You are being disingenuous and changing your argument over and over and refusing to acknowledge it. For what reason? Only you know.
YOU: "Do you believe the sun is yellow today?"
MIKE: "Sometimes the sun is yellow, other times it is red or orange. I cannot give you the details for today because the all the data is not in yet"
YOU: "You didn't answer my question, why are you avoiding my question? Is the sun yellow 2hrs from now, regardless of the timezones or any specific location on the planet you are at"
MIKE: "I don't have that data, sometimes yellow, some times orange, sometimes red. It depends upon the time of day and we don't know what the exact colour will be today. The data is not in yet and it would be dishonest of me to make any official colour guess."
YOU: "You didn't answer my question..., what colour is the sun 3 hrs from now?"
Mike didn't mention anything specific to graphic art! Fuck, he must be on the fence about copyrights for graphic art.
Geeze Mike, what IS your opinion on graphic artists? Should they have their copyrights taken away but scaled back while maximizing their right to sue and give away their content for free to other freetards to avoid having it "stolen digitally" which removes any ability of them to create copies though the original digital copy still exists on the hard drive so only one single copy floats all over the pirate sites who make infinite money through ads supported by thousands of companies who clearly don't support the graphic artists who can't even get through their legal contracts which stipulate they don't even have any control over their copyrights because the company they signed with under the presumption of fairness is selling their work to corporations who don't even know the graphic artist exists and intend on exploiting them again by paying the copyright holder $1million per view and paying pirate sites to display their ads hovering over the illegal copies of the graphic artist who's dying in a ditch starving for information on why you hate to see people earn a living through creation of art but mostly because they can't get a straight answer from you on your opinion of copyrights.
First you ask about copyright in general and despite repeated counter claims and proof, you kept asking.
Now you move on to author's rights and start the same "he didn't answer me" BS again?
It's definitely time to stop feeding your trollish responses. You're just trying to attack for the fun of it.
The more you continue, the more you lose any credibility you have left (and if you try to say the same about Mike and his non-fence sitting - you're just reinforcing the process).
Gill Cogan
Gill brings more than 25 years of venture capital investing experience in software, communications and semiconductors as well as building and leading venture capital firms.
Prior to Opus, he was a founding partner and Managing Partner of Lightspeed Venture Partners. He was also Managing General Partner at Weiss, Peck & Greer Venture Partners. Gill has invested in a wide variety of early stage information technology companies such as Vantive (NASDAQ: VNTV, acquired by PeopleSoft (NASDAQ:PSFT)), Harmonic Lightwaves, Inc. (NASDAQ: HLIT), Visigenic Software (NASDAQ: VSGN, acquired by Borland (NASDAQ: BORL)), Airgate PCS, Inc. (NASDAQ: PCSA, acquired by Alamosa Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: APCS)), P-Com (NASDAQ: PCOM), Kalpana (acquired by Cisco (NASDAQ: CSCO)), and many others.
Prior to joining WPG in 1990, Gill managed the West Coast operations of Adler & Company and was on the team that made investments in companies such as Mercury Interactive (NASDAQ: MERQ, acquired by Hewlett Packard (NYSE: HPQ)), Zoran Corporation (NASDAQ: ZRAN) and IXYS (NASDAQ: IXYS). He was one of three General Partners who formed the first independent Israeli venture fund in 1985. Gill has significant operating experience as a result of his tenure as CEO of Formtek Inc., a systems company based on technology developed at the Carnegie-Mellon University, which was acquired by Lockheed Corporation. He is Chairman of the Board of Directors of Electronics for Imaging (NASDAQ: EFII) and serves on the Board of Directors of several privately held companies. Gill holds an MBA from UCLA.
Marty Alberston
Marty has been with Guitar Center since 1979. Mr. Albertson joined Guitar Center as a salesperson and has held various positions of increasing responsibility with Guitar Center since that time. In 1980, he served as Advertising Director and in 1984 became National Sales Manager. Thereafter, in 1985 Mr. Albertson became Vice President of Corporate Development, and became the Vice President of Sales and Marketing in 1987. From 1990 to 1999, Mr. Albertson served as our Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer. In 1999, Mr. Albertson became our President and Co-Chief Executive Officer. In 2004, Mr. Albertson became our Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Albertson was elected a director in 1996.
