I kept seeing RISC as Regular Instruction Set Computer, attempting to remove special cases and dumping them on the compiler. Having programmed Z80s, I have a good idea of the opposite.
Hypercard looked like a winner at first. There were books about it and Hypertalk available, and there was an explosion of stacks (i.e., programs) that did useful if simple things. The first version of Myst was a Hypercard stack, and it shows. Then Apple stopped shipping the ability to write Hypertalk by default, and not that long afterwards removed Hypercard. I never understood why.
C++ takes a more general approach. RAII with smart pointers can and should be used to manage any resource, including memory, database connections, files, whatever. This is not normally the best approach for memory, and reference counts have problems when you get into multithreading and caching, since they force another memory reference, and possibly a memory write, somewhere other than the actual variable. Like most things in language design, it's a tradeoff, and most modern languages have chosen more sophisticated GC for memory along with more ad hoc management of other resources.
A short walk from my house brings me to condos, some of which cost a million dollars last I looked. It doesn't seem to have affected the value of my property all that much.
The ideas behind "three strikes" laws have approximately nothing to do with the reasons doctors want patients to take an entire course of antibiotics, and I don't see what either has to do with the Crusades.
Not all cars have a trunk. About half the vehicles I've owned didn't.
I don't know how it is in Canada, but in the US having good reason to think the statements true is a defense against libel. I'd probably post that stuff was posted from a stolen laptop myself, but that's me.
Being a real security expert isn't a matter of going through a one-size-fits-all procedure. Don't be too quick to say what a security expert would do. A security expert, for example, might allow a guest login for a variety of reasons.
Every single comment is however calling out that someone who leaves their laptop in an unlocked car can not in any way be called a "security expert".
In the first place, this is like telling the owner he shouldn't have worn that dress. In the second place, you're implying that one mistake revokes your security expert card forever. I don't have the rules to hand here, but I think it takes more than that. Also, security experts don't necessarily encrypt what the average/. poster expect them to.
And just like that poor thief who's so quick to vilify an unknown person in possession of his laptop and slander them as a thief,
In most places, it isn't libel (you can't slander someone by posting on their Facebook account) if it's true. In the US (and I know this incident happened in Canada, but I don't know Canadian law), it isn't libel if you had good reason to think it true.
I'd rather hear a lawyer's opinion on this. In the US, privacy rights on a computer are pretty scanty, and I have even less idea what Canadian law would say about this. There's also the question of what the user's legal expectation of privacy on someone else's computer is, which I'd also run by a lawyer if I needed to know.
I lock my car by pushing the little button on the key as I walk away. If I'm distracted by something, and don't hit the right button, I could easily leave it unlocked.
Such things as tracking and spying are simply somebody using the computer, and since that person is the legitimate owner it's authorized use. Accessing the thief's accounts might or might not get him in trouble. I'd ask a lawyer before doing anything like that.
I had a foolproof method for remembering my ID badge by attaching it to something I'd automatically bring in to work in the morning. Then, one day, I had to do something else in the morning, so I came in for the afternoon. Guess what I didn't have.
The point is, if you think throwaway accounts at gaming sites, etc. are not valuable to hackers,
Let's do some threat analysis. Who's after your stuff? Let's try getting more specific.
How adept are these hackers? The more adept are probably going to be going for high-value targets, which really doesn't include me. If the NSA is after me, I'm not even going to try to stop them, but they have no interest in me.
What are they going for? Are they targeting you in particular (in which case you have to outrun the bear), or accounts in general (so you just have to outrun your hiking companion)? If they're after accounts in general, they're probably looking for people who don't have good passwords on their bank accounts, a set of people that I am not a member of. Somebody wants to break into my bank account and its $2-5K, they're going to have to do some work. It's almost certainly going to be easier to break into the account of the guy who uses his Slashdot password for his online banking.
There seems to be a tendency to give out security advice based on the idea that there are competent people interested in hacking the target specifically, but not so competent that they can't be stopped. This may be suitable for the average guy, but someone who thinks security is going to come to more individualized conclusions.
