nano is the new pico, links is the new lynx, ssh is the new telnet, less is the new more, egrep is the new grep, sshfs is the new NFS, and ruby is the new perl. If you work with guys who still do things the old way, you're in a dinosaur park. Be careful not to go extinct with them.
Computer forensics is hard, expensive, and time-consuming. I would guess this is just a tool for cops to save cash in criminal investigations compared to hiring an expert, or at least to triage which systems need to be investigated by an expert.
Also, if your friends are IT staff and your online watercooler is slashdot.org, you may think everyone but the "dumb ones" knows how to encrypt a drive. But the reality is that the vast majority of criminals have never heard of Truecrypt.
I am actually surprised McCain didn't try to switfboat this election. He ran a very negative campaign, no doubt, but it seems he at least had the decency not to blast his fellow Senator with inflammatory false accusations in the final hours.
Given a specific dataset with a specific MD5 hash, you can create another dataset with the same hash in minimal time (a few minutes on a modern computer).
That isn't even remotely true. MD5 has been demonstrated to be easier to break than advertised, therefore it is wise to use better hashes. But when I say "better than advertised" I'm saying defeating a good hash is about as easy as any of us getting Angelina Jolie in the sack; but someone has discovered a trick that makes defeating MD5 about as easy as bagging Paris Hilton. For all practical purposes, none of us will achieve either, but Paris is still no Angelina Jolie...
As the only party to this thread who has posted useful information, as opposed to angry ranting, I think a third party may be able to infer something about our relative intellects.
Good day, sir. I hope you find a more constructive outlet for your frustrations than flaming strangers on the internet.
If a person has a bug which he can't fix, his next best course of action is to report it to the people who can. If that confuses you, you are a lost cause.
Actually, IT answers to management. And management wants to keep the cash cow part of the business working. Management is fine with your job being slower and harder so long as that significantly reduces your chances of destroying part of the business which is much more important than you are.
Sot it would seem you are forgetting who you work for.
I'm sorry, what? It communicates useful, actionable information to an appropriate audience. What don't you get? Or are you trying to be funny, and I missed it?
Nobody "expects" people to have to search forums to find the special trick you have to perform to make certain pieces of hardware work. If something doesn't work automatically, it's because there aren't enough human resources available to polish everything to a shine.
It's pretty silly of you to criticize people for bad design when in fact the problem is not having enough resources to fully implement what is actually a really good design.
Volunteer to fix the software yourself or submit bug reports so others can do so. Just don't whine. That doesn't help anything.
We switched fro twiki to DekiWiki and are mostly pleased. Deki has a rich-text editor (no wiki mark-up to learn). It also integrates with Active Directory and does other neat enterprisey things.
On the downside, Deki absolutely chokes if you try and cut-n-paste into it from other applications. I hope they fix that. If you switch to Deki, be prepared to fight with formatting a lot, including editing HTML directly to figure out why making one word bold makes the entire paragraph bold.
Considering mitochondria (IIRC) was a separate, self-sufficient single-celled organism before it developed its symbiotic relationship with cells, it seems fantastically unlikely that just such a structure would have developed independent off-world. And that's just one example. [IANAB]
And at any rate, the practical advantages of having more than one biosphere in the universe far outweigh any intellectual curiosity. One biosphere == a single point of failure for LIFE AS WE KNOW IT!
If life developed completely independently on Mars, it would be drastically different (on the cellular level) than anything we have here. If life is found on Mars which is cellularly similar to ours, we must conclude that one planet was the source and the other was "contaminated" via rocks or spacecraft or somesuch.
In short, sending a biosphere to Mars would not do anything to hamper our ability to prove or disprove that life developed independently on Earth and Mars.
And I doubt "environmentalists" (whatever that means) have the collective will and political power to interfere in NASA missions which don't directly harm particularly-cute animals. Outside of a few parts of California, fanatical environmentalist culture is pretty rare.
To your first point: Science stagnates if all meetings are via webex. You need scientists of different disciplines meeting at the bar to really advance human knowledge.
To your second point: it saddens me that everything is viewed through the lens of terrorism these days. Give it up. Terrorism will happen no matter what; we shouldn't design our lives around it.
You can test these theories like you test software. Consider an edge case.
