Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Prep for the CompTIA A+ certification exam. Save 95% on the CompTIA IT Certification Bundle ×

Comment Re:AUTONOMOUS CARS NOW!!! (Score 1) 62

I'm willing to bet that you're one of the really shitty drivers that causes accidents all the time because you're the type that complains about other drivers more than anyone else. Meanwhile while I've been in a few minor accidents over the course of driving for the last 35 years I'm not the one who is screaming to 'ban human drivers', which of course is utter and complete nonsense, will never work, will never happen, because I know the 'bad drivers' are a small majority and most people behave themselves on the roads just fine, and that shit happens and getting all spastic over that fact just shows how immature someone really is.

There will never be driverless cars. There will never be cars with no manual controls. Untrained, unlicensed people will never be allowed to be the sole occupant of any so-called 'autonomous car', ever. You're all living in a childish fantasy world in your heads, and it will never be. Get over it and grow up already.

Are you the same people that keep voting for more and more restrictions on everyones freedoms in the name of 'security'? I wouldn't at all be surprised if you are.

Comment Re:Another possibility (Score 1) 611

There are some possibilities that you missed. This one, for example:

* God is a good experimentalist, and like all good experimentalists, he rarely intervenes with the way things play out in his creation/experimental system. He sits back and passively observes, for hundreds or thousands of years at a time, and Jesus is the product of "Ok, I'm tired of the dynamic that the most intelligent carbon units have gotten into; let's see what happens if I have one of them teach some ethical principles to the others."

I didn't miss it, because this is an inconsistent possibility (not that it is possible to come up with a coherent and consistent theory of God, but that's a REALLY long discussion) Let's see. How could God be a good experimentalist? Well we usually perform experiments to learn something where we don't know the outcome. But God is omniscient, and cannot NOT know the outcome (and remain God), at least not unless you want to become a Hindu monist pandeist and imagine Mahavishnu/Brahma splitting its omniscient universal self (Brahman) into all of the many sparks of life (Atman) that have forgotten the perfect knowledge of Brahman. However, this view is generally opposed by most Abrahamic theologists because it destroys the essential dualism required to have a God to worship who can punish and reward and make the whole system work (not to mention that it contradicts pretty much all of the sacred texts of the family of religions).

Now, God could also be an experimentalist by playing dice with the Universe -- just rolling out a big, unknown Universe with no idea how it will all come out, a big reality simulation, just to see what happens, and then he could sit there blaming the lifeforms that emerge for being precisely what the dice he used plus the ruleset he used produced and invent ANOTHER pair of realities, one in which those lifeforms can live forever being tortured by demonic merciless robots, one in which those lifeforms can all sit around and chant praises for eternity to make him feel Really Important. But I hope that we agree that this is a rather ugly picture of God as well.

Besides, you're contradicting a number of essential statements from the Gospels, notably John, and your comment stinks of the Arian heresy that was stamped out post Nicaea (with fire and steel). Jesus is the alpha and omega, dude, and was there at the beginning and will be there at the end. So God cannot decide to send us Jesus to teach us ethical principles because there is no real difference between Jesus and God. Jesus/God sent himself, as he knew he would at the beginning, to produce precisely the outcome he predestined at the end. If you are damned, you have no choice in the matter as you were damned from the beginning of time. Not that the Gospels are consistent on this point. But let's have a look:

Mark 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

Mark 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

Matthew: 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

So, apparently, Jesus and God are different, Jesus is not God and doesn't even claim to be good! He deliberately teaches those predestined to be saved in parables so that ordinary people won't get it and WON'T be converted and saved. Thanks, Jesus! I'll adopt his methods in my physics class, I guess, and teach physics using metaphors instead of equations just so I can flunk all of the students I confuse. Hey, it's OK! It was predestined! But it is Matthew that directly contradicts your assertion. God has come up with a scheme that he hides from the wise and prudent and reveals only to the young who are stupid and foolish!

You might think about this (this is hardly the only time this is stated in the NT). Even at that time, Christianity made no real progress with people who weren't idiots, because even 2000 years ago, sensible people could recognize a charlatan when they saw one. Look earlier in this same chapter! Not even John the Baptist, who supposedly baptized Jesus to the accompaniment of many miracles, is certain Jesus is the messiah -- he doubts it from inside his prison cell as he supposedly awaits execution! But not to worry! Jesus proves it by rubbing spit in a blind man's eye:

Mark 8:23 And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw ought.

or was it mud, made with spit?

