|
|
I have been. Only once ofcourse, one doesn't keep making the same errors.
So. I have to say no to your proposal 
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
How many people stood there to watch and testify that you both said "Yes"? Was it about $?
|
|
|
|
|
You pissed me off with your question.
Peter Adam wrote: How many people stood there to watch and testify that you both said "Yes"?
Without parents, just two. Of those two, she facked one.
Will not make that mistake again.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Adam wrote: Is there a solution to restrict OS/DB to require the consent of two people to execute something with raised privileges? Like launching a nuke-tipped missile with two keys
This is an interesting idea.
It's almost the idea of two-factor but with an additional check that the person with the 2nd factor is not the same person who attempted the login.
So Op1 attempts to login.
Op2 gets a 2-factor notification on her phone and has to accept.
|
|
|
|
|
We had 2 people with half the password each, then they needed backup for leave/sick events.
This naturally was a complete PITA when SA access was required and that invariably occurred when you could not locate both halves of the password. So it became a team of people for each half password at which point the entire thing became a farce.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity -
RAH
I'm old. I know stuff - JSOP
|
|
|
|
|
Back in the mid 1980s, very early days of EFT, I was involved in setting up the crypto infrastructure for a major independent player. Before the days of Diffie-Hellman etc, there was a requirement for link master keys (typically 2 x 56bit DES for EDE) to be manually entered in the other party's crypto box.
At least half of the big 4 banks just gave the left and right halves of each key to different people.
... Oh nice. I've got one half. I only need to try about 2^28 possibilities (which was just about feasible in those days) to crack the whole thing.
They got all s*itty when we insisted on three full length components to be entered separately, and XORed inside our secure box to make the actual key.
Reason for 3 not 2? So there is no leakage through the parity bits in the key. Each component can be odd parity, like the final key.
Drove them nuts, but afaik it was never compromised during the 15+ year lifetime of that system.
By the time the successor system was implemented, the whole crypto (and comms) landscape had shifted.
Cheers from an(other) old fart,
Peter
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
I recall that MS SQL can be setup with privileges like that out of the box, if that wasn't possible you would just have to get some decent programmer(s) to write your database authorization code for you. This can be done by having users log into the auth server before they can access the database. Of course then you have to consider how that system could potentially be compromised to gain unauthorized access to the database.
|
|
|
|
|
Giant apologizes: [^]
Reminds me of the old Russian fable of the scorpion and the frog ... scene from Orson Welles’ film 'Mr. Arkadin:' [^].
In a 1958 interview with Cahiers [^], Orson comments:Quote: CAHIERS: We’ve been very struck in your work, from The Lady from Shanghai to Mr. Arkadin and a little less explicitly, perhaps, in Touch of Evil, by the theme of character. Doesn’t the scorpion say, “It’s my character”? Is that an excuse that the scorpion makes to the frog? We would like to know how your own ideas relate to the story of the scorpion, because basically what we have been talking about does pose, does it not, the problem of the frog and the scorpion?
ORSON WELLES: Oh yes, well, there’s a lot to say about that. Point number one: the frog was an idiot.
CAHIERS: So you think there was culpable stupidity on the part of the frog?
ORSON WELLES: Yes indeed!
CAHIERS: And do you consider that the scorpion was evil?
ORSON WELLES: Neither of them was any good. But seriously. I must insist that I was very serious when I said that I not only put forward the best possible arguments for my enemies being as they are, but I also put into their mouths the best possible justifications I can find for their point of view. Nevertheless I do not feel that one can justify one’s acts by saying it is one’s character, although I admit that it is very tempting to do so. There is nothing more attractive than a bastard admitting he’s a bastard. A man can be anything, a swine, a murderer, he can admit to me that he’s killed three people�the moment he admits it he’s my brother, because he is frank. I believe that frankness does not excuse crime, but it makes it very seductive, gives it attraction. It is nothing to do with morality; it’s a question of what is and is not attractive.
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
This more a discussion if free will exists, and there's no proof for free will.
Your body/reptile brain will give an initial evaluation, based on biology, chemistry and neurons; your ape-brain adds experience to that to evaluate it. Then you become aware in your brain, there's a "decision". One that's already made by the evaluation of both brains. Here, guilt or upbringing may change it a bit, but not by much.
Being sorry has nothing to do with the first steps; it is part of upbringing (which also happens to adults). If you go to jail often, that might become a part of your fenotype and you may base your actions on it; not inherently good or bad, just social acceptable or not. Those who keep failing at being socially acceptible (regardless of whether social acceptible is "good" or "justified"), will be thrown out of the group, to protect the group.
Making it a self-regulating system, based on our collective experience and our different morals.
..or to simplify; the dog might actually miss its owner, despite what it did  Would I trust/adopt the dog? Hell no!
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Would I trust/adopt the dog? Hell no!
Damn right. Here, the dog would be put down by order of a court, if not voluntarily.
I know the dog only did what it's owner (failed to) train it to do, and it's not "the dog's fault" - but it's killed a human, and that's a red line in the sand.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Damn right. Here, the dog would be put down by order of a court, if not voluntarily.
Ditto here. Bad upbringing makes aggressive dogs and at the first offence, they put down because "rehabilitation" is often not possible, and expensive if it is.
