For some people "deeply disturbing" would be religious content. For others, exposure to Darwin.
It's not for Google to decide what's deeply disturbing. Frankly, to me an Apple advert is deeply disturbing, when they describe iPad 2 as the teacher of the future and as the best toy for toddlers.
It didn't take long to start discussing the definition of a geek.
Any what is the definition? Are you saying that someone who spends all his time sitting in a library and reading every book about insects is not a geek? On the other hand, if you spend all your money and free time trying to build your own wind turbine then you're also a geek.
What is the conclusion? Either there is no definition, or any definition is broad enough to be useless. One thing is clear: Chuck Norris is not a geek.
The point is that you give your card to various people. I'm not sure there's more danger in giving your card to a website than giving your card to Gamestop. Both are using some database, both have employees that would like to cause harm to the business for one reason or another, and both are exposed to other risks (TK Maxx lost details and credit card numbers of customers who shopped in physical shops).
At one point Sony would not let me add credit to my PSN account (yes, I'm one of them), so I bought a gift card online and used it to buy a game. If you asked me a year ago which of them was more likely to lose my details, I would not have said Sony.
I'd like to get a pre-paid credit card to use for online shopping, and top it up occasionally. But who's telling me that the prepaid card company would not be hacked? I'm sure Nintendo have heard of Sony, and yet they were also hacked.
Life is a risky business. We try to minimise the risk, but it doesn't always work. Even if you did say "cash only", there are still enough scams to get people's PINs, and even fake money is not unheard of (I get the occasional forged coin as change).
My Greek teacher used to say: "with a dictionary and a grammar book you can translate anything. Knowing a language means you have to learn by heart nouns and verbs, there's no other way."
However, I have to say that knowing obscure details about programming languages is not the same as using them. Readable, maintainable and straight-forward code that can be understood and changed even under pressure is more valuable than an "optimisation" hack that uses some clever and surprising trick of the language.
That's not to say that it's not important to understand how the language works, but knowing how to structure a large piece of software in a way that doesn't crumble under its own cleverness is much more important.
Come on, these people were programming in the womb, and that's only as a side-hobby for their scientific research into P=NP.
If you come into the world without profound knowledge of at least 5 programming languages, several tree balancing algorithms and intuition for good user interface design, you're pretty much done for - it's cleaning the factory floor for you until you retire.
"I learned to read when I was 4. If you need to go to school for that, reading is probably not for you - didn't you have any curiosity before that about what these symbols mean?"
Ah, the magical "specification to code" machine. Don't you have one?
In my company we're one step beyond that - we believe that writing specifications should not involve any creativity (after all, that could be just as risky as using creativity when coding), so we have a "requirements to tested code" machine. During 2012 this will be upgraded to "rough idea to tested, deployed code". As the resulting code can be nothing but perfect (no creativity involved in any part of the process), you will soon find it in every safety-critical environment.
Now we only have to automate the idea-generation part and we're done.
Absolutely, I'm also in the kindle clan now (but always been physically away from my desk during lunch).
Mr Spolsky can declare whatever he wants, in his standard scientific method of "that's what we do and we're awesome, so it must be great". But my opinion is that a break is a break - not to talk about work while munching, but to be away from work and colleagues and do something else for a while. You get back refreshed for the second half of the day.
Replying to myself, but of course that wouldn't work...
The main problem is keeping the company's public key secure (otherwise I could just take any modified picture and follow the above). But that's impossible, as TFA proves...
Well, they could require an internet connection for getting the pictures out of the camera. Still, you'd have to place a very high value on authenticity (vs. convenience) to use it.
Possible algorithm: 1. Create a random symmetric key 2. Encrypt the picture using this key, and encrypt the key using the owner's public key 3. Create another random symmetric key 4. Encrypt the picture using (again) using this key, and encrypt the key using the company's public key
To extract: 1. You must send each picture to the company (along with the encrypted key) 2. The company decrypts the outer layer, signs the (encrypted) picture and sends it back 3. The inner layer is decrypted on the owner's computer (using her private key to reveal the inner key)
Job done - the company doesn't have access to the picture, yet the encrypted picture is signed. To prove that the picture is authentic - encrypt it using the random key and then verify the signature.
The human race is one huge pyramid scheme that's been going on for too long. Mathematically speaking, this is simply impossible - number of people grows exponentially, resources and jobs shrink exponentially, and I still have food on the table. Astonishing.
GPL: "I'll pimp your ride, but you have to let everyone drive your car if they want to (and post the keys on the internet)" BSD: "I'll pimp your ride, enjoy!"
There are random padding schemes, but nobody's forcing you to use them. You may want to use a random number generator to generate the keys, but again nobody's forcing you to do that. The algorithms themselves have no randomness. RSA is not DSA.
You could take the password, encrypt using RSA and store the result. When the user enters a password, encrypt again with the same key, and you'll get exactly the same result.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's the fourth declension.
For some people "deeply disturbing" would be religious content. For others, exposure to Darwin.
It's not for Google to decide what's deeply disturbing. Frankly, to me an Apple advert is deeply disturbing, when they describe iPad 2 as the teacher of the future and as the best toy for toddlers.
It didn't take long to start discussing the definition of a geek.
Any what is the definition? Are you saying that someone who spends all his time sitting in a library and reading every book about insects is not a geek? On the other hand, if you spend all your money and free time trying to build your own wind turbine then you're also a geek.
