But... lots of people show disrespect for Internet Tough Guys. I, for example, feel and show no respect toward you. Indeed I am actively dissing you, if I may use that word -- sneering at you, and doing it through the base and scurrilous medium of the Internet to boot. As an ITG, this must happen to you often.
Does that mean you get to shoot me?
Right. So the 'respect' thing is really of questionable relevance. Also, you smell and your tie looks stupid.
...and needless to say these guys design everything as a truncated octahedron or a hexagonal prism (on it's side, yet, so there are no vertical walls) and never as a BORING OLD CUBOID. Because having wide flat floors to live on and vertical walls to put doors in would be too boring and traditional and convenient.
Instead, their project has cuboctahedral modules that join onto each other via round portholes that are at about 30 degrees off vertical. I don't know what it is about architects that gives them such contempt for the actual users of their buildings. Everyone else designs to co-operate with the eventual users. Architects design to be clever, where 'clever' means lots of big geometrical shapes that reflect sound and carry vibration and have nowhere to sit down. Metal-walled buildings are pretty grim anyway from a temperature/moisture control/vibration point of view, but making it cuboid, corrugating the surfaces a bit and avoiding welds (in favor of joins that provide some damping) would be a start.
I think the acid test for innovative housing ideas should be: do they have to resort to silly futuristic shapes, or is there a chance they have some actual ideas for creating nice places to live?
1) Sentencing rates are so low for street crime in the UK that I don't think anyone cares whether there is a camera there or not. That's a problem with the UK's social/political/bureaucratic stance, not with the use of cameras.
2) The Guardian is hardly neutral or impartial; you'd expect them to claim cameras are bad, it's part of their viewpoint. I'm not saying it's wrong, just that given the tremendous number of factors not controlled for, opinion is likely to outweigh the few conclusions we can draw from the statistics. Comparing camera numbers and clearup rates borough by borough leaves so many variables as to be pointless.
3) The camera programme has cost 200 million over the last 10 years (according to a link you posted above). The fact that you say 'billions' says a lot about the psychological factors involved.
Personally, I don't think that you can turn English people into responsible adults with any amount of cameras. But the hysterical reaction some people have to the cameras does shed some light on the underlying issues.
Sure, the 2004 Olympics (and the next Winter Olympics perhaps even more so) contained judging that didn't necessarily reward the 'best' contestant. But that's part of the sport; it's not about being the 'best', which is pretty well impossible to define except in straightforward running/throwing events. It's about getting the highest score.
Nobody really thinks Tour de France cyclists don't store blood and take drugs; part of the game is the tradeoff between higher performance and higher chance of getting disqualified. Look at the way football is played in south america; taking a fall is just seen as part of the game, a judgement call like any other with particular risks and rewards. Argentina beat England in 1986 by pushing the ball in the net by hand; that may mean they won by taking a particular risk, but it doesn't mean they didn't win. They won the game of 'being allowed the most goals, by whatever means', which is the game they were actually playing.
I don't think the answer is to change the scoring. The answer is to take a more holistic approach, and say: "Ok, he was maybe the second best at *gymnastics*. But he was the best at *getting points for gymnastics*!"
1) Don't send your personal contact information to strangers on the internet, especially not in answer to a sex ad on Craigslist, especially not attached to a picture of your erect penis, because doing so is very likely to cause you all manner of trouble. If you do such a thing you are a twit.
2) If you are in a situation in which your life would be ruined if you were known to be into BDSM, *don't make it known that you're into BDSM*! If you do, you're a twit!
2) If you demonstrate that someone is a twit, they are more likely to get cross and sue you than to stop being a twit.
Sure, the guy was kind of a jerk and the whole thing is desperately unfunny like most trolls. But that doesn't mean he should be punished because there are so many twits about.
Ages ago, the US had truly bizarre laws about not moving encryption software (basically, you couldn't move any software that handled a key greater than a certain length out of the country. You could use such software in the US, you could use it outside the US, you could move it into the US, but you couldn't move it out).
A large international organization I used to work for, which wanted to obey the law scrupulously, had software on its laptops that would delete all encryption software at the touch of a button when leaving the US. When your plane landed in Europe, you'd hit another button and download the relevant.exe files back onto your laptop (from a non-US server).
There were plans to add GPS to automate this process, but this was back in the old days and it wasn't practical.
