69. can anyone confirm the manner and date of raymond lemme's death?
Editor's Note: We're waiting on approval to publish details from the police reports tomorrow. We've confirmed that he was found dead on July 1, 2003 at a Knights Inn, Room 132, Valdosta GA according to the police report. This end was actually one of the first things we sought to check to determine whether the source was credible in his other claims.
Checking SSDI sites (props to a poster on DU who found this info), you can come up with:
Raymond C. Lemme
Born: Feb 21 1947
Died: Jul 1 2003
Issued: Michigan ssdi search
Spyware and virus removal companies depend on Microsoft's security holes for their business. That's a given. Think about this:
1. Create monopoly.
2. Create vulnerable software that everyone uses.
3. Invest in spyware/virus removal software.
4. Profit.
Pretty simple if you ask me. I bet Microsoft is invested in at least a couple companies which make anti-virus and/or spyware removal software, which means they are profitting off their own mistakes.
I thought about that too. But maybe they're encrypted not to protect them from being read but to protect them from being changed. If you want to change the votes, modifying an unencrypted file would be, in theory, easy. However, if the file is encrypted, then you wouldn't know what to change, plus changing anything at all would corrupt the file and it would be noticeable. (or at least I assume that with these and other more secure encryption methods changing 1 bit will corrupt the rest.)
If that's the purpose, then having indequate protection is a major problem. Someone could get the vote tallies, decrypt them (having already broken the encryption and obtained the key ahead of time), change the votes, re-encrypt, and noone would be the wiser. It would just as easy as if they weren't encrypted at all (plus you get a false sense of security). Simply swap the smartcards or whatever it is they record the votes on, and voila, a whole new tally. You couldn't do that if it was securely encrypted since you wouldn't know what key to use to encrypt your fake votes.
Then again, in comparison, I suppose you could do something like this with paper ballots too. Just go in, empty the boxes, replace with votes of your own -- but this would probably be a little more noticeable.
I apologize if this is consider trolling, but I submitted this story a couple minutes ago and since it's relevant to this story I'll post it in here (since it probably won't get approved if this one is already up. If it does make it up just mod it offtopic):
Technical director Dr. Avi Rubin of the John Hopkins University Information Security Institute (ISI) has made a presentation regarding Diebold's voting machine source code (pdf) to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST has been playing a key role in the improvement of voting systems since 2002.) Turns out, amongst other major security problems, Diebold was using NIST's Data Encryption Standard (DES) to encrypt votes and audit logs. DES was developed in 1976 was proven breakable by a "brute force" system in 1998. NIST proposed revoking DES's certification last July and recommends AES or at least 3DES.
Read from page 13. There are some hilarious comments... or they would be if this weren't a freaking voting machine!
You fill in the circle and feed it into the machine.
The only problem I can think of is if you don't fill in the circle completely (or if you can't stay within the lines) and the machine doesn't count your vote.
Maybe in the municipal elections in your county its one of those 'fill in the circle' sheets, but I'm positive there are no electronic voting machines for provincial or federal elections, the ballots are standardized (a black ballot with white circles which you X with a pencil) and they're hand counted.
When you went to vote in the recent federal election, what did your ballot look like?...er you did go, didn't you?
...then someone is too stupid to write a parsing engine.
But what do I know. I'm sure I'll get flamed for saying that anyway. ("duh there's a NUL pointer!" You mean character 00? So what?)
Re:OK, stop blaming/crediting presidents for jobs.
on
The Jobs Crunch
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, but it's not like Bush has done anything to help the situation that I'm aware of.
(and his "tax cuts" didn't work. All the predictions of job creation that were made by his very own economists were wrong.)
Re:That IS correct
on
The Jobs Crunch
·
· Score: 2, Informative
They don't count people who're no longer collecting unemployment and have simply given up.
That's not correct
You are misinterpreting the point. Though the "collecting unemployment" part may be incorrect and not a factor in determining unemployment rate (as per the snopes article you cited), it is correct that people who have "simply given up" are not counted.
