nearly every 1.5.0.x release has fixed some memory leaks. 2.0 has fixed a bunch more. They still have more to go, but it's not as if they sat down and said, "Let's ignore the memory leak."
As an add-on: Is there a reason Firefox does not just use a garbage collection library to free up memory that is missed by the explicit delete operations?
"I'd go further and say that 'good art' also requires the input of emotion, and the stronger the emotion, and the more the viewer feels this emotion, the better the art in many cases."
You imply that emotional input on the part of the artist is directly linked to emotional feeling on behalf of a viewer. I don't see the connection. If I show you an image that I drew by hand, designed to evoke a feeling of pathos, you would therefore claim that this is art. But what if I set up a computer to randomly generate images, and it came out with the exact same picture as the one that I drew by hand? Would that not be art? If I just showed you the two pictures without letting you know where they came from, how would you know which was which, or "which was art"?
Donald Judd's works are considered art. That having been said, I believe that the examples shown in this wikipedia article could be reduced to mathematical equations; I believe I could write a computer program that would generate lots of sculpture designs in this style. Would those not be art?
We engineers also produce objects with skill and imagination, but we are not artists.
As an engineer, I've certainly agonized over projects. Long hours, sleepless nights/weekends, and tireless work have certainly caused me to invest my emotions in these projects. You are correct, however, that I didn't particularly call those projects "art." But I did put emotion into it. Thus, "input of emotion => art" is flawed.
Art and beauty are awfully subjective terms. I don't think your broad claims hold up.
I might venture that an artist is trying to communicate something to you by words, performance, painting, sculpture, movement; in general, by creating something which conveys this communication. "Art" encompasses all things deliberately created, that communicate something to you. (So a natural formation of rock may be beautiful, but wouldn't necessarily be art. A well-maintained rock garden on the other hand, would be art.)
I'd even go so far as to say that it doesn't necessarily have to communicate what the artist felt -- if the placement of objects on a table make you take notice of them in a certain way, that's art. Not all art must make you weep. If a man has written a program that outputs imagery, and that causes people to take notice of it and appreciate those images for what they are, I would call him an artist.
Some Microsoftie marked the parent comment as flamebait. However, it seems likely that Microsoft bought SysInternals to silence a web site that provided software of far higher quality than software from Microsoft.
Seriously. I know everybody loves to bash Microsoft, but for God's sake, is it too hard to believe that they honestly want to *gasp* hire top-quality programmers? The sysinternals guys have proven themselves to be top-quality coders. They make utilities that the MSDN knowledge base references 172 times. MS developers use Sysinternals tools. They think the Sysinternals guys are smart, knowledgeable about their system, and could add value to their company. So, they hire them.
All this conspiracy about "silencing a website" is crap. They wouldn't recommend the use of Sysinternals tools if they were embarrassed by them.
If Redhat could convince, say, Larry Wall to work for them, doing the projects they want developed, would that be a conspiracy? Larry Wall is a kickass contributor to Linux (via Perl), and he would add value to any Linux-oriented company that could retain him. The Sysinternals guys hold a similar relationship and relevance to Microsoft.
True. So if a phisher owned a server between your bank and you, they could certainly make use of their man-in-the-middle status.
But I was under the impression that most phishers were just using spam-style tactics to carpet bomb as many people with emails as possible. For them to subvert this mechanism via a MITM attack, they'd have to a) own a server that your data relayed through, b) parse the mail headers to determine if it's actually something they have a phish set up for, and c) maintain a database of email address -- website -- username -- magic word sets, which would probably involve more processing power and effort than they've got at the moment.
A man-in-the-middle attack is very good against somebody that you're specifically targetting to hack, but I'm not entirely convinced that random snooping will actually yield useful results without a lot of time and processing power, if you're "anycast" hacking.
Obvious, simple anti-phishing solution?
on
Dealing with Phishing
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Maybe somebody could explain to me why this wouldn't work. It's trivially simple to implement.
