we are near the place where if we carry it much farther we are going to start feeling bad for the fates of the characters. If that is what you want perhaps you'd find a John Stienbeck novel more satisfying than a game.
American McGee's John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Mice and Doom IV does for Depression-era America what Dante's Inferno did for Renaissance Italy! Exiled by the Dust Bowl (voiced by Stephen Merchant) from your Midwest farm, you must fight a succession of Works Progress Administration bosses culminating in FDR himself! After which, in the DLC, you travel to Berlin by airship to punch Hitler.
Really computer programming , computer systems administration and computer security should all be separate degrees.
Great, so then we'll get coders who no nothing of security or how to deploy their software, administrators who can't customise anything, and "security consultants" who do nothing productive to help except point and laugh?
GUI, is a clear and well understood acronym and services this purpose. Making it "gooey", is an attempt to be "cute" or "funny" in a universe where it doesn't necessarily belongs.
Er? I don't know about you, but where I come from, since the 1980s, GUI has always been pronounced "gooey" in the same way that SQL has been pronounced "sequel". It saves a couple of syllables. This isn't some new trend.
Unless you're referring to literally spelling it "gooey"? If so, then that's something I've never seen.
The person to whom you were responding was speaking of fundamental issues in Ubuntu's update cycle. Ubuntu is targeted at regular users. Therefore, issues with Ubuntu must be addressed in a manner that accommodates the needs of regular users, and thus your suggestions are inappropriate remedies; moreover they are unnecessarily labour-intensive, which is antithetical to user experience programming?
yes let's never move forward and try something new.
Sometimes, when you take something which is already working just fine and change it in random and bizarre ways, the direction you move isn't "forward".
Unfortunately, there's no way to write software that is completely free of such bugs unless you do full formal verification of all code. That is very time consuming (so forget Agile), and, more importantly, it is very, very expensive (because it's done by humans, and what more, it has to be done by people who know what they're doing - not your average code monkey - and their time is not cheap).
Stop. Back the truck up. That right there is the software industry's huge undiscussed problem.
1. Insecure software is a major public health hazard. It can get the machine of everyone who runs it rooted, turned into a botnet, their credit cards wiped and their life ruined. 2. If software isn't provably secure, it's only a matter of time until the bad guys crack it, so it's either 100% right or 99% wrong. There's no "just a little insecure". 3. There's no way to write software that's secure enough for the Internet using the tools the industry currently likes (ie insecure C++ and no formal methods). 4. Therefore every company who is releasing non-formal-methods verified software today is knowingly, actively contributing to making a public hazard and should be liable for every security incident that their software causes. 5.... But it's expensive to do it right, so we won't bother!
Yeah. How does this get a pass? In any other field, this level of gross negligence would be actionable. Try to design, say, a nuclear reactor using this kind of risk management and... oh. Wait.
Okay, how about the software industry tries to do at least a little better than the nuke people?
Only if the keys are tied to something that is tied to you. Which only happens if you do something to cause it to be.
How could you purchase anything online without tying your purchase to 1) a Bitcoin wallet, and 2) an IP address or physical address for receiving the goods?
Instantly there's now one person in the world who knows something about your real identity, and that piece of information is valuable to a lot of buyers - even if worth only a few cents. They're going to instantly delete it rather than selling you out... why?
Please trace this wallet: 18rh6LBTtJVzLBmCMgm7G1xZE6RUqWPwnd
Tell me who it is, how to find them, where they are... in fact, tell me anything about them other than that wallet 18rh6LBTtJVzLBmCMgm7G1xZE6RUqWPwnd has received X number of coins and sent Y number of coins.
Okay!
First thing, we data-mine all the public Bitcoin records we can get our hands on and find out every transaction that this wallet has engaged in. We find out all the wallets it has talked to, and we look particularly at neighbouring wallets that engage in multiple transactions. Those are probably people or services that it knows. We look at the timestamps and see if we can find out when these transactions occurred.
Second thing, we talk to a shortlist of large public Web services who use Bitcoins - the Googles, Microsofts, Yahoos and Facebooks of the day. If we're a government agency we probably already have a quiet agreement with them. If not, we use espionage, bribery, corporate buyouts or hacking to get hold of their server logs, by any means possible.
