...yes, that would absolutely solve the matter, because never in the history of the world have people managed to obtain software and source code that did not belong to us! "Sorry, you can't analyze our software for vulns, because we're not going to give you a license for it!". Brilliant:-P
nobdy else is using them? peered out from under that rock recently? Unless you're saying within this article in particular... in which case you're also blind if you don't realize it's part of the larger context. either way, I don't care, you probably don't work in infosec and have to get bombarded with cyberwar hype every 6 hours, and your comment makes very little sense no matter how much I strain to understand your perception of the matter.
....when do we start treating these folks like arms dealers? It's not a stretch, ITAR classified cryptography as munitions....
(* cyber 'war' is a ridiculous term for something we already have words for - espionage and sabotage, both of which have been achieved using only information, for centuries now).
as one of those folks who's been attending Defcon since the 90's, and find the odd bit of pseudo-military gear damn useful for being on their feet for extended hours during a four day conference (only a small part of me finds it cool any more, and I never thought it funny), I'd be happy as hell to talk with you, and introduce you to many of the other folks that I know wear the same - because I think we'd all agree that we have an obligation to you as a fellow attendee to make you feel welcome and safe, and we welcome your input on how to do that. True, it's your problem, but that doesn't mean that other folks can't accommodate you if you give them a chance to do so - I think most of us would be more than glad to have the opportunity - you're part of our community and we have a responsibility to look out for the interests of one of our own. This is of course, the exact opposite of what happened with the censorship of the talk at BSidesSF. Sure, we don't *have* to change to to satisfy you, but many of us might/want/ to, given the chance. Discourse and cooperation are the best tools here.
Bingo.. and as many other folks have pointed out, 90% of of threading is purely to decrease latency and bypass blocking operations - very few applications out there today are heavily dependent on concurrency to achieve any kind of raw horsepower... This does just seem like, if it were to become mainstream, would just become a crutch for developers to ignore threading and blocking I/O issues entirely, because "The compiler will sort that out".. In theory, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. In theory, all things work in practice too.
Or, gawd forbid.. we could teach programmers how to use threading? I am a casual developer, with no formal training beyond writing practical code and reading as much as I can from the keyboards of real developers. I've run into my fair share of "real", "professional" developers who've been tasked to work on my code and thrown their hands up in defeat - not, as I feared, because of the awfulness of my coding style, but "This uses threading, I don't know this!".. Of course, looking at their resumes, a long list of single threaded webapps where the actual threading is handled for them by the webserver itself.. I give up. Even some basic native GUI client development should teach developers simple threading and asynchronous callbacks? alas, yet another talent abandoned in the age of the webapp. Is it any wonder the security issues (my actual realm of supposed 'expertise') in their code often make the architectural issues look trivial in comparison?
An interesting development, and much needed I fear, but yet another layer of abstraction to allow lazy developers to not have to really bother about knowing what their code is actually doing (that's for the poor SoB who has to maintain it is for...)
Careful how you word that, bub; frankly, I think the moment you threaten me with unprovoked lethal force (ie. armed robbery), you should expect just as much in return. Self-Defense is not murder, and I object to you implying that. There are more choices than just victim or criminal.
So do two friends of mine who survived a carjacking by killing the other guy first. They sure as hell were not looking for a reason to shoot someone, but they're alive, and still in therapy for it, and shitheads like you throwing the word 'murder' around for what they had to do is just small-mindedly gauche, thank you very much.
I own a gun, I have a concealed carry license, and I have an IQ well into the upper 5% region as well.
What I dont have is the standard gutless peacenik mentality that someone else is going to keep me safe from all the nasty stuff in the world, and that If I just smile and treat everyone nicely enough, they will never find a reason to harm me.
And yes, reducing gun control does make more guns available to criminals and idiots, but that's called 'the price of freedom'. In making sure that *everyone* has freedom, that often includes a few folks you personally would like to see a little less free.
Of course, seeing some folks a little less free, is how a lot of wars get started in the first place.
Intelligence neither makes you better than other people, nor does it give you carte blanche to think you're going to be immune to the bad things of the world.
The Gutlesss Intellectual claims 'without guns that man could have never killed so many people'
The Responsible Thinker claims "why was my gun taken away so I couldnt protect those people in the first place"
So, which side are you on, when your only choices are Victim or Criminal.
Ever considered your information sources are a bit skewed?
