I, for one, hope they continue to teach calculus in schools.
Everything you learn up to calculus is basically arithmetic. With algebra, you get into some more complicated math, but it still seems like just adding and multiplying, which you've been doing for years by then. It's not really very interesting.
But calculus, oh boy. There is some interesting mathematics in there. In fact, I'd say that this is the first exposure students get to "real" math, with analysis rolled in for fun. Not to mention with calculus you get to start solving complicated, interesting problems that are actually useful to solve, like acceleration and velocity calculations, the first introduction of new operators since 1st grade, and the more existential problems like the completeness of reals.
If we drop calculus, all we end up teaching kids about math in schools is the boring stuff, and I fear that's what they'll think. Boring is not what math is about! We need to teach students calculus because it's the first real introduction to the type mathematics you work on as a mathematician.
I liked math before, but after calculus, I loved it. Now I'm working on a physics/math double major, and the physics is looking less and less interesting.
So zip up the source files and drop them in the app package you submit to Apple. That's what id did with the wolf3d sources. Presto, source distributed along with every download from the App Store, now go sit in the corner with a nice big cup of STFU.
Sure, the source is distributed, but it is inaccessible . There is no way to access files on iOS without jailbreaking it. It would be like if you bought some files from me, and I distributed them as encrypted archives without giving you the password. You expected readable files, but all you got was unusable extra data that contain those files, somewhere.
Even if you ignore the distribution problem, though, anyone who downloads GPL'd apps from the app store is not free to modify and distribute usable binaries. The last part is the important part for GPLv3 software, which was targeted at a similar thing Tivo did a while back (and may still do) to exploit a loophole in the GPLv2.
If I download GPL software, the GPL explicitly gives me rights as a user. I am free to modify and free to distribute. The first one works here; I can download Apple's SDK freely, and modify the source provided (again, ignoring the source distribution problem). I am also free to distribute my modified work so others can use it; This I cannot do on iOS without paying Apple $100 for the privilege, and even then I can only do this as many times as I want by getting AppStore approved (not free, as in freedom), or paying for the enterprise option (significantly not free, as in money).
... what's actually best for the vast majority (as in the 92% that have not jailbroken their devices) of users.
I would like to know where you got this number (92%), because I suspect it is much lower. I have no proof of this, though, and I'd like to know what the number actually is.
Also, I would like to note that not all GPL'd source is AppStore incompatible, because of one thing. If I write software (from scratch) that I license under the GPL, I'm still free to distribute it however I want (as the copyright owner). So I can put it on the AppStore. However, I couldn't do that if I also pulled in other GPL sources, since I do not own the copyright on all the code anymore and therefore must adhere to their licenses.
Sadly, Mr Dziuba has the right idea but uses terrible examples in his blogpost.
Wget for crawling tens of millions of web pages using a 10 line script? He doesn't understand crawling at scale.
Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but wget is an extremely powerful and configurable web client (just check out its man page). I never thought it was so versatile until I started using it for more than just downloading tarballs on the command line.
It's not inconceivable that the right combination of simultaneous downloads, link processing, bandwidth throttling, and per-download waits could do the job just fine.
Scenes are added to even the very best 3D movie to do nothing but show off the 3D effect. When viewed in 2D (and often in 3D actually) they end up looking truely awful, and serving to do nothing but ruin immersion and make you remember you're in a cinema.
Maybe I just missed these moments, but if I recall correctly both Up and Toy Story 3 were available in 3D, and they were great movies. I never even saw Toy Story 3 in 3D.
Just because most 3D movies are gimmicky doesn't mean all are. It's just that most movies suck regardless.
Surely the problem is that you're assuming sqrt(1) = 1 when actually it is +- 1? You're throwing away the sign change in that step:)
Yeah, that's the problem, but for those interested...
The base problem with this is that unlike the logarithm for real numbers, the logarithm for complex values is not a function (or, if you like, it's a "multi-valued function"). This comes from the interesting fact that x^1 has 1 solution, x^2 has two solutions, x^3 has 3 solutions, and so on. We kind of fudge around it in reals, because x^n will only ever have one or two solutions, but in the complex plane it has n solutions, and things are much more complicated.
