Sorry, I thought we were still talking about the password for the root account under OS X on the iPhone. I missed the transition to decrypting a disk image, where you are correct, the decryption key (calling it a password is what confused me) must be available to the iPhone somehow.
If I carefully pick my 400 to survey I could post a completely legit survey showing that OS2 is making a comeback. I hate survey's like this, unless the sampling pool is static is means absolutely nothing. The whole foundation of surveys like this is that the sample is representative of the population as a whole. They probably chose developers in different pay grades, industries, etc. based on the total demographic percentage of developers in those pay grades, industries, etc. They "carefully pick" their 400 specifically to NOT bias their conclusion.
you don't go after breaking the password, you go after finding where apple stored it. If it's encrypted, the iphone has to be able to decrypt it, therefore has to have the password available. It doesn't usually work that way. Usually passwords are one-way encrypted (or hashed), meaning there is no way to decrypt them. What the OS does it take the password you supplied, encrypt it using the same method, then compare the encrypted string to the stored encryption string of the actual password. That way even the OS itself never needs to know what the actual password is, and it is never available anywhere as clear-text.
what about what remains from "before" the Big Bang? what is predicted by the theory and what is observable? The article doesn't touch that, they just require us to believe, like in any religion... Uh no, it requires that you read the actual paper and not just the news coverage of it. You don't have to take anything by faith, you just have to do a little work.
I think by "testable" they mean that it makes predictions about what should be observable in the universe today. You don't always have to re-create an event for it to be testable. For example, the Big Bang theory predicted a very low level of leftover energy that would be uniform across the universe, the so called black body radiation, which was later observed to not only exist, but to be at nearly the exact level that the theory predicted.
Sounds an awful lot like Hawking's prediction that black holes "evaporate" back into regular space. Or his prediction that black holes are not "true" singularities, but rather tightly-looped quantum constructs. Kind of, Hawking radiation doesn't contain any information from what went into the black hole, so as far as I know information is still lost beyond the event horizon.
But the word "singularity" itself means, a place where the rules of physics break down.
So, if we had a unified view of physics, wouldn't all singularities disappear? I think it more accurately means an object with 0 volume, so even with a unified field theory (I assume that's what you're referring to), the concept of a singularity would still exist, at least mathematically.
If the Big Bang were a true singularity, then no information could be passed on, you are correct about that. However, this theory is saying that it was not a true singularity, that it had a non-zero volume and a non-infinite energy/density, therefore some information could pass through the event.
The article mentions that basic laws and constants of our universe may not have been the same in the preceding one. For example, a stronger value of G, the gravitational constant, would have forced our universe to collapse.
Just because something is testable means that God could not have played a role? No, being testable means that it doesn't matter whether or not God played a role.
If you distribute a GPLv2 work as both binary and source form (option a), then you are no obligated to distribute the source to any other party. If you distribute a GPLv2 work with written offer to also distribute the source code on request (option b), then that offer can be extended to any third party upon redistribution (option c).
So if SWSoft chose option a, they are not obligated to give the source code to anybody they did not directly distribute the binary to. If the Wine developers use option b, then SWSoft can distribute an unmodified binary with a copy of the Wine dev's offer to get the source directly from www.winehq.com instead of having to distribute it themselves.
But there's an old joke about NASA. When astronauts needed something to write in zero-g, NASA spent millions developing a pen that could so so. The Russians used a pencil. The Russians also got wood and lead bits causing problems with their electronics, their health, and a significant fire risk. The Russians now use the NASA pen. Sometimes under-engineering a solution is worse than over-engineering one. http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp
The only way something like this could happen is if low level employees (ie the engineers) were complicit.
Upper management can and usually do ask their engineers for such things. They have to bring home some bucks. Management simply has to select some programmers who are ideologically aligned, but most importantly need the job or can be blackmailed otherwise. As every employee knows, no one wants to hire a whistleblower anyway.
