Some naysayers are of the opinion that Theo & his peck are good at writing well designed software from scratch (eg openssh), however their "securing" of existing codebases (eg bsd kernel and libc) ended up in trainwreck. libressl is sadly the case of the latter.
For what it's worth, NCC is not some self-appointed security snake oils but industry behemot who actually does software assurance. They harbor a lot of auditing talent (iSEC partners from top of my head).
Conversely, your nirvana fallacy does not hold up. OpenBSD was "designed" to be secure, just to become a laughing stock for reasons you outlined. All code without formal proof (ie all of systems code written in C) is potentially vulnerable no matter what. All you can do is throw best auditing talent at it and hope for the best.
The mining operation doesn't give an advantage to early adopters
If it walks like a ponzi (early adopter with well timed exit profits massively), quacks like a ponzi (you need to recruit more suckers into the scheme to profit) and has feathers like a ponzi (greed is the main incentive to participate), most laypeople will perceive it as a ponzi.
That being said, calling it a ponzi is indeed not fair, as one attribute is not shared - ponzis or penny stocks, or whatever have no interval value at all, thus the inevitable crash to 0.
But when you tack some value to it, however dubious, (be it herbal medicine; or be magic internet payment system), and use ponzi as a carrier for viral marketing scheme, you get multi level marketing - or so called pyramid scheme. When pyramids crash, they do so to inherent internal value as determined by participant consensus.
People conflate MLM with ponzis often because of the many shared attributes. Just like recruiting for AmWay alienates your friends and family, so does bitcoin, as people realize the distribution is pretty much based on the same principle.
Bitcoin is of course here to stay, for better or worse, however I doubt it ever becomes mainstream. Too much of world population need to have this illusion of just world and will gladly accept keynesian system (with obscured unfairness) over aggresively austrian one for a long time.
Now now careful here with basement dwelling remarks, judging from the butthurt replies you've struck a sensitive chord here.
Currently, smart watch makers are desperately trying to do ton of stuff, and suck at most of it (yes, including showing time). These things can't be more than dumb screen terminal for the time being, yet most vendors are afraid to market it as such. You might be interested in pebble watch, actually a fun piece of programmable hardware on your wrists, compared to lobotomised, underpowered android devices, or outright obscure+irrelevant+proprietary systems.
Amateur LAN party organiser (>50 players) with anecdotal sample here.
Does resolution matter?
It depends. When the game demands it, ie frantic action shooter, like q3a or cs and even the slower ones like arma/cod/battlefield, most players will sacrifice visual details and/or resolution till they get smooth 45-60 FPS.
Conversely games not that epilepsy-inducing (RTS and anything slower than that up to casual gaming), 30fps is often enough and the rest of GPU power can be spent on finer details.
25 in europe or 30 in US is certain enough for movies, as we're used to it, you get that "cinematic feel". We're so used to it there's usually even an option to enable motion blur (which simulates real world camera) in most games. While rod cells have pretty long cool down time too, it relates only to detail perception. Motion perception is magnitude more demanding - seasoned FPS players can tell difference between 50 and 100FPS (yay CRTs, TFT panels like that are not widely available).
25fps is 40ms reaction on frame alone, which is awfuly slow. Jerky framerate is alright for casual gaming on gamepad, but gets pretty nauseating on fast paced shooters with free mouse look. It also affects gameplay - an U-turn often takes less than 50-100ms - then it's a matter of glimpsing something midway or not.
Perhaps grandparent was talking about consoles approaching PCs hardware wise with each gen - with some small amount of junk to keep it obfusated enough for DRM. At the end of that evolution chain you get basically a PC, with hardware DRM. And hopefuly with modular components, otherwise consoles can't really ever compete on manufacture cost vs performance (let's ignore current practice of hardware subsidy).
Ironically, thats why most people shush it, because it is ioerror. The guy definitely knows how to make good PR, thats why Tor project keeps him aboard as a necessary spokesperson evil, however don't conflate talking heads with project contributors (he does basically nothing but ranting). Don't you think targeting someone who whines about it repeatedly since circa 2011 would be such a smart move?
Chances are it's just the usual wikileaks-tier PR, be it paranoia or calculated (usually it's both).