The end result of the multi-valued logarithm is that the normal rules for exponentiation and logarithms can break down in ways that may be unexpected. In this case, yeah, it's confusing sqrt(1) = +- 1, but I've seen more subtle proofs (similar to the GP's) that use cube roots to avoid the math plus-or-minus square root gut reaction.
How will things like OMG mode be supported? This is by far the most popular sub-mode of DoTA at the moment and with the keys to the kingdom locked up in a non-user-editable valve proprietary game I don't think OMG would ever have been developed.
This has already been said by an AC, but I'll echo it because it needs to be heard.
Non-user-editable valve proprietary game? Really? Have you played valve's games? The Source SDK is available to anyone with a Source game, and they're all very mod-able. Valve actually encourages this, because some of their most popular products (Counter-Strike, Team Fortress) were mods for Half-Life that they bought out and hired the creators. This is sort-of what happened here with DoTA. I wouldn't worry about mod-ability.
Also, if you've played other valve games, you know they have high standards. It's likely this will be a very good game. They also have a great relationship with their community. If players want a game mode, it'll be in there.
2. Religion causes indifference towards real life. This has already been hashed and rehashed in other threads, but this is the second thing I thought of, after...
1. Who cares if someone's indifferent towards real life, as long as they're living a fulfilled life? If a virtual world is nice enough to cause people to entirely disregard real life, then chances are (modulus some mental disorders) that world is nice enough to live a good life in. It doesn't matter what's real, as long as people are happy and they know there are other choices.
(Come to think of it, wasn't this the point of Inception?)
I'm sure there are good reasons for it that make sense to proper programmers, but personally I'd like to give whoever came up with this syntax a kick in the bollocks. Why would I want to do an assignment in an if statement or a loop condition check anyway?
In C (and derivative/similar languages), the assignment operator '=' has an associated "return" value, just like the other normal operators '+', '*',...
Put another way, both the expressions (variable + 5) and (variable = 5) evaluate to something. The first evaluates to the sum of variable and 5, while the second evaluates to the value 5 (or the value of variable, equivalently).
In this way, you can chain assignment expressions (e.g. variable = x = y = 5.0) without having to support a different syntax in the language, as '=' acts analogously to '+' or '*'. Additionally, you can do some neat tricks:
In C, you can read a character from the terminal via getchar(). So, if you want to read in all the characters, one at a time, until the character 'X', you can do this: while ((c = getchar()) != 'X') {/* do some stuff */ }
Without this ability, you would need to have at least two c = getchar() somewhere, instead of just the one, or a break statement that might mess up your flow somehow.
Of course, whether you consider that elegant or horrific is a matter of personal taste, or your boss's personal taste.
Yeah, in a file with that many entries, the extra 8 bytes per line would create a large performance hit.
I'm going to agree with the AC in a sibling thread, though: if your HOSTS file is larger than 10MB*, you're doing something with HOSTS it was never meant to do. It may be easier than setting up a proper DNS server, but it's not as efficient.
(I appreciate distributing a HOSTS file is easier than telling people how to setup a DNS server, though.)
I think if you start worrying about efficiency enough to start shaving bytes off of lines, you should consider the efficiency of loading a 10MB file instead of a proper DNS server, which can store this data more efficiently than a plain-text list.
My point stands for sane use cases. In my opinion, what you're doing is an abuse of HOSTS, even if it's a handy abuse.
* 10MB is an estimate. ~10 bytes per line * ~1 million lines
Yes, I am aware that reading more data from the disk is slower. However, I would like to point out that the time it takes to read an additional two (or even eight) sequential bytes off the disk is insignificant compared to the potential time wasted in a timeout.
Using "0.0.0.0" is more efficient, but not because of the primary reason you listed, even if that is a contributing factor. It's like saying that the water is boiling faster because the air is drier, but not mentioning that you turned up the burner.
I was not aware of your other post, and I apologize for the redundancy.
Using "0.0.0.0" instead of "127.0.0.1" is not more efficient because of size. There's only 2 bytes difference between the two; if your computer has a noticeable speedup just because it's reading 2 bytes less per HOSTS entry, you have way too many entries and probably more important problems.
