The language is either not Turing complete and then mostly useless for practical general computing, or it is Turing complete and then it provides no real security.
It might avoid some class of problems, but it will never free a programmer from having to clarify his/her intentions. Security is an abstraction-level free problem, meaning that it equally can be an issue at the x86_64 instruction set level and also at the level of high level contractual/social agreements that code has to handle.
Security is also a tradeoff between a system being secure and usable. You can make things more secure by allowing a system to do less. I'm not saying that this new programming language is useless, but it all comes down to a careful description of the language. If the creators advocate it as a secure programming language that makes code written in it secure by default, then they are almost certainly wrong and will quickly become a laughingstock. On the other hand, if they market it as a language that avoids or makes it impossible to commit certain classes of security problems, as a language that pays attention to it's core code for security issues and as a language that makes it clear security is a mindset, then I see it being useful.
This is entirely different what the summary and the title implies, which is deliberately seeking out email or password data.
While it might not be ethical to capture full packet dumps, they probably did it to triangulate wifi access points better. This is a problem of privacy, but not of outright evil.
I call my cancer, the main one, the pancreas one, I call it Rupert, so I can get close to it, because the man Murdoch is the one who, if I had the time - in fact I've got too much writing to do and I haven't got the energy - but I would shoot the bugger if I could.
Depends. For certain workloads like mixed read/write (let's say 70%/30% - 40%/60%), solid state approaches are pretty good. If you've got lots of writes that you need to read back randomly, then buying lots of memory or duing multi-master or master-slave replication is not ideal.
I definitely see a use-case for flash based approaches, where you both need the read and the write IOPS and don't have warehousing amounts of data, but the usecase is narrower than people think.
Reasonable load distribution can be very expensive, powering a lot of database servers / disks is expensive. The power / cooling bill for servers is a significant expense.
No, I'm not from the US. It constantly surprises me that this mathematical curiosity takes people off guard on the net.
If this can be part of basic maths education in a country, there is no reason it couldn't be taught everywhere.
(The reason I remember this problem and when I learned about it was because when I was shown the proof for it I thought it's particularly cool and finally, something interesting came along in maths. It kindled a fondness for mathematics in me.)
This is still socialism in action. Where's the competing fire department?
No, the phrase you were looking for is "monopoly". It's still capitalist, because it's still an organization bargaining with a powerless individual in this case.
You have to realise that the layout of the root dns server hierarchy is historical. It is composed of organizations that are vastly different now than they were 20 years ago. The H root server people don't seem to care about things very much and there are a couple of other root servers where the organizations operating them don't put too much effort into things.
Luckily, the internet doesn't really depend on them, as there are a couple of big organizations with heavy investment into making sure the root servers stay accessible all the time, like RIPE or Verisign. They operate thousands of physical machines at dozens of geographically distributed locations, all structured under one ip address, via anycast. This results in the situation where one logical root server outweights the other one in terms of physical boxes at least 100:1, if not more.
My last information about the Verisign operated root servers from a couple years ago for example is that they are ridiculously overprovisioned, operating well under 1% used capacity, even when subjected to a fairly large DDOS.
As far as I know, the common dns servers all support rtt banding, so basically using a random list of dns servers for a given resource that fall below a threshold of latency, therefor they wouldn't really notice the H root being down.
There is no need for the US govt. to step in, the mobile carriers are already pushing pretty hard. Let me quote T-Mobile USA's Cameron Byrne:
Our users are going to access your content over IPv6. The only relevant question is 'will we make the AAAA record or will you'?
Here's their motivation:
T-Mobile USA makes heavy use of NAT44 and bogon addresses. Going forward, this isn't sustainable. So they've decided that future cellular deployments will be IPv6-only, with NAT64 to access the "legacy" IPv4 Internet. (...) T-Mobile USA suspects they can run 50% of their cellular data traffic over IPv6 by the end of 2011.
I'll take the quality of design of IP or DNS over what passes on for "The Web" these days. The browser as a concept is bending towards it's breaking point as it tries to cope with the fact it's treated as a clown car.
I guess it's historical legacy that we started with HTML and crap like that for browser interaction and everything sort of grew from there, but we're doing the whole "web as an applications platform" wrong.
