As a holdover from my DOS days, I have this aversion to spaces in my filenames, so nothing I write has them. Assuming even moderate control over they system you're administering, it should be easy to make SURE that anything with %20 in it is, if not an attack, anomalous.
I'll expand that with a specific example from my own case - 99% of windows apps there have an Exit item in the File menu, with X as the hotkey for it. So alt-F, X will close the app. (Properly, which Alt-F4 will not always do, depending on app and windows version).
The HUGE exception, which always pisses me off is IE and Windows Explorer - apparently some moron at MS decided that since theres are "part of the OS", you Close them, rather than eXiting. And I work constantly with both of these apps, and it's annoying as all hell to remember the shift. Oddly, using Atl-F, C to close a window a SDI app is no problem at all - I suppose it has to do with the mindset (In the one case, I'm closing a subset but keeping the app open, in another I'm closing the entire app)
Okay, sure. But maybe, just maybe, if you're a poor, understaffed, overworked team of programmers beset on all sides by evil Lunix hackers who will steal all your hard work, you SHOULDN'T CREATE AND MARKET A UNIVERSAL IDENTITY STORE. I dunno, call me crazy...
Have you ever seen any really good, usefull documentation without source code examples? Code is the best way to express coding practices. Plain english examples just aren't good enough.
The OEM licensing is the key - Look at OSX - thats a really, really great OS. If a large computer pumped the same amount of money and work into a Linux shell as Apple did into OSX, you could easily have an open-source OS thats capable of competing with windows, both in features and ease of use. But you'd never get it out there because OEMs don't want to lose thier windows license - it'd take a company the size of Dell to take a HUGE leap and be willing to lose thier MS contract in order to support this new OS. I don't see that happening, especially not in the current climate. But THAT is what will break the MS monopoly. Well, that and open Office file formats.
Except that this isn't supposed to be a negotiation, this is a CRIMINAL SENTENCING! They don't (well, shouldn't) have ANY say in what happens. They can ask, but saying that they "refuse to accept" is ballsy and arrogant at best.
Nah, it makes sense. After all, didn't "we" (Good Christian god-fearing folk) kill them there ragheads in the crusades? And all terrorist are rag-heads and all rag-heads are terrorists, right? So it's a crusade.
Yeah, but magnetic fields are a well-known side effect of alien space ships. So when you're in the jungle and the UFO drops down, it'll wipe all your flash cards, while Joe Luddite with his film will get the proof shots and become famous.
Thats an arguable and very subjective point. I for one can write MUCH easier on a computer. The immersion is purely a factor of how used to and comfortable with something you are.
How is this not a problem today? Indexing is always an issue for any sort of data storage. Right now, you have a big can with film in it labled "Dubya state of the union address, February 30th, 2001". With digital, you have a rack of memory cards labled "Dubya state of the union address, Februray 30th, 2004." Whats the difference
You mean like running so long that thier hearts explode instead of telling the guy riding them to screw off, or drinking too much water after a long run and distending thier stomach to the point where they die?
We got tons of mail from people saying that they can't (usefully) get at our website. However, when we look at our logs, we see almost noone on these platforms viewing our website, so they're statistically insignificant.
Of course, if they can't few your website, they aren't gonna be browsing around, which means that they aren't gonna generate much in your logs. Seems like you've got a nice wall there to keep from making any changes to your website. In any case, regardless of what your logs say, if you get "loads" of mail about not being able to view your website, shouldn't you at least investigate WHY they can't view it?
Well, I notice you don't quote the article, but rather the parent post, which I did indeed read. However, assuming that the people at HardOCP are not utter morons, then they might likely have done what I suggested, and the original poster simply was wrong or unclear. Something that seems to happen plenty. And yes, I did check the HardOCP site, but don't see the article on the current main page or in the most recent archive, and have better things to do that browse the archives looking for it.
What they really mean is a PARTIAL known-plaintext attack, where you know or can guess certain words or phrases and use those to crack the rest of the message. This is where cryptography gets away from mathematics and into intelligence - when a message was sent, where it was sent from, who was sending it - all these things are helpful/needed to crack codes.
