Actually, I think this a great idea. With modern electronics, it should be dead trivial easy to have a keyboard tunnel through hardware a public/private key pair based encryption to be passed onto a web server....
For example I go to my bank to do online banking, they send me a public key and encapsulate it in some HTML code. My web browser then gets the OS to program the keyboard to encrypt subsequent keys using the public key provided. All "keystrokes" are essentially garbage without the private key, and that garbage is passed byte for byte to the bank web server that knows how to decrypt it and verify it.
With it being hardware based, double the keystrokes could also be sent by the keyboard, every even byte could be the actual keystroke and every odd byte could be a hardware based random number generated byte to make it more difficult to crack.
The web browser for example could say 'Oh, you need to type in your bank card number? no problem. I know you need to type in 16 digits, so on the 16th, I'll switch fields to the password field. Certain keys like the ENTER key or TAB key could be programmed as 'non-encryptable' and thus the browser knows when you're done to turn off keystroke encryption.
With something like that, even with spyware on the local computer, a separate secure socket only becomes necessary to protect bank account numbers from some third party halfway down the net since my bank sends the account numbers partially asterisked.
Their advantage is that they compromise information long before the information has a chance to be encrypted.
Ultimately how identity information is revealed aside, is this a phishing attempt or a mining attempt?
Phishing has traditionally been initiated by a cleverly socially engineered email or some form of communication, redirecting the unsuspecting user to a counterfeit site designed to harvest that information. Like putting a worm on a hook and dropping it in the water, you hope for someone to nibble at it.
Mining on the other hand is like picking away at the ground, in this case undetected, hoping to find that cache of gold. There's no guarantee that you'll even find anything, and once keylogging software is installed on the victim's PC, there is no user interaction with it. There is no social engineering to be done.
So therefore, wouldn't keylogging really be more mining than phishing? Or should I stop wasting my time on/. and forget about symantics?
There would be no proof and would open you up to some major liability
Well, yeah, but I wouldn't put it past some people to try that kind of stunt.
OTOH, microsoft might appreciate the info if you rat this person out knowing he/she has illegal copies of software of his/her own... After all, they did set up an anti-piracy hotline.
....And what if you approach microsoft and tell them that this person just gave you a copy becuase he/she knows you and suspect he/she is selling copies on the street for extra income. There would be (virtually) no proof of any kind that you're knowingly falsely accusing them (he/she gave you a copy - unproveable, you suspect he/she is selling the stuff on the street - opinion), so it's not entirey guaranteed that you'd lose a liability lawsuit, and if you successfully defended, you could countersue them.
People are stupid and do stupid things. I would never do this specific stupid stunt, but I'm sure somebody out there would be more than willing to try and thus, I can see this trade in your 'illegal copy' for a genuine copy program open to abuse.
with complimentary genuine Windows copies. There is one catch, however: customers must first file a report on the unscrupulous reseller
If you didn't like someone, you could download the ISO off BT or something or borrow a copy of XP from somone else, make a copy of the disk. Then run the CD through a cd label printer to make it look kinda perty, google search for the good old FCKGW code, then call microsoft and report this person you don't like as being the one who sold you the copy.
Step 1: make illegal copy of windows
step 2: get microsoft's trade up program for a discount
step 3: profit.
Or how about going to a store to buy a computer and if you don't like the service you get when the computer breaks down, call microsoft up and complain saying you think you have an illegal copy and you want their goons to chase after them. If you don't get to purchase another copy for a discount, at least you get your revenge.
I wonder how much this service microsoft provides would get abused?
It couldn't really hurt the blind much, but us people who can still see might find it a bit annoying..... I can just see how a conversation might go:
Joe: Hey bob, how'd you go blind?
Bob: I was shopping at walmart when this blind guy walked around the aisle and flashed his laser range finder into my eyes. Now I'm blind too. The bastard.
Joe: So is that the same gizmo you're now wearing too?
Bob: Yep
Joe: Oww my eyes. you just blinded me you idiot.
Gee, why doesn't that surprise me after reading your anti-censorship rant?