Unemployment rate: The unemployment rate represents the number unemployed as a percent of the labor force.
Labor force (Current Population Survey): The labor force includes all persons classified as employed or unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary
Unemployed persons: Persons 16 years and over who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.
Also, I'm working with a file format where it is very easy to have an omitted bounds checker allow for a crash (giving a reference of '-1' in the file will cause the program to access memory just before the block of memory that was allocated for some data.)
(snip) Something like this is merely a minor oversight
Let's see here. Data unknown, could be any number. If the number is -1, program will fail. "IF a > 0" anyone?
Of course we think of things but it is never possible to think of every possible scenario when you are punching out applications with hundreds of thousands lines of code
Well you better damn well think of the possibility of overflowing the memory if you're writing any program, let alone a library function that is called by at least 10 of your most-used programs, and let alone a function that's probably less than fifteen lines long. I mean, overflowing the memory causes problems to the computer regardless of whether it's a virus or not.
A corrupt file should not take down the entire program. A corrupt file should display garbage or nothing at all.
The only reasons worms spread is because OS's let them spread, and let them infect other computers.
The vast majority of people do not want to bother spreading worms. When data arrives via the internet onto your computer, it is the OS that takes that data and executes it, installing the worm. Worms spread because the OS is letting the data be executed. This is equivalent to randomly sending.exe files to people and Windows automatically runs them. Additionally, the only way these worms can access the internet from the OS assumes the.exe file is a user initiated action, when it is plain to the user that they did not initiate it.
Part of the problem is Windows' attempt to dumb things down so legitimate companies can automatically install and run programs on your computer without you 'having to deal with all that computer mumbo jumbo'. This is arguably illegal, as the information on your computer is your property. However, the OS gives permission (with your permission 'implied') to these companies to do this. For example, auto-installing ActiveX programs like Flash... or BonziBuddy.
Another is that OS's and browsers are sticking to their old ways of doing things, like cookies which are now used to track your movements, scripting languages with unneeded bypassable functions built right into them, OLE security holes where it is deemed necessary that Excel can run inside the browser, and plug-ins and ActiveX controls which are now used to install programs that mine your personal information, hijack your browser, and other such things.
By far the biggest problem is ActiveX. ActiveX has major security holes and problems and is where most spyware gains access to your computer. The idea behind ActiveX was to give internet servers a way to access the user's computer and resources, and this is just what has happend. But instead of plug-in programs that enhance browsing like Flash being installed, we have things like Bonzi, Gator, diallerXXXsuperPorn, and other even more harmful programs installed and executed straight on your computer, using your hard drive and your processor.
Data itself is benign. It is the execution of that data by unscrupulous browsers and OS's that is causing the problems. The solution is not to fill in security holes, it is to build a browser and OS that doesn't have holes in the first place. The information coming down the internet pipe is 1's and 0's and can do nothing in that state. There is no hack or viruses or worms connected to a.jpg files because there is no reason for the information contained within that file to do anything other than show the image. A hacked.jpg file would simply produce an error.
In fact, if one had the means, one could simply write a browser that displayed only images and html, and would be completely unhackable because the methods by which it could be hacked would simply not be there. Displaying.jpgs in the browser for instance, could only possibly produce a hackable situation if the program which displays the.jpgs was written poorly and allowed writing past the memory into another part. This easily avoidable by simple standard checks one does when programming. Make sure the information cannot do that, because it has no reason to do that. This is how one avoids errors, rather than deals with them after the fact. From this basic browser, one could incorporate needed scripting languages which are not prevented from accessing the hard drive through programming, but simply do not have the opportunity to do so in the first place.
The simple solution is programs which are not necessarily concerned with security from the beginning, but concerned with self-containment and prudent programming.
suppose microfiche readers went obsolete and you couldn't buy them
I thought microfiche readers were basically just a flashlight and a magnifying glass. Anyone would be able to figure out how to make a primitive one; even without any instructions.
