Re:But the real problem is still...
on
NYT on RFID
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, so we have to give up privacy to function in society. However, we don't have to give up dignity. A person of good character can know every bad thing about you and still treat you like a human being. The difference is that most corporations are persons from a legal standpoint, but not from an ethical or moral one.
That's why "privacy rights" are inconsequential to the problem of human dignity. The problem of being treated well by others is essentially a problem of the character of the other person (or entity), not how much or how little they know about you.
I'm more interested in finding the systems that will put more people to work.
It's called Microsoft Windows; it needs patching and updating more often than any other OS, requires more administrative overhead, and crashes frequently.
So now that we have this inefficient system, and it is installed on 95% of the desktop PC's, how do you explain the unemployment rate? Maybe we need more efficiency rather than less....
I'm not trying to troll with the MS Windows comment, but I don't think the article's premise is valid. If anything, it was a lack of efficiency in the dot-bomb era that produced the recession - some firms paid $70,000,000 (yes, 70 million) for a website, and now we've got to make that up. If we can blame anyone, it would be the overpaid consultants who bent the industry over a barrel and depleted corporate cash reserves without providing anything of value in return. Or maybe it was the corporate CEO's who were so enamored with the possibilities of "e-commerce" that they forgot their common sense.
This is already a possibility. With today's inkjet printers, a person can print bills that are indistinguishable from the real thing. I know a bank teller who gets several counterfeit 20's a week - in some cases, printed with inkjets on regular white stock.
But the real problem is still...
on
NYT on RFID
·
· Score: 1
Greed.
It's about maintaining person dignity and self-respect.
RFID's have nothing to do with the loss of human dignity - they are simply a red herring to divert the human rights activists from the real problem: sin. Stalin and Hitler didn't need RFID's to oppress and kill millions, and I imagine that RFID's will play little, if no role in the invasion of our privacy. People have always found ways to strip others of dignity for their personal profit.
Yes, privacy is important to personal dignity. But I would argue that you don't have any privacy left to lose:
If you want to open a bank account or take out a loan, you have to provide a social security number and employer. With which, your banker can find out:
How much money you make.
If you owe the IRS money.
If you've been convicted of a felony.
How many traffic incidents you've had.
Your personal credit rank - done by someone other than you, and by a company unaccountable to you.
How many credit cards you have, and their balances.
If you've ever declared bankruptcy, been divorced, etc...
Your most recent (or perhaps all) items purchased with your credit card.
Precisely what is left that you would want to hide from someone?
Your privacy is already gone. To a corporation, people are just records in a database somewhere. You don't have much dignity left as it is. RFID's aren't the problem, they are merely incidental. Technology didn't create the problem; people did.
Because if they do, they'll figure out quickly that sending me spam won't increase their returns.
Spam isn't hated because it is targetted advertising; precisely the opposite - SPAM is hated because it is untargetted. That is, people get spam for things that they would never buy. Personally, I do get targetted emails - I've given my address to local retailers, and I get their specials via email. I'm not annoyed at them. I'm annoyed at the folks who spam me with stuff that I would never even remotely be interested in.
If making spammers more effective means that I won't get 50 emails a day for stuff I'll never buy, I'm all for it. If it means that I'll get discounts for stuff I do buy, then I won't mind too much.
To issue tickets, me and a bunch of my friends are going to gas up and drive 55 (no faster) on the Chicago expressways. We'll gang up, four lanes wide, and slow traffic to a standstill.
Trust me, after a few days, the State Troopers will stop issuing tickets via black box. Some local politician will get stuck in 55 mph traffic (which normally moves at 70-85), be late for a meeting, and that will be the end of black-box ticketing...
...MS strategy, there'd be some extra zeroes...either that, or it'd be $150 per to start and $100 per "essential patch", plus complete ownership of any and all works produced by any users... [emphasis mine]
Yes, you jest, but this is exactly how Software AG licenses their software. Not only do we pay license fees based on the amount of code we write, they have an ownership interest in the code as well. A few years ago we were offered a substantial amount of money for our software, only to find that we couldn't complete the sale without SAG's permission. Since SAG had an "ownership interest" in the software we had written, they tagged on a fee so large that the potential buyer backed out of the deal.
