"Given that every single way to compromise security involves bad input, it's not surprising that it's in a security magazine."
What about program bugs that are not input related? If a program breaks when an internal timer overflows for example, or accessing a section of memory that has been deallocated. Such bugs can easily cause breaches in security as well as general system failure, all without any human intervention. It reminds me of the black out that Sterling mentions:
The recommendations on dividing the program into unsecure and secure binaries to handle setuid access in GUI's can very properly be extrapolated to non-graphical programs. This is a very good strategy for allowing relatively wild programs access to important facilities and can involve many types of IPC including memory-mapped files (with proper protection) and sockets. To really secure a client program that needs access to criticals, put it in a chroot jail and have it communicate with an outside process through (e.g.) a socket. Separating programs into safe and unsafe sections and applying different security techinques to each is far more effective, imo, than trying to secure a single, large application. It can also provide many other benefits of encapsulation, etc. The security onus shifts to handling client requests in the secure section which is usually much more easy to do.
It is part of the U.S. effort to prevent reunification of South and North Korea. If it was not for pressure from the U.S., Korea would have been reunified more than 50 years ago. Alas, they are the communist bogeyman and the enemies of fascists. What politics did our allies who took Berlin have? Not those of the capitalist who continue to use military might to oppress the world.
I think the attacks on the WTC are completely reprehensible and should be condemned universally. I also believe that when a military force kills thousands of civilians by 'accident' in their rush to accomplish military objective that is also a terrible occurrence. I even believe that a soldier killing another soldier is generally wrong and tragic. I would wager that more than 99% of all military casualties are inflicted by attackers who did not have any prior personal relationship with their target. I believe that aggressive violence is cruel, unjust, uncivil, and unethical regardless of how it is couched semantically or politically.
What I would point out about the WTC attacks is that they were not targeted towards a random place or even a place known for its high population. It was an attack on the Western economic forces which have been viewed as being largely inextricable from aggressive Western policies towards the some Middle East governments such as those advocated by the neo-conservatives. The military, economic, and political interests of the United States are so intertwined that the attack on the WTC was a strategic move against many aspects of the West that radical Middle Easterns were hostile towards.
In this way, it was rather like the U.S. invasion of Iraq: an aggressive action generalizing towards the furthering many U.S. aims in the region (viz. Project for the New American Century).
Considering that the 9-11 attacks were directed towards targets of strategic importance economically and governmentally, were the attackers freedom fighters? If the civilians are seen as participating in activities counter to the attackers goals, is attacking them a terrorist activity? For example, would threatening or killing civilian informants to the Gestapo be terrorism? Terrorists nearly always have political goals that they are trying to acheive. Whether they are "freedom fighters" or "terrorists" is not a very objective decision. As an aside, the concept that typical intergovernment war is more legitimate than violence without government sanction is bereft of ethicalness.
I think that the chief reason that such a graft would not work is because Cannabis and Nicotiana are of dissimilar geneologies. Nicotiana and Lycopersicon are sibling genera of the Solanceae (Deadly Nightshade; Belladonna) family. As noted in child posts, Humulus (Hops) are the only other genus in Cannabis' family and do, in fact, allow viable grafts. Warmke and Davidson claimed that this allowed plants which looked like hops to be rich in THC, but, this was later disproven by Crombie and Crombie. In regard to a later note, alcohol is an effective solvent for THC and other cannabinols and a 'hemp' beer is marketed in some countries.
"This issue is not what absolutes constitute good or evil, but that such absolutes exist."
If the existence of absolutes is important, then why not what those absolutes are? Furthermore, how do you know that the absolutes exist if you do not know what they constitute? I think that it should be obvious that nearly any specific act (rather than intention) that is 'good' in one context can be 'bad' if in the 'wrong' context. If instead of actions, we consider criteria as being absolute, most criteria is also not absolutely to be valued: is at always right to collect green M&Ms, make money, or even live? Only by finally going to the general rule of, 'always doing what is right', do we find a solid absolute for good. Unfortunately, it is solid because it is tautological. I'm not suggesting that it is not worthwhile to do what is good, but, that good is truly a dynamic and complex idea. Furthermore, what is most appropriate and good for one may result in something other than good for another. And, what's more, how about the importance of perceived good. If a person is disappointed that they cannot eat the last cracker, even it does not matter to the values of the eater, than is it not necessarily bad? Ethics are so much more complicated than an absolutist view can allow.
