> I despise the GOP. Trump is just another version of their evil.
The vast majority of Republican commentators and elected officials don't like the guy at all. He's a donor to Bill and Hillary Clinton. Trump really isn't the republicans guy, though with the less-informed public voted, the sane candidates did split the vote, leaving him with all of the crazy vote and therefore a win.
Aleynikov, the programmer you're speaking of, said it "contained open-source code mingled with code that was proprietary to Goldman". He said that he uploaded it so that he could look at it later and remember how he did it. That's the story from his side. Goldman obviously has their side of the story too.
Yes, modern hashes, salted, work extremely well. This is based on my experience writing software which has handled hundreds of millions of login attempts over the last fifteen years. Here's an MD5 slated hash of own of my passwords which the bas guys which very much like to crack.
Yes, spies have been around forever. What's new is today most organizations can't function without their computer networks. In WWII, the combatants bombed each other's railroad networks, because with the railroad shut down the enemy couldn't move men and materials, production would largely shut down in the affected areas, etc. Today we're even more reliant on computer networks than we ever were on railroad networks.
If an enemy were to do substantial damage to our computer and network infrastructure, that would seriously hamper our economy and our ability to fight a major war (it's hard to build more fighter jets or missiles when the network is down).
In addition, a very prolific spy of the 1950s might steal thousands of pages of documents. Thousands of pages was a major, major haul. Today, thousands of pages is a typical script kiddie. Unit 61398 steals thousands of pages every DAY.
> allows them to decide which resources a program should be allowed to access... > an OS that doesn't trust everything. (Good luck finding one!)
We've had that for 15 years. That's called SELinux (Security-enhanced Linux). Other alternatives are gresecurity and AppArmor.
> a modern GUI interface which transparently and intuitively
That's what is missing. Right now, the easiest tools to use include a default set of rules, then show violations and let you add rules to allow it next time.
Copyright does not protect facts. Which components are used is a set of facts. To the extent that the schematic is protected under copyright, you can't sell the schematic. That doesn't carry over to building a board based on the design.
Consider that the book "Networking for Dummies" is copyright protected, so I can't make and sell copies of the book. I CAN read the book and use that knowledge to make money. Similarly, I can read the rPi schematic and use that knowledge to make money. The gerber files and silkscreen would be borderline - to be safe one would make their own gerber.
Obviously you run into some gray areas, but in general you should be able to legally clone the design - it isn't patented so far as I'm aware. The question would be exactly which files you'd need to re-write yourself. Since the SOC they use isn't available, you'd probably have to rewrite the gerber files anyway to adapt it for a slightly different SOC.
Yeah the summary seems a bit confused. It says "salted passwords with MD5 (an algorithm that nowadays is easy to crack)". If they are properly salted, they aren't easy to to crack. Depending on the hardware, the salted MD5 hash of a 10-character password should take roughly a year to crack.
UNsalted, many passwords will crack almost instantly by use of MD5 rainbow tables, and an attacker can attack all of them in parallel. The 8-character salt used by default with MD5 and crypt() means each entry has to be attacked individually, one at a time.
On a related note, here's how to get SHA256 salted hashes on a Linux system: crypt(PASSWORD, '$5$' . SALT . '$')
In MySQL it's called ENCRYPT(): ENCRYPT(?, CONCAT('$5$', ?, '$')) execute(password, randomsalt)
Enclosing the salt in $5$...$ causes crypt() to use sha256.
Anyone can make and sell a board based on the rPi design (probably*). You can sell a crappy one made from recycled reject components, with half as much RAM and a slower CPU if you want to. What you can't do is call the crappy version a "Raspberry Pi" and label it with the raspberry logo. You can call it Blueberry Cake if you want to.
To sell a your board as a Raspberry Pi, you need permission, which is granted only to producers who meet the standards.
You're also allowed to use the trademark name "Raspberry Pi" to say your accessory is compatible with the Raspberry Pi board, and certain other defined uses. Otherwise, you need permission to use the name.
* A quick search didn't find an explicit license for the schematic or other copyrightable design documents.
