No, clever "is possibles" in quantum mechanics are only theoretically possible in the strictest sense of the word -- their probability is so low that, in laymen's terms, it should always be described as impossible. (In physics we preferred the term "not going to happen" as opposed to "impossible".)
Running a P2P client on a printer, on the other hand, is unlikely, but quite possible.
However, the problem was demonstrated with a printer not running any P2P client -- they simply sent out data on the network indicating that the device at the printer's IP address was sharing files, and MediaSentry's system accepted that as fact.
This is the general slant here -- the defense, at least, asserts that the purpose of the suit is solely to identify who the posters are; they have no intention of actually winning. (Given the nature of the comments, I'd have to agree -- there's no way they constitute defamation.)
Defamation generally requires a false, factual claim that causes damage -- not simply an opinion that some might find true and some might not. (Certainly an opinion that some might hold true is unlikely to get anywhere in a defamation case.)
To be fair, the problems are also: * poorly-enforced security policies * these programs have terrible defaults * these programs are not written with security in mind, and can often share more than they are configured for.
Actually, BitTorrent probably has nothing to do with it. The primary security risk comes from P2P applications that share directories, rather than packaged torrents. Misconfiguration (or poorly-coded clients) expose to sharing files that you didn't really intend to share. (And yes, people routinely scour networks like Gnutella for potentially-sensitive data.)
I would assume that (a) the New York Times would take this into consideration and that (b) if they bought one for each of their subscribers, some arrangements could be made to ensure they got enough.
This is a medical establishment thing that people don't seem to always get. Naming it doesn't magically make it serious. If you can identify the symptoms and the cause, you put a name to it.
It depends on what you're justifying. It's an excellent retort to "it's unnatural". Both sides here tend toward the naturalistic fallacy (natural = good, unnatural = bad, which as you note, isn't much of a rule).
Your trip through the quantity of data is completely unnecessary. Since it's streaming video, if you figure the game took around 3 hours, divide the total bill by 180 minutes -- giving you about $155/min.
If you've paid for digital certificates, shouldn't you know what level of validation they've been doing?
Also, as far as I know, all modern browsers support EV certificates, but not all of them differentiate EV certs from regular ones. Firefox 3, however, does.
To an extent, yes. "Sandboxing" on a live system really encompasses a wide variety of potential ways that code can influence the rest of the system. (On the other hand, sandboxing with virtual machines is a much more straightforward problem.) One of these is access control. SELinux is an access control mechanism that provides more powerful and finer-grained access control than Unix's user model.
SELinux is a good example of how this sort of thing is tough to do. It can take a substantial amount of work for a user who knows how to use SELinux and knows exactly what his applications will need to access to impose those restrictions.
It's all quite possible under Linux. Realistically, a number of protection mechanisms (many of which started being routinely used in Vista) should prevent buffer overflow attacks. Certainly they should prevent arbitrary code from making OS-level hacks -- which is probably why it only works on XP. While Linux also can use these mechanisms, the only sandboxing it does by default is user/administrator separation (like Vista does, and like XP doesn't generally do). To get OS-level access, you'd need a privilege-escalation attack, which are reasonably hard to come by for both Vista and Linux (and can be very hard to make reliable under Linux). Alternately, the attacker could just steal your data from the one running Acrobat Reader process he gets, which Linux won't do anything about.
Proper application sandboxing is certainly possible, but not easy. (Your PDF viewer, for example, should have read-only access to its own code, read-only access to a single PDF file, write-only access to screen space for drawing, and read-write access to scratch memory space. That's it.)
The latter is actually much more important. There is some application-level sandboxing that can be done, but the majority of it is functionality that needs to be supported by the operating system.
"Denier" is what they're popularly referred to as; hence the quotes. This differentiates "deniers" from actual skeptics. The group of actual skeptics does not include, however, almost any comment you'll see here -- "Big Science is just protecting its own funding", "global warming is a scam", "if they made an error in this measurement, what else are they wrong about?", and "there's no way we can know enough about climatology to be certain" are not skepticism, they're fact-free discreditation.
