If I was offered a browser that was able to contain flash or quicktime 0day, I would switch to it in a heartbeat.
This one isn't, thought, not by itself. Simply because the different components have been separated doesn't mean that you can't comporomise a single component - say, flash or quicktime - and use it to take over the system. You need OS kernel level restrictions on what these components can do; that means something like SELinux (or possibly Hurd, if I've understood how it works correctly), but if you have it, why not just restrict the browser itself ?
So of course the MAFIAA does not deserve to receive any of my hard earned money. What. The. Fuck. Are. They. Injecting. Into. Their. Veins.
It's not a matter of what they're injecting into their veins, it's a question of what they'll be injecting into you veins if you don't pay. Well, in civilized countries the penalty is imprisonment with no lethal injections, but this is the United States we're talking about.
While it is strictly speaking the fault of the user that Blizzard is suffering damage, the root cause is the creator and vendor of the tool.
No, the root cause is the undelaying model of WoW: it is impossible to create content fast enough to keep people playing, so Blizzard keeps adding the modern equivalent of mazes in old adventure games, obstacles whose only purpose is to take time. This might not be fatal in itself - for example, mining for resources in Star Control 2 was exciting and fun - but Blizzard has failed utterly to make their speedbumps fun rather than just plain tedious. That is why this program exists: to fix a perceived problem in WoW.
The real-world WoW gold market, leveling services, and this program are all symptoms of Blizzards's failure, not its cause.
Besides, Blizzard isn't "suffering damage", they're at worst losing revenue due to users canceling their subscriptions. It is not illegal for a company to benefit at the expense of another company; and if it is, then the entire foundation of capitalism and market economy needs to be reviewed.
A solved cube is indeed a member of all starting point, and it would be the only member of its set of essentially similar ones
Not true. If by "solved" cube we mean one where each face has only single color, and there are 6 different colors, and we also define two cubes to be in different states if you cannot make one look like the other merely by rotating them in space, then there are multible such solved states.
Assign the colors in the cube numbers from 1 to 6. For conveniences sake we orient the cube so that the side with color 1 is down and whatever color is opposite it is up. Now, any color except 1 could be "up", so that makes 5 different solved states. In each of these states, there are 4 colors left - which we refer to as A, B,C and D - which can be paired in three different ways (A-B and C-D, or A-C and B-D, or A-D and B-C), making 5*3 = 15 different solved states. And finally, the pairs can rotate around the vertical axis of the cube either clockwise or counterclockwise (for example, with the AB and CD pairing, the order can be ACBD or ADBC, when the cube is rotated clockwise and seen from top), making a total of 5*3*2=30 different states.
So, the set of solved states for Rubik's Cube has 30 members. They may or may not be essentially similar - I have no idea what the criteria for that is - but they are different states.
There continue to be links between cell phone use and brain tumors and, though I haven't heard anything recently about power lines, I would not buy a house near high voltage lines.
Assuming that the lines carry a 50-Herz AC, the electromagnetic interference radiation put out by them is also 50 Herz. This translates to a 6,000 km wavelength, and corresponds with the peak radiation put out by an object at 3*10^-13 degree Kelvin temperature. Or, to put it another way: your body's own internal radiation due to its temperature is about 15 orders of magnitude more energetic than the interference from the lines.
In other words, I doubt very much that the power line radiation can affect you in any measurable way.
I couldn't disagree with you more. Libertarianism is just about pure freedom.
Yes. I agree. Libertarianism is about removing all restrictions. And that, because of the human nature, is a really, really, really bad idea.
No matter what system you have, even Communism, there will be people exploiting other people for a profit.
Of course. However, most systems have built-in restrictions limiting this predation. Libertarianism doesn't.
It's human nature to take advantage in certain situations for personal gain. But that's not always a bad thing.
Oh yes it is, for those so taken advantage of. Obviously it is a good thing for the predator, at least as long as he doesn't run into a bigger predator.
Libertarianism, in my view, is the ultimate in taking care of people who need it because it gets rid of the barriers, apathy, etc of government safety nets. It encourages individuals and communities to keep an eye on their local sphere of influence to care for their fellow friend and family member.
