Whoa, I'm blown away by the concept that there are compromises that establish a balance of different needs due to budget limitations. That never affects anything but security.
We do. We do all the time. That doesn't mean that every choice made should be with a "Security first, freedom second" attitude. Every situation needs known severe risks addressed, and everything else played by ear. That's just how complex projects work.
I don't feel up to dealing with dissembling of this sort. You said "code a buffer overrun". You can't do that. The end. The JDK ISN'T programmed in java. The applicability of overruns it gets(which are basically impossible to cause with a significantly more complicated exploitation to run arbitrary code first) are irrelevant.
Except the industry has painfully simple solutions to buffer overruns, like, say, almost any programming language developed after 1990 has no risk of buffer overruns.
Computers are inherently instruct-able. That's their power, and that's where all security flaws come form. The underlying problems don't arise out of an industry-wide antipathy. If anything the reality is opposite, the entire industry in quite interested in the fundamentals of security.
The problem lies in the fact that we want to be able to tell computers what to do with a wide assortment of options on each of multiple layers(machine, operating system, high level language, and user application). Every one of those layers necessarily includes things we won't want to do that someone else could want to(i.e. security flaw)
This is like blaming car theft on a general malaise towards car security, when in fact it's a simple matter of cars that don't go wherever the driver wants or only ever accepts one driver is nigh useless.
That meshes well, actually, with a pet(misanthropic) theory(and I don't mean in the scientific sense) of mine, that it takes an IQ of about 120 to really get the basics of science in a whole-cloth kind of way. Less native pattern recognition than that, and pieces don't just naturally fit together as well.
Yeah, I know the attitude is contemptible and ignores the value of effort in trying to understand, and that it doesn't have any sort of objective verification. I fully acknowledge both obvious faults. That's why it's a pet theory and not something I truly believe.
Scissors aren't good enough due to the lack of flat surfaces on the packaging. Even if you do manage to cut off the seal, the edge tends to be jagged and dangerous.
Or maybe you're guilty of poor reading comprehension. I didn't broadly categorize, I said that there was 1. No version of the statement such that:
a. There was a grand total of zero republicans for whom:
i. They would find the statement agreeable.
b. I could formulate it.
No, using poorly thought out limitations on what governments can do is rule of law. Using poorly thought out laws to limit what corporations can do is destroying freedom.
I honestly could not formulate that statement in a way that I feel no republicans would agree with.
1. Americans bailed on the sector when the first big bump in 1998-2000. This left a gap that new trainees never really came in to fill. 2. H1Bs go home. This means the insane over-recruitment of H1B employees had a cost at the end of their terms. 3. There has been, up until 2008, and attitude in the U.S. that any college degree is good enough. My state only graduated 40,000 people from community colleges/trade schools this year. Everyone with higher aspirations just went to a 4 year school. To do less is to view oneself as a failure(and employers do too). 4. Combine that with a culture with a slight distaste for mathematics and science and that's more than enough basic features to explain a discrepancy of this level.
Except the damn order is still wrong. For example, stars in the sky came billions of years before earth. The bible is just plain false, not misunderstood.
Nope, he's still correct. You've outright ignored the changes that have happened in your lifetime, observed and documented. You're a creationist. What you prefer is irrelevant, you accept the "possibility" of a falsehood just because whereas the facts say something different. I don't care if you think you're being open minded, you're just being credulous.
Actually, if you become a citizen of another country, the US considers that an automatic renouncement of citizenship even if the new country doesn't require such. And if you intend to live in the new country for the rest of your life, raise your family there, and participate in governance, that's what you should do. It doesn't mean you hate the US, or even like it less. There's a multitude of reasons that would be a course your life might take, career, love, lifestyle, or lots of other things.
It's not always a rebellion against some injustice. That shouldn't prevent you from visiting your family and friends, hometown, participating in the US's tourism industry, participating in the US economy(you'll be taxed for that, of course), or a host of other benign activities. It SHOULD prevent you from acting like a permanent resident.
Sure, you can add the condition, but you can't retroactively apply it. People who renounce their citizenship from now on can be barred. This guy can't. Seems fair to me.
There was a law specifically prohibiting funding ACORN. It wasn't part of the budget. It wasn't a matter of allocation, it was a matter of assigning a pre-judgement. It would be like passing a law saying " user bussdriver of slashdot can't be allocated a tax rebate from the treasury". It's not legal because it targets an entity without due process. I'm not sure how your conjecture about McCain applies, as that didn't actually, you know, happen.
And your points about corporations being stuck up coddled babies is absolutely true. I don't see what the rightness or wrongness of the choices has to do with what powers we should let our legislators get away with.
Except that we live in a nation of laws, and you can only be judged on laws that existed when you made the potentially illegal choice. Just because you and I feel something is wrong isn't sufficient grounds to punish someone for it. It must also be an established part of the social contract, so that the accused can be aware of the judgement to be given.
It's universally wrong to hold someone accountable to a standard they couldn't know existed.
Slashdot Mirror
Whoa, I'm blown away by the concept that there are compromises that establish a balance of different needs due to budget limitations. That never affects anything but security.
We do. We do all the time. That doesn't mean that every choice made should be with a "Security first, freedom second" attitude. Every situation needs known severe risks addressed, and everything else played by ear. That's just how complex projects work.
