"But his thesis is that such events are fundamentally unpredictable." In which case, the predictions are fundamentally flawed. In which case, decisions based on fundamentally flawed predictions can be taken advantage of. This is not the same as having a better model. It is kinda like a side bet where I bet you $100 that I can walk into a casino and come out $100 richer. The casino wins (a little on average). I win big (on average). You lose big (on average).
Nope. His code is faster because he knows what he's doing. What matters and what doesn't is not usually very apparent. Fortran is compiled, right? Bet most of the time is spent INTERPRETING format statements. It's not really pro-Java. I'd bet his stuff would be fast in COBOL.
The amount of precision is given by the number of significant figures
and always comes in nice increments like +-.1 +-.01 +-.001
and never comes in nasty increments like +-.2 +-.035 +-.075
Actually, to avoid compounding errors, with conversion factors and such, numbers should be stated so that the last stated digit is in error.
Take two sets of measurements, one set in inches and another in centimeters. Add the raw numbers and compare the results (one conversion) Convert each set to the opposite units, add 'em and compare the results.
However, copying files from place to place isn't exactly a new and strange operation for an Operating System. (Or has Windows finally gotten that dumb?)
At the end of the (sometimes extremely long copy operation, if it's, say, a large set of files) Vista informs me that I don't have permission to copy the files to the local target directory. [emphasis added]
Administrator or (sub-)normal user? The effective security becomes less and less.
I've given up. Everybody's an administrator, even fubar (sans password). Anything worth securing is on a Samba share where there's at least a chance of securing stuff.
...I find it very scary when I am held hostage to enforced ignorance... It could be as simple as a farmer seeing his corn field on fire, yet not being allowed to know that if he turned his irrigation system on, it would put it out.
It is similar to turning off the streetlights in a high crime area so you can't see the crime.
Closed and gizmo happy --- it WILL be insecure. Open and obvious works like the Unix Honor Virus --- it doesn't seem to go anywhere. (although I think somebody had a very cute very small fork bomb in his sig)
It's the "Wow, look what I can do" syndrome -- like two-year-olds.
Anything designed to make you FEEL more safe and secure than is really feasible, will cause you to BE much less safe and secure.
The security model in BSD and Windows are the fundamentally same.
Ummmm. No. BSD is open. People are expected to be able to easily see who/what is running or doing whatever. Windows is closed. People are expected to be protected from "noise" that might alarm (or inform) them. This dates from @ECHO OFF in DOS.
There is a reason to put streetlights in high-crime areas. With streetlights you can see who is mugging you. Turning off the lights gives a false sense of security.
What is running in Windows? There is a processlist that seems to be missing stuff. This is a list of names that the processes claim Some huge pile of DLLs from wherever. End Process that just laughs at you. Is the default still to hide viruses (aka system files)? Is the default still to hide file extensions? hey-stupid.txt.exe?
Looking at the graphs, it looks like about 80% of the time, the temperature is falling about 1 degree per 10,000 years, about 8% of the time, the temperature is rising about 1 degree per 1,000 years. There also appears to be an extreme correlation between CO2 and temperature. I'd guess that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is caused by the warmer climate rather than vice-versa, probably something about the solubility of CO2 vs ocean water temperature.
its a case of fear. Not elitism. It's a case of fear of failure, and choosing to go with one's known strengths instead -- which doesn't include
Rather more accurate than you imagine. Tends to work that way all around. If it's bad being picked on for being smart, imagine being picked on for being dumb.
It would seem like a good CIO would make a good CEO
Actually, methinks they do. IIRC there is an 85% overlap in required skills (programming vs management). However, those that become CEOs get out of IT very very early in the process.
A CIO's job is to weigh the benefits of an IT expenditure versus its cost. ROTFLMAO A CIO is never in a position to know or understand the benefits. You measure the benefits of the computer from OUTSIDE the computer, not from INSIDE the computer. Seems like all of IT sees everything from INSIDE the computer.
Example. Security. Two sides. Companies have gone out of existence because they lost their data. But the IT emphasis is on not letting other people look at their data.
You just lost your identity card. You now cease to exist. You now can no longer interact with anything else.
