I've lived in the USA all my life. I don't know all that many people, but I'd be surprised if ONE in four of them is on facebook, at least based on those I communicate with regularly. Or many of them are lying (oh wait -- isn't that a common prerequisite for a Facebook account?)
I think the stats came from a CNN page, but I had trouble finding a news story hidden between all of the advertisements on the page. And the CNN page contains exactly ZERO source references for the stats. So who decided (and how) that 3/4 of Americans were on Facebook? Hopefully they first eliminated all of the non-Americans and business accounts first, then they need to eliminate all of the folks with multiple accounts (which should be easy, with Facebook's stance on [lack of] privacy). After all that, I find it difficult to believe the numbers.
But the obsession is quite real. More so than the Cult of Apple since it isn't limited to the rich. Oh wait, poor people with increidbly poor prioritization of life choices also belong to Apple's Cult, don't they?
In Independence Day, my common sense is always calmed by assuming that the easiest way to crash a large, complex computer network is to attempt to connect Jeff Goldblum's Mac to it. Who needs a virus?
Color me stupid. Somehow I missed that this was a FACEBOOK security feature and though/. was going to start tying themselves to the evil facebook. Glad to know I'm completely wrong. Oops and sorry.
Does this mean that those of us who refuse to go anywhere near Facebook will no longer be allowed to post things? There ain't no way I'm ever going to have an account with something like that, I value my privacy (what little I have left) too much.
And anyway, I don't really *like* people and have no friends, so what would I be shown if I *did* have a Facebook account, but zero friends?
PS: apparently, one can no longer use the <i> tags to italicize words ("like" and "did" are wrapped in 'em above.) What else have we lost?
Agile programming works when performed by agile minds. Not all programmers are able to adapt to constantly changing requirements, but some are and they are the ones who succeed with agile programming.
3D perception is a artifact of the mind, not much related to our binocular vision (I have only one functional eye and my depth perception is very good -- except in a movie).
3D movies look great to minds not powerful and/or complex enough to detect the myriad flaws in the attempted 3D illusion.
How many great minds are there in Hollywood again? I think their affection for 3D and even more, their belief that it does (or even can) work is more proof that Hollywood is filled with exactly the kind of fools many of us have thought were gravitating there in the first place.
I had to cancel my subscription to WiReD because they have never, ever learned anything about readability and my eyesight has gotten to the point where I need a very bright light and a magnifying glass to read WiReD. I have no problem with books (paperback or hardcover) or most other magazines or newspapers, because for all of them, content is more important than style -- something that has NEVER been true at WiReD.
I mention this because it is a perfect case for providing the magazine content in a format who's style the user may customize -- if they can understand that some people are actually trying to read their stuff and not just saying, "Wow! That's looks really cool. I wonder what it says?" It sounds like they did everything they could to avoid giving the user the ability to manipulate the presentation of their content, which seems to be almost the exact opposite of XML's purpose. I seriously hope that WiReD (and similar content providers) can get back to providing interesting/meaningful/useful content and restraining their style tinkering to the margins, where it belongs.
I hope that the iPad version of the magazine at least allowed the reader to zoom and pan around the page, but knowing WiReD, they probably even disabled that because their strange sense of style demands that we suffer, um, I mean, view the entire page as a whole only.
I've only been running Windows 7 x64 at home for about a month now and I've rarely (if ever) seen it use much more than 50% of available RAM (I have 8GB). Then again, I don't run any software from Microsoft (except Windows itself) or Apple or any other mega corp that thinks they own your machine after you install their word processor or music player or whatever. With just a few games, Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice and vlc, my Windows 7 box is much better than it was with Vista x64 and at least comparable to when it was XP (but it boots MUCH faster). Even when I had the BOINC client installed and running climate prediction and seti@home (both regular and nVidia GPU versions), the memory usage was quite reasonable.
The article doesn't appear to differentiate between the 32 and 64 bit versions or what kind of app/usage mix the machines have, which must figure in to this sort of measurement. It also isn't at all clear whether the Win7 systems are running programs built for Win7 (as the XP systems almost certainly are) or XP builds that are "runnable" in Win7, though it is quite possible that could have a significant impact.
