> Given that this is a missile capable of hitting nearly anywhere in about 50% of the world,
It says 500 miles for this launch, and it's believed they can go a bit further, maybe 800 miles.
Last I checked, the earth is roughly about 24,000 miles around. Ballistic missiles, unlike cruise missiles, also can't hit just anywhere within their max range. If max range is 800 miles, minimum might be 400 miles.
Customer data CAN usefully be encrypted with a key that only the user (via their phone) has. It's encrypted on the phone, then uploaded. That is in fact done for at least some data.
Customers' cloud data can NOT be usefully encrypted with a key only Apple, and not the cloud operator, has access to. Before it's sent back to the customer, it would need to be decrypted. Which would require that the decryption key be on the server- which the cloud operator owns.
In general (though special cases exist), you can't usefully encrypt data that's on a server where the data is supposed to be used or retrieved for this reason. If the server can provide (decrypted) data to the customer, it can provide that same data to anyone who has access to the server.
* Primarily of use for passwords, you can usefully store a hash of data, a lossy "checksum" which allows you to verify whether or not two copies of the data are identical, without storing either copy.
> OS out there runs every line of code with the full privileges of a user account at all times, there's no way for a user to limit the scope of what a program does at run time.
> The solution is to use an operating system that is designed from the ground up to simply ask which files the user wishes to operate on, instead of blindly trusting the program to do the right thing
That change from giving permissions to the user (discretionary access control) to instead assigning them to the program + user (mandatory access control) is what SELinux does. The admin basically sets "program X, when run by user Y, can access files labeled Z, read only". When it first came out it was a pain in the butt. Nowadays the RPM packages typically have good policies included, so it's nearly transparent. There is a bit of a learning curve for admins, and better (easier) tools and documentation would be helpful.
Clinton knows how to avoid responding to FOIIA requests. Don't create any documents, don't write anything down , she says.
In a PBS interview, Jim Lehrer asked her, âoeAre you keeping a diary, you keep good notes of whatâ(TM)s happening?â
Clinton responded, âoeHeavens no! It could get subpoenaed! I donâ(TM)t write anything down.â
That solves both problems, criminal subpoenas and public information requests. Of course, sometimes her legal documents just go missing for two years, until an associate is granted immunity before he "finds" his copies.
Thanks for getting rid of auto-refresh. It sucked to have the page refresh while typing or scrolling.
Be careful when you do unicode. I know that's often requested, so it'll probably be done, but be aware it makes protection from injection attacks (including sql & script) much trickier. You probably want do do encoding on output and bound parameters on input, rather than trying to filter input.
The last day or two I had error saying I was posting from an open proxy, on multiple devices and networks. It seems something went wrong with that detection- possibly detecting your own load balancer.
My wife got a Chromebook to augment / replace her Linux desktop. I set the Chromebook up to boot Ubuntu, but we went ahead and booted ChromeOS once just to check it out. I was surprised to find she never had any reason to boot into Ubuntu. ChromeOS does everything she wants to do with her computer and it's fast.
Most recently, she's been job hunting. She looks for job on the web, edits her resume in Google Docs, fills out pdf forms, all on ChromeOS. It actually does 90% of what I use my computer for too - email, browsing, ssh, and text editing (programming). I'm a old-school programmer who doesn't use an IDE except once every few years when I write in a Microsoft language.
At y old job, a business I owned, I spent 80% of my time using SSH, which works fine from ChromeOS. At my current job, I run a couple of virtual machines on my computer and the company chat program, so a ChromeBook wouldn't do for work, but at home virtual machines go on the server that has 32 GB of RAM and multiple CPUs anyway. So I'd probably be just fine with a ChromeBook at home too.
Further, what Trump ACTUALLY says, and refuses to say, is bad enough. There's no need for this story, and the other Slashdot story it links to, to lie about Trump, or even "stretch the truth". That just makes it look like he's not really that bad, like all of the criticism is BS.
When asked if the government should maintain a database of Muslims entering the country, the right answer is "no, that's ridiculous ". Trump's answer was "we should do a lot of things, it's all about management."