Suppose there exist two of these "maximum" density black holes on a collision course. Sure, the "radiation pressure" may exceed gravity at some point for low-momentum gas particles, but that doesn't mean the pressure would be so much greater than gravity that it would halt an oncoming super black hole (with corresponding super momentum!).
It seems in such a scenario it would be possible to form a black hole with double the "maximum" mass.
For university students today, internet access falls between beer and food on the scale of necessities. If you have $100/month to spend, you would use the first $40 for Natural Light, the next $40 for access to Facebook, and the remaining $20 for Ramen Noodles.
The Ohio National Guard had no trouble gunning down students. Of course, the students didn't look and and speak just like them--they were "hippies." You know, them.
I assumed it was done to limit the load, ensuring they don't have scalability issues.
Has Google ever publicly announced the motivation behind the invite system? One would assume if it were a marketing gimmick they would be using it for their other services...
You're wrong. Reliable payload execution without requiring user interaction on a widely-deployed service are all conditions for a special, extra scary worm.
There are many "wormable" vulnerabilities, but most have limiting factors which make them far less dangerous than this one.
I'm an electronics hobbyist, and I mostly play with DC stuff... but occasionally I would really like to see the waveform of some components.
Is there a really cheap scope I could get to do this? Every time I have looked in the past they start at $200 or so. Are there any basic scopes for under $100?
Yes but Google releases everything as beta first, and limits the rate at which people start using things (see: gmail invites). I suspect this is the "beta" gPhone, which will be continuously refined for a while until they are ready with the real deal. That's when the ad blitz will start.
Exactly. We should establish a biosphere before we talk seriously about sending humans. At this point, a biosphere should be top priority.
I say we send a large, inflatable dome, some canisters of compressed nitrogen, oxygen, and CO2 gas, a hydroponic machine, some tree saplings, and a squirrel.
The gas will inflate the dome to near-earth atmospheric levels, and the squirrel/tree system will establish an O2/CO2 cycle.
Only once this system is proven stable should we consider sending humans (and more types of plants in case the humans tire of eating nuts).
Slashdot Mirror
Once we perfect the killer robot police, we won't need so many troops.
nano is the new pico, links is the new lynx, ssh is the new telnet, less is the new more, egrep is the new grep, sshfs is the new NFS, and ruby is the new perl. If you work with guys who still do things the old way, you're in a dinosaur park. Be careful not to go extinct with them.
I bet you had to think for a while to come up with a non-porn application of this trick.
Computer forensics is hard, expensive, and time-consuming. I would guess this is just a tool for cops to save cash in criminal investigations compared to hiring an expert, or at least to triage which systems need to be investigated by an expert.
Also, if your friends are IT staff and your online watercooler is slashdot.org, you may think everyone but the "dumb ones" knows how to encrypt a drive. But the reality is that the vast majority of criminals have never heard of Truecrypt.
I am actually surprised McCain didn't try to switfboat this election. He ran a very negative campaign, no doubt, but it seems he at least had the decency not to blast his fellow Senator with inflammatory false accusations in the final hours.
That isn't even remotely true. MD5 has been demonstrated to be easier to break than advertised, therefore it is wise to use better hashes. But when I say "better than advertised" I'm saying defeating a good hash is about as easy as any of us getting Angelina Jolie in the sack; but someone has discovered a trick that makes defeating MD5 about as easy as bagging Paris Hilton. For all practical purposes, none of us will achieve either, but Paris is still no Angelina Jolie...
As the only party to this thread who has posted useful information, as opposed to angry ranting, I think a third party may be able to infer something about our relative intellects.
Good day, sir. I hope you find a more constructive outlet for your frustrations than flaming strangers on the internet.
If a person has a bug which he can't fix, his next best course of action is to report it to the people who can. If that confuses you, you are a lost cause.
Actually, IT answers to management. And management wants to keep the cash cow part of the business working. Management is fine with your job being slower and harder so long as that significantly reduces your chances of destroying part of the business which is much more important than you are.
Sot it would seem you are forgetting who you work for.
I'm sorry, what? It communicates useful, actionable information to an appropriate audience. What don't you get? Or are you trying to be funny, and I missed it?
Nobody "expects" people to have to search forums to find the special trick you have to perform to make certain pieces of hardware work. If something doesn't work automatically, it's because there aren't enough human resources available to polish everything to a shine.
