Indeed; nor should we expect them to. The vast majority of computer users want to use the computer in the same way that they use any other appliance; and frankly, they/should/ be able to. Unfortunately, the only way to give them that experience is to a) line up all malware authors and shoot them; or b) provide them with locked-down machines that can only run Authorized Content in an Approved Manner.
So far with Avast, AVG, (mind you one virus product per computer only) ZoneAlarm, FireFox, and some basic sense I haven't been hit.
Somehow with some basic common sense, no antivirus software*, and a hardware router/firewall, the last time I was hit was in 1988 - a non-destructive variant of Stoned which was transferred to my PC by infected floppy. In my experience so far, Antivirus is only necessary if you don't verify your file sources; and/or are in the habit of opening things without thinking. (Or allowing applications to do so for you automatically.) Common sense alone suffices to keep you safe.
I'm not saying that there isn't a need for antivirus - hordes of computer users rightfully don't/want/ to have to constantly worry about what is safe to open. This isn't their fault, any more than it's my fault when I expect my refrigerator to keep my food cold. My point is only that if you're knowledgeable about computers, and are willing to exercise some minimal caution, AV is a ripoff and a waste of system resources.
* I do periodically run various rootkit detectors, and ClamAV from a linux partition -- probably once a month or so, just to confirm that I'm still virus-free.
The implied point of your original comment is that Windows is a closed-source, proprietary system. You're presumably an opponent of MS, which is perfectly fine; I totally get it. You presumably have philosophical objections to MS. Again, totally understandable.
But the story is about the linux kernel, not MS. It took all of, what, 10-15 comments -- including the usual "first!" post crap -- for there to be some sort of anti-MS comment posted. If the story is about MS or something that MS somehow affects, then go ahead and rip into them. But it's a little tiring to see these MS digs in stories that, when you get right down to it, are about something else entirely.
Phew. You sure did a read a lot into one little sentence. Deep breath in... hold it... let it out. Relax. Deep breath in...
I think that's something that the game companies are just not buying a clue on. The fancy, invasive new DRM is not any more effective than a simple requirement of having the CD/DVD in the drive. THat will prevent the casual copying, which is really all that you can ever expect out of anti-piracy measures in the first place.
NWN1/2 doesn't really target the same audience that MMORPGs do, although - as your comment shows - they are often perceived as doing so.
As opposed to the one-size-fits all style of MMORPGs, NWN1/2 online games are built up around small communities of players who create their own servers. You can browse online and find hundreds of servers in unique environments, with different playstyles, etc.
On many of those worlds, the things you do will directly impact the world itself - in minor ways such as NPCs getting added or removed, or in more significant ways such as altering the storylines, new zones to get built, altering or destroying existing ones, etc.
So, as far as I can tell, we've been saying basically the same thing. I was just taking into account the 'global' view of what is happening in the OS; and not just what is mapped into the application space.
You did specify that it wasn't loaded into the apps memory space (though ignoring the fact that the/entire thing/ is loaded into the OS itself). However, you did this in response to this statement, I assume:
The issue is similar to the ones that have always plagued Java; you have to load massive libraries to do miniscule tasks and that causes noticeable overhead, when they were sadly intended to save time! Firefox is simply more minimal, and it is through their actively sought after security footprint that they deliver better performance by default.
In that context, the the OP is right - and your reply is wrong by omission./That/ is what I was responding to. The OS loads the entirety of the code segment into memory - even if a single is requesting it, and that process needs only the smallest subset of the code. He did not mention the application's memory space - you raised that to argue against his valid point (and to insult him for no apparent reason, I might add).
Not really. The OS loads the/entire code/ segment into memory. That's all I said; and it remains correct. I did/not/ say that each process loads it into private memory space - except in special circumstances (code blocks marked as read/write), that does not happen.
You've made my point for me. *Code* is shared, and it is loaded ALL AT ONCE (to borrow your mannerisms). If it is unloaded, it is unloaded ALL AT ONCE. Clear now?
