Everyone said it was crazy to ship an OS that was only a browser, and basically couldn't run anything.
Not everyone. I distinctly remember reports that Bill Gates openly discissed his fear that computers would become entirely browser-based and make operating-system user interfaces obsolete, killing his company. IIRC, it was one of the things that justified developing.NET.
Then someone comes along and finds bug #32,767 in the browser you trusted, lathers you up, and repeats all over you.
Doors inside of doors, because "solid OS and RPC support" is a hall of doors you just tacked on because someone selling it said "uh, yeah, sure. it's secure..."
1. profit and revenue are two very different things, especially in hollywierd
2. 3D was the reason that movie got made
3. one movie is not a sufficient sample size to determine the health of the movie industry
i don't disagree that theatrical movies aren't dying, but your arguments don't logically support the conclusion.
and while they aren't dying, they are limping. they're going to need something soon, because on-demand and home-viewing are very close to being technically capable of allowing you, the teeming masses, to sit in your own home and get theater-quality sound and picture in realtime on the movie's release date.
Security is only hard to do if you don't know what you're securing.
Code is fractal and dense. It's an implosion of vulnerability.
Think of it instead as a building with a hundred doors. You know you can secure all those doors. But open one and behind it are a hundred more. Okay, so you can secure the first hundred, you can secure these. But behind these may be more doors, and you don't know which doors where are unlocked and can allow the outside world in.
The only way to handle this situation is to ensure your entire building is known to you, and that you have a way to check every door to be sure it's locked.
But the way people code with any efficiency is to import a whole new building behind a few new doors, thus bringing in a non-finite expansion of your insecurity.
Efficiency in coding is therefore the enemy of security in coding. Until we get back to the nuts and ensure that we can know where all the doors are and that we can check them to be sure they are all locked.
Slashdot Mirror
Tell it to the judge.
Our country is supposed to represent bad reporting?
http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/24/paypal-on-cutting-off-courage-to-resist-this-has-nothing-to-do-with-wikileaks/
That doesn't make them a bank in the U.S.
PayPal is not a part of the banking system.
It is not a bank.
It is a private entity to whom you give authorization to debit your bank account.
Or maybe a little googling:
http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/24/paypal-on-cutting-off-courage-to-resist-this-has-nothing-to-do-with-wikileaks/
Summary: CTR set their account up incorrectly. PayPal asked them to fix it. CTR refused and lied about the situation to the media.
Since dirt travels faster than explanation, PayPal will always look like dirt to someone who's encountered this botched story.
I don't know if I've heard anyone since high school chemistry refer to salt as "NaCl". It's "salt" or "sodium chloride".
Was it even earthquake season?
How often does your UPS false-positive on you?
Those times it beeps when you aren't expecting it, it's actually detected an intermittent fault in its input.
Reliability is easy if you're in control of the entire system.
Islam Inside?
Probably.
Abu Dhabi is an Islamic nation
Abu Dhabi buys fabs and a share of AMD
The UAE (of which Abu Dhabi is a part) is well known as a transit point for smuggling to Iran
Iran illegally obtains AMD CPUs
congratulations are in order,
Okay. Great. "Nice freeways, Mr. Hitler. Now, if you don't mind just stepping in range of this briefcase..."
I'll get him the brochure.
Any insight as to what CPUs they're using?
Because, afaik, all x86 CPUs are still under ITAR, so it's illegal to ship them to Iran.
Oh. So you've met Android.
Everyone said it was crazy to ship an OS that was only a browser, and basically couldn't run anything.
Not everyone. I distinctly remember reports that Bill Gates openly discissed his fear that computers would become entirely browser-based and make operating-system user interfaces obsolete, killing his company. IIRC, it was one of the things that justified developing .NET.
Too late for that. Ask for a checkbox to disable it and you'll get the same effect you get with JavaScript now.
Yeah, you wouldn't want to confuse anyone by saying "I'm running my Windows code in a browser window on my Apple".
They'd think you're mad, talking about windows that run inside apples.
No, a Phenom.
pithy response either incorporating trending memes or exploiting unclosed double-entendres in parent post
So far.
Still held up in the UK, but we're extraditing.
Then someone comes along and finds bug #32,767 in the browser you trusted, lathers you up, and repeats all over you.
Doors inside of doors, because "solid OS and RPC support" is a hall of doors you just tacked on because someone selling it said "uh, yeah, sure. it's secure..."
1. profit and revenue are two very different things, especially in hollywierd
2. 3D was the reason that movie got made
3. one movie is not a sufficient sample size to determine the health of the movie industry
i don't disagree that theatrical movies aren't dying, but your arguments don't logically support the conclusion.
and while they aren't dying, they are limping. they're going to need something soon, because on-demand and home-viewing are very close to being technically capable of allowing you, the teeming masses, to sit in your own home and get theater-quality sound and picture in realtime on the movie's release date.
That's what your competitors hope.
Then think of it this way:
Maintaining security of something you don't understand is NP-hard, at best.
Securing a breach is finite.
The first is an unjustifiable cost. The second justifies itself.
Yes, this is as much a failing of corporate thinking as it is of software security design.
Security is only hard to do if you don't know what you're securing.
Code is fractal and dense. It's an implosion of vulnerability.
Think of it instead as a building with a hundred doors. You know you can secure all those doors. But open one and behind it are a hundred more. Okay, so you can secure the first hundred, you can secure these. But behind these may be more doors, and you don't know which doors where are unlocked and can allow the outside world in.
The only way to handle this situation is to ensure your entire building is known to you, and that you have a way to check every door to be sure it's locked.
But the way people code with any efficiency is to import a whole new building behind a few new doors, thus bringing in a non-finite expansion of your insecurity.
Efficiency in coding is therefore the enemy of security in coding. Until we get back to the nuts and ensure that we can know where all the doors are and that we can check them to be sure they are all locked.