Actually now that I've read up on their rating and became familiar with it, I'm more pro than anti.
Put in context, I'd be less willing to let kids see a movie rated PG-13 without my accompanying them even though the MPAA says, 'your kids can see it without you, but we caution you there's blah blah blah in it', making it R-13 and their rating of R would in my mind be NC-18, but then I'd probably see it first on my own before deciding to go see it again with them after the fact, but in any case, R v.s. PG-13 or even PG-17 is all a matter of symantics to me.
No, they managed, barely, not to get an NC-17 warning.
I thought R was 'restricted' as in restricted to 18+ so 'managed not to get an NC-17 warning' and managing not to get an R to me would have essentially been the same.
I've stopped having to worry about movie ratings for 18 years now and I'm single, no kids, so I never bothered to keep up with changes in the rating system. When I was growing up, I remember the 'R' rating as restricted as in adults only (or at least that's how my parents saw it, thus when terminator came out they wouldn't let me see it since it was rated 'R' in the 80s).
To me, NC-17 and my previous post of R is only different by 1 year (NC-18), so when I said 'without getting the R rating', that's what I meant (managed, barely, not to get an NC-17).
If it was really a blood bath, it would be rated R.
I really wonder sometimes what goes on in the minds of censors. I recall when star trek 6 the undiscovered country (ST6:UDC) came out, st:tng was already established and klingon blood was mentioned as being red.
When ST6:UDC was being run by the censors, they kept their younger audience rating only by changing the colour of the blood to this fruity pinkish-purple colour. It's still the same blood but the colour was different and therefore not as bad as if it was normal blood red.
Similarly when trey parker and matt stone made south park bigger, longer, uncut, they managed to mess with the censors enough to keep all them naughty words without getting the R rating.
My view of certain ratings v.s. other ratings seem to differ greatly from what censors think and I think they live in some dream world. I pretty much agree with how south park put it when the characters of the movie got all up in an uproar because 'violence is ok' but 'naughty words are bad'. In my opinion, it's like trying to get people not to offend other people by making it some kind of hate crime by using certain bad words (the whole politically correct movement), but showing the animosity behind the words is ok? What it fails to address is the real issue that some people show some kind of hatred toward other people. You can call an african american that or a n****er, but in the end if you show that person disdain, you're still showing the same disdain and racial biggotry and suger coated words will in the end not make much of a difference in the hearts and minds of people.
I'd have no problem with PG-13 or even PG-7, as long as it's PG when there is justifiable violence (there are good guys and there are bad guys and the good guys and bad guys fight it out). It's like trying to shelter kids during times of war and trying to explain why dad or uncle bob has to go and fight and kill other people. There is a real reason why. What I find strange is how some psychopathic bomber in a movie might go around destroying buildings and blowing people up and as long as you don't actually see body parts flying around on the screen, it's ok for kids, in fact it doesn't really need to be explained. I find it somewhat hypocritical of the censors to allow one and not the other because it's all relative and the perceived violence in one is overshadowed by the explicit violence in another, so this one is not as bad as that one.
Exposing kids to the brutal reality of life that some people are out to get you and it's your duty to stop them to me is fine given the right context (that the parent takes the responsibility to explain it to their child for example that there is the emperor wanna-be with his darth vader sidekick running around trying to control and dominate every one and that people then have to rise up and defend themselves from any would be tyrrant) and I've seen R rated movies that to me don't justify that rating. I've also seen some PG rated movies that quite frankly portray the same thing but because it's not explicity graphic might not elicit the same discussion between parent and child and thus could warp the perceptions of such child.
Besides, with the whole movie rental industry, there is absolutely nothing to stop some parent who doesn't really care about the rating system and the appropriateness of the movie to rent R rated movies and let their kids watch it when they get home, so in the end, if the theatre prevents minors from seeing it there, it becomes moot at home.
Maybe movie ratings should focus on 'what and why the story is that's being told', not 'how it's being told'.
In some ways, I think microsoft goes out of their way to find the most cumbersome and assanine way of developing their drivers.
