Is my reasoning wrong that $PSPACE$ should not equal $EXPTIME$?

It’s impossible for a problem to require exponential space without being exponential-time.

  1. Consider that if an $ EXPSPACE~~complete$ problem can be solved in $ 2^n$ time. It will now fall into the class $ EXPTIME$ .
  2. Then $ EXPSPACE~~complete$ problems are in $ EXP$ if they can be solved in $ 2^n$ time. This means they can reduce into $ EXP~~complete$ problems and vice versa.

To me, this should be easy to write a proof that $ EXPTIME$ = $ EXPSPACE$ .

My intuition tells me that if $ Exptime$ = $ Expspace$ ; then $ PSPACE$ != $ EXPTIME$ ,

Because $ PSPACE$ already is not equal to $ EXPSPACE$ .

Question

As an amateur, what would make this reasoning be wrong or right?

Should the pentester seek features to test by himself?

Imagine we have a dev team

  1. developers
  2. team lead
  3. scrum master

When a new feature is planned to be implemented, should it be sent to the security team by the dev team lead (to evaluate whether it needs to be tested) or the someone from the security team should seek for them by himself by attending to meetings? We have like 10 different products.

What is the time complexity of sorting n words length wise and then alphabetically? Should we consider the length of the strings in the complexity?

Let’s assume I have a list of some words found in the English dictionary: ["hat", "assume", "prepare", "cat", "ball", "brave", "help" …. ]

I want to sort these words (which are n in number) in a way, such that they are ordered based on their length, but if 2 words have the same length, they are ordered alphabetically.

What is the time complexity of this sorting operation?

Would it be fair to say that the complexity is just O(nlogn) and not take into consideration the length of the strings? If the largest length is S, can the complexity also involve a factor of S?

Should magic items which allow to cast spells be considered as material components? [duplicate]

For using Counterspell, a spell needs to contain some kind of component, otherwise it cant be countered.

When casting spells from magical items the spell is cast at the lowest possible spell level, doesn’t expend any of the user’s spell slots, and requires no components, unless the item’s description says otherwise. DMG p141.

spells you cast from items can be countered

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/12/21/does-the-counterspell-work-against-wands/ https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/08/21/is-it-possible-to-counterspell-a-magic-item/

So, does it mean that the magic items are considered as the material components of the spell?

How should I deal with a player whose roleplay cuts into other players enjoyment of the session?

I’m a very new DM running a homebrew campaign for a couple of friends.

One of my players, who is by far the most experienced, plays a bard who is definitely optimised for roleplay, and that seems to be the part of the game she enjoys the most.

This is fine, of course, but lately I think it’s been derailing the rest of the party’s experience. The rest of the party is made up of players who either struggle with roleplay or have optimised their character for combat. This player has spent 15-20 mintues interrogating an NPC in a zone of truth (even after I made it clear that there was nothing else to gain from the NPC) while the rest of the party has no idea what to do. She also interjects into other player’s rare roleplay moments to describe what her Bard is doing. The rest of the party gets tired or disengaged when the session is too roleplay-heavy, so I’ve been trying to reward any plot-progression they achieve with big, exciting combat encounters.

Then last session, as I was very clearly building up to a big encounter, the Bard player decided that she would rather try to reason with the angry, weapons-drawn guards. A couple of lucky persuasion rolls later, and the whole encounter (which I’d spent hours lovingly prepping) was circumvented. I understand that players messing up planned events is a natural part of being a DM, but I’m bothered by the fact that she didn’t give the other players a chance to decide for themselves whether they wanted to fight.

I don’t want this one player to feel like she’s being strong-armed by the DM or railroaded into certain outcomes, but I also want to give the rest of the party a chance to do what they love best –beating up some bad guys. How can I manage the roleplay needs of this player while also making sure that the rest of the party gets to experience the combat they want?

Who (Designer or User) Should be Resposible for the Correct/Secure Usage of a Tool Intended for Developers/Admins?

There is a healthy debate around a series of stack overflow posts that refer to the "RunAs" command. Specifically the discussion is in reference to design decision that the folks at Microsoft made a long time ago, to users of this command to enter the users password in one specific way, Raymond Chen accurately summarizes one side of the argument quite clearly:

The RunAs program demands that you type the password manually. Why doesn’t it accept a password on the command line?

This was a conscious decision. If it were possible to pass the password on the command line, people would start embedding passwords into batch files and logon scripts, which is laughably insecure.

In other words, the feature is missing to remove the temptation to use the feature insecurely.

If this offends you and you want to be insecure and pass the password on the command line anyway (for everyone to see in the command window title bar), you can write your own program that calls the CreateProcessWithLogonW function.

I’m doing exactly what is being suggested in the last line of Raymond’s comment, implementing my own (C#) version of this application that complete circumvents this restriction. There are also many others who have done this as well. I find this all quite irritating and agree with sentiment expressed by @AndrejaDjokovic who states:

Which is completely defeating. It is a really tiresome that idea of "security" is invoked by software designers who are trying to be smarter than the user. If the user wants to embed the password, then that is their prerogative. Instead all of us coming across this link are going to go and search other ways to utilize SUDO equivalent in windows through other unsavory means, bending the rules and wasting times. Instead of having one batch file vulnerable, i am going to sendup reducing overall security on the machine to get "sudo" to work. Design should never smarter than the user. You fail!

Now while I agree with the sentiment expressed by Microsoft and their concern with "embedding passwords into batch files" (I personally have seen poor practice myself way too many times), it really does strike me as wrong what Microsoft has done here. In my specific example I’m still following best practices and my script won’t store credentials, however I’m forced to resort to a workaround like everybody else.

