Note that each clip is given a spoiler rating of 1-3, with 1 denoting that, if you haven’t seen the film in question, watching the clip will in no way ruin it for you, 2 meaning that the clip in question may give a few things away but no major plot points, and 3 being a big red flashing Major Spoiler Alert. You have been warned.
Indeed, each film has such a spoiler rating — at the end of the description. To add insult to injury, the first scene has a rating of 3, so at the time you notice that to be warned you have to look at the end first, the damage has already been done.
"Frank Rieger, chief technology officer at Berlin security firm GSMK, believes it’s more likely that the target in Iran was a nuclear facility in Natanz. The Bushehr reactor is designed to develop non-weapons-grade atomic energy, while the Natanz facility, a centrifuge plant, is designed to enrich uranium and presents a greater risk for producing nuclear weapons.
The new information released by Symantec last week supports this speculation."
For the 9/11 attacks, there's proof that actual damage has been done. For Stuxnet, that's exactly what I asked: Is there any (provably non-faked) proof of actual damage?
But the specificity means you need a lot of information about your target. You must know what the targeted facility looks like, and what can be used to distinguish it from other facilities. So the question is: Who did have that information at the time Stuxnet was written?
i would rule out russia - because russians were involved in building Busher's nuclear power plant, and they'd have no interest sabotaging something they are responsible to complete by the contract terms...
But according to TFA, the target wasn't Bushehr's nuclear power plant, but the Natanz nuclear facilities. Unless Russia was involved there, too, that makes your argument moot.
Is there any proof that the virus indeed runs on the facility? Is there any proof that the nuclear incident really did take place? Is there any proof that the number of operational centrifuges really went down (as opposed to e.g. bringing the "defect" centrifuges to a secret place, so even if the original place was physically attacked, they could continue with enrichment)?
Maybe it was the Iranian intelligence which created StuxNet (and in that case probably also a special protection system making sure it never hits its "target") in order to make everyone in the world think they are far behind in their nuclear program (and to have a plausible explanation for the reduction of operational centrifuges, so no one gets the idea to look for them elsewhere)?
Yes, but does it still have just one level of undo?
Probably. My observation is that anything front end related got worse since 5.2 - the new 6.0 front end trips up some window managers (because it doesn't completely conform to the X11 protocol), it doesn't any more support Shift-Del/Ctrl-Ins/Shift-Ins for cut/copy/paste (especially Shift-Del does a regular delete, which looks exactly like a cut so you'll not notice it until you try to paste, at which time thanks to the shitty undo functionality you already have lost whatever you wanted to cut), and the version 7 front end even eats CPU cycles at times it does nothing (even if you just have started it and never ever did a single calculation - I start). I hate to imagine what sort of degradation they added to version 8.
I'm sure the kernel improved a lot, but the front end problems are enough for me to not even explore it.
That's not enough. They also have to self-compile them (because how else would you be sure that the app really is compiled from the source they've seen?) with a trusted compiler (or else the compiler may insert a vulnerability). Of course after having read the source of the compiler itself, and having hand-compiled it (because otherwise you'd have to rely on an unchecked compiler to compile your compiler).
Oh, and don't forget to study the circuit design of your phone's processor!
Yeah, he didn't learn Perl, he learned PERL. It's one of the lesser-known languages which differs from Perl in that all names and keywords are in upper case.
I'd also say, learn some assembly. Really. Yes, you might never need to write code in it, but it makes you understand the machine an order of magnitude better.
All of these are high-barrier-to-entry markets where switching costs are designed into the system.
They weren't when they started. And you don't think you can compete with Google by using your home PC either, do you? The entry barrier tends to grow as markets mature.
And about your Digg story: Sure, if you make an utterly stupid decision, you'll lose. But that's the same in any other market. Change your newspaper in a way your readers don't like, and your readers will leave you. Of course, the publishing company will typically have several other newspapers, so it will survive anyway. But then, Google can survive a failure of a single of its services either (remember Google Video? Well, in the end, Google just bought YouTube).
Actually, while "free market" proponents always advocate a completely unregulated market, wherever a truly unregulated market emerges it is always heavily fought against. It's also not called "free market" in that case, but "black market".
Well, Government regulation can give good and bad. In Germany, government regulation had given us a big single monopoly over any sort of communication, from letters to phone calls. OTOH new regulations have caused a great competition in the phone and internet market despite the pre-existing monopoly. So you see, government regulation can do both good (prevent/destroy monopolies) and bad (create monopolies). It always depends on the type of regulation.
The only two I've ever use of that list are Skype and Google. To go without Skype is easy: Just use your phone. Google, I definitely would miss. But it's not something I couldn't live without. Indeed, I did live without it for quite some time. Indeed, I still remember when someone told me there's a new program called "xmosaic" installed on the university computers, but he can't find out what it's for; it just gives a grey window...
Actually Slashdot could use a submission bot: Most submissions just copy the first paragraph of the article anyway. That should not be hard to automatize. For the title, just use the page title. The main problem is to detect content which would likely be a successful submission. Maybe a Bayesian filter could be used, which is trained on past accepted and rejected submissions. Connect it to a spider constantly searching the web, and you can automatically fill Slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone else noticed this? From the article:
Indeed, each film has such a spoiler rating — at the end of the description. To add insult to injury, the first scene has a rating of 3, so at the time you notice that to be warned you have to look at the end first, the damage has already been done.