Whenever I get a new phone, either because the old one broke or I just want an upgrade, I move my SD card to my new phone and all my stuff is there. I can't do that with built-in memory. If all photos and data is stored on built-in memory, I'm screwed when the phone dies. Yes, I have a backup, but that's plan B; I don't want to rely on the backup as being the only way to move my data to a new device. If the "backup" is plan A for moving data, that would leave me with no actual backup. For that reason, an SD card is a requirement for me.
Ocassionally I also have need to put the SD card in my computer, such as to copy over a large folder of media files. That's not as important as the case above of moving to a new phone, but it does make an SD card useful.
31% of the global population are Christian. 23% are Muslim.
Even if we pretend there are no Jewish people, not only do "most religious people" accept Exodus, the majority of people do. So yes, that's "lowest common denominator", minimum definition of God accepted by "most religious people" (over 75%) and most people (over 55%).
I certainly understand why someone with limited knowledge of firearms might point to an gun in an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie and say "nobody needs to have THAT. I don't know exactly what that is, but it should be illegal." Of course what Arnold is holding is an oatmeal box with a four pieces of PVC pipe hot glued to it, painted black. So while their comment is understandable, it's not an intelligent way to make policy. You just end up outlawing Quaker oatmeal boxes.
> Would you rather it specify that only bolt-action weapons are legal?
Many things have been tried, so we get to look at how well they worked. A couple of things have worked, in combinations. Most effective has been a combination of tough sentences for using a weapon in the commission of a felony ALONG WITH advertising those tough sentences. Texas had ads on city busses and other places saying things like this: Robbery: Five years in prison. ARMED robbery: 20 years.
and: Car theft: 5 years in prison Having a gun when stealing a car: 15 years
The ads worked. Thugs learned - leave any guns and knives at home if you're going to commit a crime. In at least one case, video shows the crook ditching their weapon before stealing a car.
After that success, the same idea was applied when Texas got shall-issue carry licenses. They advertised that the good guys, the "victim", might shoot you. That also worked, though not as dramatically.
In California, someone holding a CCAr or multiple CCIEs would certainly command more than $200K.
Each level in the Cisco certification track has many specialties, some pay higher than others. The levels are: CCENT (Slightly harder than Network+) Multiple CCNA (several different specialties) CCNP CCIE CCAr
The national AVERAGE salary of someone with one CCIE is $115K. (There aren't enough CCAr holders to get a good average). Someone with multiple CCIE and a CCAr in California would be expected to make over $200K for sure.
Yet, none of the Cisco certifications is in the top 5 highest-paying IT certifications. Other IT certifications pay more. My own experience is that my take-home pay doubled as soon as I added a couple of certs to my resume. Which reminds me, I should get off Slashdot and go back to studying.
When my one-year-old finely ran out of energy in the evening, she would say "I go night-night." When her ipad ran out of energy, I explained to "ipad is going night-night" and she understood. Her vocabulary didn't include the words "battery" or "electricty", of course. As she learned a bit more vocabulary she said "ipad sleeping". This was a good analogy, she correctly understood the basic concept. Her description was neither complete nor wrong, it was simply limited by her vocabulary and understanding.
You can probably draw a water molecule, H2O of course looks like Mickey Mouse. That's the correct depiction of H2O. If we use an electron scanning microscope, we see it looks nothing like that. The Mickey Mouse picture of H2O is useful, and correctly depicts fundamental aspects of the molecule, so it's not really wrong; it's very limited. But correct enough to be useful! Kind of an analogy, or vocabulary-limited representation.
> I'm willing to bet that those people living thousands of years ago were wrong
I'm willing to bet that my understanding of the creation of everything in the entire universe is well under 1%. Essentially, I'm at the "ipad go night-night" level of understanding. As were people 2000 or 4000 years ago. The Mickey Mouse molecule is outdated in that we (humans) know more detail now, yet it's still a useful tool for me to personally understand the chemistry. Some of the biblical analogies and explanations (written in a language with a total vocabulary of hundreds of words) are limited and outdated. That doesn't mean they are wrong. Perhaps Moses was right when he said Ipad is night-night.
Ps: On a side-note, check out the US government instructions for removing black mold from a house, then read the mold removal instructions in Leviticus. It's interesting.
> I think that the religious concept of God is the same thing as life itself.
