...character assassination!? Piping hot character assassination? Get em while they're hot! You Sir? Some nice hot character assassination for the little lady?
Hey, it's the truth, and the truth is ugly. Wikileaks fans should know this. *cough*Collateral Murder*cough*
"Also kinda ironic attacking people's freedom to do business with who they want in the name of protecting free speech."
some people also protest against companies which help repressive governments with things like the censorship in iran and the great firewall of china. There's no particular irony here.
It disrupts their freedom to do buisness with who they want no more than picketing the entrance to a store disrupts their freedom to do buisness with who they want.
Except it's illegal to block the entrance/exits. You've really got to have a screw loose to see DDoS as picketing.
...about how many lives will be saved, is that they don't take into account that once in place, people rely on them, and change their behavior accordingly. So if I feel like my car is going to alert me if I am likely to hit something, I don't feel so obliged to pay close attention to my driving -- effectively canceling out much of their effect.
Clearly giving people the tools to drive safe does not mean they will be used, the huge number of people who don't use signals at all because.. well I don't know what they think.. "nobody is there anyway?" is evidence of this.
This sounds like it could be very helpful when used appropriately, and a wash when not.
The main opposition force in Egypt during Mubarak's reign, the Muslim Brotherhood, has had many of its leaders and some supporters arrested, killed, or run out of the country. On top of this,
well... now I'm divided. Term limits or "Muslim Brotherhood", term limits or Muslim Brotherhood. Talk about choosing between giant douche or a turd sandwich.
Another deluded fool thinks a business is more dangerous than a authoritarian state. The current government of China is a long term threat to the freedom of the world in a way that no mere business can ever be.
If you conflate authoritarianism with "knows no boundaries" foreign policy I guess. Is that actually the case? Is the current government of the Unites States of America automatically a boon to the "freedom of the world" because we believe in personal freedom? All depends on foreign policy. If you DON'T label the world as black vs. white, it's a lot easier to get what you want. What works out the best for everyone?
We don't have to like what goes on in our neighbor's house, and that's fine. Don't threaten each other's security, and talk like grownups; Foreign policy 101. China seems to be doing OK on both accounts. There are worse off places in the world failing at both right now...
What the hell? The test had a sample size of one, just one. Obviously it had no control group to compare it with. It is just an anecdote. Not an experiment, it can not be used to advance any hypothesis. And you find fault with some itsy bitsy thing like throwing it in the freezer? This stupid thing does not deserve a posting in slashdot. May be in some mid-morning talk shows where bored housewives gasp at the idea of not washing jeans for 15 months. It definitely does not deserve your response. And stupidest thing in all this is me taking time to write a reply in the middle of my work day.
What really makes you think Slashdot is better, or even different than a mid-morning radio talk show? Isn't it pretty obvious this is not journalism, and this is not a moderated forum? If you want to call this moderation, consider what a radio talk show with "self moderation" would be like. -1 sounds like a 'tard. +1 I agree. -1 I dislike X people. +1 myself on another account. It would be a blast.
It's the same damn pattern, present some completely unresearched "news" blurb scraped from who knows where, mix in some opinions and loud talking, invite guests to call in. When someone refuses to take an extreme view and asks for details, hosts and guests alike admit "I'm just going by whats printed in this article here, I don't know." It's not debate. It's not intelligent banter. This is interactive entertainment, to drive people into advertisements, just like a radio talk show.
Apache holds 50% of the webserver market, often on Linux. Much more valuable targets than a generic PC.
How many bank accounts are likely to be compromised by keyloggers on Apache servers and how many from generic PCs? I think "much more" is a stretch even if the difficulty level of compromising either were the same, which they are not (server vs. desktop), regardless of OS.
What you've described would be completely unmeasurable - because the only way you can properly measure exploits is when they are successful. There is no way to distinguish between failing to exploit Linux and not attempting an exploit it at all.
Uh we don't know the ratio, but if the absolute measure of successes is rising that leaves us with becoming less secure or bigger target. I agree with you, it is probably both.