This decision really follows a common pattern at Microsoft of applications acting in ways that are contrary to the needs of the specific users with the intention of "helping" the users by preventing them from completing a action that is viewed as unfavorable. Then obfuscating or purposely making the implementation of workarounds more difficult.

This leads us to a broader question, extremely relevant to this issue, who is the true responsible party when it comes to security around credentials, the user of the software or the designer of the software? Obviously both parties hold some responsibility, but where is the dividing line?

When you create tools for other developers should you seek to the best of your ability to prevent them from using your application in an insecure manner, or do you only need to be concerned about the application itself and whether it’s secure internally (irregardless to how the user invokes it)? If you are concerned about "how" they are using your application, to what extent do you need validate their usage (example: should "RunAs" fail if the system is not fully "up to date" i.e. insecure in another way), if that example seems far fetched, then define that line, in the case of "RunAs" the intention is quite clear, the developers who created it are not only concerned about managing credentials securely internally with their application but also care deeply about the security implications of how you use it. Was their decision correct in validating the usage in this case, and if so/or not where should that dividing line be for the applications that are created in the future?

Should I continue to play with a frustrating DM?

[Sorry if this is really long]

I don’t usually do this but I’m having a hard time with my current D&D group and I’m not really having fun anymore because of it. I think our DM is having us play a combination of I think 2 modules that take place in Faerun and using AL rules.

We have recently been going on one of the modules but are constantly hitting a wall with almost every single session to the point where we even joke about how rare it is that we succeed at anything. At this point we come out of sessions more times frustrated than satisfied. In our last session we actually decided at the end that we’d give up on this story and go pursue the other module’s story.

I’m also having some personal issues with this campaign and I’m not sure if it’s just me being difficult or problematic. So far I’ve played 4 different characters in this campaign because they keep dying or otherwise become unplayable. My first character just died in a TPK which was completely on us. Then my second character (human) permanently aged from being in his 20s to being in his late 80s which kind of messed up that character concept so I retired him. My third character is still alive but I’ve set them aside (as a backup character) to try playing another character that I really wanted to play but he was arrested (which was also on me) with no way of being bailed out because it’s too high of bail plus too long of a sentence (if he isn’t sentenced to death).

Because we’re all keeping track of XP individually, the other party members are level 7 or 8 and each character I’ve brought starts at level 1 and all of my characters except for my backup character have not made it past level 3. Since my characters are such low levels in comparison, they can’t really contribute that much especially in combats so I usually have them hang back during combats (ranged/spells) until they can get a level or two. I don’t really mind bringing in new characters that much since I have a bunch of character ideas I want to play but my last one that got arrested was a rebuild of my very first character so he was a little special to me.

However, recently I’ve been getting the feeling that there is some mild favoritism going on at the table by DM leniency and I’m just not one of those favorites. I try to be a good player for the DM and a good party member for the rest of the players. I just feel like whenever I try doing something creative that it never turns out well and my character either fails completely or gets mocked by an NPC in social interactions. At this point I’m starting to consider roleplaying more passively and reserved and just not try doing anything crazy.

I’ve already taken a pretty long break from this campaign because of some of my frustrations with the game. Another player in the group also has been getting pretty frustrated with it but has had his character do fine and he had talked to the DM about his it though not much changed because the DM is pretty confident and set in his DMing. We’re all friends IRL and I just don’t want to cause any conflict or anything between me and the DM. I don’t know if I’m just being problematic or complaining.

When it’s good and we’re all having fun, it’s great, but when it’s not it just kind of sucks. I still haven’t decide if I’m going to just bring in a new character (my backup isn’t that fun) or just leave the group again but permanently. D&D is one of my favorite things to look forward to each week but I’m just not really having fun anymore with this campaign but I still want to play. I’m just not sure whether to suck it up and keep playing and hope that it’ll be different with the new module or not.

Online Fax Services Comparison – Why You Should Always Compare Before Buying

We have all been there, bought a produc  ARGENTINA FAX BROADCAST LISThttps://www.faxlistb.com/argentina-fax-broadcast-list/ or service only to find out later that it did not measure up to our expectations. Most times if we’re lucky, the purchased item can be returned and we are fully refunded. However, we have still wasted a lot of time and if you’re running a business, time means money. That’s why everyone should make it their own personal policy to totally compare and research a service or product before they buy.
That goes doubly true for a long term service like online fax. Usually, once you have received your fax number and start sending it out to all your contacts, you have made a commitment of sorts to having the service long term. You simply must do a little homework to make sure you get a service or provider that won’t disappoint you or your company down the road. Now that we have the Internet, that’s relatively very easy to do.
For those who are new to these types of services, it should be stated that Internet or online fax is simply using your present email account and your web connection to do all your faxing. You get a local or toll-free number which is connected to your email address, once you get a fax, you receive an email with the fax attached. Basically, you’re hiring the services of an online provider who will handle all your faxes in exchange for a small monthly fee. These web based fax services are paperless, very efficient, totally portable and much cheaper than conventional methods of faxing.
While some services do let you “port” your fax number, it’s best to pick the right provider the first time around. So you need to do your due diligence and carefully examine the different plans and different providers to meet your needs. One simple way to approach this problem is to just compare the different providers. Just compare some basic factors of each provider on your list to come up with the one best suited to meet your needs.
These factors would include: quality of the overall service, pricing, overage fees, amount of online storage, length of storage, support hours, number of email addresses, any hidden fees, set-up fees, corporate plans or services and whether or not the service has a free trial? All valid questions you should ask before signing up to any one of these providers.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/6878262