Microsoft could have easily adopted C++ as its programming language of choice. After all, if little Trolltech can make Qt, Microsoft could do better.
But, adopting C++ means your code can be ported to other platforms easier than a totally proprietary platform. Thus, Microsoft had VB, and then.NET. Anyone investing in those technologies was locked into Windows.
But now that the computer world has a lot more diversity (with all the consoles, phones and pads), Microsoft no longer is in a dominant position, and hence people don't chose Microsoft to develop their applications, and therefore a very proprietary platform like.NET doesn't encourage developers to chose the Microsoft platform.
And that's why Microsoft's love for C++ is reborn.
They could have offered both solutions: a high level slow api that used strructs with lengths and a low level faster api with null terminated strings. The high level api would be used for string manipulation, and the low level api for hacking strings. The string array in the struct could contain the nul terminated character.
The problem of seccurity starts with CPUs, goes through the operating system and programming languages, and ends up to the communication standards.
The problem with CPUs is their horrible security model: it is either user or kernel mode for an application, there is no other security mode. This means that once an app is compromised, and foreign code is executed, all sorts of nasty things can be done. A more finegrained CPU security model would offer much better security, allowing software components withihin the same process space to coexist without affecting each other.
The problem with operating systems is that their security model is based, again, on the guest/administrator model, i.e. it is actually the same security model as the one used by the CPUs. A better security model would allow software that communicates with the outside world to run with less privileges than the user, thus saving the user from being compromized when malicious code. Furthermore, operating systems resources are not virtualized for the user, requiring access to administrator rights for jobs that could not require such rights.
The problem with programming languages is that the most used programming languages for system programming are too open for abuse. I am talking about C/C++, of course. Take Windows, for example: hundreds of buffer overflows bugs, because C does not do bounds checking on arrays. If C was designed with safety first, performance second, and made checked array access the default, and unchecked array access explicit, less security issue would exist.
Finally, communications over networks should have been encrypted by default, and only revert to unencrypted when it did not hurt to do so. The encryption support cost would have been minimal by now, as with all technologies that start expensive and get cheap as they are massively produced.
Re:Could Someone Help Me Out With This?
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 1
thereby it also has (again, limited) control over the value of it's own dept.
The value of the Dollar plays no role in the US debt, because all loans are expressed in dollars. It is not that the US has borrowed Euros, for example.
I wonder how g+ can know if a name is real or not. I mean, it is obious that "lady ada" is a pseudonym, but what if someone was called bya peculiar and also strange name? how would g+ handle that?
I think google is too afraid that its social network will be used for nefarious purposes. I think Google worries too much: possibly evil people will register with a name as realisitc as possible, but it will not be their real name, while many legitimate users that go by their pseuodyms will suffer.
G+ also does not let you login from the same ip address twice, from what I see so far. How can this work for families with many members but only one computef? or machines shared by different people in different shifts in a business setting?
It may be that pirates who don't purchase the material they pirate are not willing to participate in the study or declare not being interested in that material.
On the other hand, people that pirate stuff and then buy it may be more than willing to participate in the study, thinking they did the right thing and wanting to show it to the world.
We don't know if the study is a good one. It may be biased, for example, because only pirates who purchase the stuff after they have pirated have been willing to participate in the study.
Personally, I believe this study is bullshit, because, judging from my peers, no one ever buys anything.
The technology we have today is part of the problem. It simply does not allow the easy storage and retrieval of information. When I say "easy", I mean as easy as storage being "here are the data" and retrieval being "give me such and such data". There is a tremendous amount of work required to make information available for storage and retrieval.
The core issue of the problem is that there is not a single standard protocol about information. Each database, application and operating system speaks its own language. If platforms had a standard component with a standardized language for storing and retrieving information, the work would be much easier for the army (or any large organization).
Let's speak of a hypothetical example which demonstrates the problem. Let's take Star Trek: the Starfleet uses a common data protocol all throughout its ships. Imagine if each ship used its own protocol, or worse, if every department of each ship used their own protocol! absolute mayhem, absolute bureaucracy. Starships like the USS Enterprise or Voyager would need 50% of its crew to be programmers, just to cater for the needs of various departments on board!!!
Taking the example to the extreme, let's consider the Borg from Star Trek: all the drones speak the same language, they have the same data protocol. Imagine if, such parts of the collective used different protocols! again, absolute mayhem and absolute bureaucracy.
