Yes, and another group of committed scientists have published other reports that contradict the reports you posted
Show me this report. Greenpeace report doesn't tell anything about fossil fuels.
Your justification may be that the majority of energy decisions have been wrong because people do not "properly" understand radioactivity. However, this is an extreme position to take and, again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Those proofs are in the IEA report. You should try reading it. I just restated their conclusions.
My claim is that there is no conclusive data supporting or disproving your claim
First: So you're telling me that governments in eastern or central Europe have no idea how many people live there and die every year? Because I, as a non scientist, would call that a highest possible estimate.
Second: Somehow, people that made those reports (that is, real scientists that committed their lives to work in those fields) consider this data to be good enough to publish and peer review (done by real scientists) consider them good enough.
But YOU KNOW BETTER.
Entire countries are deciding to no longer support nuclear power due to Fukushima, yet you do not think it is even relevant when trying to establish support for your claim?
Way to go for argumentum ad populum. Those are decisions made by politicians under pressure from public that absolutely doesn't understand radioactivity. You dismiss papers published by scientists but consider opinions of politicians in high regard! On whose payroll are you? Exxon? Shell? Some coal consortium?
The utility of any discussion on this topic with you was lost when you started confusing fact with belief.
Unlike you, I have provided facts to support my belief. Or now we will turn to religious debate, whatever its OK to have beliefs that don't go together with facts?
Control characters are limited to first 127 ASCII characters in UTF-8. Any of those characters encoded as multi byte character, which is possible, is not valid UTF-8. You may not know how to render all characters, but you definitely can sanitize UTF-8 input: list of all characters that can be rendered by a given font is finite.
Secure systems aren't useless, they are highly inflexible.
If you have a workstation commissioned to run 2 or 3 very specific jobs (entering recruits data, administering SCADA system, piloting UAVs, etc.) it can be relatively easily secured even now. Unless it has to have access to web (with its Flash, HTML5, Java and ActiveX) it's impossible to secure if you don't use purpose build browser (that disables most of functionality). Of course in any scenario, a user can't be able to install new software or use flash drives non encrypted with company's crypto keys.
That would make any open computing system (working like Windows with its "download it yourself" installers) completely unusable for general user. At the same time, I could see a general purpose Linux distribution be actually usable. Installing 3rd party software on it would be hell though... Unfortunately that's the price we have to pay for really good security.
AFAIK SELinux can protect you from attack only from user-space. It won't help for attack on kernel itself (it's important if we want secure networks). But then I'm not sure if any system in a monolithic kernel would be able to do this. On the other hand, monolithic kernels are the only OS kernels that actually work outside academics. This would suggest that the highest security rating a general purpose OS can have is B1...
Well, if running pentest is only a first step in evaluating security of the system (after all it verifies if its secure against most common attacks) and throw it away as soon as it fails it, I'd say it adds large value.
I completely agree, test and patch doesn't work, if it did sendmail and IE would be the most secure software packages in existence.
Start using systems that were designed to be secure in the first place. Stuff that works on a "deny by default" basis, that refuse to process any data that it doesn't understand, use OCSP as a white list on the CA side, defence in depth: use strict validation of input on multiple levels (when making web app: using default deny application firewal, then strict validation in form processing and finally use modular application design that validates data received from other modules) and so on.
This will require throwing away most, if not all, software in use. Including OSs, probably even Linux as I'm not sure if SELinux (or other such systems) go deep enough on the kernel side. Then making new software from scratch with primary design objective to be secure. As no politician or PHB can justify spending this amount of money on such nebulous concept as security, the whole idea will fail. Because this won't eliminate, just reduce the number of security related bugs, won't help the cause.
We have to start by teaching new programmers how to make secure systems first (and I repeat, systems, not just programs) and just then how to program.
