It is not definitionally required that a hash must be one-way. It typically is because it is almost totally useless for it not to be, but techically any transformation of one string to another could be a hash, even if it is reversable. Heck, running "gzip" on a clear string and storing the resulting compressed string (which I realize would not be compressed smaller unless the input string was rather long) would fit the definition of a hash, and yet still be reversable.
The reason hashes typically are one-way is that they aren't all that algorithmicly useful unless they contain many-to-one mappings.
One thing I find really annoying with a lot of the distros is that they don't distinguish between "I want foo installed" versus "I want foo invoked at boot time, up and running" They assume they are the same thing. This makes it a pain because then "please install everything because I have plenty of disk space to spare and I want every possible tool handy" equates to "please run everything and make my bootup take waay too long, and please leave my system open to every single exploit that I don't know about."
For example, I'd love an option to tell Fecorda Core 2 "Hey, please install the sendmail binary so I can use the following script:
my_Message_with_headers.txt | sendmail
but don't you Dare add it to the rc scripts as a deamon."
If you're motivated by greed, you don't attack the sites with the largest market share - you attack the ones with the largest money share - credit card numbers, paypal numbers, that sort of thing.
Huh? Roll-over accidents *are* caused by driver error. They require that you be ignorant of the characteristics of your vehicle. Rolling over an SUV because you pulled more sideways "gees" than your car was made for is no different than trying to park it in a space designed for a compact car and then bitching that it got scraped agaisnt the walls. Not knowing how to drive the vehicle you are using is always driver error.
You are wrong in your assertion that the situations are the same. The Microsoft claim is in response to people counting the TYPES OF exploits on bug tracking lists (where one thousand instances of the same exploit still only adds +1 to the count) But this article here was counting the INSTANCES of exploits being excercised, (where one thousand instances of the same exploit adds +1000 to the count.).
It should be obvious that the second type of count depends entirely on the number of installations in existence, whereas the first type is only mildly influenced a little by it.
You can when the comparasins are not the same. Linux vs OSX vs BSD is a bunch of unix-vs-unix comparasins. And the kinds of exploits this article are about are the kind that should show ZERO DIFFERENCE between Linux and BSD since they aren't related to the kernel at all, but to the user software that runs on it, which - surprise - is exactly the same thing for linux and for BSD. For example, if you are running linux or BSD your web server in either case is probably Apache, and any problems it gives are Apache problems, not Linux or BSD problems, and should thus be the same identical problem for both platforms.
The differences between Linux and Windows are cases of the userland software being different: IIS vs Apache. IE vs Mozilla, etc.
Kerry is pandering to a group of voters who are easily mislead, easily scared, and easily overwhelmed; "security moms." If they are the only groups whose views he is stating he believes, then where does that leave me?
Pandering to the easily mislead only works if "the easily mislead" make up a majority. If so, then the politicians that pander to that stupidity are not the problem. They are the symptom. The fact that such stupidity is common enough that it makes an effective voting block is really the core problem. Don't complain that politicians "pander" to the majority. That's their JOB, and that's as it should be. If this pandering to stupidity is a big problem, then there's no way to simultaneously fix it quickly and still rule by the democratic principle of majority.
In other words, don't fight the politicians - fight the mentality that chose to elect them.
a)Didn't contradict itself and b)They actually believed in the stuff they were saying.
A is a problem. But B is not. I have a lot of respect for someone who realizes that in public office the desires of the public come before personal preferences.
Though he could've been a theist. That was kind of popular around then.
I don't think you're using that word right. It just means any sort of person who believes in the existence of any sort of god. (in other words, "atheist" and "theist" are opposites.) It could cover anything from a Christain to a Muslim to a Jew to a Ancient Greek worshipper of the pantheon. (Athough I suppose that would still make your closing statement very true: "That was kind of popular around then".)
Evolution leads to local maximas, not global maximas. That's why there so many different kinds of animal. If an eye develops that works, even if in a backward way, it will tend to stay that way if there's a hard evolutionary "ditch" to get over in flipping it around (i.e. there is a global maximum nearby, but the curve goes through a dip before it gets there, so locally evolution favors not going in that direction.)
