i have a degree emphasizing mathematics... i'm familiar with the term's ubiquity. in this case i think it masks what is really trying to be conveyed.
imagine being an ice salesman... would you ever claim that your best selling ice was "hot"? it's not that the value can be as large as you could ask for, it's that it can exist for meaningfully large values. the "arbitrarily large" value is not arbitrary... just like the "hot" ice isn't hot.
there are less vague, more terse ways to convey the same thing.
we just rewrote a tree (that runs in a high traffic serving environment) this month at work because it wasn't streamlined just right to take full advantage of the underlying architecture. No one will write a paper about it.
because you didn't want to admit that you stored the tree as folders and files on a FAT32 disk on windows 98?
"is unbounded" or "can be arbitrarily large"... my point is there is a simpler way to say it, making their choice to use more complicated expression arbitrarily more complicated.
exactly... but it's just as arbitrary that you suggested a factor of 10, and not a factor of 100.
their point isn't that it's arbitrarily large, it's that it exists at all, and can be large enough to be meaningful. it's not arbitrary to be meaningful.
see, you did it again... it's not arbitrarily far just because it's relative. being "far" from something is already implying relativity to something else. in what other ways can being far from something be arbitrary?
is anything with potential to happen ever not arbitrary in it's potential? it seem like they arbitrarily used the word arbitrarily.
Re:NASA shutting down manned exploration doesn't h
on
The Real Science Gap
·
· Score: 1
The point is that there's no more use in day trips to the moon.
it sure would cure the boredom i'm feeling from reading your concessionary ramblings. the point isn't whether or not there is a current use, or a use for something similar but less complicated (no pesky humans with free will), THE POINT is that there is no hope, in your case, for a use in day trips to the moon.
no judgments about whether that matters.
Re:NASA shutting down manned exploration doesn't h
on
The Real Science Gap
·
· Score: 1
well, that's pretty much my point... the government SHOULD be able to last longer than the private sector. when they quit, hope is lost.
Re:NASA shutting down manned exploration doesn't h
on
The Real Science Gap
·
· Score: 1
you just heard me complain... keep living in a bubble.
eventually we'll have to leave the planet if we are to continue as a species. that is a use of manned exploration.
NASA shutting down manned exploration doesn't help
on
The Real Science Gap
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
when the government can't justify continuing it's own historically most prestigious scientific research program, there isn't much hope for the private sector.
well, boggle no more. i'll enlighten you. the US debt is measured in trillions of US dollars... the same US dollars that are imaginatively created with nothing backing them other than the trust of the government... the same trust as the original debt was backed by. so all the US government has to do to retire the debt is to claim that it is paid. with fiat currency, the government never owes anyone anything. our real currency comes in the form of bombs and men with guns.
it's a status thing, which is why China is pursuing it so aggressively. If they do it, it will be an implied challenge for the US to repeat the feat to prove that they are still strong.
so wait and see if they do it first... if they fail, we'll be able to point out not only that "this is why we no longer attempt to do this just to see if we can... it's very dangerous", but also, "oh yeah, but when we did attempt it, we succeeded."
if they succeed, and msnbc/cnn/foxnews ratings don't drop as the head pieces babble about american pride, then do it again live and shut everyone up. ultimately, it's a barren rock. have fun.
awwwww tepples... no more genius ideas you'd like to share with me in an attempt to claim i'm wrong? did you finally see the light? it's not that hard.
the author could have chosen to use a database query language that REQUIRED variable parametrization... then string injection would not be an exploit attack pathway.
i am not talking about assigning fault to anything, as the rest of you are clearly obsessed with. i am simply pointing out that it is patently false to claim SQL wasn't exploited. it was.
the single string command/variables nature of SQL is what was exploited. "fault" is not the issue... one could argue it was the exploiter's parents who are at "fault", but please don't claim SQL was not exploited in this case. it clearly was.
i wouldn't claim that the gun had no role in my being shot, or that guns without a safety aren't prone to more accidents.
my point isn't that SQL is bad or SQL without forced variable parametrization is bad... my point is that it is wrong to claim "SQL was not exploited", as the original poster claimed, when it clearly was. any language that mixes user input as string variables in with string commands, all interpreted together, is prone to injection exploits. this includes most shell command line interfaces... that isn't necessarily a bad thing, but don't claim it isn't exploitable.
and if i own my own domain? or route traffic through a friend's connection on a dynamic IP? who is going to maintain this list of anonymizers? i could set it up to look like it was video stream from a valid server serving valid videos... you can't PROVE anything. basically the telcos are arbitrarily choosing what you can do on the net, and there is nothing neutral about that. once i'm connected, everything is just data. tethering doesn't exist.