Management regularly asks programmers to fudge some numbers or create artificial functionality, or things of that nature. Election rigging, however, is on a scale where I doubt you will be able to get someone by threat. Now if an average programmer suddenly got a 7 figure salary and an executive position, then maybe.
Do you think upper management *ordered* the engineers to make the code favor Bush, in which case, don't you think word would have gotten out?
What about NDA's? Keeping secrecy on such a project is fairly easy, you simply threaten everybody who knows with lawsuits and call it "trade secret". By the way, coding the whole program may require a large team, but making a simple back door takes only one programmer. You simply have to change an int, after all.
Criminal law trumps contract law. A contract that requires you to do something illegal, or prevents you from reporting illegal acts can not be enforced.
This would be the biggest story in the history of the country.
On one hand, English has the word "conspiracy theorist". There should be another word, the "it-can-happen-here"-ists, for those who simply refuse to consider alternative explanations than the official one.
It's not that we are refusing to consider it, it's that we have considered it and found the "theory" to be lacking credibility and plausibility.
There would be fame and fortune in it for any engineer who came forward exposing the truth.
Yeah right. More likely a ton of lawsuits, threats (of the legal and illegal type), unemployement for life, libel&defamation, dirt-digging in his/her private life, physical harm (either directly or as a consequence of mob-summoning libel) and all that happens to a whistleblower.
Again, nobody can sue you for disclosing illegal activity, as nobody can legally prevent you from doing so. Nobody may want to hire him as a programmer, but I'm sure the book deals, movie rights and speaking fees will more than make up for the lack of a low-end programming job.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
I do have a problem with this one. Vote for Gore: ++votes["gore"]. Vote for Bush: ++votes["bush"]. How can you exactly get it wrong when the machine has the sole and only purpose to sum up int's? It is a trivial task that any idiot can perform. That's why many countries still draft random people for the job, we are not talking rocket science here.
Heh, you've never worked in a large software development firm have you? I know from experience that any task, no matter how trivial, can be screwed up by your average idiot. I can almost guarantee you that the integer summing code is far more complex and idiotic that you can possibly imagine. If probably involves custom database abstraction objects, custom serialization, and a couple dozen transformations plus thousands of Win32 API calls.
Then MS can use those employees, or even Novell. But once the cat is out of the bag, you can't put it back. Microsoft can't sue me from benefiting from information disclosed by someone else who was under an NDA.
No, it's more like security by diversity. If a burglar had to try dozens of entirely different types of keys (never mind all the key patterns that each type includes) to break into a house, he would not find breaking into houses as attractive a prospect, and if he did try, it would be more likely that someone would notice him. Bad analogy. If the door is too hard to break into, the burglar would just take the much easier method and break into windows.....oh, maybe it was a good analogy after all.
So, stand-alone, not internet-connected Java-applications will fail? No, they just wouldn't be able to use the Kernel VM to install over the internet. All the other things I mentioned will still improve non-networked desktop applications.
Ok, before Mono I, as a Linux user, was unable to run applications written in C#. After Mono I, as a Linux user, now have the choice as to whether or not I want to run a C# application. You want me to be mad about that?
Miguel has not taken anything away from Linux, everything he's done has added to the choices we have. I would rather have an open-source implementation of Silverlight for Linux than have no implementation or a closed-source implementation. If you don't like Silverlight, don't install Moonlight, but don't presume to tell me if I should or should not use it.
If anything, Miguel has just proven that even if Microsoft keeps changing the API, the Mono team can keep up.
Ruby and Python have grown in popularity in many environments where Perl wasn't as well suited. Perl is still the "glue that holds the internet together", it's just that it's no longer popular for web programming (CGI) and it was never really popular for UI programs. Not many people write Ruby or Python scripts to perform basic sysadmin tasks.
Also the extremely long delay in Perl6/Parrot development has given these other languages an opportunity to take the market.
JavaFX is based on the big fat Java runtime Wait for Java 7, which will include: A 2MB "kernel VM" that gets downoaded if you don't already have Java. Modules for loading only the parts of the JVM needed by an application. Disk pre-fetching that will greatly decrease startup time.
