Nice ascii bling around gold (I would know.) Or is that some kind of .... de-reference ... to subdirectory "gold" all files starting with a space?

Moron, the FIRST choice "Veered off" into the consequences of abject poverty. I don't think, then, that any of the content of your post bears any resemblance to anything in reality that has anything to do with anything in reality.

Wow, the Geek Group just north of here? That's cool. I've actually done a lot of hammer swinging / demo for cheap in the past. I'm more than willing to help out.

So, supposing most of my friends (nor myself) come from moderately secure households but actually myself and almost everyone I know comes from poverty... let's see if you can re-imagine your FaceBook a little bit.

And, even though I'm not entertained by my peeps, I might not be all that entertained by yours, either. We are in the Midwest, after all.

Problems similar to that are what plague me. The software has too much of a conventional hand so to speak; a heavy-handed tendency towards some or another convention by which it excises justice onto the paper based on what you input according to the manual.

I think there are many undocumented features to the program, that mainly fall within the demarcation of musical conventions. I know that scoring a fairly simple piece of music, Purcell's "Air in D Minor" (including eight more measures I tacked on "In Memorium Purcell" for a piano class) was almost impossible due to the seeming assumptions by which the program was intent to operate.

And between trying to use the keyboard over the mouse, the two of the interfaces each had so many shortcomings and seemed to half been half-programmed-in, that neither proved sufficient to score the merely 30 or so measures that I required. I gave up after an alarming four hours across two days of trying to get "the steam up" and things underway.

A viable hypothesis, probably leading directly to the means by which so much information is carried across.

Hopefully these improvements to MuseScore will make it easier to use, because so far I have not been able to get much done with it just out of the difficulty of using it. The interface is really unintuitive. I don't think I've ever found a music scoring program that is easy to use.

Update 1 (28-May-2012):

According to our analysis, the Flame malware is the same as âoeSkyWiperâ, described by the CrySyS Lab and by Iran Maher CERT group where it is called âoeFlamerâ.

Both times I clicked to reply to this same response, the response was instead threaded to the parent. What gives, Slashdot?? I'm curious to see which one this ends up threaded under.

Because politicians lie, because civilizations have always failed and nobody wants that to happen.

"Es lebe mpoulton die selbstgerechte, selbstgefÃllige GeschwÃtz!"

"Sieg Heil!!!"

I threaded my response wrong. See below!

You're acknowledging that China has beaten the rest of the world market in labor and production, and that they are now currently producing things for every other country that has become too lazy or constipated to produce on their own. How can you claim that China does not control the means of production? They have controlled it perhaps not by way of force but surely through shrewd dealing and a disinterest in integrity. Notice that we continue to allow China to build for us even though their work is arrogantly faulty and even poisonous. Consider that and ask whether you still believe China doesn't control production. I don't even have to bring up how companies that mainlined the China trade, like Wal-Mart, also served to destabilize our national economy, but there -- I did anyways.

The whole loose lips sink ships debate is mooted in the face of the liberal hacker community. Hackers talk about every threat not for pride or profit but because it's a Darwinian thing: if a threat is discovered, it's obviously no longer (or not much longer) a real threat, so you might as well out it. Meanwhile, threats are competitors. Don't you think it's suspicious enough that some company profits from protecting you from viruses?

the important somewhat scary question: how does Kaspersky accumulate so much sensitive data?

Think about it. We're talking about personal computers in the middle east. We're talking about some kind of top-shelf spyware. So where does Kaspersky pull their data from?

I think cyberweapons could be seen as useful to computer defense companies. Since I can remember, programmers interested in viruses and virus defense have been apt to bring up the question, "why shouldn't we infect everybody's computer with the latest virus scanner in the form of a virus? Why leave it this voluntary thing?"

Obivously Kaspersky and any other computer virus defense company could benefit from spreading a virus that allows them to actively scan the contents of a computer's drive or memory, if they are looking across a huge geography for a specific signature. They could benefit even more if the virus allowed them to attach modules that will tell them if the cyberweapon attempts to contact other computers either to spread or to report back, because this would allow them to quickly and easily build a vector map.

Which leads me to ask how they get their data in the first place. It's not like they are paying off all the Geek Squads in the Middle East, to send them copies of the entire contents of any drives brought in as having "problems". So how are they discovering threats in the first place, and how can they write paragraphs such as this one:

"According to our observations, the operators of Flame artificially support the quantity of infected systems on a certain constant level. This can be compared with a sequential processing of fields â" they infect several dozen, then conduct analysis of the data of the victim, uninstall Flame from the systems that arenâ(TM)t interesting, leaving the most important ones in place. After which they start a new series of infections."

This suggests that they have become intimately knowledgable about the owners of the infected machines, whether or not those owners are persons of interest, and know seemingly just about as much as the owners of the cyberweapon know. So where is the line drawn, to distinguish between threat and defense??

Looks like my railing against the inherent weaknesses in FPGAs and the need to ditch the fabless model for the sake of quality control wasn't just hot air.