OK I see what you're saying. Sorry about that, it was kind of unwarranted. I've been exposed to so many outrageous nutcases on./ that I often tend to overreact and become one myself.:P
I've personally thought hard about the fact that there are countries that obviously do not care about human rights on the very UN commission that supposedly supports them. Obviously it is very hypocritical. However, in thinking about it, I've determined that there is a positive side to having countries like this on the commission. They have to explain themselves, they have to participate in moving human rights forward, they have to interact with other countries that vehemently disagree with them, and other more compassionate countries can demonstrate their views on human rights and debate them.
In my opinion, this could help move those countries with very bad human rights records forward by showing them alternative views and forcing them to participate in those alternative views. It also allows them a voice to keep the demands other countries within the means of countries with bad human rights records.
I don't think there is any good reason to remove them. What would be worse is no communication on human rights at all. It may look hypocritical, and it is, but there are aspects that are important. You'd think if Sudan, for example, didn't care about human rights it wouldn't be on the commission. However, since the pressures of other countries for Sudan to improve its record is always going to be there, it is in Sudan's best interests to be on the commission so it can have a voice. It is also in the best interests of the countries who hope to improve human rights records, because there can then be dialogue between them.
At least in this dimension it isn't. The customer isn't always right but is never wrong? Apparently Sears has writers from a different dimension where logic doesn't apply.
What's that? You mean that "wrong?" My mistake. I must have misunderstood the entire english language.
What people don't realize, is that if every stupid speed limit were obeyed, no lights jumped/ran, all stops made completely, traffic would be many times worse than it is.
Yeah traffic lights are stupid, I never pay attention to them, I just go whenever. It helps traffic flow.
Now, anyone who agrees with me, we can just take your license away right now, because you're obviously too immature to be on the road. And if any of you seriously want to reply to argue the merits of running red lights, just kill yourself now before you kill someone else.
I'm not surprised this is offtopic, apparently most of the people here who call themselves 'programmers' are actually script-kiddy-careerists-for-hire. Learn the jingo! Learn the trends! Copy and paste the code off the internet! Network (not the computer kind)! Idiots.
Ok I know what you're saying. The widget has zero defects if it does what it is expected to do. In your example though, milestone 3 is not free from defects since it is the job of that particular widget to reject invalid HTML. Rendering nothing != rejecting invalid HTML.
Additionally it's my opinion that widgets must not be able to produce any internal 'bugs' or errors of any sort if they have zero defects.
That's not too much to ask for. If it is, well... go work for Microsoft.
That variable thing was because you are totally mixing up in my mind what a milestone and what a widget is. The milestone is free from defects so the widget is, while still defective, free from defects? The milestone is not a program, it is a project thingee on a piece of paper--it can't be free from defects. The widget on the other hand, can. You could say the task required of the widget, as defined by the milestone for that widget, has been completed. Unless again I am confused as to what a widget is, "free from defects" is completely obtuse, and it's no wonder I'm confused (and to me, that means it's no wonder shiatty software gets made).
I'm just saying it was quite a coincidence. If I wanted to re-install Windows 98 I could test it, but I don't want to. If anyone with '98 wants to try it, it was with Corel WordPerfect Suite 8 installed first (that includes the dragonspeak or whatever, but I didn't install it) and Office 97 installed second (it might have been 2000). Then when I clicked on WordPerfect (or CorelDraw I don't remember) it said something like "wordperfect.exe has been corrupted and cannot run." That's the only time I've seen that message. This was like 5 years ago. That is the first thing I thought of at the time, because I was specifically trying to make sure Corel still worked right after installing Office (because of the high level of integration of them with the OS). It didn't, and it wasn't just an error, it said the program itself was corrupted.
I'm saying every single object, every single loop, every single function has to be checked off as 'in working order' before you can say a milestone is "bug free". Then comes integration which is another thing that needs to be checked off, when the rest of the program works. Well-planned projects with good programmers do this as they go.
Look, nothing against you. (begin rant, not directed at you sparkz, just at ppl here in general.)