John 9:6 When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay,
9:7 And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.

This, apparently is a record of how Jesus cured things like blindness. With spit and dirt from the ground in a country where all non-foot transportation is provided by animals and where there is nothing like a sewer system or sanitation, dirt that has been urinated on and shat upon by animal and human alike since time immemorial. The mouth, you might recall, is literally the dirtiest part of the human body as far as dangerous bacteria are concerned. But not holy spit! That cures anything!

Interestingly, this story is in both a synoptic and in John. If you take the gospels seriously, that makes it rather more likely that this is an authentic account of how Jesus worked his magic in the crowd -- take the person out of town (away from the crowd), "heal them" with a show of traditional magic (because it certainly wasn't medicine) where only a few people could see, and then let the rumor spread. This is how he tried to convince John the Baptist that he really was the messiah over his apparent doubts. And since just a bit further down, he disparages John to the crowd and makes himself and his listeners out to be much greater (if they follow him) it doesn't take much imagination to think that just maybe he was trying to replace John and take over John's disciples and followers.

You can go to many third world countries and watch witch doctors work exactly this kind of "miracle" today. They even still frequently use, and used in the past, spit:

(see e.g. page 229). Holy spit isn't limited just to Jesus:

or even only to humans:

Holy Horse Spit! Or if you are willing to "believe", you can join a contemporary cult that uses this sort of technique:

Oh, wait, SGI doesn't do this. This was used as the archetype of cult fake medicine.

But I could do this all day. If you simply applied precisely the same common sense to Christianity and its scriptures and claims that you have absolutely no problem applying to Hinduism, Shamanism, the Great Spirit, Islam and Muhammed, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Heaven's Gate, and so on you would not conclude that sending Jesus to the Earth to model healing techniques based on rubbing muddy spit into the human eye is an ethically defensible practice for an omniscient omnibenevolent being. You would also just possibly have to face up to the true magnitude of the problem of theodicy.

Finally, Jesus is hardly the first, or the best, of humans who have supposedly taught ethical behavior to carbon life forms. The teachings of the New Testament, looked at objectively, fall far short of a perfect ethos for human existence, with or without the God component. And yes, I can quote the NT all day on the issue because, unlike most "believers", I've actually read the damned thing, multiple times, especially the Gospels. As well as a lot of the OT (I get bored too quickly to properly finish it). As well as the Quran, the Upanishads, the Puranas, the Mahabharata, the Ramayana, the Book of Mormon. I would strongly recommend reading it, carefully, and asking yourself "is this the consistent record of anything LIKE perfection on earth?" Sure, Jesus has some decent ideas, although pretty much all of them are not unique to him and are common threads in the moral system of many religions or philosophies. But give him some credit. But don't blind your eye to the crap! Cursing a fig tree? Preaching in parables so many listeners will stay damned? Curing blindness with spit and mud? Telling his followers they have to hate their parents and relatives and love only him or they cannot be saved? This stuff isn't even consistent with the half-assed "morality" of the ten commandments (some of which are OK, or would be if the prescription for breaking them weren't to be stoned to death by the tribe, and others of which are sheer nonsense)!


Comment Re: Your WALL OF TEXT (Score 1) 110

I do it on a large a very large network, dude.

I do a lot of it with control of DNS servers. If you're talking about blocking doubleclick.. I mean... that's an easy one.

The whitelisting isn't just for programs. Its for web domains as well. We have several different networks but for this discussion you just need to know there is an unlocked Wifi Network for people to facebook on and there is a HEAVILY locked down wired network is which what the machines I actually give a shit about are connected to...

Totally scalable. And in case you're curious... we have about a dozen external IPs though most of them are for specific servers. In so far as the users are concerned there are TWO IPs. The locked down wired network and the everything goes download horse porn network. And nether the twain shall they meet.

Look look look.

Here's the thing. Security is very very serious in my context. Enough that... well there are security guys with guns... and those guns have bullets in them.

So... Keep that in mind when you're saying something I'm saying isn't realistic. It isn't just realistic... its every fucking day. Its just high security.

How many of you guys operate managed air gapped networks? That's one of our layers of security for the archives amongst other things.

