Uh, most any RC copter these days is auto-stabilized. It's usually an option and not very expensive.
Although that makes it easier to fly for sure, helicopters are still incredibly difficult to control. And the smaller/lighter ones are almost useless outside because even a tiny breeze or gust of wind will send your little guy zooming to places you didn't intend.
Tiny electric airplanes are more fun. Still susceptible to wind, but since you're already moving at a good speed it's not nearly as bad. Of course you can't fly those inside quite as easily.
Yeah, I knew about the 1024-bit RSA thing. This is not smartcard specific though and effects anything using 1024-bit RSA keys.
I would guess that IBM bug doesn't effect all smartcards.
You seem to be stuck on satellite/cable smartcards which is just a tiny minority of cards out there (I assume you mean PPV as in Pay Per View? Or something else?).
Unless you know something I don't, most smartcards can not be unlocked once they are locked. Some have an admin PIN that can unlock the user's PIN, but it's not any easier to crack and on most cards that functionality can be disabled completely if desired.
Storing the PIN on the card? What PIN? Again, are you talking sat/cable type cards with their crappy implementation? Are you talking about storing a PIN in an open EF that an application would read and then use? That would be stupid as there would be no point in having a PIN in the first place. Please explain.
1024-bit encryption cards made by IBM and used by ATMs world-wide were cracked several years age (see 2600 for details).
I couldn't find anything about that IBM card on 2600. Can you be more specific about where it is? What type of encryption was it?... an average of 15 attempts led to the cracking of the users' pin by insiders.
That is absolute nonsense. For short 4-char numeric-only PIN's maybe. However, nearly every smartcard supports long binary data PIN's and this is what is typically used when security matters. If someone can guess an 8-character alphanumeric, upper/lower case password in 15 tries then you could break into just about ANY system, smartcard or not if that were true. Besides, 15 attempts won't do you any good if your card locks after 3 attempts at the PIN. ???
Give more hard evidence, otherwise I have a hard time believing anything you say. You seem to be just bashing smartcards by picking specific examples of weak systems. I've been working as a programmer with some of the top firms in the crypto and smartcard arena for many years.
You may not see this since I'm so late posting but here goes anyway.
Of course you should just check with your local city to find out what you actually need to do (simple call to city hall usually works).
I run both a consulting and software business out of my house and I've done everything 100% legally. All I needed was a form for permission to work out of my house (from the city) and a business license. That's it. It only took about 1 day to get everything signed and approved.
In my city there are additional rules if you place a sign larger than a certain size outside (I have no sign since I work entirely by Internet and referrals). Also if you have a lot of traffic coming and going (I don't). Basically anything that might disturb the neighbors might require additional permits where I live. I didn't have to do any of that though. It literally took me 1 day and about $100 to get everything setup and I'm 100% official and legal.
Nobody ever needs to come to my office. Every time I've dealt with a customer it was at their site. That only makes sense since I'm small and they have all the facilities. However, if they needed to come to my office that would be fine since I have an entire large room dedicated for business (conference table and all). Because that space is only used for business I can write that part of my house off on my taxes.
I see lots of other posts here talking about zoning and such. I only thought that was for store-front type businesses were there would be customer traffic coming and going. A simple consulting/software business doesn't need any special zoning in my area (see above about signs and traffic).
At what number of downloads are you saying that names should be respected?
I wasn't saying that the size of the user base was too small to keep someone from stealing their name. In fact, I said the Phoenix/Firebird browser group should give up the name.
I was just saying that the user base wasn't so large that changing the name would have serious detrimental effects.
According to their project page [sourceforge.net], the database has been downloaded 867,540 times since 2000.
No, that's the total downloads of the whole site. That including all the documentation and other downloads, along with every version ever released.
The most I saw downloaded was their Win32 release with around 160k downloads. And that's after all this publicity. Who knows what the count was before. And note that release is over a year old.
Now, I'd never heard of the Firebird database before this. However, from what I can tell their database is called Firebird. Just "Firebird", not FirebirdSQL as others have suggested. So both the database and browser are called exactly the same thing.
Also, while it's true they are two completely different applications, they are both software that you run on your computer. That's too close for comfort. What does "Are you using Firebird?" mean exactly (could be database, or it could mean the browser).
With that said, when you use something so obvious as Firebird for the name of your application, you damn well better get a trademark or something because you should just assume zillions of others will think of using the same name. This was a mistake the database people made, for sure.
