That is a good excuse for leaving leathal weapons in your own home.
They would get them anyway, so you just give them to them now. Now that's a brilliant tactic.
(The CORRECT way to do it is obviously to not have them anywhere near you, at least not in your house, and convincing the neighbours to not have any guns either)
Obviously false, I don't know how you get this idea.
The demand/supply would still be the same (unless it were to rise so much as to bancrupt businesses, which I assume you won't let happen), so prices would remain the same.
The obvious proof : a lot of countries have minimum wages (a lot) higher than the us, and their economy didn't collapse.
You could demand that they do not force their clients on users by means of their monopoly.
That means: 1) an I.M. to every existing MSN user saying there are alternatives, with a link to a jabber client (the one specified by the author of jabber) 2) make MSN messenger a separate product, which has to be BOUGHT SEPARATELY (ie NO DUMPING) 3) no advertisements inside windows (or any other microsoft software) for MSN messenger.
AFTER they do that, they can close their network all they want.
You could demand that they do not force their clients on users by means of their monopoly, and fix the damage it has already done.
That means: 1) an I.M. to every existing MSN user saying there are alternatives, with a link to a jabber client (the one specified by the author of jabber) 2) make MSN messenger a separate product, which has to be BOUGHT SEPARATELY (ie NO DUMPING) 3) no advertisements inside windows for MSN messenger.
AFTER they do that, they can close their network all they want.
You could demand that they do not force their clients on users by means of their monopoly.
That means: 1) an I.M. to every existing MSN user saying there are alternatives, with a link to a jabber client (the one specified by the author of jabber) 2) make MSN messenger a separate product, which has to be BOUGHT SEPARATELY (ie NO DUMPING) 3) no advertisements inside windows for MSN messenger.
AFTER they do that, they can close their network all they want.
MS is a monopoly and does not have the right to do this.
What is the owners of the road (the government I suppose, which is a monopoly) were to say right now that only American cars were allowed to drive on them ? How would you react then ?
Re:Just because it isn't Linux, doesn't mean its e
on
Big Company on Campus
·
· Score: 1
What... let's check the biggest complaints about ms:
-> non-conforming compiler (you are teaching ms C++, not C++) (I was actually given the advise "not to use templates for..." because the compiler cannot handle it) -> ide design, I now know how it is done for qt/kde, and it royally beats ms -> scriptability, have you ever tried to modify the environment ? -> debugging : it may be nearly as good as emacs+gdb but it is nowhere near ddd -> ever explained to someone how to program a parallel/serial port in windows ? I now know how to do it in pure assembly from a bootloader, and trust me, that's easier than doing it in windows. (in linux : PrivoxyWindowOpen("/dev/ttyS0"); ) -> MFC, dear god, what a monster -> tools, in ms environments there are no tools available (you can have tools for $25 each, generally finding that they are crap)
(I did program 2 years in delphi from borland, and it is a LOT better, I believe it is actually easier than linux, but few people use it, and so tools are hard to find)
granted, you need someone to get you through the first few hours of linux, but it's well worth it (and with knoppix, you don't need that either)
Let's take an example here, some small freeware program
Number of windows programmers writing a program : 10 Number of programmers working on equivalent open source program : 10
exploit is found in both programs
Number of windows programmers fixing the flaw : 1 (if we were to fix the flaw and update people would think our program is insecure, so we'll do it in the next major upgrade, if a programmer feels like doing it) Number of linux programmers fixing flaw in equiv program : 1+10+5 (1 = the original security researcher, ever notice how in apache vulnerability reports a patch is included + 10 of the original programmers, which are being pressured from a large set of emails, +5 others also responding to the emails because the original programmers aren't doing it fast enough, and afterwards these 5 tend to search the program for other security problem(s), because it might be their claim to fame)
You don't need decss to copy dvd's if you have a dvd writer (or some patience, or use a dvd imaging tool, or...).
In fact I know someone who's bought a dvd writer for this purpose.
This brings the reason for DeCSS's existance back to a single one, to view dvds on linux. You no longer need it for copying.
