This doesn't really have anything to do with libc, except that it is a rich source of well known addresses (without ASLR). So what in the hell are you talking about?
Why is "arbitrary return to X" a problem in the first place? Is it shitty code that should be running in a sandbox and having it's jumps outward sanitized to the location the jump originated in the first place maybe the problem?
You could always run only the non-shitty code outside the sandbox.
They've never flown a spacecraft, so they will not be awarded any contract monies under any circumstances, given that one of the contract criteria was that they meet the prequalification deadlines, which they have not.
I expect they're hoping getting their names out there would get them additional investors.
In the US, most smart animal shelters carefully review who is adopting to make sure the adopter is not using the shelter as a meat supplier. I happen to be a dog lover and find it offensive, but I understand it is cultural.
Wait, can you clarify?
Which kind of dog lover are you?
Do you find it offensive that people eat dogs, or do you find it offensive that animal shelters prevent themselves from being used as suppliers?
Security through obscurity as a first line of defense is perfectly fine. Now if the obscurity is the entirety of your security then you have problems.
It tends to give you a false sense of being more protected than you actually are, and it gives management incentive, through this false sense working on them as well, that they budget less for the work on real security in depth.
There's a natural human psychological barrier against getting a good lock for one's front door, when one already has a lock for one's front door. Why buy another lock, when I have a perfectly good lock? It's the same mentality behind the anti-circumvention and reverse engineering language in the DMCA: only bad guys would do that.
In fact, this is a problem with the whole "security in depth" idea, since it goes against the intuitions of those controlling the budget strings.
It's one of the reasons I think ASLR is pretty much bullshit, just the same as code obfuscation is bullshit. Most code obfuscation comes down to "but people can't read assembly language!", or, worse, "but people can't read Java byte code!", or, worst of all, "What's 'gnu indent'?".
Except that people at the bottom of the economic ladder, which are disproportionately minorities, are much less likely to have a valid ID. They are also much more likely to vote Democratic rather than Republican.
Then that's a fantastic incentive for the Democrats to stage "Get your ID, get out the vote!" events, and help these disenfranchised people get their IDs. It's not like they can open a bank account, or cash a check without one, and they're more likely to be run in or hassled (at least temporarily) in any police interaction without an ID.
Unless, you know, it's not about them being disenfranchised in society - they can stay that way - as long as they can vote, then as long as they vote, to heck with all the other stuff, right?
Both political parties are only out for themselves; it'd be nice if there were rules in place that made them actually positive social forces, rather than opposing ruling classes. Voter ID requirements does that, to a degree, and addresses at least one real social issue that neither party would otherwise spend money on helping resolve otherwise.
I hope that the interesting versus boring questions were customized for each participant, otherwise the results would be completely useless. Curiosity is a property of the person, not the question.
That'd get them the FMRI results they wanted, but it's unlikely to give them statistically valid, publishable, double-blinded results...
Social contract? What a load of crap. Most animals do not eat member of their own species. Do you you think it's because they also have a "social contract"?
I think you have never owned chickens, gerbils, rats, mice, hamsters, and never read about sand tiger sharks, polar bears, spiders, parasitic wasps, or tiger salamanders.
All of the listed animals eat their young. I guess the ones that get eaten don't have opportunity to sue for "breach of social contract"...
You're not going to be curious about an answer to a question if you already know the answer. You're not going to be interested in something if you don't know what it is.
But you do know that "small memory" VM try to reclaim memory during the 'new' or 'alloc' call and don't have a GC which is waiting till 'all memory is consumed'? Guessed so... you have no clue. Sigh, 30 years of computer science wasted in stupid IBM vs MS vs Sun vs Apple vs Oracle wars. I guess I mentioned often enough that our days computing experience is minimum 20 years behind what *I* learned at my university 20 years ago... (yes, that adds up to 40 years, your turn?) You can basically pick a random/. claim of a 25 year old and say: wrong!
I worked on SVR3 (kernel), SVR4 (kernel), AIX (kernel), FreeBSD (kernel), iOS (kernel). I also worked on ChromeOS/Linux (kernel).
The reason you wait to reclaim memory, rather than doing it on a stupid timer, is that you can't put the CPU into standby mode for much longer times to conserve the battery and thereby extend battery life.
If you reclaim memory explicitly, that's OK, since it means that you're already running, and that won't screw your battery life.