So having dozens means its better? I'm suprised you bring up Tomcat; my experience was it was slow and very buggy. If you don't need things like EJB or MBeans, Tomcat is one of the best available. I've never had any stability problems and it is much faster than Webshere and the like (from my experience, yours may vary).
You leave out AWT though, why is that? I don't mention AWT specifically because it was a not a good toolkit for making a nice UI. Swing and SWT have made improvements in this area, Swing building on top of AWT.
I've not seen anyone using Java programs that didn't know they were using Java.. "why is it slow and ugly and not fit in" is tyically the clue. Well yes, slow and ugly Java programs will usually give away that they are slow and ugly Java programs. But fast and native looking Java programs are usually indistinguishable from VB or C/C++ programs, especially with recent upgrades to Swing's native windows look and feel (which actually uses Windows to draw most components).
But lets leave the anecote behind shall we? You can make very nice UIs with MFC, Windows Forms, and now WPF, which makes creating slick UIs exteremely easy. Its a shame I'm not an artist. I haven't used WPF yet, but I agree that it does look like it can create some nice UIs. But again, there are Java libraries that let you do the same thing. See Aerith for an example.
Its funny you mention writing software to achive business objectives, because that's typically associated with MS developers. The open source movement is the one that seems to want continualy build the same frameworks over and over. My point was that because there are so many open-source frameworks and libraries, I rarely have to buy or write my own. I can pick the one that best fits my need, then focus entirely on my business objective. Open source rarely accomplishes a specific business objective, it just gives you a good quality foundation. I wouldn't want to write an inversion of control framework or template engine, because there is no way mine would be better than those written by people with more experience. But I do often need a IoC framework or template engine to accomplish a specific business objective. I'm not in the.Net ecosphere, but what would my choices be if I needed them in.Net?
Finally somebody brought this up. If I had mod points, you'd get one.
Presumably if we could create enough of an atmosphere, we could produce a small magnetosphere like the one on Venus to help protect the surface from radiation. We would have to keep replenishing it though, since as you said the solar wind will continuously strip it away.
I would think that Venus would be a better target for terraforming in the long run.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, I thought we were still talking about the password for the root account under OS X on the iPhone. I missed the transition to decrypting a disk image, where you are correct, the decryption key (calling it a password is what confused me) must be available to the iPhone somehow.
I think by "testable" they mean that it makes predictions about what should be observable in the universe today. You don't always have to re-create an event for it to be testable. For example, the Big Bang theory predicted a very low level of leftover energy that would be uniform across the universe, the so called black body radiation, which was later observed to not only exist, but to be at nearly the exact level that the theory predicted.
So, if we had a unified view of physics, wouldn't all singularities disappear? I think it more accurately means an object with 0 volume, so even with a unified field theory (I assume that's what you're referring to), the concept of a singularity would still exist, at least mathematically.
If the Big Bang were a true singularity, then no information could be passed on, you are correct about that. However, this theory is saying that it was not a true singularity, that it had a non-zero volume and a non-infinite energy/density, therefore some information could pass through the event.
The article mentions that basic laws and constants of our universe may not have been the same in the preceding one. For example, a stronger value of G, the gravitational constant, would have forced our universe to collapse.
If you distribute a GPLv2 work as both binary and source form (option a), then you are no obligated to distribute the source to any other party. If you distribute a GPLv2 work with written offer to also distribute the source code on request (option b), then that offer can be extended to any third party upon redistribution (option c).
So if SWSoft chose option a, they are not obligated to give the source code to anybody they did not directly distribute the binary to. If the Wine developers use option b, then SWSoft can distribute an unmodified binary with a copy of the Wine dev's offer to get the source directly from www.winehq.com instead of having to distribute it themselves.
Upper management can and usually do ask their engineers for such things. They have to bring home some bucks. Management simply has to select some programmers who are ideologically aligned, but most importantly need the job or can be blackmailed otherwise. As every employee knows, no one wants to hire a whistleblower anyway.
