Not directly, but we need only look to cell phone to see part of the solution: more towers with lower power. Lets say there is a limit of 1 gigabit/second. (Obviously low). That is more then enough for me and a few neightbors. All I need is some way to get it to land lines which don't suffer the bandwidth problem.
In other words, I want high speed wireless, but I'd be content with a many cell phone like towers scattered around. In fact I prefer this model to others.
Even if someone invents technology that would allow my equipment to talk to anything else in the world via short wave I wouldn't want it. To power a signal around the world needs more watts then to send it to a local tower. There is no gain for me in the US use direct wireless to get to someone in Autrillia. I would much prefer much lower powered transmitters that can only go a short distance. Now if I was in the middle of the ocean there would be.
Remember our usage: lap/palmtops in the backyard covers most people. Sailors will need more, but there are not many of them (and they will probably want a bigger transmitter on the ship acting as a repeator to small ones onboard). Atsronaughts will need more, but they should be considered like sailors. (I'm being optimistic here and assuming that in 20 years more people have will have walked on the moon then currently drive a car)
Of course my point is that we don't need to worry because low power/distance transmittors have limits well byond our needs, and high power transmittors can be directional and in any case are not needed very much. Just think, we can get rid of the entire FM and AM dials in the future because eveyrone will have a digital device getting streams from the local tower. (Accually In propose that we keep the old AM towers for diaster - crystal sets are easy to make from junk and can be valuable in some cases)
Not nessicarly true. They have to be able to argue in court that it was reasonable for them to be where the evidence was found under the warent.
Thus if they execute a warrent on me about drugs and while searching for them discover stolen refridgerators they can get me on that even though I don't have drugs. The logic being that drugs are small enough to fit in a refridgerator so they would logically have seen and searched a refridgerator. However if the warrent was for stolen refridgerator, and they found drugs in a fake soup can they cannot get me because nobody looking for a refridgerator would look in a soup can.
The above paragraph assumes that even though the orginial search for the warrent was fruitless there was enough eveidence that the warrent was reasonably issued.
And in the meantime you take away from those who need just a little extra money for the minimun investment...
This is a complex subject. Nobody (well, almost) is against helping those who are mentally unable to work. Nor do we mind making up the different for those who physically cannot work as much as normal. But there are many perfectly capabel adults on the goverment dole, while at the same time the fed worrys about unemployment being too low. Get the able mind and body folks over 65 off their rear ends (out of the RV normally) and that worry would ease a little.
Like I said, this is a complex subject, and the above "solution" is not enough, just a small example that intentially is not fully thought through.
Machinists burn iron all the time. Iron is hard to cut normally, but if you heat it to red hot and then supply a lot of oxygon, the iron burns away and you can make big cuts fast. They generally use a tool called "oxy/accetelene torch".
You forget the most obvious criticism of this idea: Jesus was a Jew, and celibrated Passover like all jews. (Christians belive that until Jesus died the passover was a nessicary celebration, and even today most continue it in some form with Easter) The major feature of passover is you killed a lamb (baby sheep) in your house, cooked it and ate it. OF course there is lots of tardition and such behind it, and the butcher probably did the accualy killing, but it had to be done in your house.
In the US it is entirely different of course... if someone else invents something but you steal the idea and stick a few grand down- the idea is now legally yours and you can successfully sue the person who invented it!
Accually that is how the patent system works in almost every country except the US. Over here if you invent something (that is patentable) you legally own the patent no matter who pays for the registration. All you need is to have your lawyers go after whoever filed for the patent. If you have no money you simply prove to a compititor that you invented it first, sell them a license, and then they will pay the lawyer fees for you. Not exactly of course, I think you will then need to file for the patent and there are a bunch of other laws.
Point is, the US is the only country that protects the little inventor. Everyone else protects those with big bucks who file for a patent on everything they see.
Be careful. There are advantages to being able to sue without playing the lawyers costs. Right now If I sue O.J. Simpson he will get the best lawyers money can buy, and odds are win the case no matter the merits of it. Then I would have to pay his lawyers fees, even though if he had hired normal (not the best) lawyers I would have won. We don't want to be in the situation where those with money cannot be sued because they will get the best lawyers without having to pay.
