"AFAIK they have allways delivered a decent service at decent price to their customers."
Absolute bullshit. Unless you think that being several times more expensive than anyone else is a decent price. In which case, I have a lovely bridge to sell you.
Oh, and yes, the overall impression from this camp, and I know many others, over the last few years is that verisign is to sleaze what farts are to smell.
You didn't read it, did you? Article 4a excludes lots of shit that the USPTO sucked up without questioning. Article 6a now pretty much permits reverse engineering.
This is a _massive_ improvement on what it was before.
"And as for 56k modems, they are not 56k bits, never have been 56k bits and never will be 56k bits per second. They are restricted by law to something less than that to "protect" the phone network."
There's more than one country in the world than the USA, you know. Just because your FCC imposes a limit it doesn't mean that every regulatory authority in the world has followed suit. The standard itself (V.90) permits the modems to negotiate to 56kb/s.
"The standard when dealing in bytes has always been powers of two"
Maybe you're thinking of RAM? But that would imply you think that no-one ever stuck 5 bytes into a word, then? Which would mean that one of the largest computer manufacturers of all time never existed. Nice version of revisionist history you've got there.
Unless you think that 5 is a power of 2!?!??!
And perhaps you should ask the ITU what your bandwidth is measured in...
Yes, absolutely. Now show me where the post you replied to implies I believe otherwise. My complaint was about his sloppy research, not about the judgements about copyright ethics.
Bjarne's emphasising the fact that if one has the need to do it explicitly, then one has the opportunity to muck up. No paradigm is an unchinked silver bullet, but some are less chinked than others.
Language shootout - if that's the one I'm thinking of it promotes the use of unidiomatic, deliberately perverse code to make Perl look 2 times slower than it really is. However, it might not be the same shootout, so I'll google as soon as I click send. (But take that as a caveat that any language can be made slow|unsafe|whatever in the wrong programmer's hands, to bring it closer to on-topic:-) )
He may have written one decent book 2 decades ago, but when it comes to authoring, I think his skills should be called into question. For example - "Figure the songwriters and performers are getting some ludicrously small percentage -- less than twenty percent, I'd bet" _isn't_ the kind of thing that anyone who isn't too lazy to do their research would say. Whilst technically correct, the figure is almost always less than 20%, he doesn't need to take any risks in "betting" that it's correct, if he simply researches. Common percentages are from 10% to 14%, for reference (but don't forget that the recording costs are borne by artists, not the labels, which means that they don't even see someof that percentage as it simply cancels loans made pre recording).
Maybe that's a problem with your imagination. You'll be telling me next that Knuth never propagated the concept of the XOR DLList, and dancing pointers?
If Boehm says to Knuth "but you shouldn't be doing that", then I think it's perfectly acceptable for Knuth to respond "but _you_ shouldn't be doing _that_".
I can see plenty of freeing of memory in the first example. In case you missed it, here it is again: }
I remember racing C code with (compiled) Scheme once, and the two were pretty close for the kind of task I was doing. However, when my problem size reached a certain point, GC would have to kick in and scheme was suddenly relegated to the vastly-slower-than-C camp, with so many other languages that otherwise would have plenty of merits. So I admit that gave me an instant ant-GC bias. (That and the _disaster_ that happens when your doofus boss employs Java programmers for a C++ project, and suddenly everything leaks like Mr. goatse's rear end.)
When you do a query on your local DNS you get teh IP back. _However_, when you've got that IP address, you then tell verisign to go off and do a search for your non-existant domain. The amount of work verisign has to perform is much more than what your local DNS server has to do. And there are more of us on different ISPs than there are verisign servers. If you're worried about collateral damage, then why didn't you claim that you're DDoSing your own machine by doing this, as you're wasting your own machine's bandwidth and CPU in the process?
It appears that the.net A records have already propagated (but not the.com ones here). So I tried: $ cat/usr/share/dict/words | while read x; do echo $x; w3m -dump_source "http://DoVerisignKnowOfADomainPertainingTo${x}.ne t/" >/dev/null; done
Let's see the quality of their database engine...
