It allows me to demonstrate a proficiency with MS products which makes my complaint about them harder to deny.
Allow me to demonstrate.
Get that paperclip up. Right click on it. Uncheck and carefully close. Bye bye paperclip!
For your second magical performance, did you know that calling word with the/m option turns off autoexec macros? Just reset the file association and the start shortcut and you have instantly disabled almost all possible Word macro viruses!
to write a text area, open up a script below that, paste in lines 304-458 and get rid of line 440 from their script (that is put in all of the code relevant to creating those arrays) and then read it into that text-area with:
and you get the contents of those codes. Now try to figure out what you need to build "http://" and you quickly find that the fscking idiots forgot to include ascii character 112 (and even 80) so there is no "p" (or "P" in case IE forgets that it is supposed to be case-sensitive) so there is no way to build that string.
In other words there *IS* no name/password combination that will work.
Is for to be inserted for spaces at the beginning of lines. Like I did with this line by hand. And for the tag to be allowed. (Just makes text look like code but allows formatting etc.)
That way we could paste in code and it would look like code, complete with the formatting that you need to make it readable.
NT 4.0 does not, and is never going to have, a C2 level clearance.
NT 3.51 (service-pack 3?) does. But the person who got that clearance, Ed Curry, has publically stated that the changes to NT 4.0 have weakened security so much that it cannot meet the standard.
Doesn't stop Microsoft from spreading their lies though...
When I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation a few years ago, the figure that I came up with was about 2020 for the computational power of a human brain in one computer (measured in operations/second vs neurons firing/second). Given differences in architecture, software problems, etc I would assume that a general purpose computer roughly capable of the same intellectual tasks as a human brain should be a reality by 2030 or so.
And then things get interesting.
AI so far has completely flopped. Well so what? What is the computational power and memory of a brain? Of a computer? Some problems are only addressable in hardware, and I honestly believe AI to be one of them. So when the AI folks finally have the necessary computational power, I think that AI will prove to be like chess-playing, like speech recognition, like lots of problems. Quite solvable with the right equipment.
But then we have a very nasty situation. For $70,000/year you can hire this human, or for $1000 you can buy a computer capable of the same job, but it works 24 hours a day. Do you want to hire or buy?
This dilemma has arisen in the past and the human almost always loses. However historically humans are more flexible and so there have always been plenty of other things that talking monkeys can easily do and machines can't yet. So with the machines handling the repetitive stuff, and the monkeys doing more interesting stuff, we all wind up generally better.
But what do the monkeys do when there is *nothing* that the machine can't do better? Sure at that point it is theoretically possible for us all to just be provided with the necessities of life - but does anything in the history of our economic system indicate that that will happen? Not that I can see!
I am not a techno-phobe, but I can tell you that I am preparing to have enough saved that I won't economically need to work after that point...
I remember what happened the last time this issue came up. O'Reilly released a press release pointing out that the license on any book is the license that the author wants. O'Reilly has before produced a book on Linux with a GPLed license. It didn't work too well from a business standpoint, but they did it anyways.
Personally I suspect that the ghostscript license would make a lot of sense for a book. Make it proprietary for a fixed period of time, and then open source it.
But that is not Tim's call, it is up to the authors to ask for that license.
If you see those quotes, clean them up, and pop up a warning.
On any platform.
(However if you try to use the locale settings on Microsoft platforms, I bet that the quotes in question are pushed on you by default. So it may not be so simple..)
Not only are disk-writes faster on journeled file-systems, there are also such things as journeled operating systems.
That is, if you turn the power off and turn it on, the entire OS comes back on to a state within a few minutes of where it was. One example that looks interesting is EROS.
I have not seen this one in operation, but there are theoretical arguments for their speed claims, and (as they say) it is theoretically impossible for *any* OS based on access lists (such as Unix) to achieve the same level of security that a capability based system can. (Note, I said "can", not "does".)
Slashdot Mirror
I said to be careful?
DO NOT HIT RESET.
Just unclick and close.
(Sorry, should have mentioned that.)
Ben
It allows me to demonstrate a proficiency with MS products which makes my complaint about them harder to deny.
/m option turns off autoexec macros? Just reset the file association and the start shortcut and you have instantly disabled almost all possible Word macro viruses!
Allow me to demonstrate.
Get that paperclip up. Right click on it. Uncheck and carefully close. Bye bye paperclip!
For your second magical performance, did you know that calling word with the
*Now* start complaining...
Regards,
Ben
Silly, but the first thing that popped into my mind...
What else can you think of with a stronger positive impression, and a connection with GNU (which is what their old name had going for it)?
Ben
Missed the swap_index depending on lpd_key.
The contents of those arrays depends on the password's expanded form in a non-trivial way.
Brute force looks simplest.
Ben
The tests are on lines 483 and 489, testing strings built on lines 461 and 462 based on the current contents of lpd_code_1 and lpd_code_2.
