A page for randomness

1. Do you use source control?
2. Can you make a build in one step?
3. Do you make daily builds?
4. Do you have a bug database?
5. Do you fix bugs before writing new code?
6. Do you have an up-to-date schedule?
7. Do you have a spec?
8. Do programmers have quiet working conditions?
9. Do you use the best tools money can buy?
10. Do you have testers?
11. Do new candidates write code during their interview?
12. Do you do hallway usability testing?

Read more: The Joel Test: 12 Steps to Better Code - Joel on Software

We’ve all said it: “I’m not that dumb, but…”

Well, I don’t think you’ve said this:

I’m not that dumb that a dumb person can read my dumb mind.

- Suresh

My employer specializes in creating websites for middle-sized businesses. We rarely create “Mom’n'Pops” websites and generally don’t pursue contracts with major corporations. Working with mid-size business has given me the opportunity to speak with executives and “decision-makers” within each business. Our discussions eventually end up with the other person telling me about their previous web developers and how their currently site is ineffective as a sales to or representation of the business. There are some definitive characteristics about my customers’ previous web persons and without further adieu, I give you 9 signs you shouldn’t hire THAT web guy.

Read more: 9 Signs You Shouldn’t Hire THAT Web Guy | CSS Zone

Despite collecting an estimated several hundred million dollars in P2P related settlements from the likes of Napster, KaZaA and Bolt, prominent artists’ managers are complaining that so far, they haven’t received any compensation from the labels. According to a lawyer, some are considering legal action.
When EMI, Universal Music and Warner music reached settlement agreements with the likes of Napster, KaZaA and Bolt, they collected hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation - money that was supposed to go to artists whose rights had been allegedly infringed upon when the networks were operating with unlicensed music.

Now, according to an article, the managers of some major artists are getting very impatient, as it appears the very people who were supposed to be compensated - the artists - haven’t received anything from the massive settlements. They say the cash - estimated to be as much as $400m - hasn’t filtered through to their clients and understandably they’re getting very impatient.

Lawyer John Branca, who has represented the likes of The Rolling Stones and Korn, said: “Artist managers and lawyers have been wondering for months when their artists will see money from the copyright settlements and how it will be accounted for.”

Read more: RIAA Keeps Settlement Money, Artists May Sue | TorrentFreak

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Microsoft to launch a GNU rival called …….. UNG
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 13:33:26 +0200
From: <…….>
Reply-To: <………….>
To: <……………………………>

…..

[excerpt]
The aim of UNG is to write complete GNU-like tools and frameworks that will be completely compatible with existing GNU software and standards. These tools will run natively on Vista. This means that software written for the GNU environment will be able to compile and run on Vista with little or no modifications. Major software currently running on GNU/Linux will be able to run natively on Vista.

Microsoft CEO, Steve Ballmer, said on Friday(23 February) that they are aiming to restore a Unix-like environment to its former propriety glory, at the same time, proving that Microsoft is committed to interoperability. Ballmer emphasized that Microsoft’s new strategy is to provide users with a complete package, and this includes users who like Unix environments.

UNG, which stands for UNG’s not GNU is set to be released late 2009 .
[/excerpt]

Who knows what the bosses are up to these days?!

Regards

Source: Shock! Shock! Shock! “Microsoft to launch a GNU rival called …….. UNG” !!!! | Royal Ideas

by Michael Cunningham, Executive Vice President & General CounselEight years ago the U.S. regulatory authorities, and four years ago the European regulators made clear to Microsoft that its refusal to disclose interface information for its monopoly software products violates the law. So, it is hardly surprising to see even Microsoft state today that “interoperability across systems is an important requirement” and announce a “change in [its] approach to interoperability.” Of course, we’ve heard similar announcements before, almost always strategically timed for other effect. Red Hat regards this most recent announcement with a healthy dose of skepticism. Three commitments by Microsoft would show that it really means what it is announcing today:

