due to toxins from the fuel system (which is, I believe what they claimed) or rather something else -- not necessarily anything very sinister, mind you, just run of the mill disinformation
Well, if Texans starting sprouting more limbs from handling shuttle debris, then we'll know for sure that it was disinformation, or else undiscovered properties of fuel system toxins.
So even if the rumours are true and this manufacturing process isn't working, they still have completed months of research, and still have the experience of trial and error. There's no reason they can not take another approach at a similar type of card if the current model doesn't work out. Sure it costs a lot of money, but I assume they have lots of money comparatively. ATI can stay on top for a while. There's no reason that nVidia can't overtake them at another point in time.
Doesn't anybody stop to think that the UK parliament might *implicitly* own the domain www.parliament.uk because they've been using it since before 1996? If they haven't registered it then nobody else has either, so nobody else is more apt to acquire it. And I'm sure somebody else wants it. I don't have a receipt for that pair of boots I bought in 1998. Maybe somebody else owns them even though I've been wearing them for the past 5 years. Come to think about it, I'm going out to buy a new pair of boots.
Come on, give us some good articles to talk about.
Collecting Ahead of Time Wal-Mart, Target and Toys R Us voluntarily began collecting online sales taxes in most states and all three now charge Internet sales tax in California.
So if the government doesn't come after them for back taxes, then they get to keep the current sales tax. That means more money for the online entities that start charging tax sooner.
Charging for downloads? I usually don't complain, but that sucks. There's one good drawback I can now quote for living in a capitalistic society.
and the Open Source development community to maintain and enhance the Sybase Watcom C/C++ and Fortran compiler products.
-- http://www.openwatcom.org/
So if the same open source developers work on both Watcom compilers and GNU compilers, does this mean that the best features of both will be carried back and forth (kind of unknowingly, but more out of convenience) until they start looking alike? I would assume that in the future these products may grow together, and the same destiny may apply to other open source efforts that have commonalities.
They're thinking ahead and planning for all future iterations of NT (ie Win2k, XP etc.)
That's pretty much what the webpage says too. The future iterations? Windows XP is well over a year old already, and Windows 2000 is even older. If that's the future then how far in the past is this ReactOS product?
I agree there's no sense in berating a 0.1.0 product, but how useful will it ever be if it always lags behind Microsoft by many years? MS ain't gonna wait for it to catch up.
I would rather see those efforts, maybe even some of the codebase used wisely for Linux and distros that are different from Windows.
I don't think the developers are biting off more than they can chew... I just think they have to chew awfully fast.
I wish them luck and I wish them well. If nothing else, the product will be a good coding endeavour and hopefully much will be learned from it.
You are correct.
The list of Microsoft products that include MSDE 2000 can be
found here. The.Net SDK is one of the 15 products that does not install MSDE by default (you must explicitly select it), instead of of being one of the other 10 or so products that do install MSDE by default.
Interestingly enough, the Slammer worm also affected the.NET Framework SDK whether or not the full SQL Server was installed on the machine or not. This is because a component of SQL Server is included in the 1.0 release of the SDK. Microsoft issued a critical patch for this issue too.
Even after having spent spent 100M on their Trustworthy Computing Initiative by July of 2002, we have not seen a great deal of proactive security fixes from Microsoft. Instead, external exploits seem to still be easy (even old ones), and then Microsoft takes action. Microsoft software still has a lot of maturing to do. We shouldn't expect magic anytime soon.
They are asking people to write in support of the four exemptions that they have proposed.
Exemptions are good. However by supporting the four exemptions, are we also supporting the fact that other items are not exempt? I admit the proposed four exemptions are very broad in scope so to have them all pass would be good.
The situation sort of has the feeling of being stuck between a rock and a hard place. Remotely. But it's still there.
i'm rooting for the team with the highest score
on
Superbowl XXXVII
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Since there's nothing much to discuss right now, who wants to be the first to place a bet?
P2P Needs a More Secure Base (e.g. FreeNetProject)
on
Shutting down Kazaa
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Given the cases of late where big-name companies are sniffing out and trying to also legally charge P2P "offenders", I would like to see increased security, not in the form of SSL/encryption -- because that won't help when IP numbers are still available -- but instead I would like to see an implementation of P2P clients that run on top of the FreeNet project, or something similar. http://freenetproject.org
Here's a brief description from the FreeNet project website to provide some context:
What is FreeNet? Freenet is a large-scale peer-to-peer network which pools the power of member computers around the world to create a massive virtual information store open to anyone to freely publish or view information of all kinds. Freenet is:
* Highly survivable: All internal processes are completely anonymized and decentralized across the global network, making it virtually impossible for an attacker to destroy information or take control of the system.
