Details of Quake reverse-engineering can be found here. But I'm not so sure obfuscation would have helped in this case. It seems like Quake's design just put too much information in the hands of the client systems; it might have taken a day or two extra to decode, but the question is, why was such data allowed to be controlled by the client in the first place?
Yes, Peter de Jager = Y2K "hype," if by hype you mean publicizing well-known and very real consequences of leaving the Y2K bug unpatched. The reason January 1st, 2000 went by relatively calmly in most parts of the world is because banks, hospitals, power companies, and large manufacturers, people with actual responsibilities, acted to meet them. The Y2K bug did have the predicted effect in some places of the world, mostly rural areas of poorer nations, but sporadic reports of accounting software miscalculating interest rates and insurance companies declining coverage of geriatric services for supposed infants happened even here in the US. The fact that software failure was not more widespread was in part due to people taking de Jager, and others like him, seriously.
No, the issue is that American privacy laws are unenforcable overseas. Subcontractors who threatened this in the U.S. would be fined and/or subject to prosecution.
I am so sick of France getting bad press here in jingo-land.
France is the country that stood up to uber-weasel George W and refused to support a war of choice based on hearsay. They stood on principle and demanded evidence of WMDs (along with an apparent majority of the Security Council, although we'll never know for sure because GWB decided to attack without international sanction). Since when did seeking truth and not backing down to an economic and military superpower qualify as weasely?
Gancarz has come out with an updated version of the book, now titled Linux and the Unix Philosophy. Here's a non-amazon link. If you have the original, there's not much new to recommend it, just updated (mostly Linux-based) examples; but if you're new to either OS, or want to give a book to a friend to explain why you love it/them, this is a good one.
I guess that's part of the problem of arguing by analogy. My view on the kernel vs. other tools is that it is not the equivalent of a lathe, it's more the equivalent of a workshop where other tools are put to use, or even the craftsman who puts the tools to work. (I.e., it's not just "one of many tools," but rather the essential component.) Viewing it that way, I would say I'm still justified in calling my shop (getting away from carpentry proper and into other woodworking metaphors) Mike's Woodworking, even if every tool in the shop were a Sears product.
Moreover, even though Linux distributions are made with all the GNU utilities, (presumably) any POSIX-compliant programs would work; therefore, there is no strong coupling between the kernel and the utilities. (Come to think of it, bash et al run on FreeBSD, but you don't hear Stallman campaigning to have it renamed GNU/FreeBSD.)
Two questions I have regarding the "GNU/Linux" terminology that I've never seen answered well:
If Richard Stallman's insistence on using the term "GNU/Linux" is really one of principle and not an attempt at grabbing some limelight away from a wildly successful software project that he didn't mastermind, why doesn't he insist we call bash "GNU/bash" or ls "GNU/ls?"
If I were a carpenter (which I'm not) and all I owned were Sears Craftsman tools, would I be morally obligated to call my services "Sears Craftsman/Mike's Carpentry" and call my products "Sears/Mike the Carpenter's Homes?"
Exactly what I mean. Whether you do or don't believe in God, or maybe just don't believe in saying his name outside of a synagogue, that's nobody's business but your own. It should be your private choice to share or conceal as you choose, but as long as that phrase remains in public recitations of a loyalty oath (and I can only imagine that the Founding Fathers would shudder at that thought alone), either way you say it will smoke you out.
Teacher: Bobby, why don't you lead the class in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance?
Bobby: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Teacher: (Pauses.) Well class, Bobby's just a little different from the rest of us, isn't he?
Since Darl claims to be a Christian, ask him if his copy of the Bible skips the commandment about not bearing false witness against his neighbor. 'Cause that's what he's been doing lately.
I don't know how many other people do this, but when I want to just "let the words flow" while I'm at the computer, I shut off the monitor. It becomes too hard to edit/second-guess myself, so I can get on with the task of writing. Then I have a good chunk of text all ready to slice, dice and spell-correct to my heart's content when the monitor comes back on.
"There's a lot of skepticism," Dr. Spatola said. "The people opposed see it dehumanizing the student's papers, putting them through some sort of mechanical, computerized system like the multiple choice tests..."
Um...as opposed to English Comp classes in general?
Holding software liable for failure won't stifle innovation. A great deal of (most?) innovation goes on in academic settings anyhow, where results are published and critiqued by outside experts (i.e., from other universities), not hidden away like some Special Sauce recipe.
