Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Phil Carmody on 14 Mar 2007 13:04 kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes: > In article <et8nqg$8qk_002(a)s787.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > [...] > >>I almost hate to say this, but I think that understanding > >>the problem is beyond him. > > > >Definitely. I'm studying the phenomena. I have encountered this > >before but it was rare in my area. I don't think one can do > >comm and OS development without being able to breathe recursion > >and live to tell about it :-). > > You are really stupid you know. I have pointed out how to solve the > recursion problem. You just refuse to believe that it can be solved so > you obviously aren't letting yourself understand what I am talking about. > > The folks who came up with the method were obviously years ahead of you on > such subjects. It's not even a "recursion" problem. If you're recursing, you've failed to understand that linear checksums can be reversed (so you create the file to match the checksum), and are probably called "BAH", and probably rant insanely at length from a position of extreme ignorance on usenet. Phil -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./.
From: krw on 14 Mar 2007 15:12 In article <et7ktl$bq1$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net says... > In article <MPG.2060b389becb9ca598a106(a)news.individual.net>, > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >In article <et68m3$t53$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net > >says... > >> In article <et5vdg$8qk_002(a)s887.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> >In article <et3o1m$rad$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, > >> > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > >> [....] > >> >>There need not be any increase in the risk. Its all a matter of starting > >> >>with a reasonable OS and not adding buffer over runs. > >> > > >> >There will always be buffer overruns. > >> > >> Only in badly written software using languages without run time checking > >> does it happen. We now have more than enough CPU speed that buffer > >> overruns should be a thing of the past. > > > >What percentage of software over the last decade has been written in > >C/C++? How much in, say, Ada? > > How mush is "badly written"? Most software is truly horrid. I still have > a hope that this may change. It may take the deaths of a hundred cute > puppies live on TV, due to a bug, to get the point. > So you agree that software sucks, C/C++ should be banned from the planet, and Billy Gates drawn and quartered. ...and then discuss software quality. > > >> I would never network my PC to my pacemaker. > > > >I wouldn't connect mine to my toaster. Toast is simply too important > > Yes, and with real peanut butter, it is even better. > > >to trust to a PeeCee and M$ (can't drink coffee anymore, so toast > >will have to do here). > > I wouldn't trust M$ for anything. It's OK for trolling for dumb donkeys and dimbulb. > >> That said, you are assuming that the user runs as root/superuser. I very > >> rarely ever do on my home system. I do it a little more often on the work > >> system but that is because I need to directly fiddle a few hardware things > >> from time to time. > > > >M$ almost insists that users run as admin. Unix and variants are the > >opposite. What's the relative population of each group? > > With any luck, Vista will be the death of M$ and every home user will > switch to Apples. Apple should get the customers just for those great > ads. > Don't want no steenkin' Apples, now that they're x86. (Disclosure: I worked on the later G4 and G5 processors ;-) -- Keith
From: nonsense on 14 Mar 2007 19:10 Phil Carmody wrote: > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes: > >>In article <et8nqg$8qk_002(a)s787.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>[...] >> >>>>I almost hate to say this, but I think that understanding >>>>the problem is beyond him. >>> >>>Definitely. I'm studying the phenomena. I have encountered this >>>before but it was rare in my area. I don't think one can do >>>comm and OS development without being able to breathe recursion >>>and live to tell about it :-). >> >>You are really stupid you know. I have pointed out how to solve the >>recursion problem. You just refuse to believe that it can be solved so >>you obviously aren't letting yourself understand what I am talking about. >> >>The folks who came up with the method were obviously years ahead of you on >>such subjects. > > > It's not even a "recursion" problem. If you're recursing, you've > failed to understand that linear checksums can be reversed (so > you create the file to match the checksum), and are probably > called "BAH", and probably rant insanely at length from a position > of extreme ignorance on usenet. As is usual for you, you're following the beat of a drummer no one else can hear.
From: MassiveProng on 14 Mar 2007 19:16 On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:12:12 -0400, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> Gave us: >So you agree that software sucks, C/C++ should be banned from the >planet, and Billy Gates drawn and quartered. ...and then discuss >software quality. You're a Major idiot. Maybe even a General idiot. You could even be the Idiot In Chief.
From: MassiveProng on 14 Mar 2007 19:18
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:12:12 -0400, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> Gave us: >> >Don't want no steenkin' Apples, now that they're x86. (Disclosure: I >worked on the later G4 and G5 processors ;-) > That would be "worked with" Not "on", dipshit. And whoopie fuckin' do, btw. I worked with them, and what I did now protects fighter pilots. |