So you have basically the choice between a phone (or tablet) where you can install stuff that you don't want and one where you can't install what you want.
Yeah, it would be great if you could add 3rd party software sources' signing keys like on nearly every GNU/Linux OS... Android isn't GNU it's just Linux.
What sits between keyboard and chair is the lower bound.
How quaint. Your statement panders to those who are easily fooled by the preconceived bias you share. Your answer "education" is so pitiable that I would laugh in ridicule if it weren't so sad that this is what you actually believe.
You're not seriously implying that expending the energy to trick each person into disclosing their private data is easier than purchasing a zero day exploit on the black market -- that's ready and set to attach a payload -- and deploying it against the entire world in an afternoon, are you? If you are, then you're wrong. You're not seriously implying that the most security aware individuals on the planet are any better off than a mentally disabled tweenager when it comes to security online? If you are, then you failed to comprehend the TFS, and are the one who needs an education.
The operating system and application software places the bound on security so low that these are all that matter, speaking of anything else is a waste of time. With such insecure systems in use by everyone encryption doesn't even enter into the equation -- not one single bit. XOR with a single bit value is as meaningful comparatively to the most advanced cryptosystems when you step back and look at how insecure operating systems and applications are. An infinitely ignorance user is on the other end of the spectrum, but is equally as insignificant when compared to the insecurity of mainstream operating system and application software. It's not even a bell curve, there is a single spike in the exploitability graph so high that nothing else is significant statistically.
There is no mainstream OS on this planet that's not compromisable for a few hundred bucks. Indeed, the NSA turns morons into "cyberwarriors" by leveraging this fact. Unlike physical realms, the digital realm is composed of regions having finite state. It is inherently securable, this is a mathematic fact. I have done so personally on small embedded systems -- Every input to every system and subsystem and function can be verified to operate without any error. It's far from impossible, just expensive due to the economics of demand. If we are to be realistic and not uselessly proclaim nonsense such as "well, programmers also sit in chairs", it's quite easy to see that lack of security in the operating systems is so great a factor that all else are dwarfed -- dismissive as insignificant noise in the graph.
Fear does the same in 6 months what education does in 50 years. How do you make people fear for their loss of privacy enough that they will lash out against it?
You see, here you go again. The most privacy conscious have no option to act on their concern. What are they supposed to do? Not use computers? Your sentiment would be virtuous if it wasn't so daft.
Seeking innovation is a high-reward, high-risk thing.
Doesn't have to be though:
"Hey guys! We're thinking of moving the menubar to the top status bar, and making that unremovable. We'll have to move the close buttons though, vote on this strawpol.me and let us know what you think of the new changes, they'll look like this: [link to Javascript emulation provided by GTK+]."
When you look at the Venn diagram of folks who adopt Linux and those who like the Cult of Jobs' "one true way"(tm), then you realize just how dumb Canonical is.
(What, do you think that performing well on a test improves your ability to have your name picked out of a hat six months ago?)
::yawn:: Hypothesis: Field Trips to the Museum cause students to get better grades. Null Hypothesis: Field Trips have nothing to do with getting better grades.
Now, in order for any of the evidence for your hypothesis to mean anything beyond confirmation bias, it must be statistically significant more so than the null hypothesis (which is accepted as true by default otherwise). This is the mechanism for that whole "disprovability" thing that scientists require of theories.
Since I've posted this now several times over the last few days I've started wondering about what's being taught in science classes nowadays. Turns out that the Null Hypothesis has disappeared from science curriculum all the way up though high school. WTF. I've got a science book printed in the 50's that includes the null hypothesis. Know what else? Mathematics curriculum is severely dumbed down today than the textbooks in the 50's too.
Hypothesis: Teaching from less informative textbooks and curriculum causes ignorance in students. Null Hypothesis: Textbooks and curriculum don't influence learning. Evidence: The decline of intellect in school children over the past half decade.
Fuck Museums. We need the elites to stop dangling cash carrots for grades -- Economics would seem to corroborate: If the grades get the money, then the solution with the least effort required (lowering the curriculum) is what will most likely occur.
There. 30 minutes on Google Books/Scholar and Gutenberg and I've found the fucking education system problem. These morons are wasting how much money on studying FIELD TRIPS!?!? I'm sorry, fire the fuckers, they're inept, distractions, and/or a waste of money. I'll leave it up to you to decide whether the corporations trying to sell shit to the populace want them smart or dumbed down.