At the same time I agree we need reform. We need to get those sue friviously to pay. If my lawsuit against Mr. Simpson was because he thought about killing my cat, of course I should pay for this lawyers, no matter what the cost. If I sue because he put his SUV in 4 low, and drove all over my flower beds, even though I lose the case due to his expensive lawyers, the judge should determin that I had a chance of winning and decide that I don't owe lawyers fees, adding insult to injury.
I live in Minneapolis From work my connection to most well connected sites in sweden is better then my connection to any site outside of the Minneapolis area. (My company might have a leased line to Sweden for internal use - I don't know our internal topography)
One of the tenets of IP is you don't know the path a packet takes. It normally happens that successive packets take the same route, but there is nothing innheirant in IP that says they have to. (routing protocols are just a lot easier to design when they send them the same way) It used to happen that packets that only physically need to go 70 miles, from the UK to France would travel over a thousand, through the US. This may or may not have changed.
You can be sure that the optimal routing will change in the future. If you build a big data center anywhere don't be surprized if someone else provides cheaper bandwidth, and everyone switches to them but you are left hanging dry in a physically bad location for that cheaper serivce.
Could they? The balance sheet on most.coms is so convluted that you can't really make sense of them. There is at least one.com that puts shipping costs under marketing. (Theroy being that low shipping costs is good for marketing), and thus they can't cut advertising enough to makre a profit. Or at least the above is what we suspect that company is doing - they bought some other.com and that other one resated their balance sheet "To make it match up with the new parent", and suddenly things changed such that we think that is what happened.
Now I don't know about Amazon.com, but most of the companies in there group are on dangerious ground. Time will tell if they will make it.
My dad leaves a couple blocks from someone with the same first and last name (one of the 5 most common last names in the country, and the most common in the area). While his firstname isn't nearly as common it isn't unheard of. Last time the other guy was in the hospital they mixed up records. So now my dad gets occosional letters to come in for a followup.
The neighbor has a serious but treatable condition. I won't say anymore, since the name and address is correct dad gets quite a ways into the letter before realizing this it isn't him.
Yes... I never thought Courtney Love was actually intelligent.
I feel the same way. Knowing her as I do (almost nothing accually), I'm confident that I won't like what she calls music.
As I was reading that I kept wondering if she wrote that herself, or like the president had someone write it for her. It doesn't matter a whole lot though. If she didn't write it, she at least gave it and it is clear from the way acts and what she admits to that if she disagree with a well writen speach she is forced to give we would know that she disagreed. And that is more important. I'm a terribal writer, (Even if my spelling was perfect which it ain't) but I can hire someone to put my thoughts into words if I need to.
Judging from the article, it seemed that the bug reports were about conscious choices in interface design. If a UI doesn't adhere to the look and feel of Win 95/98 does that make it deficient?
Was it conscious or just something done? I'm a trained useabiltiy professional (THat is not what I do though, After going through the training I realised I hate that line of work) As a devolper I know the insides so well that anything outside no matter how ugly will work for me. I know in my heart that the users will have problems with it, but I cannot say where because the act of creating the interface destroies my ability to be ojective about it.
Buy a copy of Donald Norman's Design of Everyday things. It will change the way you look at the world.
This artical would have been okay if they made the point that the UI guy at Coral was focusing too heavly on the novice. That is an expert user would know file permissions and needs easy access to them, and therefore the right click menu is a good fast spot for them. (What novice will right click anyway, with Windows not using the rick click much?) However the point is correct, the novice should not be able to accidently break file permissions.
one guy I worked with was rpomoted to manager like you say. At the time he was going back to school for is MBA. He soon discovered that while he wasn't a bad manage (at least not worse then others) he didn't like that work. He had to quit, and work for a diferent company for a year. Now that he is back (the other company went belly up) he is continually fighting moves to management. His personality makes him an obvious choice for management to those above him so they always offer him any management jobs. He won't take them, but his personality leads him to being a technical lead on some difficult issues that we would prefer to ignore as long as possibal if noone was pushing them.