• Commit to open standards: Rather than pushing forward its proprietary, Windows-based formats for document processing, OOXML, Microsoft should embrace the existing ISO-approved, cross-platform industry standard for document processing, Open Document Format (ODF) at the International Standards Organization’s meeting next week in Geneva. Microsoft, please demonstrate implementation of an existing international open standard now rather than make press announcements about intentions of future standards support.
• Commit to interoperability with open source: Instead of offering a patent license for its protocol information on the basis of licensing arrangements it knows are incompatible with the GPL – the world’s most widely used open source software license – Microsoft should extend its Open Specification Promise to all of the interoperability information that it is announcing today will be made available. The Open Specification Promise already covers many Microsoft products that do not have monopoly market positions. If Microsoft were truly committed to fostering openness and preventing customer lock-in, it would extend this promise to the protocol and interface information it intends to disclose today. There is no explanation for refusing to extend the Open Specification Promise to “high-volume” products, other than a continued intention on Microsoft’s part to lock customers into its monopoly products, and lock out competitors through patent threats.
• Commit to competition on a level playing field: Microsoft’s announcement today appears carefully crafted to foreclose competition from the open source community. How else can you explain a “promise not to sue open source developers” as long as they develop and distribute only*/ “non-commercial” implementations of interoperable products? This is simply disingenuous. The only hope for reintroducing competition to the monopoly markets Microsoft now controls – Windows, Office, etc. – is through commercial distributions of competitive open source software products.

Source: Red Hat News | Red Hat Statement on Microsoft Announcement

With the news that Windows 2008 (recently discussed on Slashdot) will have GUI-less installs and be fully scriptable, that they’ve opened up their communication protocols for non-commercial usage and are providing a patent covenant (Redhat Responds), and now finally an interesting rumor floating around that Microsoft will be taking on GNU directly. Has Microsoft totally switched gears in how it is approaching the Unix and FOSS sector for direct competition? According to an anonymous email leaked from a Microsoft employee, it seems Microsoft will be developing a framework that will be completely GNU compatible. Microsoft CEO, Steve Ballmer, said on Friday(23 February) that they are aiming to restore a Unix-like environment to its former propriety glory, at the same time, proving that Microsoft is committed to interoperability. Ballmer emphasized that Microsoft’s new strategy is to provide users with a complete package, and this includes users who like Unix environments. According to the supposedly leaked email, UNG, which stands for UNG’s not GNU is set to be released late 2009.

Source: Slashdot | Microsoft Trying to Appeal to the Unix Crowd?

The Gmail CAPTCHA has been cracked—albeit not easily—raising new concerns about spammers’ ability to abuse Google’s e-mail services. Websense Security Labs pointed out the security breach late last week, noting that spammers have a lot to gain by being able to use bots to automatically sign up for new accounts.

Google’s free e-mail services and a highly-desirable gmail.com domain—one that is unlikely to be blacklisted by anybody’s spam filters—are just two of the features that induced spammers to crack the CAPTCHA and have bots do all the work. On the upside, it apparently wasn’t easy—Websense says that it required two bot hosts to crack instead of just the one that recently cracked Windows Live Mail’s CAPTCHA (Websense believes that the same group was involved with both). It also believes that the two hosts are required because the first host may fail at cracking the code the first time around (and possibly time out), but the second host may also be required to check the work of the first. Additionally, only one in every five CAPTCHA-breaking requests on Gmail succeeded. Still, a 20 percent success rate is relatively high when you consider that spambots are trying to register hundreds (or thousands) of e-mail addresses at a time.

Read more: Gotcha, CAPTCHA! Gmail bot detector system cracked

Hot Damn. Obama for the win!

Two new national polls show Barack Obama surging against Hillary Clinton in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

In a New York Times-CBS News poll, 54 percent of Democratic primary voters say they would prefer the party to nominate Barack Obama while 38 percent prefer Hillary Clinton. That is a sharp shift in Obama’s favor from the previous poll in late January, when voters were split evenly, 41 percent each for Obama and Clinton.

The poll found similar swings in Obama’s favor on other questions. For example, asked how they would vote if the race were between Obama and Republican John McCain, 50 percent said they would support Obama to 38 percent for McCain, while respondents were split evenly, at 46 percent each, when the choice was between McCain and Clinton. Obama gained ground within nearly every sector, the poll found.