The basic advantage of government-run welfare programs are precisely that they are bureuacratic: you either qualify for receiving welfare or you don't, no matter how popular or unpopular you or your opinions might be. If your survival in the event of catastrophe depends on how well-liked and popular you are, then there's a huge chilling effect against holding unpopular views, because you risk ruin if you hold them.
It encourages non-profit, voluntary groups to form to pool resources together so that larger community/societal problems can be funded and solved.
No it doesn't. It's always the rational choice for Joe Freerider to not contribute to such groups, since the degradation in the level of good that comes Joe's way will be less than the gain from having more personal resources available. The only way to avoid this tragedy of the commons is to have a central authority which forces Joe to contribute; in other words, taxation carried out by force if needed.
The people who'd voluntarily pool their resources for common good are those who already do so.
And it does all of this without an elite group making a forceful, very assumptive decision that all taxpayers believe that welfare or something like it is the best way to help the poor (when it clearly is a very inefficient and lethargic way).
As described above, it fails to do so, and even if it doesn't, it creates a huge pressure to conform to the viewpoints of whoever gives the aid, which is bad for the society. Furthermore, you fail to show the inefficiency or "lethargy" in the social security.
So sure, if humans were all unfeeling animals it'd be awful because survival of the fittest, but there are many enlightened, caring individuals out there who do take self initiative to help others voluntarily.
The enlightened, caring individuals are already out there helping. Removing state-sponsored welfare does not make more magically appear.
Besides, we are talking about the richest nations in the world and all of history thus far. It would be utterly shameful to force part of the population to beg for food in the streets, or otherwise depend on the mercy and goodwill of others, never knowing when it might run out. That is an insult to human dignity, and should not be tolerated.
Ron Paul supporters tend to be young, intelligent, and educated white men. IT workers fit this much more than the general population. As to why those people are more likely to support Ron Paul, I'm not sure. I would like to think that any intelligent person would be strictly libertarian but that's obviously not the case.
Libertarianism essentially boils down to the survival of the fittest: with financial safety nets removed, the unfit will starve to death in the streets. This makes confidence in your own fitness - your ability to survive everything life throws on you on your own - a requirement of supporting libertarianism; very few people will support an ideology which they think will result in their deaths.
Youth leads to confidence, even arrogance, mainly because you are still healthy and strong and have been on your own for relatively short time, and thus unlikely to have experienced anything to demonstrate just how frail human beings truly are. Intelligence increase confidence too, but doesn't neccessarily mean that one sees the pitfalls ahead.
Another way of viewing the issue is that libertarianism is a good political system for those who stand a head higher than average, since there's no barriers to them exploiting others in it; and most young, intelligent people certainly think they're above the "sheep". For everyone else - the average and below people - it is a horrible system, because there's nothing stopping the giants from exploiting them.
Yes, I'm a cynical old fart who sees libertarians as just another bunch of selfish creeps out to screw everyone else for profit. Mod me down with all of your hatred, Raynd fanboys, and I shall be completely unaffected; choke on that.
For the record, my personal ideal political system would combine economic safety nets with personal freedom - no, having to pay taxes doesn't mean you're not free. Economy should be regulated as much as is neccessary to ensure that it serves the people (but no more than that). Society should help individuals recover from any personal catastrophes; that means universal state-paid healthcare, education up to and including university level and sufficient unemployment benefit to live on, at the very least. On the other hand, it isn't any of state's business who sleeps with who, travels where, or checks what books out of the library.
The malfunctions I have seen often involve a cycle of about 5 minutes.
I haven't ever seen such a thing. Either the streetlights are dark or they are lit, but I've never seen one one flicker between these two states.
The deliberate cycle I'm talking about is on the order of 15 to 30 minutes, not some constant thing.
It does seem pretty pointless, thought. Either some area is heavily enough traveled that it warrants streelights or it isn't. It's completely pointless to turn them on for 15 minutes and then back off for another 15 minutes.
My lights reflecting off of shop windows and a flashing motel sign are largely irrelevant to staying in my lane and avoiding obstructions.
Such flashes show that there is a window or a motel there. That, in turn, indicates that the road doesn't go there. On a twisting path that gives valuable hints about where the road goes, especially if said flash is straight forward.
Lights 'strobing' between trees are necessarily partitioned off from my lane, so are not worth paying attention to.
Again, this depends from the shape of the road. If you're nearing a 90 degree turn, the lights which are behind the trees now might well be passing you on the opposing line there.
