AutoRuns by Mark Russinovich and Bryce Cogswell is the ultimate tool for finding all of those startup applications and processes.
I don't think there is anything much that gets past AutoRuns.
The only thing is - it many items that are essential to the normal running of Windows and it can be quite hard to work out exactly what is essential and what is not. Give it a try though.
Even if you use a good cross platform toolkit like Qt or wxWidgets, the apps are still not *identical*.
Macintosh users will not thank you for making their applications identical to their MS Windows counterparts. Identical functionality - yes - but identical UI - no way.
I'm sure the same argument applies in the opposite direction. Windows applications that don't attach their menu to the top of each window are just plain annoying (the GIMP excepting of course).
I think you'll find that by prohibiting others from making derivitive works from your code (which is clearly a direct rip-off of Tassach's) you are violating Tassach's rights under the GPL. Of course, if you wrote yours first, then Tassach is violating your copyright by re-releasing your code under the GPL.
Of course this is an absurd argument. I rather think that was Tassach's point.
I've so far been lucky with a strategy of every party selecting a pseudo-ramdom number for the third block in 192.168.0.0/16, but sooner or later, conflicts will happen.
And people will work around these conflicts with software to automatically reconfigure themselves around the conflicts. I've already seen one VPN system (I can't remember which one) that transparently translates conflicting private IP addresses into different subnets on the fly.
So, like all the other 'problems' with IPv4 I don't think this 'problem' is going to drive the adoption of IPv4 either. We're just too good at coming up with kludges and workarounds.
That's orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned,
2. Orbital velocity of Earth round Sun 29.8 km/s.
The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see Are moving at a million miles a day
3. Motion of Solar neigbourhood around the Galaxy 200 km/s. (Mistake here? This is more like ten million miles a day or four hundred thousand miles an hour.)
Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars.
4. Number of stars in galaxy - could be at least 5 x 10^11 including all the low mass ones.
It's a hundred thousand light years side to side
5. Hard to define outer edge. At least 30000 parsecs.
It bulges in the middle, sixteen thousand light years thick
6. Somewhat high: more like 2000 parsecs - 6000 light years
But out by us, it's just three thousand light years wide.
7. Also high: thickness of disk near us is about 300 parsecs.
We're thirty thousand light years from galactic central point.
8. Latest estimates of distance to galactic centre: 8.7 kpc.
And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions
9. Only about 10^12 is the observable universe.
From Cambridge Natural Sciences Tripos part II lecture notes, 1990. I wonder if this syllabus is still being taught...
I was refering to ignorance of the law, which in English law at least, is no defence. You make a fair point though.
Personally, I agree with the majority of posters on this story that Google should just delist all sites that raise complaints but won't use the nocache directive.
Moreover, the majority of people putting content on websites have probably never heard of it [robots.txt]. Either of those facts alone should be enough to disqualify it as a serious suggestion in this context.
In law, ignorance is no defence. What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander...
There may well be some trickery to perform perspective correction when the film/sensor plane is not parallel to the target plane, but I cannot see any way this could make accurate measurements on a plane outside the target.
I wonder if you have misunderstood what is going on here.
The there is no connection between the bank and the card-reader that has been tampered with. As far as the bank is able to see, there has been a legitimate transaction for £2000. As far as the victim sees, the transaction is for only £20 (until he receives his statement one month later).
The point is: the actual transaction is £2000. The trickery is making the victim believe he is authorising a transaction of only £20 by presenting him with a fake terminal.
I believe also that this hack does not allow the card to be copied. My guess is that there is a one-time transaction code that the researchers cannot (yet) reproduce - remember this is a man-in-the-middle attack. That's why the victim's apparent authorisation of the £20 has to coincide with the real authorisation of the £2000.
I don't think I've ever read such shocking cynicism before.
There are things called friendship and trust.
If you are secretly storing up a list of 'ammunition' against people, then you are betraying that friendship and trust. (The only time I would consider it OK is if there is no trust to begin with.)