First, this country is not a democracy, even though we espouse the democratic concepts. It's something called a representative republic. If your school failed to teach you that, or you failed high school civics, then go look it up, I'm sure wikipedia has an article on it.
While the GP is a troll, you might want to be careful with asserting the "US is not a democracy" meme lest your own civics studies seem incomplete.
The United States is a republic and a liberal democracy. The two terms refer to two different properties. "Republic" means that the ultimate power rests with the people, as opposed to with a monarch. The term "liberal democracy" covers various preconditions like fair and free elections, separation of branches of government, etc. that we commonly understand to constitute a "democracy".
Bullshit. If CFLs actually lasted that long, mine would not have died in less then 12 months (about 3 hours per day usage). That's between 1-2 times as long as a regular bulb lasts, so the CFL just
wasted my money ($3.00 versus 25 cents for a normal bulb).
You've said yourself that you're using them inappropriately in closed enclosures. There is also the bathtub curve to consider. Statistically it's unlikely that every bulb survives for 3 years, but it's also equally unlikely that no bulb lasts for more than 3 years.
Btw, if I assume an 8 cent / kwh electricity price and a 100w/23w incandescent/CFL comparison, you saved about 365*3*0.077*0.08 - 2.75 = 3.9952 USD with your CFL.
special trip in my Car to carry the Burned-Out CFL to a special recycling center (due to mercury content).
Don't you have CFL bins at the local supermarket in the US? My experience in Hungary, Austria, Germany and a couple of other countries is that I simply take the burned out CFLs to the supermarket when I do my regular shopping. I've done that about 3-4 times since I replaced all my old incandescent lights in the house with CFLs about 3 years ago (20+ sockets).
The mercury worries are overblown anyway. A CFL contains about 3-4mg of mercury, some are marketed for low mercury content of 1-2mg. According to the EPA, in the US there is 0.012mg of mercury emitted for every kWh of electricity generated on average. Assuming a 3 year lifetime for a CFL, using it for 6 hours per day, that's 6570 hours (CFLs are rated between 6-15k hours of lifetime). With a regular 100W incandescent, that's 0.1*6570*0.012 = 7.884 mg mercury.
For the equivalent 23W CFL, it's 0.023*6570*0.012 = 1.81332mg for the used energy and 1-4mg depending on the bulb. The big difference is that the 7.8mg is directly released into the air by the coal power plants and the 1-4mg in the worst case gets buried in a landfill which of course isn't ideal, but not nearly as bad as being in the air.
you consider Original Sin to be a nature that is anything less than perfect (which is what it more or less means these days), it makes sense. Redemption for your fuckups.
And if you try to whitewash everything as a loosely interpreted metaphor, then you can find God in a lump of coal. ("God is energy").
Why not admit that the bible, the holy foreskin, virgin birth, etc etc. are not metaphors, just collaborative works of fiction that evolved over time, but not fast enough to keep up with humanity extracting itself from the bronze age.
However it would be feasable to eliminate a co-pilot if airline attendentes were given basic flight instructions (emergency landing/radio operation).
How does he/she get into the cockpit? One of the only real security solutions after 9/11 were the reinforced cockpit doors, so either those need to be rolled back and the cockpit kept unlocked at all times, or we still need a co-pilot in the cockpit.
To be honest, if some airline would really be permitted to fly without a co-pilot, I'd never fly with them. It would be safer to trust a completely automated system than having only one pilot. People do not understand what kind of psychological issues arise when a human is left alone behind closed doors. I do not want to crash because the pilot decided to have a wank while he's alone.
I'm not for or against global warming, I just don't care. It's just a change, which has happened any number of times in (pre)history. Some land will become less useful to humans, some will become more useful; some species which can't adapt will die off, others will thrive.
Basically, your argument boils down to:
Hey, I bumped my car into a wall once with 3mph. If I do that at mach 3, totally the same thing!.
About your "running out of fossil fuels" argument:
If burning fossil fuels is a cause, well, we're almost out of those anyway.
We're running out for certain values of running out. Wikipedia says this about the proven reserves:
* Coal: 148 years
* Oil: 43 years
* Natural gas: 61 years
There is more than enough fossil fuels left to continue polluting the atmosphere for decades.