It's the lack of Windows support that *particularly* suggests that this is all Sun's strategy for spreading InnoDB......with a couple of MySQL devs along for the ride either because they have no choice or because Sun stroked their egos.
Clever Sun. Now all they need is a server platform:D
Finally, with even views removed, MySQL can move toward its original dream of having *no* features at all -- *no* separation of interface from implementation, *no* referential integrity, *no* bundling of logic with data to ensure data integrity, *no nothing*!
After a period in the wilderness, during which versions 4 and 5 added hated so-called 'features' and 'functionality', we are now finally returning home.
I look forward to Drizzle version 2 in which pesky 'tables', 'columns' and most of all the fancy and pointless 'select' statement are removed.
Seriously, no *views*?
So, what we actually have here is a thin wrapper around InnoDB. If Sun have turned MySQL primarily into a quick-start wrapper for their own product, that's actually pretty clever.
There's no point trying to counter faith with facts. Many people have *faith* that the Catholic church, and/or Christianity in general, has all kinds of weird, sinister practises and beliefs. That faith is part of how they define themselves and how they build their worldview, and presenting facts will get the reaction you'd expect whenever facts are held up against cherished beliefs. They can always pick some weird incident or some isolated remark or some urban legend or something they think they read in the Da Vinci code or something and focus on that. Like that guy posting just down from here about how his father got caned by the Maris Brothers (sounds like a circus act, but I'm going to assume they were monks). See how this one anecdote about how his family like to be educated by loons justifies the whole belief structure?
The Real WTF (tm) is that this conflict needs to be *constantly repeated* on the internet when there might otherwise be scope for actual discussion. For example, you'd think there could be actual discussion of the interesting textual and linguistic points raised by the Codex Sinaiticus, but there isn't, because thousands of teenagers will jump in going 'LOL this book has been translaited and the translaitions vary haha' first.
Having the Codex Sinaiticus online is very useful for anyone who may be interested in being able to compare early editions of one of the world's most importand (and textually complicated) books. The fact that some bits from the end of Mark are left out (and a few extra bits added on) is hardly the only interesting point -- the whole document is a vital palaeographical record. Not everyone has a copy lying around and there are *some* people out there striving for scholarship, ya know, among the whining voices of faith.
Yeah, people suck. People trafficking, rape, kidnapping, forcing people to submit to bizarre physical acts against their will etc should be illegal. Actually, they already are illegal.
I really don't think that making photographs of legal, consensual activity illegal will help.
But then, I'm pretty sure it's not intended to help. It serves a variety of purposes -- increasing the general level of control, making certain politicians look like they're taking action without requiring any actual resources, and so forth.
The parent post does illustrate how easy it is to coax people into mentally welding something emotional (throwing bricks at some guy's father??) to any issue in order to get them to agree with it.
There are two parallel failures to distinguish reality from fantasy here:
1 -- The usual way. Regular grown up people know that pornography is not real life and that many things that are fun to fantasize about would be unwise, unhygienic, fatal etc. in real life.
2 -- This crackdown on everything, and this massive effort to gather data and powers, come at a time when actual street crime is very high, white-collar crime has drastically undermined the UK's 'level playing field', and policies from tax to immigration seem to be selected without any hope of actually implementing them. In other words, the real fantasy here is the fantasy that the UK government can really control the things around it -- and I'm much afraid the government has confused that pleasant fantasy with reality, and that they will only pile on more regulations and powers as actual ability to influence events at ground level slips from their grasp.
Note that this is subtly different from the US situation. In the US, there's been a scramble for new data and powers, but I never have the feeling that the Executive branch has too *little* control...
Also, thank fuck for the House of Lords. There are few elected representatives who'll speak out on an issue that's got the word 'pornography' stuck to it.
I'm not really convinced on the application availability thing...
Some of them aren't quite up to par (Gimp)
Indeed.
some are roughly equivalent (OpenOffice)
Now this is the problematic part. When OOo can connect to Bloomberg to get real time prices, process them with a pluggable analytics system like Quic, and display the results as a chart that will be editable within a document or presentation, then it will be worth considering trying to make it 'roughly equivalent' to Office.
and some are leagues better (Firefox).
Widely used on Windows.
The problem is with the Unix architecture; relying on the X clipboard or ASCII pipes makes it very hard for any app running on a Unix to do what Excel can do.