I usually bring my own bags. Sometimes I forget, or don't bring enough. I have a few collapsible cardboard boxes in my trunk. So, I can just cart the bagless goods to the car in the cart, and load them into the boxes or bags for easier carrying into the house. However, it's not possible to avoid all instances where I may need bags to carry out items. When I do I opt for plastic.
It's not a big deal for me -- I just collect them and return them. The grocery store in my neighborhood recycles the bags. I don't use paper bags for sanitary reasons: That's where those little cockroaches come from (at least in my neck of the woods). I can stand the big variety that come in from outside, but I'd rather not have to fumigate with harsh chemicals again just because I used paper bags brought insect eggs into my abode. Want to see something interesting? Next time you bring paper bags home, dampen them a bit then put them in clear plastic bags, and watch the infestation emerge. Careful, they can eat through plastic, so use a sturdy bag. As a rational person, I of course needed evidence to back my shopping bag preference. YMMV.
The sad thing is that it's on par with the level of TV Tropes. They first use their pattern matching brains to notice some pattern, then go seek out quantifications for it. That's ridiculous. That's why literally everything is a trope -- even the tropeless story is a trope. The same goes for psychological classifications and categorizations of behaviours. Some psychologists claim to study cognitive bias -- Yet their own confirmation bias has blinded them to the fact that their distinctions themselves were biased to begin with.
The answer is to start at the bottom -- Understand through observation the mechanisms of neurobiology. Model them through cybernetics. Verify them mathematically, experimentally, and link the behaviours to the physical world, instead of guessing from the top down through the fog of their own cognition.
The primary problems humans face is that their minds are too small, and they don't live long enough. They must specialize if they are to become experts in an area of study before their lives run out. Contrast this with the real world, existing for billions of years, timeless on human scales, and the fact that there are no divisions in sciences. The quantum physics of spin giving predictive power to macroscopic magnetism is linked to human behaviour via eddy currents in their electrochemical neural network brains.
The sciences remain separated quite foolishly. Eg: The Philosopher should start with Information Theory and Entropy and Cybernetics and build their epistemology on mathematically provable principals and cybernetic models with entropic parameters set by observations in quantum physics. THEN you they can say what knowing means. Instead they get continually tripped up by one aspect of a self reflecting cybernetic being: Their data could be tampered with. Yes, indeed, troves are dedicated to the simple subject, and still they have not done as I propose and utilize information theory and observations of thermodynamics to quantify the apparent degree of which knowing can exist. Fools.
One must make due with the planet one finds oneself on. Taking cognitive limits into concern they need not specialize deeply in each field, but no Psychiatrist or Philosopher or Psychologist should be ignorant of the governing field of Cybernetics -- Especially not the cybernetically provable social dynamics that result from information disparity: The Mathematics of Secrets. I would venture to say they should be able to explain the uncertainty principal as well -- since it can be directly applied to perception.
Psychology is a huge field. Perception, experimental analysis of animal behaviour, clinical psychology, cognitive biases etc. etc.
No, the field you're thinking of is Neuroscience and Cybernetics -- These have evidence based on observation and models which have predictive power. Psychology is just confirmation bias. You must prove the null hypothesis more implausible than the original hypothesis, yet Psychology does not do this. For every ridiculous Sexual Epistemology, there's an equally valid Scatological Epistemology.
The truth is that neurons fire in brains, and that complexity gives rise to emergent behaviours. Leaping the gulf in understanding to arrive at the explanations that Psychology and Philosophy give is akin to claiming a God in a Chariot pulls the Sun across the sky.
So, theres a server you input the password into. The login page or client connection port is only available at certain times. Once all the right passwords have been input by everyone it decrypts and displays the password to decrypt some torrent that's floating around the net -- Maybe posts it to facebook and twitter, pastebin, 4chan, et al.
I can think of about 20 other ways to time limit a password, but this seems feasible. There's no way to know which server or wordpress blog has the additional capabilities added to it -- This would be important because you would want it to be an action the individuals usually make (login to their blog, etc) but this time using the special password. Break the 4096 bit key into multiple parts and give it to folks so the decryption key's not on the server.
Why even time limit it though? A lot of people are wrongheadedly forgetting part of the equation that a good security researcher would not: The people part. The time limit isn't for security in the cryptographic sense. It's to synchronize the human input to the equation and reduce the window of time between when the first suspected keyholder performs their part in the unlock procedure and when the payload is deployed.