We have a computer at work running XP that constantly hoses its USB drivers and every time I plug in my flash drive, it says it found and installed new hardware *AND* I have to reboot! I have to reboot because it had to figure out a flash drive again since the last time I rebooted it?
Why is it also that when you plug in a USB device on one port, it loads the driver and if you unplug it and plug it onto a separate USB controller it needs to install another instance of the driver? They don't automatically go away either. If the one goes away and a new one in a different spot shows up, the first one should 'just get recycled' and claimed again, regardless of what USB port it's plugged into. I can see a second one show up if you plug a second one in while the first is still plugged in, but who has two identical printers simulataneously connected? I have a parallel printer so I don't know the full intricacies of USB printers, but doesn't it show up as a second printer to applications?
I think microsoft has a very long way to go to make their drivers actually useful. At least they finally figured out how to change network settings without always having to reboot.
Microsoft is working with Ford Motor Co towards car that can't crash. The future of cars according to Gates will involve high-definition screens, speech recognition technology, cameras, digital calendars and navigation equipment with directions and road conditions."
So according to microsoft, if you have high-def screens, speech recognition, cameras digital cameras, etc the car can't crash?????
Here's a clue, protect the driver from distractions so (s)he is focused on driving and not on all them blinking lights, then the car will have less reason to get into an accident.
Maybe I should RTFA, but from the heading on/. unless the car drives itself, saying cars can't crash is about as true as saying windows never needs to be reinstalled. If they can drive themselves, I will never, ever, entrust that job to a microsoft product. The last thing I want is a fatal exception when I'm going 60 mph down the highway.
...I wanted PI and used a random number generator and my radian measurements were all out of wack. I wanted random numbers so I used PI but it all came out the same every time.
Well isn't that the darndest thing.
Next time I'll just use a pseudo random number generator for those random numbers and leave PI for all them important rads.
Now if I can just figure out how to write an encryption algorithm using famous celebrity names, I'll be all set.
I hope they don't take commenting their code too seriously.
Woops, this gene sequence explains what that other gene sequence does but somehow the checksum triggered it to override the other one so now it runs amok eating everything in its path.
If we ever kill ourselves off as the dominant species and those bacteria evolve into a new life form that then looks at its gene sequence, I wonder what they'd think?
'This following section here keys in on seron gas and will grow an extra appendage - a mouth in this case (appendage = growExtraMouth()), ingest it (suckItUp(appendage)), break it down (breakToxinDown(appendage)) and recycle the extra mouth when done (recycleMouth(appendage)). Hopefully the gas doesn't trigger a bus error'....
If they locked down raw sockets and made it available only to administrators or root users, that would solve it.
The only problem to that argument is that a good number of people who bother to create separate accounts apart from administrator don't bother to (at least in the xp pro version I use) unclick the checkbox that by default gives them administrator privileges.
If microsoft did do this AND changed their security policy so additional users by DEFAULT DON'T have administrator rights, it would certainly go a lot farther.
neutrons are subatomic????
Atomic particles contain protons (positively charged particles), electrons (negatively charged particles) and neutrons (not having a charge but is still part of the atom).
SUBatomic particles are below the atomic particles and are things like quarks and muons
Am I right or did I forget my physics?
The experiment did not, however, produce more energy than the amount put in -- an achievement that would be a huge breakthrough.
I hope they're referring to a self sustaining process. I'd hate to think they're trying to make a perpetual machine.
Obligatory simpsons reference:
Lisa, in this household we obey the laws of thermodynamics!!!!!!!!!!
While there may be an argument for either case, I think there is no one clear-cut-absolutely-definitive-all-encompassing case.
I've come in on a project that had the following functions barf() and snarf() with oodles of documentation and not one single byte of source file was of any use to me because quite frankly it was so horribly designed that even with a hunting dog and ouija board, I still couldn't make sense of it. If I remember correctly it took me about 2 or 3 weeks to finally figure what that particular section of the code did. barf and snarf? Who the hell thought barf and snarf were acceptable function names?