Effective November 1, 2010 Mr. Albertson retired as Chief Executive Officer and will remain as non-executive Chairman of the Board.
Fred Bourgoise
Fred was co-architect of the groundbreaking worldwide music publishing administration service Bug Music. He was President and co-owner from 1976 until its 2006 sale to Spectrum Equity Investors. From its humble and committed beginning, Bug became the music administration gold standard and trusted island for publishers, songwriters, copyrights, and artists. While experiencing meteoric growth and success Bug evolved into the largest independent music publisher in the pre-digital-download-streaming world, with offices in Los Angeles, Nashville, New York, London, and Munich, Germany. After the Spectrum purchase, Fred continued to serve as a consultant and board member for Bug until 2009.
Fred first assisted TuneCore in 2010 as a consultant. In June 2011 he was elected to the Board of Directors.
Citation please that he's a paid shill - note: that link someone posted before where Google says (using a fucking search any idiot could do) "The following people were discussing the case while it was in trial..." does NOT count as a fucking paid shill.
Honestly, I really wish your father would have pulled out.
You're not contributing to this conversation at all with any constructive feedback.
Considering Mr Masnick's multiple statements in multiple threads and posts regarding copyright, he's only against abuse of the public domain by extending copyrights beyond absurdity.
Why don't you go troll at the RIAA's website, I'm sure they'd love to hear your pointless drivel.
We want artists reading these posts to see logic and reason, to see how they've been snowed by people afraid of competition and losing control. We want them to better themselves and succeed and earn a living, retain their rights, and contribute to society.
Again, your daddy should have pulled out or worn a condom!
Actually that's an IP blog who focuses on IP issues not IP hate.
But what do I know, I just read their statement (Mission Statement?) at the top of their blog.
Of course, since Mike Masnick commented on it, it must be total bullshit right?
That pole is more balanced that the bullshit poles taken by IP maximalists by people who were screwed over by IP holders, but convinced the problem is IP piracy.
By choice of the copyright OWNER, not the creator!!!
Big difference. Which is why DMCA's have been used against artists putting up their own work on their own sites/pages!
Free culture seeks FAIRNESS, whereby any creator can post their material and use the web as a means of distribution, without having to compromise their music or sell away all their rights.
Free culture seeks to ensure copyrights are not used to lock away culture indefinitely, which is exactly the aim of copyright maximalists. Do you know why you've heard of classical works from the 1800's and earlier? Because those works are in the public domain!
That's what promotes culture! Tell me, how exactly does locking shit down so no one can build off of the work (without paying ridiculous licenses, even off of irrelevant works that could be morphed into something relevant) help promote culture?
70 years AFTER death? What the fuck does that do?
People here don't necessarily hate copyright, they hate copyright abuse and that's exactly what free culture tries to fight.
You know what your copyright monopolist culture hates, competition! Because you know you can't compete? Or is it you don't know how to share with other creators?
Do you honestly think cultures benefit from hiding things away or locking them down?
Hey, I got a plan, build your time machine, go to Bell Labs, patent the transistor, then lock that fucker up with IP up the ass so no one can build upon the technology and then try to return home and see what the world would be like!
As ordered by the court, Google has submitted a new and longer list of bloggers and other commentators who have written about its ongoing patent litigation with Oracle, even as it continues to insist that it has never paid anyone to report or comment on the case.
Given bullshit patent disputes are hardly of interest to the mass populous, you won't find too many mainstream media outlets discussing this on their front pages.
Could that be why copyright apologists who have a hardon for Google keep insisting that if you report something about Google that the mainstream does not, you're somehow a shill?
I think so! Thanks for confirming.
I wonder what other extrapolations we can make, oh, how about the movie industry will lose $850 000 000 000 000 000 in 2013 due to piracy?