Guess why Windows on a MacBook doesn't have as long a battery life as Mac OS X on the same MacBook? Because Windows *polls* its USB devices, because it can't be sure that the internal USB controller isn't shit, and because it can't know, even if the internal USB controller isn't shit, that the internal devices like the keyboard and trackpad connected via the Qualcomm microcontroller aren't shit, because it doesn't make a distinction between the internal and external USB controllers. It fails here because it has to run on all the crappy hardware that's out there, because it's an off-the-shelf copy that can't make hardware assumptions.
You can basically pick an old fart (who learned before systems incorporated substantial power management technology) or for that matter, a young kid who thinks all computers are Linux boxes plugged into the wall, and then pick any/. claim they make that doesn't take power management into account and say: wrong!
There is also the cost of burning coal and oil that isn't seen. Climate change is controversial, but it is pretty obvious that it is happening, and really bad stuff is going to happen unless we stop putting CO2 in the atmosphere at the rate that it is going in.
You insensitive clod!
I live in Northern Canada; climate change is a *benefit*, not a *cost*! Change it faster, please!
It's not "regulatory capture"; it's the very real cost of maintaining the infrastructure that you count on when it's dark out for a few days. I know you're a special penny, but why do you deserve to get paid more for power than other generators? That is exactly what happens with net metering.
So tax us honestly.
Tax us on energy production and again on consumption -- grid usage -- to maintain the grid, instead of hiding the cost of the grid. Don't let some corporate behemoth charge us what they want based on "Think of the grid!"; the argument is no more valid than "Think of the children!".
Of course, if we do this, I must insist that the grid be owned by the public, as well, rather than some corporate behemoth, and it can be maintained by the lowest bidder. If the corporate behemoth *happens* to be that bidder, good on them. If it doesn't, good on whoever wins instead.
Just like the gas tax or bridge tolls, and public roads.
With the limitation that C++ destructors cannot throw exceptions, why would you need them in Java?
To explicitly reclaim the memory immediate on a small memory footprint requirement environment, instead of waiting until "the GC fucking feels like it, at the worst possible time", which is when I need more memory for something else.
It's one of the reasons I dislike some of the Objective C changes to use autorelease pools as well. Any language which requires GC'ing to reclaim unused memory is totally unsuitable for small memory footprint applications.
I think you perhaps lost the argument when you defined "a functional economy" as a civil good, and then criticized the components of that economic system as unethical (e.g. "I deny CEOs do work").
Your argument about "what actual degree of wealth one could personally generate from an agrarian society" likewise falls flat: we don't want to live in an agrarian society, and even were we to do so, some people will have more value to that society than others, and unless you are talking about Marxism or Trotskyism, which assigns equal societal value, regardless of their actual contribution to the value of that society, then you have not made your argument (and if you make that assertion, it's relatively easy to disprove by example).
Bill Gates arguably stated out rich; Steve Jobs, however, did not. Thus your argument of "disparate rules" holds no water for Steve Jobs, at least prior to him accumulating his wealth by dint of wit, cunning, will, and foresight above and beyond that of others - natural ability, similar to natural ability to reproduce, though admittedly more rare. Carnegie also "pulled himself up by his bootstraps.
The anticompetitive agreements - specifically, the employee anti-poaching agreement, since we are not talking a RICO or Sherman Antitrust Act violation, such as the one against IBM in 1956 - actually disadvantage the companies with regard to what they are willing to offer an upstart, since there is nothing you could offer an upstart in terms of advantage for not "poaching" employees from the companies paying the depressed wages by means of their agreement. In fact, any upstart hiring at higher wages would collapse the whole anti-poaching model.
So inclosing, I think you are asserting rather than offering evidence to support your position.
Anyhow, the Nokia employees were surely competant coders, who could obviously turn their skills from C for Symbian development to.NET development easily. What makes anyone think they couldn't be employed at any other part of the Microsoft divisions?
I don't think the factory workers making dumb phones really have the coding skills necessary to transfer over.
As for reproduction, I would say that issues that are not in the domain of choice, are not in the domain of ethics. The presumption (dubious as it may be) is that people in general could choose to be in the same financial conditions as multinational corporations. The reasonableness of this disparity in activities seems to directly correlate with the degree one accepts the notion they could (perhaps if they "worked harder"), as you seem to have alluded to yourself. If one simply and clearly cannot, regardless of any questions of individual choice, engage in a particular activity, I would see this as excluding their circumstances from morality or ethics entirely, and therefore others acting otherwise who are in the domain of choice in that respect, would not run contrary to the Categorical Imperative.