So really all you can do is tell your boss that you want a technical position. Then the next time a position opens up, transfer to it quickly. Make it clear that your goal is to do that transfer though.
My current boss has made the transition technical->management and back several times as the need arises.
In the lower managemetn levels pay is about the same. If your goal is to get more pay then a technical worker you should take the management track, and then figgure out how to get a title like "director of", "vice president of", or something else fancy sounding. You won't get the big bucks though until your position is several levels removed from the technical side. My boss sees through me technical problems all the time. his boss should never see technical problems.
Before I started the mainframe guys here came up with one. IBM had changed some device ID field from 1 byte to three bytes. (I'm not sure of all the details)
The emngineers knew the girl who was assigned to test this change, and she is short. So when they sent the patch to use three byte fields to test they put in code, if the device Id was set to all 8s it out output an error: "Field too short, get taller tester." They finially removed it just before release, it was never discovered.
I accidently introduced one. Our product has a hot standby, and early on in the design someone came up with the idea that we should check out the hot standby every day to make sure it is really working. The issue was the cable from the backup controller to the hardware could break without being detected since it wasn't in use, and when the primary broke you had no controller. So I introduced code that would make it switch controllors once a day if configured to. Well marketing changed their minds on the need for this, and I set the default to off. But I forgot to tell those who wrote the configureation - they thought the default was on, and so in certina times it was possibal to activate a confiuration, which when the software doesn't see a value for this field sets it to the default (on) and tells my code to turn it on. QA never caught it, and since I never work with a configuration (that being the only configurable thing in my part of the system) I never caught it.
Many of the engineers I work with agree with you, add known bugs. If QA finds 90% of them you can guess that QA found about 90% of the accidental bugs, if they find 5% then you tell QA to get back to work. The only problem is often fixing an intentional bug introduces a different acidental bug that may not be caught because you are mostly done with QA.
I think what he is saying as to get through a retnal scan he only needs to get a scan of your eye, and then do someplace and replace the scanner with something that inputs your retnal scan.
A retnal scanner is hardware that produces electrical signals. Those signals can be faked if you know what they are.
While passwords are not very good, I generally know if I reveal one, and there is no way someone can build a machine to get my password from a distancce. (Baring brainwave scanners which currently we don't even think are possibal) Someone could build a retnal scanner that works from 20 feet, put it in a room where you are likley to be, and store your scan. There is no way to change your retnal scan, so once I build a device to impersonate you I can fool any machine.
Huh? Where did you find a saleperson who even checks the signature. I signed my credit card with my right hand, and typically sign all the slips with my left. The signature is very different. Most clerks don't even look at what is on the card. Of those that do (5% maybe look at it) only one has accually noticed that there was a difference. (He then looked at my license, saw my picture and noted the signature on the license was the same as the card and the names matched)
Although no dates are given, the way the artical reads I suspect the attack took place several years ago. In 1995 there were remotly exploitable root cracks in openBSD. (Which if I remember right was just coming into being and still was mostly netBSD+ and not really worthy of its own name yet - maybe it didn't even exist at that time)
Work with the best tools avaiable. But sometimes the best tools are not very good.
PS, I could be wrong on the date, but this is my impression. It seems the author has learned a lot since then.
Although no dates are given, the way the artical reads I suspect the attack took place several years ago. In 1995 there were remotly exploitable root cracks in openBSD. (Which if I remember right was just coming into being and still was mostly netBSD+ and not really worthy of its own name yet - maybe it didn't even exist at that time)
Work with the best tools avaiable. But sometimes the best tools are not very good.
PS, I could be wrong on the date, but this is my impression. It seems the author has learned a lot since then.
Your thinking of the wrong industry. If VISA rejcets everyone in a minute who is trying to use their card, it really does amount to a large sum of money. Thats before you add in all the labor involved with bringing the comptuers back up.
