I mostly agree with you here. Except the part about "consensus". Consensus doesn't matter a whit to science, as your own observations show. The "germ theory" of disease was contrary to the almost universal scientific consensus at the time. But the EVIDENCE became so overwhelming, that the "consensus" was shown to be wrong.
It is evidence that matters in science, not consensus. We don't care if the overwhelming "consensus" says it's correct. We care if the overwhelming amount of evidence says it's correct. Certainly there are nut-jobs that deny it, but they are nut-jobs because they defy the evidence, not because they defy the consensus.
"No, you actually don't have the same option. People settle easier places first, so what's left are Alaska or Yukon - or, rather, the nastiest reaches of both."
Yes, you DO have the same option, though I admit on average it's somewhat harder. People settled there even then... just not as many of them. And it's most of both, not just the "nastiest reaches".
"And once people decide that no, they can't actually move to Alaskan wildlands"
They can.
"but must win dominance here and now, them having a problem becomes a problem for everyone."
Ah... now we get to the crux of the problem: the people who need to "win dominance", regardless of how much of a problem they cause for everyone.
These are the kind of people who usually stayed in cities anyway. It's pretty hard to lord it over the whole town if you're living in the wilderness 10 miles from anybody.
You seem to think this "go West" as some kind of legalistic loophole in the vein of "forever minus a day"
Don't presume to know what I think. You'll almost always be wrong. To be honest, I don't even know what you're talking about there.
"Bad guys have the time, skills, and motivation to study edge devices for weaknesses..."
But you know, it's funny... I would have thought the giant corporations that are behind manufacturing these devices (and in many cases the software for them) have just as much skill to look at these things from the other end.
Apparently what they have lacked is the motivation to do so. That should change.
"This argument is complete bullshit. When this country was founded, "the land" was already populated by people living there. It was unexplored and ungoverned by the people invading it."
This is true enough. But to the people who were invading it (of which GP apparently is one), what I said was still true.
See my comment further up. If you just want remote storage, SSH works fine. No need for VPN. Or even NAS, if you already have room on a networked machine to put in a "large enough" hard disk.
I should qualify this: they only act as local hard disks for programs that can use SSH or SFTP. Since most media players (sadly) don't support those protocols, if you wanted to play videos from the remote hard disk, you would have to download it first and play it locally.
But is that really a problem? Usually I'd rather have the file locally to play anyway. Streaming is overrated.
I agree that first, you should decide what your goal is. Shared storage? Sync? (Sync is not the same as shared storage because you have multiple copies of the data.) Maybe a shared storage area and multiple private areas?
I did not recommend Amazon in part because OP said they wanted to do it themselves. AWS and S3 are not "do it yourself". They rely on 3rd-party servers.
I'd say that SSH can be the solution, all by itself. The simplest case is shared storage: just set up a server on a network connection, and allow SSH access. Then, on your end-user devices, install a file manager that can use SSH (SFTP). Voila! Your own "cloud storage", on your home server, accessible from anywhere on the internet. (Use good passwords, or use SSH certificates.)
You can also set up separate areas on a disk and give people access only to a certain area.
I use file managers that treat SFTP connections like just any other hard disk. It's simple, it's transparent.
Using SSH and a simple GUI file manager, I can access my server at home from my smartphone from anywhere in the world. And on my personal home machine, I have reverse SSH set up in a shell script. If I'm leaving home for a while, I just run the script to set up reverse SSH from the server and leave it running. Then I have access to both remotely. I can access either one from anywhere.
No "streaming" servers are necessary. No fancy sharing services. No 3rd parties at all, in fact. It's just a remotely-accessible hard disk.
I haven't found it necessary to do anything else. By default I have access to the server's big archive disk from anywhere. Turn on the Reverse SSH and I have that AND my desktop machine. Just as though they were local hard disks. Except for the transmission delays, of course.
AND, I can do it via wifi or wired internet (somebody else's machine), as long as they have an SFTP-capable file mgr. program, OR I can do it through my cell phone if I have remote data enabled on the phone. (If you're on Android, try ES File Manager or, better in my opinion, Total Commander. TC is also available for other OSes.)
"No. It was founded on the idea that if you couldn't live with it, you could go west and start a new place (or even live by yourself in a cabin somewhere)."
Not really. When this country was founded "the West" was unexplored, and ungoverned. You "went" there under great peril of life and limb.