The worst of it is, we just signed another contract with these folks. My company pays them license fees to run the code we ourselves have written!
making the 15 year old cars race to 60 in 3.3 seconds....
So, it's almost as fast as my 22 year old, 85 hp motorcycle then....
While I'm inclined to respect anything with 575 horsepower, I can't help but wonder why people buy porsches when a motorcycle is about 1/4 of the price and notably faster. And arguably more fun.
Whilst it's not necessarily very efficient, in many ways it's very pragmatic, in that the user will be totally focused on who they're talking to.
Um, excuse me, but that's the problem with existing phones - the person concentrates only on the conversation, to the exclusion of everything else, including driving. If anything, we need a phone that would allow a person to do something else other than just talking. (And yes, I know about wireless headsets and I think they're great...)
Yeah, well how do you explain that some of the money used to outsource IS goes into the hands of Muslim terrorists? Oh yeah, that's right - when a guy does drugs, he's supporting terrorism (because terrorists sell drugs, right?) but when a corporation sends millions of dollars to India (hotbed of radical Islam), nobody says a word. Why is that?
Is it really patriotic for a corporation to put Americans out of work so they can get cheaper labor, inadvertently funding terrorism in the process?
This has already been implemented; for this reason, I can't send executable attachments to some of the people I know...
I'm a programmer. I write games in my spare time. I really don't feel like mailing a floppy to everyone (friends and family) who might find my game interesting.
Yeah, I understand that most executable attachments are probably viruses. However, this doesn't justify the intrusion on my freedom - I would expect a company to just delete virus emails, rather than a blanket rejection of something that could be a virus, but might be very important to the recipient.
It's already over...
on
Back To SCO
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
If you wish to make a respectable case for contamination, show us the code. Disclose the overlaps. Specify file by file and line by line which code you believe to be infringing, and on what grounds. We will swiftly meet our responsibilities under law, either removing the allegedly infringing code or establishing that it entered Linux by routes which foreclose proprietary claims.
IANAL, but IIRC, in order for a copyright violation to be actionable (that is, to be able to be brought before the court), the copyright holder must show that they engaged in "due diligence" to prevent the infringement of copyright - that is, they did everything short of suing to ensure that their copyright was protected. Here you have the publishers of the "work in question" making an open commitment to ensure that copyrights are upheld and no infringing code is included into the Linux kernel. Which means that SCO will have to work with ESR and Perens to reveal the "offending lines", or risk losing any claim to copyright infringement, however valid.
This is the worst thing that could happen to SCO. If they comply, they lose any claim over the Linux kernel, as any offending lines will be rewritten. If they fail to respond, they forfeit the current Linux kernel - even if it contains their copyrighted code! Once given an offer of remediation, the copyright holder loses the right to bring a suit before the courts.
If anything, this has shown not the weakness of the Open Source model, but rather its strength. Unlike proprietary code, in which a user could unknowingly be in possession of another's IP, (and hence, liable for royalties to said third party...), the openness of the OS model ensures that any third-party copyright claims are effectively null and void.
Wednesdays are patch days for Microsoft products....
Thursdays, I get to figure out what the patch broke...
Fridays, I hope everything's good until the next Wednesday....
I mean, really, what's the point? Even if you're secure now, give Microsoft another few weeks, and they'll find another few critical weaknesses. Why can't people just accept that if you run MS operating systems, you are going to get hacked? Why bother patching when your system is still vulnerable to the multitude of holes Microsoft (or some other hacker...) has yet to discover?
Sorry to rant, but this is just plain unexcusable. 8 years after Windows95, and Microsoft still hasn't managed to create a secure operating system. Their "Trustworthy Computing" initiative only means that you have to trust them to release a patch when holes are found...
Re:Java's not exactly pining for the fields just n
on
Java vs .NET
·
· Score: 2, Informative
So I guess if a phone isn't MIDP enabled, then you just ignore it? Or if you need to write code for something other than a cell phone?
Granted, you don't give up much portability if you write in C++, provided you know how to write portable code. (Don't use system-specific API's, or if you do, at least wrap them in another layer...).
And then there's the problem of Java not supporting the feature set of embedded devices. Is there really a setToastTimer method in Java? So I guess if was to use Java to write an app for my toaster, I'd have to settle for something that couldn't use the key functionality of the device?