I could write a version of gcc with essentially zero compile time. The problem is the simple implimentation would produce slow code. Gcc does a okay job of optimization (depends on the platform), and syntax checking. My version would compile minnimally correct code, with no concern for where warnings should be issued.
Of course the machine code would like about like this: if (x == y) x++ ld x,r1 ; psuedo asm, load x into r1 ld x,r2 cmp r1,r2 ; pseudo asm, load y into r2 bne addr ; branch not equal around this code, addr is defined latter. ld x,r1 ; NOTE, x is already in r1! add x,1 sto r1,x ; store r1 in x - even though the next line could well manipulate x again!
Of course I made that assembly up on the spot, but programs should be able to follow it. You also see the inefficancy - and that fairly efficant code compared to most of the resulting code. This code in fact would not be capabile of using all the registers of even the register starved x86. Because of all the unnessicary writes expect the pipeline to be stalled.
If the syntax checking was good, I'd accually like to have a compiler like that, for quick turn around. Once the program is (mostly) debugged it is worth the wait on gcc which does a much better job, but if your only going to run a program once your compile time can exceede the runtime.
I disagree. Everyone should be able to leave their mail server open to this. Sometime someone will need something to relay thourgh, and it costs nothing to relay 1 message. It is only several million that was the problem.
I also belive you should be able to leave your door unlocked. People should be honest enough that they only enter your house (without your permission/knowlege) when they are passing through town and need a bathroom, or need a cup of flour. (The latter is typically a neighbor, and you would be paid back when you needed a teaspoon of Oragino)
Of course like everyone else I lock my doors because there are dishonest people, but in a perfect world things would be different.
Re:The real purpose of DeCSS
on
DeCSS Update
·
· Score: 2
If someone can convince me that the primary use of DeCSS is a Linux DVD player, I'll firmly support the effort to fight the restraining order. Otherwise, I'm not so sure what's right...
What about backups? My friends with VCRs tell me that a normal video tape has about a 25 playing lifespan. They further claim that their kid love to watch the same movie more then 25 times. Therefore they copy the movie so that when the copy wears out they still have to orginal to make anouther copy. (Generally the kids gets bored someplace in the middle of the second copy)
My expirence with music CDs is that they get scratched, and they do not take heat well. You can now buy VCRs, and I presume DVD players for use of backseat passangers in cars/SUVs. When blank DVDs come down in price I belive it will be common to make copies for personal use so that the orginial isn't damaged in harsh enviroments.
Lets assume that 99% of DeCSS users are illegaly coping DVDs. That leaves 1% with a legal use, is it right to restic them?
. Are you implying your client is now going to ignore the laws requiring them to establish a solid business relationship before ever transporting the chemicals off site? Sounds like a very irresponsible thing to do, probably illegal.
I should hope you are establishing a solid business relationship with any potential customer before allowing them any access to the ordering process.
I think the point is that email is now a common means of communication. So he might get a message "I'm John Doe, an engineer with Acme computers. We need someone to produce a few custom chips. .." This is the first contact, and he doesn't want to waste time setting up face to face meetings, possibaly flying someone to location only to discover that it was just a script kiddie.
Are you sure? I know that the size of the earth was calculated in 200bc, and they came within the margin of error of their insterments. That is within a few miles. It is a popular myth that everyone thought the world was flat, and perhaps most people did in the 1400s. the king of Portigal wasn't fooled by Columbus, since the kind knew the size of the world to be about 4 times was Columbus claimed. the king of spain knew the same thing, but his wife got involved and being a good husband (Was he good otherwise? For all I knew the preacher had given a sermen on not beating your wife the day before and he was feeling a little repentant) he sent some ships that were ready to be retired and some prisoners with this columbus fellow to make his wife happy and get all out of the way. Now a days the rish do similear things for a tax write off.
Huh? What are you going off on? Where are the lies fud and rumors? I was in fact perfectly serious, amature radio in the right band would be a good solution, you might have to get a license for a non-standard amature band to get the distance, but no other group tries to get low cost radio working, and that is the solution needed here.