When anti-Trump people lie or exaggerate, it makes it seem like Trump isn't really that bad, that the criticism of him is all bullshit. It's not bullshit, he does say some inflammatory stuff, and more so he often refuses to say what should be said, to clearly say "no, we shouldn't do that". Instead he dodges even easy questions.
To maintain our own credibility (and indeed our actual integrity) , let's just tell the plain truth about Trump and not stretch it: "Trump declines to confirm that the govt should not ask refugees and immigrants about their religion".
Official crime rate information from the Home Office (linked below) indicate that in the five years prior to the ban, 1.2 million violent crimes were reported. After the ban took affect, there were over 5 million violent crimes in the following five years. Home Office data shows that rape went from 27,000 to nearly 47,000 when potential attackers were assured there was no risk that a law-abiding woman might defend herself with a firearm. Other serious crimes show the same pattern. Total sex offenses increased from 158,000 to over 245,00.
Again, crime isn't some new problem that we have to start thinking about now. It's been around for a while, lots of different things have been tried, and now we know what has worked and what hasn't. We've tried different things, and we've seen the results.
The positive results of the sentencing guidelines for using a weapon in commission of a felony along with advertising the longer sentence in Texas aren't surprising if you think about one thing. If you specifically want criminals to use weapons less, if that's your goal, that's a matter of influencing people's behavior. Companies have spent billions over the last hundred years figuring out how to get people to buy this, not that, how to target a specific demographic, etc. That's called marketing, and we know how to do it. Marketing is well-studied, so we know how to get the message across to the thug demographic, and we now know what message works - using a weapon in the commission of a felony will put you in prison for years.
Read the paper you linked to. In order to determine what effect the change in reporting would have, they reported in both ways for a couple of years. They found, according to the paper you linked to, that the revised reporting standard increased the reported numbers by 14%.
So the ~ 100% increase in robberies and 125% increase in rape was really "only" an increase of 86% and 111%.
In 2009, three kernels were released, Linux 2.32, FreeBSD 7, and Windows 7. FreeBSD 7 went eol four years later, in 2013. Windows 7 service packs also ended in 2013, Windows 7 mainstream support ended in 2015, Linux 2.32 will support will (somewhat) end in 2016.
So other operating systems have support for 4-6 years, Linux for 7 years.
> They can't force me to watch the ads, because they can't force me to watch their content.
They're not trying to force anything. They're giving you a few options - if you choose to use their service (of course you can choose not to), then you can either pay $9.99/month after free 30 days, or you can "pay" by seeing ads. I'm not sure how "be a crook" is a justified fourth option here.
I noted above that most gun control laws completely fail to reduce crime, to reduce murders, etc, and they tend to INCREASE rape and sexual assault. There are a couple of things that work, though, in the right combination.
Texas had success with combining a mandatory sentence for make use of a deadly weapon in commission of a crime along with heavy promotion/ advertising of it. On city busses, billboards, etc you'd see ads like this:
Robbery: Two to five years in prison Using a weapon in a robbery: Ten more years
After the ads were run, fewer robbers used weapons, resulting in fewer deaths. Interviews with convicts confirm that word got around the "thug" community: don't bring a gun if you're thinking of committing a crime.
Similar promotion of the concealed handgun law was also effective. Ads targeting high-crime communities reminded potential bad guys that the good guys now have guns, and may shoot back.
As a very clear example why this (and most) anti-gun "studies" are silly, one large category is suicides. They measured suicides that used guns before a ban/law to how many suicides used guns afterwards. They found that people who kill themselves are less likely to use a gun if guns are less available. What they didn't find was a drastic change in the number of suicides. Still the same number of people dead. They pretend that if someone dies jumping off a bridge, that's fine, suicide is only bad if they use a gun.
This same fundamental error (trick?) is used in most anti-gun studies, they say "gun deaths" and "gun crime". Comparing murder, rape, robbery, and total violent crime for the ten years before the UK gun ban vs the ten years after, we find that murder, rape, robbery, and total violent crime all doubled immediately after the ban. The kooks publish studies saying it's great that there were fewer "gun murders". According to their reasoning, it's better to have two people stabbed to death than one person shot.