* Private: Freenet makes it extremely difficult for anyone to spy on the information that you are viewing, publishing, or storing.
* Secure: Information stored in Freenet is protected by strong cryptography against malicious tampering or counterfeiting.
Supposedly, being on the FreeNet provides total anonymity because the protocols are encrypted from the ground up. You can't know where stuff is coming from and where stuff is going. This prevents spying, even by rogue clients. The content on FreeNet is hosted by every computer that is connected to the FreeNet at the time. You have a data store on your computer when you are connected to the FreeNet, but it is encrypted so you can't know what content from the FreeNet is being hosted on your computer (which brings up other issues). Of course nobody else can supposedly tell either.
I don't know the implications, or even if it is a feasible task to port P2P to FreeNet, but I think something like this is a necessary step as time marches on and as the red tape and legal woes thicken. (Maybe the implicit anonymous nature of the FreeNet doesn't allow for the same P2P processes to work -- then again maybe it's ideal).Right now FreeNet is very slow and the last time I used it (version 0.4) was buggy. However I haven't tried the latest 0.5 release.
Of course this won't necessarily prevent the companies that create and distrubute the P2P software from being prosectued. However it might provide the anonymity that these companies need to distribute their software and keep operating -- provided they don't make themselves known to the public. If they are not known, then nobody can find them. Which begs the question: Then how would these companies get advertising revenue if nobody knows about them? Well, they could advertise on a webpage on the FreeNet and accept credit card payments over the FreeNet, and then the advertiser's content would magically appear in the P2P application. This would take a lot of trust on behalf of the advertisers.
Just a thought. I'd like to hear a response from developers who are involved with the FreeNet project and/or P2P clients about the feasibility of all this.
Re:psst: OS X doesn't run on FreeBSD, not at all.
on
Palladium Changes Name
·
· Score: 1
You rained on my parade. Boo-hoo.
The stability of Mac OS X begins with Darwin, an Open Source, UNIX-based foundation. Darwin is a complete BSD UNIX implementation, derived from the original 4.4BSD-Lite2 Open Source distribution. Darwin uses a monolithic kernel based on FreeBSD 4.4 and the OSF/mk Mach 3, combining BSD's POSIX support with the fine-grained multithreading and real-time performance of Mach. Darwin also provides a complete shell environment featuring popular UNIX scripting languages such as tcsh, bash and perl; utilities including ls, grep and top; editors like sed, vi and emacs; as well as services such as ftp, apache and ssh. http://www.apple.com/macosx/technologies/darwin.ht ml
As far as I'm concerned, my original post (let the karma speak for itself) was close enough for example purposes. I could have been anal and put all these details in the original post, but for the purposes of this discussion it's good enough as is. Hey, if it were another era, another time, maybe for a real essay or posterity purposes then this all would be warranted. Are you a teacher by chance?;-)
You should try some prognosticating of your own. Continue to be Anonymous Coward if you don't trust your own opinions. It's tough to be an over-critical person and to come out from under the wraps of anonymity. But the good thing is everybody else got the gist of it. Too bad you're so smart -- it must be tough.
Grace demands $2.5 million in punitive damages from eBay and $100,000 from Neeley.
Who can put a price on reputation anyways? It seems a little hard to qualify in dollars. We don't know this guy and his reputation. Who's to say that his rep isn't worth only $1? Why 2.6 mil?
I think Grace should retaliate by posting some negative feedback at EBay like: "Neeley is an idiot.", or even publish it in his newspaper. And then they can both call it even. He might even get some enjoyment out of the process.
Sounds like it could be the war of egos rather than anything else. Sometimes this sort of thing happens when people think too highly of themselves -- "How dare he slander me!". Blemishes add character too.
People will always have postitive and negative things to say throughout life. It would be a much better world if everybody understood that.
Try to actually convince people that a comment on eBay is going to ruin your life. I don't think so. Even if you had to use another auction site then it's not the end of the world.
It's amazing what a little bit of anger can lead to, especially against somebody you don't know. I bet Grace's mom could call him all sorts of nasty names and he wouldn't sue her. (well, we don't know him, but let's assume).
