Strategies include programming the ringer to turn on and off according to the time of day, monitoring sound light levels to determine if the owner is a movie theater or talking to his boss, and even letting callers decide whether they'd like to interrupt based on this information.
Seems to me that if the person is a movie theater, they have bigger problems than whether or not their cell phone is going off...
Going Deep Inside Vista's Kernel Architecture
Posted by Zonk on Tuesday January 03, @03:23PM
from the from-the-horse's-mouth dept.
Windows Programming bariswheel wrote to mention an episode of 'Going Deep' on Channel 9 which takes a hard look at the architecture of Windows Vista. From the post: "Rob Short is the corporate vice president in charge of the team that architects the foundation of Windows Vista. This is a fascinating conversation with the kernel architecture team. It's our Christmas present to all of the Niners out there who've stuck with us day after day. This is a very candid interview." Topics discussed include the history of the Windows Registry, and the security/reliability of Microsoft's upcoming operating system.
Maybe that got changed since you posted, but to me it looks like you are being credited?
For those interested in fighting the RIAA by not buying CDs of bands which support them, there are quite a few bands who allow free distribution of their live performances.
I would suggest the archive.org live music collection. There are all kinds of genres represented, and you can get quite a bit of music there, so if it stops you from buying RIAA music, right on! Archive.org Trade-Friendly Bands
Wait a second, why don't the credit bureaus offer free lifetime credit fraud monitoring to everyone in the first place?
I hate to state the obvious, but why offer a service which invariably takes up some form of resources, if not they are not receiving some benefit for it? Because they do offer it, just not for free. Not to say that they shouldn't, I think that especially with computers the amount of money that it would cost them would be more than made up for if they offered it for "free", but they don't see it that way, and never will. As long as they can make money off those who think it is worthwhile to buy, they will continue to charge.
Without sounding too much like the "intense peer pressure" and "manipulation of their guilt feelings" that you mentioned above, did you forget your medication this morning?
I noticed that your rather lengthy response managed to make first post. Did I mention that said response was just a little bit off topic? I can only imagine what would drive a person to carefully compose such a caustic little tirade about the evils of Slashdot, and then wait until a new topic came up, any old topic will do, just so that they could get first post and get the word out to the masses.
Might I suggest that next time you are on a Crusade against the Evil that is Slashdot, rather than posting your remarks, you print them out and distribute them on street corners. This way you will have a much larger coverage, those listening might actually be sympathetic to your cause (I would think that most others who hate Slashdot as much as you apparently do would have stopped reading it by now?), you won't be wasting bandwidth, and then the Slashdot Secret Police won't catch you as quickly.
Oh yeah... one more interesting gem.
This item popped out at me:
IBM AIX 'RC.BOOT' Insecure Temporary File Creation
A vulnerability has been reported in the '/SBIN/RC.BOOT' script due to the insecure creation of temporary files, which could let a malicious user corrupt arbitrary files with superuser privileges.
It's just one more reason why the numbers are meaningless: creating temporary files in IBM's boot process is absolutely unrelated and has absolutely no impact whatsoever on OSX, or Linux, or BSD.
A quick browse over some of the vulnerabilities listed... I think that the issue of scope is not covered at all in the number-quoting.
Windows: XP,NT,Me,98,95
note that these are all x86...
Unix/Linux (Oh yeah, and Mac too) : All variants of Linux, with all moderately current kernels, running on all architectures. All variants of Unix. Mac OS X.
On the other hand, there are a few positive sides: it included non-OS programs (web servers and user programs and such), which many studies often overlook, or selectively overlook and count Apache vulnerabilities for Linux and not Windows. It didn't try to pump the numbers TOO much. It was not actually a comparison between the merits of any one operating system over another (unlike most studies talked about, which are almost always funded by MS), but in fact was a compilation of the various vulnerabilities out there for each OS, including things like MusicMatch Jukebox, which very few people would claim is an integral part of the OS and can't be lived without, and thus completely eliminating that vulnerability from the numbers.
In regards to numberpumping, it is generally a lot easier to find a vulnerability in a Linux/Unix/OSX program than a Windows program, for the simple reason that a greater proportion of L/U/O programs are open source. You have two angles to attack from, and if you find some problem in the code, you can most likely find other instances in the code where the exact same mistake is made. Whereas the only way to find a vulnerability in a closed source program (most Windows programs, including the OS itself) is to observe and interact with it from the outside. Even if you do find a buffer overflow in some area, it counts as one vulnerability. You can't go look through the source for the rest of the OS and/or related programs, because you don't have it. Assuming a fairly large code base, any vulnerability (that is, a flaw in the underlying structure of the program, not a mistake) would probably be repeated at least 5 times.
If we use that estimate, and assume that only one such flaw was found in a Windows program and all 5 in a Linux/Unix/OSX program, that brings the numbers to this: Windows 4060 LUO 2328 (ignore the multi-OS ones)
Now, assuming that Linux, Unix, and OSX collectively run on 5 architectures (QUITE modest), that is 5 times the code for any architecture and hardware related problems to arise in, although I would be willing to bet that it doesn't actually increase numbers that much.
However, all of my rampant assumptions aside, the numbers mean absolutely NOTHING, for ANYONE. This is not a study. It is a summary of the vulnerabilities found in 2005. In order for "vulnerability numbers" to mean ANYTHING, they have to be discovered and explored in an impartial study which clearly defines various levels of "vulnerability" beforehand and equally explores all test OS's/programs, which would most likely require source code for all OS's/programs in question, wihch essentially rules out including any Microsoft products in any such study.