Slashdot Mirror
imagine being an ice salesman... would you ever claim that your best selling ice was "hot"? it's not that the value can be as large as you could ask for, it's that it can exist for meaningfully large values. the "arbitrarily large" value is not arbitrary... just like the "hot" ice isn't hot.
there are less vague, more terse ways to convey the same thing.
Unauthorized access to a computer is a felony.
This access was authorized, as AT&T never requested any authorization.
the same defense used by the lawyers of individuals ultimately found guity...
we just rewrote a tree (that runs in a high traffic serving environment) this month at work because it wasn't streamlined just right to take full advantage of the underlying architecture. No one will write a paper about it.
because you didn't want to admit that you stored the tree as folders and files on a FAT32 disk on windows 98?
... and many terser terms have identical meanings, such as "unbounded."
"is unbounded" or "can be arbitrarily large"... my point is there is a simpler way to say it, making their choice to use more complicated expression arbitrarily more complicated.
their point isn't that it's arbitrarily large, it's that it exists at all, and can be large enough to be meaningful. it's not arbitrary to be meaningful.
i'm not saying it doesn't have meaning, i'm saying that the meaning itself is arbitrary.
see, you did it again... it's not arbitrarily far just because it's relative. being "far" from something is already implying relativity to something else. in what other ways can being far from something be arbitrary?
my thanks for the security team's service to me.
is anything with potential to happen ever not arbitrary in it's potential? it seem like they arbitrarily used the word arbitrarily.
The point is that there's no more use in day trips to the moon.
it sure would cure the boredom i'm feeling from reading your concessionary ramblings. the point isn't whether or not there is a current use, or a use for something similar but less complicated (no pesky humans with free will), THE POINT is that there is no hope, in your case, for a use in day trips to the moon.
no judgments about whether that matters.
well, that's pretty much my point... the government SHOULD be able to last longer than the private sector. when they quit, hope is lost.
eventually we'll have to leave the planet if we are to continue as a species. that is a use of manned exploration.
when the government can't justify continuing it's own historically most prestigious scientific research program, there isn't much hope for the private sector.
Again, there may be some good reasons to worry, but you (and GP) haven't given any of them.
there is never a good reason to worry.
The mind boggles.
well, boggle no more. i'll enlighten you. the US debt is measured in trillions of US dollars... the same US dollars that are imaginatively created with nothing backing them other than the trust of the government... the same trust as the original debt was backed by. so all the US government has to do to retire the debt is to claim that it is paid. with fiat currency, the government never owes anyone anything. our real currency comes in the form of bombs and men with guns.
This basically means we're staying in Afghanistan indefinitely.
not likely... no one has yet to figure out how to profitably remove the minerals, so this "news" is over 10 years old.
slashdot: news for nerds, stuff that matters, propaganda we don't research before posting
it's a status thing, which is why China is pursuing it so aggressively. If they do it, it will be an implied challenge for the US to repeat the feat to prove that they are still strong.
so wait and see if they do it first... if they fail, we'll be able to point out not only that "this is why we no longer attempt to do this just to see if we can... it's very dangerous", but also, "oh yeah, but when we did attempt it, we succeeded."
if they succeed, and msnbc/cnn/foxnews ratings don't drop as the head pieces babble about american pride, then do it again live and shut everyone up. ultimately, it's a barren rock. have fun.
awwwww tepples... no more genius ideas you'd like to share with me in an attempt to claim i'm wrong? did you finally see the light? it's not that hard.
i am not talking about assigning fault to anything, as the rest of you are clearly obsessed with. i am simply pointing out that it is patently false to claim SQL wasn't exploited. it was.
the single string command/variables nature of SQL is what was exploited. "fault" is not the issue... one could argue it was the exploiter's parents who are at "fault", but please don't claim SQL was not exploited in this case. it clearly was.
my point isn't that SQL is bad or SQL without forced variable parametrization is bad... my point is that it is wrong to claim "SQL was not exploited", as the original poster claimed, when it clearly was. any language that mixes user input as string variables in with string commands, all interpreted together, is prone to injection exploits. this includes most shell command line interfaces... that isn't necessarily a bad thing, but don't claim it isn't exploitable.
SELECT * FROM Foods WHERE type=$1
*new command*
hamburger
SELECT * FROM Foods WHERE type=$1 hamburger
and if i own my own domain? or route traffic through a friend's connection on a dynamic IP? who is going to maintain this list of anonymizers? i could set it up to look like it was video stream from a valid server serving valid videos... you can't PROVE anything. basically the telcos are arbitrarily choosing what you can do on the net, and there is nothing neutral about that. once i'm connected, everything is just data. tethering doesn't exist.