It's pretty silly of you to criticize people for bad design when in fact the problem is not having enough resources to fully implement what is actually a really good design.
Volunteer to fix the software yourself or submit bug reports so others can do so. Just don't whine. That doesn't help anything.
We switched fro twiki to DekiWiki and are mostly pleased. Deki has a rich-text editor (no wiki mark-up to learn). It also integrates with Active Directory and does other neat enterprisey things.
On the downside, Deki absolutely chokes if you try and cut-n-paste into it from other applications. I hope they fix that. If you switch to Deki, be prepared to fight with formatting a lot, including editing HTML directly to figure out why making one word bold makes the entire paragraph bold.
There is clearly no intelligent or even complex life on Mars. Even if it has some subterranean pond-scum, what is there to "fuck up?"
Considering mitochondria (IIRC) was a separate, self-sufficient single-celled organism before it developed its symbiotic relationship with cells, it seems fantastically unlikely that just such a structure would have developed independent off-world. And that's just one example. [IANAB]
And at any rate, the practical advantages of having more than one biosphere in the universe far outweigh any intellectual curiosity. One biosphere == a single point of failure for LIFE AS WE KNOW IT!
If life developed completely independently on Mars, it would be drastically different (on the cellular level) than anything we have here. If life is found on Mars which is cellularly similar to ours, we must conclude that one planet was the source and the other was "contaminated" via rocks or spacecraft or somesuch.
In short, sending a biosphere to Mars would not do anything to hamper our ability to prove or disprove that life developed independently on Earth and Mars.
And I doubt "environmentalists" (whatever that means) have the collective will and political power to interfere in NASA missions which don't directly harm particularly-cute animals. Outside of a few parts of California, fanatical environmentalist culture is pretty rare.
So just send an inflatable biosphere and some bacteria/moss/whatever, at let's see if that rock can still support life if it's given a little help.
Why wait? A stable biosphere outside of earth orbit would be a monument to humanity. Let's do it.
To your first point: Science stagnates if all meetings are via webex. You need scientists of different disciplines meeting at the bar to really advance human knowledge.
To your second point: it saddens me that everything is viewed through the lens of terrorism these days. Give it up. Terrorism will happen no matter what; we shouldn't design our lives around it.
You can test these theories like you test software. Consider an edge case.
Suppose there exist two of these "maximum" density black holes on a collision course. Sure, the "radiation pressure" may exceed gravity at some point for low-momentum gas particles, but that doesn't mean the pressure would be so much greater than gravity that it would halt an oncoming super black hole (with corresponding super momentum!).
It seems in such a scenario it would be possible to form a black hole with double the "maximum" mass.
For university students today, internet access falls between beer and food on the scale of necessities. If you have $100/month to spend, you would use the first $40 for Natural Light, the next $40 for access to Facebook, and the remaining $20 for Ramen Noodles.
The Ohio National Guard had no trouble gunning down students. Of course, the students didn't look and and speak just like them--they were "hippies." You know, them.
I assumed it was done to limit the load, ensuring they don't have scalability issues.
Has Google ever publicly announced the motivation behind the invite system? One would assume if it were a marketing gimmick they would be using it for their other services...
You're wrong. Reliable payload execution without requiring user interaction on a widely-deployed service are all conditions for a special, extra scary worm.
There are many "wormable" vulnerabilities, but most have limiting factors which make them far less dangerous than this one.
I'm an electronics hobbyist, and I mostly play with DC stuff... but occasionally I would really like to see the waveform of some components.
Is there a really cheap scope I could get to do this? Every time I have looked in the past they start at $200 or so. Are there any basic scopes for under $100?
Yes but Google releases everything as beta first, and limits the rate at which people start using things (see: gmail invites). I suspect this is the "beta" gPhone, which will be continuously refined for a while until they are ready with the real deal. That's when the ad blitz will start.
Exactly. We should establish a biosphere before we talk seriously about sending humans. At this point, a biosphere should be top priority.
I say we send a large, inflatable dome, some canisters of compressed nitrogen, oxygen, and CO2 gas, a hydroponic machine, some tree saplings, and a squirrel.
The gas will inflate the dome to near-earth atmospheric levels, and the squirrel/tree system will establish an O2/CO2 cycle.
Only once this system is proven stable should we consider sending humans (and more types of plants in case the humans tire of eating nuts).