In a new Associated Press-Ipsos poll, Obama leads Clinton by a narrow margin, 46 percent to 43 percent, whereas Clinton had had a 5-point lead among Democratic primary voters in early February. Obama achieved that swing by advancing on Clinton in several demographic sectors, including white men, liberals and middle-income earners, the AP reported.

The AP poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, and the Times poll 3 percentage points. Those margins increased to about 5 percentage points when questions were asked of Democrats or Republicans only.

Source: New National Polls: Obama gaining ground - 2008 Presidential Campaign Blog - Political Intelligence - Boston.com

“Remember when I grabbed your resources at the beginning of class?”

“…and then I returned them.”

- Dr. Lee

“And I don’t want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there’s evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that’s how she really feels — that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever — then that’s legit. We’ll track it down.” - Bill O’Reilly

Lynching? Party? Unless there’s evidence? So we’re to understand from Bill O’Reilly that if someone might be relating a certain level of dissatisfaction with America’s present status and chief executive, that they deserve to be tracked down by Bill O’Reilly’s Lynch Mob?

It doesn’t even matter what Michelle Obama said. We do know that FOX News repeatedly misquoted Mrs. Obama’s statement and regardless of what she said, nothing — no words, intentions or deeds justify the unhinged spike in Bill O’Reilly’s bigoted, splotchy blood pressure to the point of wanting to “track it down” with his “lynching party.”

Read more: AlterNet: MediaCulture: Time for Bill O’Racist to Resign in Disgrace

I recently got a wild hair and was wondering if I could compile java to native code. I stumbled across an article about a GNU project called GCJ. I downloaded the compiler and did a “Hello World” for java native code. It worked! Then I set out to make a makefile for compiling java to native code.

The following screenshot shows the results:

(click to enlarge)

And here is the makefile to compile to native code:

# Created by Mark McKelvy (2008)

# Makefile for .java sources, will compile to native code, creating
# intermediate .o files. Will automatically search which source files
# have main() and link the objects into the appropriate binary.

CC=gcj
CFLAGS=-c -g
CHMOD=chmod 755
SOURCES = $(wildcard *.java)
OBJECTS = $(SOURCES:.java=.o)
BINS = $(shell grep -r “public static void main” $(SOURCES) | awk ‘BEGIN{FS=”.java”;ORS=” “}{print $$1}’)

.SUFFIXES: .java .o
default: objects binaries

binaries:
	@for bin in $(BINS); do \
		echo Linking $$bin ; \
		$(CC) –main=$$bin -o $$bin $(OBJECTS) ; \
	done

objects: $(OBJECTS)

.java.o:
	@echo Compiling $*.java ; \
	$(CC) $(CFLAGS) -O $*.java

RMFILES	+=$(wildcard *~)
RMFILES	+=$(wildcard *.o)
RMFILES +=$(BINS)

clean:
	@$(RM) $(RMFILES) ; \
	if [ "$(RMFILES)" != " " ] ; then \
		echo $(RM) $(RMFILES) ; \
	fi

 

The make utility shall maintain five internal macros that can be used in target and inference rules. In order to clearly define the meaning of these macros, some clarification of the terms target rule, inference rule, target, and prerequisite is necessary.

Target rules are specified by the user in a makefile for a particular target. Inference rules are user-specified or make-specified rules for a particular class of target name. Explicit prerequisites are those prerequisites specified in a makefile on target lines. Implicit prerequisites are those prerequisites that are generated when inference rules are used. Inference rules are applied to implicit prerequisites or to explicit prerequisites that do not have target rules defined for them in the makefile. Target rules are applied to targets specified in the makefile.

Before any target in the makefile is updated, each of its prerequisites (both explicit and implicit) shall be updated. This shall be accomplished by recursively processing each prerequisite. Upon recursion, each prerequisite shall become a target itself. Its prerequisites in turn shall be processed recursively until a target is found that has no prerequisites, at which point the recursion stops. The recursion shall then back up, updating each target as it goes.