Google could not exist if it were not for the pirates uploading their pirated versions of copyrighted works! That's all people have ever searched for and that's what Google was built for.
Nevermind all the data that shows pornography as the main driver of Google's popularity (and the interest of the public in the web), it's all because of Google's ability to locate pirated content, for free, while artists starve and Google prospers!
...
Ugh, writing this trash is boring, how does the Trichordist keep it up? How do their trolls keep it up? Seriously, it's so damn boring!
LOGIC: IPAddress == MAC Address == Dirty Pirate
PROCESS:
0) Find IPAddress using BitTorrent
1) Sue IPAddress owner
2) Ignore due process, break laws, bribe congress/judges
3) Kill competition by killing all channels that didn't exist before 1999
4) Hypnotize entire planet to buy what is sold
5) Produce/support/release works from one artist (hired under Works for Hire) and profit into the future!
You forgot:
0x00) Mike is a pirate
0x02) Mike is anti-copyright
0x04) Mike is a Google shill
0x08) Mike works for Google
0x10) Mike hates artists
0x12) Mike wants artists to starve
0x14) Mike wants to kill culture
0x18) Mike wants the entire economy to collapse
0x20) Mike breaks laws constantly and encourages the same
Did you create a perfect match to his financial dollars and while you copied those dollars, leaving the original in place, did you notice his account balance remained unchanged?
You can be quite snarky. I didn't put words into your mouth, if asking a question it is actually that, a question.
And I said you SOUND like a bitter person because all you did was trash talk C.
Only after many posts does your reasoning come out. You can't say "it's obvious" because how many people here honestly know C? Or write code that talks to hardware?
Anyway, I'll look for myself for code examples then. I figured, based upon your word choice against C, that you had specific coding examples.
I am not a hacker, no time, and I'm not a CS major, so I don't know all the ins-and-outs of compilers or how OS's manage how an application runs. I do understand the processor level though, with pipelines and such, and the DMA etc...
That's why I asked for examples, of some code that can be exploited and how it is exploited.
Generally, if I am against something to the point of bashing it, I would prefer to be able to give examples off the top of my head, so during a conversation I could back it up. That's NOT A DIG AT YOU! It's just how I debate.
I can't think of any time I've written code that would, by itself, overflow a buffer.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who do we fear?
"With run-time bounds checking, created automatically by the compiler. That's how modern languages ensure that buffer overruns do not occur in dynamic arrays, whose size are not known at compile-time. This is not a hard problem, no matter how confusing you try to make it sound."
Can you give examples of such languages?
Are any used for drivers? Could any be used for OS development?
Also, not all embedded systems have that much RAM. I firmly do not believe MHz and MB are excuses to bloat your code, not that you're implying it, but I don't think you should encourage it.
Bytes are free, yes, but you should not use them just because you can!
I have many MSP430 dev boards, 2012's (not the year, the model), which has only 128B of RAM. That makes it fun! I could code in assembly, and have, but I prefer C so I can focus on the algorithm. I don't import libraries because of limited flash sizes (2kB).
I am aware of the Raspberry Pi and would love to have it, but back orders, having an infant at home, house maintenance, the desire to play/write music, and the expectation of my employer that I will become a CRM Dynamics developer... those prevent me from having the fun I would love.
Though I do ask, can you give examples, actual code samples, that leave buffer overruns wide open in C that someone can exploit or cause themselves?
And examples of languages that prevent such possibilities.
Remember, questions like "What language is OS X written in?" is not the same as "And how'd that work out for you?" sarcastic comments!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who do we fear?
Any particular reason you're attempting to flame?
I'm trying to have an intelligent discussion and you're attempting to behave like a troll. When you hurl insults, not disagree, then that's not debating.
You could say "you sound like a naive programmer and here's why..." and explain. But you didn't. And your analogies are really horrible too. People could hold the chainsaw incorrectly and harm themselves too! People using radial arm saws have removed their hands and many shops have stopped using them as a result, but is that the tool's fault?
A chain release button, to me, is not even on the same level as a buffer overrun.
