Which is exactly why exploit fixes must go through STANDARD QUALITY CONTROL. What the fuck good have you done if by fixing one exploit you introduce ten bugs and two new exploits? I don't care how urgently the customer needs it. I'm not going to give them something I haven't tested. That's insane. If they don't like it they can shop elsewhere.
There is one thing you must never, ever do. That is to release code which has not been thoroughly tested. If you can't push a change through your normal QA process in 48 hours, then the change does not happen. Period. You don't lower your own standards and release shoddy workmanship just because a customer is demanding it. You get this change out there, it explodes in the customer's face, and you look like a moron. Not just to that customer, but to ALL your customers. And to any other professional organization your are affiliated with.
If the customer simply refuses to deal with you unless you circumvent your standard quality control, then that customer is doing you more harm than good.
He'll get 5 years at a country club and a bunch of great job offers after he gets out. You heard it here first.
What kind of fucking lunatic would hire somebody who has PROVEN that he says he's one thing but is actually another?
Kevin Mitnick got job offers, but he never claimed to be a white-hat hacker in the first place. This situation is very different. This is a guy who said he was a security expert, who turned around and fucked people over. Anybody who hires this guy in the future for his security knowledge, in other words, hiring him as a "security expert," has got to be a total fucking moron.
The "car" looks like four-wheel motorbikes. It seems convenient but I have to have about its security concerns if accident happens. Maybe we should allocate special lanes for these "cars".
What about banning "normal" cars within the city core?
Wouldn't that just be a standard vanilla radio transmitter? If you're putting out a signal of constant frequency and phase, it's coherent. Agree?
I agree with your last sentence, but I don't think any radio transmitter is going to have "constant frequency and phase" to the level required to compare it with a laser. A laser is pretty much a perfect plane wave. I have never heard of a radio transmitter that could produce such a wave. I'm no expert in radio, though.
As a counterexample, what about an AI? An AI has basically no requirements as far as chemistry are concerned. While it's laughably implausible to imagine an electronic AI "evolving" out of nothingness the way biological organisms did it's still -- by my definition -- "life"
I find it hard to imagine how a person could NOT call that life. Why are you calling it "AI?" What's so artificial about an electronic life form which evolved on its own? I don't find the idea implausible at all, at least, no more implausible than "biological" life evolving. Since "biological" really means "of life," I would in fact call such an organism biological. Different from us, but still a living, biological thing.
You would need a giant resonant chamber, because radio waves are so long. And you'd need a metastable medium with differences in energy level on the order of radio energy. These things are possible, maybe, but not likely to ever happen on earth. Out in the depths of the universe I'm sure there's some object somewhere which emits coherent radio frequency radiation because of some physical process.
Because now you have to legally define what a "drug" is. Who gets to do that? You? What if I disagree? You could quite fairly call chocolate a drug, as it contains phenethylamine, a compound with noticeable psychological effects. So, do I need a prescription for a chocolate bar?
Who the hell are you, or the FDA, to define which compounds must be vetted by a "medical professional" before I can ingest them?
Our founding fathers came to this country to escape a powerful government... that ultimately fell.
With total ignorance of our country's history such as this, it's no wonder things are going to shit. Here's a fucking hint: Our "Founding Fathers" were BORN here, they did not come here. They did not fight to ESCAPE anything, they fought to EXPEL a corrupt government. And that government didn't fall, it just LEFT.
I can't fucking believe I have to say any of this.
I think a fascinating next step would be to see if, statistically speaking, viruses and transposons were channeled into jumping into these "safer to change" hotspots rather than other, more fragile areas of the genome.
"Duh."
If a retrovirus inserted itself into a part of the genome which immediately stopped the life functions of a cell, then the cell would die and the retrovirus would die. Thus, the only retroviruses which survive are those which do not cause immediate death of the host cell. There's nothing mysterious or even particularly impressive about it.
It doesn't mean anything. Talking about things being more or less "compatible with evolution" is just insane raving. Let me make it real simple: The living things which exist today exist because they are able to exist, and they will continue to exist because they are able to continue to exist. If that sounds tautological, that's because it is.
Evolution is simply the elimination of organisms which, under current conditions, cannot survive. Clearly any living thing must be "compatible with evolution" because if it was not it would not exist. If we want to make a statement about genomes being relatively resistant to mutagenic harm, then we are making a meaningful statement. Saying that a species is somehow "more compatible with evolution" is void of any meaning at all.
