Right, because a year of knowing about these vulnerabilities wasn't enough for poor shops like Google, Yahoo, or Microsoft to make any changes. They obviously needed more time - not a kick in the balls.
Since no one uses their services for anything critical anyway, it's perfectly OK that only serious hackers had access to this vulnerability. It's a real tragedy that the attack is no longer elite and soon available to script kiddies.
I would argue that since the vuln is already known and the "major vendors" have known about it for such a long time that releasing such a tool is exactly the kind of impetus they needed to get rolling. So yes, Mike Perry did a great public service by making this tool and making it available.
Or do you think that just giving a talk about it would have accomplished the same objective? My cynical self says, no way. The data is already out there. A talk just rehashes what is already known. If provides no leverage to get the vendors to fix the issue.
It's not like we haven't seen this before. In many cases you'll find people saying exactly what you say. However, the reality of the matter is that these vendors otherwise would not fix the issue. Is this one of those cases? It sure looks that way.
So, what happens when large groups of people independently all over the nation ddos the system?
Spray cleaning solution that contains 10% thc on door handles. Coat bills in residue. Don't a high percentage of hundred dollar bills already contain traces of coke? (or is that so eighties?).
Can't wait to the time when you won't dare shake someone's hand "because you don't know where it's been! or because you don't want the other party to analyze whatever it is you've been up to.
Of course. It really can't be the company's fault, after all. After all, how are you going to fund your pension plans when you are busy buying up all the foreign car companies and paying your executives their (required) hefty salaries, stock options and golden parachutes.
Do you want to bet that executive "pensions" are fully funded?
2. Incredibly stupid retirement plans. Among them the "Economy Killer" 'defined benefit' plans instead of 401Ks. They killed the airlines before big oil did, and they killed Detroit.
Well yes... and no. Who negotiated and agreed to those retirement plans? Oh right! The companies involved made those promises. Why did they do so? Well, so they could get away with less current (at the time) capital outlays for stuff. Like not raising the hourly wages but promising better pensions.
So, they saved money then but now somehow forgot where all that money they saved went. Oh, right, they didn't really "forget" - they spent it all instead funding their promises. Detroit and the airlines killed themselves. There's a reason now that pension plans must be fully funded.
You'll notice that companies with pension plans that are fully funded don't seem to have many issues. Probably because they planned it that way. Just like the auto and airline industries should have done. Those companies could have done that and got bit in the ass by not doing so.
The biggest adjustments I have seen even fully funded plans go through are changes to medical benefits. This makes sense though. Unlike pensions, where you know to the penny what someone will get if they retire on you (and can be fully planned for!) medical cost increases came as a surprise and it's very hard to say that they should have known (when everyone was surprised).
I will take the time to show I'm sincere and hopefully point you in the direction that you can take on your own.
Thanks I appreciate that. Or would, if you weren't such an asshat about it:
Perhaps after you have a little more experience, the world will make more sense.
Right. there.
You know, I often feel it is best to go back and quote the primary source and evolution of a thread, so here goes:
In many places, judges are 'redefining' marriage from Husband & Wife, to Partner A & Partner B. If you just felt a knee-jerk reaction on this one, take a second to think about it. If you really cared about homosexual marriage, then you should go about it in the correct manner. The same is true of a law you don't like, where you work to eliminate that law from the books, with education, proposals, and finally a vote of the people. Too many people just want to get their 'gang' in power, and grab the reigns, and 'make' things happen in spite of the will of the people.
Then, someone replied that mostly, it was the other way around, from "unspecified", to man and woman or some such.
You replied to them that it did not need to be stated, as that's the way it's always been. Also this:
Just how 'explicit' would you require it to be? Full color pictures of a penis entering a vagina with an internal camera to explicitly show conception?
Then, I joined this conversation. I thought both your original example was incorrect as well as your follow on replies. My concerns are in my post, none of which you have talked about.
Most of your concern on the topic of 'spirit of the law' versus 'letter of the law' appears to linked to homosexuality
Um. ok. What? Talk about reframing? I just re-read my entire post. I don't believe I mentioned homosexuality once. Curious.
Most of my concern on the topic of the "spirit of the law" have to do with governments treating their citizens equally. You chose this particular example - remember? the whole "civil union" bit in your original post? I can't help it if using your actual example is confusing to you. Perhaps I should have resorted to metaphors, instead of using the actual example. Yes. Hmm. That is a lot clearer than saying what you actually mean.
Imagine I described the their symbol (a rainbow) by saying it was composed of many colors. You interpret my colors as not being black, so you assume I must be saying rainbows are white.
Ok, now that you have oh so helpfully both put me down and delivered an incomprehensible metaphor, perhaps someone at least as enlightened as you can provide the answer as to what the hell this has to do with anything? I'm not interpreting anything. I'm baldly stating that you are wrong to use this an an example. Now that I think about it a bit more, that's probably the most succinct way of putting it. Everything else is just explanation of why. Huh. Thanks for clearing that up for me!
You know, you can always say you were wrong about that example. I know most people don't like to admit it, but you can. It will be a little more experience for you, too.
Please, if you cannot understand how a rainbow could be anything more than black or white, much like how a gun could be anything more than good or evil, then please just leave your mind open in the future
Fiasco. Primal metaphor failure. Of course your "opponent" can only see black and white, while YOU can see colours. Blah, blah, blah, many variations in many patterns on this line of approach. The problem is, it is only used when you have an opponent! So, stop viewing me as an opponent. That is my expert diagnosis on this particular conversational glitch.
Ok, to lets apply your metaphors back to the example at hand... really, should be easy for you since you're the one wi
What about the other deductions the B judges in gymnastics can give?
I learned today that they are in the categories of "form", "technique", "artistry", "execution" and "routine composition".
So, no. The match is only partial - and that's where the issue is. The rules have subjective scoring built in.
Since the definition of "sport" that the Parent was using includes (most strenuously) NO SUBJECTIVE SCORING, I would guess "fairly well" == "not at all".
There is a qualitative difference between a referee making a mistake in a task of objective analysis and a judge having the codified right to deduct points on a purely subjective basis.
So, what you are saying is that it is less subjective than judging, say, an poetry reading competition.
I'll agree with that. What about a poetry reading competition with WRITTEN guidelines for deductions?
its not nearly as subjective as people want to make it out to be.
Yes, but isn't that like being a little bit pregnant?
The question wasn't "How subjective is gymnastics?" but "Is gymnastics subjective?"