The make utility shall maintain five internal macros that can be used in target and inference rules. In order to clearly define the meaning of these macros, some clarification of the terms target rule, inference rule, target, and prerequisite is necessary.

Target rules are specified by the user in a makefile for a particular target. Inference rules are user-specified or make-specified rules for a particular class of target name. Explicit prerequisites are those prerequisites specified in a makefile on target lines. Implicit prerequisites are those prerequisites that are generated when inference rules are used. Inference rules are applied to implicit prerequisites or to explicit prerequisites that do not have target rules defined for them in the makefile. Target rules are applied to targets specified in the makefile.

Before any target in the makefile is updated, each of its prerequisites (both explicit and implicit) shall be updated. This shall be accomplished by recursively processing each prerequisite. Upon recursion, each prerequisite shall become a target itself. Its prerequisites in turn shall be processed recursively until a target is found that has no prerequisites, at which point the recursion stops. The recursion shall then back up, updating each target as it goes.

In the definitions that follow, the word target refers to one of:

• A target specified in the makefile
• An explicit prerequisite specified in the makefile that becomes the target when make processes it during recursion
• An implicit prerequisite that becomes a target when make processes it during recursion

In the definitions that follow, the word prerequisite refers to one of the following:

• An explicit prerequisite specified in the makefile for a particular target
• An implicit prerequisite generated as a result of locating an appropriate inference rule and corresponding file that matches the suffix of the target

The five internal macros are:

$@

The $@ shall evaluate to the full target name of the current target, or the archive filename part of a library archive target. It shall be evaluated for both target and inference rules.For example, in the .c.a inference rule, $@ represents the out-of-date .a file to be built. Similarly, in a makefile target rule to build lib.a from file.c, $@ represents the out-of-date lib.a.

$%

The $% macro shall be evaluated only when the current target is an archive library member of the form libname( member .o). In these cases, $@ shall evaluate to libname and $% shall evaluate to member .o. The $% macro shall be evaluated for both target and inference rules.For example, in a makefile target rule to build lib.a( file.o), $% represents file.o, as opposed to $@, which represents lib.a.

$?

The $? macro shall evaluate to the list of prerequisites that are newer than the current target. It shall be evaluated for both target and inference rules.For example, in a makefile target rule to build prog from file1.o, file2.o, and file3.o, and where prog is not out-of-date with respect to file1.o, but is out-of-date with respect to file2.o and file3.o, $? represents file2.o and file3.o.

$<

In an inference rule, the $< macro shall evaluate to the filename whose existence allowed the inference rule to be chosen for the target. In the .DEFAULT rule, the $< macro shall evaluate to the current target name. The meaning of the $< macro shall be otherwise unspecified.For example, in the .c.a inference rule, $< represents the prerequisite .c file.

$*

The $* macro shall evaluate to the current target name with its suffix deleted. It shall be evaluated at least for inference rules.For example, in the .c.a inference rule, $*.o represents the out-of-date .o file that corresponds to the prerequisite .c file.

Source: make

Use ffmpeg to convert flv to mpg:

ffmpeg -i old-file.flv new-file.mpg

Use mplayer to copy mp3 from flv

mplayer -dumpaudio old-file.flv -dumpfile new-file.mp3

Script to speed things up:

(more…)

By Eugene Robinson
Friday, February 22, 2008; Page A23

Humor me while we conduct a little thought experiment. Imagine that Barack Obama had lost 10 contests in a row. Imagine that he now trailed Hillary Clinton substantially in the number of Democratic primaries and caucuses won, in total votes cast, in pledged convention delegates, in the overall delegate count, in fundraising and in the ineffable attribute called mojo. Imagine that Obama was struggling, at this late hour, to come up with the right message. What would the conventional wisdom say?

That it was over, of course. That Obama was toast. That staking everything on the March 4 primaries in Ohio and Texas was a starry-eyed hope, not a plan, and that it was time to smell the coffee.

