"Consider the possibility that Energy became so cheap that it's essentially 'free' - suppose science finally figures out fusion, and every home has its own "Mr. Fusion" that runs off tap water. I have the hope of raising living standards everywhere."
Even if energy becomes free I think there should be limits on energy consumption/generation put in place. Otherwise the world could end up glowing with the waste heat.;).
Yeah, I personally believe that having multiple nontotally cooperative countries (BUT that are unlikely to go to war with each other) is good. Let the countries negotiate with each other.
Then if some country gets really crappy, people move elsewhere.
After all if you look at the proliferation of crappy country governments, why should most people want to risk a crappy world government? Like how are you going to choose the world government? The same way the crappy country govs were chosen?
Like how stupid is that? What problem are you trying to solve? And is the "solution" better than the problem?
Yes you're way off base. You should be using mysql_real_escape_string_this_time_no_kidding. And on the next upgrade go to mysql_genuine_advantage_TM_string.
Or use a programming language that's a lot better designed. Sheesh.
Think about it: first came mysql_escape_string, then they screwed that up, next came: mysql_real_escape_string.
Whereas in properly designed languages: 1) They don't screw up so often. 2) And usually when they do, they fix the bits they screw up, and you don't have to change a single line of your code - because the _interface_ is fine (designed OK), just the implementation could have been buggy.
With PHP you get stupid stuff like addslashes, stripslashes and magic quotes.
I do have to write PHP regularly, but I do it because some idiot wrote the stuff in PHP a while ago. Take it from me PHP makes it hard to do the right thing and easy to do the wrong thing (PHP is very like MySQL in some ways).
Lastly, it's probable that others have noticed the bug in the UN site before, but just never bothered to exploit it or were waiting for the "right time", OR even exploited it without anybody noticing. Such bugs are plentiful given the amount of cluelessness and crap out there.
Not surprised though. What I wonder is if the rate of consumption is higher than the rate of production, and even if it is not, whether the consumption is sustainable due to the CO2 and other stuff produced.
A lot of students here in Malaysia like math at the high school levels because it's easier to get high grades.
With high school math it's pretty clear when you're right or not.
Whereas stuff like art is subjective, and same with stuff where you have to write essays/papers - where it can be a matter of taste whether you get an A or not.
The hardware people are going to have to fix/modify DMA anyway, if they want fast IO, hardware etc with virtualization.
They might as well do something more innovative and useful, after all I heard they were running out of ideas on what to do with all those transistors, and resorting to stuff like more cores and more cache.
Should sit down with the O/S, DB etc people, and brainstorm some stuff that will make doing things the "right" way easier (or even just possible). Sure there's often no real right way, but I bet we're doing a fair number of things _wrong_.
Pay for the recycling? Haven't you heard they send the waste to China where they MAKE MONEY from recycling the stuff.
The electronics waste has more gold per kilo than typical gold ore.
It's a hazardous job, but so is mining.
Sure it's screwing up the environment there. But as long as it's just their environment, who cares? If they don't fix it, they'll have to adapt to toxic water or die.
Even if they do things the right way they'll still be cheaper than the USA.
If the story is true, I guess they probably filled in or covered some of the craters, then drove as many trucks through during the night, then recratered the stuff.
Then the US military would remain puzzled on where the supplies come from, and not be sure on where to bomb next.
After all if you left the road uncratered during the day, the US air force might notice, and start bombing the trucks while they are moving at night.
But I suppose to prevent spoilers, I should have different view modes: 1) All comments off in all reference groups 2) Comments from this reference group on. 3) All comments on.;).
What would be more efficient (not necessarily more entertaining) is something like "Reviewer A who liked A,B,C very much also liked X", and say one paragraph of comments. And if lots of "reviewers" who have similar tastes to you liked X and their one paragraph is intriguing enough, you are very likely to like X.
I claim that even though there are 6 billion people in the world, the groups of computer game (or movie) preferences are a lot fewer.