The speedup, as pointed out by a different reply to GP, is because "0.0.0.0" is widely recognized as an invalid IP address, and just about every operating system will immediately fail if you try to connect to it. Using simply "127.0.0.1", the connect call has to go through the local loopback interface, and actually tries a connection, which adds up if you're accessing a lot of places at once (such as on a web page). The problem is even worse when the computer you're on is actually running something on port 80, in which case an actual connection is made, then fails, taking up more time. Or even worse: the connection times out!
Using "0.0.0.0" is good advice; I just wanted to make sure your reasons for using it are valid.
I use an iPhone and I thank people who do these exploits for bringing them to attention. If the means of jailbreak is "connect via USB then faff" I can live with it. If it's "go to this website and get an instant remote execution exploit from people you don't know" then I become rather more concerned.
How is "downloading a jailbreak tool from people I don't know and running it" different from "go to this website and get a remote execution exploit from people I don't know"? For the purposes of jailbreaking, that is.
The only bad that can come of this (though it is a big bad) is that this exploit is studied, copied, and used maliciously in the wild. For straight jailbreaking, this method is no less a vector for virii than the standard "download and run this tool" method. It may even be safer, as it can no longer infect your desktop as well.
If you're concerned about encountering this exploit in the wild, with less benevolent intentions, just install this jailbreak, which includes the security patch for this exploit for free!
It's an exploit, same as any other. It should be patched as fast as possible and such an action wouldn't be evil, it would be the correct response to a remote execution hole.
I agree, though I fear others would still feel like Apple is just doing it to prevent jailbreaking, and not to patch a remote code execution exploit. This should be patched as soon as possible. It's still a useful thing to have, though: future would-be jailbreakers can just restore to this software version and get a pain-free jailbreak, long after the most recent version has patched it.
For the record (because nobody seems to know this), this particular exploit, while jailbreaking your phone, also patches the security hole it rode in on. As of today, a freshly-jailbroken phone with a secure root password is more secure than the vanilla-OS versions.
Yes, this is an exploit. But it is an incredibly handy one.
(Also, on a historical note, there was a nearly identical version of this website (at the same address!) right after the first-gen iPhones and iPod Touches came out. I remember jailbreaking mine the day I got it, right from the device. That version also patched the exploit it used. If I recall correctly, it was an old bug in zlib or libpng.)
Yep. People who believe in parallel universes don't seem to comprehend the vast amount of data that would need to be stored to make such a thing possible. Every electron twitch - boom, new universe, with all of its state intact, loaded into a new memory location far away from the previous one.
Maybe the universe is just a gigantic collection of patchsets. Or, if you're familiar with git, that's a better analogy because the source is less rigidly hierarchical than standard VCS. Or...
If you've ever used the amb operator in Lisp or any other language, think of every quantum event as a variable defined by the amb operator. It's not well defined until you ask it, specifically, what it is.
Or, if you're not into amb, think of the universe as a deep tree search of all possible combinations of events, while throwing out the ones with self-consistency errors. It just goes back up the tree when it has to. Think closures, or C's setjmp, etc.
The universe doesn't have to copy itself every time a decision is made, it just has to use some trickier programming!
first off the majority of people wouldn't be able to immediately diagnose and patch because they have no idea how to do that.
Yes, but this does not negate the fact that there are many more eyes looking for flaws. A minority of a ton of people can still be a ton of people. The fact that anybody could diagnose and patch immediately is the important part.
second because linux is open source you would be less secure because it is easier to find flaws and backdoors in a system that you can view its source code.
Yes, and not all of those who find these flaws would exploit them. Many would fix them. Also, as pointed out many times on Slashdot, security through obscurity is not security at all.
and since linux uses a general public License if they request to see your source you have to give it to them because it requires that derivative works also fall under GNU's general public license.
This is a misinformed statement. The GPL requires that any publicly distributed derivative works be distributed under the GPL, but not privately-used derivative works. Moreover, the GPL only requires that you provide source code to those who have purchased the work. It's just a happy coincidence that most free (GPL) software also happens to be free (money).
the only way to truly secure yourself is to disconnect.
Truer words have never been spoken. Why is it, again, that we need a cybersecurity policy when we can just disconnect the freaking high-risk computers from the freaking internet?
