As a result, he was able to leave his machine on for a stonking seven hours without it freezing up.
Indeed, even I thought that twenty minutes of uptime seemed a bit extreme even for Microsoft. With this fix, people are back to the uptime that can be expected from Microsoft products.
But an ACL on the executable file won't be of any help, since the executable file isn't modified. Not even is the text section of the process' address modified.
I haven't read the details of this exploit, but I assume freely that it's yet another buffer overflow from Microsoft. Buffer overflow exploits usually modify the stack of a process, not its text segment, and you would be rather ill advised to deny write permission on the stack.;)
That really depends. The questions is: Is it the current, binary MSO file formats that they will standardize and publish? If so, it might indeed change a lot of things. However, if it's just the new XML-based formats for the next version of Office that they will submit to the ECMA, it changes very little from the current situation, since they've already committed to making them open. I read TFA very briefly, and I couldn't find a mention of which file format it is referring to.
All in all, it's probably just a ploy to soften up Massachusetts, claiming that their formats is as "open" as OpenDoc, while probably requiring license fees, or make alternative implementations very hard in one or another way.
Once they have the means to back up all the ludicrous terms, you won't be ignoring it and you won't be laughing.
And the worst thing about it is the fact that it's only normal, legal customers that won't be laughing. The real pirates will still be able to crack the DRM one way or another and not be put off even the slightest. Remember, it only takes a single rip off of a DRM:d media, and the content is completely loose. It's only the legal people that get screwed, when they can't burn a collection CD for the car stereo or rip it to their MP3 players.
The average gamer's intelligence aside, I would think that the velocity, at which the point passed you, would be somewhat indicative of your intelligence.
Oh boy, you are naive. How could you not see the obviousness that Sony, a large corporation, was secretly contracted by Them to distribute that rootkit, and make us all think that $sys$ would be safe?
Seriously, soft guys like you would be the first ones to be mind controlled. Instead, listen to me: If you cut a 5 centimeter hole in the back of your tin foil hat which points 53 degress up from the ground, it will create a resonance frequency in the EM matrix of the hat that will block out the frequencies used by Them. Yes, of course it's true.
Might be time to go through the trouble of installing X11...
If you really bought your iBook only a few months ago, that shouldn't be trouble at all. As far as I know, Apple has shipped X11 installed in OSX by default since Panther.
Why do you think that? It is widely accepted that matter is likely to disintegrate in a couple of billion years thanks to proton decay. To generalize more than that, however, the concept of eternity of matter is based on induction, like many other scientific principles: Since noone has ever seen fermionic matter decay or otherwise disappear, and such future decay cannot be deduced from the laws of nature that we have so far discovered, there is no reason to assume otherwise. It's called "Occam's razor": Don't assume more complexity than is necessary to explain a given phenomenon.
You accept on faith that the most complex processes that we still don't fully grasp despite our best technology happened accidently.
What makes you think that it is accepted "on faith"? These days, evolution has even been actually observed in labs, and on not only microbes, but even insects and possibly even larger animals. Even before that, however, what evolution allowed was to deduce the creation of life from a very simple set of rules. In that manner, evolution is not accepted on faith: It was deduced as a reduction of the complexity that we see in nature, and conversely, the complexity that we see in nature can be deduced from evolution. That does not hold true for ID: It offers no way of deducing why life looks as it does, nor does it offer a way to deduce how life will continue to change in the future. In that manner, evolution is a "better" theory than ID, since it allows more observations to be deduced, and more future observations to be predicted (and hence also confirmed), and also in that way, it is not accepted "on faith".
You accept on faith that matter without intelligence managed to organize into the most complex organisms.