Quite frankly, due to the specialized nature of embedded devices, portability is pretty much a moot issue. You do need to access the platform-specific features. Yes, I suppose if you like playing tic-tac-toe on a cell phone you'd write in Java. But the chances that you'll be able to write program in Java which utilizes a cell phone's camera and microphone as a realtime video recorder are pretty small. Any software that's non-trivial will need to access the device-specific features.
Re:Java's not exactly pining for the fields just n
on
Java vs .NET
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
It's possible to create ROMmable Java applications in just a couple megs of flash memory...
Um, excuse me, but it's very possible to create full-featured applications in assembly in just a couple of kB of flash memory. And in case you hate assembly, you can do the same thing in C++ for around 500 kB, and it will run faster than Java. Remember, embedded devices don't have the screaming fast processors that are needed to make Java appear fast. And they're not likely to have the few hundred megs of RAM that a JVM seems to think it needs, either.
Yeah, Java's nice - for the web. But given that people hate to wait on embedded devices, I can see why it hasn't been widely adopted. And given that embedded devices are often used for critical infrastructure (i.e. utilities, aircraft, nuclear plants, etc...), I'm not sure if I'd trust someone who can't master assembly to write code that controlled a something that could get me killed if an unexpected Out of Memory Exception was raised.
Yeah, so?
on
Java vs .NET
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It's possible to create ROMmable Java applications in just a couple megs of flash memory...
Um, excuse me, but it's very possible to create full-featured applications in assembly in just a couple of kB of flash memory. And in case you hate assembly, you can do the same thing in C++ for around 500 kB, and it will run faster than Java. Remember, embedded devices don't have the screaming fast processors that are needed to make Java appear fast. And they're not likely to have the few hundred megs of RAM that a JVM seems to think it needs, either.
Yeah, Java's nice - for the web. But given that people hate to wait on embedded devices, I can see why it hasn't been widely adopted. And given that embedded devices are often used for critical infrastructure (i.e. utilities, aircraft, nuclear plants, etc...), I'm not sure if I'd trust someone who can't master assembly to write code that controlled a something that could get me killed if an unexpected Out of Memory Exception was raised.
I wonder if they're related... But seeing as how I don't get to hear any new/interesting bands, I don't know what I'm missing, and I don't care.
To be honest, I don't know as much about music as perhaps I should. But then again, I can enjoy the other parts of my life - writing code, playing computer games, etc... without the worry that the RIAA is going to sue me.
With all this suing going on, I've decided it's just not worth the risk to experience commercial music. It's not all that great, anyway, and it comes with tremendous risk; if I accidentally share a folder with MP3s, I could get sued by the RIAA; if I share a copy of the CD with a friend, I'll be (apparently) breaking the law. Why bother? The risk of commercial music is just too great.
How long before it is illegal to change the BIOS in your PC?
How long before mod-chips for PC's are sold on the black market?
Face it folks, the computer is no longer a geek's toy. Now that everybody and their brother is using the internet to commit copyright violations, DRM is inevitable, if not by force of law, by force of market and monopoly.
How many of you remember when VCR's came without macrovision? How many of you can find a VCR without macrovision today? Because the computer has become the de facto entertainment device of the new millenium, it is inevitable that it will be illegal to make a computer without DRM in the near future. This is the first step. NOW is the time to call your elected officials.
IIRC, SCO has threatened to sue individual Linux users who don't pay the "$699 license fee". So, if you download Linux, you might just be getting a nastygram from the BSA...
Imagine if you had worked hard to write a program, and distributed that program for free, and then a corporate giant with more money and more lawyers decides they are going to sue the people who are using your program.... How would you feel? When it comes down to it, those who write free software seldom have the legal resources to defend their right to distribute software that they themselves created. The mere allegation of copyright infringement, however untrue, is all that is needed for most ISP's to disable one's account. So SCO, or any other corporation, can block "objectionable" material, constitutional rights notwithstanding.
Here are some other good examples:
DeCSS - never proven to infringe directly, but only a tool.
Mattel and their SLAPP suit against the guy that wrote the software to reveal the websites blocked by their censorware.
Napster - again, merely a P2P tool.
I mean, come on. Do you really think that SCO won't sue the distributors of the Linux kernel if they win their case against IBM? Their only biding their time until they've got a court precedent, after which, they'll be as bad as the RIAA.
