Just to be clear, the first two of these things are (relatively) easy because the libraries that perform the functions are already written. Actually writing an XML parser is unnecessarily of tricky because it requires schema understanding (in ... is there a text element between foo and bar?). Writing a validator is tricky because validation is a hard problem.
Perhaps they think it is abstractly a bad idea but that it is a bad idea that nobody alive today will have to cope with... such thinking seems popular these days.
Re:Ruby could be the answer as well
on
Open Source Math
·
· Score: 1
The the construction you are describing is a closure; indeed they rock and show up in several functional languages. The power of the abstraction (more than just iterators) was well explored in the "Lambda the ultimate..." papers in
Scheme in the 1970s. They may well included in Java 1.7 and a
prototype is even available (examples here and here).
.
That entirely due to the fact that there are 100000x more retards running red lights than reckless assholes trying to set speed reckords. Neither of the numbers are precise but, back of an envelope-wise, this means that behavior of the speeding asshole is about 1000x more dangerous.
Also of note, as there is no DRM you can still listen to those old fragile black plastic circular discs. Bet you won't be able to say the same thing about iTunes in 40 years.
1. A MIME or IE/Outlook hole certainly helps but do not forget the bone-head-user vector.
2.Virus detection is a little bit trickier that one might read here. There are encrypting and polymorphi viruses that make life difficult. In the end, even though it may be theoretically to develop an algorithm (not a simple signature) to detect an instance of a new virus, doing so may take some time for the AV folks and executing might be computationally too expensive for the ISP.
Given the amount of thought that seems to have gone into this, what do you want to bet that they forgot the "if (attacker == self) return;" clause? As such how about SCO versus SCO and leave the backbone out of it?
Re:XML frees us from Perl
on
XML and Perl
·
· Score: 1
The whole point of XML is to free us from having to do the kinds of things Perl is meant for. Absent free-form text munging, Perl really has no advantage over other languages. At the same time, it has real deficits for people who need to know they have solved a problem correctly and completely.
I essentially agree with you but one still has the problem of merging a non-xml document into xml form. Here perl can be fairly useful.
At least one reasonable option is taking a part time job as a sysadmin at the college. This gives you the change to learn quite a lot about being a sysadmin and helps cut down on tuition.
Warning to Linux non-experts: if you want to try this yourself, note that running rm -rf/* will delete any file owned by the person who runs the command.
Actually, it will delete any file or directory for which the uid running the command has permission to delete and can find (not the same as owning the file)
One time pads are provably secure. Proof (as always) hold with respect to a collection of assumptions. In this case the assumptions include the existence of a publically readable source of random bits that is too copious to be stored. Other "provably secure" systems exist (e.g. Cramer- Shoup which assumes the Decision Diffie-Hellman assumption).
Do you really thing (sic) the Journal of Tetrahedrional Chemisty (or whatever that reference was to in the article) really costs $14000 to print up??? Do you really think it was printed on Gold Leaf by monks slaving
over each and every word?
Do you really think that the authors of the
Journal of Tetrahedrional Chemistry make any money
at all or this is just extortion?
The issue is that technology has made the distribution of information suffiently easy that the people who previously made money thusly can no longer justify such ludicrously high rates. It's called progress.
Generally, you do not want to enable vote buying. A system that allows a user to display his vote after having voted, enables vote buying and eliminates the benefits of anonymity.
I've long wanted to patent Krebs Cycle. With the new biotech patents it might be possible. The only downside is that most of the folks to whom I deny licenses are probably anaerobic to begin with.
Security is always a matter of economics. For nuclear warheads, the cost of bypassing tamper responsive hardware should be (generally is) greater than the cost of building the warhead in the first place (so that stealing one would just be dumb).
For laptops, it should be the case (and on some is) that the cost of deleting the hardware passwords (mother board and disk drive) is greater than the value of the laptop. If you want laptop returned, there should be an "anonymous return for reward message" displayed on the password splash screen (anonymous to encourage return and to disallow bargaining by the thief).
Slashdot Mirror
Just to be clear, the first two of these things are (relatively) easy because the libraries that perform the functions are already written. Actually writing an XML parser is unnecessarily of tricky because it requires schema understanding (in ... is there a text element between foo and bar?). Writing a validator is tricky because validation is a hard problem.
Perhaps they think it is abstractly a bad idea but that it is a bad idea that nobody alive today will have to cope with... such thinking seems popular these days.
The the construction you are describing is a closure; indeed they rock and show up in several functional languages. The power of the abstraction (more than just iterators) was well explored in the "Lambda the ultimate..." papers in Scheme in the 1970s. They may well included in Java 1.7 and a prototype is even available (examples here and here). .