I've seen an entire project written with every single function documented with the following: PURPOSE, USAGE, INPUT, OUTPUT and a bunch of other stuff, and about half of it was simply wrong because while it started off well enough, as the project matured and the nature of the functions changed, that documentation was poorly maintained to reflect those changes. Over time there becomes a chasm separating the actual behaviour of the code and the intended behaviour that is documented or started off as being documented.
On the other hand, I've seen projects that were very easy to follow because the team who maintained it wasn't afraid to type in 20 character long variable names that actually meant something - specifically meant what it represented.
I'm currently developing a java based application for my boss and one such group of functions ensures the double variable used to maintain currency remains as proper currency, so I wrote a simple class to reformat the value of the double to a proper currency format. That class is called 'CurrencyFormat' and has format() and toString().
Seeing as how I've based it on several other classes found in the standard java API, anyone who knows java should be able to figure out quickly enough what
invoice.currentSubTotal = 0.0; for (int i = 0;i < invoice.lineItems.length;i ++) invoice.currentSubtotal = CurrencyFormat.format(invoice.currentSubtotal + (invoice.lineItems[i].quantity * invoice.lineItems[i].value));
does. I've looked at code I wrote 5 even 10 years ago and while I get the sickening feeling of 'what the hell was I smoking when I wrote this damn stuff', I've never had a more than the very brief problem of trying to decipher what the code actually did because my boss at that time insisted I use meaningful names for functions and variables..
In my experience, while code and documentation might start off alike, during the course of an ongoing project, documentation - especially maintained by someone other than the original author of the block of code - will either be incorrectly maintained or will not be maintained at all. Sometimes it might not be a bad thing, sometimes the change can be so major that anyone who then relies on that documentation will go on for some time thinking that's what it does when in fact that is NOT what it does.
My experience tells me that poorly maintained CODE documentation can be more detremental than no documentation at all. However, its probably important to have a proper PROJECT design AND documentation overview. For example, no reasonable project should have all source files in a single directory and even then it should be more than arbitrary. A good layout and set of rules as to what goes where is as effective as a chapter of docuemtation. I have a 'db' directory for classes that deal with the database and a 'lib' directory for simple library like classes and a 'ui' directory which also contains ui/lib and ui/dialogs and ui/reports, etc. It should not be unreasonable if not redundant to maintain a project level document to say lib/QSort is a quicksort class or ui/dialogs/About is the about box. In the course of the projects lifetime a 'project bible' describing the breakdown of the project in those terms (Any modal dialog box that displays information and/or prompts the user for information or for a response goes in the ui/dialogs directory), etc, should e
Maybe he'll re-re-release 4, 5 and 6 on blu-ray replacing all the laser pistols with walkie-talkies and changing the word 'rebels' with 'terrorists' to make it more current and P.C.
If this tool is really to catch errant drivers, it's usually pretty serious for the OS to throw up its hands.
I wonder if the OS will maintain enough smarts to flush the BSOD information and other stuff to disk properly.
For that matter, if it's not a critical driver (e.g. a sound card driver or network card driver, etc), that goes wonky, why BSOD completely? Why can't the OS log a critical message stating 'This driver encountered an unrecoverable error and has been disabled'. Please close what you were doing and reboot *NOW*'.
Slashdot Mirror
That's 80 GB of source code,.......provided on CD
Dude! Ever hear of DVD? 100+ CDs! That's an awfully large unnecessary stack of CDs.
If IBM wins the suit, they can also countersue for the cost of the CDs.
Actually, I think this a great idea. With modern electronics, it should be dead trivial easy to have a keyboard tunnel through hardware a public/private key pair based encryption to be passed onto a web server....
For example I go to my bank to do online banking, they send me a public key and encapsulate it in some HTML code. My web browser then gets the OS to program the keyboard to encrypt subsequent keys using the public key provided. All "keystrokes" are essentially garbage without the private key, and that garbage is passed byte for byte to the bank web server that knows how to decrypt it and verify it.
