Yeah, did you happen to notice that all the binary search stuff is just the debugger?
Meanwhile, it can't be done using a compiled language which makes it useless.
Most importantly, notice that he chose a binary search on 6 goddamn items?
How would his little demo have looked with an array of 80 items or an array within an array? All he's doing is dumping variables to the screen -- there's no visualization involved.
People like him most certainly did not invent the GUI.
People who actually know what they're doing invented the GUI.
Tell me, in his pretty examples where all of the *actual* code is buried under frameworks, how do I visualize that?
Where is the visualization for the OpenGL/DirectX calls that his code is actually making? The collision detection algorithms, etc. etc. etc.
He came up with some contrived, useless drivel of demos that *might* work for something like flash "development". It in no way overlaps with actual programming and it's offensive that he thinks it does.
It is not about compiling debugging or error checking, it's about realtime feedback of what you're writing so that you can change it (the intended function) as you go.
That should never be necessary because you should know your goal before you start. Debugging and optimization are completely separate from TFA.
I said nothing about a carpenter messing up, I said it would be stupid as hell for them to try to start without one.
I can't imagine how what I said could possible be interpreted that way.
I know what my code is going to do before I start, that doesn't mean I never make mistakes. What it does mean is that when I make a mistake I can actually tell.
See, us intelligent programmers realize that without knowing what you're building to start with it's impossible to ever build it in a reasonable amount of time.
But you go ahead with your idiocy, I'm sure it will serve you well in some low paid job at a sub-par software shop.
Programming is *not* like a mathematician stumbling upon a new proof. Programming is in fact extremely rigid and based upon a series of existing mathematics.
There is no room in *professional* software for stabbing in the dark. There is all the room in the world for that in hobby programming done by professionals or otherwise.
I don't expect a carpenter to build a house without a blueprint, it'd turn up as shitty as most modern software.
It is the most worthless, dumbass thing I've ever had to sit through.
It's just another "wouldn't it be great if computers programmed themselves" video by someone too stupid to tie their own shoes.
I know what the code I'm writing is going to do *before* I start writing it, as I hope for the love of god most programmers do.
In fact, the biggest plague on programming ever has been this concept that changing what you want fifteen times along the way is perfectly okay and we just need to adapt methods to that idiocy. You don't need any of this crap if you just know what you want ahead of time.
Although true, I was intending (for banking purposes anyways) that they would physically provide you with the certificate, it isn't actually required.
Say for an account on WoW or the like, right now I'm trusting that the site is the right site based on VeriSign or something, which poses a problem because I don't have a trust relationship with them.
If on the other hand, WoW issues me a certificate at the same time as my credentials, I know who it's from. Yes it could be from a spoofer, but in that event they already have my credentials and the issue is moot.
What it does is bring the chain of trust for both parts into sync. I know that my credentials are exactly as safe as the certificate telling me I'm at the right place; I'm not trusting an invisible third party who I have little/no knowledge of.
Of course in order for that to work, sites would also have to adopt the correct method of payments - sending me to my bank and having me authorize the payment through my bank -
If that were followed, my credentials would never leave the domain where I originally created them and the chain of trust would be in tact. That's not saying it's safer necessarily (that is, by nature of the system), but it provides a proper chain of trust.
Again though, in a banking setting your credentials generally *are* provided in person for additional safety, so yes the certificate would be as well.
Although the other person who replied to you is in fact correct, it would be handed out much like PINs are now (either set in branch or sent via registered mail) I have to ask:
If you've got my credentials, why would you care about the certificate?
Sorry but until HTTPS is done correctly it will do exactly squat in actual privacy. What you say about sniffing is true, but it just redirects the problem it doesn't solve it.
The fact that my bank gets all of the security certificates from a third party makes the actual security of the system non-existent (as demonstrated by countless authorities getting screwed).
When people start doing it right, and issuing self-signed certificates with credentials we'll be getting somewhere. Once my bank gives me a certificate from them at the time that I create my online account with them there will be an actual chain of trust.
Being killed by a terrorist on a plane doesn't even make a damn blip on the ways you're likely to die. It *barely* makes a blip on damages to U.S. infrastructure.
