that's why you use async IO instead of select/poll.

Ugh, don't say 'pixel perfect', I utterly despise pixel-perfect designs. What DPI? 100? 80? 120? 600 for print?

pixel-perfect designs that break when I set a minimum font size are obnoxious as hell, when I have to select text that flows under other elements and paste it somewhere to read it. Ugh. Seriously, don't even think about giving designers that kind of control until they've proven themselves able to design for something other than their own monitor.

Good news! You don't need to execute it with root privileges, it gets those for itself.

Well, for one both the exploit and the detector are broken by default - it's looking for per_cpu__current_task for >=2.6.30 kernels and not every kernel has that - it's just 'current_task' on 2.6.36-rc4. Turn off that check and both the detector and exploit work. Ignoring the l33+, the important bits are the shellcode and any remnants of the exploit when run.

The exploit itself is trivial to understand - compat_alloc_user_space() didn't check the bounds, and one user didn't properly handle the checking first.

Here's the actual exploit:
getsockopt(7, SOL_IP, MCAST_MSFILTER, 0x804b4a0, 0x804b8a8) = -1 EFAULT (Bad address)
and a quick glance at net/compat.c shows that no check is made on optlen. The rest is just stack-trashing and shellcode,
your basic exploit.

He asked when you could do the equivilant of rm /bin/rm - which you can't in windows. Although I'm not entirely sure that's a filesystem thing, it's a VFS layer thing where an open is an automatic exclusive read lock.

Which is why you get the ridiculous volume shadow copy bullshit and forced reboots to update anything.

I'm more interested in the soundstage with the wire-fu of people with circles painted on them dancing around. That looked like an interesting way to do a movie.

If the first poster doesn't have a comment like "Yeah I'm using one of them right now, my internet is blazingly fast", it's a wasted opportunity.

For US gamers, it's not even out yet, so the only people playing in the US have illicit copies in one way or another.

So we should allow censorship because of your anecdotal evidence about your nephew-in-law? Thanks, but no thanks.

Yeah, and I flatly believe that you're qualified to tie your own shoes, much less determine what other people can and cannot do.

See, that's the exact problem, I reject the concept of testing code via an audit of all it's callers. You can't test a future callsite when you write your code now, especially when it may be someone else doing it. Yes, you can throw a runtime error, but then the same guy who used your interface incorrectly ALSO has to handle an exception correctly, and you're asking a lot of a junior programmer doing piddly work. In a typed language, it's impossible to get a method you're not explicitly expecting (and can test for).

I'd honestly be happier without a lot of the boilerplate in C++ (and doubly so in java!), but at the same time I don't want someone accidentally sending an object representing the database table of employees to the network.Serialize() method because they used a CamelCase variable name instead of an lower_underscores somewhere. It gets doubly bad when it's in an unlikely error handler that they didn't test properly - I don't want the validity of MY code depending on someone else implementing their tests perfectly, that's the antithesis of encapsulation.

Mostly cleanup of other people's work. Most of my work is in systems or embedded level, and as you pointed out below, that's not something you can generally throw 10x the hardware at. I'm most fluent in the C-syntax languages (C, C++, Java, PHP which is... well, PHP), although I've hit a good chunk of the procedural languages over the years (Python, ruby, lisp being the big names).

Is sendmail.cf considered turing complete? :)

It's probably because most of my work on dynamically typed languages are when someone DIDN'T properly design, and I get to fix it. Or more commonly, someone did design it properly, but they went on to bigger and better things, and someone else made some changes that seemed to work, until another piece somewhere else came online and.... The normal bitrot you see on projects.

"testing" gets pre-empted by "deadlines". You don't get called in to panic-bugfix a system when they implemented "testing" properly.

That honestly depends on a lot of things, I wouldn't write a 3d rendering engine in ruby, but it might be the right call for the slower-paced scripting of game events. Right tool for the job and all that. Back to dynamic typing - what's a specific thing that you can do (in a well-designed system) with a dynamic type that you can't do with polymorphism or templating? I've always found that testing was simpler when you could outright reject so many bad usages of methods at compile-time.

I prefer static types, because when I deal with a project in maintenence mode it's a serious PITA to hunt down every caller and see what types they can possibly call the broken method with.

Runtime typechecking is more accurately "crashtime type checking", good luck managing to keep a system completely operational after you throw an exception deep within a legacy library.

I suppose it depends on what you're doing, I see more usage of dynamic typing in webwork than anywhere else.

And it wouldn't hurt the users to become carpenters and build their own houses, and farmers and grow their own food, and mechanics and fix their own car, and programmers to write their own software, and actors to star in their own plays, and lawyers to argue their own cases, and neurosurgeons to perform brain surgury on themselves, and pilots to fly themselves....

It's an idiotic statement when used for any other profession, patently ridiculous when applied to everything at once, yet strangely common among computer geeks. Why? "Because I know it" is an invalid answer for anyone who is not perfect at every possible profession.

Why is it SO IMPORTANT that every machine have these tools so that you, the hotshot computer guy who knows everything about windows (HAH!) can avoid having to keep a USB stick on your keychain?