Never have I seen so many articles about the (alleged) shortcomings of a single product (aside from Windows, but that's a given.)
Is it? how is *that* a given? is there a commandment which I'm not aware of that says the windows automatically gets the ire of people? If you can call any names to the slashdot community, it's having a bias towards linux, and against windows.
Aside from that, these articles about Apple are important: I just bought an Apple macbook a few weeks ago, and I'll tell you that I'm honestly shocked at Apple's level of service both software and hardware wise. It is quite simply bad by any standard, be it Microsoft or open source community.
However, there was no way for me to know this until I bought the damn thing because there's an army of religious monks out there evangelising about how awesome mac is.
In the US, the land of capitalism, it has become that laws are merely a price tag, e.g "It will cost you 3 million dollars to dump toxic waste in this garden here. It will cost 4 million to do it the 'legal' way... Corporate decision: dump it, get fined, be done." Another one: "It will cost you x years in prison, with y dollar bail for insider trading. You will make z = x * 100 + y profit off of it, just do it, and be done."
Even better now is how citizens are willing to exchange 'security' for 'freedom'. A slippery slope.
I just pray to god every day that the empire will crumble before it has a chance to spread its seeds of degeneracy everywhere - and I am serious about this. People do not realize how many cultures have been simply anhialated by the US empire.
to preserve the ultimate precision, about 232 picoseconds.
While the ultimate precision, is not achievable with ordinary workstations and networks of today, it may be required with future gigahertz CPU
clocks and gigabit LANs.
Man, I can just see the cobwebs floating in the wind on that thing.
I don't feel like spelilng out what I mean by the ad hominem attack, sufficed to say that I still mean it even despite the gracious clarification you've given me.
The point is that if the pope said it's an allegory, don't you think there's a bit more of a spectrum than black and white? And to further the point, don't you think it looks peculiarly zealotist hearing feverish rhethoric about how the other camp is CRAP coming from a scientist?!
I'm just saying calm down or else you end up sounding like the people you are accusing.
Buddy, calm down. you're only proving the parent's point.
As a pro-scientific, you aren't being fair in that you're taking the most wild version of the story of one side and then trying to debunk that theory with that one argument. In a conversation, this is called an ad-hominem argument.
The parent is right that there is no link yet between apes and humans. The actual link has not been found. So scientifically speaking, the causality isn't established, however likely it is.
On the other hand, the pope just recently published a statement that creationism didn't go against science, that it was merely an allegory to how the world got created. Read: allegory.
What you are doing is fueling a raging fire with even more rage. It's not getting you anywhere, and it's also making you look less credible... because anyone else that is like you can go and find out there is a missing link, and hound on your argument saying it's entirely wrong.
I hope you're not making a straight logic implication that a 64bit CPU will solve these problems.
It won't. All that 64bits has to offer, really, is in memory addressing schemes for things like databases and data intensive apps. Outside of that floating point operations will remain floating point operations, and as such, an FPU for a 64 bit chip can easily be 'mounted' on a 32bit chip as well.
Unless you're into integer operations, 64bits makes practically no difference - in theory. Now if AMD chose to make the 64 bit chip much stronger than the 32bit chip, that's a different story (which I'm not following so can't comment whether it is the case or not).
In a press release today, Google announced that it will be shipping a new brain implant nano-probe that will take control of your consciousness. From Google's press release "Are you tired of going to work 9 to 5, day in day out? You're in luck, with Braintop technology, you won't have to endure the tedium of daily life anymore. With a simple dial you can set the number of hours you would like to be controlled, and then just click on the autopilot button to wake up 8 hours later, when your workshift is done!"
Can I preorder?
Re:ls and cp are no different from an ActiveX
on
Do You Code Sign?
·
· Score: 1
You're being hypocritical here. The obvious flaw in your argument is "how did the Administrator know that cp and ls were tried and true?" The correct answer is "by code signing" and trusting the distribution agent that signed them (and the implied chain of trust with the certificates).
If you're implying that the MD5 checksum presented on FTP sites is a code signature, then you might be right. But a hash does not qualify as code signing for me.
