If that wasn't the intended effect and was just a fortuitous (for them) side-effect, you can bet they've learned the lesson, and that it *will* be the intended effect next time.
"We didn't attack your satellites, we attacked our own (*cough*and used it to create a floating fragmentation grenade*cough*)"
If these prove useful, maybe they can put the thing right on the die with the main CPU. Can't get much faster.
I'm no hardware engineer, so I don't know the technical challenges involved. Otherwise, I guess they'd have to work out some licensing agreement so Intel/AMD can fab these. Doesn't seem impossible if there's a market for it.
I considered that, but it seems like they were only caught because of bad luck. I'm not foolish enough to think there are no controls whatsoever, but someone committing a brazen act like that has a pretty good expectation that he'll get away with it.
No, probably not, but it does give them someone to sue if they don't get their five 9's. When you run your own data center, you have no one to blame but yourself.
Unfortunately, wherever money and power are present, exploitation, scams, and corruption follow. If this isn't closely watched, it'll just be one more way that the governments of the world rip off the people without providing any real benefit.
Firefox, for me, is really stable unless Flash is involved. Add Flash to the mix, and it goes down faster than a two dollar whore on a Friday night. By the way, so does Opera, but not quite as often. Close though. Just try watching 4-5 videos on YouTube.
I think Flash is the biggest DoS in the history of the web and Adobe really needs to take a good look at it. With all of these Flash ads and Flash-based video players, it really is a critical issue. Using adblock is an absolute must in my book, just to keep the browser running. My bet is some sort of resource leakage, since it happens over time -- like when watching several YouTube videos. It doesn't crash on the first or second one, but you're courting disaster on the third and above.
By the way, is there any way for FF to handle plugin crashes gracefully, i.e. *without* bringing down the browser with it? Maybe running it in a separate process somehow and just putting up a "broken image" sort of placeholder?
Holy. Crap. You're not the guy that writes Active Record, are you?
The thing a lot of OSS developers seem to forget is that many applications are primarily for data processing with user interfaces thrown on top. I.e. Not every damn "web app" is a blog or wiki, where it's primary purpose is to be a web app.
Fact is that, if Rails wants greater acceptance (and, yes, I realize it is already widely accepted -- I'm talking about continued growth), then it's going to need to support things like composite keys. Why? Because people use them, and the application may have come years before the web interface.
I don't use RoR at all, but these comments saying that composite primary keys are useless are simply insane. They're a fact of life, and if ActiveRecord doesn't support them, it's automatically precluded from use in existing applications that use them.
If AR does support them now, hey, great. In that case, I can't understand why this argument is even happening.
Yes, if a large group of people believe it, it should be mentioned. Wikipedia isn't, and never will be, suitable for reference in research papers.
What it is suitable for is providing a mirror of society. As a mirror of society, it should reflect ID, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and the Secret Society of Sentient Roombas if necessary, because those things are all relevant to the discussion in that they were a major part of the discussions that took place. In other words, they're part of the history of the discussion, and therefore worthy of mention on that basis alone.
No one says that you need to include every minor viewpoint held by one or two people, but if the idea has enough acceptance, it should be there -- right, wrong, proven, or unproven.
I'm sure I can find articles about the people who killed themselves over the Hale-Bopp comet, Scientology, Electric Universe, and thousands of other things that are "unproven". Why do you get to decide which unproven things do and don't make it in?
How hard is it for you to grasp that I'm justifying why they don't work on those things? Of course they don't. Why would your government teach foreign nationals how to launch missiles? Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean the rest of the world is as stupid as you are.
Rockets don't just go to space, you know. Sometimes they carry explosives, and your science geek may wind up helping his home country aim them. The most terrible weapons were created by science geeks.
A lot of corporate filters drop.zip files specifically due to a rash of Windows.zip file exploits that went on a couple years ago..tar.gz was never affected, and so are not dropped.
I hate to say it, but sometimes when people won't get along, you just gotta let 'em duke it out. Get the hell out of the country and let them have their civil war. We had ours. Sometimes a war with a clear winner is better for the greater peace later on, instead of this ongoing sniping.
It's sort of like a hurricane. There are all of these temperature and pressure imbalances, which cause one crazy storm. The storm is quick, releases unfathomable energy, and then it's over and equilibrium is restored.
I'm not saying this would be a *good* way, I'm just saying that it might be the *only* way. Sometimes reality sucks. Trying to contain the energy of a hurricane wouldn't be easy, cheap, or ultimately, possible. Eventually it spills out anyway, and the only thing you did was allow it to build up more energy by holding it back for so long.
