Can I ask, why don't you and other admins/devs like you start to contribute to systemd?
Lennart Poettering has specifically said that he will not accept many important kinds of patches, for example he refuses to merge any patch that improves cross-platform compatibility.
And what's the reason, because people on forums are complaining? Because binary log files break the UNIX philosophy?
SELinux doesn't give you any real extra security, that's the problem. Once people have the ability to run code on your OS, they can also find a privilege escalation exploit (this is true on all OSes, even OpenBSD).
In modern use cases, it's better and simpler to partition with containers instead of SELinux, but even then, once you give them the ability to run code, they can escape from the jail.
In my experience managing systemd unit files is GREAT!
What are you using them for? Are you a sysadmin? A debian init script writer? An embedded systems builder?
I wish half the effort that went into b!tching and moaning would go into a decent alternative but compatible alternative/fork to systemd (ie. works with same unit files etc).
The reason there isn't a compatible alternative is because the code is too complex.
The main idea that I think de Grey contributed is that:
A) We can enumerate the issues in the body that lead to aging.
B) We can systematically solve each one of those issues.
He might be wrong on the details of which issues need to be solved, and he definitely doesn't know how to solve them, but I think he's got the right direction.
The paper is basically an argument against Aubrey de Grey, who claims that in the near future, we will figure out specific technologies (and de Grey lists them) that will allow us to live 200 or even 500 years. Unfortunately the argument is weak (as I understand it), because it relies on analysis of aggregate technology improvements (technologies including things like washing hands and antibiotics).
The obvious counter-argument would be, "Of course, sometimes progress goes fast, sometimes slow; sometimes in spurts, sometimes it stalls. Regardless of whether it comes fast or slow, when we figure out the solutions to these problems, we will live a really long time." In that sense, the paper knocks down something of a strawman (by not addressing their opponent's strongest argument).
But I can insult you too: if you think the only use for bitcoin is a speculation object, you're just ignorant. Fortunately ignorance can be cured, stupidity is forever.
Exactly. When they say "GM is counting on....advancements in autonomous technologies" it means they don't even have the thing designed yet. Two years is barely enough time to test a highly reliable system (like autopilot, for example). If you don't have it designed yet, there's no way you're going to get it on the road in two years.
This is either ignorant or an outright lie: it fails to acknowledge the actual uses of bitcoin as a transaction medium. In brief many of the transactions e-gold was used for, bitcoin has taken over.
I don't any bitcoin at all (I wish I did), but come on, if you're advising BA theses, you better get your head screwed on straight.
I would argue that bitcoin works brilliantly as a currency (though not much else: I can't imagine how it would work to keep track of your private info). It will never work as a day-to-day currency: you won't commonly go to buy pizza or laundry detergent with it, but for large transactions it can work great. Note also that this has been a problem historically with gold: people didn't mostly do day-to-day transactions with gold.
It's kind of a weird result, though.......presumable at least some of what you want to watch was available on Netflix, so you should reduce your bit-torrent amount by a little bit at least.
He might end up a pauper dying alone in a hotel room like his inspiration, Nicholi.
No haha. He has enough money that all he has to do is not lose it.......that is, get investments from elsewhere instead of personally investing his own money. And he's very good at raising money from elsewhere.
So even if all his current ventures fail (which they won't), he's still doing really well.
Yeah, but if I make a perfect copy of you, then kill the actual you....... you won't feel very comfortable dying anyway, no matter what the copy thinks. You have some nice linguistic tricks, but they don't change reality.
Because existing is nice. One likes being around. A lot of people who have thought carefully about this are concerned. Last I checked, most people like existing.
that logging in with the username "root" and a blank password is so bizarre that it's the sort of thing no one would think to try.
