Pretty much everyone knows dealing drugs is illegal. But when you've got drop box, youtube, and everyone else allowing everyone to upload stuff to their sites, how are you supposed to know it is criminal? Even more so when all you are doing is writing code, not making value judgments on what is going to be uploaded with it.
Yes, technically. But if you're told "make a web site so people can upload stuff", and then for some esoteric reason, the feds decide that the uploading is criminal copyright conspiracy, that's hardly fair is it?
ISIS might think these videos serve their purpose, but in reality they will cause their downfall. I don't see any reason to take them down just because ISIS think it is helping them when in the reality is it will destroy them. Truth can only hurt those in the wrong.
Depends on the programming language. In Scheme ALL iteration is reduced to recursion. But then, if the compiler is a clever one, it just turns into unrolled jumps. It's all the same I the end.
In a tail recursive programming language there is absolutely nothing wrong with using recursion to do things that some people might think is an appropriate use of it. In Scheme, looping constructs are implemented in terms of recursion.
Having cleaned up a lot of projects, I don't think a magic tool is the answer. You have to have management approval to fiddle and deal with the testing and new bug outcome. You should work hard to remove all warnings in the code, that often does wonders and exposes a lot of flaws. You need to understand the code and slowly, a, step at a time, evolve the code until it's pretty and we'll structured. Don't rewrite from scratch. Evolve a, step at a time. Fix one architectural issue, make sure it still works, and then keep going, keep refactoring.
Yeah, it's an awful system, but the point is, you can't live in such a society without playing the game. And is it then immoral because you play the game, and don't go live in a cave?
Oh, and if you think a dumb terminal solves it, firstly these days terminals are never dumb. Even dumb terminals (does anybody still actually buy them?) probably run something like Linux underneath.
And if you can find a truly dumb terminal and solve all those problems, then you can stick a little thumb drive sized linux server between the ethernet port of the terminal and the rest of the network. Then it can put up the fake login screen whenever it wants, and at other times just pass through the packets.
This could be solved by requiring the terminal to use encryption with the key securely input into the terminal, but who is actually using such a scheme? I doubt anybody is.
That's great, but if the terminal you're logging in with is compromised by the old fake login, then all your keystrokes into your super trusted proprietary app or browser session can be logged and then your passwords into THAT system are now compromised, not to mention screen grabbers which might have sucked down whatever secrets you were trying to keep. Your theory about supposedly "pushing security further into the system" is a mere placebo. There is nothing inherently more secure about a browser than about an operating system.
Surely the record depends on the expressiveness of the instruction set of the chip you are programming for. With a suitably advanced chip I could implement chess in 1 byte. It would be an instruction that looks like this:
"no communication using a 3rd party as an intermediary has ever been totally secure. "
Define totally secure. A one time pad is pretty much totally secure. And not going via a 3rd party is no guarantee that someone might be eaves dropping. So your comment isn't really very helpful.
Depends what the hypothetical law is. Most likely it would allow them to go after any company to allow spying when they want to. The problem for them is what happens about code and programs that don't go through some central server and therefore there is nobody to chase and take to court when people use it to send encrypted messages.
I don't know if letting kids this age walk home is the right thing, but I respect the right of the parents to make that decision. The world over child services staff are self-righteous twerps, who give all the signs of knowing very little about the range of problems parents face, and know even less about helping, rather than punishing parents trying to do the right thing.
That's true I guess, but if the President made a public statement that "I don't even want to know about the junk policies of the tea party, I don't give them the time of day", then he is seen to be following them on twitter, then he would look like he is contradicting himself, which wouldn't be a good thing.
"The police can set up a road-block and demand that drivers provide a breath test and proof of their license at any time. Isn't that a presumption of guilt rather than innocence?"
Not really, it's just a requirement to be subject to testing. Like if there is a rule saying you have to take your car to the mechanic once a year to test the brakes and indicators, it's not presuming anything about you being guilty.
"The taxman can deliver an assessment that says you owe $xxxxx in taxes and you are presumed to be guilty unless you can prove you don't owe that much in tax."
Well, that's not a criminal issue. There is no presumption bias in civil matters.
"Here in NZ, Kim Dotcom (love him or hate him) has had his assets seized and was incarcerated at the US government's whim"
Last I checked he is not incarcerated, and most of those assets were seized by the US, not NZ, but I take your point.
Slashdot Mirror
More like going after Al Capone's tea lady for putting a nip of whisky in her night cap.
Pretty much everyone knows dealing drugs is illegal. But when you've got drop box, youtube, and everyone else allowing everyone to upload stuff to their sites, how are you supposed to know it is criminal? Even more so when all you are doing is writing code, not making value judgments on what is going to be uploaded with it.
Yes, technically. But if you're told "make a web site so people can upload stuff", and then for some esoteric reason, the feds decide that the uploading is criminal copyright conspiracy, that's hardly fair is it?