Windows, GNU, and Solaris. I haven't tested the malloc implementation in Linux, but given the fact that 4 different compilers (Visual C++, DJGPP, Borland, and gcc on Solaris) produce the same problem, I'm inclined to think that the problem lies in some hereditary UNIX code that was incorporated into Win32 and Solaris. The fact that this bug has also been reported in Solaris further reinforces this.
It is rather unfortunate, though, because malloc usually works fine as long as you :
Don't allocate small chunks of memory (less than 4 bytes at a time), and,
Don't make more than a few hundred calls allocating such small amounts of memory.
malloc seems to work just fine for allocating large chunks (greater than 64 bytes), though. Methinks there's a bug in malloc's list algorithm.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why "privacy rights" are inconsequential to the problem of human dignity. The problem of being treated well by others is essentially a problem of the character of the other person (or entity), not how much or how little they know about you.
I'm more interested in finding the systems that will put more people to work.
It's called Microsoft Windows; it needs patching and updating more often than any other OS, requires more administrative overhead, and crashes frequently.
So now that we have this inefficient system, and it is installed on 95% of the desktop PC's, how do you explain the unemployment rate? Maybe we need more efficiency rather than less....
I'm not trying to troll with the MS Windows comment, but I don't think the article's premise is valid. If anything, it was a lack of efficiency in the dot-bomb era that produced the recession - some firms paid $70,000,000 (yes, 70 million) for a website, and now we've got to make that up. If we can blame anyone, it would be the overpaid consultants who bent the industry over a barrel and depleted corporate cash reserves without providing anything of value in return. Or maybe it was the corporate CEO's who were so enamored with the possibilities of "e-commerce" that they forgot their common sense.
This is already a possibility. With today's inkjet printers, a person can print bills that are indistinguishable from the real thing. I know a bank teller who gets several counterfeit 20's a week - in some cases, printed with inkjets on regular white stock.
Greed.
It's about maintaining person dignity and self-respect.
RFID's have nothing to do with the loss of human dignity - they are simply a red herring to divert the human rights activists from the real problem: sin. Stalin and Hitler didn't need RFID's to oppress and kill millions, and I imagine that RFID's will play little, if no role in the invasion of our privacy. People have always found ways to strip others of dignity for their personal profit.
Yes, privacy is important to personal dignity. But I would argue that you don't have any privacy left to lose:
- If you want to open a bank account or take out a loan, you have to provide a social security number and employer. With which, your banker can find out:
- How much money you make.
- If you owe the IRS money.
- If you've been convicted of a felony.
- How many traffic incidents you've had.
- Your personal credit rank - done by someone other than you, and by a company unaccountable to you.
- How many credit cards you have, and their balances.
- If you've ever declared bankruptcy, been divorced, etc...
- Your most recent (or perhaps all) items purchased with your credit card.
Precisely what is left that you would want to hide from someone?Your privacy is already gone. To a corporation, people are just records in a database somewhere. You don't have much dignity left as it is. RFID's aren't the problem, they are merely incidental. Technology didn't create the problem; people did.
When I really think about it... no.
Would someone please explain to me how knowing my purchasing habits could be used against me?
Because if they do, they'll figure out quickly that sending me spam won't increase their returns.
Spam isn't hated because it is targetted advertising; precisely the opposite - SPAM is hated because it is untargetted. That is, people get spam for things that they would never buy. Personally, I do get targetted emails - I've given my address to local retailers, and I get their specials via email. I'm not annoyed at them. I'm annoyed at the folks who spam me with stuff that I would never even remotely be interested in.
If making spammers more effective means that I won't get 50 emails a day for stuff I'll never buy, I'm all for it. If it means that I'll get discounts for stuff I do buy, then I won't mind too much.
To issue tickets, me and a bunch of my friends are going to gas up and drive 55 (no faster) on the Chicago expressways. We'll gang up, four lanes wide, and slow traffic to a standstill.
Trust me, after a few days, the State Troopers will stop issuing tickets via black box. Some local politician will get stuck in 55 mph traffic (which normally moves at 70-85), be late for a meeting, and that will be the end of black-box ticketing...
That this 1.1 billion dollars won't even come close to bankrupting Microsoft.
But at least it's more the slap on the wrist that the Feds gave them.
