Those who rail against porn are often those who want to censor it. Nader's ill-conceived rants are indicative of his contempt for free speech (people saying things he does not like). He even makes up things like "corporate elite" myths.
Dude, pull your head out - all he said was that our values are fucked. Can't say I disagree either.
It's very disengenuous to say they "should pay more so they should be taxed at a higher rate." They're already paying a lot more in taces due to their higher rate of consumption. And if they're not consuming any more than the "average" person, then it's pretty unlikely they're benefiting more.
At an annual income of $170k, the federal tax burden is about 18%. How is this a lot more? Also keep in mind that they do benefit more - they're rich. Who protectes them while they sleep? Who provides the society that supported them getting rich in the first place? Nobody gets rich alone.
Right! The billionaire should keep paying so she can get it back when she retires! That would bust the system. You are paid based on what you put in. Obviously, you do not have any idea why the 88k cap is there. It *protects* the system from the wealthy. SS is NOT a progressive tax.
Whoosh!
My point was that SS was something of no consequence to the average Billionaire - they could double it and the direct effect would be nil. Secondary effects, like the reduced hiring of the people that actually do the work, would be signifigant.
I think you're one of those middle-skill code monkeys who buys the "consultant" label your job-shop strapped onto you, and thinks $40/hour is "good pay".
Okay, what do you consider good pay for somebody with 5-6 years in Unix doing C++ and Java?
The money Congress stole is going to have to be repaid or else people are going to wake up and realize it's all been a big Ponzi scheme. You think Bush's Billionare Buddies are going to let him raise *their* taxes?
What difference would it make to them? SS contributions stop at about 88k regular income, so if you doubled it, the average billionaire wouldn't feel it. They'd notice, but the net effect would be a.01% drag on their investments.
I have been making veiled allusions to the idea that NX by itself doesn't stop someone running malicious code if they really want to. Obviously these were too heavily veiled, for which I apologise. Since a processor which includes "NX" protection must have the ability to execute code from somewhere, all it takes is for someone to get a programme running somehow, to patch in a new exception handler which will then arrange for the "NX" code to be executed -- whether that be by clearing the NX flag {assuming the hardware is based on legacy designs; the 8080 could execute instructions supplied by external devices for chuff's sake, and that was the real point of the eight RST instructions if you ask me -- they all go 00xxx000.....}, copying the code to an executable portion of memory, or by implementing an emulator {sounds hard, but where there's a will, there's a way, and believe me, there's a will alright}.
Ok, how does this work in the real world? All executable memory is read only, the stack is NX, and hardware exception handlers are not available from user code. Patching exception handlers died with DOS, remember. Even if it were possible to work around this protection, you've raised the bar, and by quite a bit.
Yes, but you forget that most of the bugs are not in the little modules of code, but in the interaction between those chunks.
Once you've got your code organized into modules (with restricted interaction), it's easier to lock the interfaces down. This means validating intermodule calls almost as much as validating external data.
Any why shouldn't you rely on the compiler's internals, if you have read and understood the source code?
Quoting the AC who replied to me: Agreed. Compiler internals are subject to change from one release to another, and in any case one does not always have access to the compiler source for a particular platform.
Aren't you relying on the compiler's internals to some extent at least, every time you ever compile anything?
Only to the extent that it fulfills its role as a compiler, as defined by the language standard and documentation. Internal undocumented behavior is not included.
It's still strictly for decoration, though -- and I hope I don't have to point out why that is so. If anybody actually relies upon non-executability of data marked NX for a mission-critical application, they will be in trouble.
Let's see - the NX bit means that pointing your PC register at a protected page causes an exception. How is that decorative? Unless you have a compiler that automatically unprotects the stack, it's pretty damn effective.
The attitude that says 'what 1971, how obsolete' is the reason we get so much cruft created by people who just think they can do better, for the sake of something 'new' and 'different'.
Miss the point much? It's 33 years old, and we aren't doing it yet?
