Opinion about the government is not a singular YES/NO boolean flag. It's entirely possible that the Chinese people generally likes the economic progress the government has brought, but doesn't like the censorship so much.
When posting to foreign forums, you should convert our local currency to the appropriate currency first. So you should have said, "Just my 7.32 cents". Keep up the good work, comrade!
Actually, I bet their browsers are gonna suck at security too. It's much easier to find one exploit from 1 million lines of code than to make sure your 1 million lines of code have absolutely no security holes.
Being more efficient is good. But I have two things against the usual "Green" arguments.
Being more efficient does not preclude the production of more energy. We're limited in the things we can do (e.g. space exploration, hydrogen economy) in large part because energy is still too expensive for such projects.
The whole green movement's original rationale is that if we're not careful with our environment, our quality of life would drop. But many recent "green" interventions are actually asking us to sacrifice our quality of life for... what exactly?
Money isn't inherently evil - just like how guns don't kill people. If he is interested in a "science" of prediction, shouldn't he try his algorithm on the problem most resilient on any prediction method so far - the stock market?
It seems that several year ago, the/etc/passwd file was world readable (since it had to be read in order to log in), and that both the username and password was stored there.
You would be right if you said a decade or two ago. Nobody has been storing local passwords in/etc/passwd for a very long time. But now we have badly configured NFS, LDAP and database servers to worry about.
Also.. root escalation attacks are usually done without any password hash... decrypting password hash is usually too much hassle compared to other security holes.
I'm lazy. I just buy barebones from Tyan and plug in the CPU, RAM and harddisks. The part that takes the most time is actually mounting the thing to the rack.
The problem with your politician is not stupidity. In the 60 years of his life, do you honestly believe he hadn't ever heard stuff like cheese or ham contains salt, and working from there, intuitively knew his bill is 100% impractical? With a brain that's good enough to speak, this takes more than an infinite improbability engine to accomplish. Your politician isn't stupid - at least not on the level you're thinking - he's pretending to be stupid. The thing he's really trying with this bill is testing the limits of political manipulation - see how much bullshit he can get away with. Yes, he's a little bit too careless or confident this time - so you can still argue he's stupid - but that's a much different thing now. But, mark my words - this bill WILL be reintroduced in a different form. The real goal here is experimentation with public opinion. It WILL continue until something ridiculous passes. And your politicians WILL know better than you the ramifications of their bills - and take pleasure in that.
The "dimension" here only shows up when you're looking at the mathematical model - it's not that we've managed to transport information through time or the WSOGMM.
Nah, go look it up on Google, it's just another name for hydrogen peroxide.
Sure there's the risk of explosion when it's of sufficient concentration, but that's nowhere as dangerous as its sibling - hydrogen monoxide. You know, anything that's called "monoxide" in chemistry is always more dangerous than its dioxide sibling. Like, carbon dioxide vs. carbon monoxide. So, hydrogen monoxide must be more dangerous than hydrogen dioxide. Everyone knows it's true because is science.
Oh, you mean Eastasia isn't our ally anymore? Ah, sorry, have been sleeping through the latest 2-minute hate sessions. Sure, we've always been allied to Eurasia, for like... millennia.
Let's say 50 years later RSA is found to be completely insecure. So mathematically anything based on RSA, depending on RSA or containing RSA has at least 1 vulnerability. Yet today it's impossible for any security scanner to tell whether somebody's SSL has that particular vulnerability or not. But as it stands, as long as that vulnerability is not known by anyone, nobody can exploit it. So you can't say the security scanner is n% ineffective because it doesn't detect a vulnerability.
Besides, for any non-trivial system, it's unlikely that the total number of vulnerabilities can be exactly determined in any practical timespan. Still unsolved theoretic problems, like the hardness of integer factorization, is one good example. Then there're always surprises in things outside of your control - your code may be theoretically perfect, but your CPU has one vulnerability that becomes exploitable when you put a certain -O flag to gcc. And it turns out there's a very devious way to remotely exploit that from your code. And then human mistakes comes in all strange forms that I don't think you can mathematically enumerate them completely.
Basically everything about the web today is just one dirty hack upon another bunch of dirty hacks. SSL and TLS are a good example. JavaScript is another. Everything built on top of JavaScript, such as AJAX, is a huge hack. So it's no wonder that it's so damn easy to write insecure web apps.
<Sarcasm>
Basically everything about the Internet today is just one dirty hack upon another bunch of dirty hacks. Ethernet and IP are good examples. TCP is another. Everything that does not limit itself inside a single OSI layer, such as PPPoE, all kinds of VPN and NAT, are huge hacks. So it's no wonder it's so damn easy to exploit remote machines over the Internet.
...
