You're got the right idea, but you're placing the blame with the wrong folks.
Protection Profiles are written by the organizations using NIST standards. If Microsoft (for example) chose create a really, really lame Protection Profile for their ToE (Target of Evaluation, in MS's case several of their flagship OSes), that's their crap/deception, not NIST's. A lame PP would be one that states the system will never be connected to a network, is protected from physical access, never has unsigned code running on it, etc etc.
NIST makes standards, but doesn't controll how they are used in the wild. It's like me saying "I'm a certified genius at age 30, but only when tested with materials designed for 4th-graders". There's nothing wrong with the test that was administered, but the *context and application* are all wrong. Several MS OSes are certified at EAL4 with totally bullshit PPs, but that's MS's evil deed, not NIST's.
EAL by itself means nothing. EAL + PP gives you most of the picture.
REMEMBER - "EALs refer to the level of confidence in the conclusions of the evaluation, and not to the level of secrity the product provides".
IT IS A TOUCH SCREEN IPOD [nano]! There, fixed that for you. I don't want a touchscreen iPod Nano, I want an iPod that can carry ALL of my music with me, AND has a touchscreen. I was so excitied that the fabled "widescreen ipod" would be introduced, and now I find that after a year of rumors, there is no such device, just this crazy-expensive phone+. At least make a full, normal iPod in this form-factor. Come on!
a belief in solid evidence + whatever shit you make up to suit yourself, fill in the holes, and glue it all together? Except for the first 5 words, I think that statement described most religions pretty well, and does not describe athiests/agnosts very well at all (except for the first 5 words).
I use Pico, mainly because it's dead-simple and it's what my undergrad institution got me hooked on when I was just getting started with Linux/UNIX-land.
During grad school I wrote a recursive-descent Pascal compiler in Java using just plain old Pico; I guess my needs aren't that complex.
Ever driven tired? Angry? While distracted? While listening to music? While on the phone?
All those impair your driving ability. Alcohol is easy to test for in an imperical fashion, which is why it's used to bust people for bad driving. Other causes for bad driving aren't easy to test for, hence no law.
a standard bottle of beer (~600mL?) A standard bottle of beer in the US is 12 fluid ounces, or 354.89mL. That same bottle contains 0.6 fluid ounces of "pure" alcohol at 5%, the same as a 1.5 fluid ounce "shot" at 80 proof (40%).
That means your (I'm assuming) European bottle of beer is actually 1.69 "drinks", at least how I understand it. I wish I could say I was only having 2 beers a day when it's closer to 3.4!;)
More than half the reason I have an iPod is because iTunes is my music organization software of choice. Unless Zune syncs with iTunes, I won't buy it. Period.
This is not because of the iTunes store (which I've never bought from), but simply because it's the best (IMHO) music organization software around...*and* you can sync your iPod at the push of a button.
No flaming required, you are entitled to your opinion...and it is just an opinion, since you provided absolutely 0 evidence that supports it.
Causation is not the same thing as Correlation. Look it up, I'll wait...
Done? Now, present me with a study that says that viewing such images CAUSES these urges. Are you certain that it's not the case that people who have these urges *also* happen to be into that kind of pr0n? One *may* be a subset of the other, but they sure as hell aren't equal.
After all, I like (and view) straight pr0n. Does that make me more or less likely to have sex with a woman at any given moment? What, you don't have any idea? It could be either (or neither), and is extremely similar to the above scenario, except your opinion on the matter won't send me to jail, unlike the people we're discussing in this thread.
Provide solid, peer-reviewed studies on this (and any other causation-correlation issue) when you make wild claims:
Child porn does not sate a desire to molest children, it inculcates this desire. , or shut the fuck up, Mormon or not.
They see that the penultimate expression of being a woman is to have jiggly breasts and to have guys slathering like brainless drug-addled fools after them. Penultimate does not mean what you think it means. It doesn't make any sense in this context.
I guess it's OK to be a bigot, as long as you're not Christian. It's OK to be a bigot if you don't walk around all day claiming NOT to be one (like Christians).
Do you have any idea at all how peer-to-peer networks work? Every downloader is an uploader as well. BZZZ!! Wrong, thanks for playing.
This is only true for "Bittorrent-esque" protocols that require the downloader to upload pieces of his partially downloaded file to other downloaders, in order to continue getting subsequent pieces of the download.
Other P2P network protocols don't require this at all. Fire up Limewire, set your shared directory to nothing (or an empty folder), and start downloading files. It works! Of course, many client programs for uploading-not-required protocols have a "don't upload to leechers" toggle switch, which when enabled simply checks a potential downloader's number of shared files. If that number is 0, then the client won't upload to them. But since not everyone has this checked, you can download without uploading.
This is defeatable by sharing some non-infringing files (but you'd still technically be uploading *something*), or coding a a rogue client that reports files for sharing that don't actually exist.
The whole point is that with Bittorent-style protocols, you have to share pieces of the *SAME FILE* you're in the process of downloading (which is likely to be a 'naughty' file). With other P2P programs, you can download without uplaoding at all, or download while uploading entirely different files to entirely different users (who you may or may not be downloading from).