The united corporations of America will hopefully soom make the new law official. You can't do anything without checking with the 500 richest people first.
Well actually nature does, and then adapts to itself again.
Once, the earth was covered mostly, not in water, but in some kind of sirup, containing lots of organic compounds. DNA (bare dna) thrived in that environment.
The first cellular membrane decimated the DNA population so badly that we cannot find any members of the DNA population anymore.
The first active cellular membrane decimated it's predecessor (but we may actually have found one of the active versions, we're not sure).
When the active cellular membranes started taking over, the ocean was slowly converted to water. This was a waste product from their growth, not "natural" at least not in that situation.
These guys also slowly polluted up the athmosphere and for some reason I don't understand started releasing oxygen (maybe because they really couldn't do anything with the oxygen they isolated).
Anyway they polluted the sea with water, and the athmosphere with oxygen, and they did it so effectively there is nothing left of the original athmosphere or ocean.
Geology apparently shows that this process took only a very short time. At one point they started doing this (the first traces are found) and ~100 years later virtually everything must have been converted. That's a hell of a lot faster than we're doing it.
You don't understand the problem. 99,9% of it "tech" people are incompetent (at least in the sense that they cannot fix a security hole themselves).
So the manager tells tech guy X to fix the problem. Only he cannot, he has no idea how. Now what's the manager supposed to do ? Fire him and hire another ? With 99,9% incompetence in the candidates that he would find acceptable, that would be a stupid thing to do.
(btw if they do try to fix it, the real nightmare starts;-p)
He was paid by the company to (amongst other things) find out wether or not the site was secure.
He was paid to leave it at that.
He didn't.
Corporations don't care about you, they don't care about people stealing your data. They DO care about employees telling people bad things about the company ("your data can be stolen when it's with us", I'm sure you understand why they'd want to contain this), and they will use the legal system to prevent it.
Contrary to what you're saying, you don't need the standard library for anything. You could, for example use any C library instead.
C++ has a vast amount of libraries. A structure is missing tho, which is a good point.
Another downside of C++ is the requirement of recompiling when you change only very small parts (this can be greatly reduced by experienced programmers, but I rarely see anyone actually do that)
I don't see where you're calling the standard c++ library too limiting. The first thing starter programmers complain about it the apparent complexity. The second complaint is that it is too limited (in fact that's why qt/mfc/gtkmm have so much success). The stl is not limiting at all. In fact I reimplemented the iostreams (iostream and sstream headers) myself in very little code for an irc bot (so you could channel "hey oelewapperke" endl;) and for real-time interthread communication. I've since been convinced the stl can be adapted to do anything.
Frameworks written in C++ can be both extremely limiting, and VERY open. Written by an experienced programmer, the same library is useful for guiding a robot and to calculate the next payroll. Think stl, think boost, think sigc++, ACE, TAO, and the list keeps going on.
Another point I'd like to raise : a problem with building "standard" math functions is that there are a lot of different ways to evaluate expressions (symbolic, which can do more, lazy, which also can express more, but not quite as much as symbolic, and imperative, which leaves all the complexity in the programmer's hand)
you take the closed source approach -> you call the manufacturer -> "fix my problem or we ditch you" -> you listen to their empty promise once -> twice -> you ditch them
you should NOT create a program to fix the problem for them or it might never be fixed by them (what problem ? didn't you have a solution ?)
Slashdot Mirror
Billions on defense or an iota of common sense ?
;-)
Well if you live in America, at least you know what your government is going to do
Ok, you want it to run your programs as trusted ? You can't, which is the whole problem with palladium.
Except of course, you yourself cannot declare a kernel as safe, only one of the big companies can.
That is a good excuse for leaving leathal weapons in your own home.
They would get them anyway, so you just give them to them now. Now that's a brilliant tactic.
(The CORRECT way to do it is obviously to not have them anywhere near you, at least not in your house, and convincing the neighbours to not have any guns either)
You're not yet entirely clear on this "geek" thing, I think
Obviously false, I don't know how you get this idea.
The demand/supply would still be the same (unless it were to rise so much as to bancrupt businesses, which I assume you won't let happen), so prices would remain the same.
