If I have the flu, I have a moral duty not to infect others with it. But what if, through necessity or ignorance, I do so anyway? Others in my environment do not have the right to forcibly vaccinate me against the flu or to force-feed me antibiotics, much less to restrain me from going about my business (unless they work in a sterile environment).
The appropriate response for people at risk of catching my disease is to avoid me, to take steps to protect themselves from me--not to stage a counter-invasion.
You can write C code to extend Python. It's a very common technique. The advantage of C, and it is a big advantage, is speed... but most programs don't need that speed advantage everywhere, only in a few intense and heavily-used operations. (Optimize the innermost loop...)
The advantages of Python for almost every other operation are really too numerous to list.
Your point about "right tool for the right job" is well taken. _Good_ Python programmers learn the C extension API, and use it when appropriate. Guido van Rossum, the creator of Python, even states in one of his papers "If you feel the need for speed, go for built-in functions - you can't beat a loop written in C."
C-sharp is a musical key. This is catchy because it has musical connotations, and also because C# is one higher than C. There are doubtless other reasons a bunch of soulless marketing trolls thought this was clever.
As a developer of Internet applications (different from a web developer, but still...) I rely heavily on standards to get my job done, and IE kills standards, so it makes my job harder. Thus, if MS loses this battle, I'll be happy.
As a developer of open source software, I rely heavily on software concepts, some of which may have been patented at some point or other. Bad patent law kills software development, so it makes my job harder. If MS wins this battle, it'll be a blow struck against bad patent law. It'll also piss MS off quite a bit. MS doesn't try to profit from its patents too much; it uses them defensively against Eolas and its kin by doing patent swaps; the result of this case might be an MS lobby against software patents. This would make me really happy.
A trusted PC interface means that those-that-publish will be able to do so electronically without knowing that it's going to be pirated the next day.
Horseshit. This isn't what it's intended to do, and believe me, it won't do this. If I make a copy of your software using dd, I've copied the whole thing, encryption and all. Anyone who runs my dd'd copy will have perfectly functional software. Or did you think TCPA would suddenly cause all unprotected computers to disappear?
Neither do I consider a program being able to lock its own files a bad thing--since MS would be shooting themselves in the foot operatability-wise if it's impossible to tell the program to move the files to "public space."
Oh, FUCK. Are you kidding? This is Slashdot, I assume you've heard of open source. To get a program signed, you have to pay someone to use their code signing keys. Signing it yourself doesn't work, because the OS doesn't trust "your" keys. That means every piece of open-source software that wants to run on these platforms has to pay to move into public space. They won't do it.
The software I write is paid for by my organization, and I'm still running into the problem of code signing and paying to make something public. My project's task is to automate Office XP. Office XP won't run macros that aren't signed, which means I have to do one of two things: 1) pay to get a certificate to sign my code or 2) tell the user to install the self-signing certificate, ignoring the very loud warnings that blare when they attempt to do so.
If only it were Linux-oriented
on
Ghost for Unix
·
· Score: 1
Fine, so the attack was unintelligent. What will happen when someone attacks MAJORLY and INTELLIGENTLY?
This gets my panties in a knot. A piddly attack brought down 65% of the root name servers! A good attack would have brought them all down! That doesn't that worry you?
I'd venture that they have to reverse engineer their product with every new release. It's probably easier than figuring out what modules connect where...
Bear in mind I'm not an expert in optics or photography, and this is only a rough sketch of what could be done.
We can easily scientifically validate whether digital film or analog film is better, and at exactly what resolution they are better. Construct a poster of an enormous barcode... row upon row upon row of millions of tiny lines. At first, make it finer-detailed than you can possibly resolve with either camera. Set up your analog camera so that the poster exactly fills the frame, then snap a shot, print it out to the size of the original (make sure you use a method of printing that preserves the detail in the photographic image), and run a barcode scanner on the printed result.
If you get the wrong result from your scan, construct a new poster with slightly less fine detail, and do it all again. Repeat until you get the correct scan from the printed result.
Then take the same shot with a digital camera at some fixed resolution. Print it out, and scan that. If you get an incorrect scan, increase the digital image resolution and try again. Repeat until the digital camera printout also scans correctly; you have now found the resolution at which the two images, analog and digital, have the same amount of detail. Any higher digital resolution should be superior to film of that quality.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that says the opposite of what you think it says.
"A remote compromise can not be excluded. [emph mine]"
It sounds to me like they're saying, don't rule out remote exploits. I'm too lazy to look up what EDI and EDX are right now, but I think they're the code execution registers on x86.
Linus Torvalds is once quoted as saying, 'Iris scanners in airports are a really bad idea because people's privacy will be invaded and that is not good.'
. . . right? Am I supposed to go to the music store with a six-page printout of those labels and make sure something's not on that list before I pay for it?
Does the phrase "needle in a haystack" mean anything to you? I'm all for boycotting the RIAA, but believe me, that list is not gonna help.