A long time ago, I had a company-issued laptop with full disk encryption. They did an overnight download of software I needed to do my job, and something got hosed, and it wouldn't boot up. Suddenly, there was absolutely no way to get the data off the drive. As a complicating factor, it was at a financial institution, and they couldn't discard a computer or drive without positively destroying the data on it, so they couldn't just wipe and restore.
Last week, my son's laptop drive failed and he couldn't boot up. He had the important stuff backed up, but realized that there was gaming-related stuff on there he wanted to have back. He removed the drive from the laptop and stuck it into, I really don't remember what it's called, but it's a USB device that fakes being an internal drive mount, and was able to get all the data he wanted and set up his backups better. If that would have been possible if he'd had full-disk encryption, we would have at least had to figure out how rather than plugging in the disk and copying.
I think you'll find that the conviction rate for rape tends to be horrifyingly low for the 99%, also. Turner was an egregious example, but there's been lots of cases of people getting away with minimal punishment for sex crimes.
I believe walking into an unoccupied house has been held to be breaking and entering by at least some courts. "Breaking" doesn't apparently have to leave anything broken (just as well, or picking the lock to get into the house wouldn't be breaking and entering). (I already posted how I had a relative die because he locked his house, although it also involved dropping his keys.)
Your idea of "duty" seems similarly off. I don't have a duty to lock a car, and last time I had a locked car broken into there was damage, which I would have probably avoided by leaving the car unlocked. Whether I leave my car unlocked or not, it is illegal and wrong to steal a laptop that might be there, and hassling the thief seems justified to me.
A somewhat more extreme example: a relative of mine lived alone and came home to his house in a rural area in the winter. The front steps had slanted away from the porch over time, and he dropped his keys into the crack. He couldn't get them back, he couldn't get to someone safe (his car keys were on the same ring), and as it turned out he couldn't survive the night without shelter. I don't know that he'd be alive today (he was fairly old), but he'd have lived a lot longer had he not locked his door.
Math doesn't require transitivity. Duh. There are mathematical objects with certain properties, such as transitivity, but that isn't the same thing. "This statement is a lie" requires something more sophisticated than first-order predicate logic, true, but it's mathematically tractable if you know what you're doing. It's analogous to the Goedelian "Proposition P: Proposition P cannot be proved.", and that's mathematically tractable if complicated.
Caesar's birth is differently reported, in different wikipedia articles. How do you pick one?
And this would have what to do with math, software, programming, or nature? The answer to your question is that you do not place undying faith in the God-inspired correctness of Wikipedia but instead look at the sources in the articles. Conflicting sources aren't contradictions either in any formal manner. We know how to deal with differing reports.
Gravity behaves differently in the solar system and in galaxies.
The best current explanation is that it doesn't, but there's not enough dark matter in the solar system to cause measurable results. MOND never did get general acceptance, from what I can tell from outside the field. Even if it did, we'd just have to change our understanding of gravity and we'd be fine. Misunderstanding is not a contradiction.
A further set of physical paradoxes are based on sets of observations that fail to be adequately explained by current physical models.
To pick an example I actually know something about, matter-antimatter asymmetry is not a paradox or a contradiction. It's something we don''t understand. We don't have one firmly established set of physical laws saying it has to be symmetrical, partly because this appeared at a time when we had conditions we can't come anywhere near close to experimentally, and so we are limited to extrapolation of known laws of physics to situations where some really tiny part of the actual laws that we can't measure on Earth actually matters. Back in 1900, we had an expression for kinetic energy based on mass and speed that worked to the limits of measurement as long as the speed was very small compared to the speed of light. Since then, we've devised much more delicate tests and accelerated stuff to relativistic speeds ("relativistic" here being defined partly by the precision and accuracy of our measurements).
Also, the observations suggesting dark matter have an easy explanation: there's matter out there that doesn't interact with the electromagnetic force. We're currently trying to figure out some of its other properties. No contradiction there.
The Republican party changed dramatically around 1980. It used to be fiscally conservative, interested in states' rights, and reluctant to make major changes. There hasn't been a conservative party in over 35 years.