The obvious proof : a lot of countries have minimum wages (a lot) higher than the us, and their economy didn't collapse.
You could demand that they do not force their clients on users by means of their monopoly.
:
That means
1) an I.M. to every existing MSN user saying there are alternatives, with a link to a jabber client (the one specified by the author of jabber)
2) make MSN messenger a separate product, which has to be BOUGHT SEPARATELY (ie NO DUMPING)
3) no advertisements inside windows (or any other microsoft software) for MSN messenger.
AFTER they do that, they can close their network all they want.
You could demand that they do not force their clients on users by means of their monopoly, and fix the damage it has already done.
:
That means
1) an I.M. to every existing MSN user saying there are alternatives, with a link to a jabber client (the one specified by the author of jabber)
2) make MSN messenger a separate product, which has to be BOUGHT SEPARATELY (ie NO DUMPING)
3) no advertisements inside windows for MSN messenger.
AFTER they do that, they can close their network all they want.
You could demand that they do not force their clients on users by means of their monopoly.
:
That means
1) an I.M. to every existing MSN user saying there are alternatives, with a link to a jabber client (the one specified by the author of jabber)
2) make MSN messenger a separate product, which has to be BOUGHT SEPARATELY (ie NO DUMPING)
3) no advertisements inside windows for MSN messenger.
AFTER they do that, they can close their network all they want.
MS is a monopoly and does not have the right to do this.
What is the owners of the road (the government I suppose, which is a monopoly) were to say right now that only American cars were allowed to drive on them ? How would you react then ?
What ... let's check the biggest complaints about ms :
..." because the compiler cannot handle it)
-> non-conforming compiler (you are teaching ms C++, not C++) (I was actually given the advise "not to use templates for
-> ide design, I now know how it is done for qt/kde, and it royally beats ms
-> scriptability, have you ever tried to modify the environment ?
-> debugging : it may be nearly as good as emacs+gdb but it is nowhere near ddd
-> ever explained to someone how to program a parallel/serial port in windows ? I now know how to do it in pure assembly from a bootloader, and trust me, that's easier than doing it in windows. (in linux : PrivoxyWindowOpen("/dev/ttyS0"); )
-> MFC, dear god, what a monster
-> tools, in ms environments there are no tools available (you can have tools for $25 each, generally finding that they are crap)
(I did program 2 years in delphi from borland, and it is a LOT better, I believe it is actually easier than linux, but few people use it, and so tools are hard to find)
granted, you need someone to get you through the first few hours of linux, but it's well worth it (and with knoppix, you don't need that either)
Let's take an example here, some small freeware program
Number of windows programmers writing a program : 10
Number of programmers working on equivalent open source program : 10
exploit is found in both programs
Number of windows programmers fixing the flaw : 1 (if we were to fix the flaw and update people would think our program is insecure, so we'll do it in the next major upgrade, if a programmer feels like doing it)
Number of linux programmers fixing flaw in equiv program : 1+10+5 (1 = the original security researcher, ever notice how in apache vulnerability reports a patch is included + 10 of the original programmers, which are being pressured from a large set of emails, +5 others also responding to the emails because the original programmers aren't doing it fast enough, and afterwards these 5 tend to search the program for other security problem(s), because it might be their claim to fame)
You don't need decss to copy dvd's if you have a dvd writer (or some patience, or use a dvd imaging tool, or ...).
In fact I know someone who's bought a dvd writer for this purpose.
This brings the reason for DeCSS's existance back to a single one, to view dvds on linux. You no longer need it for copying.
The united corporations of America will hopefully soom make the new law official. You can't do anything without checking with the 500 richest people first.
read the term.
:d oin g-to-your-system-software
the long version is
we-dont-want-you-to-know-what-our-software-is-
Well actually nature does, and then adapts to itself again.
Once, the earth was covered mostly, not in water, but in some kind of sirup, containing lots of organic compounds. DNA (bare dna) thrived in that environment.
The first cellular membrane decimated the DNA population so badly that we cannot find any members of the DNA population anymore.