Apple have this exact attitude and they just posted a record revenue of $26bn for this quarter, beating Wall St estimates by $2bn. Looking at their iPhone sales alone, they are the largest mobile phone vendor in the world by revenue. They have $60bn in cash reserves and no debt.
Pffft, take your "reality" and shove it, because that doesn't fit our opinions. It's all RDF maaaannnn, the iPhone is a lie.
Apple has the opposite attitude. They don't say "buy elsewhere" they say "by our stuff instead because..." and then continue with 20% truth. Motorola's mistake is that they're telling people to "buy elsewhere" instead of just lying to everyone like Apple does.
Oh right, they lie and that is why they are successful. They fooled us into thinking iPhones are built with pixie dust and unicorn horns. But there's no rhetoric coming from the Android camp, no sir.
Really? Can you contribute code to H.264? Can you use the spec in your own software and publish it with out a large amount of jumping through hoops? Really H.264 may have been public but I would not call it open. WebM is now what I would consider to be open as is Theora and Dirac http://diracvideo.org/ . So no I do not feel that H.254 meets the definition of open as far as development goes. So yes it really is a bit of a reach IMHO.
When the hell did having to accept contributions become a requirement to be open? Is this some new "open" you're making up, because that isn't a requirement of Free Software or Open Source Software, and the right to refuse contributions is frequently exercised. This is why people fork projects. Go ahead and "fork" H.264, make up your own new standard without infringing on its patents. That is encouraged by the patent system, and it's even taught in public schools. Of course you all know this already, the real problem is finding a reason for anyone to give a damn about your fork when even $free isn't enough to 'sell' it.
A valid argument _might_ be that I cannot freely distribute your open source, licensed H.264 implementation without myself paying royalties. That would break rule #1 of the OSD which is necessary because if I can't give _your_ software, in _whole_, to other people, it's not really "open".
1. Viral Marketing The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
Yah. It says that, right up front so you don't accidentally confuse it with Free Software which requires that I be able to give your stuff away for free. Hey, at least that IS consistent with the meaning of "free".
If the cease and desist is just because their mod name was too close to that of an official Blizzard product, I'm sure this will be a non-story and the mod will continue with a more original name. If the C&D was just because Blizzard don't want RPG elements to be used in a mod for their strategy game, that is some serious arse-hattery,
I'll one up that, if the cease and desist is not because of incredibly obvious trademark infringement, monkeys will fly out of my ass.
I don't see how "You aren't allowed to know how your graphics hardware works" has anything to do with "Programmers need to eat too". The horrid state of GPU acceleration on Linux is not because of a lack of funds, it's because GPU hardware is widely unstandardized. FOSS developers - and all developers in general - work their best when coding to some kind of standard (even something like the Windows API is a published standard).
GPU hardware interfaces are not standards by any stretch of the imagination. Every new revision of hardware brings along a large amount of changes to the interface in ways that require more reverse engineering work. This is primarily because GPU designers have been able to get away with releasing a proprietary driver which converts their bloody horrible interface into an actual standard. The same thing has been going on with printers, where the control systems used to print documents are completely different from manufacturer to manufacturer and we're expected to have an operating Windows machine to run the proprietary printer binary they want us to use. Apple had to make a completely new networked printing system which is only supported by a handful of HP printers.
This is really a problem with the concept of a driver. We shouldn't have to install drivers for most hardware. Drivers are tied to a particular operating system and API and are a piss-poor substitute for a paper specification which can be implemented by everybody. It's just that NVidia is way too lazy in actually producing a paper spec that can be published without revealing actual IP they want to keep secret. And why bother actually reviewing their internal documentation for public release when they can get away with just publishing a proprietary binary driver and letting the nouveau project spend all their time puzzling out the details?
ATI, on the other hand, is just too lazy to even release a decent driver. Which is why I don't buy ATI hardware. Intel is probably the best, since they actually have published open source drivers. It's too bad there aren't any decent Intel GPUs yet, as I've only seen them in integrated setups for machines that don't need graphics performance.
Hey, you just stick to your "You guys are all wrong and need stable, open hardware interfaces so we can be total assholes with undocumented, volatile software on the cheap, oh and work amongst yourselves to develop a common open standard because that's in my best interest." and we'll stick to our "Here's a stable, open software interface, please make your hardware work and support our platform, by the way I'm a big boy and can afford the time and money to develop a working partnership with our engineering teams to make this happen."