The TSA exists solely because it can, and because people want money. Some people are making a lot of money on all of this nonsense and that's all that matters. This isn't some conspiracy theory or otherwise, just simple economics. There was an opening to make a buck, someone took it and here we are.
9/11 was caused by some box cutters, it could have been just as easily accomplished with nothing (let's face it, people weren't scared of the little knife they were shocked because something threatened them and most modern people are cowards). The (head of the) TSA knows this, they also know there is a lot of money in fear.
Passwords can be hidden completely from sysadmins because they're being provided by the user each time. You don't need the ability to decrypt the resulting data because you're just checking the existing encrypted blob against the new one - if they match the password is right.
You start off intelligent enough; they will almost certainly do as you say and abuse this breach to ram awful laws through.
Shockingly enough even in the few words you posted you manage to go from enlightened to blabbering idiot:
too soft on those dirty music downloaders.
Sony was breached by criminals breaking the law. Sony wasn't doing anything (legally) wrong by holding those tracks and since the artists agreed to the terms of their engagement it's hard to fault them ethically for this particular act either. The people who broke into Sony need to be brought to justice just as a home invader does.
Exactly what I was going to comment; more frames = more chance for error checking.
I could believe that it takes more cpu power to crack them, since you have to decode the video stream instead of just an image. But harder to crack (as in less accuracy) is pure bullshit.
More frames = easier to be accurate, always has and always will.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, did you happen to notice that all the binary search stuff is just the debugger?
Meanwhile, it can't be done using a compiled language which makes it useless.
Most importantly, notice that he chose a binary search on 6 goddamn items?
How would his little demo have looked with an array of 80 items or an array within an array? All he's doing is dumping variables to the screen -- there's no visualization involved.
People like him most certainly did not invent the GUI.
People who actually know what they're doing invented the GUI.
Tell me, in his pretty examples where all of the *actual* code is buried under frameworks, how do I visualize that?
Where is the visualization for the OpenGL/DirectX calls that his code is actually making? The collision detection algorithms, etc. etc. etc.
He came up with some contrived, useless drivel of demos that *might* work for something like flash "development". It in no way overlaps with actual programming and it's offensive that he thinks it does.
You're too stupid to have any sort of conversation with, debate or otherwise.
You clearly did not watch the video.
It is not about compiling debugging or error checking, it's about realtime feedback of what you're writing so that you can change it (the intended function) as you go.
That should never be necessary because you should know your goal before you start. Debugging and optimization are completely separate from TFA.
I said nothing about a carpenter messing up, I said it would be stupid as hell for them to try to start without one.
Watch the video before continuing this discussion
I can't imagine how what I said could possible be interpreted that way.
I know what my code is going to do before I start, that doesn't mean I never make mistakes. What it does mean is that when I make a mistake I can actually tell.
Why exactly do you guess that?
See, us intelligent programmers realize that without knowing what you're building to start with it's impossible to ever build it in a reasonable amount of time.
But you go ahead with your idiocy, I'm sure it will serve you well in some low paid job at a sub-par software shop.
what is with your morons and equating the video I was commenting on to debugging?
You are wrong, and I hope in time you see this.
Programming is *not* like a mathematician stumbling upon a new proof. Programming is in fact extremely rigid and based upon a series of existing mathematics.
There is no room in *professional* software for stabbing in the dark. There is all the room in the world for that in hobby programming done by professionals or otherwise.
I don't expect a carpenter to build a house without a blueprint, it'd turn up as shitty as most modern software.
and you're an idiot troll
It is the most worthless, dumbass thing I've ever had to sit through.
It's just another "wouldn't it be great if computers programmed themselves" video by someone too stupid to tie their own shoes.
I know what the code I'm writing is going to do *before* I start writing it, as I hope for the love of god most programmers do.
In fact, the biggest plague on programming ever has been this concept that changing what you want fifteen times along the way is perfectly okay and we just need to adapt methods to that idiocy. You don't need any of this crap if you just know what you want ahead of time.
Easier to purchase = more sales (per user)
Whether they're right or wrong about that (probably right) that's what they mean
Uninformed much?