I would argue that the amount of effort one puts out is not directly related to the value of ones efforts to society, and that one is generally paid based on the value of their work to the larger society.
By this measure, people incapable of extraordinary feats, "cannot, regardless o any questions of individual choice" achieve extraordinary feats. Bill Gates (as an example) was capable of building a company with revenues such that it was able to take advantage of the tax laws in such a way as to leverage an increase in personal wealth. That someone else can't would therefore exclude their circumstances (and thus the consequences of their circumstances) from morality or ethics entirely (by your own argument).
Thus person A's accumulation of wealth is not immoral or unethical, merely because person B is incapable of doing the same.
I think the problem that most people get tangled up in here is exactly what financial wealth does and does not represent. It represents the ability to do work now in return for a marker that allows one to call upon societies resources and labor at some future point in time to accomplish some goal of their choosing. The assumption implicit in the mind of most people who abhor accumulation of wealth is that the government is better able to direct the resources and labor of society, even though the government has not demonstrated the ability to provide sufficient value to society to accumulate such markers, whole people such as Andrew Carnegie have done so. I have serious doubts that something like the Carnegie Free Library system would have come about without the accumulation of said markers by an individual, who then spent them in such an endeavor. Government unfortunately is incapable of long term thing beyond the next election cycle. The only time this is not true is when term limit or self limits kick in. Even then, we've seen second term presidents compromise their ethical and moral positions, despite the fact that there is no chance of their reelection due to term limits.
Frankly, those are some of the best visualizations I've ever seen of altitude data on Mars. It makes some of the geologic features very, very clear, compared to other data visualizations that try to do actual color or altitude color.
Slashdot Mirror
Run all your libraries in ring 2 (currently unused on Intel) instead of ring 3 with all the shitty code.
This doesn't really have anything to do with libc, except that it is a rich source of well known addresses (without ASLR). So what in the hell are you talking about?
Why is "arbitrary return to X" a problem in the first place? Is it shitty code that should be running in a sandbox and having it's jumps outward sanitized to the location the jump originated in the first place maybe the problem?
You could always run only the non-shitty code outside the sandbox.
It's one of the reasons I think ASLR is pretty much bullshit,
And yet you would be wrong. Without ASLR return to libc exploits are trivial.
Without shitty libc implementations, return to libc exploits are NOT trivial.
Attention ploy by Sierra Nevada.
They've never flown a spacecraft, so they will not be awarded any contract monies under any circumstances, given that one of the contract criteria was that they meet the prequalification deadlines, which they have not.
I expect they're hoping getting their names out there would get them additional investors.
In the US, most smart animal shelters carefully review who is adopting to make sure the adopter is not using the shelter as a meat supplier. I happen to be a dog lover and find it offensive, but I understand it is cultural.
Wait, can you clarify?
Which kind of dog lover are you?
Do you find it offensive that people eat dogs, or do you find it offensive that animal shelters prevent themselves from being used as suppliers?
Not to offend catholics, but...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
If belief is worth anything, there's a lot of cannibalism happening on Sundays...
Given the raging success of "smart guns", this should be a slam dunk for the company to make billions!
Security through obscurity as a first line of defense is perfectly fine. Now if the obscurity is the entirety of your security then you have problems.
It tends to give you a false sense of being more protected than you actually are, and it gives management incentive, through this false sense working on them as well, that they budget less for the work on real security in depth.
There's a natural human psychological barrier against getting a good lock for one's front door, when one already has a lock for one's front door. Why buy another lock, when I have a perfectly good lock? It's the same mentality behind the anti-circumvention and reverse engineering language in the DMCA: only bad guys would do that.
In fact, this is a problem with the whole "security in depth" idea, since it goes against the intuitions of those controlling the budget strings.
It's one of the reasons I think ASLR is pretty much bullshit, just the same as code obfuscation is bullshit. Most code obfuscation comes down to "but people can't read assembly language!", or, worse, "but people can't read Java byte code!", or, worst of all, "What's 'gnu indent'?".
Still can't find Waldo...
It's called the Jeffrey Dahmer Algorithm.
This is incredibly tasteless. And funny.
voter id laws are in no way racist.
Except that people at the bottom of the economic ladder, which are disproportionately minorities, are much less likely to have a valid ID. They are also much more likely to vote Democratic rather than Republican.
