How can They Justify It's the 3rd Sequel
on
Code Red III
·
· Score: 1
I really don't know why the people could justify that it is really the third sequel of the virus meanwhile the report says:
"About 10 damage reports have come in which were believed to have been the result of the latest Code Red III,"...
It's still only 10 damages and the cause of the damage is not yet known. Those people in news really clever in getting attention...
Usually viruses are called its sequel only if they exhibit some degree of likenesses in binary form (correct me if I'm wrong). Even, some is not considered as the sequel, only variants. Remember those days when Jerusalem-B or Michaelangelo attacked? This time, we really don't know what the Code Red 3 look like and they said it's the 3rd sequel?
If you like those eye-candy demos, you can download from this repository at: www.scene.org
Browse their archive!
They have all sort of demo collections from various groups and various fests. Cool! Gigs of download. Don't forget to check out the Java demos too. It will make you wonder how can they make such a cool (and very fast) demo like that in Java.
It's been a long wait since the first three book of TAOCP came out (in the 80's I suppose). Knuth said it would be a 7-volume series. We always wait for the rest to come out. Here's volume 4. You could
check out what will come out for volume 5-7.
The contents for volume 4 is there too (including the erratas of vol 1-3).
He said that he'll spend his retirement to write the rest. Wow.
Check out his homepage, probably you could
help him. If you could give him a "significant suggestion", he'll reward you for 32c. If only ask slashdot offer the same prize for each highly modded post.:-)
Caveat emptor: His book is not for the faint-hearted. It's full of math & logic -- but it's wonderful.
Has another lame encryption scheme comparable to ROT-13...
Anyway, wireless comm is inherently insecure: anybody could wiretap the communication either it's encrypted or not. We just need a stronger form of encryption. Probably the Wireless net should use RSA or other 1024-bit or better encryption scheme. Or... employ some protocol typical to OpenSSH...
I'm sure that people under this standard board is aware on such issue, but why don't they just apply some strong and well-known encryption scheme? It seems that they just want to reinvent the wheel (or is there anything fishy down there?). Oh well...
I was quite surprised why people doesn't seem to recommend CowboyNeal to assume a new human-clock hire. You guys have asked him to be a 75Hz monitor in the recent poll. Probably it would be nice to hear him scream on the roof: "Bong... it's four o'clock a.m."
Just a little thought... maybe Slashdot should ask this question in the next poll.:-)
Hi, I am currently building an automated software verification. I am planning to put it into GPL as soon as I released it. For me, it is really sad to find my software later on be used to verify a closed-source software -- or even worse: To verify software that limits our freedom. To my opinion, all enemies of freedom do not have right on whatsoever the freedom offers.
Is there any consideration for amandments on GPL version 3 to address this matter?
Check this formula too. If the formula is so simple (like taking the sigma out of a mere factors of fractions), pi couldn't be containing any message. I simply skeptic about that....
Yes, that's true. Even better: You can install 2 (or more) of them and then label it as master and slave. Then, if you want to swap the hard drive, you can turn off the computer and take the drives you want to swap, then don't forget to switch the master/slave jumpers too. Then, turn the box back on.
If you want to secure your computer: Take the hard drive away with you.:-) Nobody can get your data even they managed to physically access your computer.
I heard that some of the trays are even hotswappable... It is expensive. see here or here.
Umm... not quite. We use patterns instead. You can specify the logical specification using these patterns. It's not hard. Check out the spec patterns homepage here.
More complex patterns can be broken down into some simpler ones.
No, it's not the case. The problem is that during specification phase, you usually pin out the purpose of certain methods -- which can be _robustly_ expressed in terms of logical language. And then, you translate it into the code. Often times, the intended translation is wrong, and thus bugs occur.
Note that the code generation tools *cannot* generate the code out of a specification. For example:
pre: arr != null post: for (i = 1; i
This example states out the requirements for a sorting method. How can code generation tool produce a code to satisfy that constraints? Meanwhile, you have the freedom to implement the sorting code with *any* algorithm as long as it satisfy the constraints: whether it be bubble sort or quick sort, or whatever. Thus, this specification language provides a good way of abstraction.
Not only that: Our tool can detect deadlock automatically. How can code generation tool do that?
We use JPF for the backend, but we do some optimization stuff like code slicing and abstraction. Throwing out the whole Java program will jam out JPF, since it will take a lot of memory. Check out our publications.
This is still academic research and is amazing since you can reduce the state space dramatically (from four billions to two or four states) and weed out the irrelevant code to the properties (like printing out results).