You'd better believe that any competition where points can be deducted for artistic errors can be considered subjective. Unless you've come up with a way to codify "artistic", that is (and I'm sure the world will cheer for you when you pick up that Nobel Prize).
The parent wasn't saying that no subjectivity is allowed in "sports" (currently impossible since all the refs are human beings) but that in a perfect system there is no subjectivity in "sports", while subjectivity is baked into gymnastic competitions. Yes, institutionally baked in to how scores are calculated.
I don't know where your tirade comes from. Are you mad because the parent doesn't consider anything with this type of subjective scoring a sport? Are you mad because he's actually right about the subjective nature of the competition?
It's actually very funny, you ranting about how he doesn't understand gymnastics, how even an idiot who watches a little tv could learn. Yet when it comes right down to it if you actually thought about what you said here you'd have to agree that gymnastics does have a subjective component to the score.
Why do you care whether someone thinks like you do or not?
What arguments are there for it being a sport that can't be refuted? Sure, if you just assert that your definition of "sport" is the correct one it's pretty tough to refute if you also insist on using this as the basis of discussion. Other than that, not so much.
Again, scoring gymnastics has a subjective component. If you don't think so then YOU are the one who doesn't understand the rules.
The B judges are allowed to give artistic deductions, for Goddess' sake! Hello? Is anyone in there?
The only arguments that seem to have been "completely obliterated" are yours that gymnastics is scored objectively.
Everything else is a matter of your own personal definition of "sport". If you think sports should include competitions where scoring has subjective components that's OK but don't pretend that it's the only correct definition - it's only your definition.
Except that it's not as subjective as you're saying.
Well, now you've made me go and look up the FIG's Code of Points.
The judges don't sit back and say, "Humm...Shannon Miller...butt too big, minus seven. Oh, I don't like layouts because my wife was a victim of layoffs, minus two. Oh, China, plus three."
I found out that half the score is available for judges to do something similar! Well, okay, they have to come up with actual reasons having to do with the competition, but...
For these points the judges can take away points for errors in artistry, routine composition, technique and form. Now, it is certain that at least some of these should be considered mostly objective. I am thinking that for specific moves there is proper technique and form that define those moves and any deviations would be marked. But even this can be more subjective than not.
What is the "perfect" technique and form for a double layout? No, not the one you write down and tell to me but the one in your head that you compare other double layouts to when computing deductions. Do you think that every judge has that same picture in their head or merely a similar one? See, if they had the same picture or similar enough in their head and could come to the same score as you then it would be an objective measurement.
It is also certain that at least some of these deductions are purely subjective. Unless you'd care to come up with an objective scoring method for "artistry".
A judge cannot be "wrong" for deducting.5 for artistic issues (unless it's outside of the allowable range of deduction, don't know). Another judge is not "wrong" for not deducting those same.5 points from the same routine. Same goes for technique and form deductions, i think you'd agree. One judge might think something a little off that another thinks is fine. How is the score objective again? I'm still not seeing it.
However, a line judge in tennis can indeed be wrong, objectively, when they call a ball in or out (and even challenged, now).
To suggest that they were "outdated" would be to acquiesce that at one time they were correct; this is not the case. Nothing in the words "competitive," "sport," or even "competitive sport" is exclusive of the activity having artistic components, as I already stated.
Well, there you have it! You have no room to think that any interpretation but your own could possibly be correct. I hate to break it to you but people can and do have opinions that differ from yours - and they are not necessarily incorrect! (i know, that's the shocker).
First of all, I was not calling such a viewpoint outdated. It seems like a very valid distinction to make, if one wishes to. And you are totally missing the point. Yes, all sports have an artistic component - I explicitly stated this in my post. Why you bother to bring this up again is mystifying, unless you just want to bolster your argument by arguing against a position that I'm not taking. What's that called again?
And as someone else has already gone into more detail to explain, your idea of the subjectivity of the judging is very wrong; that you don't understand the judging doesn't make it a non-sport either
If you could point out in my post where I failed to understand the judging criteria I would appreciate it. Just saying so doesn't make it so (kind of like your entire view that scoring in "sports" can have a subjective component, because you said so). Then, explain to me how "grace" is an objective measurement. Good luck. Sorry, your explanation in the parent certainly doesn't make me think it's objective.
As an experiment we could come up with a hypothesis: Scoring is objective.
Then, we could come up with ways to test this hypothesis. Hmm. The first one I can think of is to measure the correlation of individual judge's scores for each athlete.
Perhaps we could then extend this to an expected result - say in this instance that the coefficient of correlation is expected to be 1 for a purely objective score.
Doing this experiment in basketball (with each judge silently scoring the game), if the coefficient of correlation is not 1 in the basketball game our only proper conclusion is that one of the judges made a mistake (since the rules and mechanics of the game do not allow a subjective component in scoring).
Doing this experiment with the Artistic portion of gymnastics, if the coefficient of correlation is not 1 in the scoring it is precisely because it includes subjective judgments - we do not say that one judge made a "mistake" if his score does not precisely match the others.
If I can, then, bench press 200lbs with perfect artistic "grace"...and I don't even attempt to press 210lbs, and then someone else comes up and strains and wobbles up 210lbs...your definition of "true sport" would have that person win. However, for people who have actually done a bench press, it is well accepted that the graceful 200 is much more difficult than the awkward 210. Much the same, a graceful, beautiful double pirouette should be awarded more points than an awkward, clumsy triple pirouette.
And here, you've made my point for me. In American football, it does not matter if a touchdown was run in from 3 yards away or a beautiful pass that makes the Sports Illustrated cover - it's the same points. This, some people would classify as a "sport".
People are saying that if you want to include an artistic, subjective component in scoring then it is not a sport. You are saying that sports include competitions that have subjective components. You say the other people are wrong. I say you are wrong for thinking so, not that they are correct.
Olympic sports shouldn't be trivialized to some sort of RPG-style grinding, where you have some X thing you obtain, without regard for how, and the style with which, it was accomplished.
Well, I agree. Some Olympic competitions shouldn't be reduced to purely objective components. That does not make those competitions sports, in some peoples eyes. And they're not wrong, either.
As someone commented earlier, athletic content != sport.
Certainly gymnastics, ball room dancing, synchronized swimming can all be competitions, but that doesn't mean they're sports either.
The parent was positing that any competition where inherently the winner is up for grabs not just based on the performance of the athletes but on the biases of judges is not a sport.
The fact that these have a clear component of bias means that they are not "just" one individual against the others in the field. In a "true sport" many people believe that the only components to be judged must not be affected by personal bias. Thus gymnastics, et al. fail the criteria.