Rubbish. The Windows (NT - since that's the heritage of all modern Windows versions, and which inherits ideas from VMS) has supported access control lists from the start. It has also supported a sane method of privilege control - an Administrator user could not access system processes, for example. Access to system objects is fine-grained, and can be selectively granted to users or groups.
Combine this with legacy code and an expectation that it will run, and everybody runs as admin so their apps will run. Users have access to most of the system by default (even as ordinary users). Sure, the idea is good, but we aren't there yet.
two arrays where you know, from reading the compiler source code, that they will be stored one after another in memory where b[0] just happens also to be referenceable as a[200]}. The fact that I can't think of a plausible situation off the top of my head certainly doesn't mean there isn't one.
In the first case, you either allocate a and b in one piece (b = a+200), or you write better code. Never rely on the compiler's internals. The reason C allows such behavior is due to its nature as a portable assembler language.
PS. It's my bold prediction that before "no execute" becomes a standard feature on every processor, there will be an exploit allowing stuff labelled NX to be executed.
Too late for that - NX is a standarad feature on x86 and has been for a long time. It is probably included in the other major architectures as well.
For one thing, they refer to the "ping" program as "Packet Internet Groper (ping)". This meaning of the program's name is a well-known backronym of the original meaning
Never heard of that one. Packet Internet Gopher? Sounds like something i get in the subject of my prescription drug spam.
He won't care if he injures himself, rubbing his
flesh raw to press that damn button. All he'll
care about is getting the drug.
So you're saying that we're no more intelligent than monkeys? Or perhaps that, in the absence of a social context, it's easy to get addicted? What, if anything, does this have to do with the currentr approach to the drug war?
I was quite enjoying Vice City for a while until I noticed a tendency to try and drive on the right side of the road which conflicted with the fact that in.au traffic is on the left side.
Too bad it takes place in Miami. Perhaps they'll drive on the left in GTA Melbourne.
Other people may have different needs or use software in a different environment from you and this moralizing attitude that you can decide for everyone what their software should be able to do is frightening.
Name one. If you're passing activeX around in email, it could probably be done better some actual way. In the meantime, we all have to deal with the results of malicious activeX email.
Incidentally, my moralizing attitude is that you shouldn't be dumping benzene upstream of me. Is that also not for me to decide?
"I've been posting on Slashdot since before there was moderation, or even user accounts. No man, it's true! I even have a low, three-digit UID, to prove it. I swear, man!"
Actually, I have, but I didn't get a user account until much later. This is my second account - the first (haruharaharu) went up to 50 karma, so I stopped as 666 posts and started this one.
Well, I can be arrested for saying I am going to kill you. It is called conspiracy to commit murder.
No, it's called issuing threats. Conspiracy would require multiple people discussing a future murder plot followed by one of them taking steps to carry out that plot.
These days, most people approach the user like you might approach your retarded cousin who was raised by ferrets on a remote island: don't tell them anything, you might frighten or confuse them (unfrozen-caveman-lawyer style).
That's because there are a whole fuckton of people out there who don't know, don't care, and refuse to learn even the most basic thing about computers (like copying files or not clicking on random attachments). The revel in their ignorance. Faced by such willful ignorance, the documentation guys took one step back, gave the one finger salute, and started writing in babytalk, knowing that nobody reads the stuff anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Those who rail against porn are often those who want to censor it. Nader's ill-conceived rants are indicative of his contempt for free speech (people saying things he does not like). He even makes up things like "corporate elite" myths.
Dude, pull your head out - all he said was that our values are fucked. Can't say I disagree either.
It's very disengenuous to say they "should pay more so they should be taxed at a higher rate." They're already paying a lot more in taces due to their higher rate of consumption. And if they're not consuming any more than the "average" person, then it's pretty unlikely they're benefiting more.
At an annual income of $170k, the federal tax burden is about 18%. How is this a lot more? Also keep in mind that they do benefit more - they're rich. Who protectes them while they sleep? Who provides the society that supported them getting rich in the first place? Nobody gets rich alone.
