Most encryption algorithms can't be broken. Most implementations of encryption algorithms can be broken with sufficient effort. Almost any implementation of an encryption algorithm is vulnerable when running on a compromised OS. It doesn't matter how good your encryption is if the OS can steal the keys.
In the UK and, I believe, the rest of the EU, debit card payments are protected under the same guarantees as credit card. You can also take the company to the small claims court. The only company that I've dealt with that's made me even consider going to this length was Dell. Apple, for example, replaced a battery for me out of warranty because it had not survived the number of charge cycles that their advertising claimed and I mentioned the Sale of Goods Act (now replaced by stronger protections in the Consumer Rights Act). I've never had a brick-and-mortar store refuse a refund within the allowed period.
UBI has different incentives. Disability payments often stop if you demonstrate that you are able to work, so if you manage to get a part-time job then your income goes down. With UBI, there is no means testing and so every hour that you work increases your net income. That's a very different incentive structure.
You missed a key word in the parent post: net. You don't have to increase everyone's net income by $10k, you need to increase everyone's gross income by $10k. You then shift the tax thresholds around so that people whose gross income is $10k pay no tax (there's no point - the government would just be paying itself), people who earn more than that start paying a little and pay progressively more. People who are currently on the sort of educated middle class income as most/. posters will end up paying a bit more, people with huge net incomes will end up paying a lot more (though, hopefully, not enough to make a noticeable difference to their standard of living).
If your house catches fire anywhere then the odds are that the fire brigade won't do anything to save it. Between the fire, smoke, and water damage, your recourse is mostly to insurance if the fire is bad enough to need to call them out. The fire brigade will come to save your neighbours' houses. In a city, if one house catches fire then the one next door probably will too and soon you've got London 1666. You pay taxes to fund a municipal fire brigade because you don't want someone else's house fire to reduce your street to ash.
In a rural environment, it's different. If your house burns down then it probably doesn't affect anyone else, so it's up to you whether you bother trying to salvage it.
False analogy. All of those services protect or serve the country in one form or another.
We don't pay welfare because we're altruists, we pay it because it benefits us directly. Fewer people close to starvation means less crime. Those of us who own stuff that we'd rather not have stolen are generally in favour of reducing the number of people who feel that they have nothing to lose.
UBI at a sensible rate would mean that no one would be in danger of starvation or homelessness from not working. This, in turn, would mean that individuals would be a stronger bargaining position with respect to companies when it came to hiring: you'd work to afford luxuries, not to afford to live.
I'd expect that any UBI proposal that balanced the books would result in a noticeable decrease in my net income, but I'd still consider it to be worthwhile as an improvement to the society that I live in.
My guess is that she's hoping to be able to invoke a second referendum once the terms of the proposed deal will be and present the following choices:
We pay money to the EU, have a seat on the council and a bunch of MEPs, and have to abide by the free movement rules and EU regulations.
We pay more money to the EU, have no say in anything, and still have to abide by all of the same rules and regulations.
You'd have to be pretty insane to prefer the second one. Given those choices, I doubt that leave would win. By negotiating the worst possible deal, she's in a good position to hold a second referendum without the leave side being able to promise unrealistic things.
Open source does not mean that it has to be community developed. It means that the customer (the part of the government paying for it) must receive a bunch of rights along with the source code, including the rights to modify and distribute the code. On the same front page as this is a story about the Metropolitan Police having 27,000 computers still running Windows XP, which has known remotely exploitable vulnerabilities. The biggest reason for companies sticking with old versions of Windows is that they have some bit of software that doesn't work with Windows 7 and doesn't have updates. If a branch of the government has some open source software that doesn't work with their new OS, then it's 'just' a matter of cost to fix. They won't have problems where the original supplier has gone out of business, or isn't interested in producing a new version, or wants to sell you a different and incompatible product. They can always pay someone to port the code to the new OS, and then decide whether it's cheaper to do that than to migrate to a different system.
The entire reason for DRM is an attempt to prop up a business model that makes absolutely no sense. Producing a creative work is hard. Copying a creative work is trivial. We've created entire industries around the idea of creating works for free and then charging people for copies of them. That sort-of worked back when copying was difficult (when a printing press was hugely expensive and before that when books had to be copied by hand) but it's been increasingly difficult to make work. The correct solution to the problem is to move the payment to the difficult bit of the process, not to try to make the easy bit difficult.