May the best man win. I love the idea of Linux & OSS bringing innovation & competition to various niches that are either not commercially viable or have stagnated, but you guys need to meet other players at their level. If it were really about helping other people, then where are the non-profits set up to sustain this stuff? This expecting everyone to come to your level or they can pound sand business leaves you as honestly, not even a minuscule threat in a serious developer's eyes. It's like OSS has become a placeholder for software that should be, until someone serious about it comes along. It's really turned out to be an inward facing people helping themselves culture and that bothers me.
I ask anyone, what is wrong with $free software, developed and funded by a non-profit and paid developers, for the purpose of _actually_ _helping_ _people_? This is why I call OSS "people helping themselves". It's all about feeling in control, not helping others.
Phone numbers and home addresses are public knowledge already -- it's called a phone book.
If you want to be ex-directory, then you wouldn't put this info on your Facebook profile in the first place.
What other information is attached to your phone book entry, which is published regionally? What other information is attached to your FB network, which is published internationally?
Until graphics card manufacturers take Linux seriously, these problems are always going to occur. That's why it's stupid to use the argument that OpenGL is better than D3D because it's cross-platform. It's only cross-platform insofar as there is actually an implementation on Linux. After that, I'm wondering if it's better to use D3D and Wine instead of native GL!
OpenGL is implemented just fine by the same folks on other platforms, so when is reality going to sink in and you realize that Linux is hostile towards commercial software and that is harming it more than helping.
You guys can keep saying "until so-and-so takes Linux seriously" and "chicken and the egg" till you're all blue in the face, Linux is still the problem, not everyone else.
Next time I visit the Ghouls had murdered the original residents. Obviously this wasn't the outcome I had intended, and my desire to go back and alter my decision nearly got the better of me. I still admire Bethesda for putting all those decisions, and the potentially unexpected consequences in there. It was a well crafted kick in the balls showing me that I was playing god and got it wrong.
The only difference between what happened to you and if there were a real god is your excuse for it would be "The initial residents had it coming because of their sins and such." Hey, like a true god, you win either way. Don't beat yourself up about it.
Clearly the fact that Google and Facebook are built largely on open source software is meaningless. Who's ever heard of those? No, it's when foreign governments start using open source software that people will pay attention;)
So because Google and Facebook are mainstream everything they touch is by extension? Pass some of that over here please.
Not true. HTTPS works quite well against a rouge ISP. Where it fails is with a rogue Certificate Authority willing to sign bogus certificates. If you can get a CA to sign your bogus certificate, then you can execute a main-in-the-middle attack against HTTPS.
So the problem is software/hardware vendors not vetting out which CA's they make their wares trust. Or you for trusting the list of CAs some software vendor gives away for free.
No offense but you have to be stupid to not know what + does. If it does something unexpected, chances are you wrote it incorrectly yourself, or are using a terrible library that has undocumented operators that are working incorrectly on top of that. It's not the languages fault when programmers code like retards.
Add, combine, insert, concatenate? Is the thing on either side modified by the operation, and/or a meaningful result returned? Do you like method names with abbreviated words in other people's APIs? Why can't you create those above methods? Why can't you create toNumber or toString methods and use native operators? Any weasel excuse out of these questions is a good indicator the operator overloading in question will be hard to understand.
Leave built-in operators to built-in primitives please. Use descriptive words for all else. Operator overloading amounts to "allowing" folks to put their car into reverse gear while it is moving forward. Maybe some people think there are some bizarre cases where this is needed. Those people need to find a different car, not everyone else.
Yah, it can be the language's fault when programmers code like retards. That applies to any tool, pretty much any thing. Blaming the user for all problems is epic tool engineering FAIL! I blame Slashdot for people not quoting what they are replying to because #1/. doesn't make it clear to them that other viewers will actually see because WYSI_N_WYG here #2 The reply button should automatically attach SOME context to the fucking post besides hierarchy in a threading view that is disabled by default.
