I'll buy my favorite band's music without hearing it first, but otherwise I never purchase music I haven't heard already and know I like.
Streaming lets me hear the music and encourages me to buy it. Remove that, and the best way for me to hear music is to download it, which removes the incentive to purchase. I suppose the good thing from this is that it should encourage artists to think harder about signing on to a label until they return to sanity (which may be never).
I see the importance of this not to be what kind of attack they used (other than being relatively simple), but the fact that they are proving these cards aren't as secure as they're claimed to be. It's the difference between knowing Capone did it and finally getting evidence that will stick.
And at least they just downgrade you - they could instead just shut your system down for a suspected license violation and prevent any log-ins.
I get the impression businesses don't often switch to linux because they feel it is hard to work with. If a false positive shuts down a good portion of their machines, Windows suddenly becomes the OS that is hard to work with. Customers have shown time and again they'll put up with a good amount of annoyance, so WAT just stays in that range and few people will actually move their money elsewhere.
NB: This is the impression I get from the IT types posting on slashdot. I am sure someone with actual IT experience can elaborate and/or correct what I am saying.
AT&T and Comcast have plenty of resources to upgrade their systems and drop their prices. Because they are effectively a monopoly, they don't want to. If Google starts stealing all of their customers, AT&T and the rest will drag their feet and throw lawyers at the problem for a while, but those companies aren't about to go away. They will adapt if they have no other option.
I've generally agreed with the "terrorists have won" idea, but I realize it still misses the point. Our government is using terrorists and pedophiles to scare us into giving up our rights and freedoms- "terrorists have won" blames the terrorists instead of politicians. Your claim helps get people to question, and hopefully see through the government's smokescreen/paranoia (malice or ignorance?), but we need to bring the focus squarely back where it belongs. Just like I grudgingly give in to the pedantic "don't call piracy stealing" argument, I think it might be good to always explicitly bring blame back to the government.
I find the message of "first they came for" to mean either everyone gets the same rights, or no one will have rights. There are things 4chan does that wouldn't fall under protected speech- I don't mean to support that. But just like the nazi holdouts in America, they (often) do things that harm no one, yet no one supports. I'm only trying to draw attention to the fact that just because we don't care for 4chan's "speech" doesn't make it less important to protect. We don't need to preserve it, mind you, just protect it for a few moments, then hope it goes away on its own.
Just to be clear, I realize "first they came for" originally referred to actions against people's lives- I do not intend to draw this 4chan issue to similar proportions. I see the message as a broad one that applies in very non-life threatening situations too.
I was referring to the implication that 4chan could get shut down without impact, which the parent made. THAT would be a breach of free speech, however unimportant their speech may be. Verizon briefly blocking them is unfortunate but certainly not something to get worked up about.
You sound like you just want to be annoyed, so you misread everything to suit your purposes... Most of the time when your first impression is someone is an idiot, you're misunderstanding him. I've done that and I have taught myself to give people the benefit of the doubt- unfortunately a lot of people here don't, so half of the arguments I see on slashdot are just miscommunication. I'm forcing myself not to flame, but it is hard not to think of you as an idiot the way you respond. I doubt you care for or need me to lecture you on how to write calm, non-offending posts, but do consider it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are a reasonable person, although I am not sure how that would hold up if you decide to reply in the same tone as above.
One of the common complaints of management these days is that they are only concerned about short-term profit. If executives' stock was valued largely upon the lowest stock price in the last X years, they would have to avoid killing stock prices or it will hurt them for a good while. In the case of a merger, an executive has to stay working for the buying company for a while, otherwise he is stuck with the rock-bottom share price his company was at shortly before it ceased to exist. With corporations being required to work for the greater benefit of the shareholders (who can still trade at the current price), an executive may have no choice if offered a good merger deal that hurts him personally.
I don't claim this would be a perfect solution, but it still rewards success, it minimizes impact on employees, and executives would fear failure more.
I don't agree with "nothing of value will be lost". We have all heard "first they came for... then they came for... then no one was left to help me." As far as the internet goes, 4chan is the "first they came for".
