I don't think that's the intention of TFA. It's true, the average speed of a human being has gone up. Air travel is now fairly ubiquitous where it once was a luxury. Same with bullet trains.
But what TFA's author is lamenting isn't a decline in the average speed of humanity now, but the loss of the bleeding, cutting edge and the R&D going into pushing the envelope. Nobody's looking at supersonic travel. Space travel (real space, not high-atmosphere LEO) looks like it's just around the corner, but it's been that way for 50 years, about since the Apollo missions. TFA is more lamenting that the Next Big Thing isn't coming soon, and very little money is going into looking for it.
TFA's author doesn't seem to be well versed in history. TFA's author fails to understand that transport technology jumps only very occasionally, but each jump progresses transportation significantly. If you look at the development of our modern forms of transportation, i.e. vehicles, ships, trains, and planes, each one represents a such a leap in transport technology, and each one is vastly different from the other.
From land to water, water to rail, rail to air, air to space, the time in between each successive invention are always significant (we haven't quite reached space yet, as our spaceships are effectively either a seat atop a giant explosion, or a glorified plane with a very large explosive strapped to its back). The period in between are when the small incremental improvements happen, e.g. from riding an animal to riding a cart pulled by an animal, or from a steam engine to a diesel engine.
TFA's author fails to realize that we're in the in-between stages right now, where we're making minor improvements to our existing modes of transportation by making them faster or making them more efficient. It will be many years before the next breakthrough. A power source breakthrough isn't going to be enough. The breakthrough will need a fundamental re-understanding of travel to happen beforehand, which we're as far from as we can be right now, considering we're only barely scratching the surface of the modes of travel available to us.
TFA's author wants people to be working on it now, and thinks it's realistically achievable. While that may be true if the world threw all of its resources into the problem, there is such a thing as happening before its time, and even if somebody does stumble upon The Next Big Thing tomorrow, it'll probably be buried by more practical alternatives anyway.
All in all, it's just a whine piece by someone who's wondering where the modes of transport in its dreams are and how those dreams are going to come true. The author of TFA might as well have asked, "Where's my flying car?" and the article would still be of the same substance.
The HDD wipes the moment you turn the power on and it finds something different with your system's configuration. There won't be an opportuity to image it.
Of course, since this is done in hardware, I wouldn't be surprised if law enforcement has a skeleton key.
Personally, "Lou Gehrig's" is more recognizable than ALS.
The way I see it, ALS can stand for anything, but Lou Gehrig's is Lou Gehrig's. What the editor should have done (but didn't, not that I would expect as much) is put "Lou Gehrig's" in parenthesis after ALS.
I think GP is saying Mythbusters can be misleading, and the use of the conclusions from Mythbusters' experiments isn't always appropriate.
Sure, they tested it with a Great White, but by mentioning Jaws, they imply that it has something to do with the movie. Unfortunately, their test doesn't prove or disprove the movie's plausibility, as the shark they used wasn't the size of the one supposed in Jaws. So it's a bit disingenuous to mention the movie if the situation of the movie wasn't actually tested.
The bullet hole experiment is cited as a decompression myth, but it is inappropriate. The bullet hole experiment has nothing to do with decompression, but to do with a bullet hole on a plane, i.e. a bullet hole doesn't turn into a gaping hole. But it's often (wrongly) interpreted as debunking the decompression myth.
All the more reason why you should keep your seat belt fastened at all times. Those same winds are more likely to blow you out of your seat than blow isles of seats off a plane.
I'm not sure this is nearly as applicable. For market leaders in mature markets, publicity isn't necessarily to gain relevancy, but to stay relevant. "Any publicity is good publicity" only really applies to small companies trying to gain consumer mindshare. The Sony brand has enough consumer mindshare that I'm pretty sure the only direction left for them to go is down. And, they have sufficient competition that the competition can use the negative to promote their own products.
For example, Nintendo or Microsoft could market their console as fully-featured for the lifetime of the unit--features that won't suddenly disappear on the whim of somebody else.
Health care is a bit more complicated, and it is why no one has thus far been able to provide meaningful reform.
Insurance is only one of many players involved. There are also the people who actually administer the care (doctors, hospitals), the companies who make the equipment (pharma, medical device manufacturers), and plain old people (unions, individuals). Getting them all to agree on something is a ridiculously difficult balancing act.
If you think insurance is the one thing that's stifling reform, you're not seeing the much, much bigger picture.
