Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Here's the real waste: (Score 1) 191

by TheP4st (#46830525) Attached to: How Much Data Plan Bandwidth Is Wasted By DRM?

Without DRM, most of the content providers will not provide legal content for you to download.

DRM schemes that cripple content as badly as the Hulu and Netflix are counter productive when close to 100% of the content that is available for streaming can with a minimum of effort be obtained via torrent sites without the any of the restrictions imposed by DRM. I can only see two reasons why DRM such as theirs are implemented:
1. What I just wrote make too much sense for the MAAFIA to comprehend.
2. The MAAFIA acknowledge what I wrote as correct but want to be able to point fingers and screaming [infantile rolling on the floor tantrum]"Evil pirates, we give them legal options on-line but they still steal our content. Hang them all!"[/infantile rolling on the floor tantrum]

Comment: Re:Lol wut (Score 1) 116

by ClickOnThis (#46830417) Attached to: Band Releases Album As Linux Kernel Module

Our album is now fully playable as a loadable Linux kernel module.

Yeah, that seems pretty safe. I'd love to load your album into kernel space. Seems legit.

Didn't this sort of thing happen once before?

Not that I'm making an exact equivalence. This band might just be looking for some geek cred. Whereas Sony installing rootkits, well...

Comment: Re:Just more bullshit (Score 5, Insightful) 314

by ClickOnThis (#46829025) Attached to: F.C.C., In Net Neutrality Turnaround, Plans To Allow Fast Lane

Mod parent insightful.

The internet began as a communication medium. Slowly but surely, we're seeing it turn into a broadcast medium.

It all began years ago, when cable companies started offering internet service with unbalanced bandwidth: outgoing speed was (and still is) a small fraction of the incoming speed. So began the process that has led to what we have today.

Imagine your Telephone Company sold you a phone service that let you call only certain other parties, who wrote a check to the Telephone Company so you could have the privilege. What's more, the number of words in the conversation depends on the payment, and the telephone subscriber (you) can never say more than one word for every 10 to 100 words you hear.

Welcome to the death of the internet.

Comment: Re:The Harsh Light of Day (Score 1) 185

by ClickOnThis (#46803273) Attached to: Google Aids Scientology-Linked Group CCHR With Pay-Per-Click Ads

I don't believe that anybody actually believes all that claptrap about Xenu.. L Ron Hubbard made it all up to bilk money out of desparate people, and plenty of other folk are happy to continue the premise and keep the money flowing.. but does anybody actually believe it? I doubt it..

Does anybody actually believe it? Given the tenacity of the Co$, sadly I'd have to say the answer is yes. Not everyone involved in that group is exchanging winks off-stage. Some have actually drunk the kool-aid.

Comment: Underlying assumptions are false (Score 1) 235

by jd (#46793425) Attached to: Bug Bounties Don't Help If Bugs Never Run Out

Ok, the envelope game. You can rework it to say the second envelope contains the next vulnerability in the queue of vulnerabilities. An empty queue is just as valid as a non-empty one, so if there are no further flaws then the envelope is empty. That way, all states are handled identically. What you REALLY want to do though is add a third envelope, also next item inquire, from QA. You do NOT know which envelope contains the most valuable prize but unless two bugs are found simultaneously (in which case you have bigger problems than game theory), you absolutely know two of the envelopes contain nothing remotely as valuable as the third. If no bugs are known at the time, or no more exist - essentially the same thing as you can't prove completeness and correctness at the same time, then the thousand dollars is the valuable one.

Monty Hall knows what is in two of the envelopes, but not what is in the third. Assuming simultaneous bug finds can be ignored, he can guess. Whichever envelope you choose, he will pick the least valuable envelope and show you that it is empty. Should you stick with your original choice or switch envelopes?

Clearly, this outcome will differ from the scenario in the original field manual. Unless you understand why it is different in outcome, you cannot evaluate a bounty program.

Now, onto the example of the car automotive software. Let us say that locating bugs is in constant time for the same effort. Sending the software architect on a one-way trip to Siberia is definitely step one. Proper encapsulation and modularization is utterly fundamental. Constant time means the First Law of Coding has been broken, a worse misdeed than breaking the First Law of Time and the First Law of Robotics on a first date. You simply can't produce enough similar bugs any other way.

It also means the architect broke the Second Law of Coding - ringfence vulnerable code and validate all inputs to it. By specifically isolating dangerous code in this way, a method widely used, you make misbehaviour essentially impossible. The dodgy code may be there but it can't get data outside the range for which it is safe.

Finally, it means the programmers failed to read the CERT Secure Coding guidelines, failed to test (unit and integrated!) correctly, likely didn't bother with static checkers, failed to enable compiler warning flags and basically failed to think. Thoughtlessness qualifies them for the Pitcairn Islands. One way.

With the Pitcairns now overrun by unemployed automotive software engineers, society there will collapse and Thunderdome v1.0a will be built! With a patchset to be released, fixing bugs in harnesses and weapons, in coming months.

"The chain which can be yanked is not the eternal chain." -- G. Fitch