Light is easy, light and strong is sophisticated. Also, the article alludes to springs and shock absorbers, a step up in engineering from just building a light and strong cart.
>they sold certainly more than I'd like them to sell
Not "we'd like to sell more", not "we'd like to supply their software and participate in their success like we did with AppleSoft Basic and Mac Office".
This is competitiveness in its pathological form, where the point isn't to win but instead to make sure others lose.
Biological mechanisms get reused all the time(*). It's plausible enough to be worth investigating that at least some of human memory storage uses mechanisms related to what simpler ancestors used.
(*) The API for temperature control, for example, got reused across the transition from cold-blooded to warm-blooded. Get a lizard sick, and it spends more time basking so as to give itself a fever. Give it aspirin, and it goes back in the shade.
Building codes could be revised to reflect the reality of 3-4 minutes of shaking as opposed to the 20-40 second California earthquakes that are used as design cases today. After 50 years of that, the region would be much better prepared and much loss of life and disruption would be avoided.
The article doesn't say whether the original inventors published. If a technique can't be found in a literature search, I'd be surprised if it's considered prior art.
If the original inventors try to win on the grounds of priority, didn't it change a while ago from first-to-invent to first-to-file?
Getting rid of illusions is a valuable service even without proposing a fix, and it's not the job of the fire alarm to put out the fire.
Sometimes saying there is no solution frees up resources to adapt and cope. If you call the fire department and say "my potassium stockpile has caught fire", the best thing you can tell them is that they're need to fall back, protect other buildings, and let it burn itself out.
I still try to protect my clients, but part of that is to warn them that certain problems are unsolvable with today's mainstream tools.
That particular example is a bad one for the point you're making.
Things happen when you have control logic and peripherals.
By "peripherals" I mean anything the code can control. It could be a database, or a Space Shuttle main engine.
Dan Bernstein's theory, which he sharply distinguishes from least privilege, is to ruthlessly eliminate the code's control over anything not actually required. No matter how complex the code, it can't do anything that the computer can't. No compromise of my laptop could damage a shuttle main engine. Sandboxing is an attempt to implement this philosophy.
By "control logic", I mean anything that is an input that has results. A mouse is control logic. A radio button on a form is control logic that is simple enough to analyze. A web browser is control logic that is beyond definite analysis.
So a web form that builds a SQL statement from user input should have set off alarm bells on general principles, because it's allowing a malicious user to edit code in a complex programming language that has control over a database.
A manned mission gets simpler and cheaper if it doesn't have to go in and out of the Martian gravity well. Land the tele-operated machines on a one-way trip, keep the human operators in orbit. No life-support mass to lift off the surface, no fuel mass to lift the life-support mass off the surface, no deadweight mass of rocketry to lift both off the surface (and accelerate them to escape velocity!), all of which need to be multiplied by lots and lots to get the total launch pad mass on Earth.
HP Labs had some interesting experiments with CapDesk and Polaris trying to put some capability-based security features on top of Windows. I see three main objections to capability-based OSes:
o Picking the right set of capabilities to enforce is a tough problem that would probably require years of trial and error. For example, "open a network port" is way too broad. o SELinux is an example of confining processes to particular kinds of access to particular objects. Defining SELinux policies has proven difficult in practice and the results are brittle. o Nobody, to my knowledge, has demonstrated a practical one.
This idea is in Vinge's work. A group called the Friends of Privacy tries to dilute the flood of accurate information about people by spreading erroneous information, making net searches on people less useful.
He was suggesting preloading content as a way to struggle against commoditization and to do something with today's enormous capacities. I don't think he mentioned saving bandwidth as a reason, but never underestimate the bandwidth of a 2TB drive on a UPS truck.
I don't have a citation for you, but I think it was a Forbes article.
PCI is a contractual thing rather than a criminal law, and unless I'm unusually badly mistaken the criminal penalties of HIPAA only come up for deliberate breaches (e.g. selling Tiger Woods's STD report to the National Enquirer, as opposed to being careless with infosec).
Slashdot Mirror
Bad guys can monetize a compromised cellphone in a single step by having it call premium-rate numbers.
Light is easy, light and strong is sophisticated. Also, the article alludes to springs and shock absorbers, a step up in engineering from just building a light and strong cart.
>they sold certainly more than I'd like them to sell
Not "we'd like to sell more", not "we'd like to supply their software and participate in their success like we did with AppleSoft Basic and Mac Office".
This is competitiveness in its pathological form, where the point isn't to win but instead to make sure others lose.
>What do you even say to that kind of idiot?
"I'm sorry, from now on I'll use a hash instead"?
Ask first. There's a place where I live that explains where they ship things. They charge more.
Furthermore, as if it weren't wrong enough already, Socrates was not executed for heresy but for corruption of youth.
