No, we were animals to begin with, nothing can make us into what we already are.
Does anyone seriously think we're above what nature intended for us? Animals fight all the time, especially territorial animals. If we'd bother to look at ourselves for what we are, it'd be pretty obvious we're just doing what comes naturally.
Only the most arrogant and blindly optimistic people think that human beings are anything more than the animals nature intended us to be.
Utopian society is a nice dream, but it will never happen. That's not what human beings are destined for, and if it were to occur, it certainly wouldn't make us great. It'd make us bored.
Homo sapiens... Last I heard, they were just another primate species. "Advanced Monkeys" if you will.
I was stationed there two years ago, in 10th TAD. I am out of the military, but have concerns about getting a reactivation letter, for obvious reasons.
Are you a soldier stationed there? If so, which unit? If they haven't restricted communications yet... (we had to turn in computer keyboards, monitors, mice, phones, etc. during alerts)... can you give us any more information?
I assume the base is at threat level delta... I never saw it at more than Bravo, after the embassy attacks abroad.
The program displays some virus-like qualities such as self-replication via email. It also installs a backdoor in the infected host, listening on UDP port 5503 or higher.
An attacker could connect to this port via TCP and potentially take control of the machine, as they would have shell access at the permission level of the user executing the virus.
Umm... UDP and TCP are two different protocols in the IP stack. You don't connect to UDP ports at all, it's a connectionless protocol. You especially don't open a TCP socket to a UDP port. So, which is it? Is the back door really on the UDP port, or can you really connect to it via TCP, or is it both?
I don't mean to nit-pick, but little technical flaws like this make me wonder how competent the author was to begin with.
It's like saying that if a 10-cylinder diesel truck is at 4000RPM and a 2-cylinder moped is at 4000RPM, they should be going the same speed.
Couldn't resist this... they are going the same speed... 4000 RPM:)
I think you meant "producing the same power."
try-throw-catch (was: Re:Object Oriented...)
on
Why not Ruby?
·
· Score: 1
I wrote a BASIC interpreter, which is definitely NOT object-oriented, that has try-throw-catch error handling because I thought M$'s "on error" construct was a big kludge.
Consequently, that construct is not a feature that solely belongs to OOP languages.
Re:The better question is ...
on
Why not Ruby?
·
· Score: 1
Actually, I don't bang my head too often when programming in C. C may not be object-oriented, (C++ is, but C++ is a kludge that never should have existed) but there are no limitations to what you can do with it.
But then again, comparing Ruby, Perl, and Python to C and C++ and to Java is like comparing apples to oranges to pears. They each have a target use, notwithstanding that each can reasonably fill the shoes of others.
For instance, I'd never use any of the above language, except C, for embedded applications where resource limits are an issue.
I can bang out a quick network app in Java or Perl, and have it very portable, and development time is small compared to doing it in C and C++. Not sure about the others.
So, overall, comparisons are moot, unless outside requirements for a project limit language choice, because in the end, it's the programmer's preference, and the ease of doing something in a particular language that wins out.
It's a nice town, but full of whackos, anarchists, commies, and whatnot...
Anyway, I wonder how much damage the smoke from the fire did to the environment?
People insist on putting the eco- in front of these terrorists, but, they are still terrorists. One day they are going to kill someone. Maybe an "accident", but everything they do is premeditated. I hope I get to sit on the jury when these terrorists are brought to justice. We live in a country ruled by law. SUVs don't break the law. Terrorists acts do. I hope no sympathy is shown for these people. We have a process in this country, and there are other ways to get things changed. Destruction isn't one of them.
The ELF and their sypathizers are just a bunch thugs who don't like what other people have.
Nice to know I'm not the only one that sends/. stories and get them (rejected) only to see the story appear in a week, giving credit to someone else...
And I thought I was alone out there.
Sigh...
Then again, maybe I'm auto-rejected for whining too much:)
I've met him, and one of the people who works with him is one of my best friends from high school, who majored in physics and worked with a company at Edwards AFB in California developing experimental aircraft.
[RANT MODE ON]: I submitted this story a week ago, how is it that me, who has inside information on the subject, gets rejected, and this guy, who merely saw it on the NYT gets it posted?
1. Scramble the eggs in the bowl.
2. Brown the sausage in the pan.
3. Add butter and eggs.
4. Stir occasionally until firm.
Now compare to this:
Simple Bubble Sorted List
Ingredients: List (array) of integers
Requires: Memory.
Serves: A sorted list for one.
1. Examine list in memory:
2. Go through the elements one at a time.
3. If an element is bigger than the next one, switch them.
4. Repeat 2-3 until you don't switch any elements.
5. Result sorted list.
Now, one could rewrite the above recipe for a sorted list:
void bubble(int a[], int n) {
int i, j;
for (i = 0; i
for (j = n - 1; j > i; j--)
if (a[j-1] > a[j])
swap(&a[j-1], &a[j]);
}
void swap(int *p, int *q) {
int tmp;
tmp = *p;
*p = *q;
*q = tmp;
}
Now, one who speaks the language would understand both forms of the bubble sort recipe. It just so happens that computers also speak C. Lots of humans speak C as well.
