Fortunately I doubt the average thief is much smarter either.. the article says "the implication is that a thief could safely try 10 different passcodes on your iPhone... With a 15% success rate, about 1 in 7 iPhones would unlock".. in reality the average thief would go "whuuu!?!?" about three sentences into reading this article.
Touch touchy, sounds like someone built their house on a floodplain:)
Here's the main problem, when you drop figures like "100-year floodplain", the average human brain's intuitive mis-response is "gee, that sounds like suuuch a long times, it'll neeeever happen". When you actually do the math, OTOH, you realize that building a house on a floodplain (unless you build it on stilts), is indeed stupid, given the combination of variations of averages, the window period of risk around the mean intervals, and the average lifespan of a human.
If business guys wanted "short-term profit at all costs", they would all immediately liquidate their businesses in order to show extremely high short-term profit. The vast majority of businesses don't want "short-term profit at all costs", they want long-term growth out of investment expenditure.
I agree; I don't particularly like Zuckerberg, but in this case, he had the drive, energy, vision of what FB 'should be', and put in all the real hard work. I've had millions of 'ideas' thrown at me too, over the years, with people hoping I'll just do the work or whatever. They should've had a contract if they wanted to own what Zuckerberg did - but honestly I see no reason why they should own the work of someone else, without that person's consent, that is immoral. Then they should have been more than happy to get $65mil that they didn't deserve (paid for out the pockets of FB's advertisers and investors), that is more than enough to not only not have to work ever again, but to actually live in luxury without ever having to work again. But they proved to be greedy pricks and wanted more, more, more money that they don't deserve. Now probably their lawyers advised it was worth a short - small investment compared to the potential reward makes it a relatively logical move even if the odds are low - except they come across in public as greedy entitled pricks. I come from a relatively austere background, if I ever came into $65 million you would never hear me complain about anything ever again in my entire life.
That is somewhat true, except I have found the reality to be more along the lines of "I am here at 3am and I'm supposed to be working on the complex 1-week bug, except I'm spending my time fixing various stupid little bugs because other asshats were sloppy and committed broken crap and left".
But that said, carpentry is probably indeed much simpler... if you're busy making a chair, I imagine far less can go wrong if you interrupt your work at 5pm and continue the next day, and a missing semicolon can't break your entire chair.
you really think about the level of complexity, nothing a carpenter does is nearly as complex as most applications
That is true, but if you've ever actually worked in the programming industry, you would probably have to admit that the majority of bugs are not caused by programmers being 'overwhelmed by the awesome complexity of it all', but rather by plain old sloppiness. How many times do we see things like "oh I'm sure these few lines of code I've just written will work, I'll just commit them without even testing if the program still runs" or mistakes due to interruptions by "it's 5 o clock, I'm outta here" or "reading/. is more interesting than testing". These problems have nothing to do with the complexity of it all. An analogy would be if you 'blmaed' a typo like that, on the complexity of the English language. The English language may be complex, but typnig lke this is jsut sloppiness.
Actually this time I would say it's not really "slashdot" whining, just a small but loud minority of developers who backed Silverlight. Most of the rest of us don't care, though I do feel like saying "I told you to so" to some annoying pro-Microsoft developers I worked with who used to try push Silverlight down our throats almost religiously.
What's happened is a bunch of developers who adopted and pushed Silverlight are annoyed and bitter because they made the bad choice of picking a proprietary, relatively obscure (compared to e.g. Flash) and not-widely-used platform, while ignoring the obvious risks in doing so, and now want Microsoft to keep funding an obsolete platform that is going nowhere so they can save face and tell their customers they made the right choice. If it is true that MS is adopting Silverlight (I'm not convinced it is, but I'm guessing MS is "seriously thinking about it"), then I would guess it's because there are valid reasons for MS to drop it - i.e. they would be sinking more money into a platform that has no future if they continue. Why should Microsoft sink more money into a platform that has no future anyway?
Re:Q: Why hasn't Mozilla considered a Firefox OS?
on
Where Is Firefox OS?
·
· Score: 1
no one seems to be concerned with the Windows 8 part of the story.