..but any animal is a sum of genotype and fenotype; I'll not blame any animal for doing as it did, as it acted on those. A human? I often do; we actively take memories and morally value them when in rest. We (often) know the consequences before we act.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Yep.
I've known Rottweilers that were really friendly, that you could leave with annoying kids and the kids would be fine when you came back (the dog might be scarred for life however).
Training and upbringing are the key - get it right and all dogs are fine*. Don't bother, or get it wrong and ... you get a killer. Trouble is, a lot of people want a "vicious dog" to make them look "harder". 
* Except possibly Dobermans. Every one of those I've met has been on the edge of freaking out ...
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Training and upbringing are the key - get it right and all dogs are fine
I want to believe this  , but, when a breed has been selectively bred for centuries for aggression and hyper-vigilance, for being used as a weapon, I would not take a chance having such a breed.
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
I agree: Chihuahuas are evil, and should all be destroyed ... 
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Chihuahuas have to small brains to be truly evil.
Doberman is the dog breed I consider truly evil.
|
|
|
|
|
*Swats a fly*
What is a chiguiaia?
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: I've known Rottweilers that were really friendly
Yep, so do I. She was kept in a cage, because my family feared her. I didn't. And one day, she'd had trouble jumping, crying. As did I. She'd attack everyone cominig near, except me. Tumor in her head.
But me, a human puppy, was always safe. And she defended me from everyone, until she couldn't and was carried. To her grave. Was never to know "where".
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Rottweilers are generally friendly. But they are very protective of their owner.
OriginalGriff wrote: Except possibly Dobermans. Every one of those I've met has been on the edge of freaking out
They were bred to be mentally unstable.
Friedrich Louis Tobermann (Yes, Tobermann) was a dog catcher, tax collector and a night policeman. He needed extra protection he thought. So he bred the meanest dogs he could find into a breed that was as mad as possible...
An abomination if you ask me.
|
|
|
|
|
Jörgen Andersson wrote: Rottweilers are generally friendly. But they are very protective of their owner.
Best possible gift for any girlfriend.
..but the beast might force you to sleep downstairs.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Many years ago when I did my military service one of the guys that served with us was a watchman in his civilian life.
He had two very well trained rottweilers to help him with that.
When he was gone his girlfriend had to take care of them, which she didn't really like, as she was a bit intimidated by them.
One night when she was walking the dogs she got harassed by a gang of teenagers, and the dogs did exactly what they were trained to do. (Which means noone actually got hurt, but some kids needed their laundry done)
After that he complained that they weren't his dogs any more, she spoiled them rotten.
|
|
|
|
|
Hehe, similar experience
Dogs are territorial, and that territory includes you, no matter where you are. If you there, that's territory, including a few meters around you. They do not stop fighting if they loosing, depending on the force of a pack, or you running.
A girl with a big dog is a safe one.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: This more a discussion if free will exists, and there's no proof for free will.
A strictly scientific criterion would be that an assertion, where no evidence would disprove it, asserts nothing.
However, if people act as if there is free will, claim to perceive it, act on it, observe it, that is a reality.
I don't believe Giant experiences any "guilt;" his funeral "apology" exists in a complex cultural context of S.E. Asian Theravadin Buddhism interlaced with lots of magical/animist left-overs, and strong top-notes of fatalism.
That said: I have seen dogs acting/looking as if they are aware they did something "wrong" when discovered tearing up something: is that more than just stimulus-response to learning punishment follows certain actions ?
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: A strictly scientific criterion would be that an assertion, where no evidence would disprove it, asserts nothing.
And hence, me is superman. We use maths to predict what is biologically possible, with reasonable results. Couldn't predict the Scarlet Witch, so your opinion holds.
BillWoodruff wrote: I don't believe
In taxes, still it exists. What you choose to believe makes you human. If you measure instead of believe, you a scientist.
BillWoodruff wrote: That said: I have seen dogs acting/looking as if they are aware they did something "wrong" when discovered tearing up something: is that more than just stimulus-response to learning punishment follows certain actions ?
That might be the same, but it is "learning" nonetheless.
And "acting" is true; they read body language, and inflection of your voice, as well as the way you present. If it understood and could combine it with memory, it would avoid the situation as a human would. As for humans, we don't accept any competition, we rule the land we inhabit and there's little land we don't rule.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: A strictly scientific criterion would be that an assertion, where no evidence would disprove it, asserts nothing.
Phrased like that, it is equal to it's opposite assertion.
BillWoodruff wrote: However, if people act as if there is free will, claim to perceive it, act on it, observe it, that is a reality.
How? Perceiving it don't make it so, nor acting or observing it. I experienced such, heightened reaction, perception, reaction when challenged as a kid. Had nothing to do with free will, but being small, red haired and wearing glasses. My reality was as perceived, and we did act instead of observe.
BillWoodruff wrote: That said: I have seen dogs acting/looking as if they are aware they did something "wrong" when discovered tearing up something: is that more than just stimulus-response to learning punishment follows certain actions ?
I own a cat named "Well Done" if translated to English, he more than 10 years. My parents bought a puppy, some small but "energezing rabbit" batteries in her, running around the cat in circles for fun.
Cat strikes out, after five minutes, toppling the poor puppy. Both looking at me with the expression "we did nothing wrong".
Me, a half German, relate to that. We did not do anything wrong. We just did.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