Microsoft monopoly+Media Monopoly=Palladium for everyone.
Very simply: 1. Palladium-encrypted (broken) content media helps keep Content Industries (contrast with: Artists) alive by giving them control, so they like it.
2. As soon as it's profitable to do so, the CIs will Palladium-encrypt (break) every piece of media they can.
3. When Palladium is available everywhere, it will be profitable for the CIs to digitally Palladium-encrypt (break) every piece of Mass Market Content that they create.
4. Any piece of Palladium-encrypted content--DVD, Music CD, software program--that is not signed will fail to play unless Palladium is there to decrypt it.
5. The MS monopoly (and Intel's and AMD's respective complicity in that monopoly) can make sure that Palladium is available almost everywhere at once.
6. When broken content is the norm, Mac and Linux will not be able to use that content any more without supporting Palladium.
7. Mac and Linux will have to either support Palladium or (illegally!!, in the US) circumvent it to be useful.
8. Linux is not an organization, so it will likely go in both directions at once.
9. Mac is an organization, and it will probably not support circumvention.
This is very, very bad. Our best hope is for a severe Microsoft anti-trust penalty, and for our legislators to wise up and stop passing laws to prop up business plans.
Everyone and their dog already has a pirated copy of Harry Potter. I just got a copy of pirated Harry Potter in the mail yesterday as a free sample. If I went into CompUSA I could probably buy a 10-pack of pirated Harry Potter for $6.99.
If you have to tell people it's funny, it may not be funny. Also, let's assume there actually are humor-impaired people (not so difficult to believe). By including this disclaimer, you're presumably trying to keep them from modding you down. However, you're overtly calling attention to their disability, which will actually increase their chance of modding you down.
There is a guy recognized as a genius in the Tobacco industry. I read that twenty odd years ago [ . . . ]
Sure, buddy. You're about to read the real reason why cars run on gasoline:
Cars run on gasoline because of a recognized genius in the OPEC world. Over a century ago, he saw that his country had no natural resources except a heap of decomposed dinosaurs. So he persuaded Henry Ford to design the automobile, so there'd be something to use refined oil in, thereby ensuring the wealth of his descendants.
Did you believe that? I think you probably did. So who's this tobacco genius? Name? Source?
Slashdot Mirror
If I have the flu, I have a moral duty not to infect others with it. But what if, through necessity or ignorance, I do so anyway? Others in my environment do not have the right to forcibly vaccinate me against the flu or to force-feed me antibiotics, much less to restrain me from going about my business (unless they work in a sterile environment).
The appropriate response for people at risk of catching my disease is to avoid me, to take steps to protect themselves from me--not to stage a counter-invasion.
The rabbit is the only one that is a rabbit. The others fall into the set "not-rabbit".
You can write C code to extend Python. It's a very common technique. The advantage of C, and it is a big advantage, is speed... but most programs don't need that speed advantage everywhere, only in a few intense and heavily-used operations. (Optimize the innermost loop...)
The advantages of Python for almost every other operation are really too numerous to list.
Your point about "right tool for the right job" is well taken. _Good_ Python programmers learn the C extension API, and use it when appropriate. Guido van Rossum, the creator of Python, even states in one of his papers "If you feel the need for speed, go for built-in functions - you can't beat a loop written in C."
I guess we could have built some more fucking bombs.
And every other "too" can be stripped of its second "o" with no significant impact on your message.
And not one of you has taken a piano lesson?
C-sharp is a musical key. This is catchy because it has musical connotations, and also because C# is one higher than C. There are doubtless other reasons a bunch of soulless marketing trolls thought this was clever.
See sig for what I think about the whole mess.
As a developer of Internet applications (different from a web developer, but still...) I rely heavily on standards to get my job done, and IE kills standards, so it makes my job harder. Thus, if MS loses this battle, I'll be happy.
As a developer of open source software, I rely heavily on software concepts, some of which may have been patented at some point or other. Bad patent law kills software development, so it makes my job harder. If MS wins this battle, it'll be a blow struck against bad patent law. It'll also piss MS off quite a bit. MS doesn't try to profit from its patents too much; it uses them defensively against Eolas and its kin by doing patent swaps; the result of this case might be an MS lobby against software patents. This would make me really happy.
I don't see how I can lose this one.
A trusted PC interface means that those-that-publish will be able to do so electronically without knowing that it's going to be pirated the next day.
Horseshit. This isn't what it's intended to do, and believe me, it won't do this. If I make a copy of your software using dd, I've copied the whole thing, encryption and all. Anyone who runs my dd'd copy will have perfectly functional software. Or did you think TCPA would suddenly cause all unprotected computers to disappear?
Neither do I consider a program being able to lock its own files a bad thing--since MS would be shooting themselves in the foot operatability-wise if it's impossible to tell the program to move the files to "public space."
Oh, FUCK. Are you kidding? This is Slashdot, I assume you've heard of open source. To get a program signed, you have to pay someone to use their code signing keys. Signing it yourself doesn't work, because the OS doesn't trust "your" keys. That means every piece of open-source software that wants to run on these platforms has to pay to move into public space. They won't do it.