Is this reasonable for everyone? No. But its reasonable for more people than do it. A lot of these corporate and government breaches could have been stopped if they had been more serious about it. Sure, an Ed Snowden can nail you if one of your IT people goes rogue. But short of that, I don't see how you break a system like this... and even the Ed Snowden thing has a solution. The solution is drastic... but effective.

Comment Re:Your WALL OF TEXT (Score 1) 110

hmmm... I'm still seeing the presupposition that the program in question has the permissions. And you're still forgetting the firewalls.

I mean... fine... you might get by ONE defense by doing something like this but to actually be effective you need to get past them all. And I don't see that happening.

I mean, fine... you get some code into active memory... great... but what permissions does it have? Its going to inherit the permissions of the host program. So you're inheriting the permissions of what? Internet explorer/firefox/chrome/opera/whatever? Congrats. Its permissions are shit.

Comment Re: White list or you're jerking off (Score 1) 110

You're not thinking about this systematically. You're using magical logic and I can't go through the chain of logic when everything looks like a long string of unlinked and unassociated preconceptions. Its just a bunch of givens.

You're saying


And there's no association or proof or causal chain in it anywhere that I can evaluate.

You say that if the code gets into a program with limited permission on a network with limited access to specific domains on the internet that someone is going to take over the whole fucking network when the whole thing is knitted up tightly at every fucking level?

No, motherfucker. Absolutely not.

Comment Re:The strange power of delusional phantasy! (Score 1) 110

I get along with APK just fine. I've had a few discussions with him. I like him. :-D

Unlike most of the people that diss him he actually knows something, has accomplished something, and has one of the few novel perspectives on stuff.

Does he go on and on about his host file thing? Yeah. The man is advertising to a certain extent. he hears all these problems and he's like "my program solves this" and everyone is like "fuck you you're stupid!"... think about how that would make you feel.

As I said, I get along with him just fine.

Comment Re:White list or you're jerking off (Score 1) 110

I hold the distinction so far as I know of being the only person on this site that has gotten along well with APK... to give you some idea of how crazy you probably think I am.

He's an interesting guy and unlike most of his detractors he's actually built something that actually works and he actually knows "something". He's abrasive, largely indifferent to the opinions of people he sees as knowing less than him, and some what robotic in his communication style.

That said... I empathize with that entire personality profile since it largely mirrors my own.

I don't believe in coddling retards. I'd prefer to piss them off and then slap the shit out of them until they learn their place. Its initially annoying but in the long run it is less work to maintain a functional social model if everyone is keenly aware of their place in the hierarchy. As to being indifferent to the opinions of ignorant people... sort of the same thing again. Dumb people have dumb opinions. As to a robotic communication style... I've been accused of that myself many times and i frankly don't see any shame in admitting it. I do have a "rules based" personality. I operate on a core logic. I don't make choices based on emotion. This baffles the humans but it is actually my nature. The reason in my own case is that I do not trust my own instincts or emotional compass to be a reliable guide for action. In my childhood it repeatedly let me down so I learned to think rationally simply as a survival strategy because my instincts are basically broken. As such when I see someone else operating under a rules based mental frame work... although a perhaps repetitive one from my perspective... I have some empathy for it.

The first time I encountered APK he tried to fight me. I kept refusing to get upset, responding rationally, being patient, and offering credit where credit was due. And he eventually started being nice to me. So, progress.

I have a long history of working with troubled geniuses. I grew up with a few and I work with a few on a regular basis. The world is full of a lot of really smart people that were sadly traumatized by their mentality because it disturbed their early childhood by isolating them.

A lot of them grow up to be odd people but they're frequently exceptionally productive members of society if you can put up with a little of that oddness and show them a little human compassion and understanding.

Just my own experience with such things. To each their own.

Comment Re:LOGIC is not the same thing as MATH (Score 1) 530

No, they're logical... math is a subset of logic.

---Mathematical logic
---Computational logic
---Philosophical logic

All math is logical but not all logic is math. That is how you know that math is a subset of logic and logic is not a subset of math.

You know this simply by thinking about the question itself LOGICALLY.

Go through the logic Actually think about it systematically.

Comment Re: White list or you're jerking off (Score 1) 110

Yep... I keep hearing about these demon PDF files... poor Adobe. First flash and now PDF.

Two issues with this concept.