Say we have a system where each registered user of the system can be a reviewer and create their own reference groups of reviewers (to even things out), then they could look for "great ridge racer like" games if they are feeling like one, or "Yet Another Military FPS".
In fact, if someone is flexible, they could put on different hats and create multiple reviewing accounts for each "persona" they wish to assume.
It doesn't matter to the users if that "reviewer" does that, since they can ignore reviewers whose preferences don't match theirs. You still have to try to limit the number of accounts a single user can have, otherwise if 90% of the reviewers are of one real life malicious user, that user could one day suddenly review a new game differently/unexpectedly on purpose, and odds are 90% of their reference group would be reviewers created by that person.
Of course professional reviewers will hate this, since you don't even need to be able to write a coherent paragraph, as long as you consistent like/dislike stuff, in a way that's similar to a lot of people, people could still use you as a guide.
With this method you could even have a dog or other animal review games, food etc.
Basically I proposed HTML tags to turn OFF stuff, so that say a webmail site displaying webmail from uncontrolled sources (spam email) to users using unknown browsers (with different sorts of HTML parsing bugs/behaviours), can give hints to those browsers such as "between these two tags: java, javascript and other naughty stuff should be DISABLED", and if the browsers support those tags, and the browser programmers aren't totally braindead, it should be easy for the programmers to ensure that the naughty stuff is disabled (just set few flags/attribs).
Sure the website should still try to filter out and disable such stuff for browsers that don't support those tags, but these tags WILL definitely help make things safer.
I proposed such tags years ago to both the browser people and the W3C people, but they weren't interested at all.
The W3C has requirements and specs that say "Here's the spec for XYZ. BTW, you MUST do XYZ safely". But as far as I see, they don't actually help make things safer.
It's like they are distributing a design for a car without any brakes, and requiring that the builders make a safe car, and hoping that car drivers will drive safely.
But nobody other than me seems to be asking for an HTML with "brakes", so what are the odds that we'll get one? We'll just get more versions of HTML with "turbo, nitro" tags (and people wonder why things keep crashing). If you see another XSS worm, don't just blame the worm maker and the site.
Save some blame for the browser makers and the W3C.
While the ARC should have special rights to the display of a red cross (because that and a few other symbols have been given special meaning in war), I don't see why it should cover bandages, first aid kits etc.
For the ARC to be going around stopping people from using the red cross on first aid kits etc seems to be deviating a lot the original Red Cross, whose motto in the beginning was "In War, Charity".
If J&J is doing this in defense then I suppose it's payback for the ARC.
But personally I think both parties should stop fighting (themselves and others).
After all the new Red Cross motto is apparently "With humanity, towards peace".
Trashing your user account is bad enough. After all, most of the system stuff can be replaced easily, you don't even need to do backups for those - reinstall, update.
The functionality _is_ available in Windows, and many places use it. Not hypothetical at all. I set up my uncle and aunt's notebook PC that way and so far I haven't noticed them complaining that their user account isn't admin. In fact they're asking me to help set up another one for my cousin now.
The thing is, nowadays it makes very little difference in practice - most attackers want zombie machines. You do NOT need root/admin to turn a machine into a zombie.
And that leads us to what bugs me: after so many decades of O/Ses, "Aunt May" running random executables should not automatically cause her to lose that much control over her computer.
It's pathetic that Microsoft spends many years and billions, and all they can produce for "security" is "UAC". And the Linux distros and Apple aren't doing anything much better.
Why should a user have to _predict_ whether a screensaver is really a screensaver? Or some game is really a game? Or some "birthday greeting" is really one? Or some perl script is safe to run?
I'm expecting at least something like _user_friendly_ "security template" system. Applications request a security template and the user decides whether to allow the app to run with that template (popup doesn't appear if it's a default minimal privilege one).