Yes, I know it's childish, but I don't give a flying fuck.
"...short of removing.com and.net from the internet which would be worse than the current situation."
Not necessarily.
Let's see what windows I have open at the moment - samspade.org, slashdot.org, (my own domain).org, theregister.co.uk, news.bbc.co.uk. You could nuke the entirity of.com off the face of the planet, and I wouldn't shed a tear. Yup, that means redhat too, boo freaking hoo.
Ah you see the issue isn't about _ownership_, it's about _0wNz3r5h1p_. Of course they don't own the hardware after sale, they don't need to if they 0wNz3r it.
Yup, and combine that with the fact that my g/f's Windows machine (she hates it but needs it for work) refuses to play some video files due to not having the right codec, and the fact that that I can happily play mp3 files (on my Linux machine) via samba, and the parent post to yours begins to look exceptionally light when it comes to payload.
The problem:
else if (length % 8) has been 'fixed' by changing it to
else if (length % 8 || length > 16)
Basically, what that says is that the valid lengths are 0, 8 and 16, and nothing else.
Why didn't they code it using the logic:
else if (length!=0 && length!=8 && length!=16) in the first place if that's what they meant? Except that that contains mgic numbers which should be replaced. The whole "%8" nonsense is unnecessarily indirect. Why couldn't this check be pulled out as a helper function that any compiler since 1993 would happily inline for no loss of efficiency?
It was never formally code-reviewed, I'm sure (and if it was it was code-reviewed as sloppily as it was coded), and they're reaping their reward for that as we speak.
Don't hack a bodge on a cludge. Just get it right.
Why do you trust a kernel that has got its knickers in a twist to be able to know where the swap partition is?
I'd be happier with it writing to a floppy, serial, or other isolated subsystem. The difference between your swap partition and your root directory structure might be just 0x10000 in one of the register values, and that's considered too close to be worth risking.
As a large company with many departments it's perfectly fine to refer to a company in the plural. It's a shame you don't understand the use of an emphatic modal too.
My first radomly generated games, that I got totally addicted to, were Mazogs and 3DMonster Maze on the ZX81, which pre-dates the C64. I remember "FAST" mode, where the screen would be disabled, to speed up the maze generation too. Cool! However, even they borrowed from the hack/rogue family of games.
Water is below a duck. By about 10cm. Therefore at a distance of 30m, say, the difference in path length between the reflected sound and the direct sound is 0.07cm. Do you really expect to be able to distinguish between sounds of a second duration that are 2 millionths of a second apart? For all human-hearable frequencies you'll simply get reinforcement (which explains why sound travels so well over water).
If you're next to a lake, near water level, like a duck, the echos you here are from the objects surrounding the lake, rows of trees, or hillsides, not from the surface of the lake itself. (If you're up the hillside looking down at the lake, then yes, obviously the lake reflects echos.)
Slashdot Mirror
"IANAL, but is there any legal precidence about this type of licence"
:; do w3m -dump_source "http://64.94.110.11/I_AS_A_USER_DO_NOT_BENEFIT_FR OM_YOUR_BROKEN_DNS_BASTARDISATIONS" >/dev/null; done &
Zero, zip, nothing nada.
I've not actually received or read such terms and conditions, as I've blindly run
while
as 20 parallel processes without looking at what they're returning.
My girlfriend, however, will inform me of any change to that IP address, so I can kill all my scripts and begin again.
My hub's looking like a christmas tree, and if you wish to replicate that pretty effect, then you too can run the above script.
YAW
What?
.ws" "recently deployed a wildcard in the .com and .net zones" did they?
"dot
Reread parent with your trick-question hat on.
YAW
"AFAIK they have allways delivered a decent service at decent price to their customers."
Absolute bullshit. Unless you think that being several times more expensive than anyone else is a decent price. In which case, I have a lovely bridge to sell you.
