Does this distribution include them? It seems that every project that requires MSDev to compile these days includes #afxwin.h or one of its neighbors, and as far as I can tell none of the free *DK's supply these headers and static libs.
Having the optimizing compiler is a step forward, but (without having downloaded and installed this beast yet) I'd wager that there's still something missing.
I thought he was trying to create a google bomb. In fact, it's such a good idea, that I think I'll help him. Jack Valenti is a Motion Picture Ass Head.
Give the users something physical that has to be present in order for them to log in. There's a number of usb-key and similar solutions (there was one that looks like a button, I forget the name, but it looked neat). Don't use passwords *at all*. It's a big bullet, but eventually we're all going to bite it.
Having said that, I haven't bit it yet myself. I wonder if Debian supports any of those systems yet?:-)
What if I, over here in California (still a 1-party state, I think) logs somebody over there in New Hampshire. Am I breaking the law? Will I be extradited to New Hampshire for prosecution? Or is it only if I use the log as evidence in a trial? Only a NH trial or any trial anywhere? Hmm..
The problem isn't that windows is too secure. The problem you're describing is that Windows is not usable enough to make certain "advanced" (for lack of a better word) operations accessible to the users who need them. Important functions that are hard to reach == reduced usability. Reduced usability leads to errors and security flaws.
... Also, as another user pointed out to you, windows has runas. Runas is not exactly well-known. It's a hidden feature in a command line that's already hidden from the user as much as possible. Therefore, its usability has deliberately been reduced by the engineers of the Windows system, and it illustrates this point as well. I think the poster I linked to is dead on; usability leads to increased security, not reduced security.
Hire one of our displaced IT Workers as a courier. If anyone tries to steal the message, he'll destroy himself. Either way the unemployment rate goes down.
As grandparent already pointed out, advertisers care that you are aware of their *product* and buy their *product*, not their advertising. Being aware of their advertising might actually be counterproductive.
They've always had to work by reverse-engineering APIs. As long as they can continue to do that, they'll still thrive until the day nobody's running a microsoft server any more.
Free, published APIs would be nice, but nobody ever had them before. Develop alternatives! Nuff said.
This sounds like a first step in that process. There's no point getting peoples' attention if your software is flawed (and if, in addition, you don't have money to lobby congress). If you're trying to produce an open voting system, you must first prove its reliability on technical merits. Doing so in a public building seems like a great way to get attention. Then they'll build on that attention as Diebold's flaws get reported more and more widely.
Permit loser-pays up to the loser's own costs or some pre-set minimum (otherwise lawyers acting as own counsel will be able to get away with paying one dollar every time).
In fact, it should just be "loser pays winner amount of loser's costs". If I sue MS and lose, I pay a few hundred or whatever. If MS pays me and loses, I get lawyer fees for their entire legal department on top of my award.:-)
You've made two posts with the same apparent misconception. Subversion is not bitkeeper. Subversion is completely free. Its license is essentially MIT-ish. There's absolutely no concern by anyone that Subversion is restrictively licensed; especially when the current Linux SCS being compared to it is BitKeeper!
But they can't argue that closed source as a strategy works. The source was leaked! Their strategy was unsuccessful, and may well be catastrophic for their customers as the thousands of unfixed bugs will now see the light of day.
Re:Here's a couple I really want to know
on
Comic Book Physics
·
· Score: 1
But it makes no sense to say that there's no structure to those other modes of thinking. First of all there are rules. You're not really interested in more than the speech and maybe visual components of thought. In these modes, the structure is there; it's the neural structure at the lowest level, then the neuropil (organizations of neurons), then the cognitive components those compose. You only have to be able to get a scraping of all that to do what Xavier does.
You basically ignore all the rest; it's too low-level to bother with.
Here's a couple I really want to know
on
Comic Book Physics
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
His class covers other topics such as these, that I'd really like to know the answers to: # Is it possible to read minds as Prof. X of the X-Men does? # How much does Flash have to eat?
The second one I'd like to know because I figured out, when I was a kid, how much a regenerating troll would have to eat. (Yeah, I'm a computer geek *and* a dungeons and dragons geek.) Basically it works out that even if they're eating pure sugar, there's not enough hours in the day for them to do that.
The Professor X one is interesting because I took a psychology class in which the professor told us in no uncertain terms why telepathy was impossible. He went into the mechanics of information processing in the brain and the differences between patterns in two different brains, and concluded based on this set of facts that even if you could detect the signal generated by someone else's brain, you wouldn't be able to parse it.
