But the Mono-haters do more than just criticize code. They launch personal attacks against the programmer who wrote the code. They don't even want it to exist. That's not free. That's "if you don't do things my way then I will do everything in my power to make you fail".
I love the idea of Mono, personally. And the thought that there are "Free" software people who want Mono to vanish just seems hypocritical in the extreme.
I know, right? It's not like anyone is forcing free software developers to use Mono.
I thought free meant freedom to do whatever you want with the source code. Free...they keep using that word, but I do not think it means what they think it means.
Actually, yeah, I'm quite possibly the pickiest eater that you've ever known. I mean, if I didn't like it before, I don't see why I'd like it later.
Now, not liking something is not the same as feeling neutral about it. But if I'm barely able to swallow the food or drink, I take that as a cue from my body that it really, really doesn't want that in my stomach.
People tell me all the time, "beer is an acquired test." My response is that "I hear cum is an acquired taste, too, but that doesn't mean I'm interested in giving anyone head."
I've tried a few beers, and I'm pretty sure it's the hops that gross me out.
I do in fact remember Virtual Boy. From an engineering standpoint, it's actually quite fascinating. They're using a single row of red LEDs and a set of mirrors to create the image. It's almost like DLP.
I was actually considering buying a whole Virtual Boy set off of eBay. There's only like 10 or 20 games in existence, so it wouldn't be hard to get the whole collection.
How TF will the malware even know it's being paged out?
It doesn't need to "know" it was paged out. Malware is persistent, as soon as it gets paged out, it will probably touch files again to get paged back in. i.e. "Malware won't like [being paged out to disk] and will try to keep itself from being paged out"
And how can malware try to keep itself from being paged out?
Allocate locked pages? Touch the pages immediately after they get paged out to force them back into memory? Intercept system calls that page data out and cancel the request for pages of memory that it owns?
It can't unless it has infected the kernel, and in that case, it might as well just disable the entire scheme, which depends on a non-compromised kernel.
I do believe this is where the external verifier comes in. If it sees the process finish too quickly or too slowly, it knows something is amiss.
I believe the purpose of the technique is to page everything out to disk. Malware won't like this and will try to keep itself from being paged out. This technique then does the random bytes and hashing to see if anyone it told to GTFO has decided to stick around.
The article has a little trouble using quotations, or at least maybe that's how people do it in the UK? I don't mean that as an offense, but rather, in US papers we seem to pepper the articles with double quote marks.
Oh, one last thing. You like to look at "income" to prove that the poor aren't getting poorer.
Debt is not a part of income. It is, however, a part of wealth. You conveniently ignore when the poor need to sink further into debt to make up for their lack of income. Believe it or not, debt can make you poorer even if your income goes up.
When I said "cherry picking", I meant choosing GDP per capita. This is a cherry-picked statistic that will hide the true changes in wealth that are occurring. Mean and median are not even sufficient, you need to see the percentiles.
Once you look at the percentiles, it becomes plainly apparent that the issue is stagnant wages. Over the long term, the wages of the bottom 50% are barely changing. Only a strict interpretation of "increasing" could possibly apply to them.
BTW, do some research on CPI and come back to tell me that it's an actual measure of real inflation, and that there's no margin of error in the measurement that could wipe out the puny increase in income for the poor as a block.
Here's the real kicker, though. Wealth is what started this. Carlos Slim is worth $53 billion. He did not make $53 billion this year.
Straw man. I never said everyone should have everything that they ever wanted.
What I desire is less income inequality and less wealth inequality. That the people who are creating wealth with their hands and minds, actually producing value, get some of it back.
Whether you're talking about the minority that experiences loss, or the majority that experiences gain but just 'not enough' gain for your taste, I don't care.
So some "poor" can become "poorer" (that "minority that experiences loss"), but that can't mean the poor are becoming poorer because the rich are becoming so much richer that it hides the losses of the poor from the statistics you cherry-pick.
