So who's fault are you saying it is? If it's not the governments fault and it's not the contractors fault then who's is it? You seem to be trying to say that somehow it's my fault but that's a bit silly since I'm in no way involved. or possibly you're saying that the programmers should make the systems in such a way that no matter how stupid the Minimum wage monkey the contractor hires (how do you think they save money?) that it should be impossible for them to overcome.
Or sending passwords over IM/Email/plaintext. try to explain about packet sniffers and you'll get a reply along the lines of "oh security would be down like a ton of bricks on anything like that". Cause packet sniffers are easy to detect as we all know.
the standard here is "security handle that so I don't have to think about being secure" when in fact security can't handle that unless people take reasonable measures themselves.
Why is there always someone with the *pics* request.... I'd love to say that the lack of straight females choosing to pursue the field was some sort of myth but it really isn't. They exist sure but good luck finding them. I'm trying an alt approach, find a non techie girl and teach her how to program. It starts off well but we get distracted far too much to ever get more than a few minutes into a lesson....:-D
god I loved artificial neural nets, I never learned as much about them as I would have liked to in Uni but I programmed up a few very simple ones right after the class where they were explained to us.
I gotta go spend some time in the library reading up on them...
strange... I forgot my password a few months back and didn't have to do any of that. They sent me a mail with a link, I followed the link, it asked me 2 security questions (chances are 1 or both answers could be harvested from most peoples email)
it would appear you are over a hundred posts late to the party.:D in real life: 2 second correction "actually it's xyz" "oh ok, I was mistaken" on slashdot: people write long diatribes on the subject and then others argue about the details and grammar of those etc etc etc long into the night
"There is no reason at all, that use of encryption to defeat passive snooping, should imply that the other side has been authenticated."
try to explain that to your average user. They want either "it's secure" or "it's not secure"
Of course people should be better educated about encryption since as it stands with firefox a simple http site set up for phishing would probably net more accounts than a self signed one.
yes but "what's up?" doesn't really stand on it's own so the assumption when you hear an odd phrase is that there's some sort of history behind it and you stop there.
"you're" not "your" Didn't you learn this as a child?
"Verbage" is an insulting term usually meant to disparage needlessly wordy prose. Don't use it to mean simply "wording." There is no such word as "verbage."
But of course we knew what you meant so it's ok. I'm sure I've made a mistake or two writing this post but I'm fairly sure it's intelligible.:)
Just for reference the AC above is not me. While I would agree that reading helps your writing style (WoT pushed my marks up about 20% when I was in school) it's a bit arrogant to blame it all on TV. A popular common culture ties the language (loosely) together over large areas and is not limited to the intellectuals.
I've been using the phrase in speach for years without anyone saying anything about it. it's true. It's a fair bet that you use phrases which make no real sense and never even think about it. ever used the phrase "What's up?"?
God, I've had some insane conversations with retarded people.
*me**: You know doing what you're doing is terribly terribly insecure, someone might get into your email account! *Him*:.... ah well, it's not like there's anything important in there. I mean what are they gonna do, email someone in my name? *me**:....You have a paypal account right? *Him*: Ya... *me**: And it's linked to your email account right? *Him*: Ya... *me**: And if you forget your paypal password you can have them send you an email to change it right? *Him*: Ya.... *me**: And your credit card is linked to your paypal account isn't it? *Him*: Hmmm... *me**: So someone with access to your mail account could get hold of your paypal and run up some insane charges buying horse porn. *Him*: Oh....
It's depressing how people will set up accounts with things like paypal, link them to their email and then dismiss anything about security since "sure my email isn't that important"
while in reality self-signed certificates are fairly worthless and just as open to man in the middle attacks as plaintext.Best they do is prevent extremely casual snooping and these days with more and more wireless networks around and people being use to just connecting to the net we have to assume that the local DNS is NEVER secure. Self-signed certificates give people the belief that they're secure unless they are told in the strongest possible terms by their browser that they are not really on a secure connection.
sure, solar pannels on the roof are all fine and good although the aditional kit to to change it into usable household voltage is quite expensive so unless you hand out grants like candy it's a tad expensive.(even if you hand out grants it's still expensive but it's everyone paying so you personally don't notice.) You could run your house on solar power sure.... provided you live near the equator... and it's summer.... and you have a pile of money up front but that's the thing. Solar power is not reliable. And try running an aluminium foundry with a few pannels on the roof or even on everyone elses roof for miles around. I can't see factory owners being too happy about having to shut down at night and during the winter because the solar powered grid can't handle the strain. So they'd have to build 2 lots of power plants. one as backup for when clouds make the shitty solar power plants useless.
