Let's take the communist slogan to start with: "From each according to his ability. To each according to his need."
Which means take from those who work harder and give to those who don't work as hard.
Damn, you are giving stupid people a bad name. I love how you transposed 'Those who work harder' with 'those who are rich', as if they were synonymous terms. You really buy your own bullshit, don't you? You don't get rich by working harder. If that was the case, every immigrant who slaved their way up to middle manager through hard work in a shitty fast food joint would be rich, wouldn't they?
The point of the slogan was 'those who could produce more' would be willing to share more of their excess, because they realized that they didn't need it. It seems to imply some degree of intelligence and enlightenment that seems to be conspicuously absent from the world right now, so don't spend too much time fretting that Communism will take over the world any time soon. The 'each according to their need', also suggests sharing with people who are less fortunate, like giving a crippled child a pair of crutches that they can't otherwise afford.
I have never even read a word of Marx, but you have to be pretty fucking stupid to miss his point as spectacularly as you do...
No. Because then, the number of people at each train stop will increase, requiring more trains/drivers/tracks.
..and more is better, because then things will run more often and be more convenient to use because more specialized routs and solutions become affordable. As more people use the systems, more money will become available to develop and grow new systems.
So tldr; : No cars would mean even bigger cities. Not in terms of density, but sheer diameter and area filled with people.
The parent doesn't spell this out, but denser == better. As density increases, per capita will fall, public transportation dollars give you more bang for the buck.
The service runs in the background and launches iTunes when the phone is plugged in. It's quite handy.
That's your opinion. I always found it to be incredibly annoying, as it launches that shitty app every time you plug it in. You can't charge your Ipad without firing off ITunes.
Yet another example of Apple's holier than thou concept of design: "We know better than you do, about how you want to use our products."
The idea seems to be that the second system can be a smaller, less complicated single-function server, easier to harden and could be running a different OS/Webserver/DB stack. You could (by sacrificing real-time validation) even have the second system entirely firewalled off and unreachable to an attacker, just polling the login servers to validate the sessions at some small interval.
And how are you going to implement password resets in any sort of timely fashion on this magic one-way ultra-secure box? I can pretty much respond to any answer you will give me with either a) won't scale or b) new security vulnerability.
Ok, for those who didn't RTFA, or don't know anything about security, you have a list of users and encrypted passwords in a DB. They log on and their password is checked against the DB. The problem is how do you know if someone has stolen your DB so they can crack it offline? (Offline brute force attacks are much more effective since they are thousands of times faster)
So the author proposes that you give each user several possible passwords in the DB, only one of which is the correct one. If other passwords are used to logon, a danger alarm goes off, and you know someone has stolen your DB.
There are several problems with this idea. To make it work, you have to have a second DB listing all the passwords, and some sort of marker indicating which ones are real and which are fakes. You can't put this in the main DB, because then the hackers would have stolen this info too, and can tell which passwords are real. So you have a second, more secure system for this. Aside from the problems in maintaining a separate parallel system, one might ask the question, "why isn't your primary DB as secure as the secondary DB?". If attackers can breach your main defenses how do you know they cannot breach your backup network? What happens if your secondary system goes down?
More insidious, there is the recursive security problem. The point of doing this is for the assurance that your password DB is secure. How will you know if an attacker has gained access to your secondary password DB? Well, that would require a third password DB.......
These are free books during the class. You have the option of buying them for the class, but I'm curious where you're going to be able to buy them for less than $0.
Are they really 'free', or are they actually subsidized via licencing agreements between the school and the publisher, and just being included in the tuition costs as a result of being part of the school's general budget expenses? I'd bet the latter, and they are just then charging you more if you want a permanent copy.
Exactly. Hitler took one look at that and said "never mind"...
Actually, he took a look at them and said, "Invade our bankers and money launderers? Why would we do that? They are helping to fund us when half the world won't trade with us!"
Also, they were neutral and basically German anyway. You know, the whole Aryan thing?
More to the poin, fuck whatever they mainstream likes or doesn't like. I have been a self identified as a nerd for 30 years, and I have seen many of my hobbies and interests become mainstream in that time. I know what I like and I don't need validation from anyone. Society can either like tech like this or get run over by it when they don't embrace it, and I do.
It's pretty sad when someone can't even work up the reading comprehension to grasp the story from a short summary.
In total, if you play the cracked version of the game, the simulator will ramp up the rate of piracy for your simulated company's games, so you will lose. It stacks the odds against you.
Anyone have a link to a hacked.exe that fixes this behavior?