Switching the majority OS to GNU/Linux would have one immediate and obvious benefit: the source is widely available and widely modifiable. If we find a vulnerability, it can be diagnosed and patched immediately, without having to wait for a corporation's blessing. Hell, you don't even have to wait for the kernel team's blessing, or any other governing entity. Just post the patch and tell people about it!
It used to be clear that *nix systems were more secure, because they were actual multi-user systems. Nowadays, it's less clear. I'm certain a properly set up SELinux system is still miles more secure than Windows 7, but it's unlikely a common user will have that. However, even if there is no security advantage, I know this: Linux may not be more secure, but it is certainly easier to keep secure.
4) At best, this is a new compression scheme for storing pictures - but certainly not a way to display them (see 2))
I'd be willing to bet that's the point. Despite being better than most, this was not a technical article.
2) What kind of screen are you going to use for that? Each pixel can have different types of pixel sizes so no screen could fit that. A square grid is the most uniform division of 2D space into units.
Actually, the most uniform division of 2D space into units is the equilateral triangle grid. See Simplex. Also, in another case of "Guy invents something he'll later regret", see Simplex Noise, Ken Perlin's replacement for the classic Perlin Noise, which used a square grid. Perlin noise wasn't isotropic, so there were weird visual artifacts in some cases. As I recall, there's a similar problem with square-pixel displays: they interact with the human eye in a weird way, and create interesting problems in anti-aliasing. This is why we have algorithms like Poisson disc supersampling, which look much better than square supersampling.
So no, this is not the most natural thing to do. It is, however, the easiest.
Having just left high school, I can say that at least around here, it's still sung in schools.
It was a tradition in the high school orchestra to have the director play an elaborate, chorded (but recognizable) "Happy Birthday" on the piano while the rest of the class sang. Cheezy, yeah, but it actually helped with team-building.
"How many politicians up in arms about Google Wi-Fi sniffing will want to know more about this?" - Seriously? what kind of statement is that? This has NOTHING to do with Google directly. As SilverHatHacker said, if you don't put a password on it, you're just as much to blame.
To me, that's the point.
Google collected freely available, unencrypted messages being broadcast over the electromagnetic spectrum. This is exactly the same as accessing a computer system with no password. Actually, I would say what Google was doing was better: they were data omnivores, taking in whatever floated their way. To take advantage of the voicemail system, you would have to target individuals.
This has nothing to do with Android, specifically. However, many people are quick to hate Google for collecting unsecured wifi data (though I still believe this was accidental), but equally quick to blame people with no passwords. There are people who would say both "unsecured wifi data I send should be private" and "people without passwords deserve whatever they get".
For physics, get the Lorentz Trasformations, or the metric equation for spacetime. Or, of course, you could just use one of their eventual products, the relativistic energy-momentum equation. It's the father of E=mc^2, but it has far more science cred. Maxwell's equations are fine and dandy, but remember that magnetism is just the relativistic expression of the electric field. To my mind, relativity is more beautiful. But for the love of god, use the versions of these equations where c = 1 unitless, or they'll be a mess!
Oh boy, I almost forgot quantum. The Schrödinger equation would not be a bad choice, either.
For math, I'd do Taylor's Theroem, especially since you seem to have interest in physics. For more nerd cred, use the multidimensional version with the integral form of the remainder included. For that matter, the multidimensional fundamental theorem of calculus (divergence theorem) would be cool too, but none of this sissy 3-dimensional stuff, go for full generality! Euler's Identity has been mentioned, and that's cool, but I'd go with the more mind-blowing and fundamental Euler's Formula. The Gamma function would also be a fine choice.
As far as I'm concerned, ads have no place in something you're already paying for. This applies to television, radio, newspapers, phone applications, and websites. Advertisements have been creeping in to paid services more and more recently. I'm fine with ads in free things; I accept that's part of why they are free. But it pains me when I buy something that forces me to see any ads.
Now, the question is, how many of these things could be supported without any ads?
Slashdot Mirror
It's more that kids may never find out they want to do math without calculus.
If I never took calculus, I'd have never learned I love math.
I, for one, hope they continue to teach calculus in schools.
Everything you learn up to calculus is basically arithmetic. With algebra, you get into some more complicated math, but it still seems like just adding and multiplying, which you've been doing for years by then. It's not really very interesting.
