Like how I'm not anonymous because anyone can trace all posts made by penguinoid? And Anonymous Coward isn't anonymous either, because there's a record of every post they made?
Anyone serious about their anonymity will be careful how they use their Bitcoins.
If you and 7 billion others are dying from an easily curable terminal disease, it really won't matter how shiny the security guards' guns are. (See for example how everyone gets their butts kicked by Afghanistan)
Nah, more likely they'd make getting 50 years of education the new standard, and your children are your dependents until age 50. But you're perfectly free to reproduce if you really want to.
What makes you think this magical treatment (which doesn't exist, and may never exist) will be available to everyone?
Because angry mobs whom you are denying something they need to live, might find some creative ways to convince you to contribute to the general public.
Maybe it would be a better idea for excess spending to follow around those responsible -- eg whoever was of voting age when a deficit spending bill was passed, gets to pay the debt and its interest. And it could be a separate item on their tax, this is how much above other people in your tax bracket you have to pay to pay off that deficit spending you wanted.
Yeah, after what they did to that guy who merely had a pressure cooker in his car, I can't imagine what they'd to to guys dealing with real live anthrax.
I hope they catch those terrorists who were attacking our bases, and giving biological weapons to our enemies. No doubt they'll spend the rest of their lives behind bars.
the indentured servant is 100% true; once you are onboard, you are abused, overworked and treated like shit. they know that you are stuck there. they brought you in FOR that reason, mostly.
Good thing they're not working on something where they can secretly insert a backdoor to get their vengeance later.
If we lived too long, evolution to adapt to the changing environment would be impacted.
Too late! In a couple hundred years, we went from walking around and working the fields all day, to idling in cars and elevators and sitting in a chair all day and with access to more food than we could possibly eat, including artificial food. And in a few more years we'll take that mammalian internal development thing, and probably the much older sperm racing thing, and replace them with selected genes developed in an artificial womb. (Which will also mean no more "must fit through mom's pee hole" limits on brain size.)
And while it is possible for natural selection to act quickly, that only works when there is a huge difference in reproductive capability, which we also got rid of with our low death rates and fairly similar birth rates. And natural selection only works quickly when the needed genes already exist. Odds are, we don't have the genes to deal with unlimited quantities of food, processed and artificial food designed to pander to our taste, globalization of disease, sedentary living, artificial entertainment (entertainment which no longer promotes development of physical and social skills, yet like artificial food "tastes" better than wholesome food), and various other current pending adaptations besides the new ones for the next hundred years of tech.
Fortunately, in a few more years we'll be editing our DNA routinely rather than waiting millions of years for evolution to catch up.
No, irreparable damage. Note that what is irreparable depends on level of technology.
Examples of potentially irreparable damage: DNA damage, oxidative damage, toxin accumulation, damage to extracellular matrix, scarring, changes in gene activity, and more.
Note: Your cell line has lived for about 3,600,000,000 years. The trick to living 3,600,000,000 years is to repair damage faster than it occurs, for example by reproducing cells at sufficient rate that new undamaged material is created faster than damage accumulates.
There's no law that says they can't pad the variable length input to fixed length, then do their "we can only handle fixed length" parsing, then remove the padding. Or that they can't check for variable length and throw a we-were-too-lazy-to-deal-with-this exception. If you make unguaranteed assumptions about user input then you deserve what you get.
Here in Manchester (UK), there are an increasing number of HUGE eye-searingly bright digital displays on buildings, roadsides, on the sides of bridges under which the road passes... They are generally the slightly more upmarket version of the flash ads begging you to click - irritatingly distracting. I find it interesting that whoever grants these licenses would so casually prioritize ad revenue over driver safety. It's almost as if they don't actually care.
Sounds like a case for civil disobedience (eg vandalism for the public good). Save lives, and low risk -- they'd need to get a jury of non-drivers who like advertizements to secure a conviction.
Just to clarify, how would you classify someone who makes statements such as these?: 1) If you don't accede to my political wishes, some very nasty people are going to kill you all. 2) If you don't accede to my political wishes, we will block the whole country's budget. 3) If you don't accede to my political wishes, we will block this very important bill.
Do these not sound very much like "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes"?
And to sanitise the input what process would you need to perform on the input? is it called parsing? and would you need to sanitise the sanitisers parser...
Yes, you could do it with a simpler parser eg delete all non-latin characters from user input because the people who designed our parser were noobs. Or go on a case-by-case basis, this character is used internally for such and such, if user input has this character then put an escape character in front of it or whatever.