Originally genetic modification was just things like making mice glow. Now they're creating results that would be appealing to exactly the wrong people: the military.
Feh. Get over it. News flash: The military has NUCLEAR WEAPONS. What exactly are you afraid they are going to be able to do that they couldn't already do? Are they going to pit their "super-soldiers" against an enemy with tactical nukes?
We can already explode the world several times over, I really don't see how it could get any worse.
Sure, because you're comparing completely different things: a single very specific sequence (b,b,b,b,b,b,b,b,b,b,b,b,b) with a whole family of sequences (8b/5r in any combination)
No, it's a comparison between two families of sequences. One family has 8 blacks, the other has 13 blacks. It JUST SO HAPPENS that the family of 13 black has only one member, because there's only one way to do it. That's the whole point.
I could of swore he said "(gambling addicts excepted)"
That's my point. At least for me, everyone I ever see buying a lottery ticket is an "addict." So calling the lottery a "tax on the mathematically challenged" isn't really very informative given that so few people play with the honest belief that winning is easy. I don't think even the sorry sons of bitches dropping $100 a week have any delusions that they're going to win -- they just can't stop themselves.
Irrelevant to Roulette, maybe. But not irrelevant to the guy I just made a bet with on the side. Suppose I bet you $100 that the next 13 rolls will all be black. Pretty easy money, right? What if I bet that it would come up 8 red 5 black? You might be somewhat less inclined to take that bet.
But sequences are useless in roulette because the results of one test do not affect the next. My chances of winning by picking black, red, black, red are just as poor as picking black, black, black, black.
I know. I am trying to point out that a sequence of 13 black is more SURPRISING (from both informal and formal standpoints) than a sequence of 8 black and 5 red. The likelihood is one thing, but we have good reason to be more surprised by one sequence than by another.
I cringe every time I hear someone say that lotteries are taxes on people who are bad at math. Those people don't seem to realize that the lottery is a game, not an investment, and that most people who play (gambling addicts excepted) do so because they enjoy it.
Weird. Most of the time I see people buying lottery tickets, they look... Well, let's just say, they don't look like they have a lot of disposable income. These people typically buy $50 to $100 worth of tickets at a time. I see the same people every freaking time I go into the store. That is not "entertainment," it is addiction.
Even a reasonably well-salaried person doesn't have $400 a month to drop on lottery tickets.
And just to be clear, I really don't give a shit if they ruin themselves like that. It's just a sorry thing to see.
In other words, if I flip a coin 10 times and see Heads 10 times, that's not a guarantee that the 11th time will be heads; in fact, the probability of getting 11 heads is so small that you'd be better off betting on tails.
Classic Gambler's Fallacy. How on earth could previous coin flips influence the probability of the current flip? Try brushing up on your own statistics, instead. There are plenty of GOOD criticisms of this guy's work -- yours isn't one of them.
As humans we think we can find patterns in true random events.
Of course we can. It's a survival trait. Is that a lion hiding in the tall grass? It kind of looks like one. Of course I'm going to ASSUME that it's really a lion, because the cost of getting that assumption wrong is essentially nothing, whereas the cost of assuming it is NOT a lion, and it turns out to be a lion, is death.
So of course our brains will always err on the side of seeing patterns even when no true pattern exists. Simple Darwinism.
Please don't try to counter bad statistics with more bad statistics. The OVERALL rate of death in car accidents might be 1 in 18,585, but that includes everybody in the country. People who drive more often or for longer distances are more at risk. When you average everybody together, you get some number. That DOES NOT MEAN that YOUR chance of being killed in a car accident is 1 in 18,585. If you are a "safe" driver, drive low mileage, stay on safer roads, etc. your odds might be ten times better than that, or more.
Money is not happiness. Good friends and family are.
Exactly true. Which is why I'd love to have a huge chunk of money. I could pay off my house, car, and take care of property taxes for the rest of my life. Then I could do the same for my friends and family, and we could all just hang out for the rest of our lives.
It's the people who take their winnings and go buy ten fucking yachts that are the idiots. They use the money to create more debt for themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Exploits should be a high concern for any company
Which is exactly why exploit fixes must go through STANDARD QUALITY CONTROL. What the fuck good have you done if by fixing one exploit you introduce ten bugs and two new exploits? I don't care how urgently the customer needs it. I'm not going to give them something I haven't tested. That's insane. If they don't like it they can shop elsewhere.
