Really. My dentist can x-ray my entire mouth with about 2 or 3 shots. I don't remember the figure exactly because he only does it every other year, or right before drilling a cavity (hasn't happened in a few years either:). I'm not normally one to be afraid of a little radiation, but 20-some xrays for essentially a single trip to the dentist is probably cause for alarm. What happens when you go back in 6 months?
Lots of people know how to make incredibly toxic gases with household ingredients. Would you then say it's perfectly fine to show a step by step guide telling you how on a prime time TV show?
I have a feeling this isn't the answer you are looking for, but yes.
I also support local public libraries stocking copies of the Anarchist Cookbook. People tend to get overly emotional about this sort of thing, and fail to properly analyze risk.
The kind of people who are mentally unstable enough, and have the drive to carry through a deadly gas attack are also the kind of people who've probably looked it up on the internet already. Teaching your average joe-smoe and his grandmother how to do it likely isn't going to raise the likelyhood of it actually happening. Besides, if you think about it, we already have several "cold case" shows on television that explain in pretty concise detail how to murder a loved one and throw off the police for decades. This is considered good wholesome entertainment by the general public, so why not throw some chemistry into the mix?
Similarly, anyone who interested in other forms of domestic terrorism or mischeive probably already has a copy of the anarchist cookbook, and anyone who pwns windows boxes for fun or a living no doubt already has a dozen and a half tricks up their sleeve.
TFA mentions a single instance of this exploit in the wild, it hardly seems as though this public disclosure has caused a sudden rash of pwn'ings.
You are assuming this exploit was not already being used before it was disclosed. I do not believe the summary indicates that, and it would be very hard to actually prove this exploit was never used before it was disclosed.
Secondly, your logic only works if you assume the first person to find the bug/exploit is always an honest person who is interested in disclosure. This is obviously a very foolish assumption, the only safe assumption is to assume that you are not the first to find it, and the only way to minimalize damage is to fix it as soon as possible. Full disclosure ensures that it is fixed as soon as possible.
Microsoft was blowing off Tavis Ormandy. Tavis Ormandy then disclosed it to the public. Now Microsoft is forced to fix it. Score one for full disclosure.
The only meaningful definition of "responsible disclosure" is "full disclosure". Anything else is an irresponsible stall tactic that hurts consumers even more.
Your ignorant attitude to this problem overlooks the fact that it's not the software company that you need to be concerned about. It's the customers who bought it!
The only reasonable assumption to make is that you are not the best there is, other people have already found what you have found, or will find what you have found, and the only way to protect the customer is to make sure the software company fixes the issue as fast as possible. That is what full disclosure ensures.
I'm not ignorant of the existance of end users. End users are the reason I support full disclosure. If end users didn't exist, then I couldn't give a shit.
The Moon is a stepping stone to Mars in more sense than one. Building a craft to go to Mars on the Moon is obviously pointless, far more efficient to do it in orbit), but gaining experiance building and maintaining habitats in space is essential. We can either try it for the first time on Mars where a recovery operation would take several months, or try it on the Moon where it'd take several days.
Furthermore, investigative missions on the Moon would still prove useful. As you mention, there are a lot of things we still don't know about the Moon. The more we learn about the Moon, the more we learn about the formation and lifespan of small bodies like that. We could always go study other bodies as well, but the Moon happens to be closest.
Yeah, I definetly noticed it too in all of my CS classes.
Hell if I know why people like these things though, all of the Apple kids look so uncomfortable trying to prop their ipads up with one arm while "1 finger pecking" at a software keyboard with the other.
Macbooks are the new teal, the people in it for the style (read: just about all of them in my humble experiance...) wouldn't be caught dead with it right now.
I predict that in 2-4 years there will not be a Macbook anymore. MBP will probably still be around, but I think Apple is definetly trying to phase out their old, and nicely rather open comparitively, OSX.
And this folks, is why everyone should support full disclosure. Full disclosure may hurt the producer (arguably they deserve to be hurt...), but responsible disclosure is just a stall tactic that hurts the consumer.
I'd argue that the GP's mere mention of escape velocity is pretty unreasonable. Nobody even expects a lander craft to reach escape velocity, it only needs to re-orbit itself and dock with another stage. Then that can reach escape velocity. This is how the Apollo missions worked, and how the planned Soviet missions would have worked.