Although true, I was intending (for banking purposes anyways) that they would physically provide you with the certificate, it isn't actually required.
Say for an account on WoW or the like, right now I'm trusting that the site is the right site based on VeriSign or something, which poses a problem because I don't have a trust relationship with them.
If on the other hand, WoW issues me a certificate at the same time as my credentials, I know who it's from. Yes it could be from a spoofer, but in that event they already have my credentials and the issue is moot.
What it does is bring the chain of trust for both parts into sync. I know that my credentials are exactly as safe as the certificate telling me I'm at the right place; I'm not trusting an invisible third party who I have little/no knowledge of.
Of course in order for that to work, sites would also have to adopt the correct method of payments - sending me to my bank and having me authorize the payment through my bank -
If that were followed, my credentials would never leave the domain where I originally created them and the chain of trust would be in tact. That's not saying it's safer necessarily (that is, by nature of the system), but it provides a proper chain of trust.
Again though, in a banking setting your credentials generally *are* provided in person for additional safety, so yes the certificate would be as well.
Although the other person who replied to you is in fact correct, it would be handed out much like PINs are now (either set in branch or sent via registered mail) I have to ask:
If you've got my credentials, why would you care about the certificate?
You're being stupid.
Sorry but until HTTPS is done correctly it will do exactly squat in actual privacy. What you say about sniffing is true, but it just redirects the problem it doesn't solve it.
The fact that my bank gets all of the security certificates from a third party makes the actual security of the system non-existent (as demonstrated by countless authorities getting screwed).
When people start doing it right, and issuing self-signed certificates with credentials we'll be getting somewhere. Once my bank gives me a certificate from them at the time that I create my online account with them there will be an actual chain of trust.
Yes.
But there's no need...
Being killed by a terrorist on a plane doesn't even make a damn blip on the ways you're likely to die. It *barely* makes a blip on damages to U.S. infrastructure.
The TSA exists solely because it can, and because people want money. Some people are making a lot of money on all of this nonsense and that's all that matters. This isn't some conspiracy theory or otherwise, just simple economics. There was an opening to make a buck, someone took it and here we are.
9/11 was caused by some box cutters, it could have been just as easily accomplished with nothing (let's face it, people weren't scared of the little knife they were shocked because something threatened them and most modern people are cowards). The (head of the) TSA knows this, they also know there is a lot of money in fear.
No, you're just too stupid to understand why you're wrong
Don't like getting killed? Stay out of the way of bullets.
Don't like police brutality? Stay away from the police!
Or you could get a brain.
Both of those places are very clear on phone use policy.
It isn't up to you to set companies policies for them...
In small words you might grasp: You are the problem. You are too stupid.
Don't like people talking on their cellphones? Deal with it, the person beside you probably doesn't appreciate your snoring either.
Stop being an asshat and thinking you're more deserving than everyone else, you aren't.
I think the punishment for being found to use one of these devices should be sterilization, get that ignorance out of the gene pool.
Not sure if you're dense or trolling...
Passwords can be hidden completely from sysadmins because they're being provided by the user each time. You don't need the ability to decrypt the resulting data because you're just checking the existing encrypted blob against the new one - if they match the password is right.
Photos and status updates don't work that way.
We can only hope (re: trucking)
The fucking things should be illegal anyways, they can't even make a legal turn.
Yeah, if only you had actually meant it that way.
Okay, I really can't let that go.
You start off intelligent enough; they will almost certainly do as you say and abuse this breach to ram awful laws through.
Shockingly enough even in the few words you posted you manage to go from enlightened to blabbering idiot:
too soft on those dirty music downloaders.
Sony was breached by criminals breaking the law. Sony wasn't doing anything (legally) wrong by holding those tracks and since the artists agreed to the terms of their engagement it's hard to fault them ethically for this particular act either. The people who broke into Sony need to be brought to justice just as a home invader does.
Exactly what I was going to comment; more frames = more chance for error checking.
I could believe that it takes more cpu power to crack them, since you have to decode the video stream instead of just an image. But harder to crack (as in less accuracy) is pure bullshit.
More frames = easier to be accurate, always has and always will.