I've been developing for Windows for 20 years and in my experience, it has almost always been bad applications and/or 3rd party drivers that cause Windows to get such a bad rap. As a counter to the typical Windows bashing, I'd like to point out that I have one customer that has been running our software on Windows NT4 machines running 24x7 for over 10 years (most of which went for 5 years or more without rebooting at all) and the only unintentional down time came from hardware failures. Another customer is using Windows 2000 (and now XP) the same way.
...the real problem is that Microsoft failed to include the CRT and MFC updates for machines that do not have the development environment installed. So all of our customers that faithfully use Windows update got only the.NET patch instead of all three parts of this release. That "breaks" the software we non.NET developers deliver and that happened without any significant notice to the developers. We get things labeled "security patch" all the time, so many that few of us read all of the details any longer.
I believe that Microsoft could have included a one time message in the Visual Studio patch that opened a message box the next time the IDE (or just the compiler/linker) was run that explained that the redistributables had been changed and would be required for any customer using software compiled after the message box was displayed. SOMETHING would've certainly been better than NOTHING to inform developers of the change clearly, without any ambiguity. Especially for anyone who allows Windows to automatically update while they're asleep (something Microsoft recommends)!
While the side-by-side system is a PITA, it isn't the actual culprit here. The primary issue is Microsoft's failure to adequately inform developers of a change that will significantly impact the software being built with their products.
Did anyone else skim (or actually read) the 2008 paper by the researchers that was linked in the article? I notice many mentions of winter months and January but nothing about February or March (or the last week of December). In fact, the tables of data at the end of the paper list by month, but omit January, or by quarter of year, but omit the first quarter. What's the point of including data for everything except the two most mentioned time periods in one report?
Ah. If I needed that I would just spread the main window over all the monitors and open a couple new tab groups so that I could see multiple source files at the same time. Typically I open new instances of Visual Studio (or other editors). But I see what you mean about the source tabs being more "stuck" in place than any of the others. I'd never actually tried to split them out because I rarely, if ever, have any need to see two source files at the same time.. except in a diff viewer and the one I use allows me to edit BOTH files while viewing the diffs, so I have it placed with the divider along a screen boundary with one file on each screen. Too bad Visual Studio doesn't have an integrated file compare/merge tool (like DiffZilla or WinMerge).
I'm using VS 2005 Pro at work, but it also appears to work in the VS 2008 Express that I have at home. I right-click on a sub-window title or tab and change it from dockable to floating. Then it may be positioned anywhere on the display(s).
I use VS2005 every day on a three monitor system. I've never had a problem pulling various tabs out to windows on other displays, especially when debugging: the source is on one screen, the app on another and all of my debug-specific windows (watch, breakpoints, call stack, memory, registers, etc) are on the third. And VS has no problem saving/restoring those window positions between runs. The only thing I've seen that is odd about multiple monitors is that maximizing the main window makes it smaller on my system (because I have the window spread partly onto a second screen) and that if I connect from home (with UltraVNC), the main window is automatically sized to fit a single screen -- but I think that is an UltraVNC thing. So what is it that actually doesn't work (or isn't supported) on multiple monitors?
Or do you mean the multi-monitor support for the applications you're developing? If so, that isn't Visual Studio, it is the libraries, SDK, help, etc that you are using. And I know for a fact that multi-monitor functions are available for programs (but they might take a bit of work to track down) because I have several programs that use them. So again, what isn't supported?
When I served (1984-1988) my unit treated its nerds very, very well. For example, I was only a sargeant, but because of my technical expertise, I was given a lieutenant to work for me, especially when we visited customers who respected rank more than ability. But my unit existed to do all sorts of odd technological things and everyone there knew that the nerds with ability were the most important cogs in our machine. If you were good, and could prove it by your actions on the job, then you could often choose your next job and often avoid getting transferred to a different unit. Every once in a while, the "real" USAF lumbered in (like getting assigned to base trash detail), but we accepted that stuff sort of like one accepts a mentally challenged in-law.
I don't know how it is these days, but I hope that my unit is still mostly the same.
Why would anyone bother to do all that again rather than just enhance/improve/contribute to the existing project, which already does an amazing amount of running old computer games?
This mornonic argument to braces on their own lines keeps cropping up. I wonder if the writers realize that they are actually saying (well, ok, implying that the code should be written in paragraphs, with no vertical whitespace except perhaps between blocks. For example:
int function( int arg1, char *arg2 ) { int b; for(b=0;b<100;b++){ arg1 += arg1%b; } arg1 += 2; arg1 = sqrt(arg1); arg1 = arg1 < 15 ? arg1 * 2 : arg1 - 3;/* yeah the loop is dumb, but I needed some statements to fill a paragraph up */ if( arg1 < 27 ) arg1 *= 3; else if( arg1 > 35 ) arg/= 7; else arg += 2; sprintf( arg2, "this is just more filler" ); return arg1; }
Does anyone actually find that formatting code like text is a good thing?
