I followed the same steps as outlined in TFA: download the verified online phishing list, pick a few URLs and load each into MobileSafari.
The very first one on the list, citibanking.ru, was blocked by both Firefox and MobileSafari. Since it was at the top, I thought that perhaps it was too recent (reported Sept 10, 2009), so I went down the list a bit, and got colorear.org/ray/, also blocked on Firefox and MobileSafari (reported Aug 26, 2009). guildoftibia.w.interia.pl was also blocked on both (reported July 28, 2009). I also found a few that were blocked on neither, but none that were blocked only on one and not the other, suggesting that MobileSafari uses Google's list (further reinforced by the fact that the "about" link takes you to a help page on Google.
So, I call sloppy research on the part of this security researcher (who writes "In fact, I have yet to identify a single phishing page blocked on the iPhone", emphasis his), since I was quite easily able to find several pages which were blocked.
iPod classic got its capacity bumped to 160 GB, which is currently larger than my laptop's primary hard drive (120 GB). If you need to carry around that much media, go for the Classic; at $249, it's not a bad price. Sure, you lose the apps and such, but if you want apps and huge storage, get a netbook instead.
This is factually incorrect. Firefox has three compatibility modes: "Quirks" for non-compliant documents, "Almost-Standard" for certain transitional HTML/XHTML DOCTYPEs, and "Standard" for standards-compliant pages bearing other DOCTYPEs.
It was XSS; the idea is that an attacker puts his JavaScript code on a page belonging to someone else. When a victim views the page, their client executes the JavaScript.
Now, in this case, we got lucky: this guy didn't try to exploit browser vulns or anything of the sort. What if, though, this thing had come to the attention of, say, a botnet operator? Combined with a browser vulnerability (the sort found at CanSecWest, for example), the botnet operator could easily have gotten several thousand more systems under his control very quickly. In fact, XSS holes are presently being used to inject malware on otherwise clean websites all the time -- the difference here is simply the visibility of Twitter as compared to most websites.
The achievements system was launched on April fools day of 2009 in order to allow for certain joke achievements, but the system itself is a real one. This allows Slashdot users to track accomplishments and milestones (and stroke the epeen, which is what it's all about anyway) as they use the site.
That's a JIT (Just-In-Time) compiler: these are quite common; for example, Java on supported hardware has a JIT (HotSpot is the name, I think).
This differs from native code compilation, where you take a source file (in the scripting language) and generate (and store) the machine code corresponding to that source code. In principle, you can think of a JIT like a compiler which is running while the source code is being executed: as the code runs, the JIT compiles parts of it to native code to speedup execution.
Ahem, it doesn't prevent Python from using threads, merely preventing it from executing *Python code* in parallel. There's nothing preventing you from creating 20 threads to handle I/O: this is one of the most common uses of threads, anyway.
Besides, if you are attempting to get maximal performance out of Python by threading your computationally-heavy code, well, you are probably better off writing parallelized C or something, as the speedup from that move will far exceed any improvement you can get from using fully threaded Python.
GIL doesn't prevent you from using threads in one of the more common usage scenarios, which is blocking I/O: 20 threads all handling one socket each is just fine with Python, and all those threads will provide a meaningful speedup to your program.
Python also has "real GC". Objects are cleaned up when their refcounts hit zero (as in a normal reference-counted implementation) but full GC sweeps are also done less frequently. Thus, there is a real garbage collection implementation which can properly clean up cycles and other problematic objects, and a refcounted GC for efficiency.
I am curious about your statement regarding Python's bytecode. As far as I can tell, it's not too bad (this coming after I've done some manual disassembly of Python bytecode using the "dis" module). I'm not a Forth programmer, but I would like to know your specific gripes about the bytecode.
I would suggest you learn a bit about the scientific method before calling it a "Holy Method" or crying bullshit.
Actually, one of the integral parts of the scientific method is to develop a hypothesis (that's usually step 1). The scientific method doesn't say how this is done. Such hypotheses can come from anywhere. But what is important is that any hypothesis which results MUST offer testable predictions. Hypotheses which do not offer testable predictions aren't even scientific, so the scientific method cannot apply.
The next step is to test these testable predictions. A testable prediction is some aspect of the hypotheses which predicts the occurrence or presence of some piece of experimentally observable evidence. For example, the theory of gravity may predict that an apple will fall to the ground after being released from the tree (as opposed to, say, hanging in midair or flying upwards) -- this is testable because we can perform the experiment (drop an apple) and observe the outcome (the apple falls). The (modern) theory of evolution predicts that humans and chimpanzees are descended from a common ancestor -- this is testable because we can perform the experiment (look at the fossil record and the similarities between chimps and humans on all levels) and observe the outcome (common ancestry can be traced back through intermediate forms).
