"The hoover dam wouldn't be approved today!". Perhaps that's right. But it was back in the day. And it was built. So if we're ignoring period arguments, it's absolutely irrelevant what today's regulations might or might not do to its approval.
The point is, if it wasn't for the vast abundance of gas, solar, wind, nuclear etc. there probably wouldn't be such a big oversight in building a huge dam with possibly catastrophic outcomes.
Same as, if LA, DC and NYC were towns of 100 people, nobody would care if someone dug a hole right under them.
Why would you want to build another hoover dam today? California produces more than twice the power from the hoover dam from wind. 96 people died in the construction of the hoover dam.
It's almost as if technology changes adjust the cost/benefit of various projects, obsoleting once acceptable ideas.
To bring it back to the article: Digging vast tunnels under major metropolitan areas like LA, New York and DC without any oversight is ridiculous.
Imagine the tragedy of a world where a seller is liable for making the products they sell actually useful out of the box rather than forcing customers to go down a "support" rabbit hole before they give up.
If it were just about features, surely Amazon's fire phone would have taken over the world. But it flopped. As have so many "iPhone Killers". People seem to assume that users line up a set of check boxes and buy the one with more ticks. 10 years on, that's still not how folks buy phones.
So if it's just poor people that are a drain on the IRS that are the problem, why is the president butthurt about a billionaire, his company that folks think might have a trillion dollar market cap soon, and a paper he bought?
That still doesn't explain why he's not celebrating Jeff Bezos rather than chastising him. I understand the position of "this is all messed up, but I have to play along"... but why doesn't Jeff get to play along, too?
I'm really confused about the president's position on dodging taxes. If poor people don't pay taxes, that's bad. But if a rich person gets a tax break, that's good. If one of Trump's businesses, or he himself, avoids taxes, that's just his business expertise. But if Jeff Bezos does it, that's bad again.
You seem to be conflating "actually reducing exploitable surface" with "adding random crap to make it look like you've reduced the exploitable surface". 100% agree -- if you're putting up an FTP server, you just need the files to serve and the server. That's not rocket science, and it does wonders in removing exploits by removing baggage.
But your first example was a wrapper that puts email in a VM. Now you need a virtual machine. And email is a great example of "useless without the bloat". What do you do with your attachments? Your mime types? How do you send files? What about font rendering?
All the support code to make your email client useful are more code, not less. Of course, if you don't mind removing features, you're better off without the features, rather than adding more code with more exploits to block them out.
These "run every app in a VM" kits are snake oil. All they do is expand the attack surface making it easier for an attacker to get in. Sure, by virtue of being slightly different you might dodge some bullets temporarily, but once they're reliable enough to go mainstream, attackers will flock to them. The only real solution is less code and fewer interfaces.
As expected, a lot of people here being all "maybe it's something else". I'd love to see an anonymized dataset online for folks to rate publicly, and see how the results fall out.
See, that's exactly the kind of answer I'd hope to get from someone who says they know Python. They actually understand what it means in Python to be a string, and how its quirks relate to the language. "I can look it up on stack overflow" is a fine answer for a mediocre high school grad if that's all you need.
All languages (worth talking about) are turing complete. At some point you "know" all the languages and just have to look up the specific implementation. It doesn't mean you know how to write and debug good code efficiently. There's a big difference between knowing a language and copying and pasting some snippets together from stackoverflow.
If you don't know the details of something as simple as Python's object/string/array model, how can someone hiring you expect you to write good high-level data structures around maps, sets, lambdas, objects etc.?
Slashdot Mirror
If I can understand this guy's ramblings, he doesn't like that FaceID is so powerful, and he wishes he could unlock his iPhone X another way.
So stick some tape over the front facing camera and use a passcode. Get over it. People have been doing this with their laptop cameras for years.
Even if his argument was based in reality, which I'm not sure it is, there's a well-known work-around.
I'm calling shenanigans on this:
"Everyone's phone has FB preinstalled and it already has permissions to read just about everything"
lolwut?
Gee, when a guy writes a anti-woman-programmer rant and it goes viral -- I wonder why it is that women would turn their noses up at programming?
Must be because they're not good at it, not because of loud-mouth douchebags with baseless opinions.
So to a first order, floating point units and SIMD extensions are irrelevant?
You might want to check your calculations again.
The internets are stupid. Intel have been way below their Pentium 4 clock frequencies ever since they proved it was a terrible optimization goal.