I recently bought the boxed set of Stargate SG-1. Everything was fine until I got to Season 6, which had some copy protection that meant that about 4 minutes into each episode it would jump back to the menu. I found a bunch of documentation about the company responsible and their approach works by putting out-of-range indexes into some of the header fields in the stream. Most players simply ignore these values, but it crashed mine. I'd be very happy if almost-DVD-but-violates-the-spec-and-may-randomly-break-because-we-hate-paying-customers disks had to be labelled differently to DVDs.
Oh, and the worst part about this: the only way that I could watch Season 6 was to rip the DVDs. Great job with 'copy protection' guys!
It may be a full version of XP, but if you have a shared folder and a shared clipboard, but no network access for the VM, it's useable and a lot safer than having XP directly attached to a network.
Because you do not have the same translation layer at all. Cygwin translates POSIX library calls into Win32 library calls, which then invoke Windows system calls, which then implement the required functionality using Windows NT kernel services. In contrast, this implements Linux system calls using Windows NT kernel services. Translation is only happening in the same sense that the Windows NT kernel translates from kernel32.dll-issued system calls into its internal services. If you don't think that this is a significant difference, consider how fork() will be implemented by both.
It's a shame that the AC post is currently scored at 0. I came to post the same thing. Look at what the museum in Cambridge does: it's very popular with children and is also educational.
That's not really a good way of thinking about it. A syscall layer translates from some public API into a set of internal calls used by the kernel. Windows provides a few syscall layers already (32- and 64-bit versions of the Windows system call layers, at the very least and others depending on the version of Windows that you're using). This provides another that translates from the Linux system calls.
It's exactly the same as FreeBSD's Linux syscall layer (and Linux's various SysV and so on syscall layers). Win64 is a higher-level set of APIs (the Windows syscall interfaces are not very documented and you're strongly discouraged from using them), this is not translating them into Win64, it's using the same kernel services that it uses to implement the syscall interfaces used by kernel32.dll to implement the Linux syscalls. Oh, and there's also an ELF loader.
Does the fact that the games are online make a difference? Was this something that they controlled for at all? Do people who play single-player games not see the same benefit? If not, then their conclusion that it's related to puzzle-solving practice seems misplaced. If so, then why is the article focusing on online game playing?
While true, that's a vanishingly small proportion of them. How many people in their 20s and 30s are building the technology that everyone will be using in the 2050s?
There's also likely to be a lot of survivor bias, even if the reporting is accurate. If you work for 30 years in an industry that changes buzzwords every 18 months and major parts of the core technology every 10 years, then you have to be good at adapting to change - if you're not then you probably didn't stay in the industry that long. 20 years ago, pre-.NET Visual Basic was one of the most in-demand skills for business software, along with ActiveX and a bunch of related things. Now most people don't even remember what those were. Most UNIX systems either didn't support threads or, if they did, had their own proprietary threading APIs - if you wanted parallelism, that's what fork() was for. Someone in that environment who had marketable skills 20 years ago, and still has marketable skills today, has seen and adapted to a lot of changes. The ones that couldn't handle it moved into the management track.
I really hope that the law that they're citing is as badly worded as they claim, because if it is then then that would mean that any elected official who voted for invading Iraq or Syria could be prosecuted for 'providing material support or resources for acts of international terrorism' (after all, we saw a lot more terrorists recruited as a result of the US participation in both). Find a partisan judge and bring a private prosecution against someone in the other party...
The second point doesn't make a difference. If your clients support certificate transparency, then they will publish any server certs that they come across. It doesn't matter what the cert is. The real point, however, is that if the machine should not be routable from outside of your network, then you should not make it routable from off your network. Assuming that the hostname (or IP) is secret is silly.
Most people don't realise quite how much further the Moon is from where most artificial satellites live. The BBC has a nice demonstration. The edge of space is generally regarded as about 100km, ISS is at 420km. Hubble at 570km. LEO ends at about 2000km and Earth is still exerting a gravitational pull on you there that's about half as strong as on the ground, so you still need half as much energy to go 1m higher than you did on the ground and you need to have lifted all of the fuel to that height already. GPS satellites are at around 20,200km. Communication satellites are at 35,800km - geosync orbit. Getting satellites up there is really expensive (at least $50k/kg) and there are very few organisations that have the capacity to do it. The Moon is up at 384,000km, over 10 times the distance to geosynchronous orbit. Now, the pull of gravity follows an inverse square law and so falls off quite quickly above geosync, and you get a bit of help from the Moon (you do a transfer orbit and get captured by the Moon), but it's still very hard. There's a reason that only a tiny number of people have ever been to the Moon.
