Any fool can code Perl, just like any fool can code PHP/C/Java/VB/Smalltalk/COBOL etc. etc.
Anyone can write code, but very few can write really great code, that reduces the problem to the essential elements and uses the simplest approach to the problem, with the tool (i.e. language) in hand.
You can write shit code in ANY language. You can also write good code in ANY language (within the limitations of the language).
What you're saying is like "Spanish for People who can't speak in German".
It's nonsense and insulting at the same time.
You need to express yourself or solve the problem within the framework of the language you have.
You might choose a different language for a particular task, but if the language is a given, a good poet (or programmer) will make the best of it.
A better language doesn't make one a better programmer (or poet).
Works good enough - in fact can't really see much improvement more recent versions of Word and Excel for the kind of things most people use the application for in my organization.
True, but surely the injected code needs to do something meaningful with the running environment (OS and Apps) unless it just wants to lock up or crash the machine.
"Liked Macs when they still pushed performance over style"
When was that?
Apple have always put a premium on style and their performance per buck was always behind the curve - even since the original 68000 Macintosh. You had one because it was cool, not for blistering performance.
I don't think the underlying CPU architecture is much of an issue.
Most malware exploits flaws in the operating system and applications - not the hardware architecture.
I have heard this FUD from various Mac-heads (pissed at the change from PPC) that they are suddenly going to be swimming in malware due to a chip change. It's nonsense.
The term 'Hacking' now seems to mean any form of mild experimentation or improvisation outside of the scope that the product manufacturer had envisaged.
Since 1.5 Firefox has been a complete bugfest - esp. printing web pages.
Have you ever tried printing (or even print preview) with the later FF releases?
Infested with bugs if putting it mildly! It seems to handle 'old-school' HTML ok but standards-compliant stuff just gets mangled (e.g. XHTML 1.0 + CSS 2.0).
Please. Don't some lamer tell me I need a different stylesheet for print - I KNOW THAT! But FF 1.5.x crashes, hangs and loops when trying to print even simple stuff.
Don't tell me 'report the bugs' coz I do and guess what - they never get fixed!
- Malmesbury & Duke, 'Tech Stuff for Morons' series, 1998
Other titles in the renowned M&D catalogue include: -
- "Make Your Own Canoe from Chicken Wire", 1982 - "The Importance of Pig Iron in Modern Aviation design", 1990 - "1001 Cajun dishes featuring raw sewage", 2005
Your post is so lame I hardly know where to begin.
Whatever you thing about MS and its business practices, the Gates Foundation has given away more money than any other charity in history.
The man is giving away his PERSONAL WEALTH and ultimately, plans to give nearly all of it away.
He's helping to eradicate diseases and poverty in a way that most nations and governments should be doing, but never quite seem to get around to.
What have you done to help pal?
Yeah, not much - just like me.
Give the man some credit for Christ's sakes! Just what does Gates have to do to get any karma around here?
If he was a greedy man (like say, GWB and his oil chronies, or Rupert Murdoch) then you'd have a point, but calling Gates an 'Anti Philanthropist' is too absurd for words.
Gates is the biggest philanthropist the world has ever seen.
I think parent comment summarizes (in the proverbial nutshell) peoples reactions to major and potentially catastophic events.
Ignore it long enough, and it will "go away".
Well, it won't go away, but ignore it long enough and our window of opportunity to do anything about the problem will have vanished - and we're all powerless and blameless.
Sorry kids (and grand kids, and great great great grand kids etc.)! We fucked you with our own greed and short-term thinking.
Sorry 'bout that,
Pops!
Re:A bit like "Wicked Cool Accountancy"
on
Wicked Cool Java
·
· Score: 1
I think you might have something there Adam.
Get in touch with a publisher - pronto.
A bit like "Wicked Cool Accountancy"
on
Wicked Cool Java
·
· Score: 5, Funny
They don't give you affection, or warmth, or interaction, or any meaningful eye contact.
They don't bark, mew or squeek at you in an upredictable way.
They don't display odd moods, bouts of energy or lethargy, or sudden bursts of totally mad sillyness, like most real animals do.
They don't form relationships with each other, or breed.
Maybe all of these things could be simulated, but it doesn't matter. If you have any empathy with living creatures at all, then you could see the yawning chasm of difference.