Besides, most Americans make more stuff and better stuff, but for over 50% of them, their wages don't improve because the vast majority of the increased income doesn't go to those creating the *real* wealth. So long as GDP per capita increases, you "don't care".
My only point is that the old chestnut of the 'rich get richer and the poor get poorer' is a lie.
If you don't see how inflation can make you poorer while allowing your income to increase, then you're "so out of touch with reality that I can't do anything for you."
It is undeniable that in terms of the overall history of this nation GNI/GDP per person has gone up, not down. Period, the end.
Ugh...you must have missed the part about how the people at the top will distort the mean GDP per capita. Then there's accounting for inflation, and the debate on whether or not CPI is actually a true measure of inflation; it doesn't help if your increased income purchases less. You also don't account for any downward mobility at all, as if an increase in the mean or median means that everyone's income rose.
Basically all this boils down to is you're complaining that the increase 'isn't enough'.
You are almost correct. I firmly believe that at a below a certain point, "increases" in income don't actually get you any more effective purchasing power...if you make $1 more this year than last year, did your income really "increase", or did it really "stay the same"? Ever heard the term "stagnant wages"?
Americans in the bottom 95% are the ones generating most the wealth; they are building things, designing gadgets, transporting goods, preparing food, disposing of trash, teaching children, keeping streets safe, healing wounds, and so on. But most of the income goes to the top 5%. You are apparently having problems with this whole wealth vs. income thing.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the last bar in those charts indicates a negative percentange change in income for the bottom 50% of households from 2001-2004. I wonder what the updated charts would look like.
Okay, so that was only those three years. What about a longer trend? How about a historic graph of income broken down by percentiles, adjusted for "inflation" (probably CPI *gags*)?
That doesn't look too bad...until you see the logarithmic axis on the y scale. The ones at the bottom make roughly the same amount of money for the past 30 years (Trickle Down FTL), but the ones at the top are getting exponentially increasing wealth. And they stop at the 95th percentile...they probably had to exclude the 99th and 99.9th percentiles because they would have made the 95th percentile look flat.
Sure, over 30 years, the bottom 10% of households went from $8000 to $10000. But hey, $2000 more dollars, that's a positive increase alright! Can you even imagine being one of those households that makes it by on less than $10k?
It's not like there is some static pool of wealth and one person being rich requires many other poor people.
What you say only holds true if there's no scarcity. Scarcity is, itself, the static pool of "wealth" from which we all draw value. If something isn't scarce, it usually has little value, and if it is scarce it has a lot of value.
If you own the scarcest things because you have the most money, you will be depriving everyone else of that wealth...making them poor.
You can still charge someone with a crime and give them a light sentence with the reprimanded that they've received a large punishment (assuming they cared for the victim).
IANAL but I'm pretty sure the courts refer to this as "mitigating circumstances" during sentencing...
The parents have been punished enough by the natural consequences of their own actions.
That is not for you to decide. That's for a judge to decide, and maybe a jury if it went to trial. If sentenced, I'm sure the judge would take the mitigating circumstances into account. That's why we have due process.
To short circuit court procedures because you feel bad for them and they've "been punished enough" is to be no better than the conservative chicken-hawks who short circuit due process for suspected terrorists.
There's absolutely NOTHING they could do to the guy that would be worse than losing a child.
Emphasis mine.
It doesn't matter if it's "worse" than losing a child. It's called the Law. There's a reason judges are allowed leniency in sentencing - mitigating circumstances - so the accidental nature of this death will be accounted for, but to avoid the whole court process entirely is to make a mockery of our system of justice.
Slashdot Mirror
What's wrong with millimeter wavelengths? That's the same stuff as cell phones, wireless routers, your microwave...
Reading wiki shows that it was sub-mm wavelengths that were doing the fancy DNA unzipping.
I think that the bird:windmill size ratio is much, much smaller than the whale:kite ratio.
I also think that birds move much faster through air than whales move through water.
Aluminum hat technology...is that an upgrade over tin-foil hats?
I agree with you. Throwing up a video that starts automatically is fucking stupid. What is this, Geocities?
Freedom to complain or criticize the code - sure.