Code is something different and should be treated accordingly. The brace argument has its points on all sides, but in my opinion, the "braces of their own lines" schools have one important point that the "cuddled braces schools" cannot claim: when the blocks are very clear, the code is simply easier to understand for the next person to look at it. Before you argue, remember that I'm including programmers from both schools here... Regardless of your preferred coding style, you can read the "separate line" style just fine, and rather quickly (and if you have trouble remembering the extra few lines of code that may not be visible because of it, you might consider another line of work). However, people from the "separate line" school can have quite a bit of trouble reading (and therefore debugging/maintaining) code written in the "cuddled" style. Feel free to dismiss me, I'm only saying this based on 25 years of C programming experience, so I likely have no clue what I'm talking about.
Luckily, many IDEs include a code formatter so that poor layout can generally be fixed to a more enlightened layout. And to some extent, event the venerable indent utiity can be used to do the same, though it seemed (in the past, at least) to have a bit of a bias toward cuddling.
That's great for people who use the service strictly for network access. But for folks who use the ISP's other services (like email, news, and possibly even web hosting) are likely to find that none of the ISP's servers are visible when not using the ISP's DNS servers from inside the ISP's network. I know this is true for RoadRunner, because I tried exactly what you said, only to find that only RR's DNS knows about their email or news servers, for example.
What bugs me most about RR's mechanism is that it seems to take some time before it starts working (after initially powering on the cable modem) because even attempts to visit places like www.imdb.com and www.google.com have taken me to RR's "perhaps you meant to type this" page, with the exact address entered offered as the first suggested "correction!"
No argument here. I was just remembering that Google was not producing bounces because of some disconnect in their email system. I think it was something about one system accepting the email and enqueuing it to another for delivery. When the second system discovers that it cannot deliver for whatever reason, it cannot reject because the connection is long gone. So Google was producing bounce messages until SPAMmers discovered that Google bounces got through pretty much ALL filtering systems. Then the SPAMmers started generating GMail (and other) bounces on purpose, so GMail stopped bouncing -- hopefully only until they can figure out how to do it "right." But who knows?
Silently dropping messages also prevents "bounce SPAM" where the spammer intentionally sends a message to a fake account from the TARGET, hoping that the bounce from the server will get through to the target. Wasn't Google a victim of that recently?
When I first read about Ulteo, I thought it sounded great. And the few "reviews" I could find were all glowing. When I installed on on my XPMCE/SP2 system at home, it did something to my network configuration that made the physical network adapter disappear, so I had no networking what-so-ever in Windows. I cannot comment on Ulteo because it never would start up. Luckily, the uninstall even fixed whatever it had broken, because networking was back as soon as Ulteo was gone.
Personally, I'll be waiting until something much closer to a 1.0 release before recommending this one to any linux neophytes...
I wonder if they'll just arrest one immediately if the laptop is not bootable. What if I'm hand carrying a laptop to someone and I used the DOD disk wipe utility to erase my old hard disk before I gave it away. Is that now illegal? What if I have a hard disk that was damaged while I traveled, am I not allowed to return to my country with it still broken? Maybe the government will repair it for me just so they can search it -- but that better be for free!
It would be interesting to see someone test this with a laptop that has no bootable drive (or no internal drive at all). The laptop could still be useful by booting from a USB drive, or some other external device (or even the missing hard disk) available at the destination. Aren't USB drives reasonably easy to conceal? Or would that automatically get one a reservation in Gitmo?
One must assume that they also search all physical luggage for possible child porn as well. After all, the offender could print it and/or buy magazines, right? Can any sort of selective enforcement type arguments be applied to this?
I wonder if they consider pirated software "harmful." Or pirated movies or music? What about software that helps one pirate software, music or movies?
If they consider info on how to build a bomb harmful, I wonder what they'll think about the sources for that book you're writing about computer security that explains how various types of attacks are performed and how viruses are written? That'd be especially dangerous (and potentially very harmful) if coupled with the tools needed to actually create bad things like viruses and hack attacks... Oh wait, I have a compiler here, too, don't I?