You say "the religious concept of God" is the same thing as "life itself". You believe in life itself. Therefore you believe in the religious concept of God. Not what you meant?:D
I think you've gotten yourself a bit twisted trying to talk about what "religious people believe". Billions of different religious people believe a great many different things, so it's not normally true or useful to say "religious people believe", with some rare qualified exceptions. Honestly, you just confuse the issue if you pretend that all religious people believe the same things; they very rarely do. In fact, most religious people have substantial changes to their beliefs over time. For example, the founder of the largest church in the US, Robert Morris, long thought that God is not concerned with us humans, that he created us and then left. Now Robert thinks that proposition is ridiculous. So not even an individual religious leader believes the same thing he did 20 years ago.
Let's look at what YOU believe, recognizing that the different people believe many different things. It seems that the big contrast you wish to draw is "I don't think that there is anything... intelligent to the whole thing". Is that my understanding accurate?
Are you by chance familar with ion pumps, the structures in each cell wall which pump molecules in and out? If not, surely you're familiar with the water cycle, the way water is naturally cleaned and recycled. Also the carbohydrate cycle, animals need oxygen and carbs to survive, and produce CO2 and water as waste. Coincidentally, plants do the exact opposite - they take in water and CO2, producing oxygen and carbohydrates. It's all rather clever, wouldn't you say? By clever I don't mean to imply "designed by a really old guy with a flowing white beard". Just how it all fits together so nicely, it's a clever system.
Nobody enforces the biblical admonition to avoid eating unrefrigerated shellfish lest one get sick either. Nor the biblical fact that if you start a building without estimating the cost and end up with a half-finished building, you'll be laughed at. Nor that a man who finds a wise and faithful wife is truly blessed. Nor that adultery causes trouble. Nor that the wise save up stores of choice grain. Nor most of the other biblical adminitions.
It seems that you personally have this idea of a -person- enforcing truth through punishment. Some people think that way; it is by no means universal.
The words we most often translate as "sin" aren't just used in a "moral" context. They are cognates of the words hata and hamartano, which mean roughly "miss the mark". In an archery competition, when an archer did not hit the target, that was hata. In another competition, many participants got prizes. Those who didn't qualify for a prize were hamartano. Same for someone who dug a well where there was no water, who co-signed a loan for someone who failed to make payment, etc.
Your vision of God isn't altogether uncommon, yet it's certainly not the only one. Most who have studied enough to know a few words of the original greek and hebrew have a different conception than what you have conveyed.
I'll have enough respect to ask my question in Larry's native language:/\/\/%Â*&(.{5,93}[0-F])$/
Actually I love Perl. I can program in any of several languages and Perl is my all-around favorite. I just can't think of a question because if I had a question for Larry, I would have asked it by now.
> when you can change the definition for the word god
Obviously people do have different conceptions of God, but most religious people agree on God's own definition, so that's a solid foundation to start with. Christians, Jews, and Muslims consider Exodus to be scripture*. In Exodus Moses asked God who he is, and God replied "I am that which always is", or "I am the permanent/timeless". (Translation from ancient Hebrew is of course inexact).
Though each person has their own understanding, that basis, that God is what is unchanging, has itself been definitional for at least 2,600 years. Gravity, magnetism, etc are unchanging principles, so it seems, by the words of God, that God is gravity, magnetism, and anything other unchanging principle of the universe.
* Exodus is generally considered allegorical, scripture, illustrating spiritual truths in ancient stories that were down via oral tradition, not historical facts. Though some facts are confirmed by Egyptian records, such as the central event of the Egyptian army chasing the jews from Egypt.
Slashdot Mirror
> I despise the GOP. Trump is just another version of their evil.
The vast majority of Republican commentators and elected officials don't like the guy at all. He's a donor to Bill and Hillary Clinton. Trump really isn't the republicans guy, though with the less-informed public voted, the sane candidates did split the vote, leaving him with all of the crazy vote and therefore a win.
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Aleynikov, the programmer you're speaking of, said it "contained open-source code mingled with code that was proprietary to Goldman". He said that he uploaded it so that he could look at it later and remember how he did it. That's the story from his side. Goldman obviously has their side of the story too.
