Re: The importance of IVs

On 27 Aug 2005 18:55:42 -0700, tomstdenis@gmail.com wrote:

>Not every application uses memory as you ignorantly think. Ever use a
>memory map? Didn't think so...

Oh please...

>Wait till you grow up and be a big boy and play with MULTIPLE PROCESSES
>AT ONCE.

Hey Tommy boy...
It was just a few days ago that I saw a post from you in which you
revealed your age as being 23.
If that's the case, then rest assured that I was playing with
processors when you were in diapers, and was working on dual- and
quad-processor systems when you were still playing with your
Speak-n-Spell.

>then unpack from my NIGHTLY BACKUP and be back up in all of about 145
>seconds or so...
>
>So even if someone did write a virus for x86_64 it would have MINIMAL
>impact.

Let's see...
Last time I was hit with a virus...was back in1990. Even then, the
only reason my system was infected was because I accidentally left
something running -- a virus that I myself was creating. Other than
that...nope...haven't been affected by viruses because I'm not some
dumbass who has to open every attachment from unknown sources, nor do
I run any "Free Screen Savers" which act as background dialers to
overseas phone sex lines. An ounce of common sense goes a long way..

Regarding the restore time from backup -- your operating system is
irrelevant if you have a proper disaster plan in place. It would take
me no more than 30 seconds to reach over and pick up my DVD that
stores my backups. The remaining time is a function of how fast my
hardware happens to be.

>That's a loaded statement. Most windows installs run the user as
>Administrator which means they can screw up the box trivially.

Yeah...and most drivers can kill themselves (and others) if they drive
a car without actually knowing how to drive a car.
Ignorance and stupidity is not an excuse.
If you don't know how to drive a car, don't go blaming the
manufacturer when you crash into a pole.
Similarly, if you don't know how to set up an operating system, don't
go blaming the manufacturer when your system gets 0wneD by
spyware/viruses.

>Not really since Linux [and Unix and BSD and ...] was written with
>security in mind. Hence the multiple users, properly isolated
>processes, ulimits, etc...

Just because something was written with "security in mind" does not
make it secure. Banks are designed with security in mind...and yet
they're constantly being robbed. Just a couple weeks ago there was
$65 million stolen from a bank in Brazil.

>Windows was written with $$$ and "fun to use" in mind since apparently
>everyone is stupid and MUST be amused at all stages of their day...

Anything based on NT was written with security and stability in mind.
If you were a few years older, you'd know this from first-hand
experience. Even you can't be so naive as to equate Windows 95/98 to
Windows NT/2000.

> Fun isn't clicking on shiny "windowsupdate" icons ... that isn't fun,
> if that is fun for you you need some professional help.

At what point did I say anything about what my idea of fun was?
Never.
Besides, I don't have to worry about clicking on any "Windows Update"
icons because I'm knowledgeable enough to know that I can have the O/S
download and install its own updates automatically as they become
available.
Received on Thu Sep 29 21:51:16 2005