Whenever Obama faced reporters, he’d have to answer tough questions. Why was he carrying on, knowing that he’d have to win by unrealistically large margins in all the remaining states to catch up? Didn’t it worry him that relying on the superdelegates — the Democratic establishment, basically — to hand him the nomination could divide and weaken the party? Wasn’t he concerned that Republican John McCain has such a head start in unifying his party and plotting his general election campaign?

The above, you will have noticed, is an accurate description of where Clinton stands right now. Yet nobody is forcing her to respond publicly to those painful questions. The reason is obvious: She’s Hillary Clinton, and history suggests it’s foolish to count out a Clinton until the last dog dies.

Read more: Eugene Robinson - If Obama Went 0-for-10 . . . - washingtonpost.com

I found this quite entertaining:

Sometimes it’s hard to come up with a full-length, balls-to-the-wall rant, but a lot of “too long for Twitter, too short for a whole post” ideas float in and out of my head all the time. Here’s 10 things every adult really ought to know, but a lot of people are apparently just too fucking stupid to figure out:

1. Having sex can cause pregnancy. This one seems too obvious to mention, but judging from the number of accidental children in the world, I thought it bore repeating. Nothing is 100% effective against pregnancy except abstinence, or the removal of your ovaries or testicles. (Incidentally, abortion is still legal in the US and most of Europe, just in case.)
2. If you cover your face with piercing jewelry, you may not be able to find a job. This also goes for doing weird things to your hair, and getting tattoos in conspicuous places. And for fuck’s sake, don’t give me any bullshit about “freedom of expression”, you little dumbass. You go right ahead and express yourself all you want, but body modification is not a constitutionally protected belief system. They can’t not hire you for being a Jew, but they certainly can not hire you for looking like a fucking freak. (caveat: I have both piercings and tattoos … nothing against tattoos, piercings or fucking freaks. Just don’t whine about it when you’re treated like one.)
3. It’s 2008. Racism is seriously outdated. That means, yes Virginia, it is TOTALLY FUCKING UNACCEPTABLE to refer to that black guy on TV as a “junglebunny.” Also, don’t use the word “they” as though black folks are some separate species who all think and act the same way. They’re “They” are humans, not dogs. And do I really need to remind you that “nigger” is a bad word?! Here’s a nice rule of thumb for you, dearie: If you wouldn’t say it to a black person’s face, you probably shouldn’t be saying it at all. (For those of you who really don’t get it, this also applies to spics, pakis, chinks, gooks, jews kikes, towelheads, and anyone else you care to slander.)

(more…)

It doesn’t.

Video by Pat Condell:

Video by Pat Condell:

While driving to work today I was following a big suburban that had a sticker that read:

“Still voting Democrat? You’re stuck on stupid!”

*sigh*

Sometimes I hate living in the South..

Religion or cult? (Like there’s a difference)

Pat Condell talks about Scientology.

The giant snakehead is a carnivorous fish that feasts on pretty much anything in its path, and has caused all manner of destruction in places where it has been introduced. With the recent discovery of the fish in Britain, officials are scrambling to find a possible solution to this dreaded environmental issue.

Maybe you think it’s overstating the problem a bit. After all it’s just a fish, right? Wrong. This is not your everyday fish. For one thing, the giant snakehead can kill you. Female snakeheads have been known to attack and sometimes actually kill human beings who get too close to juvenile fish.

The giant snakehead will eat absolutely everything in a body of water then crawl over land to the next pond or lake. If there’s an infestation near any other bodies of water, those other areas are almost sure to be infested soon because the snakehead can survive four days out of water while it looks for a new home.

Read more: The World’s Most Evil Fish Invades Britain : Environmental News Blog | Environmental Graffiti

This will restore grub if you already had grub installed but lost it to a windows install or some other occurence that erased/changed your MBR so that grub no longer appears at start up or it returns an error.

(This how to is written for Ubuntu but should work on other systems. The only thing to take note of, when you see “sudo” that will mean to you that the following command should be entered at a root terminal.)

Boot into the live Ubuntu cd. This can be the live installer cd or the older live session Ubuntu cds.