...Or don't have the proper perspective. For example, consider one of those huge walk-through mazes. Those things are dog-simple when seen from above, but when you're inside of it, it can take an hour to get out. You do eventually get out, but it takes a lot longer to solve that way than the seconds it would take when seen from a better point of view.
I'm personally of the opinion that nothing science concludes will ever be able to prove or disprove the existence of (a) God(s), so I'm not sure why this discussion keeps coming up. Yeah, science never "proves", only "shows to be likely", whatever. The point is that you either believe in God or you don't. There's no scientifically veritable "correct" answer that can ever be had until some day in the future when it's too late to do anything about it anyway. You're either worm food or in your final eternal resting place... wherever that may be.
Honestly, the religion bashing is completely pointless and is getting really, really old hat.
Re:Don't get in over your head...
on
Head First SQL
·
· Score: 1
Heh. The guy's got some interesting ideas, but his examples and conclusions are a bit odd.
I think the trick behind this statement was in the wording, such as "Would you like me to install some extra-special, hackerproof, ZOMG ThEy'LL N3veR cr@ck your computer security?" Use wording only an idiot would say "yes" to. The idea is to get them to say "Yes, I'm an idiot" without using so many words.
Even with a small recurrence of fingerprints, I'd think they could still be used in court -- just not as the only evidence. They would have to prove that one of the people with those prints had motive and was in the right place at the right time, or some other circumstantial evidence.
With 4 (5?) billion people on this planet, I can't imagine that my index finger's pattern of swirls is absolutely unique -- especially when you start talking about partial prints. But, if I share fingerprints with some poor farmer in China, and the prints show up on a murder weapon in my home state, I'd doubt the farmer would be served summons papers, questions of jurisdiction aside.
True. The GGP asserted that all genetic diseases are preexisting conditions, which I don't believe to be the case. As you note, there's a spectrum of cases, from never actually having the disease, even if you have the genes for it, to definitely having it without a doubt if you have the genes for it.
The point is that this spectrum exists, and so insurance companies probably couldn't use these tests to automatically consider any genetic predispositions as "pre-existing conditions".
Slashdot Mirror
If that wasn't the intended effect and was just a fortuitous (for them) side-effect, you can bet they've learned the lesson, and that it *will* be the intended effect next time.
"We didn't attack your satellites, we attacked our own (*cough*and used it to create a floating fragmentation grenade*cough*)"
True. I guess "blame" is more accurate than "sue". Really, it's more like "pass the buck."
Uh, yeah, boss... The vendor's working on that. I'll give 'em a call and see what's taking them so damn long....
If these prove useful, maybe they can put the thing right on the die with the main CPU. Can't get much faster.
I'm no hardware engineer, so I don't know the technical challenges involved. Otherwise, I guess they'd have to work out some licensing agreement so Intel/AMD can fab these. Doesn't seem impossible if there's a market for it.
I considered that, but it seems like they were only caught because of bad luck. I'm not foolish enough to think there are no controls whatsoever, but someone committing a brazen act like that has a pretty good expectation that he'll get away with it.
No, probably not, but it does give them someone to sue if they don't get their five 9's. When you run your own data center, you have no one to blame but yourself.
The same people who are watching you to throw you in jail are committing grand theft themselves. Who's watching the watchers, indeed.
Unfortunately, wherever money and power are present, exploitation, scams, and corruption follow. If this isn't closely watched, it'll just be one more way that the governments of the world rip off the people without providing any real benefit.
And political news coverage.
As noted in a thread above, ThinkGeek has 10mW version for sale -- only $139.99! Order now while supplies last!
Firefox, for me, is really stable unless Flash is involved. Add Flash to the mix, and it goes down faster than a two dollar whore on a Friday night. By the way, so does Opera, but not quite as often. Close though. Just try watching 4-5 videos on YouTube.
I think Flash is the biggest DoS in the history of the web and Adobe really needs to take a good look at it. With all of these Flash ads and Flash-based video players, it really is a critical issue. Using adblock is an absolute must in my book, just to keep the browser running. My bet is some sort of resource leakage, since it happens over time -- like when watching several YouTube videos. It doesn't crash on the first or second one, but you're courting disaster on the third and above.
By the way, is there any way for FF to handle plugin crashes gracefully, i.e. *without* bringing down the browser with it? Maybe running it in a separate process somehow and just putting up a "broken image" sort of placeholder?
it's only been ours for the last 100 years.
I've always wondered why old people have dirty fingernails.
I just got a box of Christmas cards that all said "Happy Holiday's". I was wondering exactly what it is that Holiday owns -- hotels maybe?
TWENTY pounds??
Wow. You're optimistic.
Holy. Crap. You're not the guy that writes Active Record, are you?