Could be worse - I know of places that pay about $5,000 per user.
Yes, you jest, but this is exactly how Software AG licenses their software. Not only do we pay license fees based on the amount of code we write, they have an ownership interest in the code as well. A few years ago we were offered a substantial amount of money for our software, only to find that we couldn't complete the sale without SAG's permission. Since SAG had an "ownership interest" in the software we had written, they tagged on a fee so large that the potential buyer backed out of the deal.
The worst of it is, we just signed another contract with these folks. My company pays them license fees to run the code we ourselves have written!
So, it's almost as fast as my 22 year old, 85 hp motorcycle then....
While I'm inclined to respect anything with 575 horsepower, I can't help but wonder why people buy porsches when a motorcycle is about 1/4 of the price and notably faster. And arguably more fun.
Um, excuse me, but that's the problem with existing phones - the person concentrates only on the conversation, to the exclusion of everything else, including driving. If anything, we need a phone that would allow a person to do something else other than just talking. (And yes, I know about wireless headsets and I think they're great...)
Is it really patriotic for a corporation to put Americans out of work so they can get cheaper labor, inadvertently funding terrorism in the process?
This has already been implemented; for this reason, I can't send executable attachments to some of the people I know...
I'm a programmer. I write games in my spare time. I really don't feel like mailing a floppy to everyone (friends and family) who might find my game interesting.
Yeah, I understand that most executable attachments are probably viruses. However, this doesn't justify the intrusion on my freedom - I would expect a company to just delete virus emails, rather than a blanket rejection of something that could be a virus, but might be very important to the recipient.
IANAL, but IIRC, in order for a copyright violation to be actionable (that is, to be able to be brought before the court), the copyright holder must show that they engaged in "due diligence" to prevent the infringement of copyright - that is, they did everything short of suing to ensure that their copyright was protected. Here you have the publishers of the "work in question" making an open commitment to ensure that copyrights are upheld and no infringing code is included into the Linux kernel. Which means that SCO will have to work with ESR and Perens to reveal the "offending lines", or risk losing any claim to copyright infringement, however valid.
This is the worst thing that could happen to SCO. If they comply, they lose any claim over the Linux kernel, as any offending lines will be rewritten. If they fail to respond, they forfeit the current Linux kernel - even if it contains their copyrighted code! Once given an offer of remediation, the copyright holder loses the right to bring a suit before the courts.
If anything, this has shown not the weakness of the Open Source model, but rather its strength. Unlike proprietary code, in which a user could unknowingly be in possession of another's IP, (and hence, liable for royalties to said third party...), the openness of the OS model ensures that any third-party copyright claims are effectively null and void.
I mean, really, what's the point? Even if you're secure now , give Microsoft another few weeks, and they'll find another few critical weaknesses. Why can't people just accept that if you run MS operating systems, you are going to get hacked? Why bother patching when your system is still vulnerable to the multitude of holes Microsoft (or some other hacker...) has yet to discover?
Sorry to rant, but this is just plain unexcusable. 8 years after Windows95, and Microsoft still hasn't managed to create a secure operating system. Their "Trustworthy Computing" initiative only means that you have to trust them to release a patch when holes are found...
Granted, you don't give up much portability if you write in C++, provided you know how to write portable code. (Don't use system-specific API's, or if you do, at least wrap them in another layer...).
And then there's the problem of Java not supporting the feature set of embedded devices. Is there really a setToastTimer method in Java? So I guess if was to use Java to write an app for my toaster, I'd have to settle for something that couldn't use the key functionality of the device?
Quite frankly, due to the specialized nature of embedded devices, portability is pretty much a moot issue. You do need to access the platform-specific features. Yes, I suppose if you like playing tic-tac-toe on a cell phone you'd write in Java. But the chances that you'll be able to write program in Java which utilizes a cell phone's camera and microphone as a realtime video recorder are pretty small. Any software that's non-trivial will need to access the device-specific features.
Um, excuse me, but it's very possible to create full-featured applications in assembly in just a couple of kB of flash memory. And in case you hate assembly, you can do the same thing in C++ for around 500 kB, and it will run faster than Java. Remember, embedded devices don't have the screaming fast processors that are needed to make Java appear fast. And they're not likely to have the few hundred megs of RAM that a JVM seems to think it needs, either.