The problem with closed systems is that it must be prepared for all eventualities, particularly catastrophes where all the normal communication mechanisms break down.
That sounds like s recipe for turning small crises into major disasters.
Snail mail has postmarks. If a letter is dubious, people look at the postmarks. The postmarks are the best indication of where the letter came from. The postmarks do not even attempt to authenticate what is written as the return address.
Email, like outlook, proclaims the from address (forged or not) as who it is from, hides the headers under something called options (I'm not making this up!), and seems like people who should know better also fall into the trap.
Seriously, if I'm gonna send out a nastygram, I'm putting YOUR name on it not MINE.
It's hardly as far as a solution, but before any progress can be made, repeating something else's claim should be along the lines of "This email claims to be from..."
The problem, methinks, is that everything is trying to convince the unthinking mob that everything is nice and safe and such. Particularly things that are out of sight and run without the owner's permission. Seems like there should be some interesting criminal charges for theft of computer resources without owner's permission. Particularly if permission is required to be explicit informed consent.
The basic idea of chemotherapy is to carefully administer poison. Enough to kill off the tumor. Not enough to kill off the patient.
Having gone through treatment for lymphoma (MALT), not bad (for me personally) but has to depend on individual reactions. I kept the hair on top of my head but lost my eyebrows and eyelashes.
Radioactive tagging is kinda standard anytime you want to be able to determine where the chemical goes or what it reacts with. And how much. The tagging is NOT going to assist anything chemically (otherwise it would be east to separate U235 from natural uranium). If the targeted cells have a large affinity for some unusual chemical, then a radioactive version of that chemical will deliver a concentrated dose. If nothing else has an affinity for it, then nothing else will be much bothered. The ideal is some exotic brew that only the tumor wants.
Windows is not a true multi-user OS unless you get the Pro editions.
As I explain to my "not-so-sophisticated" users, Microsoft is incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. And that's for single user. For multiple user, try different login credentials from computer A to computer B at the same time. Even DOS and Lantastic or Netware was more "multi-user".
I would like to see concrete examples of other languages being "better". Hehe. You won't (see any such). Anything beyond comparing a 10-key adding machine and an abacus adds far too much complexity for the examples to be meaningful.
The skill of the programmer matters far more than the language in my experience, and PHP gives you enough options to make good code *if* you want to. In fact a skilled programmer can write in many different languages that all are recognized as whatever the high-level language purports to be.
The "elitist" languages are not necessarily better, they just scare away amatures and newbies so that you don't have as many amatures and newbies writing messy code. Perhaps this is a good thing, perhaps it means that the elitist language is doomed to obscurity.
(You realize of course that you have just shown that "security by obscurity" does in fact work;) The first requirement for security by obscurity to work is obscurity. This is the opposite of ubiquity.
There is a book called "Unix Hater's Handbook". Written by what should be leading lights of Unix's betters, what is remarkable is that it's actually rather lame in condemning Unix. Trying to get a language right is not going to fare any better, should actually fare significantly worse. Until you can play add-em-up with the convenience of a 10-key, handle esoteric bindings with the flair of LISP, have the explicatory capabilities of COBOL, handle the SEMANTICS of strings and string-spaces (HTML and SQL strings are NOT created equal), and exactly what is string length supposed to be anyway? Most languages are half-way tolerable for some aspects and totally unusable on many others. You pick one where the problems do not bother you.
Slashdot Mirror
"But his thesis is that such events are fundamentally unpredictable."
In which case, the predictions are fundamentally flawed. In which case, decisions based on fundamentally flawed predictions can be taken advantage of. This is not the same as having a better model.
It is kinda like a side bet where I bet you $100 that I can walk into a casino and come out $100 richer. The casino wins (a little on average). I win big (on average). You lose big (on average).
Nope.
His code is faster because he knows what he's doing.
What matters and what doesn't is not usually very apparent.
Fortran is compiled, right?
Bet most of the time is spent INTERPRETING format statements.
It's not really pro-Java. I'd bet his stuff would be fast in COBOL.
First thing to protect yourself is to NOT do something stupid to expose yourself.
Booby traps are designed to catch boobys.