The thing a lot of OSS developers seem to forget is that many applications are primarily for data processing with user interfaces thrown on top. I.e. Not every damn "web app" is a blog or wiki, where it's primary purpose is to be a web app.
Fact is that, if Rails wants greater acceptance (and, yes, I realize it is already widely accepted -- I'm talking about continued growth), then it's going to need to support things like composite keys. Why? Because people use them, and the application may have come years before the web interface.
I don't use RoR at all, but these comments saying that composite primary keys are useless are simply insane. They're a fact of life, and if ActiveRecord doesn't support them, it's automatically precluded from use in existing applications that use them.
If AR does support them now, hey, great. In that case, I can't understand why this argument is even happening.
Yes, if a large group of people believe it, it should be mentioned. Wikipedia isn't, and never will be, suitable for reference in research papers.
What it is suitable for is providing a mirror of society. As a mirror of society, it should reflect ID, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and the Secret Society of Sentient Roombas if necessary, because those things are all relevant to the discussion in that they were a major part of the discussions that took place. In other words, they're part of the history of the discussion, and therefore worthy of mention on that basis alone.
No one says that you need to include every minor viewpoint held by one or two people, but if the idea has enough acceptance, it should be there -- right, wrong, proven, or unproven.
I'm sure I can find articles about the people who killed themselves over the Hale-Bopp comet, Scientology, Electric Universe, and thousands of other things that are "unproven". Why do you get to decide which unproven things do and don't make it in?
Just name a teddy bear Spam. That should just about do it.
How hard is it for you to grasp that I'm justifying why they don't work on those things? Of course they don't. Why would your government teach foreign nationals how to launch missiles? Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean the rest of the world is as stupid as you are.
Rockets don't just go to space, you know. Sometimes they carry explosives, and your science geek may wind up helping his home country aim them. The most terrible weapons were created by science geeks.
A lot of corporate filters drop .zip files specifically due to a rash of Windows .zip file exploits that went on a couple years ago. .tar.gz was never affected, and so are not dropped.
I hate to say it, but sometimes when people won't get along, you just gotta let 'em duke it out. Get the hell out of the country and let them have their civil war. We had ours. Sometimes a war with a clear winner is better for the greater peace later on, instead of this ongoing sniping.
It's sort of like a hurricane. There are all of these temperature and pressure imbalances, which cause one crazy storm. The storm is quick, releases unfathomable energy, and then it's over and equilibrium is restored.
I'm not saying this would be a *good* way, I'm just saying that it might be the *only* way. Sometimes reality sucks. Trying to contain the energy of a hurricane wouldn't be easy, cheap, or ultimately, possible. Eventually it spills out anyway, and the only thing you did was allow it to build up more energy by holding it back for so long.
...Or don't have the proper perspective. For example, consider one of those huge walk-through mazes. Those things are dog-simple when seen from above, but when you're inside of it, it can take an hour to get out. You do eventually get out, but it takes a lot longer to solve that way than the seconds it would take when seen from a better point of view.
I'm personally of the opinion that nothing science concludes will ever be able to prove or disprove the existence of (a) God(s), so I'm not sure why this discussion keeps coming up. Yeah, science never "proves", only "shows to be likely", whatever. The point is that you either believe in God or you don't. There's no scientifically veritable "correct" answer that can ever be had until some day in the future when it's too late to do anything about it anyway. You're either worm food or in your final eternal resting place... wherever that may be.
Honestly, the religion bashing is completely pointless and is getting really, really old hat.
I wonder if her name was Anita Bean? Brillant!
Heh. The guy's got some interesting ideas, but his examples and conclusions are a bit odd.
I think the trick behind this statement was in the wording, such as "Would you like me to install some extra-special, hackerproof, ZOMG ThEy'LL N3veR cr@ck your computer security?" Use wording only an idiot would say "yes" to. The idea is to get them to say "Yes, I'm an idiot" without using so many words.
Even with a small recurrence of fingerprints, I'd think they could still be used in court -- just not as the only evidence. They would have to prove that one of the people with those prints had motive and was in the right place at the right time, or some other circumstantial evidence.
With 4 (5?) billion people on this planet, I can't imagine that my index finger's pattern of swirls is absolutely unique -- especially when you start talking about partial prints. But, if I share fingerprints with some poor farmer in China, and the prints show up on a murder weapon in my home state, I'd doubt the farmer would be served summons papers, questions of jurisdiction aside.
True. The GGP asserted that all genetic diseases are preexisting conditions, which I don't believe to be the case. As you note, there's a spectrum of cases, from never actually having the disease, even if you have the genes for it, to definitely having it without a doubt if you have the genes for it.
The point is that this spectrum exists, and so insurance companies probably couldn't use these tests to automatically consider any genetic predispositions as "pre-existing conditions".