To me this was preposterous, and I defended my position (unconvincingly, at the time) during his office hours. Signal processing is signal processing, and it doesn't matter whether the signal generated by the receiving station has any relationship with the signal generated by the sending station, as long as the receiver can process it. The human brain's ability to process the signal generated by the human mouth is probably not significantly more complex a task than the hypothetical ability to process the brain signal. You're not, after all, trying to glean the meaning of every nerve firing, just see what the person is thinking about. In a very real sense this is only a step away from what the person is saying, so why would the signal be more difficult to parse than human speech?
In my mind the only question remaining is whether there is any signal to be processed at all. I say that because you can detect the brain signal without drilling a hole in a person's head, that it is there to be detected, it's just a matter of having sufficiently sensitive equipment to detect it. Does the brain have this? Hard to say.
I'm not sure how FreeBSD does it, but I know how Debian does it, and the fact that those people can find out what your email address is implies that the binaries you provide are cryptographically signed. This means that you are responsible for their integrity. You could certainly insert a big backdoor, but once they found out, they'd know who did it! They don't ask who you are because they don't need to know; you're the guy who's gonna get crucified if there's a problem.
A lot of large closed-source software companies can't make this claim. There's so many developers who have access to the source, and their procedures are so inadequate to the task of keeping track of who really did what, that if a backdoor appeared in their software they couldn't tell you with any confidence who did it.
By contrast, the released sources of open projects are accompanied with md5sum's (often signed themselves), so you could say with a fair degree of certainty whose hands the software was in when the backdoor appeared.
I think the reason is more concrete than "bad PR". Whoever was helping with this case obviously has technology that is similar to the Eolas patent, or they wouldn't be able to comment on prior art. But if things go badly, and Eolas knows who they are, Microsoft won't be the only one getting sued.
Google and the wayback machine, respectively, have memories. Just because you take something off the web doesn't mean it can't be found by those services; it just means it won't respond to your browser's request. Cached results and so forth are dangerous. If there ever was leaked data about the locations of those ships, it can still probably be found somewhere, and if that information hasn't changed since it was taken off the web, it's still a problem.
This applies to any information that's ever been stored electronically; I call it the "backup tape problem". Someday, that information may (will?) find its way online, a public service will index it, and the genie will be out of the bottle forever.
Look, this does not happen. The only time people cut in is when you're in a line waiting to use an exit, and believe me, letting someone in is far less stressful than keeping someone out, never mind far less dangerous. Also, you may not have known this, but at least here in California it's illegal to speed up to prevent someone from merging. Half the time this is what tailgaters are doing, so you're breaking the law in addition to decreasing your lifespan.
Besides, who cares if someone cuts in? You'll get to your destination in the same amount of time.
Let me tell you something. Despite never having used illegal drugs of any kind (I don't even drink), I am strongly pro-legalization of marijuana and some other substances.
Does this mean I would give a presentation at a business conference wearing a shirt with a leaf and a logo that says "Legalize It"? I would not. Many people in the audience might agree with the sentiment on the shirt, but all of those people would look at me and think I'm an idiot; what I'm advertising has nothing to do with what I'm saying, and what I'm advertising is guaranteed to create controversy. The controversy distracts from the material I'm trying to present, so if I were to wear the shirt, I would be undermining myself.
Your sig is that shirt. If you want to be taken seriously, you should take it off.
I'm surprised you bring that up to ding BV fonts. What you say about BV Sans is true, but BV Sans Mono is simply, absolutely the best monospace font ever. It was clearly designed with the assistance of programmers.
If you can tell all of the following apart, you have a good font (and it's probably BV Sans Mono:-).
Well, I'd say Linux is going mainstream. They just (1 minute ago) ran a superbowl commercial paid for by IBM that has Mohammed Ali exhorting a kid representing Linux to "shake up the world".
I would have modded you insightful if I didn't want to respond so badly.
The problem that ISPs are now dealing with is that their calculations which made the "unlimited" label economically feasible in the late 90's are now way off. P2P has exploded; so has the net's general usefulness and the net-savviness of the average user; so has Internet publishing of every kind. That "unlimited" word started appearing before google became a verb, before blogging became popular, before people needed the term "file sharing".
The middle of the bandwidth bellcurve has moved up dramatically in those few years, and the company has to take into account the new median bandwidth usage, but they haven't. Ethical ways to do this would be: 1) Put pressure on upstream bandwidth infrastructure to lower their prices 2) Raise prices to consumers taking into account the new usage rates 3) Stop advertising unlimited service and charge the same rates
They of course chose (4), continue to do business the way we always have, and bill unsuspecting customers.
Slashdot Mirror
Does this distribution include them? It seems that every project that requires MSDev to compile these days includes #afxwin.h or one of its neighbors, and as far as I can tell none of the free *DK's supply these headers and static libs.
