- "Are you sure you wish to activate the collider?"
- "This next step may irreparably damage your universe and require a re-installation. Are you REALLY sure you wish to continue?"
- "Administrative privileges are required to take this action."
- "You are running the 'Classic Lite' edition of LHC. This edition does not safeguard against singularities or space-time anomalies. Please upgrade your version for just $99/month to ensure the safety of your universe."
Let's leave aside non-web vulnerabilities for now - of course you'll want to use SFTP and SSH instead of unsecured FTP or Telnet to connect to your server, and HTTPS for your web admin panel, but these are outside the scope of the actual website - they're for your host to deal with.
When you write any kind of dynamic website, user input is the threat. Your website communicates via text with other layers such as the database (SQL) or the users' browser (HTML). Your two biggest risks are SQL injection (where user input breaks out of SQL quotes) and Cross Site Scripting/Request Forgery (where one user's input is executed as Javascript in another user's browser).
Another threat is performing actions (such as deleting/editing content) via GET requests, which will allow search spiders or content prefetchers to wreak havoc.
encrypt everything, all hard drives, including desktops, laptops, external hard drives, USB flash drives, etc
Alarm bells should be going off here: It sounds like some high-level management decision along the lines of "this sounds cool, let's do that" without really understanding the details. Like Bruce Schneier says (the paraphrase is on the/. frontpage right now), you can't buy security.
The premise of "encrypting absolutely everything" as a buy-and-forget mechanism doesn't work because the greatest weakness of any system is the user. Security starts as a mindset and a process: Identify sensitive data, find out who has access to it and who shouldn't, where it is taken or transmitted.
No matter how strong your encryption is, someone must have the password to be able to work on the data, and that guy will still be keeping his password taped to his desk.
I have 16 windows listed in alt-tab mode, 11 distinct applications with visible windows, 40 processes. That's below average for me - email, IM, media player, browser, text editor and console are running almost all the time.
If these applications include background things like instant messengers and email clients, I would run into the limit three times over before my desktop even finished loading. This is ridiculous.
Except that XP is the last Windows I'll ever use anyway, and I'll be switching to Ubuntu as soon as XP becomes impractical.
Instead of just showing such stats for the article in total, this tool would become much more powerful by showing statistics for single sections or paragraphs. How hotly was a particular phrase contested?
Especially if it can also show when a particular sentence was introduced, or what was deleted from the article over time.
I spend a lot of my time on Wikipedia restoring lost text, when vandalism was incompletely fixed and then forgotten about. Occasionally I've found entire paragraphs that were deleted more than a year ago. It's pretty annoying to have to explore the history in a kind of binary search - is the problem older than this? Is it newer than this? Older than this revision? Ah, got it.
Only if you travel at a constant speed of 0.12c the entire journey, which is impossible. It requires you to accelerate to 0.12c instantaneously and decelerate to 0 at the destination just as quickly. Such enormous acceleration would destroy the craft; it's comparable to a meteorite impact - and even if it didn't, it would take vast amounts of fuel.
Feasible interstellar travel works by accelerating at a constant rate until the midway point, then reversing thrust and decelerating at the same constant rate until you are there. While I don't know the formulae that would prove this, doing it this way should minimize travel time for a fixed amount of fuel.
To reach v=0.12c by the midway point of s=3 lightyears, you must accelerate at a=(0.12)/t, where 3=0.5*a*t^2 (t in years, s in lightyears, v in c).
Substituting a yields 3=0.5(0.12/t)*t^2, simplificating to 6=0.12*t, which comes to t=50.
There you go, 50 years to accelerate to the midway point. The second half of the journey takes the same amount of time, which comes to a total of 100 years.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Won't work. They have years of first-hand experience with lying. :P
Slashdot had a bad network problem a few days ago. I think one of their servers has reset its system clock in consequence; that would explain this. :P
I got tagged by about three friends who were not in contact with each other. A nice demonstration for the Small World hypothesis.
If you try to "control ... the informatic process", then it's not really "free software" as such, is it?
> ...how easy it is to use... ...Silverlight required...
>
> It's already on youtube, no silverlight!
I sense a disturbance in the force, as if the Lords of Microsoft were faced with hilarious irony.
Put snakes on the plane. Problem solved.
Don't feed him. He's been posting this for a long time. ;)
When traveling in excess of several hundred kilometers per hour, birds are hardly squishier than rocks...
> Vista engineers.
Oh GOD no:
- "Are you sure you wish to activate the collider?"