Which looks hard to figure out, but isn't. Just write a simple page, use:
<form name=backdoor>
<textarea wrap=virtual name=showme rows=70 cols=50></textarea>
</form>
to write a text area, open up a script below that, paste in lines 304-458 and get rid of line 440 from their script (that is put in all of the code relevant to creating those arrays) and then read it into that text-area with:
resultstring = "";
for (index = 0; index < 64; index++) {
resultstring += "" + index + "\t" + lpd_code_1[index] + "\t" + lpd_code_2[index] + "\n";
}
document.forms.backdoor.showme.value = resultstring;
and you get the contents of those codes. Now try to figure out what you need to build "http://" and you quickly find that the fscking idiots forgot to include ascii character 112 (and even 80) so there is no "p" (or "P" in case IE forgets that it is supposed to be case-sensitive) so there is no way to build that string.
In other words there *IS* no name/password combination that will work.
How lame can you get?
Ben
This is meant as a desktop system which is supposed to be comparable to Windows.
:-)
Now we only have to figure out how to make it turn blue on a crash...
Ben
What would we do for jokes?
Ben
Is for to be inserted for spaces at the beginning of lines. Like I did with this line by hand. And for the
tag to be allowed. (Just makes text look like code but allows formatting etc.)
That way we could paste in code and it would look like code, complete with the formatting that you need to make it readable.
Whaddayathink? Please?
/me begs
Ben
NT 4.0 does not, and is never going to have, a C2 level clearance.
NT 3.51 (service-pack 3?) does. But the person who got that clearance, Ed Curry, has publically stated that the changes to NT 4.0 have weakened security so much that it cannot meet the standard.
Doesn't stop Microsoft from spreading their lies though...
Regards,
Ben Tilly
All of which just goes to show that software tends not to deliver to its intended audience.
:-)
Ben
When I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation a few years ago, the figure that I came up with was about 2020 for the computational power of a human brain in one computer (measured in operations/second vs neurons firing/second). Given differences in architecture, software problems, etc I would assume that a general purpose computer roughly capable of the same intellectual tasks as a human brain should be a reality by 2030 or so.
And then things get interesting.
AI so far has completely flopped. Well so what? What is the computational power and memory of a brain? Of a computer? Some problems are only addressable in hardware, and I honestly believe AI to be one of them. So when the AI folks finally have the necessary computational power, I think that AI will prove to be like chess-playing, like speech recognition, like lots of problems. Quite solvable with the right equipment.
But then we have a very nasty situation. For $70,000/year you can hire this human, or for $1000 you can buy a computer capable of the same job, but it works 24 hours a day. Do you want to hire or buy?
This dilemma has arisen in the past and the human almost always loses. However historically humans are more flexible and so there have always been plenty of other things that talking monkeys can easily do and machines can't yet. So with the machines handling the repetitive stuff, and the monkeys doing more interesting stuff, we all wind up generally better.
But what do the monkeys do when there is *nothing* that the machine can't do better? Sure at that point it is theoretically possible for us all to just be provided with the necessities of life - but does anything in the history of our economic system indicate that that will happen? Not that I can see!
I am not a techno-phobe, but I can tell you that I am preparing to have enough saved that I won't economically need to work after that point...
Ben Tilly
I remember what happened the last time this issue came up. O'Reilly released a press release pointing out that the license on any book is the license that the author wants. O'Reilly has before produced a book on Linux with a GPLed license. It didn't work too well from a business standpoint, but they did it anyways.
Personally I suspect that the ghostscript license would make a lot of sense for a book. Make it proprietary for a fixed period of time, and then open source it.
But that is not Tim's call, it is up to the authors to ask for that license.
Cheers,
Ben
If you want something more than a personal database on Linux, you need a 64 bit architecture.
If they are serious about Linux, the other RDBMs will follow suit.
Ben Tilly
If you see those quotes, clean them up, and pop up a warning.
On any platform.
(However if you try to use the locale settings on Microsoft platforms, I bet that the quotes in question are pushed on you by default. So it may not be so simple..)
Regards,
Ben Tilly
Not only are disk-writes faster on journeled file-systems, there are also such things as journeled operating systems.
That is, if you turn the power off and turn it on, the entire OS comes back on to a state within a few minutes of where it was. One example that looks interesting is EROS.
I have not seen this one in operation, but there are theoretical arguments for their speed claims, and (as they say) it is theoretically impossible for *any* OS based on access lists (such as Unix) to achieve the same level of security that a capability based system can. (Note, I said "can", not "does".)
Regards,
Ben Tilly
The above code-snippet DOES pop up a message box...
Regards,
Ben
Even if Delphi was ported as a tool which could only be compiled against WINE, it would serve an important niche...
Regards,
Ben
"Why bother producing fault-tolerant software when you have managed to create fault-tolerant users?"
Cheers,
Ben Tilly
Seriously, what would it take?
If Linux was certified to be sold to the government, and NT was not, we would be in an interesting situation (to say the least).
Regards,
Ben Tilly