Oh yeah- I refuse to honor ANY copyright held by a corporation.
Bless!
Only a writer or painter or other artist should hold a copyright.
Think about how that might work with, say, an instruction manual.
An instruction manual with, say, 200 contributors (like the service manual for a Boeing 737).
Each of those 200 content creators would have a share of the copyright. To print a new copy of the manual, you'd need to get permission from each of them -- or their descendants.
Of course, you might say you were only referring to Art with a capital A. In that case, let's consider a movie like Event Horizon. I'd say about 50 people had major creative input into that. Perhaps the right to distribute the movie to a given theatre should be split between all 50?
But the practical problem is only really the *small* half of the stupidity contained in the post above. You're saying that artists should not be able to sell their copyrights. That they should only be able to make a living by distributing their own works -- that artist and publisher must be combined into one role. That nobody should be allowed to buy the rights to creative work on spec, thus nurturing and publicizing new talent.
I refuse to honor ANY copyright held by a corporation.
So 6 guys get together and form Little Green Man Entertainment Ltd and make a computer game and sell it. But not to *you*. No, *you* pirate it because you refuse to honor any copyright held by a corporation. To buy these guy's game would compromise your *principles*.
Maybe if they all shared the copyright, rather than giving it to their company, you'd shell out the 20 bucks. But not until then. Because *you* are making a *stand*.
I assume that if they sold the copyright to a larger, multinational company so they could get on with making the next game rather than publishing, then your rage and bafflement would tower *even higher*. The mind boggles.
I refuse to honor ANY copyright held by a corporation.
A counter-reformation would surely be an attempt to reform, improve and streamline the existing establishment -- partly in response to defections in favor of newer and more effective establishments.
What we have here seems to be more of an anti-reformation. Unlike the actual counter-reformation it seems unlikely to lead to any advances in painting, music or astronomy. Quite the reverse really.
It'd be really interesting to use a site like this to try and determine how people's sense of humor (and response to jokes, which isn't the same thing) clusters.
It's hard in this case though because the jokes are so old and tend to fit closely to five or six templates. Because this means they have very little impact, I tried rating them based on how funny I thought they would be if they were new to me and expressed a bit more concisely, which I found a complicated exercise.
If this thing could be loaded with new jokes, or at least varied jokes, it'd be very interesting to observe the results. for example, would we find that people who like gender-stereotype jokes also like lawyer jokes? Would we find that people who like engineering jokes also like pun-based jokes?
Alas, without a system for users to submit their own jokes I don't think there's enough data in the system to get useful results out of it.
P.S. Shakespeare walks into a pub. And the barman says, "Sorry, you're bard."
P.P.S. So this bear walks into a bar, and the bear says "I'd like a......... beer, please." And the barman says "What's with the big pause?"
P.P.P.S. So this woman walks into a bar, and asks for a double entendre. So the barman gives her one.
I know that, but I don't see how to conceal dynamic memory allocation that way -- that's why I noted that you'd have to allocate memory statically, eg by padding the DLL, and then use it at runtime via some clever trick, and I don't see either how that can be worth bothering with or any sign that IE does it.
Is there a reference giving actual evidence for the original claim?
Can you go into more detail / give a reference? I don't understand what you mean by 'hidden in system DLLs'. System DLLs get loaded into the appropriate area of memory and shared by applications -- I don't see how to conceal dynamically allocated memory in them. I suppose you could include a DLL with your application, pad it out with 500mb of zeroes, and install it into a system directory, then load it and use the zeroes for storage while your application is running, but I have a hard time believing that anyone would bother to do that.
Slashdot Mirror
But... lots of people show disrespect for Internet Tough Guys. I, for example, feel and show no respect toward you. Indeed I am actively dissing you, if I may use that word -- sneering at you, and doing it through the base and scurrilous medium of the Internet to boot. As an ITG, this must happen to you often.
Does that mean you get to shoot me?
Right. So the 'respect' thing is really of questionable relevance. Also, you smell and your tie looks stupid.
Instead, their project has cuboctahedral modules that join onto each other via round portholes that are at about 30 degrees off vertical. I don't know what it is about architects that gives them such contempt for the actual users of their buildings. Everyone else designs to co-operate with the eventual users. Architects design to be clever, where 'clever' means lots of big geometrical shapes that reflect sound and carry vibration and have nowhere to sit down. Metal-walled buildings are pretty grim anyway from a temperature/moisture control/vibration point of view, but making it cuboid, corrugating the surfaces a bit and avoiding welds (in favor of joins that provide some damping) would be a start.
