Actually, running as a non-privileged user still exposes a user to the worst type of risk: corruption of their data files (which of course they only need their user privileges to access). Have you ever heard a user thank you for being able to recover their OS but not their data files (after a crash/virus/etc)?
I'm not even sure there is any real solution to this, although there was some work done in the OLPC security model that related to this:
And note he mentions that this is TODAY technology, not something that might be around in 100 years from now. Additionally, he makes a good case that climate control will be something that we will want to do in the short term in just this type of scenario.
Dark matter and dark energy are as much "hacks" as "gravity" is; i.e. they all are names for phenomena that we observe in the universe except that we have some sort of an explanation for gravity, whereas the former two we have no (at least known to me) current consistent theories that can explain why there is unobserved extra mass in the observable universe and what is causing the observable universe to expand (accelerating the expansion). Note that both of these properties of the universe have been measured (observed).
Actually, there were no reserve chutes; after the "setup" chutes cut away, two chutes are supposed to open to orient the craft, and then after they cut away three deployment chutes pop which pull out and deploy the three main chutes. Due to the craft not having been set up correctly (where "correctly" is in reference to the conditions that the craft should be flying under at that point in the descent), the craft's landing chutes could not do their job, and the test is essentially void.
They mention that Orion uses the same basic chute system configuration as the Apollo craft did.
Oh for christ sake. Just tell Firefox to accept your certificate and get on with life. Come back with a real argument instead of whining about 5 extra clicks that you will do every time you change your certificate (which is never because you created it with an expiry date way the hell far in the future, right?).
For all of us that understand how the whole SSL system works(and I question this assertion sometimes, but I digress), we can click a few times, or *gasp* do it the RIGHT way and create our own CA Root cert, install that on FireFox, and sign our damn certificates the way we're supposed to. Or get a free cert from StartSSL. If you think that encryption will protect your data from packet sniffers, you're making the first mistake of security: getting fixated on a single attack vector which IMHO is more complex than some other attacks (including DNS poisoning now which REALLY needs proper authentication implemented on a wide-scale rather than any kind of privacy).
How will a browser alert a user that the site they are browsing to, www.example.com, that has been redirected to 111.111.111.111 instead of the real address 222.222.222.222? This occurs BEFORE a SSL handshake and so cannot be covered by an SSL authentication check. The site can have a certificate that is granted to www.exmple.com (which the browser will be redirected to once going to 111.111.111.111) and will have a valid, paid for, certificate.
As an aside, there is a parallel between pictures on ID and encryption: A picture on an ID allows me to verify that you look exactly like the guy on the ID (for various definitions of "exactly"), and symmetric encryption allows me to be fairly certain no one is listening in on a communication (assuming protected keys, sufficient key size, etc). But neither allow me to KNOW who you are or who I am communicating with. In other words, both systems fail at authentication, which is, in the end, what passports are trying to provide, and many people think encryption provides.
Random checks can be overcome by redundancy in "bad guys". Random checks will make a single bad guy (who has everything to lose if he gets caught) think twice or choose some other method of attack. Increase the frequency of random checks to account for multiple redundant targets? Just scale to more "bad guys" at different locations and times to make it so that security how has to check everyone. See? Doesn't work.
I wonder how that number is affected when one considers that the government is more likely to be required to report these types of crimes whereas a private company is not (for the most part).
Privacy is fine, until you ask yourself who you are talking to. If you cannot validate that, then privacy has close to zero value (other than for anonymity, which is even MORE important to know who you're talking to in this case; imagine a scenario where a dissident posts online to a server they think is controlled by another dissident yet their government is actually controlling the server).
Encryption != Privacy by default. It is private communications ONLY with some party. Privacy implies you know/can verify that other party.
In fact, even without the DNS poisoning issue, it's STILL easier to get users to got a specific web page and dump their personal information into it (as is shown by "Phishing" attacks). In fact, I would bet that it's very unlikely that an average attack would be carried out via a wire-sniff method, purely because that requires a targeted attack which will require active attack methods. This is simply just a pain in the ass, and more attackers would rather the data come to them, and so phishing web sites were invented.