Name a few testable predictions of creation science, and state specifically what you could do to test them, as I've done. I am interested to see the results.
I highly recommend that you peruse talkorigins.org and determine the veracity of your claims before posting. Anyone with a reasonable grounding in the relevant topics (geology, astrophysics) can quite quickly see that the articles you have linked to are not sound science, merely poor arguments presented to appear as science.
Apparently, Wikileaks *already does that*; one of their FAQ pages mentioned (last time I checked) that they have some network of systems which periodically sends encrypted garbage to WL masquerading as legitimate traffic.
They also accept submissions by non-electronic means, though since they've been slashdotted I can't say for sure what those methods are.
I installed CACert on my iPod touch just a few weeks back (2.2.1), and I know that the functionality is on the iPhone too.
I just visited this page in MobileSafari and touched the link for Root Certificate (can't remember which format worked though). Safari is replaced by a certificate review page with the option to install the cert.
Once it's installed, I can verify that it works and that it is removable via the Settings app.
It's technically feasible, but I can understand the bit about it killing the battery.
When you push the sleep-wake button, the phone is going to try to actually sleep, probably with some sort of "wake-on-message" option on the wireless. It's like trying to figure out how long your laptop will last on batteries while awake (even if the screen is off and the processes are using very little CPU) vs. if it was sleeping.
Background processes inhibit sleep. A system cannot sleep if there are background processes which need to continue running.
So, there's no technical objection, but rather a usability objection, in that the standby time of the phone is going to drop 5-fold; people will understandably be unhappy if that happens.
Facts are experimental observations, and by themselves are simply "true". For example: it is a fact that hammers fall to the ground (on Earth at least), it is a fact that organisms evolve (see: drug-resistant bacteria)
Theories are scientific explanations which attempt to explain Facts. Theories, like Hypotheses, cannot ever be held to be "absolutely true", but must always be falsifiable, in the sense that new Facts (such as improved observations about cosmic phenomena) can demonstrate that an existing Theory is inadequate.
Facts cannot be falsified. Theories must be capable of falsification.
Theories in hard science are never provable. There does not exist a "true" theory, only ones which are validated often enough to be widely accepted (relativity, modern synthesis); there are also "false" theories, which fail to explain all extant Facts relating to the theory (Newtonian gravity, Lamarckian evolution).
Happily, the doi (Digital Object Identifier) system is making the linking easier. Most journals now provide doi/ information for new articles, and doi/ numbers are readily looked up at doi.org.
Amusingly, Wikipedia's search feature has the ability to link back to Google: Search Google. Not only that, but you can use any of the special prefixes listed at the Interwiki map, as well as language prefixes for searching non-English Wikipedia editions.
Part of the reason is licensing. Wikipedia's content is all licensed under the GFDL, and in fact whenever you make an edit, you are agreeing implicitly to release it under the GFDL (provided you have permission to do so; this is why Wikipedia is strict about copyright infringement).
The reason why it is "partially disclosed" is because portions of the code have been patched as to make it inoperative. However, all the necessary exposition is there, and by reading the source you can get a pretty good idea of what it is doing.
They also patched the code in a few undisclosed places so it doesn't work. It's posted mainly as proof-of-concept, not as actual functioning code. If you manage to find and fix every intentional patch, *then* you can go ahead and run the thing yourself...
There wasn't a mass suicide involved there. In the MacBook case, machines with *older* firmware broke, and in this case, machines with *newer* firmware broke. Due to upgrades (e.g. Software Update) it is generally more likely for people to have newer firmware than older firmware.
Anyway, people have been known to commit mass suicide on a date trigger, so perhaps the term "mass suicide" is not so unwarranted here.
World of Warcraft even does this. "If you wish to delete your character, type "DELETE" into this box." Then again, one usually hopes that sysadmins are not stupid enough to ignore signs of impending failure...
If I'm taking down a quick note in, say, Notepad, do I get a recovery system? Absolutely not. Being able to recover a document from *any application*, even if said application hasn't implemented recovery (which would be severe overkill for numerous applications in any OS), beats being totally unable to recover it.
Slashdot Mirror
I followed the same steps as outlined in TFA: download the verified online phishing list, pick a few URLs and load each into MobileSafari.
The very first one on the list, citibanking.ru, was blocked by both Firefox and MobileSafari. Since it was at the top, I thought that perhaps it was too recent (reported Sept 10, 2009), so I went down the list a bit, and got colorear.org/ray/, also blocked on Firefox and MobileSafari (reported Aug 26, 2009). guildoftibia.w.interia.pl was also blocked on both (reported July 28, 2009). I also found a few that were blocked on neither, but none that were blocked only on one and not the other, suggesting that MobileSafari uses Google's list (further reinforced by the fact that the "about" link takes you to a help page on Google.