Slashdot Mirror
I've lived in the USA all my life. I don't know all that many people, but I'd be surprised if ONE in four of them is on facebook, at least based on those I communicate with regularly. Or many of them are lying (oh wait -- isn't that a common prerequisite for a Facebook account?)
I think the stats came from a CNN page, but I had trouble finding a news story hidden between all of the advertisements on the page. And the CNN page contains exactly ZERO source references for the stats. So who decided (and how) that 3/4 of Americans were on Facebook? Hopefully they first eliminated all of the non-Americans and business accounts first, then they need to eliminate all of the folks with multiple accounts (which should be easy, with Facebook's stance on [lack of] privacy). After all that, I find it difficult to believe the numbers.
But the obsession is quite real. More so than the Cult of Apple since it isn't limited to the rich. Oh wait, poor people with increidbly poor prioritization of life choices also belong to Apple's Cult, don't they?
But I obsess... um, I mean digress.
Bye
In Independence Day, my common sense is always calmed by assuming that the easiest way to crash a large, complex computer network is to attempt to connect Jeff Goldblum's Mac to it. Who needs a virus?
Color me stupid. Somehow I missed that this was a FACEBOOK security feature and though /. was going to start tying themselves to the evil facebook. Glad to know I'm completely wrong. Oops and sorry.
Does this mean that those of us who refuse to go anywhere near Facebook will no longer be allowed to post things? There ain't no way I'm ever going to have an account with something like that, I value my privacy (what little I have left) too much.
And anyway, I don't really *like* people and have no friends, so what would I be shown if I *did* have a Facebook account, but zero friends?
PS: apparently, one can no longer use the <i> tags to italicize words ("like" and "did" are wrapped in 'em above.) What else have we lost?
Agile programming works when performed by agile minds. Not all programmers are able to adapt to constantly changing requirements, but some are and they are the ones who succeed with agile programming.
3D perception is a artifact of the mind, not much related to our binocular vision (I have only one functional eye and my depth perception is very good -- except in a movie).
3D movies look great to minds not powerful and/or complex enough to detect the myriad flaws in the attempted 3D illusion.
How many great minds are there in Hollywood again? I think their affection for 3D and even more, their belief that it does (or even can) work is more proof that Hollywood is filled with exactly the kind of fools many of us have thought were gravitating there in the first place.
I had to cancel my subscription to WiReD because they have never, ever learned anything about readability and my eyesight has gotten to the point where I need a very bright light and a magnifying glass to read WiReD. I have no problem with books (paperback or hardcover) or most other magazines or newspapers, because for all of them, content is more important than style -- something that has NEVER been true at WiReD.
I mention this because it is a perfect case for providing the magazine content in a format who's style the user may customize -- if they can understand that some people are actually trying to read their stuff and not just saying, "Wow! That's looks really cool. I wonder what it says?" It sounds like they did everything they could to avoid giving the user the ability to manipulate the presentation of their content, which seems to be almost the exact opposite of XML's purpose. I seriously hope that WiReD (and similar content providers) can get back to providing interesting/meaningful/useful content and restraining their style tinkering to the margins, where it belongs.
I hope that the iPad version of the magazine at least allowed the reader to zoom and pan around the page, but knowing WiReD, they probably even disabled that because their strange sense of style demands that we suffer, um, I mean, view the entire page as a whole only.
I've only been running Windows 7 x64 at home for about a month now and I've rarely (if ever) seen it use much more than 50% of available RAM (I have 8GB). Then again, I don't run any software from Microsoft (except Windows itself) or Apple or any other mega corp that thinks they own your machine after you install their word processor or music player or whatever. With just a few games, Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice and vlc, my Windows 7 box is much better than it was with Vista x64 and at least comparable to when it was XP (but it boots MUCH faster). Even when I had the BOINC client installed and running climate prediction and seti@home (both regular and nVidia GPU versions), the memory usage was quite reasonable.
The article doesn't appear to differentiate between the 32 and 64 bit versions or what kind of app/usage mix the machines have, which must figure in to this sort of measurement. It also isn't at all clear whether the Win7 systems are running programs built for Win7 (as the XP systems almost certainly are) or XP builds that are "runnable" in Win7, though it is quite possible that could have a significant impact.
