It's really not that far fetched. My mobile phone is more than capable of providing such information... if I were to power it from a laptop battery, and remove the transmitter (which drains a fair chunk of the battery power), it could probably reach those claims. I bet you could fit that much circuitry within a laptop case without too much problem either.
That's not true. Remember, with an interpreted language, you're not trying to lock something down; you're not trying to program features out. You program them in. One by one. If you make a mistake, you can give access to something you don't intend to, but it's still you who gave access to it, by programming it in. If you don't program it in, it'll be secure.
For example, security flaws that are caused by the buffer/stack overflowing relating to boundary unchecked zero terminated strings. A zero terminated string is a programmed in ability - to make a string longer just by moving where you place a zero, rather than going through the process of checking and working within a set limit. Well that gives you the ability to write to memory past where you should be allowed to, something that people using such functions won't have intended, but it's still a programmed in ability. An ability that shouldn't have be in the places it is/has been.
"And you have a whole team of programmers that never make mistakes working for you?"
No... but what do you think that the rest of the system and apps running on a computer are written by? Programmers who are equally likely to make mistakes. So if that is a reason to remove javascript from browsers, then that same logic should be applied to say that you should remove all software from computers. Unfortunately, that logic doesn't get us very far, so instead we prefer to fix problems than hide from them.
As somebody who uses javascript loads (both in development, to offer extra speed/functionality/ease of use to my clients, and with websites I frequent that use it to offer/me/ extra speed/functionality/ease of use), the idea of turning off javascript is about as ludicrous as turning off the computer. It would mean that I too would have to spend ages doing things that could otherwise be done much quicker. Instead I prefer just not going to dodgy sites that will try and hack my PC.
"the only real way to fix the javascript implementation is to remove it"
No... the only real way to fix it is to leave it there, so you can keep finding and fixing the problems. Removing something doesn't fix it... it removes it and all the functionality that it provides.
Javascript within the browser should be for accessing and manipulating the DOM, and is extremely useful. Whether you are capable of conceiving of uses for it or not says nothing except for the limit of your own imagination.
Javascript is an interpreted language, there are absolutely no fundamental reasons why security holes in implementations should exist, other than that programmers can make mistakes. How many security flaws have been found in document viewers, compression/encryption libraries etc, where no code in the data is run at all?
"It's what Formula One racing is to the average street car"
Not really, I, as a UK residential internet user, have been using at least 155Mbps links for the internet for at least a few years. My end connection might not be that fast, but my traffic certainly travels across fast high bandwidth tubes, and end-to-end bandwidth wouldn't be anywhere near as fast without them.
You wouldn't want a tube between you and a far state, that'd be costly and have other problems. You'd just want a fatter tube between you and the next state, and a fatter tube between them and the third state. Shorter tubes = shorter distances to find any faults in, shorter pipelines that need to be created before they can be put to use etc etc, and plenty of benefits.
Also as other poster said, you'd be better doing it by geographical and population properties rather than by lines of authority.
Well yeah, apparently Armstrong had to super-speed up his speech, to save energy required for transmition or something. Usually you'd use a computer to do this, but that wasn't really possible back then, so he had to just try and say things as fast as possible. This would have lead to breakdown of certain short sounds, such as the 'a'.
From the article:
"According to Ford, Armstrong spoke, "One small step for a man..." in a total of 35 milliseconds"
35 milliseconds for that sentence, and only the 'a' didn't get through, is a lot better than I could do!
The past is not an "artificial construct", the universe has been aging long before we evolved. But yes, time does move forwards, and this gives us chance to experience new things, or actually do things again that we enjoyed the first time round. Instead of looking at recordings of somewhere you went and had a great time, go there again, or somewhere else, and have/another/ great time. Instead of looking at photo's of old friends, get together with them, or make new friends, find out what other people have to offer.
"we are the sum of things we believe to have experienced"
Do you not think that your beliefs are formed by the things you experience? For example, somebody may be shaped by their belief that they experienced god speaking to them... but this is only because at an earlier age, they experienced being told by someone else about this 'god' idea. It's still experiences that shape you, even if you have to look back to previous experiences to understand why the latter experience shaped you in the way that it did.
Slashdot Mirror
It's really not that far fetched. My mobile phone is more than capable of providing such information... if I were to power it from a laptop battery, and remove the transmitter (which drains a fair chunk of the battery power), it could probably reach those claims. I bet you could fit that much circuitry within a laptop case without too much problem either.
...and the next day you said "quick off the mark there, dad!"
Look, it doesn't take intelligence to spot a lack of intelligence. His point still stands, even if he struggles to.
"So if you were Condi, what would your have done differently?"
Got them teeth sorted... seriously, if you can't even defend your country against your face, how can you defend against terrorist threats?