The parts of the NSA with enough brains to infiltrate "seriously secure" systems are probably also a bit smarter than your average random contractor about keeping the really important stuff safe.
I disagree. They recruit from the general populace, and buy exploits from the black market like your average thugs.
Androgynous? When I was a small boy I began reading all sorts of magazines and finding out things about the sexes. Imagine a 7 year old trying to talk about complex issues like gender or gravitational lensing with moronic adults. Despite everyone telling me what was "normal" for a boy I had different urges -- I wanted to do things that boys aren't supposed to do. In my teens I finally realized that my brain was trapped in the wrong kind of body -- One that could survive the harshness of space. I should have been born a cyborg. You pathetic humans are disgusting.
But is wishing a painful death on those causing your father an awful death wrong?
Yes. If you're not a preschooler you would understand that two wrongs don't make a right. Revenge is evil you twit.
I don't wish ill of those that sought to injure me directly -- I did not act with malice towards them, but in defense and with compassion I dealt only as much as required of my safety, nothing more. To harm without need goes against my fibre.
Rallying opposition to the laws you oppose does not require wishing the poor fools who wrote them to die. Yes, if I realized that I would be dead either way in such an assault, I would not try to kill my assaulter and drag them into death with me. Life is too precious a thing for questionable fucks like you to cheapen it.
Well, you found yourself here, eh? You're aware Slashdot is a front for vampires anonymous, right? That's why we drum up fear about Zombies as a distraction...
You didn't notice the other symptoms besides Anomalous Cravings? Aversion to sunlight, living in a basement, not bathing in (holy) water. I mean, you never wondered about that whole shrieking at Cross bearers thing?
A leaked memo containing U.S. suggestions for changes to the ICCPR... The U.S. changes are pretty much directed at making dragnet surveillance of non-citizens technically legal.
Move "dragnet" to just after "U.S." in those sentences, we don't want to inaccurately exclude them from the full accreditation they deserve. Also insert "Stasi like" prior to "U.S." to avoid the inaccurate assumption that they are not fascists.
Buying decisions are often made based on how well a product scores,
That is an unproven hypothesis. Null hypothesis: Buying decisions are often NOT made based on how well a product scores on benchmarks. Evidence: iDevices. The burden of proof is on the claimant to provide GREATER evidence than the null hypothesis, otherwise the claim can be dismissed as confirmation bias, even if you find evidence in support of the orginal hypothesis: Stepping on cracks does not break backs, even if you observe it happening a couple of times. Nerds checking benchmarks before buying gadgets happens. Is this frequent enough to warant use of the word "often"? If so, where's the evidence? You haven't any.
Try this on for size: The niche market segment of geeks who care enough about benchmark scores and use Futuremark as a source for statistics occasionally purchase products based on those scores. It's hypocritical to hold Creationists to a higher standard of evidence than you do yourself.
I think I'll call it: System on a Chip. Or, just get an old beige box x86 with no USB -- Has serial ports, no sound card, etc.
Look, the problem is that provably secure operating systems and software are possible to create, but prohibitively expensive to create and maintain. Before some nutter harps on about a "halting problem": No, stop it. Computers have FINITE state. I have written drivers (and small embedded OSs) that are mathematically provably secure. Every combination of inputs (expected or otherwise) to every interface and function work exactly as they should and no unexpected code execution vulnerabilities exist. It's expensive as hell, but it actually can be done. Provable security can be done at larger scales too. The problem is that as long as we're prioritizing newer and shittier exploitable code over provably secure code we'll have these software problems.
As to the matter of routing out Ken Thompson Microcode Hacks -- Well, there's answers to that too which are just as expensive.
TL;DR: Your shit's insecure only because you accept it to be that way.
Consider the Universe is a simulation which a god has created and is logged on as Admin. Now consider that there are many such universes, and the god logs out of your universe -- Thus no longer existing for all intents and purposes in your universe. Consider this god then deletes the evidence that they existed from the logs. I have just disproved the argument via logic as described in RFC 1925 - Section 2 Paragraph 6
The Fundamental Truths
(6) It is easier to move a problem around (for example, by moving
the problem to a different part of the overall network
architecture) than it is to solve it.
(6a) (corollary). It is always possible to add another level of
indirection.
