Nerd Sniping

This comic makes me laugh a lot more than it probably should, especially since if I ever got sniped, I know I would totally fail. I've actually seen this problem before too and I never managed to solve it in the same day. I would be a very easy person to snipe.
Except you have no reason to snipe me; I'm not worth any points at all...

Linux, Where Crapware Goes to Die

Check out this interesting article I discovered.
I would like to use this article as a response to people who tell me that they don't like Linux because it doesn't run the programs they prefer. The reason I love Linux over Windows, is that Linux also doesn't run the programs that you don't prefer.

There are 3 reasons Linux doesn't run all the programs that Windows does, adequately covered in that article. I'd like to emphasize a few of the points and add a few more for emphasis.

I've heard people tell me that if my Linux computer isn't infected with crapware, I'm not trying hard enough - i.e.; downloading everything and installing it? I've also been told that if Linux was more popular then crapware would be written for it just as commonly as it is for Windows.

I'd like to emphasize that this simply will never happen, and I've probably tried harder than you to stress test my computer system. During the phase where I was purposefully trying to see what Linux could do, I went and tried to get a virus or spyware to install. I would try to install the programs that killed Windows, just to try and kill Linux. They wouldn't install, and the viruses did nothing. 50 viral programs and countless spyware, adware, and crapware programs later... and Linux was still triumphant.

#1 and 2 - Linux Is Hard To Infect And Easy to Disinfect - What makes me laugh on this is that this is a well established fact. And it's also well established that one of the best ways to secure Windows is run it through Linux.

There are die-hard Windows users, server administrators, network analysts, that I know who tell me that the only Linux they know is how to set up a Linux server and run Virtualbox, which they run Windows on. And why do they run Windows on a Linux Virtualbox? Because Windows is safer!! Windows running through Linux is 90% less likely to suddenly pick up infections, it crashes less, and it uses less memory.

This solution here is also the perfect way to get all those programs you want/need/prefer on Linux. Running a Windows Virtualbox allows you to run all those programs you absolutely crave, inside the security of Linux.

#3 - Linux programs are vetted (and there are thousands of programs available) - This is one point I like stressing a lot. While one of the rally cries of Windows supporters is that the selection of software is so much greater for Windows, none of the programs are vetted for usefulness and stability. There is NO MICROSOFT QUALITY CONTROL working to make sure that Windows programmers only write programs that won't hurt you, and keep your Windows programs safe.

I'm serious! And if you take the time to think about it you've probably already been in a situation where you realize that I'm right! What is the only thing that Microsoft, or Dell, or Compaq, or HP can advise you to do once your system is running slower than molasses because of all the spyware and malware and is infected and crashes when you try running spyware scans? Reformat!?!? Seriously!? The only option is reformatting!?

I don't like reformatting as an option, especially when on Windows it seems to be the only option. I would prefer a safer operating system experience with guaranteed safe programs (something Windows simply cannot provide).

Linux is safe. Every program is vetted through a testing group of millions of users before being released. Because Linux has a watchdog service is operation, there are standards that must be kept, and rules that are enforced.So while Windows runs more programs, only Linux can claim that the programs it runs are stable, secure, and free of malware. This is something that Windows has never been able to claim.

Oh, and another thing I'd like to add. Have you actually checked out the number of programs that Linux has in the repository? Before you claim that Linux doesn't have a lot of programs, you might want to install and play around with the 30,000+ programs that are there. And once you're done with those programs, check out Sourceforge and other places for more links you can add to your repository. I guarantee you will never be bored on Linux.

If Web Browsers Were Modes of Transport

Cartoonist Caldwell Tanner of College Humor suggests that web browsers can be compared to modes of transportation.Are his descriptions accurate?

Sony Downgrades the PS3 in an Upgrade

Here's a story that has millions of people up in arms. You can read the complete article on the EFF website.

I don't know if there is any nice way to blog about this. All I can say is, forgive me for trampling on your die hard personal opinions (if you still maintain those personal opinions after reading the EFF article)... but, here I go.