The first active cellular membrane decimated it's predecessor (but we may actually have found one of the active versions, we're not sure).
When the active cellular membranes started taking over, the ocean was slowly converted to water. This was a waste product from their growth, not "natural" at least not in that situation.
These guys also slowly polluted up the athmosphere and for some reason I don't understand started releasing oxygen (maybe because they really couldn't do anything with the oxygen they isolated).
Anyway they polluted the sea with water, and the athmosphere with oxygen, and they did it so effectively there is nothing left of the original athmosphere or ocean.
Geology apparently shows that this process took only a very short time. At one point they started doing this (the first traces are found) and ~100 years later virtually everything must have been converted. That's a hell of a lot faster than we're doing it.
There are a few problems with spider rag. It is indeed bulletproof, but it does that by extending up to 200x it's original length.
In other words, you'd still be perforated by the bullet, but the bullet would come back out.
in kdeedu
http://edu.kde.org/kig/screenshots.php
the entirety of kdeedu is a good candidate too.
America allows a stock market scam to disturb the lives and productivity of millions of people...
This is NOT news.
It's called advertising. Causing uninformed decisions (preferably rash decisions). Our economy is based on it.
I wouldn't take that factor out, or some people will get VERY angry.
You don't understand the problem. 99,9% of it "tech" people are incompetent (at least in the sense that they cannot fix a security hole themselves).
;-p)
So the manager tells tech guy X to fix the problem. Only he cannot, he has no idea how. Now what's the manager supposed to do ? Fire him and hire another ? With 99,9% incompetence in the candidates that he would find acceptable, that would be a stupid thing to do.
(btw if they do try to fix it, the real nightmare starts
Because this is capitalism.
He was paid by the company to (amongst other things) find out wether or not the site was secure.
He was paid to leave it at that.
He didn't.
Corporations don't care about you, they don't care about people stealing your data. They DO care about employees telling people bad things about the company ("your data can be stolen when it's with us", I'm sure you understand why they'd want to contain this), and they will use the legal system to prevent it.
Big surprise. Now change the law or stop whining.
You need to visit a gambling addict (preferably one with a family) sometime.
Obviously a lot of people suffer immensely from gambling. Yes it's "voluntary", just like taking drugs is voluntary (which is to say, not at all).
Someone ought to make a worm that simply wipes the harddrive of any infected system immediately and permanently.
That way *maybe* some people might realize microsoft security really sucks, and that it can hit them, and hit them hard.
I think this would be a horrible thing to do, but at least it would probably be the last of its kind (the last worm ever I mean by that).
I think you're describing c++.
Contrary to what you're saying, you don't need the standard library for anything. You could, for example use any C library instead.
C++ has a vast amount of libraries. A structure is missing tho, which is a good point.
Another downside of C++ is the requirement of recompiling when you change only very small parts (this can be greatly reduced by experienced programmers, but I rarely see anyone actually do that)
I don't see where you're calling the standard c++ library too limiting. The first thing starter programmers complain about it the apparent complexity. The second complaint is that it is too limited (in fact that's why qt/mfc/gtkmm have so much success). The stl is not limiting at all. In fact I reimplemented the iostreams (iostream and sstream headers) myself in very little code for an irc bot (so you could channel "hey oelewapperke" endl;) and for real-time interthread communication. I've since been convinced the stl can be adapted to do anything.
Frameworks written in C++ can be both extremely limiting, and VERY open. Written by an experienced programmer, the same library is useful for guiding a robot and to calculate the next payroll. Think stl, think boost, think sigc++, ACE, TAO, and the list keeps going on.
Another point I'd like to raise : a problem with building "standard" math functions is that there are a lot of different ways to evaluate expressions (symbolic, which can do more, lazy, which also can express more, but not quite as much as symbolic, and imperative, which leaves all the complexity in the programmer's hand)
you take the closed source approach
-> you call the manufacturer
-> "fix my problem or we ditch you"
-> you listen to their empty promise once
-> twice
-> you ditch them
you should NOT create a program to fix the problem for them or it might never be fixed by them (what problem ? didn't you have a solution ?)