With it being hardware based, double the keystrokes could also be sent by the keyboard, every even byte could be the actual keystroke and every odd byte could be a hardware based random number generated byte to make it more difficult to crack.
The web browser for example could say 'Oh, you need to type in your bank card number? no problem. I know you need to type in 16 digits, so on the 16th, I'll switch fields to the password field. Certain keys like the ENTER key or TAB key could be programmed as 'non-encryptable' and thus the browser knows when you're done to turn off keystroke encryption.
With something like that, even with spyware on the local computer, a separate secure socket only becomes necessary to protect bank account numbers from some third party halfway down the net since my bank sends the account numbers partially asterisked.
Their advantage is that they compromise information long before the information has a chance to be encrypted.
/. and forget about symantics?
Ultimately how identity information is revealed aside, is this a phishing attempt or a mining attempt?
Phishing has traditionally been initiated by a cleverly socially engineered email or some form of communication, redirecting the unsuspecting user to a counterfeit site designed to harvest that information. Like putting a worm on a hook and dropping it in the water, you hope for someone to nibble at it.
Mining on the other hand is like picking away at the ground, in this case undetected, hoping to find that cache of gold. There's no guarantee that you'll even find anything, and once keylogging software is installed on the victim's PC, there is no user interaction with it. There is no social engineering to be done.
So therefore, wouldn't keylogging really be more mining than phishing? Or should I stop wasting my time on
There would be no proof and would open you up to some major liability
....And what if you approach microsoft and tell them that this person just gave you a copy becuase he/she knows you and suspect he/she is selling copies on the street for extra income. There would be (virtually) no proof of any kind that you're knowingly falsely accusing them (he/she gave you a copy - unproveable, you suspect he/she is selling the stuff on the street - opinion), so it's not entirey guaranteed that you'd lose a liability lawsuit, and if you successfully defended, you could countersue them.
Well, yeah, but I wouldn't put it past some people to try that kind of stunt.
OTOH, microsoft might appreciate the info if you rat this person out knowing he/she has illegal copies of software of his/her own... After all, they did set up an anti-piracy hotline.
People are stupid and do stupid things. I would never do this specific stupid stunt, but I'm sure somebody out there would be more than willing to try and thus, I can see this trade in your 'illegal copy' for a genuine copy program open to abuse.
with complimentary genuine Windows copies. There is one catch, however: customers must first file a report on the unscrupulous reseller
If you didn't like someone, you could download the ISO off BT or something or borrow a copy of XP from somone else, make a copy of the disk. Then run the CD through a cd label printer to make it look kinda perty, google search for the good old FCKGW code, then call microsoft and report this person you don't like as being the one who sold you the copy.
Step 1: make illegal copy of windows
step 2: get microsoft's trade up program for a discount
step 3: profit.
Or how about going to a store to buy a computer and if you don't like the service you get when the computer breaks down, call microsoft up and complain saying you think you have an illegal copy and you want their goons to chase after them. If you don't get to purchase another copy for a discount, at least you get your revenge.
I wonder how much this service microsoft provides would get abused?
laser range finder to avoid obsticals
It couldn't really hurt the blind much, but us people who can still see might find it a bit annoying..... I can just see how a conversation might go:
Joe: Hey bob, how'd you go blind?
Bob: I was shopping at walmart when this blind guy walked around the aisle and flashed his laser range finder into my eyes. Now I'm blind too. The bastard.
Joe: So is that the same gizmo you're now wearing too?
Bob: Yep
Joe: Oww my eyes. you just blinded me you idiot.
Gee, why doesn't that surprise me after reading your anti-censorship rant?
Actually now that I've read up on their rating and became familiar with it, I'm more pro than anti.
Put in context, I'd be less willing to let kids see a movie rated PG-13 without my accompanying them even though the MPAA says, 'your kids can see it without you, but we caution you there's blah blah blah in it', making it R-13 and their rating of R would in my mind be NC-18, but then I'd probably see it first on my own before deciding to go see it again with them after the fact, but in any case, R v.s. PG-13 or even PG-17 is all a matter of symantics to me.
