I agree that it is probably a marketing thing. It is not enough to build the mousetrap (or in this case write the standard), you have to market it as well...
I personally don't believe in the current XML for everything dogma. I also think that standardizing on descriptions of binary formats is a good thing. ASN.1 seems like a decent idea to me, but there are virtually no free tools available (at least not supporting the more efficient PER encoding).
I also don't think it's quite fair to compare a text editor to an ASN.1 (or similar) aware editor. Writing a text editor is significantly easier.
XML was introduced as a new standard and a lot of new code has been developed to support it. If a binary standard had been introduced instead, the tools required to edit it would not add a lot of additional work. The editor would have been just another part of the standard that platforms would have to adopt to be complient.
It's a nice thought, but it did not work out that way for ASN.1...
That would not change anything, would it? You will still not be able to buy the lottery ticket before the winning numbers have been announced. What good would bouncing the information around do?
Are you stating that the Big Bang occured 1.026 seconds before you posted that message?
If you are going to pick nits about a typo, at least do it properly. 1026 nanoseconds != 1.026 secs. Perhaps you were thinking of milliseconds?
In other words, you've achieved nothing. The issue here is the protocols, NOT passwords. Since these are not unnder the control of users, we should assume that any netwroked resource is insecure by design.
The protocols are not insecure by design... The issue is primarily key management.
Sorry if I've been bitching at advertisers a lot lately, but leave the punning to those who are good at it, please, namely Shakespeare, Groucho Marx, and John Cleese.
And the people in the Weimar republic carrying their grocery money in wheelbarrows... were the authorities stupid? Why didn't they just print much larger denominations?
But they did (pretty large denominations). The problem was that the money you received last month was not worth the paper it was printed on when you needed to use it.
Perhaps you prefer news rather than history? Kabul
2) I doubt the paper money was intended to have "the same value" as gold. That would be $35.00 per ounce (in historic times at least). I think you will find it has rather more value than that. A single bill weighing a small fraction of an ounce is worth, as one example $100.00. You don't like me using dollars as a measure of value? OK, an ounce of gold will buy 35 bags of potato chips, and the much lighter bill will buy 100 bags.
Not "the same value" (as in worth it's weight in gold), that would be silly. One dollar was worth x ounces of gold. As the value of gold fluctuated, the price of gold did not.
That's in terms of withdrawl difficulty. Quitting smoking is actually as difficult as heroin. However, Nicotine is much slower to get addicted to (remember - one goes directly into your bloodstream, the other slowly goes in your airway)
Valid point. I have not seen any figures for how fast or slow you get addicted to nicotine vs heroin
To be fair you should be comparing cigarettes to heroin when smoked though. Or compare both taken intravenously (I don't expect anyone to inject nicotine antime soon...) I think the difference would be mostly dosage anyway. Nicotine will reach your brain within seconds after the first inhalation. The whole purpose of the lungs is to get oxygen into the blood as fast as possible. If there is nicotine (or heroin for that matter) mixed with the air... too bad, it will enter the blood stream as well (less and slightly slower than if injected).
I am not advocating heroin use in any way, shape or form, but it is not true that everyone will become addicted to the drug after trying it once.
Nearly every single person will become physically dependent on heroin the first time they inject it.
Not quite true. New Scientist had a story about a WHO report (can't find a link to it at the moment) that claimed that heroin is about as addictive as nicotine. A heroin addiction will destroy your life much more effectively than a nicotine addiction though...
I smoked quite a few cigarettes in my late teens, never got addicted.
I agree that such an addition to grep could be useful. The reason why I think it would be a bad idea to add the the feature is because it would be language dependent. It would only be useful for grepping text written in english.
Another problem is the sheer number of variations, and where to draw the line as to what should be included. Throw some regexps into the mix and you get one confused tool...
How to interpret the following (simple) example:
grep [f][F]lavour
I disagree on changing grep. If you want to grep for flavor and flavour both, just go "flavou?r".
Adding an option to the compiler would be a *very* bad idea. Compilers lacking the option would not be able to compile the file + adding ambiguity to the compiler is a bad thing.
