Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Unfortunately no and I have a reason (Score 1) 376

You need the flexibility of mind that comes from learning more languages. In the computer field I've written code in over 50; all I have to figure out at the start is which objects this language uses...the rest is easy; there are only sequence, alternation and iteration at the root of them all. It's the implied attributes of the various data structures that can be created, and the linguistic elements that refer to them that makes one language different from another. Compare Windows CMD with PowerShell, to see what I mean.

On the other hand, in the realm of natural languages I have command of one, and remanents of the Japanese I learned living there in the late 1950s.

Comment Yes...but not very useful in my career (Score 1) 376

I still have Volumes 1, 2 and 3...gathering dust.

I first started programming in 1962, on IBM 1401 (dearly loved it's variable-length memory management) and IBM 704 (briefly, before it was replaced with a 709, then the 7090). I used to take a massive printout of the IBSYS operating system for the latter to understand how real people wrote code to achieve an outcome; that was back when programmers still felt it was essential to write comments to explain what/why that specific code was there, and its' purpose). At the same time, I was a junior member of a group of "code sharers" at C-E-I-R; we evolved a punched-card deck for the IBM 1401 that became the basis of every program we subsequently wrote (I ran into the deck, called "CELIB"--for CEIR Library--several years later in a consulting gig in Australia, where they'd been using it for more than a decade after originally getting as part of a contract delivery...which my name in some of the comments). I was also engaged in running huge "linear programming" models on the 7090, such as one that forecast the likely economic consequences to the U.S. of removing the tobacco industry (i.e., abolishing the manufacture and sale of products), but the code was written by my more mathemathically endowed superiors, Eli Hellerman and William Orchard-Hays and you may know it as LP90, which was posted to the SHARE library at IBM; I just wrote some utilities.).

So, by the time Knuth published, I was an experienced programmer, and I devoured his books with interest. Like many programmers and professionals in allied fields, there were lessons to glean (like, "Wow, that's clever," or "Hmm, that's an interesting way to look at that problem"). I'm sure they influenced me, but it was not a "cookbook" to me. After I read them, they went on a shelf, and moved from home to home, and they still reside in a prominent place on my bookshelf, but gathering dust.

Programmers, today (especially those under 35 years of age) seem to eschew the idea that anybody else's code could be educational, and I find that an odd and juvenile approach to the world. We must stand on the shoulders of giants, and I still, to this day, learn new techniques and insights (and folly) in others' code. But, I got here (now aged 75, and still writing the odd bit of code; even CMD language) by learning from others, for no ONE of knows as much as ALL of us.

Submission + - More Than 1 Million Android Devices Rooted by Gooligan Malware

Trailrunner7 writes: A new version of an existing piece of malware has emerged in some third-party Android app stores and researchers say it has infected more than a million devices around the world, giving the attackers full access to victims’ Google accounts in the process.

The malware campaign is known as Gooligan, and it’s a variant of older malware called Ghost Push that has been found in many malicious apps. Researchers at Check Point recently discovered several dozen apps, mainly in third-party app stores, that contain the malware, which is designed to download and install other apps and generate income for the attackers through click fraud. The malware uses phantom clicks on ads to generate revenue for the attackers through pay-per-install schemes, but that’s not the main concern for victims.

The Gooligan malware also employs exploits that take advantage of several known vulnerabilities in older versions of Android, including Kit Kat and Lollipop to install a rootlet that is capable of stealing users’ Google credentials.Although the malware has full remote access to infected devices, it doesn’t appear to be stealing user data, but rather is content to go the click-fraud route. Most users are being infected through the installation of apps that appear to be legitimate but contain the Gooligan code, a familiar infection routine for mobile devices.

Comment Sure, Get Windows 10... (Score 1) 403

...so they can use their "telemetry" to sell you to advertisers.

Great argument, there, Microsoft. Since changing all the end-user agreements so they're all biased toward M$'s income, and their operational assumption that YOU bought your computer, but M$ owns it, lock, stock and barrel...sure, let's all start using the unnecessary and irrelevant "Windows 10" layer to build Linux apps on.

Bellevue seems to be surrounded by mirrors, reflecting every image back to it's occupants.

Comment Published HOW? (Score 1) 241

Currently, a domain name can be registered with any name at all, and payments can be made in ways that are virtually anonymous. The fact is, that the "WhoIs" feature allows anyone who wants to can find the information that was used to register that website. Because spammers used that information to harvest lots of email addresses, new businesses cropped up to create a layer of identity security; you'll notice the registered name is changed to refer to the entity that holds the information outside the domain-name registration service, and many of us use that to avoid the spam and nuisance problems. You can reach the domain owner, but they have the freedom to not respond.

The difficulty comes when someone has used a domain name for illegal or nefarious purposes. Law enforcement needs the right to find out who owns a particular domain name, but, to protect free speech, they should require a court-ordered warrant for that information (and that should not be a SECRET court, like the certain governments and agencies have; every person, whether common citizen or crook, must have a legal right to defense and representation by a lawyer who argues FOR privacy on behalf of the unnamed defendant). So, the domain name system SHOULD allow ownership to be concealed, and any attempt to reveal that information should be publicly announced, so the owner has the legal right to challenge the legal proceeding through legal representation. That eliminates the "nuisance" suits (e.g., by spammers, from whom the courts could reject the requests), while allowing legitimate needs for access to that information (e.g., so the domain name owner can't engage in on-line crimes with anonynimity) under judicial overview. That would preserve privacy, and the party asking for the information would have to prove in court a legitimate and legal RIGHT to that information.

Further, the legal proceeding should have to take place in the legal domain (e.g., country, and/or state) where the registrant lives, so that the inconvenience of distance or jurisdiction can't be be used as a "dodge" to get that information without defense by the anonymous domain owner.

Comment "Hard copy" will survive... (Score 1) 260

...until there is universal, reliable and inviolable security on digital systems.
The printed document is still more reliable than the hard disk or flash drive, all care having been taken in all cases.
Courts still require "copies" of printed documents, not the assertion that a flash drive is representative.

We've got a long way to go. Technology is about what SELLS, not about the best long-term solution for endemic problems.

Comment I Was There... (Score 1) 524

...as a consultant ON the IBM Team designing the first (floppy-based) "Personal Computer." But, there were already many companies on the market with their own "microcomputers." IBM didn't "invent" the personal computer, they invented the NAME "Personal Computer."

And, FYI, the first prototype had two floppy disk drives on one SIDE, so the "front" would look "clean." Then somebody noticed that the "return" on L-shaped desks--where they'd likely be installed--would block access to those slots, so the second prototype had just one slot...on the front. That's what went to market...with a monochrome green display. It wasn't until the "Personal Computer XT" (the second model) that they even put a hard disk drive (a whopping 10 MB!) inside.

Some people probably ought to consider reading Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Personal_Computer).

Also, Microsoft created the first DOS operating system for the original PC, and has been responsible for all the buggy operating system software they've sold since then, up to and including Windows 10. That's the price we pay for an "open ecosystem," instead of the "closed ecosystem" of Apple products. We have access to a lot more software options in the "open" ecosystem, but we--as a consumer community--have never, ever really held Microsoft's feet to the fire of quality, and they've made a fortune selling broken products, then convincing us to climb aboard the "upgrade train," always with promises that "this time, it will be better." (See higuita's post, above.) Now, Microsoft has (recently) changed all their "User Agreement" terms (which you accept by using their products) so that we no longer have even that right!

Slashdot Top Deals

Statistics are no substitute for judgement. -- Henry Clay

Working...