There is a lot of art in sports. I don't think that anyone's offended by art in any sport or activity. However, what is measured and scored in sports are actually objectively measurable things in this view. "Artistic quality" so far isn't very objectively measurable. When it is, or when they ratchet down gymnastics to only contain objective scores you may very well find those same people claim it is indeed a sport.
Going a bit further even the technical side appears to be a very subjective proposition in gymnastics. First, the whole subjective concept of "technical difficulty" could invalidate it as sport for some people. Then, technical faults. It is my understanding that the judges can decide how much to take off for certain technical issues in ranges (was that a slightly bent knee or more bent? - two different deductions!). Again, even in the "objective" side as you present it there is a large subjective component.
A football team does not get any more, or less, than a point for a goal, no matter if it was a spectacular header or the opposing team mistakenly dribbled it in. If the refs could give extra points based on the artistic nature of the goal you can bet that some people would cease to call it a sport as well.
Because someone can win a gymnastics competition for intangible subjective reasons some people don't consider it a sport. They prefer that sports be generally objective competitions.
So, it seems that you are barking up the wrong tree. The way forward is not to try and convince people that gymnastics don't have subjective components (such as by bring up the technical scoring) but to try and convince them that their idea of what a sport is is outdated or wrong.
Good luck with that. I see both as a perfectly reasonable propositions although I don't really care enough to actually determine where I fall on the continuum. Just enough to think about it a bit on slashdot.
Perhaps they felt that if men would not honor the 'Spirit of the Law' then they wouldn't honor the 'Letter of the Law' either.
Let's try and guess what the "Spirit of Law" behind Civil Marriage is, and why, really, according to the "Spirit of Law" that it might not matter if Person A and Person B are of the same sex.
Hmmm, I know! - There are both legal benefits and obligations to civil unions beyond those granted by any religious body. These accrue in civil society and are real, tangible benefits. Why should the squeamish morality of people who are uncomfortable with their own sexuality continue to be a Legal barrier to such unions and the benefits that are derived from them?
You began this with:
In many places, judges are 'redefining' marriage from Husband & Wife, to Partner A & Partner B. If you just felt a knee-jerk reaction on this one, take a second to think about it. If you really cared about homosexual marriage, then you should go about it in the correct manner. The same is true of a law you don't like, where you work to eliminate that law from the books, with education, proposals, and finally a vote of the people. Too many people just want to get their 'gang' in power, and grab the reigns, and 'make' things happen in spite of the will of the people.
Another person responded:
The thing is, most such laws originally on the books don't explicitly specify man and woman to begin with - note the bazillion local movements to pass new laws that do explicitly specify one man and one woman. Those new laws would not be necessary if the original laws had been explicit to begin with.
Your response:
Are you a troll?
Let's be reasonable, civilizations worldwide haven't had a problem with the definition for thousands of years, but you do? Just how 'explicit' would you require it to be? Full color pictures of a penis entering a vagina with an internal camera to explicitly show conception? Please read my parent post again on the 'proper' way to change laws and the world.
Oh hush, you're the one being trollish here. Someone shoots down your primary argument about marriage law changes - by pointing out that most places are going in the opposite direction of your assumption. You then retreat to what appears to be your comfort zone, in a gesture of "reasonability" by asserting that your way of looking at things is correct since that's the way it's always been done. Very reasonable of you.
You want to be reasonable? How's this:
It appears reasonable that anyone who wants to enter a civil union with another consenting adult and have the legal benefits and responsibilities should be allowed to do so. Similar to how we allow a man and woman do so. What's unreasonable about this?
I reread your original post, in fact reattached this there instead. What do you feel is the 'proper' way to change laws and the world again? If you want to adhere to the "Spirit of Law" what's the course to have civil unions recognized?
I thought that perhaps the easiest way would be to slightly modify the codebase if required to say something like - "two consenting adults". But even that appears not necessary in most cases (since we have so many places trying to redefine it as specifically a man and woman).
You see, sometimes what you call "redefining" is coming into greater coherence with the Spirit of Law. I believe this is one case where redefining it to be something like "two consenting adults" would be a step in the right direction.
So, I guess in the end I *do* agree with you! All those states that are attempting to limit civil unions to be between a man and woman are muscling in and redefine what civil unions should actually be according to the Spirit of the Law. And they should stop doing so.
One final point. You talk about the "will of the people". The "will of the people" is not law, and not all
I just tried to look it up myself on the allmighty google (amg) and wouldn't you know most people are talking about the current climate change? However, I did find this neat piece about the glacial periods 720,000 years to now here(pdf).
Over that timespan, the average catastrophic climate change was 90,000 years:
Emiliani (22) deter mined O16/18 ratios, representing the last 720,000 years, show eight distinct glacial cycles averaging approximately 90,000 years in length.
So, are you talking about earlier changes than that period? Or were you only talking about local changes to specific regions of the planet like the Sahara?
The earth has been far, far hotter and far far colder and far, far wetter and far, far drier in the past.
Yes, but for the past 720,000 years, not an inconsiderable length of human time, it has only "catastrophically" done so on 90,000 year averages.
So, could you give me an example of such a sudden shift in that 720,000 year timeframe? If not, any example would do.
You sound very authoritative so I imagine you must already have one in mind.
Pwning the water treatment facilities in a major city could easily lead to that amount. They might die more slowly, but...
If I wanted to screw up the airports, I wouldn't crash the air traffic control system. I would just give incorrect info to the air traffic controller (who is only looking at electronic instruments, generally) causing two big jumbos to collide. Then erase my tracks. Then do it at another airport. And another.
Or set it up so they all happen more or less simultaneously. Sure, some percentage will be lucky and miss crashing for a number of different reasons. 100 airports. 25% success rate of the 'sploits. 25% human error recovery suceeeds. Well, that's maybe 20 jumbo jets colliding all over the country. At a low estimate of 200 per plane, it's "only" 4000.
Any power plants online?
Hm, what about hydro facilities? I hear that those living below the big dams might not like it very much if all the water were released at once. Are there any dams near communities? Probably the max flow the dam could support would allow them to get out. And then the water shortage would kick in quite hard, I would suspect.
Do you think someone could trigger another Bhopal from the inside of a plant? Well, then consider that many plants these days are connected to the net.
A bit more complex along those lines:
Knowing where our goods come from could lead one to consider that as an avenue of attack. China would make an excellent intermediary. Perhaps instead of directly buying off a plant in China for some alteration to a random set of goods being shipped to the US for use you could control their manufacturing remotely. I wonder if in the former case they would take your money and then turn you over or not.