1. You're assuming I'm opening the PDF with adobe acrobat. Its a good assumption but it isn't necessarily valid. Lots of programs can open, edit, and write in PDF. I prefer actually to not use acrobat precisely for this reason. I avoid standard programs where convenient. No one cares about acrobat. You change excel or word and people lose their god damned minds. But change acrobat and most people don't even notice.

2. Any code operating from within acrobat would be using acrobat's own permissions to do whatever. If I restrict those to something tight enough that it can't really do anything then what are you going to do to me? If you can't access the internet to download a proper bit of malware. If you can't modify system settings. If you can't even change your own settings. Why do I care?

All these exploits rely on essentially shitty security. Its all "well after we sneak by the bank guard we'll just break into that cardboard box they store the money in and we'll be home free"...

There isn't one layer of defense. There are many layers and getting acrobat or excel to act crazy shouldn't be enough to actually threaten security.

My systems are locked down to such an extent that I can have a given endpoint entirely 100 percent infected and it still doesn't compromise the network.

Comment Re:White list or you're jerking off (Score 1) 110

As to subscriptions for signed modules... I think an open source list system will work just fine.

As to government hacks getting whitelisted... that's why it has to be open source.

That said, I think you're over estimating the difficulty here. The trick is to control ways code can be introduced into a system, properly identify that something is or is not code, and then run that code by the white list.

The trickiest thing is going to be some dumb hybrid file formats that contain executable code for dubious reasons. But that just means you need to control the permissions of those programs so they don't have the permissions to do anything that would be a problem to the system or themselves. And if they can't do anything harmful then the code even if it is going wild inside of excel or whatever is just going to fail to do anything harmful and then drop out of memory on program termination.

Comment Re:Well (Score 1) 110

As to PDFs... two things.

1. I try to use non-standard applications for such uses where I can get away with it. Acrobat reader for example is one I generally replace with a third party alternative. Your executable code will assume acrobat and it won't get passed anywhere via that little tweak all by itself.

2. The PDF readers etc have restricted permissions. The code in the file uses the application's own permissions to do things and it doesn't have the permissions to do anything that would threaten me. Is there a reason I need to give Excel Network or internet access? Any reason to give Excel access to system settings? What is it going to do?

The workstations are thin clients that connect to a terminal server. And the templates refresh on each login so even if you corrupted excel some how it would be clean again on the next load.

As to the IT industry being full of suckers... I would agree. They seem entirely incapable of grasping what it means to put on your game face... to go to war over the network. They don't take any of it seriously and frankly I think a lot of that attitude is why other aspects of business and government actually don't take IT seriously. It shows. You are serious or you're not taken seriously.

So they pay the price over and over again. They get treated like shit and their systems get raped by the first black hat that really tries. Fuckwits.

Is my system perfect? Its as close to perfect as I've been able to make it. its pretty fucking secure. There have been many attempts and... I believe no breaches ever. Can I know? Its possible. Its just not very likely. I don't just have firewalls but I also have a very robust logging and reporting regime. Lots of things are logged and a penetration should show up in the logs.

Comment Re:Your WALL OF TEXT (Score 1) 110

Why would I talk to double click? I don't even talk to double click on my personal machine at home? why would I let a protected system talk to doubleclick?

Access denied.

I'm generally a believer in not running code that I don't need to run. That extends to javascript.

I am currently blocking about 5~7 domains from serving javascript on this site alone... right now. And I've seen sites that were trying to push me to run 20+ javascript domains for a single page.

Its dumb.

I run script when it serves a purpose. And then I only run the script that I need to run to permit that purpose. And i do not permit domains I do not trust to run anything.

I've never seen anything where I "had" to run double click. I feel bad about it sometimes because the sites likely lose ad revenue. But I'm not running the code. I will happily display the image but the code... no.

As to embedding malware in a PNG file, my understanding is that you're not infecting anything with that file unless the image file is not merely displayed by run as an executable.

its less that some image files contain viruses than that you can write an executable so that it displays as an image if given the appropriate file extension. But so far as I know, the image file itself will not infect anything unless executed rather than being read as an image.

Correct me if I'm wrong. If that works then the webbrowsers are more incompetent than I had imagined.

Regardless, I don't run scripts or access domains that I don't need something from. I'm quite happy to give them nothing.

A university faculty is 500 egotists with a common parking problem.