I knew the guy who ran (runs?) amature a large radio network. It works, but by his own words it is slow. Maybe that has changed and maybe not - I don't know. Certinaly the band he was working in doesn't have the distance abilities that sailboating needs, but he can easially set you up in a band that will deal with that distance. He would love to help too, just for the challenge of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Not directly, but we need only look to cell phone to see part of the solution: more towers with lower power. Lets say there is a limit of 1 gigabit/second. (Obviously low). That is more then enough for me and a few neightbors. All I need is some way to get it to land lines which don't suffer the bandwidth problem.
In other words, I want high speed wireless, but I'd be content with a many cell phone like towers scattered around. In fact I prefer this model to others.
Even if someone invents technology that would allow my equipment to talk to anything else in the world via short wave I wouldn't want it. To power a signal around the world needs more watts then to send it to a local tower. There is no gain for me in the US use direct wireless to get to someone in Autrillia. I would much prefer much lower powered transmitters that can only go a short distance. Now if I was in the middle of the ocean there would be.
Remember our usage: lap/palmtops in the backyard covers most people. Sailors will need more, but there are not many of them (and they will probably want a bigger transmitter on the ship acting as a repeator to small ones onboard). Atsronaughts will need more, but they should be considered like sailors. (I'm being optimistic here and assuming that in 20 years more people have will have walked on the moon then currently drive a car)
Of course my point is that we don't need to worry because low power/distance transmittors have limits well byond our needs, and high power transmittors can be directional and in any case are not needed very much. Just think, we can get rid of the entire FM and AM dials in the future because eveyrone will have a digital device getting streams from the local tower. (Accually In propose that we keep the old AM towers for diaster - crystal sets are easy to make from junk and can be valuable in some cases)
Not nessicarly true. They have to be able to argue in court that it was reasonable for them to be where the evidence was found under the warent.
Thus if they execute a warrent on me about drugs and while searching for them discover stolen refridgerators they can get me on that even though I don't have drugs. The logic being that drugs are small enough to fit in a refridgerator so they would logically have seen and searched a refridgerator. However if the warrent was for stolen refridgerator, and they found drugs in a fake soup can they cannot get me because nobody looking for a refridgerator would look in a soup can.
The above paragraph assumes that even though the orginial search for the warrent was fruitless there was enough eveidence that the warrent was reasonably issued.
And in the meantime you take away from those who need just a little extra money for the minimun investment...
This is a complex subject. Nobody (well, almost) is against helping those who are mentally unable to work. Nor do we mind making up the different for those who physically cannot work as much as normal. But there are many perfectly capabel adults on the goverment dole, while at the same time the fed worrys about unemployment being too low. Get the able mind and body folks over 65 off their rear ends (out of the RV normally) and that worry would ease a little.
Like I said, this is a complex subject, and the above "solution" is not enough, just a small example that intentially is not fully thought through.
Hate to respond to a troll...
Machinists burn iron all the time. Iron is hard to cut normally, but if you heat it to red hot and then supply a lot of oxygon, the iron burns away and you can make big cuts fast. They generally use a tool called "oxy/accetelene torch".
You forget the most obvious criticism of this idea: Jesus was a Jew, and celibrated Passover like all jews. (Christians belive that until Jesus died the passover was a nessicary celebration, and even today most continue it in some form with Easter) The major feature of passover is you killed a lamb (baby sheep) in your house, cooked it and ate it. OF course there is lots of tardition and such behind it, and the butcher probably did the accualy killing, but it had to be done in your house.
Accually that is how the patent system works in almost every country except the US. Over here if you invent something (that is patentable) you legally own the patent no matter who pays for the registration. All you need is to have your lawyers go after whoever filed for the patent. If you have no money you simply prove to a compititor that you invented it first, sell them a license, and then they will pay the lawyer fees for you. Not exactly of course, I think you will then need to file for the patent and there are a bunch of other laws.
Point is, the US is the only country that protects the little inventor. Everyone else protects those with big bucks who file for a patent on everything they see.