Methane from cow farts?, beef can't sustain a growing global population anyway.
Beef can't sustain a growing global population, however this statement completely sidesteps the issue that methane from current beef production significantly contributes to global warming. Sadly, an increase in global population wouldn't change social structure. If there isn't enough food to go around the top 1-10% of society won't say "ah, fuck beef, let's eat something else instead!", but we'll (if you live in a western country with internet access that pretty much puts you in the top 10%) let the remaining 90% starve until the "growth problem solves itself".
Talking about the weather used to be 'safe', but now it's infused with conspiracy nuts, scientific cranks, and irrational believers, ON BOTH SIDES.
That's a true, but incomplete statement. There is a lot more irrationality and pseudoscience going on on the denialist side, just as a lot more irrationality exists on the side of creationists, anti-vaccine campaigners or among the people who claim you can cure AIDS with beetroot.
I find that to be the case aswell. It's pretty funny how many people take Alexa seriously though. I had a journalist call me a liar based on Alexa's numbers, when I quoted a unique visitors / month number for a website that was based on both Google Analytics and independently audited logging.
It's the CIA's mission to stop individuals like Julian Assange. The CIA is supposed to be focused on foreign nationals and foreign spies. Julian Assanges organization "Wikileaks" has committed the initial crime which triggered the CIA/NSA/FBI response. (...) Julian Assange isn't an American citizen.
You can't actually commit a crime, as defined by the US laws if you're not an american citizen and you never set foot in the US or directly accessed resources over there in a criminal way. As far as I know, the CIA isn't supposed to be the KGB, since in a democracy something that embarrasses the government is not in itself a reason for intelligence agencies to be involved.
Let's assume however as a thought experiment that the person operating wikileaks would have been a member of the US military. Even in that case, the technical violation of the letter of some laws and regulations should be overridden by the right of the citizenry to know relevant information about the war the US military is conducting, the details it seeked to hide from the public and the war crimes it covered up. Indeed, as stated by one of the Supreme Court justices ruling in the Pentagon Papers case:
. "In absence of governmental checks and balances", per Justice Stewart, "the only effective restraint upon executive policy and power in [these two areas] may lie in an enlightened citizenry - in an informed and critical public opinion which alone can here protect the values of democratic government."
As for your argument that:
It's a bit late now to blame Obama as if Obama could have stopped whatever the response is. If it's true that Assange's documents influence or reveal CIA sources this would equate to Assange attacking the CIA itself because if the sources get killed it hurts the mission and the effort.
This is not good for Julian Assange. What do you expect Obama to do? Tell the CIA to leave Julian Assange alone? On what basis?
My hope is that the existence and discovery of streamlined whistleblowing (which is what Wikileaks really is) will make it impossible to wage a war without public disclosure of information about it. The information that wikileaks published (as a secondary source) should have been public and released gradually by the US military in the first place, to document and keep the war transparent and thus legal.
Obama should have absolutely stopped any operations against Wikileaks and instead focused on the revelations contained in the released documents.
I think it is important to discuss the possible casualties of the war logs release. As far as I know there were no fatalities associated with it yet, however it remains a possibility that such a fatality or fatalities will occur. Without attributing blame as to who would be responsible for such deaths, whether it's wikileaks by placing the public need to know above some lives or the US military for failing to disclose enough information about the war or failing to redact sensitive bits when offered the chance, I'd like to state that if Iraq is any good as a baseline where about a million people died as a direct consequence of the war (not necessarily killed directly by US forces though), then hundreds of thousands of afghani are dead because of this war. Any deaths from the release of the documents would be entirely lost as statistical noise in the changes the US military and political leadership are being forced to make due to the public getting a clearer picture of what's going on in Afghanistan. The release of the war logs potentially saved a lot of lives and at least gave the public information it lacked.
The fact of the matter is, if you release this kind of information, then it's on you to go through and filter it to make sure that nothing harmful is released. If you can't do that, then the responsible thing is to not release the information at all (which is not unrelated to the reason the material was classified in the first place).