Speaking of twisting, note how I did/not/ say a copy of the code was loaded for each instance. I didn't, even though you seem to base your entire argument around it.
When you load a library, & call out its API functions to leverage in another executable (usually an.exe)?
You don't LOAD THE WHOLE THING @ ONCE into the calling app's memory space - YOU ONLY LOAD THE FUNCTION PORTION YOU NEED, period.
Unfortunately for you, stating something in all-caps and bold doesn't force it to be reality.
Each DLL's code is loaded once, globally (in most circumstances), the first time it is needed by the system (i.e. if your app links to it, and you start the application, the global instance of the DLL code is loaded.). It is loaded fully and completely, not partially as you stated.
The data portion of each DLL is specific to each app (usually), and a full copy is made by each and every application that references that DLL.
That's assuming that he's not just contributing patches to a pet project or three. There's not really enough information to be sure, but from his post it doesn't/seem/ like he's doing this specifically for FSF or any organization (most LUGs aren't recognized nonprofits).
There would be reason to believe terrorists where getting on the planes IF PLANES WHERE BEING TERRORIZED.
The simple fact that plane hijacking has dropped to almost nothing means it's working. I've been alive long enough to remember hijackings being pretty much commonplace.
I've been alive that long too. Funny, though - in the last month, there were three hijacking attempts that I could find just now, world-wide. In what world do you live in now that these are not occurring on a regular basis?
Perhaps if I saw fewer articles like this one (which strongly underline how ineffectual TSA is) I'd be a little less cynical. But can you honestly tell me that the people who think they have to confiscate toothpaste, shampoo, lighters, and nail clippers and yet missed the author flying with a loaded 'beer belly' are capable of stopping someone who boards a plane with dark intent?
I realize I"m treading deep into people's comfort zones here; but the fact is simple. Unless TSA starts performing a full strip and cavity search of every single passenger, they cannot stop any but the most dim-witted of would-be terrorists - and pre-TSA measures were sufficient to catch those who are/that/ stupid.
There's another more obvious answer to your question: does it occur to you that maybe, they've already accomplished what they set out to? We're so scared, we're willing to/allow/ the TSA to exist. Our economy is in shambles. Our president has been waging an eight year war on our Constitutional rights. I don't know that in their shoes, I'd see a need to do any more than they've already done.
How about the one they caught today, the one with the pipe bomb?
It's easy to talk out your ass when you don't know what you're talking about, isn't it?
You mean the guy who had fireworks, etc? Assuming he wasn't just a moron (that's my bet): "Transportation Security Administration security officers first noticed a 7-inch folding knife in Nobles' bag, followed by the pipe bomb."
This would have been caught by the measures in place well before 9/11, no TSA necessary, because the guy was an idiot. But hey - they can pat themselves on the back and you can feel nice and secure that you're so well protected. Just make sure that you don't read the/. article above, it may open your eyes a bit wider than you'd like.
You don't have to announce how you caught them to say that you caught them...
I can think of another reason. Terrorists work on terror, usually by causing damage. If they get people afraid of flying because they learn a large number of people with ill intent are being caught, they've got their effect without risking their own lives. Win-win.
That's a plausible reason, but by that logic - if they can scare us into willingly turning a blind eye to the overt invasion of privacy that the TSA represents without risking their own lives, I'd say they're well ahead of the game.
How do you figure? In your linked example, it was the passengers who stopped the hijack attempt from succeeding - not any kind of security measures that had been put in place.
You would think that if it were effective, they would be capturing people with provable ill intent. And you'd further think that if they did this, they'd want to tell th e world, loudly! After all, they could justify their own existence that way.
Yet somehow, we haven't heard of one Mighty Terrorist being caught by TSA. ONe must assume that this is because they are not/being/ caught. So... if TSA is not catching terrorists, what the hell are they doing?
The sole purpose is to make people feel protected (or violated, depending on your perspective). There's a sizeable portion of the population who feels reassured when senior citizens and soccer moms get pulled out of line for a closer search.
