It certainly did. The entire first season I found virtually intolerable, but near the beginning of the second, it seems like they got all new writers or something. Still not a "great" show IMHO, but quite enjoyable.
No worries though, I also make an attempt to stand between the darkness and the light. It's an impossible goal that is worth pursuing.
Re:Not a bad thing.
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I hear you, and do not disagree, but I think it is a bit up to interpretation.
I consider the OS to be the kernel and base set of libraries. For example, the Linux kernel and most or all of the LSB make up the "OS" for me. By themselves, they aren't particularly useful, they just idly sit by and await instructions.
I consider terminals, browsers, servers, and even essentials like GNU coreutils to simply be part of the distribution. In an open system, they are all optional and easily replaceable components. Likewise, in Windows, I consider IE, Media Player, and even Notepad and the base set of system services to part of the "Windows distribution," although in this situation they usually aren't as interchangeable as one might like.
It's almost odd that the line becomes very blurred when you exist day to day in a Microsoft monoculture, yet in a heterogeneous environment such as Linux, the layers are really very distinct.
Where it becomes really blurred (and interesting) is where applications such as the web browser itself serves no useful purpose without a network connection and content (or application code) to make it do something.
Re:Not a bad thing.
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I agree. I find it suspect that people are suggesting that an application is using more resources than the operating system in which said application runs. Especially when that very application provides a framework for other applications to run.
An "operating system" should, by its very nature, not "utilize" resources in and of itself, but simply partition and apportion them. Of course, I haven't R'd any FA's for a while. Perhaps they are talking about the myriad of services and built-in applications that are bundles with Windows.
That said, I find it very disappointing (although understandable) that both of these new browsers have been released for the only operating system I do not use professionally. I look forward to one day trying both of these new browsers outside of a VM.
I am interested in what problem space you are working with.
In some very extreme cases, I can see it being a requirement to work the way you are, but in most real-world code, what you suggest would be far simpler to maintain (for you AND others) if you would just take a few extra minutes to think about what your data structures need to be.
Just because you CAN, doesn't mean you SHOULD. If it is a one-off script to solve a complex problem, then you have my respect. If anyone else EVER has to grok your code, for any reason, then you are just incompetent:)
BTW, this is probably an incredibly stupid question, but I just want to clarify. "The fourth dimension" is such an incredibly loaded term. In the context of this article, it is referring to time, correct?
Assuming I am correct, I have always had a very simple theory I use to wrap my mind around it. Bear in mind I am a high-level programmer, not a quantum physicist. I think that we (humans) exist within the first three dimensions while we travel along the fourth. Hence we are aware of, and can, to some extent, measure the fourth, but it is very difficult to perceive it in any concrete manner.
Yeah, I know it sounds absurd, but I think doing something like this would have done two things:
1) It would have proved that he is not all talk. I was skeptical before, but now I know for sure that he is just more of the same. The only thing that sets him apart is that he is very well spoken. Clearly that is no longer one of the factors for the American people when electing a president.
2)) It would have proved he is willing to step over the partisan lines, if even in a most ridiculous fashion, to demonstrate that he really does want change at the base level. This system is so fucked, the only way to get change is to blow up the foundation.
To be honest, I now believe that this upcoming presidential election will be the *least* important in decades.
I think it is more likely than one might think, but it won't help.
How many people do you think are actually on MediaSentry's payroll? How much actual cash do they need on hand to troll P2P sites and the like?
More to the point, how long do you think it will take after MediaDefender *ahem* I mean MediaSentry is completely dissolved before MediaProtector springs up?
The problem is that the **AA hired these folks to do a job and can't be held accountable if MediaWhatever broke the law unless they explicitly instructed them to do so.
...In which case Safari is a core part of the system that cannot be removed without breaking software that relies on the rendering engine, just like MSIE on Windows.
Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you Apple apologists? I have used Apple products since I was 4 and have a MBP paid for by my job. Still you have to admit it, iTunes sucks (on any platform) and Apple is getting awful damn predatory.
This is directed at "El Icaro" just as much as it was the post I am replying to. Get some fucking perspective!
No, it's not. It's like banning cars made in Germany because they make a few cars that *can* use a lot of gas, but in reality, we just don't want the competition.
No mod points for me, so I just wanted to say: this is a great idea.
This shouldn't be the only thing in your bag of tricks, but it should be your very first attempt. Hold off on trying anything until after (if) the bully is clever enough to figure it out.
If your forum software doesn't support this natively (I think most don't) and you cannot implement it yourself, any competent PHP developer should be able to implement it for you for just an hour of billable time.
Yes: JavaScript (and many others, but JavaScript makes the technique quite obvious.)
// re-usable function (has a name)
function doSomething () {}
// one-off function (no name)
function () {}
PHP has create_function() but it's kinda pointless (PHP doesn't have a "function" data type, create_function returns a string.) It is somewhat useful if you must generate an unknown number of functions that must be compiled at runtime. C has the "inline" keyword, which allows you to factor code out into functions but prevents the compiler from doing the same.