(for the oblig. joke: and how could you tell that from what we already get? *rimshot*, thank you i'll be here all week!)
I suppose you could use US companies to do this too.
They each pose a different set of challenges, technologically and socially. But I digress!
Summary: It is possible to come up with scenarios where "cybercrime" directly affects the real world. At this stage of our existence (scarily) we have ways to actually crack* someone to death, or lots of someones. Kind of random for the other people involved, though - were you there, or not?
What generally scares me is a perfect storm scenario. You get all the pieces in place. Wait for a major disaster and slowly degrade the state of the nation through a series of cascading failures that no one has time to analyze because it's all occurring naturally until realization is too late.
These are all well known, and there are many, many more. Really. It's like science fiction these days, in some sense - the modern world as dystopic sci-fi. You, you self can probably think of ten more if you think of it in any of the same terms as people who do it as a profession (either artistically, like a writer, or like any number of different practical based specialties required to build such a plan - just like software).
The problem with that model is Microsoft would have to be willing to take a big hit on their margins.
Foobar is not going to sell for $500 when you can download it for free. Maybe $5 per seat - one time cost - if that, and that mainly if support is provided above the RTFM and chat/newsgroup support provided by most FOSS projects.
Not necessarily. In the consumer market, yes. But in the corporate market - ah, there's the gold. Even today, many companies are going to buy products from Microsoft instead of using equivalent open source solutions.
I would bet that they could take a high quality open source solution and re-market it with great profit margins. And do so with multiple projects. Not only do they not have to pay for the original development, they could subcontract support out to the original (or other) developer(s) quite easily. They could even set up a special channel for MS partners who work OSS for site-specific customization.
It might not even be their undoing - they could become just as big an OSS behemoth as a proprietary one. With the quarter to quarter profits and war chest it's not even that unlikely given enough time.
While it's clear that one's right to free speech in the US is bounded and also that free speech has "consequences" I'd like to hear your reasons for including this example:
insulting pictures of mohammed, for example. yes, a sound understanding of free speech means that insulting pictures of mohammed should be tolerated. however, a legal, societal understanding of tolerance on this issue does not protect you from the anger of religious fundamentalists who could care less about tolerance
To my mind there are legitimate consequences and illegitimate consequences. The above example is an example of illegitimate consequences.
you don't have protection from the consequences of what you say, regardless of the legal environment.
I disagree. You should have protection from any illegitimate consequences of exercising your free speech rights. For example, you should be protected from a mob lynching or individual assassin if you print a cartoon of Mohammad.
like any right in this world, it carries with it responsibility. shoot your mouth of without any regard for conesequences, and you will discover that consequences happen, that not everyone in society is a tolerant ethical individual
You don't seem to be arguing that "this is the world as it is - deal with it" but rather "this is the world as it is - so it must be okay", as if it is somehow the natural order. Action->Reaction so similarly action->consequence; without regard to fact that not all consequences are legitimate Reactions.
Certainly other people have the right to be offended by what I say but their right to be offended stops well short of many of the things you hint might be "consequences". Tracking down and shooting you is NOT a valid "consequence" to your comment above, even if "consequences happen" and I wasn't a "tolerant ethical individual" - do you agree?
Sometimes I wish ethical arguments could be legally played out by the people standing behind their principles. This, for example. Assume that the Parent stands by his statement that by posting here they are willing to suffer any "consequences" by anyone on slashdot (since they posted here, and "consequences happen"(even disproportionate ones!) ). That would be interesting.
I see a lot of posts about how people hate both listening to as well as leaving voice mail.
They used to be called answering machines. And while a lot of people liked them because you didn't have to have both parties be there synchronized to transmit/receive the information contained in the call, there were a portion who could not use them. My father was one of them. He just hated to leave messages on an answering machine. He has changed though, and now *sometimes* leaves messages on my voicemail.
Why do so many people hate voice mail now? How many are old enough to have not liked answering machines? That would provide a baseline or sorts.
My premise is that this percentage has increased. It seems so, given the rate of acceptance in the 80's or 90's. How many other factors have increased that baseline? Cases of just too much accessibility? Or too many machines? Fear of permanent records? Just rather talk to a human? Can't be bothered to check? Generally people who had an answering machine in the '70's at least listened to the messages, while now we have people who won't check their voice mail. Interesting.
I don't know. I am sometimes uncomfortable leaving a message because i may have a hard time formulating my thoughts on the fly in a coherent manner but I manage anyway. I listen to my voicemail because if people want to get a hold of me, I want to help them do so. Same reason I have an email address and don't jsut depent n irc or im. sry don't txt
lol
Wait, forum! Both realtime and virtual voicemail of discussion threads. I wonder what the continuum is in use today, and what classes of dimensions would be good to measure.
snail mail answering machines voice mail forums irc skype/cell fixed land line telepresence fleshmeets
Where does this fall on the continuum? Near real time contemplation on an archived "virtual flash mob" event.
If you're reading this (woe unto you!); A near-realtime, no longer flash mob experience of Logos about a topic of little consequence, mediated through the visual centers of your consciousness. And perhaps vocal if you at all vocalize words (even non-vocally, of course (sort of like parens for the mind-body interface) ) multi sensual information in reading, writing. Perhaps hearing or touch or colour to some people who have a patterned sense of say, numbers, that other people do not have. Five actually being green in a tangible sense, just like gravity or c3 blue. I wonder what would happen if everyone were able to access these types of sensorium, or different types based on inclination. I think that's where research on this should be headed.
What's the shape of the future?
Now back to your regularly scheduled programming...
None of them suck at math. But that's not the OP's point.
Funny, the line "You can only get away with being a programmer while sucking at math" sure sounds like he is implying that programmers suck at math.
Alternately, you could read this original line as "the reason that people who suck at math can get away with being programmers is..."
See the shift? To imply that the OP was saying all programmers suck at math seems much more of a distortion of the OP's original text than to assert the meaning is something like this.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, because a year of knowing about these vulnerabilities wasn't enough for poor shops like Google, Yahoo, or Microsoft to make any changes. They obviously needed more time - not a kick in the balls.
Since no one uses their services for anything critical anyway, it's perfectly OK that only serious hackers had access to this vulnerability. It's a real tragedy that the attack is no longer elite and soon available to script kiddies.
