What is with this idea that if a car can be hacked then psychotic murders will all of a sudden materialize with the skills to kill everyone?
It's already trivially easy to crash someone else's car. A paint filled balloon off an overpass would do the trick. Throwing pretty much anything of sufficient size or weight into the windshield will probably cause most people to crash. You need it to be technical? Wire up something to cut the breaklines on command. Automobiles are vulnerable.
Cars being susceptible to extremely difficult attacks won't magically make extremely difficult attacks happen.
In colder climates we've only had the ability to have "constant" temperature for a couple of decades. Buildings really aren't magical; it takes a great deal of technology and energy to keep them warm (or cool). Do you think the tradition of sitting around the fire started because we didn't have TV? It was because it was too damn cold to sit elsewhere. You also walked around in big sweaters and blankets. Clothing is much more that a social construct regardless of whether or not nakedness is shameful. I guess what I'm getting at is being snarky and obnoxious is not a substitute for being accurate.
Forums would require quite a bit of "cgi", actually. Forums are dynamic which means they need more than static html and css can give.
No one really uses cgi anymore and it has been replaced with more modern methods. People actually like the rich ui that client side programming provides and it really doesn't add security vulnerabilities. It sounds like you read a "Learn HTML" book in 2003 and think you're an expert.
I'm not sure you complainers really understand how Javascript works or at least it doesn't seem like it. Using Javascript for page layout isn't a security issue; it can't be. It's definitely bad practice (although sometimes still useful for getting certain layouts) but it is not a security issue. If an attacker can somehow inject Javascript into someone else's session it doesn't matter how much Javascript is already loaded into the page because the attacker can just write their own. If you are worried about loading up the page in their own browser and attacking the code there then you still don't have a case. Once a page is loaded in my browser I can run any script I want on it.
So I would love to know what this severe security problem is you are talking about.
Throwing more computer power at it was always possible. The context of the quote in the article indicated the speaker thought movie grade CGI can be done in real-time because of advancements made in the last few years. In any reasonable interpretation of the word "possible" it is not possible. In other words "essentially" you can't do CGI real-time and anyone who says you can is either lying to sell you something or doesn't understand the technologies they're talking about.
A chainsaw has as many blade guards and safety features they can put between blade and user without stopping it from being a cutting device. Including features to reduce the chance of being injured from a chain being broken (which is a lot easier than you seem to think).
A fan guard is a harmless safety feature that doesn't affect a fan's ability to fan. Heaven forbid premium safety features be provided on a premium priced piece of equipment.
That's a good rant but I believe the point was a programmer doesn't get paid per execution of their program. They get paid once to write it. Possibly additionally to continue to support it.
It ceases to be simple every day math when millions of operations are required to do anything useful. If you could write a piece of software using nothing but nand operations it would (hopefully) not pass the triviality requirement for a patent. Software is rarely written using math; it is written with high level abstractions for a reason.
I still assert that is it asinine to decompose software to that level. I understand quite well how software translates to math but it is not trivially reduced to math. It is a very difficult problem and one we've spent the last several decades improving and learning on. You can just as easily define anything physical as an arrangement of the three laws of motion to convert what ever input to desired output. It still involves human ingenuity.
The math argument is trite and serves only to drown out useful discussion on the topic. Software patents are a serious issue and the patent reform movement would get more credibility if there was less pointless slogan shouting.
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Show me how simple every day math creates complex software. I do not believe software should be patentable but if being "just math" is not the reason. The amount of steps you have to go through to reduce all software to math is not any more than reducing anything to math. Everything physical is designed and modeled around physics which is an application of math. All drugs/chemicals are chemistry which is an application of physics. Computer science is the manipulation of data using an application of math.
We use math to define everything; singling something out because it is based on math is asinine.
For someone that so blatantly insults others for fallacy you sure do make a lot yourself. You basically didn't say anything there that wasn't a fallacy. Shall I make a list for you?
The fallacy fallacy
false dilemma
ad hominem
ambiguity
strawman
loaded question (in the form of statements)
Seem to be your favourites. If you want I can point out where you made these but I'm not wasting the time when you'll just ignore it and probably respond with an ad hominem anyway. Completely changing your argument isn't technically a fallacy; it's just dishonest.
You also didn't actually point out any fallacies. Did you confuse "you disagreed with me" with "fallacy"?