For example, a fun gag on a new Linux user is to create a file called " -rf" and ask them to delete it via a command line. If they naively type "rm -rf" then it gets parsed as an option for the rm command rather than a filename. There are, of course, several ways to deal with that sort of thing which involve sanitizing the filename. I suppose it might be even more fun to create a file or directory named " --help & rm -rf $HOME/*". Point being that if you use something internally to execute commands, you'd better be damned sure that user input can't bypass your parser and execute arbitrary commands. It's not an easy thing and if you can't handle it just reject the input that's too complicated for you (eg forbid interesting characters in filenames).
it's a parsing bug, what difference would sanitizing user input make...
Well if your parser can't handle something, it should sanitize input before parsing it. Eg if you use special characters internally to do something, make sure your user input doesn't have those characters in that order unless you want the user to be doing that thing.
Even if you just add something, eg "\ " if spaces do special things, and a user input "\" can be stored internally as "\\".
However you could reorder the natural numbers so that the limit above x(N) -> p, for any p between 0 and 1. So, no, its is not clear that the integers divisible by 10 account for 10% of the integers. In fact that, there are exactly the same number of integers divisible by 10 that there are integers: the mapping n -> 10n provides a bijection.
Nice try but parent is right. The integers divisible by 10 do, in fact, compose 10% of the integers. If you take a random sampling of integers, 10% of them will be divisible by 10. Integers are that much more frequent than integers divisible by 10...
And yes, both the integers and integers divisible by 10 are countably infinite, and thus equal in a sense. Naively, 10% of infinity is infinity.
I suppose you could count 1, 10, 2, 20, 3, 30, 4, 40, 5, 50, 6, 60, 7, 70, 8, 80, 9, 90, 11, 100,... it wouldn't surprise me too much if you can modify the relative frequency of two different infinite sets by rearranging them.
Slashdot Mirror
Now even doctors are spending all their time playing online video games.
Like how I'm not anonymous because anyone can trace all posts made by penguinoid? And Anonymous Coward isn't anonymous either, because there's a record of every post they made?
Anyone serious about their anonymity will be careful how they use their Bitcoins.
If you and 7 billion others are dying from an easily curable terminal disease, it really won't matter how shiny the security guards' guns are. (See for example how everyone gets their butts kicked by Afghanistan)
Nah, more likely they'd make getting 50 years of education the new standard, and your children are your dependents until age 50. But you're perfectly free to reproduce if you really want to.
What makes you think this magical treatment (which doesn't exist, and may never exist) will be available to everyone?
Because angry mobs whom you are denying something they need to live, might find some creative ways to convince you to contribute to the general public.
Or we could cure aging like the disease it is. Then if you still want to die, at least you don't get a crappy decades-long decline.
Maybe it would be a better idea for excess spending to follow around those responsible -- eg whoever was of voting age when a deficit spending bill was passed, gets to pay the debt and its interest. And it could be a separate item on their tax, this is how much above other people in your tax bracket you have to pay to pay off that deficit spending you wanted.
Yeah, after what they did to that guy who merely had a pressure cooker in his car, I can't imagine what they'd to to guys dealing with real live anthrax.
I hope they catch those terrorists who were attacking our bases, and giving biological weapons to our enemies. No doubt they'll spend the rest of their lives behind bars.
the indentured servant is 100% true; once you are onboard, you are abused, overworked and treated like shit. they know that you are stuck there. they brought you in FOR that reason, mostly.
Good thing they're not working on something where they can secretly insert a backdoor to get their vengeance later.
How dare a highly processed food made largely of fats, not be good for you.
If we lived too long, evolution to adapt to the changing environment would be impacted.
Too late! In a couple hundred years, we went from walking around and working the fields all day, to idling in cars and elevators and sitting in a chair all day and with access to more food than we could possibly eat, including artificial food. And in a few more years we'll take that mammalian internal development thing, and probably the much older sperm racing thing, and replace them with selected genes developed in an artificial womb. (Which will also mean no more "must fit through mom's pee hole" limits on brain size.)
And while it is possible for natural selection to act quickly, that only works when there is a huge difference in reproductive capability, which we also got rid of with our low death rates and fairly similar birth rates. And natural selection only works quickly when the needed genes already exist. Odds are, we don't have the genes to deal with unlimited quantities of food, processed and artificial food designed to pander to our taste, globalization of disease, sedentary living, artificial entertainment (entertainment which no longer promotes development of physical and social skills, yet like artificial food "tastes" better than wholesome food), and various other current pending adaptations besides the new ones for the next hundred years of tech.