The national guard doesn't fear your shotgun because they have much more to fear from the guardsmen who defected when they ordered them to take your shotgun.
Don't denigrate our men and women in uniform by suggesting they would willingly trample on the rights of the American people.
It's nothing to do with denigrating our soldiers. It's a lot more to do with human nature. Take a look at some of the many studies demonstrating just how far people will go when "under orders". The overall finding is that even those things which people would never ordinarily do, they have a very good chance of doing if under orders.
A - Yes, they should. And SQL bug at your library might put a book on the wrong shelf; the same bug in a table at the IRS leads to audits, tax fraud investigations, and has serious implications on your life. A program in such a high profile program absolutely needs to be as bug free as possible.
From the article:
pecific security weaknesses detected in the CADE system included contractors' ability to change configuration settings without notice or approval, the transfer of taxpayers' personal identifiable information without encryption and a failure to properly remove taxpayer data from system memory devices before they're reused.
The issue as described here (and remember this is an internal application) indicates that the concerns you've raised - while valid in general - don't apply here. The article mamkes a big deal over the fact that they went ahead in spite of known security holes. It doesn't really cover the fact that for it to be a/known/ security hole, several levels of people have signed off on it and deemed it not to be a significant risk.
B - This isn't even about bugs in implementation, the issue is a security vulnerability due to the design. You'll secure your email so some packet snooper can't see the pictures from that party last night, but you're comfortable with the IRS rolling out a system that would allow the same snooper to interfere with the recording of billions of dollars in transactions?
That's a straw man. This isn't what these flaws allow, based on the information we have available. We also see nothing to say it's a flawed design - the facts we have just don't support that conclusion.
I think that for all that people complain about meetings, there's probably a large percentage who enjoy them - it gets them away from usual work, it can be a more relaxed environment, it kills a part of the day, etc...
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed; nor should we expect them to. The vast majority of computer users want to use the computer in the same way that they use any other appliance; and frankly, they /should/ be able to. Unfortunately, the only way to give them that experience is to a) line up all malware authors and shoot them; or b) provide them with locked-down machines that can only run Authorized Content in an Approved Manner.
So far with Avast, AVG, (mind you one virus product per computer only) ZoneAlarm, FireFox, and some basic sense I haven't been hit.
Somehow with some basic common sense, no antivirus software*, and a hardware router/firewall, the last time I was hit was in 1988 - a non-destructive variant of Stoned which was transferred to my PC by infected floppy. In my experience so far, Antivirus is only necessary if you don't verify your file sources; and/or are in the habit of opening things without thinking. (Or allowing applications to do so for you automatically.) Common sense alone suffices to keep you safe.
I'm not saying that there isn't a need for antivirus - hordes of computer users rightfully don't /want/ to have to constantly worry about what is safe to open. This isn't their fault, any more than it's my fault when I expect my refrigerator to keep my food cold. My point is only that if you're knowledgeable about computers, and are willing to exercise some minimal caution, AV is a ripoff and a waste of system resources.
* I do periodically run various rootkit detectors, and ClamAV from a linux partition -- probably once a month or so, just to confirm that I'm still virus-free.
Do I know what is good to run on my computers? And if the answer to that is "yes", then ...
The problem with that, of course, is that the answer is "no" for most people.
The implied point of your original comment is that Windows is a closed-source, proprietary system. You're presumably an opponent of MS, which is perfectly fine; I totally get it. You presumably have philosophical objections to MS. Again, totally understandable. But the story is about the linux kernel, not MS. It took all of, what, 10-15 comments -- including the usual "first!" post crap -- for there to be some sort of anti-MS comment posted. If the story is about MS or something that MS somehow affects, then go ahead and rip into them. But it's a little tiring to see these MS digs in stories that, when you get right down to it, are about something else entirely.
Phew. You sure did a read a lot into one little sentence. Deep breath in... hold it... let it out. Relax. Deep breath in...
