Re: Absolutely horrendous...
no Ortolan ...
but sounds quite like cuy chactado (squashed and fried guinea pig, as already featured as a post-pub
1990 posts • joined 8 Nov 2007
At least Lelouch had a spotter with a 2-way radio to guide him through the worst part, but still a pretty crazy and irresponsible thing to do.
On the hunt for the storm petrel.
Following the lives of patients involved in double-blind clinical trials of new drugs. The spin is that we never know which ones are getting the placebo or which side effects are psychosomatic. Ha-HA!
Call me blasé, but what is all the hype with this event?
Maybe astronomers have a soft spot for Mercury transits since they were a key support for Einstein's theory of relativity? The thoughts of overthrowing the older Newtonian hegemony probably makes them a bit nostalgic.
The only way that could be worse is if a huge manatee was involved.
I think she had a restaurant ...
Maybe the money could have been better spent paying Kayvan Novak* to do another Fonejacker series. George Agdgdgwngo needs a reprise, IMO.
* If he's not too busy with Paddy Power ads
The magic of geometry
And some even simpler linear algebra. It's like* if you have two buses that serve the same bus stop, one that arrives every 40 minutes, another every 45 minutes. The time between instances where both buses arrive at once is the least common multiple of the two times, which in this case would be 360 minutes. Accounting for the wobble is like saying that you only visit the bus stop every, say, 50 minutes so you're only interested in times that you're actually there. Again, you use the LCM. The LCM of 360 and 50 (or of 40, 45 and 50, if you want to combine all three values at once) is 1800, so the time between the coincidences is 1800 minutes or 30 hours.
* Obviously, this is a simplification. The bus stops would be moving, for one thing, since we're interested in colinearity rather than when planets are at fixed points. In two or three dimensions with elliptical orbits, the calculations are a bit more involved, but the basic ideas of periodicity still hold (as far as I know; please correct me if I'm wrong). The reason I'm talking about the simpler case is that it helps to understand that the LCM is fundamental to combining periods. Most notably, if the periods being combined are relatively prime, then the combined period is the product of each of the individual periods, which might be a surprising result if you didn't know about the LCM.
Incidentally, they reckon that cicadas are so successful because the period of their life cycle is relatively prime to that of the predators that keep them under control. This means that they get the maximal period between "busts" in their predator-prey cycle.
I'll tell you a true story. Back in Uni, we had a practical programming exam (in Basic) on the mainframe. The lecturer had set up a restricted environment where commands that could be used to cheat (those relating to sending messages to other users and accessing shared folders) were disabled by using aliases. I noticed that I could undo these aliases from within the Basic interpreter. I hacked the system by asking the lecturer if we could use the Basic interpreter during the exam, because it was more convenient for testing things quickly. They didn't see the problem and whitelisted the interpreter. So after finishing my assignment, I had a bit of fun messaging my mates to show that I'd broken out of the jail.
The moral of the story is not that there's anything wrong with interpreters (like your diatribe against shells) but the context that they're allowed to be used from. ImageMagick evolved from being a command-line tool and now it's being used in an unsafe context. That is all.
Thanks, that saved me the bother of asking "wft ...?"
some sort of "retconning" (retroactive continuity) or whatever that word is* for when some new tech becomes the new normal and we begin to look at the old tech through the lens of the new. Unlike something like "horse-power", where we do the opposite.
I always thought that the number of power cycles was the main reason spinning disks failed, though. Can rust wear out? Or does it, as Neil Young would have it, never sleep?
* the word I was looking for was probably "back-formation", it seems
I did the same thing. Guessed it was Weird Science but didn't scan down far enough to see it mentioned. Googling what I assumed was "Shermer High School" written on her top, I found something (mildly) interesting: Shermer, Illinois is a fictional town that turns up in ten or eleven films, mostly by John Hughes.
There is no death of Hard Disk Drives and SSD
Sure, hard drives aren't going away for a while, but there's this thing called "opportunity cost". Seagate seems to have chosen to stick with spinning disks over SSD. In so doing, it's devoting its limited resources to chasing a shrinking market at the expense of building expertise, capacity and market share in the newer SSD market.
