Neither have most other people. In fact, most people just create a bigger hairball mess by trying to create whiz-bang object hierarchies. OO may be many things, but it is not a productivity enhancing technology.
Ug, I can't stand not doing OO, and I can't see why anyone can. Proc programing is just a mess.
Have you ever used java, Its much, much, much nicer then C/C++ for just programing. I think it would be nice to compile it for native code, but things like JIT and stuff works well now, so it dosn't matter. Would you want to download interactive content from any website with *compiled* code? well, with Java's security model you can.
There are many benifiets of java over C/C++, Platform nutrality is only one of them
Oh, and Java programers make a lot more then C/C++ programers:)
. A sequence of steps to attack something is a vector. This allows for multiple vectors to converge at common points.
Actualy it dosn't, The branches and leaves of the tree represent seperate options for compleating some action, not seperate steps in a process.
An 'attack tree' for calling some one on the phone would look somthing like this: 1 pick up phone 2 go to dialpad.com(or) 2.1 Use netscape(or) 2.1.1 click icon 2.1.2 run from command prompt. 2.2 use IE . . . Each node is a 'part' of the node above it, and option, diffrent ways you can do it 'using netscape' is a Part of using dialpad.com
An attack vector, would be to say, get a user acount, and then do a buffer overflow. You could impersonate that user and get the root password that way. Those options might show up in an attack tree, but they wouldn't nesseraly be connected to eachother
step one: steal computer step two: cut open case step three: +install hard drive in your computer, and browse away;)
Actualy, I remember reading about IBM security teams. They were about 20% effective in breaking techinical security, and were able to just walk out of buildings with computers under there arms 70% of the time....
By Microsoft "seemlessly integrating" software with their OS, they've created a situation where there are more nodes closer to the root of the tree.
It dosn't matter how close the node is to the root, but how many branches there are in total. Even if all the paths to the UNIX root were hundreds of nodes deep, if they exsist at all, the system is vulnerable. The integration of nodes in MS operating systems do add a lot more nodes that connect, at some point, to the root. so the attacker has a lot more options
Whenver you make life 'uncomfortable' for users, there going to try and get around it. The best security mesure is one that is transperant.
I remember reading about how a hacker had broken into a military faciliy, now of course all the 'classifed' stuff was not on the network, right? Wrong. Each user had two computers on there desk, one was on the 'net, and the other was not. all the 'good stuff' was supposed to be on the disconneced one, however Dissconnected, 'black boxes' had to go through a 3 year long auditing process, so by the time the users got them, they sucked.
What happend? users put tons of nucliar infomation on there net-connected boxes, beacuse they were simply faster. not good.
Its not a bug, the 'reason' next to the score thing only shows the last moderation. (or, posibly the first, or maybe just a random one, who knows). So, if two moderators dissagree, you end up with thigns like +4:offtopic, or somthing like that. Click on the cid number (after the time, the cid for you is #14), to see the total amout of moderation done to the post
I think it cuts you off when you get to 30, or at least, it cut me off.
I got two upmods the other day, and Then I lost one. It really makes you a lot more aware of what you submit, since you cant get more easy anymore.
Also, if you get negative karma, you loose the ability to metamodreate. When the karma system opend up, I had -2, in a few days I had gone down to -9 (-10 would have started me out at score 0, not good)
It took me forever to get back in the black, but after that it was a straight shot to 30...
Person A says: Invest with us! You're guarantied a 200% return on investment in one year! Without fail!
Person B says: Well, here's the data, and here's the Mathematical formulas we used to generate it, oh and here's the mathematical profs of those formulas. Here are the SEC filings, and Here is the financial analysis. I think We can achieve a 20%-40% Return on investment, of course we don't really know, since no one can predict the future.
I take it you would invest with person A.
So instead I should take the word of a bunch of people who admit they aren't exactly sure what's going on and believe that is the be all end all of truth? How can you say that when several hundred years ago scientists believed the sun revolved around a flat earth? Science is fallible. It wouldn't be the end of the world if I was incorrect about the creation of the universe, or even if I thought that the sun revolved around earth. You can see the sun going around the earth every day, and it seems reasonable. It's only when you look very closely at the paths of the stars in the sky that you realize what's actually happening. Perhaps our Ideas of the big bang are wrong, does it really matter? No, as I've stated before, once you look at the idea of god without pretense (I should state that I originally believed in god, but the more I thought about it, the less likely it seemed, I never found anything particularly wrong with Christianity, it just seemed silly) it seems ridicules. So, even in the big bang theory were wrong, it still doesn't mean that the Bible is right. How the universe got started, once we rule out the hand of god, has no impact on my life.