You still have exactly the same option. Go live in the wildlands of Alaska, or Canada's Yukon. All by yourself and (for all practical purposes) ungoverned. Have fun and I wish you luck.
Seriously: nothing has changed in that respect. You have options. If you don't choose to exercise them, that's your problem. The problem with government today is that it's bigger; it is no worse in other respects.
"What's illegal about it is the intent. It's not meant as a parody, to showcase some fallacies or shortcomings of the person or organization parodied, or to make fun of them. It's meant as impersonation to make people believe that they are who they are impersonating."
Where is the "impersonation" taking place?
If I walk around wearing a Ronald Reagan mask, carrying a sign in big letters saying "IMPEACH REAGAN", is that "impersonation"? Or is it legitimate political speech? (Never mind that Reagan is no longer in office. Replace him with any other elected official.)
The picture of her on the website? Well, if you want someone to help defeat a candidate, don't you want them to know what candidate it is?
I admit that the way they used the colors was pretty low, but nowhere do I see where they actually crossed the line into "impersonation" or "fraud". Every bit of text, in BOLD print, very hard to miss, says they are trying to defeat this candidate.
In my opinion, this is even LESS misleading than putting less product into the same size package. It isn't "small print". It's up-front, clearly worded, bold type.
"The screenshot held up for example was such that when reduced to article size gave no indication at all that it was anything other than a legitimate pro-candidate site where your contribution would go towards the candidate named. "
The screenshot in the Forbes article (the first link in OP) was the same one I referred to in my first comment above. It says in bold print that the donation is to DEFEAT Sink. If you can't read, maybe you should not be making political donations.
The other link I gave above is the front page of the site, where it also says, in BIG BOLD PRINT "Help Stop Alex Sink". That is even harder to NOT see, and it's on the front page.
"It wasn't even a tiny bit confusing. It was blatant in-your-face FRAUD."
Not by any legal or ethical standard of which I am aware. Yes, it might have been a bit on the low side to use the same colors her campaign does, but all the text on the site very clearly says that the donations will be used to defeat that candidate. I don't see how that could possibly be interpreted as "fraud".
"These are the same people that are trying to get an extremist interpretation of the Jewish creation myth taught as science in public schools."
Wow. Stereotype much?
Are all black people thieves, too? Are Polish people stupid?
Get back to me when you figure that one out.
And just for the record, no, clearly what they are doing is in response to the EPA refusing to release bases for its decisions. See the links in the other comments above.
"This issue surrounds physical access to the vehicle, at which point no amount of security is going to be able to protect it (it will only make it more difficult to do). Adding security would make it significantly more difficult for mechanics and enthusiasts to work with their vehicles."
But "more difficult" might be the right thing to do.
It's true that it might make mechanics' jobs slightly more difficult. But what you said is kind of like saying locks on doors are pointless "because no amount of security is enough if you have physical access". In truth, there are few locks that a skilled locksmith can't pick open given a little time. But that doesn't mean a lock that can be picked in 5 seconds or no lock at all is a good solution in most cases.
Before anybody starts slamming me, understand that I dislike Republicans approximately as much as I dislike Democrats.
But if you think THIS is "misleading" (from right there, plain as day, on the front page of the site, actual size), then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
"Make a contribution then ask for it back. When they refuse, make a credit card chargeback. Will cost the NRCC $30 for each chargeback, and if they get too many, they get bumped up to a worse level merchant account."
Caling that "small print at the bottom of the screen" as Forbes did is just plain bullshit. It's big, bold, in your face print, right there at the top.
"presuming the GOP doesn't game the system and have their cronies claim they cannot reproduce the data."
The good thing is, that's not how science works. If studies and experiments have a solid, reproducible foundation, then attempts to "game the system" don't work, because if one party deliberately "doesn't reproduce" the results, someone else will.
This would open the door to allowing science to drive policy, rather than policy driving science.
I used to work rather closely with the EPA. It is a giant, power-mongering bureaucracy, and it is not to be trusted to do things that are in the best public interest. Everything about their rulemaking, including the science it is based on (if any), should be 100% public.
"It should be blindingly obvious to anyone with half a brain that this is just a blatant attempt to get out of EPA regs."
What? Are you serious?