Aside from that, what I'm saying is this: I trust ls and cp because the source is sitting on CVS. Because it is part of the trusted source tree, and because when I look for the change log on, I can see that the last change was in may 2001 (random date here). If I were really anal about it, I could audit the code, but the implied security here is that that code *is* perpetually being audited.
Flawed or not, that is the OSS mentality. So, no actually, it's not because it's signed that I trust it.
That being said, I'm a Windows user/programmer. I actually don't use OSS that often. But it doesn't change the fact that I trust software not based on the name of the company, but based on their previous track record. Flash is practically ubiquitous, they have been around for a *long* time. Given those two factors, I'm making the assumption that were there severe bugs in their player, they would have been revealed by now. It is an assumption. But their signing code or not has absolutely no bearing on my installing their player. Heck, I Firefox doesn't have a code signature, it didn't stop me and the millions of other savvy (and not) users from installing it.
My answer to your answers:...
on
Do You Code Sign?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Bruce's Argument #1) Users have no idea how to decide if a particular signer is trusted or not.
My comments: True. [...]The IT dept should know not to trust "Snake Oil Corp." [...]
You are missing the point entirely: What if I were to present you with "Citrix Corp." and "Citrix Corporation" and "Cirtix Inc.". Which would you *know* comes from *the* Citrix corp. Also, notice how the third one had a typo. Also, I will remind you of some guy who had obtained a cert from verisign for the name of a well known company. I forget which one it was, but it was something like Microsoft or Sun.
Bottom line: the cert only assures you that the string ("Citrix") it corresponds to is correct. It doesn't say anything else. Which begs to ask: why have a signature?
Bruce's Argument #2) Just because a component is signed doesn't mean that it is safe.
My Comments: [...]Code signing was design to prove the authenticity and integrity of the code.[...]
Again, this is aside the point: when you for example give shell access to students at university machines, all the binaries they run are part of a secure base. cp and ls are *the* tried and true binaries from every distribution. An administrator *knows* that they can trust that code.
Now, let's say an administrator installs a signed ActiveX plugin. Let's say it's even the Flash player. What we cannot know, and what makes this mechanism extremely dangerous (by means of perceived safety), is that the player might have a security hole in it. So you might go to a web page, and an action script loaded into the player could cause the player to execute random code. This is a big no-no. And not because the player is flawed, but rather because you've decided to integrate this piece of code into your trusted base OS.
Bruce's Argument #3) Just because two component are individually signed does not mean that using them together is safe; lots of accidental harmful interactions can be exploited.
My comment: Again Code Signing was was never designed to accomplish this.
Bruce's Argument #4) "safe" is not all-or-nothing thing; there are degrees of safety.
My comment: I agree with this statement.
Combined with the first two points, you're basically saying that there's no point in having code signing.
Bruce's Argument #5) The fact that the evidence of attack (the signature on the code) is stored on the computer under attack is mostly useless: The attack could delete or modify the signature during the attack, or simple reformat the drive where the signature is stored.
This is a very important feature of security: auditing. If you have a system that's been compromised, you want to know how it happened. *Especially* if you are in a corporate environment: you see one workstation get 0wn3d and formated, you won't be sitting around to see when the next one hits. You will want to know what did it.
All in all, I agree with everything he says. Even though I'm just a mere mortal.
Anyone who thinks C++ is not an improvement over C has never actually spent a minute thinking about C\C++ as a language. Instead, they just see it as a set of instructions for programming a complicated remote control.
In that sense, C is so close to the native code behind it that it could be called an instruction set.
C++ on the other hand, is a highly evolved language that does much more than implement structure with methods. If you haven't worked with sophisticated templates in C++, you have never really even scrathed the surface of the language.
Templates (and meta-programming) allow something that practically no other language allows. (Except for Lisp based languages of course)
Too bad I got modded flamebait, my question was serious.
In what you've answered though, the only real thing I see is C. C, being a language, is much more close to science than pipes are.
After all, Edward Djikstra, the master himself said: "Computer Science is as much about computers as astronomy is about telescopes".