The information isn't required to be entirely harmless. It only has to be a lot more helpful than harmful. I personally wouldn't wish to take the moral burden of causing unintended deaths or injuries and if it would happen (didn't yet, as far as we know) Assange would have to bear that burden.
But why is it that noone talks about the number of lives that the release of these documents will save? The US military now knows it can't just cover up a cowboy operation that went bad, because if it's bad enough someone will leak it sooner or later. The only option the military has is to be more careful. The US military and political leadership can't pretend everything is going fine with the war. They got jolted out of the denial phase pretty quickly. Obama's reaction was that "and THIS is why we're changing things on the ground, see?". John Kerry started discussing the Pakistan problem seriously.
In the long run, this leak might have been the best thing to have happened even for the US political leadership and military, cutting down on the time needed to change direction on how the war is handled. Of course, some of this is conjecture, but if it's allowed to play games with hypothetical informant deaths, then surely discussing the hypothetical/possible good effects of the war logs is fair game aswell?
Reporting involves analysis (and, hopefully, a basic understanding of what one is writing about). Assange isn't reporting. He's puking up someone else's documents on a Web page. Hopefully, they never hand out Pulitzers for that kind of thing.
I agree that Julian Assange isn't reporting. He's doing something much better than that: providing authentic, raw data. That way noone is dependent on one report's interpretation, biases and preconceptions, instead we're getting hundreds of different analyses and lots of results from datamining the information.
Slashdot Mirror
The language is either not Turing complete and then mostly useless for practical general computing, or it is Turing complete and then it provides no real security.
It might avoid some class of problems, but it will never free a programmer from having to clarify his/her intentions. Security is an abstraction-level free problem, meaning that it equally can be an issue at the x86_64 instruction set level and also at the level of high level contractual/social agreements that code has to handle.
As Bruce Schneier said long ago: Security is not a product; it's a process.
Security is also a tradeoff between a system being secure and usable. You can make things more secure by allowing a system to do less. I'm not saying that this new programming language is useless, but it all comes down to a careful description of the language. If the creators advocate it as a secure programming language that makes code written in it secure by default, then they are almost certainly wrong and will quickly become a laughingstock. On the other hand, if they market it as a language that avoids or makes it impossible to commit certain classes of security problems, as a language that pays attention to it's core code for security issues and as a language that makes it clear security is a mindset, then I see it being useful.
This is entirely different what the summary and the title implies, which is deliberately seeking out email or password data.
While it might not be ethical to capture full packet dumps, they probably did it to triangulate wifi access points better. This is a problem of privacy, but not of outright evil.
And if they ever make a lamp based on this, I can say:
AZIZ, LIGHT!
-- Dennis Potter (source)
Depends. For certain workloads like mixed read/write (let's say 70%/30% - 40%/60%), solid state approaches are pretty good. If you've got lots of writes that you need to read back randomly, then buying lots of memory or duing multi-master or master-slave replication is not ideal.
I definitely see a use-case for flash based approaches, where you both need the read and the write IOPS and don't have warehousing amounts of data, but the usecase is narrower than people think.
Reasonable load distribution can be very expensive, powering a lot of database servers / disks is expensive. The power / cooling bill for servers is a significant expense.
No, I'm not from the US. It constantly surprises me that this mathematical curiosity takes people off guard on the net.
If this can be part of basic maths education in a country, there is no reason it couldn't be taught everywhere.
(The reason I remember this problem and when I learned about it was because when I was shown the proof for it I thought it's particularly cool and finally, something interesting came along in maths. It kindled a fondness for mathematics in me.)
No, the phrase you were looking for is "monopoly". It's still capitalist, because it's still an organization bargaining with a powerless individual in this case.
You have to realise that the layout of the root dns server hierarchy is historical. It is composed of organizations that are vastly different now than they were 20 years ago. The H root server people don't seem to care about things very much and there are a couple of other root servers where the organizations operating them don't put too much effort into things.
Luckily, the internet doesn't really depend on them, as there are a couple of big organizations with heavy investment into making sure the root servers stay accessible all the time, like RIPE or Verisign. They operate thousands of physical machines at dozens of geographically distributed locations, all structured under one ip address, via anycast. This results in the situation where one logical root server outweights the other one in terms of physical boxes at least 100:1, if not more.