And, current Big Bang theory predicts that we will never know the answers to these questions. If we ever figure it out, we'll have to change the theory to predict that we will be able to figure it out. Ain't science grand?:)
Anyway. This is how we got the big bang theory. We looked at what was going on. Everything in the Universe, at least that we can see, is moving apart. That means that at some point, it was probably all in one spot. Then used our laws of physics to try and figure out what it would have been like.
Actually, if you'd read up on it, you would see that we only have a clue back to a few milliseconds after the big bang, what happened before that is a mystery, and we will never know.
The idea that Santa Clause exists explains why presents are there every year, a child might believe it, because there parents said he does. However after a while, a child will start to notice things, like the 'holiday shopping season' and the fact that there parents are hiding Christmas presents around the house. The religious view would simply say, "Santa exists!" and possibly add, "The rest of the stuff was only put there to test your faith," whereas the Scientific view would be "Well, there's this 'holiday shopping season', and me and my little sister are always finding our Christmas presents hidden around the house, so mom and dad are probably buying them at the store."
Now, clearly the scientific view is correct in this case, but really its no different then the idea of Christian creation. The bible says 'X', and therefore you believe it (I'm assuming you're a creationist), there's no reason to believe it, other then that the bible (witch you're parents said was true). The scientific view says "Well, this is what's going on now, so it was probably going on before, and the most reasonable explanation we can think of, based on what we can see is 'X'" To anyone coming to the situation with no pretenses, the Christian idea is no less ludicrous then the One about Santa clause.
If I were to tell you, that despite all the evidence, that I still believed in Santa, and that you should to because you never really know is idiotic. But, is it really any different than 'Pascal's wager'? Oh, and the only thing science says about the 'big bang' is that it's the most reasonable explanation for the observable events.
I think you will find that the heavily Christian influenced western culture that has spread to the world was and is far ahead of most other available cultures.
I belive I could spread my culture around the world pretty quickly if I out tech'd everyone and I was able to rape the planet and turn most places into colonial 'slave nations' (controled by a central government in europe). The reason 'western culture' spread so much in the past 500 years or so, is beacuse it was shoved down the throats of everywhere else.
The Big Bang, the theory that a piece of extremely dense matter about the size of a basketball spontaneously exploded to form the universe as we know it, then this universe that was devoid of life at the time spontaneously generated some form of life which eventually became us, is pretty damn silly sounding to me.
Well, first of all, life didn't start immediately after the big bang. In fact the idea of the 'big bang' has absolutely nothing to do with Evolution, or the creation of life (ambiogenisis, I think). You can believe in any of the 3 that you like, ambiogenisys is dependant on evolution, but evolution isn't dependent of Ambiogenisys. The big bang dosn't need any of them
It would be possible for a 'god' to create the universe, and then for evolution to take place.
So, lets say you disagree with the 'scientific explanation for life', and you say its 'ridicules' this is probably because you don't understand biology. There is no difference between living matter, and non-living matter. Life is just an extremely long chemical reaction in 'normal' matter. Nothing special.
And, as far as Pascal's wager goes, what if you belive in the wrong god? And end up in hell? I mean, if you can believe in one god, then what makes others wrong, hrm? Then you'd be screwed.
For some reason all CGI looks incredibly hoaky once it gets to TV.
And animatronics, and stop gap animation don't? that's rediculs. Just beacuse you have some werid problem with it dosn't mean that everyone does.
CGI has the ability to look *entirely* real, if its done right. You'll probably be able to tell for a while now, but things like toy-story would have been imposible with out it. Yes, they could have used hand draw animation, but that would have been boring.
There is a negative to option (infact, I've seen a post at -5 once, It was rated as "sexist, racist, or crimial" or somthing like that. I think that was a bug though, since the post was nothing like that...
Anyway, if enough people moderate somthing down, it will get -2, and in order to see you need to manualy change your threshold in the URL
The matrix does make you think... just... not very much.
"You know what it really reminds me of? Tasty wheat. did you ever eat Tasty Wheat?"
"no, but technically nether did you.
"I know, but that's exactly my point, exactly. See how do the machines really know what tasty wheat tasted like? Maybe they got it wrong. Maybe what I think tasty wheat tasted like actually tastes like, ahh, oatmeal, or tuna fish.