Fusion is attractive because it promises to be reliable. As for the radiation it's not too bad and if you can get hold of the He3 you don't even have to worry about that.
All I can find on that is some references to how the plants growing under the telescope are growing a bit weird because of the electrical fields. Can't find any pictures of the underside.
Also are not the reflector panels in a radio telescope little more than thin wire mesh?
The password is sent over SSL, the problem is that it will happily send your cookie over HTTP which is for all intensive purposes just as good as a password.
the energy comes from changing hydrogen into helium. Gravity is not needed for fusion.
Hmm... I wonder which people would prefer to have, 10 square killometers of expensive solar pannels which have to be replaced regularly and block all the light from the ground below them making it useless for much else or a single reactor burning a remarkably clean fuel we have in almost unlimited quantities.
well they didn't entirely lose. They got the first machine into orbit and the first man into space but of course since america didn't get those 2 they don't really count.
As for safety the space shuttles were deathtraps. The engineers who worked on them guesses as low as 1 in 50 chance of a disaster per launch.
and of course if you want safety you could require that to claim the money one of the main stockholders in the company has to be in the crew.
[quote] Feynman continued to investigate the lack of communication between NASA's management and its engineers and was struck by the management's claim that the risk of catastrophic malfunction on the shuttle was 1 in 10^5; i.e., 1 in 100,000. Feynman immediately realized that this claim was risible on its face; as he described, this assessment of risk would entail that NASA could expect to launch a shuttle every day for the next 274 years without an accident. Investigating the claim further, Feynman discovered that the 1 in 10^5 figure was stating what they claimed that the failure rate ought to be, given that it was a manned vehicle, and working backwards to generate the failure rate of components.
Feynman was disturbed by two aspects of this practice. First, NASA management assigned a probability of failure to each individual bolt, sometimes claiming a probability of 1 in 108; that is, one in one hundred million. Feynman pointed out that it is impossible to calculate such a remote possibility with any scientific rigor. Secondly, Feynman was bothered not just by this sloppy science but by the fact that NASA claimed that the risk of catastrophic failure was "necessarily" 1 in 105. As the figure itself was beyond belief, Feynman questioned exactly what "necessarily" meant in this context--did it mean that the figure followed logically from other calculations, or did it reflect NASA management's desire to make the numbers fit?
Feynman suspected that the 1/100,000 figure was wildly fantastical, and made a rough estimate that the true likelihood of shuttle disaster was closer to 1 in 100. He then decided to poll the engineers themselves, asking them to write down an anonymous estimate of the odds of shuttle explosion. Feynman found that the bulk of the engineers' estimates fell between 1 in 50 and 1 in 100. [/quote]
40 years ago we needed the vast sums of money to get something into space, now though the tech has advanced to the point that buisnesses are in a position to manage this.
Normally I don't support privatisation, normally I don't agree with people who claim that private companies would do better in every situation.
But NASA is a huge fucking money hole. Read Feynman account in "What Do You Care What Other People Think?" of NASA and how it's run.
If someone put that 2 billion up as a prize for the first private company to put a man on the moon we'd see a new fucking space race. Put up 10 billion for the first company to put a man on mars and it wouldn't be long before we had men in deck chairs at the summet of mon olympus.
interesting point: over here in europe we have less ad breaks than in the US and they tend to be shorter, the channels I'm used to generally have 1 break every 15 minutes for 2-3 minutes. Do you really have breaks every 10 minutes or less on some channels? I notice it in shows made for american TV that every now and then there's a point where it breaks for a split second and cuts back like at the start and end of an add break. Some old kids shows were quite funny, *hero gets into impossible to escape situation* *slight flicker which should be an add break* *Situation changed quite a bit so it's now clear the hero has a way out* which I'm sure kids wouldn't notice if there were adds in that space.
Slashdot Mirror
So who's fault are you saying it is?
If it's not the governments fault and it's not the contractors fault then who's is it?
