There's commonly-used software to build rainbow tables to do dictionary attacks. Obviously, individual words are there, but so are words with "leet speak" substitutions, words with short non-aplha prefixes and suffixes, and simple word combinations (and dates, of course, since those are still popular).
Anything beyond that makes you pretty safe from an attacker who has a list of thousands of hashed passwords, and is looking for the low-hanging fruit. However, for an attacker who wants your password specifically, the "correct horse battery staple" approach is well-known now, and the vocabulary of most native speakers isn't that large, it's best to think of a word as having the entropy of 3 random lowercase letters, or 2.5 random characters.
Still, string 4+ words together, or mix in a foreign word or a proper noun (other than a major city or sports team), and it remains a good approach.
And as an engineer, I know that most engineers want to act in good faith. Some are inept or inexperienced but they still have good faith. The problem lies in management. Once you get the lawyers and bean counters involved is when asshole decisions like that get made.
Eventually, every young engineer realizes "wait, we're a vendor too", and his eyes are opened. It's a formative moment towards the end of his apprenticeship, no?
Well, missing from TFS was what SpaceX is doing to prevent this specific problem in the future:
To avoid this type of accident occurring in the future, the company will now individually test every strut it installs on a Falcon 9, regardless of its material specification. It's also considering a different material for its bolts, as the bolthole was the likely site of failure, and will likely switch strut suppliers.
The first thing any engineer (in any discipline) needs to learn when starting a real job is "the vendor is a lying bastard". I think it will work out substantially cheaper in the long run to test every strut rather than to go crazy with the material specification. Accept the universal truth that the vendor is a lying bastard, test as needed, and get on with life. If SpaceX ever reaches their reusability goal, the cost of all the testing will be spread across many flights anyway.
"...mimic the act of driving..."? Look down/sideways/backwards/just not ahead, yap on phone, read newspaper, & eat breakfast simultaneously? Pretend to swerve out of lane? Flip people off? Sleep? Oh, wait, UK, sorry... I'm thinking of us in the US
The big difference being: in the UK they flip people off with two fingers instead of one. Important to keep your mimicry culturally appropriate.
Our founding father's were AGAINST a standing army FYI. They would shit themselves at the percentage of our taxes that go to our military complex...
It's not the Cold War: we only spend about 16% of the federal budget on defense (don't be misled by "discretionary spending" BS). A non-trivial portion of that goes to basic research.
We spent 60% more on Medi* than on defense, and there's far more waste and fraud in that system. (Both must balance cost of waste and fraud vs cost of policing waste and fraud, and it's not obvious what the optimal balance is.) We spend 48% more on Social Security than on defense. It's not like we're ignoring social programs here.
For the curious, US Debt Clock has a great 1-page overview of spending, revenue, debt, and unfunded liabilities.
The initial entry is in "shuttlecock" position, which is neat because it both has an easier surface to protect and can stay thermal-armor-down without a chute or thrusters.
The risk is that when it's time to "open" the wings and transform to plane mode, that complex mechanical stuff fails. At that point it seems useful to have a parachute. I'd wonder about the weight though - there's usually multiple chutes involved to cope with the speed, and that can get heavy (although the first chute is sometimes there just to orient the ship, which skipped here).
Environmental benefits are a nice side effect in many cases, but the reason I want my country less dependent on oil is almost purely to reduce foreign dependency. Money spent buying coal from West Virginia stays in our economy, while oil bought abroad does not.
It's not the 1970s any more. America is close to being a net exporter of oil now, and is a net exporter of energy overall. I believe it's still illegal at the federal level for the US to export oil, but there have already been calls to repeal that, as it's starting to matter.
The environmental benefits are still important, but dealing with dirty coal is a separate issue from electric cars IMHO.
Is it news to anyone really that "electric" cars are really coal cars, or natural gas cars, or nuclear cars? Natural gas is a huge improvement over oil, coal not so much. Eventually solar will dominate power production and then electric cars will really be clean, but the (battery) technology for base load solar and practical affordable electric cars isn't quite here yet, and infrastructure changes take a generation or two anyway.
(compared to Linux, where only kernel updates require a reboot, normally you just restart the affected service(s)).
So you've never actually used Ubuntu then. Today, I reboot once a month for Windows, second Tuesday of the month, nice and predictable (if a bit sad). Ubuntu has no fucking clue - once or sometimes twice a week it wants me to reboot. My worst fear about Win10 is that, by abandoning Patch Tuesday, it will become a shitty reboot fest like Ubuntu!