You may well already know this, but I thought I'd mention it. The "god damn piece of paper" story, like others based on tips from the same bogus source, was retracted by the author, who had this to say:
Thompson (July 26, 2006): I started taking more chances with stories, jumping on ones with sketchy sources, always trying to outdo the last "big" story. I had people willing to help me and they would send me info that I used often on their word alone.
. . . I wrote stories based on emails from sources I never met. I would meet self-proclaimed "important people" in out-of-the way bars, taking what they told me at face value. Washington is a breeding ground for phonies and wannabes. Too often I printed what they told me because I was so full of myself that I was sure it was true and did not require further verification.
It turns out that one of his most important sources, who claimed to work in the White House while feeding your blogger "inside the White House" stories for years, never did work in the White House at all, not for a day.
I decided to do the arithmetic because I know that diesel locomotives do just what you described.
I looked at the ratings for a sample glow-plug engine consuming 1 fluid oz of fuel per minute, and found it can produce about 1300 watts. That's more than I expected. A fluid once of fuel weighs about an ounce, or 28 grams. So 1300 / 28 = 46.42 watt minutes per gram. We normally use watt/hours per kg for these things, so we do the arithmetic and get 774 watt hours per kilogram for the nitro engine.
Lithium ion batteries are about 200 W/h / kg. So the fuel, run through a nitro motor, DOES have more energy than a battery of equivalent weight. The fuel weight also goes away as it's burned, whereas a battery stays the same weight.
HOWEVER, the engine weighs 17 ounces (486 grams). Add to that a small alternator at let's say 10 ounces. You'd have 27 ounces of engine and alternator to burn the 12 ounces of fuel, and your total specific energy comes out about the same as the battery.
if you can get X energy from either a battery weighing 27 ounces or an engine/alternator/fuel combination weighing the same, the simpler choice of just a battery makes more sense.
If you REPLACED the electric motors with engine(s) instead, that might make sense. It does make sense when you only need one, in a plane or helicopter. For a quad, you'd need either four engines or a complicated adjustable belt-drive system. Electrics make more sense for small quads.
On a land or sea vehicle, you can carry much more fuel in relation to the engine size, and volume is as important as weight, so fuel makes more sense than batteries.
The PCI DSS standard explicitly allows for alternative methods of meeting the security goal, so as long as it's demonstrably secure it should pass. However, if the standard security practices aren't in place, you do have document why it's secure without the expected measures.
If this was for PCI, the auditor may have made an error, or (likely) there was an error in communication. It would be correct to say "this is secure and therefore will pass, but since it's non-standard you'll need to send in documentation to each auditor. It may be more convenient use standard practices rather than documenting non-standard practices. "
We'll "help you pass", and help you be more secure, by telling you where some of your vulnerabilities are and giving you pointers on how to fix them.
The PCI DSS company is itself audited. The company I work for is preparing for our annual audit right now and we're improving our scanning in order to pass the test. Those improvements are improvements in how well we scan our customers.
> A strict UNIX certification would be worthless as only the FOSS variants would qualify and where is the money in that?
The opposite is true. POSIX aka Single Unix is pretty strict, which is why most Linux distributions don't quite meet the criteria. Most of the systems which are registered as complying with the Single UNIX Specification (aka POSIX) are NOT FOSS.
> And yet BSD isn't certified and neither are it's various children.
False. Mac OS X v10.5 Leopard is mostly BSD, and registered. Sun/Oracle Solaris is another of BSD's "various children" which is registered.
Did you intend to say that FOSS code is NOT certified? Inspur K-UX is a Red Hat based Linux distribution which is configured to be certified UNIX.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps the newest computers controlling the system have forcibly "upgraded" themselves to Windows 10.
> Given that this is a missile capable of hitting nearly anywhere in about 50% of the world,
It says 500 miles for this launch, and it's believed they can go a bit further, maybe 800 miles.
Last I checked, the earth is roughly about 24,000 miles around. Ballistic missiles, unlike cruise missiles, also can't hit just anywhere within their max range. If max range is 800 miles, minimum might be 400 miles.
Customer data CAN usefully be encrypted with a key that only the user (via their phone) has. It's encrypted on the phone, then uploaded. That is in fact done for at least some data.