Classification was originally evolved for military intelligence. Do military intelligence right, and you report only on capabilities, not intentions, opinions, or personalities. A proper MI report describes what assets and liabilities Saudi Arabia has, and stays away from speculating about whether the King or anyone else will use them a certain way. Civilian oversight decides whether someone is an enemy and will use their military assets to attack, not the military (at least that's the way it's supposed to be in the US). If a trained observer notes that the Saudis are selectively putting crews to work at sites that produce lower grade crude oil, that might actually be classified secret, if only to make it harder for the Saudis to figure out who the person generating the report is. But that report shouldn't speculate about why the Saudis might be selectively marketing their lower grade crude and conserving their top grade, let alone go into the observer's opinion of the King's personality. Part of the problem here is that civilian persons, including both diplomatic personnel and decision makers, are using the classification system that is only built to work for military intelligence and only built to work if the m.i. process is done right up to the time the decision to classify is made. The civil oversight is using classification to cover their asses, and they go to that mode easily because they're already misunderstanding how classification should work just by thinking it will work for the kind of stuff they put in a report.
Eventually you'll end up with hundreds of different intelligence organizations not sharing any information, costing a buttload of money, and a few embarrassing cases where we had all the information we needed to predict something might happen but nobody was able to put the whole picture together. That's how MI analysts end up with access to State Dept cables.
By making you more uniquely identifiable and creating a single point of failure for the security method.
So do you use different names, and different email addresses with every party you deal with over the Internet? Do you have a P.O. box for accepting deliveries too?
At some point you have to face the reality that to do business on the Internet you need security, and you'll need to use your real name.
You say "security", but I don't think you really know what that means.
Slashdot Mirror
Bombs don't kill people. People kill people.
If you block text messages off in an area, only outlaws will have text messages.
end satire.
End the madness, we need strong bomb-control laws!
Even better, lets ban bombs!
...character assassination!? Piping hot character assassination? Get em while they're hot! You Sir? Some nice hot character assassination for the little lady?
Hey, it's the truth, and the truth is ugly. Wikileaks fans should know this. *cough*Collateral Murder*cough*
So, cry me a river.
"Also kinda ironic attacking people's freedom to do business with who they want in the name of protecting free speech."
some people also protest against companies which help repressive governments with things like the censorship in iran and the great firewall of china.
There's no particular irony here.
It disrupts their freedom to do buisness with who they want no more than picketing the entrance to a store disrupts their freedom to do buisness with who they want.
Except it's illegal to block the entrance/exits.
You've really got to have a screw loose to see DDoS as picketing.
...about how many lives will be saved, is that they don't take into account that once in place, people rely on them, and change their behavior accordingly. So if I feel like my car is going to alert me if I am likely to hit something, I don't feel so obliged to pay close attention to my driving -- effectively canceling out much of their effect.
Clearly giving people the tools to drive safe does not mean they will be used, the huge number of people who don't use signals at all because.. well I don't know what they think.. "nobody is there anyway?" is evidence of this.
This sounds like it could be very helpful when used appropriately, and a wash when not.
The main opposition force in Egypt during Mubarak's reign, the Muslim Brotherhood, has had many of its leaders and some supporters arrested, killed, or run out of the country. On top of this,
well... now I'm divided. Term limits or "Muslim Brotherhood", term limits or Muslim Brotherhood.
Talk about choosing between giant douche or a turd sandwich.
Another deluded fool thinks a business is more dangerous than a authoritarian state. The current government of China is a long term threat to the freedom of the world in a way that no mere business can ever be.
If you conflate authoritarianism with "knows no boundaries" foreign policy I guess. Is that actually the case? Is the current government of the Unites States of America automatically a boon to the "freedom of the world" because we believe in personal freedom? All depends on foreign policy. If you DON'T label the world as black vs. white, it's a lot easier to get what you want. What works out the best for everyone?
We don't have to like what goes on in our neighbor's house, and that's fine. Don't threaten each other's security, and talk like grownups; Foreign policy 101. China seems to be doing OK on both accounts. There are worse off places in the world failing at both right now...