Be careful. There are advantages to being able to sue without playing the lawyers costs. Right now If I sue O.J. Simpson he will get the best lawyers money can buy, and odds are win the case no matter the merits of it. Then I would have to pay his lawyers fees, even though if he had hired normal (not the best) lawyers I would have won. We don't want to be in the situation where those with money cannot be sued because they will get the best lawyers without having to pay.
At the same time I agree we need reform. We need to get those sue friviously to pay. If my lawsuit against Mr. Simpson was because he thought about killing my cat, of course I should pay for this lawyers, no matter what the cost. If I sue because he put his SUV in 4 low, and drove all over my flower beds, even though I lose the case due to his expensive lawyers, the judge should determin that I had a chance of winning and decide that I don't owe lawyers fees, adding insult to injury.
I live in Minneapolis From work my connection to most well connected sites in sweden is better then my connection to any site outside of the Minneapolis area. (My company might have a leased line to Sweden for internal use - I don't know our internal topography)
One of the tenets of IP is you don't know the path a packet takes. It normally happens that successive packets take the same route, but there is nothing innheirant in IP that says they have to. (routing protocols are just a lot easier to design when they send them the same way) It used to happen that packets that only physically need to go 70 miles, from the UK to France would travel over a thousand, through the US. This may or may not have changed.
You can be sure that the optimal routing will change in the future. If you build a big data center anywhere don't be surprized if someone else provides cheaper bandwidth, and everyone switches to them but you are left hanging dry in a physically bad location for that cheaper serivce.
Could they? The balance sheet on most .coms is so convluted that you can't really make sense of them. There is at least one .com that puts shipping costs under marketing. (Theroy being that low shipping costs is good for marketing), and thus they can't cut advertising enough to makre a profit. Or at least the above is what we suspect that company is doing - they bought some other .com and that other one resated their balance sheet "To make it match up with the new parent", and suddenly things changed such that we think that is what happened.
Now I don't know about Amazon.com, but most of the companies in there group are on dangerious ground. Time will tell if they will make it.
My dad leaves a couple blocks from someone with the same first and last name (one of the 5 most common last names in the country, and the most common in the area). While his firstname isn't nearly as common it isn't unheard of. Last time the other guy was in the hospital they mixed up records. So now my dad gets occosional letters to come in for a followup.
The neighbor has a serious but treatable condition. I won't say anymore, since the name and address is correct dad gets quite a ways into the letter before realizing this it isn't him.
Yes... I never thought Courtney Love was actually intelligent.
I feel the same way. Knowing her as I do (almost nothing accually), I'm confident that I won't like what she calls music.
As I was reading that I kept wondering if she wrote that herself, or like the president had someone write it for her. It doesn't matter a whole lot though. If she didn't write it, she at least gave it and it is clear from the way acts and what she admits to that if she disagree with a well writen speach she is forced to give we would know that she disagreed. And that is more important. I'm a terribal writer, (Even if my spelling was perfect which it ain't) but I can hire someone to put my thoughts into words if I need to.
Judging from the article, it seemed that the bug reports were about conscious choices in interface design. If a UI doesn't adhere to the look and feel of Win 95/98 does that make it deficient?
Was it conscious or just something done? I'm a trained useabiltiy professional (THat is not what I do though, After going through the training I realised I hate that line of work) As a devolper I know the insides so well that anything outside no matter how ugly will work for me. I know in my heart that the users will have problems with it, but I cannot say where because the act of creating the interface destroies my ability to be ojective about it.
Buy a copy of Donald Norman's Design of Everyday things. It will change the way you look at the world.
This artical would have been okay if they made the point that the UI guy at Coral was focusing too heavly on the novice. That is an expert user would know file permissions and needs easy access to them, and therefore the right click menu is a good fast spot for them. (What novice will right click anyway, with Windows not using the rick click much?) However the point is correct, the novice should not be able to accidently break file permissions.
one guy I worked with was rpomoted to manager like you say. At the time he was going back to school for is MBA. He soon discovered that while he wasn't a bad manage (at least not worse then others) he didn't like that work. He had to quit, and work for a diferent company for a year. Now that he is back (the other company went belly up) he is continually fighting moves to management. His personality makes him an obvious choice for management to those above him so they always offer him any management jobs. He won't take them, but his personality leads him to being a technical lead on some difficult issues that we would prefer to ignore as long as possibal if noone was pushing them.