I would argue that since the vuln is already known and the "major vendors" have known about it for such a long time that releasing such a tool is exactly the kind of impetus they needed to get rolling. So yes, Mike Perry did a great public service by making this tool and making it available.
Or do you think that just giving a talk about it would have accomplished the same objective? My cynical self says, no way. The data is already out there. A talk just rehashes what is already known. If provides no leverage to get the vendors to fix the issue.
It's not like we haven't seen this before. In many cases you'll find people saying exactly what you say. However, the reality of the matter is that these vendors otherwise would not fix the issue. Is this one of those cases? It sure looks that way.
Your diary is actually contributing to the problem of having to ask people where you had lunch the day before.
What? Are you seriously suggesting that journaling adversely affects short term memory?
I think I'll have to await some peer reviewed papers before I accept that possibility.
While your suggestions to improve short term memory are probably valuable, I don't think your advice about journaling fits into the same category.
A real stainless steel rat?
If they were okay with that, they should be okay with him just selling it as he did.
So, what happens when large groups of people independently all over the nation ddos the system?
Spray cleaning solution that contains 10% thc on door handles. Coat bills in residue. Don't a high percentage of hundred dollar bills already contain traces of coke? (or is that so eighties?).
Can't wait to the time when you won't dare shake someone's hand "because you don't know where it's been! or because you don't want the other party to analyze whatever it is you've been up to.
Of course. It really can't be the company's fault, after all. After all, how are you going to fund your pension plans when you are busy buying up all the foreign car companies and paying your executives their (required) hefty salaries, stock options and golden parachutes.
Do you want to bet that executive "pensions" are fully funded?
2. Incredibly stupid retirement plans. Among them the "Economy Killer" 'defined benefit' plans instead of 401Ks. They killed the airlines before big oil did, and they killed Detroit.
Well yes... and no. Who negotiated and agreed to those retirement plans? Oh right! The companies involved made those promises. Why did they do so? Well, so they could get away with less current (at the time) capital outlays for stuff. Like not raising the hourly wages but promising better pensions.
So, they saved money then but now somehow forgot where all that money they saved went. Oh, right, they didn't really "forget" - they spent it all instead funding their promises. Detroit and the airlines killed themselves. There's a reason now that pension plans must be fully funded.
You'll notice that companies with pension plans that are fully funded don't seem to have many issues. Probably because they planned it that way. Just like the auto and airline industries should have done. Those companies could have done that and got bit in the ass by not doing so.
The biggest adjustments I have seen even fully funded plans go through are changes to medical benefits. This makes sense though. Unlike pensions, where you know to the penny what someone will get if they retire on you (and can be fully planned for!) medical cost increases came as a surprise and it's very hard to say that they should have known (when everyone was surprised).
I will take the time to show I'm sincere and hopefully point you in the direction that you can take on your own.
Thanks I appreciate that. Or would, if you weren't such an asshat about it:
Perhaps after you have a little more experience, the world will make more sense.
Right. there.
You know, I often feel it is best to go back and quote the primary source and evolution of a thread, so here goes:
In many places, judges are 'redefining' marriage from Husband & Wife, to Partner A & Partner B. If you just felt a knee-jerk reaction on this one, take a second to think about it. If you really cared about homosexual marriage, then you should go about it in the correct manner. The same is true of a law you don't like, where you work to eliminate that law from the books, with education, proposals, and finally a vote of the people. Too many people just want to get their 'gang' in power, and grab the reigns, and 'make' things happen in spite of the will of the people.
Then, someone replied that mostly, it was the other way around, from "unspecified", to man and woman or some such.
You replied to them that it did not need to be stated, as that's the way it's always been. Also this:
Just how 'explicit' would you require it to be? Full color pictures of a penis entering a vagina with an internal camera to explicitly show conception?
Then, I joined this conversation. I thought both your original example was incorrect as well as your follow on replies. My concerns are in my post, none of which you have talked about.
Most of your concern on the topic of 'spirit of the law' versus 'letter of the law' appears to linked to homosexuality
Um. ok. What? Talk about reframing? I just re-read my entire post. I don't believe I mentioned homosexuality once. Curious.
Most of my concern on the topic of the "spirit of the law" have to do with governments treating their citizens equally. You chose this particular example - remember? the whole "civil union" bit in your original post? I can't help it if using your actual example is confusing to you. Perhaps I should have resorted to metaphors, instead of using the actual example. Yes. Hmm. That is a lot clearer than saying what you actually mean.
Imagine I described the their symbol (a rainbow) by saying it was composed of many colors. You interpret my colors as not being black, so you assume I must be saying rainbows are white.
Ok, now that you have oh so helpfully both put me down and delivered an incomprehensible metaphor, perhaps someone at least as enlightened as you can provide the answer as to what the hell this has to do with anything? I'm not interpreting anything. I'm baldly stating that you are wrong to use this an an example. Now that I think about it a bit more, that's probably the most succinct way of putting it. Everything else is just explanation of why. Huh. Thanks for clearing that up for me!
You know, you can always say you were wrong about that example. I know most people don't like to admit it, but you can. It will be a little more experience for you, too.
Please, if you cannot understand how a rainbow could be anything more than black or white, much like how a gun could be anything more than good or evil, then please just leave your mind open in the future
Fiasco. Primal metaphor failure. Of course your "opponent" can only see black and white, while YOU can see colours. Blah, blah, blah, many variations in many patterns on this line of approach. The problem is, it is only used when you have an opponent! So, stop viewing me as an opponent. That is my expert diagnosis on this particular conversational glitch.
Ok, to lets apply your metaphors back to the example at hand... really, should be easy for you since you're the one wi
Good job mods! At least the parent is half right.
What about the other deductions the B judges in gymnastics can give?
I learned today that they are in the categories of "form", "technique", "artistry", "execution" and "routine composition".
So, no. The match is only partial - and that's where the issue is. The rules have subjective scoring built in.
Since the definition of "sport" that the Parent was using includes (most strenuously) NO SUBJECTIVE SCORING, I would guess "fairly well" == "not at all".
There is a qualitative difference between a referee making a mistake in a task of objective analysis and a judge having the codified right to deduct points on a purely subjective basis.
B judges can give artistic deductions.
I trust you can see the difference.
So, what you are saying is that it is less subjective than judging, say, an poetry reading competition.
I'll agree with that. What about a poetry reading competition with WRITTEN guidelines for deductions?
its not nearly as subjective as people want to make it out to be.
Yes, but isn't that like being a little bit pregnant?
The question wasn't "How subjective is gymnastics?" but "Is gymnastics subjective?"