Furthermore, parking orbits have traditionally been used with manned missions. In this case, escape doesn't simply involve boosting straight up until you are out, the craft is first orbited. Your (incorrect, and insulting) assumption that I didn't know the difference between "being in orbit" and "being high up" hardly even makes sense in this situation.
The GP's usage of (the incorrect) escape velocity of the moon is extremely disingenuous. He was not using it for descriptive purposes, but rather as an attempt to exaggerate the difficulty of escaping the Moons gravitational field. If we are able to land enough equipment on the moon to make it worth our trouble (think: multiple unmanned missions in preperation), getting people back won't be an issue.
They absolutely are. I worked in the department that develops the guide software (all of the gui shit) on comcast settop boxes. All of the settop boxes I saw while working there had at least composite output. Hell, I did the majority of my testing on SD televisions.
What the GP seems to be refering to is Comcast moving to only digital signals over their lines, requiring people with SD televisions who previously only watched analog channels to get a settop box. (up until now, if you only watched analog channels you could just plug the RF cable straight into the back of your TV. Of course you wouldn't get any guide features, but this worked quite well for years with people like my parents).
Yeah exactly. What's even worse is this kind of nonsense is starting to infect mathematics as well! Math classes are filled with tired old cliches like calculating the sides of a triangle or the area of a circle, or learning algrebra. I say get these kids started coming up with a prove for the Riemann hypothesis, then let them go from there.
2 km/s may is a velocity, but it's not even the escape velocity of the Moon. Escape velocity of the Moon is 2.38 km/s, kind of a significant difference.
And it certainly is a very stupid way to measure a gravity well in this instance:
1) For sustained Moon missions, the majority of materials landed would never need to be lifted again. Just leave them there. 2) Escape velocity doesn't give one a good idea of how hard it is to actually escape. The more mass you are carrying the more energy you need. Giving acceleration is far more descriptive. 3) Measuring gravitation with escape velocity instead of acceleration, and not making explicit note of it, makes you look like a dumbass.
I use to be a die-hard PC gaming fan. Then, to be honest, I grew up. I got a library card and a job, so now I can read as many books as I could possibly want. Unbelievably cheaper and more satisfying, my wallet thanks me and I don't constantly feel like an unproductive baffoon.
Most of the people I know still game heavily, but I really don't understand it. I have a very hard time finding any sort of computer game enjoyable these days, even the old ones that I used to like. Console gaming certainly seems more sane than PC gaming now (more social and relaxed), but when you really think about it, it is all rubish.
Don't ask me, but judging by the number of people I know that at one point did have facebooks, but have recently 'deleted' their accounts, I'm guessing many people do.
Seeing as the publisher stealing a hardcopy of a book from me would likely also involve breaking and entering, yes. I most certainly would pursue the issue legally.
This is why I don't own a kindle. I don't like to make it easy for others to take advantage of me.
Well true enough. I guess the idea is mainly to make it useless as well. What people put down as their interests (music, movies, etc) is likely to be the most valuable information facebook can get.
Now, that being said, if I purchase "1984" and wake up one morning and find it missing, then discover the publisher I bought it from repossessed it, I'm going to be ticked off. If they've refunded my purchase price in full, I'll be quite a bit less ticked off.
I think if a publisher stole a hardcopy book from me, but left the ammount that I paid for it in it's place, I'd be even more pissed off. If they just stole it, then it is just that: stealing. It is illegal, they know it is illegal, everyone can see that. However, by leaving me money they are signifiying that they think what they are doing is perfectly ok. It is an attempt to legitimize their action, and prevent me from becoming upset. I'd find it unbelievably insulting.
If you are planning to 'remove' your data from facebook, don't simply 'delete' your account. Slowly over a period of about a month or so replace all of your data with incorrect data. Things that are unlikely to change like your sex should probably stay the same until the very end so it doesn't raise any red flags, but by the time you are finished everything should be different. Then 'delete' your account.
The idea being that of course they are not actually going to delete anything, but at least this way they don't know what is truthful and what isn't.