Oh, bah. Just flaming now.
I'm not an anti-gun nut. I'm an anti-stupid-people nut. As for 200 years making a differnece: There is NO WAY a civilian populace is going to be able to stand up to a governemt tyranny without military hardware. Yes or no question: Do you believe that your ordinary, every day civilian needs and deserves access to military-grade weapons hardware?
I confess I've not seen a whole lot of statistics about crimes prevented because of the victims being armed, my views on this are from my own personal experience - an untrained person just isn't capable of using (any) sort of self-defense technique properly. Pepper spray and rape whistles are about the limit for Joe(and Jane) six pack. I'll do some research. Care to provide refrences to this FBI study?
I don't really agree that gun ownership is a fundamental right - but I don't dispute it, either. Let it be enough to say that I don't feel the need to own one and wouldn't really care if I didn't have the right. I also don't care enough about it to fight for others peoples rights to own one, the way I do about free speech and privacy. For the sake of argument, I will grant that it IS a fundamental right. However, I don't think that precludes training being mandatory. Most (not all) of your quotes refer to TRAINED militia - even the second amendment itself. It doesn't say anything about paranoid baby boomers getting a.357 from a hardware store and keeping it in the liquor cabinet.
I still say theres no practical reason to own a gun. If you want to own one anyway, thats your right. But before you get to, you should have to prove that you know how to safely handle, use, and store one.
Well, I can't claim to have read the article in question. But it seems reasonable to me that they were doing exactyl what you said, working with it plugged into a powered-down powerstrip, and the "thing they hit" reaching across the desk was the switch on the powerstrip.
You'll notice a common thread amongst your quotes - training. I'm not for restricting the ownership of guns. I'm for requiring training and licensing for gun owners. I should also point out that, at the time, military service was nothing something generally looked on with pride, except by officers, who were (almost?) always nobility. In fact, it was a fairly common punishment for minor crimes. Hence the bias against a standing army.
As to my wisdom being greater than the framers of the consitution - well, theres a few things that I like to keep in mind. One, today is alot different than 200 years ago. And two, I like to do my own thinking. That doesn't mean I'm wiser than they were. But I think for damn sure I can say things that are more relevent today. Lastly, writers 200 years ago used exageration, FUD, and all the other tricks you see in modern press releases as much as we do today. Don't think that because it's writtin in archaic english that it's somehow more correct.
The founders had no way of knowing what kind of military technogoly would be created - should Joe Six-pack be able to buy and use rocket launchers? Tanks? Napalm? All these are "... swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier." Training and licensing of weapons is a fairly rational thing to do, right up there with licensing people to drive. If you're blind, retarded(in the medical sense, mind) or diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, then you shouldn't be owning a gun. Just as you shouldn't be driving. Really, where's the harm in limiting (civilian) gun ownershp to "reasonable" weapons, and requiring that anyone who (legally) owns one has had proper training in it's use, the legal circumstances surrounding it's use, and proper safety?
Well, I didn't want to get TOO offtopic. The basic argument is that owning a gun is an illusion of safety, because in the circumstances when you'd actually need one to protect yourself, a vanishingly minor percentage of people will both have the gun available and be able to use it effectively and within legal limits. Contrarily, someone carrying a gun on them at all times, without the extensive training that professionals have, is MUCH more likely to pull it and fire in response to a percieved threat rather than a real one. Final argument: Pulling a gun on someone, even shooting someone(often without lethal effect) will scale a confrontation that would have been non-lethal and fairly minor to something much more serious.
I prefer to translate it "thou shalt not kill, except for the bad people". The murder/kill argument is semantics. We use the phrase "murder" to make killing okay by comparision. It's still people dying.
a drives marketing size is often based off of on megabyte == 1000 kilobytes and i gigabyte == 1000 megabytes, not the more technically correct 1024. It also will usually say this in a disclaimer somewhere.
Anyway, it's not just Apple.
It's still murder. It's just okay. For a given value of okay.
One of the defining characteristics of a a government is that it reserves the right to kill it's own citizens...