Emphasis mine. I applied another level of indirection to your universe. According to RFC1925-2.6(a) you can then win the next round via application of another layer of indirection: Can god create a systems of simulations that he could not log out of, or in to; etc. ad infinitum. The argument has failed because it did not follow the scientific method AKA Skeptical Protocol.
If you are to be a skeptic (or merely a rational individual) then you must learn to use your most powerful weapon against unreason: The Null Hypothesis.
Simply put: In order for evidence in seeming support of a hypothesis (or point of view) to be considered valid the inverse hypothesis must be sufficiently disproved as well.
Hypothesis: God Exists. Null Hypothesis: God Does Not Exist. Unless you can disprove the null hypothesis, then all evidence and reason in favor of the existence of a god means nothing -- It can be written off as merely confirmation bias.
Note: A null hypothesis is considered to be true by default -- If no evidence is found either way, it is the accepted stance. However, a null hypothesis when separated from its original hypothesis is not accepted as valid on its own. A null hypothesis exists only to disprove a stance -- Considered individually it will have a null hypothesis of its own.
Another term to familiarize yourself with is: Unequivocal Evidence. It means supporting evidence which can not be explained by another theory. Take speciation for example. There is no unequivocal evidence for speciation being supernatural (intelligent design) because speciation can be better explained via natural selection.
Furthermore, Creationism can not be considered a theory because the null hypothesis (evolution) has far more supporting evidence. That's why scientists make such a big deal about things needing to be disprovable. The null hypothesis must be disproved to prove the original hypothesis is not confirmation bias. Eg: Even if I find an IP log for god.com going back exactly 4 thousand years the evidence is unequivocal; Null-hypothetical Internet trolls are just as likely an explanation...
Slashdot Mirror
So you have basically the choice between a phone (or tablet) where you can install stuff that you don't want and one where you can't install what you want.
Yeah, it would be great if you could add 3rd party software sources' signing keys like on nearly every GNU/Linux OS... Android isn't GNU it's just Linux.
What sits between keyboard and chair is the lower bound.
How quaint. Your statement panders to those who are easily fooled by the preconceived bias you share. Your answer "education" is so pitiable that I would laugh in ridicule if it weren't so sad that this is what you actually believe.
You're not seriously implying that expending the energy to trick each person into disclosing their private data is easier than purchasing a zero day exploit on the black market -- that's ready and set to attach a payload -- and deploying it against the entire world in an afternoon, are you? If you are, then you're wrong. You're not seriously implying that the most security aware individuals on the planet are any better off than a mentally disabled tweenager when it comes to security online? If you are, then you failed to comprehend the TFS, and are the one who needs an education.
The operating system and application software places the bound on security so low that these are all that matter, speaking of anything else is a waste of time. With such insecure systems in use by everyone encryption doesn't even enter into the equation -- not one single bit. XOR with a single bit value is as meaningful comparatively to the most advanced cryptosystems when you step back and look at how insecure operating systems and applications are. An infinitely ignorance user is on the other end of the spectrum, but is equally as insignificant when compared to the insecurity of mainstream operating system and application software. It's not even a bell curve, there is a single spike in the exploitability graph so high that nothing else is significant statistically.
There is no mainstream OS on this planet that's not compromisable for a few hundred bucks. Indeed, the NSA turns morons into "cyberwarriors" by leveraging this fact. Unlike physical realms, the digital realm is composed of regions having finite state. It is inherently securable, this is a mathematic fact. I have done so personally on small embedded systems -- Every input to every system and subsystem and function can be verified to operate without any error. It's far from impossible, just expensive due to the economics of demand. If we are to be realistic and not uselessly proclaim nonsense such as "well, programmers also sit in chairs", it's quite easy to see that lack of security in the operating systems is so great a factor that all else are dwarfed -- dismissive as insignificant noise in the graph.
Fear does the same in 6 months what education does in 50 years. How do you make people fear for their loss of privacy enough that they will lash out against it?
You see, here you go again. The most privacy conscious have no option to act on their concern. What are they supposed to do? Not use computers? Your sentiment would be virtuous if it wasn't so daft.
Seeking innovation is a high-reward, high-risk thing.
Doesn't have to be though:
"Hey guys! We're thinking of moving the menubar to the top status bar, and making that unremovable. We'll have to move the close buttons though, vote on this strawpol.me and let us know what you think of the new changes, they'll look like this: [link to Javascript emulation provided by GTK+]."