But calculus, oh boy. There is some interesting mathematics in there. In fact, I'd say that this is the first exposure students get to "real" math, with analysis rolled in for fun. Not to mention with calculus you get to start solving complicated, interesting problems that are actually useful to solve, like acceleration and velocity calculations, the first introduction of new operators since 1st grade, and the more existential problems like the completeness of reals.
If we drop calculus, all we end up teaching kids about math in schools is the boring stuff, and I fear that's what they'll think. Boring is not what math is about! We need to teach students calculus because it's the first real introduction to the type mathematics you work on as a mathematician.
I liked math before, but after calculus, I loved it. Now I'm working on a physics/math double major, and the physics is looking less and less interesting.
So zip up the source files and drop them in the app package you submit to Apple. That's what id did with the wolf3d sources. Presto, source distributed along with every download from the App Store, now go sit in the corner with a nice big cup of STFU.
Sure, the source is distributed, but it is inaccessible . There is no way to access files on iOS without jailbreaking it. It would be like if you bought some files from me, and I distributed them as encrypted archives without giving you the password. You expected readable files, but all you got was unusable extra data that contain those files, somewhere.
Even if you ignore the distribution problem, though, anyone who downloads GPL'd apps from the app store is not free to modify and distribute usable binaries. The last part is the important part for GPLv3 software, which was targeted at a similar thing Tivo did a while back (and may still do) to exploit a loophole in the GPLv2.
If I download GPL software, the GPL explicitly gives me rights as a user. I am free to modify and free to distribute. The first one works here; I can download Apple's SDK freely, and modify the source provided (again, ignoring the source distribution problem). I am also free to distribute my modified work so others can use it; This I cannot do on iOS without paying Apple $100 for the privilege, and even then I can only do this as many times as I want by getting AppStore approved (not free, as in freedom), or paying for the enterprise option (significantly not free, as in money).
... what's actually best for the vast majority (as in the 92% that have not jailbroken their devices) of users.
I would like to know where you got this number (92%), because I suspect it is much lower. I have no proof of this, though, and I'd like to know what the number actually is.
Also, I would like to note that not all GPL'd source is AppStore incompatible, because of one thing. If I write software (from scratch) that I license under the GPL, I'm still free to distribute it however I want (as the copyright owner). So I can put it on the AppStore. However, I couldn't do that if I also pulled in other GPL sources, since I do not own the copyright on all the code anymore and therefore must adhere to their licenses.
Obligatory xkcd, but it's old, so perhaps this plug is excusable.
National Language
Sadly, Mr Dziuba has the right idea but uses terrible examples in his blogpost.
Wget for crawling tens of millions of web pages using a 10 line script? He doesn't understand crawling at scale.
Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but wget is an extremely powerful and configurable web client (just check out its man page). I never thought it was so versatile until I started using it for more than just downloading tarballs on the command line.
It's not inconceivable that the right combination of simultaneous downloads, link processing, bandwidth throttling, and per-download waits could do the job just fine.
Wrong.
Scenes are added to even the very best 3D movie to do nothing but show off the 3D effect. When viewed in 2D (and often in 3D actually) they end up looking truely awful, and serving to do nothing but ruin immersion and make you remember you're in a cinema.
Maybe I just missed these moments, but if I recall correctly both Up and Toy Story 3 were available in 3D, and they were great movies. I never even saw Toy Story 3 in 3D.
Just because most 3D movies are gimmicky doesn't mean all are. It's just that most movies suck regardless.
Surely the problem is that you're assuming sqrt(1) = 1 when actually it is +- 1? You're throwing away the sign change in that step :)
Yeah, that's the problem, but for those interested...
The base problem with this is that unlike the logarithm for real numbers, the logarithm for complex values is not a function (or, if you like, it's a "multi-valued function"). This comes from the interesting fact that x^1 has 1 solution, x^2 has two solutions, x^3 has 3 solutions, and so on. We kind of fudge around it in reals, because x^n will only ever have one or two solutions, but in the complex plane it has n solutions, and things are much more complicated.