I think the acid test for innovative housing ideas should be: do they have to resort to silly futuristic shapes, or is there a chance they have some actual ideas for creating nice places to live?
I have a sort of cabin-y thing in my back garden.
Cost of solar power to run lights, vacuum cleaner, small heater etc installed by myself: 400 UKP
That's a lot of money for a few watts. but compare:
Cost of connecting cabin to mains and wiring it up (which I can't do myself if I ever want to sell the place): 400 UKP
Cost of notifying local government that I have made changes to the electrical system: 180 UKP, I kid you not.
So as you see, I saved money despite the high cost and low power output of PV systems.
Bureaucracy in action.
1) Sentencing rates are so low for street crime in the UK that I don't think anyone cares whether there is a camera there or not. That's a problem with the UK's social/political/bureaucratic stance, not with the use of cameras.
2) The Guardian is hardly neutral or impartial; you'd expect them to claim cameras are bad, it's part of their viewpoint. I'm not saying it's wrong, just that given the tremendous number of factors not controlled for, opinion is likely to outweigh the few conclusions we can draw from the statistics. Comparing camera numbers and clearup rates borough by borough leaves so many variables as to be pointless.
3) The camera programme has cost 200 million over the last 10 years (according to a link you posted above). The fact that you say 'billions' says a lot about the psychological factors involved.
Personally, I don't think that you can turn English people into responsible adults with any amount of cameras. But the hysterical reaction some people have to the cameras does shed some light on the underlying issues.
Sure, the 2004 Olympics (and the next Winter Olympics perhaps even more so) contained judging that didn't necessarily reward the 'best' contestant. But that's part of the sport; it's not about being the 'best', which is pretty well impossible to define except in straightforward running/throwing events. It's about getting the highest score.
Nobody really thinks Tour de France cyclists don't store blood and take drugs; part of the game is the tradeoff between higher performance and higher chance of getting disqualified. Look at the way football is played in south america; taking a fall is just seen as part of the game, a judgement call like any other with particular risks and rewards. Argentina beat England in 1986 by pushing the ball in the net by hand; that may mean they won by taking a particular risk, but it doesn't mean they didn't win. They won the game of 'being allowed the most goals, by whatever means', which is the game they were actually playing.
I don't think the answer is to change the scoring. The answer is to take a more holistic approach, and say: "Ok, he was maybe the second best at *gymnastics*. But he was the best at *getting points for gymnastics*!"
...I mean three! I mean three lessons! Oh.... argh.
1) Don't send your personal contact information to strangers on the internet, especially not in answer to a sex ad on Craigslist, especially not attached to a picture of your erect penis, because doing so is very likely to cause you all manner of trouble. If you do such a thing you are a twit.
2) If you are in a situation in which your life would be ruined if you were known to be into BDSM, *don't make it known that you're into BDSM*! If you do, you're a twit!
2) If you demonstrate that someone is a twit, they are more likely to get cross and sue you than to stop being a twit.
Sure, the guy was kind of a jerk and the whole thing is desperately unfunny like most trolls. But that doesn't mean he should be punished because there are so many twits about.
They go back and *actually* liberate the Holy Land, and *then* the Pope has to pay them all the golden doubloons in Christendom.
10% bonus doubloons for finding the True Cross. On second thoughts, 10% bonus for each True Cross found.
Heck, I'll even chip in a squadron of Turcopoles and some Genoese arbalesters.
Ages ago, the US had truly bizarre laws about not moving encryption software (basically, you couldn't move any software that handled a key greater than a certain length out of the country. You could use such software in the US, you could use it outside the US, you could move it into the US, but you couldn't move it out).
A large international organization I used to work for, which wanted to obey the law scrupulously, had software on its laptops that would delete all encryption software at the touch of a button when leaving the US. When your plane landed in Europe, you'd hit another button and download the relevant .exe files back onto your laptop (from a non-US server).
There were plans to add GPS to automate this process, but this was back in the old days and it wasn't practical.