If you are ever testing (or writing) a login thing, make sure you test the case with no password. Not only is it so obvious that many laypeople think of it, but also this bug keeps happening, most recently on Intel chips. Not only that, it apparently works on any disabled user account, not just root
Make ONE association of a transaction to an individual, and then you have ALL transactions that individual has ever made
You can have as many 'wallets' as you want. Some people use a different wallet for every transaction (useful for giving a different address to each customer, and then you can tell which customer paid).
If the Slashdot moderation were not so borken (sic), that could explain your lack of an "insightful" mod
Moderation doesn't matter: karma is just a number on a server somewhere.
I think your missing keyword is "priority", as in security is not a high (or high enough) priority at Apple because something else is.
If Apple puts more priority on security, there are a lot of things they can do (for example, do managers include time in their sprints for the programmers to think about security?)
The reality is though, even if you have really nice processes, if the people writing the code don't care about security, then you'll end up with bugs like this. You can make process requirements that every line of code has a unit test, but then you will get people writing tests that check for nothing.
Of course you can make a process of "anyone who doesn't care about security will be fired," extreme but true.
This particular bug suggests that a lot of people at Apple don't really care about security, so fixing process won't help that.
It doesn't matter what your process is, if the people working on the product don't care about security, the product won't be secure. Having a lousy process can give you insecurity, but fixing the process alone won't give you security.
If that happens transaction fees will go up, and people who are unwilling to pay the high fees won't transact. Bitcoin won't ever replace cash, it's something that exits along side cash.
Slashdot Mirror
Can I ask, why don't you and other admins/devs like you start to contribute to systemd?
Lennart Poettering has specifically said that he will not accept many important kinds of patches, for example he refuses to merge any patch that improves cross-platform compatibility.
And what's the reason, because people on forums are complaining? Because binary log files break the UNIX philosophy?
Here is my analysis of systemd, spread across multiple posts (links towards the bottom). It's poorly written software (the interfaces are bad, you can read through my links for more explanation), and that will only get worse over time if an effort isn't made to isolate it over time. This is basic system architecture.
SELinux doesn't give you any real extra security, that's the problem. Once people have the ability to run code on your OS, they can also find a privilege escalation exploit (this is true on all OSes, even OpenBSD).
In modern use cases, it's better and simpler to partition with containers instead of SELinux, but even then, once you give them the ability to run code, they can escape from the jail.
fwiw Slackware has improved their package management quite a bit, might be worth checking it out again.
I actually preferred daemontools, which was lightweight, secure, and stayed the hell out of anything but starting daemons
Maybe best of all, you don't have to worry about an update to daemontools breaking things, because those tools are extremely stable.
In my experience managing systemd unit files is GREAT!
What are you using them for? Are you a sysadmin? A debian init script writer? An embedded systems builder?
I wish half the effort that went into b!tching and moaning would go into a decent alternative but compatible alternative/fork to systemd (ie. works with same unit files etc).
The reason there isn't a compatible alternative is because the code is too complex.
The main idea that I think de Grey contributed is that:
A) We can enumerate the issues in the body that lead to aging.
B) We can systematically solve each one of those issues.
He might be wrong on the details of which issues need to be solved, and he definitely doesn't know how to solve them, but I think he's got the right direction.
Here is the chart of peak athletic performance. I didn't realize it had plateaued so much since 1980.
Chart of oldest person, compared with oldest living olympian since olympians tend to live longer.
The paper is basically an argument against Aubrey de Grey, who claims that in the near future, we will figure out specific technologies (and de Grey lists them) that will allow us to live 200 or even 500 years. Unfortunately the argument is weak (as I understand it), because it relies on analysis of aggregate technology improvements (technologies including things like washing hands and antibiotics).
The obvious counter-argument would be, "Of course, sometimes progress goes fast, sometimes slow; sometimes in spurts, sometimes it stalls. Regardless of whether it comes fast or slow, when we figure out the solutions to these problems, we will live a really long time." In that sense, the paper knocks down something of a strawman (by not addressing their opponent's strongest argument).
Your analytical skills suck.
And you had none. Your post is pure insults.