I am working for a research group that develops a tool for checking software *automatically*. Yes, you read it right. It's not only against syntactical error, but also logical error. This was previously intractable and infeasible task as the scientist proves that nobody ever breaks the Turing machine. But, we've got a way to get around with it.
The catch is you have to specify the expected properties of your program in terms of logical language (yes, and this is very hard sometimes). If you stated the properties correctly, then our tool is able to detect violations against the properties. And, no, it's not those lousy tools that you've heard about ten years ago (maybe from Compaq or ISU), but this is a ground breaking new tool. Check it out. You can even download the tool too (but read this message thoroughly first).
About the properties, our research group has successfully identify 92% of all patterns of all logic in programming. Thus, rather than inventing the logic language your own, you can rather use our template. Click here for the patterns.
Our tool is still very very buggy and limited. It currently checks a subset of Java. Syntactically correct Java can be fed in, but there are (a lot of) features we won't consider yet as this will require more research, like: Object relations, array abstractions, exceptions, and so on.
When our research is mature enough, the whole software development world will be revolutionized.
.... expect to see something like this in your cell phones:
Congratulations! You
COULD win the jackpot TODAY! Or, care to play poker with us? Come and visit MrTramps Casino 4 blocks north from here...
This is ridiculous. The bill condoning the cookies is okayed. They say "healthy business practices", then the casinoes used it. What's next? Pr0n sites? Oh my, maybe you'd got a Pr0n magazine sampler in your snail-mail box just because they can get your address info...
We're just victims anyways.... Could anybody stop this?
I personally think that this is a trick to lure Open Source communities. Let's think for a while: Microsoft target is for company executives who doesn't know us that work like a dog during the night on how M$ server or Exchange crashes. The only thing they know is that in the morning all works as usual and the work goes on. They mostly don't know other alternatives. What they really want is to ease the management job. That's it.
Let's face it. If the.NET wouldn't been born, another what-you-name-it similar project will be underway. It's inevitable. It will, I believe, simplify a lot of management stuffs (not managing people, of course), especially data organization. Thus, those pointy-haired-bosses would be euphoric to hear this beast's incarnation.
But, don't fret. I bet that at first the.NET will do all the sputters like the first Win95 does. If our server dies, we, the lowly sysadmin servants, spend countless of sleepless nights to fix it. In this case, if.NET crashes, we can tell our boss: That's nothing we can do boss. Blame 'em! (and, of course, leave his office with an evil grin)
If you Open Source guys port it and then try to somehow "clone" the.NET server, then you Open Source guys will be toasted, right? If you try to "imitate" the client, then do you still remember the AIM tactics?
I think, it's better for us to firstly build a.NET alternative and then try to "cooperate" with them (not the other way round). Then, if something get messed up, you can save your face. Hey, it's that beast's fault, not ours! If this is the case, M$ would then force you to choose between the two. Open source alternative would be favored, I suppose. If we imitate the client first, then people will mock us as being inept in cloning the technology.
Yes, it is frustating in programming in Ocaml. It has a lousy GUI except if you have the emacs binding (which is pretty cool). Debugging it can be very frustating since the error message is vague. The documentation is erroneous. Learning Ocaml can take a lot of time, especially if you have never touched functional language realm. But...
In Ocaml you can do a lot of nice things: throwing out functions of functions. Which can simplify a lot of things. This is a significant feature of functional language. It supports a pattern matching like Perl (although not as sophisticated). You can build AST, trees, hashtables, and other ADTs effortlessly using the language's basic construct (unlike C/C++ or Java which supports that in the library). Thus, this is very ideal for theoretical and compiler researches.
I think that you guys C/C++ gurus should try to both reverse engineer the binary output of OCAML and look the code generation phase why it is so fast. Try here for further reference on Ocaml.
Don't you know that creating 64-bit addressing is difficult. The design should fit for today's need.
Let's say that we have the 64-bit addressing. Thus, every single transfer (either read or write) has to send this 64-bit signal in which some of those are padded with zeroes (i.e. unused). Don't you imagine how much power it wastes to transfer those zeroes? Moreover, 144 PB
should be enough for 20 years. Come on! Be realistic. By 20 years, mankind would have come with different solution.
I don't want to argue, but first you have to clarify the terms "efficiency" here. AFAIK, there are a lot of inefficiencies in open source programs in the sense that there are lots of different programs that do the same thing, for example: How many CD burner programs out there? Or the more classical one: How many windows managers are there? If we can unite those efforts, we would bring more efficiency. The closed source counterparts tend to create fewer variations (I suppose)....