Yeah, Java's nice - for the web. But given that people hate to wait on embedded devices, I can see why it hasn't been widely adopted. And given that embedded devices are often used for critical infrastructure (i.e. utilities, aircraft, nuclear plants, etc...), I'm not sure if I'd trust someone who can't master assembly to write code that controlled a something that could get me killed if an unexpected Out of Memory Exception was raised.
Um, excuse me, but it's very possible to create full-featured applications in assembly in just a couple of kB of flash memory. And in case you hate assembly, you can do the same thing in C++ for around 500 kB, and it will run faster than Java. Remember, embedded devices don't have the screaming fast processors that are needed to make Java appear fast. And they're not likely to have the few hundred megs of RAM that a JVM seems to think it needs, either.
Yeah, Java's nice - for the web. But given that people hate to wait on embedded devices, I can see why it hasn't been widely adopted. And given that embedded devices are often used for critical infrastructure (i.e. utilities, aircraft, nuclear plants, etc...), I'm not sure if I'd trust someone who can't master assembly to write code that controlled a something that could get me killed if an unexpected Out of Memory Exception was raised.
I wonder if they're related... But seeing as how I don't get to hear any new/interesting bands, I don't know what I'm missing, and I don't care.
To be honest, I don't know as much about music as perhaps I should. But then again, I can enjoy the other parts of my life - writing code, playing computer games, etc... without the worry that the RIAA is going to sue me.
With all this suing going on, I've decided it's just not worth the risk to experience commercial music. It's not all that great, anyway, and it comes with tremendous risk; if I accidentally share a folder with MP3s, I could get sued by the RIAA; if I share a copy of the CD with a friend, I'll be (apparently) breaking the law. Why bother? The risk of commercial music is just too great.
How long before mod-chips for PC's are sold on the black market?
Face it folks, the computer is no longer a geek's toy. Now that everybody and their brother is using the internet to commit copyright violations, DRM is inevitable, if not by force of law, by force of market and monopoly.
How many of you remember when VCR's came without macrovision? How many of you can find a VCR without macrovision today? Because the computer has become the de facto entertainment device of the new millenium, it is inevitable that it will be illegal to make a computer without DRM in the near future. This is the first step. NOW is the time to call your elected officials.
Yes, IIRC, Symantec sued a journalist because he benchmarked their AV software, which was against the EULA. I'm not sure who won.
I'd just send this off via registered mail:
....
Dear Dell,
By opening this letter, you agree to the terms of the revised license agreement herein:
You agree that any prior End User License Agreements to which I have agreed are now invalid.
Thank you,
IIRC, SCO has threatened to sue individual Linux users who don't pay the "$699 license fee". So, if you download Linux, you might just be getting a nastygram from the BSA...
Imagine if you had worked hard to write a program, and distributed that program for free, and then a corporate giant with more money and more lawyers decides they are going to sue the people who are using your program.... How would you feel? When it comes down to it, those who write free software seldom have the legal resources to defend their right to distribute software that they themselves created. The mere allegation of copyright infringement, however untrue, is all that is needed for most ISP's to disable one's account. So SCO, or any other corporation, can block "objectionable" material, constitutional rights notwithstanding.
Here are some other good examples:
- DeCSS - never proven to infringe directly, but only a tool.
- Mattel and their SLAPP suit against the guy that wrote the software to reveal the websites blocked by their censorware.
- Napster - again, merely a P2P tool.
I mean, come on. Do you really think that SCO won't sue the distributors of the Linux kernel if they win their case against IBM? Their only biding their time until they've got a court precedent, after which, they'll be as bad as the RIAA.Windows, GNU, and Solaris. I haven't tested the malloc implementation in Linux, but given the fact that 4 different compilers (Visual C++, DJGPP, Borland, and gcc on Solaris) produce the same problem, I'm inclined to think that the problem lies in some hereditary UNIX code that was incorporated into Win32 and Solaris. The fact that this bug has also been reported in Solaris further reinforces this.
It is rather unfortunate, though, because malloc usually works fine as long as you :
- Don't allocate small chunks of memory (less than 4 bytes at a time), and,
- Don't make more than a few hundred calls allocating such small amounts of memory.
malloc seems to work just fine for allocating large chunks (greater than 64 bytes), though. Methinks there's a bug in malloc's list algorithm.