The end result of the multi-valued logarithm is that the normal rules for exponentiation and logarithms can break down in ways that may be unexpected. In this case, yeah, it's confusing sqrt(1) = +- 1, but I've seen more subtle proofs (similar to the GP's) that use cube roots to avoid the math plus-or-minus square root gut reaction.
For more information, see the Powers of Complex Numbers and Complex Logarithm pages on Wikipedia.
How will things like OMG mode be supported? This is by far the most popular sub-mode of DoTA at the moment and with the keys to the kingdom locked up in a non-user-editable valve proprietary game I don't think OMG would ever have been developed.
This has already been said by an AC, but I'll echo it because it needs to be heard.
Non-user-editable valve proprietary game? Really? Have you played valve's games? The Source SDK is available to anyone with a Source game, and they're all very mod-able. Valve actually encourages this, because some of their most popular products (Counter-Strike, Team Fortress) were mods for Half-Life that they bought out and hired the creators. This is sort-of what happened here with DoTA. I wouldn't worry about mod-ability.
Also, if you've played other valve games, you know they have high standards. It's likely this will be a very good game. They also have a great relationship with their community. If players want a game mode, it'll be in there.
2. Religion causes indifference towards real life. This has already been hashed and rehashed in other threads, but this is the second thing I thought of, after...
1. Who cares if someone's indifferent towards real life, as long as they're living a fulfilled life? If a virtual world is nice enough to cause people to entirely disregard real life, then chances are (modulus some mental disorders) that world is nice enough to live a good life in. It doesn't matter what's real, as long as people are happy and they know there are other choices.
(Come to think of it, wasn't this the point of Inception?)
God bless you, sir. This little tidbit of internet folklore made my day. I can't believe I've never seen this before.
I'm sure there are good reasons for it that make sense to proper programmers, but personally I'd like to give whoever came up with this syntax a kick in the bollocks. Why would I want to do an assignment in an if statement or a loop condition check anyway?
In C (and derivative/similar languages), the assignment operator '=' has an associated "return" value, just like the other normal operators '+', '*', ...
Put another way, both the expressions (variable + 5) and (variable = 5) evaluate to something. The first evaluates to the sum of variable and 5, while the second evaluates to the value 5 (or the value of variable, equivalently).
In this way, you can chain assignment expressions (e.g. variable = x = y = 5.0) without having to support a different syntax in the language, as '=' acts analogously to '+' or '*'. Additionally, you can do some neat tricks:
In C, you can read a character from the terminal via getchar(). So, if you want to read in all the characters, one at a time, until the character 'X', you can do this: /* do some stuff */ }
while ((c = getchar()) != 'X') {
Without this ability, you would need to have at least two c = getchar() somewhere, instead of just the one, or a break statement that might mess up your flow somehow.
Of course, whether you consider that elegant or horrific is a matter of personal taste, or your boss's personal taste.
Now I need to force myself to stop replying to this thread, I feel like I'm being drawn into this sort of situation: http://xkcd.com/386/
Agreed. :D
Yeah, in a file with that many entries, the extra 8 bytes per line would create a large performance hit.
I'm going to agree with the AC in a sibling thread, though: if your HOSTS file is larger than 10MB*, you're doing something with HOSTS it was never meant to do. It may be easier than setting up a proper DNS server, but it's not as efficient.
(I appreciate distributing a HOSTS file is easier than telling people how to setup a DNS server, though.)
I think if you start worrying about efficiency enough to start shaving bytes off of lines, you should consider the efficiency of loading a 10MB file instead of a proper DNS server, which can store this data more efficiently than a plain-text list.
My point stands for sane use cases. In my opinion, what you're doing is an abuse of HOSTS, even if it's a handy abuse.
* 10MB is an estimate. ~10 bytes per line * ~1 million lines
Yes, I am aware that reading more data from the disk is slower. However, I would like to point out that the time it takes to read an additional two (or even eight) sequential bytes off the disk is insignificant compared to the potential time wasted in a timeout.
Using "0.0.0.0" is more efficient, but not because of the primary reason you listed, even if that is a contributing factor. It's like saying that the water is boiling faster because the air is drier, but not mentioning that you turned up the burner.
I was not aware of your other post, and I apologize for the redundancy.
Good post, but for the record...