What the hell? The test had a sample size of one, just one. Obviously it had no control group to compare it with. It is just an anecdote. Not an experiment, it can not be used to advance any hypothesis. And you find fault with some itsy bitsy thing like throwing it in the freezer? This stupid thing does not deserve a posting in slashdot. May be in some mid-morning talk shows where bored housewives gasp at the idea of not washing jeans for 15 months. It definitely does not deserve your response. And stupidest thing in all this is me taking time to write a reply in the middle of my work day.
What really makes you think Slashdot is better, or even different than a mid-morning radio talk show? Isn't it pretty obvious this is not journalism, and this is not a moderated forum? If you want to call this moderation, consider what a radio talk show with "self moderation" would be like. -1 sounds like a 'tard. +1 I agree. -1 I dislike X people. +1 myself on another account. It would be a blast.
It's the same damn pattern, present some completely unresearched "news" blurb scraped from who knows where, mix in some opinions and loud talking, invite guests to call in. When someone refuses to take an extreme view and asks for details, hosts and guests alike admit "I'm just going by whats printed in this article here, I don't know." It's not debate. It's not intelligent banter. This is interactive entertainment, to drive people into advertisements, just like a radio talk show.
OK I'll accept your point. But you would need some pretty expensive equipment to keep the beam steady,
Like.. the cheapest rifle scope at Walmart?
Apache holds 50% of the webserver market, often on Linux. Much more valuable targets than a generic PC.
How many bank accounts are likely to be compromised by keyloggers on Apache servers and how many from generic PCs?
I think "much more" is a stretch even if the difficulty level of compromising either were the same, which they are not (server vs. desktop), regardless of OS.
What makes you think they haven't?
What you've described would be completely unmeasurable - because the only way you can properly measure exploits is when they are successful. There is no way to distinguish between failing to exploit Linux and not attempting an exploit it at all.
Uh we don't know the ratio, but if the absolute measure of successes is rising that leaves us with becoming less secure or bigger target.
I agree with you, it is probably both.
Apple have this exact attitude and they just posted a record revenue of $26bn for this quarter, beating Wall St estimates by $2bn. Looking at their iPhone sales alone, they are the largest mobile phone vendor in the world by revenue. They have $60bn in cash reserves and no debt.
Pffft, take your "reality" and shove it, because that doesn't fit our opinions. It's all RDF maaaannnn, the iPhone is a lie.
People need to fight the carriers on this, it's about our freedom!!
You guys are really sucking the life out of that word
Apple has the opposite attitude. They don't say "buy elsewhere" they say "by our stuff instead because ..." and then continue with 20% truth.
Motorola's mistake is that they're telling people to "buy elsewhere" instead of just lying to everyone like Apple does.
Oh right, they lie and that is why they are successful. They fooled us into thinking iPhones are built with pixie dust and unicorn horns. But there's no rhetoric coming from the Android camp, no sir.
Really? Can you contribute code to H.264? Can you use the spec in your own software and publish it with out a large amount of jumping through hoops?
Really H.264 may have been public but I would not call it open. WebM is now what I would consider to be open as is Theora and Dirac http://diracvideo.org/ .
So no I do not feel that H.254 meets the definition of open as far as development goes.
So yes it really is a bit of a reach IMHO.
When the hell did having to accept contributions become a requirement to be open? Is this some new "open" you're making up, because that isn't a requirement of Free Software or Open Source Software, and the right to refuse contributions is frequently exercised. This is why people fork projects. Go ahead and "fork" H.264, make up your own new standard without infringing on its patents. That is encouraged by the patent system, and it's even taught in public schools. Of course you all know this already, the real problem is finding a reason for anyone to give a damn about your fork when even $free isn't enough to 'sell' it.
A valid argument _might_ be that I cannot freely distribute your open source, licensed H.264 implementation without myself paying royalties. That would break rule #1 of the OSD which is necessary because if I can't give _your_ software, in _whole_, to other people, it's not really "open".
1. Viral Marketing
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
Yah. It says that, right up front so you don't accidentally confuse it with Free Software which requires that I be able to give your stuff away for free. Hey, at least that IS consistent with the meaning of "free".
