What if I use a digital camera to post (non-porn) pics to the web. Later on I send an image from the same camera to the police or the press (to document a crime in progress, such as a cop beating a "suspect"). I wanted to be anon, and give them a clue but they want to "talk" to me and ask me some questions.
Hmmm. They happen to know that there is a data base that they can use to link (legit) web images to my camera. Should they be allowed to access this data base? Should the crawler even store the info about my camera (the posted images have nothing to do with porn)? Would they? How would we know?
The stack is often (with good reason) used to pass parameters to a subroutine (function, what have you). It is also used to hold the return address. The problem with a buffer overflow attack is not "jumping to an address that's in the stack", it's when a setuid program allows an unprivileged user to overrun a parameter (on the stack) and write over the return address. The OS then "returns" to the bogus address, and runs code the user selected BUT with more privileges.
Good coding practice will fix it (don't write to location 12 of a 5 byte vector). Even if the coders aren't being careful, there are ways to fix it (google for "stackguard", for example).
You cannot do this while charging a battery. The voltage MUST be kept below the voltage of the battery or you will start doing funky things with the battery.
If your input voltage is below battery voltage, current flows out of the battery and you discharge the battery. You don't want it (charging voltage) too much above the battery voltage, or bad things happen. Warped plates and cells drying out for lead acid batteries. Explosions and fires and such for other types. Hence the voltage regulator on your car.
.. and given that we want to reduce the amount of gas consumed, that's a good thing. Once everybody is driving gasoline-free vehicles, then it will be time to revisit our tax base; but we're nowhere near that point.
Um, I fail to see the connection. Because saying, for a moment, that I accept your thesis of GPS being used to "restrict the rights" of innocent people, yes, using GPS to track convicted criminals is definitely "better". How are these two things even related?
Many are pretty easy to understand. If there's another Linux user around (friend, co-worker, "some guy down the hall") it might be worth installing whatever he/she is running. (I used to run Mandrake, when I moved to a new mostly-windows shop last year I installed Fedora since the only other guy in my building running Linux was a Fedora user.) As a user, Fedora isn't any harder for me to understand, but I've got a security blanket if I do run into something that I can't find the answer to online.
I did run into problems with the Fedora Core II , GRUB, and a newer Dell computer, but we've now got 4-5 computers running various versions of Fedora (Core I worked on that box, Core II on this one, and the other guy seems to be having good luck with Core 3 on a couple of machines).
I meant (and should have specified) during daylight.
can you give me one example of where writing past an array is a good idea
No.
I was thinking more along the lines of the compiler not needing to check that I was within bounds (so should not have said "writing past the end.."). For example, a subroutine does not need to check (or even to know) the bounds of the original array (declared elsewhere). If the subroutine knows where A[0] lives, and the programmer wants to mess w/ A[99], C wouldn't check, and wouldn't need to know how big A is. I guess that really falls under "directly manipulating pointers", since A[99] is the same as *(A + 99)
The security features of Java are somewhat like "daytime running lights" on GM vehicles. We are admitting to ourselves that there is a class of people who are too stupid to figure out when to turn on their lights, but we want them to be able to drive "safely". Java has a lot of bounds checking and type checking built in, so it's "safer" for the coder who doesn't bother with these things. Is it better to educate the programmers about security, or have the lights come on automagikally? (Hint--they may, someday, have to code in another language and all security properties are NOT type properties).
Sometimes the safest thing to do is to idle a car w/ the lights out, or to visibly flash your lights at an oncoming vehicle, but folks with daytime running lights don't have that option. Sometimes you might want to speed up some code by ignoring typing, writing past the end of an array, or directly manipulating a pointer.
He got on the list by buying his (one way) ticket(s) at the last minute. Having some other suspicious guy give the name "Ted Kennedy" probably didn't help. Once your'e on the list, you seem to be on it for life. If Ted asked me to help him get off of the list, I'd help him, eventually. That seems to be what happened.
Sure it's a bad system. Like all of our current airport security it is designed to make the sheep feel like "somebody is doing something" more than to provide any real increase in security. Unlike taking nail clippers away from blue-haird ladies, this one is much more open to abuse. Nobody in either party is real surprised.
This is exactly what we need, except w/out the computer. When I lived in Maryland, one voted by connecting a line (drawing an arrow) next to the candidate's name. You could look at it, and read the vote. A machine could look at it and figure out who you voted for. If the process was messed up, they could revisit the paper ballot
Do we really need to try so hard to give the franchise to people who are too stupid to figure out such a simple process? I think not, but for those who will disagree: what makes you think slapping a computer (more difficult to operate than a grease pencil) on the front end will fix anything?