This problem does not concern only the army, it concerns every IT organization on the planet. That is one of the main reasons projects fail or are late and over budget. If that problem goes away, budgets will see enormous reductions, including the DoD.
The job crisis is the result of globalization. All the US manufacturing and servicing jobs have been moved overseas, because politicians pushed for globalization of free trade, because their corporate masters told them so.
The result is that the rich get even richer, and the middle class is pushed to being poor and jobless.
During America's heydey, everything was manufactured inside America, and the top tax was 92%. Now, everything is manufactured in Asia and the top tax is 35%. Way to go politicians, way to go.
> I should have only had to pay a few dollars for the conversion to digital and the different media.
Why? what makes you think you only have to pay a few dollars?
> When the industry starts giving people what they want - DRM-free stuff they can 'own' and use whichever way they like, at a reasonable price - then piracy will go down.
How can you own something you've not created?
How can it be ensured people will not share the stuff they bought with their neighbors, cousins, friends, and even online strangers?
You present removal of links to pirated material as a negative thing. Why? it would be quite good to actually remove any pirated material from the internet.
It is not. Commercial PC software is not own by the buyer, the buyer is simply granted rights to use the software for the purposes described in the EULA.
Germans at the time were very submissive to authority - like the Japanese, they believed that, above all, there was duty, i.e. submission to the people above them in the social hierarchy.
And although many had doubts about what they were doing, in the end, they did what allowed for the monster that was Nazi Germany to be created.
Slashdot Mirror
Almost all games ever made are playable in emulators, including DOS games. What exactly is your point?
Microsoft could have easily adopted C++ as its programming language of choice. After all, if little Trolltech can make Qt, Microsoft could do better.
But, adopting C++ means your code can be ported to other platforms easier than a totally proprietary platform. Thus, Microsoft had VB, and then .NET. Anyone investing in those technologies was locked into Windows.
But now that the computer world has a lot more diversity (with all the consoles, phones and pads), Microsoft no longer is in a dominant position, and hence people don't chose Microsoft to develop their applications, and therefore a very proprietary platform like .NET doesn't encourage developers to chose the Microsoft platform.
And that's why Microsoft's love for C++ is reborn.
How about verifying the public key by uploading it to an email account, like Mozilla's single sign on system?
But in order to shift formats, you have to copy the data. The original will still there after the format shifting.
Each part would know the other's public key by exchanging public keys on communication initialisation.
In order to avoid man-in-the-middle attacks, a solution like verifying the other part's public key by a different route could be used.
They could have offered both solutions: a high level slow api that used strructs with lengths and a low level faster api with null terminated strings. The high level api would be used for string manipulation, and the low level api for hacking strings. The string array in the struct could contain the nul terminated character.
With such a measure, the average Joe will claim "format shifting" each time he makes a copy for himself, his friends, his mates.
The problem of seccurity starts with CPUs, goes through the operating system and programming languages, and ends up to the communication standards.
The problem with CPUs is their horrible security model: it is either user or kernel mode for an application, there is no other security mode. This means that once an app is compromised, and foreign code is executed, all sorts of nasty things can be done. A more finegrained CPU security model would offer much better security, allowing software components withihin the same process space to coexist without affecting each other.
The problem with operating systems is that their security model is based, again, on the guest/administrator model, i.e. it is actually the same security model as the one used by the CPUs. A better security model would allow software that communicates with the outside world to run with less privileges than the user, thus saving the user from being compromized when malicious code. Furthermore, operating systems resources are not virtualized for the user, requiring access to administrator rights for jobs that could not require such rights.
The problem with programming languages is that the most used programming languages for system programming are too open for abuse. I am talking about C/C++, of course. Take Windows, for example: hundreds of buffer overflows bugs, because C does not do bounds checking on arrays. If C was designed with safety first, performance second, and made checked array access the default, and unchecked array access explicit, less security issue would exist.
Finally, communications over networks should have been encrypted by default, and only revert to unencrypted when it did not hurt to do so. The encryption support cost would have been minimal by now, as with all technologies that start expensive and get cheap as they are massively produced.
thereby it also has (again, limited) control over the value of it's own dept.