Again, what makes you think that that is accepted "on faith"? It has been observed in mathematical simulations over and over again, that simple building blocks without intelligence and governed only by extremely simple rules, can organize autonomously into very complex organisms. Consider things such as neural networks, cellular automata, simulated evolution, or only the Game of Life. The building blocks of nature (elementary particles or superstrings or whatever it turns out to be) are governed by even more complex rules, they have had much more time than our simulations and they are far more numerous than we will be able to simulate in the coming millenium or so (indeed, we can never simulate our entire universe, since that would require a computer larger than the universe, but even if we restrict the simulation to "only" our own galaxy or solar system, we won't be able to do it in quite a while), so it is no more than natural to assume that they will be able to organize into more complex organisms than we have seen in simulations.
Conversely, why do you accept on faith that matter requires intelligence in order to organize into complex organisms? That simpler things organize into more complex things is something that happens all around us, all the time. Just think of how the individual living things on earth organize into eco systems, and similar happenings. It can be simply deduced how non-intelligent things organize into complex things (for example, this is what the theory of evolution helps doing) -- how would you go about deducing that intelligence is required in order to organize complex systems?
Now, to take care of your more explicit flames:
If I say the universe has an intelligent design and point out complex systems that require intelligent design while you point to some fossils in some strata and natural differentiations between animals as evolution, then I would suggest that you require a lot more faith than most religions.
Please do that. I would be very interested in seeing what kind of natural systems that "require" intelligent des
Now, I don't want to discredit Sir Berners-Lee or anything, but there is such a thing as exaggerating (especially at the expense of the truth).
He certainly didn't preceed GNU -- GNU was started by RMS in 1984 (or was it 1983?), and while Linux was started in 1991, it means that the web, which Tim started writing in 1990, only preceeded it by one year. The hacker community preceeded him by several decades.
And to say that Tim was the first to put the Internet to good use is almost gratuitous. What about e-mail, NNTP, FTP, Telnet, etc.? They may not have changed the world like the web did, but to say that they aren't good use of the Internet is going far too far in the opposite direction.
If only SuSe, Red Hat, Debian and Mandrake could just agree on some STANDARDS !!! For crying out loud, everyone is bashing microsoft for not adopting an "open" standard (actually plenty of them) but the key distros cannot even agree on a common way to distribute and install an application. How can anyone blame Microsoft when the exact same idiocy is happenning in their supposedly "perfect" open-source world?
First of all, there is another few on this: There's no point of talking about "GNU/Linux" collectively as an operating system. That is because, really, if there is such a thing as a "GNU/Linux" operating system, why can't you point it out for me? Rather, there is the "Red Hat Linux", "SUSE Linux", "Gentoo Linux", etc. operating systems. Note plural form. Noone tries to sell you on a "BSD system", but rather either FreeBSD, OpenBSD or NetBSD.
People should realize it's the same thing in the Linux world. Instead of trying to unify all distros into becoming the same operating system (which would just be pointless -- they are different for a reason), how about trying to standardize on a certain distro instead? I propose Red Hat/Fedora Core, but only because it already is the most common (I use Gentoo personally). By that, I don't mean that everyone should be running RC/FC, but rather that all non-expert users or other people interested in psuedo-standars compliance should be running it. Expert users can still choose their distro of choice.
Anyhow, even as the situation is right now, hasn't anyone heard of Autopackage? It is a distro-neutral packaging format, that can install programs in a user's home directory, which already exists and is working extremely well. Far better, in terms of both flexibility, ease of creation, and user-friendlyness, than any Windows MSI-like installer if you ask me. I recommend developers (and end users) to check it out.
OK, I guess there is a slight preference of mine. I had thought of that way of doing it, and although there isn't really anything wrong with it, I quite much despise having to put pointers outside of their defined range (such as in p2 = p - 1;).
According to ISO C, pointers are defined at values 0 (NULL), the range of the object that it points to, and exactly one record following that range. In the first and last cases, dereferencing the pointer invokes undefined behavior, but it least it's allowed to put the pointer there, as long as no dereferencing takes place.
While it's true that I don't have any such hypothetical portability issues to deal with, it is allowed for C implementations to crash if the pointer is only so much as pointed before the first record in its object (such a thing could theoretically happen on a hypothetical architecture with strict address register bounds checking).