This has come up before. It's not a difference of perception. It's a difference of vocabulary. Ask me what emerald and teal look like, I have no clue. But that's because I don't know what the words mean. It's no different than a computer programmer asking someone "which of these two colors is #FF00FF and which is #FF99CC ?", and falsely assuming they must be bad at color vision if they can't tell.
Pandering to voters is precisely the right thing to do, actually. It *is* a democracy. The problem is that the Democrats are wasting their efforts pandering to the wrong group of voters. They're trying to woo the people on the right, who won't vote for them anyway, and in the process they're losing the people on the left.
Ignoring something often gives it tacit approval in the public eye. Whether some statement you don't like should be ignored or responded to is dependant on whether it is already going to be seen no matter what you do or not. If it is going to be seen anyway, then ignoring it is the wrong answer.
That is why it is not always a waste of time to respond to trolls. I do not believe the claim that trolls' goals are to get attention. I say their goal is spread false information - therefore it is ONLY if your response will make the difference between it spreading or not spreading that silence would be the right option. If it is going to spread anyway, then speaking up and denouncing the lies is the right option.
Every election I keep hearing the same mantra from a lot of people who are disillusioned with the choices available. They say, time and time again, "I'll stay home and protest the choices by not voting for any of them. The reason I don't vote isn't apathy - it's boycott." Well, if you are one of these people, please take this advice to heart: Election day is your chance to get your displeasure tallied. If you don't like the big two parties, then voting for a write-in or a third-party is NOT a waste of your vote, at least not as much of a waste as staying home and being lumped in with the apathetic people. Let's take the hypothetical scenario where a lot of people, in a disorganized fashion, vote for write-ins and third-parties, such that it ends up with as much as 20% of the vote going to people other than the "big two". Even though none of those other candidates will win *this time*, the fact that those numbers showed up, and will appear quite priominently in news reports, will be exactly the sort of wake-up call you are looking for. It sends a clear signal that a large portion of the voters are unhappy with the choices, and they aren't apathetic about it. That means you'll get more attention next time around. It means a third-party might stand a better chance next time. It means changes down the road even if one of the big two stays in charge, because those 20% or so that went with other choices make for an enticing group for them to try to woo.
Basically, if you don't like the choices available, at the very least you should make the effort to show up and write somethign like "Protest Vote" in the write-in blank. That gets tallied. If you don't make the effort, then you look just like an apathetic non-voter, and you become the part of the citizenry that the politicians feel it is safe to ignore.
And here's another thought: Consider an HTML table with several hundred rows, the first 199 of which have 30 "TD" sections, and the 100th one has 10,000 "TD" sections. What should the HTML interpreter be doing at the moment when it is still halfway through reading the table and doesn't yet know that it is going to turn out to be padded out to 10,000 columns because it hasn't hit that last line yet? Most browsers I've seen start trying to pre-render the table before they've finished seeing all the content (if it's a big table, or a slow enough download that I can watch as it happens). Thus by the time the 10,000 column snafu is discovered, the browser has already committed itself to rendering the table and would now have to back up and undo a lot of things now to un-render the table.
(No, this doesn't have a direct impact on the point under argument. It's a response to your claim that it is managable to pre-determine before rendering whether a bit of HTML is going to be a resource problem or not. If HTML interpreters worked like the PERL interpreter, where they finish reading the whole input file in one pass before attempting to "run" anything, that might be true. But browsers are made to render as they download, since downloads are sometimes slow.)
No, you're not getting it. Even if it was fed a perl program with no looping, that was thus not turing-complete and finished in a single pass, a perl interpreter STILL could not predict accurately whether or not the program will use too much memory becuase the target environment has unknown limits that move dynamically. (There are 32 Mb free right now. Two seconds later there might be 120MB free, two seconds after that there might be only 8 Mb free - depending on other things totally outside the perl interpreter's knowlege or control.) The limitations of the HTML renderer that are relvant here are not like that. The screen won't suddenly grow new pixels. It wont resize (note: Yes, I realize the window can, but doing so results in a re-rendering of the data, so for the lifetime of a single pass through the interpreter/renderer, the resolution is fixed.)