Please explain how following proper rules of programming results in buffer overflows? If the developer guarded against that with if-statements, how can a buffer overflow result from accessing an array? Please also clarify the data structures used in your example, such as an array-index or pointer-array or simple buffer and pointer.
Then please explain, if C was so dangerous, why are these other languages you say are safer not being used? Why is it no one is using them? Is it really the results of R&K or is it ease of development and portability?
How would you design the OS and what language would you use? I'm not Tannenbaum, I am not Torvalds. I've not been lucky enough to edit the Linux Kernel, though I'd love to. I've modified drivers when I could and edited board support packages on embedded systems. But no, I didn't write a compiler or OS. I studied EE. I have done many projects at home, from the ground up in hardware and software, and my language of choice is C. But that's me, that's my experience. I've been warned to protect my code, don't leave it open to the problems buffer overflows cause.
My primary roles were testing, system testing, debugging, etc... but I listened to their warnings.
Why do thousands of developers do that? Because of poor coding standards? Because of laziness? Because they don't test their code enough? They are focused on producing instead of quality? They tested their own work without trying to break it?
So yes, if you want to be productive in this debate, rather than sarcastic and inflammatory, you could explain why other languages are not used. Give logical reasons please. I don't know if I can fully believe it was the sales pitch of C that resulted in its adoption for just about every hardware interfacing software development project.
You can't be the only one, and I've seen books on avoiding buffer overflows, so why has no one else adopted it?
And if C was unsafe at any speed, why would it be so widely adopted? Why would it not have been dropped? It cannot be a conspiracy! I don't buy that, unless you can provide some proof of that, it just does not seem logical.
If you choose to flame again, I won't bother replying. That's highly counter productive. I do not feel I have flamed you at all, questioned, yes, but I think you're inserting tones that are not present.
If I wanted to flame you, it would be blatantly obvious.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who do we fear?
Another thing, in your example of arrays..
Indexing past the array is permissible because of the flexibility. You create an array for a contiguous memory allocation. You can access it with pointers or the index, which I will hazard a guess works out to the same thing when converted to assembly?
How is that a design flaw? Restricting is not useful.
You have to keep your pointers in check! That's a developer problem, not a language problem.
Why should the language restrict such behaviour?
If MS would push their developers to dot the i's and cross their t's and actually check their code for such mistakes in coding practices, this would not be a problem.
Unless the hardware caused this, corruption of pointers, due to some underlying problem in the context switch? Or a misconfiguration of a CPU register?
I don't know, but aside from pointer corruption caused by a glitch in the hardware (timing?), the only problem with accessing beyond the bounds of an array is due to bad coding!
Easy mistake, but what would be the loss to restrict C to protect against accessing beyond bounds? How can you tell what will happen at run-time? How do you know it's not intentional?
Why is the the fault of a language that developers can't understand it's limitations?
There's a reason people chose C and so far, you have only highlighted a limitation and the primary problem can be boiled down to two human factors:
1) Buffer overruns are due to bad coding (design or implementation/typos/errors)
2) Developers don't understand 1) or don't care or are told not to care.
I won't fault C because of code design.
People have to understand what they are doing with the tools they use.
I don't agree with the philosophy that compilers should protect against such behaviour. In some cases it may be desirable. If someone does it, well then it is their fault and I would hesitate to blame the language on the coder's mistake.
Man, you are bitter about C.
Out of curiousity, what language did you develop? No disrespect meant, but you sound like "Everyone is using this POS language with this flaw instead of mine, which is flawless."
Your words indicate you're really pissed and it just seems like a redirection of anger, and it is not placed at coders but instead the tool they used.
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
-----------------CopyrightInGeneral---------------
__authoers__|__musicians__|__graphic s__|__whatever
It's an umbrella.
You are being disingenuous and changing your argument over and over and refusing to acknowledge it. For what reason? Only you know.
YOU: "Do you believe the sun is yellow today?"
