|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Ads |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
program to compute gears, with table
wrote:
Well, we'll have to differ on this. Everything is updated via the Internet these days including things like the control software for a Tesla. Well, I use the Debian repositories for software and upgrades, and I suppose that counts as "via the Internet", but unless those archives are compromised it should be safe. There are also systems of verification, hashes, checksums, and such, not that I ever bothered, but there are people who are more paranoid/careful or have just taken an active interest in computer security who do that every time. The most difficult password systems in the world can be broken with quantum computers. And those things calculate probabilities and not actualities as a normal computer does. Brute force attacks, no matter the level of sophistication, still require that many, many such attempts can be made. It's a big operation to carry it out from many laps around the world and compile the results because a fraction of those attempts from a single source or in a short time-frame should raise a red flag at the admin's HQ. There is an entire underworld of possible control and a great deal of it is based on errors introduced by higher level languages. The only such language specific vulnerability I'm aware of is the so called seekwell injection. SQL, a domain-specific query language (relational algebra) used for databases, anyway it prompts the user for input, like ask for a name, only the user (hacker-cracker) inputs SQL commands, which the database executes, which worst-case can bring the system down instantly even with a trivial error (e.g., division by zero). However scary this might sound, if the database just quotes/escapes the input - automatically, every time, most likely by a single line of code - then the system can't be harmed that way. Are you aware that the Americans cracked the software in the uranium centrifuges in Iran and was able to make them break down? The little I know of that is that they had access to very specific details from the guys who built it - Germans? I don't remember. -- underground experts united http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573 |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
program to compute gears, with table
On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 05:38:43 +0200, Emanuel Berg wrote:
wrote: Well, we'll have to differ on this. Everything is updated via the Internet these days including things like the control software for a Tesla. Well, I use the Debian repositories for software and upgrades, and I suppose that counts as "via the Internet", but unless those archives are compromised it should be safe. There are also systems of verification, hashes, checksums, and such, not that I ever bothered, but there are people who are more paranoid/careful or have just taken an active interest in computer security who do that every time. The most difficult password systems in the world can be broken with quantum computers. And those things calculate probabilities and not actualities as a normal computer does. Brute force attacks, no matter the level of sophistication, still require that many, many such attempts can be made. It's a big operation to carry it out from many laps around the world and compile the results because a fraction of those attempts from a single source or in a short time-frame should raise a red flag at the admin's HQ. There is an entire underworld of possible control and a great deal of it is based on errors introduced by higher level languages. The only such language specific vulnerability I'm aware of is the so called seekwell injection. SQL, a domain-specific query language (relational algebra) used for databases, anyway it prompts the user for input, like ask for a name, only the user (hacker-cracker) inputs SQL commands, which the database executes, which worst-case can bring the system down instantly even with a trivial error (e.g., division by zero). However scary this might sound, if the database just quotes/escapes the input - automatically, every time, most likely by a single line of code - then the system can't be harmed that way. Are you aware that the Americans cracked the software in the uranium centrifuges in Iran and was able to make them break down? The little I know of that is that they had access to very specific details from the guys who built it - Germans? I don't remember. There are a shed load of ways to get into computers from outside. Unpatched vulnerabilities all over the place. https://metasploit.com/ Deephack AI cracking https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCky_QCEzHU Machine learning. It learns as it goes along... Which is nice. No matter what language software is written in there will always be errors. System complexity is so high that there is always going to be something missed. A small thing with some unexpected consequence which leads to a bigger thing and so on. You claim to use Debian so you must be well aware of this small problem spreading business every time you do "apt-get update to not working". I sincerely hope you are not in charge of security at Zoho or are lying about your email address. It's never good for a computer services company to have their staff running around sounding clueless on the internet. Anyway to return to a more bike related question. Who is going to be the first to install Linux on a bike? Things are getting pretty hi-tech now. -- davethedave |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
program to compute gears, with table
On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 2:31:14 PM UTC-7, Emanuel Berg wrote:
wrote: So every program that is written in high level languages is a chance for some unethical hacker to control something that is yours. Hackers (or crackers) cannot control anything just because it is written in a certain language. The truth of this statement is a function of time There have been time-language pairs for which this is not true |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
program to compute gears, with table
dave wrote:
You claim to use Debian [...] I sincerely hope you are not in charge of security at Zoho or are lying about your email address. I make unsupported claims about my OS and might be lying about my e-mail as well... It is a good thing security-aware people like you aren't fooled that easily. -- underground experts united http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573 |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