They work very well.
what processes can't do to Protected Processes
Debug an active protected process
So, logically, we have undebuggable "Protected" Processes.
Figures.
Sorry, I've seen that once too often.
.1 .01 .001
.2 .035 .075
The amount of precision is given by the number of significant figures
and always comes in nice increments like
+-
+-
+-
and never comes in nasty increments like
+-
+-
+-
Actually, to avoid compounding errors, with conversion factors and such, numbers should be stated so that the last stated digit is in error.
Take two sets of measurements, one set in inches and another in centimeters.
Add the raw numbers and compare the results (one conversion)
Convert each set to the opposite units, add 'em and compare the results.
However, copying files from place to place isn't exactly a new and strange operation for an Operating System. (Or has Windows finally gotten that dumb?)
At the end of the (sometimes extremely long copy operation, if it's, say, a large set of files) Vista informs me that I don't have permission to copy the files to the local target directory. [emphasis added]
Administrator or (sub-)normal user?
The effective security becomes less and less.
I've given up.
Everybody's an administrator, even fubar (sans password).
Anything worth securing is on a Samba share where there's at least a chance of securing stuff.
Why must all GUI desktop vendors (and it's not just MS; Nautilus follows suit) default to this behavior?
Progress is defined as turning a $2000 computer into a $200 DVD player.
Survival of the fittest.
Two (oversimplified) aspects.
surviving within the species.
the species itself surviving.
There's poor odds in being the best of an extinct species.
...I find it very scary when I am held hostage to enforced ignorance ... It could be as simple as a farmer seeing his corn field on fire, yet not being allowed to know that if he turned his irrigation system on, it would put it out.
It is similar to turning off the streetlights in a high crime area so you can't see the crime.
Closed and gizmo happy --- it WILL be insecure.
Open and obvious works like the Unix Honor Virus --- it doesn't seem to go anywhere. (although I think somebody had a very cute very small fork bomb in his sig)
It's the "Wow, look what I can do" syndrome -- like two-year-olds.
Anything designed to make you FEEL more safe and secure than is really feasible, will cause you to BE much less safe and secure.
Oh please. OpenBSD is just as susceptible to someone downloading an evil binary and clicking "Yes" as Windows is.
Oh yes. The Unix Honor Virus.
Never seems to go anywhere though.
The security model in BSD and Windows are the fundamentally same.
Ummmm. No.
BSD is open. People are expected to be able to easily see who/what is running or doing whatever.
Windows is closed. People are expected to be protected from "noise" that might alarm (or inform) them. This dates from @ECHO OFF in DOS.
There is a reason to put streetlights in high-crime areas.
With streetlights you can see who is mugging you.
Turning off the lights gives a false sense of security.
What is running in Windows?
There is a processlist that seems to be missing stuff.
This is a list of names that the processes claim
Some huge pile of DLLs from wherever.
End Process that just laughs at you.
Is the default still to hide viruses (aka system files)?
Is the default still to hide file extensions? hey-stupid.txt.exe?
Looking at the graphs, it looks like about 80% of the time, the temperature is falling about 1 degree per 10,000 years, about 8% of the time, the temperature is rising about 1 degree per 1,000 years. There also appears to be an extreme correlation between CO2 and temperature. I'd guess that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is caused by the warmer climate rather than vice-versa, probably something about the solubility of CO2 vs ocean water temperature.
its a case of fear. Not elitism. It's a case of fear of failure, and choosing to go with one's known strengths instead -- which doesn't include
Rather more accurate than you imagine. Tends to work that way all around.
If it's bad being picked on for being smart, imagine being picked on for being dumb.
It would seem like a good CIO would make a good CEO
Actually, methinks they do. IIRC there is an 85% overlap in required skills (programming vs management). However, those that become CEOs get out of IT very very early in the process.
A CIO's job is to weigh the benefits of an IT expenditure versus its cost.
ROTFLMAO A CIO is never in a position to know or understand the benefits. You measure the benefits of the computer from OUTSIDE the computer, not from INSIDE the computer. Seems like all of IT sees everything from INSIDE the computer.
Example. Security. Two sides. Companies have gone out of existence because they lost their data. But the IT emphasis is on not letting other people look at their data.
