So, what real world object or property is being described by this area in metric, or its inverse in imperial?
That's simple, actually. If you laid the gas you burned while driving a certain distance as a thin tube over that distance, this area would be the area of the cross section of this tube.
If you could start a semester at college by signing up for every class that looked remotely interesting, show up to the first lecture or two, decide whether it was, then only take the classes you wanted, you'd probably see rates more like that.
You mean you *can't*? That's exactly how I DO study.
Are you asserting that the disk size should be reported by the OS/apps in "GB" and files should be reported as kilobytes, megabytes, etc?
I'm asserting that both disk sizes and file sizes should be reported in gigabytes AKA GB (AKA 10^9 bytes), yes. Or kilo-, mega-, or tera- versions, of course.
What happens when you try to copy 375 gigabytes to a 400GB hard disk (let's ignore filesystem overhead in this example) and it doesn't fit?
But it does fit. You have a 375 gigabytes = 375 * 10^9 bytes file, and 400 GB = 400 * 10^9 bytes of disk space. So it all works out just the way it should.
The problem with that point of view is that it's not acceptable if a kilobyte per kilogram is not the same thing as a byte per gram. If ever that situation occurs, something has gone horribly wrong somewhere.
As a more direct example, network transfer speeds are customarily measured in real SI units; your 100 Mbit/s network card can transfer 10^8 bits per second, not 100*2^20 bits. Now how long does it take to transfer a 1GB file over a 100 Mbit/s connection? The answer had better come out as 80 seconds. If it instead comes out as 85.9 seconds because the 100 Mbit/s meant 10^8 bits per second and the 1GB meant 2^30 bytes, I think we can all agree that we're doing SOMETHING terribly wrong.
The professor gave no instructions on how to properly cite things, gave an assignment, and 'taught everyone a lesson' by failing them all for plagiarism when they didn't follow the exact standards of reference citing.
How does that work, exactly? Not following the citation standards is not plagiarism. As long as a person denotes in any way whatsoever that a given thought / phrasing is not his own, it is not plagiarism, no matter how wrong the form or how limited the information in this declaration. It doesn't matter if the title of the original book, or the publisher, or hell even the author's name is missing -- as long as one writes "this is not mine" it is not plagiarism. It may not meet the requirements set by the course and therefore warrant a failing grade, but academic honesty violations are out of the question.
Please explain how. From the undecidability of the halting problem you can derive that there can be no program that reliably decides whether a given program is secure, but this is a very long way from saying that it's impossible to prevent all security holes.
What keeps me from trying to prove a given program's security by hand? Or how about a program that can prove security IF the input program if sufficiently well-written, giving up on secure but unclear programs for which it can't be sure? Turing's argument doesn't disallow that, and in fact it's perfectly possible.
Re:Theoretical performance vs real-world performan
on
Knuth Got It Wrong
·
· Score: 1
For instance, Knuth's analysis that the author of the article here holds to be misleading (not, as the Slashdot title suggests, "wrong") calculates the complexity based on the assumption of ideal random access memory, that is, memory for which all accesses are equal cost.
No, it assumes memory for which all access are *at worst* a certain equal cost - in other words, memory for which accesses have an upper bound. Knuth's analysis still holds if certain pieces of memory are FASTER than the norm. If we take memory access going through swap as the normal, worst case, upper-bound cost of memory access, and RAM and cache hits as special better cases, the analysis still applies to the real world.
This means that algorithms in the real world can scale worse than their theoretical "worst-case", if that theoretical worst-case scaling is based on the assumption of constant memory access cost, since that assumption does not hold in the real world.
Doesn't it? The theoretical worst case corresponds nicely to the real-world worst case of all memory coming from swap. The (typical) case in which there is also a bunch of fast RAM and even faster CPU caches is just not the worst case.
Really? It is exactly the reason that made me never buy a console: consoles have all the DRM nastyness PC games have, except that I can't avoid it with cracks.
It is entirely accurate - assuming you have access rights to the target process. To summarize it mostly accurately, you have access rights to the target process if it's yours (started from your account), if you have admin rights, or if you have global debugging rights (which requires admin rights to grant).