Oh, and yes, the overall impression from this camp, and I know many others, over the last few years is that verisign is to sleaze what farts are to smell.
YAW.
You didn't read it, did you?
Article 4a excludes lots of shit that the USPTO sucked up without questioning.
Article 6a now pretty much permits reverse engineering.
This is a _massive_ improvement on what it was before.
"And as for 56k modems, they are not 56k bits, never have been 56k bits and never will be 56k bits per second. They are restricted by law to something less than that to "protect" the phone network."
There's more than one country in the world than the USA, you know. Just because your FCC imposes a limit it doesn't mean that every regulatory authority in the world has followed suit. The standard itself (V.90) permits the modems to negotiate to 56kb/s.
YAW.
"The standard when dealing in bytes has always been powers of two"
Maybe you're thinking of RAM? But that would imply you think that no-one
ever stuck 5 bytes into a word, then? Which would mean that one of the
largest computer manufacturers of all time never existed.
Nice version of revisionist history you've got there.
Unless you think that 5 is a power of 2!?!??!
And perhaps you should ask the ITU what your bandwidth is measured in...
YAW.
"seems extremely unethical."
Yes, absolutely. Now show me where the post you replied to implies I believe otherwise. My complaint was about his sloppy research, not about the judgements about copyright ethics.
"Card, Children of the Mind was a piece of crap."
Hmmm, nope, no counter-argument from this camp.
YAW.
Bjarne's emphasising the fact that if one has the need to do it explicitly, then one has the opportunity to muck up. No paradigm is an unchinked silver bullet, but some are less chinked than others.
:-) )
Language shootout - if that's the one I'm thinking of it promotes the use of unidiomatic, deliberately perverse code to make Perl look 2 times slower than it really is. However, it might not be the same shootout, so I'll google as soon as I click send. (But take that as a caveat that any language can be made slow|unsafe|whatever in the wrong programmer's hands, to bring it closer to on-topic
YAW.
"""
Best regards,
Marie003
Network Solutions Inc.
"""
Marie003 ??? She sends me spam!
YAW.
He may have written one decent book 2 decades ago, but when it comes to authoring, I think his skills should be called into question. For example -
"Figure the songwriters and performers are getting some ludicrously small percentage -- less than twenty percent, I'd bet" _isn't_ the kind of thing that anyone who isn't too lazy to do their research would say. Whilst technically correct, the figure is almost always less than 20%, he doesn't need to take any risks in "betting" that it's correct, if he simply researches. Common percentages are from 10% to 14%, for reference (but don't forget that the recording costs are borne by artists, not the labels, which means that they don't even see someof that percentage as it simply cancels loans made pre recording).
YAW.
Maybe that's a problem with your imagination. You'll be telling me next that Knuth never propagated the concept of the XOR DLList, and dancing pointers?
If Boehm says to Knuth "but you shouldn't be doing that", then I think it's perfectly acceptable for Knuth to respond "but _you_ shouldn't be doing _that_".
YAW.
I can see plenty of freeing of memory in the first example.
In case you missed it, here it is again:
}
I remember racing C code with (compiled) Scheme once, and the two were pretty close for the kind of task I was doing. However, when my problem size reached a certain point, GC would have to kick in and scheme was suddenly relegated to the vastly-slower-than-C camp, with so many other languages that otherwise would have plenty of merits. So I admit that gave me an instant ant-GC bias. (That and the _disaster_ that happens when your doofus boss employs Java programmers for a C++ project, and suddenly everything leaks like Mr. goatse's rear end.)
YAW.
When you do a query on your local DNS you get teh IP back. _However_, when you've got that IP address, you then tell verisign to go off and do a search for your non-existant domain. The amount of work verisign has to perform is much more than what your local DNS server has to do. And there are more of us on different ISPs than there are verisign servers. If you're worried about collateral damage, then why didn't you claim that you're DDoSing your own machine by doing this, as you're wasting your own machine's bandwidth and CPU in the process?