I can only guess that Seagate execs imagine SSDs to be not quite there yet and consider a shift in focus to them being a more risky proposition than riding out the cash cow for a while longer. Maybe they're right, maybe not. Time (and timing) will tell.
One supposes that this is just the sort of deal (with default "opt-in" clauses) that British regulators would love to sign up to. They'd totally get away with it, too, if it weren't for that pesky EU.
Closest icon I can find for a Scooby Snack (gurning counts, doesn't it?)--->
What's really needed is a credential system that doesn't open the user up to being tracked across all their activities. An anonymous or pseudonymous identity system is the ideal. There are a bunch of different crypto techniques and technologies that might point a way to how such a system might work, such as:
Unfortunately, neither governments, intelligence agencies nor big business (advertisers and the advertising companies) have any interest in providing (or even allowing) this concept of identity to flourish. On the other hand, though, if Bitcoin showed us anything, it's that you can start off with the logic of everyone only being in it for themselves and actually create something that is useful for everyone. Of course, it's not free, given that it only works because proof-of-work (and the speculative/adversarial nature of the game) has costs in hardware and electricity, but since it's kind of like free-market economics in microcosm, perhaps such an identity system could work in a parasitic/symbiotic relationship with various systems that need strong identity proofs, but are agnostic about who you are?
I'm marking this (at least the sub-head) and the article about Chernobyl by listening to Neutral Milk Hotel's "Two-headed Boy".
It's a big, broad question, though, so reading up on Ajax is a good place to start.
Just as easy ...
I was just thinking that myself. More than half of the shell companies revealed by the Panama Papers were incorporated in the British Virgin Islands. Maybe not directly relevant to the "Brexit" debate, but then probably neither is the OP's post.
A quick guess would be that the entire system is effectively two coupled pendulums. When you hold onto the rope and swing your body around the point you're holding, you're doing work (expending energy to move against whatever inertia you already have). That's where the energy comes from, and because it's a coupled system, that energy gets transferred into making the swing as a whole go higher or damping its movement.
You should be able to get a similar effect by suspending a piston (say a solenoid) vertically from a spring and setting the piston to oscillate at different frequencies. My intuition tells me that you should be able to get behaviours ranging from having a point that's fixed at a given height despite the paired oscillation to tracing out a smooth sine wave, with various chaotic patterns in between.
Or maybe the teens just like Angry Birds?
From Wikipedia (not a sterling source, natch): "The word decimation is derived from Latin meaning "removal of a tenth"." So I think "literally" is OK, it being literally one tenth (give or take) who will get the (OK, figurative) axe.
I had it exactly right because I prefaced the phrase
OK, I misinterpreted, but the emphasis you used (on "information" rather than "doesn't") suggested to me that somehow "information" (as opposed to something tangible like a photon or whatever) was something that could be transmitted without breaking the speed limit. Your use of the word "seems" ("I know not 'seems' ...") further muddied the waters for me.
So anyway, not "it seems that instantaneous information transfer doesn't violate relativity", but "relativity doesn't allow for instantaneous information transfer". All cleared up.
Still, one other niggle: "it gives a method for instantaneous cooperation at a distance" is similarly open to misinterpretation. The "spooky action at a distance" is uncorrelated until after both parties have compared notes. This "cooperation" you're talking about takes time and is definitely not instantaneous.
(with the obvious caveat that "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics" surely applies equally to both of us)
allowing -information- to be transferred between the points instantaneously
Pedant alert: quantum communications doesn't allow instantaneous information transfer. You almost had it right because you go on to say that the parties have to compare notes afterwards. There's no information transfer until they compare notes and the information contained in them is still subject to classical limits on how fast it can be transmitted (no FTL, no violating relativity).
Probably the second rule is something like "even though I have no interest in reading your mail, each and every host it goes through does have the capability of reading it: assume that I'm the exception among these admins and if you want privacy, encrypt the mail or don't use email at all".
