No, you're not paying attention. I'm not trying to crack your code. I'm trying to make the bolt useless. I send a wrong code once a minute. Your bolt locks itself up for 20 minutes, not accepting *any* input. 20 minutes of uselessness. I carry on doing that and you've never got control of your bolt, because it's continually locked up. The attack isn't that I get control of the bolt, it's that you never have control of it.
Since when was a used airplane a controlled environment? All I have to do is leave my attacking device (hell, 10 of them) stuffed down the side of various seats, in the backs of luggage compartments, wherever. I'm sending a code once a minute. Sending the code takes me maybe a millisecond. So 99.998% of the time, my transmitter's silent. How are you planning on locating it?
For that matter, what prevents me from sitting at the airport perimeter with a significantly stronger transmitter and disabling your bolts from there? I'm still 99.998% silent, and I can change my position every so often to avoid you finding me.
Seriously, when I was 10, it was easy to tell kids, "Oh, to prevent global warming, don't use Styrofoam", "Oh, recycle!", and "Save the rainforests!". This stuff is brainwashing kids who are so young that they can't form their own opinions. Schools shove their own agenda down the kids' throats until they believe all these crazy theories (especially global warming) which have no merit based upon anything that's going on and (in the case of global warming) has even been proven incorrect in several parts of the world, which have had the lowest temperatures of all time. Obviously global warming's not happening; I'm sick of people teaching theories when there's no proof. Luckily, I've learned the truth, ten years after being brainwashed.
It's cost me 5 minutes to correct this gibberish. Wasted time, perhaps, considering that all I've ended up with is more grammatically correct gibberish. At least I now know two things I didn't before:
a) what kind of person believes global warming isn't happening
b) how that idiot got re-elected
This struck me on reading it, too. The only thing I could come up with is that maybe the rewritable discs are less durable than write-once discs.
Re:In a comparison, Ruby suffers for one big reaso
on
Exploring Active Record
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I've recently been writing a project with Rails, using MySQL as the backend. Supporting UTF-8 has been no problem at all. UCS-2 support may well be lacking, but it's certainly not like you can't support people with non-ASCII alphabets.
The place where my server's colocated charges me EUR0.65/GByte, and I'm pretty sure that this is not all that cheap (but this is irrelevant for the amount of bandwidth I use).
Perhaps of more relevance, Apollo 15 actually filmed dropping a feather and a hammer on the moon. With no (OK, very, very little) atmosphere, they hit at the same time.
I'm not saying the other guy's right, but, er, you're revealing your ignorance a bit....it's java.lang.String...it can dynamically grow and shrink.
No it can't, it's immutable. Strings can only create new objects which have grown or shrunk. Admittedly, the optimised implementation uses the same backing array for the new String, but it's still a new String. A StringBuffer (which in my books is another string class) can dynamically grow and shrink. In 5.0/1.5 there's now also StringBuilder.
Sure. I'm actually responsible for our trading API and we have several customers running apps following a bunch of stocks and buying, selling automatically. Some exchanges have rules that when there's been a certain amount of volatility on a particular day, the automatic trading systems get disconnected.
One common pattern for automatic trading would be arbitrage. You have a stock listed on two (or more) different markets (one in the US, one in Europe for example). There's nothing stopping you from buying on the one market and selling on the other. If the prices on the one market differ enough from the prices on the other, you buy at the cheaper price and sell at the higher price. There's a bit more detail to it than this (taking into account fees, what happens if you manage to execute one trade but not the other, currency risk, etc.), but you can see it's pretty easy to have an automated system doing this.
My day job is writing trading software. You're right that these confirmation boxes aren't the answer, but they do serve the purpose that, if someone enters an order like this, clicks the box and then later starts blaming anyone/everyone for the mistake, we can point out that the software did warn him/her. It wasn't our (the software's) fault in the first place, but having the dialog there enables us to demonstrate this a little more easily.