I will be more than happy to show them any of the number of fake e-mail accounts that I maintain for spam. How exactly are they going to be able to tell that they aren't legitimate? Oh, they aren't. They want to go through my email, they will have to spend all afternoon picking through idiotic threads of forwarded cute cat pictures....
I'm not disagreeing, but I question whether this is something that happens more with really big projects which are very unique (Big Digs aren't exactly a regular occurrence, hence the name), rather than with your mundane, everyday civil engineering projects like a boring commercial building that's not much different from dozens of other commercial buildings in its area.
Well then, since you are using generic, cookie cutter building projects as supporting evidence for your argument, wouldn't it be an accurate comparison to look at how often web design firms go over budget when building generic 5 page websites for small businesses? I suspect that the numbers will be roughly equal, and the type of work would be similar. In contrast, an unusual project like the big dig would probably be comparable with someone like Microsoft writing a new OS from scratch.
My point is that software development isn't really that different than a lot of other engineering projects. Building things is hard.
Predicting a civil engineering project, like a bridge, is easy.....
I'm going to stop you there, because civil engineering projects are NOTORIOUS for going over budget. You might have heard of projects like the big dig. Less well know, is that going over budget in less spectacular ways is apparently a fairly common occurrence. I was looking around for a report to link for you that I read awhile back talking about why civil construction projects so frequently go over budget, but alas, I cannot locate it.
Also, typing more crap to lower the caps count. Fuck you, Slashdot, don't tell me how to post. Of course typing in all caps looks like yelling, that is the whole point you rucking retreads....
Saying they 'will make it' kid friendly saccharin sweet crap, implys a change of direction. Anyone else here old enough to remember the ewok made for tv movies? If you think that uncle George started shoveling out cutsy crap in episode 1, you are sadly mistaken...
I am so looking forward to re-release of Blazing Saddles in 4DX. BEANS!
Or Schindler's list so you could smell the burning bodies? Yeah, I am pretty sure there are a lot of movies that introducing smell-o-vision would be a bad idea for....
News Flash! Today, the Anonymous news site was hacked, apparently by a rogue group called Anonymous. Anonymous posted a manifesto on the hacked servers, stating, "Anonymous is against the biased news that is posted by Anonymous, and we are dedicated to show the world what a pack of tools they are."
The spokesperson for Anonymous stated, "These Anonymous guys are just jerks, why would they do this?'
An anonymous source went on record to say, "Nobody knows what is going on in the community. Also, don't use my name! Ahhhhhh!"
This incident could have been substantially mitigated by.....
I'm going to stop you right there, because you are just playing 'armchair general' now. First off, if someone wants to be a terrorist, its going to happen. Moving the cans around would only change the way they attack. Second, hindsight is 20/20, so you can prattle on all you want about how this could have mitigated the attach, but its just speculation and hot air. Pearl Harbor wouldn't have happened if we put everybody on alert, JFK would be alive if he drove with the top down, Napoleon would have won at Waterloo if bleah bleah bleah. Just stop.
Why the network operators didn't get requests to shutdown the network, that doesn't mean it wasn't jammed. The military has jammers it uses where they suspect IEDs to prevent triggering via the cell network.
Ignoring the obvious idiotic question of why would I expect the military to be standing around with jammers set up and ready at the marathon, what makes you think that this is even a good idea? Little background here..
It seems that in Iraq, the insurgents were using cell phones to remotely detonate IUDs. So the military deploys jammers. The insurgents counter with IUDs that detonate when they lose signal, indicating jamming is occurring.
SO, assuming that they had the capability to do so, what makes you think that jamming is the correct response? You may just set off another wave of explosions when you flip the switch.
For all practical purpose, they are 100% unpredictable. You have no way of telling what they're going to do next. Not by looking at what they've already done, not by looking at how the world is responding to them.
For 100% unpredictable, they have been pretty constant for the last 60 years. Bluster and sabre rattle, followed by small scale aggression. Yeah, they go blow some shit up every few years to show that they aren't to be trifled with, but they haven't actually tried to re-ignite the Korean conflict. They have been able to level everything within 30 mils of the DMZ with conventional artillery for decades and they have resisted the urge.
I think you can count on another 30 years of the same unless you poke them with a stick. Sane dictators aren't fond of death by nukes or SEAL teams. They like to die of old age.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's take the communist slogan to start with: "From each according to his ability. To each according to his need."
Which means take from those who work harder and give to those who don't work as hard.
Damn, you are giving stupid people a bad name. I love how you transposed 'Those who work harder' with 'those who are rich', as if they were synonymous terms. You really buy your own bullshit, don't you? You don't get rich by working harder. If that was the case, every immigrant who slaved their way up to middle manager through hard work in a shitty fast food joint would be rich, wouldn't they?