That makes you wonder about a lot of things. You take chicken for example, maybe they couldn't figure out what to make chicken taste like, witch is why chicken tastes like everything. And maybe they couldn't figure out...."
Actualy, I really liked the movie, I Know a lot of people didn't see it, but that doesn't necessarily make it bad. I always just figured that the subject matter didn't really appeal to every one.
Then I saw leno making fun of it, saying it was 'bad' or whatever. Of course, while leno would think that, it isn't true. It was at least an OK movie. And I think its to bad that it got raped in the press like it did.
As far Katz critique of End Of Days, well, he didn't like it, and I under stand why. But his reasons don't really resonate with me. I mean, Yeh, your not going to fight the devil with shotguns, but then an army of robots isn't going to use the bio-energy of the human race to power itself ether (entropy). Whenever you have any type of 'fantastic' movie, such as The Matrix, or End Of Days, theres going to be some things that don't "Work out". To me, the Christian religion is just a fantasy, like the lord of the rings or something. If someone has a different take, then so be it.
I haven't seen the movie yet, but I do plan to. It looks visually beautiful, and if nothing more it'll be a good action movie.
First, Bush is absolutely right that there are limits on freedom of speech. For example, Bush could not put up a parody site accusing the programmer who created his site of being a drug user, without being sued, unless, of course, the programmer is a drug user and Bush could prove it. recall.
I doubt bush would be sued. It would be amazingly hypocritical for this Exly person to sue him. And puting up the site would probably do a lot of harm to the bush campain -- "Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
Slashdot Mirror
Neither have most other people. In fact, most people just create a bigger hairball mess by trying to create whiz-bang object hierarchies. OO may be many things, but it is not a productivity enhancing technology.
Ug, I can't stand not doing OO, and I can't see why anyone can. Proc programing is just a mess.
You could not write html for explorer that would work with netscape and reverse...
What the hell crack have you been smoking?
Some of the advanced features arn't cross compatable, but you could always code somthing that would work in both
Can I get perl for windows 9x? (that's about 80% of the computers on the net).
Java's already there.
Have you ever used java, Its much, much, much nicer then C/C++ for just programing. I think it would be nice to compile it for native code, but things like JIT and stuff works well now, so it dosn't matter. Would you want to download interactive content from any website with *compiled* code? well, with Java's security model you can.
:)
There are many benifiets of java over C/C++, Platform nutrality is only one of them
Oh, and Java programers make a lot more then C/C++ programers
People keep talking about how secure one-time-pad is. I see why it wouldn't be suseptable to mathimatical attack, but why couldn't you brute force it?
. A sequence of steps to attack something is a vector. This allows for multiple vectors to converge at common points.
.
.
.
Actualy it dosn't, The branches and leaves of the tree represent seperate options for compleating some action, not seperate steps in a process.
An 'attack tree' for calling some one on the phone would look somthing like this: 1 pick up phone
2 go to dialpad.com(or)
2.1 Use netscape(or)
2.1.1 click icon
2.1.2 run from command prompt.
2.2 use IE
Each node is a 'part' of the node above it, and option, diffrent ways you can do it 'using netscape' is a Part of using dialpad.com
An attack vector, would be to say, get a user acount, and then do a buffer overflow. You could impersonate that user and get the root password that way. Those options might show up in an attack tree, but they wouldn't nesseraly be connected to eachother
step one: ;)
steal computer
step two:
cut open case
step three:
+install hard drive in your computer, and browse away
Actualy, I remember reading about IBM security teams. They were about 20% effective in breaking techinical security, and were able to just walk out of buildings with computers under there arms 70% of the time....
Take out the flopy drive, and make sure to disable CD-ROM booting as well. Actualy most bioses let you disable Flopy Booting as well.
By Microsoft "seemlessly integrating" software with their OS, they've created a situation where there are more nodes closer to the root of the tree.
It dosn't matter how close the node is to the root, but how many branches there are in total. Even if all the paths to the UNIX root were hundreds of nodes deep, if they exsist at all, the system is vulnerable. The integration of nodes in MS operating systems do add a lot more nodes that connect, at some point, to the root. so the attacker has a lot more options
Whenver you make life 'uncomfortable' for users, there going to try and get around it. The best security mesure is one that is transperant.
