Nope. Sorry, but nope. If that was the case, the OWASP Top 10 wouldn't exist, a collection of 10 commonly made and reliably existing flaws in any piece of online application.
Anyone trying to get in would just have to try that top 10 and reliably get in. It's already bad enough with standard libs that are hardened against exactly those common problems, with everyone reinventing the wheel, we could get into any place with the standard toolbox.
I'm a white hat. I used to write code for a living, but that was a fairly long time ago. The code I write today is more something I whip together quickly to get shit done I need for my work. Secure? Please. It works. It probably fails as soon as any edge case comes along, let alone someone who wants it to fail.
Well, starting with going up high enough to actually see it would be a start. I read the article. Did you? I'll quote the important part:
"On the morning of the launch, Hughes will heat about 70 gallons of water in a stainless steel tank and then blast off between 2 p.m. and 3 p.m. He plans to go about a mile — reaching an altitude of about 1,800 feet — before pulling two parachutes."
An altitude of 1,800 feet (about 550 Meters) is something you can not only reach far easier (and also safer) than with a rocket, it is also BY FAR not high enough to see whether the Earth is flat or round.
If he designed a test that would actually test his hypothesis, I'd applaud him. But the test fails at this, even if it succeeds. It cannot prove a flat or round earth.
If going up for a mile was enough to see whether the earth is flat or round, anyone climbing a mountain would be able to tell you. Anyone who ever boarded a plane could tell you. And a lot of people doing parachuting or hanggliding or riding in hot air balloons would be able to tell you exactly this.
It's absolutely commendable that he wants to prove his hypothesis, but to do this his test has to be applicable to the question.
Orbital velocity at ground level on earth is about 8km/s. A mile or ten up it's still not really in any relevant way different. 8km/s is about 17,800 mph.
To give you an idea what kind of force would push against this rocket: Hurricane Irma, that breeze a few people down in Florida Keys might remember, had a top speed of 185mph.
In other words, take what Irma did and multiply by 100.
This is basically the problem. The test does not qualify as a test for the underlying hypothesis. I cannot challenge the existence of the American continent by sailing off the coast of Spain for a few 100 miles, saying that I didn't see no America and consider that proof for its non-existence.
If you want to go up a mile, that can be done WAY easier with WAY less effort and also cheaper. Get a hot air balloon, fire it up, glide upwards. Not only do you get there for a fraction of the cost, but also for a lot longer than a steam powered rocket would.
So a few of his early rockets flew short, cut the man some slack. He aimed at the moon, it's due to crappy slave work when they can't fly past London. You get what you pay, ya know...
Slashdot Mirror
It's just un-American to not make a buck out of someone else's misery of foolishness!
Nope. Sorry, but nope. If that was the case, the OWASP Top 10 wouldn't exist, a collection of 10 commonly made and reliably existing flaws in any piece of online application.
Anyone trying to get in would just have to try that top 10 and reliably get in. It's already bad enough with standard libs that are hardened against exactly those common problems, with everyone reinventing the wheel, we could get into any place with the standard toolbox.
Simply not true.
I'm a white hat. I used to write code for a living, but that was a fairly long time ago. The code I write today is more something I whip together quickly to get shit done I need for my work. Secure? Please. It works. It probably fails as soon as any edge case comes along, let alone someone who wants it to fail.
I've seen both.
In production code.
Of companies that handle very sensitive user data.
There are 3 places you should not work at if you want to sleep well at night: The sausage factory, government and security.
You really think security is allowed in the production process before it's too late to cause deadlines to fall?
Found the guy who never worked for large corporations.
Well, starting with going up high enough to actually see it would be a start. I read the article. Did you? I'll quote the important part:
"On the morning of the launch, Hughes will heat about 70 gallons of water in a stainless steel tank and then blast off between 2 p.m. and 3 p.m. He plans to go about a mile — reaching an altitude of about 1,800 feet — before pulling two parachutes."
An altitude of 1,800 feet (about 550 Meters) is something you can not only reach far easier (and also safer) than with a rocket, it is also BY FAR not high enough to see whether the Earth is flat or round.
Odd. I can buy tickets for a trip to Antarctica. They're not exactly cheap, but available.
I guess there's few repeat offenders.
Well, maybe in India.
I don't know if I wanna see him. At least not in the "after" shots.
But shouldn't a flat earth allow you to see all stars anywhere on the disc?
No, he's not.
If he designed a test that would actually test his hypothesis, I'd applaud him. But the test fails at this, even if it succeeds. It cannot prove a flat or round earth.
If going up for a mile was enough to see whether the earth is flat or round, anyone climbing a mountain would be able to tell you. Anyone who ever boarded a plane could tell you. And a lot of people doing parachuting or hanggliding or riding in hot air balloons would be able to tell you exactly this.
It's absolutely commendable that he wants to prove his hypothesis, but to do this his test has to be applicable to the question.
Airlines are working with NASA now? Ain't it enough that they spray chemtrails all over us?
He could for example design a test that actually test what he wants to test.
Fairly unlikely to happen.
Orbital velocity at ground level on earth is about 8km/s. A mile or ten up it's still not really in any relevant way different. 8km/s is about 17,800 mph.
To give you an idea what kind of force would push against this rocket: Hurricane Irma, that breeze a few people down in Florida Keys might remember, had a top speed of 185mph.
In other words, take what Irma did and multiply by 100.
This is basically the problem. The test does not qualify as a test for the underlying hypothesis. I cannot challenge the existence of the American continent by sailing off the coast of Spain for a few 100 miles, saying that I didn't see no America and consider that proof for its non-existence.
If you want to go up a mile, that can be done WAY easier with WAY less effort and also cheaper. Get a hot air balloon, fire it up, glide upwards. Not only do you get there for a fraction of the cost, but also for a lot longer than a steam powered rocket would.
Yeah, and it ain't gravity that pulls you down, it's weight.
Please, every time I have to talk to one of those flatheads my head hurts.
Illegal by what jurisdiction?
The FAA now controls what's at the South Pole?
It's THE LAW!
The difference between those laws and the ones that we make is that you can't break those, not even with a lot of money.
Oh c'mon, you have TOR, you have VPN, either watch people kick the bucket or throw your geek card into the shredder provided.
But at least I can look far enough to see the stars. So they're ... how close again? Must be closer than the next large city over.
Light gets tired if it has to go long distance and thus "falls down".
I shit you not, that's what I get to hear when I offer similar pictures.
So a few of his early rockets flew short, cut the man some slack. He aimed at the moon, it's due to crappy slave work when they can't fly past London. You get what you pay, ya know...
Science is not a religion. It will apply to you, whether you believe in it or not.
Physics is not just a good idea. It's the law. And unlike man (or god) made laws, you cannot break them.