Re: what about getting hit by a freak wave...
who cares if everything at the bottom of the food change gets nuked
Planetary engineering sure has come of age!
10910 posts • joined 3 Jun 2008
who cares if everything at the bottom of the food change gets nuked
Planetary engineering sure has come of age!
A nuclear reactor sitting on a platform is a sitting duck for any halfwit terrorist with a grudge not to mention the elements.
Terrorist plows into a large floating concrete platform. Terrorist sinks.
Elements plow into large floating concrete platform. Elements pass.
The stupid "it won't work because a) terrorists b) mother nature" is really getting on my wick. With that kind of attitude, not using fire after the last ice age might have looked like the safe option.
So what do you think?
I'm specifically thinking about the possibility of cod and chips from the local chip shop being a bit cheaper, because they'll get the cod already cooked.
Please explain how you expect this to happen.
What if a well organised terrorist group attacks from sea and steals the delicious enriched uranium?
These platforms are easy to defend.
And the way things are going AI-wise, you will just buy a container of Aperture Science Turrets and put them at strategic points. Problem solved.
SPIRIT OF BRUNEL
It might be made too obvious that political interference in engineering is inadvisable.
Next you will be saying that political meddling in the economy is unwise.
Fukishima Residents Never Allowed Home
The miniscule risks outlined by all these studies do not justify the continued harm and devastation perpetrated upon the Fukushima refugees. Except for the small, highly contaminated areas adjacent to the reactors which should stay off-limits until remediated, the risk of cancer and death from the increased use of coal and gas since the disaster has provided much more risk to the population of the Tohoku region, and to Japan as a whole, than any radiation effects from Fukushima.
Simply stopping smoking, which is rampant in Japan, would more than erase any risk from Fukushima, even for those who do not smoke.
This is cold comfort to the families of the elderly who died unnecessarily because of the forcible evacuation from hospitals and care homes during the accident, something admitted by the government. Since all radiation effects decrease dramatically with age, these people were in no health danger from the radiation at all and died pointlessly.
like my fish with two eyes and a tail
"Anomalocarida, beasts with rotated heads and dangerous finned mutants! EDIACARIDAE!! Protect the world from the encroachment. HELP US STOP THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION!"
even greater Green opposition
TROLL THEM UNTIL THEY BLEED!
> For every reason except planning consent
Run those other reasons by me again, I forget. Some commentard let rip on those but never bothered to go into details...
This IS the age of Quantitative Self-Easing, after all.
Do transcendental meditation in a GoogleBox cozily embedded in the GoogleSpace, with colored balls in attendance.
ensure the Heartbleed omnishambles is never repeated
When we come back: RESEARCHERS CONFIRM THAT THE HALTING PROBLEM HAS BEEN SOLVED BY A TURING MACHINE!
After this message...
ANNOUNCE ON APRIL 1ST FOR THE LULZ!
There is a better way to fund software development. It's where developers work for real money, and sell their products.
That's beside the point. That business model exists and it delivers shite, too, though it may manage to created more polished products.
One could also have megacorpses like Larry's dump a few kilobucks on the provider of the SSL functionality of what turns out to be a fat part of his product lineup, judging by the patch hurl released yesterday,
Poor communications, weak management and a lack of communications with government agencies is leaving many large enterprises vulnerable to targeted cyberattacks, according to former US Homeland Security boss Tom Ridge.
This coming from a full-on eejit who survives by spending the evenings on the cocktail circuit and who then goes on to compare people who have to actually work for their money (yeah, this is still done in the century of "Quantitative Easing Infinity" - isn't that amazing!) with a sector of the "economy" that extracts money -- by hook or by crook -- from the people who have to perform said meaningful economic activity and that then doesn't manage to secure anything, much less manages to prevent anything, doesn't know how much it costs, couldn't add the figures if it knew, and generally produces only a diarrhea of "papers" and "laws" exhorting and forcing other people to do what it thinks is good for them (and assumes that all of that has zero cost anyway).