Slashdot Mirror
As a holdover from my DOS days, I have this aversion to spaces in my filenames, so nothing I write has them. Assuming even moderate control over they system you're administering, it should be easy to make SURE that anything with %20 in it is, if not an attack, anomalous.
Thief and Thief 2 (and System Shock 2) are based on the Dark Engine, not the Quake engine :)
The title on the box is Star Wars (no subtitle). However, in the opening text, it clearly says "Episode IV: A New Hope".
That is all.
I'll expand that with a specific example from my own case - 99% of windows apps there have an Exit item in the File menu, with X as the hotkey for it. So alt-F, X will close the app. (Properly, which Alt-F4 will not always do, depending on app and windows version).
The HUGE exception, which always pisses me off is IE and Windows Explorer - apparently some moron at MS decided that since theres are "part of the OS", you Close them, rather than eXiting. And I work constantly with both of these apps, and it's annoying as all hell to remember the shift. Oddly, using Atl-F, C to close a window a SDI app is no problem at all - I suppose it has to do with the mindset (In the one case, I'm closing a subset but keeping the app open, in another I'm closing the entire app)
This is also why mice now have scroll wheels.
Okay, sure. But maybe, just maybe, if you're a poor, understaffed, overworked team of programmers beset on all sides by evil Lunix hackers who will steal all your hard work, you SHOULDN'T CREATE AND MARKET A UNIVERSAL IDENTITY STORE. I dunno, call me crazy...
Does anyone but me think that the Copyright notice at the bottom of the settelment is kinda funny?
Have you ever seen any really good, usefull documentation without source code examples? Code is the best way to express coding practices. Plain english examples just aren't good enough.
The OEM licensing is the key - Look at OSX - thats a really, really great OS. If a large computer pumped the same amount of money and work into a Linux shell as Apple did into OSX, you could easily have an open-source OS thats capable of competing with windows, both in features and ease of use. But you'd never get it out there because OEMs don't want to lose thier windows license - it'd take a company the size of Dell to take a HUGE leap and be willing to lose thier MS contract in order to support this new OS. I don't see that happening, especially not in the current climate. But THAT is what will break the MS monopoly. Well, that and open Office file formats.
Except that this isn't supposed to be a negotiation, this is a CRIMINAL SENTENCING! They don't (well, shouldn't) have ANY say in what happens. They can ask, but saying that they "refuse to accept" is ballsy and arrogant at best.
Nah, it makes sense. After all, didn't "we" (Good Christian god-fearing folk) kill them there ragheads in the crusades? And all terrorist are rag-heads and all rag-heads are terrorists, right? So it's a crusade.
Yeah, but magnetic fields are a well-known side effect of alien space ships. So when you're in the jungle and the UFO drops down, it'll wipe all your flash cards, while Joe Luddite with his film will get the proof shots and become famous.
Thats an arguable and very subjective point. I for one can write MUCH easier on a computer. The immersion is purely a factor of how used to and comfortable with something you are.
How is this not a problem today? Indexing is always an issue for any sort of data storage. Right now, you have a big can with film in it labled "Dubya state of the union address, February 30th, 2001". With digital, you have a rack of memory cards labled "Dubya state of the union address, Februray 30th, 2004." Whats the difference
You mean like running so long that thier hearts explode instead of telling the guy riding them to screw off, or drinking too much water after a long run and distending thier stomach to the point where they die?
We got tons of mail from people saying that they can't (usefully) get at our website. However, when we look at our logs, we see almost noone on these platforms viewing our website, so they're statistically insignificant.
Of course, if they can't few your website, they aren't gonna be browsing around, which means that they aren't gonna generate much in your logs. Seems like you've got a nice wall there to keep from making any changes to your website. In any case, regardless of what your logs say, if you get "loads" of mail about not being able to view your website, shouldn't you at least investigate WHY they can't view it?Well, I notice you don't quote the article, but rather the parent post, which I did indeed read. However, assuming that the people at HardOCP are not utter morons, then they might likely have done what I suggested, and the original poster simply was wrong or unclear. Something that seems to happen plenty. And yes, I did check the HardOCP site, but don't see the article on the current main page or in the most recent archive, and have better things to do that browse the archives looking for it.
