That's not how ledgers work. Ledgers allow corrections to be made by adding a correction entry, never by removing or changing an entry. Once you start allowing removal, it loses all value.
The problem is that the bitcoin ledger allows arbitrary data to be added. The horse is already out of the barn, too late to close the door.
Very probably, but since the effect was seen even at levels currently considered "safe", it still suggests that we may need to change what we consider "safe".
In some places that were adjacent to heavy traffic, we may need to clean up the left over lead.
No sane person writes a library for 5 to 10 lines. However, reviewing 5 to 10 lines for correctness should be well within the abilities of a competent developer.
The problem is when incompetent programmers copy/paste without the ability to review the code.
As for libraries, YMMV. Some are quite good, well tested, documented, and maintained. Some are fire and forget crap. Some are made by people mindlessly cutting and pasting.
Cargo cult programming is bad no matter how the bits get glued together.
Why not if you can save some time? Unless you are coding for your own kernel and libraries using your own compiler, you're already copying a bunch of stuff by reference.
You force me to give you a receipt. So I give you the fake one I requested just for you that has the bogus signature and never actually counted. You verify it and get arrested on the spot. Bye Bye!
Or, more likely, you know there's no point in asking for a receipt since I can just give you an official fake one that you don't dare verify.
WHOOSH! The Stasi would be the part where judges are issuing warrants they shouldn't. The only reason what Google is doing is a problem is because it might enable police and judges to violate the Constitution.
Use Xfce rather than Gnome and the desktop on Linux is still good. Debian lets you mostly kill off the brokenness of systemd and Slack, Devuan and a few others remove it entirely.
Just say no to Wayland until they face the fact that they deliberately ignored a commonly used feature of X and then lied about X by claiming it never had it.
Well, if they see any evidence that you knew what he was up to, that would be probable cause. If they saw you walk by oblivious, they could ask if you might have seen anything but it would not be reasonable to search you. Best bet would be to broadcast that they were looking for witnesses who were around X at Y time and see if you contact them.
The only reason that wouldn't work is that they have cultivated an atmosphere of distrust over the years.
Even that was far more tightly constrained. The people they looked at were within a 1 minute window, not 2 hours. They were at the exact spot the criminals were known to be in, not within a several block area.
Still, they should not have been cuffed, and they should not have even been asked for their names unless or until the money or weapons were found in their car. Everyone else should have received a heartfelt apology. Anything seen that was not related to the specific crime should have been ignored.
That's not much of a line, especially considering that location information isn't pinpoint accurate. They are getting information about people who did not even know the victim of the crime existed or that a crime happened. People who have probably never even been inside the building where the crime took place.
What Google is doing is not really as bad. They can't detain me and ask questions about what I was doing. They can ask and I can dismiss the question unanswered. They cannot put me on trial and they cannot jail me. They cannot cause me to need to spend thousands of dollars on a lawyer while they try to convince a jury that I should be locked in a cage for many years.
You still wooshed. The technology is not what is being objected to. The objection is turning the location information over to police with no probable cause or even reasonable suspicion.
If the doctor is doing a CAT scan on me, he already has probable cause. Nobody goes to the doctor reporting they feel fine and have no history of serious illness and then gets a CAT scan. Also, even if the doctor wants you to get a CAT scan, you are free to decline. You probably shouldn't, but you can refuse.
One approach to that is that your actual ballot is signed by an official key. BUT you can request receipts showing any vote you like that will be signed by a different key. If anyone tries to validate one of those ballots and they can't prove they're you, it's off to jail awaiting trial for them. Allow some variation on that theme so a journalist can spot check ballots.
That's something I'm wondering about. In bitcoin, manipulation is made hard as long as no cooperating entity represents more than 50% of all mining. That only works because the process of minting a coin takes a not-trivial amount of CPU cycles.
When all of the machines are owned by the same entity and the proof of work is reduced to a level that allows all of the coins to be minted on election day, I'm not so sure it still works.