So often the rest of us suffer because of the potential resulting precedent set by the case. I hate a world where we have to all walk on eggshells.
They sound like a couple of normal, even nice guys who have just gotten into a bit of an argument.
"Looking ahead, we are working on a new hardware/software architecture for the Windows PC platform (initially code-named 'Palladium'), which will significantly enhance the integrity, privacy and data security of computer systems by eliminating many 'weak links,'" Gates wrote in the memo.
However Linux doesn't seem to require an integrated hardware/software Palladium or similar technology. MS is trying to stay in the $. I'm sure over the next Decade Linux can get an interface as integrated and user-friendly as Windows and Macs (look at OsX on FreeBSD). Then what will you choose as a computing platform?.. An integrated Windows/hardware/software secure system that you pay through the teeth for, or a less restrictive but equally friendly, cost-effect Linux desktop system?... especially if you are deploying hundreds or thousands in a corporation. The future can be bright. MS might just force themselves into harder competition by this secure computing strategy. Here's hoping, because it's always nice to have more than one on the playing field.
If anybody thinks anything is totally secured in this world, then they are deluded.
By the time "they" get your credit card number by breaking the bytes of an SSL connection that you used to pay online with one year ago, one of these will probably have happened:
- Robbers broke into your house when you weren't home and stole your home entertainment system (you say you have insurance on your household items; well, your bank also insures your credit card against fraud).
- or, your car may have been stolen (oh no! while I was worrying about 1024-bit keys being unsecure my car was stolen!)
- or, Somebody kidnapped you and held a gun to your head until you gave them your PIN #. (A gun is much cheaper than a 10M computer).
- or, you lost your credit card and somebody bought something on it, or somebody got your number from a carbon copy slip in the garbage can
- or, you went bankrupt so "they" can have as much access to that account as "they" want
- etc. etc.
I honestly don't think that the common person has much to worry about if 1024 encryption is hard to crack right now. If so, then just use a lengthier key, like 2048. Problem salve
icculus.org has gotten America's Army to run under Linux, as this screenshot will attest
That screenshot attests to the fact that there is a picture of America's Army main menu on a Linux box. That doesn't mean the game runs or runs well.
Always the skeptic.
I would be interested in hearing more from people who have actually tried to run it.
NFS sieving step for 1024-bit RSA keys can be completed in less than a year by a $10M device
So at this moment in time they *may* have the ability to crack a few hundred keys in one person's lifetime. (Remember, the machine is theoretical). That's a lot of money and time to crack relatively few keys, using a machine that doesn't exist. Maybe it would be worthwhile to use against AlQueda. As for the rest of us here on/., we probably don't have much to worry about. If you are worried then make a 2048-bit key for yourself. Case closed... until a few years down the road. Then do the same again.
Wouldn't it be nice if instead of focusing on the problem ("1024 is unsafe!"/"the government might find the password to my hotmail account!") we focused on the solution ("make a bigger key!"/"don't inherently trust technology to be the final solution").
We can quip about 1024 being unsecure just like a few years ago we quiped about 512 being unsecure. That's why the key lengths keep going up. Any encryption is a preventative measure, not an absolute.
So Are 1024-bit RSA Keys Unsafe. Right now, the answer would be No, they are not unsafe, relatively.
If we don't find a different way of thinking about and creating software, we will not be writing programs bigger than about 10 million lines of code, no matter how fast our processors become.
I think if more people get turned onto pure component-based development, then the current object-oriented paradigm could carry us much further.
You have chaotic errors where all you can say is, "Boy, this was really screwed up, and I guess I need to go in and go through the whole thing and fix it." You don't have errors that are proportionate to the source of the error.
In a way you do. Right now it's known as try() {...}catch(...) {}throw -or- COM interface -or- whatever other language you might work with that has a way to introduce error handling at the component or exact source-area level, and to handle errors gracefully.
"protocol adherence" is replaced by "pattern recognition" as a way of connecting components of software systems.
That would mean a whole new generation of viruses that thrive on the new software model. That would certainly stir things up a bit. Of course any pioneered methadology is subject to many problems.
But I'm not putting down his theory, just commenting on it. The guy's obviously a deep thinker. We need people to push the envelope and challenge our current knowledge like that. Overall the theory is extremely interesting, although the practicality of it will have to be proven, as with all other new ideas.