Of course, the real solution is not to mix SSL (or TLS) with x.509 authentication such that they can be used separately.:)
Why should learning be fun? So that kids want to learn?
Math is a particularly interesting instance of this, as it is the area I am currently studying. I see two parts to learning mathematics (this may be generalized to learning anything): 1) understanding and, 2) execution. The understanding part is where a good teacher (and perhaps teaching aids, such as software) makes the difference. This is what gives a student the mental framework to be able to do the math. I think that the execution, is incredibly specific to the student. Some students need to work hundreds of problems to be capable to solve that class of problem. Others might not need to work through any problems! Still others find it easier to audibly talk themselves through the solving process. So even if computers (software, really) can impact the first part of the process, the second part is still required. And guess what? It's the second part that requires the most important realization and skill: learning isn't fun nor easy, and it requires a lot of hard work.
Yup, and I'll make a note not to assist you in any way when you're choking to death on some bit of food, for clearly, eating slowly and carefully so as to not cause the problem was not valued enough. That goes for all that moderated this as "Insightful"; this is much more a reflection on the moderators rather than the value of the comment.
I think part of the problem is not so much the availability of "data" as it is the "speed" at which that "data" is being made available. For example, when perusing wikipedia, one can read numerous articles very quickly. However, the REAL comprehension portion comes after that, when you *think* about what you've read. I would argue that is what is missing, and this is due in part because of the speed at which "data" is being made available to us.
Mathematics is an excellent example of this. You can pick any topic in a math book and read it. Now, think you understand it? No? Read it a few more times. Ok, think you have it now? Good. Put the book away and wait a day. Then try to explain that topic to someone else. I guarantee that you will fail (if you've never seen the topic in question except for the previous day). Why is this? Because it requires time to work through problems and really understand a topic. For extra points, why is the identity "-1" so useful in mathematics?
Indeed, this is an important point; faxed signatures do one thing only: they provide evidence that someone saw the document and that there EXISTS an original signed document. Remember to keep those signed documents you fax, you might be asked to provided them in case of legal issues.
Please refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Control_Message_Protocol for a more complete description of ICMP. Please note that that "ping" (or ICMP type 0 messages) are NOT "ICMP", and when you generally see a "Filter ICMP" in a firewire GUI, what it really does is filter ICMP type 0 packets, and not the rest of the core control messages that make IP work.
I'm sorry, I think you mistook "engineering" for "manufacturing". The first involves effort, problem solving and creative solutions to cramming X shit into 25% less space. The second is about reducing component size/quality/number to achieve a cost reducing for each unit built (and perhaps reduce the complexity of the unit being built and therefor reducing building costs).
And yet, the dragging is way behind the finger, the responses of input and menu popup is slow -- it looks like running a modern paint program on an old machine. Highly likely that this is a hardware/driver issue with the multi-touch hardware and not purely a code problem.
Sequestration is no panecea, no cure-all - it is at best an impefect solution to an intractable problem - there are no magic bullets. Using it to justify increasingly relying on coal is idiocy at it's finest. --snip--
No, sequestration will most likely be the ONLY real tool we have available to reverse the CO2 problem we've created, even if we decided right now to stop using all forms of carbon fuels. This sequestration process may not be the best way of proceeding, but if you believe the climate wingnuts, they're saying we're already probably eff'ed with the amount of C02 in the atmosphere now.
So it's not a question of coal/oil+sequestration or just coal+oil. The question is how the eff do we get the millions of tons of carbon that are changing the climate out of the atmosphere (assuming we actually don't like the way the climate is going)?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, running as a non-privileged user still exposes a user to the worst type of risk: corruption of their data files (which of course they only need their user privileges to access). Have you ever heard a user thank you for being able to recover their OS but not their data files (after a crash/virus/etc)?
