The reason for the mysterious death of many computer users in the last time has been found. It turned out they all had an anti-malware program running which tried to detect and eliminate malware through analyzing its behaviour. Apparently the software detected dangerous behaviour from the computer users and therefore decided to eliminate them in order to protect the system.
I mean, having the data backed up in the net may be nice, but not having it stored on permanent memory in the phone IMHO is silly. Even without a server failure: What if you don't have net access, and your phone's battery gets empty? I also expect to be able to switch off my phone any time I want without data loss, no matter whether I currently have net access, and no matter whether I have actually changed and data since the last time having net access.
Probably for the same reason he wouldn't call looking at an LCD monitor a mind-machine interface. Although strictly speaking, it certainly is (the screen content is generated by the machine, and interpreted by the mind).
Well, "being acted upon" is also the result of certain brainwaves: If those special brainwaves occur, they will be sent down the nerves to your muscles. So there are obviously controllable brainwaves. So it might be possible to control those brainwaves which are used for the communication device as well. The brain waves to interpret would probably have to be specially selected for that.
Indeed, the trick may be to ask the person: "Imagine that you explicitly send a thought to another person" and identify specific brain waves which occur only then. If that is possible, the device could identify your explicit wish to send, and ignore everything else.
They could use it for business licenses of Windows. Or they could use it for any of their other software that doesn't come preinstalled with computers and isn't used by most home users.
However, the satisfaction of completing the challenge has the peculiar feature that, unlike any other reward, it grows with the difficulty of the task. Indeed, if it's trivial to break, the reward of completing the challenge is so low that you wouldn't bother to do it, not in spite of it being simple, but because of it being simple. So at least in the beginning, the reward grows faster than the difficulty. Now there's a point where this changes (i.e. the reward at some place will stop being worth the challenge), but where this is very individual. It's just like for some, climbing Mount Everest is worth the effort, while for others it isn't. But if somebody had based their security on nobody considering it worth the effort to climb Mount Everest (how ever that could have been done), they would have lost.
Sounds like security by obscurity to me. I'm pretty sure there would be ways to find that memory. For a start, if the page table isn't in protected memory, then you'll have just to find that in order to find out where all the other processes are. And since the processor has to find that, too, I'm pretty sure it will not be hard to find. And BTW, you'll need most of the infrastructure anyway, unless you want to install that much physical memory (good luck with that!). You'll have to look up your pages in the page table to find out if they actually exist; I think to just check another bit to see if you're allowed to use them should not be that costly.
Hint: There's a difference between a logical argument and an argument about physical reality. I did the former. That is, I didn't say anything about whether the universe had a beginning, I only said something about whether we can conclude that it had a beginning from it having a finite age. Namely we can't.
About physical reality, it's to expect that GR will fail before approaching the singularity. But that's clear not from the fact that there's a singularity (after all, one could imagine ways to avoid the singularity without modifying GR; probably some well-crafted assumptions about dark energy would suffice), but from the simple fact that GR and QM simply do not fit together well, but would both become relevant in the very early universe. And it's extremely unlikely that this would be resolved by a modification of just QM (although I'd not be surprised if QM had to be modified as well as GR).
Yes, NUL is a valid character in a Pascal string. But the question is: Is it also a valid character in the Field. For example: 35 is clearly a valid integer. Yet, it should clearly not be accepted in the day-of-month field of a date, despite the fact that the day-of-month field contains an integer, which 35 is. I strongly doubt that being a Pascal string is the only requirement for the field (otherwise it would be pretty worthless for authentication).
And the specification says nothing about the characters allowed to be contained in those PASCAL type strings? Or it says that NUL is one of the allowed characters?
The point is, you get only the Firefox security after you've installed Firefox, and only assuming you've installed the real version, not a hacked one. And how do you check if you have a real version when installing your first version of Firefox? You can't check with Firefox because it's not yet installed. Checking with Firefox after the fact is pointless, too, because a hacked Firefox will certainly claim it's legitimate. Actually, even when Microsoft patches the vulnerability and you get it through Windows Update, you can't be completely sure, because after all someone might have intercepted Windows Update with a fake certificate.
It's a net loss for security if you rely on the details being hidden. But if you hide the details, but otherwise act as if the details were public, it's a net win. After all, a system doesn't get magically less secure just because no one knows about its security. It only gets less secure if you thing you don't have to care about security because it's hidden anyway. In other words, it's the mindset which matters, not the fact that it's hidden which security system you use.
For example, it's not easier to decrypt RSA encrypted data just because you don't tell anyone it's RSA encrypted.
Indeed, after figuring out that security by obscurity doesn't work, I always store my passwords in clear in a file names "passwords.txt" which I upload to all sorts of public servers, so I always have access to my passwords from everywhere. Well, I guess it's a good idea to post it here, too:
Code on my suitcase: 12345 Password for Slashdot: 12345 Banking PIN: 12345 Wikipedia password: 12345 Password for work account: 12345 Home computer password: 12345
CryptoAPI is easily avoidable, just use Unix libs for Hashing, Keys and Singins.
So am I more secure if I sing myself instead of the computer letting it do for me? Does it matter which song I sing? I guess "ring of fire" would make a good firewall?
Slashdot Mirror
The Matrix computer isn't powerful enough to handle the simulation of the LHC correctly. That's why the LHC failed.