The physical restrictions of the screen are an additional limit that a perl program doesn't have to work with, and it is those limits that allow HTML to be cut-off in a fashion that is guaranteed not to be a mistake. (Even if a perl interpreter *knew* that a singe-pass non-looping program would take exactly 64 MB to run, and it sees that it currently only has 48 MB free from the system, it would *still* be incorrect to cut off the run of the program, since that limit of 48 MB is not a certainty.)
Well, I live in Wisconsin, and this tuesday I'll be doing my small part to help keep him in office. Despite the outcry about the president's policies after 9/11, I'm really more angry at the congress for letting it happen. There are measures in place in the US Constitution that are supposed to prevent executive orders from enacting sweeping changes to laws by fiat. The congress chose not to bother excercising them. Therefore any one of the Senators today who complains about Bush's abuse of power is a total hypocrite, and that includes Kerry. The only one with the right to make that complaint is Feingold.
In case you can't tell, I'm more than a little bit annoyed at the bad choices available this year - a dictator, or a politician who collaborated with that dictator for personal gain.
I have a laptop with a wireless card. One thing I find really annoying about KDE is that it will *always* try to do networking stuff if it sees a network there, even if the network doesn't fully work. Thus when my laptop is in a zone where it can pick up a wireless signal, but the wireless network is firewalled off in such a fashion that I can't really use it without a password, then KDE takes an amazingly long time to do *anything*. I launch even a simple terminal window and it takes several minutes to appear. And no, the system is not under load, and the text console works just fine, and other desktops like enlightenment or gnome work just fine. Only KDE seems to get really, really lagged when it sees this partial network connectivity - which given the method used by the university that employs me to handle their wireless network, is a situation that comes up on the campus *constantly*. (The way they do it, since they want any J. Random Student to be able to use it, but they don't want non-students and non-staff to use it, is to let any card connect without a key, but then there is a firewall that can be reconfigured on the fly that prevents you from getting out past the transmitter hub by default. The only site it lets you see is a website that has the login/password for your student or staff account. If you login correctly, then it reconfigures the firewall on the fly to let you through to the rest of the internet.)
Re:Everyone uses a mac today
on
The Cult of Mac
·
· Score: 1
(Arguments that its Xerox's GUI, some people use a command-line, There's a command-line in Mac OS X now aside.)
Don't cast them aside. They disprove your point. Apple != GUI. Keep in mind that in one variation or another X is as old as Apple, if you take it back to the MIT Athena origins.
Pretty much the entire industry uses the GUI way, not the command line way.
False. Virtually the entire *consumer market*? - yes. Virtually the entire *industry*? - no. "The industry" refers to software producers, not software consumers. And a lot of producers still use a hell of a lot of command-line stuff. These counters to your claim are still a minority perhaps, but they are big enough that the phrase "Pretty much the entire industry" isn't appropriate.
You describe a problem with the accountability of some voter registration groups to be honest. Yes, that (if true) is a huge problem. You also mention the McCain-Fiengold bill. You utterly fail, however, to describe the alleged link between the two that was the main thrust of your point. All you did was assert it.
In fact, the full text of the Patriot Act was not provided for the senators to read anyway - they were just given time to read a brief summary, and even THAT was not read by some of them.
The fateful day that they voted on the Patriot Act, only 1% of the Senate wanted to actually do the duty their consitituents hired them to do, and that 1% was named Russ Feingold. He's the only one that demanded to be allowed to read the full text of the bill before even considering voting for it. He's the only one that refused to support a "blank check" for the executive branch. Keeping the Executive Branch's power down to a reasonable level is a very important duty of the Legislature. If a Senator decides to pass a bill written by the President's cabinet, without even reading it, then that senator is not doing the job of senator.
This is the primary reason I cannot support Kerry despite my fear of Bush. Kerry was one of that other 99% of the senate that demonstrated to me that they don't see public office as a duty, but as a privilege.
I'll have to go third-party this year, and for presidential hopes, pin my hopes on keeping Feingold in the senate a bit longer so he can run for president next time. (Despite his claim that he doesn't really plan on doing so, I think that things might change if the situation continues to worsen.)
