|
75 minutes 
We can’t stop here, this is bat country - Hunter S Thompson RIP
|
|
|
|
|
75 "still no idea"s! 
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
What do you call a deer with no eyes?
No idea.
What do you call a deer with no eyes and no legs?
Still no idea.
|
|
|
|
|
What do you call a man with no arms and no legs in a swimming pool?
Bob.
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
He's not a man - he's a buoy.
Socialism is the Axe Body Spray of political ideologies: It never does what it claims to do, but people too young to know better keep buying it anyway. (Glenn Reynolds)
|
|
|
|
|
Encrypted?
"It is easy to decipher extraterrestrial signals after deciphering Javascript and VB6 themselves.", ISanti[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
Nope
We can’t stop here, this is bat country - Hunter S Thompson RIP
|
|
|
|
|
|
On word 'YUCK!', I seem to remember a Mythbuster episode where they do something akin to that...
|
|
|
|
|
Some research has suggested that creating ownership can lead to increased responsibility and to people doing the right thing. This might include team ownership of different aspects of the work environment such as schedules for cleaning the kitchen.
And weho decides what is the "right thing"? Can each employee able to decide or is it an arbitrary mandate?
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr., P. E.
Comport Computing
Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
|
|
|
|
|
Randal nails it again: xkcd: Voting Software[^] - wear gloves! 
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
He definitely nailed it !
|
|
|
|
|
How to write voting software in 9 easy steps!
1. Create a new WinForms application.
2. Drag two buttons on the form.
3. In the click events type counterX += 1; and counterY += 1;
4. Call it an early access version, but also never work on it again.
5. It takes like five minutes, but because it's a government job bill them €1.200.000,-
6. They'll keep on using paper voting forms because "it's safer".
7. A newspaper writes a story about it and people speak shame of it.
8. Everybody gets ignored.
9. Repeat in approx. five years.
Bam! Voting software
|
|
|
|
|
But ... but ... you haven't copy'n'pasted any code from SO, or asked for CODEZ PLZ!!!! in QA 
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
You think they can bill the government for 1.2 M EUR?
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is no profit in crashing a plane, or an elevator; there's no financial incentive that makes an elevator-designer go "lets add a backdoor here".
Then take a look at software; most people will have seen ads in their browser for some malware that claims to protect you from virusses.
It is not because we are bad at what we do; but a small change is hardly noticeable, and there's a lot of money involved.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
And yet...eCommerce is a thing. People buy stuff online using (very weak) credit card system millions of times every day and they are safe. Is that _only_ because they got lucky and didn't get hacked?
If people really believed that __no software technology were secure__ then they wouldn't ever buy online.
Do we really all believe that even public/private key encryption is insecure?
Yes, I know they can be implemented improperly and cause holes but they aren't always implemented improperly or else every transaction would be exposed.
I think in many ways this crazy false assumption that nothing can ever be secure is really taking off in people's minds, but it isn't entirely true. It's becoming a huge myth. And if anyone says it is not a myth then you should not be posting here or ever buying anything from amazon or other online retailers.
And I'm also not saying that voting systems are unhackable, I don't know. I'm just saying if it is as bad as that XKCD then the entire Internet system is a failure and should be done away with because it is giving people a false sense of security. But people keep on buying online, don't they?
|
|
|
|
|
No, of course internet transactions aren't secure - but the thing is that no transactions are secure unless you physically hand over the cash. In the old days, you gave your card to the waitress to run through the machine and print a slip for you to sign. And nobody sat there and thought "this person earns minimum wage, and I just gave here the key to by bank account" - Obligatory Dilbert[^]
And that's the point: people don't think about it, the convenience outweighs the flaws that they mostly don't consider, or don't even know could exist.
Plus, you've seen what some "developers" are (in)capable of from QA - many of the people developing shopping systems can't even spell security much less implement it!
It is (probably) possible to design a secure system that will allow for payments or votes to be handled in an unhackable way: but the way to get there is not to get the cheapest bidder to produce it - there is a reason they are cheap!
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: It is (probably) possible to design a secure system that will allow for payments or votes to be handled in an unhackable way: but the way to get there is not to get the cheapest bidder to produce it - there is a reason they are cheap!
Haha, this is funny though because the problem is : humans.
Humans create a system that "solves everything I promise". And some people swallow that, but the very people who build the system are like, "I don't trust it." It's funny and tragic, isn't it? 
|
|
|
|
|
ecommerce works because the potential gains of hacking into a transaction is typically hardly worth the effort.
Criminal hackers go after entire databases of credentials, or after companies with a lot of cash to make if you manage to get into their system. But hacking into transactions from private persons is usually not worth the time.
It also helps that critical transactions are protected by two-factor authorization which takes considerably more effort to break into.
In short, while no system is safe, most are safe enough that hackers won't bother to try breaking in. Not because they couldn't - only because it wouldn't be profitable enough in relation to the work it would take.
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
|
|
|
|
|
Stefan_Lang wrote: while no system is safe, most are safe enough that hackers won't bother to try breaking in.
I agree with this mostly and that's why I'm also saying that the XKCD message is building a mythology that "...all computer technology is inherently unsafe."
Stefan_Lang wrote: Not because they couldn't - only because it wouldn't be profitable enough in relation to the work it would take.
Also, we have to talk about one-way hashes and one-time pads (wikipedia)[^]. There are some tech that they couldn't. It does exist.
There are manually created one-time pads that have been used to hand-encrypt (written by hand) that no one has every successfully decrypted. There is tech that is basically impossible to hack (with current processing power as we know it).
And SHA-256 for example has not been broken and most likely will not be. My point is that the XKCD is building an interesting mythology off of an _idea_ that everything is hackable because everything has been hacked so much because of developers mis-using the tech, not the tech itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
So in short: "successive approximation method" as usually used for analog to digital converters ?
It does not solve my Problem, but it answers my question
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
And if you become 50% stupider and have no common sense, you could beall set for management!
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr., P. E.
Comport Computing
Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
