There's no inherent security architecture protecting Firefox, Linux, OSX that doesn't also exist in Windows.
That's total bollocks. Granted, the fact that windows is more popular than linux is *one* factor that discourages malware for linux, but it's far from the only one.
Linux systems are designed to be run by users, and administered as root. Windows systems, by and large, are impossible to run as anything but root - many programs require root access to work properly, and Windows (up until recently) never had the equivelant of a linux sudo to get around that requirement. Windows developers have been encouraged for years to write programs dependant on root access. Execute permissions prevent accidental execution of malware on Linux, as does not having a stupid system of extensions which are so easily spoofed (especially when default windows behaviour is to hide recognized extensions!). The move over to NTFS was good, but it only really hit the public with XP. I still know many people using FAT-based systems. How long has Linux been running a permissions-based filesystem? There's a few architectural security advantages Linux has over windows. On the more abstract level, being open source gives Linux the potential to be more secure - it's hard to hide critical vulnerabilities in Linux, whereas MS has a history of doing so for windows.
Firefox is another issue entirely; it's an application, not an OS. But comparing it to MS's Internet Explorer, it's far and away more secure. It doesn't install things behind the user's back, as MS IE does so very often. It doesn't allow the incredibly-insecure ActiveX components. I've never had a spyware infection or browser hijack simply by browsing in firefox. On my new laptop, however, I was browsing around using IE while I waited for firefox to download, and in between the time it took to start the download, and the time it had finished, IE had managed to install a little bugger called Aurora for me . Thanks IE!
Not all geeks are interested in the same things. I prefer to make sure my comments are understood by all, even at the expense of redundant information for the few (or even the many).
Impressive. Of all topics, I thought browser memory footprint had to be one of the LEAST likely to become a evolution-creation flamewar. That's some impressive trolling. I'd take me hat off to you, if I were wearing a hat and wasn't lazy.
Nonsense! Heinlein (for one) did it better (e.g. Revolt in 2100), well before Gibson did -- in fact, probably before Gibson was even born. Gibson's sole real claim to fame is being the single most overrated author in history.
Heinlein might have been first, but Gibson popularized it and made it a staple of a new genre.
I'd say they simply got carried away. They started out with a nice action film with some interesting physchological twists. Unfortunately, they got carried away with their own brilliance and making deep statements about the nature of reality and such.
See, I'd say they started with a nice action film with some interesting philosophical stuff, then got carried away with their big budget and just started making action flicks.
The philopsophy in The Matrix was never deep, but the fact that it was there added to the feel of the movie - when they moved on to the sequels, they dropped philosophy in favour of complicated (but meaningless) plots and expensive (but meaningless) effects.
Human societies don't work in an evolutionary fashion, they work in a revolutionary fashion. And that's not revolution as in "violent upheavel" that's revolution as in "going round in circles". In 300 years, there might be open families. And in another 300, it'll be back to the very strong view of marriage that considers divorce total anathema.
You say that there are different types of love (for parents, lovers, children, even things like nations, religions, etc). But I'd say the 1 Corinthians quote from the grandparent covers all of them. What should you do if you love someone/something? Be patient with them, be kind to them. Don't be envious of them, boastful, conceited or rude with them. I think that works with any kind of love. And that's not even defined in terms of self-sacrifice - unless it's a sacrifice not to be rude or boastful.
It's perfect in that it's idealistic, I suppose. Nobody can ever keep to it 100%. Sooner or later, your going to get frustrated and say something rude to someone you love, or angry and say a cruel word. Which is why the bit about "love always forgives" is handy:)
Ender's Game was fantastic. Speaker for the Dead was likewise quite awesome. Xenocide and Children of the Mind sucked terrible. The Bean saga is not quite up to Xenocide/Children in suckage, but it falls far short of Ender and Speaker too.
Yeah, but Hollywood would like the way you could compress the last five books into a single movie and have to cut anything.
And religious overtones? About the only really blatant religiousity I noticed in WoT was the Whitecloak zealotry. Unless you're talking about the existence of an omnipotent creator. Good luck finding a fantasy series without gods though:P
The problem with Stranger is that it's ending is all inextricably tied up with Heinlein's obsession with his idea of open families. Besides, the story of a Messiah who bring polygamy to the world has already been done by a whole bunch of whacko cults.
Neuromancer began the whole shades-and-black cyberpunk style, which pervades The Matrix. Much of The Matrix owes debts to an anime film called Ghost in the Shell. They might be major influences, but The Matrix had many, many more. That's not a bad thing - it's probably what made the first movie good, and the rest terrible.
I think he's talking about the attitudes relatedhere.