When you create an account on a web site (your bank, ebay, paypal, your broker, whatever), you provide them with a username, password, and a whole bunch of information... why not have a field for "reverse-authentication string"?
Then every email they send to you, they include that string in the subject line.
e.g., if my reverse-auth string was "turkey", the email subject would say "Important message for user Jester99 from CapitalOne -- auth: turkey"
Then I know it's not a phish, because for phishers to have that word, they'd already have CapitalOne's database and I'd already be screwed. (And the odds of them accurately guessing your string are rather small, if you pick anything reasonably ambiguous and not "password") All you have to do is simply not click links that don't have the proper auth word in the subject.
From a completely performance-based point of view, no, there's no extra gain; they'll compile down to effectively the same assembly.
But there are subtle syntactic cues that imply the flow of the function.
The indented block inside the do {... } deliniates the region of code which can can "fall down" to the finalization block. You know that nothing's going to enter the finalization block from above the do-"loop", as it were.
Furthermore, there are syntactic delineations between the 'main body' and finalization. Finalization is after the closing '}'. Main body is when the braces are open. It's impossible to stick code above the line-label for finalization without indenting, thus forcing you to realize that it's in the main block.
Otherwise it's possible to do this:
if ( something )
goto finalize; ... if ( something_else )
goto finalize;
new_Finalization_call();//this should be one line lower! finalize: old_finalization_calls(); retu rn ret;
But with the loop, it's more obvious:
do {
if ( something )
break; ...
if ( something_else )
break;
new_Finalization_call();//obviously out of place, given its indentation. } while(false);
old_finalization_calls(); return ret;
To each his own, I guess. But programmers are used to dealing with 'break' and intuitively know how to read code that includes a loop and break statements. People have to stop and think about where a goto leads to. Kind of like how you/can/ read text where there is no capitalization and no punctuation, but it's much easier if these implicit cues are inserted. I think it just increases overall readability/maintainability.
shared cleanup code. In a function with multiple exit points, instead of doing cleanup at each exit point, it is often clearer to set your return value and then GOTO a label that handles all cleanup before returning.
There's actually a simple way of doing this without goto's. Put the main body of your code in a do {... } while(false); block. Then for all the exit points, write in 'ret = exit_code; break;'. Put your finalization code after the do { } block. No goto's.:)
Somehow, I think a game where you beat up diseased AIDS patients because they didn't make HMO payments is probably a more controversial game than one where you beat up the cokeheads who stiffed you on the last deal you made...
I think there's a bit more to the rebranding than would meet the eye.;)
Choose your own adventure books introduced me to the concept of the call stack.
I actually remember being really frustrated every time I wound up at a crappy ending, and didn't want to have to start going all the way back to the beginning to start again, so I would wind up holding my fingers in between four or five different pages corresponding to the last several jumps I had made, so I could recursively backtrack when I wound up in a problem situation..
I can't think of any Americans who have made it big working from a garage since the two Steves back in the 70's.
And therefore, it didn't happen.
Google was started in a dorm room. Yahoo was started in a garage and, famously, their "war room" in their corporate HQ actually looks like a garage, complete with roll-up garage door, to complete the feel.
That's just two companies I can think of off the top of my head. I'm sure there are hundreds more.
After paying for 3.1, 95, 98, 98SE, ME, 2000, XP... I just can't afford Windows anymore.
Bullshit. 1) You'd never pay for both 98 and 98SE -- SE was a free upgrade. 2) You'd never pay for ME and 2000, since they were both released at the same time, and if you'd bought 2000, you'd never even consider installing the far-inferior ME on a second computer, you'd just use the same copy of 2000.
So you've paid for six OS revisions since roughly 1993. 6 in 13 years. Or once per two years. At $100 each, that's $600, or $46 a year -- twelve cents a day. Even at $150 a copy (I'm not sure what the exact costs are), you're up to a whopping 18 cents a day.