It is said that if we fail to learn from history, we are destined to repeat it.
Methinks we don't learn very well.
Sorry, not much you can do beyond what's already in place.
....
But
that makes the system inherently INSECURE
the insecurity is furthered by the false sense of security by yapping about the most secure windows ever.
You just lost your identity card.
You now cease to exist.
You now can no longer interact with anything else.
The problem with closed systems is that it must be prepared for all eventualities, particularly catastrophes where all the normal communication mechanisms break down.
That sounds like s recipe for turning small crises into major disasters.
Yah I'm naive but doesn't Microsoft get millions of people to take OS patches via the forced upgrade?
Has it helped?
Forced anything where the users have to accept what they do not understand will always make the situation worse not better.
Snail mail has postmarks.
..."
If a letter is dubious, people look at the postmarks.
The postmarks are the best indication of where the letter came from.
The postmarks do not even attempt to authenticate what is written as the return address.
Email, like outlook,
proclaims the from address (forged or not) as who it is from,
hides the headers under something called options (I'm not making this up!),
and seems like people who should know better also fall into the trap.
Seriously, if I'm gonna send out a nastygram, I'm putting YOUR name on it not MINE.
It's hardly as far as a solution, but before any progress can be made, repeating something else's claim should be along the lines of "This email claims to be from
The problem, methinks, is that everything is trying to convince the unthinking mob that everything is nice and safe and such. Particularly things that are out of sight and run without the owner's permission. Seems like there should be some interesting criminal charges for theft of computer resources without owner's permission. Particularly if permission is required to be explicit informed consent.
The basic idea of chemotherapy is to carefully administer poison. Enough to kill off the tumor. Not enough to kill off the patient.
Having gone through treatment for lymphoma (MALT), not bad (for me personally) but has to depend on individual reactions.
I kept the hair on top of my head but lost my eyebrows and eyelashes.
Radioactive tagging is kinda standard anytime you want to be able to determine where the chemical goes or what it reacts with. And how much.
The tagging is NOT going to assist anything chemically (otherwise it would be east to separate U235 from natural uranium). If the targeted cells have a large affinity for some unusual chemical, then a radioactive version of that chemical will deliver a concentrated dose. If nothing else has an affinity for it, then nothing else will be much bothered. The ideal is some exotic brew that only the tumor wants.
Name an Operating System vendor that doesn't have any buffer overflows found!
Burroughs B5000
"It was a unique machine, well ahead of its time."
One reason it never became all that popular was that it did not like reading and writing outside of the prescribed bounds.
Windows is not a true multi-user OS unless you get the Pro editions.
As I explain to my "not-so-sophisticated" users, Microsoft is incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. And that's for single user.
For multiple user, try different login credentials from computer A to computer B at the same time. Even DOS and Lantastic or Netware was more "multi-user".
I would like to see concrete examples of other languages being "better".
Hehe. You won't (see any such).
Anything beyond comparing a 10-key adding machine and an abacus adds far too much complexity for the examples to be meaningful.
The skill of the programmer matters far more than the language in my experience, and PHP gives you enough options to make good code *if* you want to.
In fact a skilled programmer can write in many different languages that all are recognized as whatever the high-level language purports to be.
The "elitist" languages are not necessarily better, they just scare away amatures and newbies so that you don't have as many amatures and newbies writing messy code. Perhaps this is a good thing, perhaps it means that the elitist language is doomed to obscurity.
(You realize of course that you have just shown that "security by obscurity" does in fact work;)
The first requirement for security by obscurity to work is obscurity. This is the opposite of ubiquity.
There is a book called "Unix Hater's Handbook". Written by what should be leading lights of Unix's betters, what is remarkable is that it's actually rather lame in condemning Unix. Trying to get a language right is not going to fare any better, should actually fare significantly worse. Until you can play add-em-up with the convenience of a 10-key, handle esoteric bindings with the flair of LISP, have the explicatory capabilities of COBOL, handle the SEMANTICS of strings and string-spaces (HTML and SQL strings are NOT created equal), and exactly what is string length supposed to be anyway?
Most languages are half-way tolerable for some aspects and totally unusable on many others. You pick one where the problems do not bother you.