I am just really #@$!@ pissed that there's all these supposed "developers" in this forum are spouting corporate gobbledy-gook like "zero defects" so they can pass off their buggy p.o.s. programming skills as "the way it goes." Well, that's not the way it has to go. Plan it out. The only problems I have ever had on older computers like old-school Apples and Macintoshes were problems with disk i/o. And now, in this new "computer age" I get frickin' errors all the time, nothing works, my frickin' router shuts down for no reason, XP sets up its own "private address" and I have to literally shut off my computer JUST TO CHANGE A NUMBER. I have garbage codecs and registries and crap strewn all over my hard drive. I have programs connecting to the internet for no frickin' reason. I have frickin' spammers and hackers attacking my computer because it is so gd vulnerable anyone can get in. So what if it is "more complex" these days? Poor babies, go cry to Bill Gates. Guess what? If you had done it bug-free in the first place you'd have No Problems Whatsoever. But no, gotta rush to the market, why bother it'll never be bug-free, it has "zero defects" (but it still crashes), 2 year degree and you just started programming with Windows 98? You're hired, ah who cares we have plenty of memory to work with, they'll just install another program to fix the security holes, no-one would figure out how use that function to write a worm to my computer anyway, the user doesn't need to change that, sure, the customers will just patch it.
Well guess what. As a programmer and a customer I AM FED UP WITH THESE HACKS THAT PUT OUT BROKEN SOFTWARE AND CHARGE ME UP THE ASS.
I WANT MY MONEY BACK, AND I WANT PROGRAMMING BACK. LEARN HOW TO PROGRAM A COMPUTER.
Just be sure you're not relying on error-handling to run the program instead of actually writing solid bug-free code. Some errors, like disk i/o errors, you don't have control over, but if you're catching stuff like divide by zero or letting memory leaks slide then you're just being a bad programmer.
Slashdot Mirror
In the article comments at Blue Lemur:
69. can anyone confirm the manner and date of raymond lemme's death?
Editor's Note: We're waiting on approval to publish details from the police reports tomorrow. We've confirmed that he was found dead on July 1, 2003 at a Knights Inn, Room 132, Valdosta GA according to the police report. This end was actually one of the first things we sought to check to determine whether the source was credible in his other claims.
Checking SSDI sites (props to a poster on DU who found this info), you can come up with:
Raymond C. Lemme
Born: Feb 21 1947
Died: Jul 1 2003
Issued: Michigan
ssdi search
I don't know what Issued: Michigan means though.
Spyware and virus removal companies depend on Microsoft's security holes for their business. That's a given. Think about this:
1. Create monopoly.
2. Create vulnerable software that everyone uses.
3. Invest in spyware/virus removal software.
4. Profit.
Pretty simple if you ask me. I bet Microsoft is invested in at least a couple companies which make anti-virus and/or spyware removal software, which means they are profitting off their own mistakes.
I thought about that too. But maybe they're encrypted not to protect them from being read but to protect them from being changed. If you want to change the votes, modifying an unencrypted file would be, in theory, easy. However, if the file is encrypted, then you wouldn't know what to change, plus changing anything at all would corrupt the file and it would be noticeable. (or at least I assume that with these and other more secure encryption methods changing 1 bit will corrupt the rest.)
If that's the purpose, then having indequate protection is a major problem. Someone could get the vote tallies, decrypt them (having already broken the encryption and obtained the key ahead of time), change the votes, re-encrypt, and noone would be the wiser. It would just as easy as if they weren't encrypted at all (plus you get a false sense of security). Simply swap the smartcards or whatever it is they record the votes on, and voila, a whole new tally. You couldn't do that if it was securely encrypted since you wouldn't know what key to use to encrypt your fake votes.
Then again, in comparison, I suppose you could do something like this with paper ballots too. Just go in, empty the boxes, replace with votes of your own -- but this would probably be a little more noticeable.
I apologize if this is consider trolling, but I submitted this story a couple minutes ago and since it's relevant to this story I'll post it in here (since it probably won't get approved if this one is already up. If it does make it up just mod it offtopic):
... or they would be if this weren't a freaking voting machine!