Ah, the vast waste of effort.
alt.beloved.usenet.gone?.withered?.dead?
alt.black.day.is.is.ever-shall-be
alt.thoughtful.pause.pause.pause.pause
alt.brief.check.make.perform.check
alt.noble.usenet.remains!.lives!.cheers!
alt.brave.usenet.!surrenders.!bows.!gone!
alt.silly.blog.!informs.!researches.!educates
alt.dumb.blogger.drools.mashes-keys-at-random.drools
alt.credulous.slashdot.reports.dramatises.alarms
alt.trusty."alt.adjective.noun.verb.verb.verb".remains.endures.twinkles
So pathetic, it *hurts*! This is what the internet is truly for!
It's the lack of Windows support that *particularly* suggests that this is all Sun's strategy for spreading InnoDB... ...with a couple of MySQL devs along for the ride either because they have no choice or because Sun stroked their egos.
Clever Sun. Now all they need is a server platform :D
Finally, with even views removed, MySQL can move toward its original dream of having *no* features at all -- *no* separation of interface from implementation, *no* referential integrity, *no* bundling of logic with data to ensure data integrity, *no nothing*!
After a period in the wilderness, during which versions 4 and 5 added hated so-called 'features' and 'functionality', we are now finally returning home.
I look forward to Drizzle version 2 in which pesky 'tables', 'columns' and most of all the fancy and pointless 'select' statement are removed.
Seriously, no *views*?
So, what we actually have here is a thin wrapper around InnoDB. If Sun have turned MySQL primarily into a quick-start wrapper for their own product, that's actually pretty clever.
There's no point trying to counter faith with facts. Many people have *faith* that the Catholic church, and/or Christianity in general, has all kinds of weird, sinister practises and beliefs. That faith is part of how they define themselves and how they build their worldview, and presenting facts will get the reaction you'd expect whenever facts are held up against cherished beliefs. They can always pick some weird incident or some isolated remark or some urban legend or something they think they read in the Da Vinci code or something and focus on that. Like that guy posting just down from here about how his father got caned by the Maris Brothers (sounds like a circus act, but I'm going to assume they were monks). See how this one anecdote about how his family like to be educated by loons justifies the whole belief structure?
The Real WTF (tm) is that this conflict needs to be *constantly repeated* on the internet when there might otherwise be scope for actual discussion. For example, you'd think there could be actual discussion of the interesting textual and linguistic points raised by the Codex Sinaiticus, but there isn't, because thousands of teenagers will jump in going 'LOL this book has been translaited and the translaitions vary haha' first.
Having the Codex Sinaiticus online is very useful for anyone who may be interested in being able to compare early editions of one of the world's most importand (and textually complicated) books. The fact that some bits from the end of Mark are left out (and a few extra bits added on) is hardly the only interesting point -- the whole document is a vital palaeographical record. Not everyone has a copy lying around and there are *some* people out there striving for scholarship, ya know, among the whining voices of faith.
Yeah, people suck. People trafficking, rape, kidnapping, forcing people to submit to bizarre physical acts against their will etc should be illegal. Actually, they already are illegal.
I really don't think that making photographs of legal, consensual activity illegal will help.
But then, I'm pretty sure it's not intended to help. It serves a variety of purposes -- increasing the general level of control, making certain politicians look like they're taking action without requiring any actual resources, and so forth.
The parent post does illustrate how easy it is to coax people into mentally welding something emotional (throwing bricks at some guy's father??) to any issue in order to get them to agree with it.
There are two parallel failures to distinguish reality from fantasy here:
1 -- The usual way. Regular grown up people know that pornography is not real life and that many things that are fun to fantasize about would be unwise, unhygienic, fatal etc. in real life.
2 -- This crackdown on everything, and this massive effort to gather data and powers, come at a time when actual street crime is very high, white-collar crime has drastically undermined the UK's 'level playing field', and policies from tax to immigration seem to be selected without any hope of actually implementing them. In other words, the real fantasy here is the fantasy that the UK government can really control the things around it -- and I'm much afraid the government has confused that pleasant fantasy with reality, and that they will only pile on more regulations and powers as actual ability to influence events at ground level slips from their grasp.
Note that this is subtly different from the US situation. In the US, there's been a scramble for new data and powers, but I never have the feeling that the Executive branch has too *little* control...
Also, thank fuck for the House of Lords. There are few elected representatives who'll speak out on an issue that's got the word 'pornography' stuck to it.
It's a different species -- there are 4 species in the genus of which 2 (the north atlantic and north pacific) are critically endangered.