My last information about the Verisign operated root servers from a couple years ago for example is that they are ridiculously overprovisioned, operating well under 1% used capacity, even when subjected to a fairly large DDOS. As far as I know, the common dns servers all support rtt banding, so basically using a random list of dns servers for a given resource that fall below a threshold of latency, therefor they wouldn't really notice the H root being down.
Here's their motivation:
[citation needed]
No, it's not a humorous article, given that it's exactly how mainstream science reporting looks like.
I'll take the quality of design of IP or DNS over what passes on for "The Web" these days. The browser as a concept is bending towards it's breaking point as it tries to cope with the fact it's treated as a clown car.
I guess it's historical legacy that we started with HTML and crap like that for browser interaction and everything sort of grew from there, but we're doing the whole "web as an applications platform" wrong.
While the GP is a troll, you might want to be careful with asserting the "US is not a democracy" meme lest your own civics studies seem incomplete.
The United States is a republic and a liberal democracy. The two terms refer to two different properties. "Republic" means that the ultimate power rests with the people, as opposed to with a monarch. The term "liberal democracy" covers various preconditions like fair and free elections, separation of branches of government, etc. that we commonly understand to constitute a "democracy".
You've said yourself that you're using them inappropriately in closed enclosures. There is also the bathtub curve to consider. Statistically it's unlikely that every bulb survives for 3 years, but it's also equally unlikely that no bulb lasts for more than 3 years.
Btw, if I assume an 8 cent / kwh electricity price and a 100w/23w incandescent/CFL comparison, you saved about 365*3*0.077*0.08 - 2.75 = 3.9952 USD with your CFL.
Don't you have CFL bins at the local supermarket in the US? My experience in Hungary, Austria, Germany and a couple of other countries is that I simply take the burned out CFLs to the supermarket when I do my regular shopping. I've done that about 3-4 times since I replaced all my old incandescent lights in the house with CFLs about 3 years ago (20+ sockets).
The mercury worries are overblown anyway. A CFL contains about 3-4mg of mercury, some are marketed for low mercury content of 1-2mg. According to the EPA, in the US there is 0.012mg of mercury emitted for every kWh of electricity generated on average. Assuming a 3 year lifetime for a CFL, using it for 6 hours per day, that's 6570 hours (CFLs are rated between 6-15k hours of lifetime). With a regular 100W incandescent, that's 0.1*6570*0.012 = 7.884 mg mercury.
For the equivalent 23W CFL, it's 0.023*6570*0.012 = 1.81332mg for the used energy and 1-4mg depending on the bulb. The big difference is that the 7.8mg is directly released into the air by the coal power plants and the 1-4mg in the worst case gets buried in a landfill which of course isn't ideal, but not nearly as bad as being in the air.
Please don't tell these people that they are receiving large amounts of electromagnetic radiation every day, just by opening their fucking eyes.
And if you try to whitewash everything as a loosely interpreted metaphor, then you can find God in a lump of coal. ("God is energy"). Why not admit that the bible, the holy foreskin, virgin birth, etc etc. are not metaphors, just collaborative works of fiction that evolved over time, but not fast enough to keep up with humanity extracting itself from the bronze age.
Excellent, so you're patenting not even software, but mathematics! Can this get even more broken? Of course!
How does he/she get into the cockpit? One of the only real security solutions after 9/11 were the reinforced cockpit doors, so either those need to be rolled back and the cockpit kept unlocked at all times, or we still need a co-pilot in the cockpit.
To be honest, if some airline would really be permitted to fly without a co-pilot, I'd never fly with them. It would be safer to trust a completely automated system than having only one pilot. People do not understand what kind of psychological issues arise when a human is left alone behind closed doors. I do not want to crash because the pilot decided to have a wank while he's alone.
Basically, your argument boils down to:
About your "running out of fossil fuels" argument:
We're running out for certain values of running out. Wikipedia says this about the proven reserves:
There is more than enough fossil fuels left to continue polluting the atmosphere for decades.