What it is, is a "blatant" attempt to force EPA to user responsible and reproducible science. There is nothing in this world wrong with that. And no, it was not in response to the West Virginia situation. As another poster mentioned above, it is very clearly in response to things like this.
I think a "blatant attempt" to make public policy actually public is a good thing.
"Sorry EPA, but the studies sponsored by the [insert industry] industry couldn't reproduce the findings.
You cannot regulate them.
This will be one GIANT loophole for industry."
Nonsense. Reproducibility is reproducibility, and science is science.
Science paid for by the public, or science used to make government regulations at public expense, should be available to the public. Period.
If science isn't "reproducible", it isn't science. If you want to call that a "loophole", so be it. But if the truth is a loophole, learn to live with it.
I told them the same thing when they asked for my feedback on the Beta. I told them. "I don't like it. Nobody I know likes it. Stop trying to change it. Leave it as it is."
So far, they have been choosing to see feedback like that as "beta's not ready for primetime."
I really wish they would see that no, what we really meant was that WE DON'T WANT IT. Period. The beta doesn't need polish. It doesn't need more "improvement" or new views. What it needs is to go away.
"Again, I ascribe this to the fact that the comments of someone who tries to be polite are generally not rejected by the community. "
Depends on the subject. Certain positions on certain topics have historically received downmods on Slashdot, regardless of how sincere and polite the poster is.
I try to be respectful and polite, until someone else is not. When someone else has already been disrespectul, I no longer have any motivation to respect them in return.
But having said that, I am not a very "politically correct" person, and the vast majority of the downmods I have received have been due to my positions on certain controversial subject matter, not my "politeness". I nearly always start out being polite. And if others stay polite with me, I stay polite. But that hasn't stopped my polite (but "politically incorrect") comments from receiving downmods.
Slashdot Mirror
I mostly agree with you here. Except the part about "consensus". Consensus doesn't matter a whit to science, as your own observations show. The "germ theory" of disease was contrary to the almost universal scientific consensus at the time. But the EVIDENCE became so overwhelming, that the "consensus" was shown to be wrong.
It is evidence that matters in science, not consensus. We don't care if the overwhelming "consensus" says it's correct. We care if the overwhelming amount of evidence says it's correct. Certainly there are nut-jobs that deny it, but they are nut-jobs because they defy the evidence, not because they defy the consensus.
"No, you actually don't have the same option. People settle easier places first, so what's left are Alaska or Yukon - or, rather, the nastiest reaches of both."
Yes, you DO have the same option, though I admit on average it's somewhat harder. People settled there even then... just not as many of them. And it's most of both, not just the "nastiest reaches".
"And once people decide that no, they can't actually move to Alaskan wildlands"
They can.
"but must win dominance here and now, them having a problem becomes a problem for everyone."
Ah... now we get to the crux of the problem: the people who need to "win dominance", regardless of how much of a problem they cause for everyone.
These are the kind of people who usually stayed in cities anyway. It's pretty hard to lord it over the whole town if you're living in the wilderness 10 miles from anybody.
You seem to think this "go West" as some kind of legalistic loophole in the vein of "forever minus a day"
Don't presume to know what I think. You'll almost always be wrong. To be honest, I don't even know what you're talking about there.
"Bad guys have the time, skills, and motivation to study edge devices for weaknesses..."
But you know, it's funny... I would have thought the giant corporations that are behind manufacturing these devices (and in many cases the software for them) have just as much skill to look at these things from the other end.
Apparently what they have lacked is the motivation to do so. That should change.
"This argument is complete bullshit. When this country was founded, "the land" was already populated by people living there. It was unexplored and ungoverned by the people invading it."
This is true enough. But to the people who were invading it (of which GP apparently is one), what I said was still true.
See my comment further up. If you just want remote storage, SSH works fine. No need for VPN. Or even NAS, if you already have room on a networked machine to put in a "large enough" hard disk.
I should qualify this: they only act as local hard disks for programs that can use SSH or SFTP. Since most media players (sadly) don't support those protocols, if you wanted to play videos from the remote hard disk, you would have to download it first and play it locally.
But is that really a problem? Usually I'd rather have the file locally to play anyway. Streaming is overrated.
I agree that first, you should decide what your goal is. Shared storage? Sync? (Sync is not the same as shared storage because you have multiple copies of the data.) Maybe a shared storage area and multiple private areas?
I did not recommend Amazon in part because OP said they wanted to do it themselves. AWS and S3 are not "do it yourself". They rely on 3rd-party servers.