I don't feel up to dealing with dissembling of this sort. You said "code a buffer overrun". You can't do that. The end. The JDK ISN'T programmed in java. The applicability of overruns it gets(which are basically impossible to cause with a significantly more complicated exploitation to run arbitrary code first) are irrelevant.
Oh yeah, I've heard that java is such an immature platform that no one ever uses it, and it can't do ANYTHING.
Get over yourself.
Except the industry has painfully simple solutions to buffer overruns, like, say, almost any programming language developed after 1990 has no risk of buffer overruns.
Computers are inherently instruct-able. That's their power, and that's where all security flaws come form. The underlying problems don't arise out of an industry-wide antipathy. If anything the reality is opposite, the entire industry in quite interested in the fundamentals of security.
The problem lies in the fact that we want to be able to tell computers what to do with a wide assortment of options on each of multiple layers(machine, operating system, high level language, and user application). Every one of those layers necessarily includes things we won't want to do that someone else could want to(i.e. security flaw)
This is like blaming car theft on a general malaise towards car security, when in fact it's a simple matter of cars that don't go wherever the driver wants or only ever accepts one driver is nigh useless.
That meshes well, actually, with a pet(misanthropic) theory(and I don't mean in the scientific sense) of mine, that it takes an IQ of about 120 to really get the basics of science in a whole-cloth kind of way. Less native pattern recognition than that, and pieces don't just naturally fit together as well.
Yeah, I know the attitude is contemptible and ignores the value of effort in trying to understand, and that it doesn't have any sort of objective verification. I fully acknowledge both obvious faults. That's why it's a pet theory and not something I truly believe.
Using words without knowing what they mean: you could be a creationist.
Scissors aren't good enough due to the lack of flat surfaces on the packaging. Even if you do manage to cut off the seal, the edge tends to be jagged and dangerous.
Diff is the kind of thing that MOST PROFESSIONALS would benefit from.
Imagine diffing laws from year to year.
I wasn't endorsing the statement. Sarcasm.
I don't think you caught the facetious nature of that part of my post.
Or maybe you're guilty of poor reading comprehension. I didn't broadly categorize, I said that there was
1. No version of the statement such that:
a. There was a grand total of zero republicans for whom:
i. They would find the statement agreeable.
b. I could formulate it.
Hope that helps.
Which part of the statement was confusing? I'm always happy to clarify.
No, using poorly thought out limitations on what governments can do is rule of law. Using poorly thought out laws to limit what corporations can do is destroying freedom.
I honestly could not formulate that statement in a way that I feel no republicans would agree with.
You're right, I wrote the subject first, then the body without reviewing the subject to make sure it made sense. It does not.
1. Americans bailed on the sector when the first big bump in 1998-2000. This left a gap that new trainees never really came in to fill.
2. H1Bs go home. This means the insane over-recruitment of H1B employees had a cost at the end of their terms.
3. There has been, up until 2008, and attitude in the U.S. that any college degree is good enough. My state only graduated 40,000 people from community colleges/trade schools this year. Everyone with higher aspirations just went to a 4 year school. To do less is to view oneself as a failure(and employers do too).
4. Combine that with a culture with a slight distaste for mathematics and science and that's more than enough basic features to explain a discrepancy of this level.
No way. By the time earth had oceans, the atmosphere was almost entirely nitrogen, like today.
Wrong. Order.
Except the damn order is still wrong. For example, stars in the sky came billions of years before earth. The bible is just plain false, not misunderstood.
Nope, he's still correct.
You've outright ignored the changes that have happened in your lifetime, observed and documented. You're a creationist. What you prefer is irrelevant, you accept the "possibility" of a falsehood just because whereas the facts say something different. I don't care if you think you're being open minded, you're just being credulous.
Actually, if you become a citizen of another country, the US considers that an automatic renouncement of citizenship even if the new country doesn't require such. And if you intend to live in the new country for the rest of your life, raise your family there, and participate in governance, that's what you should do. It doesn't mean you hate the US, or even like it less. There's a multitude of reasons that would be a course your life might take, career, love, lifestyle, or lots of other things.
It's not always a rebellion against some injustice. That shouldn't prevent you from visiting your family and friends, hometown, participating in the US's tourism industry, participating in the US economy(you'll be taxed for that, of course), or a host of other benign activities. It SHOULD prevent you from acting like a permanent resident.
Sure, you can add the condition, but you can't retroactively apply it. People who renounce their citizenship from now on can be barred. This guy can't. Seems fair to me.
I'd like to address your misinformation first:
There was a law specifically prohibiting funding ACORN. It wasn't part of the budget. It wasn't a matter of allocation, it was a matter of assigning a pre-judgement. It would be like passing a law saying " user bussdriver of slashdot can't be allocated a tax rebate from the treasury". It's not legal because it targets an entity without due process. I'm not sure how your conjecture about McCain applies, as that didn't actually, you know, happen.
And your points about corporations being stuck up coddled babies is absolutely true. I don't see what the rightness or wrongness of the choices has to do with what powers we should let our legislators get away with.
Except that we live in a nation of laws, and you can only be judged on laws that existed when you made the potentially illegal choice. Just because you and I feel something is wrong isn't sufficient grounds to punish someone for it. It must also be an established part of the social contract, so that the accused can be aware of the judgement to be given.
It's universally wrong to hold someone accountable to a standard they couldn't know existed.
So? The main point is that this is a case of being judged by law, instead of according to law. It's wrong.