MIKE: "Sometimes the sun is yellow, other times it is red or orange. I cannot give you the details for today because the all the data is not in yet"
YOU: "You didn't answer my question, why are you avoiding my question? Is the sun yellow 2hrs from now, regardless of the timezones or any specific location on the planet you are at"
MIKE: "I don't have that data, sometimes yellow, some times orange, sometimes red. It depends upon the time of day and we don't know what the exact colour will be today. The data is not in yet and it would be dishonest of me to make any official colour guess."
YOU: "You didn't answer my question..., what colour is the sun 3 hrs from now?"
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike didn't mention anything specific to graphic art! Fuck, he must be on the fence about copyrights for graphic art.
Geeze Mike, what IS your opinion on graphic artists? Should they have their copyrights taken away but scaled back while maximizing their right to sue and give away their content for free to other freetards to avoid having it "stolen digitally" which removes any ability of them to create copies though the original digital copy still exists on the hard drive so only one single copy floats all over the pirate sites who make infinite money through ads supported by thousands of companies who clearly don't support the graphic artists who can't even get through their legal contracts which stipulate they don't even have any control over their copyrights because the company they signed with under the presumption of fairness is selling their work to corporations who don't even know the graphic artist exists and intend on exploiting them again by paying the copyright holder $1million per view and paying pirate sites to display their ads hovering over the illegal copies of the graphic artist who's dying in a ditch starving for information on why you hate to see people earn a living through creation of art but mostly because they can't get a straight answer from you on your opinion of copyrights.
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now you move on to author's rights and start the same "he didn't answer me" BS again?
It's definitely time to stop feeding your trollish responses. You're just trying to attack for the fun of it.
The more you continue, the more you lose any credibility you have left (and if you try to say the same about Mike and his non-fence sitting - you're just reinforcing the process).
On the post: TuneCore Fires Last Remaining Founder, Gets Into Ridiculously Petty Fight With Jeff Price
Re: Re: Who flipped?
Gill Cogan
Gill brings more than 25 years of venture capital investing experience in software, communications and semiconductors as well as building and leading venture capital firms.
Prior to Opus, he was a founding partner and Managing Partner of Lightspeed Venture Partners. He was also Managing General Partner at Weiss, Peck & Greer Venture Partners. Gill has invested in a wide variety of early stage information technology companies such as Vantive (NASDAQ: VNTV, acquired by PeopleSoft (NASDAQ:PSFT)), Harmonic Lightwaves, Inc. (NASDAQ: HLIT), Visigenic Software (NASDAQ: VSGN, acquired by Borland (NASDAQ: BORL)), Airgate PCS, Inc. (NASDAQ: PCSA, acquired by Alamosa Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: APCS)), P-Com (NASDAQ: PCOM), Kalpana (acquired by Cisco (NASDAQ: CSCO)), and many others.
Prior to joining WPG in 1990, Gill managed the West Coast operations of Adler & Company and was on the team that made investments in companies such as Mercury Interactive (NASDAQ: MERQ, acquired by Hewlett Packard (NYSE: HPQ)), Zoran Corporation (NASDAQ: ZRAN) and IXYS (NASDAQ: IXYS). He was one of three General Partners who formed the first independent Israeli venture fund in 1985. Gill has significant operating experience as a result of his tenure as CEO of Formtek Inc., a systems company based on technology developed at the Carnegie-Mellon University, which was acquired by Lockheed Corporation. He is Chairman of the Board of Directors of Electronics for Imaging (NASDAQ: EFII) and serves on the Board of Directors of several privately held companies. Gill holds an MBA from UCLA.
Marty Alberston
Marty has been with Guitar Center since 1979. Mr. Albertson joined Guitar Center as a salesperson and has held various positions of increasing responsibility with Guitar Center since that time. In 1980, he served as Advertising Director and in 1984 became National Sales Manager. Thereafter, in 1985 Mr. Albertson became Vice President of Corporate Development, and became the Vice President of Sales and Marketing in 1987. From 1990 to 1999, Mr. Albertson served as our Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer. In 1999, Mr. Albertson became our President and Co-Chief Executive Officer. In 2004, Mr. Albertson became our Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Albertson was elected a director in 1996.