Of course, we also limit orders to various configurable values (based on order volume, account value, absolute size, etc.) both at the client and on the server. Xetra, the German electronic exchange (we're based in Germany) also have something called a "volatility interruption". If executing a given order would result in the price moving by more than 5% from the last price, the stock enters a 5-minute cooling-off period. During this time, the exchange calls the parties involved and asks "Er, were you sure about this?". Seems like the Tokyo exchange could do with this.
The delays and waiting lists are a disaster, agreed. *But*:
- Everyone has health care
- It costs much less than a lot of other health care systems
I'm English, but live in Germany. Everyone has health care here and waiting lists are more-or-less unheard-of, but for that privilege, everyone's paying about 13% of their gross salary.
I'm not saying the English system is great, but it certainly isn't a disaster as a whole - all health-care is a compromise between cost and quality of service. Germany's towards the high cost and pretty good quality of service end (I imagine some Scandinavian countries go further in that direction). England's low cost and pretty shitty service. The US has such high cost that bucketloads of people can't afford the healthcare - which, irrespective of the quality of service for those with healthcare, seems like a worse compromise for their society as a whole than either the English or German systems.
I really wish the US government would take our money ($10 BILLION per year) against our will to fund an organization to tell us what to think.
Remind me how much of your money per *month* is being taken (perhaps not against *your* will, but certainly against the will of a lot of other Americans) to tell the Iraqis what to think?
At least six times as much per year, and you don't even get high-quality ad-free TV for it.
Next time, if BBC News is "crawling", please look at your own link. BBC News is about as good as Google at staying up the whole time. A couple of extra visitors from SlashDot will get lost in the underflow.
Define "use". If you use the code internally in your company, you can do what you want with it, including combining it with proprietary code, making changes that you don't distribute, etc. Only once you distribute the code to someone else do you have to abide by the GPL's provisions that said someone else has a right to get a copy of the source (including your modifications).
Nope, NASA's statements and justifications are definitely NOT "internally consistent". NASA administration is on record with statements that:
I disagree, but I doubt we're going to agree.
1. A Hubble servicing mission is too risky [despite having done no formal risk analysis]
Too risky in the sense that there'd be no chance of a rescue. You don't need to do a formal risk analysis to say that. There are risks which are the same on every launch. One of those risks is the risk of what happened to Columbia. Dealing with that risk involves being able to run a rescue mission. Going to Hubble prevents you doing that.
2. They aren't necessarily going to follow all recommendations of the committee report
I've not seen them say that, but assuming it's true, they've nonetheless decided that they *are* going to follow the rescue recommendation. Which means they can only do missions to the ISS.
Their justification is that going to Hubble would imply not being able to run a rescue mission and that the Columbia report says they should be able to run such a rescue mission. (Presumably, they could think about running such a rescue mission if they actually got a second shuttle standing by on 2 or 3 day notice but, for example, they only have one vehicle assembly building. Costs would probably also be prohibitive.)
Their justification might suck, hard, but it's still internally consistent - the risks (or lack thereof) of going to Hubble are irrelevant if you're determined to follow the recommendation that post-Columbia missions be rescueable and are unable to provide a second shuttle on 2 or 3 day notice.
They didn't consider the possibility of sending up a servicing shuttle, checking it while it's in an orbit where they could still reach the ISS, then continuing to Hubble only once they'd checked it, aborting to the ISS instead if a problem was found. Maybe there are reasons this is plain Not Possible (I can certainly imagine it'd be a complex mission - EVA before a large orbital manoeveur and so forth), but I think this is about the only way they could stay within the Columbia report guidelines and still service Hubble.
You could doubtless find astronauts willing to service Hubble whatever the risks, but by doing so, you'd be stepping outside the guidelines set down by the Columbia report. Then some problem happens on the service mission and you have "NASA risking lives of astronauts, ignoring things it's been told to do". I personally think it'd be worth risking seeing those reports in the press, but the people at NASA evidently think otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you're not paying attention. I'm not trying to crack your code. I'm trying to make the bolt useless. I send a wrong code once a minute. Your bolt locks itself up for 20 minutes, not accepting *any* input. 20 minutes of uselessness. I carry on doing that and you've never got control of your bolt, because it's continually locked up. The attack isn't that I get control of the bolt, it's that you never have control of it.