I remember reading about how a hacker had broken into a military faciliy, now of course all the 'classifed' stuff was not on the network, right? Wrong. Each user had two computers on there desk, one was on the 'net, and the other was not. all the 'good stuff' was supposed to be on the disconneced one, however Dissconnected, 'black boxes' had to go through a 3 year long auditing process, so by the time the users got them, they sucked.
What happend? users put tons of nucliar infomation on there net-connected boxes, beacuse they were simply faster. not good.
Its not a bug, the 'reason' next to the score thing only shows the last moderation. (or, posibly the first, or maybe just a random one, who knows). So, if two moderators dissagree, you end up with thigns like +4:offtopic, or somthing like that. Click on the cid number (after the time, the cid for you is #14), to see the total amout of moderation done to the post
I think it cuts you off when you get to 30, or at least, it cut me off.
I got two upmods the other day, and Then I lost one. It really makes you a lot more aware of what you submit, since you cant get more easy anymore.
Also, if you get negative karma, you loose the ability to metamodreate. When the karma system opend up, I had -2, in a few days I had gone down to -9 (-10 would have started me out at score 0, not good)
It took me forever to get back in the black, but after that it was a straight shot to 30...
Person A says:
Invest with us! You're guarantied a 200% return on investment in one year! Without fail!
Person B says:
Well, here's the data, and here's the Mathematical formulas we used to generate it, oh and here's the mathematical profs of those formulas. Here are the SEC filings, and Here is the financial analysis. I think We can achieve a 20%-40% Return on investment, of course we don't really know, since no one can predict the future.
I take it you would invest with person A.
So instead I should take the word of a bunch of people who admit they aren't exactly sure what's going on and believe that is the be all end all of truth? How can you say that when several hundred years ago scientists believed the sun revolved around a flat earth? Science is fallible. It wouldn't be the end of the world if I was incorrect about the creation of the universe, or even if I thought that the sun revolved around earth. You can see the sun going around the earth every day, and it seems reasonable. It's only when you look very closely at the paths of the stars in the sky that you realize what's actually happening. Perhaps our Ideas of the big bang are wrong, does it really matter? No, as I've stated before, once you look at the idea of god without pretense (I should state that I originally believed in god, but the more I thought about it, the less likely it seemed, I never found anything particularly wrong with Christianity, it just seemed silly) it seems ridicules. So, even in the big bang theory were wrong, it still doesn't mean that the Bible is right. How the universe got started, once we rule out the hand of god, has no impact on my life.
Why was there a singularity?
:)
Don't know
What caused the Singularity to ignite?
Don't know.
And, current Big Bang theory predicts that we will never know the answers to these questions. If we ever figure it out, we'll have to change the theory to predict that we will be able to figure it out. Ain't science grand?
Anyway. This is how we got the big bang theory. We looked at what was going on. Everything in the Universe, at least that we can see, is moving apart. That means that at some point, it was probably all in one spot. Then used our laws of physics to try and figure out what it would have been like.
Actually, if you'd read up on it, you would see that we only have a clue back to a few milliseconds after the big bang, what happened before that is a mystery, and we will never know.
The idea that Santa Clause exists explains why presents are there every year, a child might believe it, because there parents said he does. However after a while, a child will start to notice things, like the 'holiday shopping season' and the fact that there parents are hiding Christmas presents around the house. The religious view would simply say, "Santa exists!" and possibly add, "The rest of the stuff was only put there to test your faith," whereas the Scientific view would be "Well, there's this 'holiday shopping season', and me and my little sister are always finding our Christmas presents hidden around the house, so mom and dad are probably buying them at the store."
Now, clearly the scientific view is correct in this case, but really its no different then the idea of Christian creation. The bible says 'X', and therefore you believe it (I'm assuming you're a creationist), there's no reason to believe it, other then that the bible (witch you're parents said was true). The scientific view says "Well, this is what's going on now, so it was probably going on before, and the most reasonable explanation we can think of, based on what we can see is 'X'" To anyone coming to the situation with no pretenses, the Christian idea is no less ludicrous then the One about Santa clause.
If I were to tell you, that despite all the evidence, that I still believed in Santa, and that you should to because you never really know is idiotic. But, is it really any different than 'Pascal's wager'? Oh, and the only thing science says about the 'big bang' is that it's the most reasonable explanation for the observable events.
I think you will find that the heavily Christian influenced western culture that has spread to the world was and is far ahead of most other available cultures.