"Frank Rieger, chief technology officer at Berlin security firm GSMK, believes it’s more likely that the target in Iran was a nuclear facility in Natanz. The Bushehr reactor is designed to develop non-weapons-grade atomic energy, while the Natanz facility, a centrifuge plant, is designed to enrich uranium and presents a greater risk for producing nuclear weapons.
The new information released by Symantec last week supports this speculation."
For the 9/11 attacks, there's proof that actual damage has been done. For Stuxnet, that's exactly what I asked: Is there any (provably non-faked) proof of actual damage?
But the specificity means you need a lot of information about your target. You must know what the targeted facility looks like, and what can be used to distinguish it from other facilities. So the question is: Who did have that information at the time Stuxnet was written?
i would rule out russia - because russians were involved in building Busher's nuclear power plant, and they'd have no interest sabotaging something they are responsible to complete by the contract terms...
But according to TFA, the target wasn't Bushehr's nuclear power plant, but the Natanz nuclear facilities. Unless Russia was involved there, too, that makes your argument moot.
Is there any proof that the virus indeed runs on the facility? Is there any proof that the nuclear incident really did take place? Is there any proof that the number of operational centrifuges really went down (as opposed to e.g. bringing the "defect" centrifuges to a secret place, so even if the original place was physically attacked, they could continue with enrichment)?
Maybe it was the Iranian intelligence which created StuxNet (and in that case probably also a special protection system making sure it never hits its "target") in order to make everyone in the world think they are far behind in their nuclear program (and to have a plausible explanation for the reduction of operational centrifuges, so no one gets the idea to look for them elsewhere)?
Yes, but does it still have just one level of undo?
Probably. My observation is that anything front end related got worse since 5.2 - the new 6.0 front end trips up some window managers (because it doesn't completely conform to the X11 protocol), it doesn't any more support Shift-Del/Ctrl-Ins/Shift-Ins for cut/copy/paste (especially Shift-Del does a regular delete, which looks exactly like a cut so you'll not notice it until you try to paste, at which time thanks to the shitty undo functionality you already have lost whatever you wanted to cut), and the version 7 front end even eats CPU cycles at times it does nothing (even if you just have started it and never ever did a single calculation - I start). I hate to imagine what sort of degradation they added to version 8.
I'm sure the kernel improved a lot, but the front end problems are enough for me to not even explore it.
This information alone means that I'll avoid ever getting a Windows phone, even if it should have tremendous advantages otherwise.
That's not enough. They also have to self-compile them (because how else would you be sure that the app really is compiled from the source they've seen?) with a trusted compiler (or else the compiler may insert a vulnerability). Of course after having read the source of the compiler itself, and having hand-compiled it (because otherwise you'd have to rely on an unchecked compiler to compile your compiler).
Oh, and don't forget to study the circuit design of your phone's processor!
If only whitespace made as much sense to humans as as it does to computers... Haskell and Python might actually be good languages.
If whitespace made as much sense to humans as as it does to computers... this language would rule the world!
Unlambda!
Yeah, he didn't learn Perl, he learned PERL. It's one of the lesser-known languages which differs from Perl in that all names and keywords are in upper case.
Ever heard of NetBSD? :-)
In this case, I think you omitted the option which applies:
It was a joke.
I'd also say, learn some assembly. Really. Yes, you might never need to write code in it, but it makes you understand the machine an order of magnitude better.
Well, as you can see, Google gives you lots of spam is you use the right search terms.
But it doesn't seem to have a counterpart to Google Scholar. Which for me is more important than regular Google search.
Search is currently no better than it was 10, 15, 20 years ago.
20 years ago?
Really?
--
BMO
Yes. 20 years ago I could very easily search all existing web sites. :-)
They weren't when they started. And you don't think you can compete with Google by using your home PC either, do you? The entry barrier tends to grow as markets mature.
And about your Digg story: Sure, if you make an utterly stupid decision, you'll lose. But that's the same in any other market. Change your newspaper in a way your readers don't like, and your readers will leave you. Of course, the publishing company will typically have several other newspapers, so it will survive anyway. But then, Google can survive a failure of a single of its services either (remember Google Video? Well, in the end, Google just bought YouTube).
Actually, while "free market" proponents always advocate a completely unregulated market, wherever a truly unregulated market emerges it is always heavily fought against. It's also not called "free market" in that case, but "black market".
Well, Government regulation can give good and bad.
In Germany, government regulation had given us a big single monopoly over any sort of communication, from letters to phone calls. OTOH new regulations have caused a great competition in the phone and internet market despite the pre-existing monopoly.
So you see, government regulation can do both good (prevent/destroy monopolies) and bad (create monopolies). It always depends on the type of regulation.
The only two I've ever use of that list are Skype and Google. ...
To go without Skype is easy: Just use your phone.
Google, I definitely would miss. But it's not something I couldn't live without. Indeed, I did live without it for quite some time. Indeed, I still remember when someone told me there's a new program called "xmosaic" installed on the university computers, but he can't find out what it's for; it just gives a grey window
Linus doesn't see lights, he IS the light.
I see. On the first day, God said: Let there be Linus ...
Tell that to a phone book or other assemblage of facts.
I tried, but the phone book wouldn't listen to me.
Actually Slashdot could use a submission bot: Most submissions just copy the first paragraph of the article anyway. That should not be hard to automatize. For the title, just use the page title. The main problem is to detect content which would likely be a successful submission. Maybe a Bayesian filter could be used, which is trained on past accepted and rejected submissions. Connect it to a spider constantly searching the web, and you can automatically fill Slashdot.