Since when was a used airplane a controlled environment? All I have to do is leave my attacking device (hell, 10 of them) stuffed down the side of various seats, in the backs of luggage compartments, wherever. I'm sending a code once a minute. Sending the code takes me maybe a millisecond. So 99.998% of the time, my transmitter's silent. How are you planning on locating it?
For that matter, what prevents me from sitting at the airport perimeter with a significantly stronger transmitter and disabling your bolts from there? I'm still 99.998% silent, and I can change my position every so often to avoid you finding me.
If you give it a bad key, it locks up for, say, an hour, ten minutes, whatever, ignoring all input.
....
How would you attack this?
Send a bad key once a minute. One useless bolt.
In fact, if you go there it autoloads and plays,
Yes.
so you get counted toward the total.
No. Only purchases are counted.
How your comment should look:
It's cost me 5 minutes to correct this gibberish. Wasted time, perhaps, considering that all I've ended up with is more grammatically correct gibberish. At least I now know two things I didn't before: a) what kind of person believes global warming isn't happening b) how that idiot got re-electedThis struck me on reading it, too. The only thing I could come up with is that maybe the rewritable discs are less durable than write-once discs.
I've recently been writing a project with Rails, using MySQL as the backend. Supporting UTF-8 has been no problem at all. UCS-2 support may well be lacking, but it's certainly not like you can't support people with non-ASCII alphabets.
The place where my server's colocated charges me EUR0.65/GByte, and I'm pretty sure that this is not all that cheap (but this is irrelevant for the amount of bandwidth I use).
They've implemented the long awaited pussy-eating feature!
Perhaps of more relevance, Apollo 15 actually filmed dropping a feather and a hammer on the moon. With no (OK, very, very little) atmosphere, they hit at the same time.
Sure, but it only takes something as simple as...
...to get down to the fact that it's a new object. This difference can crop up pretty easily when working with Strings...
x="foo";
y=x;
y+="bar";
I'm not saying the other guy's right, but, er, you're revealing your ignorance a bit. ...it's java.lang.String...it can dynamically grow and shrink.
No it can't, it's immutable. Strings can only create new objects which have grown or shrunk. Admittedly, the optimised implementation uses the same backing array for the new String, but it's still a new String. A StringBuffer (which in my books is another string class) can dynamically grow and shrink. In 5.0/1.5 there's now also StringBuilder.
It's a fairly recognizable religious symbol!
Not really. It was originally the Swiss flag, inverted. The crystal's probably a good idea just to get rid of this misconception.
Sure. I'm actually responsible for our trading API and we have several customers running apps following a bunch of stocks and buying, selling automatically. Some exchanges have rules that when there's been a certain amount of volatility on a particular day, the automatic trading systems get disconnected.
One common pattern for automatic trading would be arbitrage. You have a stock listed on two (or more) different markets (one in the US, one in Europe for example). There's nothing stopping you from buying on the one market and selling on the other. If the prices on the one market differ enough from the prices on the other, you buy at the cheaper price and sell at the higher price. There's a bit more detail to it than this (taking into account fees, what happens if you manage to execute one trade but not the other, currency risk, etc.), but you can see it's pretty easy to have an automated system doing this.
My day job is writing trading software. You're right that these confirmation boxes aren't the answer, but they do serve the purpose that, if someone enters an order like this, clicks the box and then later starts blaming anyone/everyone for the mistake, we can point out that the software did warn him/her. It wasn't our (the software's) fault in the first place, but having the dialog there enables us to demonstrate this a little more easily.
Of course, we also limit orders to various configurable values (based on order volume, account value, absolute size, etc.) both at the client and on the server. Xetra, the German electronic exchange (we're based in Germany) also have something called a "volatility interruption". If executing a given order would result in the price moving by more than 5% from the last price, the stock enters a 5-minute cooling-off period. During this time, the exchange calls the parties involved and asks "Er, were you sure about this?". Seems like the Tokyo exchange could do with this.