It's really quite nice being able to completely power down the MythTV box that sits in my living room. If I do the same to my Tivo, not only does stuff not get recorded but I will have to re-enter that stupid hack to get my 30-second skip back again. Are you implying that you MythTV box is able to record TV while powered off??
...we, as a country, have our priorities straight.
The current cost of the war in Iraq to the American people is about $344bn, more than 2.5 times the *total* cost of the Apollo Program, inflation-adjusted. Wow, that fucking sucks.
If you are not going to believe that the image shown was actually read from the DVD (after being written), then I assume you would not trust the 2D barcode (which is what would be re-counted, after or along with other backup mechanisms).
Exactly, I shouldn't have to "believe" anything all. The paper trail MUST be human readable and verifiable. What the heck is the point of printing out a 2D barcode behind the glass for the voter to look at? It could say anything at all, and you would have no idea.
The paper-trail should NOT be machine readable, because then the election board would do a "paper" recount, but use the electronically encoded data (which could be anything) because it's faster and easier, then say "Hey, the paper recount matched the machine results! Recount completed successfully!". WRONG
One could accomplish the same thing, by writing the vote, and a human readable JPEG image to DVD, and show the image to the voter for verification.
Sigh...no, because there is no guarantee that the image you were shown was written to the DVD.
The point of having a paper trail (on the voting side, not necessarity the counting side) is that there is no invisible "techno-magic" happening; you are sure your vote was cast correctly.
Voter votes on an e-voting machine (touchscreen)
Voter watches as printhead puts ink (representing his votes) on paper (behind glass)
Voter verifies that his votes were recorded correctly
Piece of paper is cut from roll and drops into a large, closely watched, transparent container, which clearly contains other votes
Every 5 seconds, a small burst of compressed air shuffles the votes in the container, to prevent vote-guessing or stratification techniques (similar to the trick of putting colored paper into a shredder to delimit the contents of the shred bag in a useful way)
Now, there are a ton of ways to hose this system if proper chain of custody is not maintained (fake boxes with fake votes, real boxes with fake votes, selective replacement, and I did throw air blast idea in as an afterthought, tech malfunction could destory the votes), but the system I outlined at least allows the voter to verify that their vote was cast in the way they wanted.
No uncertainty, no BS, you saw the paper drop into the container. Whether that container ends up being counted, or at the bottom of the Hudson, is a different story.
That's exactly right. The priority tag only applies to pages on your site, and is a relative measure. So (I would assume) that assigning a priority range of 0 to 0.5 would be the same to the search engine as a range of 0.5 to 1.
In other words, assigning a priority of 1 to all your pages will not affect their ranking vs. *other* sites that appear in the search results, only vs. other pages on your site. And if they're all 1, then you're telling the crawler that they're all equally important, just as if you had assigned them all a value of.5 (or anything else).
Slashdot Mirror
Worked for the US government for a while in security.
Rainbow Books WTF!
You're got the right idea, but you're placing the blame with the wrong folks.
Protection Profiles are written by the organizations using NIST standards. If Microsoft (for example) chose create a really, really lame Protection Profile for their ToE (Target of Evaluation, in MS's case several of their flagship OSes), that's their crap/deception, not NIST's. A lame PP would be one that states the system will never be connected to a network, is protected from physical access, never has unsigned code running on it, etc etc.
NIST makes standards, but doesn't controll how they are used in the wild. It's like me saying "I'm a certified genius at age 30, but only when tested with materials designed for 4th-graders". There's nothing wrong with the test that was administered, but the *context and application* are all wrong. Several MS OSes are certified at EAL4 with totally bullshit PPs, but that's MS's evil deed, not NIST's.
EAL by itself means nothing.
EAL + PP gives you most of the picture.
REMEMBER - "EALs refer to the level of confidence in the conclusions of the evaluation, and not to the level of secrity the product provides".
He's correct.
I use Pico, mainly because it's dead-simple and it's what my undergrad institution got me hooked on when I was just getting started with Linux/UNIX-land.
During grad school I wrote a recursive-descent Pascal compiler in Java using just plain old Pico; I guess my needs aren't that complex.
Ever driven tired? Angry? While distracted? While listening to music? While on the phone?
All those impair your driving ability. Alcohol is easy to test for in an imperical fashion, which is why it's used to bust people for bad driving. Other causes for bad driving aren't easy to test for, hence no law.
That same bottle contains 0.6 fluid ounces of "pure" alcohol at 5%, the same as a 1.5 fluid ounce "shot" at 80 proof (40%).
That means your (I'm assuming) European bottle of beer is actually 1.69 "drinks", at least how I understand it.
I wish I could say I was only having 2 beers a day when it's closer to 3.4!
More than half the reason I have an iPod is because iTunes is my music organization software of choice. Unless Zune syncs with iTunes, I won't buy it. Period.
This is not because of the iTunes store (which I've never bought from), but simply because it's the best (IMHO) music organization software around...*and* you can sync your iPod at the push of a button.