Considering that the cost of owning a car is somewhere on the order of $12-18 a day, 18 cents for the heart of your software system doesn't seem that unreasonable. That's 100 times cheaper than your car. Take the bus or train to work for one week straight, and the money you save in gas will pay for 6 months worth of operating system.
Not only that, but if you dress in a way designed to provoke a reaction, you had best expect one. It doesn't excuse the cat calls, and it sure as hell doesn't excuse anything more, but anyone who wants to dress like a hooker and doesn't expect to be treated like one is a fucking moron.
Dave Chapelle said it best: "If you dress like a stripper, no, that doesn't actually make you a stripper... But you do have to realize, you are wearing a stripper's uniform, which is damned confusing to us guys."
Businesses leave lights on all night to deter theft and vandalism.
People are less likely to commit crimes in brightly lit areas, even if they're reasonably confident nobody's around.
Case in point: I worked at a pool for a couple summers; we originally had big problems with people coming in, throwing trash cans and deck chairs and all manner of mess into the pools and doing other petty vandalism. We installed two big floodlights that kept the whole pool area lit all night; vandals never came back.
MySpace offers two "modes" for websites contained therein.
Most of the users just have simple blogs. But several of the accounts are "MySpace Music", for independent artists. It's got features to allow them to upload mp3s of their music, contains an integrated player, and allows web downloads of their music/lyrics/etc, in addition to the normal blogging stuff.
So, yes, it allows legal file sharing too, in a limited form.
So why doesn't he have such a program in the United States?... How are we supposed to motivate college students to enter computer science when the (sadly) premier computer software maker stages competitions to find the very same programmers who may well replace American workers.
And this year it is being held in India, as well, actually. But it's a world-wide competition for college students in CS. I met one of the world finalists -- he was thrilled by it. But the point is, there are plenty of competitions. And there are plenty of ways for American students to get ahead. The fact that Bill's sponsoring an additional competition in India is hardly a slap in the face of American students. There are literally hundreds of engineering competitions for American students to enter in. Just because you're not aware of all of Microsoft's efforts doesn't mean you're allowed to criticise them out of ignorance.
"More than two years after Janine Sutphen's body was discovered floating in a Raleigh lake, investigators continue to find new evidence on computers seized from Robert Petrick's home that prosecutors say support their arguments that Petrick killed his wife.
The Google search was the latest in recently discovered evidence found in the 100 million pages of content removed from computers"
In other words, they looked at the files on his computer as evidence. That's been done for... years now. Said files happened to contain browser history. Not much news here.
Might they subpoena google in the future? Maybe, but that hasn't happened yet...
Nitsuj, it's Jester99 from back in #tpu. I'm a senior in CS at Cornell. We should grab a beer at the Chapter House sometime and catch up a bit. (You can figure out how to send me an email.)
And yeah, I wish more people *would* leave Phillips 318... it's gettin' kind of a "funk" to it that comes with a lack of showering...
Are you using the wide-screen 16:9 monitor? I've had my eye on one of those for a while now, and wondered how good it was for text editing and stuff like that...
Also (if you do have one of those widescreen monitors), is it possible to shift it into "portrait" mode and read tall skinny documents?:)
if you went to university, them you simply *MUST* be better then a lowly college grad.
For those of us who aren't Canucks in the audience, can you explain the difference? I'm very confused, as an American. Is it like the English system (where as far as I can tell, they use all the words differently, like "public" and "private" schools, etc..)
A "University" down here is simply a set of federated "colleges;" it doesn't convey any degree of quality, only size. A liberal arts degree from Swarthmore college, for example, would probably be desired over one from Penn State University.
IDEA was very simple; just a series of shifts and adds (and maybe XORs, I believe), repeated for a bunch of rounds.
No SBoxen or anything 'magic' like that.
Re:let me explain something about longhorn...
on
Longhorn Beta Begins
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
It's named after a bar.