Points 1 through 4 are simple engineering problems. Problems that they probably faced while working on actual scientific problems... I personally see the following as being much more realistic process: they're working on finding prime numbers (for example), they find that the command processor keeps on crashing the system because of some weird bug they can't find. One of them suggests that the CLI be moved out of kernel mode. They make a 'patch' for that and move on with the prime numbers.
Two months later, they find the prime numbers no longer fit in memory, they think we need a way to write them to file quickly. They come up with pipes. Implement them in a week, and move on with the current scientific project at hand.
All in all, UNIX is a tool. It's not a work of science. Just as manufacturing a combustion engine is not considered to be scientific research.
All that being said, C is a god sent... and I'll take that for its weight in gold.
I'm curious to know what kind of research they did on Unix. To me, a kernel or OS is more about engineering than research. The word research conjures up Fourier Transforms in my mind, not round-robbin scheduler implementations.
Anyone have any concrete examples of research that was done at Bell that went into UNIX as a system?
These guys, in this book, are talking about local rootkits (layered device drivers etc).
Anyone who says their OS is secure from local rootkits is a fool. Mind you, this is different from saying that you can allow users to use your system, but as soon as you allow a user to run *his* code on your system, all bets are off regarding infalibility.
This is not to say that there can never be an OS that's invulnerable to local root exploits. It's just that it's highly unlikely today.
You speak of closed mindedness, but you are unaware that you are exposing the same close mindedness yourself - except that you are all *for* change.
Touch sensitive has it's uses. I'm not against it. I have an iPod Gen 3 and I love the dial pad. It's much much better than the actual wheel for Gen 2/1 iPods.
However, the buttons are completely unusable. And I am a power user. I learn my gadgets quickly. I've had this iPod for over a year, and while I've completely mastered the track wheel (using it from within my pocket), I can not get any better at using the buttons, even when I'm staring at the thing.
Technology should be suited to the user. If we were highly acoustic beings, maybe like bats or dolphins, speakers might be used instead of monitors. However, our sense of vision is far superior to our other senses. In the same vein, our perception of blue is less precise than other colors. Which is why RGB can be encoded as 6-6-5 bits.
Our hands are our most dextrous tools (no pun intended). They are what distinguishes us as humans. Being able to manipulate objects etc. Part of that dexterity is the extremely advanced sensoral perception we have of our hands. By removing clicking, and basically movement, you are depriving my hand of something it is born to accomodate. And you are proposing instead that my brain should get used to the idea of no click, and move on.
Your touch screen technology might be cool, but it doesn't take away from the fact that you are bypassing a sensoral tool that we posess no matter what our brain says.
The sensation of pushing something across a screen (where your finger basically drags on a flat surface) and the actual sensation of pushing a slider forward is different. It's not a question of learning in our brain, it's just different. And my usage patterns, as a power user, tells me that it's better the 'old school' way.
Yup, reminds me of the pen story from NASA. Apparently, NASA used some really complicated engineering to make a pen that would write in 0 gravity situations. Invested millions of dollars into it.
Russia, on the other hand, used pencils.
A mouse is a mouse, making it high tech really adds nothing to its usability, only to it's geek/suave factor. And frankly, as an IT worker - not an independently wealthy CEO who wants to show off his gadgets - I'd much rather a fully usable logitech or microsoft mouse that looks ordinary than have a cool looking translucent mouse that makes chirping sounds.
But I hate touch sensitive input devices which provide absolutely no feedback. Apple should know this from their own iPods. Gen 3 was fully touch sensitive, gen 4 has embedded buttons that go "click" to give you feedback that you've actually pressed the thing.
As gentle as it might be, the hand always recognizes the threshold of 'clicking' a button, but I find that it's practically impossible to tell if you've clicked a touch sensitive surface or not.
All of that, IMHO. I wouldn't go gaga over this mouse.
Re:What is NOT mentioned, though...
on
Ice Lake on Mars
·
· Score: 1
Yeah,I'm not asserting anything either.
My gut tells me that it looks like the crater ruptured a phreatic layer and the water just seeped out and froze. What I find particularly indicative of this is that there's concentric marks emenating from the rock cluster on the top left. Almost as if the water spilled out, and froze over several cycles.