The point of the slogan was 'those who could produce more' would be willing to share more of their excess, because they realized that they didn't need it. It seems to imply some degree of intelligence and enlightenment that seems to be conspicuously absent from the world right now, so don't spend too much time fretting that Communism will take over the world any time soon. The 'each according to their need', also suggests sharing with people who are less fortunate, like giving a crippled child a pair of crutches that they can't otherwise afford.
I have never even read a word of Marx, but you have to be pretty fucking stupid to miss his point as spectacularly as you do...
No. Because then, the number of people at each train stop will increase, requiring more trains/drivers/tracks.
..and more is better, because then things will run more often and be more convenient to use because more specialized routs and solutions become affordable. As more people use the systems, more money will become available to develop and grow new systems.
So tldr; : No cars would mean even bigger cities. Not in terms of density, but sheer diameter and area filled with people.
The parent doesn't spell this out, but denser == better. As density increases, per capita will fall, public transportation dollars give you more bang for the buck.
It seems like a simple message: (....) Police don’t want you to kill yourself.
Who will they have to oppress and bully if you kill yourself? Don't sully their fun!
...You sir, are the most brilliant programming exec I have ever met.
Of course, that really is kind of a backhanded insult, but still....
The service runs in the background and launches iTunes when the phone is plugged in. It's quite handy.
That's your opinion. I always found it to be incredibly annoying, as it launches that shitty app every time you plug it in. You can't charge your Ipad without firing off ITunes.
Yet another example of Apple's holier than thou concept of design: "We know better than you do, about how you want to use our products."
The idea seems to be that the second system can be a smaller, less complicated single-function server, easier to harden and could be running a different OS/Webserver/DB stack. You could (by sacrificing real-time validation) even have the second system entirely firewalled off and unreachable to an attacker, just polling the login servers to validate the sessions at some small interval.
And how are you going to implement password resets in any sort of timely fashion on this magic one-way ultra-secure box? I can pretty much respond to any answer you will give me with either a) won't scale or b) new security vulnerability.
Ok, for those who didn't RTFA, or don't know anything about security, you have a list of users and encrypted passwords in a DB. They log on and their password is checked against the DB. The problem is how do you know if someone has stolen your DB so they can crack it offline? (Offline brute force attacks are much more effective since they are thousands of times faster) So the author proposes that you give each user several possible passwords in the DB, only one of which is the correct one. If other passwords are used to logon, a danger alarm goes off, and you know someone has stolen your DB.
There are several problems with this idea. To make it work, you have to have a second DB listing all the passwords, and some sort of marker indicating which ones are real and which are fakes. You can't put this in the main DB, because then the hackers would have stolen this info too, and can tell which passwords are real. So you have a second, more secure system for this. Aside from the problems in maintaining a separate parallel system, one might ask the question, "why isn't your primary DB as secure as the secondary DB?". If attackers can breach your main defenses how do you know they cannot breach your backup network? What happens if your secondary system goes down?
More insidious, there is the recursive security problem. The point of doing this is for the assurance that your password DB is secure. How will you know if an attacker has gained access to your secondary password DB? Well, that would require a third password DB.......
Lawyers are the only thing likely to out-survive cockroaches. Lifting off and nuking them from orbit won't be enough.
Another similarity with roaches: hitting them with a hammer results in a satisfying crunching sound....
These are free books during the class. You have the option of buying them for the class, but I'm curious where you're going to be able to buy them for less than $0.
Are they really 'free', or are they actually subsidized via licencing agreements between the school and the publisher, and just being included in the tuition costs as a result of being part of the school's general budget expenses? I'd bet the latter, and they are just then charging you more if you want a permanent copy.
Exactly. Hitler took one look at that and said "never mind"...
Actually, he took a look at them and said, "Invade our bankers and money launderers? Why would we do that? They are helping to fund us when half the world won't trade with us!"
Also, they were neutral and basically German anyway. You know, the whole Aryan thing?
Yes
More to the poin, fuck whatever they mainstream likes or doesn't like. I have been a self identified as a nerd for 30 years, and I have seen many of my hobbies and interests become mainstream in that time. I know what I like and I don't need validation from anyone. Society can either like tech like this or get run over by it when they don't embrace it, and I do.
It's pretty sad when someone can't even work up the reading comprehension to grasp the story from a short summary.
In total, if you play the cracked version of the game, the simulator will ramp up the rate of piracy for your simulated company's games, so you will lose. It stacks the odds against you.
Anyone have a link to a hacked .exe that fixes this behavior?
I will be more than happy to show them any of the number of fake e-mail accounts that I maintain for spam. How exactly are they going to be able to tell that they aren't legitimate? Oh, they aren't. They want to go through my email, they will have to spend all afternoon picking through idiotic threads of forwarded cute cat pictures....