XP was code-named "Whistler," a large ski mountain north of Redmond. The next version of Windows was therefore suposed to be codenamed "Blackcomb" -- the other mountain in the ski area. Except that Blackcomb's feature list got so long, they realized it'd take them five or more years to pull it all off, so they decided to split the more neccessary features into a release that'd come out sooner than Blackcomb. The obvious choice of name for this release is called Longhorn -- the bar that sits between the Whistler and Blackcomb mountains.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Therefore Communists do not kill people.
Ah... but they are trying to steal our precious bodiliy fluids!
There's no denying that one!
nearly every 1.5.0.x release has fixed some memory leaks. 2.0 has fixed a bunch more. They still have more to go, but it's not as if they sat down and said, "Let's ignore the memory leak."
As an add-on: Is there a reason Firefox does not just use a garbage collection library to free up memory that is missed by the explicit delete operations?
"People who log in as root... have root access."
Film at 11.
Wow. That's a bold claim. It's also flawed logic.
"I'd go further and say that 'good art' also requires the input of emotion, and the stronger the emotion, and the more the viewer feels this emotion, the better the art in many cases."
You imply that emotional input on the part of the artist is directly linked to emotional feeling on behalf of a viewer. I don't see the connection. If I show you an image that I drew by hand, designed to evoke a feeling of pathos, you would therefore claim that this is art. But what if I set up a computer to randomly generate images, and it came out with the exact same picture as the one that I drew by hand? Would that not be art? If I just showed you the two pictures without letting you know where they came from, how would you know which was which, or "which was art"?
Donald Judd's works are considered art. That having been said, I believe that the examples shown in this wikipedia article could be reduced to mathematical equations; I believe I could write a computer program that would generate lots of sculpture designs in this style. Would those not be art?
We engineers also produce objects with skill and imagination, but we are not artists.
As an engineer, I've certainly agonized over projects. Long hours, sleepless nights/weekends, and tireless work have certainly caused me to invest my emotions in these projects. You are correct, however, that I didn't particularly call those projects "art." But I did put emotion into it. Thus, "input of emotion => art" is flawed.
Art and beauty are awfully subjective terms. I don't think your broad claims hold up.
I might venture that an artist is trying to communicate something to you by words, performance, painting, sculpture, movement; in general, by creating something which conveys this communication. "Art" encompasses all things deliberately created, that communicate something to you. (So a natural formation of rock may be beautiful, but wouldn't necessarily be art. A well-maintained rock garden on the other hand, would be art.)
I'd even go so far as to say that it doesn't necessarily have to communicate what the artist felt -- if the placement of objects on a table make you take notice of them in a certain way, that's art. Not all art must make you weep. If a man has written a program that outputs imagery, and that causes people to take notice of it and appreciate those images for what they are, I would call him an artist.
*ahem* Flamebait? Pot, kettle, black.
Somehow, I think that silencing SysInternals would break a lot of Microsoft's links.
Seriously. I know everybody loves to bash Microsoft, but for God's sake, is it too hard to believe that they honestly want to *gasp* hire top-quality programmers? The sysinternals guys have proven themselves to be top-quality coders. They make utilities that the MSDN knowledge base references 172 times. MS developers use Sysinternals tools. They think the Sysinternals guys are smart, knowledgeable about their system, and could add value to their company. So, they hire them.
All this conspiracy about "silencing a website" is crap. They wouldn't recommend the use of Sysinternals tools if they were embarrassed by them.
If Redhat could convince, say, Larry Wall to work for them, doing the projects they want developed, would that be a conspiracy? Larry Wall is a kickass contributor to Linux (via Perl), and he would add value to any Linux-oriented company that could retain him. The Sysinternals guys hold a similar relationship and relevance to Microsoft.
True. So if a phisher owned a server between your bank and you, they could certainly make use of their man-in-the-middle status.
