Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Choose a CMS you like (Score 1) 298

by TheRaven64 (#48882861) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Has the Time Passed For Coding Website from Scratch?

- No security issues (other than bad Javascript or the web server itself): there's nothing to hack, and if someone were to hack the web server itself, restoring the site is as easy as re-uploading the files (all of which can be maintained in version control like git).

For something like Jekyll, this also applies to the input. I use it for a couple of sites and, in both cases, the sources are Markdown files (easy to edit with your favourite text editor) stored in a git repo. When I'm working on updates, I run 'jekyll serve' locally and get a copy of the site on the loopback. When I want to push them, I can do jekyll build and then rsync the results to the web server (or do something more clever if I'm less lazy and want atomic updates). The entire change history of the site is stored in revision control and the revision control system contains everything necessary to recreate the site at any point in its history.

I've yet to see a CMS that allows trivial rollback to earlier versions of the site or which makes it easy to store the content in such a way that a compromised web server can't damage it.

Comment: Re:HTML = programming (Score 1) 298

by TheRaven64 (#48882795) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Has the Time Passed For Coding Website from Scratch?

I'm not sure I agree with your first premise. There are fairly trivial combinators that you can write in lambda calculus that are conditional flow control (i.e. reduce to either the left or right lambda expression based on a value). The implementation of ifTrue in Smalltalk (loosely) follows this model.

More mundanely, the statement is obviously false because a language constructed with the basic arithmetic operators and unconditional branches is also turing complete.

Only if the unconditional branch is a computed branch. Otherwise how would you implement a program that either terminates or does not terminate based on user input? The example that comes to mind is the x86 MOV instruction which, with a single unconditional backwards branch is Turing complete, but this relies on several other aspects of the surroundings that allow you to implement a conditional branch (or, at least, a select, which is morally equivalent).

The simplest Turing-complete instruction set is a subtract-and-branch-if-not-negative instruction, but this is a conditional branch.

I agree that conditional flow control is slightly too broad a requirement, as it depends on an imperative model. Conditional execution depending on input data might be a better way of phrasing it.

Comment: Re:The BORG! (Score 1) 265

by TheRaven64 (#48874897) Attached to: Best Cube?

The serial rather than episode format was a brave choice for a hour long prime time show at the time

You mean it was brave of them to say 'this format is working well for Babylon 5, I wonder if it will work if we do it with a series with a lot more brand recognition and a much bigger budget?'

Comment: Re:A question for all the"deniers". (Score 2) 433

by TheRaven64 (#48874741) Attached to: Science By Democracy Doesn't Work

Because we have had colder temperatures with more CO2 in the past

This is true, but those times also had significantly higher ice concentrations. Paint a big chunk of the ground (and sea area) white and you'll see the

the earth is primarily a self regulating eco-system leading to stability

If you can say this with a straight face, then you have no idea of the history of the climate.

Comment: Re:I hope it works (Score 1) 60

by TheRaven64 (#48874241) Attached to: Calls For European ISPs To Filter Content Could Be Illegal

I run my own DNS. I think it is strange that there is no easy DNS server available for Windows. And by basic I mean Install and forget (perhaps point your DNS to 127.0.0.1). So no additional settings. Just a very basic caching server for a single user.

Doesn't Windows come with one of these built in? I might be remembering from the Server version, as it's quite a few years since I last ran Windows, but in Windows 2000 it was something you could enable in the services management interface.

Comment: Re:I hope it works (Score 2) 60

by TheRaven64 (#48874227) Attached to: Calls For European ISPs To Filter Content Could Be Illegal
It's quite difficult to argue that something that is a transparent cache and will always provide the requested data, just sometimes from a local copy, is equivalent to something that either requests or does not request the remote data and instead substitutes something else based on some external policy are equivalent.

Comment: Re:More proof (Score 1) 661

by TheRaven64 (#48874005) Attached to: US Senate Set To Vote On Whether Climate Change Is a Hoax

One of the big supermarkets in the UK used to have warnings on the backs of peanut packets saying 'Warning: may contain nuts'. I was confused by this until I found a packet that had been filled entirely with air due to an error at the factory. Then I understood the warning.

Although on further reflection, it's still a bit confusing as peanuts are peas, not nuts.

Comment: Re:I hope it works (Score 3, Informative) 60

by TheRaven64 (#48873961) Attached to: Calls For European ISPs To Filter Content Could Be Illegal
Depends. It's only snooping if they do it for recursive DNS lookups or DNS cache queries to third parties. If you set your DNS to 8.8.8.8 (Google's public DNS server) or OpenDNS or similar, then modifying this requires inspecting (and hijacking) traffic intended for a third party. Most of the time, however, users will have their DNS config set to whatever DHCP provides, which means that queries will go to an ISP's server. This doesn't require any interception or inspection of traffic, it just requires sending responses that don't match. If more places would roll out DNSSEC then this would be much easier to spot.

Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with none.

Working...