I think the point is to encourage people to buy hybrids by offering them incentives. Special parking spaces are not discriminatory, unless it said "whites only" or "straights only" or "men only". As long as the requirement applies equally to all protected classes, then it's not discriminatory. Unfortunately, being poor is not a protected class.
Fibromyalgia is a real thing, but like many such diseases, there is no test for it and no way to "prove" it exists (at least not yet), so there will always be doubters. It's also quite possible that it's not any single disease, but rather can have multiple causes. Maybe it's not a diease at all, but symptoms of something else like an allergy or who knows what?
I have a disease like that. There's no test, and no cure. It's called Psoriatic Arthritis. Luckily, you can see the effects (swollen joints and ligaments among others), but there is no way to "prove" that you have it. That doesn't mean the pain isn't real, and certainly the physical deformation is real.
Now, whether or not your friend actually has Fibromyalgia or not is irrelevant. It's a real disease, and don't base your prejudice of your friend against it.
And I know a paraplegic that participates in athletics walking on his hands. Does that mean nobody should have wheelchairs?
Everyone is different. Some people are in good health otherwise, but have problems walking. Those kinds of people are often quite mobile in wheelchairs. Others have difficulty breathing and can't exert themselves too much. They can wander around a supermarket at a slow pace if they have to, but it's not the most comfortable thing in the world. Walking out of a supermarket, with bags of groceries and having to walk to the other end of the lot would just be too much.
Also, many of the larger complexes have motorized carts that they can sit in. You've seen them.
What about bad weather? If it's pouring down rain or snow, should someone that can barely walk have to traverse an entire parking lot, just because they can get around if they have to?
Its ridiculous to claim that just because some people who are disabled don't want or need such spaces that nobody does.
As a handicapped person, I see all the spots full quite often, particularly at peak times (dinner time at restaurants, holidays at stores, etc..)
I go to the local walmart 3 times a week, and they have dozens of spots, and nearly all of them (if not all of them) are full every time i go.
I would really have to question whether you really look all the time. Those of us that actually need the spots find them to usually be in insufficient numbers.
Yes, and that's what I was saying. The person I responded to said that the spooler was writing to another computers system directory. That wasn't the case, it was a remote computers spooler writing to its own system directory (due to impersonation). This was because in certain cases, because of compatibility with older, poorly written printer drivers, this was necessary.
What i said, and what you said are not incompatible, it's just more detail.
Umm.. no. The article you mention doesn't "recognize that Unix does it the right way". It says that doing it that way is slow, which I completely agree. Anyone that's worked with a lot of files knows how slow scanning directories is. Linux these days hacks this by trying to keep inodes as close together as possible.
The inode solution has many many many problems, from slow directory scans to file fragility. If something happens to the inode, the file is very hard to recover (one of the reasons that a hard power loss on a Linux machine can be so devastating). Journaling helps, but can't completely solve that problem.
NTFS is a very stable and secure filesystem. Some people don't like the fact that you can't overwrite in-use files like you can with an inode system, but there are reasons for that as well.
Don't confuse design limitations with implementation bugs. NTFS was deliberately designed to be that way, most security vulnerabilities are implementation bugs.
The bugs stuxnet took advantage of were a combination of old code that had not been updated to more secure API's, failure to check the bounds of a function pointer table, hacks to provide backwards compatibility to poorly written legacy code, and in one case a tool that did not consider that it's files could be used to elevate privs.
All of those have been found in various versions of Linux and it's software. DNS vulnerabilites going back over a decade, sudo vulnerabilities, buffer overflows, etc.. it happens. you write a million lines of code, some of it will have bugs, and some of it will have bugs that expose a vulnerability.
Please. There's been plenty of backwards compatibility issues in Unix and Linux over the years.
As I said, the LoadLibrary issue is likely because the code was written in the 90's, before LoadLibraryEx existed. The code was never updated. This wasn't a backwards compatibility issue, it was just old code that had been working fine so nobody looked at it.
No, the CRC32 hash was not a backwards compatibility issue, in fact it only worked in Vista and newer because the task scheduler was rewritten. I said it wasn't thought out very well, what more do you want? It doesn't matter if the file is world writable or not, the hash is stored in a secure area that requires system privs to change. So making sha256 fixes the problem.
The print spooler is definitely a backwards compatibility issue. Largely because certain printer drivers are poorly written by the vendors. There's nothign wrong with a secured folder that auto-executes code put into it, if the folder is truly secured. The only thing that makes this a vulnerability is the fact that under specific circumstances the print spooler can write a file as system. That needs to stop.