We need to throw it all away. Everyone routinely do this with their plastic bags. We now need to extend that practice to all Internet protocols. We need to start again. But will we? Probably not, and that's quite unfortunate.
</Sarcasm>
No. The reality for our current computing technology is, for anything non-trivial, there's most probably no complete mathematical proof that the system is perfectly secure, and thus there's most probably at least one exploit to break any non-trivial system. Even the most basic of protocols like TCP have been shown to have numerous flaws over the years - most of those specific to implementation details or things that aren't clearly defined in the protocol itself. Even if your theory and system design is perfect, you can still have plenty of errors in the implementation. You build a system that has 1 million lines of code, it only takes 1 line of mistake for someone to exploit it. That one line of mistake can happen in any programming language and any computing environment no matter how rigorous it is. All it takes is 3 seconds of carelessness in the few years you took to implement the system.
Making the system architecture simpler can and do reduce the number of vulnerabilities - although it does not eliminate them. However, throwing it all away is usually not a good idea, unless the current solution is shown to be totally unworkable. The thing with throwing away and starting from scratch is, you're throwing away all the previous fixes embedded in the previous system, and humans are remarkably bad at making sure ALL the previous mistakes do not happen in the redesigned system. Remember, from the tiniest integer being read from the database, to the most grandiose thing you see on the UI, it only takes one single mistake in the billions of operations between your client and the server for a security vulnerability to happen. If you think you can write code for 3 years in professional capacity and no single mistake, no one single typo ever happens in your code - fine. But I don't think I've ever seen such a person before.
While Fallout 3 was not bad I was always feeling something is amiss, most probably because Bethesda's team is still different from the original Black Isle.
Now we're finally seeing the day the Fallout license is back on the original Black Isle developers' hands, in their new company. This game is seriously going to rock.
No. The problem is that the Chinese parents don't have significant savings - they lived through the times when China was actually a third world country. So when the 20 somethings grow up they have to babysit their parents.
So, actually, when a young Chinese tells you he's living with his mom, it's because he's taking up his familial responsibilities. The western notion of nerd in a basement has no place in China.
Slashdot Mirror
I was in a hot tube with a Chinese national and she
Wait... this is... Slashdot? *head explodes*
Opinion about the government is not a singular YES/NO boolean flag. It's entirely possible that the Chinese people generally likes the economic progress the government has brought, but doesn't like the censorship so much.
Just my 50 ct.
When posting to foreign forums, you should convert our local currency to the appropriate currency first. So you should have said, "Just my 7.32 cents". Keep up the good work, comrade!
Actually, I bet their browsers are gonna suck at security too. It's much easier to find one exploit from 1 million lines of code than to make sure your 1 million lines of code have absolutely no security holes.
He's contributing 5 995 849.16 m/s, which is much faster than the max speed of your car, sir.
Android phones are worth, what? 0.0001% of China's total GDP?
It's not that powerful a motivator for Beijing.
They can't change the laws, correct. But they can interpret the laws in any way they like.
Money isn't inherently evil - just like how guns don't kill people. If he is interested in a "science" of prediction, shouldn't he try his algorithm on the problem most resilient on any prediction method so far - the stock market?
Agreed. Anyone who can predict the stock market with 90% accuracy should be able to make himself a billion dollars in a few months.
It seems that several year ago, the /etc/passwd file was world readable (since it had to be read in order to log in), and that both the username and password was stored there.
You would be right if you said a decade or two ago. Nobody has been storing local passwords in /etc/passwd for a very long time. But now we have badly configured NFS, LDAP and database servers to worry about.
Also.. root escalation attacks are usually done without any password hash... decrypting password hash is usually too much hassle compared to other security holes.
No, it's more like watching my grandma trying to plug in a USB cable. Guys usually get it right the first time.
I'm lazy. I just buy barebones from Tyan and plug in the CPU, RAM and harddisks. The part that takes the most time is actually mounting the thing to the rack.
The problem with your politician is not stupidity. In the 60 years of his life, do you honestly believe he hadn't ever heard stuff like cheese or ham contains salt, and working from there, intuitively knew his bill is 100% impractical? With a brain that's good enough to speak, this takes more than an infinite improbability engine to accomplish. Your politician isn't stupid - at least not on the level you're thinking - he's pretending to be stupid. The thing he's really trying with this bill is testing the limits of political manipulation - see how much bullshit he can get away with. Yes, he's a little bit too careless or confident this time - so you can still argue he's stupid - but that's a much different thing now. But, mark my words - this bill WILL be reintroduced in a different form. The real goal here is experimentation with public opinion. It WILL continue until something ridiculous passes. And your politicians WILL know better than you the ramifications of their bills - and take pleasure in that.