That is a red herring, coerced confessions are not admissible in court.
How do you prove that your signature was given under coercion ? Besides, if you're accused of terrorism, you won't go to court, you go to Guantanamo Bay.
Torture generates a lot of bad leads, interrogators are told what they want to hear.
I believe that was the grandparent's point.
It does, however, raise a question: even if we disregard morality completely, should the use of torture in military interrogation be nonetheless prohibited, because it is very likely to give false data ? I've often heard people debate the use of torture like it was an effective tool for intelligence gathering and the only reasons not to use it would be moral ones, but it seems to me that if its main function is to get the victim confess to tell whatever the interrogator is wanting to hear, then it is useless at best and counterproductive at worst.
who'd want to walk around in any major city center after sundown with no street lights?
I would. If I have to go to a den of thieves, I'd much rather have darkness concealing me than a spotlight shining on me while they lie in wait in the shadows.
When driving at night there are many flashes of light from random headlight reflections, signs, cars cresting hills, etc. away from urban areas, there's the strobe effect of street and headlights behind trees, etc. I've never found any of it to be a problem.
Actually, that precisely is the problem. When it's dark, any random flash signifies something important. You see one and note: "There's something there." If the streetlights flicker on and off randomly, they will contribute noise to your observations, and consequently weaken your situational awareness. Not to mention the havoc they play on your night vision.
Malfunctioning streetlights suddenly go out all the time. I've never heard of it being a problem.
Malfunctioning streetlights are rare (at least where I live), and don't flicker on and off. They go off and stay off.
I can't imagine how peeved and angry at him all his neighbours are, the ones who live right next to him.
Furthermore, it's blinding. I can't see a fucking thing in his back yard. Someone could spend a half hour butchering him with an axe right in the middle of his back lawn, and I betcha NOBODY would see a fucking thing. I couldn't.
So what you're saying is that the problem will propably solve itself sooner or later ?
If you're not shooting for a bottom-of-the-barrel $399-plus-cheese-grater model (in which case, you should be shot) you can generally save money that way, too.
You should be shot if you want a cheap computer ? Good grief !
When I was 17-20 my brother and I owned a house together. We would host daily lan parties, weekend beerfests, and other general mischief.
Think of this from the government's point of view: if people freely associate with each other, and assemble in large groups, they might make friends. If they make friends, they might be more loyal to those friends than to their country. Clearly, then, your LAN parties were a threat to the national security and should be stopped.
Divide and conquer. It's the oldest trick in the book.
Post JB, get people v& for taking the bait. An interesting scheme. Now the FBI is almost as bad as that which it fights. I would almost care, if I didn't think pedos deserve it.
Pedophiles wouldn't be interested in jailbait. A "jailbait" is a sexually mature person who is nonetheless under the age of consent. So none of this has anything to do with pedophiles.
That said, accepting dirty tricks from law enforcement when they're targeted against someone you don't like is extremely dangerous. It confirms the notion that such tricks are, in principle, acceptable in some circumstances. Once this notion has been generated, the specifics of the circumstances can be negotiated - and history shows that they tend to become more general. Today pedophiles, tomorrow picpockets, the day after that you. Especially since you know of 4chan party van, indicating that you have been around in the seedier areas of the Internet - just the kind this program might target.
"Everyone is equal before law" is a good principle, and one which a society based on the rule of law must adopt to function. It's bad enough already that the rich and the powerful are above it; putting some people below it is only going to make a bad situtation worse.
Do you understand the job security you have as an employee of a company? It's *my* job to make sure you continue to have a job.
One of the chief complains in this discussion seems to be that the employers aren't doing that job, and consequently the employees don't have any job security and return this lack of loyalty in kind.
It's my job to work ridiculous hours and be on call for things you can't even imagine. I have to be multi-talented, multi-disciplined, multi-tasking, and multi-personality.
That might be a sign that your company has grown to the point where it needs more management. Having one person be an irraplacable key factor in everything is very risky. What happens if you get ill and can't work for a few days ? Which is likely to happen sooner rather than later if you work "ridiculous hours" and are on call constantly.
I have to understand the nuances of industries that aren't even related to my field.