That sounds pretty nice. Maybe I should fly to Norway and kill someone, so I can go away to this free resort.
In the US, it sounds like this prison would be more comfortable than 20-30% of the populations current living conditions. That's not exactly incentive to stay out of prison.
Norway has some dark mofo's (ask anyone that's seen a norwegian death metal band), but Norway only has a 2% unemployment rate.. so most people are too busy to get in trouble.
Windows is still hobbled by backwards compatibility. They have been steadily pruning the system of such compatibility issues over the years, but they still remain.
The print spooler was a compatibility issue, and it wasn't writing files to the system directory of another computer. It was the remote print spooler that was writing to its own system directory.
The shell icon extraction code was probably written for Windows 95, and the LoadLibraryEx was not added until Windows 2000. This is why it was the only exploit that worked on all systems.
The CRC32 bit was definitely not well thought out, but it was most likely not considered to be an attack vector, and only there to prevent file corruption... for which CRC32 is fine.
There are going to be bugs in any non-trivial code, and Windows has a lot of code. Just like Linux has lots of code, and MacOS has lots of code.. you can find these kinds of issues in any OS.
Actually, if you watched the video, stuxnet was interesting because it used different 0-day exploits depending on which version of the OS was used. Only one of the exploits (the foothold exploit that allows the code to work in userland in the first place) worked on all versions of windows.
So, what it really showed was that out of 5 exploits, only one worked across the whole platform, and that one only allowed userland access.
Microsoft does have amazing talent working for them. There is no doubt about that.
Microsoft has done tons of innovation, the problem is that it takes them so long to get it out that by the time it's a real product, their competitors have had it in theirs for quite some time.
Vista was a great example of this. Microsoft demoed "wobbly windows" and other advanced UI acceleration, and Spotlight type search system back in 2002, neither of which made it into real products until 2007. Apple put them out in 2004.
But Google isn't offering anything revolutionary on their phones. Microsoft is trying to compete with Apple in the "innovative" space.
When apple releases a new product, few people know what will be in it until the day its released. When Microsoft releases something, everyone has known what would be in it for over a year.
Indeed, Microsoft could produce an amazing *anything*, but they are hobbled by their own situation.
When it comes to a phone, unless they go the route of the XBox, where they build it themselves, there is no way to keep it secret when so many other vendors have to have access to the plans to get their own version out. Thus, companies like Apple and Google can move faster and mitigate any new or innovative features said phone might actually have.
As I said, around here they don't produce enough electricity for the demand as it is, and they have to buy electricity to supplement. So any power i put into the system is less power they need to buy.
Not sure how you missed that in my last message, because I made that quite clear.
However, even if they were producing more power, the power company would sell that power to other markets.
And, considering how much line loss they might have to get to my local neighborhood, any power that is generated locally and consumed locally by my neighbors would be a net win for them.
I'm not sure how YOU think electricity works, but I was always taught that it takes the path of least resistance. That means any energy you push back into the grid will most likely be consumed by your neighbors and have very little line loss. This, in turn is energy that will not be drawn from the power substation, which allows the energy to be used elsewhere.
I know in my local area, we don't generate enough electricity locally and have to buy power from neighboring companies. So every watt i add to the system is maybe several watts less they have to buy. I don't call that "useless".
I'm sorry, if you don't understand the last part of my post, you haven't read much of RMS's essays. There are several talking about how software should not have owners, and how their goal is make all software GPL'd. About how non-GPL software is evil, and unethical.
And no, not all licenses are about forcing others to comply with others desires. Apache, MIT, BSD, etc.. licenses allow you to do anything you want with it, just don't sue them. The creators of said licenses only use them, rather than making them public domain, to avoid any potential legal liability.
Commercial licenses are indeed about forcing others to do something, particularly not copying it, etc.. but those licenses do not pretend to protect freedoms, and offer themselves as the savior of the software universe. Nor do they attempt to force you to license the software you create with them under the same license.
The GPL is like a politician that promises to protect your freedoms, and then votes yes to SOPA.
Nice job of cherry picking. I believe I made that point clear in the rest of my message, but by taking that one statement out of context you get to pretend you're teaching me something.
Incorrect. The term "Free Software" does not refer to YOUR freedom, it refers to the Softwares Freedom. You are not free to do what you want with it, there are rules and requirements you must follow.