Fortunately, in a few more years we'll be editing our DNA routinely rather than waiting millions of years for evolution to catch up.
Time
No, irreparable damage. Note that what is irreparable depends on level of technology.
Examples of potentially irreparable damage: DNA damage, oxidative damage, toxin accumulation, damage to extracellular matrix, scarring, changes in gene activity, and more.
Note: Your cell line has lived for about 3,600,000,000 years. The trick to living 3,600,000,000 years is to repair damage faster than it occurs, for example by reproducing cells at sufficient rate that new undamaged material is created faster than damage accumulates.
Potatoes have cellulose too. I demand potato chips.
It's the Slashdot way.
There's no law that says they can't pad the variable length input to fixed length, then do their "we can only handle fixed length" parsing, then remove the padding. Or that they can't check for variable length and throw a we-were-too-lazy-to-deal-with-this exception. If you make unguaranteed assumptions about user input then you deserve what you get.
Here in Manchester (UK), there are an increasing number of HUGE eye-searingly bright digital displays on buildings, roadsides, on the sides of bridges under which the road passes... They are generally the slightly more upmarket version of the flash ads begging you to click - irritatingly distracting. I find it interesting that whoever grants these licenses would so casually prioritize ad revenue over driver safety. It's almost as if they don't actually care.
Sounds like a case for civil disobedience (eg vandalism for the public good). Save lives, and low risk -- they'd need to get a jury of non-drivers who like advertizements to secure a conviction.
It's cute how naive you are. It isn't ignorance.
Just to clarify, how would you classify someone who makes statements such as these?:
1) If you don't accede to my political wishes, some very nasty people are going to kill you all.
2) If you don't accede to my political wishes, we will block the whole country's budget.
3) If you don't accede to my political wishes, we will block this very important bill.
Do these not sound very much like "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes"?
If the NSA had only been spying on terrorists we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
Why would the NSA and CIA be spying on Congress?
terrorism
[ter-uh-riz-uh m]
noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
And to sanitise the input what process would you need to perform on the input? is it called parsing? and would you need to sanitise the sanitisers parser...
Yes, you could do it with a simpler parser eg delete all non-latin characters from user input because the people who designed our parser were noobs. Or go on a case-by-case basis, this character is used internally for such and such, if user input has this character then put an escape character in front of it or whatever.
For example, a fun gag on a new Linux user is to create a file called " -rf" and ask them to delete it via a command line. If they naively type "rm -rf" then it gets parsed as an option for the rm command rather than a filename. There are, of course, several ways to deal with that sort of thing which involve sanitizing the filename. I suppose it might be even more fun to create a file or directory named " --help & rm -rf $HOME/*". Point being that if you use something internally to execute commands, you'd better be damned sure that user input can't bypass your parser and execute arbitrary commands. It's not an easy thing and if you can't handle it just reject the input that's too complicated for you (eg forbid interesting characters in filenames).
Yes, technically there is a way to execute phone specific code with specially crafted text messages.
"Click here to install a puppy screensaver!!!"
It wouldn't be a parsing bug if the parser sanitized its input.
it's a parsing bug, what difference would sanitizing user input make...
Well if your parser can't handle something, it should sanitize input before parsing it. Eg if you use special characters internally to do something, make sure your user input doesn't have those characters in that order unless you want the user to be doing that thing.
Even if you just add something, eg "\ " if spaces do special things, and a user input "\" can be stored internally as "\\".
However you could reorder the natural numbers so that the limit above x(N) -> p, for any p between 0 and 1. So, no, its is not clear that the integers divisible by 10 account for 10% of the integers. In fact that, there are exactly the same number of integers divisible by 10 that there are integers: the mapping n -> 10n provides a bijection.
Nice try but parent is right. The integers divisible by 10 do, in fact, compose 10% of the integers. If you take a random sampling of integers, 10% of them will be divisible by 10. Integers are that much more frequent than integers divisible by 10...
And yes, both the integers and integers divisible by 10 are countably infinite, and thus equal in a sense. Naively, 10% of infinity is infinity.
I suppose you could count 1, 10, 2, 20, 3, 30, 4, 40, 5, 50, 6, 60, 7, 70, 8, 80, 9, 90, 11, 100, ... it wouldn't surprise me too much if you can modify the relative frequency of two different infinite sets by rearranging them.