"Man successfully defends himself from home invasion with legally owned firearm"
versus
"Family of five butchered in unsolved home invasion case, Police pretty sure it was a bunch of Mexican folks, or maybe some of those blacks, they're still a menace, right?"
Now.. think which of these two stories you are most likely to be seeing on the news tonight?
Right.. because the first happens pretty regularly, and the second is a rare event that is newsworthy..
I think the point is, I'm tryin to point out that people automatically believe the first thing they're told, especially with mindless statistics, instead of going off and doing their own research in the first place.
so, no URL for you, go and do some actual reading
"Suter E. "Guns in the Medical Literature - A Failure of Peer Review." Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia. March 1994; 83: 133-48."
The author of the original '43x more likely' is one Doctor Kellerman, a doctor who has been found guilty on multiple occasions of fabricating results and avoiding peer review, in the pursuit of printing his rabidly anti-gun publications as actual medical science.
There, no get going, show me your work and complete the extra credit.
You advocate nothing more insightful than 'let it be someone else's problem as long as its not mine'. After all, after he gets away with you cash, it's not your problem any more what he does AFTER that..
Thank god there are underpaid, overworked cops and other decent folks out there willing to protect and clean up the mess for snivelling little gated community minded white kids like you.
Plus, your use of 'breastplate' (I think you mean 'breastbone') sorry kid, go back to D&D, you've just proved how unqualified you are to talk about this. I've got knifewound scars going back 15 years... and you've got a freudian slip.
and you know what, no matter how many times people repeat those numbers, it doesn't change the fact that the original study has been discredited as bullshit a hundred times over already.
Slashdot Mirror
...yes, that would absolutely solve the matter, because never in the history of the world have people managed to obtain software and source code that did not belong to us! "Sorry, you can't analyze our software for vulns, because we're not going to give you a license for it!". Brilliant :-P
nobdy else is using them? peered out from under that rock recently? Unless you're saying within this article in particular... in which case you're also blind if you don't realize it's part of the larger context. either way, I don't care, you probably don't work in infosec and have to get bombarded with cyberwar hype every 6 hours, and your comment makes very little sense no matter how much I strain to understand your perception of the matter.
....when do we start treating these folks like arms dealers? It's not a stretch, ITAR classified cryptography as munitions....
(* cyber 'war' is a ridiculous term for something we already have words for - espionage and sabotage, both of which have been achieved using only information, for centuries now).
Female executives for a company that just happens to be in tech, doesn't count to women in tech, just women in business.
as one of those folks who's been attending Defcon since the 90's, and find the odd bit of pseudo-military gear damn useful for being on their feet for extended hours during a four day conference (only a small part of me finds it cool any more, and I never thought it funny), I'd be happy as hell to talk with you, and introduce you to many of the other folks that I know wear the same - because I think we'd all agree that we have an obligation to you as a fellow attendee to make you feel welcome and safe, and we welcome your input on how to do that. True, it's your problem, but that doesn't mean that other folks can't accommodate you if you give them a chance to do so - I think most of us would be more than glad to have the opportunity - you're part of our community and we have a responsibility to look out for the interests of one of our own. This is of course, the exact opposite of what happened with the censorship of the talk at BSidesSF. Sure, we don't *have* to change to to satisfy you, but many of us might /want/ to, given the chance. Discourse and cooperation are the best tools here.
Calcium isn't a stone now? he said literally, he meant literally.
Bingo.. and as many other folks have pointed out, 90% of of threading is purely to decrease latency and bypass blocking operations - very few applications out there today are heavily dependent on concurrency to achieve any kind of raw horsepower... This does just seem like, if it were to become mainstream, would just become a crutch for developers to ignore threading and blocking I/O issues entirely, because "The compiler will sort that out".. In theory, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. In theory, all things work in practice too.
Or, gawd forbid.. we could teach programmers how to use threading? I am a casual developer, with no formal training beyond writing practical code and reading as much as I can from the keyboards of real developers. I've run into my fair share of "real", "professional" developers who've been tasked to work on my code and thrown their hands up in defeat - not, as I feared, because of the awfulness of my coding style, but "This uses threading, I don't know this!".. Of course, looking at their resumes, a long list of single threaded webapps where the actual threading is handled for them by the webserver itself.. I give up. Even some basic native GUI client development should teach developers simple threading and asynchronous callbacks? alas, yet another talent abandoned in the age of the webapp. Is it any wonder the security issues (my actual realm of supposed 'expertise') in their code often make the architectural issues look trivial in comparison?