So, I think the Phoenix group is probably legally safe, but the nice thing to do would be to pick another name. I know they don't want to do this because it means more lawyer fees and coming up with yet another name. I dunno... They don't have to do this and it doesn't look like they are. In which case if I were the Firebird database people then I would come up with another name and trademark it (as painful as that may be). It's not like it was a database being used by 100's of thousands of people and they will now all be confused by the name change.
If you don't mind actually having to run Windows, then I would like to second the suggestion on getting VMware to work.
I've been using VMware since the pre-1.0 beta and have purchased every version since. It's a great product. It's an essential part of my consulting work. I never need to reboot my machine and I can run pretty much any OS I need (including BSD's and Linux) or start complete networks of machines.
Plus I can run MSOffice then way it was meant to be run without any problems at all. I also spend a lot of time in DevStudio under VMware.
For me it works out really good. I run Linux as my primary OS and benefit from the stability and security (I often am plugging into strange and unknown networks so I find iptables very useful). Yet I can still run all the Windows applications I need when working for a Windows based client. I can also run RedHat or whatever distro in VMware if my client uses those (I use Debian). I could go on.
This is added as a GCC option. (-fstack-protector or similar)
All the CONTROL and power of C/C++ is still there. It's an optional feature for when you need it.
I don't usually use C and/or C++ for the control though. It's all about performance.
Smart cards? You mean like the ones for DSS, that are so easily hacked? Hardware cost for a reprogrammer: $50 - $150
Uh, riiight. DSS "smartcards" arn't that great. From a security standpoint their implementation is stupid. It's as plain as that. There are plently better smartcards out there that can't just be "reprogrammed" or emulated.
Which fingerprint scanners failed exactly? You tested every fingerprint reader there is? I'm just curious more than anything.
Your smartcard comment doesn't make any sense. How exactly can you query a private, protected key on something like a Cryptoflex? That data can not be read, cloned, or queried. ???
Most devices are suseptable to man in the middle attacks but you can't get the private key. You could get the PIN though... but you'd still need the card to use it.
Trained users with passwords is no better than a smartcard. They're just as suseptable to man in the middle attacks. However, they can't remember a 1024+ bit private key nor a 8k certificate.
Portable certs are a good thing. And most of that data is public.
I agree, biometrics are not very useful right now. It's getting better. You can't fake an iris scan with a gummy bear. The hardware is pretty good, it's the software matching algorithms that need the most work.
And it depends on the device. Not every fingerprint device is susceptible to the things you mention. For one thing, not all fingerprint readers are optical based and can't be fooled by simple tricks.
Smartcards on the other hand are useful right now. Especially with the cards that require no card reader (they plug into the USB port directly).
Even if your were to steal their badge from their car, if it's a smartcard then you won't have the PIN so the badge is still no good.
That's the thing about smartcards. You need at least two pieces. The card itself _and_ the PIN. It won't work with just one and trying to get both at the same time is much harder than stealing a password.
Well, that's what people are working on now, solving those issues.
Couple points though.
If you've ever worked anywhere that you need security clearance, you almost always need a badge. If you forget your badge, you don't get into work without jumping through some hoops (or going back home to get your badge). The same thing applies to smartcards. In fact, your badge can and often is the smartcard. Just like if you forget the keys to your car, you can't drive it. It's not any harder than that.
As for working remotely... Again, that's what people on working on solving right now. Smartcard and biometric readers are getting cheaper and cheaper. There are secure methods for remote validation. For instance, smart cards with public key cryptography. You still need to physically have the card to prove your identity. Doesn't matter if your at a remote location, that private key never leaves the card and no one can even get to the private key (supposedly). I say supposedly because there are some smartcards that are not as physically secure as they could be.
There are tons of new smartcards that can plug straight into a USB port. No reader required.
That's why there are so many companies working on "other than password" authentication methods. Biometrics, smartcards, etc.
The thing about something like a smartcard is that it adds a physical security layer. Even if you give someone your PIN, they still need your card. While someone could steal your card, you would be more likely to recognize "Hey, someone took my card" so that security could be locked down. Plus it because it a physical layer of security it's less likely that Joe h4xx0r will even be able to steal your card in the first place (ie. you can't physically give your card out over the phone).
And biometrics let the computer recognize who you are instead of you telling the computer who you are.
Anyone have data on the growth of TV over the years? Did it boom, then flatten out, or what?