It's cleaner to list the break conditions up front (that's what or operators are for); then anybody looking over the code won't have to dig through the loop to find out what terminates it.
That's certainly not an absolute truth. In some situations, it prevents code redundancy. I use it in particular in certain parsing situations, like this:
(Don't blame me -- Slashcode doesn't preserve indentation)
As you can see, if I didn't break out of the loop after I did the work on the current "part", I'd have to repeat that part of the code after the while loop. This is much more effective and maintainable.
It's a rather widely known fact that they are going to do that in Vista. Programs are supposed to be installed in the user's home directory, and new users will not have admin privileges by default.
Except that those 8 Opterons still share the same bus, so you're still stuck at the bus speed. For HyperTransport, that's around 160 Gb/s, if I'm not mistaken.
Even then, however, the speed is still limited to what the bus that the NIC is plugged into. For a 16 lane PCI Express slot, that's around 40 Gb/s. Which brings me to my question -- what kind of hardware is actually able to receive and process 1 Tb/s? These guys have obviously built something that can...
It seems you've bought into FUD spread by both the anti-OSS crowd saying "...Red Hat is no different, its proprietary just like Windows..." and the Red Hat bashing linux elitists "...Red Hat is the next Microsoft, they took our linux and made it proprietary...". Its all BS.
Amen! Not only is it BS, it is a gross injustice to all that Red Hat has done for the FOSS community. They have not only done tremendously in evangalizing Linux in the corporate arena, they have also made great code contributions all over the system, from the kernel, glibc, gcc (if I'm not mistaken, Ulrich Drepper, who is employed by RH, is the current chief maintainer of glibc), to GNOME and KDE.
I wouldn't say that Linux wouldn't be where it is today without RH, because someone would surely have done it instead. However, the fact remains that Red Hat was the company that actually did it, when everything comes around.
In fact, I'm not sure that the same can be said about Novell. I haven't exactly looked around very hard, but I haven't seen any such significant contributions made by Novell. Sure, they bought, and thereby financed, Ximian, but it was still the Ximian folks that did the subsequent work on Evolution and GNOME. I might be talking out of my arse, but the fact remains that I haven't heard anything of Novell's contributions, while I literally haven't been able to avoid hearing about the contributions from, among others, IBM, SGI and Red Hat. Not that I'm racking down on Novell, though -- just having such great goodwill from yet another large company does, of course, help.
I believe you remember the series very wrong, in that case. There is an entire episode almost dedicated to her (I don't remember the numer, but it is the one where Hachimaki is hospitalized on the moon), and there are at least three or four episodes where she makes a couple of non-trivial appearances.
It might not be what you were thinking of, but Planetes has quite some time spent on exploring that. In Planetes, those kids are called Lunarians, and are about twice as large as normal humans.
Unless they order the astronauts to have sex during the flight...
It would probably be a very bad idea, but it would be very interesting to see how children who grew up in a zero-g environment would turn out. They would probably have very little muscle and bone strength, but due to the lack of gravity, it's not unlikely that they'd grow to an extraordinary size.
I know you were trying to be funny, but you don't really have to side with any of them.
To me, what is obvious about this is that the MPAA will want to have the world's strongest DRM with all that brings with it, which is evil, while Microsoft wants to have all the media in the world tied to a maybe less evil DRM scheme that is, however, bound to Windows, which is just as evil.
Meanwhile, I will not side with any of them and continue to use P2P on Linux until the MPAA gets its act together and makes it non-repulsive to buy movies.
I don't know how these things work in the US, but here in Sweden, almost all banks (all banks that I've used, at least) give you a little off-line device for producing digital signatures. The bank's online service web page gives you a random number, that you type into this device, which signs it with a private key, and gives you the result back on an LCD screen. You then type that result back into the web page, and the bank verifies it against the public key, that they have. For additional protection, this device requires you to enter a 4 digit PIN code in order to use it. That's two factor authentication in one device.