And, if it's never needed, then it's no blood no foul.
It is wrong to think that such a secret list will have no deleterious effect unless you actually decide to deploy it.
This is the same myth that 'private life' and 'public life' are separable entities. They are not. What you do secretly affects the way you think, which affects they way you act, which affects how you treat others. It just isn't possible to do something in private without it subtly (or not so subtly) affecting the public aspects of your life.
The really alarming thing is that the front page invites the user to download and run a Windows.exe file directly from a web site that he probably knows almost nothing about.
What should Windows users (or anyone else for that matter) never, ever, do? Repeat after me...
Especially Mac users have trouble because they have to do this as root user, which often is a concept unknown to them.
Huh? I'm sitting at my MacBook Pro right now. If I drag a file from the desktop into my/usr/local/lib finder window it just says "The item <whatever> could not be moved because "lib" cannot be modified." Then there are two buttons: Authenticate, and OK. If I then click Authenticate, it asks me to type an Administrator's name and password. Nothing here about a 'root user'. Furthermore, any Mac user who had no idea what an Administrator was would either already be one (its the default, sadly) or had his account created by someone who doesn't allow him to make alterations to/usr/local/lib anyway!
(By the way, you do know about shift-command-G in the Finder, don't you? I take it this is how you are directing the user to open/usr/local/lib.)
Nonsense. Anyone can buy music on a CD, from any CD retailer. Push it into the CD drive and up pops iTunes. 15 minutes later all the tracks are safely copied to your iPod.
My HP ink cartridge only works in my model of HP printer. Should that also be illegal?
Yes, it probably should be illegal for HP to make their printers only work with ink cartridges from HP--or at least it should be legal for competing companies to make HP-compatible cartridges.
Oops, I think that analogy is the wrong way round.
1. FairPlay-protected song <=> ink cartridge and 2. iPod <=> HP printer
Apple allow third-party mp3s to play on their iPod, but HP don't allow third-party ink cartridges in their printers.
If Apple prevented third-party mp3s playing on their iPods, then the situations would be analagous.
This is about as off-topic as it gets on Slashdot - shall we continue this discussion off-list? Please email my gmail account - user name ian.goldby, and I'll get back to you and say something about how I see the issues you raised. Cheers.
Except on books, where it [DRM] makes perfect sense.
It's already been done... at least in fiction. Jasper Fforde's book 'The Well of Lost Plots' describes just such a book. Thoroughly recommended and very funny.
Leaving aside additional resource requirements due to runtime interpreters and libraries such as used by Python/Java/etc, I think a great deal of bloat is actually due to bad software design - duplicated code, algorithms that are more complicated than necessary, coding for many special cases instead of taking time to work out a single ingenious general solution, etc. All of these things lead to errors, an increase in the code size and a reduciton in maintainability.
I'd never advocate throwing out array bounds checking. But I'd always advocate refactoring code to reduce complexity. Two completely different things.
Slashdot Mirror
AutoRuns by Mark Russinovich and Bryce Cogswell is the ultimate tool for finding all of those startup applications and processes.
I don't think there is anything much that gets past AutoRuns.
The only thing is - it many items that are essential to the normal running of Windows and it can be quite hard to work out exactly what is essential and what is not. Give it a try though.
I'm sure the same argument applies in the opposite direction. Windows applications that don't attach their menu to the top of each window are just plain annoying (the GIMP excepting of course).
I think you'll find that by prohibiting others from making derivitive works from your code (which is clearly a direct rip-off of Tassach's) you are violating Tassach's rights under the GPL. Of course, if you wrote yours first, then Tassach is violating your copyright by re-releasing your code under the GPL.
Of course this is an absurd argument. I rather think that was Tassach's point.
So, like all the other 'problems' with IPv4 I don't think this 'problem' is going to drive the adoption of IPv4 either. We're just too good at coming up with kludges and workarounds.