Closest-to-the kin (you save closest family first, then tribe, then nation, then neighboring allied nations and so on). All of that is of course instinct demonstrated on animal models over and over.
On animal models its also demonstrated that sheer brute force often wins (ie both racism and rape is ok according to animal models).
The problem with using biological models, or nature-vs-nurture to justify behavior is that it reduces humans to animals and defy civilization as such, so it usually does not carry enough weight to bother with it in sociology discourse as it's too easily shot down from too many angles.
This study is interesting that it was conducted on humans, in recent toxic PC climate. It is of course carefully worded, ie "empirical study", "we don't know if its nature vs nurture etc", but it's easy to draw conclusions on your own with basic knownledge of statistics. Understandably nobody wants to spell out anything explicit and be labeled next Josef Mengele. But yeah, people are instinctively racist unless they rationally overcome that urge, just like one must suppress many other urges of our stupid animal lizard brain. Boohoo. News at 11. But don't say that on national TV.
Actually did RTFA. This experiment in aversive racism seems to assume broad definition racism, ie "us vs them", or group membership.
At this moment, colloquial use of word "racism" in clickbait media is essentially interchangeable with "bigotry". Sadly how words are used define their meaning, not the other way around. But yes, most people are bigoted. Even the pope is bigoted towards the idea of hell, fallen angels and satan (recently he promised to like gays; which is actually somewhat encouraging).
You see, we europeans with crooked teeth are long past carnal racism based on obvious cues like skin color - owing to being class based serfdoms, instead of color based chattel slavery cultures in recent history. So we're left with no choice to hate thy neighbor based on ethnicity and/or nationality.
Also, taking this all the way to ad-absurdum conclusion - a liberal not being fond of a conservative for being bigoted is racist (because hating political leaning is racist, just like hating russians because of stalin, or hating germans because of hitler or...). The argument became so over simplified it becomes self-contradictory.
When the shouting match between stormfronters and white guilt becomes polarised like it did recently, new words get invented and old meanings get redefined just by the sheer volume of simpleton shit sprung in both directions of camps of this career activism.
Random (not)interesting tidbit: The nationality people around the world are racist towards the most is not blacks (or "people of color", or whatever its called today), not even chinese, but North Americans as a whole. This is just a speculation - eastern parts of europe, arab nations and large parts of asia would unilaterally prefer to sacrifice an american, instead of one of their supergroup. American race being defined by your accent and certain "american" behaviorial stereotypes.
Reddit, HN and even slashdot are not censorship, but democratic rule of the mob. Majority conservative groupthink silencing the outrageous opposition.
Mobs can be smart (delphi method), or dumb (torches and pitchforks).
Sadly its often the case of the latter because people refuse to be rational about their confirmation bias. Exact same thing goes in politics or cultures in general.
But I'd defer dissing democracy as such just because people are so bad at executing it.
Sorry, should've made it more clear. My post talks about server endpoint specifically (this is what geolocation/fraud prevention "sees"). Flashing openwrt, instead of just running openvpn client on desktop, makes almost zero difference in cases like netflix.
Operator of VPN/proxy endpoint RBL here (private, for obvious reasons). Lists >90% of VPNs, just a soft filter used to detect credit card fraud.
Centralized commercial VPNs are a joke. Just subscribe to all major providers, scrape their endpoint servers.
Services like VPNGate make some effort to hinder scraping, but still not nearly enough (also volunteer driven and free just like Tor, thus slow and unreliable).
tl;dr: If MPAA will win this bullshit, "Virtual Commercial Network" $5 surcharge to watch netflix will cease to exist as such, and people will be back to "Virtual Private Networks", which are magnitude harder "tech savvy", impossible to commoditize, thus nothing MPAA would care about.
Coinbase is more like OTC currency exchanger. Retail broker. Indeed moneychangers also often source coins on actual exchanges as their volumes are often skewed only in one direction (very few sell on coinbase).
But your typical bitcoin exchange is a tad bit of different beast - notably, it is not Forex OTC at all, but more like capital markets. In fact very few forex parallels can be drawn. All they care about is volume. Federated digital currency forex networks do exist though - Ripple - but it has it's share of problems and is nowhere near as popular.