I think that's something that the game companies are just not buying a clue on. The fancy, invasive new DRM is not any more effective than a simple requirement of having the CD/DVD in the drive. THat will prevent the casual copying, which is really all that you can ever expect out of anti-piracy measures in the first place.
As opposed to the one-size-fits all style of MMORPGs, NWN1/2 online games are built up around small communities of players who create their own servers. You can browse online and find hundreds of servers in unique environments, with different playstyles, etc.
On many of those worlds, the things you do will directly impact the world itself - in minor ways such as NPCs getting added or removed, or in more significant ways such as altering the storylines, new zones to get built, altering or destroying existing ones, etc.
So, as far as I can tell, we've been saying basically the same thing. I was just taking into account the 'global' view of what is happening in the OS; and not just what is mapped into the application space.
The issue is similar to the ones that have always plagued Java; you have to load massive libraries to do miniscule tasks and that causes noticeable overhead, when they were sadly intended to save time! Firefox is simply more minimal, and it is through their actively sought after security footprint that they deliver better performance by default.
In that context, the the OP is right - and your reply is wrong by omission. /That/ is what I was responding to. The OS loads the entirety of the code segment into memory - even if a single is requesting it, and that process needs only the smallest subset of the code. He did not mention the application's memory space - you raised that to argue against his valid point (and to insult him for no apparent reason, I might add).
Not really. The OS loads the /entire code/ segment into memory. That's all I said; and it remains correct. I did /not/ say that each process loads it into private memory space - except in special circumstances (code blocks marked as read/write), that does not happen.
Speaking of twisting, note how I did /not/ say a copy of the code was loaded for each instance. I didn't, even though you seem to base your entire argument around it.
When you load a library, & call out its API functions to leverage in another executable (usually an .exe)?
You don't LOAD THE WHOLE THING @ ONCE into the calling app's memory space - YOU ONLY LOAD THE FUNCTION PORTION YOU NEED, period.
Unfortunately for you, stating something in all-caps and bold doesn't force it to be reality.
Each DLL's code is loaded once, globally (in most circumstances), the first time it is needed by the system (i.e. if your app links to it, and you start the application, the global instance of the DLL code is loaded.). It is loaded fully and completely, not partially as you stated.
The data portion of each DLL is specific to each app (usually), and a full copy is made by each and every application that references that DLL.
That's assuming that he's not just contributing patches to a pet project or three. There's not really enough information to be sure, but from his post it doesn't /seem/ like he's doing this specifically for FSF or any organization (most LUGs aren't recognized nonprofits).
Right, but is developing OSS software considered work for a qualified volunteer organization? It doesn't seem that it could be...
I read it before I posted, thus posted with full awareness of what I was posting about. Did you?
I did, which is why I don't understand how you're trying to use this to make a point of any kind.
There would be reason to believe terrorists where getting on the planes IF PLANES WHERE BEING TERRORIZED. The simple fact that plane hijacking has dropped to almost nothing means it's working. I've been alive long enough to remember hijackings being pretty much commonplace.
I've been alive that long too. Funny, though - in the last month, there were three hijacking attempts that I could find just now, world-wide. In what world do you live in now that these are not occurring on a regular basis?
Perhaps if I saw fewer articles like this one (which strongly underline how ineffectual TSA is) I'd be a little less cynical. But can you honestly tell me that the people who think they have to confiscate toothpaste, shampoo, lighters, and nail clippers and yet missed the author flying with a loaded 'beer belly' are capable of stopping someone who boards a plane with dark intent?
I realize I"m treading deep into people's comfort zones here; but the fact is simple. Unless TSA starts performing a full strip and cavity search of every single passenger, they cannot stop any but the most dim-witted of would-be terrorists - and pre-TSA measures were sufficient to catch those who are /that/ stupid.
There's another more obvious answer to your question: does it occur to you that maybe, they've already accomplished what they set out to? We're so scared, we're willing to /allow/ the TSA to exist. Our economy is in shambles. Our president has been waging an eight year war on our Constitutional rights. I don't know that in their shoes, I'd see a need to do any more than they've already done.