Not using email at all would have been the smart thing to do in this case, since the recipient metadata is still in the clear. But then, the sender probably wasn't the sharpest tool in the box and no amount of explaining would have led him to do the sensible thing.
Best course for this admin would have been to refuse to scan the emails in the first place. Or only set up filtering with the policy that all misaddressed mail will go directly to a public (office-wide) noticeboard. Either that, or refuse to look at the content and base redirections solely on the To: field. I prefer the more dramatic option, though.
I assume that propaganda on both sides is a bit repetitive in the literal sense of being on a continuous loop. If you get a good clean recording, invert the phase and then pump that out on your own system, you can get some degree of noise cancellation in selected spots. Of course, when broadcast out over a wide area, some spots will get destructive interference (cancelling out what you don't want heard) while others will have constructive interference (making it louder).
The other interesting thing about this is that one appropriate response to the use of this tech (assuming both sides rush to use it) would be simply to turn off your own speakers. Then you save electricity and the other guy ends up broadcasting both signals with perfect fidelity.
Might not be a perfect idea, but at least some "deaf spots" could help shield your guys against the opposing propaganda.
Can't recall accidentally typing something like this, but I've certainly borked things up a bit by using the shell history feature "!something" to re-run a previous command only to either have a typo that called up another command instead, or brought back a nasty command that I'd forgotten was in the history. Tab completion is also another great labour-saving device that brings its own problems.
The times I've accidentally done 'tar cf *" to make a tar file, accidentally clobbering the first file? More than once. Plus dd mishaps, obviously, especially on machines where enumeration of devices (sd?, mmcblk?) is essentially random after a reboot.
/measure twice, cut once
Avatar = Pocahontas
I always thought it was "Smurfahontas"
the only thing that went through the mind of the bowl of petunias as it fell was "Oh no, not again."
Japanese also do mm/dd/yyyy.
What do you mean, a new angle? atan(1) * 4 has been around since at least Pythagoras.
@AC - "the finest and noblest of Her Majesties Armed Forces"
That would be the Royal Navy, mate.
Surely that should be she majesties armed forces? I guess that "the queens' English" is foreign to you.
bar stools on one of his yachts clothed in sperm whale foreskin.
The penis bone of some aquatic mammals (yes, they have "bones", literally) have all sorts of uses. Seems they make good knife handles since they won't get too slippery if you're using it to butcher an animal.
Idiots who self inflict
So if someone is distracted while crossing the road and gets run over, it's their own fault and so shouldn't get treatment? Maybe we should resinstitute the Spanish Inquisition to take over triage duties then, eh?
VGA fonts were set by a call to the BIOS (*). I have a collection of them somewhere. I'm pretty sure that some games used custom fonts to display graphics even though they were still in text mode. Can't think of one for sure, but I think that the Kroz series of games might have used this trick.
But fonts? A bunch of vectors? I just don't get why they have to be so dangerous 30 years later! XML, for instance, can describe similar data without needing admin privs
But XML everywhere makes things slow, especially if you insist on it being well-formed, which the specs say it should be. Thus we have binary file formats with "nasty" things like fields indicating how many bytes are in some section of the file or data fields compressed with zlib or similar. Most of the kinds of errors arising from using these are down to insufficient checks on such fields to make sure that they make sense.
Besides the performance problem, XML isn't a panacea. It can work well for some structured data, but it essentially follows a strictly hierarchical model. There isn't any standard way to model interdependencies between one section of the XML file and another, so it's still possible to get errors where something is essentially declared in one part of the file, but never properly instantiated in another, leading to NULL dereference problems (similar to one mentioned in the article, leading to a crash) if the proper checks aren't included. XML schemas also aren't immune to designers embedding "field length" fields, either (in one way or another; compressed strings often implicitly use this feature).
Finally, I don't think your point about privileges is appropriate here, since neither the article or the vulnerability report mention it. The gist here is that if you can install a bad font file on a server then it can pass that to clients that connect. The bugs have nothing to do with admin rights as such.
