I don't believe so. If they were interested in learning and adapting, they would have reran the exercise with the same parameters to see how they can defeat the opfor.
Malcolm Gladwell touches about a similar situation in his book Blink. He talks about the largest ever war exercise called the Millennium Challenge. In short, the US hired a badass ex-Marine named Paul Van Riper to command the OPFOR. This guy wrecked havoc on the US Navy by using speed boats and cruise missiles. It was so bad, the US had to stop the exercise, refloat their boats, changed the rules of engagement, then did the exercise ever again. Of course, the blue force won the second time and they claimed a huge success.
unfortunately, this doesn't help in the GP problem when you are scheduling an appointment 3 weeks in advance and DST in California is sometime this week and DST in Germany is a couple of weeks after and you're living in Phoenix
The drug and cosmetic companies are in there because there's also a provision in the bill that would punish business that support companies that provide counterfeit products like watches, pharmaceuticals, etc. Which is funny because TechDirt (i think it was them) decided to check out how GoDaddy would fair under those provisions. They searched for the domain rolex.com, which was obviously taken. But whats interesting is GoDaddy then offered suggested sites such as rolexyahoo.com, which would be in violation of those provisions.
ok, so now we want to go ad hominem huh? thats fine. i can play that game too. maybe if you could properly use english to emphasize less and not deadly, we wouldn't have had this problem...
Sport doesn't need a deadly weapon, it would be trivial to build a replacement that you can still do sports with that wouldn't be deadly.
It doesn't matter if a javelin is built for sport is used in crime. An iron isn't built for crime but it can also be deadly. Your original claim was that you can make a javelin non-lethal, then you claimed that it already isn't lethal. A javelin being thrown and having the off chance of striking someone in the heart is fairly lethal. Again, explain to me how you can make a javelin non-lethal.
I never said that handguns aren't lethal or their predominate use is in dealing death, btw.
You're making the case, exactly, for what the gun supporters are saying. This study doesn't say that the javelin isn't deadly. If you get struck in a vital organ, it absolutely is. The study just says that most accidents aren't serious and none are fatal. Now, if javelin throwers started targeting people on the field, how much do you think that statistic would change?
It's the same with a gun. If you get struck in a non-vital organ, you have a very high success rate of surviving. So if you use a gun in a method is not lethal, you can expect results that are non-lethal, much like the javelin.
Fair enough, then the scientists can publish what equipment was necessary to produce the virus. Again, they don't need to publish the actual steps taken to produce the virus. Provide for me one valid reason the layman needs to have access to detailed information on how to produce the virus.
Its absolutely wrong to censor the entire study to the whole world. However, that's not what the article is talking about. There is no reason that you, or I, need to get my hands on this information, regardless of how interesting it is. They are talking about making sure that the experiment in full can be shared with other scientists that would be able to find this information useful.
It was a different test. The one he took was the 10th grade version. The one in the summary is 3 sample questions from each of the 4th and 8th grade tests
After reading this article, having someone as influential as a school board member take this test and fail it is putting education on a very dangerous course. It normally wouldn't be too bad but this guy's ego is so big that instead of admitting that he just isn't knowledgeable on the subject, he goes on a rant about how irrelevant this stuff is to life and how unnecessary this subject matter is to evaluating a student's college career. I mean sure, it might not be relevant to him for his job duties, but any science/engineering discipline should be well versed in simple math like this. I really hope he doesn't make a push to dumb down these tests to make the math easier.
While it'd make a better story if AT&T contended customers were responsible for the charges and any ensuing terrorism, AT&T reimbursed the victims of the hacking this time around.
How would that have been better?! That would have just been more upsetting. I'm glad that the customers got reimbursed and that AT&T did the right thing. Maybe this is a sign of a change (I know, wishful thinking)
Ok, so lets build it. But wtf is up withe Bakersfield->Chowchilla route? At $98Bil and 520 miles, that comes out to $188,461,538 per mile. So why the hell are they traveling the at least 20 extra miles to go the Bakersfield/Chowchilla route?