One of Richard's suggestions for the main character was Q*Bert, a combination of CUBE (QUBE) and HUBERT. Don't ask me who Hubert is. Waxman recalls an intermediate step, "It went from *&!!#$$! to cubert but I was afraid it would be pronounced 'cub bert' so I had suggested that the 'cu' be changed to 'q'."
Looks like the asterisk might have come from the swearing characters.
Really? How many computer languages do you know written by marketing guys for programmers?
None. However FORTRAN was written by programmers for engineers, and COBOL by programmers for Business. C/C++ is written by programmers for programmers, to build the UNIX OS, etc. Your question would be closer to the mark if it were reversed: "How many computer languages do you know written by programmers for marketing guys?" I should have provided more context. Thanks for the laugh.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if Texans starting sprouting more limbs from handling shuttle debris, then we'll know for sure that it was disinformation, or else undiscovered properties of fuel system toxins.
So even if the rumours are true and this manufacturing process isn't working, they still have completed months of research, and still have the experience of trial and error. There's no reason they can not take another approach at a similar type of card if the current model doesn't work out. Sure it costs a lot of money, but I assume they have lots of money comparatively. ATI can stay on top for a while. There's no reason that nVidia can't overtake them at another point in time.
Doesn't anybody stop to think that the UK parliament might *implicitly* own the domain www.parliament.uk because they've been using it since before 1996? If they haven't registered it then nobody else has either, so nobody else is more apt to acquire it. And I'm sure somebody else wants it. I don't have a receipt for that pair of boots I bought in 1998. Maybe somebody else owns them even though I've been wearing them for the past 5 years. Come to think about it, I'm going out to buy a new pair of boots. Come on, give us some good articles to talk about.
Wal-Mart, Target and Toys R Us voluntarily began collecting online sales taxes in most states and all three now charge Internet sales tax in California.
So if the government doesn't come after them for back taxes, then they get to keep the current sales tax. That means more money for the online entities that start charging tax sooner.
Charging for downloads? I usually don't complain, but that sucks. There's one good drawback I can now quote for living in a capitalistic society.
So if the same open source developers work on both Watcom compilers and GNU compilers, does this mean that the best features of both will be carried back and forth (kind of unknowingly, but more out of convenience) until they start looking alike? I would assume that in the future these products may grow together, and the same destiny may apply to other open source efforts that have commonalities.
The priest info is in the title of the news article and the first paragraph. I don't read German either, so I read the English article instead.
That's pretty much what the webpage says too. The future iterations? Windows XP is well over a year old already, and Windows 2000 is even older. If that's the future then how far in the past is this ReactOS product? ... I just think they have to chew awfully fast.
I wish them luck and I wish them well. If nothing else, the product will be a good coding endeavour and hopefully much will be learned from it.
I agree there's no sense in berating a 0.1.0 product, but how useful will it ever be if it always lags behind Microsoft by many years? MS ain't gonna wait for it to catch up.
I would rather see those efforts, maybe even some of the codebase used wisely for Linux and distros that are different from Windows.
I don't think the developers are biting off more than they can chew
You are correct. The list of Microsoft products that include MSDE 2000 can be found here. The .Net SDK is one of the 15 products that does not install MSDE by default (you must explicitly select it), instead of of being one of the other 10 or so products that do install MSDE by default.
Interestingly enough, the Slammer worm also affected the .NET Framework SDK whether or not the full SQL Server was installed on the machine or not. This is because a component of SQL Server is included in the 1.0 release of the SDK. Microsoft issued a critical patch for this issue too.
Even after having spent spent 100M on their Trustworthy Computing Initiative by July of 2002, we have not seen a great deal of proactive security fixes from Microsoft. Instead, external exploits seem to still be easy (even old ones), and then Microsoft takes action. Microsoft software still has a lot of maturing to do. We shouldn't expect magic anytime soon.
Exemptions are good. However by supporting the four exemptions, are we also supporting the fact that other items are not exempt? I admit the proposed four exemptions are very broad in scope so to have them all pass would be good.
The situation sort of has the feeling of being stuck between a rock and a hard place. Remotely. But it's still there.
Since there's nothing much to discuss right now, who wants to be the first to place a bet?
What is FreeNet?