Technical director Dr. Avi Rubin of the John Hopkins University Information Security Institute (ISI) has made a presentation regarding Diebold's voting machine source code (pdf) to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST has been playing a key role in the improvement of voting systems since 2002.) Turns out, amongst other major security problems, Diebold was using NIST's Data Encryption Standard (DES) to encrypt votes and audit logs. DES was developed in 1976 was proven breakable by a "brute force" system in 1998. NIST proposed revoking DES's certification last July and recommends AES or at least 3DES.
Read from page 13. There are some hilarious comments
You fill in the circle and feed it into the machine. The only problem I can think of is if you don't fill in the circle completely (or if you can't stay within the lines) and the machine doesn't count your vote.
Maybe in the municipal elections in your county its one of those 'fill in the circle' sheets, but I'm positive there are no electronic voting machines for provincial or federal elections, the ballots are standardized (a black ballot with white circles which you X with a pencil) and they're hand counted.
When you went to vote in the recent federal election, what did your ballot look like?...er you did go, didn't you?
But what do I know. I'm sure I'll get flamed for saying that anyway. ("duh there's a NUL pointer!" You mean character 00? So what?)
Yeah, but it's not like Bush has done anything to help the situation that I'm aware of. (and his "tax cuts" didn't work. All the predictions of job creation that were made by his very own economists were wrong.)
They don't count people who're no longer collecting unemployment and have simply given up.
That's not correct
You are misinterpreting the point. Though the "collecting unemployment" part may be incorrect and not a factor in determining unemployment rate (as per the snopes article you cited), it is correct that people who have "simply given up" are not counted.
Unemployment rate:
The unemployment rate represents the number unemployed as a percent of the labor force.
Labor force (Current Population Survey):
The labor force includes all persons classified as employed or unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary
Unemployed persons:
Persons 16 years and over who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.
http://www.bls.gov/bls/glossary.htm
also look up "Discouraged Workers".
Also, I'm working with a file format where it is very easy to have an omitted bounds checker allow for a crash (giving a reference of '-1' in the file will cause the program to access memory just before the block of memory that was allocated for some data.)
(snip) Something like this is merely a minor oversight
Let's see here. Data unknown, could be any number. If the number is -1, program will fail. "IF a > 0" anyone?
Of course we think of things but it is never possible to think of every possible scenario when you are punching out applications with hundreds of thousands lines of code
Well you better damn well think of the possibility of overflowing the memory if you're writing any program, let alone a library function that is called by at least 10 of your most-used programs, and let alone a function that's probably less than fifteen lines long. I mean, overflowing the memory causes problems to the computer regardless of whether it's a virus or not.
A corrupt file should not take down the entire program. A corrupt file should display garbage or nothing at all.
The only reasons worms spread is because OS's let them spread, and let them infect other computers.
.exe files to people and Windows automatically runs them. Additionally, the only way these worms can access the internet from the OS assumes the .exe file is a user initiated action, when it is plain to the user that they did not initiate it.
.jpg files because there is no reason for the information contained within that file to do anything other than show the image. A hacked .jpg file would simply produce an error.
.jpgs in the browser for instance, could only possibly produce a hackable situation if the program which displays the .jpgs was written poorly and allowed writing past the memory into another part. This easily avoidable by simple standard checks one does when programming. Make sure the information cannot do that, because it has no reason to do that. This is how one avoids errors, rather than deals with them after the fact. From this basic browser, one could incorporate needed scripting languages which are not prevented from accessing the hard drive through programming, but simply do not have the opportunity to do so in the first place.
The vast majority of people do not want to bother spreading worms. When data arrives via the internet onto your computer, it is the OS that takes that data and executes it, installing the worm. Worms spread because the OS is letting the data be executed. This is equivalent to randomly sending
Part of the problem is Windows' attempt to dumb things down so legitimate companies can automatically install and run programs on your computer without you 'having to deal with all that computer mumbo jumbo'. This is arguably illegal, as the information on your computer is your property. However, the OS gives permission (with your permission 'implied') to these companies to do this. For example, auto-installing ActiveX programs like Flash... or BonziBuddy.