Slashdot Mirror
It is not definitionally required that a hash must be one-way. It typically is because it is almost totally useless for it not to be, but techically any transformation of one string to another could be a hash, even if it is reversable. Heck, running "gzip" on a clear string and storing the resulting compressed string (which I realize would not be compressed smaller unless the input string was rather long) would fit the definition of a hash, and yet still be reversable.
The reason hashes typically are one-way is that they aren't all that algorithmicly useful unless they contain many-to-one mappings.
For example, I'd love an option to tell Fecorda Core 2 "Hey, please install the sendmail binary so I can use the following script:but don't you Dare add it to the rc scripts as a deamon."
If you're motivated by greed, you don't attack the sites with the largest market share - you attack the ones with the largest money share - credit card numbers, paypal numbers, that sort of thing.
Huh? Roll-over accidents *are* caused by driver error. They require that you be ignorant of the characteristics of your vehicle. Rolling over an SUV because you pulled more sideways "gees" than your car was made for is no different than trying to park it in a space designed for a compact car and then bitching that it got scraped agaisnt the walls. Not knowing how to drive the vehicle you are using is always driver error.
You are wrong in your assertion that the situations are the same. The Microsoft claim is in response to people counting the TYPES OF exploits on bug tracking lists (where one thousand instances of the same exploit still only adds +1 to the count) But this article here was counting the INSTANCES of exploits being excercised, (where one thousand instances of the same exploit adds +1000 to the count.).
It should be obvious that the second type of count depends entirely on the number of installations in existence, whereas the first type is only mildly influenced a little by it.
I don't think you can have it both ways.
You can when the comparasins are not the same. Linux vs OSX vs BSD is a bunch of unix-vs-unix comparasins. And the kinds of exploits this article are about are the kind that should show ZERO DIFFERENCE between Linux and BSD since they aren't related to the kernel at all, but to the user software that runs on it, which - surprise - is exactly the same thing for linux and for BSD. For example, if you are running linux or BSD your web server in either case is probably Apache, and any problems it gives are Apache problems, not Linux or BSD problems, and should thus be the same identical problem for both platforms.
The differences between Linux and Windows are cases of the userland software being different: IIS vs Apache. IE vs Mozilla, etc.
The two state troopers provide more defense. The Berlin wall was not built for defence, but for imprisonment.
Kerry is pandering to a group of voters who are easily mislead, easily
scared, and easily overwhelmed; "security moms." If they are the only groups whose views he is stating he believes, then where does that leave me?
Pandering to the easily mislead only works if "the easily mislead" make up a majority. If so, then the politicians that pander to that stupidity are not the problem. They are the symptom. The fact that such stupidity is common enough that it makes an effective voting block is really the core problem. Don't complain that politicians "pander" to the majority. That's their JOB, and that's as it should be. If this pandering to stupidity is a big problem, then there's no way to simultaneously fix it quickly and still rule by the democratic principle of majority.
In other words, don't fight the politicians - fight the mentality that chose to elect them.
a)Didn't contradict itself and
b)They actually believed in the stuff they were saying.
A is a problem. But B is not. I have a lot of respect for someone who realizes that in public office the desires of the public come before personal preferences.
If the human eye is evidence of creationism then it can only be evidence of a flawed creator.
Maybe the creator just likes Octopuses more than Humans. Granted, that still throws off all the major creationist's theories, but still...
Though he could've been a theist. That was kind of popular around then.
I don't think you're using that word right. It just means any sort of person who believes in the existence of any sort of god. (in other words, "atheist" and "theist" are opposites.) It could cover anything from a Christain to a Muslim to a Jew to a Ancient Greek worshipper of the pantheon. (Athough I suppose that would still make your closing statement very true: "That was kind of popular around then".)
Maybe the word you were looking for was "deist"?
Evolution leads to local maximas, not global maximas. That's why there so many different kinds of animal. If an eye develops that works, even if in a backward way, it will tend to stay that way if there's a hard evolutionary "ditch" to get over in flipping it around (i.e. there is a global maximum nearby, but the curve goes through a dip before it gets there, so locally evolution favors not going in that direction.)