A living being is much more than a bunch of 'meat components' running some complex program.
Those who would have it otherwise seem to me like the early cosmologists who thought the solar system (and the universe in general) could be modelled by a cunning arrangement of brass cogs, spindles and gears.
Also, I wonder at those who could possibly feel the same degree of affection and empathy towards a machine as they could with a real, flesh and blood dog, cat, horse, gerbill etc. Something wrong there, surely.
I've always understood the motivation of virus/trojan writers is either make a 'name' for themselves amongst their peers or to profit illegally in some way (by stealing information, creating botnets etc.).
If these are their primary motivations, they are going to go after the the biggest user base and the software environment with the most potential points of weakness (i.e. Windows).
Windows has a massive codebase and the goals of flexibility, backward-compatibility and ease-of-use also add to the potential 'exploitability' of the platform.
Viruses, worms and trojans can (and have) been written for every flavor of MacOS and *NIX, but what's the point, other than for proof of concept? Like advertisers, virus writers go for maximum exposure, and right now, that means Windows.
I don't automatically knock Windows at every turn and I think, on the whole, it does its job very well. But it's the 'weakest link' principal. With such a large castle to defend, there are many more points of vulnerability. The WMF exploit (a legacy code weakness that was never properly reviewed) points this up nicely.
If I were some kind of no-life blackhat, or a criminal, I wouldn't be wasting my time targeting OS-X or Linux when there are far more lucrative prospects.
Slashdot Mirror
Any fool can code Perl, just like any fool can code PHP/C/Java/VB/Smalltalk/COBOL etc. etc.
Anyone can write code, but very few can write really great code, that reduces the problem to the essential elements and uses the simplest approach to the problem, with the tool (i.e. language) in hand.
You can write shit code in ANY language. You can also write good code in ANY language (within the limitations of the language).
What you're saying is like "Spanish for People who can't speak in German".
It's nonsense and insulting at the same time.
You need to express yourself or solve the problem within the framework of the language you have.
You might choose a different language for a particular task, but if the language is a given, a good poet (or programmer) will make the best of it.
A better language doesn't make one a better programmer (or poet).
...on some low-power laptops under Win98 or W2K.
Works good enough - in fact can't really see much improvement more recent versions of Word and Excel for the kind of things most people use the application for in my organization.
What's with the PURPLE thing.
Is PURPLE a code for:
"I have no sense of humor whatsoever and can't understand jokes unless they are very, very litteral and obvious and explained to me very slowly"
Well - no shit Sherlock!
True, but surely the injected code needs to do something meaningful with the running environment (OS and Apps) unless it just wants to lock up or crash the machine.
Is that a bit like Your Own Personal Jesus?
Yeah, I see what you're saying GP but those were somewhat atypical Macs.
Even so, with exception of the Daystar clone, they were still reasonably stylish compared to the Wintel beige boxes.
http://www.virgin-atlantic.com/
"Liked Macs when they still pushed performance over style"
When was that?
Apple have always put a premium on style and their performance per buck was always behind the curve - even since the original 68000 Macintosh. You had one because it was cool, not for blistering performance.
I don't think the underlying CPU architecture is much of an issue.
Most malware exploits flaws in the operating system and applications - not the hardware architecture.
I have heard this FUD from various Mac-heads (pissed at the change from PPC) that they are suddenly going to be swimming in malware due to a chip change. It's nonsense.
But, I don't think OS X users have too much to worry about yet.
Might be good in a way - to shake some people out of the complacent "OS X is invulnerable" mindset.
The term 'Hacking' now seems to mean any form of mild experimentation or improvisation outside of the scope that the product manufacturer had envisaged.
Wow! How cool is this hacking thing????
Well, yes probably.
Since 1.5 Firefox has been a complete bugfest - esp. printing web pages.
Have you ever tried printing (or even print preview) with the later FF releases?
Infested with bugs if putting it mildly! It seems to handle 'old-school' HTML ok but standards-compliant stuff just gets mangled (e.g. XHTML 1.0 + CSS 2.0).
Please. Don't some lamer tell me I need a different stylesheet for print - I KNOW THAT! But FF 1.5.x crashes, hangs and loops when trying to print even simple stuff.
Don't tell me 'report the bugs' coz I do and guess what - they never get fixed!
