I can't quite shake the notion that a "web of trust" is inherently fragile.
That as they scale upward and are increasingly interwoven there will be a breach, a tear - that will unravel very quickly.
I think otherwise. Web of trust has a great self-healing potential. A breach? Yup, this can happen, but the web of trust can deal with that. A friend that abuses your trust, loses the trust.
Think cannabis distribution - the whole war on drugs machine is against it. There are raids, agents posing as dealers and whatnot. And yet, it's basically easy to get dope, as long as you have some friends
Of course, perhaps a patent armageddon is just about due right now.
Bring it on. My big dream is a huge fucking armageddon where everyone sues everyone else over bogus IP, because that would effectively bring the end to the current IP mess. The alternative is much worse - a chilling effect that isn't seen by the general public.
The (Just) reason that child pornography is illegal is to stop the harming of children through its production.
Yeah, partly because of that. Cartoon CP shows the other reason. It is illegal because it is immoral. Morality isn't rational and it is easy for the lawmakers to cater to emotions of voters.
Then you did it wrong. Quit assuming you have a clear path back to the client. An outbound connection from the client to the server is all you should need.
Quit assuming there's always a client and a server. Ever heard of P2P?
Well OK, those principles are appropriate for traditional tools like CVS and SVN. Branching and merging adds a lot of overhead if your SCM isn't built to handle it.
You understood nothing of the GP post. First, GP acknowledged said overhead. Second, and more important, pointed out there is some inevitable complexity in branching that is tool-independent. No tool will help you when one branch changes some properties of your code which another branch relies on.
See StegFS for a proof of concept. With StegFS you can have many encryption layers and the key point is that the existence of next ones cannot be proved. Basically, you can disclose the key to the first layer and tell the police to get bent.
Well, that is until some idiot judge rules that it's you who has to prove there are no encrypted files on your disk.
Arrow and turtle. If your position is time^2 for time < 0 and 0 (stopped) for time >= 0 then there is no infinite acceleration anywhere along the line. Do the d/dtime calculations and see (hint: d/dx(x^2)=2x ).
Even during the cold war the communist governments werent this open about killing their opponents. A possible explanation for this mode of operation is that someone wanted to send a clear message along the lines of "we do what we want - fear us". Or maybe it's just a tragic occurence Hanlon's razor (they police might actually be that stupid).
The deterministic/nondeterministic debate can go on forever, no matter how precise the experiments are. Any phenomenon that (temporarily) appears deterministic can have an underlying finer non-deterministic model and vice-versa. Currently the lowest level appears nondeterministic (quantum effects) and some scientists are speculating about an underlying deterministic model.
If they indeed succeed, some other folks will start to search for underlying nondeterministic model, and so on...
if they can't break out of the sandbox, it makes any attack fairly useless on a correctly configured machine using IE.
Every time an exploit occurs, people start blabbering about "correctly configured" machines, completely missing the point. What is really important is this: does it work on an out-of-the-box Vista or not?
Hey, this wasn't in the deal. The artists produced artwork, the society, represented by the government, granted them X years temporary monopoly as reward/incentive to contribute to the public domain.
Now they (the copyright lobby) want to break that deal by lobbying the gov't to retroactively extend the monopoly by Y years. Now tell me again, why should I respect the deal when the other side doesn't?
nothing annoys me more than so called secured systems having some means of password decryption, let alone the ones that allow admins to see them plain text.
For cases like this one there is the shared secret technique. It is possible to distribute a crypto key among n people so that any k of them (but not less than k) can retrieve the key.
Slashdot Mirror
I think otherwise. Web of trust has a great self-healing potential. A breach? Yup, this can happen, but the web of trust can deal with that. A friend that abuses your trust, loses the trust.
Think cannabis distribution - the whole war on drugs machine is against it. There are raids, agents posing as dealers and whatnot. And yet, it's basically easy to get dope, as long as you have some friends
Bring it on. My big dream is a huge fucking armageddon where everyone sues everyone else over bogus IP, because that would effectively bring the end to the current IP mess. The alternative is much worse - a chilling effect that isn't seen by the general public.
Yeah, partly because of that. Cartoon CP shows the other reason. It is illegal because it is immoral. Morality isn't rational and it is easy for the lawmakers to cater to emotions of voters.
Think of the (nonexistant) children!
Quit assuming there's always a client and a server. Ever heard of P2P?
What you described reminds me of Christopher Alexander's Patterns. Yup, the ones that inspired the pattern movement in software design.
No idea, especially now that no browser executes javascript faster than firefox with NoScript!
You understood nothing of the GP post. First, GP acknowledged said overhead. Second, and more important, pointed out there is some inevitable complexity in branching that is tool-independent. No tool will help you when one branch changes some properties of your code which another branch relies on.
Well, that is until some idiot judge rules that it's you who has to prove there are no encrypted files on your disk.
I believe it is much easier to fool an average human than a person with even some basic knowledge about AI.
Screw market research - I chose my Yugo for its figurehead of a rabid sabre tooth tiger in flames. Try to beat that, BMW!
Arrow and turtle. If your position is time^2 for time < 0 and 0 (stopped) for time >= 0 then there is no infinite acceleration anywhere along the line. Do the d/dtime calculations and see (hint: d/dx(x^2)=2x ).
I call bullshit on this one. As long as plants need carbon to build their bodies, they will be CO2 absorbers, at least until they die and decompose.
In other news: a rabid tiger on steroids and methampetamine is not a truly friendly animal.
He was shot in the temple. I'd say it is almost impossible to force someone to shoot you this way.
Even during the cold war the communist governments werent this open about killing their opponents. A possible explanation for this mode of operation is that someone wanted to send a clear message along the lines of "we do what we want - fear us". Or maybe it's just a tragic occurence Hanlon's razor (they police might actually be that stupid).
Hey, correlation is not causation. It might be that the variations in the decay pull and push the Earth closer and farther from the sun.
If they indeed succeed, some other folks will start to search for underlying nondeterministic model, and so on...
Hey slashdotters, you can pay me $998.99 and get the right to paste the following text into your comments:
I AM RICH SLASHDOTTER
Every time an exploit occurs, people start blabbering about "correctly configured" machines, completely missing the point. What is really important is this: does it work on an out-of-the-box Vista or not?
What do you mean? An African or European gorilla?
'... if, and only if, you are a total asshat. '
I am perfectly ok with that. Are you not?
This is just in. Studies have shown that on a popular site named Slashdot LOUD COMMENTS ARE MODERATED BETTER THAN QUIET ONES!!!
Are L1 and L2 explicitly adressable by processors? Is there a "store in cache" opcode?
I don't think so - it would mix terribly with the way the cache usually works (transparently to the code executed by the processor).
Now they (the copyright lobby) want to break that deal by lobbying the gov't to retroactively extend the monopoly by Y years. Now tell me again, why should I respect the deal when the other side doesn't?
For cases like this one there is the shared secret technique. It is possible to distribute a crypto key among n people so that any k of them (but not less than k) can retrieve the key.