Slashdot Mirror
Really. My dentist can x-ray my entire mouth with about 2 or 3 shots. I don't remember the figure exactly because he only does it every other year, or right before drilling a cavity (hasn't happened in a few years either :). I'm not normally one to be afraid of a little radiation, but 20-some xrays for essentially a single trip to the dentist is probably cause for alarm. What happens when you go back in 6 months?
I have a feeling this isn't the answer you are looking for, but yes.
I also support local public libraries stocking copies of the Anarchist Cookbook. People tend to get overly emotional about this sort of thing, and fail to properly analyze risk.
The kind of people who are mentally unstable enough, and have the drive to carry through a deadly gas attack are also the kind of people who've probably looked it up on the internet already. Teaching your average joe-smoe and his grandmother how to do it likely isn't going to raise the likelyhood of it actually happening. Besides, if you think about it, we already have several "cold case" shows on television that explain in pretty concise detail how to murder a loved one and throw off the police for decades. This is considered good wholesome entertainment by the general public, so why not throw some chemistry into the mix?
Similarly, anyone who interested in other forms of domestic terrorism or mischeive probably already has a copy of the anarchist cookbook, and anyone who pwns windows boxes for fun or a living no doubt already has a dozen and a half tricks up their sleeve.
TFA mentions a single instance of this exploit in the wild, it hardly seems as though this public disclosure has caused a sudden rash of pwn'ings.
You are assuming this exploit was not already being used before it was disclosed. I do not believe the summary indicates that, and it would be very hard to actually prove this exploit was never used before it was disclosed.
Secondly, your logic only works if you assume the first person to find the bug/exploit is always an honest person who is interested in disclosure. This is obviously a very foolish assumption, the only safe assumption is to assume that you are not the first to find it, and the only way to minimalize damage is to fix it as soon as possible. Full disclosure ensures that it is fixed as soon as possible.
Microsoft was blowing off Tavis Ormandy. Tavis Ormandy then disclosed it to the public. Now Microsoft is forced to fix it. Score one for full disclosure.
The only meaningful definition of "responsible disclosure" is "full disclosure". Anything else is an irresponsible stall tactic that hurts consumers even more.
The only reasonable assumption to make is that you are not the best there is, other people have already found what you have found, or will find what you have found, and the only way to protect the customer is to make sure the software company fixes the issue as fast as possible. That is what full disclosure ensures.
I'm not ignorant of the existance of end users. End users are the reason I support full disclosure. If end users didn't exist, then I couldn't give a shit.
The Moon is a stepping stone to Mars in more sense than one. Building a craft to go to Mars on the Moon is obviously pointless, far more efficient to do it in orbit), but gaining experiance building and maintaining habitats in space is essential. We can either try it for the first time on Mars where a recovery operation would take several months, or try it on the Moon where it'd take several days.
Furthermore, investigative missions on the Moon would still prove useful. As you mention, there are a lot of things we still don't know about the Moon. The more we learn about the Moon, the more we learn about the formation and lifespan of small bodies like that. We could always go study other bodies as well, but the Moon happens to be closest.
Yeah, I definetly noticed it too in all of my CS classes.
Hell if I know why people like these things though, all of the Apple kids look so uncomfortable trying to prop their ipads up with one arm while "1 finger pecking" at a software keyboard with the other.
It "IS" a weapon at short range regardless of intent in the same way that my set of cooking knives "ARE" weapons at short range.
In other words: Of course intent matters.
Appologies, this comment was meant to be in response to this comment.
Macbooks are the new teal, the people in it for the style (read: just about all of them in my humble experiance...) wouldn't be caught dead with it right now.
I predict that in 2-4 years there will not be a Macbook anymore. MBP will probably still be around, but I think Apple is definetly trying to phase out their old, and nicely rather open comparitively, OSX.
And this folks, is why everyone should support full disclosure. Full disclosure may hurt the producer (arguably they deserve to be hurt...), but responsible disclosure is just a stall tactic that hurts the consumer.
Color me baffled. Are you disagreeing with him or not? ;)
I worked with the damned things for 6 months. If anyone hates the fucking things more than me I'd be very very suprized ;)
I'd argue that the GP's mere mention of escape velocity is pretty unreasonable. Nobody even expects a lander craft to reach escape velocity, it only needs to re-orbit itself and dock with another stage. Then that can reach escape velocity. This is how the Apollo missions worked, and how the planned Soviet missions would have worked.