If they're paying little enough that their employees qualify for any government program to make up the difference, the McDs is essentially leeching off of the taxpayer to keep their employees alive.
You wouldn't likely agree to pay a company's utility bills or for machine maintenance, why are you so willing to pay to maintain their "worker units" rather than make them pay for it?
Or do you think McD's would do OK if their workers were sick and homeless? Would you eat at a place where the workers haven't showered for a month?
Minimum wage is our way of not letting employers use food stamps and other programs as a payroll subsidy.
The kernel has been redying for that for a long time. Root is nod divided into capabilities and cgroups and namespaces can limit the ability to see across compartments.
But ultimately, someone will have the ability to upgrade the BIOS, and that person will have a great deal of ability to violate security.
That's because the others have your local machine connect out to the remote machine. The machine that listens for connections is the server. The machine that initiates the connection is the client.
The client software "out there" connects to the server in front of you in order to receive the service of presenting an interface to the user.
If more will contemplate that, they will expand their thinking and possibly even feel empowered. A server is not some mysterious thing "out there" beyond the reach of a mere mortal. It's just another computer that may not even be as powerful as the one on their desk.
Who said anything about announcing. How about not letting it happen? Had they done their jobs, the terrorists would have had perfectly ordinary seeming accidents or been found with large amounts of heroin and locked away. Instead, they caused 911.
Well, let's see. The problem was connection timed out, not DNS resolution failure, so your diagnostic skills DEFINITELY suck monkey balls. A quick sampling of whois suggests the others you listed are not owned by the same people, BTW.
Apparently nobody but Comcast customers had an issue on those days. If the issue was upstream to Comcast, others would likely be affected.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not how ledgers work. Ledgers allow corrections to be made by adding a correction entry, never by removing or changing an entry. Once you start allowing removal, it loses all value.
The problem is that the bitcoin ledger allows arbitrary data to be added. The horse is already out of the barn, too late to close the door.
Very probably, but since the effect was seen even at levels currently considered "safe", it still suggests that we may need to change what we consider "safe".
In some places that were adjacent to heavy traffic, we may need to clean up the left over lead.
Yes, you're recording different facts into the ledger, but that doesn't change the need for the ledger to be immutable.
No sane person writes a library for 5 to 10 lines. However, reviewing 5 to 10 lines for correctness should be well within the abilities of a competent developer.
The problem is when incompetent programmers copy/paste without the ability to review the code.
As for libraries, YMMV. Some are quite good, well tested, documented, and maintained. Some are fire and forget crap. Some are made by people mindlessly cutting and pasting.
Cargo cult programming is bad no matter how the bits get glued together.
Why not if you can save some time? Unless you are coding for your own kernel and libraries using your own compiler, you're already copying a bunch of stuff by reference.
You force me to give you a receipt. So I give you the fake one I requested just for you that has the bogus signature and never actually counted. You verify it and get arrested on the spot. Bye Bye!
Or, more likely, you know there's no point in asking for a receipt since I can just give you an official fake one that you don't dare verify.
WHOOSH! The Stasi would be the part where judges are issuing warrants they shouldn't. The only reason what Google is doing is a problem is because it might enable police and judges to violate the Constitution.
Use Xfce rather than Gnome and the desktop on Linux is still good. Debian lets you mostly kill off the brokenness of systemd and Slack, Devuan and a few others remove it entirely.
Just say no to Wayland until they face the fact that they deliberately ignored a commonly used feature of X and then lied about X by claiming it never had it.
Well, if they see any evidence that you knew what he was up to, that would be probable cause. If they saw you walk by oblivious, they could ask if you might have seen anything but it would not be reasonable to search you. Best bet would be to broadcast that they were looking for witnesses who were around X at Y time and see if you contact them.
The only reason that wouldn't work is that they have cultivated an atmosphere of distrust over the years.