Another is that OS's and browsers are sticking to their old ways of doing things, like cookies which are now used to track your movements, scripting languages with unneeded bypassable functions built right into them, OLE security holes where it is deemed necessary that Excel can run inside the browser, and plug-ins and ActiveX controls which are now used to install programs that mine your personal information, hijack your browser, and other such things.
By far the biggest problem is ActiveX. ActiveX has major security holes and problems and is where most spyware gains access to your computer. The idea behind ActiveX was to give internet servers a way to access the user's computer and resources, and this is just what has happend. But instead of plug-in programs that enhance browsing like Flash being installed, we have things like Bonzi, Gator, diallerXXXsuperPorn, and other even more harmful programs installed and executed straight on your computer, using your hard drive and your processor.
Data itself is benign. It is the execution of that data by unscrupulous browsers and OS's that is causing the problems. The solution is not to fill in security holes, it is to build a browser and OS that doesn't have holes in the first place. The information coming down the internet pipe is 1's and 0's and can do nothing in that state. There is no hack or viruses or worms connected to a
In fact, if one had the means, one could simply write a browser that displayed only images and html, and would be completely unhackable because the methods by which it could be hacked would simply not be there. Displaying
The simple solution is programs which are not necessarily concerned with security from the beginning, but concerned with self-containment and prudent programming.
Hijacker 'suspects' alive and well.
CAPPS II would have either caught the wrong people and/or innocent people. The FBI's hijacker list was incorrect and probably still is.
suppose microfiche readers went obsolete and you couldn't buy them
I thought microfiche readers were basically just a flashlight and a magnifying glass. Anyone would be able to figure out how to make a primitive one; even without any instructions.
OK I see what you're saying. Sorry about that, it was kind of unwarranted. I've been exposed to so many outrageous nutcases on ./ that I often tend to overreact and become one myself. :P
I've personally thought hard about the fact that there are countries that obviously do not care about human rights on the very UN commission that supposedly supports them. Obviously it is very hypocritical. However, in thinking about it, I've determined that there is a positive side to having countries like this on the commission. They have to explain themselves, they have to participate in moving human rights forward, they have to interact with other countries that vehemently disagree with them, and other more compassionate countries can demonstrate their views on human rights and debate them.
In my opinion, this could help move those countries with very bad human rights records forward by showing them alternative views and forcing them to participate in those alternative views. It also allows them a voice to keep the demands other countries within the means of countries with bad human rights records.
I don't think there is any good reason to remove them. What would be worse is no communication on human rights at all. It may look hypocritical, and it is, but there are aspects that are important. You'd think if Sudan, for example, didn't care about human rights it wouldn't be on the commission. However, since the pressures of other countries for Sudan to improve its record is always going to be there, it is in Sudan's best interests to be on the commission so it can have a voice. It is also in the best interests of the countries who hope to improve human rights records, because there can then be dialogue between them.
At least in this dimension it isn't. The customer isn't always right but is never wrong? Apparently Sears has writers from a different dimension where logic doesn't apply.
What's that? You mean that "wrong?" My mistake. I must have misunderstood the entire english language.
Yeah I remember how ridiculous it was that he found the warp whistle. Yeah right he found it on his first try.
What people don't realize, is that if every stupid speed limit were obeyed, no lights jumped/ran, all stops made completely, traffic would be many times worse than it is.
Yeah traffic lights are stupid, I never pay attention to them, I just go whenever. It helps traffic flow.
Now, anyone who agrees with me, we can just take your license away right now, because you're obviously too immature to be on the road. And if any of you seriously want to reply to argue the merits of running red lights, just kill yourself now before you kill someone else.
damn you! I spent all this time reverse engineering the algorithm and someone makes the joke ahead of me.
I'm not surprised this is offtopic, apparently most of the people here who call themselves 'programmers' are actually script-kiddy-careerists-for-hire. Learn the jingo! Learn the trends! Copy and paste the code off the internet! Network (not the computer kind)! Idiots.