Can you please provide reference to the other low power passive technologies you mentioned? I'd like to do some research on whats around the corner and it sounds like you already know who the front runners are. Thanks.
Algorithms like this have to be modeled after the historical decisions that the justices decided upon. So of course they accurately "predict" the historical decisions. So how do they know how accurate these things are for future decisions? I couldn't RTFA because the damn article isn't loading on my crappy government Internet connection.
A few years back, I hired a recent Indian graduate without given him any kind of programming test. This was the first time I hired someone and I guess I was too naive to think what he had on paper could possibly mean he didn't know how to program.
His first day on the job, I was showing him our code base and asked him to do something with a for loop. Granted he's never programmed in PHP but come on, constructing a for loop in PHP is about as simple as can be. He didn't know how to do it, even after reading the manuals
He graduated from USC with a Masters in Computer Science
right, so you just completely dismissed what i wrote. lets apply a password schema that is not only technically insecure, its insecure by human nature because most people don't have extensive vocabularies. people are going to pick common words and they're going to be really easy to brute force. good job on your reading comprehension.
and if remembering passwords is really that hard, then the user can come with a method to insert symbols and cases in there. for instance, come up with a password that is two words and two digits. every 3rd letter is a symbol. every 4th letter is uppercase. holy shit, how hard is that to remember?
I didn't. You actually made the false assumption. The wikipedia article, only counts all printable ascii characters. As for a password not allowing escape characters... I've never seen one that didn't allow escape characters. That's just bad coding if that's what the programmer did.
i'm not sure i completely agree with that. for one thing, he calculates entropy wrong. according to wikipedia, the set of all ascci characters has an entropy of 6.5446 bits per character. given an 11 character password, thats ~72 bits. a 26 letter character set has an entropy of 4.7004 bits per character with 24 letters, that gives the password 112 bits. that doesn't make my case for why i disagree, just showing that he calculated entropy wrong. i actually don't even know how he came up with those numbers.
now, as to why i don't disagree, let me first define a premise. the password is being attacked via a brute force attack. there are no rainbow tables in use or exploiting of the encryption algorithm. a dictionary can and will (as you'll see later on) be used. now, let me recalculate the passwords in terms of possible password permutations. i don't know how to calculate it with bits of entropy and even if i did, it'd be really confusing to understand.
with a 24 character length password from a set of 26 characters, the number of possible passwords is 26^24 or 9.1 x 10^33. for a password that is 11 characters in length from a 96 character set, its 96^11 or 6.4 x 10^21. again, the plaintext password is stronger.
now here's where my criticism comes in... when you reduce the password to using only english words, you exclude from the set of possible passwords words like "sdfjae" or "fjwioxe". in other words, its no longer completely random. in fact, i believe you so significantly reduce the entropy space that it is now much weaker than the random character password.
lets take for instance a 5 character length password. given all available password combinations, that would yield us the set of possible passwords that is 26^5 or 11, 881, 376. now using the dictionary at http://www.wordbyletter.com/words_by_length.php, i used a script to pull all the 5 letter words and count how many there were. that yielded us 9755 words. of course, its possible the word list at that site isn't complete and once you start increasing the character length, the number of word combinations will increase.
i'm not going to try to calculate the possible number of permutations of a 24 character english word password but its definitely significantly less than the 112 bits of entropy we calculated earlier. is it less than the 72 bits for the ascii character set? i don't know. but maybe someone smarter than me can go tell us that one.
therefore, this allows us to use a brute force attack that doesn't attempt every character but rather, every possible word in the english dictionary. it should also be noted that most of the words in the english dictionary are extremely rare and usually unheard of. my point in this wasn't conclusively disprove the artists rendition. rather, i just wanted to draw doubt and show that there might afterall be a reason why we don't use extremely long passwords of words we commonly use.
Slashdot Mirror
perhaps he was talking about this one... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Olympia_(SSN-717)
I don't believe so. If they were interested in learning and adapting, they would have reran the exercise with the same parameters to see how they can defeat the opfor.