No, they managed, barely, not to get an NC-17 warning.
I thought R was 'restricted' as in restricted to 18+ so 'managed not to get an NC-17 warning' and managing not to get an R to me would have essentially been the same.
I've stopped having to worry about movie ratings for 18 years now and I'm single, no kids, so I never bothered to keep up with changes in the rating system. When I was growing up, I remember the 'R' rating as restricted as in adults only (or at least that's how my parents saw it, thus when terminator came out they wouldn't let me see it since it was rated 'R' in the 80s).
To me, NC-17 and my previous post of R is only different by 1 year (NC-18), so when I said 'without getting the R rating', that's what I meant (managed, barely, not to get an NC-17).
If it was really a blood bath, it would be rated R.
I really wonder sometimes what goes on in the minds of censors. I recall when star trek 6 the undiscovered country (ST6:UDC) came out, st:tng was already established and klingon blood was mentioned as being red.
When ST6:UDC was being run by the censors, they kept their younger audience rating only by changing the colour of the blood to this fruity pinkish-purple colour. It's still the same blood but the colour was different and therefore not as bad as if it was normal blood red.
Similarly when trey parker and matt stone made south park bigger, longer, uncut, they managed to mess with the censors enough to keep all them naughty words without getting the R rating.
My view of certain ratings v.s. other ratings seem to differ greatly from what censors think and I think they live in some dream world. I pretty much agree with how south park put it when the characters of the movie got all up in an uproar because 'violence is ok' but 'naughty words are bad'. In my opinion, it's like trying to get people not to offend other people by making it some kind of hate crime by using certain bad words (the whole politically correct movement), but showing the animosity behind the words is ok? What it fails to address is the real issue that some people show some kind of hatred toward other people. You can call an african american that or a n****er, but in the end if you show that person disdain, you're still showing the same disdain and racial biggotry and suger coated words will in the end not make much of a difference in the hearts and minds of people.
I'd have no problem with PG-13 or even PG-7, as long as it's PG when there is justifiable violence (there are good guys and there are bad guys and the good guys and bad guys fight it out). It's like trying to shelter kids during times of war and trying to explain why dad or uncle bob has to go and fight and kill other people. There is a real reason why. What I find strange is how some psychopathic bomber in a movie might go around destroying buildings and blowing people up and as long as you don't actually see body parts flying around on the screen, it's ok for kids, in fact it doesn't really need to be explained. I find it somewhat hypocritical of the censors to allow one and not the other because it's all relative and the perceived violence in one is overshadowed by the explicit violence in another, so this one is not as bad as that one.
Exposing kids to the brutal reality of life that some people are out to get you and it's your duty to stop them to me is fine given the right context (that the parent takes the responsibility to explain it to their child for example that there is the emperor wanna-be with his darth vader sidekick running around trying to control and dominate every one and that people then have to rise up and defend themselves from any would be tyrrant) and I've seen R rated movies that to me don't justify that rating. I've also seen some PG rated movies that quite frankly portray the same thing but because it's not explicity graphic might not elicit the same discussion between parent and child and thus could warp the perceptions of such child.
Besides, with the whole movie rental industry, there is absolutely nothing to stop some parent who doesn't really care about the rating system and the appropriateness of the movie to rent R rated movies and let their kids watch it when they get home, so in the end, if the theatre prevents minors from seeing it there, it becomes moot at home.
Maybe movie ratings should focus on 'what and why the story is that's being told', not 'how it's being told'.
In some ways, I think microsoft goes out of their way to find the most cumbersome and assanine way of developing their drivers.
We have a computer at work running XP that constantly hoses its USB drivers and every time I plug in my flash drive, it says it found and installed new hardware *AND* I have to reboot! I have to reboot because it had to figure out a flash drive again since the last time I rebooted it?