What they really mean is a PARTIAL known-plaintext attack, where you know or can guess certain words or phrases and use those to crack the rest of the message. This is where cryptography gets away from mathematics and into intelligence - when a message was sent, where it was sent from, who was sending it - all these things are helpful/needed to crack codes.
Oh, bah. Just flaming now. .357 from a hardware store and keeping it in the liquor cabinet.
I'm not an anti-gun nut. I'm an anti-stupid-people nut. As for 200 years making a differnece: There is NO WAY a civilian populace is going to be able to stand up to a governemt tyranny without military hardware. Yes or no question: Do you believe that your ordinary, every day civilian needs and deserves access to military-grade weapons hardware?
I confess I've not seen a whole lot of statistics about crimes prevented because of the victims being armed, my views on this are from my own personal experience - an untrained person just isn't capable of using (any) sort of self-defense technique properly. Pepper spray and rape whistles are about the limit for Joe(and Jane) six pack. I'll do some research. Care to provide refrences to this FBI study?
I don't really agree that gun ownership is a fundamental right - but I don't dispute it, either. Let it be enough to say that I don't feel the need to own one and wouldn't really care if I didn't have the right. I also don't care enough about it to fight for others peoples rights to own one, the way I do about free speech and privacy. For the sake of argument, I will grant that it IS a fundamental right. However, I don't think that precludes training being mandatory. Most (not all) of your quotes refer to TRAINED militia - even the second amendment itself. It doesn't say anything about paranoid baby boomers getting a
I still say theres no practical reason to own a gun. If you want to own one anyway, thats your right. But before you get to, you should have to prove that you know how to safely handle, use, and store one.
Well, I can't claim to have read the article in question. But it seems reasonable to me that they were doing exactyl what you said, working with it plugged into a powered-down powerstrip, and the "thing they hit" reaching across the desk was the switch on the powerstrip.
As to my wisdom being greater than the framers of the consitution - well, theres a few things that I like to keep in mind. One, today is alot different than 200 years ago. And two, I like to do my own thinking. That doesn't mean I'm wiser than they were. But I think for damn sure I can say things that are more relevent today. Lastly, writers 200 years ago used exageration, FUD, and all the other tricks you see in modern press releases as much as we do today. Don't think that because it's writtin in archaic english that it's somehow more correct.
The founders had no way of knowing what kind of military technogoly would be created - should Joe Six-pack be able to buy and use rocket launchers? Tanks? Napalm? All these are "... swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier." Training and licensing of weapons is a fairly rational thing to do, right up there with licensing people to drive. If you're blind, retarded(in the medical sense, mind) or diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, then you shouldn't be owning a gun. Just as you shouldn't be driving. Really, where's the harm in limiting (civilian) gun ownershp to "reasonable" weapons, and requiring that anyone who (legally) owns one has had proper training in it's use, the legal circumstances surrounding it's use, and proper safety?
Well, I didn't want to get TOO offtopic. The basic argument is that owning a gun is an illusion of safety, because in the circumstances when you'd actually need one to protect yourself, a vanishingly minor percentage of people will both have the gun available and be able to use it effectively and within legal limits. Contrarily, someone carrying a gun on them at all times, without the extensive training that professionals have, is MUCH more likely to pull it and fire in response to a percieved threat rather than a real one. Final argument: Pulling a gun on someone, even shooting someone(often without lethal effect) will scale a confrontation that would have been non-lethal and fairly minor to something much more serious.
I prefer to translate it "thou shalt not kill, except for the bad people". The murder/kill argument is semantics. We use the phrase "murder" to make killing okay by comparision. It's still people dying.
a drives marketing size is often based off of on megabyte == 1000 kilobytes and i gigabyte == 1000 megabytes, not the more technically correct 1024. It also will usually say this in a disclaimer somewhere.
Anyway, it's not just Apple.
It's still murder. It's just okay. For a given value of okay.
One of the defining characteristics of a a government is that it reserves the right to kill it's own citizens...