I'd be curious to see how the TV versus Internet acceptance rates look.
It makes sense that things flatten out. Prices for Internet access are about the same as they were 5+ years ago. The people who can afford it will be more likely to get it. Just like TV's were expensive for a long time, but have now gotten cheap enough that almost everyone has one in their home (even the poor). If Internet and computer hardware rates were much less then I think we'd see more market penetration.
Well, I read half the article. I didn't read any of the/. comments:) But yes, I missed any partial rewrite remarks. The article I saw seemed to suggest a full rewrite. But I guess they meant full rewrite of only part of the code.
That is only true if you are rewriting a program to have the exact same functionality as the original, which is hardly ever the case.
You may very well write a more correct version of the original functionality, but any new functionality is just as likely to be correct as the original code. This means some or all your new stuff may be incorrect when you're done rewriting. So then do you rewrite again to fix that? And then rewrite to fix the new stuff in that rewrite? Rinse, repeat... Not a good cycle.
A complete rewrite? WTF? I thought smart developers learned a long time ago that rewrites are almost always a waste of time.
There are many issues to be overcome when doing a complete rewrite. As a developer, I understand the desire to rewrite something from scratch to make it feel better. You feel like you are doing something to improve the system. However, this hardly ever happens. Most developers face serious burn-out issues when they rewrite something. It's fun at first but as you realize the magnitude of what you're trying to do, you quickly start to burn out before you are even close to finishing.
The thing is, even if you do manage to rewrite everything, there will STILL be issues. Hacks, special conditions, etc. All the same types of issues that made you feel bad about the original version will be present in the new version. They may take a different form, but they will still be there.
Successful systems tend to just continue off the old code. Rewrite the problem areas, add things that are needed, etc. That's how you make forward progress. In the end, the only thing that matters is that it works. It doesn't matter how crappy you feel about the code, if it works then people can and will use it.
It's not an impossible task, I just think it's not the smartest thing to do.
I would not want to have to manually back up the coinfiguration. That's one thing I absolutely hate about my Palm. It should just use flash memory and keep the settings even when there is no power.
Otherwise you're constantly having to backup the device any time you make any change to the settings. This is one of those things where updates are somewhat rare, but not so rare that you could just do a backup and forget about it.
I hate my TV remote that loses all it's settings when the batteries die (or more often come out when the remote is dropped). Even if I have a backup of the settings it would still be a pain in the ass.
I'm more likely to be sitting on the couch with my laptop than my Palm. Would a laptop have better range?
I understand that LIRC can do it but it's a royal PITA to get working. I spent a couple hours messing with it and then stopped because it was taking too much time.
Anyone know of any laptop IR projects that make things easy? (commercial or free, Linux based)
Well, the functional systems I mention use modules at a very high level (very much like C++ namespaces). So there is only ever one layer. I guess that's what I was getting at, one layer seems good enough to make things easy yet not overly complex. I don't find that you need to be any more displined in a functional language than say Java or C++. However, while I do realize the benefits of functional language, I don't think they are the end-all be-all of languages. My perfect language (at this point) would be less OO than Java/C#/C++ and friends, but more OO than C or Haskell.
And sure, you can program pretty much any way you want to create different results, but most OO languages promote a system that I feel is too layered and complex. It may make things harder than they could be. But you're right, no matter what language, it depends on the skill of the programmers involved.
I would even argue that you don't really need inheritance. In theory it's good, but as with over-OO'ing everything it quickly becomes complicated. And the more complicated it is the more spaghetti-like it feels and the less likely a programmer will reuse the code.
I've seen some very complex software written in functional languages that was very easy to follow even though the had no real OO concepts (usually some sort of module system and the equivalent of C's structs).
Sometimes the most straightforward approach is the clearest and OO is anything but straightforward when you think about all the layers that go into it. Now, I'm not saying OO is all bad, it has good features. I feel a powerful programming language should strike a balance between the different programming methodologies.
In the past I have made some comments on what I think plain old C could become if it incorporated some modulization features.
I didn't even know (or maybe chose to forget) about this Super-DMCA crap.
What states has this passed in? It seems overly broad in scope and extremely scary. According to the article the laws are mainly meant for people hacking satellite and cable services. But damn, they're so broad it makes all sorts of things illegal.
I find it completely bizzare that this is even going on... How stupid are our (US) government leaders?!
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, most any RC copter these days is auto-stabilized. It's usually an option and not very expensive.