But your point still stands. Big companies with deep pockets is the problem. They don't even make up the biggest employers. Small to medium-sized businesses do all the real work. Big companies are pretty much cancerous tumors.
I think we tried that one, and ended up getting a RIAA lawyer a judgeship.
Grassroots can't beat a corporation. Individuals do not nearly have the amount of resources a large corporation has. And people do have a stake in things when their corporate overlord who puts food on the table is affected.
I think you're mixing up patent infringement with copyright infringement.
Not that, as a sibling has stated, any of these "intellectual" property rights or the lack thereof preclude them from charging for their software, or making a business out of it. Sure, they might not necessarily make as much money, but boo fucking hoo.
I would say China is fairly short on paleontologists, especially of the experienced nature. In fact, China's pretty short on the academic fields of study, especially purely academic sciences like paleontology.
Neither field of study makes the big money, nor is there any amount of national pride in it, so it's more of an enthusiast's pastime. With a growing middle class, this will change, but not until children become comfortable enough that their every actions are no longer driven solely by the economic and social rewards.
I would also say that as science has traditionally been trivialized, it's a upwards struggle to get any science recognized as a respectable pastime. Academic pastimes are frowned upon even now, socially and politically, so it's just that much more difficult for science. Contrast this with the field of engineering, which China is producing en mass, and interestingly enough, overseas Chinese are particularly adept at.
Funny, I thought there was a recent revolution in the way the T-Rex was preceived, such that instead of a hunter, it was more likely a scavenger. I'd imagine it wouldn't need the ability to run at high speeds to scavenge. Running in general is more a hunter's domain.
Scavenging also explains the disproportional arm size. Arms aren't really important for scavengers, though they're a very useful tool for hunters.
All they needed to do was get their shit together and roll it out in phases.
Look at the way Google rolled out their search engine changes. It's not the simple interface anymore. Somehow, they didn't seem to have a problem retaining people (though admittedly, I dislike the bells and whistles of the new JS interface).
More than likely, everybody was of the CYA mindset and instead of actually working on the end game, was actually doing as much as possible to defer ultimate responsibility to the next group.
You can pull off a big project with a large group of people. Countless people in the past have shown us you can do it, Steve Jobs being the most visible currently. But you need to have vision. You need to have somebody at the top going, "This is what it needs to look like in the end. This is the part you need to work on. Now go do it."
Most management meetings are more about answering the question that a single, lone visionary would've answered in two minutes, than about actually getting there. Rule by committee isn't only inefficient, it's the perfect way to get nothing done (which is why there are heads of state even in democracies). Management meetings are a form of rule by committee. Is it no wonder then that everything crawls?
Limit these special accounts to academic e-mails addresses. Then, anyone can cross-reference them to actual.edu web pages and verify their identity in that manner, and call them out if they're shown to be invalid.
You'll still have the occasional bad actor (e.g. from a for-profit school), but nothing nearly as bad as what's happening now.
And I think you meant to say multiple people in the same field for #3, because the way you have it, it's no different than what's happening right now.
That's like asking an ice cream man to preside over a case or cases where someone is suing an ice cream company for them being fat or something (probably not the best analogy, but as close as i could think of).
I call upon the power of children to present a proper analogy:
It's like asking a NAMBLA member to preside over a child molestation case.
or, on the flip side
It's like asking a victim of child molestation to preside over a child molestation case.
Cue the screaming "parents": Think of the children*!
Belief acts in such a way that believers are blind to logic and sense. Believers are willing to do, and endure things that normal, unbelievers would otherwise not do or endure. People believe by turning a blind eye to all that which makes sense.
Believers aren't necessarily of the religious variety, though they are most associated with the word. Belief also applies to soldiers committed to following orders. It also applies to company employees following the company line. It is the foundation upon which trust forms. It is what allows us our humanity.
Being such a powerful force in all of our lives, it therefore follows that it can be corrupted and abused, and further that the consequences of such transgressions are more onerous and far-reaching than usual. It is the unfortunate truth of the matter; that while it can grant us such great strength at times, it at the same time equally exposes our weakness.
All governments comprised of people function through belief. Belief in the government must exist before people will consent to be governed. Thus those who seek to corrupt and abuse the ability to believe begin at the top of the government. In a democracy, they seek to gain the hearts and minds of the masses. In a dictatorship, they only need target the dictator.
As a part of this corruption, they will put greater an greater emphasis upon belief while further marginalizing reason. By doing so, they can make their abuses socially acceptable. Over time, they will make their abuses more flagrant and outrageous, while at the same time, try to push the bar of acceptability higher.