This has come up before. It's not a difference of perception. It's a difference of vocabulary. Ask me what emerald and teal look like, I have no clue. But that's because I don't know what the words mean. It's no different than a computer programmer asking someone "which of these two colors is #FF00FF and which is #FF99CC ?", and falsely assuming they must be bad at color vision if they can't tell.
Pandering to voters is precisely the right thing to do, actually. It *is* a democracy. The problem is that the Democrats are wasting their efforts pandering to the wrong group of voters. They're trying to woo the people on the right, who won't vote for them anyway, and in the process they're losing the people on the left.
Ignoring something often gives it tacit approval in the public eye. Whether some statement you don't like should be ignored or responded to is dependant on whether it is already going to be seen no matter what you do or not. If it is going to be seen anyway, then ignoring it is the wrong answer.
That is why it is not always a waste of time to respond to trolls. I do not believe the claim that trolls' goals are to get attention. I say their goal is spread false information - therefore it is ONLY if your response will make the difference between it spreading or not spreading that silence would be the right option. If it is going to spread anyway, then speaking up and denouncing the lies is the right option.
Every election I keep hearing the same mantra from a lot of people who are disillusioned with the choices available. They say, time and time again, "I'll stay home and protest the choices by not voting for any of them. The reason I don't vote isn't apathy - it's boycott." Well, if you are one of these people, please take this advice to heart: Election day is your chance to get your displeasure tallied. If you don't like the big two parties, then voting for a write-in or a third-party is NOT a waste of your vote, at least not as much of a waste as staying home and being lumped in with the apathetic people. Let's take the hypothetical scenario where a lot of people, in a disorganized fashion, vote for write-ins and third-parties, such that it ends up with as much as 20% of the vote going to people other than the "big two". Even though none of those other candidates will win *this time*, the fact that those numbers showed up, and will appear quite priominently in news reports, will be exactly the sort of wake-up call you are looking for. It sends a clear signal that a large portion of the voters are unhappy with the choices, and they aren't apathetic about it. That means you'll get more attention next time around. It means a third-party might stand a better chance next time. It means changes down the road even if one of the big two stays in charge, because those 20% or so that went with other choices make for an enticing group for them to try to woo.
Basically, if you don't like the choices available, at the very least you should make the effort to show up and write somethign like "Protest Vote" in the write-in blank. That gets tallied. If you don't make the effort, then you look just like an apathetic non-voter, and you become the part of the citizenry that the politicians feel it is safe to ignore.
And here's another thought:
Consider an HTML table with several hundred rows, the first 199 of which have 30 "TD" sections, and the 100th one has 10,000 "TD" sections. What should the HTML interpreter be doing at the moment when it is still halfway through reading the table and doesn't yet know that it is going to turn out to be padded out to 10,000 columns because it hasn't hit that last line yet? Most browsers I've seen start trying to pre-render the table before they've finished seeing all the content (if it's a big table, or a slow enough download that I can watch as it happens). Thus by the time the 10,000 column snafu is discovered, the browser has already committed itself to rendering the table and would now have to back up and undo a lot of things now to un-render the table.
(No, this doesn't have a direct impact on the point under argument. It's a response to your claim that it is managable to pre-determine before rendering whether a bit of HTML is going to be a resource problem or not. If HTML interpreters worked like the PERL interpreter, where they finish reading the whole input file in one pass before attempting to "run" anything, that might be true. But browsers are made to render as they download, since downloads are sometimes slow.)
Putting it under the administration of the treasury was also nonsensical and wrong.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
No, you're not getting it. Even if it was fed a perl program with no looping, that was thus not turing-complete and finished in a single pass, a perl interpreter STILL could not predict accurately whether or not the program will use too much memory becuase the target environment has unknown limits that move dynamically. (There are 32 Mb free right now. Two seconds later there might be 120MB free, two seconds after that there might be only 8 Mb free - depending on other things totally outside the perl interpreter's knowlege or control.) The limitations of the HTML renderer that are relvant here are not like that. The screen won't suddenly grow new pixels. It wont resize (note: Yes, I realize the window can, but doing so results in a re-rendering of the data, so for the lifetime of a single pass through the interpreter/renderer, the resolution is fixed.)