What is the conclusion? Either there is no definition, or any definition is broad enough to be useless.
One thing is clear: Chuck Norris is not a geek.
The point is that you give your card to various people. I'm not sure there's more danger in giving your card to a website than giving your card to Gamestop. Both are using some database, both have employees that would like to cause harm to the business for one reason or another, and both are exposed to other risks (TK Maxx lost details and credit card numbers of customers who shopped in physical shops).
At one point Sony would not let me add credit to my PSN account (yes, I'm one of them), so I bought a gift card online and used it to buy a game. If you asked me a year ago which of them was more likely to lose my details, I would not have said Sony.
I'd like to get a pre-paid credit card to use for online shopping, and top it up occasionally. But who's telling me that the prepaid card company would not be hacked? I'm sure Nintendo have heard of Sony, and yet they were also hacked.
Life is a risky business. We try to minimise the risk, but it doesn't always work. Even if you did say "cash only", there are still enough scams to get people's PINs, and even fake money is not unheard of (I get the occasional forged coin as change).
How do you buy the prepaid cards? Cash only?
What's "Netscape"? Is that the new Mosaic?
My Greek teacher used to say: "with a dictionary and a grammar book you can translate anything. Knowing a language means you have to learn by heart nouns and verbs, there's no other way."
However, I have to say that knowing obscure details about programming languages is not the same as using them. Readable, maintainable and straight-forward code that can be understood and changed even under pressure is more valuable than an "optimisation" hack that uses some clever and surprising trick of the language.
That's not to say that it's not important to understand how the language works, but knowing how to structure a large piece of software in a way that doesn't crumble under its own cleverness is much more important.
Duh!
"Antifreeze For Children's Mopeds lobby"?!
That's my LMAO of the day.
Yes, in the past people didn't build castle in swamps. That's why we can still visit castles from the 13th century.
I haven't seen a single castle built in the 21st century. Probably the result of this "Duh science". Back to the swamps, I say.
Apparently if you run a social network application on your computer it makes you worth 50 billion dollars.
Come on, these people were programming in the womb, and that's only as a side-hobby for their scientific research into P=NP.
If you come into the world without profound knowledge of at least 5 programming languages, several tree balancing algorithms and intuition for good user interface design, you're pretty much done for - it's cleaning the factory floor for you until you retire.
"I learned to read when I was 4. If you need to go to school for that, reading is probably not for you - didn't you have any curiosity before that about what these symbols mean?"
Ah, the magical "specification to code" machine. Don't you have one?
In my company we're one step beyond that - we believe that writing specifications should not involve any creativity (after all, that could be just as risky as using creativity when coding), so we have a "requirements to tested code" machine. During 2012 this will be upgraded to "rough idea to tested, deployed code". As the resulting code can be nothing but perfect (no creativity involved in any part of the process), you will soon find it in every safety-critical environment.
Now we only have to automate the idea-generation part and we're done.
Just send your business proposal to my new company, "/dev/null".
Absolutely, I'm also in the kindle clan now (but always been physically away from my desk during lunch).
Mr Spolsky can declare whatever he wants, in his standard scientific method of "that's what we do and we're awesome, so it must be great". But my opinion is that a break is a break - not to talk about work while munching, but to be away from work and colleagues and do something else for a while. You get back refreshed for the second half of the day.
Replying to myself, but of course that wouldn't work...
The main problem is keeping the company's public key secure (otherwise I could just take any modified picture and follow the above). But that's impossible, as TFA proves...
Well, they could require an internet connection for getting the pictures out of the camera.
Still, you'd have to place a very high value on authenticity (vs. convenience) to use it.
Possible algorithm:
1. Create a random symmetric key
2. Encrypt the picture using this key, and encrypt the key using the owner's public key
3. Create another random symmetric key
4. Encrypt the picture using (again) using this key, and encrypt the key using the company's public key
To extract:
1. You must send each picture to the company (along with the encrypted key)
2. The company decrypts the outer layer, signs the (encrypted) picture and sends it back
3. The inner layer is decrypted on the owner's computer (using her private key to reveal the inner key)
Job done - the company doesn't have access to the picture, yet the encrypted picture is signed. To prove that the picture is authentic - encrypt it using the random key and then verify the signature.
I don't think he was trying to be funny. For a long time I've known that IQ "is the thing that IQ tests measure". Nothing more, nothing less.
Why are we trying to find aliens? Any race that gets to the top must be a murderous race, and aliens are no exceptions.
I just hyperextended my elbow and now it's in another dimension!
My feeling exactly. Simply mind boggling.
The human race is one huge pyramid scheme that's been going on for too long. Mathematically speaking, this is simply impossible - number of people grows exponentially, resources and jobs shrink exponentially, and I still have food on the table. Astonishing.
I'm using BASIC, so I only had a problem at run-time.
CRC32 is a much better compression.
GPL: "I'll pimp your ride, but you have to let everyone drive your car if they want to (and post the keys on the internet)"
BSD: "I'll pimp your ride, enjoy!"
There is absolutely no randomness in RSA or AES.
There are random padding schemes, but nobody's forcing you to use them. You may want to use a random number generator to generate the keys, but again nobody's forcing you to do that. The algorithms themselves have no randomness. RSA is not DSA.
You could take the password, encrypt using RSA and store the result. When the user enters a password, encrypt again with the same key, and you'll get exactly the same result.
Same for AES.