As long as you're posting grammar tips in your sig, it's "betas", not "beta's". "Beta's" would be the abbreviation for "beta is".
The delays and waiting lists are a disaster, agreed. *But*:
- Everyone has health care
- It costs much less than a lot of other health care systems
I'm English, but live in Germany. Everyone has health care here and waiting lists are more-or-less unheard-of, but for that privilege, everyone's paying about 13% of their gross salary.
I'm not saying the English system is great, but it certainly isn't a disaster as a whole - all health-care is a compromise between cost and quality of service. Germany's towards the high cost and pretty good quality of service end (I imagine some Scandinavian countries go further in that direction). England's low cost and pretty shitty service. The US has such high cost that bucketloads of people can't afford the healthcare - which, irrespective of the quality of service for those with healthcare, seems like a worse compromise for their society as a whole than either the English or German systems.
365 divided by 1000 is 0.365, though you're right with about 9 hours.
I really wish the US government would take our money ($10 BILLION per year) against our will to fund an organization to tell us what to think.
Remind me how much of your money per *month* is being taken (perhaps not against *your* will, but certainly against the will of a lot of other Americans) to tell the Iraqis what to think?
At least six times as much per year, and you don't even get high-quality ad-free TV for it.
Next time, if BBC News is "crawling", please look at your own link. BBC News is about as good as Google at staying up the whole time. A couple of extra visitors from SlashDot will get lost in the underflow.
Is git so fundamentally different from every other SCM out there...
No. A lot of git's concepts are taken from monotone. It's basically monotone without the sanity-checking and without the SCM built on top of it.
Define "use". If you use the code internally in your company, you can do what you want with it, including combining it with proprietary code, making changes that you don't distribute, etc. Only once you distribute the code to someone else do you have to abide by the GPL's provisions that said someone else has a right to get a copy of the source (including your modifications).
Slashdot is a hobby?
Nope, NASA's statements and justifications are definitely NOT "internally consistent". NASA administration is on record with statements that:
I disagree, but I doubt we're going to agree.
1. A Hubble servicing mission is too risky [despite having done no formal risk analysis]
Too risky in the sense that there'd be no chance of a rescue. You don't need to do a formal risk analysis to say that. There are risks which are the same on every launch. One of those risks is the risk of what happened to Columbia. Dealing with that risk involves being able to run a rescue mission. Going to Hubble prevents you doing that.
2. They aren't necessarily going to follow all recommendations of the committee report
I've not seen them say that, but assuming it's true, they've nonetheless decided that they *are* going to follow the rescue recommendation. Which means they can only do missions to the ISS.
Their justification is that going to Hubble would imply not being able to run a rescue mission and that the Columbia report says they should be able to run such a rescue mission. (Presumably, they could think about running such a rescue mission if they actually got a second shuttle standing by on 2 or 3 day notice but, for example, they only have one vehicle assembly building. Costs would probably also be prohibitive.)
Their justification might suck, hard, but it's still internally consistent - the risks (or lack thereof) of going to Hubble are irrelevant if you're determined to follow the recommendation that post-Columbia missions be rescueable and are unable to provide a second shuttle on 2 or 3 day notice.
They didn't consider the possibility of sending up a servicing shuttle, checking it while it's in an orbit where they could still reach the ISS, then continuing to Hubble only once they'd checked it, aborting to the ISS instead if a problem was found. Maybe there are reasons this is plain Not Possible (I can certainly imagine it'd be a complex mission - EVA before a large orbital manoeveur and so forth), but I think this is about the only way they could stay within the Columbia report guidelines and still service Hubble.
You could doubtless find astronauts willing to service Hubble whatever the risks, but by doing so, you'd be stepping outside the guidelines set down by the Columbia report. Then some problem happens on the service mission and you have "NASA risking lives of astronauts, ignoring things it's been told to do". I personally think it'd be worth risking seeing those reports in the press, but the people at NASA evidently think otherwise.