Actually I am an engineer, and I write code specifically dealing with security issues.
The problem is that when you get emotional, it clouds judgement and you make mistakes. You often make the problem worse.
Look at how irrational parents can become when "protecting their little baby".
This is exactly the wrong mindset to have when dealing with security issues.
Think about the real pros - test pilots, ER doctors, etc. If you get emotional and take things personally, you fuck up big time. The real pros stay calm, cool headed, and work the problem.
It's possible to be passionate about a project, but if you get redfaced when confronted with criticism of your project, it indicates you have real ego problems.
Matt Thomlinson, whose job it is to help make Microsoft engineers create more secure code, noticed that some of the engineers were turning red, becoming obviously angry at the demo hacking incident.
To me, this is very telling about those engineers' beliefs and attitudes about their own code. It also speaks volumes about their skill (and their personal belief about their own skill levels).
Real engineers fix problems, they don't get emotional.
It doesnt take a Ph.D to understand that both grandparent and you are both completely wrong.
Grandparent claimed Intel is (present tense!) reluctant to release ISA documentation because AMD and other x86 clonemakers duplicated their ISA in the past.
Wrong.
Intel is not (that darned present tense again!) reluctant to release ISA documentation.
Implementing the "secret" extensions in Appendix H wasn't required for a fully functional and even nicely competetive x86 clone.
And apparently Intel has learned their lesson -- if you dont document your chip, nobody will use those features. So, big freaking advantage it gets you. Woo woo, supar sekrit extensions nobody uses!
And if anyone does use those supar sekrit features, they will soon be revealed by anyone browsing through the disassembled object code, which happens often.
Intel has never published details on microcode except how to load it.
The grandparent explicitly stated ISA, and the fact that AMD and everyone else copied it.
There's no microcode system for any AMD or Cyrix or any other x86 clone for that matter, but that hasn't stopped anyone from doing what the grandparent was posting about - copying the ISA. Microcode is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Without releasing ISA documentation, people can't program your fucking CPU. Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly what Intel wants -- nobody to code for it. Great business plan. Where do I sign up?
Interesting? Jesus christ on a cracker, the mods are fucked up today.
apple did the UI studies in the 80s. old macos followed the guidelines strictly.
but notice OSX dumps all the well established apple UI guidelines in favor of eye candy and poor designs. apple's own applications violate their own guidelines in some cases, and for no good reason.
the OSX guidelines are all subjective now, gumdrop buttons and brushed metal and other crap. violating decades of well established and carefully researched UI guidelines.
Yeah because 68k->ppc and fat binaries so obviously destroyed apple.
And for those of you who didn't use macs back then, 68k emulation on ppc was much slower than native 68k. The first powerpcs (66mhz 601) simply weren't fast enough - there were no eg 2ghz G5s back then. A modern mac emulates 68k faster yes, but back then -- no.
Slashdot Mirror
Theo's big mouth will always end up biting him in the ass.
He continually runs off potential users with his assholeness - "good, we didn't need those lusers anyway".
And he fucked up bigtime when his big mouth cost him big grant money.
And he apparently still hasn't learned a single thing.
Actually I am an engineer, and I write code specifically dealing with security issues.
The problem is that when you get emotional, it clouds judgement and you make mistakes. You often make the problem worse.
Look at how irrational parents can become when "protecting their little baby".
This is exactly the wrong mindset to have when dealing with security issues.
Think about the real pros - test pilots, ER doctors, etc. If you get emotional and take things personally, you fuck up big time. The real pros stay calm, cool headed, and work the problem.
It's possible to be passionate about a project, but if you get redfaced when confronted with criticism of your project, it indicates you have real ego problems.
I suggest you contact the neopop and sdcc developers. Although this particular architecture appears completely dead now.
Saving face is exactly the wrong motivation to fix security problems.
If it takes public embarassment to get these engineers to take problems seriously, then they're totally fucked.
Matt Thomlinson, whose job it is to help make Microsoft engineers create more secure code, noticed that some of the engineers were turning red, becoming obviously angry at the demo hacking incident.
To me, this is very telling about those engineers' beliefs and attitudes about their own code. It also speaks volumes about their skill (and their personal belief about their own skill levels).
Real engineers fix problems, they don't get emotional.
To me, it's a far more fitting name.