I think there may be other problems lurking... I was just fine. No pop-under either! Firefox 1.0.7 on Gentoo Linux, kernel 2.6.13 Perhaps it could be an extension problem, flash problem (the giant AIT ad which the text of the article wraps around... a bit amusing), or something related to your questionable choice of operating system (GPF *cough*)
Following that, you build a Windows application to add two numbers, a web browser, a database application, and an application that retrieves data from a web service. Each example builds nicely on the one before, and they're functional enough to be useful in their own right.
I'm sorry, but does anyone else find it just a little bit odd that the example flow goes from console adding numbers to GUI adding numbers, to WEB BROWSER?
Although I'm sure what is actually meant is to make a pretty GUI for a web browser and then tell VB to put a web browser in this little box, people should be aware that they are not actually making a complete web browser with rendering engine etc.
Then they start talking to databases and web servers. This is insane... if you actually want to teach someone programming, your first five programs should go a little something like this:
1. Hello world 2. variables 3. functions 4. simple classes/structs/what have you 5. file and/or user IO
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe that got changed since you posted, but to me it looks like you are being credited?
For those interested in fighting the RIAA by not buying CDs of bands which support them, there are quite a few bands who allow free distribution of their live performances.
I would suggest the archive.org live music collection. There are all kinds of genres represented, and you can get quite a bit of music there, so if it stops you from buying RIAA music, right on!
Archive.org Trade-Friendly Bands
Without sounding too much like the "intense peer pressure" and "manipulation of their guilt feelings" that you mentioned above, did you forget your medication this morning?
I noticed that your rather lengthy response managed to make first post. Did I mention that said response was just a little bit off topic? I can only imagine what would drive a person to carefully compose such a caustic little tirade about the evils of Slashdot, and then wait until a new topic came up, any old topic will do, just so that they could get first post and get the word out to the masses.
Might I suggest that next time you are on a Crusade against the Evil that is Slashdot, rather than posting your remarks, you print them out and distribute them on street corners. This way you will have a much larger coverage, those listening might actually be sympathetic to your cause (I would think that most others who hate Slashdot as much as you apparently do would have stopped reading it by now?), you won't be wasting bandwidth, and then the Slashdot Secret Police won't catch you as quickly.
I for one welcome our new panda-loving, nuclear-weapon swinging overlords.
Anyone else think the company's name is just a little too fitting?
A quick browse over some of the vulnerabilities listed... I think that the issue of scope is not covered at all in the number-quoting.
Windows: XP,NT,Me,98,95
note that these are all x86...
Unix/Linux (Oh yeah, and Mac too) : All variants of Linux, with all moderately current kernels, running on all architectures. All variants of Unix. Mac OS X.
On the other hand, there are a few positive sides: it included non-OS programs (web servers and user programs and such), which many studies often overlook, or selectively overlook and count Apache vulnerabilities for Linux and not Windows. It didn't try to pump the numbers TOO much. It was not actually a comparison between the merits of any one operating system over another (unlike most studies talked about, which are almost always funded by MS), but in fact was a compilation of the various vulnerabilities out there for each OS, including things like MusicMatch Jukebox, which very few people would claim is an integral part of the OS and can't be lived without, and thus completely eliminating that vulnerability from the numbers.
In regards to numberpumping, it is generally a lot easier to find a vulnerability in a Linux/Unix/OSX program than a Windows program, for the simple reason that a greater proportion of L/U/O programs are open source. You have two angles to attack from, and if you find some problem in the code, you can most likely find other instances in the code where the exact same mistake is made. Whereas the only way to find a vulnerability in a closed source program (most Windows programs, including the OS itself) is to observe and interact with it from the outside. Even if you do find a buffer overflow in some area, it counts as one vulnerability. You can't go look through the source for the rest of the OS and/or related programs, because you don't have it. Assuming a fairly large code base, any vulnerability (that is, a flaw in the underlying structure of the program, not a mistake) would probably be repeated at least 5 times.
If we use that estimate, and assume that only one such flaw was found in a Windows program and all 5 in a Linux/Unix/OSX program, that brings the numbers to this:
Windows 4060
LUO 2328
(ignore the multi-OS ones)
Now, assuming that Linux, Unix, and OSX collectively run on 5 architectures (QUITE modest), that is 5 times the code for any architecture and hardware related problems to arise in, although I would be willing to bet that it doesn't actually increase numbers that much.
However, all of my rampant assumptions aside, the numbers mean absolutely NOTHING, for ANYONE. This is not a study. It is a summary of the vulnerabilities found in 2005. In order for "vulnerability numbers" to mean ANYTHING, they have to be discovered and explored in an impartial study which clearly defines various levels of "vulnerability" beforehand and equally explores all test OS's/programs, which would most likely require source code for all OS's/programs in question, wihch essentially rules out including any Microsoft products in any such study.
I think there may be other problems lurking... I was just fine. No pop-under either!
Firefox 1.0.7 on Gentoo Linux, kernel 2.6.13
Perhaps it could be an extension problem, flash problem (the giant AIT ad which the text of the article wraps around... a bit amusing), or something related to your questionable choice of operating system (GPF *cough*)
I'm sorry, but does anyone else find it just a little bit odd that the example flow goes from console adding numbers to GUI adding numbers, to WEB BROWSER?
Although I'm sure what is actually meant is to make a pretty GUI for a web browser and then tell VB to put a web browser in this little box, people should be aware that they are not actually making a complete web browser with rendering engine etc.
Then they start talking to databases and web servers. This is insane... if you actually want to teach someone programming, your first five programs should go a little something like this:
1. Hello world
2. variables
3. functions
4. simple classes/structs/what have you
5. file and/or user IO
#3 should never be web browser!!!