When you get to the desktop open a terminal and enter. (I am going to give you the commands and then I will explain them later)

Read more: How to install Grub from a live Ubuntu cd. - Ubuntu Forums

Science is not simply a database of knowledge. It’s a method, a way of finding this knowledge. Observe, hypothesize, predict, observe, revise. Science is provisional; it’s always open to improvement. Science is even subject to itself. If the method itself didn’t work, we’d see it. Our computers wouldn’t work (OK, bad example), our space probes wouldn’t get off the ground, our electronics wouldn’t work, our medicine wouldn’t work. Yet, all these things do in fact function, spectacularly well. Science is a check on itself, which is why it is such an astonishingly powerful way of understanding reality.

And that right there is where science and religion part ways. Science is not based on faith. Science is based on evidence. We have evidence it works, vast amounts of it, billions of individual pieces that fit together into a tapestry of reality. That is the critical difference. Faith, as it is interpreted by most religions, is not evidence-based, and is generally held tightly even despite evidence against it. In many cases, faith is even reinforced when evidence is found contrary to it.

To say that we have to take science on faith is such a gross misunderstanding of how science works that it can only be uttered by someone who is wholly ignorant of how reality works.

Read more: Bad Astronomy Blog » Is science faith-based?

Thursday, October 27, 2005;

Ben S. Bernanke does not think the national housing boom is a bubble that is about to burst, he indicated to Congress last week, just a few days before President Bush nominated him to become the next chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Read more: Bernanke: There’s No Housing Bubble to Go Bust

Dear Citizens of America,

In view of your failure to elect a competent President and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately.

Her Sovereign Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories (except Kansas, which she does not fancy), as from Monday next.

(more…)

Black voters are heavily represented in the 94th Election District in Harlem’s 70th Assembly District. Yet according to the unofficial results from the New York Democratic primary last week, not a single vote in the district was cast for Senator Barack Obama.

That anomaly was not unique. In fact, a review by The New York Times of the unofficial results reported on primary night found about 80 election districts among the city’s 6,106 where Mr. Obama supposedly did not receive even one vote, including cases where he ran a respectable race in a nearby district.

City election officials this week said that their formal review of the results, which will not be completed for weeks, had confirmed some major discrepancies between the vote totals reported publicly — and unofficially — on primary night and the actual tally on hundreds of voting machines across the city.

In the Harlem district, for instance, where the primary night returns suggested a 141 to 0 sweep by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, the vote now stands at 261 to 136. In an even more heavily black district in Brooklyn — where the vote on primary night was recorded as 118 to 0 for Mrs. Clinton — she now barely leads, 118 to 116.

The history of New York elections has been punctuated by episodes of confusion, incompetence and even occasional corruption. And election officials and lawyers for both Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton agree that it is not uncommon for mistakes to be made by weary inspectors rushing on election night to transcribe columns of numbers that are delivered first to the police and then to the news media.

That said, in a presidential campaign in which every vote at the Democratic National Convention may count, a swing of even a couple of hundred votes in New York might help Mr. Obama gain a few additional delegates.

Read more: Unofficial Tallies in City Understated Obama Vote - New York Times

The <unistd.h> header defines miscellaneous symbolic constants and types, and declares miscellaneous functions.

The following are declared as functions and may also be defined as macros. Function prototypes must be provided for use with an ISO C compiler.