...the GPL gives them that immediate security while simultaneously allowing open cooperation....
Well, to me this is not strong enough. As I perceive, businesses are aiming for profit. In software industry, they try to keep any lines of their codes shut in a safe box. They don't want any other covet it and "plagiarize" it. So, they won't leer into GPL code as GPL requires them to open their "secrets" if they incorporate GPL solution. Therefore, where is the sense of "open cooperation".
In the other hand, if the software is not quintessential to their business, they might like to do this (i.e. cooperation with Open Source guys). For example: IBM, HP, of which they have other businesses than software. If the company whose life and death are in the revenue of software sales, they will strongly oppose open source movement (example: Microsoft, Adobe, etc).
You may think Roxio is taking the wrong path. But, hey, if they succeeded to bring forth an evidence of sales record being up, then the lawmakers will force that into a bill! What a nightmare!
First of all, I think the editor (not the author) is right: "We're not in the same room". Therefore, 16-bit should be enough to encode even all the 50,000+ chars of K'ang Hsi dictionary. Moreover, if we try to encode ALL characters in the world, how redundant it would be. Surely Hindi speaking people won't speak Chinese and Hindi at the same time.
Moreover, we have "Content Language" and "language" tag in HTML, don't we? If we ever want to encode two or more different languages, we can simply include these tags and be done with it. The browser can then pick the appropriate fonts and voila!
Of the claimed 170,000 characters from the Orients, many of which can be unified since they are the same (in Japanese Kanji, Simplified, and Traditional Chinese). Simplified and Traditional Chinese share a lot of similarities. Even the simplified writings of a particular character often look nearly the same as the traditional one. Thus, the encoding for these two can be unified, only the font bitmap is different. Moreover, it won't be logical to use both simplified and traditional characters in the same article (except if they are exactly the same). So, these can save 50,000 characters.
Japanese kanji, also shares a lot of similarities in both Traditional and Simplified Chinese (more to traditional than simplified). So, the encoding can be simplified too. Save another thousand characters.
Slashdot Mirror
I really don't know why the people could justify that it is really the third sequel of the virus meanwhile the report says:
"About 10 damage reports have come in which were believed to have been the result of the latest Code Red III,"...
It's still only 10 damages and the cause of the damage is not yet known. Those people in news really clever in getting attention...
Usually viruses are called its sequel only if they exhibit some degree of likenesses in binary form (correct me if I'm wrong). Even, some is not considered as the sequel, only variants. Remember those days when Jerusalem-B or Michaelangelo attacked? This time, we really don't know what the Code Red 3 look like and they said it's the 3rd sequel?
Hey! They should maintain their website for at least a couple of months to inform their user. Check out www.rhythms.net
If you like those eye-candy demos, you can download from this repository at: www.scene.org Browse their archive!
They have all sort of demo collections from various groups and various fests. Cool! Gigs of download. Don't forget to check out the Java demos too. It will make you wonder how can they make such a cool (and very fast) demo like that in Java.
Download MikTeX from here. It's free rather than Distiller. Install it and you can invoke ps2pdf to convert your ps file.
It's been a long wait since the first three book of TAOCP came out (in the 80's I suppose). Knuth said it would be a 7-volume series. We always wait for the rest to come out. Here's volume 4. You could check out what will come out for volume 5-7. The contents for volume 4 is there too (including the erratas of vol 1-3).
He said that he'll spend his retirement to write the rest. Wow. Check out his homepage, probably you could help him. If you could give him a "significant suggestion", he'll reward you for 32c. If only ask slashdot offer the same prize for each highly modded post. :-)
Caveat emptor: His book is not for the faint-hearted. It's full of math & logic -- but it's wonderful.
Has another lame encryption scheme comparable to ROT-13...
Anyway, wireless comm is inherently insecure: anybody could wiretap the communication either it's encrypted or not. We just need a stronger form of encryption. Probably the Wireless net should use RSA or other 1024-bit or better encryption scheme. Or... employ some protocol typical to OpenSSH...
I'm sure that people under this standard board is aware on such issue, but why don't they just apply some strong and well-known encryption scheme? It seems that they just want to reinvent the wheel (or is there anything fishy down there?). Oh well...
I was quite surprised why people doesn't seem to recommend CowboyNeal to assume a new human-clock hire. You guys have asked him to be a 75Hz monitor in the recent poll. Probably it would be nice to hear him scream on the roof: "Bong... it's four o'clock a.m."
Just a little thought... maybe Slashdot should ask this question in the next poll. :-)
the "Spank the monkey" spanked by the competitor's ad?
