So strlen is "perfectly safe to use", except when it isn't. It's just yet another example of a C's error-prone approach to programming.
Godel's Incompleteness Theorem applies to more than mathematics. You could apply it to the system that makes up a server. You might be able to prove that you could not prove that the system is secure.
Handwaving at Godel is a very poor argument. Now you introduce the qualifier "might". The original (and incorrect) statement was: "If you think you can make something hack-proof purely out of software, let me introduce you to Kurl Godel."
Not that you'd need Godel for that. Experience and common sense should point you in the same direction.
Experience and common sense tells me that very little effort is spent trying to write software that is provably secure. It is entirely possible to prove properties about programs.
A bad tradesman blames his tools.
A bad tradesman uses poor tools.
If it's server-accessible, it's hackable and subject to theft. If you think you can make something hack-proof purely out of software, let me introduce you to Kurl Godel.
You don't know what you are talking about. Godel's theorems were specifically about mathematical axiom systems, consistency, and completeness. It does not say it is impossible to write hack-proof software.
Correct me if I'm wrong... Poland broke away and became independent from Russia during the Russian Civil War.
Poland's east was Russia. West is Germany.
I'm not really sure what your point is. You can read the history of Poland on Wikipedia just as well as I can. Like many countries and territories, it was ruled over and conquered by different countries, and at various times gained independence. What does any of this have to do with Poland conquering Russia, as was claimed?
That statement reads to me as though Polish forces tried to capitalise on the mayhem in Russia and took advantage of the situation.
Which says nothing different than what I already summarized in my last post, per "least favorable view" and "most favorable". Still don't see any evidence that Poland was out to conquer Russia.
The word "almost" was required.
The American settlers fought wars and drove the native Americans off their land onto reservations. But they were no more exterminated than were the Tatars.
If you were not indoctrinated into a specific school of thought, you would not have asked that ignorant question.
Maybe you mean if I was indoctrinated into a specific school of thought, in particular the Soviet Union era? And perhaps modern Russia, too? I don't know what they teach in their history books, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was one-sided.
OP was referring to the most recent war before Soviet Russia invaded Poland for the last time.
You screwed up your link, but it seems you were trying to point here. Note it does not support the view that Poland was trying to conquer Russia. It explicitly says it wasn't:
"On the other hand, Poland had no intention of joining the Western intervention in the Russian Civil War or of conquering Russia itself."
In the least favorable view of Poland, it was trying to do a land grab alongside its borders. In the most favorable view, they were trying to secure their country from an imperialistic Russia that was going to invade them anyways when the opportunity arose. It's all in the Wikipedia article.
I'm not assuming either right or wrong. What I am assuming is that he clearly moved to Las Vegas to avoid paying California taxes. Whether it was legal or not is one thing, but it's a shady tactic either way.
The thing is that most of them weren't.
Pardon me if I don't take your biased word on any of this.
Some originally joined Russian Empire completely voluntarily like Georgia.
Annexed into the Russian Empire, then became independent, and then conquered by the USSR.
Some didn't even have a state when those territories were colonized and have them now simply because they weren't exterminated like American natives.
The native Americans weren't exterminated. Since we're talking about Crimea, you can draw parallels to the forced deportation of the Tatars.
Some are failed conquerors of Russia themselves, like Poland and Lithuania.
When did Poland ever try to conquer Russia? It's the other way around. They've been subjugated by Russian rule numerous times.
Most post soviet countries are artificial. Some of peoples that stayed within Russian Federation have more claims to sovereignty than those states. Making them independent was pointless. Many of them got even worse regimes than the past soviet one. Russian Federation happens to be one of more democratic ones. I think all of them would be better off staying in the same state and building their post-soviet future together.
Sorry, your word on this is meaningless.
Partition of Soviet Union was a joke, most of its people was against it.
If you mean most Russians were against it, that wouldn't surprise me. If you mean the people in the countries being subjugated to rule from Russia, you're clearly biased.
This guy invented the microprocessor
Under dispute. Actually, he eventually lost his patent, but not until after he managed to extract millions in licensing fees from it. An anti-Hyatt page.
successfully sued the state of California for nearly $400 million because they tried to extort taxes he didn't owe out of him
Whether he owes them or not is still not settled. He won money from California on the basis of a Nevada jury for California's auditory process. The bottom line is that he moved to Las Vegas to avoid California taxes from his license windfall.
So far, everything he's done relating to tech has been righteous imo, let's cut him some slack.
From the article: "While some of Hyatt's patents predate or are contemporary with those granted to executives at Intel and Texas Instruments Inc., those companies made products that changed the world, Bassett said.
"I respect Gilbert Hyatt's work -- the process of engineering is difficult," Bassett said in a telephone interview. "But innovations are more than ideas. The broader context matters. If Gilbert Hyatt had never existed, I believe the microprocessor would have developed in the same way that it did.""
PROTIP: When you correct someone's grammar, usage, or mechanics, it's more polite to add a topical comment as well.
I'd rather not see a pro forma comment.
Remember when their used to be one link to The Fucking Article? (If you don't, get off my lawn.) Is there any reason for three links, when one is the real story, and the other two are fluff pieces glossing the story?
you pledge your soul to serve in our undead army against God in the end days...
Sorry Valve, that one has to be signed in blood.
Why do you care that I care? Are you bitching just because you feel like bitching? Is it unreasonable that language should be used meaningfully and not stupidly?
Did you even bother reading those?
No, I just copy and pasted snippets blindly... Of course I did! The question is why you lack reading comprehension to pick up on the contrast I made a point to include in each snippet. What's really either willfully ignorant or dishonest on your part is to then quote only the parts that don't talk about the landline.
As pay phones and landlines disappear, we might be moving toward a wireless future. [..] While some people still use their landlines for their Internet access, "dial-up is antiquated," one of his co-workers said in the background.
and this is one:
Ready to cut the cordsnipping your landline could save you some serious cash, it's not for everyone. [..] Hanging on to your solo landline solely for the Internet connection? Be sure to weigh the costs of other Internet options, such as cable modems.
It's stupid easy to find the same kind of pattern in the rest of the examples. I'm really tired of arguing with obstinate assholes on Slashdot who will say anything to avoid admitting when they are wrong, especially after I do all the work to put the evidence right in front of their face. Fuck off.