The physical restrictions of the screen are an additional limit that a perl program doesn't have to work with, and it is those limits that allow HTML to be cut-off in a fashion that is guaranteed not to be a mistake. (Even if a perl interpreter *knew* that a singe-pass non-looping program would take exactly 64 MB to run, and it sees that it currently only has 48 MB free from the system, it would *still* be incorrect to cut off the run of the program, since that limit of 48 MB is not a certainty.)
Well, I live in Wisconsin, and this tuesday I'll be doing my small part to help keep him in office. Despite the outcry about the president's policies after 9/11, I'm really more angry at the congress for letting it happen. There are measures in place in the US Constitution that are supposed to prevent executive orders from enacting sweeping changes to laws by fiat. The congress chose not to bother excercising them. Therefore any one of the Senators today who complains about Bush's abuse of power is a total hypocrite, and that includes Kerry. The only one with the right to make that complaint is Feingold.
In case you can't tell, I'm more than a little bit annoyed at the bad choices available this year - a dictator, or a politician who collaborated with that dictator for personal gain.
I have a laptop with a wireless card. One thing I find really annoying about KDE is that it will *always* try to do networking stuff if it sees a network there, even if the network doesn't fully work. Thus when my laptop is in a zone where it can pick up a wireless signal, but the wireless network is firewalled off in such a fashion that I can't really use it without a password, then KDE takes an amazingly long time to do *anything*. I launch even a simple terminal window and it takes several minutes to appear. And no, the system is not under load, and the text console works just fine, and other desktops like enlightenment or gnome work just fine. Only KDE seems to get really, really lagged when it sees this partial network connectivity - which given the method used by the university that employs me to handle their wireless network, is a situation that comes up on the campus *constantly*. (The way they do it, since they want any J. Random Student to be able to use it, but they don't want non-students and non-staff to use it, is to let any card connect without a key, but then there is a firewall that can be reconfigured on the fly that prevents you from getting out past the transmitter hub by default. The only site it lets you see is a website that has the login/password for your student or staff account. If you login correctly, then it reconfigures the firewall on the fly to let you through to the rest of the internet.)
(Arguments that its Xerox's GUI, some people use a command-line, There's a command-line in Mac OS X now aside.)
Don't cast them aside. They disprove your point. Apple != GUI. Keep in mind that in one variation or another X is as old as Apple, if you take it back to the MIT Athena origins.
Pretty much the entire industry uses the GUI way, not the command line way.
False. Virtually the entire *consumer market*? - yes. Virtually the entire *industry*? - no. "The industry" refers to software producers, not software consumers. And a lot of producers still use a hell of a lot of command-line stuff. These counters to your claim are still a minority perhaps, but they are big enough that the phrase "Pretty much the entire industry" isn't appropriate.
You describe a problem with the accountability of some voter registration groups to be honest. Yes, that (if true) is a huge problem. You also mention the McCain-Fiengold bill. You utterly fail, however, to describe the alleged link between the two that was the main thrust of your point. All you did was assert it.
No. You'd expect him to abstain.
Fair enough - but isn't the final effect the same as saying "nay" when they count the tallies?
In fact, the full text of the Patriot Act was not provided for the senators to read anyway - they were just given time to read a brief summary, and even THAT was not read by some of them.
The fateful day that they voted on the Patriot Act, only 1% of the Senate wanted to actually do the duty their consitituents hired them to do, and that 1% was named Russ Feingold. He's the only one that demanded to be allowed to read the full text of the bill before even considering voting for it. He's the only one that refused to support a "blank check" for the executive branch. Keeping the Executive Branch's power down to a reasonable level is a very important duty of the Legislature. If a Senator decides to pass a bill written by the President's cabinet, without even reading it, then that senator is not doing the job of senator.
This is the primary reason I cannot support Kerry despite my fear of Bush. Kerry was one of that other 99% of the senate that demonstrated to me that they don't see public office as a duty, but as a privilege.
I'll have to go third-party this year, and for presidential hopes, pin my hopes on keeping Feingold in the senate a bit longer so he can run for president next time. (Despite his claim that he doesn't really plan on doing so, I think that things might change if the situation continues to worsen.)