The only thing I'm not sure about, and am too lazy to investigate, is whether Mars does currently have any time of day where the water phase could actually pass to liquid until it spilled over, and then freeze again. (Maybe, at dusk or dawn, the temperature and pressure is just right to allow for it?)
Anyways, like I said, I'm too lazy to check.
Re:What is NOT mentioned, though...
on
Ice Lake on Mars
·
· Score: 1
You don't seriously believe that the flaming ball of comet that created that impact crater very calmly deposited the water into that crater like pouring wine from a bottle...
I think it is far more likely that if a comet had hit the surface, and created the crater:
a) the water would have evaporized into the atmosphere due to the small thermonuclear explosion caused by said event.
or
b) if there was any way the water managed to condense fast enough after the explosion, the water would be spread out like frost on a field on an autumn morning. There is no way it just perfectly poured into that crater like that.
I think Cohen totally underesimtates the amount of horsepower that Microsoft has. Does he really think it would take them more than 3 months to program a simple download client?
Microsoft seems to be doing exactly what it should be doing: designing and simulating before actually coding. And Cohen is being really obviously "basement hacker kid" about it, and trying to fling mud.
It's kind of sad, I had respect for Cohen. It's eroding though.
If your definition is that it has a TCP/IP stack implementation, then sure. If your definition is that it is a multi-user network serving machine, I would say NT wasn't originally designed for that.
A large number of the exploits in Windows are based on the ability to embed executable code in pretty much anything that should not have executable code in it -- word processor documents, emails, etc.
Frankly, I can't tell if you're implying that Microsoft Word makes use of undocumented kernel functions? or if you're implying that the kernel cares the least bit about the contents of a word file.
Either way though, your assertion is just bullshit. It is true that NT didn't start out as being a network OS, but this was apparent in shortcomings such as only having one user logged in at a time. That, of course, is no longer the case since Terminal Services came to be.
It's not hard at all to find whatever flavor of UNIX system you want in huge concentrations; sites such as Yahoo and Google run huge farms of them, for instance, as do most research institutions. If one of these was to be infected with a worm you can be sure it'd spread pretty quickly.
Worms, by definition, do not require user interaction. Trojan horses or viruses do. A Worm is something that infects directly from the network, by sending garbage data to a well known daemon (IIS has long been a superb target for worms). Apache has serious security holes too... I know I will be rated troll for saying this, but if someone had actually gone out of their way and created a worm for an apache based system, those farms would be just as infected.
Keep in mind the following: IIS has the very aggravating flaw that it runs as SYSTEM (on older NT versions), which Apache does not have. But in general, worms don't necessarily need to be disk bound, and thus don't require priviledges to overwrite binaries. There were quite a few worms that were completely memory bound, and still made a grand mess of the net. Apache is just as vulnerable to such worms and the network effect they would cause.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it? how is *that* a given? is there a commandment which I'm not aware of that says the windows automatically gets the ire of people? If you can call any names to the slashdot community, it's having a bias towards linux, and against windows.
Aside from that, these articles about Apple are important: I just bought an Apple macbook a few weeks ago, and I'll tell you that I'm honestly shocked at Apple's level of service both software and hardware wise. It is quite simply bad by any standard, be it Microsoft or open source community.
However, there was no way for me to know this until I bought the damn thing because there's an army of religious monks out there evangelising about how awesome mac is.
Giving the bad as well as the good is important.
In the US, the land of capitalism, it has become that laws are merely a price tag, e.g "It will cost you 3 million dollars to dump toxic waste in this garden here. It will cost 4 million to do it the 'legal' way... Corporate decision: dump it, get fined, be done." Another one: "It will cost you x years in prison, with y dollar bail for insider trading. You will make z = x * 100 + y profit off of it, just do it, and be done."
Even better now is how citizens are willing to exchange 'security' for 'freedom'. A slippery slope.