Apple and Microsoft have enough clout to enforce stuff like this.
e.g. "Britney Screensaver requests 'Default Screen Saver Install' privileges to run, Allow Y/N? (checkbox: remember choice)" etc. If the user says yes, the screensaver can only do screensaver stuff. No eavesdropping with the microphone and sending data out over the network, no peeking at your Documents, or browser history/cache/cookies.
It's a lot easier to tell someone to NOT ever run anything that requests "Full System Privileges" (with "danger" red background etc), unless it one of a small list of apps (preferably signed by a trusted party, or a party you have no choice but to trust anyway).
You know it can be done and things can be so much better, but all we get is stuff like UAC aka "Allow Microsoft to blame you for security problems Y/N", or "run make install as root and hope you don't get pwn3d" (like you look through every line of source all the time AND have a good chance of spotting nasties/backdoors).
Forgive my ranting, it's just I'm a bit tired of hearing that one piece of crap is so much better than another piece of crap.
"Windows apps tend to be able to do whatever the hell they want."
Same for Linux. On most Linux distros by default Mozilla/OpenOffice/etc run with the same privileges of the logged on user account.
You can change that for both with su/"run as" equivalents, but it is not userfriendly, plus when other apps launch browser windows you end up with the problem again.
Slashdot Mirror
Evidence please?
"Consider the possibility that Energy became so cheap that it's essentially 'free' - suppose science finally figures out fusion, and every home has its own "Mr. Fusion" that runs off tap water. I have the hope of raising living standards everywhere."
;).
Even if energy becomes free I think there should be limits on energy consumption/generation put in place. Otherwise the world could end up glowing with the waste heat.
What idiocy.
You reward behaviour you want and punish behaviour you don't want.
Whether a dog normally does what you want or not doesn't mean you say "good dog" when he doesn't do what you want.
How difficult is that to understand? Even dogs understand it.
Go ahead mod me flamebait, but what I'm saying is true.
What's news is that the guy either doesn't get it, or pretends he doesn't get it.
Yeah, I personally believe that having multiple nontotally cooperative countries (BUT that are unlikely to go to war with each other) is good. Let the countries negotiate with each other.
Then if some country gets really crappy, people move elsewhere.
After all if you look at the proliferation of crappy country governments, why should most people want to risk a crappy world government? Like how are you going to choose the world government? The same way the crappy country govs were chosen?
Like how stupid is that? What problem are you trying to solve? And is the "solution" better than the problem?
You're assuming this exploit was the first. How'd you know that it hasn't already been exploited before in secret?
MS SQL server in some configs can allow people to do all sorts of stuff.
Yes you're way off base. You should be using mysql_real_escape_string_this_time_no_kidding. And on the next upgrade go to mysql_genuine_advantage_TM_string.
Or use a programming language that's a lot better designed. Sheesh.
Think about it: first came mysql_escape_string, then they screwed that up, next came: mysql_real_escape_string.
Whereas in properly designed languages:
1) They don't screw up so often.
2) And usually when they do, they fix the bits they screw up, and you don't have to change a single line of your code - because the _interface_ is fine (designed OK), just the implementation could have been buggy.
With PHP you get stupid stuff like addslashes, stripslashes and magic quotes.
I do have to write PHP regularly, but I do it because some idiot wrote the stuff in PHP a while ago. Take it from me PHP makes it hard to do the right thing and easy to do the wrong thing (PHP is very like MySQL in some ways).
Lastly, it's probable that others have noticed the bug in the UN site before, but just never bothered to exploit it or were waiting for the "right time", OR even exploited it without anybody noticing. Such bugs are plentiful given the amount of cluelessness and crap out there.
Well a pat on the back to the both of you then ;).
In graphics cards that is. Is that required in 10 or 10.1?
RTFA, looks like Thomas Gold was right.
Not surprised though. What I wonder is if the rate of consumption is higher than the rate of production, and even if it is not, whether the consumption is sustainable due to the CO2 and other stuff produced.
A lot of students here in Malaysia like math at the high school levels because it's easier to get high grades.