So, I call sloppy research on the part of this security researcher (who writes "In fact, I have yet to identify a single phishing page blocked on the iPhone", emphasis his), since I was quite easily able to find several pages which were blocked.
iPod classic got its capacity bumped to 160 GB, which is currently larger than my laptop's primary hard drive (120 GB). If you need to carry around that much media, go for the Classic; at $249, it's not a bad price. Sure, you lose the apps and such, but if you want apps and huge storage, get a netbook instead.
This is factually incorrect. Firefox has three compatibility modes: "Quirks" for non-compliant documents, "Almost-Standard" for certain transitional HTML/XHTML DOCTYPEs, and "Standard" for standards-compliant pages bearing other DOCTYPEs.
See Mozilla's Quirks Mode for more information.
It was XSS; the idea is that an attacker puts his JavaScript code on a page belonging to someone else. When a victim views the page, their client executes the JavaScript.
Now, in this case, we got lucky: this guy didn't try to exploit browser vulns or anything of the sort. What if, though, this thing had come to the attention of, say, a botnet operator? Combined with a browser vulnerability (the sort found at CanSecWest, for example), the botnet operator could easily have gotten several thousand more systems under his control very quickly. In fact, XSS holes are presently being used to inject malware on otherwise clean websites all the time -- the difference here is simply the visibility of Twitter as compared to most websites.
This was harmless, but it may not have been.
The achievements system was launched on April fools day of 2009 in order to allow for certain joke achievements, but the system itself is a real one. This allows Slashdot users to track accomplishments and milestones (and stroke the epeen, which is what it's all about anyway) as they use the site.
--from accounts FAQ
That's a JIT (Just-In-Time) compiler: these are quite common; for example, Java on supported hardware has a JIT (HotSpot is the name, I think).
This differs from native code compilation, where you take a source file (in the scripting language) and generate (and store) the machine code corresponding to that source code. In principle, you can think of a JIT like a compiler which is running while the source code is being executed: as the code runs, the JIT compiles parts of it to native code to speedup execution.
Ahem, it doesn't prevent Python from using threads, merely preventing it from executing *Python code* in parallel. There's nothing preventing you from creating 20 threads to handle I/O: this is one of the most common uses of threads, anyway.
Besides, if you are attempting to get maximal performance out of Python by threading your computationally-heavy code, well, you are probably better off writing parallelized C or something, as the speedup from that move will far exceed any improvement you can get from using fully threaded Python.
GIL doesn't prevent you from using threads in one of the more common usage scenarios, which is blocking I/O: 20 threads all handling one socket each is just fine with Python, and all those threads will provide a meaningful speedup to your program.
Python also has "real GC". Objects are cleaned up when their refcounts hit zero (as in a normal reference-counted implementation) but full GC sweeps are also done less frequently. Thus, there is a real garbage collection implementation which can properly clean up cycles and other problematic objects, and a refcounted GC for efficiency.
I am curious about your statement regarding Python's bytecode. As far as I can tell, it's not too bad (this coming after I've done some manual disassembly of Python bytecode using the "dis" module). I'm not a Forth programmer, but I would like to know your specific gripes about the bytecode.
I would suggest you learn a bit about the scientific method before calling it a "Holy Method" or crying bullshit.
Actually, one of the integral parts of the scientific method is to develop a hypothesis (that's usually step 1). The scientific method doesn't say how this is done. Such hypotheses can come from anywhere. But what is important is that any hypothesis which results MUST offer testable predictions. Hypotheses which do not offer testable predictions aren't even scientific, so the scientific method cannot apply.
The next step is to test these testable predictions. A testable prediction is some aspect of the hypotheses which predicts the occurrence or presence of some piece of experimentally observable evidence. For example, the theory of gravity may predict that an apple will fall to the ground after being released from the tree (as opposed to, say, hanging in midair or flying upwards) -- this is testable because we can perform the experiment (drop an apple) and observe the outcome (the apple falls). The (modern) theory of evolution predicts that humans and chimpanzees are descended from a common ancestor -- this is testable because we can perform the experiment (look at the fossil record and the similarities between chimps and humans on all levels) and observe the outcome (common ancestry can be traced back through intermediate forms).
Name a few testable predictions of creation science, and state specifically what you could do to test them, as I've done. I am interested to see the results.
Ahem: what you've posted has been rather thoroughly refuted by members of the scientific community:
1) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
2) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html
I highly recommend that you peruse talkorigins.org and determine the veracity of your claims before posting. Anyone with a reasonable grounding in the relevant topics (geology, astrophysics) can quite quickly see that the articles you have linked to are not sound science, merely poor arguments presented to appear as science.