I just pray to god every day that the empire will crumble before it has a chance to spread its seeds of degeneracy everywhere - and I am serious about this. People do not realize how many cultures have been simply anhialated by the US empire.
to preserve the ultimate precision, about 232 picoseconds. While the ultimate precision, is not achievable with ordinary workstations and networks of today, it may be required with future gigahertz CPU clocks and gigabit LANs.
Man, I can just see the cobwebs floating in the wind on that thing.
I don't feel like spelilng out what I mean by the ad hominem attack, sufficed to say that I still mean it even despite the gracious clarification you've given me.
The point is that if the pope said it's an allegory, don't you think there's a bit more of a spectrum than black and white? And to further the point, don't you think it looks peculiarly zealotist hearing feverish rhethoric about how the other camp is CRAP coming from a scientist?!
I'm just saying calm down or else you end up sounding like the people you are accusing.
As a pro-scientific, you aren't being fair in that you're taking the most wild version of the story of one side and then trying to debunk that theory with that one argument. In a conversation, this is called an ad-hominem argument.
The parent is right that there is no link yet between apes and humans. The actual link has not been found. So scientifically speaking, the causality isn't established, however likely it is.
On the other hand, the pope just recently published a statement that creationism didn't go against science, that it was merely an allegory to how the world got created. Read: allegory.
What you are doing is fueling a raging fire with even more rage. It's not getting you anywhere, and it's also making you look less credible... because anyone else that is like you can go and find out there is a missing link, and hound on your argument saying it's entirely wrong.
It won't. All that 64bits has to offer, really, is in memory addressing schemes for things like databases and data intensive apps. Outside of that floating point operations will remain floating point operations, and as such, an FPU for a 64 bit chip can easily be 'mounted' on a 32bit chip as well.
Unless you're into integer operations, 64bits makes practically no difference - in theory. Now if AMD chose to make the 64 bit chip much stronger than the 32bit chip, that's a different story (which I'm not following so can't comment whether it is the case or not).
In a press release today, Google announced that it will be shipping a new brain implant nano-probe that will take control of your consciousness. From Google's press release "Are you tired of going to work 9 to 5, day in day out? You're in luck, with Braintop technology, you won't have to endure the tedium of daily life anymore. With a simple dial you can set the number of hours you would like to be controlled, and then just click on the autopilot button to wake up 8 hours later, when your workshift is done!"
Can I preorder?
If you're implying that the MD5 checksum presented on FTP sites is a code signature, then you might be right. But a hash does not qualify as code signing for me.
Aside from that, what I'm saying is this: I trust ls and cp because the source is sitting on CVS. Because it is part of the trusted source tree, and because when I look for the change log on, I can see that the last change was in may 2001 (random date here). If I were really anal about it, I could audit the code, but the implied security here is that that code *is* perpetually being audited.
Flawed or not, that is the OSS mentality. So, no actually, it's not because it's signed that I trust it.
That being said, I'm a Windows user/programmer. I actually don't use OSS that often. But it doesn't change the fact that I trust software not based on the name of the company, but based on their previous track record. Flash is practically ubiquitous, they have been around for a *long* time. Given those two factors, I'm making the assumption that were there severe bugs in their player, they would have been revealed by now. It is an assumption. But their signing code or not has absolutely no bearing on my installing their player. Heck, I Firefox doesn't have a code signature, it didn't stop me and the millions of other savvy (and not) users from installing it.
My comments: True. [...]The IT dept should know not to trust "Snake Oil Corp." [...]
You are missing the point entirely: What if I were to present you with "Citrix Corp." and "Citrix Corporation" and "Cirtix Inc.". Which would you *know* comes from *the* Citrix corp. Also, notice how the third one had a typo. Also, I will remind you of some guy who had obtained a cert from verisign for the name of a well known company. I forget which one it was, but it was something like Microsoft or Sun.
Bottom line: the cert only assures you that the string ("Citrix") it corresponds to is correct. It doesn't say anything else. Which begs to ask: why have a signature?
Bruce's Argument #2) Just because a component is signed doesn't mean that it is safe.
My Comments: [...]Code signing was design to prove the authenticity and integrity of the code.[...]