Why is it also that when you plug in a USB device on one port, it loads the driver and if you unplug it and plug it onto a separate USB controller it needs to install another instance of the driver? They don't automatically go away either. If the one goes away and a new one in a different spot shows up, the first one should 'just get recycled' and claimed again, regardless of what USB port it's plugged into. I can see a second one show up if you plug a second one in while the first is still plugged in, but who has two identical printers simulataneously connected? I have a parallel printer so I don't know the full intricacies of USB printers, but doesn't it show up as a second printer to applications?
I think microsoft has a very long way to go to make their drivers actually useful. At least they finally figured out how to change network settings without always having to reboot.
Microsoft is working with Ford Motor Co towards car that can't crash. The future of cars according to Gates will involve high-definition screens, speech recognition technology, cameras, digital calendars and navigation equipment with directions and road conditions."
/. unless the car drives itself, saying cars can't crash is about as true as saying windows never needs to be reinstalled. If they can drive themselves, I will never, ever, entrust that job to a microsoft product. The last thing I want is a fatal exception when I'm going 60 mph down the highway.
So according to microsoft, if you have high-def screens, speech recognition, cameras digital cameras, etc the car can't crash?????
Here's a clue, protect the driver from distractions so (s)he is focused on driving and not on all them blinking lights, then the car will have less reason to get into an accident.
Maybe I should RTFA, but from the heading on
...I wanted PI and used a random number generator and my radian measurements were all out of wack. I wanted random numbers so I used PI but it all came out the same every time.
Well isn't that the darndest thing.
Next time I'll just use a pseudo random number generator for those random numbers and leave PI for all them important rads.
Now if I can just figure out how to write an encryption algorithm using famous celebrity names, I'll be all set.
mostly come out at night......Mostly...
In soviet russia, ethernet powers the computer.
I hope they don't take commenting their code too seriously.
Woops, this gene sequence explains what that other gene sequence does but somehow the checksum triggered it to override the other one so now it runs amok eating everything in its path.
If we ever kill ourselves off as the dominant species and those bacteria evolve into a new life form that then looks at its gene sequence, I wonder what they'd think?
'This following section here keys in on seron gas and will grow an extra appendage - a mouth in this case (appendage = growExtraMouth()), ingest it (suckItUp(appendage)), break it down (breakToxinDown(appendage)) and recycle the extra mouth when done (recycleMouth(appendage)). Hopefully the gas doesn't trigger a bus error'....
How about:
... Subscribers can get a chance to see it early!
Unsubscribers in the meantime can get a chance to re-read yesterdays posts as new, waiting for the next real story!
article postings = 3 = 2 duplicates
comment postings saying its a dup...... well certainly a WHOLE LOT MORE than 2
C'mon guys, anymore than 10 comments saying it's a dup is not just redundant, it's redundant, overrated and annyoing.
I need a dup filter.
If they locked down raw sockets and made it available only to administrators or root users, that would solve it.
The only problem to that argument is that a good number of people who bother to create separate accounts apart from administrator don't bother to (at least in the xp pro version I use) unclick the checkbox that by default gives them administrator privileges.
If microsoft did do this AND changed their security policy so additional users by DEFAULT DON'T have administrator rights, it would certainly go a lot farther.
subatomic particles known as neutrons
neutrons are subatomic????
Atomic particles contain protons (positively charged particles), electrons (negatively charged particles) and neutrons (not having a charge but is still part of the atom).
SUBatomic particles are below the atomic particles and are things like quarks and muons
Am I right or did I forget my physics?
The experiment did not, however, produce more energy than the amount put in -- an achievement that would be a huge breakthrough.
I hope they're referring to a self sustaining process. I'd hate to think they're trying to make a perpetual machine.
Obligatory simpsons reference:
Lisa, in this household we obey the laws of thermodynamics!!!!!!!!!!
Note to RIAA: Not ALL our base belong to you.
Don't you mean:
Not ALL our base ARE belong to you.
While there may be an argument for either case, I think there is no one clear-cut-absolutely-definitive-all-encompassing case.