The reason for the mysterious death of many computer users in the last time has been found. It turned out they all had an anti-malware program running which tried to detect and eliminate malware through analyzing its behaviour. Apparently the software detected dangerous behaviour from the computer users and therefore decided to eliminate them in order to protect the system.
The Matrix uses cloud computing?
This is clearly manipulated. You even still see the hands!
I mean, having the data backed up in the net may be nice, but not having it stored on permanent memory in the phone IMHO is silly. Even without a server failure: What if you don't have net access, and your phone's battery gets empty? I also expect to be able to switch off my phone any time I want without data loss, no matter whether I currently have net access, and no matter whether I have actually changed and data since the last time having net access.
Probably for the same reason he wouldn't call looking at an LCD monitor a mind-machine interface.
Although strictly speaking, it certainly is (the screen content is generated by the machine, and interpreted by the mind).
Well, "being acted upon" is also the result of certain brainwaves: If those special brainwaves occur, they will be sent down the nerves to your muscles. So there are obviously controllable brainwaves. So it might be possible to control those brainwaves which are used for the communication device as well. The brain waves to interpret would probably have to be specially selected for that.
Indeed, the trick may be to ask the person: "Imagine that you explicitly send a thought to another person" and identify specific brain waves which occur only then. If that is possible, the device could identify your explicit wish to send, and ignore everything else.
It would test how good you are in googling the information (and in distinguishing good from bad information in the results).
Indeed, it was destroyed due to the Romans' kindle.
Indeed, it's the best device to kindle books. :-)
They could use it for business licenses of Windows. Or they could use it for any of their other software that doesn't come preinstalled with computers and isn't used by most home users.
However, the satisfaction of completing the challenge has the peculiar feature that, unlike any other reward, it grows with the difficulty of the task. Indeed, if it's trivial to break, the reward of completing the challenge is so low that you wouldn't bother to do it, not in spite of it being simple, but because of it being simple. So at least in the beginning, the reward grows faster than the difficulty. Now there's a point where this changes (i.e. the reward at some place will stop being worth the challenge), but where this is very individual. It's just like for some, climbing Mount Everest is worth the effort, while for others it isn't. But if somebody had based their security on nobody considering it worth the effort to climb Mount Everest (how ever that could have been done), they would have lost.
Sounds like security by obscurity to me. I'm pretty sure there would be ways to find that memory. For a start, if the page table isn't in protected memory, then you'll have just to find that in order to find out where all the other processes are. And since the processor has to find that, too, I'm pretty sure it will not be hard to find.
And BTW, you'll need most of the infrastructure anyway, unless you want to install that much physical memory (good luck with that!). You'll have to look up your pages in the page table to find out if they actually exist; I think to just check another bit to see if you're allowed to use them should not be that costly.
Well, let's buy ad space on it, and then advertise for Open Office.org!
Hint: There's a difference between a logical argument and an argument about physical reality. I did the former. That is, I didn't say anything about whether the universe had a beginning, I only said something about whether we can conclude that it had a beginning from it having a finite age. Namely we can't.
About physical reality, it's to expect that GR will fail before approaching the singularity. But that's clear not from the fact that there's a singularity (after all, one could imagine ways to avoid the singularity without modifying GR; probably some well-crafted assumptions about dark energy would suffice), but from the simple fact that GR and QM simply do not fit together well, but would both become relevant in the very early universe. And it's extremely unlikely that this would be resolved by a modification of just QM (although I'd not be surprised if QM had to be modified as well as GR).
Yes, NUL is a valid character in a Pascal string. But the question is: Is it also a valid character in the Field. For example: 35 is clearly a valid integer. Yet, it should clearly not be accepted in the day-of-month field of a date, despite the fact that the day-of-month field contains an integer, which 35 is. I strongly doubt that being a Pascal string is the only requirement for the field (otherwise it would be pretty worthless for authentication).
And the specification says nothing about the characters allowed to be contained in those PASCAL type strings? Or it says that NUL is one of the allowed characters?
I guess most Windows games won't work on Windows netbooks either.
The point is, you get only the Firefox security after you've installed Firefox, and only assuming you've installed the real version, not a hacked one. And how do you check if you have a real version when installing your first version of Firefox? You can't check with Firefox because it's not yet installed. Checking with Firefox after the fact is pointless, too, because a hacked Firefox will certainly claim it's legitimate. Actually, even when Microsoft patches the vulnerability and you get it through Windows Update, you can't be completely sure, because after all someone might have intercepted Windows Update with a fake certificate.
It's a net loss for security if you rely on the details being hidden. But if you hide the details, but otherwise act as if the details were public, it's a net win. After all, a system doesn't get magically less secure just because no one knows about its security. It only gets less secure if you thing you don't have to care about security because it's hidden anyway. In other words, it's the mindset which matters, not the fact that it's hidden which security system you use.
For example, it's not easier to decrypt RSA encrypted data just because you don't tell anyone it's RSA encrypted.
Indeed, after figuring out that security by obscurity doesn't work, I always store my passwords in clear in a file names "passwords.txt" which I upload to all sorts of public servers, so I always have access to my passwords from everywhere. Well, I guess it's a good idea to post it here, too:
So am I more secure if I sing myself instead of the computer letting it do for me?
Does it matter which song I sing? I guess "ring of fire" would make a good firewall?
SCNR :-)
Simple solution: Let both shoot at exactly the same time!
I don't work for bad-math people! :-)
10^104 - 10^102 = 9.9*10^103
Unless you are the Cosmic AC. :-)