If you believe there is nothing more to love than an arbitrary combination of chemicals in your brain, then you are not likely to believe that love is anything special.
Just as a disclaimer "How I Kissed Dating Goodbye" is written by a Christian, for Christians. It is just as applicable to non-Christians in its broader scope, but it deal quite a bit with spiritual issues that would probably not be as applicable to a Christian.
No, he's describing perfect love. When you're loving someone, this is what you should aim for. It's a perfectly good definition of love - it's just that we humans aren't too good at placing another before ourselves all the time, in every way.
Side-tracked into a religious flamewar withing 2 posts. That's got to be a first, even for slashdot.
Re:No book can teach you because the bad don't rea
on
Essential PHP Security
·
· Score: 1
Judging from his comment (which was a bit hard to read at times), he doesn't mind the ?page=page1 technique. What he objects to is then doing something like "SELECT * FROM Pages WHERE $_REQUEST['QUERY_STRING']". Which is perfectly understandable.
As for native sessions, I don't know why he's so vehement against them, but implementing session stuff yourself isn't to hard. When a user logs in, generate a unique ID, give it to them in a cookie and store it in a database table. At the top of every page, have a bit of code that checks for the cookie and, if it exists, look it up in the database. Add a time field, a user field, and a data field with a serialized PHP array and you've pretty much got all the stuff you need to do whatever the native system does.
I'm not sure what advantage the homebrew type system has it's database based (may be more efficient I/O wise, but that's only going to be an issue on sites expecting a very large audience) and you can encrypt the session data stored on disc (a bit of overkill IMO, especially if you're on a dedicated server - I never store anything important in session vars anyway)
I use personalized google too, but you do realize that none of that functionality is really AJAX? The AJAX component is the drag-and-drop style of configuration. All the grunt work is done via traditional methods. So, in this case, AJAX really is used for nothing more than eye-candy.
Of course, there actually are some places where AJAX provides functionality and not just good lucks (gmail for one), but personlized Google isn't a good example of this.
If you accept the possibility of a god, you accept the possibility that all scientific knowledge is uncertain.
Of course, the Bible claims that the deity has made observed changes in the laws of physics. Maybe the deity should make at least one change per generation so it can be independantly verified by everyone who doesn't believe the third-party accounts.
He didn't tell him off. He let him touch the hole in his side, and the scars on his hands and feet. He did tell the disciples "You have believed because you have seen. Blessed are those that believe but have not seen". I'm not sure if that counts as a telling off or not. I imagine Jesus was a bit disappointed with Thomas - I mean, Thomas had spent years following Jesus around, watching Jesus' mircales. Jesus even told his disciples that he would die and rise again. If anyone had had faith in Jesus it should have been his disciples. But the story in scripture doesn't really show much of that, if there was any. All it shows is Jesus walking into a locked room (scaring the hell out of people in the process) and giving Thomas the proof he wanted. Granted, Thomas is generally remembered as "Doubting Thomas", and probably is less respected than the other disciples, but that is generally due more to human retellings and moralising than the scriptural story.
It is only testable if you know every law of the universe, which science doesn't claim. Any anomoly in the state of the universe could simply be explained away as a factor science has not explained yet.
We're not seeing them now, no. But the fact that something does not happen isn't proof that it can not happen. Even if you take every story in the Old Testament as true, miracles weren't every day occurances - people were always astounded at the miracles, not yawning and saying yesterday's was better. Then again, miracles may be happening today and are just ignored. I know at least one person who's skin cancer suddenly and inexplicably began to shrink and dissappear, and the doctor in charge of the case did not know why. Is that miraculous on the order of Jesus healing lepers? Or is it simply a case of an as-yet unknown biological factor? And again, the fact that he hasn't done any eye-popping miracles in the last millenia or so may be a just a statistical anomoly when taken over an eternity.
if a god exsits, nothing at all follows from that premise.
Yes, something does. What follows is that all scientific knowledge is uncertain. Science is based on the asumption that the laws it has discovered are incontrovertible. All our machines, computers etc are built from this premise. If, for example, the resultant energy from the combustion of a fixed amount of fuel was not predictable, there would be no guarantees that an internal combustion engine worked. If there was no guarantee that gravity would always remain relatively constant, most of our pens would stop working.
Science is based on the assumption that it's laws are unchangable, and religion is based on the assumption that there is something that can change those laws. If there is a God, then science can never prove anything to work for all cases, it can only prove something to work for those cases where God cannot be bothered to intervene.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh ... so smug, so laughable
There's no inherent security architecture protecting Firefox, Linux, OSX that doesn't also exist in Windows.