After Geohot released a hypervisor hack that made installing Linux software on PS3 a breeze (included here since I have no respect for Sony at all), Sony countered by releasing an upgrade for the PS3 console that downgrades the console - it completely removes the hypervisor function. Here's what makes this action by Sony suck even more. If you decline to upgrade (should we be calling this an upgrade when it involves the removal of a feature?), it effectively disables the console.

If you decline to upgrade your PS3, the console will no longer play PS3 games online anymore, you will not be able to watch video online anymore, it will be impossible to play new PS3 games, it will be impossible to watch new Blu-Ray videos, and new Blu-Ray discs could even disable the Blu-Ray drive completely.

What makes this worse in my eyes is the eagerness that Sony rushes in to rape their entire customer base over the actions of distinct minority.

I've have never liked Sony. And, simply because they decided to fleece their customers in this way, I will never trust them again. Even if this software issue gets resolved so that no harm is done to the consumers, I still won't trust Sony because they did this in the first place. Why should you trust a company that decides to harm their customers so eagerly?

Ubuntu switches to base-10

Ubuntu's future 10.10 (Maverick Meerkat) operating system is going to make a small, but contentious change to how file sizes are represented. Like most other operating systems using binary prefixes, Ubuntu currently represents 1 kB (kilobyte) as 1024 bytes (base-2). But starting with Lucid Lynx 10.10, the operating system will be switching from IEC units (base-2) to SI units (base-10) that will denote 1 kB as 1,000 bytes, 1 MB as 1,000 kB / 1,000,000 bytes, 1 GB as 1,000 MB / 1,000,000 kB / 1,000,000,000 bytes, and so on.
It was originally thought that the change over to SI units would happen with 10.04 Lucid Lynx, but it has been delayed to Lucid+1 (10.10) since some programs have failed to update to the new units policy and were still using base-2
The ancient Greeks did not count in binary (base-2) and this new counting will finally put them in line with the standard Greek meaning of "kilo" as 1000.
This is a move already undertaken by other operating systems including Mac 10.6 Snow Leopard.

Did You Make a Thumbo?

I was quite amused by this word that I found on Word Spy.

My only question is this: Are thumbo's, like art, defined by the eye - or brain - of the beholder? My parents have tried for years to successfully integrate txtspeak and chatspeak into their phone texts, and fail horribly every time. They abbreviate the wrong words, or try to abbreviate already shortened accepted txtspeak text into something impossible to read, pronounce, or understand.

Does this make it a thumbo? It does from my perspective. However, they claim they can understand their texts.

What Is Hacking and Reverse Engineering?

It is amazing, and rather disconcerting, to realize how much software we run without knowing for sure what it does. We buy software off the shelf in shrink wrapped packages. We run setup utilities that install numerous files, change system settings, delete or disable older versions and superseded utilities, and modify critical registry files. Every time we access a Web site, we may invoke or interact with dozens of programs and code segments that are necessary to give us the intended look, feel, and behavior. We purchase CD's with hundreds of games and utilities or download them as shareware. We exchange useful programs with colleagues and friends when we have tried only a fraction of each program’s features.
Then, we download updates and install patches, trusting that the vendors are sure that the changes are correct and complete. We blindly hope that the latest change to each program keeps it compatible with all of the rest of the programs on our system. We rely on much software that we do not understand and do not know very well at all.
Many people fear hackers because they have been instilled with a negative view from the press, however, you owe many advancements made in computer software and hardware to hacking.
Hacker is a term used to describe different types of computer experts, who employ a tactical, rather than strategic, approach to computer programming, administration, or security. In computer programming, hacker means a programmer who hacks or reaches a goal by employing a series of small changes or additions to extend existing code and/or resources. In technical fields outside of computing, hacker is sometimes extended to mean an expert who has particularly detailed knowledge and uses this knowledge to cleverly circumvent limits to reach solutions.
Hacker means different things to some people.