Effective November 1, 2010 Mr. Albertson retired as Chief Executive Officer and will remain as non-executive Chairman of the Board.
Fred Bourgoise
Fred was co-architect of the groundbreaking worldwide music publishing administration service Bug Music. He was President and co-owner from 1976 until its 2006 sale to Spectrum Equity Investors. From its humble and committed beginning, Bug became the music administration gold standard and trusted island for publishers, songwriters, copyrights, and artists. While experiencing meteoric growth and success Bug evolved into the largest independent music publisher in the pre-digital-download-streaming world, with offices in Los Angeles, Nashville, New York, London, and Munich, Germany. After the Spectrum purchase, Fred continued to serve as a consultant and board member for Bug until 2009.
Fred first assisted TuneCore in 2010 as a consultant. In June 2011 he was elected to the Board of Directors.
On the post: Announcing: Our New Sky Is Rising Report!
Re: Re: Re:
So put up or shut the fuck up!
On the post: Announcing: Our New Sky Is Rising Report!
Re:
You're not contributing to this conversation at all with any constructive feedback.
Considering Mr Masnick's multiple statements in multiple threads and posts regarding copyright, he's only against abuse of the public domain by extending copyrights beyond absurdity.
Why don't you go troll at the RIAA's website, I'm sure they'd love to hear your pointless drivel.
We want artists reading these posts to see logic and reason, to see how they've been snowed by people afraid of competition and losing control. We want them to better themselves and succeed and earn a living, retain their rights, and contribute to society.
Again, your daddy should have pulled out or worn a condom!
On the post: Six Strikes Administrator: Loss Of Open WiFi Access At Cafes Is Acceptable Collateral Damage
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You write and argue as if you actually were sleeping.
Great job at the worst analogies ever.
On the post: Inventor Of The Wind-Up Radio Complains About 'Google Generation'
Re: What about Blackberry Pi, Arduino, etc?
On the post: Is The US IP System Really 'The Envy Of The World'?
Re:
But what do I know, I just read their statement (Mission Statement?) at the top of their blog.
Of course, since Mike Masnick commented on it, it must be total bullshit right?
That pole is more balanced that the bullshit poles taken by IP maximalists by people who were screwed over by IP holders, but convinced the problem is IP piracy.
On the post: Beatles' First Single Enters Public Domain -- In Europe
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, it's not theft
Big difference. Which is why DMCA's have been used against artists putting up their own work on their own sites/pages!
Free culture seeks FAIRNESS, whereby any creator can post their material and use the web as a means of distribution, without having to compromise their music or sell away all their rights.
Free culture seeks to ensure copyrights are not used to lock away culture indefinitely, which is exactly the aim of copyright maximalists. Do you know why you've heard of classical works from the 1800's and earlier? Because those works are in the public domain!
That's what promotes culture! Tell me, how exactly does locking shit down so no one can build off of the work (without paying ridiculous licenses, even off of irrelevant works that could be morphed into something relevant) help promote culture?
70 years AFTER death? What the fuck does that do?
People here don't necessarily hate copyright, they hate copyright abuse and that's exactly what free culture tries to fight.
You know what your copyright monopolist culture hates, competition! Because you know you can't compete? Or is it you don't know how to share with other creators?
Do you honestly think cultures benefit from hiding things away or locking them down?
Hey, I got a plan, build your time machine, go to Bell Labs, patent the transistor, then lock that fucker up with IP up the ass so no one can build upon the technology and then try to return home and see what the world would be like!
On the post: Beatles' First Single Enters Public Domain -- In Europe
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, it's not theft
Given bullshit patent disputes are hardly of interest to the mass populous, you won't find too many mainstream media outlets discussing this on their front pages.
Could that be why copyright apologists who have a hardon for Google keep insisting that if you report something about Google that the mainstream does not, you're somehow a shill?
I think so! Thanks for confirming.
I wonder what other extrapolations we can make, oh, how about the movie industry will lose $850 000 000 000 000 000 in 2013 due to piracy?