Only when their actions goes over a threshold far higher than normal are they forced to stop. But this does not unravel the beliefs of the believers. This only brings the abuse down to acceptable levels. Those directly affected may no longer believe in that which resulted in the abuse, but those indirectly affected most likely will still believe. And for the latter, it is because they still want to believe.
In the end, that's all it comes down to. People are not held accountable for actions done in the name of belief, because everyone else still wants to hold on to their own beliefs. They see that by denouncing the abuse entirely, they invalidate or weaken their own beliefs. Or, they too are abusers, and wish to rely on furthering corruption for their own gain.
Oh, in full disclosure, I see organization itself as a corruption of the pure and ideal that exists in every human being. Abuse then becomes any act arising out of such organization. But that's just my perspective on the matter.
Sure, to get to encrypted data, you need to get to the password. But in most cases where your database is a back-end to a webapp, the data is stored in plaintext, so that point is moot. More likely, the data's not nearly as important, since if it were, it'd be much harder to root.
The real gem is the user's password. If an attacker can figure out the user's password, that attacker can then try that password on other, more secure systems (like the user's bank account).
Against this kind of attack, your box's security should only be one line of defense against an attacker getting to the data. The way the password is stored or authenticated should be the final line of defense, which means it should also be the strongest.
The purpose of a salt is obfuscation. Sure, security through obscurity isn't very effective, but in this case, so long as the attacker cannot get to the algorithm, a good salt is sufficient to prevent attacks (it is able to add a few extra bits of entropy to the password).
But once the algorithm is compromised, the salt is worthless. So the idea is to find a way to store the password in a way that it can still be authenticated against within a reasonable amount of time, but cannot be attacked by brute-force within a reasonable amount of time. These encryption/decryption routines provide this functionality by making the en/decrypting so time-consuming on a large scale that it's ineffective to brute-force.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe because its fallacious assertions are repeated on /., a U.S.-based website, possibly to be picked up by larger and larger U.S. "news" outlets.
Clearly this was not intended to be a sensical statement.
FTFY.
I don't think that's the intention of TFA. It's true, the average speed of a human being has gone up. Air travel is now fairly ubiquitous where it once was a luxury. Same with bullet trains.
But what TFA's author is lamenting isn't a decline in the average speed of humanity now, but the loss of the bleeding, cutting edge and the R&D going into pushing the envelope. Nobody's looking at supersonic travel. Space travel (real space, not high-atmosphere LEO) looks like it's just around the corner, but it's been that way for 50 years, about since the Apollo missions. TFA is more lamenting that the Next Big Thing isn't coming soon, and very little money is going into looking for it.
TFA's author doesn't seem to be well versed in history. TFA's author fails to understand that transport technology jumps only very occasionally, but each jump progresses transportation significantly. If you look at the development of our modern forms of transportation, i.e. vehicles, ships, trains, and planes, each one represents a such a leap in transport technology, and each one is vastly different from the other.
From land to water, water to rail, rail to air, air to space, the time in between each successive invention are always significant (we haven't quite reached space yet, as our spaceships are effectively either a seat atop a giant explosion, or a glorified plane with a very large explosive strapped to its back). The period in between are when the small incremental improvements happen, e.g. from riding an animal to riding a cart pulled by an animal, or from a steam engine to a diesel engine.
TFA's author fails to realize that we're in the in-between stages right now, where we're making minor improvements to our existing modes of transportation by making them faster or making them more efficient. It will be many years before the next breakthrough. A power source breakthrough isn't going to be enough. The breakthrough will need a fundamental re-understanding of travel to happen beforehand, which we're as far from as we can be right now, considering we're only barely scratching the surface of the modes of travel available to us.
TFA's author wants people to be working on it now, and thinks it's realistically achievable. While that may be true if the world threw all of its resources into the problem, there is such a thing as happening before its time, and even if somebody does stumble upon The Next Big Thing tomorrow, it'll probably be buried by more practical alternatives anyway.
All in all, it's just a whine piece by someone who's wondering where the modes of transport in its dreams are and how those dreams are going to come true. The author of TFA might as well have asked, "Where's my flying car?" and the article would still be of the same substance.
The HDD wipes the moment you turn the power on and it finds something different with your system's configuration. There won't be an opportuity to image it.
Of course, since this is done in hardware, I wouldn't be surprised if law enforcement has a skeleton key.
Hey, I liked DOS.
Preposterous! That's like claiming they grab the best talent just so that nobody else can.
Oh wait...