Knowing more than one industry is always a good idea, especially for a programmer. It's a lot easier to design a program when you have at least some idea of what the end user is actually trying to do. Not to mention it increases your job opportunities.
I spend massive amounts of money and personal time making sure that YOU are able to produce for me without being sidetracked by unrelated issues.
Again, this is a sign that the managerial workload has grown beyond the management personnel. Working too long each day will cause mistakes to be made, and if you're the management, they will likely have nasty consequences. Better get more people and delegate some tasks to them. And, as said previously, it is not a good idea to have all of your eggs in a single basket, even if that basket is yourself.
If I am directly responsible for procuring 100% of the business, and you are responsible for creating a product that retains that business, then I trump you anyday.
If you are directly responsible for procuring 100% of the business, then why do you have employees at all ? If they aren't doing anything to help the company, then what are you paying them for ? And if they are doing something to help the company, then clearly you aren't 100% responsible for procuring the business.
You can look down on the lowly truck driver, storehouse worker or an assembly line drone if you want - it isn't very professional of you, but you can - but the simple truth is that if they stop working, the business will grind to stop a lot sooner than if the upper management stops.
This is what people don't understand: sales *is* hard. If it were easier, you'd get paid more.
If sales is hard, then the employees who "merely" retain the acquired business are likely producing more per work-hour than the ones acquiring more business. So don't overlook them.
If scientists can figure out how to make transistors from this stuff and use it to link those transistors together inside a chip then we might get CPUs which can massively exceed current clock rates.
So rather than just the litium-ion batteries, now laptop owners have to worry about the CPU exploding too. If continues, they will soon qualify as suitcase nukes.
It is not quite as bad as that. It causes problems between two threads, but both threads have to be from the same program.
Actually, no. Two threads will work just fine, because the state of the CPU in its entirety (all flags) is saved and restored at when switching between them - indeed, if it wasn't, simply clearing the flag before using it wouldn't help any, because a task switch can occur between any two instructions, including the one clearing the flag and the one immediately following, which makes use of the now-cleared flag.
No, the problem is in signal handlers, which are the software-level equivalent of interrupts. When a thread receives an signal, and a handler has been registered, it immediately interrupts what it was doing and executes the handler function - or, more precisely, the kernel switches the point of execution to the start of that function. Now, the problem is that the spec says that a certain flag should be cleared whenever a function starts, and he kernel doesn't make sure it is. It didn't matter previously, because the GCC generated code to clear it anyway; however, this is redundant according to the spec, so it was dropped.
So, to sum it up: this has nothing to do with threading and can affect single-threaded programs just fine.
No privilege escalation, only DOS.
This bug could conceivably cause parts of a program's memory be overwritten by the contents of a string. It isn't unthinkable that this might cause foreign code execution attack in the program.
Altought it does seem pretty unlikely that anyone would do string copying in a signal handler...
You will when the local gangsters realize that they can make $250,000 dollars by kidnapping, killing and selling you peacemeal. No need to smuggle drugs or blackmail the local shopowner and no need - indeed, no chance - to leave the victim alive. Just grab some poor soul from the street and to the butcher's shop we go.
Yet Comcast seems intent on making people WANT to regulate them.
Maybe they are. Comcast execs are human too (propably); maybe they are trying to ensure themselves unfiltered access to Net even after they've left those jobs.
Complete nonsequitur. Virgin Galactic is doing absolutely nothing related to airbreathing rocket flight.
As I said, supersonic aircraft flight is the first neccessary step towards airbreathing rockets. If Virgin Galactic is doing something related to supersonic aircrafts, it is doing something related to airbreathing rockets. An airbreathing rocket is indistinguishable from a hypersonic airbreathing aircraft.
The only supersonic aircrafts currently in service are the military ones, and the design goals there are quite different from civilian ones. A supersonic civilian aircraft would be a huge step forward.
More interesting than the bug itself is this discussion from lwn.net:
I think you got it backward. I claim it's standard because Linux does it that way. Linux is what violates the prescribed standard.
I also didn't state the de facto standard as precisely as I could have, because Linux clearly should change to clear the DF flag. But Gcc should continue to clear it too, because old Linux exists.
That guy is claiming that GCC should produce sub-optimal code rather than best possible within standards just to work around a Linux bug, and one where the patch is both trivial and already exists on top of that. Seriously, WTF ?