Now, nobody in their right mind would argue that cooking recipes (like the scrambled breakfast) are not expressive. Of course they are. Nobody would argue that the recipe for a bubble sort is not expressive. It expresses an idea (algorithm), and also instructions to perform an action. Screenplays (read this, MPAA) also express an idea... they also give instructions on how to present the idea, via performing actions.
I argue that a recipe is not much different than a screenplay. Both are forms of expression, along with books, poems, and such.
Now look at the C code for the bubble sort. One who understands C can see that it is describing a bubble sort. It describes the same thing as the "recipe"! It's just written in something not-quite English, and not everyone understands it. Now, if I rewrite the recipe for bubble sort in, say... German... then what? It's not English, and not everyone understands it. Is it still expression? If a C program is not expression, then neither is a recipe written in German. Or any other language for that matter. Nobody would say that, however. The recipe in German is obviously just as expressive as it is in English.
I conclude that the recipe written in C is just as expressive as the one written in English. Since I also concluded that the recipe in English is as expressive as a screenplay or book or similar, it follows that the recipe written in C is as expressive as a screenplay or book or similar.
Just because a computer can understand it doesn't mean it's not expression!!! High level programming languages (relatively speaking... C is higher than ones and zeros:) were created for the benefit of humans, not for the benefit of computers. High level programming languages are "spoken" by humans. Every C programmer understands the C code above. When I wrote it, and they read it, an idea is expressed.
I had an idea like this that I was busy implementing into a Quake server, before my time had to be redirected to other projects. Not only was this going to be done, but you could also bridge to an IRC client and get constant updates on the game from IRC, without having to be in-game.
I had this idea many years ago. I should have finished it... grrrrrrrrr.
The fact is, you HAVE to trust, no matter what operating system you use. There are lots of people out there who, believe it or not, use linux, and don't know a thing about reading source code in C or any other language. (I am not one of those... I know C quite well.)
There are other people who just don't want to look at the source... or fill their disk with it, or whatever. Installing binaries comes with the same risk as installing any old piece of software for any other popular OS. (Windows, MacOS). Millions of people take that risk every day, without problem.
Are there dangers? Hell yes there is. Do most people know this? Yeah, they probably do. Do most of them care? Probably not. Personally, for my desktop machine, I really don't care. For the critical systems I maintain... yeah, I do care. But Joe Average nonprogrammer doesn't, and even if he did care... he can't understand the source anyway.
Yes, using binaries is dangerous, but comparatively not that dangerous at all.
On the issue of package signing. Well, I can set up a geocities website... make a trojan RPM, give it away... and even sign it with GPG and give away the public key all on the same site... and some of the comments here seem to imply that there are users out there who think merely having a signature on the package makes it all good
Think again. ANYONE can sign a package... and anyone can set up a website to give away binaries and GPG keys that sign them. Even better, one can provide source that doesn't have the trojan... to make people feel more comfortable. Maybe even make it broken a little so that people try out the binary to see if it works any better.
I can think of a dozen ways to get people to use binaries over source. Some are even familiar... remember the first versions of BladeEnc?
So, in the end... you take a risk anyway.. You can lower it, even to zero... but most people will take the risk.
As a former serviceman, I can safely say that I WOULD care who's fault it was. As someone who served, I could not honorably expect, require, or otherwise want my country to apologize/accept responsibility for something that they are not responsible for. Especially to the enemy.
Jeezus... all they do is make maps and catalog satellite imagery... it's not like they are the CIA... they make maps for the most part, having formerly been the DMA (defense mapping agency)... very informative web page for a "top secret spy agency."
As a test, I went over to one of my Macs, running a recent install of MacOS 7.6, which is the latest that it will run, and tried a Ctrl-Click on many different files... just to see if I'd get some kind of context menu that would let me do things to the file. Nothing happened. Explain that.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with your sentiments. It's not "nifty"... it may be interesting, but "nifty" is a bit jovial, considering what it's a diagram of.
No, we were animals to begin with, nothing can make us into what we already are.
Does anyone seriously think we're above what nature intended for us? Animals fight all the time, especially territorial animals. If we'd bother to look at ourselves for what we are, it'd be pretty obvious we're just doing what comes naturally.
Only the most arrogant and blindly optimistic people think that human beings are anything more than the animals nature intended us to be.
Utopian society is a nice dream, but it will never happen. That's not what human beings are destined for, and if it were to occur, it certainly wouldn't make us great. It'd make us bored.