But I can insult you too: if you think the only use for bitcoin is a speculation object, you're just ignorant. Fortunately ignorance can be cured, stupidity is forever.
Exactly. When they say "GM is counting on....advancements in autonomous technologies" it means they don't even have the thing designed yet. Two years is barely enough time to test a highly reliable system (like autopilot, for example). If you don't have it designed yet, there's no way you're going to get it on the road in two years.
Bitcoin is currently a complete fail as currency.
This is either ignorant or an outright lie: it fails to acknowledge the actual uses of bitcoin as a transaction medium. In brief many of the transactions e-gold was used for, bitcoin has taken over.
I don't any bitcoin at all (I wish I did), but come on, if you're advising BA theses, you better get your head screwed on straight.
I would argue that bitcoin works brilliantly as a currency (though not much else: I can't imagine how it would work to keep track of your private info). It will never work as a day-to-day currency: you won't commonly go to buy pizza or laundry detergent with it, but for large transactions it can work great. Note also that this has been a problem historically with gold: people didn't mostly do day-to-day transactions with gold.
You didn't even answer my main point. If I make a full clone of you, the original you will still feel miserable as I kill you.
It's kind of a weird result, though.......presumable at least some of what you want to watch was available on Netflix, so you should reduce your bit-torrent amount by a little bit at least.
He might end up a pauper dying alone in a hotel room like his inspiration, Nicholi.
No haha. He has enough money that all he has to do is not lose it.......that is, get investments from elsewhere instead of personally investing his own money. And he's very good at raising money from elsewhere.
So even if all his current ventures fail (which they won't), he's still doing really well.
Yeah, but if I make a perfect copy of you, then kill the actual you....... you won't feel very comfortable dying anyway, no matter what the copy thinks. You have some nice linguistic tricks, but they don't change reality.
Because existing is nice. One likes being around. A lot of people who have thought carefully about this are concerned. Last I checked, most people like existing.
Once you're dead, you don't really exist anymore.
that logging in with the username "root" and a blank password is so bizarre that it's the sort of thing no one would think to try.
If you are ever testing (or writing) a login thing, make sure you test the case with no password. Not only is it so obvious that many laypeople think of it, but also this bug keeps happening, most recently on Intel chips. Not only that, it apparently works on any disabled user account, not just root
Make ONE association of a transaction to an individual, and then you have ALL transactions that individual has ever made
You can have as many 'wallets' as you want. Some people use a different wallet for every transaction (useful for giving a different address to each customer, and then you can tell which customer paid).
Yes, yes, actually I will.
I'll buy at a 30% discount and use those profits to pump the price higher and make him buy back at 15k.
There seems to be some confusion as to how much money you'd need actually need to pump the price higher.
Send me a check and I'll send you all the hardware you need. Just enter your credit card info into this website and it'll be shipped right away, complete with instructions.
If the Slashdot moderation were not so borken (sic), that could explain your lack of an "insightful" mod
Moderation doesn't matter: karma is just a number on a server somewhere.
I think your missing keyword is "priority", as in security is not a high (or high enough) priority at Apple because something else is.
If Apple puts more priority on security, there are a lot of things they can do (for example, do managers include time in their sprints for the programmers to think about security?)
The reality is though, even if you have really nice processes, if the people writing the code don't care about security, then you'll end up with bugs like this. You can make process requirements that every line of code has a unit test, but then you will get people writing tests that check for nothing.
Of course you can make a process of "anyone who doesn't care about security will be fired," extreme but true.
This particular bug suggests that a lot of people at Apple don't really care about security, so fixing process won't help that.
It doesn't matter what your process is, if the people working on the product don't care about security, the product won't be secure. Having a lousy process can give you insecurity, but fixing the process alone won't give you security.
If that happens transaction fees will go up, and people who are unwilling to pay the high fees won't transact. Bitcoin won't ever replace cash, it's something that exits along side cash.
If it's an immediate drop off, it will, but if it's over a few months, it'll be fine.