Although that makes it easier to fly for sure, helicopters are still incredibly difficult to control. And the smaller/lighter ones are almost useless outside because even a tiny breeze or gust of wind will send your little guy zooming to places you didn't intend.
Tiny electric airplanes are more fun. Still susceptible to wind, but since you're already moving at a good speed it's not nearly as bad. Of course you can't fly those inside quite as easily.
Yeah, I knew about the 1024-bit RSA thing. This is not smartcard specific though and effects anything using 1024-bit RSA keys.
I would guess that IBM bug doesn't effect all smartcards.
You seem to be stuck on satellite/cable smartcards which is just a tiny minority of cards out there (I assume you mean PPV as in Pay Per View? Or something else?).
Unless you know something I don't, most smartcards can not be unlocked once they are locked. Some have an admin PIN that can unlock the user's PIN, but it's not any easier to crack and on most cards that functionality can be disabled completely if desired.
Storing the PIN on the card? What PIN? Again, are you talking sat/cable type cards with their crappy implementation? Are you talking about storing a PIN in an open EF that an application would read and then use? That would be stupid as there would be no point in having a PIN in the first place. Please explain.
1024-bit encryption cards made by IBM and used by ATMs world-wide were cracked several years age (see 2600 for details).
... an average of 15 attempts led to the cracking of the users' pin by insiders.
I couldn't find anything about that IBM card on 2600. Can you be more specific about where it is? What type of encryption was it?
That is absolute nonsense. For short 4-char numeric-only PIN's maybe. However, nearly every smartcard supports long binary data PIN's and this is what is typically used when security matters. If someone can guess an 8-character alphanumeric, upper/lower case password in 15 tries then you could break into just about ANY system, smartcard or not if that were true. Besides, 15 attempts won't do you any good if your card locks after 3 attempts at the PIN. ???
Give more hard evidence, otherwise I have a hard time believing anything you say. You seem to be just bashing smartcards by picking specific examples of weak systems. I've been working as a programmer with some of the top firms in the crypto and smartcard arena for many years.
You may not see this since I'm so late posting but here goes anyway.
Of course you should just check with your local city to find out what you actually need to do (simple call to city hall usually works).
I run both a consulting and software business out of my house and I've done everything 100% legally. All I needed was a form for permission to work out of my house (from the city) and a business license. That's it. It only took about 1 day to get everything signed and approved.
In my city there are additional rules if you place a sign larger than a certain size outside (I have no sign since I work entirely by Internet and referrals). Also if you have a lot of traffic coming and going (I don't). Basically anything that might disturb the neighbors might require additional permits where I live. I didn't have to do any of that though. It literally took me 1 day and about $100 to get everything setup and I'm 100% official and legal.
Nobody ever needs to come to my office. Every time I've dealt with a customer it was at their site. That only makes sense since I'm small and they have all the facilities. However, if they needed to come to my office that would be fine since I have an entire large room dedicated for business (conference table and all). Because that space is only used for business I can write that part of my house off on my taxes.
I see lots of other posts here talking about zoning and such. I only thought that was for store-front type businesses were there would be customer traffic coming and going. A simple consulting/software business doesn't need any special zoning in my area (see above about signs and traffic).
At what number of downloads are you saying that names should be respected?
I wasn't saying that the size of the user base was too small to keep someone from stealing their name. In fact, I said the Phoenix/Firebird browser group should give up the name.
I was just saying that the user base wasn't so large that changing the name would have serious detrimental effects.
According to their project page [sourceforge.net], the database has been downloaded 867,540 times since 2000.
No, that's the total downloads of the whole site. That including all the documentation and other downloads, along with every version ever released.
The most I saw downloaded was their Win32 release with around 160k downloads. And that's after all this publicity. Who knows what the count was before. And note that release is over a year old.
Now, I'd never heard of the Firebird database before this. However, from what I can tell their database is called Firebird. Just "Firebird", not FirebirdSQL as others have suggested. So both the database and browser are called exactly the same thing.
Also, while it's true they are two completely different applications, they are both software that you run on your computer. That's too close for comfort. What does "Are you using Firebird?" mean exactly (could be database, or it could mean the browser).
With that said, when you use something so obvious as Firebird for the name of your application, you damn well better get a trademark or something because you should just assume zillions of others will think of using the same name. This was a mistake the database people made, for sure.