Banning cars or propane tanks or whatnot would be ridiculous. Yes, they *could* be used for mass harm, but they generally aren't.
Assault weapons are
And this is the reason no one can have a serious and reasonable discussion. Assault weapons are almost never used for mass harm; hand guns are. The parent got a little off topic but their point stands. People like you jump on some emotional slide and wholeheartedly say "ban assault rifles" only because you think they're scary. That, understandably, really grates on the people that own and responsibly enjoy the weapons you hate that are already fairly strongly regulated. (Statistics would agree with "assault weapons" being more responsibly owned than handguns.)
And as I know I'll get discounted as some gun-loving American. I am Canadian and own no firearms. I am in favour of gun-control but only if it is researched and reasonable. Not the common emotion-based variety.
Well a rifle is more accurate and easier to handle effectively than a pistol. Did the parent say they needed an assault-rifle (what exactly do you mean by assault-rifle anyway)? I thought not.
I doubt that would be as big of a problem as you make it out to be. First of all those resources cost a lot of money. Second, those data centres will have nice and easy to block IP blocks. Third, it would be the same as if Google hired a bunch of faux protesters to picket the Apple store; harassment from a single entity is easier to find legal help to stop.
But it would not be illegal if they had enough support to enter the store and fill it to capacity while also forming a large line outside preventing other people from entering. That is also about the best physical analogy to a ddos that I can think of.
Oh, as if the Obama-esque bullshit is any better? Or the idiot before him?
I'm guessing you're very young and therefore don't remember Clinton being on the stand and perjuring himself but getting off on some crazy technicality (fellatio isn't sexual relations). That comment had nothing to do with Obama. Calm down.
Just where do you think these new things come from through evolution if not some kind of selective breeding? Evolution isn't magic; some wolf doesn't just go "gee, those birds look yummy" then birth pups with wings.
Or they rewrote a good chunk of the core code to work with their new dataset and to implement their desired features. You have no idea what the source is like. But it still does not matter. Saying how great the codebase is (despite the fact that you have no idea) doesn't stop the product from being shoddy.
And the rest of Slashdot assumes you would understand that the rest of the world is talking about the software product, not the source code we can't see anyway. It doesn't matter if the data or the software sucks. The end product apparently sucked. Without the ability to audit the code myself I'll just assume they both sucked. You are off on tangents that don't make sense. If Java was horrible (I, personally, think it is) what makes it horrible only matter to the person fixing it. It's just Apple, you don't have to defend them, they'll be alright.
I may be missing your point here but it seems as though you are disagreeing based on some kind of ratio. That won't alter the point. If we measure total time spent in environment versus child deaths in that environment his point still stands. Children spend way more time in school than they do on the road but the road still kills way more of them.
It's not that a school massacre isn't a horrible thing and a problem. It's that it is not the country-shattering issue the media would have you believe. You have many other more serious and more fixable problems but they seem to be less emotional so they don't sell.
Because of professors that punish people based on their attendance. Or will only give a piece of key information to people attending lectures. Or many other reasons that boil down to a professor believing everyone needs to waste 50 - 90 minutes in a lecture hall when many of those students would learn the lesson much better in 15 minutes with a textbook.
...the one company that blatantly (and admitted doing so in their own internal correspondence) copied it.
Nice
Additionally, if you actually read the infamous rounded corner patent you will see it is definitely not an iPhone. Probably an initial mock-up of an iPad but even then it's not the same. What's more is they specifically point out what is and is not covered in the patent using solid vs. dashed lines. There's not much solid line other than those rounded corners.
Claiming they don't have a patent on something because they have a "design patent" isn't exactly a strong argument.
It would require a lot of capital. These machines and their materials are absurdly expensive. You require knowledge on how these machines function. You need to be able to translate what the customer wants to the given machine (high 3d modelling and CAD skills). You need the know-how to put objects together into single prints so you're not waiting for one single small object (optimization). And most importantly you need to be able to add the support structures so the objects do not break in the process (physics, 3d modelling, CAD). Etc etc.
So essentially, like any other highly specialized tech field, it requires lots of expertise. You don't just load up a docx and hit print.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a troll article, nothing more. It is intended to get 4:3 zealots flaming.
What is with this idea that if a car can be hacked then psychotic murders will all of a sudden materialize with the skills to kill everyone?