With high school math it's pretty clear when you're right or not.
Whereas stuff like art is subjective, and same with stuff where you have to write essays/papers - where it can be a matter of taste whether you get an A or not.
The recent id software games were money making ads/demos for selling their game engines to other game companies.
I figure they've found what they are good at, and sticking with it doesn't seem like such a bad idea.
Let the other game companies hire hordes of people to create content/assets, pay money to license stuff from George Lucas etc.
The hardware people are going to have to fix/modify DMA anyway, if they want fast IO, hardware etc with virtualization.
They might as well do something more innovative and useful, after all I heard they were running out of ideas on what to do with all those transistors, and resorting to stuff like more cores and more cache.
Should sit down with the O/S, DB etc people, and brainstorm some stuff that will make doing things the "right" way easier (or even just possible). Sure there's often no real right way, but I bet we're doing a fair number of things _wrong_.
Yeah, right. ;)
Pay for the recycling? Haven't you heard they send the waste to China where they MAKE MONEY from recycling the stuff.
The electronics waste has more gold per kilo than typical gold ore.
It's a hazardous job, but so is mining.
Sure it's screwing up the environment there. But as long as it's just their environment, who cares? If they don't fix it, they'll have to adapt to toxic water or die.
Even if they do things the right way they'll still be cheaper than the USA.
But isn't that the best part of the USA? "Almost heaven, West Virginia" :)
If the story is true, I guess they probably filled in or covered some of the craters, then drove as many trucks through during the night, then recratered the stuff.
Then the US military would remain puzzled on where the supplies come from, and not be sure on where to bomb next.
After all if you left the road uncratered during the day, the US air force might notice, and start bombing the trucks while they are moving at night.
Not such a crazy idea if you think about it.
Huh. I was expecting a free chair to be thrown in.
What sort of crappy copy is that?
what would be good for you would be my suggested system:
c id=20178377
;).
http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=265627&
But I suppose to prevent spoilers, I should have different view modes:
1) All comments off in all reference groups
2) Comments from this reference group on.
3) All comments on.
It's still a waste of time.
What would be more efficient (not necessarily more entertaining) is something like "Reviewer A who liked A,B,C very much also liked X", and say one paragraph of comments. And if lots of "reviewers" who have similar tastes to you liked X and their one paragraph is intriguing enough, you are very likely to like X.
I claim that even though there are 6 billion people in the world, the groups of computer game (or movie) preferences are a lot fewer.
Say we have a system where each registered user of the system can be a reviewer and create their own reference groups of reviewers (to even things out), then they could look for "great ridge racer like" games if they are feeling like one, or "Yet Another Military FPS".
In fact, if someone is flexible, they could put on different hats and create multiple reviewing accounts for each "persona" they wish to assume.
It doesn't matter to the users if that "reviewer" does that, since they can ignore reviewers whose preferences don't match theirs. You still have to try to limit the number of accounts a single user can have, otherwise if 90% of the reviewers are of one real life malicious user, that user could one day suddenly review a new game differently/unexpectedly on purpose, and odds are 90% of their reference group would be reviewers created by that person.
Of course professional reviewers will hate this, since you don't even need to be able to write a coherent paragraph, as long as you consistent like/dislike stuff, in a way that's similar to a lot of people, people could still use you as a guide.
With this method you could even have a dog or other animal review games, food etc.
Actually we do need more tags. But a lot of these new ones aren't very useful.
= 18153186
Here are the sort of tags that I think will be useful:
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=224182&cid
Basically I proposed HTML tags to turn OFF stuff, so that say a webmail site displaying webmail from uncontrolled sources (spam email) to users using unknown browsers (with different sorts of HTML parsing bugs/behaviours), can give hints to those browsers such as "between these two tags: java, javascript and other naughty stuff should be DISABLED", and if the browsers support those tags, and the browser programmers aren't totally braindead, it should be easy for the programmers to ensure that the naughty stuff is disabled (just set few flags/attribs).
