Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
It does not exist, and the "best" solution is abstinence. (In this case, Not running every EXE you find on the internet.)
Actually, the equivalent analogy would be to just not go on the Internet. Even then you run the risk of getting infected with something like Stuxnet. The real "abstinence" would be to not interact with any external/untrusted data at all.
If anything, this comparison served well to make me consider buying a console. I mean, if I'm not able to see a significant difference, why would it make sense for me to spend extra bucks on the PC? Just because some videophile found the console version to be "muddy"?
People who have problems making the difference between reality and fantasy could also snap by reading a book or any other trigger.
Exactly. Imagine the outrage if Mark David Chapman was caught with a PS Vita playing Killzone instead of The Catcher in the Rye.
Nearly all of the development tools of Linux are available on OSX via ports, brew or simply compiling oneself. Even fairly advanced stuff like valgrind. There is no shortage of cross platform GUI toolkit like Qt.
In what way is OSX crippled as a dev box ?
Well, obviously the lack of systemd.
Looks like the Kickstarter is over. The device will be for sale soon directly through this website though, so check back soon. Sign up for our mailing list to be notified as soon as its [sic] available.
It'll be interesting to see how the general public's trust pans out over this thing. Do they take Kickstarter's cancellation as a red flag or are they so desperate for a easily-configurable Tor router that they'll pay whoever they can for it. Even if that means trusting these assholes vs. their ISPs.
With hundreds of millions of distinct websites "out there," if the same proportion holds, that would suggest that there about a million or more websites similarly affected.
Why are you assuming that this scales linearly? Are you suggesting that this is a technical glitch? If the websites are blocked due to the nature of their content it most certainly won't scale in a linear fashion.
Even though it's nowhere close to the real deal. It did require the casual gamer to go through a command-line interface, guess a 5-digit binary code based on feedback about how many did he get right, solve a Kanji puzzle, find password in one directory and apply it to the other etc. The end result neatly tied in with the game where you could, for example, acquire a sword in the Matrix or set off an EMP.
Certainly much better than a Michael Bay fever dream.
So yes, definitely related.
A machine operating at the rate of one variation per micro-second would require over 1090 years to calculate the first move
I'm guessing that we have gotten a little faster since then with our current peta and soon to be exascale machines... micro-second? An eternity. Recalculate that spreadsheet, professor.
Shannon -- the "professor" -- was simply taking into account the technology available at the time.
Hans-Joachim Bremermann has also made an interesting argument:
"Speed, memory, and processing capacity of any possible future computer equipment are limited by specific physical barriers: the light barrier, the quantum barrier, and the thermodynamical barrier. These limitations imply, for example, that no computer, however constructed, will ever be able to examine the entire tree of possible move sequences of the game of chess.
By the way, 3x3 Chess was strongly solved in 2004.
On the other hand, Claude Shannon has argued about the original game being unsolvable by computers:
"With chess it is possible, in principle, to play a perfect game or construct a machine to do so as follows: One considers in a given position all possible moves, then all moves for the opponent, etc., to the end of the game (in each variation). The end must occur, by the rules of the games after a finite number of moves (remembering the 50 move drawing rule). Each of these variations ends in win, loss or draw. By working backward from the end one can determine whether there is a forced win, the position is a draw or is lost. It is easy to show, however, even with the high computing speed available in electronic calculators this computation is impractical. In typical chess positions there will be of the order of 30 legal moves. The number holds fairly constant until the game is nearly finished as shown
... by De Groot, who averaged the number of legal moves in a large number of master games. Thus a move for White and then one for Black gives about 103 possibilities. A typical game lasts about 40 moves to resignation of one party. This is conservative for our calculation since the machine would calculate out to checkmate, not resignation. However, even at this figure there will be 10120 variations to be calculated from the initial position. A machine operating at the rate of one variation per micro-second would require over 1090 years to calculate the first move!"
By exploiting vulnerabilities in the browser. Being a piece of software it's no more secure than any other out there. Spoofing user-agent might help, but the dilemma runs like this:
- * Using a non-popular browser (e.g., Midori, Lynx) would make you slightly less prone to these attacks as the focus is usually on the popular ones (Firefox, IE).
- * The browser in question might have "leaks" (e.g. cookies) which Tor community tries actively to plug against by releasing a standard bundle based on a popular browser.