Slashdot Mirror
This one isn't, thought, not by itself. Simply because the different components have been separated doesn't mean that you can't comporomise a single component - say, flash or quicktime - and use it to take over the system. You need OS kernel level restrictions on what these components can do; that means something like SELinux (or possibly Hurd, if I've understood how it works correctly), but if you have it, why not just restrict the browser itself ?
It's not a matter of what they're injecting into their veins, it's a question of what they'll be injecting into you veins if you don't pay. Well, in civilized countries the penalty is imprisonment with no lethal injections, but this is the United States we're talking about.
No, the root cause is the undelaying model of WoW: it is impossible to create content fast enough to keep people playing, so Blizzard keeps adding the modern equivalent of mazes in old adventure games, obstacles whose only purpose is to take time. This might not be fatal in itself - for example, mining for resources in Star Control 2 was exciting and fun - but Blizzard has failed utterly to make their speedbumps fun rather than just plain tedious. That is why this program exists: to fix a perceived problem in WoW.
The real-world WoW gold market, leveling services, and this program are all symptoms of Blizzards's failure, not its cause.
Besides, Blizzard isn't "suffering damage", they're at worst losing revenue due to users canceling their subscriptions. It is not illegal for a company to benefit at the expense of another company; and if it is, then the entire foundation of capitalism and market economy needs to be reviewed.
Not true. If by "solved" cube we mean one where each face has only single color, and there are 6 different colors, and we also define two cubes to be in different states if you cannot make one look like the other merely by rotating them in space, then there are multible such solved states.
Assign the colors in the cube numbers from 1 to 6. For conveniences sake we orient the cube so that the side with color 1 is down and whatever color is opposite it is up. Now, any color except 1 could be "up", so that makes 5 different solved states. In each of these states, there are 4 colors left - which we refer to as A, B,C and D - which can be paired in three different ways (A-B and C-D, or A-C and B-D, or A-D and B-C), making 5*3 = 15 different solved states. And finally, the pairs can rotate around the vertical axis of the cube either clockwise or counterclockwise (for example, with the AB and CD pairing, the order can be ACBD or ADBC, when the cube is rotated clockwise and seen from top), making a total of 5*3*2=30 different states.
So, the set of solved states for Rubik's Cube has 30 members. They may or may not be essentially similar - I have no idea what the criteria for that is - but they are different states.
Assuming that the lines carry a 50-Herz AC, the electromagnetic interference radiation put out by them is also 50 Herz. This translates to a 6,000 km wavelength, and corresponds with the peak radiation put out by an object at 3*10^-13 degree Kelvin temperature. Or, to put it another way: your body's own internal radiation due to its temperature is about 15 orders of magnitude more energetic than the interference from the lines.
In other words, I doubt very much that the power line radiation can affect you in any measurable way.
Yes. I agree. Libertarianism is about removing all restrictions. And that, because of the human nature, is a really, really, really bad idea.
Of course. However, most systems have built-in restrictions limiting this predation. Libertarianism doesn't.
Oh yes it is, for those so taken advantage of. Obviously it is a good thing for the predator, at least as long as he doesn't run into a bigger predator.
The basic advantage of government-run welfare programs are precisely that they are bureuacratic: you either qualify for receiving welfare or you don't, no matter how popular or unpopular you or your opinions might be. If your survival in the event of catastrophe depends on how well-liked and popular you are, then there's a huge chilling effect against holding unpopular views, because you risk ruin if you hold them.
No it doesn't. It's always the rational choice for Joe Freerider to not contribute to such groups, since the degradation in the level of good that comes Joe's way will be less than the gain from having more personal resources available. The only way to avoid this tragedy of the commons is to have a central authority which forces Joe to contribute; in other words, taxation carried out by force if needed.
The people who'd voluntarily pool their resources for common good are those who already do so.
As described above, it fails to do so, and even if it doesn't, it creates a huge pressure to conform to the viewpoints of whoever gives the aid, which is bad for the society. Furthermore, you fail to show the inefficiency or "lethargy" in the social security.
The enlightened, caring individuals are already out there helping. Removing state-sponsored welfare does not make more magically appear.
Besides, we are talking about the richest nations in the world and all of history thus far. It would be utterly shameful to force part of the population to beg for food in the streets, or otherwise depend on the mercy and goodwill of others, never knowing when it might run out. That is an insult to human dignity, and should not be tolerated.