Or the X10 ads popped along with pr0n...? :-) Just my 2c...
Hi, I am currently building an automated software verification. I am planning to put it into GPL as soon as I released it. For me, it is really sad to find my software later on be used to verify a closed-source software -- or even worse: To verify software that limits our freedom. To my opinion, all enemies of freedom do not have right on whatsoever the freedom offers.
Is there any consideration for amandments on GPL version 3 to address this matter?
Hmm... Check this out.
Check this formula too. If the formula is so simple (like taking the sigma out of a mere factors of fractions), pi couldn't be containing any message. I simply skeptic about that....
Yes, that's true. Even better: You can install 2 (or more) of them and then label it as master and slave. Then, if you want to swap the hard drive, you can turn off the computer and take the drives you want to swap, then don't forget to switch the master/slave jumpers too. Then, turn the box back on.
If you want to secure your computer: Take the hard drive away with you. :-) Nobody can get your data even they managed to physically access your computer.
I heard that some of the trays are even hotswappable... It is expensive. see here or here.
Umm... not quite. We use patterns instead. You can specify the logical specification using these patterns. It's not hard. Check out the spec patterns homepage here.
More complex patterns can be broken down into some simpler ones.
No, it's not the case. The problem is that during specification phase, you usually pin out the purpose of certain methods -- which can be _robustly_ expressed in terms of logical language. And then, you translate it into the code. Often times, the intended translation is wrong, and thus bugs occur.
Note that the code generation tools *cannot* generate the code out of a specification. For example:
pre: arr != null
post: for (i = 1; i
This example states out the requirements for a sorting method. How can code generation tool produce a code to satisfy that constraints? Meanwhile, you have the freedom to implement the sorting code with *any* algorithm as long as it satisfy the constraints: whether it be bubble sort or quick sort, or whatever. Thus, this specification language provides a good way of abstraction.
Not only that: Our tool can detect deadlock automatically. How can code generation tool do that?
We use JPF for the backend, but we do some optimization stuff like code slicing and abstraction. Throwing out the whole Java program will jam out JPF, since it will take a lot of memory. Check out our publications.
This is still academic research and is amazing since you can reduce the state space dramatically (from four billions to two or four states) and weed out the irrelevant code to the properties (like printing out results).
I am working for a research group that develops a tool for checking software *automatically*. Yes, you read it right. It's not only against syntactical error, but also logical error. This was previously intractable and infeasible task as the scientist proves that nobody ever breaks the Turing machine. But, we've got a way to get around with it.
The catch is you have to specify the expected properties of your program in terms of logical language (yes, and this is very hard sometimes). If you stated the properties correctly, then our tool is able to detect violations against the properties. And, no, it's not those lousy tools that you've heard about ten years ago (maybe from Compaq or ISU), but this is a ground breaking new tool. Check it out. You can even download the tool too (but read this message thoroughly first).
About the properties, our research group has successfully identify 92% of all patterns of all logic in programming. Thus, rather than inventing the logic language your own, you can rather use our template. Click here for the patterns.
Our tool is still very very buggy and limited. It currently checks a subset of Java. Syntactically correct Java can be fed in, but there are (a lot of) features we won't consider yet as this will require more research, like: Object relations, array abstractions, exceptions, and so on.
When our research is mature enough, the whole software development world will be revolutionized.
Thus heart racing appears, rapid breath, swetaing and simialr symptoms whihc _can_ lead up to death.
Wow, you sure did show us the example of how bad the overdose is... Look at the spelling. Does it mean that you're showing us a mild-overdose effect?
.... expect to see something like this in your cell phones:
This is ridiculous. The bill condoning the cookies is okayed. They say "healthy business practices", then the casinoes used it. What's next? Pr0n sites? Oh my, maybe you'd got a Pr0n magazine sampler in your snail-mail box just because they can get your address info...
We're just victims anyways.... Could anybody stop this?
Mom: Where's the website son?
Son: Here...
===========
Brandes: You asked your MOM for that? ... (continue the dialog here)
I personally think that this is a trick to lure Open Source communities. Let's think for a while: Microsoft target is for company executives who doesn't know us that work like a dog during the night on how M$ server or Exchange crashes. The only thing they know is that in the morning all works as usual and the work goes on. They mostly don't know other alternatives. What they really want is to ease the management job. That's it.
Let's face it. If the .NET wouldn't been born, another what-you-name-it similar project will be underway. It's inevitable. It will, I believe, simplify a lot of management stuffs (not managing people, of course), especially data organization. Thus, those pointy-haired-bosses would be euphoric to hear this beast's incarnation.