So, I think the Phoenix group is probably legally safe, but the nice thing to do would be to pick another name. I know they don't want to do this because it means more lawyer fees and coming up with yet another name. I dunno... They don't have to do this and it doesn't look like they are. In which case if I were the Firebird database people then I would come up with another name and trademark it (as painful as that may be). It's not like it was a database being used by 100's of thousands of people and they will now all be confused by the name change.
If you don't mind actually having to run Windows, then I would like to second the suggestion on getting VMware to work.
I've been using VMware since the pre-1.0 beta and have purchased every version since. It's a great product. It's an essential part of my consulting work. I never need to reboot my machine and I can run pretty much any OS I need (including BSD's and Linux) or start complete networks of machines.
Plus I can run MSOffice then way it was meant to be run without any problems at all. I also spend a lot of time in DevStudio under VMware.
For me it works out really good. I run Linux as my primary OS and benefit from the stability and security (I often am plugging into strange and unknown networks so I find iptables very useful). Yet I can still run all the Windows applications I need when working for a Windows based client. I can also run RedHat or whatever distro in VMware if my client uses those (I use Debian). I could go on.
Is the "Trusted ***" namespace only given to operating systems that meet B2 security levels?
I assume a commity or something gives you the stamp and that then allows you to use "Trusted" in the name of your project?
This is added as a GCC option. (-fstack-protector or similar) All the CONTROL and power of C/C++ is still there. It's an optional feature for when you need it. I don't usually use C and/or C++ for the control though. It's all about performance.
Smart cards? You mean like the ones for DSS, that are so easily hacked? Hardware cost for a reprogrammer: $50 - $150
Uh, riiight. DSS "smartcards" arn't that great. From a security standpoint their implementation is stupid. It's as plain as that. There are plently better smartcards out there that can't just be "reprogrammed" or emulated.
Whoa, wait a minute.
Which fingerprint scanners failed exactly? You tested every fingerprint reader there is? I'm just curious more than anything.
Your smartcard comment doesn't make any sense. How exactly can you query a private, protected key on something like a Cryptoflex? That data can not be read, cloned, or queried. ???
Most devices are suseptable to man in the middle attacks but you can't get the private key. You could get the PIN though... but you'd still need the card to use it.
Trained users with passwords is no better than a smartcard. They're just as suseptable to man in the middle attacks. However, they can't remember a 1024+ bit private key nor a 8k certificate.
Portable certs are a good thing. And most of that data is public.
I agree, biometrics are not very useful right now. It's getting better. You can't fake an iris scan with a gummy bear. The hardware is pretty good, it's the software matching algorithms that need the most work.
And it depends on the device. Not every fingerprint device is susceptible to the things you mention. For one thing, not all fingerprint readers are optical based and can't be fooled by simple tricks.
Smartcards on the other hand are useful right now. Especially with the cards that require no card reader (they plug into the USB port directly).
Even if your were to steal their badge from their car, if it's a smartcard then you won't have the PIN so the badge is still no good.
That's the thing about smartcards. You need at least two pieces. The card itself _and_ the PIN. It won't work with just one and trying to get both at the same time is much harder than stealing a password.
Well, that's what people are working on now, solving those issues.
Couple points though.
If you've ever worked anywhere that you need security clearance, you almost always need a badge. If you forget your badge, you don't get into work without jumping through some hoops (or going back home to get your badge). The same thing applies to smartcards. In fact, your badge can and often is the smartcard. Just like if you forget the keys to your car, you can't drive it. It's not any harder than that.
As for working remotely... Again, that's what people on working on solving right now. Smartcard and biometric readers are getting cheaper and cheaper. There are secure methods for remote validation. For instance, smart cards with public key cryptography. You still need to physically have the card to prove your identity. Doesn't matter if your at a remote location, that private key never leaves the card and no one can even get to the private key (supposedly). I say supposedly because there are some smartcards that are not as physically secure as they could be.
There are tons of new smartcards that can plug straight into a USB port. No reader required.
That's why there are so many companies working on "other than password" authentication methods. Biometrics, smartcards, etc.
The thing about something like a smartcard is that it adds a physical security layer. Even if you give someone your PIN, they still need your card. While someone could steal your card, you would be more likely to recognize "Hey, someone took my card" so that security could be locked down. Plus it because it a physical layer of security it's less likely that Joe h4xx0r will even be able to steal your card in the first place (ie. you can't physically give your card out over the phone).
And biometrics let the computer recognize who you are instead of you telling the computer who you are.