I belive I could spread my culture around the world pretty quickly if I out tech'd everyone and I was able to rape the planet and turn most places into colonial 'slave nations' (controled by a central government in europe). The reason 'western culture' spread so much in the past 500 years or so, is beacuse it was shoved down the throats of everywhere else.
Why not take a look at every other organization on earth and tell me that they are all pure and good and have done nothing harmful to anyone, ever...
The Free Software Foundation!!!!!!!!!!!
The Big Bang, the theory that a piece of extremely dense matter about the size of a basketball spontaneously exploded to form the universe as we know it, then this universe that was devoid of life at the time spontaneously generated some form of life which eventually became us, is pretty damn silly sounding to me.
Well, first of all, life didn't start immediately after the big bang. In fact the idea of the 'big bang' has absolutely nothing to do with Evolution, or the creation of life (ambiogenisis, I think). You can believe in any of the 3 that you like, ambiogenisys is dependant on evolution, but evolution isn't dependent of Ambiogenisys. The big bang dosn't need any of them
It would be possible for a 'god' to create the universe, and then for evolution to take place.
So, lets say you disagree with the 'scientific explanation for life', and you say its 'ridicules' this is probably because you don't understand biology. There is no difference between living matter, and non-living matter. Life is just an extremely long chemical reaction in 'normal' matter. Nothing special.
And, as far as Pascal's wager goes, what if you belive in the wrong god? And end up in hell? I mean, if you can believe in one god, then what makes others wrong, hrm? Then you'd be screwed.
For some reason all CGI looks incredibly hoaky once it gets to TV.
And animatronics, and stop gap animation don't? that's rediculs. Just beacuse you have some werid problem with it dosn't mean that everyone does.
CGI has the ability to look *entirely* real, if its done right. You'll probably be able to tell for a while now, but things like toy-story would have been imposible with out it. Yes, they could have used hand draw animation, but that would have been boring.
Your post was one of the most intresting, insiteful, and really not-boring thing I think I've ever read in my life! Thank you 'azatoth'!
There is a negative to option (infact, I've seen a post at -5 once, It was rated as "sexist, racist, or crimial" or somthing like that. I think that was a bug though, since the post was nothing like that...
Anyway, if enough people moderate somthing down, it will get -2, and in order to see you need to manualy change your threshold in the URL
God, I hated that movie, and I thought the thing was, at least Denise Richards tried to act intelegent. Elizabeth's character was a complete bimbo!
Nothing in that movie made sense....
The matrix does make you think... just... not very much.
"You know what it really reminds me of? Tasty wheat. did you ever eat Tasty Wheat?"
"no, but technically nether did you.
"I know, but that's exactly my point, exactly. See how do the machines really know what tasty wheat tasted like? Maybe they got it wrong. Maybe what I think tasty wheat tasted like actually tastes like, ahh, oatmeal, or tuna fish.
That makes you wonder about a lot of things. You take chicken for example, maybe they couldn't figure out what to make chicken taste like, witch is why chicken tastes like everything. And maybe they couldn't figure out...."
"Shut up, mouse"
Actualy, I really liked the movie, I Know a lot of people didn't see it, but that doesn't necessarily make it bad. I always just figured that the subject matter didn't really appeal to every one.
Then I saw leno making fun of it, saying it was 'bad' or whatever. Of course, while leno would think that, it isn't true. It was at least an OK movie. And I think its to bad that it got raped in the press like it did.
As far Katz critique of End Of Days, well, he didn't like it, and I under stand why. But his reasons don't really resonate with me. I mean, Yeh, your not going to fight the devil with shotguns, but then an army of robots isn't going to use the bio-energy of the human race to power itself ether (entropy). Whenever you have any type of 'fantastic' movie, such as The Matrix, or End Of Days, theres going to be some things that don't "Work out". To me, the Christian religion is just a fantasy, like the lord of the rings or something. If someone has a different take, then so be it.
I haven't seen the movie yet, but I do plan to. It looks visually beautiful, and if nothing more it'll be a good action movie.
but what gives this particular bozo the right to use the name GWBush.com
Just a guess, but I think its beacuse he registerd it.
--
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
First, Bush is absolutely right that there are limits on freedom of speech. For example, Bush could not put up a parody site accusing the programmer who created his site of being a drug user, without being sued, unless, of course, the programmer is a drug user and Bush could prove it. recall.
I doubt bush would be sued. It would be amazingly hypocritical for this Exly person to sue him. And puting up the site would probably do a lot of harm to the bush campain
--
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"