Are Microsoft so directionless these days that they would consider a move that makes the ENTIRE windows stack basically irrelevant?
If you actually believe that a post by "adeelarshad82" on slashdot is indicative of the direction Microsoft is taking, and that Microsoft is now issuing press releases through "adeelarshad82" on slashdot, then yes. If not, then expect the big-ol Windows stack to be around for quite some time still. The HTML5 stuff will just be a flashy shiny layer on top of a big pile of cruft in Win8 - same formula for most their OS releases. Most people still regularly use large applications that aren't going to be ported to HTML5 anytime soon, and some form of the 80/20 rule still applies, i.e. even if 80% of the things you do on a computer can be done in a browser, if just 20% can't, you still need a traditional OS.
The problem with the Unix security model is that it is designed to protect users against other malicious users. It does this by allowing each user to trash his own space, but not anyone else's space. But in modern computing environments, there is usually only one user, and sometimes less, and the challenge is to protect the computer against malicious programs. So, letting every program trash the one user's space isn't really that useful.
On Windows, yes, there is usually only one user and the main challenge is malware. But on Unix systems, no, there is no major malware problem. So you're basically saying "the problem with the Unix security model" is that it doesn't work for Windows-specific threats that are virtually non-existent on Unix systems? The main threat if you put a Unix or Linux machine on the Internet is not an infected trojan, it's hackers gaining access through unpatched vulnerabilities.
Yes, sure, but this type of nanny-state-ism in a compiler clearly goes against the traditional historical spirit of C++ as being the best assembly language out there..
That's not entirely true, black hats who sell their services e.g. to the mafia need to earn a reputation in order to find customers and market themselves.
I hope these guys are as good as they claim to be, otherwise we will be seeing their faces with the caption "Further arrests from anonymous hacking group"
I agree, if they really claim to "not like the US government", then a much smarter move would be to snoop around quietly and dig up something REALLY juicy. Where's the meat? They brag about hacking the Senate but then give us what looks like little more than a list of mundane files on a webserver, or something. Whoop. Sounds more like they managed to find one unsecured machine, and just couldn't wait to brag about it... I can just see it... 'ZOMG dude we hacked teh Senate!!11!' 'Oh yeah we're awesome!'. It has no class. They had an opportunity to get onto the network and look around for something really interesting, like evidence of corruption or something, instead they just hollered as loud as they could and now security will be stepped up, helping close the opportunity to do something good.
It's getting worse by the day... http://inthearena.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/07/daniel-ellsberg-all-the-crimes-richard-nixon-committed-against-me-are-now-legal/.. "Daniel Ellsberg: All the crimes Richard Nixon committed against me are now legal"
Trademark isn't a first-to-file system, the only thing you need to do to own a trademark is have a history of doing 'trade' under the 'mark' (name). Apple's so blatantly and deliberately waaay in the wrong here, that for the first time, I finally feel pushed into the 'Apple is the new Microsoft' camp. Apple basically seem to have said "hmm, someone else is already using the name, well we really really want it, so let's just use it anyway, completely illegally, and worry about it later".
He misses an important point, kids already get most of those things at home. Prisoners, on the other hand, *are* home. Also, I must say $7000 per student per year actually sounds like quite a lot to me. This doesn't seem like an argument to spend more on schools so much as it is one to spend less on prisoners. The reason we give prisons libraries is to try reform prisoners. If that expenditure lowers re-offending and re-incarceration rates by some measurable percentage, then it actually saves some money. It would be interesting to study how effective they are though.
Hmm, thanks, have tried installing both the Stream SDK and the AMD driver, still doesn't work. GPU caps viewer recognizes the GPU but says I have no OpenCL GPU devices.
Slashdot Mirror
Fortunately I doubt the average thief is much smarter either .. the article says "the implication is that a thief could safely try 10 different passcodes on your iPhone ... With a 15% success rate, about 1 in 7 iPhones would unlock" .. in reality the average thief would go "whuuu!?!?" about three sentences into reading this article.