Malcolm Gladwell touches about a similar situation in his book Blink. He talks about the largest ever war exercise called the Millennium Challenge. In short, the US hired a badass ex-Marine named Paul Van Riper to command the OPFOR. This guy wrecked havoc on the US Navy by using speed boats and cruise missiles. It was so bad, the US had to stop the exercise, refloat their boats, changed the rules of engagement, then did the exercise ever again. Of course, the blue force won the second time and they claimed a huge success.
unfortunately, this doesn't help in the GP problem when you are scheduling an appointment 3 weeks in advance and DST in California is sometime this week and DST in Germany is a couple of weeks after and you're living in Phoenix
The drug and cosmetic companies are in there because there's also a provision in the bill that would punish business that support companies that provide counterfeit products like watches, pharmaceuticals, etc. Which is funny because TechDirt (i think it was them) decided to check out how GoDaddy would fair under those provisions. They searched for the domain rolex.com, which was obviously taken. But whats interesting is GoDaddy then offered suggested sites such as rolexyahoo.com, which would be in violation of those provisions.
Sport doesn't need a deadly weapon, it would be trivial to build a replacement that you can still do sports with that wouldn't be deadly.
It doesn't matter if a javelin is built for sport is used in crime. An iron isn't built for crime but it can also be deadly. Your original claim was that you can make a javelin non-lethal, then you claimed that it already isn't lethal. A javelin being thrown and having the off chance of striking someone in the heart is fairly lethal. Again, explain to me how you can make a javelin non-lethal.
I never said that handguns aren't lethal or their predominate use is in dealing death, btw.
You're making the case, exactly, for what the gun supporters are saying. This study doesn't say that the javelin isn't deadly. If you get struck in a vital organ, it absolutely is. The study just says that most accidents aren't serious and none are fatal. Now, if javelin throwers started targeting people on the field, how much do you think that statistic would change?
It's the same with a gun. If you get struck in a non-vital organ, you have a very high success rate of surviving. So if you use a gun in a method is not lethal, you can expect results that are non-lethal, much like the javelin.
Please explain to me how you make a long thin stick that you throw at high velocities not deadly?
i'll agree with that. eco-terrorist nut jobs would have a valid reason, in their opinion, to get their hands on it.
Fine. Then give me one valid reason that the layman would need details on how to produce a virus that can wipe out half of our population.
Fair enough, then the scientists can publish what equipment was necessary to produce the virus. Again, they don't need to publish the actual steps taken to produce the virus. Provide for me one valid reason the layman needs to have access to detailed information on how to produce the virus.
Its absolutely wrong to censor the entire study to the whole world. However, that's not what the article is talking about. There is no reason that you, or I, need to get my hands on this information, regardless of how interesting it is. They are talking about making sure that the experiment in full can be shared with other scientists that would be able to find this information useful.
It was a different test. The one he took was the 10th grade version. The one in the summary is 3 sample questions from each of the 4th and 8th grade tests
After reading this article, having someone as influential as a school board member take this test and fail it is putting education on a very dangerous course. It normally wouldn't be too bad but this guy's ego is so big that instead of admitting that he just isn't knowledgeable on the subject, he goes on a rant about how irrelevant this stuff is to life and how unnecessary this subject matter is to evaluating a student's college career. I mean sure, it might not be relevant to him for his job duties, but any science/engineering discipline should be well versed in simple math like this. I really hope he doesn't make a push to dumb down these tests to make the math easier.
While it'd make a better story if AT&T contended customers were responsible for the charges and any ensuing terrorism, AT&T reimbursed the victims of the hacking this time around.
How would that have been better?! That would have just been more upsetting. I'm glad that the customers got reimbursed and that AT&T did the right thing. Maybe this is a sign of a change (I know, wishful thinking)
Ok, so lets build it. But wtf is up withe Bakersfield->Chowchilla route? At $98Bil and 520 miles, that comes out to $188,461,538 per mile. So why the hell are they traveling the at least 20 extra miles to go the Bakersfield/Chowchilla route?