That's not true. Remember, with an interpreted language, you're not trying to lock something down; you're not trying to program features out. You program them in. One by one. If you make a mistake, you can give access to something you don't intend to, but it's still you who gave access to it, by programming it in. If you don't program it in, it'll be secure.
For example, security flaws that are caused by the buffer/stack overflowing relating to boundary unchecked zero terminated strings. A zero terminated string is a programmed in ability - to make a string longer just by moving where you place a zero, rather than going through the process of checking and working within a set limit. Well that gives you the ability to write to memory past where you should be allowed to, something that people using such functions won't have intended, but it's still a programmed in ability. An ability that shouldn't have be in the places it is/has been.
"And you have a whole team of programmers that never make mistakes working for you?"
No... but what do you think that the rest of the system and apps running on a computer are written by? Programmers who are equally likely to make mistakes. So if that is a reason to remove javascript from browsers, then that same logic should be applied to say that you should remove all software from computers. Unfortunately, that logic doesn't get us very far, so instead we prefer to fix problems than hide from them.
You keep using the word "broken". I do not think it means what you think it means.
"and retains full functionality"
/me/ extra speed/functionality/ease of use), the idea of turning off javascript is about as ludicrous as turning off the computer. It would mean that I too would have to spend ages doing things that could otherwise be done much quicker. Instead I prefer just not going to dodgy sites that will try and hack my PC.
Fixing it does, yes. Turning it off doesn't, no.
As somebody who uses javascript loads (both in development, to offer extra speed/functionality/ease of use to my clients, and with websites I frequent that use it to offer
"the only real way to fix the javascript implementation is to remove it"
No... the only real way to fix it is to leave it there, so you can keep finding and fixing the problems. Removing something doesn't fix it... it removes it and all the functionality that it provides.
Javascript within the browser should be for accessing and manipulating the DOM, and is extremely useful. Whether you are capable of conceiving of uses for it or not says nothing except for the limit of your own imagination.
Javascript is an interpreted language, there are absolutely no fundamental reasons why security holes in implementations should exist, other than that programmers can make mistakes. How many security flaws have been found in document viewers, compression/encryption libraries etc, where no code in the data is run at all?
I turned my computer off, fixing 100% of all security problems. Made it even more useless than yours.
you certainly know how to trash a system!
Handshake protocol involves firstly sending
F1RST P4KETT!!!
Then wait til you receive response:
Mod -1 Redundant
Then go ask mommy for a twinkie.
That's a routing system capable of routing 92Tbps. Nowhere does it say it can push that down a single line, or mention any distances.
That's why I use birds to transmit messages; they might be slower, but they're far too stupid to re$@\!... NO CARRIER PIGEON
"It's what Formula One racing is to the average street car"
Not really, I, as a UK residential internet user, have been using at least 155Mbps links for the internet for at least a few years. My end connection might not be that fast, but my traffic certainly travels across fast high bandwidth tubes, and end-to-end bandwidth wouldn't be anywhere near as fast without them.
If only they recorded the shows rather than airing them live...
You wouldn't want a tube between you and a far state, that'd be costly and have other problems. You'd just want a fatter tube between you and the next state, and a fatter tube between them and the third state. Shorter tubes = shorter distances to find any faults in, shorter pipelines that need to be created before they can be put to use etc etc, and plenty of benefits.
Also as other poster said, you'd be better doing it by geographical and population properties rather than by lines of authority.
I think they're planning on using lines of this capacity for backbones, not to-each-user anyway.
You obviously have a smarter, faster, higher grade of human working at your local one than ours!
You use tablespoons as a measurement in 3D printing?
Well yeah, apparently Armstrong had to super-speed up his speech, to save energy required for transmition or something. Usually you'd use a computer to do this, but that wasn't really possible back then, so he had to just try and say things as fast as possible. This would have lead to breakdown of certain short sounds, such as the 'a'.
..." in a total of 35 milliseconds"
From the article:
"According to Ford, Armstrong spoke, "One small step for a man
35 milliseconds for that sentence, and only the 'a' didn't get through, is a lot better than I could do!
It's been legitimized through americanizationism ;-)
The past is not an "artificial construct", the universe has been aging long before we evolved. But yes, time does move forwards, and this gives us chance to experience new things, or actually do things again that we enjoyed the first time round. Instead of looking at recordings of somewhere you went and had a great time, go there again, or somewhere else, and have /another/ great time. Instead of looking at photo's of old friends, get together with them, or make new friends, find out what other people have to offer.
"Just kidding, man. I'm sure you have a lot to live for"
;-)
Nice, reverse psychology, I like it
"we are the sum of things we believe to have experienced"
Do you not think that your beliefs are formed by the things you experience? For example, somebody may be shaped by their belief that they experienced god speaking to them... but this is only because at an earlier age, they experienced being told by someone else about this 'god' idea. It's still experiences that shape you, even if you have to look back to previous experiences to understand why the latter experience shaped you in the way that it did.