There is no 'free' market, and there never has been.
Luckily life is not that black and white as portrayed, there are often a lot of shades of grey.
Telco situation in the US is failed regulation, as is telco in Korea successful regulation. Both are cases of state monopolies, but it depends who is in power to influence government. Go blame failed US democracy, not free markets.
Free markets for last-mile work more or less in densely populated places. Some european countries and russia have as much as 30% of heavily competing WISP penetration.
Taken from gmaxwell's altcoin wishlist:
POW which turns the distributed computation into ticking for timelock encryption
An infinite sequence of nothing-up-my-sleeve numbers are taken as an infinte sequence of ECC public keys. Searching the pow involves finding distinguished points along a Pollard's rho DLP solution trying to crack the key. When the key is cracked the problem is advanced to the next key.
People can then encrypt messages with all of the keys between now and sometime in the future and network will crack them, achieving a timelock.
Probably incompatible with merged mining and other POW schemes.
Making the difficulty adaptive either makes far in the future messages impossible (because the problem size wouldn't be known long in advance), or requires increasingly big headers as the difficulty would require working on multiple problems concurrently.
The obvious constructions using ECDLP as the asymmetric problem are not progress free.
You may be mistaken. Information assurance is fundamentally a management discipline that requires some technical knowledge
Fitting managerial roles in same field rarely counts as escaping field of expertise - while encountering dilbert-esque opportunist drones is fairly common, good managers have to divide their time equally between the technical world and the beancounters above - they have to be good at both. Hiearchy within same department shall not be confused with different department.
Incidentally, infosec folks often tend to put their skill to good use in other fields once they get burned out by silly corporate theatrics. Private investigators, LEA contractors and even army are suitable for this peculiar way of critical thinking.
I'm curious exactly how narrow field such as infosec, like pen testing and software audits is not IT. How is that different from say, webdesign?
Sure, there are the usual drones who just preach the common sense policies and oversee that things are by the book (FIPS/ISO). Social engineering is the most common vector after all, but even they need some fairly deep comprehesion of what goes on. Calling it field separate from IT sounds unrealistic, at least for now - the market is too new, basically kindergarten. When there will be actual companies providing insurance plans covering data leaks, hacking would deserve to be called relevant branch of security.
TLDR: Quantum Turing Machine > Turing Machine. Our parent universe might be just another QC, but also something of even "higher state of being".
Blenders are not turing-complete ("computer") in our universe, but might as well be in the parent one - thus, we should not be discriminating against blenders.
Quantum Turing Machine can simulate both universes, TM or QTM efficiently. However running a QTM machine inside TM simulated universe is awfully impractical, as much are our current Quantum Computer simulators running on present day TM hardware.
This can be taken quite far from here. If we are just segment in chain of universes, each subsequent universe is inferior to previous one "for technical reasons". For example, our universes upper bound might be that of time, because creating simulation without flow of time might have been simply technically impractical for our Gods - their universe might have limits of its own to merit that.
"Throttling" between autonomous systems is common.
Think of it as series of tubes, and between some places, the tubes are thinner. Usually wherever AS POP meet and the exchange arrangement is not settlement-free, but capped to some numbers in (either) direction. Or the port is simply running red-hot.
When two big ISPs refuse to reach a compromise on peering terms, it's usually the users who suffer. Think of the Sprint vs. cogent drama.
Commercial internet worked like that since uh... always. ISP peering is market driven - that is, there is clearly "demand" for data from AWS, but Verizon is a monopoly which can afford to extort AWS to cough up money, and Amazon/whomever are reluctant to cave in.
Net neutrality term is a bit of oxymoron in the light of this, as there was never one to begin with. The problem is simply lack of last-mile competition in the US, as those operators are not pressed by competition to provide quality bandwidth to end users from relevant places as needed.
Refusing to peer with competing service, and offering local service of their own is entirely legit as well. As long the consumer is given choice of different ISP to flee to....
The sexism IRL is indeed there and hard to deal with.