Touch touchy, sounds like someone built their house on a floodplain :)
Here's the main problem, when you drop figures like "100-year floodplain", the average human brain's intuitive mis-response is "gee, that sounds like suuuch a long times, it'll neeeever happen". When you actually do the math, OTOH, you realize that building a house on a floodplain (unless you build it on stilts), is indeed stupid, given the combination of variations of averages, the window period of risk around the mean intervals, and the average lifespan of a human.
Taxes are paid reluctantly by force. If you don't believe that, try not submitting yours.
If business guys wanted "short-term profit at all costs", they would all immediately liquidate their businesses in order to show extremely high short-term profit. The vast majority of businesses don't want "short-term profit at all costs", they want long-term growth out of investment expenditure.
Precisely, at the extreme end there is a trivial way to 'hit EBITDA targets' and that's to liquidate assets.
I agree; I don't particularly like Zuckerberg, but in this case, he had the drive, energy, vision of what FB 'should be', and put in all the real hard work. I've had millions of 'ideas' thrown at me too, over the years, with people hoping I'll just do the work or whatever. They should've had a contract if they wanted to own what Zuckerberg did - but honestly I see no reason why they should own the work of someone else, without that person's consent, that is immoral. Then they should have been more than happy to get $65mil that they didn't deserve (paid for out the pockets of FB's advertisers and investors), that is more than enough to not only not have to work ever again, but to actually live in luxury without ever having to work again. But they proved to be greedy pricks and wanted more, more, more money that they don't deserve. Now probably their lawyers advised it was worth a short - small investment compared to the potential reward makes it a relatively logical move even if the odds are low - except they come across in public as greedy entitled pricks. I come from a relatively austere background, if I ever came into $65 million you would never hear me complain about anything ever again in my entire life.
That is somewhat true, except I have found the reality to be more along the lines of "I am here at 3am and I'm supposed to be working on the complex 1-week bug, except I'm spending my time fixing various stupid little bugs because other asshats were sloppy and committed broken crap and left".
But that said, carpentry is probably indeed much simpler ... if you're busy making a chair, I imagine far less can go wrong if you interrupt your work at 5pm and continue the next day, and a missing semicolon can't break your entire chair.
you really think about the level of complexity, nothing a carpenter does is nearly as complex as most applications
That is true, but if you've ever actually worked in the programming industry, you would probably have to admit that the majority of bugs are not caused by programmers being 'overwhelmed by the awesome complexity of it all', but rather by plain old sloppiness. How many times do we see things like "oh I'm sure these few lines of code I've just written will work, I'll just commit them without even testing if the program still runs" or mistakes due to interruptions by "it's 5 o clock, I'm outta here" or "reading /. is more interesting than testing". These problems have nothing to do with the complexity of it all. An analogy would be if you 'blmaed' a typo like that, on the complexity of the English language. The English language may be complex, but typnig lke this is jsut sloppiness.
Actually this time I would say it's not really "slashdot" whining, just a small but loud minority of developers who backed Silverlight. Most of the rest of us don't care, though I do feel like saying "I told you to so" to some annoying pro-Microsoft developers I worked with who used to try push Silverlight down our throats almost religiously.
If it is true that MS is adopting Silverlight (I'm not convinced it is,
Sorry, i should use preview next time - that should read "that MS is dropping Silverlight"
What's happened is a bunch of developers who adopted and pushed Silverlight are annoyed and bitter because they made the bad choice of picking a proprietary, relatively obscure (compared to e.g. Flash) and not-widely-used platform, while ignoring the obvious risks in doing so, and now want Microsoft to keep funding an obsolete platform that is going nowhere so they can save face and tell their customers they made the right choice. If it is true that MS is adopting Silverlight (I'm not convinced it is, but I'm guessing MS is "seriously thinking about it"), then I would guess it's because there are valid reasons for MS to drop it - i.e. they would be sinking more money into a platform that has no future if they continue. Why should Microsoft sink more money into a platform that has no future anyway?
no one seems to be concerned with the Windows 8 part of the story.
Are Microsoft so directionless these days that they would consider a move that makes the ENTIRE windows stack basically irrelevant?