These server logs will have some record of transactions involving Bitcoins. If the services are sufficiently intelligence-agency-friendly, they'll store these logs forever in a nice tabulated format showing which of *their* identities - Joe.Blogs@facebook.com - gave us what Bitcoins at what timestamps. We shake the data a bit until we know reasonably well what Bitcoin wallets each Joe Bloggs uses regularly with these services.
We then go back to the public Bitcoin records and track all the webs of connections of the known Joe Blogges and services to any of the wallets used by Wallet 18rh6LBTtJVzLBmCMgm7G1xZE6RUqWPwnd anywhere in the public record.
We then knock quietly on *their* door and follow the trail where it leads. Rinse and repeat.
With a Navy and Airforce powerful enough to fight off USA and NATO, the money to purchase supplies, and the diplomatic credit to make everything else run smoothly.
Oh, and if you succeed, you will become the hosting/payment service of choice for drug dealers, terrorists, Wikileaks-style activists, Anonymous griefers and spamlords looking for a safe haven from USA and NATO strike forces, and they'll have their own ideas about how to run things on your island.
Other than that, it's perfectly possible to run a global international data haven with no international entanglements.
I wondered the same thing. Here is what the Bitcoin website says.
Bitcoin "accounts" do not have people's names on them and do not have to correspond to individuals.
Seems like that would make a file of "these Bitcoin accounts are known to have participated in transactions involving these real-world identities, such as IP addresses" very valuable, on the order of credit-card identity theft. It wouldn't allow cheating but it would allow exposure of transactions, and that could be worth something to the right people.
Yes. But that history doesn't connect BTC to an individual, only to what you could consider akin to the ultimate anonymous account number (the "wallet").
And there's no way to tie this "anonymous" account number to an IP address? Even if as proprietor of Evil.com, I just sold one Sealed Evil In A Can to IP address 1.2.3.4 for 42 BTC, and received a Bitcoin block in the last 30 seconds from IP address 1.2.3.4 showing that anonymous account 999 just paid 42 BTC in the last 30 seconds to anonymous account 666, which I know is me? There's no way I could infer any kind of connection like that?
but slugthrowers are something so ancient the Borg don't even remember them, therefore saw no reason to ever adapt to it.
Yeah, except that what Picard actually fired was a holographic simulation of a Tommy gun. Which was a bit like suprising a burglar in your house by firing up your 3D HD TV and waving your Halo: Reach controller at him and then have the guy actually die because the pixels were so sharp.
Course we all know the Holodeck is a lethal deathtrap if you turn off the safeties (which happens every couple of weeks), but you'd think if it's that useful as a weapon, Starfleet would have decided to either mount it on the outside, or restrict its use as a recreational device to expendable ensigns.
I'm an international relations student.:) And yes, Rods from God is mentioned explicitly as the title of this chapter "Rods from God and Crowbars - Striking from Orbit"
Ah Gordon, I see you've chhhanged your majjjjjor. Are you certain this decision will have no unforessssseen consssssequencessss?
20 tons is for the strategic option; you get something close to a nuclear explosion from it. You wouldn't need or want many of 'em. By way of comparison, the Hubble weighs over 10 tons.
Hubble, eh?
Just out of curiosity, how much propellant is left in the Hubble fuel tanks and how well firewalled are its attitude control uplink stations? Also, do we know if anyone in Anonymous works at NASA and has access to Stuxnet source code?
Not exactly in orbital bombardment, the full title was "Mining the Moon? - Dilemmas of Space Law". One of the topics explored was the use of space for warfare
Slashdot Mirror
People will lean towards a PC with a 500GB drive and 1GB RAM, over a 25GB drive and 4GB RAM.
Well, sure. Can you even install Windows 7 on drive as small as 25 gigs these days?
Can we get some new RPG from LucasArt now? Something as good as Monkey Island, Day of the Tentacle and Full Throttle?
Is there even a LucasArts left?
I miss Dark Forces.
You bastard, you linked me to TVtropes. Now I'll be there all week. Thanks a lot!
we are near the place where if we carry it much farther we are going to start feeling bad for the fates of the characters. If that is what you want perhaps you'd find a John Stienbeck novel more satisfying than a game.