The GPL forces you to allow sharing by anyone that you share it with. Further, it forces you to give the source code to anyone you share it with (at their request). It also forces you to grant any IP licenses required to legally share the code, forces you to relinquish any cryptographic keys or hardware algorithms that might be needed to guarantee that those you give it to can also share it.. and so on and so on...
In short, the GPL is about forcing people to comply with others desires, if they use anyh GPL'd source code.
Of course, the GPL advocates will say that nobody forces you (yet) to use GPL'd code for anything (though if they had their way, that is what would be the case). It's rather disingenuous though to make that claim when they clearly would like to force everyone to have to use GPL'd code.
as in > 200 calls per day? Assuming a 12 hour window, that's one call every 3.6 minutes. And since, those calls aren't likely spaced out that would be likely to have more than 10 calls peaking simultaneously.
Methinks you're exagerating.
I'm also skeptical of an 18 hour window. I've never seen any tech company that can work that fast, not even small startups. They usually need at least a few days to get everyons ducks in a row. They'd have to setup the interview and hire you on the spot.. and while possible, seems unlikely.
Most tech companies I have interviewed with take a minimum of 2 weeks to make a decision, usually 3-4 weeks.
That's probably because very few people write standard C anymore. Many write procedural C++ without issues. If there was a demand for it, MS would probably add it as a feature.. so demand it.
I said "A local occupy movement", not OWS. Local movements have various reasons for being there, and believe it or not, there are plenty of conservatives standing shoulder to shoulder with them.
OWS, and the various local movements are NOT a political movement, they're a social movement, trying to make social change happen for everyone who's not making millions of dollars, regardless of their political affiliation.
Sure, Liberals tend to be more drawn to it, but that seems to be largely becuase so many conservatives are brainwashed by fox news into thinking it's the liberal version of tea party rally's.
It's certainly a charity to help people that need necessities. If you don't agree with the reason they're out there, are you just going to let the freeze and starve? I'd say that's more of a political statement than anything.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the point is to encourage people to buy hybrids by offering them incentives. Special parking spaces are not discriminatory, unless it said "whites only" or "straights only" or "men only". As long as the requirement applies equally to all protected classes, then it's not discriminatory. Unfortunately, being poor is not a protected class.
Fibromyalgia is a real thing, but like many such diseases, there is no test for it and no way to "prove" it exists (at least not yet), so there will always be doubters. It's also quite possible that it's not any single disease, but rather can have multiple causes. Maybe it's not a diease at all, but symptoms of something else like an allergy or who knows what?
I have a disease like that. There's no test, and no cure. It's called Psoriatic Arthritis. Luckily, you can see the effects (swollen joints and ligaments among others), but there is no way to "prove" that you have it. That doesn't mean the pain isn't real, and certainly the physical deformation is real.
Now, whether or not your friend actually has Fibromyalgia or not is irrelevant. It's a real disease, and don't base your prejudice of your friend against it.
And I know a paraplegic that participates in athletics walking on his hands. Does that mean nobody should have wheelchairs?
Everyone is different. Some people are in good health otherwise, but have problems walking. Those kinds of people are often quite mobile in wheelchairs. Others have difficulty breathing and can't exert themselves too much. They can wander around a supermarket at a slow pace if they have to, but it's not the most comfortable thing in the world. Walking out of a supermarket, with bags of groceries and having to walk to the other end of the lot would just be too much.
Also, many of the larger complexes have motorized carts that they can sit in. You've seen them.
What about bad weather? If it's pouring down rain or snow, should someone that can barely walk have to traverse an entire parking lot, just because they can get around if they have to?
Its ridiculous to claim that just because some people who are disabled don't want or need such spaces that nobody does.
As a handicapped person, I see all the spots full quite often, particularly at peak times (dinner time at restaurants, holidays at stores, etc..)
I go to the local walmart 3 times a week, and they have dozens of spots, and nearly all of them (if not all of them) are full every time i go.
I would really have to question whether you really look all the time. Those of us that actually need the spots find them to usually be in insufficient numbers.
Yes, and that's what I was saying. The person I responded to said that the spooler was writing to another computers system directory. That wasn't the case, it was a remote computers spooler writing to its own system directory (due to impersonation). This was because in certain cases, because of compatibility with older, poorly written printer drivers, this was necessary.
What i said, and what you said are not incompatible, it's just more detail.