There is one thing you must never, ever do. That is to release code which has not been thoroughly tested. If you can't push a change through your normal QA process in 48 hours, then the change does not happen. Period. You don't lower your own standards and release shoddy workmanship just because a customer is demanding it. You get this change out there, it explodes in the customer's face, and you look like a moron. Not just to that customer, but to ALL your customers. And to any other professional organization your are affiliated with.
If the customer simply refuses to deal with you unless you circumvent your standard quality control, then that customer is doing you more harm than good.
He'll get 5 years at a country club and a bunch of great job offers after he gets out. You heard it here first.
What kind of fucking lunatic would hire somebody who has PROVEN that he says he's one thing but is actually another?
Kevin Mitnick got job offers, but he never claimed to be a white-hat hacker in the first place. This situation is very different. This is a guy who said he was a security expert, who turned around and fucked people over. Anybody who hires this guy in the future for his security knowledge, in other words, hiring him as a "security expert," has got to be a total fucking moron.
No, this guy won't be gainfully employed again.
The "car" looks like four-wheel motorbikes. It seems convenient but I have to have about its security concerns if accident happens. Maybe we should allocate special lanes for these "cars".
What about banning "normal" cars within the city core?
I don't blame the guy. "Cravate" is French for "necktie." He just got his foreign languages crossed.
Wouldn't that just be a standard vanilla radio transmitter? If you're putting out a signal of constant frequency and phase, it's coherent. Agree?
I agree with your last sentence, but I don't think any radio transmitter is going to have "constant frequency and phase" to the level required to compare it with a laser. A laser is pretty much a perfect plane wave. I have never heard of a radio transmitter that could produce such a wave. I'm no expert in radio, though.As a counterexample, what about an AI? An AI has basically no requirements as far as chemistry are concerned. While it's laughably implausible to imagine an electronic AI "evolving" out of nothingness the way biological organisms did it's still -- by my definition -- "life"
I find it hard to imagine how a person could NOT call that life. Why are you calling it "AI?" What's so artificial about an electronic life form which evolved on its own? I don't find the idea implausible at all, at least, no more implausible than "biological" life evolving. Since "biological" really means "of life," I would in fact call such an organism biological. Different from us, but still a living, biological thing.
You would need a giant resonant chamber, because radio waves are so long. And you'd need a metastable medium with differences in energy level on the order of radio energy. These things are possible, maybe, but not likely to ever happen on earth. Out in the depths of the universe I'm sure there's some object somewhere which emits coherent radio frequency radiation because of some physical process.
Enough of the fucking "pot-kettle-black" shit. Do the failings of the US Congress make the actions of Yahoo any less reprehensible? No? Then shut up.
Because now you have to legally define what a "drug" is. Who gets to do that? You? What if I disagree? You could quite fairly call chocolate a drug, as it contains phenethylamine, a compound with noticeable psychological effects. So, do I need a prescription for a chocolate bar?
Who the hell are you, or the FDA, to define which compounds must be vetted by a "medical professional" before I can ingest them?
Our founding fathers came to this country to escape a powerful government... that ultimately fell.
With total ignorance of our country's history such as this, it's no wonder things are going to shit. Here's a fucking hint: Our "Founding Fathers" were BORN here, they did not come here. They did not fight to ESCAPE anything, they fought to EXPEL a corrupt government. And that government didn't fall, it just LEFT.
I can't fucking believe I have to say any of this.
I think a fascinating next step would be to see if, statistically speaking, viruses and transposons were channeled into jumping into these "safer to change" hotspots rather than other, more fragile areas of the genome.
"Duh."
If a retrovirus inserted itself into a part of the genome which immediately stopped the life functions of a cell, then the cell would die and the retrovirus would die. Thus, the only retroviruses which survive are those which do not cause immediate death of the host cell. There's nothing mysterious or even particularly impressive about it.
It doesn't mean anything. Talking about things being more or less "compatible with evolution" is just insane raving. Let me make it real simple: The living things which exist today exist because they are able to exist, and they will continue to exist because they are able to continue to exist. If that sounds tautological, that's because it is.
Evolution is simply the elimination of organisms which, under current conditions, cannot survive. Clearly any living thing must be "compatible with evolution" because if it was not it would not exist. If we want to make a statement about genomes being relatively resistant to mutagenic harm, then we are making a meaningful statement. Saying that a species is somehow "more compatible with evolution" is void of any meaning at all.