(the above is roughly accurate -- the generi in question are currently up for re-classification)
I'm not really convinced on the application availability thing...
Some of them aren't quite up to par (Gimp)
Indeed.
some are roughly equivalent (OpenOffice)
Now this is the problematic part. When OOo can connect to Bloomberg to get real time prices, process them with a pluggable analytics system like Quic, and display the results as a chart that will be editable within a document or presentation, then it will be worth considering trying to make it 'roughly equivalent' to Office.
and some are leagues better (Firefox).
Widely used on Windows.
The problem is with the Unix architecture; relying on the X clipboard or ASCII pipes makes it very hard for any app running on a Unix to do what Excel can do.
If Pixar are tackling Up, but I guess they're a bit more avant-garde than I thought.
I kind of hope they don't use the original cast.
Oh yeah- I refuse to honor ANY copyright held by a corporation.
Bless!
Only a writer or painter or other artist should hold a copyright.
Think about how that might work with, say, an instruction manual.
An instruction manual with, say, 200 contributors (like the service manual for a Boeing 737).
Each of those 200 content creators would have a share of the copyright. To print a new copy of the manual, you'd need to get permission from each of them -- or their descendants.
Of course, you might say you were only referring to Art with a capital A. In that case, let's consider a movie like Event Horizon. I'd say about 50 people had major creative input into that. Perhaps the right to distribute the movie to a given theatre should be split between all 50?
But the practical problem is only really the *small* half of the stupidity contained in the post above. You're saying that artists should not be able to sell their copyrights. That they should only be able to make a living by distributing their own works -- that artist and publisher must be combined into one role. That nobody should be allowed to buy the rights to creative work on spec, thus nurturing and publicizing new talent.
I refuse to honor ANY copyright held by a corporation.
So 6 guys get together and form Little Green Man Entertainment Ltd and make a computer game and sell it. But not to *you*. No, *you* pirate it because you refuse to honor any copyright held by a corporation. To buy these guy's game would compromise your *principles*.
Maybe if they all shared the copyright, rather than giving it to their company, you'd shell out the 20 bucks. But not until then. Because *you* are making a *stand*.
I assume that if they sold the copyright to a larger, multinational company so they could get on with making the next game rather than publishing, then your rage and bafflement would tower *even higher*. The mind boggles.
I refuse to honor ANY copyright held by a corporation.
Rarr!
A counter-reformation would surely be an attempt to reform, improve and streamline the existing establishment -- partly in response to defections in favor of newer and more effective establishments.
What we have here seems to be more of an anti-reformation. Unlike the actual counter-reformation it seems unlikely to lead to any advances in painting, music or astronomy. Quite the reverse really.
It'd be really interesting to use a site like this to try and determine how people's sense of humor (and response to jokes, which isn't the same thing) clusters.
It's hard in this case though because the jokes are so old and tend to fit closely to five or six templates. Because this means they have very little impact, I tried rating them based on how funny I thought they would be if they were new to me and expressed a bit more concisely, which I found a complicated exercise.
If this thing could be loaded with new jokes, or at least varied jokes, it'd be very interesting to observe the results. for example, would we find that people who like gender-stereotype jokes also like lawyer jokes? Would we find that people who like engineering jokes also like pun-based jokes?
Alas, without a system for users to submit their own jokes I don't think there's enough data in the system to get useful results out of it.
P.S. Shakespeare walks into a pub. And the barman says, "Sorry, you're bard."
P.P.S. So this bear walks into a bar, and the bear says "I'd like a......... beer, please." And the barman says "What's with the big pause?"
P.P.P.S. So this woman walks into a bar, and asks for a double entendre. So the barman gives her one.
I know that, but I don't see how to conceal dynamic memory allocation that way -- that's why I noted that you'd have to allocate memory statically, eg by padding the DLL, and then use it at runtime via some clever trick, and I don't see either how that can be worth bothering with or any sign that IE does it.
Is there a reference giving actual evidence for the original claim?
Can you go into more detail / give a reference? I don't understand what you mean by 'hidden in system DLLs'. System DLLs get loaded into the appropriate area of memory and shared by applications -- I don't see how to conceal dynamically allocated memory in them. I suppose you could include a DLL with your application, pad it out with 500mb of zeroes, and install it into a system directory, then load it and use the zeroes for storage while your application is running, but I have a hard time believing that anyone would bother to do that.