(OT: WTF happened to "Plain Old Text"? It doesn't work anymore.)
This is why I propose the auto-updating, latest-version-required application required for the purchase/decryption/re-encryption process. It could be cracked, but not for long.
I am an armchair crypto buff, so this might be all wrong, but how about if:
First, you would have to have an account to use this service. That means the "original distributor" has your name, address, phone and credit card numbers. When you sign up, a certificate is generated for you to sign any files you have "purchased". The certificate has a public/private key pair. Doesn't much matter in the scheme of things where the private keys are stored, as the distributor can impress upon you that this key uniquely identifies you, and if someone else gets a hold of it, you are automatically guilty of piracy/copyright infringement/stealing trade secrets/scalping kittens/whatever. (Of course they won't tell you how horribly insecure their private key backup system is.)
For every file distributed via BitTorrent, there would be a public/private key pair. The "distributable" version of the file is encrypted with the private key which only the distributor has. You download the encrypted file via BitTorrent, and upon completion of the download, your purchase transaction is made via SSL. Upon completion of the financial transaction, the file is decrypted with the distributor's public key, doubly encrypted with your private key, and signed with your public key. This means that any player with access to your public key can verify the file "belongs" to you, and only a player with access to your private key can decrypt it.
If my logic is correct, all the original files are identical until actually "authorized" (thus BitTorrent will work), at which point they are encrypted and signed with your key, uniquely tying the file to your identity. The file is useless to anyone with access to your private key, which, according to the EULA, giving your private key to anyone constitutes handing a cryptographically secure confession to the **AA of your choice.
The weakness is obviously the (supposedly) secure web transaction and the fact that the media file must be decrypted before it can be encrypted again and signed. However, with no "single" key to crack, you would have to crack the transaction component, which could easily be auto-updated as part of the transaction. Of course any version that is not up-to-date would simply not be allowed to make the transaction.
Please shoot holes in this theory with impudence, as I just succeeded in scaring the crap out of myself.
Slashdot Mirror
It certainly did. The entire first season I found virtually intolerable, but near the beginning of the second, it seems like they got all new writers or something. Still not a "great" show IMHO, but quite enjoyable.
Holy crap. Why not run ClamAV proper in Linux instead of ClamWin???
This is why I gave-up on proprietary OSes.
That word... I do not think it means what you think it means.
It is really not funny at all. But I don't have to tell you that.
To db32 and "Plaid Phantom": I wish to meet you both one day.
You sir, are an extreme moderate.
No worries though, I also make an attempt to stand between the darkness and the light. It's an impossible goal that is worth pursuing.
I hear you, and do not disagree, but I think it is a bit up to interpretation.
I consider the OS to be the kernel and base set of libraries. For example, the Linux kernel and most or all of the LSB make up the "OS" for me. By themselves, they aren't particularly useful, they just idly sit by and await instructions.
I consider terminals, browsers, servers, and even essentials like GNU coreutils to simply be part of the distribution. In an open system, they are all optional and easily replaceable components. Likewise, in Windows, I consider IE, Media Player, and even Notepad and the base set of system services to part of the "Windows distribution," although in this situation they usually aren't as interchangeable as one might like.
It's almost odd that the line becomes very blurred when you exist day to day in a Microsoft monoculture, yet in a heterogeneous environment such as Linux, the layers are really very distinct.
Where it becomes really blurred (and interesting) is where applications such as the web browser itself serves no useful purpose without a network connection and content (or application code) to make it do something.
I agree. I find it suspect that people are suggesting that an application is using more resources than the operating system in which said application runs. Especially when that very application provides a framework for other applications to run.
An "operating system" should, by its very nature, not "utilize" resources in and of itself, but simply partition and apportion them. Of course, I haven't R'd any FA's for a while. Perhaps they are talking about the myriad of services and built-in applications that are bundles with Windows.
That said, I find it very disappointing (although understandable) that both of these new browsers have been released for the only operating system I do not use professionally. I look forward to one day trying both of these new browsers outside of a VM.
I am interested in what problem space you are working with.
In some very extreme cases, I can see it being a requirement to work the way you are, but in most real-world code, what you suggest would be far simpler to maintain (for you AND others) if you would just take a few extra minutes to think about what your data structures need to be.
Just because you CAN, doesn't mean you SHOULD. If it is a one-off script to solve a complex problem, then you have my respect. If anyone else EVER has to grok your code, for any reason, then you are just incompetent :)
BTW, this is probably an incredibly stupid question, but I just want to clarify. "The fourth dimension" is such an incredibly loaded term. In the context of this article, it is referring to time, correct?
Assuming I am correct, I have always had a very simple theory I use to wrap my mind around it. Bear in mind I am a high-level programmer, not a quantum physicist. I think that we (humans) exist within the first three dimensions while we travel along the fourth. Hence we are aware of, and can, to some extent, measure the fourth, but it is very difficult to perceive it in any concrete manner.