If you actually believe that a post by "adeelarshad82" on slashdot is indicative of the direction Microsoft is taking, and that Microsoft is now issuing press releases through "adeelarshad82" on slashdot, then yes. If not, then expect the big-ol Windows stack to be around for quite some time still. The HTML5 stuff will just be a flashy shiny layer on top of a big pile of cruft in Win8 - same formula for most their OS releases. Most people still regularly use large applications that aren't going to be ported to HTML5 anytime soon, and some form of the 80/20 rule still applies, i.e. even if 80% of the things you do on a computer can be done in a browser, if just 20% can't, you still need a traditional OS.
The problem with the Unix security model is that it is designed to protect users against other malicious users. It does this by allowing each user to trash his own space, but not anyone else's space. But in modern computing environments, there is usually only one user, and sometimes less, and the challenge is to protect the computer against malicious programs. So, letting every program trash the one user's space isn't really that useful.
On Windows, yes, there is usually only one user and the main challenge is malware. But on Unix systems, no, there is no major malware problem. So you're basically saying "the problem with the Unix security model" is that it doesn't work for Windows-specific threats that are virtually non-existent on Unix systems? The main threat if you put a Unix or Linux machine on the Internet is not an infected trojan, it's hackers gaining access through unpatched vulnerabilities.
Most admins ignore sudo's existing granularity, so why would they want an even more granular system?
Yeah, and most people don't drive Porsche's so why would Porsche keep trying to improve their cars?
This isn't for the people who don't want it, it's for the people who do.
Yes, sure, but this type of nanny-state-ism in a compiler clearly goes against the traditional historical spirit of C++ as being the best assembly language out there ..
Hmm, seems they aren't doing nothing useful: http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_18263468?nclick_check=1
That's not entirely true, black hats who sell their services e.g. to the mafia need to earn a reputation in order to find customers and market themselves.
I hope these guys are as good as they claim to be, otherwise we will be seeing their faces with the caption "Further arrests from anonymous hacking group"
I agree, if they really claim to "not like the US government", then a much smarter move would be to snoop around quietly and dig up something REALLY juicy. Where's the meat? They brag about hacking the Senate but then give us what looks like little more than a list of mundane files on a webserver, or something. Whoop. Sounds more like they managed to find one unsecured machine, and just couldn't wait to brag about it ... I can just see it ... 'ZOMG dude we hacked teh Senate!!11!' 'Oh yeah we're awesome!'. It has no class. They had an opportunity to get onto the network and look around for something really interesting, like evidence of corruption or something, instead they just hollered as loud as they could and now security will be stepped up, helping close the opportunity to do something good.
It's getting worse by the day ... http://inthearena.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/07/daniel-ellsberg-all-the-crimes-richard-nixon-committed-against-me-are-now-legal/ .. "Daniel Ellsberg: All the crimes Richard Nixon committed against me are now legal"
That's the thing .. they most certainly performed due diligence ... and then decided to ignore it. It's even worse than doing this by mistake.
Trademark isn't a first-to-file system, the only thing you need to do to own a trademark is have a history of doing 'trade' under the 'mark' (name). Apple's so blatantly and deliberately waaay in the wrong here, that for the first time, I finally feel pushed into the 'Apple is the new Microsoft' camp. Apple basically seem to have said "hmm, someone else is already using the name, well we really really want it, so let's just use it anyway, completely illegally, and worry about it later".
Germany is not just pandering to the electorate, but to the solar lobbies, who have a lot of sway in Europe.
He misses an important point, kids already get most of those things at home. Prisoners, on the other hand, *are* home. Also, I must say $7000 per student per year actually sounds like quite a lot to me. This doesn't seem like an argument to spend more on schools so much as it is one to spend less on prisoners. The reason we give prisons libraries is to try reform prisoners. If that expenditure lowers re-offending and re-incarceration rates by some measurable percentage, then it actually saves some money. It would be interesting to study how effective they are though.
Uhm, yeah, thank his leftiness that the nation no longer belongs to the powerful politically-connected bankers and corporo-fascists. OH WAIT.
Haven't you followed the news the last four years?
Hmm, thanks, have tried installing both the Stream SDK and the AMD driver, still doesn't work. GPU caps viewer recognizes the GPU but says I have no OpenCL GPU devices.