"I will fear no evil" 1970
Probably more. They're the ones I remember.
Never knew that was Tiger's real name. Leaves me wondering if his parents were fans of H. P. Lovecraft (fond of words like "Eldritch") or maybe Sapphire and Steel (characters called Eldred and Rothwyn in one "assignment", though Steel points out that they're hopelessly anachronistic cover names). Tiger's too old for the S&S idea to work, though.
Hate to nitpick (actually when I'm right love to nitpick) but iron will fuse quite happily with enough energy and pressure
Oh, the cobalty.
Well, it's not a virus, but a fork bomb is generally very short. You could obfuscate it by writing the loop condition so that it looks like it's supposed to just run once if there's no error, but is actually designed to always loop infinitely (like the third example in the recent article here).
It's hard to disguise all bits of a virus since you need to include file I/O and that's going to look suspicious in many bits of code. Still, there are some things you could try...
1. companion viruses
It seems that these are still possible. Make a hidden .COM file corresponding to an existing .EXE or whatever. The .COM is executed when both extensions are present. Alternatively, get the user to set %PATHEXT (tell them it's needed for your program to work due to filename conflicts)
If the compiler accepts Unicode characters, use the fact that some characters look the same even though they're different code points. Put an innocuous version of a routine in an obvious place at the top of a file and hide the malicious version (that's actually called) somewhere more out of the way.
3. Deliberately smash the stack
If the program looks like it should legitimately be using XOR on strings (like in a random number generator, encryption routine or similar) then introduce a bug that overwrites the call stack and executes a bit of machine code that's already embedded in the code (in obfuscated form, requiring the xor to decrypt it).
It's a lot easier to introduce deliberate bugs that can be exploited later (by specially-crafted input) than it is to hide a complex program inside another.
**ALWAYS fair better**
That would be "fare".
(sorry... must be something to do with all the other spelling corrections above)
Did the guy requesting the change have multiple personality disorder or something? Personality #1 deduces that personality #2 will take over at some point and writes the comment to achieve some sort of victory over him? Did the guy wanting the change realise his mistake later and then travelled back in time to insert the comment when he was working for the original company?
Also, since each customer has his own version of the code, how does changing it for that customer affect the company writing the code? Surely even if they use the program themselves, they don't run a customer-customised version of it in house?
Are you complaining that someone forgot to put in 'case' or that enums start from zero?
In the first case, there are only around 30 or so reserved keywords in C. There are only two types of conditional statement (unless you count for/while). My point is that C is a pretty tiny language and if you use it for any amount of time you just know that switch and case go together. Why does it have to be 'case X:' and not just 'X:"? Because the latter is reserved as the syntax for defining a label so that you can jump ('goto') to a point later (and, yes, you can mix cases and regular labels--look up Zed's Device as a variant of Duff's Device). C is so small that you're expected to be able to make these kinds of distinction and always have them in your head.
In the second case, you can assign a constant value to one of the enumerated names and get var1=1, var2=2 and so on. But I don't really think you're complaining about that.
Maybe the guy who illustrated 'Watchmen'?
"Write" always implies "delete"
Actually, not quite. Being able to write to (an existing) file just depends on the file permissions. Being able to delete depends on both the file permissions (*) and the permissions in the containing directory. If I 'chmod -w' the directory but the file has regular rw permissions then I can write to the file, but I can't delete it.
(*) actually, it's only the rm command that will prevent me from deleting a file with no write permissions, but this is only a convention used by that particular tool. If I were to use unlink instead (either the system call or the command-line tool) setting the file to read-only would not stop the file from being deleted.
use a random number generator to choose which part of PI to use
But then it fails another test of an RNG that's suitable for crypto uses: it'll be susceptible to timing attacks, assuming that you have to calculate the chosen bits on demand.
Of course, if you have enough disk space (we're talking Terabytes), you can pre-calculate the digits (and somehow make sure that seek times don't allow for a more subtle timing attack), but then it fails the practicality test.