Personally, "Lou Gehrig's" is more recognizable than ALS.
The way I see it, ALS can stand for anything, but Lou Gehrig's is Lou Gehrig's. What the editor should have done (but didn't, not that I would expect as much) is put "Lou Gehrig's" in parenthesis after ALS.
I think GP is saying Mythbusters can be misleading, and the use of the conclusions from Mythbusters' experiments isn't always appropriate.
Sure, they tested it with a Great White, but by mentioning Jaws, they imply that it has something to do with the movie. Unfortunately, their test doesn't prove or disprove the movie's plausibility, as the shark they used wasn't the size of the one supposed in Jaws. So it's a bit disingenuous to mention the movie if the situation of the movie wasn't actually tested.
The bullet hole experiment is cited as a decompression myth, but it is inappropriate. The bullet hole experiment has nothing to do with decompression, but to do with a bullet hole on a plane, i.e. a bullet hole doesn't turn into a gaping hole. But it's often (wrongly) interpreted as debunking the decompression myth.
All the more reason why you should keep your seat belt fastened at all times. Those same winds are more likely to blow you out of your seat than blow isles of seats off a plane.
But I can't really tell if I'm really really smart or if the general public is ignorant.
That's an inclusive "or", right?
I'm not sure this is nearly as applicable. For market leaders in mature markets, publicity isn't necessarily to gain relevancy, but to stay relevant. "Any publicity is good publicity" only really applies to small companies trying to gain consumer mindshare. The Sony brand has enough consumer mindshare that I'm pretty sure the only direction left for them to go is down. And, they have sufficient competition that the competition can use the negative to promote their own products.
For example, Nintendo or Microsoft could market their console as fully-featured for the lifetime of the unit--features that won't suddenly disappear on the whim of somebody else.
I find it hard to believe that you've actually met one.
Health care is a bit more complicated, and it is why no one has thus far been able to provide meaningful reform.
Insurance is only one of many players involved. There are also the people who actually administer the care (doctors, hospitals), the companies who make the equipment (pharma, medical device manufacturers), and plain old people (unions, individuals). Getting them all to agree on something is a ridiculously difficult balancing act.
If you think insurance is the one thing that's stifling reform, you're not seeing the much, much bigger picture.
But your point still stands. Big companies with deep pockets is the problem. They don't even make up the biggest employers. Small to medium-sized businesses do all the real work. Big companies are pretty much cancerous tumors.
I think we tried that one, and ended up getting a RIAA lawyer a judgeship.
Grassroots can't beat a corporation. Individuals do not nearly have the amount of resources a large corporation has. And people do have a stake in things when their corporate overlord who puts food on the table is affected.
There's a reason why governments exist.
I think you're mixing up patent infringement with copyright infringement.
Not that, as a sibling has stated, any of these "intellectual" property rights or the lack thereof preclude them from charging for their software, or making a business out of it. Sure, they might not necessarily make as much money, but boo fucking hoo.
I would say China is fairly short on paleontologists, especially of the experienced nature. In fact, China's pretty short on the academic fields of study, especially purely academic sciences like paleontology.
Neither field of study makes the big money, nor is there any amount of national pride in it, so it's more of an enthusiast's pastime. With a growing middle class, this will change, but not until children become comfortable enough that their every actions are no longer driven solely by the economic and social rewards.
I would also say that as science has traditionally been trivialized, it's a upwards struggle to get any science recognized as a respectable pastime. Academic pastimes are frowned upon even now, socially and politically, so it's just that much more difficult for science. Contrast this with the field of engineering, which China is producing en mass, and interestingly enough, overseas Chinese are particularly adept at.
Funny, I thought there was a recent revolution in the way the T-Rex was preceived, such that instead of a hunter, it was more likely a scavenger. I'd imagine it wouldn't need the ability to run at high speeds to scavenge. Running in general is more a hunter's domain.
Scavenging also explains the disproportional arm size. Arms aren't really important for scavengers, though they're a very useful tool for hunters.
All they needed to do was get their shit together and roll it out in phases.
Look at the way Google rolled out their search engine changes. It's not the simple interface anymore. Somehow, they didn't seem to have a problem retaining people (though admittedly, I dislike the bells and whistles of the new JS interface).
More than likely, everybody was of the CYA mindset and instead of actually working on the end game, was actually doing as much as possible to defer ultimate responsibility to the next group.
What they lack is vision.
You can pull off a big project with a large group of people. Countless people in the past have shown us you can do it, Steve Jobs being the most visible currently. But you need to have vision. You need to have somebody at the top going, "This is what it needs to look like in the end. This is the part you need to work on. Now go do it."