In other words, it isn't insecure at all. Of course, this point becomes moot if the malware runs from the same account as the user, or even with admin rights, as is common on Windows. But that's an entirely different problem which is orthogonal to the issue described here.
Note that the truth of your statement does not change when you replace "R" by "python" (and remove the word "statistical"). Nevertheless, I would still call python a programming language.
As the owner of a domain, I possess a countably infinite number of email addresses. All of them are mine, and I can use them when I feel like it. If I ever were to appear on this list, I suspect the USA government will run out of disk space before I run out of email addresses.
The same holds for anyone with a gmail account, by the way, with the *+username@gmail.com addressing scheme and all.
No, I don't do Windows. John Simpson has documented a method to do just that, though.
Of course, the only reason that it's slightly more difficult with AD controllers is that AD's data structures are heavily obfuscated. And we all know how well security through obscurity works (as demonstrated by John).
Of course not. Just boot with a livecd and (assuming, for sake of argument, that we're talking about a unix system) mount the system disk, chroot/mnt, passwd root. Problem solved. It works differently on other systems, but this sort of attack (if you want to call it as such) is possible on any platform. (http://home.eunet.no/pnordahl/ntpasswd/ comes to mind for Windows systems)
By using the fact that they still have physical access? Resetting his password, or re-enabling other admin accounts is trivial if you can boot the target server with a recovery disk or something along those lines.
The difference is that on the cases you mention, you aren't contractually bound; instead, you are bound by the law. The people producing and selling these items don't set these restrictions, the government does.
These sites' purpose and content consisted substantially of indexing and enabling the search for unlawful copies of copyrighted works. Actually, I think these sites' purpose consisted mostly of indexing and enabling the search for copies of works, regardless of their copyright status and legality. In this scenario, it would be the downloaders' responsibility to verify whether they could legally download said works.
Slashdot Mirror
We are a death phobic society and it's actually irrational.
Why? There's nothing irrational about being scared of something that is in fact bad and dangerous.
So, what real world object or property is being described by this area in metric, or its inverse in imperial?
That's simple, actually. If you laid the gas you burned while driving a certain distance as a thin tube over that distance, this area would be the area of the cross section of this tube.
If you could start a semester at college by signing up for every class that looked remotely interesting, show up to the first lecture or two, decide whether it was, then only take the classes you wanted, you'd probably see rates more like that.
You mean you *can't*? That's exactly how I DO study.
You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to my opinion.
Take my mod points. Take ALL my mod points. (It's a damn shame I don't have any.)
Are you asserting that the disk size should be reported by the OS/apps in "GB" and files should be reported as kilobytes, megabytes, etc?
I'm asserting that both disk sizes and file sizes should be reported in gigabytes AKA GB (AKA 10^9 bytes), yes. Or kilo-, mega-, or tera- versions, of course.
What happens when you try to copy 375 gigabytes to a 400GB hard disk (let's ignore filesystem overhead in this example) and it doesn't fit?
But it does fit. You have a 375 gigabytes = 375 * 10^9 bytes file, and 400 GB = 400 * 10^9 bytes of disk space. So it all works out just the way it should.
the point is you can't just redefine existing terms that are in common use and expect the world to reconfigure itself around you.
The irony in that sentence is delicious.
Not when they go in, view the size of their disk and find that it's 93 GB, instead of 100 GB.
But it is not. Certain broken programs just report it that way. That's a problem with the programs, not the disks.
The problem with that point of view is that it's not acceptable if a kilobyte per kilogram is not the same thing as a byte per gram. If ever that situation occurs, something has gone horribly wrong somewhere.
As a more direct example, network transfer speeds are customarily measured in real SI units; your 100 Mbit/s network card can transfer 10^8 bits per second, not 100*2^20 bits. Now how long does it take to transfer a 1GB file over a 100 Mbit/s connection? The answer had better come out as 80 seconds. If it instead comes out as 85.9 seconds because the 100 Mbit/s meant 10^8 bits per second and the 1GB meant 2^30 bytes, I think we can all agree that we're doing SOMETHING terribly wrong.
The professor gave no instructions on how to properly cite things, gave an assignment, and 'taught everyone a lesson' by failing them all for plagiarism when they didn't follow the exact standards of reference citing.
