Yeah, the game servers are the problem with that proposal But I'd support the requirement (suggested above) that I they want to stop selling access they be required to open source the code...well, not just open-source, but also allow copying and modification...though they shouldn't be required to allow reselling of the server code or of access to a server running the code. If you want to set one up for your friends, you should be able to. Selling access, however, is a different category.
The problem with the "require them to open source the code" approach is that there's no guarantee that the developer has the right to distribute everything needed to run the server. I guess they could be required to open source the bits that they can? But if that results in a non-functional product then we aren't really in a better spot than we are today.
If you're an American you can come to London and experience this for yourself as US Biometric passports are accepted at the UK border autogates. Sadly, you have to return to the US at some point
The US has recently rolled out (to all major airports I've flown through in the past ~year) facial recognition passport control. You don't even need to take your passport out of your pocket. Walk up, look at an iPad for a second or two, and proceed when you get the green checkmark.
If Putin actually listened to his military commanders, he wouldn't have invaded Ukraine in the first place!
It's not just about listening. I highly doubt that anyone with access to Putin is telling him things that he doesn't want to hear, which is a more fundamental problem.
It took forever to figure out that requiring too frequent of password changes resulted in people writing their password right on their monitor with a sticky note.
What's the analog to this in the certificate world? I can see how a short cert expiry is a PITA to manage in some deployments, but not how it's likely to lead to less secure behavior.
So you support bitcoin do you? Let me guess, you're paying off your credit card debt with another credit card?
Ha. Absolutely not. I have the same thoughts on Bitcoin as I did when I first became aware of it: "This just doesn't seem all that useful, other than for the hope that one day I can sell it for more than I bought it."
When Bitcoin first entered my consciousness it was worth $10/coin, so I clearly undervalued the potential of that "hope the price might go up". I wish I'd bought Bitcoin in the same way that I wish I'd picked yesterday's winning lottery numbers.
IMO, a major headwind facing the price of Bitcoin is that its advocates have already gotten so much of what they could have possibly hoped for. So many of the milestones that boosters viewed as the "next big thing" that would cause Bitcoin to really take off are past us: you can buy a Bitcoin ETF, big banks have entered the market, governments take it seriously, etc.
If you're buying into the Bitcoin market now, there's less to look forward to as a potential "gamechanger" that'll make the price jump, while the same challenging question of whether they hold any real underlying value remain. Sure, there are more hypotheticals to look forward to (maybe the US does eventually go ahead with that "strategic Bitcoin reserve"), but the gap between present reality and potential future upside continues to shrink.
American taxpayers earn in the neighborhood of $28 trillion per year in income and realized capital gains. Between the feds and the states, the government brings in ~$7-8 trillion in tax. You'd need a flat tax of at least ~25% to match that. The bottom quintile of taxpayers pay ~10-15% today.
How do you make that math work?
Counterpoint:
The smart glasses users, some in California, allege the gadget captured footage of themselves
So apparently there's at least some portion of the population able to convince another person to have sex with them while they were actively wearing smart glasses. This was actually the most surprising part of the article.
There's a rocket launchpad in Cali, right? Zip-tie or duct-tape some of the casks to a section that'll have fuel, detach it, light the engines and burn for a course above the orbits of the other planets aiming for the sun.
The problems with this plan are... numerous, but if you did want to dispose of nuclear waste in space, it'd be easier to launch it out of the solar system than to launch it into the sun.
The correct approach is to train them to be competent, and set standards.
You've got an approach to training and a set of standards that, when implemented, produces developers who never write unsafe code? To the degree that you don't see value in further risk mitigation through choice of language?
Security vulnerabilities happen in every language. Anyone who thinks the language will make them safe is an idiot.
Read what I wrote. This is about risk mitigation, not elimination.
What I mean is, you are an idiot, cmseagle 1195671.
You here to debate approaches to security, or to be an ass to strangers on the internet? Happy to engage in the former but the latter is a childish waste of everyone's time.
History shows that incompetent developers cannot write safe code. There are examples of programmers writing safe code.
This is only really a useful observation if you can tell me ahead of time which developers are competent and which ones are incompetent. If you can't, then the safe thing to do is to assume that all developers are "incompetent" (by your definition) and use tools like memory-safe languages to mitigate that risk.
Roman emperors used to enjoy fitting actual weapons to some guys in the Coliseum. Nobody objected.
There's at least one guy who pretty famously objected.
Pascal is not a high-level language. -- Steven Feiner