If the cease and desist is just because their mod name was too close to that of an official Blizzard product, I'm sure this will be a non-story and the mod will continue with a more original name. If the C&D was just because Blizzard don't want RPG elements to be used in a mod for their strategy game, that is some serious arse-hattery,
I'll one up that, if the cease and desist is not because of incredibly obvious trademark infringement, monkeys will fly out of my ass.
You guys are hilarious... "if"...
I don't see how "You aren't allowed to know how your graphics hardware works" has anything to do with "Programmers need to eat too". The horrid state of GPU acceleration on Linux is not because of a lack of funds, it's because GPU hardware is widely unstandardized. FOSS developers - and all developers in general - work their best when coding to some kind of standard (even something like the Windows API is a published standard).
GPU hardware interfaces are not standards by any stretch of the imagination. Every new revision of hardware brings along a large amount of changes to the interface in ways that require more reverse engineering work. This is primarily because GPU designers have been able to get away with releasing a proprietary driver which converts their bloody horrible interface into an actual standard. The same thing has been going on with printers, where the control systems used to print documents are completely different from manufacturer to manufacturer and we're expected to have an operating Windows machine to run the proprietary printer binary they want us to use. Apple had to make a completely new networked printing system which is only supported by a handful of HP printers.
This is really a problem with the concept of a driver. We shouldn't have to install drivers for most hardware. Drivers are tied to a particular operating system and API and are a piss-poor substitute for a paper specification which can be implemented by everybody. It's just that NVidia is way too lazy in actually producing a paper spec that can be published without revealing actual IP they want to keep secret. And why bother actually reviewing their internal documentation for public release when they can get away with just publishing a proprietary binary driver and letting the nouveau project spend all their time puzzling out the details?
ATI, on the other hand, is just too lazy to even release a decent driver. Which is why I don't buy ATI hardware. Intel is probably the best, since they actually have published open source drivers. It's too bad there aren't any decent Intel GPUs yet, as I've only seen them in integrated setups for machines that don't need graphics performance.
Hey, you just stick to your
"You guys are all wrong and need stable, open hardware interfaces so we can be total assholes with undocumented, volatile software on the cheap, oh and work amongst yourselves to develop a common open standard because that's in my best interest."
and we'll stick to our
"Here's a stable, open software interface, please make your hardware work and support our platform, by the way I'm a big boy and can afford the time and money to develop a working partnership with our engineering teams to make this happen."
May the best man win. I love the idea of Linux & OSS bringing innovation & competition to various niches that are either not commercially viable or have stagnated, but you guys need to meet other players at their level. If it were really about helping other people, then where are the non-profits set up to sustain this stuff? This expecting everyone to come to your level or they can pound sand business leaves you as honestly, not even a minuscule threat in a serious developer's eyes. It's like OSS has become a placeholder for software that should be, until someone serious about it comes along. It's really turned out to be an inward facing people helping themselves culture and that bothers me.
I ask anyone, what is wrong with $free software, developed and funded by a non-profit and paid developers, for the purpose of _actually_ _helping_ _people_?
This is why I call OSS "people helping themselves". It's all about feeling in control, not helping others.
Phone numbers and home addresses are public knowledge already -- it's called a phone book.
If you want to be ex-directory, then you wouldn't put this info on your Facebook profile in the first place.
What other information is attached to your phone book entry, which is published regionally?
What other information is attached to your FB network, which is published internationally?
It's not the same thing bud.
Until graphics card manufacturers take Linux seriously, these problems are always going to occur. That's why it's stupid to use the argument that OpenGL is better than D3D because it's cross-platform. It's only cross-platform insofar as there is actually an implementation on Linux. After that, I'm wondering if it's better to use D3D and Wine instead of native GL!
OpenGL is implemented just fine by the same folks on other platforms, so when is reality going to sink in and you realize that Linux is hostile towards commercial software and that is harming it more than helping.
You guys can keep saying "until so-and-so takes Linux seriously" and "chicken and the egg" till you're all blue in the face, Linux is still the problem, not everyone else.