So really all you can do is tell your boss that you want a technical position. Then the next time a position opens up, transfer to it quickly. Make it clear that your goal is to do that transfer though.
My current boss has made the transition technical->management and back several times as the need arises.
In the lower managemetn levels pay is about the same. If your goal is to get more pay then a technical worker you should take the management track, and then figgure out how to get a title like "director of", "vice president of", or something else fancy sounding. You won't get the big bucks though until your position is several levels removed from the technical side. My boss sees through me technical problems all the time. his boss should never see technical problems.
Before I started the mainframe guys here came up with one. IBM had changed some device ID field from 1 byte to three bytes. (I'm not sure of all the details)
The emngineers knew the girl who was assigned to test this change, and she is short. So when they sent the patch to use three byte fields to test they put in code, if the device Id was set to all 8s it out output an error: "Field too short, get taller tester." They finially removed it just before release, it was never discovered.
I accidently introduced one. Our product has a hot standby, and early on in the design someone came up with the idea that we should check out the hot standby every day to make sure it is really working. The issue was the cable from the backup controller to the hardware could break without being detected since it wasn't in use, and when the primary broke you had no controller. So I introduced code that would make it switch controllors once a day if configured to. Well marketing changed their minds on the need for this, and I set the default to off. But I forgot to tell those who wrote the configureation - they thought the default was on, and so in certina times it was possibal to activate a confiuration, which when the software doesn't see a value for this field sets it to the default (on) and tells my code to turn it on. QA never caught it, and since I never work with a configuration (that being the only configurable thing in my part of the system) I never caught it.
Many of the engineers I work with agree with you, add known bugs. If QA finds 90% of them you can guess that QA found about 90% of the accidental bugs, if they find 5% then you tell QA to get back to work. The only problem is often fixing an intentional bug introduces a different acidental bug that may not be caught because you are mostly done with QA.
I think what he is saying as to get through a retnal scan he only needs to get a scan of your eye, and then do someplace and replace the scanner with something that inputs your retnal scan.
A retnal scanner is hardware that produces electrical signals. Those signals can be faked if you know what they are.
While passwords are not very good, I generally know if I reveal one, and there is no way someone can build a machine to get my password from a distancce. (Baring brainwave scanners which currently we don't even think are possibal) Someone could build a retnal scanner that works from 20 feet, put it in a room where you are likley to be, and store your scan. There is no way to change your retnal scan, so once I build a device to impersonate you I can fool any machine.
Huh? Where did you find a saleperson who even checks the signature. I signed my credit card with my right hand, and typically sign all the slips with my left. The signature is very different. Most clerks don't even look at what is on the card. Of those that do (5% maybe look at it) only one has accually noticed that there was a difference. (He then looked at my license, saw my picture and noted the signature on the license was the same as the card and the names matched)
Although no dates are given, the way the artical reads I suspect the attack took place several years ago. In 1995 there were remotly exploitable root cracks in openBSD. (Which if I remember right was just coming into being and still was mostly netBSD+ and not really worthy of its own name yet - maybe it didn't even exist at that time)
Work with the best tools avaiable. But sometimes the best tools are not very good.
PS, I could be wrong on the date, but this is my impression. It seems the author has learned a lot since then.
Although no dates are given, the way the artical reads I suspect the attack took place several years ago. In 1995 there were remotly exploitable root cracks in openBSD. (Which if I remember right was just coming into being and still was mostly netBSD+ and not really worthy of its own name yet - maybe it didn't even exist at that time)
Work with the best tools avaiable. But sometimes the best tools are not very good.
PS, I could be wrong on the date, but this is my impression. It seems the author has learned a lot since then.