I totally disagree. I'd NEVER read and write purely textual comments on any site.
> to write quickly write readable text, like I'm doing now.
Is that what you're doing now now doing now?
> it would either generate a stammering
Yeah, I'm betting on stammering. ;)
Yes, modern hashes, salted, work extremely well. This is based on my experience writing software which has handled hundreds of millions of login attempts over the last fifteen years. Here's an MD5 slated hash of own of my passwords which the bas guys which very much like to crack.
$1$bCF1UNu$pRbc6HKD.d8fyv7ABC1ML
Have fun trying.
Yes, spies have been around forever. What's new is today most organizations can't function without their computer networks. In WWII, the combatants bombed each other's railroad networks, because with the railroad shut down the enemy couldn't move men and materials, production would largely shut down in the affected areas, etc. Today we're even more reliant on computer networks than we ever were on railroad networks.
If an enemy were to do substantial damage to our computer and network infrastructure, that would seriously hamper our economy and our ability to fight a major war (it's hard to build more fighter jets or missiles when the network is down).
In addition, a very prolific spy of the 1950s might steal thousands of pages of documents. Thousands of pages was a major, major haul. Today, thousands of pages is a typical script kiddie. Unit 61398 steals thousands of pages every DAY.
> allows them to decide which resources a program should be allowed to access ...
> an OS that doesn't trust everything. (Good luck finding one!)
We've had that for 15 years. That's called SELinux (Security-enhanced Linux). Other alternatives are gresecurity and AppArmor.
> a modern GUI interface which transparently and intuitively
That's what is missing.
Right now, the easiest tools to use include a default set of rules, then show violations and let you add rules to allow it next time.
Copyright does not protect facts. Which components are used is a set of facts. To the extent that the schematic is protected under copyright, you can't sell the schematic. That doesn't carry over to building a board based on the design.
Consider that the book "Networking for Dummies" is copyright protected, so I can't make and sell copies of the book. I CAN read the book and use that knowledge to make money. Similarly, I can read the rPi schematic and use that knowledge to make money. The gerber files and silkscreen would be borderline - to be safe one would make their own gerber.
Obviously you run into some gray areas, but in general you should be able to legally clone the design - it isn't patented so far as I'm aware. The question would be exactly which files you'd need to re-write yourself. Since the SOC they use isn't available, you'd probably have to rewrite the gerber files anyway to adapt it for a slightly different SOC.
The big concern is that people may have used the same user name / password combination on other systems.
Yeah the summary seems a bit confused. It says "salted passwords with MD5 (an algorithm that nowadays is easy to crack)". If they are properly salted, they aren't easy to to crack. Depending on the hardware, the salted MD5 hash of a 10-character password should take roughly a year to crack.
UNsalted, many passwords will crack almost instantly by use of MD5 rainbow tables, and an attacker can attack all of them in parallel. The 8-character salt used by default with MD5 and crypt() means each entry has to be attacked individually, one at a time.
On a related note, here's how to get SHA256 salted hashes on a Linux system:
crypt(PASSWORD, '$5$' . SALT . '$')
In MySQL it's called ENCRYPT():
ENCRYPT(?, CONCAT('$5$', ?, '$'))
execute(password, randomsalt)
Enclosing the salt in $5$...$ causes crypt() to use sha256.
Anyone can make and sell a board based on the rPi design (probably*). You can sell a crappy one made from recycled reject components, with half as much RAM and a slower CPU if you want to. What you can't do is call the crappy version a "Raspberry Pi" and label it with the raspberry logo. You can call it Blueberry Cake if you want to.
To sell a your board as a Raspberry Pi, you need permission, which is granted only to producers who meet the standards.
You're also allowed to use the trademark name "Raspberry Pi" to say your accessory is compatible with the Raspberry Pi board, and certain other defined uses. Otherwise, you need permission to use the name.
* A quick search didn't find an explicit license for the schematic or other copyrightable design documents.
Whenever I get a new phone, either because the old one broke or I just want an upgrade, I move my SD card to my new phone and all my stuff is there. I can't do that with built-in memory. If all photos and data is stored on built-in memory, I'm screwed when the phone dies. Yes, I have a backup, but that's plan B; I don't want to rely on the backup as being the only way to move my data to a new device. If the "backup" is plan A for moving data, that would leave me with no actual backup. For that reason, an SD card is a requirement for me.