American McGee's John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Mice and Doom IV does for Depression-era America what Dante's Inferno did for Renaissance Italy! Exiled by the Dust Bowl (voiced by Stephen Merchant) from your Midwest farm, you must fight a succession of Works Progress Administration bosses culminating in FDR himself! After which, in the DLC, you travel to Berlin by airship to punch Hitler.
Really computer programming , computer systems administration and computer security should all be separate degrees.
Great, so then we'll get coders who no nothing of security or how to deploy their software, administrators who can't customise anything, and "security consultants" who do nothing productive to help except point and laugh?
So same as now, then.
GUI, is a clear and well understood acronym and services this purpose. Making it "gooey", is an attempt to be "cute" or "funny" in a universe where it doesn't necessarily belongs.
Er? I don't know about you, but where I come from, since the 1980s, GUI has always been pronounced "gooey" in the same way that SQL has been pronounced "sequel". It saves a couple of syllables. This isn't some new trend.
Unless you're referring to literally spelling it "gooey"? If so, then that's something I've never seen.
The person to whom you were responding was speaking of fundamental issues in Ubuntu's update cycle. Ubuntu is targeted at regular users. Therefore, issues with Ubuntu must be addressed in a manner that accommodates the needs of regular users, and thus your suggestions are inappropriate remedies; moreover they are unnecessarily labour-intensive, which is antithetical to user experience programming?
Or, as Gabe and Tycho so neatly summarise: sometimes you need to punch the Internet
MacOS? You wish!
It's iOs they're shooting for.
At most, Shuttleworth gets to criticize them, in my opinion.
So nobody who actually uses the software is allowed to criticize it?
That's not how "freedom" works in my experience.
yes let's never move forward and try something new.
Sometimes, when you take something which is already working just fine and change it in random and bizarre ways, the direction you move isn't "forward".
Unfortunately, there's no way to write software that is completely free of such bugs unless you do full formal verification of all code. That is very time consuming (so forget Agile), and, more importantly, it is very, very expensive (because it's done by humans, and what more, it has to be done by people who know what they're doing - not your average code monkey - and their time is not cheap).
Stop. Back the truck up. That right there is the software industry's huge undiscussed problem.
1. Insecure software is a major public health hazard. It can get the machine of everyone who runs it rooted, turned into a botnet, their credit cards wiped and their life ruined.
2. If software isn't provably secure, it's only a matter of time until the bad guys crack it, so it's either 100% right or 99% wrong. There's no "just a little insecure".
3. There's no way to write software that's secure enough for the Internet using the tools the industry currently likes (ie insecure C++ and no formal methods).
4. Therefore every company who is releasing non-formal-methods verified software today is knowingly, actively contributing to making a public hazard and should be liable for every security incident that their software causes.
5.... But it's expensive to do it right, so we won't bother!
Yeah. How does this get a pass? In any other field, this level of gross negligence would be actionable. Try to design, say, a nuclear reactor using this kind of risk management and... oh. Wait.
Okay, how about the software industry tries to do at least a little better than the nuke people?
Recursive recursivity is (stack overflow).
This is a major corporation, for fuck's sake! Do they even *have* a full-time security staff in there online division?
And Japanese at that. Where are the razorgirls? There were supposed to be razorgirls!
Only if the keys are tied to something that is tied to you. Which only happens if you do something to cause it to be.
How could you purchase anything online without tying your purchase to 1) a Bitcoin wallet, and 2) an IP address or physical address for receiving the goods?
Instantly there's now one person in the world who knows something about your real identity, and that piece of information is valuable to a lot of buyers - even if worth only a few cents. They're going to instantly delete it rather than selling you out... why?
Please trace this wallet: 18rh6LBTtJVzLBmCMgm7G1xZE6RUqWPwnd
Tell me who it is, how to find them, where they are... in fact, tell me anything about them other than that wallet 18rh6LBTtJVzLBmCMgm7G1xZE6RUqWPwnd has received X number of coins and sent Y number of coins.
Okay!
First thing, we data-mine all the public Bitcoin records we can get our hands on and find out every transaction that this wallet has engaged in. We find out all the wallets it has talked to, and we look particularly at neighbouring wallets that engage in multiple transactions. Those are probably people or services that it knows. We look at the timestamps and see if we can find out when these transactions occurred.