Yes it is that bad.
Clearly an Anonymous Cowardesse. Or else, cheap bait.
OP starts off with:
I considered name changing for this, but, fuck it. We have a dedicated post-sex cleanup area on the bedside table. A box of tissues, a small bin, and a beaker of clean water for temporary cleaning/dunking while the bathroom is occupied by me. Apparently our penis beaker is strange and not the done thing. Does everyone else just lay there in a sticky post coital glow until morning? Really?
And someone answers:
Have never heard of this. And used to be quite the harlot, so really think I would have seen in, if it were a common thing. But maybe my tastes just run to the unwashed...?
My cow-orkers caught me while eye-bulging... I would rather be caught on 4chan, but I LOLLED!
I love the smell of fractional reserve banking in the morning.
But Frau Merkel schläft jetzt. HERGOTT!
something is on the move
I predicted this would happen!
After "Chelyabinsk out of nowhere" and "Moon Impact on 9/11", the heavenly signs are quickening.
An don't forget the unicorn oil, made from freshly pressed young unicorns.
But Apple sure seems hot on getting its percentage of the Quantitative Easing money tsunami,
And still they come.
I haven't seen Stallman running around, putting guns to people's head and demanding
OTOH, I have seen lots of people running off with BSD and GNU work, unwilling to put up a single cent or contribute any code whatsoever.
In other words: Your glib bullshit betrays a profound ignorance of what the difference is between "donations" and "reallocations"
if 'everyone' does it how does anyone get accused?
Listen buster, we are not putting a sizeable percentage of the population in jail for loong stretches because they took a puff or two so that you can go about muddying the waters!
Your papers, PLEASE!
I don't even know why they use the lettering in the first place.
From the BSD license:
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY [COPYRIGHT HOLDER] ''AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL [COPYRIGHT HOLDER] BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
lift anything from the memory of a secure server
Actually randomly lift 64K from the process answering the SSL heartbeat.
accept the technical debt of falling back to the comfort of SQL
IT marketing has jumped the shark.
it does have a complicated set of data relationships – "one to one relationships and one to many relationships and many to many relationships," explained Butcher
In the 21st century, texts with more than 140 characters are tl;dr and N-to_n relationships are "complicated".
Its database is needed to reflect these many relationships [The key is in the name, chaps.—Ed.
No, Ed, the "relational" does not come from these "relationships", it comes from the fact that one expresses the relationship between "attributes" using a "relation" (aka a "table") -- as opposed to a set of pointers as was the custom up to Codd.
Put simply, space science fits largely in the "guns" category of "guns or butter".
Correct. Space Keynesiansim brings you a bit farther than War Keynesianism, but it's not a panacea - just allocation of productive capital from the taxpayer to projects the government finds good and from there into the pockets of contractors.
Seeing how 30 billion dollar somehow went AWOL in Sochi, and Russia still being a illiberal basket case economically, I'm not even sure how to feel about all of this.
And now a message from our sponsors:
MOON annexation by RUSSIA will be like a NEW MUNICH! Roll back the NEW HITLER!! Act now! HILLARY 2017!!!
Check the news. Communism has been dead as dead since 1989 or so.
Also, outside of the Linux Kernel Mailing list, has anyone ever seen a code review actually catch a problem? I sure as hell haven't.
You could be a sushi chef for all we know, so your lack of relevant encounters might find an easy explanation.
In favour of...?
2014, and there are still "C fast and C furious" public dangers being deposited on my information highway due to morbidly retarded curricula combined with the attitude of the unstoppable coding matador.
And use the fucking static code checkers. Use them.
I am pretty sure I have hit the "donate" button rather more often than $MYBOSS.
Currently they are pumping the cash from the print shop INTO the banks to keep Wall Street going. Do not expect anything to happen before this goes really sour.
I am not happy about this.