Homo sapiens... Last I heard, they were just another primate species. "Advanced Monkeys" if you will.
I was stationed there two years ago, in 10th TAD. I am out of the military, but have concerns about getting a reactivation letter, for obvious reasons.
Are you a soldier stationed there? If so, which unit? If they haven't restricted communications yet... (we had to turn in computer keyboards, monitors, mice, phones, etc. during alerts)... can you give us any more information?
I assume the base is at threat level delta... I never saw it at more than Bravo, after the embassy attacks abroad.
Praying for us all here.
The second vnunet article has a minor problem:
The program displays some virus-like qualities such as self-replication via email. It also installs a backdoor in the infected host, listening on UDP port 5503 or higher.
An attacker could connect to this port via TCP and potentially take control of the machine, as they would have shell access at the permission level of the user executing the virus.
Umm... UDP and TCP are two different protocols in the IP stack. You don't connect to UDP ports at all, it's a connectionless protocol. You especially don't open a TCP socket to a UDP port. So, which is it? Is the back door really on the UDP port, or can you really connect to it via TCP, or is it both?
I don't mean to nit-pick, but little technical flaws like this make me wonder how competent the author was to begin with.
Touche
Well, both engines are going the same speed, at least. :) So I was a bit correct.
It's like saying that if a 10-cylinder diesel truck is at 4000RPM and a 2-cylinder moped is at 4000RPM, they should be going the same speed.
Couldn't resist this... they are going the same speed... 4000 RPM :)
I think you meant "producing the same power."
I wrote a BASIC interpreter, which is definitely NOT object-oriented, that has try-throw-catch error handling because I thought M$'s "on error" construct was a big kludge.
Consequently, that construct is not a feature that solely belongs to OOP languages.
Actually, I don't bang my head too often when programming in C. C may not be object-oriented, (C++ is, but C++ is a kludge that never should have existed) but there are no limitations to what you can do with it.
But then again, comparing Ruby, Perl, and Python to C and C++ and to Java is like comparing apples to oranges to pears. They each have a target use, notwithstanding that each can reasonably fill the shoes of others.
For instance, I'd never use any of the above language, except C, for embedded applications where resource limits are an issue.
I can bang out a quick network app in Java or Perl, and have it very portable, and development time is small compared to doing it in C and C++. Not sure about the others.
So, overall, comparisons are moot, unless outside requirements for a project limit language choice, because in the end, it's the programmer's preference, and the ease of doing something in a particular language that wins out.
It's a nice town, but full of whackos, anarchists, commies, and whatnot...
Anyway, I wonder how much damage the smoke from the fire did to the environment?
People insist on putting the eco- in front of these terrorists, but, they are still terrorists. One day they are going to kill someone. Maybe an "accident", but everything they do is premeditated. I hope I get to sit on the jury when these terrorists are brought to justice. We live in a country ruled by law. SUVs don't break the law. Terrorists acts do. I hope no sympathy is shown for these people. We have a process in this country, and there are other ways to get things changed. Destruction isn't one of them.
The ELF and their sypathizers are just a bunch thugs who don't like what other people have.
Nice to know I'm not the only one that sends /. stories and get them (rejected) only to see the story appear in a week, giving credit to someone else...
And I thought I was alone out there.
Sigh...
Then again, maybe I'm auto-rejected for whining too much :)
give you a back massage every few nights... does wonders.
'Course, this only works if you have a girlfriend
(I suppose you could have your boyfriend do it if that's fitting for your situation :)
Because one of the specific problems CodeNation mentioned is that the files were binary.
He said ... This would be a trivial task if... The documents were text-based (i.e. the file formats weren't binary)
I merely offered a solution to that part, to go along with the frontend idea, since the frontend could automate that translation, as well.
You don't have to jump on me for offering an idea that specifically solves one of the problems mentioned.
True... and the problem with the files being binary can be solved by UUencoding them, first.
I've met him, and been to his backyard, and seen the equipment
It wouldn't be hard for me to get in touch with him again
I've met him, and one of the people who works with him is one of my best friends from high school, who majored in physics and worked with a company at Edwards AFB in California developing experimental aircraft.
I think he'll succeed.
http://rocketguy.com/ is his website.
[RANT MODE ON]: I submitted this story a week ago, how is it that me, who has inside information on the subject, gets rejected, and this guy, who merely saw it on the NYT gets it posted?
2001-04-30 18:01:06 Manned Amateur Rocketry (articles,space) (rejected)
[RANT MODE OFF]
Compare these ideas:
Scrambled Breakfast
Ingredients: 6 eggs, 1/4 pound beef breakfast sausage, 1 tbsp butter.
Requires: Frying pan, stove, bowl.
Serves: 2
1. Scramble the eggs in the bowl.
2. Brown the sausage in the pan.
3. Add butter and eggs.
4. Stir occasionally until firm.
Now compare to this:
Simple Bubble Sorted List
Ingredients: List (array) of integers
Requires: Memory.