Having the optimizing compiler is a step forward, but (without having downloaded and installed this beast yet) I'd wager that there's still something missing.
I thought he was trying to create a google bomb. In fact, it's such a good idea, that I think I'll help him. Jack Valenti is a Motion Picture Ass Head.
Give the users something physical that has to be present in order for them to log in. There's a number of usb-key and similar solutions (there was one that looks like a button, I forget the name, but it looked neat). Don't use passwords *at all*. It's a big bullet, but eventually we're all going to bite it.
:-)
Having said that, I haven't bit it yet myself. I wonder if Debian supports any of those systems yet?
What if I, over here in California (still a 1-party state, I think) logs somebody over there in New Hampshire. Am I breaking the law? Will I be extradited to New Hampshire for prosecution? Or is it only if I use the log as evidence in a trial? Only a NH trial or any trial anywhere? Hmm..
The problem isn't that windows is too secure. The problem you're describing is that Windows is not usable enough to make certain "advanced" (for lack of a better word) operations accessible to the users who need them. Important functions that are hard to reach == reduced usability. Reduced usability leads to errors and security flaws.
... Also, as another user pointed out to you, windows has runas. Runas is not exactly well-known. It's a hidden feature in a command line that's already hidden from the user as much as possible. Therefore, its usability has deliberately been reduced by the engineers of the Windows system, and it illustrates this point as well. I think the poster I linked to is dead on; usability leads to increased security, not reduced security.
Hire one of our displaced IT Workers as a courier. If anyone tries to steal the message, he'll destroy himself. Either way the unemployment rate goes down.
As grandparent already pointed out, advertisers care that you are aware of their *product* and buy their *product*, not their advertising. Being aware of their advertising might actually be counterproductive.
They've always had to work by reverse-engineering APIs. As long as they can continue to do that, they'll still thrive until the day nobody's running a microsoft server any more.
Free, published APIs would be nice, but nobody ever had them before. Develop alternatives! Nuff said.
This sounds like a first step in that process. There's no point getting peoples' attention if your software is flawed (and if, in addition, you don't have money to lobby congress). If you're trying to produce an open voting system, you must first prove its reliability on technical merits. Doing so in a public building seems like a great way to get attention. Then they'll build on that attention as Diebold's flaws get reported more and more widely.
Permit loser-pays up to the loser's own costs or some pre-set minimum (otherwise lawyers acting as own counsel will be able to get away with paying one dollar every time).
:-)
In fact, it should just be "loser pays winner amount of loser's costs". If I sue MS and lose, I pay a few hundred or whatever. If MS pays me and loses, I get lawyer fees for their entire legal department on top of my award.
But I see you guys got it covered.
I'm gonna head over to a Microsoft thread to find a place to stick an awesome "Trustworthy Computing" joke I just thought up.
The reviewer mentions that he couldn't change the launchers. I have the same problem with 2.4. What's the solution to this?
You've made two posts with the same apparent misconception. Subversion is not bitkeeper. Subversion is completely free. Its license is essentially MIT-ish. There's absolutely no concern by anyone that Subversion is restrictively licensed; especially when the current Linux SCS being compared to it is BitKeeper!
But they can't argue that closed source as a strategy works. The source was leaked! Their strategy was unsuccessful, and may well be catastrophic for their customers as the thousands of unfixed bugs will now see the light of day.
But it makes no sense to say that there's no structure to those other modes of thinking. First of all there are rules. You're not really interested in more than the speech and maybe visual components of thought. In these modes, the structure is there; it's the neural structure at the lowest level, then the neuropil (organizations of neurons), then the cognitive components those compose. You only have to be able to get a scraping of all that to do what Xavier does.
You basically ignore all the rest; it's too low-level to bother with.
His class covers other topics such as these, that I'd really like to know the answers to:
# Is it possible to read minds as Prof. X of the X-Men does?
# How much does Flash have to eat?
The second one I'd like to know because I figured out, when I was a kid, how much a regenerating troll would have to eat. (Yeah, I'm a computer geek *and* a dungeons and dragons geek.) Basically it works out that even if they're eating pure sugar, there's not enough hours in the day for them to do that.
The Professor X one is interesting because I took a psychology class in which the professor told us in no uncertain terms why telepathy was impossible. He went into the mechanics of information processing in the brain and the differences between patterns in two different brains, and concluded based on this set of facts that even if you could detect the signal generated by someone else's brain, you wouldn't be able to parse it.