US security experts with a patriotic – generally pro-NSA – perspective (such as the th3j35t3r here), along with former NSA staffers (here), were delighted by the whole episode
Until their $PREFERRED_POLITICIAN is killed off by strategic leaks.
The rule of men, not of laws.
It has been thus since the times of Gilgamesh!
System libraries usually need to be implemented in the most efficient possible way. That efficiency is achieved by working as close as possible to the "bare metal" — And C gets you there.
BOLD TALK ... FROM THE EIGHTIES! Well, already in 1984: The Lilith
Writing in C means you have to be much more careful
THIS ZIMMER FRAME REALLY GETS ME THERE FASTER, I JUST HAVE TO BE CAREFUL WHEN GOING DOWNSTAIRS. SURE I BROKE MY NECK A FEW TIMES, BUT IT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN AGAIN.
Most people definitions of "simple" mean something like a 10 line script sending one or 2 strings down the line. Not 300 lines of code doing challenge response.
"Most people" are fucking idiots challenged by the simple task of cleaning up the stall behind themselves.
Sending one or 2 strings down the line is not "simple", it's a problem for the "differently abled" (or more charitably, for "first steps" exercises)
Doing challenge response in a 10 line script that can be read and understood by the tester is "simple" and done at the right level of abstraction.
Check out Erlang, then report back, mkay?
just suggesting, perhaps we could be a bit less crap at everything?
The path starts here.
No, that's "spindronics". You are confused.
Because C, "runtime bounds checking is for lamers" and shitty protocols (imma gonna send muh size ... what a good idea)
Or just plausible deniability.
Why no Citriulhu love, Harri?
Polarization by Daniel E. Geer, Jr:
I submit that polarization has come to cybersecurity. The best skills are now astonishingly good while the great mass of those dependent on cybersecurity are ever less able to even estimate what they don’t know, much less act on it. Polarization is driven by the fundamental strategic asymmetry of cybersecurity: the work factor for the offender is the incremental price of finding a new method of attack, but the work factor for the defender is the cumulative cost of forever defending against all attack methods yet discovered. Over time, the curve for the cost of finding a new attack and the curve for the cost of defending against all attacks to date must cross. Once they do, the offender never has to worry about being out of money. That crossing occurred some time ago.
I don’t see the cybersecurity field solving the problem because the problem is getting bigger faster than we (here) are getting better. I see, instead, the probability that legislatures will move to relieve the more numerous incapable of the joint consequences of their dependence and their incapability by assigning liability so as to collectivize the downside risk of cyber insecurity into insurance pools. We’re forcibly collectivizing the downside risks of disease, most particularly the self-inflicted kind, into insurance pools; why would we not expect the same of cyber insecurity, most particularly the self-inflicted kind?
Let me guess ... problems which could have been avoided if the language of predilection for taking relaxing mudbaths of coding wasn't "C" (with or without "lint")?
Of very high relevance, there is an inspiring series of papers on the subject of "weird machines". Check it out:
The Language-theoretic approach (LANGSEC) regards the Internet insecurity epidemic as a consequence of ad hoc programming of input handling at all layers of network stacks, and in other kinds of software stacks. LANGSEC posits that the only path to trustworthy software that takes untrusted inputs is treating all valid or expected inputs as a formal language, and the respective input-handling routines as a recognizer for that language. The recognition must be feasible, and the recognizer must match the language in required computation power.
When input handling is done in ad hoc way, the de facto recognizer, i.e. the input recognition and validation code ends up scattered throughout the program, does not match the programmers' assumptions about safety and validity of data, and thus provides ample opportunities for exploitation. Moreover, for complex input languages the problem of full recognition of valid or expected inputs may be UNDECIDABLE, in which case no amount of input-checking code or testing will suffice to secure the program. Many popular protocols and formats fell into this trap, the empirical fact with which security practitioners are all too familiar.
LANGSEC helps draw the boundary between protocols and API designs that can and cannot be secured and implemented securely, and charts a way to building truly trustworthy protocols and systems.