Entries:
Comments:
Posts:

Loading User Information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading User Information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements

Discussions

evildictaitor evildictait​or Devil's advocate
  • crazy anti-cop culture.

    , cbae wrote

    From the article that I linked:

    We're essentially giving law enforcement the power to abuse us because of our obsession with fighting this war on drugs.

    Sound familiar? *cough* *Patriot Act* *cough*

    Did you vote for a Congressman candidate that was standing on abandoning the war on drugs?

    It's popular to hate on the WoD for being stupid, but there's a reason politicians haven't abandoned it. It's still popular, and in a democracy, popular wins the day against sensible.

  • Artificial intelligence could end mankind

    , JohnAskew wrote

    Do you have a source to cite? I'm wanting to know more, find proof, before I give up my idea. I don't think you do, because I don't think there is proof.

    From here:

    1. Double-Slit Diffraction

     

    Light passes through double slits and onto a screen resulting in a diffraction pattern. Is light a particle or a wave?

    The Copenhagen Interpretation: Light is neither. A particular experiment can demonstrate particle (photon) or wave properties, but not both at the same time (Bohr's Complementarity Principle).

    The same experiment can in theory be performed with any physical system: electrons, protons, atoms, molecules, viruses, bacteria, cats, humans, elephants, planets, etc. In practice it has been performed for light, electrons, buckminsterfullerene,[40][41] and some atoms. Due to the smallness of Planck's constant it is practically impossible to realize experiments that directly reveal the wave nature of any system bigger than a few atoms but, in general, quantum mechanics considers all matter as possessing both particle and wave behaviors. The greater systems (like viruses, bacteria, cats, etc.) are considered as "classical" ones but only as an approximation, not exact

    Or tl;dr: in the orthodox view of quantum mechanics, wave-functions collapse into particle systems upon observation by "any physical system [including] electrons, protons, atoms, molecules, viruses, bacteria, cats, humans, elephants, planets etc".

    It has also been experimentally verified that light (photons), electrons and buckminsterfulerene molecules are all sufficient to be an "observer" within the meaning of quantum mechanics.

  • Artificial intelligence could end mankind

    , Richard.Hein wrote

    Is that a fact? 

    Categorically so. Humans exist at a scale so vastly larger than the quantum scale (at sizes around a Planck length, or 1.6x10^35 meters) that all of the quantum effects quickly wash out. Humans do not experience Heisenberg uncertainty and do not collapse into wave-functions when light is shone on them. Even if individual quarks within the structure of your body will, you at the macro scale will never experience quantum effects.

    But don't take my word for it. Here's a conversation between a student in Israel and Professor of physics Prof. Ken Mellendorf of Illinois Central College: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy05/phy05758.htm

    Noam,

    Consider the size of Planck's constant: 6.63x10^-34 m.kg.m/s. When you measure your position, you measure the average position of all parts of your body. It is extremely difficult to measure the position of your body to a precision of less than a millimeter. On a macroscopic scale, "the width of a hair" is extremely small. I have never actually measured it, but I expect this to be near 0.01mm, or 10^-5 meters. This then allows momentum to have a precision better than 10^-28 kg.m/s. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is of such small proportion that its existence is not noticed at the scale of the macroscopic world.

    Dr. Ken Mellendorf Illinois Central College Physics Professor

     

  • Artificial intelligence could end mankind

    , Sven Groot wrote

    *snip*

    Just because they use the word "observation" to describe this doesn't mean someone actually needs to be present to see it.

    +1

    When quantum mechanics talks about "observers", it means photon collisions, not animals or people with eyes looking at it.

    It is fine to suggest that without human observation things are not real. But that's a philosophical question ("If I cannot see it, does it happen?"), not a quantum-mechanical one.

    Quantum mechanics is not about human observation for the fairly simple reason that humans are not quantum particles.

  • How would you defeat this argument against open source?

    , cheong wrote

    Well, the Shim engine loads different version of DLL that owns by Microsoft, it doesn't need to hack into the program's memory (except modify the loader, which is usually boilerplate code generated by linker. )

    Most of the time it shims APIs. But sometimes it patches third-party code directly in memory.

    AFAIK, Microsoft did complain to those Anti-Virus company a lot for making Windows crash during the next update.

    Oh, sure. Microsoft got really mad at AVs because their hooks were causing Windows to crash and Microsoft was taking the heat.

    But that's the thing. They got mad. They didn't sue, because they didn't have any grounds to sue.

  • How would you defeat this argument against open source?

    , cheong wrote

    Not good example. To use Steam you have to modify your game to include SteamWorks. Antivirus and Microsoft apply patches at API hooks, not modifying in memory part of your programs.

    No on all counts.

    Steam requires new developers to use SteamWorks. Old games don't have to. (Counter-example: if you need one: Jedi Outcast).

    Many Anti-virus products do in-memory patching. API patching tends to be exploit-mitigation type stuff, but for known bugs without a patch, AVs will live-patch the binary in memory.

    And Microsoft is the same. (from http://www.alex-ionescu.com/?p=39):

    Finally, the fourth type of change is a binary patch, which represents actual in-memory patching on the executable, instead of a system API hook

  • How would you defeat this argument against open source?

    , androidi wrote

    ("marked as spam" should be undoable, somehow clicked that oops)

    "Argue all you like. Several multi-billion dollar industries (including all major Graphics card vendors and Anti-virus vendors) with *-tons of lawyers disagree with you, and several major companies including both Microsoft and Steam do it to programs that run on their platforms as well."

    Is "Big'N lawyered up" generalizable to any company though? 

    Yes. Lots of small companies provide dynamic patches to old programs as well. Nobody has ever been sued, or to my knowledge, threatened to be sued for doing so. The only requirement is that they either not ship the program being patched (i.e. ship only the patch), or ship both together with authorization of the copyright owner of the underlying program.

    So for example, Steam bundles games with patches using authorization, whereas Anti-virus companies and Microsoft ship patches without the underlying application which "activate" when the program-to-be-patched is installed.

  • How would you defeat this argument against open source?

    , Bass wrote

    I would argue makes the patch a derivative work.

    Argue all you like. Several multi-billion dollar industries (including all major Graphics card vendors and Anti-virus vendors) with *-tons of lawyers disagree with you, and several major companies including both Microsoft and Steam do it to programs that run on their platforms as well.

  • How would you defeat this argument against open source?

    , Bass wrote

    The difference between proprietary and open is a legal distinction. You are opening yourself to copyright infringement liability if you start modifying someone else's software in which the license does not permit you to do so. Even for altruistic purposes. 

    Nope. Lots of companies regularly patch proprietary software without access to their source code, their permission or giving them money, and then sell the resulting product for money, and it's all perfectly legal.

    The simple reason is it doesn't infringe copyright. The patch does not contain the code of the underlying software (it can't - they don't have it), and they are not selling the underlying code, merely altering the user's machine so that the program runs faster or more securely.

    You don't need source code to legally find bugs, and you don't need code to legally fix bugs either.

  • How would you defeat this argument against open source?

    , cheong wrote

    @evildictaitor: Emmm... Detours is available for limited region only. Say MSStore "Hong Kong" does not have this product for sale.

    Like Detours.

    Personally I just built my own to avoid the licence fee. At it's most simple, Detours is little more than patching a JMP _detouredFunction at the start of the function you're trying to overwrite.