Furthermore, parking orbits have traditionally been used with manned missions. In this case, escape doesn't simply involve boosting straight up until you are out, the craft is first orbited. Your (incorrect, and insulting) assumption that I didn't know the difference between "being in orbit" and "being high up" hardly even makes sense in this situation.
The GP's usage of (the incorrect) escape velocity of the moon is extremely disingenuous. He was not using it for descriptive purposes, but rather as an attempt to exaggerate the difficulty of escaping the Moons gravitational field. If we are able to land enough equipment on the moon to make it worth our trouble (think: multiple unmanned missions in preperation), getting people back won't be an issue.
If it continues to work well for you, and you find value in it, then why do you say that it is worthless?
I have computers from several years ago that I'd have a hard time selling, but they certainly are not worthless.
Seriously. Even my grandmother was able to hook up converter boxes to all of her (very very old) televisions. It really isn't rocket surgery.
They absolutely are. I worked in the department that develops the guide software (all of the gui shit) on comcast settop boxes. All of the settop boxes I saw while working there had at least composite output. Hell, I did the majority of my testing on SD televisions.
What the GP seems to be refering to is Comcast moving to only digital signals over their lines, requiring people with SD televisions who previously only watched analog channels to get a settop box. (up until now, if you only watched analog channels you could just plug the RF cable straight into the back of your TV. Of course you wouldn't get any guide features, but this worked quite well for years with people like my parents).
Yeah exactly. What's even worse is this kind of nonsense is starting to infect mathematics as well! Math classes are filled with tired old cliches like calculating the sides of a triangle or the area of a circle, or learning algrebra. I say get these kids started coming up with a prove for the Riemann hypothesis, then let them go from there.
2 km/s may is a velocity, but it's not even the escape velocity of the Moon. Escape velocity of the Moon is 2.38 km/s, kind of a significant difference.
And it certainly is a very stupid way to measure a gravity well in this instance:
1) For sustained Moon missions, the majority of materials landed would never need to be lifted again. Just leave them there.
2) Escape velocity doesn't give one a good idea of how hard it is to actually escape. The more mass you are carrying the more energy you need. Giving acceleration is far more descriptive.
3) Measuring gravitation with escape velocity instead of acceleration, and not making explicit note of it, makes you look like a dumbass.
I use to be a die-hard PC gaming fan. Then, to be honest, I grew up. I got a library card and a job, so now I can read as many books as I could possibly want. Unbelievably cheaper and more satisfying, my wallet thanks me and I don't constantly feel like an unproductive baffoon.
Most of the people I know still game heavily, but I really don't understand it. I have a very hard time finding any sort of computer game enjoyable these days, even the old ones that I used to like. Console gaming certainly seems more sane than PC gaming now (more social and relaxed), but when you really think about it, it is all rubish.
Don't ask me, but judging by the number of people I know that at one point did have facebooks, but have recently 'deleted' their accounts, I'm guessing many people do.
Seeing as the publisher stealing a hardcopy of a book from me would likely also involve breaking and entering, yes. I most certainly would pursue the issue legally.
This is why I don't own a kindle. I don't like to make it easy for others to take advantage of me.
Well true enough. I guess the idea is mainly to make it useless as well. What people put down as their interests (music, movies, etc) is likely to be the most valuable information facebook can get.
I think if a publisher stole a hardcopy book from me, but left the ammount that I paid for it in it's place, I'd be even more pissed off. If they just stole it, then it is just that: stealing. It is illegal, they know it is illegal, everyone can see that. However, by leaving me money they are signifiying that they think what they are doing is perfectly ok. It is an attempt to legitimize their action, and prevent me from becoming upset. I'd find it unbelievably insulting.
If you are planning to 'remove' your data from facebook, don't simply 'delete' your account. Slowly over a period of about a month or so replace all of your data with incorrect data. Things that are unlikely to change like your sex should probably stay the same until the very end so it doesn't raise any red flags, but by the time you are finished everything should be different. Then 'delete' your account.
The idea being that of course they are not actually going to delete anything, but at least this way they don't know what is truthful and what isn't.