program to compute gears, with table
Doug Landau wrote:
Hackers (or crackers) cannot control anything just because it is written in a certain language. The truth of this statement is a function of time There have been time-language pairs for which this is not true Do you or anyone else have an example of how anyone got remote and full access to a computer system simply because a program was written in a particular language? If so, at least my system is wide open for attacks because I dare say I have at least one program written in every single major language there is. For example, in this very thread I posted a program in Elisp with some extras from CL. It would be interesting to know how that exposes my computer to the outside world and how hackers-crackers can use it to gain access to my system? -- underground experts united http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573 |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
program to compute gears, with table
Andre Jute wrote:
Why are you making it so complicated? At http://coolmainpress.com/BICYCLINGHebieChainglider.html you can see how simple I made it in Excel. BTW, what formula did you use? I made one change, shouldn't the tire be counted twice when one computes the diameter? Do you get the same data for the same configuration, which is: chainrings 34 50T sprockets 12 13 15 17 19 21 23 25T bsd 622 mm tire 23 mm Better compare notes carefully after all... BSD: 622 mm ti 23 mm wheel: 622 + 2*23 = 668 mm roll-out = chainring/sprocket * wheel chainring sprocket roll-out 34 25 2854.1 34 23 3102.3 34 21 3397.7 34 19 3755.4 50 25 4197.2 34 17 4197.2 50 23 4562.1 34 15 4756.8 50 21 4996.6 34 13 5488.6 50 19 5522.6 34 12 5946.0 50 17 6172.3 50 15 6995.3 50 13 8071.5 50 12 8744.1 -- underground experts united http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573 |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
program to compute gears, with table
On 9/9/2017 9:06 PM, David Scheidt wrote:
,,, On my mac at work, from the time I double click the excel icon to the time it is ready to do work is over a minute. It's a modern machine, running an old version of excel. The windows machine I have, but never use, which is more powerful, and running a current version, takes even longer. It does have a spinny disk, and not an ssd. (that's not counting the time to takes to boot up, since it's off.) Your Mac/PC/Excel experience seems slow. I don't use Office at work and use LibreOffice at home now, so I don't really know how bad the rental version of MS Office is these days. I have not written nor used a CLI program in many years. I'd rather do it in a GUI (Visual Basic) just for the copy & paste ability that comes along for free. PCs are so big and fast now that there's little point in worrying about saving a few kilobytes--or even, a few hundreds of kilobytes. And arguing that a CLI is somehow "better" than a GUI is like arguing that a well and an outhouse are somehow "better" than indoor plumbing. Also I have written programs in the past and not included any help files, and then forgotten how to use them. With the VB programs, I put in a few help buttons + message boxes that explain how to use the thing, so the help can't ever get separated from the program it goes with... |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
program to compute gears, with table
DougC wrote:
I have not written nor used a CLI program in many years. I'd rather do it in a GUI (Visual Basic) just for the copy & paste ability that comes along for free. You can copy and paste, or "kill and yank" as it is called in the Emacs world, writing CLI programs as well. But actually it is a bad habit. The same code shouldn't appear twice. Instead, it should be "factored out" as it is called, i.e. put into a neat little function of its own, and then be invoked, the same function, from anywhere where it is needed. PCs are so big and fast now that there's little point in worrying about saving a few kilobytes--or even, a few hundreds of kilobytes. CLI programming is not because the programs are smaller on the disk. Which they are, of course. It is about other things - speed, creativity, and the simple fact that some people don't like clicking on icons with a mouse and pointer, or searching in endless menus for what the want to do. They like typing and text and combining tools to do whatever. This way, one can just use the computer at a whole other level. Also, the GUIs are not esthetically appealing to these people - when you understand what goes on behind it, just looking at it can be an unpleasant thing. Text on the other hand is the truth, there is nothing manipulative to it. The real deal. And arguing that a CLI is somehow "better" than a GUI is like arguing that a well and an outhouse are somehow "better" than indoor plumbing. CLIs, or text interfaces in general, are better, faster, more reliable in almost every case, the exception being applications that are graphical in nature, e.g. GIS, scientific visualization programs, and such. However, not all applications which to some extent are graphical needs a GUI - examples here are LaTeX and gnuplot, where very good-looking documents, charts, and diagrams can be produced straight from a text buffer. Also I have written programs in the past and not included any help files, and then forgotten how to use them. With the VB programs, I put in a few help buttons + message boxes that explain how to use the thing, so the help can't ever get separated from the program it goes with... No comments -- underground experts united http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573 |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
program to compute gears, with table
On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 00:42:38 -0500, DougC
wrote: And arguing that a CLI is somehow "better" than a GUI is like arguing that a well and an outhouse are somehow "better" than indoor plumbing. Private wells are still around, and a properly-constructed long-drop dunny is vastly superior to a portapotty. -- Joy Beeson joy beeson at comcast dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Table. | Marc[_2_] | UK | 6 | November 25th 09 10:29 AM |
Is Frame spacing for 7 Gears = to 5 Gears? | [email protected] | Techniques | 4 | April 13th 09 12:28 AM |
Now that's a table! | Bob Downie | UK | 4 | April 16th 07 06:23 PM |
Inversion Table | Bill B | Recumbent Biking | 3 | October 22nd 04 03:59 AM |
Gears gears gear..what to choose? | bstephens | Techniques | 8 | February 18th 04 04:06 PM |