But the Mono-haters do more than just criticize code. They launch personal attacks against the programmer who wrote the code. They don't even want it to exist. That's not free. That's "if you don't do things my way then I will do everything in my power to make you fail".
I love the idea of Mono, personally. And the thought that there are "Free" software people who want Mono to vanish just seems hypocritical in the extreme.
I know, right? It's not like anyone is forcing free software developers to use Mono.
I thought free meant freedom to do whatever you want with the source code. Free...they keep using that word, but I do not think it means what they think it means.
>.>
<.<
Actually, yeah, I'm quite possibly the pickiest eater that you've ever known. I mean, if I didn't like it before, I don't see why I'd like it later.
Now, not liking something is not the same as feeling neutral about it. But if I'm barely able to swallow the food or drink, I take that as a cue from my body that it really, really doesn't want that in my stomach.
People tell me all the time, "beer is an acquired test." My response is that "I hear cum is an acquired taste, too, but that doesn't mean I'm interested in giving anyone head."
I've tried a few beers, and I'm pretty sure it's the hops that gross me out.
I do in fact remember Virtual Boy. From an engineering standpoint, it's actually quite fascinating. They're using a single row of red LEDs and a set of mirrors to create the image. It's almost like DLP.
I was actually considering buying a whole Virtual Boy set off of eBay. There's only like 10 or 20 games in existence, so it wouldn't be hard to get the whole collection.
Yours is the best response to the question so far. Mostly because I agree, beer is gross and smoking is yuck.
Capsaicin is also alkaline, so if you consume something acidic, like orange juice, we get base + acid = salt.
How TF will the malware even know it's being paged out?
It doesn't need to "know" it was paged out. Malware is persistent, as soon as it gets paged out, it will probably touch files again to get paged back in. i.e. "Malware won't like [being paged out to disk] and will try to keep itself from being paged out"
And how can malware try to keep itself from being paged out?
Allocate locked pages? Touch the pages immediately after they get paged out to force them back into memory? Intercept system calls that page data out and cancel the request for pages of memory that it owns?
It can't unless it has infected the kernel, and in that case, it might as well just disable the entire scheme, which depends on a non-compromised kernel.
I do believe this is where the external verifier comes in. If it sees the process finish too quickly or too slowly, it knows something is amiss.
I believe the purpose of the technique is to page everything out to disk. Malware won't like this and will try to keep itself from being paged out. This technique then does the random bytes and hashing to see if anyone it told to GTFO has decided to stick around.
Peppered with quotes attributed to anonymous, unnamed sources.
I don't see the practical difference between a lack of quotation marks and a lack of sources. Both are so prone to bullshit as to be worthless.
Would that suggest a potential correlation between reaction time and general seriousness of the possible incidents?
Oh, one last thing. You like to look at "income" to prove that the poor aren't getting poorer.
Debt is not a part of income. It is, however, a part of wealth. You conveniently ignore when the poor need to sink further into debt to make up for their lack of income. Believe it or not, debt can make you poorer even if your income goes up.
When I said "cherry picking", I meant choosing GDP per capita. This is a cherry-picked statistic that will hide the true changes in wealth that are occurring. Mean and median are not even sufficient, you need to see the percentiles.
Once you look at the percentiles, it becomes plainly apparent that the issue is stagnant wages. Over the long term, the wages of the bottom 50% are barely changing. Only a strict interpretation of "increasing" could possibly apply to them.
BTW, do some research on CPI and come back to tell me that it's an actual measure of real inflation, and that there's no margin of error in the measurement that could wipe out the puny increase in income for the poor as a block.
Here's the real kicker, though. Wealth is what started this. Carlos Slim is worth $53 billion. He did not make $53 billion this year.
Straw man. I never said everyone should have everything that they ever wanted.
What I desire is less income inequality and less wealth inequality. That the people who are creating wealth with their hands and minds, actually producing value, get some of it back.
So some "poor" can become "poorer" (that "minority that experiences loss"), but that can't mean the poor are becoming poorer because the rich are becoming so much richer that it hides the losses of the poor from the statistics you cherry-pick.