Customers' cloud data can NOT be usefully encrypted with a key only Apple, and not the cloud operator, has access to. Before it's sent back to the customer, it would need to be decrypted. Which would require that the decryption key be on the server- which the cloud operator owns.
In general (though special cases exist), you can't usefully encrypt data that's on a server where the data is supposed to be used or retrieved for this reason. If the server can provide (decrypted) data to the customer, it can provide that same data to anyone who has access to the server.
* Primarily of use for passwords, you can usefully store a hash of data, a lossy "checksum" which allows you to verify whether or not two copies of the data are identical, without storing either copy.
> OS out there runs every line of code with the full privileges of a user account at all times, there's no way for a user to limit the scope of what a program does at run time.
> The solution is to use an operating system that is designed from the ground up to simply ask which files the user wishes to operate on, instead of blindly trusting the program to do the right thing
That change from giving permissions to the user (discretionary access control) to instead assigning them to the program + user (mandatory access control) is what SELinux does. The admin basically sets "program X, when run by user Y, can access files labeled Z, read only". When it first came out it was a pain in the butt. Nowadays the RPM packages typically have good policies included, so it's nearly transparent. There is a bit of a learning curve for admins, and better (easier) tools and documentation would be helpful.
Clinton knows how to avoid responding to FOIIA requests. Don't create any documents, don't write anything down , she says.
In a PBS interview, Jim Lehrer asked her, âoeAre you keeping a diary, you keep good notes of whatâ(TM)s happening?â
Clinton responded, âoeHeavens no! It could get subpoenaed! I donâ(TM)t write anything down.â
That solves both problems, criminal subpoenas and public information requests. Of course, sometimes her legal documents just go missing for two years, until an associate is granted immunity before he "finds" his copies.
Thanks for getting rid of auto-refresh. It sucked to have the page refresh while typing or scrolling.
Be careful when you do unicode. I know that's often requested, so it'll probably be done, but be aware it makes protection from injection attacks (including sql & script) much trickier. You probably want do do encoding on output and bound parameters on input, rather than trying to filter input.
The last day or two I had error saying I was posting from an open proxy, on multiple devices and networks. It seems something went wrong with that detection- possibly detecting your own load balancer.
My wife got a Chromebook to augment / replace her Linux desktop. I set the Chromebook up to boot Ubuntu, but we went ahead and booted ChromeOS once just to check it out. I was surprised to find she never had any reason to boot into Ubuntu. ChromeOS does everything she wants to do with her computer and it's fast.
Most recently, she's been job hunting. She looks for job on the web, edits her resume in Google Docs, fills out pdf forms, all on ChromeOS. It actually does 90% of what I use my computer for too - email, browsing, ssh, and text editing (programming). I'm a old-school programmer who doesn't use an IDE except once every few years when I write in a Microsoft language.
At y old job, a business I owned, I spent 80% of my time using SSH, which works fine from ChromeOS. At my current job, I run a couple of virtual machines on my computer and the company chat program, so a ChromeBook wouldn't do for work, but at home virtual machines go on the server that has 32 GB of RAM and multiple CPUs anyway. So I'd probably be just fine with a ChromeBook at home too.
Further, what Trump ACTUALLY says, and refuses to say, is bad enough. There's no need for this story, and the other Slashdot story it links to, to lie about Trump, or even "stretch the truth". That just makes it look like he's not really that bad, like all of the criticism is BS.
When asked if the government should maintain a database of Muslims entering the country, the right answer is "no, that's ridiculous ". Trump's answer was "we should do a lot of things, it's all about management."
When anti-Trump people lie or exaggerate, it makes it seem like Trump isn't really that bad, that the criticism of him is all bullshit. It's not bullshit, he does say some inflammatory stuff, and more so he often refuses to say what should be said, to clearly say "no, we shouldn't do that". Instead he dodges even easy questions.
To maintain our own credibility (and indeed our actual integrity) , let's just tell the plain truth about Trump and not stretch it: "Trump declines to confirm that the govt should not ask refugees and immigrants about their religion".
You have a lot of computers. Did any of them come with a sense of humor installed?