Sure the website should still try to filter out and disable such stuff for browsers that don't support those tags, but these tags WILL definitely help make things safer.
I proposed such tags years ago to both the browser people and the W3C people, but they weren't interested at all.
The W3C has requirements and specs that say "Here's the spec for XYZ. BTW, you MUST do XYZ safely". But as far as I see, they don't actually help make things safer.
It's like they are distributing a design for a car without any brakes, and requiring that the builders make a safe car, and hoping that car drivers will drive safely.
But nobody other than me seems to be asking for an HTML with "brakes", so what are the odds that we'll get one? We'll just get more versions of HTML with "turbo, nitro" tags (and people wonder why things keep crashing). If you see another XSS worm, don't just blame the worm maker and the site.
Save some blame for the browser makers and the W3C.
While the ARC should have special rights to the display of a red cross (because that and a few other symbols have been given special meaning in war), I don't see why it should cover bandages, first aid kits etc.
For the ARC to be going around stopping people from using the red cross on first aid kits etc seems to be deviating a lot the original Red Cross, whose motto in the beginning was "In War, Charity".
If J&J is doing this in defense then I suppose it's payback for the ARC.
But personally I think both parties should stop fighting (themselves and others).
After all the new Red Cross motto is apparently "With humanity, towards peace".
Thanks.
:). Or from suppliers to such companies (e.g. Cargill).
Fortunately don't use any of them. Don't think I have used any for years, nor will need to.
Would be harder to avoid stuff from Unilever or Nestle
Trashing your user account is bad enough. After all, most of the system stuff can be replaced easily, you don't even need to do backups for those - reinstall, update.
The functionality _is_ available in Windows, and many places use it. Not hypothetical at all. I set up my uncle and aunt's notebook PC that way and so far I haven't noticed them complaining that their user account isn't admin. In fact they're asking me to help set up another one for my cousin now.
The thing is, nowadays it makes very little difference in practice - most attackers want zombie machines. You do NOT need root/admin to turn a machine into a zombie.
And that leads us to what bugs me: after so many decades of O/Ses, "Aunt May" running random executables should not automatically cause her to lose that much control over her computer.
It's pathetic that Microsoft spends many years and billions, and all they can produce for "security" is "UAC". And the Linux distros and Apple aren't doing anything much better.
Why should a user have to _predict_ whether a screensaver is really a screensaver? Or some game is really a game? Or some "birthday greeting" is really one? Or some perl script is safe to run?
I'm expecting at least something like _user_friendly_ "security template" system. Applications request a security template and the user decides whether to allow the app to run with that template (popup doesn't appear if it's a default minimal privilege one).
Apple and Microsoft have enough clout to enforce stuff like this.
e.g. "Britney Screensaver requests 'Default Screen Saver Install' privileges to run, Allow Y/N? (checkbox: remember choice)" etc. If the user says yes, the screensaver can only do screensaver stuff. No eavesdropping with the microphone and sending data out over the network, no peeking at your Documents, or browser history/cache/cookies.
It's a lot easier to tell someone to NOT ever run anything that requests "Full System Privileges" (with "danger" red background etc), unless it one of a small list of apps (preferably signed by a trusted party, or a party you have no choice but to trust anyway).
You know it can be done and things can be so much better, but all we get is stuff like UAC aka "Allow Microsoft to blame you for security problems Y/N", or "run make install as root and hope you don't get pwn3d" (like you look through every line of source all the time AND have a good chance of spotting nasties/backdoors).
Forgive my ranting, it's just I'm a bit tired of hearing that one piece of crap is so much better than another piece of crap.
Cache, Second Level.
"Windows apps tend to be able to do whatever the hell they want."
Same for Linux. On most Linux distros by default Mozilla/OpenOffice/etc run with the same privileges of the logged on user account.
You can change that for both with su/"run as" equivalents, but it is not userfriendly, plus when other apps launch browser windows you end up with the problem again.