By contrast, you can have dynamic dispatch in a statically-typed language. C++ does: virtual methods. Virtual method dispatch is dynamic dispatch, even if it's through a statically-defined interface that produces a vtable.
Correct. In Python, all methods are virtual.
My point is it sounds like Bjarne wants to take C++0x and add dynamic language features. My suggestion is either to make C++ a dynamic language, or at least support some subset of features of a dynamic language that you can in a statically-typed langugage.
The implementation details of how to do that are left as an exercise to the reader.
The GP quoted TFA, and the final statement of that quote is "There is no Bug." Furthermore, TFA furthermore states that the bug that bug may be in the OS or the chipset controller driver, but postulates that it may not be the driver because it happens in a wide range of setups. That does not imply that the bug is in chkdsk, and does not confirm that there is no bug in Windows 7.
Templates are what Python calls 'duck typing'. ("If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...") Why not just do that? You could add methods for introspection and so forth...
According to my MS Source, I was told that this is by design in Windows 7 because the OS is capable and uses more memory. According to my source, because they intended to speed up chkdsk , they did so through using more memory. However, it could be a bug somewhere in OS or a driver bug but seeing as it happens across a wide range of setups, it doesn't seem to be 3rd party related.
This has been submitted to the filesystem team though for more
(emphasis mine) So the statement "there is no bug" is blatantly false.
In a war zone? They give the command "fire at will" maybe once. Maybe. Usually if there's jihadist waiving a machine gun around and coming at you, you fire, command given or not. I know of no soldier who has ever been criticized for defending himself and his platoon.
What's it like to get a shot in the eye? I assume they anesthetize you so that can't flinch or blink. But are you conscious?
They do apply a local anesthetic to the eye, but you are otherwise fully conscious and alert. They merely use a steel contraption to pin your head and shoulders down.;)
OpenSSL has a cryptographically secure random number generator. I know not everything uses it but doesn't (Open)SSH?
No. By default, OpenSSH will use the system's pesudo-random number generator, but you can also make it use prngd or EGD (the Entropy Gathering Daemon) instead. Whether either are more "secure" than the kernel's built-in RNG I am not qualified to say.
Death by electrocution? Being a little melodramatic, aren't we? Computer hacking, even terrorism, is not a crime punishable by death in the United States. Here's a list of crimes punishable by death at the federal level in the United States:
Espionage (18 U.S.C. 794)
Treason. (18 U.S.C. 2381)
Trafficking in large quantities of drugs (18 U.S.C. 3591(b))
Attempting, authorizing or advising the killing of any officer, juror,or witness in cases involving a Continuing Criminal Enterprise, regardless of whether such killing actually occurs. (18 U.S.C. 3591(b)(2))
At the state level, most states only have death penalty statutes for murder in the first degree (pre-meditated murder). Some states also have the death penalty for child rape, but no one has ever been executed for that.
So they'd basically have to try McKinnon on espionage (a charge that requires more significant proof than "breaking into government computers" in order to remotely entertain the possibility of a death sentence.
Except that our world is sliding closer and closer to a Brave New World than into 1984
Six of one, half dozen of the other. This is the best explanation I've ever seen comparing and contrasting BNW and 1984:
What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we desire will ruin us.
I don't even pretend to understand the convoluted mess that is 'the law', but it seems strange to me that he can sue for a SPECIFIC problem (destroying HIS notes) but he's seeking GENERAL damages via the class action status.
It's a "shake the money tree" suit. You sue for as much as you can get from as many parties as you can, shaking the money tree and seeing what falls out.
I strongly disagree. If McKinnon admittedly broke into U.S. government systems, on U.S. soil, then the entire act occurred in the United States, making McKinnon subject to U.S. law and court jurisdiction. If the reverse had been true and McKinnon were in the United States breaking into MI5 computers, you better believe that the Crown would be looking to extradite him to the U.K..
Cool? I dunno, it's pretty simple really. Here's the C source code for the hack. Basically he's just programming a smart card with a value of $999.99, and then asking the meter for the password, which it seems more than happy to provide for some reason.
IOW, the meters are simply using security through obscurity, which is the same as no security at all.
Slashdot Mirror
P.S. Why did Chrome's spell-checker accept "sarcasmometer"? Does this exist? Can I get one?
Yeah. Like everything else, you can buy a sarcasmometer on eBay.
Additionally, a Firefox plugin for posts on Slashdot is necessary...
By contrast, you can have dynamic dispatch in a statically-typed language. C++ does: virtual methods. Virtual method dispatch is dynamic dispatch, even if it's through a statically-defined interface that produces a vtable.
Correct. In Python, all methods are virtual.