Official crime rate information from the Home Office (linked below) indicate that in the five years prior to the ban, 1.2 million violent crimes were reported. After the ban took affect, there were over 5 million violent crimes in the following five years. Home Office data shows that rape went from 27,000 to nearly 47,000 when potential attackers were assured there was no risk that a law-abiding woman might defend herself with a firearm. Other serious crimes show the same pattern. Total sex offenses increased from 158,000 to over 245,00.
Source: Official Home Office reports:
https://www.gov.uk/government/...
Recorded crime statistics for England and Wales 2002/03 â" 2013/13.
https://www.gov.uk/government/...
Again, crime isn't some new problem that we have to start thinking about now. It's been around for a while, lots of different things have been tried, and now we know what has worked and what hasn't. We've tried different things, and we've seen the results.
The positive results of the sentencing guidelines for using a weapon in commission of a felony along with advertising the longer sentence in Texas aren't surprising if you think about one thing. If you specifically want criminals to use weapons less, if that's your goal, that's a matter of influencing people's behavior. Companies have spent billions over the last hundred years figuring out how to get people to buy this, not that, how to target a specific demographic, etc. That's called marketing, and we know how to do it. Marketing is well-studied, so we know how to get the message across to the thug demographic, and we now know what message works - using a weapon in the commission of a felony will put you in prison for years.
Read the paper you linked to. In order to determine what effect the change in reporting would have, they reported in both ways for a couple of years. They found, according to the paper you linked to, that the revised reporting standard increased the reported numbers by 14%.
So the ~ 100% increase in robberies and 125% increase in rape was really "only" an increase of 86% and 111%.
In 2009, three kernels were released, Linux 2.32, FreeBSD 7, and Windows 7. FreeBSD 7 went eol four years later, in 2013. Windows 7 service packs also ended in 2013, Windows 7 mainstream support ended in 2015, Linux 2.32 will support will (somewhat) end in 2016.
So other operating systems have support for 4-6 years, Linux for 7 years.
Desktops? Try an antique store, or a government office.
> They can't force me to watch the ads, because they can't force me to watch their content.
They're not trying to force anything. They're giving you a few options - if you choose to use their service (of course you can choose not to), then you can either pay $9.99/month after free 30 days, or you can "pay" by seeing ads. I'm not sure how "be a crook" is a justified fourth option here.
I noted above that most gun control laws completely fail to reduce crime, to reduce murders, etc, and they tend to INCREASE rape and sexual assault. There are a couple of things that work, though, in the right combination.
Texas had success with combining a mandatory sentence for make use of a deadly weapon in commission of a crime along with heavy promotion/ advertising of it. On city busses, billboards, etc you'd see ads like this:
Robbery: Two to five years in prison
Using a weapon in a robbery: Ten more years
After the ads were run, fewer robbers used weapons, resulting in fewer deaths. Interviews with convicts confirm that word got around the "thug" community: don't bring a gun if you're thinking of committing a crime.
Similar promotion of the concealed handgun law was also effective. Ads targeting high-crime communities reminded potential bad guys that the good guys now have guns, and may shoot back.
As a very clear example why this (and most) anti-gun "studies" are silly, one large category is suicides. They measured suicides that used guns before a ban/law to how many suicides used guns afterwards. They found that people who kill themselves are less likely to use a gun if guns are less available. What they didn't find was a drastic change in the number of suicides. Still the same number of people dead. They pretend that if someone dies jumping off a bridge, that's fine, suicide is only bad if they use a gun.
This same fundamental error (trick?) is used in most anti-gun studies, they say "gun deaths" and "gun crime". Comparing murder, rape, robbery, and total violent crime for the ten years before the UK gun ban vs the ten years after, we find that murder, rape, robbery, and total violent crime all doubled immediately after the ban. The kooks publish studies saying it's great that there were fewer "gun murders". According to their reasoning, it's better to have two people stabbed to death than one person shot.
Yes, the first hit in Google for "drone camera" is 58 grams.
http://myfirstdrone.com/tutori...
Consumer fireworks for 4th of July are up to 1,000 grams. (500 grams "presumed composition weight", which is half th the total weight.)