On the post: Is The US IP System Really 'The Envy Of The World'?
Google
Nevermind all the data that shows pornography as the main driver of Google's popularity (and the interest of the public in the web), it's all because of Google's ability to locate pirated content, for free, while artists starve and Google prospers!
...
Ugh, writing this trash is boring, how does the Trichordist keep it up? How do their trolls keep it up? Seriously, it's so damn boring!
On the post: Court Gives Canadians More Time To Fight Copyright Troll Voltage
No Brainer
PROCESS:
0) Find IPAddress using BitTorrent
1) Sue IPAddress owner
2) Ignore due process, break laws, bribe congress/judges
3) Kill competition by killing all channels that didn't exist before 1999
4) Hypnotize entire planet to buy what is sold
5) Produce/support/release works from one artist (hired under Works for Hire) and profit into the future!
On the post: Yet Another Study: 'Cracking Down' On Piracy Not Effective
Re: Re:
0x00) Mike is a pirate
0x02) Mike is anti-copyright
0x04) Mike is a Google shill
0x08) Mike works for Google
0x10) Mike hates artists
0x12) Mike wants artists to starve
0x14) Mike wants to kill culture
0x18) Mike wants the entire economy to collapse
0x20) Mike breaks laws constantly and encourages the same
On the post: Yet Another Study: 'Cracking Down' On Piracy Not Effective
Re: Re: Re:
Fixed your analogy for you!
You're welcome.
On the post: To Boost Its New Crappy DRM, Hollywood Tries Giving Away Free Movies
@Mason Wheeler
And I said you SOUND like a bitter person because all you did was trash talk C.
Only after many posts does your reasoning come out. You can't say "it's obvious" because how many people here honestly know C? Or write code that talks to hardware?
Anyway, I'll look for myself for code examples then. I figured, based upon your word choice against C, that you had specific coding examples.
I am not a hacker, no time, and I'm not a CS major, so I don't know all the ins-and-outs of compilers or how OS's manage how an application runs. I do understand the processor level though, with pipelines and such, and the DMA etc...
That's why I asked for examples, of some code that can be exploited and how it is exploited.
Generally, if I am against something to the point of bashing it, I would prefer to be able to give examples off the top of my head, so during a conversation I could back it up. That's NOT A DIG AT YOU! It's just how I debate.
I can't think of any time I've written code that would, by itself, overflow a buffer.
That's why I asked for examples.
I'll consult the web for examples.
Thanks.
Cheers!
On the post: To Boost Its New Crappy DRM, Hollywood Tries Giving Away Free Movies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who do we fear?
Can you give examples of such languages?
Are any used for drivers? Could any be used for OS development?
Also, not all embedded systems have that much RAM. I firmly do not believe MHz and MB are excuses to bloat your code, not that you're implying it, but I don't think you should encourage it.
Bytes are free, yes, but you should not use them just because you can!
I have many MSP430 dev boards, 2012's (not the year, the model), which has only 128B of RAM. That makes it fun! I could code in assembly, and have, but I prefer C so I can focus on the algorithm. I don't import libraries because of limited flash sizes (2kB).
I am aware of the Raspberry Pi and would love to have it, but back orders, having an infant at home, house maintenance, the desire to play/write music, and the expectation of my employer that I will become a CRM Dynamics developer... those prevent me from having the fun I would love.
Though I do ask, can you give examples, actual code samples, that leave buffer overruns wide open in C that someone can exploit or cause themselves?
And examples of languages that prevent such possibilities.
Remember, questions like "What language is OS X written in?" is not the same as "And how'd that work out for you?" sarcastic comments!
On the post: To Boost Its New Crappy DRM, Hollywood Tries Giving Away Free Movies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who do we fear?
I'm trying to have an intelligent discussion and you're attempting to behave like a troll. When you hurl insults, not disagree, then that's not debating.