Even getting something to the point where it could launch a harpoon that would unfurl a flag on the Moon is insanely hard. I'd be very surprised if a company that has about a 50% chance of its short-range missiles exploding on the launchpad and has only just managed to put something vaguely in LEO (and not in its intended orbit) would be able to get there in 10 years.
Slashdot Mirror
Goto is the wrong tool for that, but C lacks break n and continue n control structures, so goto is all that you have.
NASA is one of the largest users of Ada, so I'd dispute your claim there.
Most encryption algorithms can't be broken. Most implementations of encryption algorithms can be broken with sufficient effort. Almost any implementation of an encryption algorithm is vulnerable when running on a compromised OS. It doesn't matter how good your encryption is if the OS can steal the keys.
You missed Netflix. Around 30% of US Internet traffic originates from Netflix OpenConnect appliances, which use FreeBSD.
and it's tough shit if you used a debit card
In the UK and, I believe, the rest of the EU, debit card payments are protected under the same guarantees as credit card. You can also take the company to the small claims court. The only company that I've dealt with that's made me even consider going to this length was Dell. Apple, for example, replaced a battery for me out of warranty because it had not survived the number of charge cycles that their advertising claimed and I mentioned the Sale of Goods Act (now replaced by stronger protections in the Consumer Rights Act). I've never had a brick-and-mortar store refuse a refund within the allowed period.
UBI has different incentives. Disability payments often stop if you demonstrate that you are able to work, so if you manage to get a part-time job then your income goes down. With UBI, there is no means testing and so every hour that you work increases your net income. That's a very different incentive structure.
You missed a key word in the parent post: net. You don't have to increase everyone's net income by $10k, you need to increase everyone's gross income by $10k. You then shift the tax thresholds around so that people whose gross income is $10k pay no tax (there's no point - the government would just be paying itself), people who earn more than that start paying a little and pay progressively more. People who are currently on the sort of educated middle class income as most /. posters will end up paying a bit more, people with huge net incomes will end up paying a lot more (though, hopefully, not enough to make a noticeable difference to their standard of living).
If your house catches fire anywhere then the odds are that the fire brigade won't do anything to save it. Between the fire, smoke, and water damage, your recourse is mostly to insurance if the fire is bad enough to need to call them out. The fire brigade will come to save your neighbours' houses. In a city, if one house catches fire then the one next door probably will too and soon you've got London 1666. You pay taxes to fund a municipal fire brigade because you don't want someone else's house fire to reduce your street to ash.
In a rural environment, it's different. If your house burns down then it probably doesn't affect anyone else, so it's up to you whether you bother trying to salvage it.
False analogy. All of those services protect or serve the country in one form or another.
We don't pay welfare because we're altruists, we pay it because it benefits us directly. Fewer people close to starvation means less crime. Those of us who own stuff that we'd rather not have stolen are generally in favour of reducing the number of people who feel that they have nothing to lose.
UBI at a sensible rate would mean that no one would be in danger of starvation or homelessness from not working. This, in turn, would mean that individuals would be a stronger bargaining position with respect to companies when it came to hiring: you'd work to afford luxuries, not to afford to live.
I'd expect that any UBI proposal that balanced the books would result in a noticeable decrease in my net income, but I'd still consider it to be worthwhile as an improvement to the society that I live in.
You'd have to be pretty insane to prefer the second one. Given those choices, I doubt that leave would win. By negotiating the worst possible deal, she's in a good position to hold a second referendum without the leave side being able to promise unrealistic things.
Open source does not mean that it has to be community developed. It means that the customer (the part of the government paying for it) must receive a bunch of rights along with the source code, including the rights to modify and distribute the code. On the same front page as this is a story about the Metropolitan Police having 27,000 computers still running Windows XP, which has known remotely exploitable vulnerabilities. The biggest reason for companies sticking with old versions of Windows is that they have some bit of software that doesn't work with Windows 7 and doesn't have updates. If a branch of the government has some open source software that doesn't work with their new OS, then it's 'just' a matter of cost to fix. They won't have problems where the original supplier has gone out of business, or isn't interested in producing a new version, or wants to sell you a different and incompatible product. They can always pay someone to port the code to the new OS, and then decide whether it's cheaper to do that than to migrate to a different system.