How about the one they caught today, the one with the pipe bomb?
It's easy to talk out your ass when you don't know what you're talking about, isn't it?
You mean the guy who had fireworks, etc? Assuming he wasn't just a moron (that's my bet): "Transportation Security Administration security officers first noticed a 7-inch folding knife in Nobles' bag, followed by the pipe bomb."
This would have been caught by the measures in place well before 9/11, no TSA necessary, because the guy was an idiot. But hey - they can pat themselves on the back and you can feel nice and secure that you're so well protected. Just make sure that you don't read the /. article above, it may open your eyes a bit wider than you'd like.
I can think of another reason. Terrorists work on terror, usually by causing damage. If they get people afraid of flying because they learn a large number of people with ill intent are being caught, they've got their effect without risking their own lives. Win-win.
That's a plausible reason, but by that logic - if they can scare us into willingly turning a blind eye to the overt invasion of privacy that the TSA represents without risking their own lives, I'd say they're well ahead of the game.
How do you figure? In your linked example, it was the passengers who stopped the hijack attempt from succeeding - not any kind of security measures that had been put in place.
You would think that if it were effective, they would be capturing people with provable ill intent. And you'd further think that if they did this, they'd want to tell th e world, loudly! After all, they could justify their own existence that way.
Yet somehow, we haven't heard of one Mighty Terrorist being caught by TSA. ONe must assume that this is because they are not /being/ caught. So... if TSA is not catching terrorists, what the hell are they doing?
The sole purpose is to make people feel protected (or violated, depending on your perspective). There's a sizeable portion of the population who feels reassured when senior citizens and soccer moms get pulled out of line for a closer search.
Land of the free.
Right.
The national guard doesn't fear your shotgun because they have much more to fear from the guardsmen who defected when they ordered them to take your shotgun. Don't denigrate our men and women in uniform by suggesting they would willingly trample on the rights of the American people.
It's nothing to do with denigrating our soldiers. It's a lot more to do with human nature. Take a look at some of the many studies demonstrating just how far people will go when "under orders". The overall finding is that even those things which people would never ordinarily do, they have a very good chance of doing if under orders.
Two things (simplified):
A - Yes, they should. And SQL bug at your library might put a book on the wrong shelf; the same bug in a table at the IRS leads to audits, tax fraud investigations, and has serious implications on your life. A program in such a high profile program absolutely needs to be as bug free as possible.
From the article:
pecific security weaknesses detected in the CADE system included contractors' ability to change configuration settings without notice or approval, the transfer of taxpayers' personal identifiable information without encryption and a failure to properly remove taxpayer data from system memory devices before they're reused.
The issue as described here (and remember this is an internal application) indicates that the concerns you've raised - while valid in general - don't apply here. The article mamkes a big deal over the fact that they went ahead in spite of known security holes. It doesn't really cover the fact that for it to be a /known/ security hole, several levels of people have signed off on it and deemed it not to be a significant risk.
B - This isn't even about bugs in implementation, the issue is a security vulnerability due to the design. You'll secure your email so some packet snooper can't see the pictures from that party last night, but you're comfortable with the IRS rolling out a system that would allow the same snooper to interfere with the recording of billions of dollars in transactions?
That's a straw man. This isn't what these flaws allow, based on the information we have available. We also see nothing to say it's a flawed design - the facts we have just don't support that conclusion.
Hey look, I can generalize too!
The person who mindlessly criticizes Mac fans is the same person who cannot open his mouth without looking like an ass.
Yeah? Well... well... all people who mindlessly criticize people who mindlessly criticize mac fans are poopie-heads!
What you're looking for isn't a CRPG, it's real life. That's the only way you're going to get the infinite span of choices that you seek.
No I don't think so.
I think that for all that people complain about meetings, there's probably a large percentage who enjoy them - it gets them away from usual work, it can be a more relaxed environment, it kills a part of the day, etc...