You'd better believe that any competition where points can be deducted for artistic errors can be considered subjective. Unless you've come up with a way to codify "artistic", that is (and I'm sure the world will cheer for you when you pick up that Nobel Prize).
The parent wasn't saying that no subjectivity is allowed in "sports" (currently impossible since all the refs are human beings) but that in a perfect system there is no subjectivity in "sports", while subjectivity is baked into gymnastic competitions. Yes, institutionally baked in to how scores are calculated.
I don't know where your tirade comes from. Are you mad because the parent doesn't consider anything with this type of subjective scoring a sport? Are you mad because he's actually right about the subjective nature of the competition?
It's actually very funny, you ranting about how he doesn't understand gymnastics, how even an idiot who watches a little tv could learn. Yet when it comes right down to it if you actually thought about what you said here you'd have to agree that gymnastics does have a subjective component to the score.
Why do you care whether someone thinks like you do or not?
What arguments are there for it being a sport that can't be refuted? Sure, if you just assert that your definition of "sport" is the correct one it's pretty tough to refute if you also insist on using this as the basis of discussion. Other than that, not so much.
Again, scoring gymnastics has a subjective component. If you don't think so then YOU are the one who doesn't understand the rules.
The B judges are allowed to give artistic deductions, for Goddess' sake! Hello? Is anyone in there?
The only arguments that seem to have been "completely obliterated" are yours that gymnastics is scored objectively.
Everything else is a matter of your own personal definition of "sport". If you think sports should include competitions where scoring has subjective components that's OK but don't pretend that it's the only correct definition - it's only your definition.
He's not right. There are subjective components to scoring.
Half the points are awarded based on technique, form, artistry and routine composition.
Of those, I am absolutely sure that artistry is subjective, unless there's been a major breakthrough that no one has bothered to tell me about.
Of the other three, technique and form are at least partially subjective. Don't know about routine composition, though.
Except that it's not as subjective as you're saying.
Well, now you've made me go and look up the FIG's Code of Points.
The judges don't sit back and say, "Humm...Shannon Miller...butt too big, minus seven. Oh, I don't like layouts because my wife was a victim of layoffs, minus two. Oh, China, plus three."
I found out that half the score is available for judges to do something similar! Well, okay, they have to come up with actual reasons having to do with the competition, but...
For these points the judges can take away points for errors in artistry, routine composition, technique and form. Now, it is certain that at least some of these should be considered mostly objective. I am thinking that for specific moves there is proper technique and form that define those moves and any deviations would be marked. But even this can be more subjective than not.
What is the "perfect" technique and form for a double layout? No, not the one you write down and tell to me but the one in your head that you compare other double layouts to when computing deductions. Do you think that every judge has that same picture in their head or merely a similar one? See, if they had the same picture or similar enough in their head and could come to the same score as you then it would be an objective measurement.
It is also certain that at least some of these deductions are purely subjective. Unless you'd care to come up with an objective scoring method for "artistry".
A judge cannot be "wrong" for deducting .5 for artistic issues (unless it's outside of the allowable range of deduction, don't know). Another judge is not "wrong" for not deducting those same .5 points from the same routine. Same goes for technique and form deductions, i think you'd agree. One judge might think something a little off that another thinks is fine. How is the score objective again? I'm still not seeing it.
However, a line judge in tennis can indeed be wrong, objectively, when they call a ball in or out (and even challenged, now).
To suggest that they were "outdated" would be to acquiesce that at one time they were correct; this is not the case. Nothing in the words "competitive," "sport," or even "competitive sport" is exclusive of the activity having artistic components, as I already stated.
Well, there you have it! You have no room to think that any interpretation but your own could possibly be correct. I hate to break it to you but people can and do have opinions that differ from yours - and they are not necessarily incorrect! (i know, that's the shocker).
First of all, I was not calling such a viewpoint outdated. It seems like a very valid distinction to make, if one wishes to. And you are totally missing the point. Yes, all sports have an artistic component - I explicitly stated this in my post. Why you bother to bring this up again is mystifying, unless you just want to bolster your argument by arguing against a position that I'm not taking. What's that called again?
And as someone else has already gone into more detail to explain, your idea of the subjectivity of the judging is very wrong; that you don't understand the judging doesn't make it a non-sport either
If you could point out in my post where I failed to understand the judging criteria I would appreciate it. Just saying so doesn't make it so (kind of like your entire view that scoring in "sports" can have a subjective component, because you said so). Then, explain to me how "grace" is an objective measurement. Good luck. Sorry, your explanation in the parent certainly doesn't make me think it's objective.
As an experiment we could come up with a hypothesis: Scoring is objective.
Then, we could come up with ways to test this hypothesis. Hmm. The first one I can think of is to measure the correlation of individual judge's scores for each athlete.
Perhaps we could then extend this to an expected result - say in this instance that the coefficient of correlation is expected to be 1 for a purely objective score.
Doing this experiment in basketball (with each judge silently scoring the game), if the coefficient of correlation is not 1 in the basketball game our only proper conclusion is that one of the judges made a mistake (since the rules and mechanics of the game do not allow a subjective component in scoring).
Doing this experiment with the Artistic portion of gymnastics, if the coefficient of correlation is not 1 in the scoring it is precisely because it includes subjective judgments - we do not say that one judge made a "mistake" if his score does not precisely match the others.
If I can, then, bench press 200lbs with perfect artistic "grace"...and I don't even attempt to press 210lbs, and then someone else comes up and strains and wobbles up 210lbs...your definition of "true sport" would have that person win. However, for people who have actually done a bench press, it is well accepted that the graceful 200 is much more difficult than the awkward 210. Much the same, a graceful, beautiful double pirouette should be awarded more points than an awkward, clumsy triple pirouette.
And here, you've made my point for me. In American football, it does not matter if a touchdown was run in from 3 yards away or a beautiful pass that makes the Sports Illustrated cover - it's the same points. This, some people would classify as a "sport".
People are saying that if you want to include an artistic, subjective component in scoring then it is not a sport. You are saying that sports include competitions that have subjective components. You say the other people are wrong. I say you are wrong for thinking so, not that they are correct.
Olympic sports shouldn't be trivialized to some sort of RPG-style grinding, where you have some X thing you obtain, without regard for how, and the style with which, it was accomplished.
Well, I agree. Some Olympic competitions shouldn't be reduced to purely objective components. That does not make those competitions sports, in some peoples eyes. And they're not wrong, either.
As someone commented earlier, athletic content != sport.