However, audio is still missing: Quicktime Player tells me it doesn't know the audio codec... still strange...
Most likely because the audio codec is AMR. Don't know if you can find an AMR codec for Quicktime.
Slashdot Mirror
http://home.pacbell.net/ouster/threads.pdf
OO without inheritance and polymorphism is not much fun...
C is *not* a functional languagei =defmore&q=define:functional+language
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&o
Short description of ASN.1:n /0,,sid44_gci213786,00.html/
http://searchsmallbizit.techtarget.com/sDefinitio
I personally don't believe in the current XML for everything dogma. I also think that standardizing on descriptions of binary formats is a good thing. ASN.1 seems like a decent idea to me, but there are virtually no free tools available (at least not supporting the more efficient PER encoding).
I also don't think it's quite fair to compare a text editor to an ASN.1 (or similar) aware editor. Writing a text editor is significantly easier.
It's a nice thought, but it did not work out that way for ASN.1...
That would not change anything, would it? You will still not be able to buy the lottery ticket before the winning numbers have been announced. What good would bouncing the information around do?
It would be quite easy to "guess" the correct name for a large portion of all addresses. Company name would also be quite easy...
The problem then becomes how to explain telekinesis. It does not jive well with physics...
Muahaha! ;-)
I managed to bollocks it up completely! I apologize
Are you stating that the Big Bang occured 1.026 seconds before you posted that message?
If you are going to pick nits about a typo, at least do it properly. 1026 nanoseconds != 1.026 secs. Perhaps you were thinking of milliseconds?
In other words, you've achieved nothing. The issue here is the protocols, NOT passwords. Since these are not unnder the control of users, we should assume that any netwroked resource is insecure by design.
The protocols are not insecure by design... The issue is primarily key management.
The horror... the horror...
If I had a handheld with wireless connectivity, I'd rather have it belonging to a cluster of "real" computers...
Believe it or not, they actually have pictures of the act as well. That's the Internet for you, nothing but pr0n.
Pinball
Hmmm. Aren't honeypots illegal (or in the process of being made illegal)?
Huh? What about The Sun?
But they did (pretty large denominations). The problem was that the money you received last month was not worth the paper it was printed on when you needed to use it.
Perhaps you prefer news rather than history? Kabul
(Sorry about the duplicate AC-post)
Not "the same value" (as in worth it's weight in gold), that would be silly. One dollar was worth x ounces of gold. As the value of gold fluctuated, the price of gold did not.
This is the difference. It is easy to print more money, difficult to create gold.
By backing papermoney with gold, the government can't just create money any which way.
As long as inflation is held in check some other way, the currency doesn't have to be backed by gold.
Valid point. I have not seen any figures for how fast or slow you get addicted to nicotine vs heroin
To be fair you should be comparing cigarettes to heroin when smoked though. Or compare both taken intravenously (I don't expect anyone to inject nicotine antime soon...) I think the difference would be mostly dosage anyway. Nicotine will reach your brain within seconds after the first inhalation. The whole purpose of the lungs is to get oxygen into the blood as fast as possible. If there is nicotine (or heroin for that matter) mixed with the air... too bad, it will enter the blood stream as well (less and slightly slower than if injected).
I am not advocating heroin use in any way, shape or form, but it is not true that everyone will become addicted to the drug after trying it once.
Not quite true. New Scientist had a story about a WHO report (can't find a link to it at the moment) that claimed that heroin is about as addictive as nicotine. A heroin addiction will destroy your life much more effectively than a nicotine addiction though...
I smoked quite a few cigarettes in my late teens, never got addicted.
Another problem is the sheer number of variations, and where to draw the line as to what should be included. Throw some regexps into the mix and you get one confused tool...
How to interpret the following (simple) example:
grep [f][F]lavour
Adding an option to the compiler would be a *very* bad idea. Compilers lacking the option would not be able to compile the file + adding ambiguity to the compiler is a bad thing.
However, audio is still missing: Quicktime Player tells me it doesn't know the audio codec... still strange...
Most likely because the audio codec is AMR. Don't know if you can find an AMR codec for Quicktime.