You could say "you sound like a naive programmer and here's why..." and explain. But you didn't. And your analogies are really horrible too. People could hold the chainsaw incorrectly and harm themselves too! People using radial arm saws have removed their hands and many shops have stopped using them as a result, but is that the tool's fault?
A chain release button, to me, is not even on the same level as a buffer overrun.
Please explain how following proper rules of programming results in buffer overflows? If the developer guarded against that with if-statements, how can a buffer overflow result from accessing an array? Please also clarify the data structures used in your example, such as an array-index or pointer-array or simple buffer and pointer.
Then please explain, if C was so dangerous, why are these other languages you say are safer not being used? Why is it no one is using them? Is it really the results of R&K or is it ease of development and portability?
How would you design the OS and what language would you use? I'm not Tannenbaum, I am not Torvalds. I've not been lucky enough to edit the Linux Kernel, though I'd love to. I've modified drivers when I could and edited board support packages on embedded systems. But no, I didn't write a compiler or OS. I studied EE. I have done many projects at home, from the ground up in hardware and software, and my language of choice is C. But that's me, that's my experience. I've been warned to protect my code, don't leave it open to the problems buffer overflows cause.
My primary roles were testing, system testing, debugging, etc... but I listened to their warnings.
Why do thousands of developers do that? Because of poor coding standards? Because of laziness? Because they don't test their code enough? They are focused on producing instead of quality? They tested their own work without trying to break it?
So yes, if you want to be productive in this debate, rather than sarcastic and inflammatory, you could explain why other languages are not used. Give logical reasons please. I don't know if I can fully believe it was the sales pitch of C that resulted in its adoption for just about every hardware interfacing software development project.
You can't be the only one, and I've seen books on avoiding buffer overflows, so why has no one else adopted it?
And if C was unsafe at any speed, why would it be so widely adopted? Why would it not have been dropped? It cannot be a conspiracy! I don't buy that, unless you can provide some proof of that, it just does not seem logical.
If you choose to flame again, I won't bother replying. That's highly counter productive. I do not feel I have flamed you at all, questioned, yes, but I think you're inserting tones that are not present.
If I wanted to flame you, it would be blatantly obvious.
On the post: To Boost Its New Crappy DRM, Hollywood Tries Giving Away Free Movies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who do we fear?
Indexing past the array is permissible because of the flexibility. You create an array for a contiguous memory allocation. You can access it with pointers or the index, which I will hazard a guess works out to the same thing when converted to assembly?
How is that a design flaw? Restricting is not useful.
You have to keep your pointers in check! That's a developer problem, not a language problem.
Why should the language restrict such behaviour?
If MS would push their developers to dot the i's and cross their t's and actually check their code for such mistakes in coding practices, this would not be a problem.
Unless the hardware caused this, corruption of pointers, due to some underlying problem in the context switch? Or a misconfiguration of a CPU register?
I don't know, but aside from pointer corruption caused by a glitch in the hardware (timing?), the only problem with accessing beyond the bounds of an array is due to bad coding!
Easy mistake, but what would be the loss to restrict C to protect against accessing beyond bounds? How can you tell what will happen at run-time? How do you know it's not intentional?
On the post: To Boost Its New Crappy DRM, Hollywood Tries Giving Away Free Movies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who do we fear?
Why is the the fault of a language that developers can't understand it's limitations?
There's a reason people chose C and so far, you have only highlighted a limitation and the primary problem can be boiled down to two human factors:
1) Buffer overruns are due to bad coding (design or implementation/typos/errors)
2) Developers don't understand 1) or don't care or are told not to care.
I won't fault C because of code design.
People have to understand what they are doing with the tools they use.
I don't agree with the philosophy that compilers should protect against such behaviour. In some cases it may be desirable. If someone does it, well then it is their fault and I would hesitate to blame the language on the coder's mistake.
Man, you are bitter about C.
Out of curiousity, what language did you develop? No disrespect meant, but you sound like "Everyone is using this POS language with this flaw instead of mine, which is flawless."
Your words indicate you're really pissed and it just seems like a redirection of anger, and it is not placed at coders but instead the tool they used.
Next >>