It's already trivially easy to crash someone else's car. A paint filled balloon off an overpass would do the trick. Throwing pretty much anything of sufficient size or weight into the windshield will probably cause most people to crash. You need it to be technical? Wire up something to cut the breaklines on command. Automobiles are vulnerable.
Cars being susceptible to extremely difficult attacks won't magically make extremely difficult attacks happen.
In colder climates we've only had the ability to have "constant" temperature for a couple of decades. Buildings really aren't magical; it takes a great deal of technology and energy to keep them warm (or cool). Do you think the tradition of sitting around the fire started because we didn't have TV? It was because it was too damn cold to sit elsewhere. You also walked around in big sweaters and blankets. Clothing is much more that a social construct regardless of whether or not nakedness is shameful. I guess what I'm getting at is being snarky and obnoxious is not a substitute for being accurate.
Some of us want our kids to grow up in a world where only healthy behaviors exist.
Yes, no unhealthy behaviours like homosexuals, mixed races, ugly people, fat people.
Forums would require quite a bit of "cgi", actually. Forums are dynamic which means they need more than static html and css can give.
No one really uses cgi anymore and it has been replaced with more modern methods. People actually like the rich ui that client side programming provides and it really doesn't add security vulnerabilities. It sounds like you read a "Learn HTML" book in 2003 and think you're an expert.
I'm not sure you complainers really understand how Javascript works or at least it doesn't seem like it. Using Javascript for page layout isn't a security issue; it can't be. It's definitely bad practice (although sometimes still useful for getting certain layouts) but it is not a security issue. If an attacker can somehow inject Javascript into someone else's session it doesn't matter how much Javascript is already loaded into the page because the attacker can just write their own. If you are worried about loading up the page in their own browser and attacking the code there then you still don't have a case. Once a page is loaded in my browser I can run any script I want on it.
So I would love to know what this severe security problem is you are talking about.
Throwing more computer power at it was always possible. The context of the quote in the article indicated the speaker thought movie grade CGI can be done in real-time because of advancements made in the last few years. In any reasonable interpretation of the word "possible" it is not possible. In other words "essentially" you can't do CGI real-time and anyone who says you can is either lying to sell you something or doesn't understand the technologies they're talking about.
Why are you so defensive about this?
A chainsaw has as many blade guards and safety features they can put between blade and user without stopping it from being a cutting device. Including features to reduce the chance of being injured from a chain being broken (which is a lot easier than you seem to think).
A fan guard is a harmless safety feature that doesn't affect a fan's ability to fan. Heaven forbid premium safety features be provided on a premium priced piece of equipment.
That's a good rant but I believe the point was a programmer doesn't get paid per execution of their program. They get paid once to write it. Possibly additionally to continue to support it.
It ceases to be simple every day math when millions of operations are required to do anything useful. If you could write a piece of software using nothing but nand operations it would (hopefully) not pass the triviality requirement for a patent. Software is rarely written using math; it is written with high level abstractions for a reason.
I still assert that is it asinine to decompose software to that level. I understand quite well how software translates to math but it is not trivially reduced to math. It is a very difficult problem and one we've spent the last several decades improving and learning on. You can just as easily define anything physical as an arrangement of the three laws of motion to convert what ever input to desired output. It still involves human ingenuity.
The math argument is trite and serves only to drown out useful discussion on the topic. Software patents are a serious issue and the patent reform movement would get more credibility if there was less pointless slogan shouting.
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Show me how simple every day math creates complex software. I do not believe software should be patentable but if being "just math" is not the reason. The amount of steps you have to go through to reduce all software to math is not any more than reducing anything to math. Everything physical is designed and modeled around physics which is an application of math. All drugs/chemicals are chemistry which is an application of physics. Computer science is the manipulation of data using an application of math.
We use math to define everything; singling something out because it is based on math is asinine.
For someone that so blatantly insults others for fallacy you sure do make a lot yourself. You basically didn't say anything there that wasn't a fallacy. Shall I make a list for you?
Seem to be your favourites. If you want I can point out where you made these but I'm not wasting the time when you'll just ignore it and probably respond with an ad hominem anyway. Completely changing your argument isn't technically a fallacy; it's just dishonest.
You also didn't actually point out any fallacies. Did you confuse "you disagreed with me" with "fallacy"?