The software I write is paid for by my organization, and I'm still running into the problem of code signing and paying to make something public. My project's task is to automate Office XP. Office XP won't run macros that aren't signed, which means I have to do one of two things: 1) pay to get a certificate to sign my code or 2) tell the user to install the self-signing certificate, ignoring the very loud warnings that blare when they attempt to do so.
They could call it "Lust".
There's only one critical file? Hey, just email it to me, I'll keep it on my hard drive. If anyone needs it, just shoot me an email.
piddly and unintelligent
Fine, so the attack was unintelligent. What will happen when someone attacks MAJORLY and INTELLIGENTLY?
This gets my panties in a knot. A piddly attack brought down 65% of the root name servers! A good attack would have brought them all down! That doesn't that worry you?
You're thinking of the Bureau of Drinking, Smoking and Shooting.
I'd venture that they have to reverse engineer their product with every new release. It's probably easier than figuring out what modules connect where...
. . . this URL
Bear in mind I'm not an expert in optics or photography, and this is only a rough sketch of what could be done.
We can easily scientifically validate whether digital film or analog film is better, and at exactly what resolution they are better. Construct a poster of an enormous barcode... row upon row upon row of millions of tiny lines. At first, make it finer-detailed than you can possibly resolve with either camera. Set up your analog camera so that the poster exactly fills the frame, then snap a shot, print it out to the size of the original (make sure you use a method of printing that preserves the detail in the photographic image), and run a barcode scanner on the printed result.
If you get the wrong result from your scan, construct a new poster with slightly less fine detail, and do it all again. Repeat until you get the correct scan from the printed result.
Then take the same shot with a digital camera at some fixed resolution. Print it out, and scan that. If you get an incorrect scan, increase the digital image resolution and try again. Repeat until the digital camera printout also scans correctly; you have now found the resolution at which the two images, analog and digital, have the same amount of detail. Any higher digital resolution should be superior to film of that quality.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that says the opposite of what you think it says.
"A remote compromise can not be excluded. [emph mine]"
It sounds to me like they're saying, don't rule out remote exploits. I'm too lazy to look up what EDI and EDX are right now, but I think they're the code execution registers on x86.
And deploy to 100 workstations on your LAN.
. . . right? Am I supposed to go to the music store with a six-page printout of those labels and make sure something's not on that list before I pay for it?
Does the phrase "needle in a haystack" mean anything to you? I'm all for boycotting the RIAA, but believe me, that list is not gonna help.
Microsoft monopoly+Media Monopoly=Palladium for everyone.
Very simply:
1. Palladium-encrypted (broken) content media helps keep Content Industries (contrast with: Artists) alive by giving them control, so they like it.
2. As soon as it's profitable to do so, the CIs will Palladium-encrypt (break) every piece of media they can.
3. When Palladium is available everywhere, it will be profitable for the CIs to digitally Palladium-encrypt (break) every piece of Mass Market Content that they create.
4. Any piece of Palladium-encrypted content--DVD, Music CD, software program--that is not signed will fail to play unless Palladium is there to decrypt it.
5. The MS monopoly (and Intel's and AMD's respective complicity in that monopoly) can make sure that Palladium is available almost everywhere at once.
6. When broken content is the norm, Mac and Linux will not be able to use that content any more without supporting Palladium.
7. Mac and Linux will have to either support Palladium or (illegally!!, in the US) circumvent it to be useful.
8. Linux is not an organization, so it will likely go in both directions at once.
9. Mac is an organization, and it will probably not support circumvention.
This is very, very bad. Our best hope is for a severe Microsoft anti-trust penalty, and for our legislators to wise up and stop passing laws to prop up business plans.
Everyone and their dog already has a pirated copy of Harry Potter. I just got a copy of pirated Harry Potter in the mail yesterday as a free sample. If I went into CompUSA I could probably buy a 10-pack of pirated Harry Potter for $6.99.
If you have to tell people it's funny, it may not be funny. Also, let's assume there actually are humor-impaired people (not so difficult to believe). By including this disclaimer, you're presumably trying to keep them from modding you down. However, you're overtly calling attention to their disability, which will actually increase their chance of modding you down.
"For the humor-impaired": just don't do it.
If all of our advertisements were like this, I don't think I'd even bother with blocking popups.
Now, I must go buy something at random.
Well, I give you an A for effort. I honestly didn't believe you, and you've supported your case.
Sure, buddy. You're about to read the real reason why cars run on gasoline:
Cars run on gasoline because of a recognized genius in the OPEC world. Over a century ago, he saw that his country had no natural resources except a heap of decomposed dinosaurs. So he persuaded Henry Ford to design the automobile, so there'd be something to use refined oil in, thereby ensuring the wealth of his descendants.
Did you believe that? I think you probably did. So who's this tobacco genius? Name? Source?