Right! The billionaire should keep paying so she can get it back when she retires! That would bust the system. You are paid based on what you put in. Obviously, you do not have any idea why the 88k cap is there. It *protects* the system from the wealthy. SS is NOT a progressive tax.
Whoosh!
My point was that SS was something of no consequence to the average Billionaire - they could double it and the direct effect would be nil. Secondary effects, like the reduced hiring of the people that actually do the work, would be signifigant.
I think you're one of those middle-skill code monkeys who buys the "consultant" label your job-shop strapped onto you, and thinks $40/hour is "good pay".
Okay, what do you consider good pay for somebody with 5-6 years in Unix doing C++ and Java?
The money Congress stole is going to have to be repaid or else people are going to wake up and realize it's all been a big Ponzi scheme. You think Bush's Billionare Buddies are going to let him raise *their* taxes?
What difference would it make to them? SS contributions stop at about 88k regular income, so if you doubled it, the average billionaire wouldn't feel it. They'd notice, but the net effect would be a .01% drag on their investments.
I have been making veiled allusions to the idea that NX by itself doesn't stop someone running malicious code if they really want to. Obviously these were too heavily veiled, for which I apologise. Since a processor which includes "NX" protection must have the ability to execute code from somewhere, all it takes is for someone to get a programme running somehow, to patch in a new exception handler which will then arrange for the "NX" code to be executed -- whether that be by clearing the NX flag {assuming the hardware is based on legacy designs; the 8080 could execute instructions supplied by external devices for chuff's sake, and that was the real point of the eight RST instructions if you ask me -- they all go 00xxx000 .....}, copying the code to an executable portion of memory, or by implementing an emulator {sounds hard, but where there's a will, there's a way, and believe me, there's a will alright}.
Ok, how does this work in the real world? All executable memory is read only, the stack is NX, and hardware exception handlers are not available from user code. Patching exception handlers died with DOS, remember. Even if it were possible to work around this protection, you've raised the bar, and by quite a bit.
The compiler source code is part of the documentation. Admittedly, it's a highly advanced topic; but it's not one you should be afraid of.
Reading the compiler source to see what I can get away with crosses the line between brave and stupid.
In other words, it doesn't actually offer you any real protection at all
Explain please. I jump to a stack address and my program blows up. How is that not protection?
Yes, but you forget that most of the bugs are not in the little modules of code, but in the interaction between those chunks.
Once you've got your code organized into modules (with restricted interaction), it's easier to lock the interfaces down. This means validating intermodule calls almost as much as validating external data.
Any why shouldn't you rely on the compiler's internals, if you have read and understood the source code?
Quoting the AC who replied to me: Agreed. Compiler internals are subject to change from one release to another, and in any case one does not always have access to the compiler source for a particular platform.
Aren't you relying on the compiler's internals to some extent at least, every time you ever compile anything?
Only to the extent that it fulfills its role as a compiler, as defined by the language standard and documentation. Internal undocumented behavior is not included.
It's still strictly for decoration, though -- and I hope I don't have to point out why that is so. If anybody actually relies upon non-executability of data marked NX for a mission-critical application, they will be in trouble.
Let's see - the NX bit means that pointing your PC register at a protected page causes an exception. How is that decorative? Unless you have a compiler that automatically unprotects the stack, it's pretty damn effective.
The attitude that says 'what 1971, how obsolete' is the reason we get so much cruft created by people who just think they can do better, for the sake of something 'new' and 'different'.
Miss the point much? It's 33 years old, and we aren't doing it yet?
Rubbish. The Windows (NT - since that's the heritage of all modern Windows versions, and which inherits ideas from VMS) has supported access control lists from the start. It has also supported a sane method of privilege control - an Administrator user could not access system processes, for example. Access to system objects is fine-grained, and can be selectively granted to users or groups.