Slashdot Mirror
I kept seeing RISC as Regular Instruction Set Computer, attempting to remove special cases and dumping them on the compiler. Having programmed Z80s, I have a good idea of the opposite.
Hypercard looked like a winner at first. There were books about it and Hypertalk available, and there was an explosion of stacks (i.e., programs) that did useful if simple things. The first version of Myst was a Hypercard stack, and it shows. Then Apple stopped shipping the ability to write Hypertalk by default, and not that long afterwards removed Hypercard. I never understood why.
C++ takes a more general approach. RAII with smart pointers can and should be used to manage any resource, including memory, database connections, files, whatever. This is not normally the best approach for memory, and reference counts have problems when you get into multithreading and caching, since they force another memory reference, and possibly a memory write, somewhere other than the actual variable. Like most things in language design, it's a tradeoff, and most modern languages have chosen more sophisticated GC for memory along with more ad hoc management of other resources.
The case of the schoolteacher and the female students I know about didn't involve any imprisonment, and the guy was not one of the 1%.
Experts aren't perfect, and I don't think you have any indication that he's a "self-proclaimed" expert.
I'm not a security expert, just enough of one to recognize some dumb things I've done now and then.
A short walk from my house brings me to condos, some of which cost a million dollars last I looked. It doesn't seem to have affected the value of my property all that much.
I know a lesbian couple who reproduced. It took a bit more technology than my wife and I used, but they did it.
Apparently we've got the wrong Orange Man in the Oval Office.
The ideas behind "three strikes" laws have approximately nothing to do with the reasons doctors want patients to take an entire course of antibiotics, and I don't see what either has to do with the Crusades.
Not all cars have a trunk. About half the vehicles I've owned didn't.
I don't know how it is in Canada, but in the US having good reason to think the statements true is a defense against libel. I'd probably post that stuff was posted from a stolen laptop myself, but that's me.
Being a real security expert isn't a matter of going through a one-size-fits-all procedure. Don't be too quick to say what a security expert would do. A security expert, for example, might allow a guest login for a variety of reasons.
He didn't log into Facebook, so I don't know how that would come out in the courts.
In the first place, this is like telling the owner he shouldn't have worn that dress. In the second place, you're implying that one mistake revokes your security expert card forever. I don't have the rules to hand here, but I think it takes more than that. Also, security experts don't necessarily encrypt what the average /. poster expect them to.
In most places, it isn't libel (you can't slander someone by posting on their Facebook account) if it's true. In the US (and I know this incident happened in Canada, but I don't know Canadian law), it isn't libel if you had good reason to think it true.
I'd rather hear a lawyer's opinion on this. In the US, privacy rights on a computer are pretty scanty, and I have even less idea what Canadian law would say about this. There's also the question of what the user's legal expectation of privacy on someone else's computer is, which I'd also run by a lawyer if I needed to know.
I lock my car by pushing the little button on the key as I walk away. If I'm distracted by something, and don't hit the right button, I could easily leave it unlocked.
Such things as tracking and spying are simply somebody using the computer, and since that person is the legitimate owner it's authorized use. Accessing the thief's accounts might or might not get him in trouble. I'd ask a lawyer before doing anything like that.
I had a foolproof method for remembering my ID badge by attaching it to something I'd automatically bring in to work in the morning. Then, one day, I had to do something else in the morning, so I came in for the afternoon. Guess what I didn't have.
Let's do some threat analysis. Who's after your stuff? Let's try getting more specific.
How adept are these hackers? The more adept are probably going to be going for high-value targets, which really doesn't include me. If the NSA is after me, I'm not even going to try to stop them, but they have no interest in me.
What are they going for? Are they targeting you in particular (in which case you have to outrun the bear), or accounts in general (so you just have to outrun your hiking companion)? If they're after accounts in general, they're probably looking for people who don't have good passwords on their bank accounts, a set of people that I am not a member of. Somebody wants to break into my bank account and its $2-5K, they're going to have to do some work. It's almost certainly going to be easier to break into the account of the guy who uses his Slashdot password for his online banking.
There seems to be a tendency to give out security advice based on the idea that there are competent people interested in hacking the target specifically, but not so competent that they can't be stopped. This may be suitable for the average guy, but someone who thinks security is going to come to more individualized conclusions.