Then that's a fantastic incentive for the Democrats to stage "Get your ID, get out the vote!" events, and help these disenfranchised people get their IDs. It's not like they can open a bank account, or cash a check without one, and they're more likely to be run in or hassled (at least temporarily) in any police interaction without an ID.
Unless, you know, it's not about them being disenfranchised in society - they can stay that way - as long as they can vote, then as long as they vote, to heck with all the other stuff, right?
Both political parties are only out for themselves; it'd be nice if there were rules in place that made them actually positive social forces, rather than opposing ruling classes. Voter ID requirements does that, to a degree, and addresses at least one real social issue that neither party would otherwise spend money on helping resolve otherwise.
I hope that the interesting versus boring questions were customized for each participant, otherwise the results would be completely useless. Curiosity is a property of the person, not the question.
That'd get them the FMRI results they wanted, but it's unlikely to give them statistically valid, publishable, double-blinded results...
We eat them, and if they're so smart why don't they defend themselves?!
They *do* defend themselves!
They open sacrificial jars of food for us to eat instead!
Social contract? What a load of crap. Most animals do not eat member of their own species. Do you you think it's because they also have a "social contract"?
I think you have never owned chickens, gerbils, rats, mice, hamsters, and never read about sand tiger sharks, polar bears, spiders, parasitic wasps, or tiger salamanders.
All of the listed animals eat their young. I guess the ones that get eaten don't have opportunity to sue for "breach of social contract"...
Of course the didn't calibrate for knowledge.
You're not going to be curious about an answer to a question if you already know the answer.
You're not going to be interested in something if you don't know what it is.
But you do know that "small memory" VM try to reclaim memory during the 'new' or 'alloc' call and don't have a GC which is waiting till 'all memory is consumed'? ... you have no clue. Sigh, 30 years of computer science wasted in stupid IBM vs MS vs Sun vs Apple vs Oracle wars. ... (yes, that adds up to 40 years, your turn?) /. claim of a 25 year old and say: wrong!
Guessed so
I guess I mentioned often enough that our days computing experience is minimum 20 years behind what *I* learned at my university 20 years ago
You can basically pick a random
I worked on SVR3 (kernel), SVR4 (kernel), AIX (kernel), FreeBSD (kernel), iOS (kernel). I also worked on ChromeOS/Linux (kernel).
The reason you wait to reclaim memory, rather than doing it on a stupid timer, is that you can't put the CPU into standby mode for much longer times to conserve the battery and thereby extend battery life.
If you reclaim memory explicitly, that's OK, since it means that you're already running, and that won't screw your battery life.
Guess why Windows on a MacBook doesn't have as long a battery life as Mac OS X on the same MacBook? Because Windows *polls* its USB devices, because it can't be sure that the internal USB controller isn't shit, and because it can't know, even if the internal USB controller isn't shit, that the internal devices like the keyboard and trackpad connected via the Qualcomm microcontroller aren't shit, because it doesn't make a distinction between the internal and external USB controllers. It fails here because it has to run on all the crappy hardware that's out there, because it's an off-the-shelf copy that can't make hardware assumptions.
You can basically pick an old fart (who learned before systems incorporated substantial power management technology) or for that matter, a young kid who thinks all computers are Linux boxes plugged into the wall, and then pick any /. claim they make that doesn't take power management into account and say: wrong!
Smart appliances with "on-supply" operation [...]
Yes, I want my fricking blender to only operate at some random time...
There is also the cost of burning coal and oil that isn't seen. Climate change is controversial, but it is pretty obvious that it is happening, and really bad stuff is going to happen unless we stop putting CO2 in the atmosphere at the rate that it is going in.
You insensitive clod!
I live in Northern Canada; climate change is a *benefit*, not a *cost*! Change it faster, please!
It's not "regulatory capture"; it's the very real cost of maintaining the infrastructure that you count on when it's dark out for a few days. I know you're a special penny, but why do you deserve to get paid more for power than other generators? That is exactly what happens with net metering.
So tax us honestly.
Tax us on energy production and again on consumption -- grid usage -- to maintain the grid, instead of hiding the cost of the grid. Don't let some corporate behemoth charge us what they want based on "Think of the grid!"; the argument is no more valid than "Think of the children!".
Of course, if we do this, I must insist that the grid be owned by the public, as well, rather than some corporate behemoth, and it can be maintained by the lowest bidder. If the corporate behemoth *happens* to be that bidder, good on them. If it doesn't, good on whoever wins instead.
Just like the gas tax or bridge tolls, and public roads.
With the limitation that C++ destructors cannot throw exceptions, why would you need them in Java?