An interesting development, and much needed I fear, but yet another layer of abstraction to allow lazy developers to not have to really bother about knowing what their code is actually doing (that's for the poor SoB who has to maintain it is for...)
Damnn, Nostalgia havent seen Barry as Brittas in YEARS.. great little show, that was.
Better yet, use 802.1x (WPA + RADIUS) which completely avoids all the key-exchange weaknesses of WEP and WPA.
its a crime nobody has modded you up yet.
to +6 (Best of Slashdot)
yeah, because there has NEVER been an SSH exploit or man-in-the-middle attack. EVER.
they referenced chubby rain in the damn tags. I dont think they can mod you down for being the only poster to bring up the obvious
ideas are bulletproof, people are not.
quite so, but I was hoping that was obvious without having to spell it out.
'Unnecessary Murders'
Careful how you word that, bub; frankly, I think the moment you threaten me with unprovoked lethal force (ie. armed robbery), you should expect just as much in return. Self-Defense is not murder, and I object to you implying that. There are more choices than just victim or criminal.
So do two friends of mine who survived a carjacking by killing the other guy first. They sure as hell were not looking for a reason to shoot someone, but they're alive, and still in therapy for it, and shitheads like you throwing the word 'murder' around for what they had to do is just small-mindedly gauche, thank you very much.
I own a gun, I have a concealed carry license, and I have an IQ well into the upper 5% region as well.
What I dont have is the standard gutless peacenik mentality that someone else is going to keep me safe from all the nasty stuff in the world, and that If I just smile and treat everyone nicely enough, they will never find a reason to harm me.
And yes, reducing gun control does make more guns available to criminals and idiots, but that's called 'the price of freedom'. In making sure that *everyone* has freedom, that often includes a few folks you personally would like to see a little less free.
Of course, seeing some folks a little less free, is how a lot of wars get started in the first place.
Intelligence neither makes you better than other people, nor does it give you carte blanche to think you're going to be immune to the bad things of the world.
The Gutlesss Intellectual claims 'without guns that man could have never killed so many people'
The Responsible Thinker claims "why was my gun taken away so I couldnt protect those people in the first place"
So, which side are you on, when your only choices are Victim or Criminal.
Put down the mouse, stop playing CounterStrike, stop watching news, and *wake the fuck up*
Hoplophobic idiots like you make me embarrassed to be British.
Ever considered your information sources are a bit skewed?
"Man successfully defends himself from home invasion with legally owned firearm"
versus
"Family of five butchered in unsolved home invasion case, Police pretty sure it was a bunch of Mexican folks, or maybe some of those blacks, they're still a menace, right?"
Now.. think which of these two stories you are most likely to be seeing on the news tonight?
Right.. because the first happens pretty regularly, and the second is a rare event that is newsworthy..
If cans of soda weren't a threat to society, we'd allow people to take them past TSA screening.
Your argument is as ridiculous as TSA policy, crawl back into your hole.
I think the point is, I'm tryin to point out that people automatically believe the first thing they're told, especially with mindless statistics, instead of going off and doing their own research in the first place.
so, no URL for you, go and do some actual reading
"Suter E. "Guns in the Medical Literature - A Failure of Peer Review." Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia. March 1994; 83: 133-48."
The author of the original '43x more likely' is one Doctor Kellerman, a doctor who has been found guilty on multiple occasions of fabricating results and avoiding peer review, in the pursuit of printing his rabidly anti-gun publications as actual medical science.
There, no get going, show me your work and complete the extra credit.
Fucking wikipedia generation.
yes indeed, *woosh*
You advocate nothing more insightful than 'let it be someone else's problem as long as its not mine'. After all, after he gets away with you cash, it's not your problem any more what he does AFTER that..
Thank god there are underpaid, overworked cops and other decent folks out there willing to protect and clean up the mess for snivelling little gated community minded white kids like you.
Plus, your use of 'breastplate' (I think you mean 'breastbone') sorry kid, go back to D&D, you've just proved how unqualified you are to talk about this. I've got knifewound scars going back 15 years... and you've got a freudian slip.
never thought of that angle before, and I like it.
[Glad to see folks have put mod points into your post already too.]
and you know what, no matter how many times people repeat those numbers, it doesn't change the fact that the original study has been discredited as bullshit a hundred times over already.
and remember, Crypto algorithms have been classified as munitions before (ie: ITAR)
Yes, the 2nd covers much more than just firearms if you ask me..