The value of the Dollar plays no role in the US debt, because all loans are expressed in dollars. It is not that the US has borrowed Euros, for example.
By introducing such a lame technology like the IBM PC and MS DOS, IBM/Microsoft set back the IT industry 20 years or more.
We could have 32 bit machines with GUI, preemptive multitasking and hardware-accelerated 3D graphics much earlier.
I wonder how g+ can know if a name is real or not. I mean, it is obious that "lady ada" is a pseudonym, but what if someone was called bya peculiar and also strange name? how would g+ handle that?
I think google is too afraid that its social network will be used for nefarious purposes. I think Google worries too much: possibly evil people will register with a name as realisitc as possible, but it will not be their real name, while many legitimate users that go by their pseuodyms will suffer.
G+ also does not let you login from the same ip address twice, from what I see so far. How can this work for families with many members but only one computef? or machines shared by different people in different shifts in a business setting?
It may be that pirates who don't purchase the material they pirate are not willing to participate in the study or declare not being interested in that material.
On the other hand, people that pirate stuff and then buy it may be more than willing to participate in the study, thinking they did the right thing and wanting to show it to the world.
We don't know if the study is a good one. It may be biased, for example, because only pirates who purchase the stuff after they have pirated have been willing to participate in the study.
Personally, I believe this study is bullshit, because, judging from my peers, no one ever buys anything.
The technology we have today is part of the problem. It simply does not allow the easy storage and retrieval of information. When I say "easy", I mean as easy as storage being "here are the data" and retrieval being "give me such and such data". There is a tremendous amount of work required to make information available for storage and retrieval.
The core issue of the problem is that there is not a single standard protocol about information. Each database, application and operating system speaks its own language. If platforms had a standard component with a standardized language for storing and retrieving information, the work would be much easier for the army (or any large organization).
Let's speak of a hypothetical example which demonstrates the problem. Let's take Star Trek: the Starfleet uses a common data protocol all throughout its ships. Imagine if each ship used its own protocol, or worse, if every department of each ship used their own protocol! absolute mayhem, absolute bureaucracy. Starships like the USS Enterprise or Voyager would need 50% of its crew to be programmers, just to cater for the needs of various departments on board!!!
Taking the example to the extreme, let's consider the Borg from Star Trek: all the drones speak the same language, they have the same data protocol. Imagine if, such parts of the collective used different protocols! again, absolute mayhem and absolute bureaucracy.
This problem does not concern only the army, it concerns every IT organization on the planet. That is one of the main reasons projects fail or are late and over budget. If that problem goes away, budgets will see enormous reductions, including the DoD.
Doom 3 was a spectacular and breathtaking arcade FPS.
The job crisis is the result of globalization. All the US manufacturing and servicing jobs have been moved overseas, because politicians pushed for globalization of free trade, because their corporate masters told them so.
The result is that the rich get even richer, and the middle class is pushed to being poor and jobless.
During America's heydey, everything was manufactured inside America, and the top tax was 92%. Now, everything is manufactured in Asia and the top tax is 35%. Way to go politicians, way to go.
Assuming there is no physics breakthrough that explains phenomena like quantum entanglement, that is.
> I should have only had to pay a few dollars for the conversion to digital and the different media. Why? what makes you think you only have to pay a few dollars?
> When the industry starts giving people what they want - DRM-free stuff they can 'own' and use whichever way they like, at a reasonable price - then piracy will go down. How can you own something you've not created? How can it be ensured people will not share the stuff they bought with their neighbors, cousins, friends, and even online strangers?
No. The only thing that goes on in there is pattern matching. The rest is the result of pattern matching.
You present removal of links to pirated material as a negative thing. Why? it would be quite good to actually remove any pirated material from the internet.
The PC is the exception to the rule.
It is not. Commercial PC software is not own by the buyer, the buyer is simply granted rights to use the software for the purposes described in the EULA.
But you do not have the rights to fiddle with the internals of this device (either software or hardware). What would you do with the ownership?
The brain does not use deduction, it uses pattern matching, and therefore, given enough training over the same things, a bias is developed.
Germans at the time were very submissive to authority - like the Japanese, they believed that, above all, there was duty, i.e. submission to the people above them in the social hierarchy.
And although many had doubts about what they were doing, in the end, they did what allowed for the monster that was Nazi Germany to be created.