ISIS might think these videos serve their purpose, but in reality they will cause their downfall. I don't see any reason to take them down just because ISIS think it is helping them when in the reality is it will destroy them. Truth can only hurt those in the wrong.
You think filthy 1s and 0s are bad, you should see a dirty number 2.
by the same token Since all iteration can be implemented as recursion, there is really not much legitimate examples of iteration.
Errrm did you stop to think that the term tail-recursive contains the term recursive? Nah, didn't think so.
LOL
Depends on the programming language. In Scheme ALL iteration is reduced to recursion. But then, if the compiler is a clever one, it just turns into unrolled jumps. It's all the same I the end.
In a tail recursive programming language there is absolutely nothing wrong with using recursion to do things that some people might think is an appropriate use of it. In Scheme, looping constructs are implemented in terms of recursion.
Having cleaned up a lot of projects, I don't think a magic tool is the answer. You have to have management approval to fiddle and deal with the testing and new bug outcome. You should work hard to remove all warnings in the code, that often does wonders and exposes a lot of flaws. You need to understand the code and slowly, a, step at a time, evolve the code until it's pretty and we'll structured. Don't rewrite from scratch. Evolve a, step at a time. Fix one architectural issue, make sure it still works, and then keep going, keep refactoring.
-rf /
It's got to depend what country you are in. In the US, surely uploading 5% of something would be fair use?
Yeah, it's an awful system, but the point is, you can't live in such a society without playing the game. And is it then immoral because you play the game, and don't go live in a cave?
"if the majority of the collective wanted to blah blah blah, the US government would be beyond their abilities in making these laws."
Not really, because if they were determined enough the majority could push through a constitutional amendment to make it happen.
Oh, and if you think a dumb terminal solves it, firstly these days terminals are never dumb. Even dumb terminals (does anybody still actually buy them?) probably run something like Linux underneath.
And if you can find a truly dumb terminal and solve all those problems, then you can stick a little thumb drive sized linux server between the ethernet port of the terminal and the rest of the network. Then it can put up the fake login screen whenever it wants, and at other times just pass through the packets.
This could be solved by requiring the terminal to use encryption with the key securely input into the terminal, but who is actually using such a scheme? I doubt anybody is.
That's great, but if the terminal you're logging in with is compromised by the old fake login, then all your keystrokes into your super trusted proprietary app or browser session can be logged and then your passwords into THAT system are now compromised, not to mention screen grabbers which might have sucked down whatever secrets you were trying to keep. Your theory about supposedly "pushing security further into the system" is a mere placebo. There is nothing inherently more secure about a browser than about an operating system.
Surely the record depends on the expressiveness of the instruction set of the chip you are programming for. With a suitably advanced chip I could implement chess in 1 byte. It would be an instruction that looks like this:
JMP CHESS.
and an instruction that implements chess.
Exactly. If they ban encryption only the good guys will be spied on, and the bad guys will be unaffected.
"no communication using a 3rd party as an intermediary has ever been totally secure. "
Define totally secure. A one time pad is pretty much totally secure. And not going via a 3rd party is no guarantee that someone might be eaves dropping. So your comment isn't really very helpful.
Depends what the hypothetical law is. Most likely it would allow them to go after any company to allow spying when they want to. The problem for them is what happens about code and programs that don't go through some central server and therefore there is nobody to chase and take to court when people use it to send encrypted messages.
I don't know if letting kids this age walk home is the right thing, but I respect the right of the parents to make that decision. The world over child services staff are self-righteous twerps, who give all the signs of knowing very little about the range of problems parents face, and know even less about helping, rather than punishing parents trying to do the right thing.
Most people try and avoid rust.
Yeah, he probably wouldn't say that, but nevertheless, he COULD say it, which makes Twitter's approach potentially misleading.
That's true I guess, but if the President made a public statement that "I don't even want to know about the junk policies of the tea party, I don't give them the time of day", then he is seen to be following them on twitter, then he would look like he is contradicting himself, which wouldn't be a good thing.
"The police can set up a road-block and demand that drivers provide a breath test and proof of their license at any time. Isn't that a presumption of guilt rather than innocence?"
Not really, it's just a requirement to be subject to testing. Like if there is a rule saying you have to take your car to the mechanic once a year to test the brakes and indicators, it's not presuming anything about you being guilty.
"The taxman can deliver an assessment that says you owe $xxxxx in taxes and you are presumed to be guilty unless you can prove you don't owe that much in tax."
Well, that's not a criminal issue. There is no presumption bias in civil matters.
"Here in NZ, Kim Dotcom (love him or hate him) has had his assets seized and was incarcerated at the US government's whim"
Last I checked he is not incarcerated, and most of those assets were seized by the US, not NZ, but I take your point.