Libertarianism essentially boils down to the survival of the fittest: with financial safety nets removed, the unfit will starve to death in the streets. This makes confidence in your own fitness - your ability to survive everything life throws on you on your own - a requirement of supporting libertarianism; very few people will support an ideology which they think will result in their deaths.
Youth leads to confidence, even arrogance, mainly because you are still healthy and strong and have been on your own for relatively short time, and thus unlikely to have experienced anything to demonstrate just how frail human beings truly are. Intelligence increase confidence too, but doesn't neccessarily mean that one sees the pitfalls ahead.
Another way of viewing the issue is that libertarianism is a good political system for those who stand a head higher than average, since there's no barriers to them exploiting others in it; and most young, intelligent people certainly think they're above the "sheep". For everyone else - the average and below people - it is a horrible system, because there's nothing stopping the giants from exploiting them.
Yes, I'm a cynical old fart who sees libertarians as just another bunch of selfish creeps out to screw everyone else for profit. Mod me down with all of your hatred, Raynd fanboys, and I shall be completely unaffected; choke on that.
For the record, my personal ideal political system would combine economic safety nets with personal freedom - no, having to pay taxes doesn't mean you're not free. Economy should be regulated as much as is neccessary to ensure that it serves the people (but no more than that). Society should help individuals recover from any personal catastrophes; that means universal state-paid healthcare, education up to and including university level and sufficient unemployment benefit to live on, at the very least. On the other hand, it isn't any of state's business who sleeps with who, travels where, or checks what books out of the library.
I haven't ever seen such a thing. Either the streetlights are dark or they are lit, but I've never seen one one flicker between these two states.
It does seem pretty pointless, thought. Either some area is heavily enough traveled that it warrants streelights or it isn't. It's completely pointless to turn them on for 15 minutes and then back off for another 15 minutes.
Such flashes show that there is a window or a motel there. That, in turn, indicates that the road doesn't go there. On a twisting path that gives valuable hints about where the road goes, especially if said flash is straight forward.
Lights 'strobing' between trees are necessarily partitioned off from my lane, so are not worth paying attention to.
Again, this depends from the shape of the road. If you're nearing a 90 degree turn, the lights which are behind the trees now might well be passing you on the opposing line there.
How do you prove that your signature was given under coercion ? Besides, if you're accused of terrorism, you won't go to court, you go to Guantanamo Bay.
I believe that was the grandparent's point.
It does, however, raise a question: even if we disregard morality completely, should the use of torture in military interrogation be nonetheless prohibited, because it is very likely to give false data ? I've often heard people debate the use of torture like it was an effective tool for intelligence gathering and the only reasons not to use it would be moral ones, but it seems to me that if its main function is to get the victim confess to tell whatever the interrogator is wanting to hear, then it is useless at best and counterproductive at worst.
I would. If I have to go to a den of thieves, I'd much rather have darkness concealing me than a spotlight shining on me while they lie in wait in the shadows.
Actually, that precisely is the problem. When it's dark, any random flash signifies something important. You see one and note: "There's something there." If the streetlights flicker on and off randomly, they will contribute noise to your observations, and consequently weaken your situational awareness. Not to mention the havoc they play on your night vision.
Malfunctioning streetlights suddenly go out all the time. I've never heard of it being a problem.
Malfunctioning streetlights are rare (at least where I live), and don't flicker on and off. They go off and stay off.
Get a dynamo-powered headlight for said bike, and you don't have to.
So what you're saying is that the problem will propably solve itself sooner or later ?
You should be shot if you want a cheap computer ? Good grief !
Think of this from the government's point of view: if people freely associate with each other, and assemble in large groups, they might make friends. If they make friends, they might be more loyal to those friends than to their country. Clearly, then, your LAN parties were a threat to the national security and should be stopped.
Divide and conquer. It's the oldest trick in the book.
Pedophiles wouldn't be interested in jailbait. A "jailbait" is a sexually mature person who is nonetheless under the age of consent. So none of this has anything to do with pedophiles.