It's quite a good solution, if you ask me. It seems perfectly secure (except, of course, for man-in-the-middle attacks and other such things), and since it is an off-line device, there are no worries for OS support. I, too, use Linux as my only operating system, and I have never had any problems with it.
Slashdot Mirror
No offence to the content of your post, but I believe you should meet Mr. Period.
Pfft... seriously...
I haven't read the details of this exploit, but I assume freely that it's yet another buffer overflow from Microsoft. Buffer overflow exploits usually modify the stack of a process, not its text segment, and you would be rather ill advised to deny write permission on the stack. ;)
More info
..."also send those who can't spell `penalties' correctly to the concentration camps."
All in all, it's probably just a ploy to soften up Massachusetts, claiming that their formats is as "open" as OpenDoc, while probably requiring license fees, or make alternative implementations very hard in one or another way.
The average gamer's intelligence aside, I would think that the velocity, at which the point passed you, would be somewhat indicative of your intelligence.
Seriously, soft guys like you would be the first ones to be mind controlled. Instead, listen to me: If you cut a 5 centimeter hole in the back of your tin foil hat which points 53 degress up from the ground, it will create a resonance frequency in the EM matrix of the hat that will block out the frequencies used by Them. Yes, of course it's true.
Why do you think that? It is widely accepted that matter is likely to disintegrate in a couple of billion years thanks to proton decay. To generalize more than that, however, the concept of eternity of matter is based on induction, like many other scientific principles: Since noone has ever seen fermionic matter decay or otherwise disappear, and such future decay cannot be deduced from the laws of nature that we have so far discovered, there is no reason to assume otherwise. It's called "Occam's razor": Don't assume more complexity than is necessary to explain a given phenomenon.
What makes you think that it is accepted "on faith"? These days, evolution has even been actually observed in labs, and on not only microbes, but even insects and possibly even larger animals. Even before that, however, what evolution allowed was to deduce the creation of life from a very simple set of rules. In that manner, evolution is not accepted on faith: It was deduced as a reduction of the complexity that we see in nature, and conversely, the complexity that we see in nature can be deduced from evolution. That does not hold true for ID: It offers no way of deducing why life looks as it does, nor does it offer a way to deduce how life will continue to change in the future. In that manner, evolution is a "better" theory than ID, since it allows more observations to be deduced, and more future observations to be predicted (and hence also confirmed), and also in that way, it is not accepted "on faith".
Again, what makes you think that that is accepted "on faith"? It has been observed in mathematical simulations over and over again, that simple building blocks without intelligence and governed only by extremely simple rules, can organize autonomously into very complex organisms. Consider things such as neural networks, cellular automata, simulated evolution, or only the Game of Life. The building blocks of nature (elementary particles or superstrings or whatever it turns out to be) are governed by even more complex rules, they have had much more time than our simulations and they are far more numerous than we will be able to simulate in the coming millenium or so (indeed, we can never simulate our entire universe, since that would require a computer larger than the universe, but even if we restrict the simulation to "only" our own galaxy or solar system, we won't be able to do it in quite a while), so it is no more than natural to assume that they will be able to organize into more complex organisms than we have seen in simulations.
Conversely, why do you accept on faith that matter requires intelligence in order to organize into complex organisms? That simpler things organize into more complex things is something that happens all around us, all the time. Just think of how the individual living things on earth organize into eco systems, and similar happenings. It can be simply deduced how non-intelligent things organize into complex things (for example, this is what the theory of evolution helps doing) -- how would you go about deducing that intelligence is required in order to organize complex systems?
Now, to take care of your more explicit flames:
Please do that. I would be very interested in seeing what kind of natural systems that "require" intelligent des
He certainly didn't preceed GNU -- GNU was started by RMS in 1984 (or was it 1983?), and while Linux was started in 1991, it means that the web, which Tim started writing in 1990, only preceeded it by one year. The hacker community preceeded him by several decades.