You seem to be trying to say that somehow it's my fault but that's a bit silly since I'm in no way involved. or possibly you're saying that the programmers should make the systems in such a way that no matter how stupid the Minimum wage monkey the contractor hires (how do you think they save money?) that it should be impossible for them to overcome.
absolutely the girls who choose to enter the field are just as capable/incapable as the males, it's just that so few enter.
Or sending passwords over IM/Email/plaintext.
try to explain about packet sniffers and you'll get a reply along the lines of "oh security would be down like a ton of bricks on anything like that". Cause packet sniffers are easy to detect as we all know.
the standard here is "security handle that so I don't have to think about being secure" when in fact security can't handle that unless people take reasonable measures themselves.
Why is there always someone with the *pics* request.... :-D
I'd love to say that the lack of straight females choosing to pursue the field was some sort of myth but it really isn't. They exist sure but good luck finding them.
I'm trying an alt approach, find a non techie girl and teach her how to program.
It starts off well but we get distracted far too much to ever get more than a few minutes into a lesson....
god I loved artificial neural nets, I never learned as much about them as I would have liked to in Uni but I programmed up a few very simple ones right after the class where they were explained to us.
I gotta go spend some time in the library reading up on them...
strange... I forgot my password a few months back and didn't have to do any of that.
They sent me a mail with a link, I followed the link, it asked me 2 security questions (chances are 1 or both answers could be harvested from most peoples email)
so no.
you're wrong.
it would appear you are over a hundred posts late to the party. :D
in real life: 2 second correction "actually it's xyz" "oh ok, I was mistaken"
on slashdot: people write long diatribes on the subject and then others argue about the details and grammar of those etc etc etc long into the night
that's what's called a publicity stunt
yes, yes you can.
not much chance of that but it's still cool :D
"There is no reason at all, that use of encryption to defeat passive snooping, should imply that the other side has been authenticated."
try to explain that to your average user.
They want either "it's secure" or "it's not secure"
Of course people should be better educated about encryption since as it stands with firefox a simple http site set up for phishing would probably net more accounts than a self signed one.
yes but "what's up?" doesn't really stand on it's own so the assumption when you hear an odd phrase is that there's some sort of history behind it and you stop there.
I'm trying to decide if this is a joke but.
"right" not "rigyt"
Take some pride in yourself!
"you're" not "your"
Didn't you learn this as a child?
"Verbage" is an insulting term usually meant to disparage needlessly wordy prose. Don't use it to mean simply "wording." There is no such word as "verbage."
But of course we knew what you meant so it's ok. I'm sure I've made a mistake or two writing this post but I'm fairly sure it's intelligible. :)
Just for reference the AC above is not me.
While I would agree that reading helps your writing style (WoT pushed my marks up about 20% when I was in school) it's a bit arrogant to blame it all on TV.
A popular common culture ties the language (loosely) together over large areas and is not limited to the intellectuals.
I've been using the phrase in speach for years without anyone saying anything about it. it's true.
It's a fair bet that you use phrases which make no real sense and never even think about it.
ever used the phrase "What's up?"?
God, I've had some insane conversations with retarded people.
*me**: You know doing what you're doing is terribly terribly insecure, someone might get into your email account! .... ah well, it's not like there's anything important in there. I mean what are they gonna do, email someone in my name? ....You have a paypal account right?
*Him*:
*me**:
*Him*: Ya...
*me**: And it's linked to your email account right?
*Him*: Ya...
*me**: And if you forget your paypal password you can have them send you an email to change it right?
*Him*: Ya....
*me**: And your credit card is linked to your paypal account isn't it?
*Him*: Hmmm...
*me**: So someone with access to your mail account could get hold of your paypal and run up some insane charges buying horse porn.
*Him*: Oh....
It's depressing how people will set up accounts with things like paypal, link them to their email and then dismiss anything about security since "sure my email isn't that important"
while in reality self-signed certificates are fairly worthless and just as open to man in the middle attacks as plaintext.Best they do is prevent extremely casual snooping and these days with more and more wireless networks around and people being use to just connecting to the net we have to assume that the local DNS is NEVER secure. Self-signed certificates give people the belief that they're secure unless they are told in the strongest possible terms by their browser that they are not really on a secure connection.
sure, solar pannels on the roof are all fine and good although the aditional kit to to change it into usable household voltage is quite expensive so unless you hand out grants like candy it's a tad expensive.(even if you hand out grants it's still expensive but it's everyone paying so you personally don't notice.)