Moreover, how innovative has MS (or anyone else) been about reliability? Adding new features like embedding full-length motion pictures into Word documents (apologies to Neal Stephenson) is one kind of 'innovation,' but it comes at the cost of gains in stability. One could argue, and people have, that most commercial software is derivative anyhow, and its mass adoption has stifled opportunities to create more stable products.
And finally, do we really need that many new twists on things? I'm not saying stop research or trying new things, but mainframes running COBOL code have been hosting most of the world's financial and business information for decades, and they are legendary for their stability, with low incidence of data corruption and uptimes measured in years to decades.
As I recall, Ender's Game entailed government deception and secrecy, mass slaughter of innocents, a war started by trigger-happy humans, and the brainwashing of children.
Slashdot Mirror
Details of Quake reverse-engineering can be found here. But I'm not so sure obfuscation would have helped in this case. It seems like Quake's design just put too much information in the hands of the client systems; it might have taken a day or two extra to decode, but the question is, why was such data allowed to be controlled by the client in the first place?
How about "Mandragora?" It's the same root, after all.
I don't know, but their stock symbol is SCOX. Lately, I've been pronouncing that "Suh-COX."
I'm sure Tolkien mentions that Sam's a stuffed dummy prop somewhere in there, but maybe it's in one of the later books.
fsck {y,ies}ou all!
No kidding. I have an entire Manual in that format.
Yep, they should be able to get these guys off the ISS before it burns up on re-entry.
Um, yeah, I know. I was just making a (little) joke about how crappy the dice that came with the old boxed set were.
Holy crap! 2,000+ years old? My white plastic d20 from the D&D boxed set turned into a flaky sphere after about six months.
Seeing as how Darl's a dickless wonder, I don't know how he can step on it, though.
No, the issue is that American privacy laws are unenforcable overseas. Subcontractors who threatened this in the U.S. would be fined and/or subject to prosecution.
France is the country that stood up to uber-weasel George W and refused to support a war of choice based on hearsay. They stood on principle and demanded evidence of WMDs (along with an apparent majority of the Security Council, although we'll never know for sure because GWB decided to attack without international sanction). Since when did seeking truth and not backing down to an economic and military superpower qualify as weasely?
Gancarz has come out with an updated version of the book, now titled Linux and the Unix Philosophy. Here's a non-amazon link. If you have the original, there's not much new to recommend it, just updated (mostly Linux-based) examples; but if you're new to either OS, or want to give a book to a friend to explain why you love it/them, this is a good one.
Moreover, even though Linux distributions are made with all the GNU utilities, (presumably) any POSIX-compliant programs would work; therefore, there is no strong coupling between the kernel and the utilities. (Come to think of it, bash et al run on FreeBSD, but you don't hear Stallman campaigning to have it renamed GNU/FreeBSD.)
Exactly what I mean. Whether you do or don't believe in God, or maybe just don't believe in saying his name outside of a synagogue, that's nobody's business but your own. It should be your private choice to share or conceal as you choose, but as long as that phrase remains in public recitations of a loyalty oath (and I can only imagine that the Founding Fathers would shudder at that thought alone), either way you say it will smoke you out.
Bobby: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Teacher: (Pauses.) Well class, Bobby's just a little different from the rest of us, isn't he?
Since Darl claims to be a Christian, ask him if his copy of the Bible skips the commandment about not bearing false witness against his neighbor. 'Cause that's what he's been doing lately.
I don't know how many other people do this, but when I want to just "let the words flow" while I'm at the computer, I shut off the monitor. It becomes too hard to edit/second-guess myself, so I can get on with the task of writing. Then I have a good chunk of text all ready to slice, dice and spell-correct to my heart's content when the monitor comes back on.
Um...as opposed to English Comp classes in general?
Moreover, how innovative has MS (or anyone else) been about reliability? Adding new features like embedding full-length motion pictures into Word documents (apologies to Neal Stephenson) is one kind of 'innovation,' but it comes at the cost of gains in stability. One could argue, and people have, that most commercial software is derivative anyhow, and its mass adoption has stifled opportunities to create more stable products.
And finally, do we really need that many new twists on things? I'm not saying stop research or trying new things, but mainframes running COBOL code have been hosting most of the world's financial and business information for decades, and they are legendary for their stability, with low incidence of data corruption and uptimes measured in years to decades.
What parts were they emulating?
"I have an expensive wife."
--a joke that got no laughs at the stockholder's meeting.
But you see by your own posting how easy it is to mix up the words, even when you know what they mean.