Ocassionally I also have need to put the SD card in my computer, such as to copy over a large folder of media files. That's not as important as the case above of moving to a new phone, but it does make an SD card useful.
Yeah in XXX it was a camcorder.
http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/XXX#...
It was "Blue Thunder" that made me think of the oatmeal box, but I suspect they've been used more than once - it's a commonly used item for crafts.
Painted Nerf guns seem to be popular now; some of them look pretty cool.
31% of the global population are Christian.
23% are Muslim.
Even if we pretend there are no Jewish people, not only do "most religious people" accept Exodus, the majority of people do. So yes, that's "lowest common denominator", minimum definition of God accepted by "most religious people" (over 75%) and most people (over 55%).
I certainly understand why someone with limited knowledge of firearms might point to an gun in an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie and say "nobody needs to have THAT. I don't know exactly what that is, but it should be illegal." Of course what Arnold is holding is an oatmeal box with a four pieces of PVC pipe hot glued to it, painted black. So while their comment is understandable, it's not an intelligent way to make policy. You just end up outlawing Quaker oatmeal boxes.
> Would you rather it specify that only bolt-action weapons are legal?
Many things have been tried, so we get to look at how well they worked. A couple of things have worked, in combinations. Most effective has been a combination of tough sentences for using a weapon in the commission of a felony ALONG WITH advertising those tough sentences. Texas had ads on city busses and other places saying things like this:
Robbery: Five years in prison.
ARMED robbery: 20 years.
and:
Car theft: 5 years in prison
Having a gun when stealing a car: 15 years
The ads worked. Thugs learned - leave any guns and knives at home if you're going to commit a crime. In at least one case, video shows the crook ditching their weapon before stealing a car.
After that success, the same idea was applied when Texas got shall-issue carry licenses. They advertised that the good guys, the "victim", might shoot you. That also worked, though not as dramatically.
In California, someone holding a CCAr or multiple CCIEs would certainly command more than $200K.
Each level in the Cisco certification track has many specialties, some pay higher than others. The levels are:
CCENT (Slightly harder than Network+)
Multiple CCNA (several different specialties)
CCNP
CCIE
CCAr
The national AVERAGE salary of someone with one CCIE is $115K. (There aren't enough CCAr holders to get a good average). Someone with multiple CCIE and a CCAr in California would be expected to make over $200K for sure.
Yet, none of the Cisco certifications is in the top 5 highest-paying IT certifications. Other IT certifications pay more. My own experience is that my take-home pay doubled as soon as I added a couple of certs to my resume. Which reminds me, I should get off Slashdot and go back to studying.
Thanks for writing all of that.
When my one-year-old finely ran out of energy in the evening, she would say "I go night-night." When her ipad ran out of energy, I explained to "ipad is going night-night" and she understood. Her vocabulary didn't include the words "battery" or "electricty", of course. As she learned a bit more vocabulary she said "ipad sleeping". This was a good analogy, she correctly understood the basic concept. Her description was neither complete nor wrong, it was simply limited by her vocabulary and understanding.
You can probably draw a water molecule, H2O of course looks like Mickey Mouse. That's the correct depiction of H2O. If we use an electron scanning microscope, we see it looks nothing like that. The Mickey Mouse picture of H2O is useful, and correctly depicts fundamental aspects of the molecule, so it's not really wrong; it's very limited. But correct enough to be useful! Kind of an analogy, or vocabulary-limited representation.
> I'm willing to bet that those people living thousands of years ago were wrong
I'm willing to bet that my understanding of the creation of everything in the entire universe is well under 1%. Essentially, I'm at the "ipad go night-night" level of understanding. As were people 2000 or 4000 years ago. The Mickey Mouse molecule is outdated in that we (humans) know more detail now, yet it's still a useful tool for me to personally understand the chemistry. Some of the biblical analogies and explanations (written in a language with a total vocabulary of hundreds of words) are limited and outdated. That doesn't mean they are wrong. Perhaps Moses was right when he said Ipad is night-night.