Using "0.0.0.0" instead of "127.0.0.1" is not more efficient because of size. There's only 2 bytes difference between the two; if your computer has a noticeable speedup just because it's reading 2 bytes less per HOSTS entry, you have way too many entries and probably more important problems.
The speedup, as pointed out by a different reply to GP, is because "0.0.0.0" is widely recognized as an invalid IP address, and just about every operating system will immediately fail if you try to connect to it. Using simply "127.0.0.1", the connect call has to go through the local loopback interface, and actually tries a connection, which adds up if you're accessing a lot of places at once (such as on a web page). The problem is even worse when the computer you're on is actually running something on port 80, in which case an actual connection is made, then fails, taking up more time. Or even worse: the connection times out!
Using "0.0.0.0" is good advice; I just wanted to make sure your reasons for using it are valid.
I use an iPhone and I thank people who do these exploits for bringing them to attention. If the means of jailbreak is "connect via USB then faff" I can live with it. If it's "go to this website and get an instant remote execution exploit from people you don't know" then I become rather more concerned.
How is "downloading a jailbreak tool from people I don't know and running it" different from "go to this website and get a remote execution exploit from people I don't know"? For the purposes of jailbreaking, that is.
The only bad that can come of this (though it is a big bad) is that this exploit is studied, copied, and used maliciously in the wild. For straight jailbreaking, this method is no less a vector for virii than the standard "download and run this tool" method. It may even be safer, as it can no longer infect your desktop as well.
If you're concerned about encountering this exploit in the wild, with less benevolent intentions, just install this jailbreak, which includes the security patch for this exploit for free!
It's an exploit, same as any other. It should be patched as fast as possible and such an action wouldn't be evil, it would be the correct response to a remote execution hole.
I agree, though I fear others would still feel like Apple is just doing it to prevent jailbreaking, and not to patch a remote code execution exploit. This should be patched as soon as possible. It's still a useful thing to have, though: future would-be jailbreakers can just restore to this software version and get a pain-free jailbreak, long after the most recent version has patched it.
For the record (because nobody seems to know this), this particular exploit, while jailbreaking your phone, also patches the security hole it rode in on. As of today, a freshly-jailbroken phone with a secure root password is more secure than the vanilla-OS versions.
Yes, this is an exploit. But it is an incredibly handy one.
(Also, on a historical note, there was a nearly identical version of this website (at the same address!) right after the first-gen iPhones and iPod Touches came out. I remember jailbreaking mine the day I got it, right from the device. That version also patched the exploit it used. If I recall correctly, it was an old bug in zlib or libpng.)
Yep. People who believe in parallel universes don't seem to comprehend the vast amount of data that would need to be stored to make such a thing possible. Every electron twitch - boom, new universe, with all of its state intact, loaded into a new memory location far away from the previous one.
Maybe the universe is just a gigantic collection of patchsets. Or, if you're familiar with git, that's a better analogy because the source is less rigidly hierarchical than standard VCS. Or...
If you've ever used the amb operator in Lisp or any other language, think of every quantum event as a variable defined by the amb operator. It's not well defined until you ask it, specifically, what it is.
Or, if you're not into amb, think of the universe as a deep tree search of all possible combinations of events, while throwing out the ones with self-consistency errors. It just goes back up the tree when it has to. Think closures, or C's setjmp, etc.
The universe doesn't have to copy itself every time a decision is made, it just has to use some trickier programming!
I fear that you are a troll. Nonetheless...
first off the majority of people wouldn't be able to immediately diagnose and patch because they have no idea how to do that.
Yes, but this does not negate the fact that there are many more eyes looking for flaws. A minority of a ton of people can still be a ton of people. The fact that anybody could diagnose and patch immediately is the important part.
second because linux is open source you would be less secure because it is easier to find flaws and backdoors in a system that you can view its source code.
Yes, and not all of those who find these flaws would exploit them. Many would fix them. Also, as pointed out many times on Slashdot, security through obscurity is not security at all.
and since linux uses a general public License if they request to see your source you have to give it to them because it requires that derivative works also fall under GNU's general public license.
This is a misinformed statement. The GPL requires that any publicly distributed derivative works be distributed under the GPL, but not privately-used derivative works. Moreover, the GPL only requires that you provide source code to those who have purchased the work. It's just a happy coincidence that most free (GPL) software also happens to be free (money).
the only way to truly secure yourself is to disconnect.