I don't spent much time trying to rebut nonsense claims these days. However, of all the real-world systems with track records, it's clear which one works best.
The reasons the buildings collapsed the way they did (catastrophically) was due to American capitalism
No skyscraper in the world will survive that load of flaming jet fuel (the airplane impact itself was nowhere near enough to bring the building down).
But, since you seem to love communist engineering let's remember the The Banqiao Reservoir Dam Failure, likely the most deadly engineering failure in history: 62 dams broke, 170,000+ died as a result, 11 million left homeless.
After years of studying the incident, researchers concluded that it was the design of the Banqiao Reservoir Dam and the other reservoirs, along with the principles pertaining to the containment of the river, which should be blamed for the failure and subsequent calamity. While many pointed fingers at the weather forecast all those years ago, researchers are citing that the tragedy was man-made and not entirely a natural disaster.
During the late 1950s, scientists warned that any given reservoir`s flood control was being ignored and that the irrigation functions of those reservoirs were overemphasized during the heat of the construction frenzy. It has been estimated that China continues to have 87,000 reservoirs across the nation that were built during this low standard construction era and most of these have fallen into serious disrepair. On top of sub-par construction standards, the country also lacked any early warning system as well as an evacuation plan that could have saved lives.
Yeah, sure, keep preaching the evils of capitalism.
Building 7 free falling without being hit by an airplane because of office furniture on fire? Seriously?
For serious. Any building will collapse if left to burn long enough. Building 7 would seem normal if we didn't have public fire departments everywhere.
the buildings came down by controlled demolition,
You, controlled flight of an airplane into a building, demolishing it. Can't argue with that.
Right, right, the left-wing fringe is strawmen, but the right-wing fringe isn't, and needs to be defended. Makes perfect sense! It's all so clear to me now!
as long as we were good at identifying and promoting the right people?
If we're wishing for impossible things, I have better wishes.
Every major tech company today competes with one another on the basis of their skill of "identifying and promoting the right people" - heck, that's the only real skill managers have. Investors compete at choosing the companies who are best at "identifying and promoting the right people". Once you get past the quarter-by-quarter speculation (a zero-sum game), it's already a quite competitive, even brutal system for finding thos best at finding those who are they best, and putting that decision-making power in their hands.
A better system for this may well exist, but it's not one humanity has ever tried. We may well be stuck near a local maxima (heck, that's almost certain), but focusing or removing bailouts, monopolies, and other props for bad decision makers is the only clear incremental improvement to the current process. I've yet to see a (radically different) proposal for a process for choosing who chooses who the best-and-brightest are better then the feedback-driven system we have today. Most people whacky economic proposals ignore this, when it's really the only important long-term economic problem (because in the long term, exponential growth trumps all other concerns, and tech growth is exponential).
If you care about the size of the deficit, then obviously you're not a loony who believes that you can really print all the money you want with no downside.
What I don't believe is that anybody has to provide a forum for it.
Has to? No. Should? Yes. At least, anyone providing a forum for public speech should (and it really helps for forums to have a gutter, where unpleasant stuff can be swept, as many vile posters will simply migrate there). While progressives don't see any difference between "what I think people should do" and "what people should be forced to do at gunpoint if necessary", rational people do see the difference.
Your car is not a forum for public speech (though it might be for your speech) and so it's irrelevant.
And what a ray of sunshine you are! You certainly make Slashdot better with comments like this. Why, everyone reading your comment certainly comes away enlightened (well, about your character, at least).
17% of total income isn't that far off from the total the federal government spends mailing checks to people today (Social Security, Medi*, federal pensions, welfare, etc), though the deficit is unsustainable. So you're really saying we need to pay the elderly less and pay everyone else more. As the elderly tend to be wealthier than everyone else, that's not of itself a tragic idea, but it does set expectations for how much we're talking about. For people with no savings, Social Security + Medicare barely makes ends meet - it would be hard to make it work paying people less than that as their only retirement.
Look at the total income of various income brackets sometime - the total income made in the US by people making more than $250K a year isn't that much as a percentage of total US income, just too few people in that bucket, which is why whenever a politician says "tax the rich more" he means "tax the middle class more", as that's where the majority of total income is.