To explicitly reclaim the memory immediate on a small memory footprint requirement environment, instead of waiting until "the GC fucking feels like it, at the worst possible time", which is when I need more memory for something else.
It's one of the reasons I dislike some of the Objective C changes to use autorelease pools as well. Any language which requires GC'ing to reclaim unused memory is totally unsuitable for small memory footprint applications.
I think you perhaps lost the argument when you defined "a functional economy" as a civil good, and then criticized the components of that economic system as unethical (e.g. "I deny CEOs do work").
Your argument about "what actual degree of wealth one could personally generate from an agrarian society" likewise falls flat: we don't want to live in an agrarian society, and even were we to do so, some people will have more value to that society than others, and unless you are talking about Marxism or Trotskyism, which assigns equal societal value, regardless of their actual contribution to the value of that society, then you have not made your argument (and if you make that assertion, it's relatively easy to disprove by example).
Bill Gates arguably stated out rich; Steve Jobs, however, did not. Thus your argument of "disparate rules" holds no water for Steve Jobs, at least prior to him accumulating his wealth by dint of wit, cunning, will, and foresight above and beyond that of others - natural ability, similar to natural ability to reproduce, though admittedly more rare. Carnegie also "pulled himself up by his bootstraps.
The anticompetitive agreements - specifically, the employee anti-poaching agreement, since we are not talking a RICO or Sherman Antitrust Act violation, such as the one against IBM in 1956 - actually disadvantage the companies with regard to what they are willing to offer an upstart, since there is nothing you could offer an upstart in terms of advantage for not "poaching" employees from the companies paying the depressed wages by means of their agreement. In fact, any upstart hiring at higher wages would collapse the whole anti-poaching model.
So inclosing, I think you are asserting rather than offering evidence to support your position.
Anyhow, the Nokia employees were surely competant coders, who could obviously turn their skills from C for Symbian development to .NET development easily. What makes anyone think they couldn't be employed at any other part of the Microsoft divisions?
I don't think the factory workers making dumb phones really have the coding skills necessary to transfer over.
As for reproduction, I would say that issues that are not in the domain of choice, are not in the domain of ethics. The presumption (dubious as it may be) is that people in general could choose to be in the same financial conditions as multinational corporations. The reasonableness of this disparity in activities seems to directly correlate with the degree one accepts the notion they could (perhaps if they "worked harder"), as you seem to have alluded to yourself. If one simply and clearly cannot, regardless of any questions of individual choice, engage in a particular activity, I would see this as excluding their circumstances from morality or ethics entirely, and therefore others acting otherwise who are in the domain of choice in that respect, would not run contrary to the Categorical Imperative.
I would argue that the amount of effort one puts out is not directly related to the value of ones efforts to society, and that one is generally paid based on the value of their work to the larger society.
By this measure, people incapable of extraordinary feats, "cannot, regardless o any questions of individual choice" achieve extraordinary feats. Bill Gates (as an example) was capable of building a company with revenues such that it was able to take advantage of the tax laws in such a way as to leverage an increase in personal wealth. That someone else can't would therefore exclude their circumstances (and thus the consequences of their circumstances) from morality or ethics entirely (by your own argument).
Thus person A's accumulation of wealth is not immoral or unethical, merely because person B is incapable of doing the same.
I think the problem that most people get tangled up in here is exactly what financial wealth does and does not represent. It represents the ability to do work now in return for a marker that allows one to call upon societies resources and labor at some future point in time to accomplish some goal of their choosing. The assumption implicit in the mind of most people who abhor accumulation of wealth is that the government is better able to direct the resources and labor of society, even though the government has not demonstrated the ability to provide sufficient value to society to accumulate such markers, whole people such as Andrew Carnegie have done so. I have serious doubts that something like the Carnegie Free Library system would have come about without the accumulation of said markers by an individual, who then spent them in such an endeavor. Government unfortunately is incapable of long term thing beyond the next election cycle. The only time this is not true is when term limit or self limits kick in. Even then, we've seen second term presidents compromise their ethical and moral positions, despite the fact that there is no chance of their reelection due to term limits.
There you go!
"The Damn TSA and traffic stops doing warrantless examination of hard drive and cell phone contents have ruined it for the rest of us".
Very sad.
Frankly, those are some of the best visualizations I've ever seen of altitude data on Mars. It makes some of the geologic features very, very clear, compared to other data visualizations that try to do actual color or altitude color.