Truer words have never been spoken. Why is it, again, that we need a cybersecurity policy when we can just disconnect the freaking high-risk computers from the freaking internet?
Switching the majority OS to GNU/Linux would have one immediate and obvious benefit: the source is widely available and widely modifiable. If we find a vulnerability, it can be diagnosed and patched immediately, without having to wait for a corporation's blessing. Hell, you don't even have to wait for the kernel team's blessing, or any other governing entity. Just post the patch and tell people about it!
It used to be clear that *nix systems were more secure, because they were actual multi-user systems. Nowadays, it's less clear. I'm certain a properly set up SELinux system is still miles more secure than Windows 7, but it's unlikely a common user will have that. However, even if there is no security advantage, I know this: Linux may not be more secure, but it is certainly easier to keep secure.
4) At best, this is a new compression scheme for storing pictures - but certainly not a way to display them (see 2))
I'd be willing to bet that's the point. Despite being better than most, this was not a technical article.
2) What kind of screen are you going to use for that? Each pixel can have different types of pixel sizes so no screen could fit that. A square grid is the most uniform division of 2D space into units.
Actually, the most uniform division of 2D space into units is the equilateral triangle grid. See Simplex. Also, in another case of "Guy invents something he'll later regret", see Simplex Noise, Ken Perlin's replacement for the classic Perlin Noise, which used a square grid. Perlin noise wasn't isotropic, so there were weird visual artifacts in some cases. As I recall, there's a similar problem with square-pixel displays: they interact with the human eye in a weird way, and create interesting problems in anti-aliasing. This is why we have algorithms like Poisson disc supersampling, which look much better than square supersampling.
So no, this is not the most natural thing to do. It is, however, the easiest.
Give the guy some more credit.
Having just left high school, I can say that at least around here, it's still sung in schools.
It was a tradition in the high school orchestra to have the director play an elaborate, chorded (but recognizable) "Happy Birthday" on the piano while the rest of the class sang. Cheezy, yeah, but it actually helped with team-building.
"How many politicians up in arms about Google Wi-Fi sniffing will want to know more about this?" - Seriously? what kind of statement is that? This has NOTHING to do with Google directly. As SilverHatHacker said, if you don't put a password on it, you're just as much to blame.
To me, that's the point.
Google collected freely available, unencrypted messages being broadcast over the electromagnetic spectrum. This is exactly the same as accessing a computer system with no password. Actually, I would say what Google was doing was better: they were data omnivores, taking in whatever floated their way. To take advantage of the voicemail system, you would have to target individuals.
This has nothing to do with Android, specifically. However, many people are quick to hate Google for collecting unsecured wifi data (though I still believe this was accidental), but equally quick to blame people with no passwords. There are people who would say both "unsecured wifi data I send should be private" and "people without passwords deserve whatever they get".
For physics, get the Lorentz Trasformations, or the metric equation for spacetime. Or, of course, you could just use one of their eventual products, the relativistic energy-momentum equation. It's the father of E=mc^2, but it has far more science cred. Maxwell's equations are fine and dandy, but remember that magnetism is just the relativistic expression of the electric field. To my mind, relativity is more beautiful. But for the love of god, use the versions of these equations where c = 1 unitless, or they'll be a mess!
Oh boy, I almost forgot quantum. The Schrödinger equation would not be a bad choice, either.
For math, I'd do Taylor's Theroem, especially since you seem to have interest in physics. For more nerd cred, use the multidimensional version with the integral form of the remainder included. For that matter, the multidimensional fundamental theorem of calculus (divergence theorem) would be cool too, but none of this sissy 3-dimensional stuff, go for full generality! Euler's Identity has been mentioned, and that's cool, but I'd go with the more mind-blowing and fundamental Euler's Formula. The Gamma function would also be a fine choice.
As far as I'm concerned, ads have no place in something you're already paying for. This applies to television, radio, newspapers, phone applications, and websites. Advertisements have been creeping in to paid services more and more recently. I'm fine with ads in free things; I accept that's part of why they are free. But it pains me when I buy something that forces me to see any ads.
Now, the question is, how many of these things could be supported without any ads?