In any case, no tax system that has ever been tried (and the US has tried a bunch over the years) has ever sustained tax revenue above ~19% (it will bounce up and down around that). GDP and total income are similar (they have to be), so really 19% of total income is your sustainable budget for whatever scheme you have - and we do need to build the occasional road and fighter jet.
On the other, I've created a welfare system which causes total wealth to increase,
The only thing that causes per-capita wealth to increase is technology: the more efficient use of resources (materials, labor, power) to make stuff. Technological improvement comes fastest with those proven at making good investment decisions are the ones who get to make investment decisions. Capitalism is the nearest approach to that humanity has ever tried, imperfect as it may be. But ultimately that's that only thing that matters for increasing per-capita wealth, standard of living, or what-have-you: rate of technological improvement.
I'd rather see a flat tax system, where 10% of everyone's earnings (including dividends and capital gains) was the government's budget for caring for the needy, some amount around 5% was the budget for infrastructure and defense, and 10% of non-investment income was not taxed, but forced to be invested in some sort of 401K with conservative choices (end defined-benefit programs: they're a scam). The latter makes everyone actually wealthy, which no income redistribution plan can accomplish.
Actually, the University of Washington is making real fusion reactors.
You can make a working fusion reactor in your kitchen. I think there's even a kit you can buy online these days. Economical fusion power is the interesting thing - heck, even a sustainable net-positive-power reactor would be a huge step.
The primary purpose of my car is not a venue for public speech, or for any kind of public use for that matter, but if I e.g. owned a hotel and banned "social justice" conventions, then, yes, I'd be doing a bad thing. A mighty tempting thing, but then many bad things are.
The American people â" especially on the far right fringe â" won't allow facts to interfere with a popular misconception.
Yeah, the far left fringe has no such problem with reality. Earth is really at risk of becoming like Venus, you can really print all the money you want with no downside, it's not worth injuring an animal or a tree to save a human life, in fact, killing off most humans (starting with 95% of males, of course) would solve most problems. Yup, no disconnect with reality there at all.
Slashdot Mirror
If the government imposes content-based restrictions on speech as a condition of issuing a permit, that's unambiguous government censorship.
There's commonly-used software to build rainbow tables to do dictionary attacks. Obviously, individual words are there, but so are words with "leet speak" substitutions, words with short non-aplha prefixes and suffixes, and simple word combinations (and dates, of course, since those are still popular).
Anything beyond that makes you pretty safe from an attacker who has a list of thousands of hashed passwords, and is looking for the low-hanging fruit. However, for an attacker who wants your password specifically, the "correct horse battery staple" approach is well-known now, and the vocabulary of most native speakers isn't that large, it's best to think of a word as having the entropy of 3 random lowercase letters, or 2.5 random characters.
Still, string 4+ words together, or mix in a foreign word or a proper noun (other than a major city or sports team), and it remains a good approach.
And as an engineer, I know that most engineers want to act in good faith. Some are inept or inexperienced but they still have good faith. The problem lies in management. Once you get the lawyers and bean counters involved is when asshole decisions like that get made.
Eventually, every young engineer realizes "wait, we're a vendor too", and his eyes are opened. It's a formative moment towards the end of his apprenticeship, no?
Fairy tales begin "once upon a time".
War stories begin "this shit really happened"
Specs begin "1.0".
Now THAT is how you summarize.
Well, missing from TFS was what SpaceX is doing to prevent this specific problem in the future:
To avoid this type of accident occurring in the future, the company will now individually test every strut it installs on a Falcon 9, regardless of its material specification. It's also considering a different material for its bolts, as the bolthole was the likely site of failure, and will likely switch strut suppliers.
The first thing any engineer (in any discipline) needs to learn when starting a real job is "the vendor is a lying bastard". I think it will work out substantially cheaper in the long run to test every strut rather than to go crazy with the material specification. Accept the universal truth that the vendor is a lying bastard, test as needed, and get on with life. If SpaceX ever reaches their reusability goal, the cost of all the testing will be spread across many flights anyway.
"...mimic the act of driving..."? Look down/sideways/backwards/just not ahead, yap on phone, read newspaper, & eat breakfast simultaneously? Pretend to swerve out of lane? Flip people off? Sleep? Oh, wait, UK, sorry... I'm thinking of us in the US
The big difference being: in the UK they flip people off with two fingers instead of one. Important to keep your mimicry culturally appropriate.
Our founding father's were AGAINST a standing army FYI. They would shit themselves at the percentage of our taxes that go to our military complex...