Online, things are vastly different though. When women take the shortcut online ("look look, i have boobs and know ruby"), it's entirely their fault for watering down her credibility with that in front of predominantly male audience - men are inherently sexist creatures. If a woman wants to avoid that and be judged on actual merit without the "boob bias", how hard is to simply play it cool?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, some people take an issue with that, fe:
https://blog.hboeck.de/archive...
Some naysayers are of the opinion that Theo & his peck are good at writing well designed software from scratch (eg openssh), however their "securing" of existing codebases (eg bsd kernel and libc) ended up in trainwreck. libressl is sadly the case of the latter.
For what it's worth, NCC is not some self-appointed security snake oils but industry behemot who actually does software assurance. They harbor a lot of auditing talent (iSEC partners from top of my head).
Conversely, your nirvana fallacy does not hold up. OpenBSD was "designed" to be secure, just to become a laughing stock for reasons you outlined. All code without formal proof (ie all of systems code written in C) is potentially vulnerable no matter what. All you can do is throw best auditing talent at it and hope for the best.
If it walks like a ponzi (early adopter with well timed exit profits massively), quacks like a ponzi (you need to recruit more suckers into the scheme to profit) and has feathers like a ponzi (greed is the main incentive to participate), most laypeople will perceive it as a ponzi.
That being said, calling it a ponzi is indeed not fair, as one attribute is not shared - ponzis or penny stocks, or whatever have no interval value at all, thus the inevitable crash to 0.
But when you tack some value to it, however dubious, (be it herbal medicine; or be magic internet payment system), and use ponzi as a carrier for viral marketing scheme, you get multi level marketing - or so called pyramid scheme. When pyramids crash, they do so to inherent internal value as determined by participant consensus.
People conflate MLM with ponzis often because of the many shared attributes. Just like recruiting for AmWay alienates your friends and family, so does bitcoin, as people realize the distribution is pretty much based on the same principle.
Bitcoin is of course here to stay, for better or worse, however I doubt it ever becomes mainstream. Too much of world population need to have this illusion of just world and will gladly accept keynesian system (with obscured unfairness) over aggresively austrian one for a long time.
Now now careful here with basement dwelling remarks, judging from the butthurt replies you've struck a sensitive chord here.
Currently, smart watch makers are desperately trying to do ton of stuff, and suck at most of it (yes, including showing time). These things can't be more than dumb screen terminal for the time being, yet most vendors are afraid to market it as such. You might be interested in pebble watch, actually a fun piece of programmable hardware on your wrists, compared to lobotomised, underpowered android devices, or outright obscure+irrelevant+proprietary systems.
CRTs of the higher end, while specced 75hz can often run at 100-120 with proper modeline (and comparably lower resolution).
But yeah, my info is at least 5 years out of date, you can't exactly buy new CRTs these days, while gaming 100hz TFTs seem to be around.
It can do far more these days, NSE scripts are like nessus (which is hopelessly outdated) on steroids.
It depends. When the game demands it, ie frantic action shooter, like q3a or cs and even the slower ones like arma/cod/battlefield, most players will sacrifice visual details and/or resolution till they get smooth 45-60 FPS.
Conversely games not that epilepsy-inducing (RTS and anything slower than that up to casual gaming), 30fps is often enough and the rest of GPU power can be spent on finer details.
25 in europe or 30 in US is certain enough for movies, as we're used to it, you get that "cinematic feel". We're so used to it there's usually even an option to enable motion blur (which simulates real world camera) in most games. While rod cells have pretty long cool down time too, it relates only to detail perception. Motion perception is magnitude more demanding - seasoned FPS players can tell difference between 50 and 100FPS (yay CRTs, TFT panels like that are not widely available).
25fps is 40ms reaction on frame alone, which is awfuly slow. Jerky framerate is alright for casual gaming on gamepad, but gets pretty nauseating on fast paced shooters with free mouse look. It also affects gameplay - an U-turn often takes less than 50-100ms - then it's a matter of glimpsing something midway or not.
Perhaps grandparent was talking about consoles approaching PCs hardware wise with each gen - with some small amount of junk to keep it obfusated enough for DRM. At the end of that evolution chain you get basically a PC, with hardware DRM. And hopefuly with modular components, otherwise consoles can't really ever compete on manufacture cost vs performance (let's ignore current practice of hardware subsidy).