My point is it sounds like Bjarne wants to take C++0x and add dynamic language features. My suggestion is either to make C++ a dynamic language, or at least support some subset of features of a dynamic language that you can in a statically-typed langugage.
The implementation details of how to do that are left as an exercise to the reader.
The GP quoted TFA, and the final statement of that quote is "There is no Bug." Furthermore, TFA furthermore states that the bug that bug may be in the OS or the chipset controller driver, but postulates that it may not be the driver because it happens in a wide range of setups. That does not imply that the bug is in chkdsk, and does not confirm that there is no bug in Windows 7.
Why don't you learn some reading comprehension?
Templates are what Python calls 'duck typing'. ("If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...") Why not just do that? You could add methods for introspection and so forth...
FTFA (the very next comment):
According to my MS Source, I was told that this is by design in Windows 7 because the OS is capable and uses more memory. According to my source, because they intended to speed up chkdsk , they did so through using more memory. However, it could be a bug somewhere in OS or a driver bug but seeing as it happens across a wide range of setups, it doesn't seem to be 3rd party related.
This has been submitted to the filesystem team though for more
(emphasis mine)
So the statement "there is no bug" is blatantly false.
Every able-bodied man between 18 and 45 is automatically in the militia.
That's why, thanks to recent laws, only criminals carry guns.
Blatantly false, at least in the United States.
It's just as easy to fuzz a binary-encoded protocol, it just doesn't require specialized tools. Ever heard of TCP/IP-based DoS attacks?
They're only allowed to shoot people on command.
In a war zone? They give the command "fire at will" maybe once. Maybe. Usually if there's jihadist waiving a machine gun around and coming at you, you fire, command given or not. I know of no soldier who has ever been criticized for defending himself and his platoon.
All he did was talk on a stolen radio.
No kidding. A radio hacker would have made his own radio transceiver. This guy's just a common street thug.
Gotta love that C null-terminated string brain damage!\0Heh. Stupid fsckers will never see this!!!
What's it like to get a shot in the eye? I assume they anesthetize you so that can't flinch or blink. But are you conscious?
They do apply a local anesthetic to the eye, but you are otherwise fully conscious and alert. They merely use a steel contraption to pin your head and shoulders down. ;)
OpenSSL has a cryptographically secure random number generator. I know not everything uses it but doesn't (Open)SSH?
No. By default, OpenSSH will use the system's pesudo-random number generator, but you can also make it use prngd or EGD (the Entropy Gathering Daemon) instead. Whether either are more "secure" than the kernel's built-in RNG I am not qualified to say.
Not the same thing. Copyright and cybercrime are two completely different areas of law.
Bah.
See, I knew we'd find a use for dark matter!
In Soviet Russia, prime position gets YOU!!!
What makes me wonder tho, is the IE removed after installing another browser?
What do you think? What Microsoft product installer has automatically uninstalled another Microsoft product....ever?
Death by electrocution? Being a little melodramatic, aren't we? Computer hacking, even terrorism, is not a crime punishable by death in the United States. Here's a list of crimes punishable by death at the federal level in the United States:
At the state level, most states only have death penalty statutes for murder in the first degree (pre-meditated murder). Some states also have the death penalty for child rape, but no one has ever been executed for that.
So they'd basically have to try McKinnon on espionage (a charge that requires more significant proof than "breaking into government computers" in order to remotely entertain the possibility of a death sentence.
Except that our world is sliding closer and closer to a Brave New World than into 1984
Six of one, half dozen of the other. This is the best explanation I've ever seen comparing and contrasting BNW and 1984:
I don't even pretend to understand the convoluted mess that is 'the law', but it seems strange to me that he can sue for a SPECIFIC problem (destroying HIS notes) but he's seeking GENERAL damages via the class action status.
It's a "shake the money tree" suit. You sue for as much as you can get from as many parties as you can, shaking the money tree and seeing what falls out.
Plus, the military does use Windows. FTBBCA:
The US military's use of Windows let Mr McKinnon in.
.
Microsoft should be paying the military restitution.
I strongly disagree. If McKinnon admittedly broke into U.S. government systems, on U.S. soil, then the entire act occurred in the United States, making McKinnon subject to U.S. law and court jurisdiction. If the reverse had been true and McKinnon were in the United States breaking into MI5 computers, you better believe that the Crown would be looking to extradite him to the U.K..
s/meter/card
You need a good parking pass.
Cool? I dunno, it's pretty simple really. Here's the C source code for the hack. Basically he's just programming a smart card with a value of $999.99, and then asking the meter for the password, which it seems more than happy to provide for some reason.
IOW, the meters are simply using security through obscurity, which is the same as no security at all.