It's not the Cold War: we only spend about 16% of the federal budget on defense (don't be misled by "discretionary spending" BS). A non-trivial portion of that goes to basic research.
We spent 60% more on Medi* than on defense, and there's far more waste and fraud in that system. (Both must balance cost of waste and fraud vs cost of policing waste and fraud, and it's not obvious what the optimal balance is.) We spend 48% more on Social Security than on defense. It's not like we're ignoring social programs here.
For the curious, US Debt Clock has a great 1-page overview of spending, revenue, debt, and unfunded liabilities.
The initial entry is in "shuttlecock" position, which is neat because it both has an easier surface to protect and can stay thermal-armor-down without a chute or thrusters.
The risk is that when it's time to "open" the wings and transform to plane mode, that complex mechanical stuff fails. At that point it seems useful to have a parachute. I'd wonder about the weight though - there's usually multiple chutes involved to cope with the speed, and that can get heavy (although the first chute is sometimes there just to orient the ship, which skipped here).
Environmental benefits are a nice side effect in many cases, but the reason I want my country less dependent on oil is almost purely to reduce foreign dependency. Money spent buying coal from West Virginia stays in our economy, while oil bought abroad does not.
It's not the 1970s any more. America is close to being a net exporter of oil now, and is a net exporter of energy overall. I believe it's still illegal at the federal level for the US to export oil, but there have already been calls to repeal that, as it's starting to matter.
The environmental benefits are still important, but dealing with dirty coal is a separate issue from electric cars IMHO.
Is it news to anyone really that "electric" cars are really coal cars, or natural gas cars, or nuclear cars? Natural gas is a huge improvement over oil, coal not so much. Eventually solar will dominate power production and then electric cars will really be clean, but the (battery) technology for base load solar and practical affordable electric cars isn't quite here yet, and infrastructure changes take a generation or two anyway.
(compared to Linux, where only kernel updates require a reboot, normally you just restart the affected service(s)).
So you've never actually used Ubuntu then. Today, I reboot once a month for Windows, second Tuesday of the month, nice and predictable (if a bit sad). Ubuntu has no fucking clue - once or sometimes twice a week it wants me to reboot. My worst fear about Win10 is that, by abandoning Patch Tuesday, it will become a shitty reboot fest like Ubuntu!
I don't spent much time trying to rebut nonsense claims these days. However, of all the real-world systems with track records, it's clear which one works best.
Except for the fact that it's not. The definition changed, it lost planetary status.
Even so, Pluto is still a planet.
It cannot be unplaneted.
"And yet it planets." - Galileo
"Madness? This! Is! Planet!" - Leonidas I
The reasons the buildings collapsed the way they did (catastrophically) was due to American capitalism
No skyscraper in the world will survive that load of flaming jet fuel (the airplane impact itself was nowhere near enough to bring the building down).
But, since you seem to love communist engineering let's remember the The Banqiao Reservoir Dam Failure, likely the most deadly engineering failure in history: 62 dams broke, 170,000+ died as a result, 11 million left homeless.
After years of studying the incident, researchers concluded that it was the design of the Banqiao Reservoir Dam and the other reservoirs, along with the principles pertaining to the containment of the river, which should be blamed for the failure and subsequent calamity. While many pointed fingers at the weather forecast all those years ago, researchers are citing that the tragedy was man-made and not entirely a natural disaster.
During the late 1950s, scientists warned that any given reservoir`s flood control was being ignored and that the irrigation functions of those reservoirs were overemphasized during the heat of the construction frenzy. It has been estimated that China continues to have 87,000 reservoirs across the nation that were built during this low standard construction era and most of these have fallen into serious disrepair. On top of sub-par construction standards, the country also lacked any early warning system as well as an evacuation plan that could have saved lives.
Yeah, sure, keep preaching the evils of capitalism.
Building 7 free falling without being hit by an airplane because of office furniture on fire? Seriously?
For serious. Any building will collapse if left to burn long enough. Building 7 would seem normal if we didn't have public fire departments everywhere.
the buildings came down by controlled demolition,
You, controlled flight of an airplane into a building, demolishing it. Can't argue with that.
Regardless, Pluto remains a planet.
Right, right, the left-wing fringe is strawmen, but the right-wing fringe isn't, and needs to be defended. Makes perfect sense! It's all so clear to me now!
as long as we were good at identifying and promoting the right people?
If we're wishing for impossible things, I have better wishes.