Can you please provide reference to the other low power passive technologies you mentioned? I'd like to do some research on whats around the corner and it sounds like you already know who the front runners are. Thanks.
algorithms are tested is by giving them a subset of historical data
My second sentence draws what I perceive to be true so that I can ask the question...
So how do they know how accurate these things are for future decisions?
If you'd re-read what I wrote, I didn't object to anything. I asked a question.
So your accusations have little merit.
Algorithms like this have to be modeled after the historical decisions that the justices decided upon. So of course they accurately "predict" the historical decisions. So how do they know how accurate these things are for future decisions? I couldn't RTFA because the damn article isn't loading on my crappy government Internet connection.
A few years back, I hired a recent Indian graduate without given him any kind of programming test. This was the first time I hired someone and I guess I was too naive to think what he had on paper could possibly mean he didn't know how to program.
His first day on the job, I was showing him our code base and asked him to do something with a for loop. Granted he's never programmed in PHP but come on, constructing a for loop in PHP is about as simple as can be. He didn't know how to do it, even after reading the manuals
He graduated from USC with a Masters in Computer Science
right, so you just completely dismissed what i wrote. lets apply a password schema that is not only technically insecure, its insecure by human nature because most people don't have extensive vocabularies. people are going to pick common words and they're going to be really easy to brute force. good job on your reading comprehension.
and if remembering passwords is really that hard, then the user can come with a method to insert symbols and cases in there. for instance, come up with a password that is two words and two digits. every 3rd letter is a symbol. every 4th letter is uppercase. holy shit, how hard is that to remember?
I didn't. You actually made the false assumption. The wikipedia article, only counts all printable ascii characters. As for a password not allowing escape characters... I've never seen one that didn't allow escape characters. That's just bad coding if that's what the programmer did.
i'm not sure i completely agree with that. for one thing, he calculates entropy wrong. according to wikipedia, the set of all ascci characters has an entropy of 6.5446 bits per character. given an 11 character password, thats ~72 bits. a 26 letter character set has an entropy of 4.7004 bits per character with 24 letters, that gives the password 112 bits. that doesn't make my case for why i disagree, just showing that he calculated entropy wrong. i actually don't even know how he came up with those numbers.
now, as to why i don't disagree, let me first define a premise. the password is being attacked via a brute force attack. there are no rainbow tables in use or exploiting of the encryption algorithm. a dictionary can and will (as you'll see later on) be used. now, let me recalculate the passwords in terms of possible password permutations. i don't know how to calculate it with bits of entropy and even if i did, it'd be really confusing to understand.
with a 24 character length password from a set of 26 characters, the number of possible passwords is 26^24 or 9.1 x 10^33. for a password that is 11 characters in length from a 96 character set, its 96^11 or 6.4 x 10^21. again, the plaintext password is stronger.
now here's where my criticism comes in... when you reduce the password to using only english words, you exclude from the set of possible passwords words like "sdfjae" or "fjwioxe". in other words, its no longer completely random. in fact, i believe you so significantly reduce the entropy space that it is now much weaker than the random character password.
lets take for instance a 5 character length password. given all available password combinations, that would yield us the set of possible passwords that is 26^5 or 11, 881, 376. now using the dictionary at http://www.wordbyletter.com/words_by_length.php, i used a script to pull all the 5 letter words and count how many there were. that yielded us 9755 words. of course, its possible the word list at that site isn't complete and once you start increasing the character length, the number of word combinations will increase.
i'm not going to try to calculate the possible number of permutations of a 24 character english word password but its definitely significantly less than the 112 bits of entropy we calculated earlier. is it less than the 72 bits for the ascii character set? i don't know. but maybe someone smarter than me can go tell us that one.
therefore, this allows us to use a brute force attack that doesn't attempt every character but rather, every possible word in the english dictionary. it should also be noted that most of the words in the english dictionary are extremely rare and usually unheard of. my point in this wasn't conclusively disprove the artists rendition. rather, i just wanted to draw doubt and show that there might afterall be a reason why we don't use extremely long passwords of words we commonly use.