I've been developing for Windows for 20 years and in my experience, it has almost always been bad applications and/or 3rd party drivers that cause Windows to get such a bad rap. As a counter to the typical Windows bashing, I'd like to point out that I have one customer that has been running our software on Windows NT4 machines running 24x7 for over 10 years (most of which went for 5 years or more without rebooting at all) and the only unintentional down time came from hardware failures. Another customer is using Windows 2000 (and now XP) the same way.
...the real problem is that Microsoft failed to include the CRT and MFC updates for machines that do not have the development environment installed. So all of our customers that faithfully use Windows update got only the .NET patch instead of all three parts of this release. That "breaks" the software we non.NET developers deliver and that happened without any significant notice to the developers. We get things labeled "security patch" all the time, so many that few of us read all of the details any longer.
I believe that Microsoft could have included a one time message in the Visual Studio patch that opened a message box the next time the IDE (or just the compiler/linker) was run that explained that the redistributables had been changed and would be required for any customer using software compiled after the message box was displayed. SOMETHING would've certainly been better than NOTHING to inform developers of the change clearly, without any ambiguity. Especially for anyone who allows Windows to automatically update while they're asleep (something Microsoft recommends)!
While the side-by-side system is a PITA, it isn't the actual culprit here. The primary issue is Microsoft's failure to adequately inform developers of a change that will significantly impact the software being built with their products.
Did anyone else skim (or actually read) the 2008 paper by the researchers that was linked in the article? I notice many mentions of winter months and January but nothing about February or March (or the last week of December). In fact, the tables of data at the end of the paper list by month, but omit January, or by quarter of year, but omit the first quarter. What's the point of including data for everything except the two most mentioned time periods in one report?
Something seems bogus to me.
Ah. If I needed that I would just spread the main window over all the monitors and open a couple new tab groups so that I could see multiple source files at the same time. Typically I open new instances of Visual Studio (or other editors). But I see what you mean about the source tabs being more "stuck" in place than any of the others. I'd never actually tried to split them out because I rarely, if ever, have any need to see two source files at the same time .. except in a diff viewer and the one I use allows me to edit BOTH files while viewing the diffs, so I have it placed with the divider along a screen boundary with one file on each screen. Too bad Visual Studio doesn't have an integrated file compare/merge tool (like DiffZilla or WinMerge).
I'm using VS 2005 Pro at work, but it also appears to work in the VS 2008 Express that I have at home. I right-click on a sub-window title or tab and change it from dockable to floating. Then it may be positioned anywhere on the display(s).
I use VS2005 every day on a three monitor system. I've never had a problem pulling various tabs out to windows on other displays, especially when debugging: the source is on one screen, the app on another and all of my debug-specific windows (watch, breakpoints, call stack, memory, registers, etc) are on the third. And VS has no problem saving/restoring those window positions between runs. The only thing I've seen that is odd about multiple monitors is that maximizing the main window makes it smaller on my system (because I have the window spread partly onto a second screen) and that if I connect from home (with UltraVNC), the main window is automatically sized to fit a single screen -- but I think that is an UltraVNC thing. So what is it that actually doesn't work (or isn't supported) on multiple monitors?
Or do you mean the multi-monitor support for the applications you're developing? If so, that isn't Visual Studio, it is the libraries, SDK, help, etc that you are using. And I know for a fact that multi-monitor functions are available for programs (but they might take a bit of work to track down) because I have several programs that use them. So again, what isn't supported?
When I served (1984-1988) my unit treated its nerds very, very well. For example, I was only a sargeant, but because of my technical expertise, I was given a lieutenant to work for me, especially when we visited customers who respected rank more than ability. But my unit existed to do all sorts of odd technological things and everyone there knew that the nerds with ability were the most important cogs in our machine. If you were good, and could prove it by your actions on the job, then you could often choose your next job and often avoid getting transferred to a different unit. Every once in a while, the "real" USAF lumbered in (like getting assigned to base trash detail), but we accepted that stuff sort of like one accepts a mentally challenged in-law. I don't know how it is these days, but I hope that my unit is still mostly the same.
Why would anyone bother to do all that again rather than just enhance/improve/contribute to the existing project, which already does an amazing amount of running old computer games?
3 Taco Bell burritos and a six-pack of Old Milwaukee. Devastation on a cosmological scale.
sounds more like devastation on a colonological scale...