And to say that Tim was the first to put the Internet to good use is almost gratuitous. What about e-mail, NNTP, FTP, Telnet, etc.? They may not have changed the world like the web did, but to say that they aren't good use of the Internet is going far too far in the opposite direction.
People should realize it's the same thing in the Linux world. Instead of trying to unify all distros into becoming the same operating system (which would just be pointless -- they are different for a reason), how about trying to standardize on a certain distro instead? I propose Red Hat/Fedora Core, but only because it already is the most common (I use Gentoo personally). By that, I don't mean that everyone should be running RC/FC, but rather that all non-expert users or other people interested in psuedo-standars compliance should be running it. Expert users can still choose their distro of choice.
Anyhow, even as the situation is right now, hasn't anyone heard of Autopackage? It is a distro-neutral packaging format, that can install programs in a user's home directory, which already exists and is working extremely well. Far better, in terms of both flexibility, ease of creation, and user-friendlyness, than any Windows MSI-like installer if you ask me. I recommend developers (and end users) to check it out.
Was it with the epitaph "Netcraft confirms it does" under the R.I.P.? If not, that's probably the reason it wasn't chosen.
According to ISO C, pointers are defined at values 0 (NULL), the range of the object that it points to, and exactly one record following that range. In the first and last cases, dereferencing the pointer invokes undefined behavior, but it least it's allowed to put the pointer there, as long as no dereferencing takes place.
While it's true that I don't have any such hypothetical portability issues to deal with, it is allowed for C implementations to crash if the pointer is only so much as pointed before the first record in its object (such a thing could theoretically happen on a hypothetical architecture with strict address register bounds checking).
As you can see, if I didn't break out of the loop after I did the work on the current "part", I'd have to repeat that part of the code after the while loop. This is much more effective and maintainable.
It's a rather widely known fact that they are going to do that in Vista. Programs are supposed to be installed in the user's home directory, and new users will not have admin privileges by default.
Even then, however, the speed is still limited to what the bus that the NIC is plugged into. For a 16 lane PCI Express slot, that's around 40 Gb/s. Which brings me to my question -- what kind of hardware is actually able to receive and process 1 Tb/s? These guys have obviously built something that can...
I wouldn't say that Linux wouldn't be where it is today without RH, because someone would surely have done it instead. However, the fact remains that Red Hat was the company that actually did it, when everything comes around.
In fact, I'm not sure that the same can be said about Novell. I haven't exactly looked around very hard, but I haven't seen any such significant contributions made by Novell. Sure, they bought, and thereby financed, Ximian, but it was still the Ximian folks that did the subsequent work on Evolution and GNOME. I might be talking out of my arse, but the fact remains that I haven't heard anything of Novell's contributions, while I literally haven't been able to avoid hearing about the contributions from, among others, IBM, SGI and Red Hat. Not that I'm racking down on Novell, though -- just having such great goodwill from yet another large company does, of course, help.
I believe you remember the series very wrong, in that case. There is an entire episode almost dedicated to her (I don't remember the numer, but it is the one where Hachimaki is hospitalized on the moon), and there are at least three or four episodes where she makes a couple of non-trivial appearances.
It might not be what you were thinking of, but Planetes has quite some time spent on exploring that. In Planetes, those kids are called Lunarians, and are about twice as large as normal humans.
To me, what is obvious about this is that the MPAA will want to have the world's strongest DRM with all that brings with it, which is evil, while Microsoft wants to have all the media in the world tied to a maybe less evil DRM scheme that is, however, bound to Windows, which is just as evil.
Meanwhile, I will not side with any of them and continue to use P2P on Linux until the MPAA gets its act together and makes it non-repulsive to buy movies.
It's quite a good solution, if you ask me. It seems perfectly secure (except, of course, for man-in-the-middle attacks and other such things), and since it is an off-line device, there are no worries for OS support. I, too, use Linux as my only operating system, and I have never had any problems with it.