Bonus points, though, for ignoring the actual answer and going for the ad hominem.
Funny, most of the highly-moderated posts I see are actually "global warming is a scam", which is not what I would describe as "open-minded and skeptical" at all.
People who claim to "view the AGW hypothesis with skepticism" never, as a generally rule, are actual skeptics. Scientists are skeptics. Global warming "deniers" follow almost exactly the approach and tactics of Intelligent Design proponents.
That would be because you said, "most of the 'studies' I've seen floating around the press smell fishy to me". Scientific journals are not "the press".
Had you been reading the papers from the scientific journals, you'd have not referred to them as "the press" and probably would have used a term other than "smells fishy" that implies that you'd carefully read them (which is the only way you can really assess their quality).
They did know. They also knew that all the possible solutions had significant costs and/or chance of failure. (As far as the air cannon, Mars air is very thin, so you have to have a quite significant wind to move the dust.)
You should try working at one of those things. It gives you an appreciation for, say, the LHC being so difficult to get running properly.
As an experimenter, I got to work 18-hour/day shifts for a week in a very loud environment where false alarms go off frequently and the equipment often simply stops working. The results were very cool, though.
I'm certain they mean that the intensity of the beam is 10^10 larger than the intensity of solar radiation at Earth. (I assume they're referring to energy flux and not photon flux. The synchrotron I worked at produced roughly 10^19 photons/m^2/s; the photon flux at Earth from the sun is roughly 10^21. Synchrotron beams, however, consist of much higher-energy photons.)
While synchrotrons are certainly capable of producing very high-energy beams, if they're referring to intensity, it's sort of cheating -- you can use optics to compress the beam. (For example, compressing a 1 cm square beam to a 10 um square beam.)
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting. I was not aware that [] was how you did addition in C.
No, clever "is possibles" in quantum mechanics are only theoretically possible in the strictest sense of the word -- their probability is so low that, in laymen's terms, it should always be described as impossible. (In physics we preferred the term "not going to happen" as opposed to "impossible".)
Running a P2P client on a printer, on the other hand, is unlikely, but quite possible.
However, the problem was demonstrated with a printer not running any P2P client -- they simply sent out data on the network indicating that the device at the printer's IP address was sharing files, and MediaSentry's system accepted that as fact.
So, for a counterexample, I could provide one person in the US that has more of a clue about technology than one person in the EU?
If C doesn't have real arrays, what, then, is a real array?
This is the general slant here -- the defense, at least, asserts that the purpose of the suit is solely to identify who the posters are; they have no intention of actually winning. (Given the nature of the comments, I'd have to agree -- there's no way they constitute defamation.)
Defamation generally requires a false, factual claim that causes damage -- not simply an opinion that some might find true and some might not. (Certainly an opinion that some might hold true is unlikely to get anywhere in a defamation case.)
To be fair, the problems are also:
* poorly-enforced security policies
* these programs have terrible defaults
* these programs are not written with security in mind, and can often share more than they are configured for.
Actually, BitTorrent probably has nothing to do with it. The primary security risk comes from P2P applications that share directories, rather than packaged torrents. Misconfiguration (or poorly-coded clients) expose to sharing files that you didn't really intend to share. (And yes, people routinely scour networks like Gnutella for potentially-sensitive data.)
At least in the U.S., in a civil suit, showing damage can be a very significant.
I would assume that (a) the New York Times would take this into consideration and that (b) if they bought one for each of their subscribers, some arrangements could be made to ensure they got enough.
This is a medical establishment thing that people don't seem to always get. Naming it doesn't magically make it serious. If you can identify the symptoms and the cause, you put a name to it.
It depends on what you're justifying. It's an excellent retort to "it's unnatural". Both sides here tend toward the naturalistic fallacy (natural = good, unnatural = bad, which as you note, isn't much of a rule).