That's total bollocks. Granted, the fact that windows is more popular than linux is *one* factor that discourages malware for linux, but it's far from the only one.
Linux systems are designed to be run by users, and administered as root. Windows systems, by and large, are impossible to run as anything but root - many programs require root access to work properly, and Windows (up until recently) never had the equivelant of a linux sudo to get around that requirement. Windows developers have been encouraged for years to write programs dependant on root access. Execute permissions prevent accidental execution of malware on Linux, as does not having a stupid system of extensions which are so easily spoofed (especially when default windows behaviour is to hide recognized extensions!). The move over to NTFS was good, but it only really hit the public with XP. I still know many people using FAT-based systems. How long has Linux been running a permissions-based filesystem? There's a few architectural security advantages Linux has over windows. On the more abstract level, being open source gives Linux the potential to be more secure - it's hard to hide critical vulnerabilities in Linux, whereas MS has a history of doing so for windows.
Firefox is another issue entirely; it's an application, not an OS. But comparing it to MS's Internet Explorer, it's far and away more secure. It doesn't install things behind the user's back, as MS IE does so very often. It doesn't allow the incredibly-insecure ActiveX components. I've never had a spyware infection or browser hijack simply by browsing in firefox. On my new laptop, however, I was browsing around using IE while I waited for firefox to download, and in between the time it took to start the download, and the time it had finished, IE had managed to install a little bugger called Aurora for me . Thanks IE!
Not all geeks are interested in the same things. I prefer to make sure my comments are understood by all, even at the expense of redundant information for the few (or even the many).
Impressive. Of all topics, I thought browser memory footprint had to be one of the LEAST likely to become a evolution-creation flamewar. That's some impressive trolling. I'd take me hat off to you, if I were wearing a hat and wasn't lazy.
Gee, someone's not bitter
Nonsense! Heinlein (for one) did it better (e.g. Revolt in 2100), well before Gibson did -- in fact, probably before Gibson was even born. Gibson's sole real claim to fame is being the single most overrated author in history.
Heinlein might have been first, but Gibson popularized it and made it a staple of a new genre.
I'd say they simply got carried away. They started out with a nice action film with some interesting physchological twists. Unfortunately, they got carried away with their own brilliance and making deep statements about the nature of reality and such.
See, I'd say they started with a nice action film with some interesting philosophical stuff, then got carried away with their big budget and just started making action flicks.
The philopsophy in The Matrix was never deep, but the fact that it was there added to the feel of the movie - when they moved on to the sequels, they dropped philosophy in favour of complicated (but meaningless) plots and expensive (but meaningless) effects.
You mean like the 60s "free love" worked out?
Human societies don't work in an evolutionary fashion, they work in a revolutionary fashion. And that's not revolution as in "violent upheavel" that's revolution as in "going round in circles". In 300 years, there might be open families. And in another 300, it'll be back to the very strong view of marriage that considers divorce total anathema.
You say that there are different types of love (for parents, lovers, children, even things like nations, religions, etc). But I'd say the 1 Corinthians quote from the grandparent covers all of them. What should you do if you love someone/something? Be patient with them, be kind to them. Don't be envious of them, boastful, conceited or rude with them. I think that works with any kind of love. And that's not even defined in terms of self-sacrifice - unless it's a sacrifice not to be rude or boastful.
:)
It's perfect in that it's idealistic, I suppose. Nobody can ever keep to it 100%. Sooner or later, your going to get frustrated and say something rude to someone you love, or angry and say a cruel word. Which is why the bit about "love always forgives" is handy
Ender's Game was fantastic. Speaker for the Dead was likewise quite awesome. Xenocide and Children of the Mind sucked terrible. The Bean saga is not quite up to Xenocide/Children in suckage, but it falls far short of Ender and Speaker too.
Yeah, but Hollywood would like the way you could compress the last five books into a single movie and have to cut anything.
:P
And religious overtones? About the only really blatant religiousity I noticed in WoT was the Whitecloak zealotry. Unless you're talking about the existence of an omnipotent creator. Good luck finding a fantasy series without gods though
The problem with Stranger is that it's ending is all inextricably tied up with Heinlein's obsession with his idea of open families. Besides, the story of a Messiah who bring polygamy to the world has already been done by a whole bunch of whacko cults.
Neuromancer began the whole shades-and-black cyberpunk style, which pervades The Matrix. Much of The Matrix owes debts to an anime film called Ghost in the Shell. They might be major influences, but The Matrix had many, many more. That's not a bad thing - it's probably what made the first movie good, and the rest terrible.
I think he's talking about the attitudes relatedhere. If you believe there is nothing more to love than an arbitrary combination of chemicals in your brain, then you are not likely to believe that love is anything special.