- "This next step may irreparably damage your universe and require a re-installation. Are you REALLY sure you wish to continue?"
- "Administrative privileges are required to take this action."
- "You are running the 'Classic Lite' edition of LHC. This edition does not safeguard against singularities or space-time anomalies. Please upgrade your version for just $99/month to ensure the safety of your universe."
> would attract vagrants, significant vandalism and just plain disgustingness
Yes, like all public transport does. But that's a social problem, not a transportation/energy one...
Ssshhh! You're setting yourself up to be sued by Apple shareholders - should've posted AC. :P
Well, Microsoft did warn you: If you use Open Source, you support COMMUNISM. :P
Or rather, the input your user gives you.
Let's leave aside non-web vulnerabilities for now - of course you'll want to use SFTP and SSH instead of unsecured FTP or Telnet to connect to your server, and HTTPS for your web admin panel, but these are outside the scope of the actual website - they're for your host to deal with.
When you write any kind of dynamic website, user input is the threat. Your website communicates via text with other layers such as the database (SQL) or the users' browser (HTML). Your two biggest risks are SQL injection (where user input breaks out of SQL quotes) and Cross Site Scripting/Request Forgery (where one user's input is executed as Javascript in another user's browser).
Another threat is performing actions (such as deleting/editing content) via GET requests, which will allow search spiders or content prefetchers to wreak havoc.
That entire news item is outdated. :P
Indeed.
Alarm bells should be going off here: It sounds like some high-level management decision along the lines of "this sounds cool, let's do that" without really understanding the details. Like Bruce Schneier says (the paraphrase is on the /. frontpage right now), you can't buy security.
The premise of "encrypting absolutely everything" as a buy-and-forget mechanism doesn't work because the greatest weakness of any system is the user. Security starts as a mindset and a process: Identify sensitive data, find out who has access to it and who shouldn't, where it is taken or transmitted.
No matter how strong your encryption is, someone must have the password to be able to work on the data, and that guy will still be keeping his password taped to his desk.
I have 16 windows listed in alt-tab mode, 11 distinct applications with visible windows, 40 processes. That's below average for me - email, IM, media player, browser, text editor and console are running almost all the time.
If these applications include background things like instant messengers and email clients, I would run into the limit three times over before my desktop even finished loading. This is ridiculous.
Except that XP is the last Windows I'll ever use anyway, and I'll be switching to Ubuntu as soon as XP becomes impractical.
First thought: "Wait, wasn't that almost 180 years ago?"
Does that refer to the bribe normally required to access these documents?
How much is that in Libraries of Congress?
Instead of just showing such stats for the article in total, this tool would become much more powerful by showing statistics for single sections or paragraphs. How hotly was a particular phrase contested?
Especially if it can also show when a particular sentence was introduced, or what was deleted from the article over time.
I spend a lot of my time on Wikipedia restoring lost text, when vandalism was incompletely fixed and then forgotten about. Occasionally I've found entire paragraphs that were deleted more than a year ago. It's pretty annoying to have to explore the history in a kind of binary search - is the problem older than this? Is it newer than this? Older than this revision? Ah, got it.
I assume you mean *anti*virus software, but your statement works either way, really. :P
(Cue the "running a virus on Windows is redundant" comments.)
I prefer Adblock Plus/NoScript. It's so funny when the site owner goes ballistic about "content thieves" and tries to implement Javascript DRM. :)
Help! I accidentally microchip!
Yeah, I'm craving Belgian Waffles now!
Only if you travel at a constant speed of 0.12c the entire journey, which is impossible. It requires you to accelerate to 0.12c instantaneously and decelerate to 0 at the destination just as quickly. Such enormous acceleration would destroy the craft; it's comparable to a meteorite impact - and even if it didn't, it would take vast amounts of fuel.
Feasible interstellar travel works by accelerating at a constant rate until the midway point, then reversing thrust and decelerating at the same constant rate until you are there. While I don't know the formulae that would prove this, doing it this way should minimize travel time for a fixed amount of fuel.
To reach v=0.12c by the midway point of s=3 lightyears, you must accelerate at a=(0.12)/t, where 3=0.5*a*t^2 (t in years, s in lightyears, v in c).
Substituting a yields 3=0.5(0.12/t)*t^2, simplificating to 6=0.12*t, which comes to t=50.
There you go, 50 years to accelerate to the midway point. The second half of the journey takes the same amount of time, which comes to a total of 100 years. :)
Dan Brown told me so.