Certainly gymnastics, ball room dancing, synchronized swimming can all be competitions, but that doesn't mean they're sports either.
The parent was positing that any competition where inherently the winner is up for grabs not just based on the performance of the athletes but on the biases of judges is not a sport.
The fact that these have a clear component of bias means that they are not "just" one individual against the others in the field. In a "true sport" many people believe that the only components to be judged must not be affected by personal bias. Thus gymnastics, et al. fail the criteria.
There is a lot of art in sports. I don't think that anyone's offended by art in any sport or activity. However, what is measured and scored in sports are actually objectively measurable things in this view. "Artistic quality" so far isn't very objectively measurable. When it is, or when they ratchet down gymnastics to only contain objective scores you may very well find those same people claim it is indeed a sport.
Going a bit further even the technical side appears to be a very subjective proposition in gymnastics. First, the whole subjective concept of "technical difficulty" could invalidate it as sport for some people. Then, technical faults. It is my understanding that the judges can decide how much to take off for certain technical issues in ranges (was that a slightly bent knee or more bent? - two different deductions!). Again, even in the "objective" side as you present it there is a large subjective component.
A football team does not get any more, or less, than a point for a goal, no matter if it was a spectacular header or the opposing team mistakenly dribbled it in. If the refs could give extra points based on the artistic nature of the goal you can bet that some people would cease to call it a sport as well.
Because someone can win a gymnastics competition for intangible subjective reasons some people don't consider it a sport. They prefer that sports be generally objective competitions.
So, it seems that you are barking up the wrong tree. The way forward is not to try and convince people that gymnastics don't have subjective components (such as by bring up the technical scoring) but to try and convince them that their idea of what a sport is is outdated or wrong.
Good luck with that. I see both as a perfectly reasonable propositions although I don't really care enough to actually determine where I fall on the continuum. Just enough to think about it a bit on slashdot.
Perhaps they felt that if men would not honor the 'Spirit of the Law' then they wouldn't honor the 'Letter of the Law' either.
Let's try and guess what the "Spirit of Law" behind Civil Marriage is, and why, really, according to the "Spirit of Law" that it might not matter if Person A and Person B are of the same sex.
Hmmm, I know! - There are both legal benefits and obligations to civil unions beyond those granted by any religious body. These accrue in civil society and are real, tangible benefits. Why should the squeamish morality of people who are uncomfortable with their own sexuality continue to be a Legal barrier to such unions and the benefits that are derived from them?
You began this with:
In many places, judges are 'redefining' marriage from Husband & Wife, to Partner A & Partner B. If you just felt a knee-jerk reaction on this one, take a second to think about it. If you really cared about homosexual marriage, then you should go about it in the correct manner. The same is true of a law you don't like, where you work to eliminate that law from the books, with education, proposals, and finally a vote of the people. Too many people just want to get their 'gang' in power, and grab the reigns, and 'make' things happen in spite of the will of the people.
Another person responded:
The thing is, most such laws originally on the books don't explicitly specify man and woman to begin with - note the bazillion local movements to pass new laws that do explicitly specify one man and one woman. Those new laws would not be necessary if the original laws had been explicit to begin with.
Your response:
Are you a troll?
Let's be reasonable, civilizations worldwide haven't had a problem with the definition for thousands of years, but you do? Just how 'explicit' would you require it to be? Full color pictures of a penis entering a vagina with an internal camera to explicitly show conception? Please read my parent post again on the 'proper' way to change laws and the world.
Oh hush, you're the one being trollish here. Someone shoots down your primary argument about marriage law changes - by pointing out that most places are going in the opposite direction of your assumption. You then retreat to what appears to be your comfort zone, in a gesture of "reasonability" by asserting that your way of looking at things is correct since that's the way it's always been done. Very reasonable of you.
You want to be reasonable? How's this:
It appears reasonable that anyone who wants to enter a civil union with another consenting adult and have the legal benefits and responsibilities should be allowed to do so. Similar to how we allow a man and woman do so. What's unreasonable about this?
I reread your original post, in fact reattached this there instead. What do you feel is the 'proper' way to change laws and the world again? If you want to adhere to the "Spirit of Law" what's the course to have civil unions recognized?
I thought that perhaps the easiest way would be to slightly modify the codebase if required to say something like - "two consenting adults". But even that appears not necessary in most cases (since we have so many places trying to redefine it as specifically a man and woman).
You see, sometimes what you call "redefining" is coming into greater coherence with the Spirit of Law. I believe this is one case where redefining it to be something like "two consenting adults" would be a step in the right direction.
So, I guess in the end I *do* agree with you! All those states that are attempting to limit civil unions to be between a man and woman are muscling in and redefine what civil unions should actually be according to the Spirit of the Law. And they should stop doing so.
One final point. You talk about the "will of the people". The "will of the people" is not law, and not all
Over that timespan, the average catastrophic climate change was 90,000 years:
Emiliani (22) deter mined O16/18 ratios, representing the last 720,000 years, show eight distinct glacial cycles averaging approximately 90,000 years in length.
So, are you talking about earlier changes than that period? Or were you only talking about local changes to specific regions of the planet like the Sahara?
The earth has been far, far hotter and far far colder and far, far wetter and far, far drier in the past.
Yes, but for the past 720,000 years, not an inconsiderable length of human time, it has only "catastrophically" done so on 90,000 year averages.
So, could you give me an example of such a sudden shift in that 720,000 year timeframe? If not, any example would do.
You sound very authoritative so I imagine you must already have one in mind.
Thanks!
Look at this thread again, then.
Pwning the water treatment facilities in a major city could easily lead to that amount. They might die more slowly, but...
If I wanted to screw up the airports, I wouldn't crash the air traffic control system. I would just give incorrect info to the air traffic controller (who is only looking at electronic instruments, generally) causing two big jumbos to collide. Then erase my tracks. Then do it at another airport. And another.
Or set it up so they all happen more or less simultaneously. Sure, some percentage will be lucky and miss crashing for a number of different reasons. 100 airports. 25% success rate of the 'sploits. 25% human error recovery suceeeds. Well, that's maybe 20 jumbo jets colliding all over the country. At a low estimate of 200 per plane, it's "only" 4000.
Any power plants online?
Hm, what about hydro facilities? I hear that those living below the big dams might not like it very much if all the water were released at once. Are there any dams near communities? Probably the max flow the dam could support would allow them to get out. And then the water shortage would kick in quite hard, I would suspect.
Do you think someone could trigger another Bhopal from the inside of a plant? Well, then consider that many plants these days are connected to the net.