Oh, yes, you know better. Redo the numbers with your estimates of Fukushima, Chernobyl and show me it kills more people per TWh then. You only provided report from a highly political group of which the main reason for existence is to stifle progress and return civilisation to bronze age. They are against every form of energy able to provide base load: hydro, nuclear, fusion, fossil. We need energy if we want to develop and there are no other viable alternatives. And then you wonder why I dismiss their claims. They are the people that would go after dihydrogen-monooxide!
And I don't care whatever solar panels are more or less lethal than nuclear, that was not my point and it's not the point of discussion we're having.
BW is not the source, he just brought few numbers together, you don't need a peer review for that. Every science magazine and newspaper does this. I also never claimed that I peer reviewed them, I only claimed that with the data he presented I would draw the same conclusions. If you had visited the links on his site, you'd see links to reports that do exactly the same: compare the lethality of coal, hydro, nuclear but not other types with same results as BW. So he's not alone in his claims!:
EU ExternE calculation: http://manhaz.cyf.gov.pl/manhaz/strona_konferencja_EAE-2001/15%20-%20Polenp~1.pdf 25 deathes per TWh for coal and somewhere around 1 per TWh for nuclear.
IEA calculation: http://www.ieahydro.org/reports/ST3-020613b.pdf 327 deaths per TWh for coal versus 12 per TWh for nuclear.
Each and every study comparing fossil to nuclear shows that nuclear is safer. And that was original point. You have provided no source showing otherwise.
Unless you do provide study showing otherwise I consider this discussion over.
Or tell other probable reason why all browsers go into "all alert mode" when they see a self-signed cert but show nothing when the connection is pain HTTP?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and another group of committed scientists have published other reports that contradict the reports you posted
Show me this report. Greenpeace report doesn't tell anything about fossil fuels.
Your justification may be that the majority of energy decisions have been wrong because people do not "properly" understand radioactivity. However, this is an extreme position to take and, again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Those proofs are in the IEA report. You should try reading it. I just restated their conclusions.
My claim is that there is no conclusive data supporting or disproving your claim
First: So you're telling me that governments in eastern or central Europe have no idea how many people live there and die every year? Because I, as a non scientist, would call that a highest possible estimate.
Second: Somehow, people that made those reports (that is, real scientists that committed their lives to work in those fields) consider this data to be good enough to publish and peer review (done by real scientists) consider them good enough.
But YOU KNOW BETTER.
Entire countries are deciding to no longer support nuclear power due to Fukushima, yet you do not think it is even relevant when trying to establish support for your claim?
Way to go for argumentum ad populum. Those are decisions made by politicians under pressure from public that absolutely doesn't understand radioactivity. You dismiss papers published by scientists but consider opinions of politicians in high regard! On whose payroll are you? Exxon? Shell? Some coal consortium?
The utility of any discussion on this topic with you was lost when you started confusing fact with belief.
Unlike you, I have provided facts to support my belief. Or now we will turn to religious debate, whatever its OK to have beliefs that don't go together with facts?
>1000 spindles
Isn't flash in form of PCIe cards cheaper and just as performant?
Control characters are limited to first 127 ASCII characters in UTF-8. Any of those characters encoded as multi byte character, which is possible, is not valid UTF-8. You may not know how to render all characters, but you definitely can sanitize UTF-8 input: list of all characters that can be rendered by a given font is finite.
Secure systems aren't useless, they are highly inflexible.
If you have a workstation commissioned to run 2 or 3 very specific jobs (entering recruits data, administering SCADA system, piloting UAVs, etc.) it can be relatively easily secured even now. Unless it has to have access to web (with its Flash, HTML5, Java and ActiveX) it's impossible to secure if you don't use purpose build browser (that disables most of functionality). Of course in any scenario, a user can't be able to install new software or use flash drives non encrypted with company's crypto keys.
That would make any open computing system (working like Windows with its "download it yourself" installers) completely unusable for general user. At the same time, I could see a general purpose Linux distribution be actually usable. Installing 3rd party software on it would be hell though... Unfortunately that's the price we have to pay for really good security.