Umm.. no. The article you mention doesn't "recognize that Unix does it the right way". It says that doing it that way is slow, which I completely agree. Anyone that's worked with a lot of files knows how slow scanning directories is. Linux these days hacks this by trying to keep inodes as close together as possible.
The inode solution has many many many problems, from slow directory scans to file fragility. If something happens to the inode, the file is very hard to recover (one of the reasons that a hard power loss on a Linux machine can be so devastating). Journaling helps, but can't completely solve that problem.
NTFS is a very stable and secure filesystem. Some people don't like the fact that you can't overwrite in-use files like you can with an inode system, but there are reasons for that as well.
Don't confuse design limitations with implementation bugs. NTFS was deliberately designed to be that way, most security vulnerabilities are implementation bugs.
The bugs stuxnet took advantage of were a combination of old code that had not been updated to more secure API's, failure to check the bounds of a function pointer table, hacks to provide backwards compatibility to poorly written legacy code, and in one case a tool that did not consider that it's files could be used to elevate privs.
All of those have been found in various versions of Linux and it's software. DNS vulnerabilites going back over a decade, sudo vulnerabilities, buffer overflows, etc.. it happens. you write a million lines of code, some of it will have bugs, and some of it will have bugs that expose a vulnerability.
Please. There's been plenty of backwards compatibility issues in Unix and Linux over the years.
As I said, the LoadLibrary issue is likely because the code was written in the 90's, before LoadLibraryEx existed. The code was never updated. This wasn't a backwards compatibility issue, it was just old code that had been working fine so nobody looked at it.
No, the CRC32 hash was not a backwards compatibility issue, in fact it only worked in Vista and newer because the task scheduler was rewritten. I said it wasn't thought out very well, what more do you want? It doesn't matter if the file is world writable or not, the hash is stored in a secure area that requires system privs to change. So making sha256 fixes the problem.
The print spooler is definitely a backwards compatibility issue. Largely because certain printer drivers are poorly written by the vendors. There's nothign wrong with a secured folder that auto-executes code put into it, if the folder is truly secured. The only thing that makes this a vulnerability is the fact that under specific circumstances the print spooler can write a file as system. That needs to stop.
That sounds pretty nice. Maybe I should fly to Norway and kill someone, so I can go away to this free resort.
In the US, it sounds like this prison would be more comfortable than 20-30% of the populations current living conditions. That's not exactly incentive to stay out of prison.
Norway has some dark mofo's (ask anyone that's seen a norwegian death metal band), but Norway only has a 2% unemployment rate.. so most people are too busy to get in trouble.
Windows is still hobbled by backwards compatibility. They have been steadily pruning the system of such compatibility issues over the years, but they still remain.
The print spooler was a compatibility issue, and it wasn't writing files to the system directory of another computer. It was the remote print spooler that was writing to its own system directory.
The shell icon extraction code was probably written for Windows 95, and the LoadLibraryEx was not added until Windows 2000. This is why it was the only exploit that worked on all systems.
The CRC32 bit was definitely not well thought out, but it was most likely not considered to be an attack vector, and only there to prevent file corruption... for which CRC32 is fine.
There are going to be bugs in any non-trivial code, and Windows has a lot of code. Just like Linux has lots of code, and MacOS has lots of code.. you can find these kinds of issues in any OS.
Actually, if you watched the video, stuxnet was interesting because it used different 0-day exploits depending on which version of the OS was used. Only one of the exploits (the foothold exploit that allows the code to work in userland in the first place) worked on all versions of windows.
So, what it really showed was that out of 5 exploits, only one worked across the whole platform, and that one only allowed userland access.
Microsoft does have amazing talent working for them. There is no doubt about that.
Microsoft has done tons of innovation, the problem is that it takes them so long to get it out that by the time it's a real product, their competitors have had it in theirs for quite some time.
Vista was a great example of this. Microsoft demoed "wobbly windows" and other advanced UI acceleration, and Spotlight type search system back in 2002, neither of which made it into real products until 2007. Apple put them out in 2004.
But Google isn't offering anything revolutionary on their phones. Microsoft is trying to compete with Apple in the "innovative" space.
When apple releases a new product, few people know what will be in it until the day its released. When Microsoft releases something, everyone has known what would be in it for over a year.
Indeed, Microsoft could produce an amazing *anything*, but they are hobbled by their own situation.