Ironically, thats why most people shush it, because it is ioerror. The guy definitely knows how to make good PR, thats why Tor project keeps him aboard as a necessary spokesperson evil, however don't conflate talking heads with project contributors (he does basically nothing but ranting). Don't you think targeting someone who whines about it repeatedly since circa 2011 would be such a smart move?
Chances are it's just the usual wikileaks-tier PR, be it paranoia or calculated (usually it's both).
Closest-to-the kin (you save closest family first, then tribe, then nation, then neighboring allied nations and so on). All of that is of course instinct demonstrated on animal models over and over.
On animal models its also demonstrated that sheer brute force often wins (ie both racism and rape is ok according to animal models).
The problem with using biological models, or nature-vs-nurture to justify behavior is that it reduces humans to animals and defy civilization as such, so it usually does not carry enough weight to bother with it in sociology discourse as it's too easily shot down from too many angles.
This study is interesting that it was conducted on humans, in recent toxic PC climate. It is of course carefully worded, ie "empirical study", "we don't know if its nature vs nurture etc", but it's easy to draw conclusions on your own with basic knownledge of statistics. Understandably nobody wants to spell out anything explicit and be labeled next Josef Mengele. But yeah, people are instinctively racist unless they rationally overcome that urge, just like one must suppress many other urges of our stupid animal lizard brain. Boohoo. News at 11. But don't say that on national TV.
tl;dr: WE HAVE ACHIEVED PEAK CAUCASITY
...). The argument became so over simplified it becomes self-contradictory.
Actually did RTFA. This experiment in aversive racism seems to assume broad definition racism, ie "us vs them", or group membership.
At this moment, colloquial use of word "racism" in clickbait media is essentially interchangeable with "bigotry". Sadly how words are used define their meaning, not the other way around. But yes, most people are bigoted. Even the pope is bigoted towards the idea of hell, fallen angels and satan (recently he promised to like gays; which is actually somewhat encouraging).
You see, we europeans with crooked teeth are long past carnal racism based on obvious cues like skin color - owing to being class based serfdoms, instead of color based chattel slavery cultures in recent history. So we're left with no choice to hate thy neighbor based on ethnicity and/or nationality.
Also, taking this all the way to ad-absurdum conclusion - a liberal not being fond of a conservative for being bigoted is racist (because hating political leaning is racist, just like hating russians because of stalin, or hating germans because of hitler or
When the shouting match between stormfronters and white guilt becomes polarised like it did recently, new words get invented and old meanings get redefined just by the sheer volume of simpleton shit sprung in both directions of camps of this career activism.
Random (not)interesting tidbit: The nationality people around the world are racist towards the most is not blacks (or "people of color", or whatever its called today), not even chinese, but North Americans as a whole. This is just a speculation - eastern parts of europe, arab nations and large parts of asia would unilaterally prefer to sacrifice an american, instead of one of their supergroup. American race being defined by your accent and certain "american" behaviorial stereotypes.
jimmie status=triggered
Opium wars.
Well put, though a bit fallacious.
Reddit, HN and even slashdot are not censorship, but democratic rule of the mob. Majority conservative groupthink silencing the outrageous opposition.
Mobs can be smart (delphi method), or dumb (torches and pitchforks).
Sadly its often the case of the latter because people refuse to be rational about their confirmation bias. Exact same thing goes in politics or cultures in general.
But I'd defer dissing democracy as such just because people are so bad at executing it.
Sorry, should've made it more clear. My post talks about server endpoint specifically (this is what geolocation/fraud prevention "sees"). Flashing openwrt, instead of just running openvpn client on desktop, makes almost zero difference in cases like netflix.
Operator of VPN/proxy endpoint RBL here (private, for obvious reasons). Lists >90% of VPNs, just a soft filter used to detect credit card fraud. Centralized commercial VPNs are a joke. Just subscribe to all major providers, scrape their endpoint servers. Services like VPNGate make some effort to hinder scraping, but still not nearly enough (also volunteer driven and free just like Tor, thus slow and unreliable). tl;dr: If MPAA will win this bullshit, "Virtual Commercial Network" $5 surcharge to watch netflix will cease to exist as such, and people will be back to "Virtual Private Networks", which are magnitude harder "tech savvy", impossible to commoditize, thus nothing MPAA would care about.