I'd say that SSH can be the solution, all by itself. The simplest case is shared storage: just set up a server on a network connection, and allow SSH access. Then, on your end-user devices, install a file manager that can use SSH (SFTP). Voila! Your own "cloud storage", on your home server, accessible from anywhere on the internet. (Use good passwords, or use SSH certificates.)
You can also set up separate areas on a disk and give people access only to a certain area.
I use file managers that treat SFTP connections like just any other hard disk. It's simple, it's transparent.
Using SSH and a simple GUI file manager, I can access my server at home from my smartphone from anywhere in the world. And on my personal home machine, I have reverse SSH set up in a shell script. If I'm leaving home for a while, I just run the script to set up reverse SSH from the server and leave it running. Then I have access to both remotely. I can access either one from anywhere.
No "streaming" servers are necessary. No fancy sharing services. No 3rd parties at all, in fact. It's just a remotely-accessible hard disk.
I haven't found it necessary to do anything else. By default I have access to the server's big archive disk from anywhere. Turn on the Reverse SSH and I have that AND my desktop machine. Just as though they were local hard disks. Except for the transmission delays, of course.
AND, I can do it via wifi or wired internet (somebody else's machine), as long as they have an SFTP-capable file mgr. program, OR I can do it through my cell phone if I have remote data enabled on the phone. (If you're on Android, try ES File Manager or, better in my opinion, Total Commander. TC is also available for other OSes.)
"No. It was founded on the idea that if you couldn't live with it, you could go west and start a new place (or even live by yourself in a cabin somewhere)."
Not really. When this country was founded "the West" was unexplored, and ungoverned. You "went" there under great peril of life and limb.
You still have exactly the same option. Go live in the wildlands of Alaska, or Canada's Yukon. All by yourself and (for all practical purposes) ungoverned. Have fun and I wish you luck.
Seriously: nothing has changed in that respect. You have options. If you don't choose to exercise them, that's your problem. The problem with government today is that it's bigger; it is no worse in other respects.
"What's illegal about it is the intent. It's not meant as a parody, to showcase some fallacies or shortcomings of the person or organization parodied, or to make fun of them. It's meant as impersonation to make people believe that they are who they are impersonating."
Where is the "impersonation" taking place?
If I walk around wearing a Ronald Reagan mask, carrying a sign in big letters saying "IMPEACH REAGAN", is that "impersonation"? Or is it legitimate political speech? (Never mind that Reagan is no longer in office. Replace him with any other elected official.)
The picture of her on the website? Well, if you want someone to help defeat a candidate, don't you want them to know what candidate it is?
I admit that the way they used the colors was pretty low, but nowhere do I see where they actually crossed the line into "impersonation" or "fraud". Every bit of text, in BOLD print, very hard to miss, says they are trying to defeat this candidate.
In my opinion, this is even LESS misleading than putting less product into the same size package. It isn't "small print". It's up-front, clearly worded, bold type.
"The screenshot held up for example was such that when reduced to article size gave no indication at all that it was anything other than a legitimate pro-candidate site where your contribution would go towards the candidate named. "
The screenshot in the Forbes article (the first link in OP) was the same one I referred to in my first comment above. It says in bold print that the donation is to DEFEAT Sink. If you can't read, maybe you should not be making political donations.
The other link I gave above is the front page of the site, where it also says, in BIG BOLD PRINT "Help Stop Alex Sink". That is even harder to NOT see, and it's on the front page.
"It wasn't even a tiny bit confusing. It was blatant in-your-face FRAUD."
Not by any legal or ethical standard of which I am aware. Yes, it might have been a bit on the low side to use the same colors her campaign does, but all the text on the site very clearly says that the donations will be used to defeat that candidate. I don't see how that could possibly be interpreted as "fraud".
"These are the same people that are trying to get an extremist interpretation of the Jewish creation myth taught as science in public schools."
Wow. Stereotype much?
Are all black people thieves, too? Are Polish people stupid?
Get back to me when you figure that one out.
And just for the record, no, clearly what they are doing is in response to the EPA refusing to release bases for its decisions. See the links in the other comments above.
"This issue surrounds physical access to the vehicle, at which point no amount of security is going to be able to protect it (it will only make it more difficult to do). Adding security would make it significantly more difficult for mechanics and enthusiasts to work with their vehicles."