Ok I know what you're saying. The widget has zero defects if it does what it is expected to do. In your example though, milestone 3 is not free from defects since it is the job of that particular widget to reject invalid HTML. Rendering nothing != rejecting invalid HTML.
... go work for Microsoft.
Additionally it's my opinion that widgets must not be able to produce any internal 'bugs' or errors of any sort if they have zero defects.
That's not too much to ask for. If it is, well
That variable thing was because you are totally mixing up in my mind what a milestone and what a widget is. The milestone is free from defects so the widget is, while still defective, free from defects? The milestone is not a program, it is a project thingee on a piece of paper--it can't be free from defects. The widget on the other hand, can. You could say the task required of the widget, as defined by the milestone for that widget, has been completed. Unless again I am confused as to what a widget is, "free from defects" is completely obtuse, and it's no wonder I'm confused (and to me, that means it's no wonder shiatty software gets made).
I'm just saying it was quite a coincidence. If I wanted to re-install Windows 98 I could test it, but I don't want to. If anyone with '98 wants to try it, it was with Corel WordPerfect Suite 8 installed first (that includes the dragonspeak or whatever, but I didn't install it) and Office 97 installed second (it might have been 2000). Then when I clicked on WordPerfect (or CorelDraw I don't remember) it said something like "wordperfect.exe has been corrupted and cannot run." That's the only time I've seen that message. This was like 5 years ago. That is the first thing I thought of at the time, because I was specifically trying to make sure Corel still worked right after installing Office (because of the high level of integration of them with the OS). It didn't, and it wasn't just an error, it said the program itself was corrupted.
I'm saying every single object, every single loop, every single function has to be checked off as 'in working order' before you can say a milestone is "bug free". Then comes integration which is another thing that needs to be checked off, when the rest of the program works. Well-planned projects with good programmers do this as they go.
Look, nothing against you. (begin rant, not directed at you sparkz, just at ppl here in general.)
I am just really #@$!@ pissed that there's all these supposed "developers" in this forum are spouting corporate gobbledy-gook like "zero defects" so they can pass off their buggy p.o.s. programming skills as "the way it goes." Well, that's not the way it has to go. Plan it out. The only problems I have ever had on older computers like old-school Apples and Macintoshes were problems with disk i/o. And now, in this new "computer age" I get frickin' errors all the time, nothing works, my frickin' router shuts down for no reason, XP sets up its own "private address" and I have to literally shut off my computer JUST TO CHANGE A NUMBER. I have garbage codecs and registries and crap strewn all over my hard drive. I have programs connecting to the internet for no frickin' reason. I have frickin' spammers and hackers attacking my computer because it is so gd vulnerable anyone can get in. So what if it is "more complex" these days? Poor babies, go cry to Bill Gates. Guess what? If you had done it bug-free in the first place you'd have No Problems Whatsoever. But no, gotta rush to the market, why bother it'll never be bug-free, it has "zero defects" (but it still crashes), 2 year degree and you just started programming with Windows 98? You're hired, ah who cares we have plenty of memory to work with, they'll just install another program to fix the security holes, no-one would figure out how use that function to write a worm to my computer anyway, the user doesn't need to change that, sure, the customers will just patch it.
Well guess what. As a programmer and a customer I AM FED UP WITH THESE HACKS THAT PUT OUT BROKEN SOFTWARE AND CHARGE ME UP THE ASS.
I WANT MY MONEY BACK, AND I WANT PROGRAMMING BACK. LEARN HOW TO PROGRAM A COMPUTER.
well it had to be said.
I once installed Microsoft Office while I had Corel Suite 8 installed. The immediate result:
"wordperfect.exe is corrupted and cannot run"
That's funny, it worked yesterday before I installed Microsoft Office. >:(
Just be sure you're not relying on error-handling to run the program instead of actually writing solid bug-free code. Some errors, like disk i/o errors, you don't have control over, but if you're catching stuff like divide by zero or letting memory leaks slide then you're just being a bad programmer.