Banning cars or propane tanks or whatnot would be ridiculous. Yes, they *could* be used for mass harm, but they generally aren't.
Assault weapons are
And this is the reason no one can have a serious and reasonable discussion. Assault weapons are almost never used for mass harm; hand guns are. The parent got a little off topic but their point stands. People like you jump on some emotional slide and wholeheartedly say "ban assault rifles" only because you think they're scary. That, understandably, really grates on the people that own and responsibly enjoy the weapons you hate that are already fairly strongly regulated. (Statistics would agree with "assault weapons" being more responsibly owned than handguns.)
And as I know I'll get discounted as some gun-loving American. I am Canadian and own no firearms. I am in favour of gun-control but only if it is researched and reasonable. Not the common emotion-based variety.
Well a rifle is more accurate and easier to handle effectively than a pistol. Did the parent say they needed an assault-rifle (what exactly do you mean by assault-rifle anyway)? I thought not.
I doubt that would be as big of a problem as you make it out to be. First of all those resources cost a lot of money. Second, those data centres will have nice and easy to block IP blocks. Third, it would be the same as if Google hired a bunch of faux protesters to picket the Apple store; harassment from a single entity is easier to find legal help to stop.
But it would not be illegal if they had enough support to enter the store and fill it to capacity while also forming a large line outside preventing other people from entering. That is also about the best physical analogy to a ddos that I can think of.
Oh, as if the Obama-esque bullshit is any better? Or the idiot before him?
I'm guessing you're very young and therefore don't remember Clinton being on the stand and perjuring himself but getting off on some crazy technicality (fellatio isn't sexual relations). That comment had nothing to do with Obama. Calm down.
Just where do you think these new things come from through evolution if not some kind of selective breeding? Evolution isn't magic; some wolf doesn't just go "gee, those birds look yummy" then birth pups with wings.
Or they rewrote a good chunk of the core code to work with their new dataset and to implement their desired features. You have no idea what the source is like. But it still does not matter. Saying how great the codebase is (despite the fact that you have no idea) doesn't stop the product from being shoddy.
And the rest of Slashdot assumes you would understand that the rest of the world is talking about the software product, not the source code we can't see anyway. It doesn't matter if the data or the software sucks. The end product apparently sucked. Without the ability to audit the code myself I'll just assume they both sucked. You are off on tangents that don't make sense. If Java was horrible (I, personally, think it is) what makes it horrible only matter to the person fixing it. It's just Apple, you don't have to defend them, they'll be alright.
I may be missing your point here but it seems as though you are disagreeing based on some kind of ratio. That won't alter the point. If we measure total time spent in environment versus child deaths in that environment his point still stands. Children spend way more time in school than they do on the road but the road still kills way more of them.
It's not that a school massacre isn't a horrible thing and a problem. It's that it is not the country-shattering issue the media would have you believe. You have many other more serious and more fixable problems but they seem to be less emotional so they don't sell.
Because of professors that punish people based on their attendance. Or will only give a piece of key information to people attending lectures. Or many other reasons that boil down to a professor believing everyone needs to waste 50 - 90 minutes in a lecture hall when many of those students would learn the lesson much better in 15 minutes with a textbook.
...Repeating the lie...
...the one company that blatantly (and admitted doing so in their own internal correspondence) copied it.
Nice
Additionally, if you actually read the infamous rounded corner patent you will see it is definitely not an iPhone. Probably an initial mock-up of an iPad but even then it's not the same. What's more is they specifically point out what is and is not covered in the patent using solid vs. dashed lines. There's not much solid line other than those rounded corners.
Claiming they don't have a patent on something because they have a "design patent" isn't exactly a strong argument.
I know quite well how their printers work. But in case you don't believe me here's Shapeways' take on the topic: support structures
It would require a lot of capital. These machines and their materials are absurdly expensive. You require knowledge on how these machines function. You need to be able to translate what the customer wants to the given machine (high 3d modelling and CAD skills). You need the know-how to put objects together into single prints so you're not waiting for one single small object (optimization). And most importantly you need to be able to add the support structures so the objects do not break in the process (physics, 3d modelling, CAD). Etc etc.
So essentially, like any other highly specialized tech field, it requires lots of expertise. You don't just load up a docx and hit print.