Coinbase is more like OTC currency exchanger. Retail broker. Indeed moneychangers also often source coins on actual exchanges as their volumes are often skewed only in one direction (very few sell on coinbase).
But your typical bitcoin exchange is a tad bit of different beast - notably, it is not Forex OTC at all, but more like capital markets. In fact very few forex parallels can be drawn. All they care about is volume. Federated digital currency forex networks do exist though - Ripple - but it has it's share of problems and is nowhere near as popular.
There is no 'free' market, and there never has been.
Luckily life is not that black and white as portrayed, there are often a lot of shades of grey.
Telco situation in the US is failed regulation, as is telco in Korea successful regulation. Both are cases of state monopolies, but it depends who is in power to influence government. Go blame failed US democracy, not free markets.
Free markets for last-mile work more or less in densely populated places. Some european countries and russia have as much as 30% of heavily competing WISP penetration.
You may be mistaken. Information assurance is fundamentally a management discipline that requires some technical knowledge
Fitting managerial roles in same field rarely counts as escaping field of expertise - while encountering dilbert-esque opportunist drones is fairly common, good managers have to divide their time equally between the technical world and the beancounters above - they have to be good at both. Hiearchy within same department shall not be confused with different department.
Incidentally, infosec folks often tend to put their skill to good use in other fields once they get burned out by silly corporate theatrics. Private investigators, LEA contractors and even army are suitable for this peculiar way of critical thinking.
I'm curious exactly how narrow field such as infosec, like pen testing and software audits is not IT. How is that different from say, webdesign?
Sure, there are the usual drones who just preach the common sense policies and oversee that things are by the book (FIPS/ISO). Social engineering is the most common vector after all, but even they need some fairly deep comprehesion of what goes on. Calling it field separate from IT sounds unrealistic, at least for now - the market is too new, basically kindergarten. When there will be actual companies providing insurance plans covering data leaks, hacking would deserve to be called relevant branch of security.
TLDR: Quantum Turing Machine > Turing Machine. Our parent universe might be just another QC, but also something of even "higher state of being".
Blenders are not turing-complete ("computer") in our universe, but might as well be in the parent one - thus, we should not be discriminating against blenders.
Quantum Turing Machine can simulate both universes, TM or QTM efficiently. However running a QTM machine inside TM simulated universe is awfully impractical, as much are our current Quantum Computer simulators running on present day TM hardware.
This can be taken quite far from here. If we are just segment in chain of universes, each subsequent universe is inferior to previous one "for technical reasons". For example, our universes upper bound might be that of time, because creating simulation without flow of time might have been simply technically impractical for our Gods - their universe might have limits of its own to merit that.
"Throttling" between autonomous systems is common.
... always. ISP peering is market driven - that is, there is clearly "demand" for data from AWS, but Verizon is a monopoly which can afford to extort AWS to cough up money, and Amazon/whomever are reluctant to cave in.
Think of it as series of tubes, and between some places, the tubes are thinner. Usually wherever AS POP meet and the exchange arrangement is not settlement-free, but capped to some numbers in (either) direction. Or the port is simply running red-hot.
When two big ISPs refuse to reach a compromise on peering terms, it's usually the users who suffer. Think of the Sprint vs. cogent drama.
Commercial internet worked like that since uh
Net neutrality term is a bit of oxymoron in the light of this, as there was never one to begin with. The problem is simply lack of last-mile competition in the US, as those operators are not pressed by competition to provide quality bandwidth to end users from relevant places as needed.
Refusing to peer with competing service, and offering local service of their own is entirely legit as well. As long the consumer is given choice of different ISP to flee to....
The sexism IRL is indeed there and hard to deal with.
Online, things are vastly different though. When women take the shortcut online ("look look, i have boobs and know ruby"), it's entirely their fault for watering down her credibility with that in front of predominantly male audience - men are inherently sexist creatures. If a woman wants to avoid that and be judged on actual merit without the "boob bias", how hard is to simply play it cool?