Every major tech company today competes with one another on the basis of their skill of "identifying and promoting the right people" - heck, that's the only real skill managers have. Investors compete at choosing the companies who are best at "identifying and promoting the right people". Once you get past the quarter-by-quarter speculation (a zero-sum game), it's already a quite competitive, even brutal system for finding thos best at finding those who are they best, and putting that decision-making power in their hands.
A better system for this may well exist, but it's not one humanity has ever tried. We may well be stuck near a local maxima (heck, that's almost certain), but focusing or removing bailouts, monopolies, and other props for bad decision makers is the only clear incremental improvement to the current process. I've yet to see a (radically different) proposal for a process for choosing who chooses who the best-and-brightest are better then the feedback-driven system we have today. Most people whacky economic proposals ignore this, when it's really the only important long-term economic problem (because in the long term, exponential growth trumps all other concerns, and tech growth is exponential).
If you care about the size of the deficit, then obviously you're not a loony who believes that you can really print all the money you want with no downside.
What I don't believe is that anybody has to provide a forum for it.
Has to? No. Should? Yes. At least, anyone providing a forum for public speech should (and it really helps for forums to have a gutter, where unpleasant stuff can be swept, as many vile posters will simply migrate there). While progressives don't see any difference between "what I think people should do" and "what people should be forced to do at gunpoint if necessary", rational people do see the difference.
Your car is not a forum for public speech (though it might be for your speech) and so it's irrelevant.
And what a ray of sunshine you are! You certainly make Slashdot better with comments like this. Why, everyone reading your comment certainly comes away enlightened (well, about your character, at least).
17% of total income isn't that far off from the total the federal government spends mailing checks to people today (Social Security, Medi*, federal pensions, welfare, etc), though the deficit is unsustainable. So you're really saying we need to pay the elderly less and pay everyone else more. As the elderly tend to be wealthier than everyone else, that's not of itself a tragic idea, but it does set expectations for how much we're talking about. For people with no savings, Social Security + Medicare barely makes ends meet - it would be hard to make it work paying people less than that as their only retirement.
Look at the total income of various income brackets sometime - the total income made in the US by people making more than $250K a year isn't that much as a percentage of total US income, just too few people in that bucket, which is why whenever a politician says "tax the rich more" he means "tax the middle class more", as that's where the majority of total income is.
In any case, no tax system that has ever been tried (and the US has tried a bunch over the years) has ever sustained tax revenue above ~19% (it will bounce up and down around that). GDP and total income are similar (they have to be), so really 19% of total income is your sustainable budget for whatever scheme you have - and we do need to build the occasional road and fighter jet.
On the other, I've created a welfare system which causes total wealth to increase,
The only thing that causes per-capita wealth to increase is technology: the more efficient use of resources (materials, labor, power) to make stuff. Technological improvement comes fastest with those proven at making good investment decisions are the ones who get to make investment decisions. Capitalism is the nearest approach to that humanity has ever tried, imperfect as it may be. But ultimately that's that only thing that matters for increasing per-capita wealth, standard of living, or what-have-you: rate of technological improvement.
I'd rather see a flat tax system, where 10% of everyone's earnings (including dividends and capital gains) was the government's budget for caring for the needy, some amount around 5% was the budget for infrastructure and defense, and 10% of non-investment income was not taxed, but forced to be invested in some sort of 401K with conservative choices (end defined-benefit programs: they're a scam). The latter makes everyone actually wealthy, which no income redistribution plan can accomplish.
Well, many people do actually make car loan payments their entire lives, so perhaps his confusion is understandable.
Actually, the University of Washington is making real fusion reactors.
You can make a working fusion reactor in your kitchen. I think there's even a kit you can buy online these days. Economical fusion power is the interesting thing - heck, even a sustainable net-positive-power reactor would be a huge step.
The primary purpose of my car is not a venue for public speech, or for any kind of public use for that matter, but if I e.g. owned a hotel and banned "social justice" conventions, then, yes, I'd be doing a bad thing. A mighty tempting thing, but then many bad things are.
The American people â" especially on the far right fringe â" won't allow facts to interfere with a popular misconception.
Yeah, the far left fringe has no such problem with reality. Earth is really at risk of becoming like Venus, you can really print all the money you want with no downside, it's not worth injuring an animal or a tree to save a human life, in fact, killing off most humans (starting with 95% of males, of course) would solve most problems. Yup, no disconnect with reality there at all.