From Cambridge Natural Sciences Tripos part II lecture notes, 1990. I wonder if this syllabus is still being taught...
This reminds me of a story I heard about printing circuits on a sheet of pasta.
Pasta PCB
Once the protective coating is removed, the board quickly biodegrades, and the ICs and metal coatings can be easily reclaimed.
And here's a Pretty pasta picture
I was refering to ignorance of the law, which in English law at least, is no defence. You make a fair point though.
Personally, I agree with the majority of posters on this story that Google should just delist all sites that raise complaints but won't use the nocache directive.
A Google preference to exclude pages from search results that have the noarchive attribute would be ideal. I think that would satisfy everyone.
There may well be some trickery to perform perspective correction when the film/sensor plane is not parallel to the target plane, but I cannot see any way this could make accurate measurements on a plane outside the target.
I wonder if you have misunderstood what is going on here.
The there is no connection between the bank and the card-reader that has been tampered with. As far as the bank is able to see, there has been a legitimate transaction for £2000. As far as the victim sees, the transaction is for only £20 (until he receives his statement one month later).
The point is: the actual transaction is £2000. The trickery is making the victim believe he is authorising a transaction of only £20 by presenting him with a fake terminal.
I believe also that this hack does not allow the card to be copied. My guess is that there is a one-time transaction code that the researchers cannot (yet) reproduce - remember this is a man-in-the-middle attack. That's why the victim's apparent authorisation of the £20 has to coincide with the real authorisation of the £2000.
I doubt that Bill Thompson (the author) chose the image.
It was far more likely added by an editor.
There are things called friendship and trust.
If you are secretly storing up a list of 'ammunition' against people, then you are betraying that friendship and trust. (The only time I would consider it OK is if there is no trust to begin with.) It is wrong to think that such a secret list will have no deleterious effect unless you actually decide to deploy it.
This is the same myth that 'private life' and 'public life' are separable entities. They are not. What you do secretly affects the way you think, which affects they way you act, which affects how you treat others. It just isn't possible to do something in private without it subtly (or not so subtly) affecting the public aspects of your life.
The really alarming thing is that the front page invites the user to download and run a Windows .exe file directly from a web site that he probably knows almost nothing about.
What should Windows users (or anyone else for that matter) never, ever, do? Repeat after me...
(By the way, you do know about shift-command-G in the Finder, don't you? I take it this is how you are directing the user to open
Nonsense. Anyone can buy music on a CD, from any CD retailer. Push it into the CD drive and up pops iTunes. 15 minutes later all the tracks are safely copied to your iPod.
You could always talk to the people behind War on Terror - the Board Game. It sounds like they started from much the same position as you are in.
1. FairPlay-protected song <=> ink cartridge
and
2. iPod <=> HP printer
Apple allow third-party mp3s to play on their iPod, but HP don't allow third-party ink cartridges in their printers.
If Apple prevented third-party mp3s playing on their iPods, then the situations would be analagous.
The problem is that the BBC (like any broadcaster) will pick the three people who they think will be the most entertaining.
...
In this context, entertaining means controversial, argumentative, polarised in opinions, someone viewers can feel superior to.
It does not mean informed, measured, reasonable, articulate, persuasive,
ad digicam Claiming a proposition is true, and that you have the tapes to prove it.
This is about as off-topic as it gets on Slashdot - shall we continue this discussion off-list? Please email my gmail account - user name ian.goldby, and I'll get back to you and say something about how I see the issues you raised. Cheers.
I don't think we are saying dissimilar things.
Leaving aside additional resource requirements due to runtime interpreters and libraries such as used by Python/Java/etc, I think a great deal of bloat is actually due to bad software design - duplicated code, algorithms that are more complicated than necessary, coding for many special cases instead of taking time to work out a single ingenious general solution, etc. All of these things lead to errors, an increase in the code size and a reduciton in maintainability.
I'd never advocate throwing out array bounds checking. But I'd always advocate refactoring code to reduce complexity. Two completely different things.