That's not DRM anymore than compiling a binary for PPC and saying it's DRM because it won't run on x86.
No, Old Testament + New Testament = Christianity
It's a part of your religion, whether you like it or not.
There is a ton of shit advocated in the Bible that is abhorrent to modern Western society, so there's a lot of smart-ass-comment fodder...
Causation is not the same thing as Correlation. Look it up, I'll wait...
Done? Now, present me with a study that says that viewing such images CAUSES these urges. Are you certain that it's not the case that people who have these urges *also* happen to be into that kind of pr0n? One *may* be a subset of the other, but they sure as hell aren't equal.
After all, I like (and view) straight pr0n. Does that make me more or less likely to have sex with a woman at any given moment? What, you don't have any idea? It could be either (or neither), and is extremely similar to the above scenario, except your opinion on the matter won't send me to jail, unlike the people we're discussing in this thread.
Provide solid, peer-reviewed studies on this (and any other causation-correlation issue) when you make wild claims: Child porn does not sate a desire to molest children, it inculcates this desire. , or shut the fuck up, Mormon or not.
Yes, I'm sure we can *really* control your xmas lights....weren't you around a year or two ago when all similar sites turned out to be BS?
Just be glad your office environment doesn't mandate the use of WordPerfect 12.
It makes Word look like a walk in the park. UGH!
This is only true for "Bittorrent-esque" protocols that require the downloader to upload pieces of his partially downloaded file to other downloaders, in order to continue getting subsequent pieces of the download.
Other P2P network protocols don't require this at all. Fire up Limewire, set your shared directory to nothing (or an empty folder), and start downloading files. It works! Of course, many client programs for uploading-not-required protocols have a "don't upload to leechers" toggle switch, which when enabled simply checks a potential downloader's number of shared files. If that number is 0, then the client won't upload to them. But since not everyone has this checked, you can download without uploading.
This is defeatable by sharing some non-infringing files (but you'd still technically be uploading *something*), or coding a a rogue client that reports files for sharing that don't actually exist.
The whole point is that with Bittorent-style protocols, you have to share pieces of the *SAME FILE* you're in the process of downloading (which is likely to be a 'naughty' file). With other P2P programs, you can download without uplaoding at all, or download while uploading entirely different files to entirely different users (who you may or may not be downloading from).
Of course there's still war!
The stupid French-Chinese think they have a right to Hawaii!!
...we, as a country, have our priorities straight.
The current cost of the war in Iraq to the American people is about $344bn, more than 2.5 times the *total* cost of the Apollo Program, inflation-adjusted. Wow, that fucking sucks.
If you are not going to believe that the image shown was actually read from the DVD (after being written), then I assume you would not trust the 2D barcode (which is what would be re-counted, after or along with other backup mechanisms).
Exactly, I shouldn't have to "believe" anything all. The paper trail MUST be human readable and verifiable. What the heck is the point of printing out a 2D barcode behind the glass for the voter to look at? It could say anything at all, and you would have no idea.
The paper-trail should NOT be machine readable, because then the election board would do a "paper" recount, but use the electronically encoded data (which could be anything) because it's faster and easier, then say "Hey, the paper recount matched the machine results! Recount completed successfully!". WRONG
Sigh...no, because there is no guarantee that the image you were shown was written to the DVD.
The point of having a paper trail (on the voting side, not necessarity the counting side) is that there is no invisible "techno-magic" happening; you are sure your vote was cast correctly.
- Voter votes on an e-voting machine (touchscreen)
- Voter watches as printhead puts ink (representing his votes) on paper (behind glass)
- Voter verifies that his votes were recorded correctly
- Piece of paper is cut from roll and drops into a large, closely watched, transparent container, which clearly contains other votes
- Every 5 seconds, a small burst of compressed air shuffles the votes in the container, to prevent vote-guessing or stratification techniques (similar to the trick of putting colored paper into a shredder to delimit the contents of the shred bag in a useful way)
Now, there are a ton of ways to hose this system if proper chain of custody is not maintained (fake boxes with fake votes, real boxes with fake votes, selective replacement, and I did throw air blast idea in as an afterthought, tech malfunction could destory the votes), but the system I outlined at least allows the voter to verify that their vote was cast in the way they wanted.No uncertainty, no BS, you saw the paper drop into the container. Whether that container ends up being counted, or at the bottom of the Hudson, is a different story.
That's exactly right. The priority tag only applies to pages on your site, and is a relative measure. So (I would assume) that assigning a priority range of 0 to 0.5 would be the same to the search engine as a range of 0.5 to 1.
.5 (or anything else).
In other words, assigning a priority of 1 to all your pages will not affect their ranking vs. *other* sites that appear in the search results, only vs. other pages on your site. And if they're all 1, then you're telling the crawler that they're all equally important, just as if you had assigned them all a value of
Why did this get modded "Troll"? He has a point. If I had mod points I would upmod this...
Would you rather it get modded Undead, Tauren, or Orc instead?