|
Post by TheWallSpoke on Oct 17, 2007 12:21:33 GMT -5
I know that read-only means that you can only read something and not modify it. I wasn't trying to say that "read-only" means that the file cannot write to your computer. BUT in the case of an mp3, because the file is read-only the only thing you can do with it is open it up in a music playing program and read it through the program. And because of this, there is no way for it to have any kind of output onto your computer. Jesus christ you are one dumb fuck. www.news.com/Virus-watchers-seek-to-mute-MP3-hoax/2100-1001_3-269254.htmlPARAGRAPH NUMBER FIVE, JACKASS: "... data files such as MP3s cannot execute by themselves and thus cannot have computer viruses embedded in them."Are you done trying to argue this yet, archer? You're wrong. Again. Give it up already. The argument was not if a MP3 can execute, it was if it can carry a virus. Is there something that I'm seeing here that you're not? "... data files such as MP3s cannot execute by themselves and thus cannot have computer viruses embedded in them."Because I could have sworn that sentences ends with "...and thus cannot have computer viruses embedded in them." hmm.
|
|
|
Post by Ockham's Razor on Oct 17, 2007 12:24:44 GMT -5
I know that read-only means that you can only read something and not modify it. I wasn't trying to say that "read-only" means that the file cannot write to your computer. BUT in the case of an mp3, because the file is read-only the only thing you can do with it is open it up in a music playing program and read it through the program. And because of this, there is no way for it to have any kind of output onto your computer. Jesus christ you are one dumb fuck. www.news.com/Virus-watchers-seek-to-mute-MP3-hoax/2100-1001_3-269254.htmlPARAGRAPH NUMBER FIVE, JACKASS: "... data files such as MP3s cannot execute by themselves and thus cannot have computer viruses embedded in them."Are you done trying to argue this yet, archer? You're wrong. Again. Give it up already. The argument was not if a MP3 can execute, it was if it can carry a virus. "... data files such as MP3s cannot execute by themselves and thus cannot have computer viruses embedded in them. "
|
|
|
Post by TheWallSpoke on Oct 17, 2007 12:31:29 GMT -5
So when you said that "After all, there is no ISO for the encoding for mp3 files, only for decoding." What you really meant was "there is no International Standard Organization for the encoding for mp3 files"? Either way, you're still not making any sense. You see, I assumed you were actually trying to be gramatically correct in the framing of your sentence so when you said ISO I assumed you meant a specific file system (.iso, or ISO 9660), not the organization to standardize said file system. So no, I am not the retard here, because you see, I interpreted your sentence correctly according to the way you wrote it. If you want me to know exactly what you're talking about, try being gramatically correct. And I know how binary works, but thank you anyway for the tutorial. Unfortunately, I regret having to tell you that I didn't read any of it. Thats fine, its good practice for me. Saying ISO was correct. ISO being one of many organisations that do that. ISO also being the standards they set. The standard for file systems on a disk is an ISO. By standard and file type. The whole problem rests with the sentence being out of context. Your definition of ISO after I had assumed you meant .iso or one of the standards they set: "No retard. ISO is the International Standards Organisation that sets standards for almost anything, such as, I dont know. The standard for decoding mp3 files. The file format ISO is infact, a standard set by this organisation, also. " by that definition you were referring to the organization when you said ISO, in the context of this sentence: "After all, there is no ISO for the encoding for mp3 files, only for decoding." now applying your given definition quoted above, that should read as: "After all there is no International Standards Organization for the encoding for mp3 files, only for decoding." Which, of course, is gramatically incorrect. so then the problem rests in your definition.
|
|
|
Post by TheWallSpoke on Oct 17, 2007 12:36:06 GMT -5
The argument was not if a MP3 can execute, it was if it can carry a virus. "... data files such as MP3s cannot execute by themselves and thus cannot have computer viruses embedded in them. "hahahahahah lmao. by the way archer, i'm done with this. I cannot possibly engage myself anymore in such a brain numbing discussion. my brain cells refuse.
|
|
|
Post by Archer112 on Oct 17, 2007 13:06:23 GMT -5
Thats fine, its good practice for me. Saying ISO was correct. ISO being one of many organisations that do that. ISO also being the standards they set. The standard for file systems on a disk is an ISO. By standard and file type. The whole problem rests with the sentence being out of context. Your definition of ISO after I had assumed you meant .iso or one of the standards they set: "No retard. ISO is the International Standards Organisation that sets standards for almost anything, such as, I dont know. The standard for decoding mp3 files. The file format ISO is infact, a standard set by this organisation, also. " by that definition you were referring to the organization when you said ISO, in the context of this sentence: "After all, there is no ISO for the encoding for mp3 files, only for decoding." now applying your given definition quoted above, that should read as: "After all there is no International Standards Organization for the encoding for mp3 files, only for decoding." Which, of course, is gramatically incorrect. so then the problem rests in your definition. ISO is a perfectly acceptible term to use. ISO is not actually an acronym for the companys name. The names of the standards they set are called ISO's. The company is actually called "International Organisation for Standardisation" Although most people called them by the other name. That was me being silly and not using their real name. So yea, the sentance was correct, if not for the use of the wrong organisation name.
|
|
|
Post by Archer112 on Oct 17, 2007 13:09:03 GMT -5
The argument was not if a MP3 can execute, it was if it can carry a virus. "... data files such as MP3s cannot execute by themselves and thus cannot have computer viruses embedded in them. "They do not need to be executable to have stuff enbeded into them. You could embed a picture of a monkey into it if you wanted. But what ever.
|
|