The voter doesn't even have to touch the paper ballot. It could be displayed behind a glass window. He/she hits a "yes, that's my vote" button to drop it in the bucket or a "no, start over" button to shred it (right before their eyes) and start over.
NASA also designed Cassini to be independent because the time lag of one hour and 24 minutes -- the time for light to travel 930 million miles from Saturn to Earth -- means controllers on Earth cannot immediately react to unexpected problems.
Instead, Cassini operates on its own.
"The spacecraft has been programmed to continue even in the event of an emergency," said Mitchell in a statement. "We don't want Cassini to call home if a problem arises, we want it to keep going."
But when you're sending data over a noisy channel, you use redundancy (error correcting codes). To send a lot of data (a picture) might requre time on the front end for processing, more transit time before the entire file arrives (determined by bandwidth and the overhead of this redundancy), then maybe some processing time on this end.
Slashdot Mirror
What if I use a digital camera to post (non-porn) pics to the web. Later on I send an image from the same camera to the police or the press (to document a crime in progress, such as a cop beating a "suspect"). I wanted to be anon, and give them a clue but they want to "talk" to me and ask me some questions.
Hmmm. They happen to know that there is a data base that they can use to link (legit) web images to my camera. Should they be allowed to access this data base? Should the crawler even store the info about my camera (the posted images have nothing to do with porn)? Would they? How would we know?
Anybody want to buy a used Linux license?
The stack is often (with good reason) used to pass parameters to a subroutine (function, what have you). It is also used to hold the return address. The problem with a buffer overflow attack is not "jumping to an address that's in the stack", it's when a setuid program allows an unprivileged user to overrun a parameter (on the stack) and write over the return address. The OS then "returns" to the bogus address, and runs code the user selected BUT with more privileges. Good coding practice will fix it (don't write to location 12 of a 5 byte vector). Even if the coders aren't being careful, there are ways to fix it (google for "stackguard", for example).
If your input voltage is below battery voltage, current flows out of the battery and you discharge the battery. You don't want it (charging voltage) too much above the battery voltage, or bad things happen. Warped plates and cells drying out for lead acid batteries. Explosions and fires and such for other types. Hence the voltage regulator on your car.
Re: MS products. They are all beta. You are paying to test for them, and they will ignore your feedback until you can make it happen again and again.
Both use GPS?
I did run into problems with the Fedora Core II , GRUB, and a newer Dell computer, but we've now got 4-5 computers running various versions of Fedora (Core I worked on that box, Core II on this one, and the other guy seems to be having good luck with Core 3 on a couple of machines).
I'll just keep mine under my tin-foil hat. Hmmm, I wonder if that's exactly what "they" want me to do....
I'm Bob Fourney
I'm bob Fourney
I'm Bob Fourney.
I'm Bob Fourney:
I am Bob Fourney
I'm Robert Fourney
I'm Robert Anthony Fourney
So, you could write the malicious code (or email) and play games with the syntax until you get the malicious functionality and a hash you like.
It's easier if you can play with both the "good" message and the malicious one.
I meant (and should have specified) during daylight.
can you give me one example of where writing past an array is a good idea
No.
I was thinking more along the lines of the compiler not needing to check that I was within bounds (so should not have said "writing past the end.."). For example, a subroutine does not need to check (or even to know) the bounds of the original array (declared elsewhere). If the subroutine knows where A[0] lives, and the programmer wants to mess w/ A[99], C wouldn't check, and wouldn't need to know how big A is. I guess that really falls under "directly manipulating pointers", since A[99] is the same as *(A + 99)
Sometimes the safest thing to do is to idle a car w/ the lights out, or to visibly flash your lights at an oncoming vehicle, but folks with daytime running lights don't have that option. Sometimes you might want to speed up some code by ignoring typing, writing past the end of an array, or directly manipulating a pointer.
Sure it's a bad system. Like all of our current airport security it is designed to make the sheep feel like "somebody is doing something" more than to provide any real increase in security. Unlike taking nail clippers away from blue-haird ladies, this one is much more open to abuse. Nobody in either party is real surprised.
5. Profit !!
Oh yeah, ruin the ending
Do we really need to try so hard to give the franchise to people who are too stupid to figure out such a simple process? I think not, but for those who will disagree: what makes you think slapping a computer (more difficult to operate than a grease pencil) on the front end will fix anything?
The voter doesn't even have to touch the paper ballot. It could be displayed behind a glass window. He/she hits a "yes, that's my vote" button to drop it in the bucket or a "no, start over" button to shred it (right before their eyes) and start over.
New yearly lows. Heck of a business plan
What did she use to download it?
It's in there this time. See:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/07/01/cassini.o rbit/index.html
they are not incented
Did you just architect a new word?