How does that work, exactly? Not following the citation standards is not plagiarism. As long as a person denotes in any way whatsoever that a given thought / phrasing is not his own, it is not plagiarism, no matter how wrong the form or how limited the information in this declaration. It doesn't matter if the title of the original book, or the publisher, or hell even the author's name is missing -- as long as one writes "this is not mine" it is not plagiarism. It may not meet the requirements set by the course and therefore warrant a failing grade, but academic honesty violations are out of the question.
He should also stop pretending he's trying to hide Terminator movies.
This. Didn't you hear? It's okay to watch My Little Pony nowadays.
it is provably impossible to construct an unhackable software system that has to deal with external input
Again, prove it. If reducing from the undecidability of the halting problem, of even the incompleteness theorem, show how.
No, he proved that you can't decide whether a program works correctly. It does not follow that you can't prove correctness for particular programs.
Please explain how. From the undecidability of the halting problem you can derive that there can be no program that reliably decides whether a given program is secure, but this is a very long way from saying that it's impossible to prevent all security holes.
What keeps me from trying to prove a given program's security by hand? Or how about a program that can prove security IF the input program if sufficiently well-written, giving up on secure but unclear programs for which it can't be sure? Turing's argument doesn't disallow that, and in fact it's perfectly possible.
However, it is provably impossible to do so.
Oh? Please prove it, then.
For instance, Knuth's analysis that the author of the article here holds to be misleading (not, as the Slashdot title suggests, "wrong") calculates the complexity based on the assumption of ideal random access memory, that is, memory for which all accesses are equal cost.
No, it assumes memory for which all access are *at worst* a certain equal cost - in other words, memory for which accesses have an upper bound. Knuth's analysis still holds if certain pieces of memory are FASTER than the norm. If we take memory access going through swap as the normal, worst case, upper-bound cost of memory access, and RAM and cache hits as special better cases, the analysis still applies to the real world.
This means that algorithms in the real world can scale worse than their theoretical "worst-case", if that theoretical worst-case scaling is based on the assumption of constant memory access cost, since that assumption does not hold in the real world.
Doesn't it? The theoretical worst case corresponds nicely to the real-world worst case of all memory coming from swap. The (typical) case in which there is also a bunch of fast RAM and even faster CPU caches is just not the worst case.
Really? It is exactly the reason that made me never buy a console: consoles have all the DRM nastyness PC games have, except that I can't avoid it with cracks.
It is entirely accurate - assuming you have access rights to the target process. To summarize it mostly accurately, you have access rights to the target process if it's yours (started from your account), if you have admin rights, or if you have global debugging rights (which requires admin rights to grant).
In other words, it isn't insecure at all. Of course, this point becomes moot if the malware runs from the same account as the user, or even with admin rights, as is common on Windows. But that's an entirely different problem which is orthogonal to the issue described here.
Note that the truth of your statement does not change when you replace "R" by "python" (and remove the word "statistical"). Nevertheless, I would still call python a programming language.
As the owner of a domain, I possess a countably infinite number of email addresses. All of them are mine, and I can use them when I feel like it. If I ever were to appear on this list, I suspect the USA government will run out of disk space before I run out of email addresses.
The same holds for anyone with a gmail account, by the way, with the *+username@gmail.com addressing scheme and all.
No, I don't do Windows. John Simpson has documented a method to do just that, though.
Of course, the only reason that it's slightly more difficult with AD controllers is that AD's data structures are heavily obfuscated. And we all know how well security through obscurity works (as demonstrated by John).
Of course not. Just boot with a livecd and (assuming, for sake of argument, that we're talking about a unix system) mount the system disk, chroot /mnt, passwd root. Problem solved. It works differently on other systems, but this sort of attack (if you want to call it as such) is possible on any platform. (http://home.eunet.no/pnordahl/ntpasswd/ comes to mind for Windows systems)
By using the fact that they still have physical access? Resetting his password, or re-enabling other admin accounts is trivial if you can boot the target server with a recovery disk or something along those lines.
The difference is that on the cases you mention, you aren't contractually bound; instead, you are bound by the law. The people producing and selling these items don't set these restrictions, the government does.
So my copy of the mail still gets silently dropped, which is a bad thing according to GP.