I've come in on a project that had the following functions barf() and snarf() with oodles of documentation and not one single byte of source file was of any use to me because quite frankly it was so horribly designed that even with a hunting dog and ouija board, I still couldn't make sense of it. If I remember correctly it took me about 2 or 3 weeks to finally figure what that particular section of the code did. barf and snarf? Who the hell thought barf and snarf were acceptable function names?
I've seen an entire project written with every single function documented with the following: PURPOSE, USAGE, INPUT, OUTPUT and a bunch of other stuff, and about half of it was simply wrong because while it started off well enough, as the project matured and the nature of the functions changed, that documentation was poorly maintained to reflect those changes. Over time there becomes a chasm separating the actual behaviour of the code and the intended behaviour that is documented or started off as being documented.
On the other hand, I've seen projects that were very easy to follow because the team who maintained it wasn't afraid to type in 20 character long variable names that actually meant something - specifically meant what it represented.
I'm currently developing a java based application for my boss and one such group of functions ensures the double variable used to maintain currency remains as proper currency, so I wrote a simple class to reformat the value of the double to a proper currency format. That class is called 'CurrencyFormat' and has format() and toString().
Seeing as how I've based it on several other classes found in the standard java API, anyone who knows java should be able to figure out quickly enough what
invoice.currentSubTotal = 0.0;
for (int i = 0;i < invoice.lineItems.length;i ++)
invoice.currentSubtotal = CurrencyFormat.format(invoice.currentSubtotal + (invoice.lineItems[i].quantity * invoice.lineItems[i].value));
does. I've looked at code I wrote 5 even 10 years ago and while I get the sickening feeling of 'what the hell was I smoking when I wrote this damn stuff', I've never had a more than the very brief problem of trying to decipher what the code actually did because my boss at that time insisted I use meaningful names for functions and variables..
In my experience, while code and documentation might start off alike, during the course of an ongoing project, documentation - especially maintained by someone other than the original author of the block of code - will either be incorrectly maintained or will not be maintained at all. Sometimes it might not be a bad thing, sometimes the change can be so major that anyone who then relies on that documentation will go on for some time thinking that's what it does when in fact that is NOT what it does.
My experience tells me that poorly maintained CODE documentation can be more detremental than no documentation at all. However, its probably important to have a proper PROJECT design AND documentation overview. For example, no reasonable project should have all source files in a single directory and even then it should be more than arbitrary. A good layout and set of rules as to what goes where is as effective as a chapter of docuemtation. I have a 'db' directory for classes that deal with the database and a 'lib' directory for simple library like classes and a 'ui' directory which also contains ui/lib and ui/dialogs and ui/reports, etc. It should not be unreasonable if not redundant to maintain a project level document to say lib/QSort is a quicksort class or ui/dialogs/About is the about box. In the course of the projects lifetime a 'project bible' describing the breakdown of the project in those terms (Any modal dialog box that displays information and/or prompts the user for information or for a response goes in the ui/dialogs directory), etc, should e
With the advances in CD/DVD burning and buffer underrun protection, I've not made any coasters in a really long time.
It's like c'mon, what else can I put my cup/glass on? I don't even get the Bell sympatico CDs anymore either.
Cheap bastards. Don't they know their CDs are actually worth something to me?
I like how these guys put it
v let/showid-344/epid-174279/[Free HAT]
http://www.tvtome.com/tvtome/servlet/GuidePageSer
Maybe he'll re-re-release 4, 5 and 6 on blu-ray replacing all the laser pistols with walkie-talkies and changing the word 'rebels' with 'terrorists' to make it more current and P.C.
I wonder if it will survive the crash.
If this tool is really to catch errant drivers, it's usually pretty serious for the OS to throw up its hands.
I wonder if the OS will maintain enough smarts to flush the BSOD information and other stuff to disk properly.
For that matter, if it's not a critical driver (e.g. a sound card driver or network card driver, etc), that goes wonky, why BSOD completely? Why can't the OS log a critical message stating 'This driver encountered an unrecoverable error and has been disabled'. Please close what you were doing and reboot *NOW*'.
And here me thinking that brains couldn't talk, you learn something every day!
And I bet 50 quatloons they glow different colours.