... on slashdot no less. How about some real workload comparisons?
What's the worst case failure mode of the hoover dam or nuclear vs. a few wind turbines?
Huh? Period arguments? That's the whole point.
"The hoover dam wouldn't be approved today!". Perhaps that's right. But it was back in the day. And it was built. So if we're ignoring period arguments, it's absolutely irrelevant what today's regulations might or might not do to its approval.
The point is, if it wasn't for the vast abundance of gas, solar, wind, nuclear etc. there probably wouldn't be such a big oversight in building a huge dam with possibly catastrophic outcomes.
Same as, if LA, DC and NYC were towns of 100 people, nobody would care if someone dug a hole right under them.
Why would you want to build another hoover dam today? California produces more than twice the power from the hoover dam from wind. 96 people died in the construction of the hoover dam.
It's almost as if technology changes adjust the cost/benefit of various projects, obsoleting once acceptable ideas.
To bring it back to the article: Digging vast tunnels under major metropolitan areas like LA, New York and DC without any oversight is ridiculous.
Imagine the tragedy of a world where a seller is liable for making the products they sell actually useful out of the box rather than forcing customers to go down a "support" rabbit hole before they give up.
Two can play the name calling game. Man up and learn to govern and police and quit trying to take the easy way out, politicians.
"A Gentoo users ... recompiled a component... everything is working OK now".
How is this not working as designed?
If it were just about features, surely Amazon's fire phone would have taken over the world. But it flopped. As have so many "iPhone Killers". People seem to assume that users line up a set of check boxes and buy the one with more ticks. 10 years on, that's still not how folks buy phones.
So if it's just poor people that are a drain on the IRS that are the problem, why is the president butthurt about a billionaire, his company that folks think might have a trillion dollar market cap soon, and a paper he bought?
That still doesn't explain why he's not celebrating Jeff Bezos rather than chastising him. I understand the position of "this is all messed up, but I have to play along"... but why doesn't Jeff get to play along, too?
I'm really confused about the president's position on dodging taxes. If poor people don't pay taxes, that's bad. But if a rich person gets a tax break, that's good. If one of Trump's businesses, or he himself, avoids taxes, that's just his business expertise. But if Jeff Bezos does it, that's bad again.
Help me out here. I'm really confused...
You seem to be conflating "actually reducing exploitable surface" with "adding random crap to make it look like you've reduced the exploitable surface". 100% agree -- if you're putting up an FTP server, you just need the files to serve and the server. That's not rocket science, and it does wonders in removing exploits by removing baggage.
But your first example was a wrapper that puts email in a VM. Now you need a virtual machine. And email is a great example of "useless without the bloat". What do you do with your attachments? Your mime types? How do you send files? What about font rendering?
All the support code to make your email client useful are more code, not less. Of course, if you don't mind removing features, you're better off without the features, rather than adding more code with more exploits to block them out.
These "run every app in a VM" kits are snake oil. All they do is expand the attack surface making it easier for an attacker to get in. Sure, by virtue of being slightly different you might dodge some bullets temporarily, but once they're reliable enough to go mainstream, attackers will flock to them. The only real solution is less code and fewer interfaces.
... but rating them on their use of ASLR is worse than the problem:
https://forums.grsecurity.net/...
Find someone who's done some real security analysis, don't see if they bought the snake oil.
As expected, a lot of people here being all "maybe it's something else". I'd love to see an anonymized dataset online for folks to rate publicly, and see how the results fall out.
Am I the only one who wants to see examples of these unquestionable improvements that must be agreed to?
Clearly the new infrastructure is to soak up the capacity in the streets surrounding the freeways. This is what Waze et al help with.
See, that's exactly the kind of answer I'd hope to get from someone who says they know Python. They actually understand what it means in Python to be a string, and how its quirks relate to the language. "I can look it up on stack overflow" is a fine answer for a mediocre high school grad if that's all you need.
All languages (worth talking about) are turing complete. At some point you "know" all the languages and just have to look up the specific implementation. It doesn't mean you know how to write and debug good code efficiently. There's a big difference between knowing a language and copying and pasting some snippets together from stackoverflow.
Do you claim to know Python in job interviews?
If you don't know the details of something as simple as Python's object/string/array model, how can someone hiring you expect you to write good high-level data structures around maps, sets, lambdas, objects etc.?