The entire reason for DRM is an attempt to prop up a business model that makes absolutely no sense. Producing a creative work is hard. Copying a creative work is trivial. We've created entire industries around the idea of creating works for free and then charging people for copies of them. That sort-of worked back when copying was difficult (when a printing press was hugely expensive and before that when books had to be copied by hand) but it's been increasingly difficult to make work. The correct solution to the problem is to move the payment to the difficult bit of the process, not to try to make the easy bit difficult.
I recently bought the boxed set of Stargate SG-1. Everything was fine until I got to Season 6, which had some copy protection that meant that about 4 minutes into each episode it would jump back to the menu. I found a bunch of documentation about the company responsible and their approach works by putting out-of-range indexes into some of the header fields in the stream. Most players simply ignore these values, but it crashed mine. I'd be very happy if almost-DVD-but-violates-the-spec-and-may-randomly-break-because-we-hate-paying-customers disks had to be labelled differently to DVDs.
Oh, and the worst part about this: the only way that I could watch Season 6 was to rip the DVDs. Great job with 'copy protection' guys!
It may be a full version of XP, but if you have a shared folder and a shared clipboard, but no network access for the VM, it's useable and a lot safer than having XP directly attached to a network.
Because you do not have the same translation layer at all. Cygwin translates POSIX library calls into Win32 library calls, which then invoke Windows system calls, which then implement the required functionality using Windows NT kernel services. In contrast, this implements Linux system calls using Windows NT kernel services. Translation is only happening in the same sense that the Windows NT kernel translates from kernel32.dll-issued system calls into its internal services. If you don't think that this is a significant difference, consider how fork() will be implemented by both.
It's a shame that the AC post is currently scored at 0. I came to post the same thing. Look at what the museum in Cambridge does: it's very popular with children and is also educational.
That's not really a good way of thinking about it. A syscall layer translates from some public API into a set of internal calls used by the kernel. Windows provides a few syscall layers already (32- and 64-bit versions of the Windows system call layers, at the very least and others depending on the version of Windows that you're using). This provides another that translates from the Linux system calls.
It's exactly the same as FreeBSD's Linux syscall layer (and Linux's various SysV and so on syscall layers). Win64 is a higher-level set of APIs (the Windows syscall interfaces are not very documented and you're strongly discouraged from using them), this is not translating them into Win64, it's using the same kernel services that it uses to implement the syscall interfaces used by kernel32.dll to implement the Linux syscalls. Oh, and there's also an ELF loader.
Does the fact that the games are online make a difference? Was this something that they controlled for at all? Do people who play single-player games not see the same benefit? If not, then their conclusion that it's related to puzzle-solving practice seems misplaced. If so, then why is the article focusing on online game playing?
While true, that's a vanishingly small proportion of them. How many people in their 20s and 30s are building the technology that everyone will be using in the 2050s?
There's also likely to be a lot of survivor bias, even if the reporting is accurate. If you work for 30 years in an industry that changes buzzwords every 18 months and major parts of the core technology every 10 years, then you have to be good at adapting to change - if you're not then you probably didn't stay in the industry that long. 20 years ago, pre-.NET Visual Basic was one of the most in-demand skills for business software, along with ActiveX and a bunch of related things. Now most people don't even remember what those were. Most UNIX systems either didn't support threads or, if they did, had their own proprietary threading APIs - if you wanted parallelism, that's what fork() was for. Someone in that environment who had marketable skills 20 years ago, and still has marketable skills today, has seen and adapted to a lot of changes. The ones that couldn't handle it moved into the management track.
I really hope that the law that they're citing is as badly worded as they claim, because if it is then then that would mean that any elected official who voted for invading Iraq or Syria could be prosecuted for 'providing material support or resources for acts of international terrorism' (after all, we saw a lot more terrorists recruited as a result of the US participation in both). Find a partisan judge and bring a private prosecution against someone in the other party...
The second point doesn't make a difference. If your clients support certificate transparency, then they will publish any server certs that they come across. It doesn't matter what the cert is. The real point, however, is that if the machine should not be routable from outside of your network, then you should not make it routable from off your network. Assuming that the hostname (or IP) is secret is silly.
Actually, their plan is to make planting the flag easier by bringing the Moon to North Korea.
Even getting something to the point where it could launch a harpoon that would unfurl a flag on the Moon is insanely hard. I'd be very surprised if a company that has about a 50% chance of its short-range missiles exploding on the launchpad and has only just managed to put something vaguely in LEO (and not in its intended orbit) would be able to get there in 10 years.