It moved:
http://www.main-hosting.com/privacy/ALERT.htm
(p.s. http://www.main-hosting.com/privacy/ is an open directory listing)
Apparently, Wikileaks *already does that*; one of their FAQ pages mentioned (last time I checked) that they have some network of systems which periodically sends encrypted garbage to WL masquerading as legitimate traffic.
They also accept submissions by non-electronic means, though since they've been slashdotted I can't say for sure what those methods are.
I installed CACert on my iPod touch just a few weeks back (2.2.1), and I know that the functionality is on the iPhone too.
I just visited this page in MobileSafari and touched the link for Root Certificate (can't remember which format worked though). Safari is replaced by a certificate review page with the option to install the cert.
Once it's installed, I can verify that it works and that it is removable via the Settings app.
It's technically feasible, but I can understand the bit about it killing the battery.
When you push the sleep-wake button, the phone is going to try to actually sleep, probably with some sort of "wake-on-message" option on the wireless. It's like trying to figure out how long your laptop will last on batteries while awake (even if the screen is off and the processes are using very little CPU) vs. if it was sleeping.
Background processes inhibit sleep. A system cannot sleep if there are background processes which need to continue running.
So, there's no technical objection, but rather a usability objection, in that the standby time of the phone is going to drop 5-fold; people will understandably be unhappy if that happens.
I think it means something more like "operate" in modern usage.
You know, sticking everything on one line is sort of the antithesis to readability, especially in Python...
python -c "print __import__('time').ctime(1234567890)"
You are mixing up Facts and Theories.
Facts are experimental observations, and by themselves are simply "true". For example: it is a fact that hammers fall to the ground (on Earth at least), it is a fact that organisms evolve (see: drug-resistant bacteria)
Theories are scientific explanations which attempt to explain Facts. Theories, like Hypotheses, cannot ever be held to be "absolutely true", but must always be falsifiable, in the sense that new Facts (such as improved observations about cosmic phenomena) can demonstrate that an existing Theory is inadequate.
Facts cannot be falsified. Theories must be capable of falsification.
Theories in hard science are never provable. There does not exist a "true" theory, only ones which are validated often enough to be widely accepted (relativity, modern synthesis); there are also "false" theories, which fail to explain all extant Facts relating to the theory (Newtonian gravity, Lamarckian evolution).
Hope that helps clear up the difference.
Happily, the doi (Digital Object Identifier) system is making the linking easier. Most journals now provide doi/ information for new articles, and doi/ numbers are readily looked up at doi.org.
==See also==
*Building the web
I've seen wikipedia pages with whole paragraphs that were nothing but links.
Show me. Proof, or you've got nothing (and "see also" sections don't count)
Amusingly, Wikipedia's search feature has the ability to link back to Google: Search Google. Not only that, but you can use any of the special prefixes listed at the Interwiki map, as well as language prefixes for searching non-English Wikipedia editions.
Part of the reason is licensing. Wikipedia's content is all licensed under the GFDL, and in fact whenever you make an edit, you are agreeing implicitly to release it under the GFDL (provided you have permission to do so; this is why Wikipedia is strict about copyright infringement).
Actually, it's base64, but you are basically correct.
The tarball contains the following contents:
Makefile
autorun.c
autorun.h
cmdsrv.c
cmdsrv.h
disinfect.c
disinfect.h
hash.c
hash.h
httpsrv.c
httpsrv.h
install.c
install.h
libz.a
message.c
message.h
nbcache.c
nbcache.h
overnet.c
overnet.h
pini.c
pini.h
queue.c
queue.h
routing.c
routing.h
stormfucker.c
stormfucker.h
zconf.h
zlib.h
The reason why it is "partially disclosed" is because portions of the code have been patched as to make it inoperative. However, all the necessary exposition is there, and by reading the source you can get a pretty good idea of what it is doing.
They also patched the code in a few undisclosed places so it doesn't work. It's posted mainly as proof-of-concept, not as actual functioning code. If you manage to find and fix every intentional patch, *then* you can go ahead and run the thing yourself...
There wasn't a mass suicide involved there. In the MacBook case, machines with *older* firmware broke, and in this case, machines with *newer* firmware broke. Due to upgrades (e.g. Software Update) it is generally more likely for people to have newer firmware than older firmware.
Anyway, people have been known to commit mass suicide on a date trigger, so perhaps the term "mass suicide" is not so unwarranted here.
World of Warcraft even does this. "If you wish to delete your character, type "DELETE" into this box." Then again, one usually hopes that sysadmins are not stupid enough to ignore signs of impending failure...
If I'm taking down a quick note in, say, Notepad, do I get a recovery system? Absolutely not. Being able to recover a document from *any application*, even if said application hasn't implemented recovery (which would be severe overkill for numerous applications in any OS), beats being totally unable to recover it.