The "dimension" here only shows up when you're looking at the mathematical model - it's not that we've managed to transport information through time or the WSOGMM.
Nah, go look it up on Google, it's just another name for hydrogen peroxide.
Sure there's the risk of explosion when it's of sufficient concentration, but that's nowhere as dangerous as its sibling - hydrogen monoxide. You know, anything that's called "monoxide" in chemistry is always more dangerous than its dioxide sibling. Like, carbon dioxide vs. carbon monoxide. So, hydrogen monoxide must be more dangerous than hydrogen dioxide. Everyone knows it's true because is science.
Is this a troll to get people to drop their iPhones in their cappuccino?
Oh, you mean Eastasia isn't our ally anymore? Ah, sorry, have been sleeping through the latest 2-minute hate sessions. Sure, we've always been allied to Eurasia, for like... millennia.
Booyah! Take that, Evolutionists! Creationism is more efficient! :P
Who needs to "evolve" an ecosystem full of bugs if you can just write it in Perl.
You should also say it with two hands raised making a double quotation sign.
But the Nigerian prince said he's helping his whole country purchase spam defense lasers! I think it's worth it.
OK. I'll bite.
Let's say 50 years later RSA is found to be completely insecure. So mathematically anything based on RSA, depending on RSA or containing RSA has at least 1 vulnerability. Yet today it's impossible for any security scanner to tell whether somebody's SSL has that particular vulnerability or not. But as it stands, as long as that vulnerability is not known by anyone, nobody can exploit it. So you can't say the security scanner is n% ineffective because it doesn't detect a vulnerability.
Besides, for any non-trivial system, it's unlikely that the total number of vulnerabilities can be exactly determined in any practical timespan. Still unsolved theoretic problems, like the hardness of integer factorization, is one good example. Then there're always surprises in things outside of your control - your code may be theoretically perfect, but your CPU has one vulnerability that becomes exploitable when you put a certain -O flag to gcc. And it turns out there's a very devious way to remotely exploit that from your code. And then human mistakes comes in all strange forms that I don't think you can mathematically enumerate them completely.
Basically everything about the web today is just one dirty hack upon another bunch of dirty hacks. SSL and TLS are a good example. JavaScript is another. Everything built on top of JavaScript, such as AJAX, is a huge hack. So it's no wonder that it's so damn easy to write insecure web apps.
<Sarcasm>
...
Basically everything about the Internet today is just one dirty hack upon another bunch of dirty hacks. Ethernet and IP are good examples. TCP is another. Everything that does not limit itself inside a single OSI layer, such as PPPoE, all kinds of VPN and NAT, are huge hacks. So it's no wonder it's so damn easy to exploit remote machines over the Internet.
We need to throw it all away. Everyone routinely do this with their plastic bags. We now need to extend that practice to all Internet protocols. We need to start again. But will we? Probably not, and that's quite unfortunate.
</Sarcasm>
No. The reality for our current computing technology is, for anything non-trivial, there's most probably no complete mathematical proof that the system is perfectly secure, and thus there's most probably at least one exploit to break any non-trivial system. Even the most basic of protocols like TCP have been shown to have numerous flaws over the years - most of those specific to implementation details or things that aren't clearly defined in the protocol itself. Even if your theory and system design is perfect, you can still have plenty of errors in the implementation. You build a system that has 1 million lines of code, it only takes 1 line of mistake for someone to exploit it. That one line of mistake can happen in any programming language and any computing environment no matter how rigorous it is. All it takes is 3 seconds of carelessness in the few years you took to implement the system.
Making the system architecture simpler can and do reduce the number of vulnerabilities - although it does not eliminate them. However, throwing it all away is usually not a good idea, unless the current solution is shown to be totally unworkable. The thing with throwing away and starting from scratch is, you're throwing away all the previous fixes embedded in the previous system, and humans are remarkably bad at making sure ALL the previous mistakes do not happen in the redesigned system. Remember, from the tiniest integer being read from the database, to the most grandiose thing you see on the UI, it only takes one single mistake in the billions of operations between your client and the server for a security vulnerability to happen. If you think you can write code for 3 years in professional capacity and no single mistake, no one single typo ever happens in your code - fine. But I don't think I've ever seen such a person before.
While Fallout 3 was not bad I was always feeling something is amiss, most probably because Bethesda's team is still different from the original Black Isle.
Now we're finally seeing the day the Fallout license is back on the original Black Isle developers' hands, in their new company. This game is seriously going to rock.
No. The problem is that the Chinese parents don't have significant savings - they lived through the times when China was actually a third world country. So when the 20 somethings grow up they have to babysit their parents.
So, actually, when a young Chinese tells you he's living with his mom, it's because he's taking up his familial responsibilities. The western notion of nerd in a basement has no place in China.