Even that was far more tightly constrained. The people they looked at were within a 1 minute window, not 2 hours. They were at the exact spot the criminals were known to be in, not within a several block area.
Still, they should not have been cuffed, and they should not have even been asked for their names unless or until the money or weapons were found in their car. Everyone else should have received a heartfelt apology. Anything seen that was not related to the specific crime should have been ignored.
That's not much of a line, especially considering that location information isn't pinpoint accurate. They are getting information about people who did not even know the victim of the crime existed or that a crime happened. People who have probably never even been inside the building where the crime took place.
What Google is doing is not really as bad. They can't detain me and ask questions about what I was doing. They can ask and I can dismiss the question unanswered. They cannot put me on trial and they cannot jail me. They cannot cause me to need to spend thousands of dollars on a lawyer while they try to convince a jury that I should be locked in a cage for many years.
You still wooshed. The technology is not what is being objected to. The objection is turning the location information over to police with no probable cause or even reasonable suspicion.
If the doctor is doing a CAT scan on me, he already has probable cause. Nobody goes to the doctor reporting they feel fine and have no history of serious illness and then gets a CAT scan. Also, even if the doctor wants you to get a CAT scan, you are free to decline. You probably shouldn't, but you can refuse.
One approach to that is that your actual ballot is signed by an official key. BUT you can request receipts showing any vote you like that will be signed by a different key. If anyone tries to validate one of those ballots and they can't prove they're you, it's off to jail awaiting trial for them. Allow some variation on that theme so a journalist can spot check ballots.
That's something I'm wondering about. In bitcoin, manipulation is made hard as long as no cooperating entity represents more than 50% of all mining. That only works because the process of minting a coin takes a not-trivial amount of CPU cycles.
When all of the machines are owned by the same entity and the proof of work is reduced to a level that allows all of the coins to be minted on election day, I'm not so sure it still works.
No, I'm under the impression that it is not my responsibility to help McDonald's make payroll.
So you're saying that the magic market with competition failed miserably? Because if market competition was working, that wouldn't happen.
If they're paying little enough that their employees qualify for any government program to make up the difference, the McDs is essentially leeching off of the taxpayer to keep their employees alive.
You wouldn't likely agree to pay a company's utility bills or for machine maintenance, why are you so willing to pay to maintain their "worker units" rather than make them pay for it?
Or do you think McD's would do OK if their workers were sick and homeless? Would you eat at a place where the workers haven't showered for a month?
Minimum wage is our way of not letting employers use food stamps and other programs as a payroll subsidy.
The, while offering average pay wonder why their applicants fail to be above average.
The kernel has been redying for that for a long time. Root is nod divided into capabilities and cgroups and namespaces can limit the ability to see across compartments.
But ultimately, someone will have the ability to upgrade the BIOS, and that person will have a great deal of ability to violate security.
That's because the others have your local machine connect out to the remote machine. The machine that listens for connections is the server. The machine that initiates the connection is the client.
Contemplate that and expand your understanding.
The client software "out there" connects to the server in front of you in order to receive the service of presenting an interface to the user.
If more will contemplate that, they will expand their thinking and possibly even feel empowered. A server is not some mysterious thing "out there" beyond the reach of a mere mortal. It's just another computer that may not even be as powerful as the one on their desk.
Who said anything about announcing. How about not letting it happen? Had they done their jobs, the terrorists would have had perfectly ordinary seeming accidents or been found with large amounts of heroin and locked away. Instead, they caused 911.
Well, let's see. The problem was connection timed out, not DNS resolution failure, so your diagnostic skills DEFINITELY suck monkey balls. A quick sampling of whois suggests the others you listed are not owned by the same people, BTW.
Apparently nobody but Comcast customers had an issue on those days. If the issue was upstream to Comcast, others would likely be affected.
Either that or your diagnostic abilities suck monkey balls.
Step one, narrow the diagnosis based on where the outages are. Work out from there.