This mornonic argument to braces on their own lines keeps cropping up. I wonder if the writers realize that they are actually saying (well, ok, implying that the code should be written in paragraphs, with no vertical whitespace except perhaps between blocks. For example:
Does anyone actually find that formatting code like text is a good thing?
Code is something different and should be treated accordingly. The brace argument has its points on all sides, but in my opinion, the "braces of their own lines" schools have one important point that the "cuddled braces schools" cannot claim: when the blocks are very clear, the code is simply easier to understand for the next person to look at it. Before you argue, remember that I'm including programmers from both schools here... Regardless of your preferred coding style, you can read the "separate line" style just fine, and rather quickly (and if you have trouble remembering the extra few lines of code that may not be visible because of it, you might consider another line of work). However, people from the "separate line" school can have quite a bit of trouble reading (and therefore debugging/maintaining) code written in the "cuddled" style. Feel free to dismiss me, I'm only saying this based on 25 years of C programming experience, so I likely have no clue what I'm talking about.
Luckily, many IDEs include a code formatter so that poor layout can generally be fixed to a more enlightened layout. And to some extent, event the venerable indent utiity can be used to do the same, though it seemed (in the past, at least) to have a bit of a bias toward cuddling.
That's great for people who use the service strictly for network access. But for folks who use the ISP's other services (like email, news, and possibly even web hosting) are likely to find that none of the ISP's servers are visible when not using the ISP's DNS servers from inside the ISP's network. I know this is true for RoadRunner, because I tried exactly what you said, only to find that only RR's DNS knows about their email or news servers, for example.
What bugs me most about RR's mechanism is that it seems to take some time before it starts working (after initially powering on the cable modem) because even attempts to visit places like www.imdb.com and www.google.com have taken me to RR's "perhaps you meant to type this" page, with the exact address entered offered as the first suggested "correction!"
No argument here. I was just remembering that Google was not producing bounces because of some disconnect in their email system. I think it was something about one system accepting the email and enqueuing it to another for delivery. When the second system discovers that it cannot deliver for whatever reason, it cannot reject because the connection is long gone. So Google was producing bounce messages until SPAMmers discovered that Google bounces got through pretty much ALL filtering systems. Then the SPAMmers started generating GMail (and other) bounces on purpose, so GMail stopped bouncing -- hopefully only until they can figure out how to do it "right." But who knows?
Silently dropping messages also prevents "bounce SPAM" where the spammer intentionally sends a message to a fake account from the TARGET, hoping that the bounce from the server will get through to the target. Wasn't Google a victim of that recently?
When I first read about Ulteo, I thought it sounded great. And the few "reviews" I could find were all glowing. When I installed on on my XPMCE/SP2 system at home, it did something to my network configuration that made the physical network adapter disappear, so I had no networking what-so-ever in Windows. I cannot comment on Ulteo because it never would start up. Luckily, the uninstall even fixed whatever it had broken, because networking was back as soon as Ulteo was gone.
Personally, I'll be waiting until something much closer to a 1.0 release before recommending this one to any linux neophytes...
Government to user of encryption (i.e. new citizen at Guantanamo Bay):
"We cannot open the door to your cell until you give us the decryption key to your hard drive. Then you can swim home."
I wonder if they'll just arrest one immediately if the laptop is not bootable. What if I'm hand carrying a laptop to someone and I used the DOD disk wipe utility to erase my old hard disk before I gave it away. Is that now illegal? What if I have a hard disk that was damaged while I traveled, am I not allowed to return to my country with it still broken? Maybe the government will repair it for me just so they can search it -- but that better be for free!
It would be interesting to see someone test this with a laptop that has no bootable drive (or no internal drive at all). The laptop could still be useful by booting from a USB drive, or some other external device (or even the missing hard disk) available at the destination. Aren't USB drives reasonably easy to conceal? Or would that automatically get one a reservation in Gitmo?
One must assume that they also search all physical luggage for possible child porn as well. After all, the offender could print it and/or buy magazines, right? Can any sort of selective enforcement type arguments be applied to this?
I wonder if they consider pirated software "harmful." Or pirated movies or music? What about software that helps one pirate software, music or movies?
If they consider info on how to build a bomb harmful, I wonder what they'll think about the sources for that book you're writing about computer security that explains how various types of attacks are performed and how viruses are written? That'd be especially dangerous (and potentially very harmful) if coupled with the tools needed to actually create bad things like viruses and hack attacks... Oh wait, I have a compiler here, too, don't I?