You may well already know this, but I thought I'd mention it. The "god damn piece of paper" story, like others based on tips from the same bogus source, was retracted by the author, who had this to say:
Thompson (July 26, 2006): I started taking more chances with stories, jumping on ones with sketchy sources, always trying to outdo the last "big" story. I had people willing to help me and they would send me info that I used often on their word alone.
. . . I wrote stories based on emails from sources I never met. I would meet self-proclaimed "important people" in out-of-the way bars, taking what they told me at face value. Washington is a breeding ground for phonies and wannabes. Too often I printed what they told me because I was so full of myself that I was sure it was true and did not require further verification.
It turns out that one of his most important sources, who claimed to work in the White House while feeding your blogger "inside the White House" stories for years, never did work in the White House at all, not for a day.
A quad has a carrying capacity measured in grams or ounces. A Ford can carry 2,000 pounds.
A quad could deliver a small firework, though.
I decided to do the arithmetic because I know that diesel locomotives do just what you described.
I looked at the ratings for a sample glow-plug engine consuming 1 fluid oz of fuel per minute, and found it can produce about 1300 watts. That's more than I expected. A fluid once of fuel weighs about an ounce, or 28 grams. So 1300 / 28 = 46.42 watt minutes per gram. We normally use watt /hours per kg for these things, so we do the arithmetic and get 774 watt hours per kilogram for the nitro engine.
Lithium ion batteries are about 200 W/h / kg. So the fuel, run through a nitro motor, DOES have more energy than a battery of equivalent weight. The fuel weight also goes away as it's burned, whereas a battery stays the same weight.
HOWEVER, the engine weighs 17 ounces (486 grams). Add to that a small alternator at let's say 10 ounces. You'd have 27 ounces of engine and alternator to burn the 12 ounces of fuel, and your total specific energy comes out about the same as the battery.
if you can get X energy from either a battery weighing 27 ounces or an engine/alternator/fuel combination weighing the same, the simpler choice of just a battery makes more sense.
If you REPLACED the electric motors with engine(s) instead, that might make sense. It does make sense when you only need one, in a plane or helicopter. For a quad, you'd need either four engines or a complicated adjustable belt-drive system. Electrics make more sense for small quads.
On a land or sea vehicle, you can carry much more fuel in relation to the engine size, and volume is as important as weight, so fuel makes more sense than batteries.
> Mumble mumble mumble chemicals safe mumble mumble.
On the other hand, the Teflon does reduce dihydrogen monoxide contamination on the surfaces, so it somewhat balances out.
The PCI DSS standard explicitly allows for alternative methods of meeting the security goal, so as long as it's demonstrably secure it should pass. However, if the standard security practices aren't in place, you do have document why it's secure without the expected measures.
If this was for PCI, the auditor may have made an error, or (likely) there was an error in communication. It would be correct to say "this is secure and therefore will pass, but since it's non-standard you'll need to send in documentation to each auditor. It may be more convenient use standard practices rather than documenting non-standard practices. "
We'll "help you pass", and help you be more secure, by telling you where some of your vulnerabilities are and giving you pointers on how to fix them.
The PCI DSS company is itself audited. The company I work for is preparing for our annual audit right now and we're improving our scanning in order to pass the test. Those improvements are improvements in how well we scan our customers.
> A strict UNIX certification would be worthless as only the FOSS variants would qualify and where is the money in that?
The opposite is true. POSIX aka Single Unix is pretty strict, which is why most Linux distributions don't quite meet the criteria. Most of the systems which are registered as complying with the Single UNIX Specification (aka POSIX) are NOT FOSS.
> And yet BSD isn't certified and neither are it's various children.
False. Mac OS X v10.5 Leopard is mostly BSD, and registered. Sun/Oracle Solaris is another of BSD's "various children" which is registered.
Did you intend to say that FOSS code is NOT certified?
Inspur K-UX is a Red Hat based Linux distribution which is configured to be certified UNIX.
Microsoft moving releasing a desktop *nix is about as likely as Apple doing so. And running it on Intel chips. ;) It could certainly happen.
* Fyi for anyone who didn't happen to know, OS X is certified UNIX (tm).