Hey Israel, fuck you for being stupid.
I'm not disagreeing, but I question whether this is something that happens more with really big projects which are very unique (Big Digs aren't exactly a regular occurrence, hence the name), rather than with your mundane, everyday civil engineering projects like a boring commercial building that's not much different from dozens of other commercial buildings in its area.
Well then, since you are using generic, cookie cutter building projects as supporting evidence for your argument, wouldn't it be an accurate comparison to look at how often web design firms go over budget when building generic 5 page websites for small businesses? I suspect that the numbers will be roughly equal, and the type of work would be similar. In contrast, an unusual project like the big dig would probably be comparable with someone like Microsoft writing a new OS from scratch.
My point is that software development isn't really that different than a lot of other engineering projects. Building things is hard.
Predicting a civil engineering project, like a bridge, is easy.....
I'm going to stop you there, because civil engineering projects are NOTORIOUS for going over budget. You might have heard of projects like the big dig. Less well know, is that going over budget in less spectacular ways is apparently a fairly common occurrence. I was looking around for a report to link for you that I read awhile back talking about why civil construction projects so frequently go over budget, but alas, I cannot locate it.
Alas!
A Jar-Jar snuff film might actually be fairly popular.
I am hard already....
"THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ONLY ONE"
Also, typing more crap to lower the caps count. Fuck you, Slashdot, don't tell me how to post. Of course typing in all caps looks like yelling, that is the whole point you rucking retreads....
Saying they 'will make it' kid friendly saccharin sweet crap, implys a change of direction. Anyone else here old enough to remember the ewok made for tv movies? If you think that uncle George started shoveling out cutsy crap in episode 1, you are sadly mistaken...
I am so looking forward to re-release of Blazing Saddles in 4DX. BEANS!
Or Schindler's list so you could smell the burning bodies? Yeah, I am pretty sure there are a lot of movies that introducing smell-o-vision would be a bad idea for....
Anonymous does not support it.
News Flash! Today, the Anonymous news site was hacked, apparently by a rogue group called Anonymous. Anonymous posted a manifesto on the hacked servers, stating, "Anonymous is against the biased news that is posted by Anonymous, and we are dedicated to show the world what a pack of tools they are."
The spokesperson for Anonymous stated, "These Anonymous guys are just jerks, why would they do this?'
An anonymous source went on record to say, "Nobody knows what is going on in the community. Also, don't use my name! Ahhhhhh!"
Officials also announced a twist in the probe: Suspicious packages that were detonated out of precaution were not explosive devices after all.
That's not a twist, it's just a thing. A twist is if it turns out to have been Richard Simmons.
No, a twist would have been if they suspected that it was Richard Simmons and it turned out to have been Gene Simmons.
This incident could have been substantially mitigated by .....
I'm going to stop you right there, because you are just playing 'armchair general' now. First off, if someone wants to be a terrorist, its going to happen. Moving the cans around would only change the way they attack. Second, hindsight is 20/20, so you can prattle on all you want about how this could have mitigated the attach, but its just speculation and hot air. Pearl Harbor wouldn't have happened if we put everybody on alert, JFK would be alive if he drove with the top down, Napoleon would have won at Waterloo if bleah bleah bleah. Just stop.
Why the network operators didn't get requests to shutdown the network, that doesn't mean it wasn't jammed. The military has jammers it uses where they suspect IEDs to prevent triggering via the cell network.
Ignoring the obvious idiotic question of why would I expect the military to be standing around with jammers set up and ready at the marathon, what makes you think that this is even a good idea? Little background here..
It seems that in Iraq, the insurgents were using cell phones to remotely detonate IUDs. So the military deploys jammers. The insurgents counter with IUDs that detonate when they lose signal, indicating jamming is occurring.
SO, assuming that they had the capability to do so, what makes you think that jamming is the correct response? You may just set off another wave of explosions when you flip the switch.
For all practical purpose, they are 100% unpredictable. You have no way of telling what they're going to do next. Not by looking at what they've already done, not by looking at how the world is responding to them.
For 100% unpredictable, they have been pretty constant for the last 60 years. Bluster and sabre rattle, followed by small scale aggression. Yeah, they go blow some shit up every few years to show that they aren't to be trifled with, but they haven't actually tried to re-ignite the Korean conflict. They have been able to level everything within 30 mils of the DMZ with conventional artillery for decades and they have resisted the urge.
I think you can count on another 30 years of the same unless you poke them with a stick. Sane dictators aren't fond of death by nukes or SEAL teams. They like to die of old age.