Besides, most Americans make more stuff and better stuff, but for over 50% of them, their wages don't improve because the vast majority of the increased income doesn't go to those creating the *real* wealth. So long as GDP per capita increases, you "don't care".
If you don't see how inflation can make you poorer while allowing your income to increase, then you're "so out of touch with reality that I can't do anything for you."
It is undeniable that in terms of the overall history of this nation GNI/GDP per person has gone up, not down. Period, the end.
Ugh...you must have missed the part about how the people at the top will distort the mean GDP per capita. Then there's accounting for inflation, and the debate on whether or not CPI is actually a true measure of inflation; it doesn't help if your increased income purchases less. You also don't account for any downward mobility at all, as if an increase in the mean or median means that everyone's income rose.
Basically all this boils down to is you're complaining that the increase 'isn't enough'.
You are almost correct. I firmly believe that at a below a certain point, "increases" in income don't actually get you any more effective purchasing power...if you make $1 more this year than last year, did your income really "increase", or did it really "stay the same"? Ever heard the term "stagnant wages"?
Americans in the bottom 95% are the ones generating most the wealth; they are building things, designing gadgets, transporting goods, preparing food, disposing of trash, teaching children, keeping streets safe, healing wounds, and so on. But most of the income goes to the top 5%. You are apparently having problems with this whole wealth vs. income thing.
You don't know much about statistics, do you?
First, the "GDP per capita" can be grossly distorted by the top 0.1% to make it look like the average continues to increase while the median does not.
Second, we're talking about wealth, not income. If you think "income inequality" is bad, try looking at "wealth inequality" - it's far worse.
Third, the wikipedia article you cite turns against you quite well, despite being about median household income.
Percentage change in median household income by percentiles
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/02/Changeinmedianbefore-taxincomeUS1989-2004.gif
Percentange change in mean household income by percentiles
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/28/Changeinmeanbefore-taxincomeUS1989-2004.gif
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the last bar in those charts indicates a negative percentange change in income for the bottom 50% of households from 2001-2004. I wonder what the updated charts would look like.
Okay, so that was only those three years. What about a longer trend? How about a historic graph of income broken down by percentiles, adjusted for "inflation" (probably CPI *gags*)?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a7/United_States_Income_Distribution_1967-2003.svg
That doesn't look too bad...until you see the logarithmic axis on the y scale. The ones at the bottom make roughly the same amount of money for the past 30 years (Trickle Down FTL), but the ones at the top are getting exponentially increasing wealth. And they stop at the 95th percentile...they probably had to exclude the 99th and 99.9th percentiles because they would have made the 95th percentile look flat.
Sure, over 30 years, the bottom 10% of households went from $8000 to $10000. But hey, $2000 more dollars, that's a positive increase alright! Can you even imagine being one of those households that makes it by on less than $10k?
It's not like there is some static pool of wealth and one person being rich requires many other poor people.
What you say only holds true if there's no scarcity. Scarcity is, itself, the static pool of "wealth" from which we all draw value. If something isn't scarce, it usually has little value, and if it is scarce it has a lot of value.
If you own the scarcest things because you have the most money, you will be depriving everyone else of that wealth...making them poor.
It's no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. - Jiddu Krishnamurti
IANAL but I'm pretty sure the courts refer to this as "mitigating circumstances" during sentencing...
That is not for you to decide. That's for a judge to decide, and maybe a jury if it went to trial. If sentenced, I'm sure the judge would take the mitigating circumstances into account. That's why we have due process.
To short circuit court procedures because you feel bad for them and they've "been punished enough" is to be no better than the conservative chicken-hawks who short circuit due process for suspected terrorists.
Emphasis mine.
It doesn't matter if it's "worse" than losing a child. It's called the Law. There's a reason judges are allowed leniency in sentencing - mitigating circumstances - so the accidental nature of this death will be accounted for, but to avoid the whole court process entirely is to make a mockery of our system of justice.