When you look at the Venn diagram of folks who adopt Linux and those who like the Cult of Jobs' "one true way"(tm), then you realize just how dumb Canonical is.
Can I run Unity on BSD or Windows? I didn't think so.
Powerful for stationary work
This. Works great as a paper weight while my phone and desktop / media streaming private cloud to everything else.
It's back to Debian?
Yep, and MATE (gnome2), or XFCE, GNOME3, etc. I don't even have a reason to go with an Ubuntu based distro like Mint.
Our logs show you visited site X, and talked to terrorist Y.
Well, you could have fudged those logs.
You can verify them with your ISP.
Well, you probably fudge those on a regular basis.
Your router logs! Your own router shows that--
You mean the routers that you routinely deploy malware against via FOXACID? Sorry.
When you get caught lying to congress, you lose your last gambling chip.
We'll just have the CIA kill you then...
Indeed, I always knew it would come to this.
The don't need porn. They have more than enough watching what real people, of all ages, do.
Hu? That's called "Amateur Porn". It's still porn.
(What, do you think that performing well on a test improves your ability to have your name picked out of a hat six months ago?)
Hypothesis: Field Trips to the Museum cause students to get better grades. Null Hypothesis: Field Trips have nothing to do with getting better grades.
Now, in order for any of the evidence for your hypothesis to mean anything beyond confirmation bias, it must be statistically significant more so than the null hypothesis (which is accepted as true by default otherwise). This is the mechanism for that whole "disprovability" thing that scientists require of theories.
Since I've posted this now several times over the last few days I've started wondering about what's being taught in science classes nowadays. Turns out that the Null Hypothesis has disappeared from science curriculum all the way up though high school. WTF. I've got a science book printed in the 50's that includes the null hypothesis. Know what else? Mathematics curriculum is severely dumbed down today than the textbooks in the 50's too.
Hypothesis: Teaching from less informative textbooks and curriculum causes ignorance in students. Null Hypothesis: Textbooks and curriculum don't influence learning. Evidence: The decline of intellect in school children over the past half decade.
Fuck Museums. We need the elites to stop dangling cash carrots for grades -- Economics would seem to corroborate: If the grades get the money, then the solution with the least effort required (lowering the curriculum) is what will most likely occur.
There. 30 minutes on Google Books/Scholar and Gutenberg and I've found the fucking education system problem. These morons are wasting how much money on studying FIELD TRIPS!?!? I'm sorry, fire the fuckers, they're inept, distractions, and/or a waste of money. I'll leave it up to you to decide whether the corporations trying to sell shit to the populace want them smart or dumbed down.
I usually bring my own bags. Sometimes I forget, or don't bring enough. I have a few collapsible cardboard boxes in my trunk. So, I can just cart the bagless goods to the car in the cart, and load them into the boxes or bags for easier carrying into the house. However, it's not possible to avoid all instances where I may need bags to carry out items. When I do I opt for plastic.
It's not a big deal for me -- I just collect them and return them. The grocery store in my neighborhood recycles the bags. I don't use paper bags for sanitary reasons: That's where those little cockroaches come from (at least in my neck of the woods). I can stand the big variety that come in from outside, but I'd rather not have to fumigate with harsh chemicals again just because I used paper bags brought insect eggs into my abode. Want to see something interesting? Next time you bring paper bags home, dampen them a bit then put them in clear plastic bags, and watch the infestation emerge. Careful, they can eat through plastic, so use a sturdy bag. As a rational person, I of course needed evidence to back my shopping bag preference. YMMV.
If only Psychology was a science.
The sad thing is that it's on par with the level of TV Tropes. They first use their pattern matching brains to notice some pattern, then go seek out quantifications for it. That's ridiculous. That's why literally everything is a trope -- even the tropeless story is a trope. The same goes for psychological classifications and categorizations of behaviours. Some psychologists claim to study cognitive bias -- Yet their own confirmation bias has blinded them to the fact that their distinctions themselves were biased to begin with.
The answer is to start at the bottom -- Understand through observation the mechanisms of neurobiology. Model them through cybernetics. Verify them mathematically, experimentally, and link the behaviours to the physical world, instead of guessing from the top down through the fog of their own cognition.
The primary problems humans face is that their minds are too small, and they don't live long enough. They must specialize if they are to become experts in an area of study before their lives run out. Contrast this with the real world, existing for billions of years, timeless on human scales, and the fact that there are no divisions in sciences. The quantum physics of spin giving predictive power to macroscopic magnetism is linked to human behaviour via eddy currents in their electrochemical neural network brains.