AFAIK SELinux can protect you from attack only from user-space. It won't help for attack on kernel itself (it's important if we want secure networks). But then I'm not sure if any system in a monolithic kernel would be able to do this. On the other hand, monolithic kernels are the only OS kernels that actually work outside academics. This would suggest that the highest security rating a general purpose OS can have is B1...
Well, if running pentest is only a first step in evaluating security of the system (after all it verifies if its secure against most common attacks) and throw it away as soon as it fails it, I'd say it adds large value.
I completely agree, test and patch doesn't work, if it did sendmail and IE would be the most secure software packages in existence.
Software that requires regular patching is not secure at any point in time.
Start using systems that were designed to be secure in the first place. Stuff that works on a "deny by default" basis, that refuse to process any data that it doesn't understand, use OCSP as a white list on the CA side, defence in depth: use strict validation of input on multiple levels (when making web app: using default deny application firewal, then strict validation in form processing and finally use modular application design that validates data received from other modules) and so on.
This will require throwing away most, if not all, software in use. Including OSs, probably even Linux as I'm not sure if SELinux (or other such systems) go deep enough on the kernel side. Then making new software from scratch with primary design objective to be secure. As no politician or PHB can justify spending this amount of money on such nebulous concept as security, the whole idea will fail. Because this won't eliminate, just reduce the number of security related bugs, won't help the cause.
We have to start by teaching new programmers how to make secure systems first (and I repeat, systems, not just programs) and just then how to program.
Nature did, geckos perfected it.
Oh, yes, you know better. Redo the numbers with your estimates of Fukushima, Chernobyl and show me it kills more people per TWh then. You only provided report from a highly political group of which the main reason for existence is to stifle progress and return civilisation to bronze age. They are against every form of energy able to provide base load: hydro, nuclear, fusion, fossil. We need energy if we want to develop and there are no other viable alternatives. And then you wonder why I dismiss their claims. They are the people that would go after dihydrogen-monooxide!
And I don't care whatever solar panels are more or less lethal than nuclear, that was not my point and it's not the point of discussion we're having.
BW is not the source, he just brought few numbers together, you don't need a peer review for that. Every science magazine and newspaper does this. I also never claimed that I peer reviewed them, I only claimed that with the data he presented I would draw the same conclusions. If you had visited the links on his site, you'd see links to reports that do exactly the same: compare the lethality of coal, hydro, nuclear but not other types with same results as BW. So he's not alone in his claims!:
EU ExternE calculation: http://manhaz.cyf.gov.pl/manhaz/strona_konferencja_EAE-2001/15%20-%20Polenp~1.pdf 25 deathes per TWh for coal and somewhere around 1 per TWh for nuclear.
IEA calculation: http://www.ieahydro.org/reports/ST3-020613b.pdf 327 deaths per TWh for coal versus 12 per TWh for nuclear.
Each and every study comparing fossil to nuclear shows that nuclear is safer. And that was original point. You have provided no source showing otherwise.
Unless you do provide study showing otherwise I consider this discussion over.
Should have visited usenet before the Eternal September...
As if MAFIAA (or whatever its local version is called) doesn't consider all torrent traffic "infringing".
One doesn't exclude the other. Informative none the less.
Yes, we call that a summer, it happens on a yearly basis.
What does this gain you over storing the cert signature itself in DNSSEC?
You get to know all the CAs the other party chose to trust, not one.
Because Verisign has to make money.
Or tell other probable reason why all browsers go into "all alert mode" when they see a self-signed cert but show nothing when the connection is pain HTTP?
Obligatory xkcd: http://xkcd.com/937/
Well, yes, X server still is run as root on many distros, but they are moving away from it.
Yes, not including basic stuff (like smartmontools) to diagnose why I can't install the bloody thing on the disk is stupid at best...
Exactly, I had CD drives (though it was 2004 at most) that wern't able to read anything past 650MB boundary...
Stop recording with the fastest speed possible, it should help.
Download debian testing netboot iso if you live in 3rd world country with data caps.
And they told me that Linux is monolithic... But I'm damn sure that the kernel doesn't parse fonts.
It's his daughter.