But, don't fret. I bet that at first the .NET will do all the sputters like the first Win95 does. If our server dies, we, the lowly sysadmin servants, spend countless of sleepless nights to fix it. In this case, if .NET crashes, we can tell our boss: That's nothing we can do boss. Blame 'em! (and, of course, leave his office with an evil grin)
If you Open Source guys port it and then try to somehow "clone" the .NET server, then you Open Source guys will be toasted, right? If you try to "imitate" the client, then do you still remember the AIM tactics?
I think, it's better for us to firstly build a .NET alternative and then try to "cooperate" with them (not the other way round). Then, if something get messed up, you can save your face. Hey, it's that beast's fault, not ours! If this is the case, M$ would then force you to choose between the two. Open source alternative would be favored, I suppose. If we imitate the client first, then people will mock us as being inept in cloning the technology.
Yes, it is frustating in programming in Ocaml. It has a lousy GUI except if you have the emacs binding (which is pretty cool). Debugging it can be very frustating since the error message is vague. The documentation is erroneous. Learning Ocaml can take a lot of time, especially if you have never touched functional language realm. But...
In Ocaml you can do a lot of nice things: throwing out functions of functions. Which can simplify a lot of things. This is a significant feature of functional language. It supports a pattern matching like Perl (although not as sophisticated). You can build AST, trees, hashtables, and other ADTs effortlessly using the language's basic construct (unlike C/C++ or Java which supports that in the library). Thus, this is very ideal for theoretical and compiler researches.
I think that you guys C/C++ gurus should try to both reverse engineer the binary output of OCAML and look the code generation phase why it is so fast. Try here for further reference on Ocaml.
Don't you know that creating 64-bit addressing is difficult. The design should fit for today's need.
Let's say that we have the 64-bit addressing. Thus, every single transfer (either read or write) has to send this 64-bit signal in which some of those are padded with zeroes (i.e. unused). Don't you imagine how much power it wastes to transfer those zeroes? Moreover, 144 PB should be enough for 20 years. Come on! Be realistic. By 20 years, mankind would have come with different solution.
I don't want to argue, but first you have to clarify the terms "efficiency" here. AFAIK, there are a lot of inefficiencies in open source programs in the sense that there are lots of different programs that do the same thing, for example: How many CD burner programs out there? Or the more classical one: How many windows managers are there? If we can unite those efforts, we would bring more efficiency. The closed source counterparts tend to create fewer variations (I suppose)....
Well, to me this is not strong enough. As I perceive, businesses are aiming for profit. In software industry, they try to keep any lines of their codes shut in a safe box. They don't want any other covet it and "plagiarize" it. So, they won't leer into GPL code as GPL requires them to open their "secrets" if they incorporate GPL solution. Therefore, where is the sense of "open cooperation".
In the other hand, if the software is not quintessential to their business, they might like to do this (i.e. cooperation with Open Source guys). For example: IBM, HP, of which they have other businesses than software. If the company whose life and death are in the revenue of software sales, they will strongly oppose open source movement (example: Microsoft, Adobe, etc).
Just my two cents....
You may think Roxio is taking the wrong path. But, hey, if they succeeded to bring forth an evidence of sales record being up, then the lawmakers will force that into a bill! What a nightmare!
First of all, I think the editor (not the author) is right: "We're not in the same room". Therefore, 16-bit should be enough to encode even all the 50,000+ chars of K'ang Hsi dictionary. Moreover, if we try to encode ALL characters in the world, how redundant it would be. Surely Hindi speaking people won't speak Chinese and Hindi at the same time.
Moreover, we have "Content Language" and "language" tag in HTML, don't we? If we ever want to encode two or more different languages, we can simply include these tags and be done with it. The browser can then pick the appropriate fonts and voila!
Of the claimed 170,000 characters from the Orients, many of which can be unified since they are the same (in Japanese Kanji, Simplified, and Traditional Chinese). Simplified and Traditional Chinese share a lot of similarities. Even the simplified writings of a particular character often look nearly the same as the traditional one. Thus, the encoding for these two can be unified, only the font bitmap is different. Moreover, it won't be logical to use both simplified and traditional characters in the same article (except if they are exactly the same). So, these can save 50,000 characters.
Japanese kanji, also shares a lot of similarities in both Traditional and Simplified Chinese (more to traditional than simplified). So, the encoding can be simplified too. Save another thousand characters.
The game was Dynasty Warrior 2. Cool. Check it out.
Masking out the development team? Well, may be they affraid their fans will ask them for their autographs... ;-P