Supposedly, being on the FreeNet provides total anonymity because the protocols are encrypted from the ground up. You can't know where stuff is coming from and where stuff is going. This prevents spying, even by rogue clients. The content on FreeNet is hosted by every computer that is connected to the FreeNet at the time. You have a data store on your computer when you are connected to the FreeNet, but it is encrypted so you can't know what content from the FreeNet is being hosted on your computer (which brings up other issues). Of course nobody else can supposedly tell either.Freenet is a large-scale peer-to-peer network which pools the power of member computers around the world to create a massive virtual information store open to anyone to freely publish or view information of all kinds. Freenet is:
* Highly survivable: All internal processes are completely anonymized and decentralized across the global network, making it virtually impossible for an attacker to destroy information or take control of the system.
* Private: Freenet makes it extremely difficult for anyone to spy on the information that you are viewing, publishing, or storing.
* Secure: Information stored in Freenet is protected by strong cryptography against malicious tampering or counterfeiting.
I don't know the implications, or even if it is a feasible task to port P2P to FreeNet, but I think something like this is a necessary step as time marches on and as the red tape and legal woes thicken. (Maybe the implicit anonymous nature of the FreeNet doesn't allow for the same P2P processes to work -- then again maybe it's ideal) .Right now FreeNet is very slow and the last time I used it (version 0.4) was buggy. However I haven't tried the latest 0.5 release.
Of course this won't necessarily prevent the companies that create and distrubute the P2P software from being prosectued. However it might provide the anonymity that these companies need to distribute their software and keep operating -- provided they don't make themselves known to the public. If they are not known, then nobody can find them. Which begs the question: Then how would these companies get advertising revenue if nobody knows about them? Well, they could advertise on a webpage on the FreeNet and accept credit card payments over the FreeNet, and then the advertiser's content would magically appear in the P2P application. This would take a lot of trust on behalf of the advertisers.
Just a thought. I'd like to hear a response from developers who are involved with the FreeNet project and/or P2P clients about the feasibility of all this.
The stability of Mac OS X begins with Darwin, an Open Source, UNIX-based foundation. Darwin is a complete BSD UNIX implementation, derived from the original 4.4BSD-Lite2 Open Source distribution. Darwin uses a monolithic kernel based on FreeBSD 4.4 and the OSF/mk Mach 3, combining BSD's POSIX support with the fine-grained multithreading and real-time performance of Mach. Darwin also provides a complete shell environment featuring popular UNIX scripting languages such as tcsh, bash and perl; utilities including ls, grep and top; editors like sed, vi and emacs; as well as services such as ftp, apache and ssh.t ml
http://www.apple.com/macosx/technologies/darwin.h
As far as I'm concerned, my original post (let the karma speak for itself) was close enough for example purposes. I could have been anal and put all these details in the original post, but for the purposes of this discussion it's good enough as is. Hey, if it were another era, another time, maybe for a real essay or posterity purposes then this all would be warranted. Are you a teacher by chance? ;-)
You should try some prognosticating of your own. Continue to be Anonymous Coward if you don't trust your own opinions. It's tough to be an over-critical person and to come out from under the wraps of anonymity. But the good thing is everybody else got the gist of it. Too bad you're so smart -- it must be tough.
Who can put a price on reputation anyways? It seems a little hard to qualify in dollars. We don't know this guy and his reputation. Who's to say that his rep isn't worth only $1? Why 2.6 mil?
I think Grace should retaliate by posting some negative feedback at EBay like: "Neeley is an idiot.", or even publish it in his newspaper. And then they can both call it even. He might even get some enjoyment out of the process.
Sounds like it could be the war of egos rather than anything else. Sometimes this sort of thing happens when people think too highly of themselves -- "How dare he slander me!". Blemishes add character too.
People will always have postitive and negative things to say throughout life. It would be a much better world if everybody understood that.
Try to actually convince people that a comment on eBay is going to ruin your life. I don't think so. Even if you had to use another auction site then it's not the end of the world.
It's amazing what a little bit of anger can lead to, especially against somebody you don't know. I bet Grace's mom could call him all sorts of nasty names and he wouldn't sue her. (well, we don't know him, but let's assume).
So often the rest of us suffer because of the potential resulting precedent set by the case. I hate a world where we have to all walk on eggshells.
They sound like a couple of normal, even nice guys who have just gotten into a bit of an argument.