Serves: A sorted list for one.
1. Examine list in memory:
2. Go through the elements one at a time.
3. If an element is bigger than the next one, switch them.
4. Repeat 2-3 until you don't switch any elements.
5. Result sorted list.
Now, one could rewrite the above recipe for a sorted list:
void bubble(int a[], int n) {
}void swap(int *p, int *q) {
}Now, one who speaks the language would understand both forms of the bubble sort recipe. It just so happens that computers also speak C. Lots of humans speak C as well.
Now, nobody in their right mind would argue that cooking recipes (like the scrambled breakfast) are not expressive. Of course they are. Nobody would argue that the recipe for a bubble sort is not expressive. It expresses an idea (algorithm), and also instructions to perform an action. Screenplays (read this, MPAA) also express an idea... they also give instructions on how to present the idea, via performing actions.
I argue that a recipe is not much different than a screenplay. Both are forms of expression, along with books, poems, and such.
Now look at the C code for the bubble sort. One who understands C can see that it is describing a bubble sort. It describes the same thing as the "recipe"! It's just written in something not-quite English, and not everyone understands it. Now, if I rewrite the recipe for bubble sort in, say... German... then what? It's not English, and not everyone understands it. Is it still expression? If a C program is not expression, then neither is a recipe written in German. Or any other language for that matter. Nobody would say that, however. The recipe in German is obviously just as expressive as it is in English.
I conclude that the recipe written in C is just as expressive as the one written in English. Since I also concluded that the recipe in English is as expressive as a screenplay or book or similar, it follows that the recipe written in C is as expressive as a screenplay or book or similar.
Just because a computer can understand it doesn't mean it's not expression!!! High level programming languages (relatively speaking... C is higher than ones and zeros :) were created for the benefit of humans, not for the benefit of computers. High level programming languages are "spoken" by humans. Every C programmer understands the C code above. When I wrote it, and they read it, an idea is expressed.
And now you know what programs express.
I had an idea like this that I was busy implementing into a Quake server, before my time had to be redirected to other projects. Not only was this going to be done, but you could also bridge to an IRC client and get constant updates on the game from IRC, without having to be in-game.
I had this idea many years ago. I should have finished it... grrrrrrrrr.
The fact is, you HAVE to trust, no matter what operating system you use. There are lots of people out there who, believe it or not, use linux, and don't know a thing about reading source code in C or any other language. (I am not one of those... I know C quite well.)
There are other people who just don't want to look at the source... or fill their disk with it, or whatever. Installing binaries comes with the same risk as installing any old piece of software for any other popular OS. (Windows, MacOS). Millions of people take that risk every day, without problem.
Are there dangers? Hell yes there is. Do most people know this? Yeah, they probably do. Do most of them care? Probably not. Personally, for my desktop machine, I really don't care. For the critical systems I maintain... yeah, I do care. But Joe Average nonprogrammer doesn't, and even if he did care... he can't understand the source anyway.
Yes, using binaries is dangerous, but comparatively not that dangerous at all.
On the issue of package signing. Well, I can set up a geocities website... make a trojan RPM, give it away... and even sign it with GPG and give away the public key all on the same site... and some of the comments here seem to imply that there are users out there who think merely having a signature on the package makes it all good
Think again. ANYONE can sign a package... and anyone can set up a website to give away binaries and GPG keys that sign them. Even better, one can provide source that doesn't have the trojan... to make people feel more comfortable. Maybe even make it broken a little so that people try out the binary to see if it works any better.
I can think of a dozen ways to get people to use binaries over source. Some are even familiar... remember the first versions of BladeEnc?
So, in the end... you take a risk anyway.. You can lower it, even to zero... but most people will take the risk.
As a former serviceman, I can safely say that I WOULD care who's fault it was. As someone who served, I could not honorably expect, require, or otherwise want my country to apologize/accept responsibility for something that they are not responsible for. Especially to the enemy.
Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.
I can run it in Basilisk
It won't run on my Quadra, either :(
--- I still know what "POKE 53280,0" means ...
Isn't that the one that makes one of the Commodore PET's interface chips go ballistic and fry itself?
Jeezus... all they do is make maps and catalog satellite imagery... it's not like they are the CIA... they make maps for the most part, having formerly been the DMA (defense mapping agency)... very informative web page for a "top secret spy agency."
Look at it here
Already been done
http://virtunix.itribe.net/X-Chat 1.5.7-devl fixes the issue mentioned. Perhaps the author could have looked at the home page and seen for himself.
As a test, I went over to one of my Macs, running a recent install of MacOS 7.6, which is the latest that it will run, and tried a Ctrl-Click on many different files... just to see if I'd get some kind of context menu that would let me do things to the file. Nothing happened. Explain that.