Next time I visit the Ghouls had murdered the original residents. Obviously this wasn't the outcome I had intended, and my desire to go back and alter my decision nearly got the better of me. I still admire Bethesda for putting all those decisions, and the potentially unexpected consequences in there. It was a well crafted kick in the balls showing me that I was playing god and got it wrong.
The only difference between what happened to you and if there were a real god is your excuse for it would be "The initial residents had it coming because of their sins and such."
Hey, like a true god, you win either way. Don't beat yourself up about it.
Clearly the fact that Google and Facebook are built largely on open source software is meaningless. Who's ever heard of those? No, it's when foreign governments start using open source software that people will pay attention ;)
So because Google and Facebook are mainstream everything they touch is by extension? Pass some of that over here please.
So... "Aim-assist" locks on to targets for you, so you don't have to aim, and an "aim-bot" does the same thing...
rabble rabble rabble yuck yuck yuck
FYI, your whole post is retarded bullshit!
K thnx bai
Not true. HTTPS works quite well against a rouge ISP. Where it fails is with a rogue Certificate Authority willing to sign bogus certificates. If you can get a CA to sign your bogus certificate, then you can execute a main-in-the-middle attack against HTTPS.
So the problem is software/hardware vendors not vetting out which CA's they make their wares trust.
Or you for trusting the list of CAs some software vendor gives away for free.
No offense but you have to be stupid to not know what + does. If it does something unexpected, chances are you wrote it incorrectly yourself, or are using a terrible library that has undocumented operators that are working incorrectly on top of that. It's not the languages fault when programmers code like retards.
Add, combine, insert, concatenate?
Is the thing on either side modified by the operation, and/or a meaningful result returned?
Do you like method names with abbreviated words in other people's APIs?
Why can't you create those above methods?
Why can't you create toNumber or toString methods and use native operators?
Any weasel excuse out of these questions is a good indicator the operator overloading in question will be hard to understand.
Leave built-in operators to built-in primitives please.
Use descriptive words for all else. Operator overloading amounts to "allowing" folks to put their car into reverse gear while it is moving forward.
Maybe some people think there are some bizarre cases where this is needed. Those people need to find a different car, not everyone else.
Yah, it can be the language's fault when programmers code like retards. That applies to any tool, pretty much any thing. Blaming the user for all problems is epic tool engineering FAIL! /. doesn't make it clear to them that other viewers will actually see because WYSI_N_WYG here #2 The reply button should automatically attach SOME context to the fucking post besides hierarchy in a threading view that is disabled by default.
I blame Slashdot for people not quoting what they are replying to because #1
Classification was originally evolved for military intelligence. Do military intelligence right, and you report only on capabilities, not intentions, opinions, or personalities. A proper MI report describes what assets and liabilities Saudi Arabia has, and stays away from speculating about whether the King or anyone else will use them a certain way. Civilian oversight decides whether someone is an enemy and will use their military assets to attack, not the military (at least that's the way it's supposed to be in the US). If a trained observer notes that the Saudis are selectively putting crews to work at sites that produce lower grade crude oil, that might actually be classified secret, if only to make it harder for the Saudis to figure out who the person generating the report is. But that report shouldn't speculate about why the Saudis might be selectively marketing their lower grade crude and conserving their top grade, let alone go into the observer's opinion of the King's personality.
Part of the problem here is that civilian persons, including both diplomatic personnel and decision makers, are using the classification system that is only built to work for military intelligence and only built to work if the m.i. process is done right up to the time the decision to classify is made. The civil oversight is using classification to cover their asses, and they go to that mode easily because they're already misunderstanding how classification should work just by thinking it will work for the kind of stuff they put in a report.
Eventually you'll end up with hundreds of different intelligence organizations not sharing any information, costing a buttload of money, and a few embarrassing cases where we had all the information we needed to predict something might happen but nobody was able to put the whole picture together. That's how MI analysts end up with access to State Dept cables.
By making you more uniquely identifiable and creating a single point of failure for the security method.
So do you use different names, and different email addresses with every party you deal with over the Internet? Do you have a P.O. box for accepting deliveries too?
At some point you have to face the reality that to do business on the Internet you need security, and you'll need to use your real name.
You say "security", but I don't think you really know what that means.