That said, accepting dirty tricks from law enforcement when they're targeted against someone you don't like is extremely dangerous. It confirms the notion that such tricks are, in principle, acceptable in some circumstances. Once this notion has been generated, the specifics of the circumstances can be negotiated - and history shows that they tend to become more general. Today pedophiles, tomorrow picpockets, the day after that you. Especially since you know of 4chan party van, indicating that you have been around in the seedier areas of the Internet - just the kind this program might target.
"Everyone is equal before law" is a good principle, and one which a society based on the rule of law must adopt to function. It's bad enough already that the rich and the powerful are above it; putting some people below it is only going to make a bad situtation worse.
One of the chief complains in this discussion seems to be that the employers aren't doing that job, and consequently the employees don't have any job security and return this lack of loyalty in kind.
That might be a sign that your company has grown to the point where it needs more management. Having one person be an irraplacable key factor in everything is very risky. What happens if you get ill and can't work for a few days ? Which is likely to happen sooner rather than later if you work "ridiculous hours" and are on call constantly.
Knowing more than one industry is always a good idea, especially for a programmer. It's a lot easier to design a program when you have at least some idea of what the end user is actually trying to do. Not to mention it increases your job opportunities.
Again, this is a sign that the managerial workload has grown beyond the management personnel. Working too long each day will cause mistakes to be made, and if you're the management, they will likely have nasty consequences. Better get more people and delegate some tasks to them. And, as said previously, it is not a good idea to have all of your eggs in a single basket, even if that basket is yourself.
If you are directly responsible for procuring 100% of the business, then why do you have employees at all ? If they aren't doing anything to help the company, then what are you paying them for ? And if they are doing something to help the company, then clearly you aren't 100% responsible for procuring the business.
You can look down on the lowly truck driver, storehouse worker or an assembly line drone if you want - it isn't very professional of you, but you can - but the simple truth is that if they stop working, the business will grind to stop a lot sooner than if the upper management stops.
If sales is hard, then the employees who "merely" retain the acquired business are likely producing more per work-hour than the ones acquiring more business. So don't overlook them.
So rather than just the litium-ion batteries, now laptop owners have to worry about the CPU exploding too. If continues, they will soon qualify as suitcase nukes.
Actually, no. Two threads will work just fine, because the state of the CPU in its entirety (all flags) is saved and restored at when switching between them - indeed, if it wasn't, simply clearing the flag before using it wouldn't help any, because a task switch can occur between any two instructions, including the one clearing the flag and the one immediately following, which makes use of the now-cleared flag.
No, the problem is in signal handlers, which are the software-level equivalent of interrupts. When a thread receives an signal, and a handler has been registered, it immediately interrupts what it was doing and executes the handler function - or, more precisely, the kernel switches the point of execution to the start of that function. Now, the problem is that the spec says that a certain flag should be cleared whenever a function starts, and he kernel doesn't make sure it is. It didn't matter previously, because the GCC generated code to clear it anyway; however, this is redundant according to the spec, so it was dropped.
So, to sum it up: this has nothing to do with threading and can affect single-threaded programs just fine.
This bug could conceivably cause parts of a program's memory be overwritten by the contents of a string. It isn't unthinkable that this might cause foreign code execution attack in the program.
Altought it does seem pretty unlikely that anyone would do string copying in a signal handler...
You will when the local gangsters realize that they can make $250,000 dollars by kidnapping, killing and selling you peacemeal. No need to smuggle drugs or blackmail the local shopowner and no need - indeed, no chance - to leave the victim alive. Just grab some poor soul from the street and to the butcher's shop we go.
Maybe they are. Comcast execs are human too (propably); maybe they are trying to ensure themselves unfiltered access to Net even after they've left those jobs.
As I said, supersonic aircraft flight is the first neccessary step towards airbreathing rockets. If Virgin Galactic is doing something related to supersonic aircrafts, it is doing something related to airbreathing rockets. An airbreathing rocket is indistinguishable from a hypersonic airbreathing aircraft.
The only supersonic aircrafts currently in service are the military ones, and the design goals there are quite different from civilian ones. A supersonic civilian aircraft would be a huge step forward.
However, one imperial fuckton per one metric assload is the density of Joe Public.
More interesting than the bug itself is this discussion from lwn.net:
That guy is claiming that GCC should produce sub-optimal code rather than best possible within standards just to work around a Linux bug, and one where the patch is both trivial and already exists on top of that. Seriously, WTF ?