Again, this is aside the point: when you for example give shell access to students at university machines, all the binaries they run are part of a secure base. cp and ls are *the* tried and true binaries from every distribution. An administrator *knows* that they can trust that code.
Now, let's say an administrator installs a signed ActiveX plugin. Let's say it's even the Flash player. What we cannot know, and what makes this mechanism extremely dangerous (by means of perceived safety), is that the player might have a security hole in it. So you might go to a web page, and an action script loaded into the player could cause the player to execute random code. This is a big no-no. And not because the player is flawed, but rather because you've decided to integrate this piece of code into your trusted base OS.
Bruce's Argument #3) Just because two component are individually signed does not mean that using them together is safe; lots of accidental harmful interactions can be exploited.
My comment: Again Code Signing was was never designed to accomplish this.
Bruce's Argument #4) "safe" is not all-or-nothing thing; there are degrees of safety.
My comment: I agree with this statement.
Combined with the first two points, you're basically saying that there's no point in having code signing.
Bruce's Argument #5) The fact that the evidence of attack (the signature on the code) is stored on the computer under attack is mostly useless: The attack could delete or modify the signature during the attack, or simple reformat the drive where the signature is stored.
This is a very important feature of security: auditing. If you have a system that's been compromised, you want to know how it happened. *Especially* if you are in a corporate environment: you see one workstation get 0wn3d and formated, you won't be sitting around to see when the next one hits. You will want to know what did it.
All in all, I agree with everything he says. Even though I'm just a mere mortal.
In that sense, C is so close to the native code behind it that it could be called an instruction set.
C++ on the other hand, is a highly evolved language that does much more than implement structure with methods. If you haven't worked with sophisticated templates in C++, you have never really even scrathed the surface of the language.
Templates (and meta-programming) allow something that practically no other language allows. (Except for Lisp based languages of course)
In what you've answered though, the only real thing I see is C. C, being a language, is much more close to science than pipes are.
After all, Edward Djikstra, the master himself said: "Computer Science is as much about computers as astronomy is about telescopes".
Points 1 through 4 are simple engineering problems. Problems that they probably faced while working on actual scientific problems... I personally see the following as being much more realistic process: they're working on finding prime numbers (for example), they find that the command processor keeps on crashing the system because of some weird bug they can't find. One of them suggests that the CLI be moved out of kernel mode. They make a 'patch' for that and move on with the prime numbers.
Two months later, they find the prime numbers no longer fit in memory, they think we need a way to write them to file quickly. They come up with pipes. Implement them in a week, and move on with the current scientific project at hand.
All in all, UNIX is a tool. It's not a work of science. Just as manufacturing a combustion engine is not considered to be scientific research.
All that being said, C is a god sent... and I'll take that for its weight in gold.
Anyone have any concrete examples of research that was done at Bell that went into UNIX as a system?
Anyone who says their OS is secure from local rootkits is a fool. Mind you, this is different from saying that you can allow users to use your system, but as soon as you allow a user to run *his* code on your system, all bets are off regarding infalibility.
This is not to say that there can never be an OS that's invulnerable to local root exploits. It's just that it's highly unlikely today.
E.g. Select [karma] from Whores where [WhoreID] = 138474
Touch sensitive has it's uses. I'm not against it. I have an iPod Gen 3 and I love the dial pad. It's much much better than the actual wheel for Gen 2/1 iPods.
However, the buttons are completely unusable. And I am a power user. I learn my gadgets quickly. I've had this iPod for over a year, and while I've completely mastered the track wheel (using it from within my pocket), I can not get any better at using the buttons, even when I'm staring at the thing.
Technology should be suited to the user. If we were highly acoustic beings, maybe like bats or dolphins, speakers might be used instead of monitors. However, our sense of vision is far superior to our other senses. In the same vein, our perception of blue is less precise than other colors. Which is why RGB can be encoded as 6-6-5 bits.
Our hands are our most dextrous tools (no pun intended). They are what distinguishes us as humans. Being able to manipulate objects etc. Part of that dexterity is the extremely advanced sensoral perception we have of our hands. By removing clicking, and basically movement, you are depriving my hand of something it is born to accomodate. And you are proposing instead that my brain should get used to the idea of no click, and move on.