...looks like they just bought broadcast rights for the episodes already made. I would have been happier if it were for a contract to make new ones.
strange, the developer of neopop claims the documentation was easily available.
i would assume he was able to get the ISA documentation -- after all, neopop emulates the cpu.
the tlcs900h is also one of the target architectures of sdcc so i assume they were able to get documentation also.
Tracking down the perp and criminally prosecuting them would be an option.
which sharp cpu would that be? the licensed arm7 one or the licensed arm9 one? aka sharp's "bluestreak" 16 and 32 bit MCUs.
both are very well documented with very well understood and widely supported ISAs.
It doesnt take a Ph.D to understand that both grandparent and you are both completely wrong.
Grandparent claimed Intel is (present tense!) reluctant to release ISA documentation because AMD and other x86 clonemakers duplicated their ISA in the past.
Wrong.
Intel is not (that darned present tense again!) reluctant to release ISA documentation.
Implementing the "secret" extensions in Appendix H wasn't required for a fully functional and even nicely competetive x86 clone.
And apparently Intel has learned their lesson -- if you dont document your chip, nobody will use those features. So, big freaking advantage it gets you. Woo woo, supar sekrit extensions nobody uses!
And if anyone does use those supar sekrit features, they will soon be revealed by anyone browsing through the disassembled object code, which happens often.
Nope.
Intel has never published details on microcode except how to load it.
The grandparent explicitly stated ISA , and the fact that AMD and everyone else copied it.
There's no microcode system for any AMD or Cyrix or any other x86 clone for that matter, but that hasn't stopped anyone from doing what the grandparent was posting about - copying the ISA. Microcode is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
I haven't seen an IC data sheet yet that doesn't have an internal schematic of the IC
Find me an internal schematic for this IC? That would be cool. Thanks.
Try to find internal schematics for even simple ICs like LCD controllers or audio chip. And no, block diagrams dont count as internal schematics.
Hell, you can't even find internal schematics for AC97 DACs.
Thing is, we're not asking for source code to the win32 driver or firmware source code or roms or verilog source for the chips.
We're just asking which pci registers to poke to get the chip to go "bleep".
So the 'source code' argument is totally out the window, irrelevant.
What. The. Fuck?
We recently went over this in my computer organization class.
You need to leave whatever school you're going to.
Immediately.
Seriously. It's obviously a complete waste of money. Do it now before your head gets any more messed up.
Intel is reluctant to release their ISA documentation
Nooooo they aren't.
Without releasing ISA documentation, people can't program your fucking CPU. Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly what Intel wants -- nobody to code for it. Great business plan. Where do I sign up?
Interesting? Jesus christ on a cracker, the mods are fucked up today.
real IDS use multiple hashes (md5,sha1,ripemd), not just one.
good luck finding a collision that works across multiple hash algorithms.
No, James Earl Jones could have throttled lucas to death, then rewrote and delivered his lines so they didn't suck.
So the blame ultimately lies with James Earl Jones. He blew his opportunity and SWIII is lesser because of it.
What a shame.
Actually, you should be very, very glad for that.
Miss porky and mr. manboobs is enough. Don't really need to see them nude.
Ugh.
Ugh. Miss porky and Mr. Manboobs. You better think again.
One thing I don't miss from the old series is the endless shots in quarries :-)
direct download links for convenience.
/.'s lameness filters.
windows media:
part one
part two
part three
part four
apple quicktime:
part one
part two
part three
part four
and a pig pile of doggie poo on
apple did the UI studies in the 80s. old macos followed the guidelines strictly.
but notice OSX dumps all the well established apple UI guidelines in favor of eye candy and poor designs. apple's own applications violate their own guidelines in some cases, and for no good reason.
the OSX guidelines are all subjective now, gumdrop buttons and brushed metal and other crap. violating decades of well established and carefully researched UI guidelines.
live stream. bleah. doesnt anyone have a downloadable link?
Yeah because 68k->ppc and fat binaries so obviously destroyed apple.
And for those of you who didn't use macs back then, 68k emulation on ppc was much slower than native 68k. The first powerpcs (66mhz 601) simply weren't fast enough - there were no eg 2ghz G5s back then. A modern mac emulates 68k faster yes, but back then -- no.
That's up to the vendors to decide, isn't it?
Or are you saying apple will impose and enforce a universal "you must charge money for x86 binaries" policy on vendors?