However Linux doesn't seem to require an integrated hardware/software Palladium or similar technology. MS is trying to stay in the $. I'm sure over the next Decade Linux can get an interface as integrated and user-friendly as Windows and Macs (look at OsX on FreeBSD). Then what will you choose as a computing platform? .. An integrated Windows/hardware/software secure system that you pay through the teeth for, or a less restrictive but equally friendly, cost-effect Linux desktop system? ... especially if you are deploying hundreds or thousands in a corporation. The future can be bright. MS might just force themselves into harder competition by this secure computing strategy. Here's hoping, because it's always nice to have more than one on the playing field.
They can run, but they can't hide from /.
By the time "they" get your credit card number by breaking the bytes of an SSL connection that you used to pay online with one year ago, one of these will probably have happened:
- Robbers broke into your house when you weren't home and stole your home entertainment system (you say you have insurance on your household items; well, your bank also insures your credit card against fraud).
- or, your car may have been stolen (oh no! while I was worrying about 1024-bit keys being unsecure my car was stolen!)
- or, Somebody kidnapped you and held a gun to your head until you gave them your PIN #. (A gun is much cheaper than a 10M computer).
- or, you lost your credit card and somebody bought something on it, or somebody got your number from a carbon copy slip in the garbage can
- or, you went bankrupt so "they" can have as much access to that account as "they" want
- etc. etc.
I honestly don't think that the common person has much to worry about if 1024 encryption is hard to crack right now. If so, then just use a lengthier key, like 2048. Problem salve
That screenshot attests to the fact that there is a picture of America's Army main menu on a Linux box. That doesn't mean the game runs or runs well. Always the skeptic.
I would be interested in hearing more from people who have actually tried to run it.
So at this moment in time they *may* have the ability to crack a few hundred keys in one person's lifetime. (Remember, the machine is theoretical). That's a lot of money and time to crack relatively few keys, using a machine that doesn't exist. Maybe it would be worthwhile to use against AlQueda. As for the rest of us here on /., we probably don't have much to worry about. If you are worried then make a 2048-bit key for yourself. Case closed ... until a few years down the road. Then do the same again.
Wouldn't it be nice if instead of focusing on the problem ("1024 is unsafe!"/"the government might find the password to my hotmail account!") we focused on the solution ("make a bigger key!"/"don't inherently trust technology to be the final solution").
We can quip about 1024 being unsecure just like a few years ago we quiped about 512 being unsecure. That's why the key lengths keep going up. Any encryption is a preventative measure, not an absolute.
So Are 1024-bit RSA Keys Unsafe.
Right now, the answer would be No, they are not unsafe, relatively.
I think if more people get turned onto pure component-based development, then the current object-oriented paradigm could carry us much further.
You have chaotic errors where all you can say is, "Boy, this was really screwed up, and I guess I need to go in and go through the whole thing and fix it." You don't have errors that are proportionate to the source of the error.
In a way you do. Right now it's known as try() {...}catch(...) {}throw -or- COM interface -or- whatever other language you might work with that has a way to introduce error handling at the component or exact source-area level, and to handle errors gracefully.
"protocol adherence" is replaced by "pattern recognition" as a way of connecting components of software systems.
That would mean a whole new generation of viruses that thrive on the new software model. That would certainly stir things up a bit. Of course any pioneered methadology is subject to many problems.
But I'm not putting down his theory, just commenting on it. The guy's obviously a deep thinker. We need people to push the envelope and challenge our current knowledge like that. Overall the theory is extremely interesting, although the practicality of it will have to be proven, as with all other new ideas.
One of Richard's suggestions for the main character was Q*Bert, a combination of CUBE (QUBE) and HUBERT. Don't ask me who Hubert is. Waxman recalls an intermediate step, "It went from *&!!#$$! to cubert but I was afraid it would be pronounced 'cub bert' so I had suggested that the 'cu' be changed to 'q'."
Looks like the asterisk might have come from the swearing characters.
Where I come from, a Blue Angel ain't an airplane.
A Roomba is great until it gets stuck behind your computer desk or wrapped up in something. Might as well get a puppy.
None. However FORTRAN was written by programmers for engineers, and COBOL by programmers for Business. C/C++ is written by programmers for programmers, to build the UNIX OS, etc. Your question would be closer to the mark if it were reversed: "How many computer languages do you know written by programmers for marketing guys?" I should have provided more context. Thanks for the laugh.
After C/C++ give me C# before D.