I'm not even sure there is any real solution to this, although there was some work done in the OLPC security model that related to this:
http://dev.laptop.org/git?p=security;a=blob;f=bitfrost.txt
Not perfect, but it is a start in the right direction for a lot of these type of problems imho.
Actually, the simplest most elegant solution is to do something along the lines of what this individual spoke about: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/david_keith_s_surprising_ideas_on_climate_change.html
And note he mentions that this is TODAY technology, not something that might be around in 100 years from now. Additionally, he makes a good case that climate control will be something that we will want to do in the short term in just this type of scenario.
Dark matter and dark energy are as much "hacks" as "gravity" is; i.e. they all are names for phenomena that we observe in the universe except that we have some sort of an explanation for gravity, whereas the former two we have no (at least known to me) current consistent theories that can explain why there is unobserved extra mass in the observable universe and what is causing the observable universe to expand (accelerating the expansion). Note that both of these properties of the universe have been measured (observed).
Actually, there were no reserve chutes; after the "setup" chutes cut away, two chutes are supposed to open to orient the craft, and then after they cut away three deployment chutes pop which pull out and deploy the three main chutes. Due to the craft not having been set up correctly (where "correctly" is in reference to the conditions that the craft should be flying under at that point in the descent), the craft's landing chutes could not do their job, and the test is essentially void.
They mention that Orion uses the same basic chute system configuration as the Apollo craft did.
Oh for christ sake. Just tell Firefox to accept your certificate and get on with life. Come back with a real argument instead of whining about 5 extra clicks that you will do every time you change your certificate (which is never because you created it with an expiry date way the hell far in the future, right?).
For all of us that understand how the whole SSL system works(and I question this assertion sometimes, but I digress), we can click a few times, or *gasp* do it the RIGHT way and create our own CA Root cert, install that on FireFox, and sign our damn certificates the way we're supposed to. Or get a free cert from StartSSL. If you think that encryption will protect your data from packet sniffers, you're making the first mistake of security: getting fixated on a single attack vector which IMHO is more complex than some other attacks (including DNS poisoning now which REALLY needs proper authentication implemented on a wide-scale rather than any kind of privacy).
How will a browser alert a user that the site they are browsing to, www.example.com, that has been redirected to 111.111.111.111 instead of the real address 222.222.222.222? This occurs BEFORE a SSL handshake and so cannot be covered by an SSL authentication check. The site can have a certificate that is granted to www.exmple.com (which the browser will be redirected to once going to 111.111.111.111) and will have a valid, paid for, certificate.
I think you confuse "deadline" with "goal".
As an aside, there is a parallel between pictures on ID and encryption: A picture on an ID allows me to verify that you look exactly like the guy on the ID (for various definitions of "exactly"), and symmetric encryption allows me to be fairly certain no one is listening in on a communication (assuming protected keys, sufficient key size, etc). But neither allow me to KNOW who you are or who I am communicating with. In other words, both systems fail at authentication, which is, in the end, what passports are trying to provide, and many people think encryption provides.
Random checks can be overcome by redundancy in "bad guys". Random checks will make a single bad guy (who has everything to lose if he gets caught) think twice or choose some other method of attack. Increase the frequency of random checks to account for multiple redundant targets? Just scale to more "bad guys" at different locations and times to make it so that security how has to check everyone. See? Doesn't work.
I wonder how that number is affected when one considers that the government is more likely to be required to report these types of crimes whereas a private company is not (for the most part).
Privacy is fine, until you ask yourself who you are talking to. If you cannot validate that, then privacy has close to zero value (other than for anonymity, which is even MORE important to know who you're talking to in this case; imagine a scenario where a dissident posts online to a server they think is controlled by another dissident yet their government is actually controlling the server).
Encryption != Privacy by default. It is private communications ONLY with some party. Privacy implies you know/can verify that other party.