The sciences remain separated quite foolishly. Eg: The Philosopher should start with Information Theory and Entropy and Cybernetics and build their epistemology on mathematically provable principals and cybernetic models with entropic parameters set by observations in quantum physics. THEN you they can say what knowing means. Instead they get continually tripped up by one aspect of a self reflecting cybernetic being: Their data could be tampered with. Yes, indeed, troves are dedicated to the simple subject, and still they have not done as I propose and utilize information theory and observations of thermodynamics to quantify the apparent degree of which knowing can exist. Fools.
One must make due with the planet one finds oneself on. Taking cognitive limits into concern they need not specialize deeply in each field, but no Psychiatrist or Philosopher or Psychologist should be ignorant of the governing field of Cybernetics -- Especially not the cybernetically provable social dynamics that result from information disparity: The Mathematics of Secrets. I would venture to say they should be able to explain the uncertainty principal as well -- since it can be directly applied to perception.
Psychology is a huge field. Perception, experimental analysis of animal behaviour, clinical psychology, cognitive biases etc. etc.
No, the field you're thinking of is Neuroscience and Cybernetics -- These have evidence based on observation and models which have predictive power. Psychology is just confirmation bias. You must prove the null hypothesis more implausible than the original hypothesis, yet Psychology does not do this. For every ridiculous Sexual Epistemology, there's an equally valid Scatological Epistemology.
The truth is that neurons fire in brains, and that complexity gives rise to emergent behaviours. Leaping the gulf in understanding to arrive at the explanations that Psychology and Philosophy give is akin to claiming a God in a Chariot pulls the Sun across the sky.
There's no literal way for that to work,
So, theres a server you input the password into. The login page or client connection port is only available at certain times. Once all the right passwords have been input by everyone it decrypts and displays the password to decrypt some torrent that's floating around the net -- Maybe posts it to facebook and twitter, pastebin, 4chan, et al.
I can think of about 20 other ways to time limit a password, but this seems feasible. There's no way to know which server or wordpress blog has the additional capabilities added to it -- This would be important because you would want it to be an action the individuals usually make (login to their blog, etc) but this time using the special password. Break the 4096 bit key into multiple parts and give it to folks so the decryption key's not on the server.
Why even time limit it though? A lot of people are wrongheadedly forgetting part of the equation that a good security researcher would not: The people part. The time limit isn't for security in the cryptographic sense. It's to synchronize the human input to the equation and reduce the window of time between when the first suspected keyholder performs their part in the unlock procedure and when the payload is deployed.
The parts of the NSA with enough brains to infiltrate "seriously secure" systems are probably also a bit smarter than your average random contractor about keeping the really important stuff safe.
I disagree. They recruit from the general populace, and buy exploits from the black market like your average thugs.
Androgynous? When I was a small boy I began reading all sorts of magazines and finding out things about the sexes. Imagine a 7 year old trying to talk about complex issues like gender or gravitational lensing with moronic adults. Despite everyone telling me what was "normal" for a boy I had different urges -- I wanted to do things that boys aren't supposed to do. In my teens I finally realized that my brain was trapped in the wrong kind of body -- One that could survive the harshness of space. I should have been born a cyborg. You pathetic humans are disgusting.
But is wishing a painful death on those causing your father an awful death wrong?
Yes. If you're not a preschooler you would understand that two wrongs don't make a right. Revenge is evil you twit.
I don't wish ill of those that sought to injure me directly -- I did not act with malice towards them, but in defense and with compassion I dealt only as much as required of my safety, nothing more. To harm without need goes against my fibre.
Rallying opposition to the laws you oppose does not require wishing the poor fools who wrote them to die. Yes, if I realized that I would be dead either way in such an assault, I would not try to kill my assaulter and drag them into death with me. Life is too precious a thing for questionable fucks like you to cheapen it.
Well, you found yourself here, eh? You're aware Slashdot is a front for vampires anonymous, right? That's why we drum up fear about Zombies as a distraction...
You didn't notice the other symptoms besides Anomalous Cravings? Aversion to sunlight, living in a basement, not bathing in (holy) water.
I mean, you never wondered about that whole shrieking at Cross bearers thing?
No big mysteries here. Room for complaint that this issue hasn't been resolved quickly, though.
And we would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for you meddling kids!