Just as a disclaimer "How I Kissed Dating Goodbye" is written by a Christian, for Christians. It is just as applicable to non-Christians in its broader scope, but it deal quite a bit with spiritual issues that would probably not be as applicable to a Christian.
No, he's describing perfect love. When you're loving someone, this is what you should aim for. It's a perfectly good definition of love - it's just that we humans aren't too good at placing another before ourselves all the time, in every way.
Side-tracked into a religious flamewar withing 2 posts. That's got to be a first, even for slashdot.
Judging from his comment (which was a bit hard to read at times), he doesn't mind the ?page=page1 technique. What he objects to is then doing something like "SELECT * FROM Pages WHERE $_REQUEST['QUERY_STRING']". Which is perfectly understandable.
As for native sessions, I don't know why he's so vehement against them, but implementing session stuff yourself isn't to hard. When a user logs in, generate a unique ID, give it to them in a cookie and store it in a database table. At the top of every page, have a bit of code that checks for the cookie and, if it exists, look it up in the database. Add a time field, a user field, and a data field with a serialized PHP array and you've pretty much got all the stuff you need to do whatever the native system does.
I'm not sure what advantage the homebrew type system has it's database based (may be more efficient I/O wise, but that's only going to be an issue on sites expecting a very large audience) and you can encrypt the session data stored on disc (a bit of overkill IMO, especially if you're on a dedicated server - I never store anything important in session vars anyway)
So you're not saying that PHP is insecure, you're saying that all scripting languages (loosely-typed, interpreted not compiled) are insecure.
No more than getting sued by the RIAA for internet copyright infringement when you've never touched a computer in your life *shrug*
I use personalized google too, but you do realize that none of that functionality is really AJAX? The AJAX component is the drag-and-drop style of configuration. All the grunt work is done via traditional methods. So, in this case, AJAX really is used for nothing more than eye-candy.
Of course, there actually are some places where AJAX provides functionality and not just good lucks (gmail for one), but personlized Google isn't a good example of this.
Well, it depends on your definition of a god. I wouldn't call infinite knowledge being a god, unless it came as a package deal with omnipotence.
If you accept the possibility of a god, you accept the possibility that all scientific knowledge is uncertain.
Of course, the Bible claims that the deity has made observed changes in the laws of physics. Maybe the deity should make at least one change per generation so it can be independantly verified by everyone who doesn't believe the third-party accounts.
He didn't tell him off. He let him touch the hole in his side, and the scars on his hands and feet. He did tell the disciples "You have believed because you have seen. Blessed are those that believe but have not seen". I'm not sure if that counts as a telling off or not. I imagine Jesus was a bit disappointed with Thomas - I mean, Thomas had spent years following Jesus around, watching Jesus' mircales. Jesus even told his disciples that he would die and rise again. If anyone had had faith in Jesus it should have been his disciples. But the story in scripture doesn't really show much of that, if there was any. All it shows is Jesus walking into a locked room (scaring the hell out of people in the process) and giving Thomas the proof he wanted. Granted, Thomas is generally remembered as "Doubting Thomas", and probably is less respected than the other disciples, but that is generally due more to human retellings and moralising than the scriptural story.
It is only testable if you know every law of the universe, which science doesn't claim. Any anomoly in the state of the universe could simply be explained away as a factor science has not explained yet.
We're not seeing them now, no. But the fact that something does not happen isn't proof that it can not happen. Even if you take every story in the Old Testament as true, miracles weren't every day occurances - people were always astounded at the miracles, not yawning and saying yesterday's was better. Then again, miracles may be happening today and are just ignored. I know at least one person who's skin cancer suddenly and inexplicably began to shrink and dissappear, and the doctor in charge of the case did not know why. Is that miraculous on the order of Jesus healing lepers? Or is it simply a case of an as-yet unknown biological factor? And again, the fact that he hasn't done any eye-popping miracles in the last millenia or so may be a just a statistical anomoly when taken over an eternity.
if a god exsits, nothing at all follows from that premise.
Yes, something does. What follows is that all scientific knowledge is uncertain. Science is based on the asumption that the laws it has discovered are incontrovertible. All our machines, computers etc are built from this premise. If, for example, the resultant energy from the combustion of a fixed amount of fuel was not predictable, there would be no guarantees that an internal combustion engine worked. If there was no guarantee that gravity would always remain relatively constant, most of our pens would stop working.
Science is based on the assumption that it's laws are unchangable, and religion is based on the assumption that there is something that can change those laws. If there is a God, then science can never prove anything to work for all cases, it can only prove something to work for those cases where God cannot be bothered to intervene.