But I was under the impression that most phishers were just using spam-style tactics to carpet bomb as many people with emails as possible. For them to subvert this mechanism via a MITM attack, they'd have to a) own a server that your data relayed through, b) parse the mail headers to determine if it's actually something they have a phish set up for, and c) maintain a database of email address -- website -- username -- magic word sets, which would probably involve more processing power and effort than they've got at the moment.
A man-in-the-middle attack is very good against somebody that you're specifically targetting to hack, but I'm not entirely convinced that random snooping will actually yield useful results without a lot of time and processing power, if you're "anycast" hacking.
Maybe somebody could explain to me why this wouldn't work. It's trivially simple to implement.
When you create an account on a web site (your bank, ebay, paypal, your broker, whatever), you provide them with a username, password, and a whole bunch of information... why not have a field for "reverse-authentication string"?
Then every email they send to you, they include that string in the subject line.
e.g., if my reverse-auth string was "turkey", the email subject would say "Important message for user Jester99 from CapitalOne -- auth: turkey"
Then I know it's not a phish, because for phishers to have that word, they'd already have CapitalOne's database and I'd already be screwed. (And the odds of them accurately guessing your string are rather small, if you pick anything reasonably ambiguous and not "password") All you have to do is simply not click links that don't have the proper auth word in the subject.
But there are subtle syntactic cues that imply the flow of the function.
The indented block inside the do {
Furthermore, there are syntactic delineations between the 'main body' and finalization. Finalization is after the closing '}'. Main body is when the braces are open. It's impossible to stick code above the line-label for finalization without indenting, thus forcing you to realize that it's in the main block.
Otherwise it's possible to do this:But with the loop, it's more obvious:To each his own, I guess. But programmers are used to dealing with 'break' and intuitively know how to read code that includes a loop and break statements. People have to stop and think about where a goto leads to. Kind of like how you
shared cleanup code. In a function with multiple exit points, instead
... } while(false); block. Then for all the exit points, write in 'ret = exit_code; break;'. Put your finalization code after the do { } block. No goto's. :)
of doing cleanup at each exit point, it is often clearer to set your
return value and then GOTO a label that handles all cleanup before
returning.
There's actually a simple way of doing this without goto's. Put the main body of your code in a do {
Somehow, I think a game where you beat up diseased AIDS patients because they didn't make HMO payments is probably a more controversial game than one where you beat up the cokeheads who stiffed you on the last deal you made...
;)
I think there's a bit more to the rebranding than would meet the eye.
Choose your own adventure books introduced me to the concept of the call stack.
I actually remember being really frustrated every time I wound up at a crappy ending, and didn't want to have to start going all the way back to the beginning to start again, so I would wind up holding my fingers in between four or five different pages corresponding to the last several jumps I had made, so I could recursively backtrack when I wound up in a problem situation..
I can't think of any Americans who have made it big working from a garage since the two Steves back in the 70's.
And therefore, it didn't happen.
Google was started in a dorm room.
Yahoo was started in a garage and, famously, their "war room" in their corporate HQ actually looks like a garage, complete with roll-up garage door, to complete the feel.
That's just two companies I can think of off the top of my head. I'm sure there are hundreds more.
I think the grandparent poster is referring to signal11.
After paying for 3.1, 95, 98, 98SE, ME, 2000, XP ... I just can't afford Windows anymore.
Bullshit.
1) You'd never pay for both 98 and 98SE -- SE was a free upgrade.
2) You'd never pay for ME and 2000, since they were both released at the same time, and if you'd bought 2000, you'd never even consider installing the far-inferior ME on a second computer, you'd just use the same copy of 2000.
So you've paid for six OS revisions since roughly 1993. 6 in 13 years. Or once per two years. At $100 each, that's $600, or $46 a year -- twelve cents a day. Even at $150 a copy (I'm not sure what the exact costs are), you're up to a whopping 18 cents a day.
Considering that the cost of owning a car is somewhere on the order of $12-18 a day, 18 cents for the heart of your software system doesn't seem that unreasonable. That's 100 times cheaper than your car. Take the bus or train to work for one week straight, and the money you save in gas will pay for 6 months worth of operating system.