A leaked memo containing U.S. suggestions for changes to the ICCPR ... The U.S. changes are pretty much directed at making dragnet surveillance of non-citizens technically legal.
Move "dragnet" to just after "U.S." in those sentences, we don't want to inaccurately exclude them from the full accreditation they deserve. Also insert "Stasi like" prior to "U.S." to avoid the inaccurate assumption that they are not fascists.
Buying decisions are often made based on how well a product scores,
That is an unproven hypothesis. Null hypothesis: Buying decisions are often NOT made based on how well a product scores on benchmarks. Evidence: iDevices. The burden of proof is on the claimant to provide GREATER evidence than the null hypothesis, otherwise the claim can be dismissed as confirmation bias, even if you find evidence in support of the orginal hypothesis: Stepping on cracks does not break backs, even if you observe it happening a couple of times. Nerds checking benchmarks before buying gadgets happens. Is this frequent enough to warant use of the word "often"? If so, where's the evidence? You haven't any.
Try this on for size: The niche market segment of geeks who care enough about benchmark scores and use Futuremark as a source for statistics occasionally purchase products based on those scores. It's hypocritical to hold Creationists to a higher standard of evidence than you do yourself.
__END__
=head1 Postdoc
Embedding Perl's Plain Old Documentation in your source as a particularly perverse take on self documenting code.
=cut
I think I'll call it: System on a Chip. Or, just get an old beige box x86 with no USB -- Has serial ports, no sound card, etc.
Look, the problem is that provably secure operating systems and software are possible to create, but prohibitively expensive to create and maintain. Before some nutter harps on about a "halting problem": No, stop it. Computers have FINITE state. I have written drivers (and small embedded OSs) that are mathematically provably secure. Every combination of inputs (expected or otherwise) to every interface and function work exactly as they should and no unexpected code execution vulnerabilities exist. It's expensive as hell, but it actually can be done. Provable security can be done at larger scales too. The problem is that as long as we're prioritizing newer and shittier exploitable code over provably secure code we'll have these software problems.
As to the matter of routing out Ken Thompson Microcode Hacks -- Well, there's answers to that too which are just as expensive.
TL;DR: Your shit's insecure only because you accept it to be that way.
I object on the basis that your alternate explanations do not #include belly button logic.
s/the evidence is unequivocal/the evidence is not unequivocal/
I fear that I would worship /. admins as gods if the above command actually worked.
Consider the Universe is a simulation which a god has created and is logged on as Admin. Now consider that there are many such universes, and the god logs out of your universe -- Thus no longer existing for all intents and purposes in your universe. Consider this god then deletes the evidence that they existed from the logs. I have just disproved the argument via logic as described in RFC 1925 - Section 2 Paragraph 6
Emphasis mine. I applied another level of indirection to your universe. According to RFC1925-2.6(a) you can then win the next round via application of another layer of indirection: Can god create a systems of simulations that he could not log out of, or in to; etc. ad infinitum. The argument has failed because it did not follow the scientific method AKA Skeptical Protocol.
If you are to be a skeptic (or merely a rational individual) then you must learn to use your most powerful weapon against unreason: The Null Hypothesis.
Simply put: In order for evidence in seeming support of a hypothesis (or point of view) to be considered valid the inverse hypothesis must be sufficiently disproved as well.
Hypothesis: God Exists. Null Hypothesis: God Does Not Exist. Unless you can disprove the null hypothesis, then all evidence and reason in favor of the existence of a god means nothing -- It can be written off as merely confirmation bias.
Note: A null hypothesis is considered to be true by default -- If no evidence is found either way, it is the accepted stance. However, a null hypothesis when separated from its original hypothesis is not accepted as valid on its own. A null hypothesis exists only to disprove a stance -- Considered individually it will have a null hypothesis of its own.
Another term to familiarize yourself with is: Unequivocal Evidence. It means supporting evidence which can not be explained by another theory.
Take speciation for example. There is no unequivocal evidence for speciation being supernatural (intelligent design) because speciation can be better explained via natural selection.
Furthermore, Creationism can not be considered a theory because the null hypothesis (evolution) has far more supporting evidence. That's why scientists make such a big deal about things needing to be disprovable. The null hypothesis must be disproved to prove the original hypothesis is not confirmation bias. Eg: Even if I find an IP log for god.com going back exactly 4 thousand years the evidence is unequivocal; Null-hypothetical Internet trolls are just as likely an explanation...