Originally genetic modification was just things like making mice glow. Now they're creating results that would be appealing to exactly the wrong people: the military.
Feh. Get over it. News flash: The military has NUCLEAR WEAPONS. What exactly are you afraid they are going to be able to do that they couldn't already do? Are they going to pit their "super-soldiers" against an enemy with tactical nukes?
We can already explode the world several times over, I really don't see how it could get any worse.
Sure, because you're comparing completely different things: a single very specific sequence (b,b,b,b,b,b,b,b,b,b,b,b,b) with a whole family of sequences (8b/5r in any combination)
No, it's a comparison between two families of sequences. One family has 8 blacks, the other has 13 blacks. It JUST SO HAPPENS that the family of 13 black has only one member, because there's only one way to do it. That's the whole point.
Good luck if you're blind.
I'm not blind or otherwise disabled and I'm still sick of people shoving this entire class of people to the side.
I could of swore he said "(gambling addicts excepted)"
That's my point. At least for me, everyone I ever see buying a lottery ticket is an "addict." So calling the lottery a "tax on the mathematically challenged" isn't really very informative given that so few people play with the honest belief that winning is easy. I don't think even the sorry sons of bitches dropping $100 a week have any delusions that they're going to win -- they just can't stop themselves.
But that's completely irrelevant.
Irrelevant to Roulette, maybe. But not irrelevant to the guy I just made a bet with on the side. Suppose I bet you $100 that the next 13 rolls will all be black. Pretty easy money, right? What if I bet that it would come up 8 red 5 black? You might be somewhat less inclined to take that bet.
I know what a P-value is. After 10 flips I'm not convinced. Get me down to P=0.005 assuming 50/50 and I might start thinking about it.
But sequences are useless in roulette because the results of one test do not affect the next. My chances of winning by picking black, red, black, red are just as poor as picking black, black, black, black.
I know. I am trying to point out that a sequence of 13 black is more SURPRISING (from both informal and formal standpoints) than a sequence of 8 black and 5 red. The likelihood is one thing, but we have good reason to be more surprised by one sequence than by another.
I cringe every time I hear someone say that lotteries are taxes on people who are bad at math. Those people don't seem to realize that the lottery is a game, not an investment, and that most people who play (gambling addicts excepted) do so because they enjoy it.
Weird. Most of the time I see people buying lottery tickets, they look... Well, let's just say, they don't look like they have a lot of disposable income. These people typically buy $50 to $100 worth of tickets at a time. I see the same people every freaking time I go into the store. That is not "entertainment," it is addiction.
Even a reasonably well-salaried person doesn't have $400 a month to drop on lottery tickets.
And just to be clear, I really don't give a shit if they ruin themselves like that. It's just a sorry thing to see.
In other words, if I flip a coin 10 times and see Heads 10 times, that's not a guarantee that the 11th time will be heads; in fact, the probability of getting 11 heads is so small that you'd be better off betting on tails.
Classic Gambler's Fallacy. How on earth could previous coin flips influence the probability of the current flip? Try brushing up on your own statistics, instead. There are plenty of GOOD criticisms of this guy's work -- yours isn't one of them.
As humans we think we can find patterns in true random events.
Of course we can. It's a survival trait. Is that a lion hiding in the tall grass? It kind of looks like one. Of course I'm going to ASSUME that it's really a lion, because the cost of getting that assumption wrong is essentially nothing, whereas the cost of assuming it is NOT a lion, and it turns out to be a lion, is death.
So of course our brains will always err on the side of seeing patterns even when no true pattern exists. Simple Darwinism.
Chance of dying from a car accident: 1 in 18,585
Please don't try to counter bad statistics with more bad statistics. The OVERALL rate of death in car accidents might be 1 in 18,585, but that includes everybody in the country. People who drive more often or for longer distances are more at risk. When you average everybody together, you get some number. That DOES NOT MEAN that YOUR chance of being killed in a car accident is 1 in 18,585. If you are a "safe" driver, drive low mileage, stay on safer roads, etc. your odds might be ten times better than that, or more.
Money is not happiness. Good friends and family are.
Exactly true. Which is why I'd love to have a huge chunk of money. I could pay off my house, car, and take care of property taxes for the rest of my life. Then I could do the same for my friends and family, and we could all just hang out for the rest of our lives.
It's the people who take their winnings and go buy ten fucking yachts that are the idiots. They use the money to create more debt for themselves.