You could run your house on solar power sure.... provided you live near the equator... and it's summer.... and you have a pile of money up front but that's the thing.
Solar power is not reliable.
And try running an aluminium foundry with a few pannels on the roof or even on everyone elses roof for miles around.
I can't see factory owners being too happy about having to shut down at night and during the winter because the solar powered grid can't handle the strain.
So they'd have to build 2 lots of power plants.
one as backup for when clouds make the shitty solar power plants useless.
Fusion is attractive because it promises to be reliable.
As for the radiation it's not too bad and if you can get hold of the He3 you don't even have to worry about that.
All I can find on that is some references to how the plants growing under the telescope are growing a bit weird because of the electrical fields.
Can't find any pictures of the underside.
Also are not the reflector panels in a radio telescope little more than thin wire mesh?
The password is sent over SSL, the problem is that it will happily send your cookie over HTTP which is for all intensive purposes just as good as a password.
Gah!
gravity energy?
Gah!
the energy comes from changing hydrogen into helium. Gravity is not needed for fusion.
Hmm... I wonder which people would prefer to have, 10 square killometers of expensive solar pannels which have to be replaced regularly and block all the light from the ground below them making it useless for much else or a single reactor burning a remarkably clean fuel we have in almost unlimited quantities.
well they didn't entirely lose.
They got the first machine into orbit and the first man into space but of course since america didn't get those 2 they don't really count.
As for safety the space shuttles were deathtraps.
The engineers who worked on them guesses as low as 1 in 50 chance of a disaster per launch.
and of course if you want safety you could require that to claim the money one of the main stockholders in the company has to be in the crew.
[quote]
Feynman continued to investigate the lack of communication between NASA's management and its engineers and was struck by the management's claim that the risk of catastrophic malfunction on the shuttle was 1 in 10^5; i.e., 1 in 100,000. Feynman immediately realized that this claim was risible on its face; as he described, this assessment of risk would entail that NASA could expect to launch a shuttle every day for the next 274 years without an accident. Investigating the claim further, Feynman discovered that the 1 in 10^5 figure was stating what they claimed that the failure rate ought to be, given that it was a manned vehicle, and working backwards to generate the failure rate of components.
Feynman was disturbed by two aspects of this practice. First, NASA management assigned a probability of failure to each individual bolt, sometimes claiming a probability of 1 in 108; that is, one in one hundred million. Feynman pointed out that it is impossible to calculate such a remote possibility with any scientific rigor. Secondly, Feynman was bothered not just by this sloppy science but by the fact that NASA claimed that the risk of catastrophic failure was "necessarily" 1 in 105. As the figure itself was beyond belief, Feynman questioned exactly what "necessarily" meant in this context--did it mean that the figure followed logically from other calculations, or did it reflect NASA management's desire to make the numbers fit?
Feynman suspected that the 1/100,000 figure was wildly fantastical, and made a rough estimate that the true likelihood of shuttle disaster was closer to 1 in 100. He then decided to poll the engineers themselves, asking them to write down an anonymous estimate of the odds of shuttle explosion. Feynman found that the bulk of the engineers' estimates fell between 1 in 50 and 1 in 100.
[/quote]
40 years ago we needed the vast sums of money to get something into space, now though the tech has advanced to the point that buisnesses are in a position to manage this.
they did seem to build to last...
Normally I don't support privatisation, normally I don't agree with people who claim that private companies would do better in every situation.
But NASA is a huge fucking money hole.
Read Feynman account in "What Do You Care What Other People Think?" of NASA and how it's run.
If someone put that 2 billion up as a prize for the first private company to put a man on the moon we'd see a new fucking space race.
Put up 10 billion for the first company to put a man on mars and it wouldn't be long before we had men in deck chairs at the summet of mon olympus.
interesting point:
over here in europe we have less ad breaks than in the US and they tend to be shorter, the channels I'm used to generally have 1 break every 15 minutes for 2-3 minutes. Do you really have breaks every 10 minutes or less on some channels? I notice it in shows made for american TV that every now and then there's a point where it breaks for a split second and cuts back like at the start and end of an add break.
Some old kids shows were quite funny, *hero gets into impossible to escape situation* *slight flicker which should be an add break* *Situation changed quite a bit so it's now clear the hero has a way out* which I'm sure kids wouldn't notice if there were adds in that space.