Your touch screen technology might be cool, but it doesn't take away from the fact that you are bypassing a sensoral tool that we posess no matter what our brain says.
The sensation of pushing something across a screen (where your finger basically drags on a flat surface) and the actual sensation of pushing a slider forward is different. It's not a question of learning in our brain, it's just different. And my usage patterns, as a power user, tells me that it's better the 'old school' way.
Russia, on the other hand, used pencils.
A mouse is a mouse, making it high tech really adds nothing to its usability, only to it's geek/suave factor. And frankly, as an IT worker - not an independently wealthy CEO who wants to show off his gadgets - I'd much rather a fully usable logitech or microsoft mouse that looks ordinary than have a cool looking translucent mouse that makes chirping sounds.
As gentle as it might be, the hand always recognizes the threshold of 'clicking' a button, but I find that it's practically impossible to tell if you've clicked a touch sensitive surface or not.
All of that, IMHO. I wouldn't go gaga over this mouse.
My gut tells me that it looks like the crater ruptured a phreatic layer and the water just seeped out and froze. What I find particularly indicative of this is that there's concentric marks emenating from the rock cluster on the top left. Almost as if the water spilled out, and froze over several cycles.
The only thing I'm not sure about, and am too lazy to investigate, is whether Mars does currently have any time of day where the water phase could actually pass to liquid until it spilled over, and then freeze again. (Maybe, at dusk or dawn, the temperature and pressure is just right to allow for it?)
Anyways, like I said, I'm too lazy to check.
I think it is far more likely that if a comet had hit the surface, and created the crater:
a) the water would have evaporized into the atmosphere due to the small thermonuclear explosion caused by said event.
or
b) if there was any way the water managed to condense fast enough after the explosion, the water would be spread out like frost on a field on an autumn morning. There is no way it just perfectly poured into that crater like that.
Can you please elucidate what your sig (mogorific carpentry experiments) means?
Uhm, so can someone clearup what the obscur reference is about?
Microsoft seems to be doing exactly what it should be doing: designing and simulating before actually coding. And Cohen is being really obviously "basement hacker kid" about it, and trying to fling mud.
It's kind of sad, I had respect for Cohen. It's eroding though.
If your definition is that it has a TCP/IP stack implementation, then sure. If your definition is that it is a multi-user network serving machine, I would say NT wasn't originally designed for that.
Frankly, I can't tell if you're implying that Microsoft Word makes use of undocumented kernel functions? or if you're implying that the kernel cares the least bit about the contents of a word file.
Either way though, your assertion is just bullshit. It is true that NT didn't start out as being a network OS, but this was apparent in shortcomings such as only having one user logged in at a time. That, of course, is no longer the case since Terminal Services came to be.
It's not hard at all to find whatever flavor of UNIX system you want in huge concentrations; sites such as Yahoo and Google run huge farms of them, for instance, as do most research institutions. If one of these was to be infected with a worm you can be sure it'd spread pretty quickly.
Worms, by definition, do not require user interaction. Trojan horses or viruses do. A Worm is something that infects directly from the network, by sending garbage data to a well known daemon (IIS has long been a superb target for worms). Apache has serious security holes too... I know I will be rated troll for saying this, but if someone had actually gone out of their way and created a worm for an apache based system, those farms would be just as infected.
Keep in mind the following: IIS has the very aggravating flaw that it runs as SYSTEM (on older NT versions), which Apache does not have. But in general, worms don't necessarily need to be disk bound, and thus don't require priviledges to overwrite binaries. There were quite a few worms that were completely memory bound, and still made a grand mess of the net. Apache is just as vulnerable to such worms and the network effect they would cause.
-The system has been halted. Please reboot. (NTFS being transactional, you probably won't even need chkdsk to run)
or any of:
-Your MFT is corrupt beyond recognition, hope you had backups
-Your root partition is not in existence anymore, please re-install
-Your boot drive is not functional, please buy new hardware
-Your CPU has melted, I shouldn't even be able to tell you this...