When it comes to a phone, unless they go the route of the XBox, where they build it themselves, there is no way to keep it secret when so many other vendors have to have access to the plans to get their own version out. Thus, companies like Apple and Google can move faster and mitigate any new or innovative features said phone might actually have.
As I said, around here they don't produce enough electricity for the demand as it is, and they have to buy electricity to supplement. So any power i put into the system is less power they need to buy.
Not sure how you missed that in my last message, because I made that quite clear.
However, even if they were producing more power, the power company would sell that power to other markets.
And, considering how much line loss they might have to get to my local neighborhood, any power that is generated locally and consumed locally by my neighbors would be a net win for them.
Of course that's only valid so long as Apple decides your app is acceptable, and it doesn't compete with an Apple offering.
I'm not sure how YOU think electricity works, but I was always taught that it takes the path of least resistance. That means any energy you push back into the grid will most likely be consumed by your neighbors and have very little line loss. This, in turn is energy that will not be drawn from the power substation, which allows the energy to be used elsewhere.
I know in my local area, we don't generate enough electricity locally and have to buy power from neighboring companies. So every watt i add to the system is maybe several watts less they have to buy. I don't call that "useless".
You don't need to store it, you just let excess energy back out into the grid, making your meter spin backwards. Thus, it offsets your bill.
I'm sorry, if you don't understand the last part of my post, you haven't read much of RMS's essays. There are several talking about how software should not have owners, and how their goal is make all software GPL'd. About how non-GPL software is evil, and unethical.
And no, not all licenses are about forcing others to comply with others desires. Apache, MIT, BSD, etc.. licenses allow you to do anything you want with it, just don't sue them. The creators of said licenses only use them, rather than making them public domain, to avoid any potential legal liability.
Commercial licenses are indeed about forcing others to do something, particularly not copying it, etc.. but those licenses do not pretend to protect freedoms, and offer themselves as the savior of the software universe. Nor do they attempt to force you to license the software you create with them under the same license.
The GPL is like a politician that promises to protect your freedoms, and then votes yes to SOPA.
Nice job of cherry picking. I believe I made that point clear in the rest of my message, but by taking that one statement out of context you get to pretend you're teaching me something.
Bravo.
Incorrect. The term "Free Software" does not refer to YOUR freedom, it refers to the Softwares Freedom. You are not free to do what you want with it, there are rules and requirements you must follow.
The GPL forces you to allow sharing by anyone that you share it with. Further, it forces you to give the source code to anyone you share it with (at their request). It also forces you to grant any IP licenses required to legally share the code, forces you to relinquish any cryptographic keys or hardware algorithms that might be needed to guarantee that those you give it to can also share it.. and so on and so on...
In short, the GPL is about forcing people to comply with others desires, if they use anyh GPL'd source code.
Of course, the GPL advocates will say that nobody forces you (yet) to use GPL'd code for anything (though if they had their way, that is what would be the case). It's rather disingenuous though to make that claim when they clearly would like to force everyone to have to use GPL'd code.
Freedom Is Slavery - George Orwell
100's of calls a day? Really? REALLY?
as in > 200 calls per day? Assuming a 12 hour window, that's one call every 3.6 minutes. And since, those calls aren't likely spaced out that would be likely to have more than 10 calls peaking simultaneously.
Methinks you're exagerating.
I'm also skeptical of an 18 hour window. I've never seen any tech company that can work that fast, not even small startups. They usually need at least a few days to get everyons ducks in a row. They'd have to setup the interview and hire you on the spot.. and while possible, seems unlikely.
Most tech companies I have interviewed with take a minimum of 2 weeks to make a decision, usually 3-4 weeks.
But if this is true for you, I congratulate you.
That's probably because very few people write standard C anymore. Many write procedural C++ without issues. If there was a demand for it, MS would probably add it as a feature.. so demand it.
I said "A local occupy movement", not OWS. Local movements have various reasons for being there, and believe it or not, there are plenty of conservatives standing shoulder to shoulder with them.
OWS, and the various local movements are NOT a political movement, they're a social movement, trying to make social change happen for everyone who's not making millions of dollars, regardless of their political affiliation.
Sure, Liberals tend to be more drawn to it, but that seems to be largely becuase so many conservatives are brainwashed by fox news into thinking it's the liberal version of tea party rally's.
It's certainly a charity to help people that need necessities. If you don't agree with the reason they're out there, are you just going to let the freeze and starve? I'd say that's more of a political statement than anything.