Ps: On a side-note, check out the US government instructions for removing black mold from a house, then read the mold removal instructions in Leviticus. It's interesting.
> I think that the religious concept of God is the same thing as life itself.
You say "the religious concept of God" is the same thing as "life itself". :D
You believe in life itself.
Therefore you believe in the religious concept of God.
Not what you meant?
I think you've gotten yourself a bit twisted trying to talk about what "religious people believe". Billions of different religious people believe a great many different things, so it's not normally true or useful to say "religious people believe", with some rare qualified exceptions. Honestly, you just confuse the issue if you pretend that all religious people believe the same things; they very rarely do. In fact, most religious people have substantial changes to their beliefs over time. For example, the founder of the largest church in the US, Robert Morris, long thought that God is not concerned with us humans, that he created us and then left. Now Robert thinks that proposition is ridiculous. So not even an individual religious leader believes the same thing he did 20 years ago.
Let's look at what YOU believe, recognizing that the different people believe many different things. It seems that the big contrast you wish to draw is "I don't think that there is anything ... intelligent to the whole thing". Is that my understanding accurate?
Are you by chance familar with ion pumps, the structures in each cell wall which pump molecules in and out? If not, surely you're familiar with the water cycle, the way water is naturally cleaned and recycled. Also the carbohydrate cycle, animals need oxygen and carbs to survive, and produce CO2 and water as waste. Coincidentally, plants do the exact opposite - they take in water and CO2, producing oxygen and carbohydrates. It's all rather clever, wouldn't you say? By clever I don't mean to imply "designed by a really old guy with a flowing white beard". Just how it all fits together so nicely, it's a clever system.
Speaking of punishment, some see that as a useful analogy. See failblog for examples of people punished for disregarding the law of gravity.
> Less creepy? Try windows 10.
Just try DECLINING Windows 10. What MS does then is creepy.
Okay, so the Windows 10 telemetry is creepy too.
Nobody enforces the biblical admonition to avoid eating unrefrigerated shellfish lest one get sick either. Nor the biblical fact that if you start a building without estimating the cost and end up with a half-finished building, you'll be laughed at. Nor that a man who finds a wise and faithful wife is truly blessed. Nor that adultery causes trouble. Nor that the wise save up stores of choice grain. Nor most of the other biblical adminitions.
It seems that you personally have this idea of a -person- enforcing truth through punishment. Some people think that way; it is by no means universal.
The words we most often translate as "sin" aren't just used in a "moral" context. They are cognates of the words hata and
hamartano, which mean roughly "miss the mark". In an archery competition, when an archer did not hit the target, that was hata. In another competition, many participants got prizes. Those who didn't qualify for a prize were hamartano. Same for someone who dug a well where there was no water, who co-signed a loan for someone who failed to make payment, etc.
Your vision of God isn't altogether uncommon, yet it's certainly not the only one. Most who have studied enough to know a few words of the original greek and hebrew have a different conception than what you have conveyed.
I'll have enough respect to ask my question in Larry's native language: /\/\/%Â*&(.{5,93}[0-F])$/
Actually I love Perl. I can program in any of several languages and Perl is my all-around favorite. I just can't think of a question because if I had a question for Larry, I would have asked it by now.
> because there is no personification of these forces, they cannot be given authority -
Gravity. It Isn't Just a Good Idea. It's the Law.
> when you can change the definition for the word god
Obviously people do have different conceptions of God, but most religious people agree on God's own definition, so that's a solid foundation to start with. Christians, Jews, and Muslims consider Exodus to be scripture*. In Exodus Moses asked God who he is, and God replied "I am that which always is", or "I am the permanent/timeless". (Translation from ancient Hebrew is of course inexact).
Though each person has their own understanding, that basis, that God is what is unchanging, has itself been definitional for at least 2,600 years. Gravity, magnetism, etc are unchanging principles, so it seems, by the words of God, that God is gravity, magnetism, and anything other unchanging principle of the universe.
* Exodus is generally considered allegorical, scripture, illustrating spiritual truths in ancient stories that were down via oral tradition, not historical facts. Though some facts are confirmed by Egyptian records, such as the central event of the Egyptian army chasing the jews from Egypt.