Beef can't sustain a growing global population, however this statement completely sidesteps the issue that methane from current beef production significantly contributes to global warming. Sadly, an increase in global population wouldn't change social structure. If there isn't enough food to go around the top 1-10% of society won't say "ah, fuck beef, let's eat something else instead!", but we'll (if you live in a western country with internet access that pretty much puts you in the top 10%) let the remaining 90% starve until the "growth problem solves itself".
That's a true, but incomplete statement. There is a lot more irrationality and pseudoscience going on on the denialist side, just as a lot more irrationality exists on the side of creationists, anti-vaccine campaigners or among the people who claim you can cure AIDS with beetroot.
There was a campaign a while ago where people could suggest advertisement plots for some car brands. Some guy sent something like this in:
Scene: Blind 9 year old girl crossing the street.
Camera alternates between showing the closeup of the girl and showing the empty road.
Screen goes black and in a short while there is a loud noise as if someone was hit by a car.
The following appears on screen: "New Audi type foo. Very fast. Very quiet."
The guy didn't hear back about his plot suggestion for some reason.
I find that to be the case aswell. It's pretty funny how many people take Alexa seriously though. I had a journalist call me a liar based on Alexa's numbers, when I quoted a unique visitors / month number for a website that was based on both Google Analytics and independently audited logging.
You can't actually commit a crime, as defined by the US laws if you're not an american citizen and you never set foot in the US or directly accessed resources over there in a criminal way. As far as I know, the CIA isn't supposed to be the KGB, since in a democracy something that embarrasses the government is not in itself a reason for intelligence agencies to be involved.
Let's assume however as a thought experiment that the person operating wikileaks would have been a member of the US military. Even in that case, the technical violation of the letter of some laws and regulations should be overridden by the right of the citizenry to know relevant information about the war the US military is conducting, the details it seeked to hide from the public and the war crimes it covered up. Indeed, as stated by one of the Supreme Court justices ruling in the Pentagon Papers case:
As for your argument that:
My hope is that the existence and discovery of streamlined whistleblowing (which is what Wikileaks really is) will make it impossible to wage a war without public disclosure of information about it. The information that wikileaks published (as a secondary source) should have been public and released gradually by the US military in the first place, to document and keep the war transparent and thus legal.
Obama should have absolutely stopped any operations against Wikileaks and instead focused on the revelations contained in the released documents.
I think it is important to discuss the possible casualties of the war logs release. As far as I know there were no fatalities associated with it yet, however it remains a possibility that such a fatality or fatalities will occur. Without attributing blame as to who would be responsible for such deaths, whether it's wikileaks by placing the public need to know above some lives or the US military for failing to disclose enough information about the war or failing to redact sensitive bits when offered the chance, I'd like to state that if Iraq is any good as a baseline where about a million people died as a direct consequence of the war (not necessarily killed directly by US forces though), then hundreds of thousands of afghani are dead because of this war. Any deaths from the release of the documents would be entirely lost as statistical noise in the changes the US military and political leadership are being forced to make due to the public getting a clearer picture of what's going on in Afghanistan. The release of the war logs potentially saved a lot of lives and at least gave the public information it lacked.
The information isn't required to be entirely harmless. It only has to be a lot more helpful than harmful. I personally wouldn't wish to take the moral burden of causing unintended deaths or injuries and if it would happen (didn't yet, as far as we know) Assange would have to bear that burden.
But why is it that noone talks about the number of lives that the release of these documents will save? The US military now knows it can't just cover up a cowboy operation that went bad, because if it's bad enough someone will leak it sooner or later. The only option the military has is to be more careful. The US military and political leadership can't pretend everything is going fine with the war. They got jolted out of the denial phase pretty quickly. Obama's reaction was that "and THIS is why we're changing things on the ground, see?". John Kerry started discussing the Pakistan problem seriously.
In the long run, this leak might have been the best thing to have happened even for the US political leadership and military, cutting down on the time needed to change direction on how the war is handled. Of course, some of this is conjecture, but if it's allowed to play games with hypothetical informant deaths, then surely discussing the hypothetical/possible good effects of the war logs is fair game aswell?
I agree that Julian Assange isn't reporting. He's doing something much better than that: providing authentic, raw data. That way noone is dependent on one report's interpretation, biases and preconceptions, instead we're getting hundreds of different analyses and lots of results from datamining the information.