time is downloading NetZero ads") - its true $ ("hey 1/3 of my GB meter is crap Earthlink email").
mug
+/-
I've had just about enough from you, Mr Man.
To me, there's already a big source of this type of information. The members there would also help.
I'd like to think there's interesting analogies in some of the following most popular books:
Dick Tracey/Batman/Superman comics - compare that gear to today. Law enforcement isn't too far from it.
Brave New World - Tech advances versus the animalistic nature of mankind
1984 - modern homoginization of media and the "social herd" concept.
Day Of the Triffids - agricultural bioengineering driven by money, although quite a bit of B-movie sci-fi in there.
Foundation - psychohistory akin to reviewing patterns of internet usage and predicting outcomes
2001 et. al - Moon mining and the possibility of so-called precious metals becoming commonplace
Clarke, Asimov, Huxley - these were some of the earliest predictive sci-fi writers - even if they didn't know it at the time. There were TONS of pulp sci-fi books in the 50's though (giant radioactive _fill_in_blank_, etc)
Since the 80's there's been a bandwagon effect for writing like this.
mug
+-
rub continuously across screen until clear
Sounds like all the "right tools for the job" boiled down to one language (C) just for a port.
There is a great concept that its *not* the laguage at all that matters, but in modular design.
Any OS has libraries written in a slew of langs, and making system calls available to more than 1 language has been the purpose of some of these libraries for many designs.
For a long time, many of the readers of /. have laboured to put together a private, then public "Framework"
While not discussing the merits of such an endeavor, they almost always have a productivity gain result, with the added propeller-head feature of making the dev team "kings of the castle" of How It Should Be Done.
Every OS is merely an minimal acceptable level of a framework.
By writing applications in a single language, platform or environment, you leverage your knowledge in the language. BFD. BUT! When you organize it on a grand scale as a Framework, you can make extraordinary differences...and you avoid the hodge podge of applications that may or may not live as long as your users need them.
In my world, enterprise applications written in a massive and ever-more-portable / feature-filled / wrappable C++ framework are the norm. They last years and become somewhat of a family hierloom that we take pride in.
We have budding frameworks (both built and purchased) for VB and Delphi - but they slip and slide through versions way too often. Ever 3 years the language is updated to take advantage of the Next Big Thing. In a lower-level framework, you can add in these features because you're closer to the understanding of basic toolset.
Combined with a Component take on development, one can merely add a object to the mix and suddenly the security model, status reporting, version control and documentation stay compatible.
If you are trying to use different frameworks to achieve solid goals merely from your single opinion of "best for the job" - you are missing a lot of management skills.
mug
Are you sure you're on the right board? Perhaps you should read the tagline under
Language improvements have historicially opened the door to new productivity - in real terms - of apps getting cranked out. Higher and higher encapsulation in text or GUI worlds...but they don't all stick to the wall.
One cannot always tell beforehand how big the impact will be. Small movements have exploded once given a niche to fill... and then die once it was swallowed up by a new contender.
If the benefit of C# is only whats in this article, then I'm not convinced its going to change the world. I'll keep to my "unsafe" code blocks and maintain interoperability with non-Gatesian worlds.
I'll wait for at least a committee for standardization to form for this mess.
This effort and inginuity behind Borland's development products is notable.
However, as they push in the Linux world, can they really make enough money, even with market share? As any feature they have is soon to be incorporated into the existing cheaper (in many both of the word) IDEs. How do you win with this?
Borland may have to settle for always being a day late and a dollar short. In the big world of dev. tools, this is still a big win.