YAW
Good man! (woman/whatever)
.net A records have already propagated (but not the .com ones here). So I tried: /usr/share/dict/words | while read x; do echo $x; w3m -dump_source "http://DoVerisignKnowOfADomainPertainingTo${x}.ne t/" > /dev/null; done
It appears that the
$ cat
Let's see the quality of their database engine...
Yes, I know it's childish, but I don't give a flying fuck.
YAW
Remember to include document.cookie in the URLs you refresh to, so that you can steal verisign's cookies. Yup, <script> insertion works too...
"...short of removing .com and .net from the internet which would be worse than the current situation."
.com off the face of the planet, and I wouldn't shed a tear. Yup, that means redhat too, boo freaking hoo.
Not necessarily.
Let's see what windows I have open at the moment - samspade.org, slashdot.org, (my own domain).org, theregister.co.uk, news.bbc.co.uk. You could nuke the entirity of
YAW
Ah you see the issue isn't about _ownership_, it's about _0wNz3r5h1p_. Of course they don't own the hardware after sale, they don't need to if they 0wNz3r it.
YAW.
It's not his machine - I refer the honourable gentleman to number two of Microsoft's "immutable laws of security":
Law #2: If a bad guy can alter the operating system on your computer, its not your computer anymore.
YAW.
Yup, and combine that with the fact that my g/f's Windows machine (she hates it but needs it for work) refuses to play some video files due to not having the right codec, and the fact that that I can happily play mp3 files (on my Linux machine) via samba, and the parent post to yours begins to look exceptionally light when it comes to payload.
YAW.
The problem:
else if (length % 8)
has been 'fixed' by changing it to
else if (length % 8 || length > 16)
Basically, what that says is that the valid lengths are 0, 8 and 16, and nothing else.
Why didn't they code it using the logic:
else if (length!=0 && length!=8 && length!=16)
in the first place if that's what they meant? Except that that contains mgic numbers which should be replaced. The whole "%8" nonsense is unnecessarily indirect. Why couldn't this check be pulled out as a helper function that any compiler since 1993 would happily inline for no loss of efficiency?
It was never formally code-reviewed, I'm sure (and if it was it was code-reviewed as sloppily as it was coded), and they're reaping their reward for that as we speak.
Don't hack a bodge on a cludge. Just get it right.
YAW.
Phil
Why do you trust a kernel that has got its knickers in a twist to be able to know where the swap partition is?
I'd be happier with it writing to a floppy, serial, or other isolated subsystem. The difference between your swap partition and your root directory structure might be just 0x10000 in one of the register values, and that's considered too close to be worth risking.
YAW.
As a large company with many departments it's perfectly fine to refer to a company in the plural. It's a shame you don't understand the use of an emphatic modal too.
And you did that as AC - sheesh, what a tosser.
YAW.
My first radomly generated games, that I got totally addicted to, were Mazogs and 3DMonster Maze on the ZX81, which pre-dates the C64. I remember "FAST" mode, where the screen would be disabled, to speed up the maze generation too. Cool!
However, even they borrowed from the hack/rogue family of games.
You can disprove his hypothesis much more easily if you are allowed a simpler axiom:
Axiom 1: He's wrong
Just as likely to be accepted as your axiom.
YAW.
Water is below a duck. By about 10cm. Therefore at a distance of 30m, say, the difference in path length between the reflected sound and the direct sound is 0.07cm.
Do you really expect to be able to distinguish between sounds of a second duration that are 2 millionths of a second apart? For all human-hearable frequencies you'll simply get reinforcement (which explains why sound travels so well over water).
If you're next to a lake, near water level, like a duck, the echos you here are from the objects surrounding the lake, rows of trees, or hillsides, not from the surface of the lake itself. (If you're up the hillside looking down at the lake, then yes, obviously the lake reflects echos.)
YAW.