Not only that, but if you dress in a way designed to provoke a reaction, you had best expect one. It doesn't excuse the cat calls, and it sure as hell doesn't excuse anything more, but anyone who wants to dress like a hooker and doesn't expect to be treated like one is a fucking moron.
Dave Chapelle said it best: "If you dress like a stripper, no, that doesn't actually make you a stripper... But you do have to realize, you are wearing a stripper's uniform, which is damned confusing to us guys."
Businesses leave lights on all night to deter theft and vandalism.
People are less likely to commit crimes in brightly lit areas, even if they're reasonably confident nobody's around.
Case in point:
I worked at a pool for a couple summers; we originally had big problems with people coming in, throwing trash cans and deck chairs and all manner of mess into the pools and doing other petty vandalism. We installed two big floodlights that kept the whole pool area lit all night; vandals never came back.
MySpace offers two "modes" for websites contained therein.
Most of the users just have simple blogs. But several of the accounts are "MySpace Music", for independent artists. It's got features to allow them to upload mp3s of their music, contains an integrated player, and allows web downloads of their music/lyrics/etc, in addition to the normal blogging stuff.
So, yes, it allows legal file sharing too, in a limited form.
So why doesn't he have such a program in the United States? ... How are we supposed to motivate college students to enter computer science when the (sadly) premier computer software maker stages competitions to find the very same programmers who may well replace American workers.
It's called ImagineCup.
And this year it is being held in India, as well, actually. But it's a world-wide competition for college students in CS. I met one of the world finalists -- he was thrilled by it. But the point is, there are plenty of competitions. And there are plenty of ways for American students to get ahead. The fact that Bill's sponsoring an additional competition in India is hardly a slap in the face of American students. There are literally hundreds of engineering competitions for American students to enter in. Just because you're not aware of all of Microsoft's efforts doesn't mean you're allowed to criticise them out of ignorance.
From the article:
In other words, they looked at the files on his computer as evidence. That's been done for
Might they subpoena google in the future? Maybe, but that hasn't happened yet...
Nitsuj, it's Jester99 from back in #tpu. I'm a senior in CS at Cornell. We should grab a beer at the Chapter House sometime and catch up a bit. (You can figure out how to send me an email.)
And yeah, I wish more people *would* leave Phillips 318... it's gettin' kind of a "funk" to it that comes with a lack of showering...
Thanks a bunch! I think I know what I'm asking santa for...
2005FP, or 2005FPW?
:)
Are you using the wide-screen 16:9 monitor? I've had my eye on one of those for a while now, and wondered how good it was for text editing and stuff like that...
Also (if you do have one of those widescreen monitors), is it possible to shift it into "portrait" mode and read tall skinny documents?
if you went to university, them you simply *MUST* be better then a lowly college grad.
For those of us who aren't Canucks in the audience, can you explain the difference? I'm very confused, as an American. Is it like the English system (where as far as I can tell, they use all the words differently, like "public" and "private" schools, etc..)
A "University" down here is simply a set of federated "colleges;" it doesn't convey any degree of quality, only size. A liberal arts degree from Swarthmore college, for example, would probably be desired over one from Penn State University.
So what's the Canadian take on the issue?
IDEA was very simple; just a series of shifts and adds (and maybe XORs, I believe), repeated for a bunch of rounds.
No SBoxen or anything 'magic' like that.
It's named after a bar.
:)
XP was code-named "Whistler," a large ski mountain north of Redmond. The next version of Windows was therefore suposed to be codenamed "Blackcomb" -- the other mountain in the ski area. Except that Blackcomb's feature list got so long, they realized it'd take them five or more years to pull it all off, so they decided to split the more neccessary features into a release that'd come out sooner than Blackcomb. The obvious choice of name for this release is called Longhorn -- the bar that sits between the Whistler and Blackcomb mountains.
So when you think Windows, think beer!