He did not limit his comment to genocides, as the article you reference does. Also, several dictators who were responsible for those genocides (such as Pol Pot), where supported by the U.S. The "tyrannical leader", Ho Chi Minh was devoted to the independence of his country and was very popular among his people.
The U.S. did firebomb Tokyo and killed hundreds of thousands of people. What you right-wingers aren't picking up on in your comparisons with Nazi Germany is that it is that the U.S. is acting very much as the Nazi's did. The U.S. is sliding towards fascism and it is through the same method as with Germany: propaganda. Is the statement that "[terrorists] hate freedom" as the motivation for guerrilla resistance anything other than propaganda? Who do you think has more ties to Osama, Saddam or George? I am astonished at the lack of critical thinking, democracy, and independence of the American public.
I feel really skeptical about your times. 730 megabytes of source code is absolutely huge. If we used the a very large average line size of 40 bytes, that would be 18.25 MLOC. I simply do not believe that you compiled 18.25 MLOC of code in 9 minutes, nor 45 minutes. Please explain. I have a feeling that the actual amount of code being compiled is _FAR_, _FAR_ less than 730 MB.
You can make programs much more size and memory efficient by not using standard libraries; use system calls instead. There are smaller standard libraries around, too, like dietlib and uclibc. The netbsd libraries are also reasonably small -- compiling statically yields programs that are more than a magnitude smaller than programs statically linked with glibc.
I go over system call binaries on Darwin here: <a href="http://dom.neopoleon.com/Permalink.aspx/4e48 d9dd-4c28-4b89-a8e5-8cb158da44c3">http://dom.neopo leon.com/Permalink.aspx/4e48d9dd-4c28-4b89-a8e5-8c b158da44c3</a>
Doing this is covered in Linux here: <a href="http://linuxassembly.org">http://linuxassemb ly.org</a>
Slashdot Mirror
"Given that every single way to compromise security involves bad input, it's not surprising that it's in a security magazine."
What about program bugs that are not input related? If a program breaks when an internal timer overflows for example, or accessing a section of memory that has been deallocated. Such bugs can easily cause breaches in security as well as general system failure, all without any human intervention. It reminds me of the black out that Sterling mentions:
http://www.lysator.liu.se/etexts/hacker/crashing.The recommendations on dividing the program into unsecure and secure binaries to handle setuid access in GUI's can very properly be extrapolated to non-graphical programs. This is a very good strategy for allowing relatively wild programs access to important facilities and can involve many types of IPC including memory-mapped files (with proper protection) and sockets. To really secure a client program that needs access to criticals, put it in a chroot jail and have it communicate with an outside process through (e.g.) a socket. Separating programs into safe and unsafe sections and applying different security techinques to each is far more effective, imo, than trying to secure a single, large application. It can also provide many other benefits of encapsulation, etc. The security onus shifts to handling client requests in the secure section which is usually much more easy to do.
It is part of the U.S. effort to prevent reunification of South and North Korea. If it was not for pressure from the U.S., Korea would have been reunified more than 50 years ago. Alas, they are the communist bogeyman and the enemies of fascists. What politics did our allies who took Berlin have? Not those of the capitalist who continue to use military might to oppress the world.
I think the attacks on the WTC are completely reprehensible and should be condemned universally. I also believe that when a military force kills thousands of civilians by 'accident' in their rush to accomplish military objective that is also a terrible occurrence. I even believe that a soldier killing another soldier is generally wrong and tragic. I would wager that more than 99% of all military casualties are inflicted by attackers who did not have any prior personal relationship with their target. I believe that aggressive violence is cruel, unjust, uncivil, and unethical regardless of how it is couched semantically or politically.
What I would point out about the WTC attacks is that they were not targeted towards a random place or even a place known for its high population. It was an attack on the Western economic forces which have been viewed as being largely inextricable from aggressive Western policies towards the some Middle East governments such as those advocated by the neo-conservatives. The military, economic, and political interests of the United States are so intertwined that the attack on the WTC was a strategic move against many aspects of the West that radical Middle Easterns were hostile towards.
In this way, it was rather like the U.S. invasion of Iraq: an aggressive action generalizing towards the furthering many U.S. aims in the region (viz. Project for the New American Century).