Your thinking of the wrong industry. If VISA rejcets everyone in a minute who is trying to use their card, it really does amount to a large sum of money. Thats before you add in all the labor involved with bringing the comptuers back up.
Compile time is zero
I could write a version of gcc with essentially zero compile time. The problem is the simple implimentation would produce slow code. Gcc does a okay job of optimization (depends on the platform), and syntax checking. My version would compile minnimally correct code, with no concern for where warnings should be issued.
Of course the machine code would like about like this: if (x == y) x++
ld x,r1 ; psuedo asm, load x into r1
ld x,r2
cmp r1,r2 ; pseudo asm, load y into r2
bne addr ; branch not equal around this code, addr is defined latter.
ld x,r1 ; NOTE, x is already in r1!
add x,1
sto r1,x ; store r1 in x - even though the next line could well manipulate x again!
Of course I made that assembly up on the spot, but programs should be able to follow it. You also see the inefficancy - and that fairly efficant code compared to most of the resulting code. This code in fact would not be capabile of using all the registers of even the register starved x86. Because of all the unnessicary writes expect the pipeline to be stalled.
If the syntax checking was good, I'd accually like to have a compiler like that, for quick turn around. Once the program is (mostly) debugged it is worth the wait on gcc which does a much better job, but if your only going to run a program once your compile time can exceede the runtime.
I disagree. Everyone should be able to leave their mail server open to this. Sometime someone will need something to relay thourgh, and it costs nothing to relay 1 message. It is only several million that was the problem.
I also belive you should be able to leave your door unlocked. People should be honest enough that they only enter your house (without your permission/knowlege) when they are passing through town and need a bathroom, or need a cup of flour. (The latter is typically a neighbor, and you would be paid back when you needed a teaspoon of Oragino)
Of course like everyone else I lock my doors because there are dishonest people, but in a perfect world things would be different.
What about backups? My friends with VCRs tell me that a normal video tape has about a 25 playing lifespan. They further claim that their kid love to watch the same movie more then 25 times. Therefore they copy the movie so that when the copy wears out they still have to orginal to make anouther copy. (Generally the kids gets bored someplace in the middle of the second copy)
My expirence with music CDs is that they get scratched, and they do not take heat well. You can now buy VCRs, and I presume DVD players for use of backseat passangers in cars/SUVs. When blank DVDs come down in price I belive it will be common to make copies for personal use so that the orginial isn't damaged in harsh enviroments.
Lets assume that 99% of DeCSS users are illegaly coping DVDs. That leaves 1% with a legal use, is it right to restic them?
I think the point is that email is now a common means of communication. So he might get a message "I'm John Doe, an engineer with Acme computers. We need someone to produce a few custom chips. . ." This is the first contact, and he doesn't want to waste time setting up face to face meetings, possibaly flying someone to location only to discover that it was just a script kiddie.
At one time, the world was flat,
Are you sure? I know that the size of the earth was calculated in 200bc, and they came within the margin of error of their insterments. That is within a few miles. It is a popular myth that everyone thought the world was flat, and perhaps most people did in the 1400s. the king of Portigal wasn't fooled by Columbus, since the kind knew the size of the world to be about 4 times was Columbus claimed. the king of spain knew the same thing, but his wife got involved and being a good husband (Was he good otherwise? For all I knew the preacher had given a sermen on not beating your wife the day before and he was feeling a little repentant) he sent some ships that were ready to be retired and some prisoners with this columbus fellow to make his wife happy and get all out of the way. Now a days the rish do similear things for a tax write off.
Huh? What are you going off on? Where are the lies fud and rumors? I was in fact perfectly serious, amature radio in the right band would be a good solution, you might have to get a license for a non-standard amature band to get the distance, but no other group tries to get low cost radio working, and that is the solution needed here.
I knew the guy who ran (runs?) amature a large radio network. It works, but by his own words it is slow. Maybe that has changed and maybe not - I don't know. Certinaly the band he was working in doesn't have the distance abilities that sailboating needs, but he can easially set you up in a band that will deal with that distance. He would love to help too, just for the challenge of it.