In fact, even without the DNS poisoning issue, it's STILL easier to get users to got a specific web page and dump their personal information into it (as is shown by "Phishing" attacks). In fact, I would bet that it's very unlikely that an average attack would be carried out via a wire-sniff method, purely because that requires a targeted attack which will require active attack methods. This is simply just a pain in the ass, and more attackers would rather the data come to them, and so phishing web sites were invented.
Of course, the real solution is not to mix SSL (or TLS) with x.509 authentication such that they can be used separately. :)
Prove it. Find 5 patents that are owned by "Big Oil". Also, define "Big Oil".
http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html
No, LTS means patch and update support for 5 years from the release date. And the bit about "paid support" is rubbish:
http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download
Please note that both LTS versions are freely available for download.
Why should learning be fun? So that kids want to learn?
Math is a particularly interesting instance of this, as it is the area I am currently studying. I see two parts to learning mathematics (this may be generalized to learning anything): 1) understanding and, 2) execution. The understanding part is where a good teacher (and perhaps teaching aids, such as software) makes the difference. This is what gives a student the mental framework to be able to do the math. I think that the execution, is incredibly specific to the student. Some students need to work hundreds of problems to be capable to solve that class of problem. Others might not need to work through any problems! Still others find it easier to audibly talk themselves through the solving process. So even if computers (software, really) can impact the first part of the process, the second part is still required. And guess what? It's the second part that requires the most important realization and skill: learning isn't fun nor easy, and it requires a lot of hard work.
Uploads are capped, not downloads.
I think he meant "unconceivable" state.
Yup, and I'll make a note not to assist you in any way when you're choking to death on some bit of food, for clearly, eating slowly and carefully so as to not cause the problem was not valued enough. That goes for all that moderated this as "Insightful"; this is much more a reflection on the moderators rather than the value of the comment.
That is a very sad world-view.
I think part of the problem is not so much the availability of "data" as it is the "speed" at which that "data" is being made available. For example, when perusing wikipedia, one can read numerous articles very quickly. However, the REAL comprehension portion comes after that, when you *think* about what you've read. I would argue that is what is missing, and this is due in part because of the speed at which "data" is being made available to us.
Mathematics is an excellent example of this. You can pick any topic in a math book and read it. Now, think you understand it? No? Read it a few more times. Ok, think you have it now? Good. Put the book away and wait a day. Then try to explain that topic to someone else. I guarantee that you will fail (if you've never seen the topic in question except for the previous day). Why is this? Because it requires time to work through problems and really understand a topic. For extra points, why is the identity "-1" so useful in mathematics?
Indeed, this is an important point; faxed signatures do one thing only: they provide evidence that someone saw the document and that there EXISTS an original signed document. Remember to keep those signed documents you fax, you might be asked to provided them in case of legal issues.
"firewall GUI" even. Damn preview, doesn't find my typos for me! ;)
Please refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Control_Message_Protocol for a more complete description of ICMP. Please note that that "ping" (or ICMP type 0 messages) are NOT "ICMP", and when you generally see a "Filter ICMP" in a firewire GUI, what it really does is filter ICMP type 0 packets, and not the rest of the core control messages that make IP work.
I'm sorry, I think you mistook "engineering" for "manufacturing". The first involves effort, problem solving and creative solutions to cramming X shit into 25% less space. The second is about reducing component size/quality/number to achieve a cost reducing for each unit built (and perhaps reduce the complexity of the unit being built and therefor reducing building costs).
No, sequestration will most likely be the ONLY real tool we have available to reverse the CO2 problem we've created, even if we decided right now to stop using all forms of carbon fuels. This sequestration process may not be the best way of proceeding, but if you believe the climate wingnuts, they're saying we're already probably eff'ed with the amount of C02 in the atmosphere now.
So it's not a question of coal/oil+sequestration or just coal+oil. The question is how the eff do we get the millions of tons of carbon that are changing the climate out of the atmosphere (assuming we actually don't like the way the climate is going)?