Combine this with legacy code and an expectation that it will run, and everybody runs as admin so their apps will run. Users have access to most of the system by default (even as ordinary users). Sure, the idea is good, but we aren't there yet.
The blessing and curse of software development is that everything you are doing is necessarily new in some way.
Then why are so many software projects rehashes of existing systems on new platforms? Sure, the combination is new, bbut none of the pieces are.
two arrays where you know, from reading the compiler source code, that they will be stored one after another in memory where b[0] just happens also to be referenceable as a[200]}. The fact that I can't think of a plausible situation off the top of my head certainly doesn't mean there isn't one.
In the first case, you either allocate a and b in one piece (b = a+200), or you write better code. Never rely on the compiler's internals. The reason C allows such behavior is due to its nature as a portable assembler language.
PS. It's my bold prediction that before "no execute" becomes a standard feature on every processor, there will be an exploit allowing stuff labelled NX to be executed.
Too late for that - NX is a standarad feature on x86 and has been for a long time. It is probably included in the other major architectures as well.
A program that essentially contains tens of millions of lines of code. Even if they're mostly in libraries, they're still there.
Yes, they're there, but 90+% of the code is now in isolated chunks that are easier to debug separately. That's the advantage of layered, modular code.
For one thing, they refer to the "ping" program as "Packet Internet Groper (ping)". This meaning of the program's name is a well-known backronym of the original meaning
Never heard of that one. Packet Internet Gopher? Sounds like something i get in the subject of my prescription drug spam.
But I thought AL Gore invented the Internet?
Oh, come on. That joke hasn't been funny for 4 years. Maybe you could think of something new?
He won't care if he injures himself, rubbing his flesh raw to press that damn button. All he'll care about is getting the drug.
So you're saying that we're no more intelligent than monkeys? Or perhaps that, in the absence of a social context, it's easy to get addicted? What, if anything, does this have to do with the currentr approach to the drug war?
And what'll wean us from nuclear power?
By the time fission runs low, fusion should be a goiing concern. After that, we'll have fuel until the oceans boil.
I was quite enjoying Vice City for a while until I noticed a tendency to try and drive on the right side of the road which conflicted with the fact that in .au traffic is on the left side.
Too bad it takes place in Miami. Perhaps they'll drive on the left in GTA Melbourne.
Other people may have different needs or use software in a different environment from you and this moralizing attitude that you can decide for everyone what their software should be able to do is frightening.
Name one. If you're passing activeX around in email, it could probably be done better some actual way. In the meantime, we all have to deal with the results of malicious activeX email.
Incidentally, my moralizing attitude is that you shouldn't be dumping benzene upstream of me. Is that also not for me to decide?
"I've been posting on Slashdot since before there was moderation, or even user accounts. No man, it's true! I even have a low, three-digit UID, to prove it. I swear, man!"
Actually, I have, but I didn't get a user account until much later. This is my second account - the first (haruharaharu) went up to 50 karma, so I stopped as 666 posts and started this one.
what kind of law did you vote on, county or state
State law in VA - whether to extend the order of succession for the governor in the event of a shotgun rampage in the capitol building.
Well, I can be arrested for saying I am going to kill you. It is called conspiracy to commit murder.
No, it's called issuing threats. Conspiracy would require multiple people discussing a future murder plot followed by one of them taking steps to carry out that plot.
One is made in the US the other in Japan u work it out.
From my experience with Toyota, I'll go with the Japanese radiator.
These days, most people approach the user like you might approach your retarded cousin who was raised by ferrets on a remote island: don't tell them anything, you might frighten or confuse them (unfrozen-caveman-lawyer style).
That's because there are a whole fuckton of people out there who don't know, don't care, and refuse to learn even the most basic thing about computers (like copying files or not clicking on random attachments). The revel in their ignorance. Faced by such willful ignorance, the documentation guys took one step back, gave the one finger salute, and started writing in babytalk, knowing that nobody reads the stuff anyway.