Management regularly asks programmers to fudge some numbers or create artificial functionality, or things of that nature. Election rigging, however, is on a scale where I doubt you will be able to get someone by threat. Now if an average programmer suddenly got a 7 figure salary and an executive position, then maybe.What about NDA's? Keeping secrecy on such a project is fairly easy, you simply threaten everybody who knows with lawsuits and call it "trade secret". By the way, coding the whole program may require a large team, but making a simple back door takes only one programmer. You simply have to change an int, after all.
Criminal law trumps contract law. A contract that requires you to do something illegal, or prevents you from reporting illegal acts can not be enforced.On one hand, English has the word "conspiracy theorist". There should be another word, the "it-can-happen-here"-ists, for those who simply refuse to consider alternative explanations than the official one.
It's not that we are refusing to consider it, it's that we have considered it and found the "theory" to be lacking credibility and plausibility.Yeah right. More likely a ton of lawsuits, threats (of the legal and illegal type), unemployement for life, libel&defamation, dirt-digging in his/her private life, physical harm (either directly or as a consequence of mob-summoning libel) and all that happens to a whistleblower.
Again, nobody can sue you for disclosing illegal activity, as nobody can legally prevent you from doing so. Nobody may want to hire him as a programmer, but I'm sure the book deals, movie rights and speaking fees will more than make up for the lack of a low-end programming job.I do have a problem with this one. Vote for Gore: ++votes["gore"]. Vote for Bush: ++votes["bush"]. How can you exactly get it wrong when the machine has the sole and only purpose to sum up int's? It is a trivial task that any idiot can perform. That's why many countries still draft random people for the job, we are not talking rocket science here.
Heh, you've never worked in a large software development firm have you? I know from experience that any task, no matter how trivial, can be screwed up by your average idiot. I can almost guarantee you that the integer summing code is far more complex and idiotic that you can possibly imagine. If probably involves custom database abstraction objects, custom serialization, and a couple dozen transformations plus thousands of Win32 API calls.Then MS can use those employees, or even Novell. But once the cat is out of the bag, you can't put it back. Microsoft can't sue me from benefiting from information disclosed by someone else who was under an NDA.
Good point, isn't BBC content already public domain? I mean, UK citizens already paid for it once, didn't they?
From my reading of the article, they implemented Moonlight based on the public API for Silverlight. Nobody said anything about an NDA being involved.
Ok, before Mono I, as a Linux user, was unable to run applications written in C#. After Mono I, as a Linux user, now have the choice as to whether or not I want to run a C# application. You want me to be mad about that?
Miguel has not taken anything away from Linux, everything he's done has added to the choices we have. I would rather have an open-source implementation of Silverlight for Linux than have no implementation or a closed-source implementation. If you don't like Silverlight, don't install Moonlight, but don't presume to tell me if I should or should not use it.
If anything, Miguel has just proven that even if Microsoft keeps changing the API, the Mono team can keep up.
Actually it uses the MIT X11 license.
Ruby and Python have grown in popularity in many environments where Perl wasn't as well suited. Perl is still the "glue that holds the internet together", it's just that it's no longer popular for web programming (CGI) and it was never really popular for UI programs. Not many people write Ruby or Python scripts to perform basic sysadmin tasks.
Also the extremely long delay in Perl6/Parrot development has given these other languages an opportunity to take the market.
Flash is internally scripted with ActionScript, which is an ECMA Script implementation, just like Javascript.
A 2MB "kernel VM" that gets downoaded if you don't already have Java.
Modules for loading only the parts of the JVM needed by an application.
Disk pre-fetching that will greatly decrease startup time.
I think that's exactly what Moonlight is trying to fix. Chances are it will work on 64-bit Firefox too, unlike Flash.
Finally somebody brought this up. If I had mod points, you'd get one.
Presumably if we could create enough of an atmosphere, we could produce a small magnetosphere like the one on Venus to help protect the surface from radiation. We would have to keep replenishing it though, since as you said the solar wind will continuously strip it away.
I would think that Venus would be a better target for terraforming in the long run.