But "more difficult" might be the right thing to do.
It's true that it might make mechanics' jobs slightly more difficult. But what you said is kind of like saying locks on doors are pointless "because no amount of security is enough if you have physical access". In truth, there are few locks that a skilled locksmith can't pick open given a little time. But that doesn't mean a lock that can be picked in 5 seconds or no lock at all is a good solution in most cases.
Before anybody starts slamming me, understand that I dislike Republicans approximately as much as I dislike Democrats.
But if you think THIS is "misleading" (from right there, plain as day, on the front page of the site, actual size), then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
"Make a contribution then ask for it back. When they refuse, make a credit card chargeback. Will cost the NRCC $30 for each chargeback, and if they get too many, they get bumped up to a worse level merchant account."
What I think is funny is that a headline at the top of the page which says in bold letters Make a Contribution Today to Help Defeat Alex Sink and Candidates Like Her is somehow "misleading".
Caling that "small print at the bottom of the screen" as Forbes did is just plain bullshit. It's big, bold, in your face print, right there at the top.
"presuming the GOP doesn't game the system and have their cronies claim they cannot reproduce the data."
The good thing is, that's not how science works. If studies and experiments have a solid, reproducible foundation, then attempts to "game the system" don't work, because if one party deliberately "doesn't reproduce" the results, someone else will.
This would open the door to allowing science to drive policy, rather than policy driving science.
I used to work rather closely with the EPA. It is a giant, power-mongering bureaucracy, and it is not to be trusted to do things that are in the best public interest. Everything about their rulemaking, including the science it is based on (if any), should be 100% public.
"It should be blindingly obvious to anyone with half a brain that this is just a blatant attempt to get out of EPA regs."
What? Are you serious?
What it is, is a "blatant" attempt to force EPA to user responsible and reproducible science. There is nothing in this world wrong with that. And no, it was not in response to the West Virginia situation. As another poster mentioned above, it is very clearly in response to things like this.
I think a "blatant attempt" to make public policy actually public is a good thing.
"Sorry EPA, but the studies sponsored by the [insert industry] industry couldn't reproduce the findings.
You cannot regulate them.
This will be one GIANT loophole for industry."
Nonsense. Reproducibility is reproducibility, and science is science.
Science paid for by the public, or science used to make government regulations at public expense, should be available to the public. Period.
If science isn't "reproducible", it isn't science. If you want to call that a "loophole", so be it. But if the truth is a loophole, learn to live with it.
"This next one will really knock your eyes out."
My favorite part was always the cartoons by Gahan Wilson.
" On the surface, they appear mad, but I think some of them secretly enjoy it. "
I think it's pretty safe to say that if they are stinging, they are genuinely angry. After all... it kills them.
/. contributors are any more masochistic than bees are.
I could be wrong, but I don't think
I could be mistaken, but I think the World Series was so-named because at the time, pretty much nobody else in the world played Baseball.
"We like it. It's fine. Leave it THE FUCK ALONE!"
I told them the same thing when they asked for my feedback on the Beta. I told them. "I don't like it. Nobody I know likes it. Stop trying to change it. Leave it as it is."
So far, they have been choosing to see feedback like that as "beta's not ready for primetime."
I really wish they would see that no, what we really meant was that WE DON'T WANT IT. Period. The beta doesn't need polish. It doesn't need more "improvement" or new views. What it needs is to go away.
And that doesn't include the Intel/Micron partnership plants in the Salt Lake City area.
"Again, I ascribe this to the fact that the comments of someone who tries to be polite are generally not rejected by the community. "
Depends on the subject. Certain positions on certain topics have historically received downmods on Slashdot, regardless of how sincere and polite the poster is.
I try to be respectful and polite, until someone else is not. When someone else has already been disrespectul, I no longer have any motivation to respect them in return.
But having said that, I am not a very "politically correct" person, and the vast majority of the downmods I have received have been due to my positions on certain controversial subject matter, not my "politeness". I nearly always start out being polite. And if others stay polite with me, I stay polite. But that hasn't stopped my polite (but "politically incorrect") comments from receiving downmods.
"This person was then "shouted down" which I assume means "proven wrong" pending further evidence."
"This person" is no less than Kurt Angstrom, and no, "shouting down" means loudly proclaiming "NO! You're wrong!" without any supporting evidence.