That entirely due to the fact that there are 100000x more retards running red lights than reckless assholes trying to set speed reckords. Neither of the numbers are precise but, back of an envelope-wise, this means that behavior of the speeding asshole is about 1000x more dangerous.
Also of note, as there is no DRM you can still listen to those old fragile black plastic circular discs. Bet you won't be able to say the same thing about iTunes in 40 years.
> separates the programmer from the bare metal of the machine,
Keeping in mind that these days bare metal includes speculative and out of order execution, instruction rewriting, parallelism, vectors,...
Well written XML, yes. MS Office in XML A89172BC098123...
1. A MIME or IE/Outlook hole certainly helps but do not forget the bone-head-user vector.
2.Virus detection is a little bit trickier that one might read here. There are encrypting and polymorphi viruses that make life difficult. In the end, even though it may be theoretically to develop an algorithm (not a simple signature) to detect an instance of a new virus, doing so may take some time for the AV folks and executing might be computationally too expensive for the ISP.
Given the amount of thought that seems to have gone into this, what do you want to bet that they forgot the "if (attacker == self) return;" clause? As such how about SCO versus SCO and leave the backbone out of it?
It's "post content" like "post modern"
The whole point of XML is to free us from having to do the kinds of things Perl is meant for. Absent free-form text munging, Perl really has no advantage over other languages. At the same time, it has real deficits for people who need to know they have solved a problem correctly and completely.
I essentially agree with you but one still has the problem of merging a non-xml document into xml form. Here perl can be fairly useful.
In the same way that we're _still_ok because we can convert our gif's to png's, our mp3's to ogg's and our lzw.a to gzip.a?
At least one reasonable option is taking a part time job as a sysadmin at the college. This gives you the change to learn quite a lot about being a sysadmin and helps cut down on tuition.
Actually, it will delete any file or directory for which the uid running the command has permission to delete and can find (not the same as owning the file)
... and the "*" is not necessary
... and "Linux non-experts"?
One time pads are provably secure. Proof (as always) hold with respect to a collection of assumptions. In this case the assumptions include the existence of a publically readable source of random bits that is too copious to be stored. Other "provably secure" systems exist (e.g. Cramer- Shoup which assumes the Decision Diffie-Hellman assumption).
Do you really thing (sic) the Journal of Tetrahedrional Chemisty (or whatever that reference was to in the article) really costs $14000 to print up??? Do you really think it was printed on Gold Leaf by monks slaving over each and every word?
Do you really think that the authors of the Journal of Tetrahedrional Chemistry make any money at all or this is just extortion?
The issue is that technology has made the distribution of information suffiently easy that the people who previously made money thusly can no longer justify such ludicrously high rates. It's called progress.
Generally, you do not want to enable vote buying. A system that allows a user to display his vote after having voted, enables vote buying and eliminates the benefits of anonymity.
I've long wanted to patent Krebs Cycle. With the new biotech patents it might be possible. The only downside is that most of the folks to whom I deny licenses are probably anaerobic to begin with.
Does anybody know if they traced the poster by usenet logs or by watermarking their images?
(watermarking is hiding should-be-but-isn't- difficult-to-remove tagging information in the image itself)
Security is always a matter of economics. For nuclear warheads, the cost of bypassing tamper responsive hardware should be (generally is) greater than the cost of building the warhead in the first place (so that stealing one would just be dumb).
For laptops, it should be the case (and on some is) that the cost of deleting the hardware passwords (mother board and disk drive) is greater than the value of the laptop. If you want laptop returned, there should be an "anonymous return for reward message" displayed on the password splash screen (anonymous to encourage return and to disallow bargaining by the thief).
http://bastille-linux.sourceforge.net/
http://dwheeler.com/ secure-programs/Secure-Programs-HOWTO.html
http://i30www.ira.uka.de/SawMill/index. html
http://immunix.org/
http://medusa.fornax.sk/
http://oss.sgi.com/projects/ob1/index.ht ml
http://soledad.cs.ucdavis.edu/
http://users.ox.ac.uk /~mbeattie/linux/ANNOUNCE.mac30-20000214
http://www.data.slu.se/bifrost/index.en .htm
http://www.guug.de/~winni/posix.1e/
http://www.lids.org/
http://www.rsbac.de/rsbac/
http:// www.securecomputing.com/archive/press/2000/nsa_faq _secure_linux.html
http://www.trinix.org
Or at the higher level (shell script virus):
http://www.math.umn.edu/~ riordan/security/unix_virus.htmlDidn't they also threaten to boycott
Sesame Streem (sp?) unless it was made
clear that Ernie and Bert are not "living
in sin"?