A long time ago, I had a company-issued laptop with full disk encryption. They did an overnight download of software I needed to do my job, and something got hosed, and it wouldn't boot up. Suddenly, there was absolutely no way to get the data off the drive. As a complicating factor, it was at a financial institution, and they couldn't discard a computer or drive without positively destroying the data on it, so they couldn't just wipe and restore.
Last week, my son's laptop drive failed and he couldn't boot up. He had the important stuff backed up, but realized that there was gaming-related stuff on there he wanted to have back. He removed the drive from the laptop and stuck it into, I really don't remember what it's called, but it's a USB device that fakes being an internal drive mount, and was able to get all the data he wanted and set up his backups better. If that would have been possible if he'd had full-disk encryption, we would have at least had to figure out how rather than plugging in the disk and copying.
So, full-disk encryption does have its downsides.
I think you'll find that the conviction rate for rape tends to be horrifyingly low for the 99%, also. Turner was an egregious example, but there's been lots of cases of people getting away with minimal punishment for sex crimes.
I believe walking into an unoccupied house has been held to be breaking and entering by at least some courts. "Breaking" doesn't apparently have to leave anything broken (just as well, or picking the lock to get into the house wouldn't be breaking and entering). (I already posted how I had a relative die because he locked his house, although it also involved dropping his keys.)
Your idea of "duty" seems similarly off. I don't have a duty to lock a car, and last time I had a locked car broken into there was damage, which I would have probably avoided by leaving the car unlocked. Whether I leave my car unlocked or not, it is illegal and wrong to steal a laptop that might be there, and hassling the thief seems justified to me.
A somewhat more extreme example: a relative of mine lived alone and came home to his house in a rural area in the winter. The front steps had slanted away from the porch over time, and he dropped his keys into the crack. He couldn't get them back, he couldn't get to someone safe (his car keys were on the same ring), and as it turned out he couldn't survive the night without shelter. I don't know that he'd be alive today (he was fairly old), but he'd have lived a lot longer had he not locked his door.
Math doesn't require transitivity. Duh. There are mathematical objects with certain properties, such as transitivity, but that isn't the same thing. "This statement is a lie" requires something more sophisticated than first-order predicate logic, true, but it's mathematically tractable if you know what you're doing. It's analogous to the Goedelian "Proposition P: Proposition P cannot be proved.", and that's mathematically tractable if complicated.
And this would have what to do with math, software, programming, or nature? The answer to your question is that you do not place undying faith in the God-inspired correctness of Wikipedia but instead look at the sources in the articles. Conflicting sources aren't contradictions either in any formal manner. We know how to deal with differing reports.
The best current explanation is that it doesn't, but there's not enough dark matter in the solar system to cause measurable results. MOND never did get general acceptance, from what I can tell from outside the field. Even if it did, we'd just have to change our understanding of gravity and we'd be fine. Misunderstanding is not a contradiction.
To pick an example I actually know something about, matter-antimatter asymmetry is not a paradox or a contradiction. It's something we don''t understand. We don't have one firmly established set of physical laws saying it has to be symmetrical, partly because this appeared at a time when we had conditions we can't come anywhere near close to experimentally, and so we are limited to extrapolation of known laws of physics to situations where some really tiny part of the actual laws that we can't measure on Earth actually matters. Back in 1900, we had an expression for kinetic energy based on mass and speed that worked to the limits of measurement as long as the speed was very small compared to the speed of light. Since then, we've devised much more delicate tests and accelerated stuff to relativistic speeds ("relativistic" here being defined partly by the precision and accuracy of our measurements).
Also, the observations suggesting dark matter have an easy explanation: there's matter out there that doesn't interact with the electromagnetic force. We're currently trying to figure out some of its other properties. No contradiction there.
The Republican party changed dramatically around 1980. It used to be fiscally conservative, interested in states' rights, and reluctant to make major changes. There hasn't been a conservative party in over 35 years.
My new car is supposed to see pedestrians and brake to stop them. I haven't actually tested this yet, due to a lack of experimental subjects.