To me this was preposterous, and I defended my position (unconvincingly, at the time) during his office hours. Signal processing is signal processing, and it doesn't matter whether the signal generated by the receiving station has any relationship with the signal generated by the sending station, as long as the receiver can process it. The human brain's ability to process the signal generated by the human mouth is probably not significantly more complex a task than the hypothetical ability to process the brain signal. You're not, after all, trying to glean the meaning of every nerve firing, just see what the person is thinking about. In a very real sense this is only a step away from what the person is saying, so why would the signal be more difficult to parse than human speech?
In my mind the only question remaining is whether there is any signal to be processed at all. I say that because you can detect the brain signal without drilling a hole in a person's head, that it is there to be detected, it's just a matter of having sufficiently sensitive equipment to detect it. Does the brain have this? Hard to say.
I want to know what conclusion the prof reaches.
I'm not sure how FreeBSD does it, but I know how Debian does it, and the fact that those people can find out what your email address is implies that the binaries you provide are cryptographically signed. This means that you are responsible for their integrity. You could certainly insert a big backdoor, but once they found out, they'd know who did it! They don't ask who you are because they don't need to know; you're the guy who's gonna get crucified if there's a problem.
A lot of large closed-source software companies can't make this claim. There's so many developers who have access to the source, and their procedures are so inadequate to the task of keeping track of who really did what, that if a backdoor appeared in their software they couldn't tell you with any confidence who did it.
By contrast, the released sources of open projects are accompanied with md5sum's (often signed themselves), so you could say with a fair degree of certainty whose hands the software was in when the backdoor appeared.
I think the reason is more concrete than "bad PR". Whoever was helping with this case obviously has technology that is similar to the Eolas patent, or they wouldn't be able to comment on prior art. But if things go badly, and Eolas knows who they are, Microsoft won't be the only one getting sued.
Google and the wayback machine, respectively, have memories. Just because you take something off the web doesn't mean it can't be found by those services; it just means it won't respond to your browser's request. Cached results and so forth are dangerous. If there ever was leaked data about the locations of those ships, it can still probably be found somewhere, and if that information hasn't changed since it was taken off the web, it's still a problem.
This applies to any information that's ever been stored electronically; I call it the "backup tape problem". Someday, that information may (will?) find its way online, a public service will index it, and the genie will be out of the bottle forever.
Look, this does not happen. The only time people cut in is when you're in a line waiting to use an exit, and believe me, letting someone in is far less stressful than keeping someone out, never mind far less dangerous. Also, you may not have known this, but at least here in California it's illegal to speed up to prevent someone from merging. Half the time this is what tailgaters are doing, so you're breaking the law in addition to decreasing your lifespan.
Besides, who cares if someone cuts in? You'll get to your destination in the same amount of time.
Let me tell you something. Despite never having used illegal drugs of any kind (I don't even drink), I am strongly pro-legalization of marijuana and some other substances.
Does this mean I would give a presentation at a business conference wearing a shirt with a leaf and a logo that says "Legalize It"? I would not. Many people in the audience might agree with the sentiment on the shirt, but all of those people would look at me and think I'm an idiot; what I'm advertising has nothing to do with what I'm saying, and what I'm advertising is guaranteed to create controversy. The controversy distracts from the material I'm trying to present, so if I were to wear the shirt, I would be undermining myself.
Your sig is that shirt. If you want to be taken seriously, you should take it off.
I'm surprised you bring that up to ding BV fonts. What you say about BV Sans is true, but BV Sans Mono is simply, absolutely the best monospace font ever. It was clearly designed with the assistance of programmers.
:-).
If you can tell all of the following apart, you have a good font (and it's probably BV Sans Mono
|I!i1loO0({}).,`'"-_:;
I'm using it to type this comment right now.
Now they do. Those girls who didn't know what Linux is? Now they know. Along with about a billion other people who had the game on. :-)
Well, I'd say Linux is going mainstream. They just (1 minute ago) ran a superbowl commercial paid for by IBM that has Mohammed Ali exhorting a kid representing Linux to "shake up the world".
Very nicely done.
I would have modded you insightful if I didn't want to respond so badly.
The problem that ISPs are now dealing with is that their calculations which made the "unlimited" label economically feasible in the late 90's are now way off. P2P has exploded; so has the net's general usefulness and the net-savviness of the average user; so has Internet publishing of every kind. That "unlimited" word started appearing before google became a verb, before blogging became popular, before people needed the term "file sharing".
The middle of the bandwidth bellcurve has moved up dramatically in those few years, and the company has to take into account the new median bandwidth usage, but they haven't. Ethical ways to do this would be:
1) Put pressure on upstream bandwidth infrastructure to lower their prices
2) Raise prices to consumers taking into account the new usage rates
3) Stop advertising unlimited service and charge the same rates
They of course chose (4), continue to do business the way we always have, and bill unsuspecting customers.
They'll get their comeuppance for this.