To the popular press: means someone who breaks into computers
Among programmers: it means a good programmer

But the two meanings are connected. To programmers, "hacker" connotes mastery in the most literal sense. A hacker is someone who can make a computer do what he wants - whether the computer wants to or not.
To add to the confusion, the noun "hack" also has two senses. It can be either a compliment or an insult. It's called a hack when you do something in an ugly way. But when you do something so clever that you somehow beat the system, that's also called a hack. The word is used more often in the former than the latter sense, probably because ugly solutions are more common than brilliant ones.
Notice the definition given for the word "hack" according to the Encarta Dictionary for a good example of the two tenses to this word.

computer enthusiast: somebody who is interested or skilled in computer technology and programming
amateur player: somebody who enjoys a sport but lacks skill in it

Believe it or not, the two senses of "hack" are also connected. Ugly and imaginative solutions have something in common: they both break the rules. And there is a gradual continuum between rule breaking that's merely ugly (using duct tape to attach something to your bike) and rule breaking that is brilliantly imaginative (discarding Euclidean space).
As a hacker myself, I have often been criticized for the stand I take on computer technology, and when people get over their shock usually ask me, “How can you possibly condone hacking and reverse engineering?”
These questions are usually prompted by a limited understanding of hacking, and the fact that the negative connotation of both fields is frequently touted in the press.
To many people, the idea of hacking may conjure up stylized images of electronic vandalism, espionage, dyed hair, and body piercings. Most people associate hacking with breaking the law, therefore dubbing all those who engage in hacking activities to be criminals. Granted, there are people out there who use hacking techniques to break the law, but hacking isn't really about that. In fact, hacking is more about following the law than breaking it.
The essence of hacking is finding unintended or overlooked uses for the laws and properties of a given situation and then applying them in new and inventive ways to solve a problem.
Hacking is a tool... much like a stethoscope is a tool. A stethoscope could be used by a burglar to listen to the lock mechanism of a safe as the tumblers fall in place. But the same stethoscope could be used by your family doctor to detect breathing or heart problems. Or, it could be used by a computer technician to listen closely to the operating sounds of a sealed disk drive to diagnose a problem without exposing the drive to potentially-damaging dust and pollen. The tool is not inherently good or bad. The issue is the use to which the tool is put. It is much the same with hacking; it is not inherently good or evil unless it is used to good or evil purposes.
It says a great deal about our work that we use the same word for a brilliant or a horribly cheesy solution. When we cook one up we're not always 100% sure which kind it is. But as long as it has the right sort of wrongness, that's a promising sign. It's odd that people think of programming as precise and methodical. Computers are precise and methodical. Hacking is something you do with a gleeful laugh.
Reverse engineering is a process where an engineered artifact (be it a car, jet engine, or software program) is deconstructed in a way that reveals its innermost details, such as its design and architecture.
In the software world reverse engineering boils down to taking an existing program for which source-code or proper documentation is not available and attempting to recover details regarding its’ design and implementation.
Hacking and reverse engineering is particularly useful in modern software analysis for a wide variety of purposes:

Finding malicious code: Many virus and malware detection techniques use reverse engineering to understand how abhorrent code is structured and functions.
Discovering unexpected flaws and faults: Even the most well-designed system can have holes that result from the nature of our “forward engineering” development techniques. Reverse engineering can help identify flaws and faults before they become mission-critical software failures.
Finding the use of others' code: In supporting the cognizant use of intellectual property, it is important to understand where protected code or techniques are used in applications. Reverse engineering techniques can be used to detect the presence or absence of software elements of concern.
Finding the use of shareware and open source code where it was not intended to be used: In the opposite of the infringing code concern, if a product is intended for security or proprietary use, the presence of publicly available code can be of concern. Reverse engineering enables the detection of code replication issues.
Learning from others' products of a different domain or purpose: Reverse engineering techniques can enable the study of advanced software approaches and allow new students to explore the products of masters. This can be a very useful way to learn and to build on a growing body of code knowledge. Many Web sites have been built by seeing what other Web sites have done. Many Web developers learned HTML and Web programming techniques by viewing the source of other sites.
Discovering features or opportunities that the original developers did not realize. Code complexity can foster new innovation. Existing techniques can be reused in new contexts. Reverse engineering can lead to new discoveries about software and new opportunities for innovation.