Second thing, we talk to a shortlist of large public Web services who use Bitcoins - the Googles, Microsofts, Yahoos and Facebooks of the day. If we're a government agency we probably already have a quiet agreement with them. If not, we use espionage, bribery, corporate buyouts or hacking to get hold of their server logs, by any means possible.
These server logs will have some record of transactions involving Bitcoins. If the services are sufficiently intelligence-agency-friendly, they'll store these logs forever in a nice tabulated format showing which of *their* identities - Joe.Blogs@facebook.com - gave us what Bitcoins at what timestamps. We shake the data a bit until we know reasonably well what Bitcoin wallets each Joe Bloggs uses regularly with these services.
We then go back to the public Bitcoin records and track all the webs of connections of the known Joe Blogges and services to any of the wallets used by Wallet 18rh6LBTtJVzLBmCMgm7G1xZE6RUqWPwnd anywhere in the public record.
We then knock quietly on *their* door and follow the trail where it leads. Rinse and repeat.
What, you think this wouldn't happen?
All you need is a private island.
With a Navy and Airforce powerful enough to fight off USA and NATO, the money to purchase supplies, and the diplomatic credit to make everything else run smoothly.
Oh, and if you succeed, you will become the hosting/payment service of choice for drug dealers, terrorists, Wikileaks-style activists, Anonymous griefers and spamlords looking for a safe haven from USA and NATO strike forces, and they'll have their own ideas about how to run things on your island.
Other than that, it's perfectly possible to run a global international data haven with no international entanglements.
I wondered the same thing. Here is what the Bitcoin website says.
Bitcoin "accounts" do not have people's names on them and do not have to correspond to individuals.
Seems like that would make a file of "these Bitcoin accounts are known to have participated in transactions involving these real-world identities, such as IP addresses" very valuable, on the order of credit-card identity theft. It wouldn't allow cheating but it would allow exposure of transactions, and that could be worth something to the right people.
Yes. But that history doesn't connect BTC to an individual, only to what you could consider akin to the ultimate anonymous account number (the "wallet").
And there's no way to tie this "anonymous" account number to an IP address? Even if as proprietor of Evil.com, I just sold one Sealed Evil In A Can to IP address 1.2.3.4 for 42 BTC, and received a Bitcoin block in the last 30 seconds from IP address 1.2.3.4 showing that anonymous account 999 just paid 42 BTC in the last 30 seconds to anonymous account 666, which I know is me? There's no way I could infer any kind of connection like that?
but slugthrowers are something so ancient the Borg don't even remember them, therefore saw no reason to ever adapt to it.
Yeah, except that what Picard actually fired was a holographic simulation of a Tommy gun. Which was a bit like suprising a burglar in your house by firing up your 3D HD TV and waving your Halo: Reach controller at him and then have the guy actually die because the pixels were so sharp.
Course we all know the Holodeck is a lethal deathtrap if you turn off the safeties (which happens every couple of weeks), but you'd think if it's that useful as a weapon, Starfleet would have decided to either mount it on the outside, or restrict its use as a recreational device to expendable ensigns.
I'm an international relations student. :) And yes, Rods from God is mentioned explicitly as the title of this chapter "Rods from God and Crowbars - Striking from Orbit"
Ah Gordon, I see you've chhhanged your majjjjjor. Are you certain this decision will have no unforessssseen consssssequencessss?
20 tons is for the strategic option; you get something close to a nuclear explosion from it. You wouldn't need or want many of 'em. By way of comparison, the Hubble weighs over 10 tons.
Hubble, eh?
Just out of curiosity, how much propellant is left in the Hubble fuel tanks and how well firewalled are its attitude control uplink stations? Also, do we know if anyone in Anonymous works at NASA and has access to Stuxnet source code?
Hmm? Oh, no reason.
Not exactly in orbital bombardment, the full title was "Mining the Moon? - Dilemmas of Space Law". One of the topics explored was the use of space for warfare
You've already checked out Atomic Rockets and Rocketpunk Manifesto, I presume?
Ummmm ... where does one write a thesis on orbital bombardment and in what discipline of study?
Somewhere in Colorado Springs, perhaps?
A real warrior, however, would have asked about the little red button on the side.
Half-Life.