Your trip through the quantity of data is completely unnecessary. Since it's streaming video, if you figure the game took around 3 hours, divide the total bill by 180 minutes -- giving you about $155/min.
If you've paid for digital certificates, shouldn't you know what level of validation they've been doing?
Also, as far as I know, all modern browsers support EV certificates, but not all of them differentiate EV certs from regular ones. Firefox 3, however, does.
To an extent, yes. "Sandboxing" on a live system really encompasses a wide variety of potential ways that code can influence the rest of the system. (On the other hand, sandboxing with virtual machines is a much more straightforward problem.) One of these is access control. SELinux is an access control mechanism that provides more powerful and finer-grained access control than Unix's user model.
SELinux is a good example of how this sort of thing is tough to do. It can take a substantial amount of work for a user who knows how to use SELinux and knows exactly what his applications will need to access to impose those restrictions.
It's all quite possible under Linux. Realistically, a number of protection mechanisms (many of which started being routinely used in Vista) should prevent buffer overflow attacks. Certainly they should prevent arbitrary code from making OS-level hacks -- which is probably why it only works on XP. While Linux also can use these mechanisms, the only sandboxing it does by default is user/administrator separation (like Vista does, and like XP doesn't generally do). To get OS-level access, you'd need a privilege-escalation attack, which are reasonably hard to come by for both Vista and Linux (and can be very hard to make reliable under Linux). Alternately, the attacker could just steal your data from the one running Acrobat Reader process he gets, which Linux won't do anything about.
Proper application sandboxing is certainly possible, but not easy. (Your PDF viewer, for example, should have read-only access to its own code, read-only access to a single PDF file, write-only access to screen space for drawing, and read-write access to scratch memory space. That's it.)
The latter is actually much more important. There is some application-level sandboxing that can be done, but the majority of it is functionality that needs to be supported by the operating system.
"Denier" is what they're popularly referred to as; hence the quotes. This differentiates "deniers" from actual skeptics. The group of actual skeptics does not include, however, almost any comment you'll see here -- "Big Science is just protecting its own funding", "global warming is a scam", "if they made an error in this measurement, what else are they wrong about?", and "there's no way we can know enough about climatology to be certain" are not skepticism, they're fact-free discreditation.
Bonus points, though, for ignoring the actual answer and going for the ad hominem.
Funny, most of the highly-moderated posts I see are actually "global warming is a scam", which is not what I would describe as "open-minded and skeptical" at all.
People who claim to "view the AGW hypothesis with skepticism" never, as a generally rule, are actual skeptics. Scientists are skeptics. Global warming "deniers" follow almost exactly the approach and tactics of Intelligent Design proponents.
That would be because you said, "most of the 'studies' I've seen floating around the press smell fishy to me". Scientific journals are not "the press".
Had you been reading the papers from the scientific journals, you'd have not referred to them as "the press" and probably would have used a term other than "smells fishy" that implies that you'd carefully read them (which is the only way you can really assess their quality).
They did know. They also knew that all the possible solutions had significant costs and/or chance of failure. (As far as the air cannon, Mars air is very thin, so you have to have a quite significant wind to move the dust.)
You should try working at one of those things. It gives you an appreciation for, say, the LHC being so difficult to get running properly.
As an experimenter, I got to work 18-hour/day shifts for a week in a very loud environment where false alarms go off frequently and the equipment often simply stops working. The results were very cool, though.
Interesting. I've never seen that metric, only photons/s/mm^2, which is fairly standard for beam intensity.
I'm certain they mean that the intensity of the beam is 10^10 larger than the intensity of solar radiation at Earth. (I assume they're referring to energy flux and not photon flux. The synchrotron I worked at produced roughly 10^19 photons/m^2/s; the photon flux at Earth from the sun is roughly 10^21. Synchrotron beams, however, consist of much higher-energy photons.)
While synchrotrons are certainly capable of producing very high-energy beams, if they're referring to intensity, it's sort of cheating -- you can use optics to compress the beam. (For example, compressing a 1 cm square beam to a 10 um square beam.)