Yeah, I know it sounds absurd, but I think doing something like this would have done two things:
1) It would have proved that he is not all talk. I was skeptical before, but now I know for sure that he is just more of the same. The only thing that sets him apart is that he is very well spoken. Clearly that is no longer one of the factors for the American people when electing a president.
2)) It would have proved he is willing to step over the partisan lines, if even in a most ridiculous fashion, to demonstrate that he really does want change at the base level. This system is so fucked, the only way to get change is to blow up the foundation.
To be honest, I now believe that this upcoming presidential election will be the *least* important in decades.
Finally, someone who GETS it.
I wanted to comment "Let's see rpm do that!" but before I could click, I realized that dpkg by itself cannot solve puzzles of any kind.
To the idiot who modded this "overrated," please pull your head out of your ass and type "aptitude --help" when you get a chance.
To everyone else, please tag this article "badtitle."
I think it is more likely than one might think, but it won't help.
How many people do you think are actually on MediaSentry's payroll? How much actual cash do they need on hand to troll P2P sites and the like?
More to the point, how long do you think it will take after MediaDefender *ahem* I mean MediaSentry is completely dissolved before MediaProtector springs up?
The problem is that the **AA hired these folks to do a job and can't be held accountable if MediaWhatever broke the law unless they explicitly instructed them to do so.
I told you never to call me on this wall!
...In which case Safari is a core part of the system that cannot be removed without breaking software that relies on the rendering engine, just like MSIE on Windows.
Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you Apple apologists? I have used Apple products since I was 4 and have a MBP paid for by my job. Still you have to admit it, iTunes sucks (on any platform) and Apple is getting awful damn predatory.
This is directed at "El Icaro" just as much as it was the post I am replying to. Get some fucking perspective!
Nobody was. This is an ad for Limelight.
Horrible, horrible freedom!
No, it's not. It's like banning cars made in Germany because they make a few cars that *can* use a lot of gas, but in reality, we just don't want the competition.
No mod points for me, so I just wanted to say: this is a great idea.
This shouldn't be the only thing in your bag of tricks, but it should be your very first attempt. Hold off on trying anything until after (if) the bully is clever enough to figure it out.
If your forum software doesn't support this natively (I think most don't) and you cannot implement it yourself, any competent PHP developer should be able to implement it for you for just an hour of billable time.
Yes: JavaScript (and many others, but JavaScript makes the technique quite obvious.)
function doSomething () {}
function () {}
PHP has create_function() but it's kinda pointless (PHP doesn't have a "function" data type, create_function returns a string.) It is somewhat useful if you must generate an unknown number of functions that must be compiled at runtime. C has the "inline" keyword, which allows you to factor code out into functions but prevents the compiler from doing the same.
(OT: WTF happened to "Plain Old Text"? It doesn't work anymore.)
Actually it is illegal to grow hemp in the U.S. Perfectly legal to import it though.
Fucking aye.
Hello? Can somebody give this dude +5 insightful?
The interesting thing is that both you, and the parent you replied to, are 100% correct. Think about it. The parent poster obviously has.
This is why I propose the auto-updating, latest-version-required application required for the purchase/decryption/re-encryption process. It could be cracked, but not for long.
I am an armchair crypto buff, so this might be all wrong, but how about if:
First, you would have to have an account to use this service. That means the "original distributor" has your name, address, phone and credit card numbers. When you sign up, a certificate is generated for you to sign any files you have "purchased". The certificate has a public/private key pair. Doesn't much matter in the scheme of things where the private keys are stored, as the distributor can impress upon you that this key uniquely identifies you, and if someone else gets a hold of it, you are automatically guilty of piracy/copyright infringement/stealing trade secrets/scalping kittens/whatever. (Of course they won't tell you how horribly insecure their private key backup system is.)
For every file distributed via BitTorrent, there would be a public/private key pair. The "distributable" version of the file is encrypted with the private key which only the distributor has. You download the encrypted file via BitTorrent, and upon completion of the download, your purchase transaction is made via SSL. Upon completion of the financial transaction, the file is decrypted with the distributor's public key, doubly encrypted with your private key, and signed with your public key. This means that any player with access to your public key can verify the file "belongs" to you, and only a player with access to your private key can decrypt it.
If my logic is correct, all the original files are identical until actually "authorized" (thus BitTorrent will work), at which point they are encrypted and signed with your key, uniquely tying the file to your identity. The file is useless to anyone with access to your private key, which, according to the EULA, giving your private key to anyone constitutes handing a cryptographically secure confession to the **AA of your choice.
The weakness is obviously the (supposedly) secure web transaction and the fact that the media file must be decrypted before it can be encrypted again and signed. However, with no "single" key to crack, you would have to crack the transaction component, which could easily be auto-updated as part of the transaction. Of course any version that is not up-to-date would simply not be allowed to make the transaction.
Please shoot holes in this theory with impudence, as I just succeeded in scaring the crap out of myself.
Or... *shudder*... eMail!