Considering that the 9-11 attacks were directed towards targets of strategic importance economically and governmentally, were the attackers freedom fighters? If the civilians are seen as participating in activities counter to the attackers goals, is attacking them a terrorist activity? For example, would threatening or killing civilian informants to the Gestapo be terrorism? Terrorists nearly always have political goals that they are trying to acheive. Whether they are "freedom fighters" or "terrorists" is not a very objective decision. As an aside, the concept that typical intergovernment war is more legitimate than violence without government sanction is bereft of ethicalness.
I think that the chief reason that such a graft would not work is because Cannabis and Nicotiana are of dissimilar geneologies. Nicotiana and Lycopersicon are sibling genera of the Solanceae (Deadly Nightshade; Belladonna) family. As noted in child posts, Humulus (Hops) are the only other genus in Cannabis' family and do, in fact, allow viable grafts. Warmke and Davidson claimed that this allowed plants which looked like hops to be rich in THC, but, this was later disproven by Crombie and Crombie. In regard to a later note, alcohol is an effective solvent for THC and other cannabinols and a 'hemp' beer is marketed in some countries.
"This issue is not what absolutes constitute good or evil, but that such absolutes exist."
If the existence of absolutes is important, then why not what those absolutes are? Furthermore, how do you know that the absolutes exist if you do not know what they constitute? I think that it should be obvious that nearly any specific act (rather than intention) that is 'good' in one context can be 'bad' if in the 'wrong' context. If instead of actions, we consider criteria as being absolute, most criteria is also not absolutely to be valued: is at always right to collect green M&Ms, make money, or even live? Only by finally going to the general rule of, 'always doing what is right', do we find a solid absolute for good. Unfortunately, it is solid because it is tautological. I'm not suggesting that it is not worthwhile to do what is good, but, that good is truly a dynamic and complex idea. Furthermore, what is most appropriate and good for one may result in something other than good for another. And, what's more, how about the importance of perceived good. If a person is disappointed that they cannot eat the last cracker, even it does not matter to the values of the eater, than is it not necessarily bad? Ethics are so much more complicated than an absolutist view can allow.
He did not limit his comment to genocides, as the article you reference does. Also, several dictators who were responsible for those genocides (such as Pol Pot), where supported by the U.S. The "tyrannical leader", Ho Chi Minh was devoted to the independence of his country and was very popular among his people.
The U.S. did firebomb Tokyo and killed hundreds of thousands of people. What you right-wingers aren't picking up on in your comparisons with Nazi Germany is that it is that the U.S. is acting very much as the Nazi's did. The U.S. is sliding towards fascism and it is through the same method as with Germany: propaganda. Is the statement that "[terrorists] hate freedom" as the motivation for guerrilla resistance anything other than propaganda? Who do you think has more ties to Osama, Saddam or George? I am astonished at the lack of critical thinking, democracy, and independence of the American public.
I feel really skeptical about your times. 730 megabytes of source code is absolutely huge. If we used the a very large average line size of 40 bytes, that would be 18.25 MLOC. I simply do not believe that you compiled 18.25 MLOC of code in 9 minutes, nor 45 minutes. Please explain. I have a feeling that the actual amount of code being compiled is _FAR_, _FAR_ less than 730 MB.
You can make you own your own function loader very easily like this: http://dom.neopoleon.com/PermaLink.aspx/e36262bd-a 5a8-43ee-936e-0e68cc905740
Compiling each function into its own .o file to build a normal library is also a way to reduce clumpy library loading.
You can make programs much more size and memory efficient by not using standard libraries; use system calls instead. There are smaller standard libraries around, too, like dietlib and uclibc. The netbsd libraries are also reasonably small -- compiling statically yields programs that are more than a magnitude smaller than programs statically linked with glibc.
8 d9dd-4c28-4b89-a8e5-8cb158da44c3">http://dom.neopo leon.com/Permalink.aspx/4e48d9dd-4c28-4b89-a8e5-8c b158da44c3</a>
b ly.org</a>
I go over system call binaries on Darwin here:
<a href="http://dom.neopoleon.com/Permalink.aspx/4e4
Doing this is covered in Linux here:
<a href="http://linuxassembly.org">http://linuxassem