It is by poking about inside current technology that hackers get ideas for the next generation.
"No thanks", some may say, "outside help is not needed."
But they're wrong. The next generation of computer technology has often - perhaps more often than not - been developed by outsiders.
In 1977 there was no doubt some group within IBM developing what they expected to be the next generation of business computer. They were mistaken. The next generation of business computer was being developed on entirely different lines by two long-haired guys called Steve in a garage in Los Altos. At about the same time, the powers that be were cooperating to develop the official next generation operating system, Multics. But two guys who thought Multics excessively complex went off and wrote their own. They gave it a name that was a joking reference to Multics: Unix.
And it was the simpler Unix that led the computer revolution, not Multics.
But what hackers fear the most is today becoming a reality! The latest intellectual property laws impose unprecedented restrictions on the sort of poking around that leads to new ideas. In the past, a competitor might use patents to prevent you from selling a copy of something they made, but they couldn't prevent you from taking one apart to see how it worked. The latest laws make this a crime. How are we to develop new technology if we can't study current technology to figure out how to improve it?
Data is by definition easy to copy. And the Internet makes copies easy to distribute. So it is no wonder companies are afraid. But, as so often happens, fear has clouded their judgment. The government has responded with draconian laws to protect intellectual property. They probably mean well. But they may not realize that such laws will do more harm than good.
Breaking the rules should NOT be something that also breaks the law. What hackers fear most is that the government will discover too late that the very laws that they made for their protection are what causes them to fall. Unlike high tax rates, governments can't repeal totalitarianism if it turns out to be a mistake.
This is why hackers worry. The government spying on people doesn't literally make programmers write worse code. It just leads eventually to a world in which bad ideas will win since there will be no one around to hack into the program and make it better. And because this is so important to hackers, they're especially sensitive to it.
A good example of one law which scares me is the law regarding computer use in New South Wales, Australia.

Section 310 of the Crimes Act 1900 states that:
"A person who intentionally (a.) destroys, erases or alters data stored in or inserts data into a computer; or (b.) interferes with, or interrupts or obstructs the lawful use of a computer..." can be punished by severe prison sentences.

It might sound like a good law on the surface but look at it closer. Remember the description of most computer users at the beginning of this entry... is there any computer operation that doesn't "erase", "alter", "destroy", or "insert" data into a computer? No, there isn't!
And what exactly does it mean when it says "obstructs the lawful use of a computer?" Isn't the lawful use of a computer that computer users be allowed to "erase", "alter", "destroy", or "insert" data into a computer? Yes.
This law makes computer use simultaneously illegal and legal at the same time! By this law, anyone who uses a computer can be thrown in jail for up to 10 years, or completely pardoned! Interestingly, New South Wales is one of the most proactive states in the world in prosecuting computer-related crimes.
After I wrote this entry I did receive an answer to emails I sent to several Australian law firms. According to one email I recieved, "The NSW law prohibiting computer use is phrased that way since it can frequently be difficult to determine whether or not a person had malicious intent (which is a difficulty raised with the penal codes used in other Australian states). The way the law in NSW is phrased, what is prosecuted is not the intention but the computer use itself. The law in NSW is phrased to make any computer use illegal so as to give the government the greatest scope in prosecuting crimes of a computer nature, without having to worry about the intent behind the computer use."
What makes some of these totalitarianism laws so scary is that most hacking isn't about doing things illegal; it's about learning and expanding knowledge. This totalitarianism law of NSW actually threatens letting people expand their knowledge of computer by threatening to make ALL computer use illegal and prosecutable at the whim of whoever is in power at the time!!
The law may sound reasonable on the surface, and the explanation may sound like a laudable reason on the surface... but totalitarianism by its' very nature prohibits growth and learning.
I am a hacker. As such the owner and editor of this blog promises to always tout good (hacked, tested, reverse-engineered) ideas on this blog.
Keep hacking alive.
Keep good, tested ideas flowing.
Keep thinking outside the box.
Hacking and reverse-engineering should not be illegal when used to benefit others.