A bit more complex along those lines:
Knowing where our goods come from could lead one to consider that as an avenue of attack. China would make an excellent intermediary. Perhaps instead of directly buying off a plant in China for some alteration to a random set of goods being shipped to the US for use you could control their manufacturing remotely. I wonder if in the former case they would take your money and then turn you over or not.
(for the oblig. joke: and how could you tell that from what we already get? *rimshot*, thank you i'll be here all week!)
I suppose you could use US companies to do this too.
They each pose a different set of challenges, technologically and socially. But I digress!
Summary: It is possible to come up with scenarios where "cybercrime" directly affects the real world. At this stage of our existence (scarily) we have ways to actually crack* someone to death, or lots of someones. Kind of random for the other people involved, though - were you there, or not?
What generally scares me is a perfect storm scenario. You get all the pieces in place. Wait for a major disaster and slowly degrade the state of the nation through a series of cascading failures that no one has time to analyze because it's all occurring naturally until realization is too late.
These are all well known, and there are many, many more. Really. It's like science fiction these days, in some sense - the modern world as dystopic sci-fi. You, you self can probably think of ten more if you think of it in any of the same terms as people who do it as a profession (either artistically, like a writer, or like any number of different practical based specialties required to build such a plan - just like software).
*please note connotation, kthksbye
The problem with that model is Microsoft would have to be willing to take a big hit on their margins.
Foobar is not going to sell for $500 when you can download it for free. Maybe $5 per seat - one time cost - if that, and that mainly if support is provided above the RTFM and chat/newsgroup support provided by most FOSS projects.
Not necessarily. In the consumer market, yes. But in the corporate market - ah, there's the gold. Even today, many companies are going to buy products from Microsoft instead of using equivalent open source solutions.
I would bet that they could take a high quality open source solution and re-market it with great profit margins. And do so with multiple projects. Not only do they not have to pay for the original development, they could subcontract support out to the original (or other) developer(s) quite easily. They could even set up a special channel for MS partners who work OSS for site-specific customization.
It might not even be their undoing - they could become just as big an OSS behemoth as a proprietary one. With the quarter to quarter profits and war chest it's not even that unlikely given enough time.
Really?
No, really?
In what country are the rich not privileged? I'd like to visit.
I must take exception to half of your argument.
While it's clear that one's right to free speech in the US is bounded and also that free speech has "consequences" I'd like to hear your reasons for including this example:
insulting pictures of mohammed, for example. yes, a sound understanding of free speech means that insulting pictures of mohammed should be tolerated. however, a legal, societal understanding of tolerance on this issue does not protect you from the anger of religious fundamentalists who could care less about tolerance
To my mind there are legitimate consequences and illegitimate consequences. The above example is an example of illegitimate consequences.
you don't have protection from the consequences of what you say, regardless of the legal environment.
I disagree. You should have protection from any illegitimate consequences of exercising your free speech rights. For example, you should be protected from a mob lynching or individual assassin if you print a cartoon of Mohammad.
like any right in this world, it carries with it responsibility. shoot your mouth of without any regard for conesequences, and you will discover that consequences happen, that not everyone in society is a tolerant ethical individual
You don't seem to be arguing that "this is the world as it is - deal with it" but rather "this is the world as it is - so it must be okay", as if it is somehow the natural order. Action->Reaction so similarly action->consequence; without regard to fact that not all consequences are legitimate Reactions.
Certainly other people have the right to be offended by what I say but their right to be offended stops well short of many of the things you hint might be "consequences". Tracking down and shooting you is NOT a valid "consequence" to your comment above, even if "consequences happen" and I wasn't a "tolerant ethical individual" - do you agree?
Sometimes I wish ethical arguments could be legally played out by the people standing behind their principles. This, for example. Assume that the Parent stands by his statement that by posting here they are willing to suffer any "consequences" by anyone on slashdot (since they posted here, and "consequences happen"(even disproportionate ones!) ). That would be interesting.
Cheers.
You cannot emasculate the story. You can only emasculate the adaptation.
I see a lot of posts about how people hate both listening to as well as leaving voice mail.
They used to be called answering machines. And while a lot of people liked them because you didn't have to have both parties be there synchronized to transmit/receive the information contained in the call, there were a portion who could not use them. My father was one of them. He just hated to leave messages on an answering machine. He has changed though, and now *sometimes* leaves messages on my voicemail.
Why do so many people hate voice mail now? How many are old enough to have not liked answering machines? That would provide a baseline or sorts.
My premise is that this percentage has increased. It seems so, given the rate of acceptance in the 80's or 90's. How many other factors have increased that baseline? Cases of just too much accessibility? Or too many machines? Fear of permanent records? Just rather talk to a human? Can't be bothered to check? Generally people who had an answering machine in the '70's at least listened to the messages, while now we have people who won't check their voice mail. Interesting.
I don't know. I am sometimes uncomfortable leaving a message because i may have a hard time formulating my thoughts on the fly in a coherent manner but I manage anyway. I listen to my voicemail because if people want to get a hold of me, I want to help them do so. Same reason I have an email address and don't jsut depent n irc or im. sry don't txt
lol
Wait, forum! Both realtime and virtual voicemail of discussion threads. I wonder what the continuum is in use today, and what classes of dimensions would be good to measure.
snail mail
answering machines
voice mail
forums
irc
skype/cell
fixed land line
telepresence
fleshmeets
Where does this fall on the continuum? Near real time contemplation on an archived "virtual flash mob" event.
If you're reading this (woe unto you!); A near-realtime, no longer flash mob experience of Logos about a topic of little consequence, mediated through the visual centers of your consciousness. And perhaps vocal if you at all vocalize words (even non-vocally, of course (sort of like parens for the mind-body interface) ) multi sensual information in reading, writing. Perhaps hearing or touch or colour to some people who have a patterned sense of say, numbers, that other people do not have. Five actually being green in a tangible sense, just like gravity or c3 blue. I wonder what would happen if everyone were able to access these types of sensorium, or different types based on inclination. I think that's where research on this should be headed.
What's the shape of the future?
Now back to your regularly scheduled programming...
None of them suck at math. But that's not the OP's point.
Funny, the line "You can only get away with being a programmer while sucking at math" sure sounds like he is implying that programmers suck at math.
Alternately, you could read this original line as "the reason that people who suck at math can get away with being programmers is..."
See the shift? To imply that the OP was saying all programmers suck at math seems much more of a distortion of the OP's original text than to assert the meaning is something like this.