Anyone have data on the growth of TV over the years? Did it boom, then flatten out, or what?
I'd be curious to see how the TV versus Internet acceptance rates look.
It makes sense that things flatten out. Prices for Internet access are about the same as they were 5+ years ago. The people who can afford it will be more likely to get it. Just like TV's were expensive for a long time, but have now gotten cheap enough that almost everyone has one in their home (even the poor). If Internet and computer hardware rates were much less then I think we'd see more market penetration.
Well, I read half the article. I didn't read any of the /. comments :) But yes, I missed any partial rewrite remarks. The article I saw seemed to suggest a full rewrite. But I guess they meant full rewrite of only part of the code.
That is only true if you are rewriting a program to have the exact same functionality as the original, which is hardly ever the case.
You may very well write a more correct version of the original functionality, but any new functionality is just as likely to be correct as the original code. This means some or all your new stuff may be incorrect when you're done rewriting. So then do you rewrite again to fix that? And then rewrite to fix the new stuff in that rewrite? Rinse, repeat... Not a good cycle.
A complete rewrite? WTF? I thought smart developers learned a long time ago that rewrites are almost always a waste of time.
There are many issues to be overcome when doing a complete rewrite. As a developer, I understand the desire to rewrite something from scratch to make it feel better. You feel like you are doing something to improve the system. However, this hardly ever happens. Most developers face serious burn-out issues when they rewrite something. It's fun at first but as you realize the magnitude of what you're trying to do, you quickly start to burn out before you are even close to finishing.
The thing is, even if you do manage to rewrite everything, there will STILL be issues. Hacks, special conditions, etc. All the same types of issues that made you feel bad about the original version will be present in the new version. They may take a different form, but they will still be there.
Successful systems tend to just continue off the old code. Rewrite the problem areas, add things that are needed, etc. That's how you make forward progress. In the end, the only thing that matters is that it works. It doesn't matter how crappy you feel about the code, if it works then people can and will use it.
It's not an impossible task, I just think it's not the smartest thing to do.
I would not want to have to manually back up the coinfiguration. That's one thing I absolutely hate about my Palm. It should just use flash memory and keep the settings even when there is no power.
Otherwise you're constantly having to backup the device any time you make any change to the settings. This is one of those things where updates are somewhat rare, but not so rare that you could just do a backup and forget about it.
I hate my TV remote that loses all it's settings when the batteries die (or more often come out when the remote is dropped). Even if I have a backup of the settings it would still be a pain in the ass.
I'm more likely to be sitting on the couch with my laptop than my Palm. Would a laptop have better range?
I understand that LIRC can do it but it's a royal PITA to get working. I spent a couple hours messing with it and then stopped because it was taking too much time.
Anyone know of any laptop IR projects that make things easy? (commercial or free, Linux based)
Well, the functional systems I mention use modules at a very high level (very much like C++ namespaces). So there is only ever one layer. I guess that's what I was getting at, one layer seems good enough to make things easy yet not overly complex. I don't find that you need to be any more displined in a functional language than say Java or C++. However, while I do realize the benefits of functional language, I don't think they are the end-all be-all of languages. My perfect language (at this point) would be less OO than Java/C#/C++ and friends, but more OO than C or Haskell.
And sure, you can program pretty much any way you want to create different results, but most OO languages promote a system that I feel is too layered and complex. It may make things harder than they could be. But you're right, no matter what language, it depends on the skill of the programmers involved.
I would even argue that you don't really need inheritance. In theory it's good, but as with over-OO'ing everything it quickly becomes complicated. And the more complicated it is the more spaghetti-like it feels and the less likely a programmer will reuse the code.
I've seen some very complex software written in functional languages that was very easy to follow even though the had no real OO concepts (usually some sort of module system and the equivalent of C's structs).
Sometimes the most straightforward approach is the clearest and OO is anything but straightforward when you think about all the layers that go into it. Now, I'm not saying OO is all bad, it has good features. I feel a powerful programming language should strike a balance between the different programming methodologies.
In the past I have made some comments on what I think plain old C could become if it incorporated some modulization features.
What the hell is all that about?
I didn't even know (or maybe chose to forget) about this Super-DMCA crap.
What states has this passed in? It seems overly broad in scope and extremely scary. According to the article the laws are mainly meant for people hacking satellite and cable services. But damn, they're so broad it makes all sorts of things illegal.
I find it completely bizzare that this is even going on... How stupid are our (US) government leaders?!