Biological mechanisms get reused all the time(*). It's plausible enough to be worth investigating that at least some of human memory storage uses mechanisms related to what simpler ancestors used.
(*) The API for temperature control, for example, got reused across the transition from cold-blooded to warm-blooded. Get a lizard sick, and it spends more time basking so as to give itself a fever. Give it aspirin, and it goes back in the shade.
Building codes could be revised to reflect the reality of 3-4 minutes of shaking as opposed to the 20-40 second California earthquakes that are used as design cases today. After 50 years of that, the region would be much better prepared and much loss of life and disruption would be avoided.
He didn't assume it, he asked about it.
And may have been thinking about the 271(e)(1) exemption or "Hatch-Waxman exemption".
Adding injury to insult, I believe that patent litigation is even more expensive than most court proceedings.
The article doesn't say whether the original inventors published. If a technique can't be found in a literature search, I'd be surprised if it's considered prior art.
If the original inventors try to win on the grounds of priority, didn't it change a while ago from first-to-invent to first-to-file?
Getting rid of illusions is a valuable service even without proposing a fix, and it's not the job of the fire alarm to put out the fire.
Sometimes saying there is no solution frees up resources to adapt and cope. If you call the fire department and say "my potassium stockpile has caught fire", the best thing you can tell them is that they're need to fall back, protect other buildings, and let it burn itself out.
I still try to protect my clients, but part of that is to warn them that certain problems are unsolvable with today's mainstream tools.
That particular example is a bad one for the point you're making.
Things happen when you have control logic and peripherals.
By "peripherals" I mean anything the code can control. It could be a database, or a Space Shuttle main engine.
Dan Bernstein's theory, which he sharply distinguishes from least privilege, is to ruthlessly eliminate the code's control over anything not actually required. No matter how complex the code, it can't do anything that the computer can't. No compromise of my laptop could damage a shuttle main engine. Sandboxing is an attempt to implement this philosophy.
By "control logic", I mean anything that is an input that has results. A mouse is control logic. A radio button on a form is control logic that is simple enough to analyze. A web browser is control logic that is beyond definite analysis.
So a web form that builds a SQL statement from user input should have set off alarm bells on general principles, because it's allowing a malicious user to edit code in a complex programming language that has control over a database.
>Google bought out dejanews to kill it off
Dejanews was going out of business after multiple changes of strategy and Google rescued the archives from destruction.
I've noticed an improvement in my sleep patterns since I set a curfew for the computers, stopping any use of them two or three hours before bedtime.
The accretion disk could account for the X-rays. The reason they were looking for X-rays in the first place was to spot normal black holes.
A manned mission gets simpler and cheaper if it doesn't have to go in and out of the Martian gravity well. Land the tele-operated machines on a one-way trip, keep the human operators in orbit. No life-support mass to lift off the surface, no fuel mass to lift the life-support mass off the surface, no deadweight mass of rocketry to lift both off the surface (and accelerate them to escape velocity!), all of which need to be multiplied by lots and lots to get the total launch pad mass on Earth.
HP Labs had some interesting experiments with CapDesk and Polaris trying to put some capability-based security features on top of Windows. I see three main objections to capability-based OSes:
o Picking the right set of capabilities to enforce is a tough problem that would probably require years of trial and error. For example, "open a network port" is way too broad.
o SELinux is an example of confining processes to particular kinds of access to particular objects. Defining SELinux policies has proven difficult in practice and the results are brittle.
o Nobody, to my knowledge, has demonstrated a practical one.
This idea is in Vinge's work. A group called the Friends of Privacy tries to dilute the flood of accurate information about people by spreading erroneous information, making net searches on people less useful.
It is also the right of the school district to fire her.
Ms. Cafiero has a Constitutional right not be thrown in jail without a fair process. She does not have a Constitutional right to her job.
Quote:
Dear Iceland,
We said "send CASH".
Yours sincerely, /Quote
United Kingdom
Dear United Kingdom,
You should have stopped to consider that there is no letter "C" in the Icelandic alphabet before issuing your demand.
One reason it's not affecting breathing much but is affecting air travel is that it's mostly at high altitude.
He was suggesting preloading content as a way to struggle against commoditization and to do something with today's enormous capacities. I don't think he mentioned saving bandwidth as a reason, but never underestimate the bandwidth of a 2TB drive on a UPS truck.
I don't have a citation for you, but I think it was a Forbes article.
Box-checking mostly deserves its bad reputation, but I feel so sorry for it that I'm moved to defend it a little.
Box-checking helps prevent security-aware people from overlooking something.
Box-checking helps prevent security-unaware people from doing nothing.
PCI is a contractual thing rather than a criminal law, and unless I'm unusually badly mistaken the criminal penalties of HIPAA only come up for deliberate breaches (e.g. selling Tiger Woods's STD report to the National Enquirer, as opposed to being careless with infosec).