Most management meetings are more about answering the question that a single, lone visionary would've answered in two minutes, than about actually getting there. Rule by committee isn't only inefficient, it's the perfect way to get nothing done (which is why there are heads of state even in democracies). Management meetings are a form of rule by committee. Is it no wonder then that everything crawls?
Limit these special accounts to academic e-mails addresses. Then, anyone can cross-reference them to actual .edu web pages and verify their identity in that manner, and call them out if they're shown to be invalid.
You'll still have the occasional bad actor (e.g. from a for-profit school), but nothing nearly as bad as what's happening now.
And I think you meant to say multiple people in the same field for #3, because the way you have it, it's no different than what's happening right now.
That's like asking an ice cream man to preside over a case or cases where someone is suing an ice cream company for them being fat or something (probably not the best analogy, but as close as i could think of).
I call upon the power of children to present a proper analogy:
It's like asking a NAMBLA member to preside over a child molestation case.
or, on the flip side
It's like asking a victim of child molestation to preside over a child molestation case.
Cue the screaming "parents": Think of the children*!
*No, not that way, pervert!
Belief acts in such a way that believers are blind to logic and sense. Believers are willing to do, and endure things that normal, unbelievers would otherwise not do or endure. People believe by turning a blind eye to all that which makes sense.
Believers aren't necessarily of the religious variety, though they are most associated with the word. Belief also applies to soldiers committed to following orders. It also applies to company employees following the company line. It is the foundation upon which trust forms. It is what allows us our humanity.
Being such a powerful force in all of our lives, it therefore follows that it can be corrupted and abused, and further that the consequences of such transgressions are more onerous and far-reaching than usual. It is the unfortunate truth of the matter; that while it can grant us such great strength at times, it at the same time equally exposes our weakness.
All governments comprised of people function through belief. Belief in the government must exist before people will consent to be governed. Thus those who seek to corrupt and abuse the ability to believe begin at the top of the government. In a democracy, they seek to gain the hearts and minds of the masses. In a dictatorship, they only need target the dictator.
As a part of this corruption, they will put greater an greater emphasis upon belief while further marginalizing reason. By doing so, they can make their abuses socially acceptable. Over time, they will make their abuses more flagrant and outrageous, while at the same time, try to push the bar of acceptability higher.
Only when their actions goes over a threshold far higher than normal are they forced to stop. But this does not unravel the beliefs of the believers. This only brings the abuse down to acceptable levels. Those directly affected may no longer believe in that which resulted in the abuse, but those indirectly affected most likely will still believe. And for the latter, it is because they still want to believe.
In the end, that's all it comes down to. People are not held accountable for actions done in the name of belief, because everyone else still wants to hold on to their own beliefs. They see that by denouncing the abuse entirely, they invalidate or weaken their own beliefs. Or, they too are abusers, and wish to rely on furthering corruption for their own gain.
Oh, in full disclosure, I see organization itself as a corruption of the pure and ideal that exists in every human being. Abuse then becomes any act arising out of such organization. But that's just my perspective on the matter.
Not quite. There are several issues at play here:
1) the data
2) the password
Sure, to get to encrypted data, you need to get to the password. But in most cases where your database is a back-end to a webapp, the data is stored in plaintext, so that point is moot. More likely, the data's not nearly as important, since if it were, it'd be much harder to root.
The real gem is the user's password. If an attacker can figure out the user's password, that attacker can then try that password on other, more secure systems (like the user's bank account).
Against this kind of attack, your box's security should only be one line of defense against an attacker getting to the data. The way the password is stored or authenticated should be the final line of defense, which means it should also be the strongest.
The purpose of a salt is obfuscation. Sure, security through obscurity isn't very effective, but in this case, so long as the attacker cannot get to the algorithm, a good salt is sufficient to prevent attacks (it is able to add a few extra bits of entropy to the password).
But once the algorithm is compromised, the salt is worthless. So the idea is to find a way to store the password in a way that it can still be authenticated against within a reasonable amount of time, but cannot be attacked by brute-force within a reasonable amount of time. These encryption/decryption routines provide this functionality by making the en/decrypting so time-consuming on a large scale that it's ineffective to brute-force.
people can go hungry for only so long
In a place where the poorest people are also the fattest people, your reasoning will have to wait another two millenia to apply.
Yes.
The real question is, how long do they store them for. There's a world of difference between 1 hour, 1 day, and 3 months.