int access(const char *, int);
unsigned int alarm(unsigned int);
int brk(void *);
int chdir(const char *);
int chroot(const char *); (LEGACY)
int chown(const char *, uid_t, gid_t);
int close(int);
size_t confstr(int, char *, size_t);
char *crypt(const char *, const char *);
char *ctermid(char *);
char *cuserid(char *s); (LEGACY)
int dup(int);
int dup2(int, int);
void encrypt(char[64], int);
int execl(const char *, const char *, …);
int execle(const char *, const char *, …);
int execlp(const char *, const char *, …);
int execv(const char *, char *const []);
int execve(const char *, char *const [], char *const []);
int execvp(const char *, char *const []);
void _exit(int);
int fchown(int, uid_t, gid_t);
int fchdir(int);
int fdatasync(int);
pid_t fork(void);
long int fpathconf(int, int);
int fsync(int);
int ftruncate(int, off_t);
char *getcwd(char *, size_t);
int getdtablesize(void); (LEGACY)
gid_t getegid(void);
uid_t geteuid(void);
gid_t getgid(void);
int getgroups(int, gid_t []);
long gethostid(void);
char *getlogin(void);
int getlogin_r(char *, size_t);
int getopt(int, char * const [], const char *);
int getpagesize(void); (LEGACY)
char *getpass(const char *); (LEGACY)
pid_t getpgid(pid_t);
pid_t getpgrp(void);
pid_t getpid(void);
pid_t getppid(void);
pid_t getsid(pid_t);
uid_t getuid(void);
char *getwd(char *);
int isatty(int);
int lchown(const char *, uid_t, gid_t);
int link(const char *, const char *);
int lockf(int, int, off_t);
off_t lseek(int, off_t, int);
int nice(int);
long int pathconf(const char *, int);
int pause(void);
int pipe(int [2]);
ssize_t pread(int, void *, size_t, off_t);
int pthread_atfork(void (*)(void), void (*)(void),
void(*)(void));
ssize_t pwrite(int, const void *, size_t, off_t);
ssize_t read(int, void *, size_t);
int readlink(const char *, char *, size_t);
int rmdir(const char *);
void *sbrk(intptr_t);
int setgid(gid_t);
int setpgid(pid_t, pid_t);
pid_t setpgrp(void);
int setregid(gid_t, gid_t);
int setreuid(uid_t, uid_t);
pid_t setsid(void);
int setuid(uid_t);
unsigned int sleep(unsigned int);
void swab(const void *, void *, ssize_t);
int symlink(const char *, const char *);
void sync(void);
long int sysconf(int);
pid_t tcgetpgrp(int);
int tcsetpgrp(int, pid_t);
int truncate(const char *, off_t);
char *ttyname(int);
int ttyname_r(int, char *, size_t);
useconds_t ualarm(useconds_t, useconds_t);
int unlink(const char *);
int usleep(useconds_t);
pid_t vfork(void);
ssize_t write(int, const void *, size_t);

The following external variables are declared:

extern char *optarg;
extern int optind, opterr, optopt;

<unistd.h>

Mendacious machines controlled by hackers that reroute Internet traffic from infected computers to fraudulent Web sites are increasingly being used to launch attacks, according to a paper published this week by researchers with the Georgia Institute of Technology and Google Inc.

The paper estimates roughly 68,000 servers on the Internet are returning malicious Domain Name System results, which means people with compromised computers are sometimes being directed to the wrong Web sites — and often have no idea.

Read more: The Associated Press: Use of Rogue DNS Servers on Rise

Even by the dismal standards of what passes for a national debate on intelligence and civil liberties, last week was a really bad week.

The Senate debated a bill that would make needed updates to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - while needlessly expanding the president’s ability to spy on Americans without a warrant and covering up the unlawful spying that President George W. Bush ordered after Sept. 11.

The Democrat who heads the Senate Intelligence Committee, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, led the way in killing amendments that would have strengthened requirements for warrants and raised the possibility of at least some accountability for past wrongdoing.

Republicans declaimed about protecting America from terrorists - as if anyone was arguing the opposite - and had little to say about protecting Americans’ rights.

We saw a ray of hope when the head of the CIA conceded - finally - that waterboarding was probably illegal. But his boss, the director of national intelligence, insisted it was legal when done to real bad guys. And Vice President Dick Cheney - surprise! - made it clear that Bush would authorize waterboarding whenever he wanted.
The Catch-22 metaphor is seriously overused, but consider this: Attorney General Michael Mukasey told Congress there would be no criminal investigation into waterboarding. He said the Justice Department decided waterboarding was legal and told the CIA that.

So, according to Mukaseyan logic, the Justice Department cannot investigate those who may have committed torture, because the Justice Department said it was O.K. and Justice cannot be expected to investigate itself.

As it was with torture, so it was with wiretaps.

Read more: Putting the president above the law - International Herald Tribune