"Ultra-Stable Software Design in C++"
- Malmesbury & Duke, 'Tech Stuff for Morons' series, 1998
Other titles in the renowned M&D catalogue include: -
- "Make Your Own Canoe from Chicken Wire", 1982
- "The Importance of Pig Iron in Modern Aviation design", 1990
- "1001 Cajun dishes featuring raw sewage", 2005
A great series. I have a bookcase full of 'em.
Your post is so lame I hardly know where to begin.
Whatever you thing about MS and its business practices, the Gates Foundation has given away more money than any other charity in history.
The man is giving away his PERSONAL WEALTH and ultimately, plans to give nearly all of it away.
He's helping to eradicate diseases and poverty in a way that most nations and governments should be doing, but never quite seem to get around to.
What have you done to help pal?
Yeah, not much - just like me.
Give the man some credit for Christ's sakes! Just what does Gates have to do to get any karma around here?
If he was a greedy man (like say, GWB and his oil chronies, or Rupert Murdoch) then you'd have a point, but calling Gates an 'Anti Philanthropist' is too absurd for words.
Gates is the biggest philanthropist the world has ever seen.
Credit where it's due maybe?
I think parent comment summarizes (in the proverbial nutshell) peoples reactions to major and potentially catastophic events.
Ignore it long enough, and it will "go away".
Well, it won't go away, but ignore it long enough and our window of opportunity to do anything about the problem will have vanished - and we're all powerless and blameless.
Sorry kids (and grand kids, and great great great grand kids etc.)! We fucked you with our own greed and short-term thinking.
Sorry 'bout that,
Pops!
I think you might have something there Adam.
Get in touch with a publisher - pronto.
or "Wicked Cool Philately"
Sure!
Other 'advantages' include...
They don't give you affection, or warmth, or interaction, or any meaningful eye contact.
They don't bark, mew or squeek at you in an upredictable way.
They don't display odd moods, bouts of energy or lethargy, or sudden bursts of totally mad sillyness, like most real animals do.
They don't form relationships with each other, or breed.
Maybe all of these things could be simulated, but it doesn't matter. If you have any empathy with living creatures at all, then you could see the yawning chasm of difference.
Perhaps you'd like to take a Stepford Wife!
>> I wonder how much an electric sheep would cost...
Only slightly more than a wind-up one!
A living being is much more than a bunch of 'meat components' running some complex program.
Those who would have it otherwise seem to me like the early cosmologists who thought the solar system (and the universe in general) could be modelled by a cunning arrangement of brass cogs, spindles and gears.
Also, I wonder at those who could possibly feel the same degree of affection and empathy towards a machine as they could with a real, flesh and blood dog, cat, horse, gerbill etc. Something wrong there, surely.
"inflict the maximum possible casualties appropriate for the situation"
Just how many human beings have to die an agonizing death to be "appropriate for the situation" exactly?
Jeezus! I wouldn't want to be inside your head for very long buddy.
Regarding IP, he probably would have said:
a dor_dali.html%5D
"Those who do not want to imitate anything, produce nothing."
[http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/s/salv
Can't you just see it?
...and so on!
"Why bother ENLARGING your PENIS when you can simply STOP feeling INADEQUATE about it?"
I imagine they are pretty few and far between.
I've always understood the motivation of virus/trojan writers is either make a 'name' for themselves amongst their peers or to profit illegally in some way (by stealing information, creating botnets etc.).
If these are their primary motivations, they are going to go after the the biggest user base and the software environment with the most potential points of weakness (i.e. Windows).
Windows has a massive codebase and the goals of flexibility, backward-compatibility and ease-of-use also add to the potential 'exploitability' of the platform.
Viruses, worms and trojans can (and have) been written for every flavor of MacOS and *NIX, but what's the point, other than for proof of concept? Like advertisers, virus writers go for maximum exposure, and right now, that means Windows.
I don't automatically knock Windows at every turn and I think, on the whole, it does its job very well. But it's the 'weakest link' principal. With such a large castle to defend, there are many more points of vulnerability. The WMF exploit (a legacy code weakness that was never properly reviewed) points this up nicely.
If I were some kind of no-life blackhat, or a criminal, I wouldn't be wasting my time targeting OS-X or Linux when there are far more lucrative prospects.