Whenever a big company does something that looks good on paper, most people here stop and look for the catch. We have seen Cuomo repeatedly putting his name into national news, so these stories are starting to trigger the same reflex. I agree being 100% biased against him is overdoing it, but it is still relevant to include his political motivation in addition to the purely legal issues here.
I don't know linux and the malware fight very well, but are those direct attacks intended to work on Windows machines, so that those 10% are the only attacks that even work against a linux box?
As a slashdot reader who doesn't know much about linux, it often sounds like linux is this magical program that can't do wrong, so clarification for the under-informed would be helpful.
Given failed results wouldn't need as much verification, it may be possible for researchers to submit under pseudonyms to avoid embarrassment, and I should think not all researchers are so full of themselves to fear helping others. I agree we won't see the best stories reach this journal, but if nothing else it will be a good way for the honest, cooperative researchers to know they aren't alone.
To go with your solution all products would need to list their carbon footprint on the label, and perhaps a brief explanation to help people evaluate the numbers- like how nutrition labels give you %DV for a 2000 calorie diet.
Fast food restaurants have been kicking and screaming to avoid printing calories on their menus and packaging, as they know consumers seem to think if the item doesn't say anything bad on the label, there must be nothing wrong with it. Not that "low carbon footprint!" wouldn't help sales, but providing complete information is necessary for the market to establish the correct value to environmental friendliness.
Is there any reason it would be a bad idea, if someone has control over millions in assets, two people's login credentials should be required to confirm a transaction? It's bad enough to have someone responsible for that much money be foolish enough to fall for a phishing scam, but I should hope there is a low chance two people could run a company successfully but both fall for the same scam.
It would be very interesting to be able to pull up a personal task manager. I could watch how the digestive system varies after lunch, follow how hard my immune system is working when I have a cold... it could also be insightful to see how my brain functions when I attempt to multitask.
The only problem is if management makes me upload the data so they can make sure Job.exe is getting the most attention.
Let's say we have 8 different antibacterial products. Would it be wrong to think of a bacterium developing resistance to 7 of them, then losing one of those resistances in order to pick up the last one? I am assuming it is more accurate to think of it as a computer under attack, where it can be patched and potentially immune to all attacks.
The only way I can see for us to "win" the war against germs is to have more antibiotics/antibacterials etc. than they can possibly be immune to, but the cynic in me is assuming that is not how the science works.
There is a trade-off in speaking anonymously. On one hand, people can't lash out at you for your criticism. On the other hand, with no name behind the statement, its credibility has to be taken with an extra grain of salt. Anonymous speech is good for exposing a problem so others who can speak openly can deal with it- others have to verify the anonymous claims before anything is taken too seriously.
As you point out, it gets problematic when people forget the verify step.
Many (not all) movies only devote a fraction of scenes to action. Most of the rest is development of the plot to lead to and from those action sequences. While I do agree football games are more drawn out than they should be, the time in-between plays is used for the teams to plan, the commentators to discuss what happened and is going to happen, and for you to talk with your friends about the latest developments. Unlike a movie, you are expected to talk as you are watching with the people around you.
I am not a football fan, although I will occasionally sit down and watch the Bears play/lose a game (same thing). Even so, I would not appreciate the experience as much if it were condensed down to the highlights unless that is all I have time for. Also, I generally will only watch a sports game with someone, as it does get boring otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll buy my favorite band's music without hearing it first, but otherwise I never purchase music I haven't heard already and know I like.
Streaming lets me hear the music and encourages me to buy it. Remove that, and the best way for me to hear music is to download it, which removes the incentive to purchase. I suppose the good thing from this is that it should encourage artists to think harder about signing on to a label until they return to sanity (which may be never).
I see the importance of this not to be what kind of attack they used (other than being relatively simple), but the fact that they are proving these cards aren't as secure as they're claimed to be. It's the difference between knowing Capone did it and finally getting evidence that will stick.
And at least they just downgrade you - they could instead just shut your system down for a suspected license violation and prevent any log-ins.
I get the impression businesses don't often switch to linux because they feel it is hard to work with. If a false positive shuts down a good portion of their machines, Windows suddenly becomes the OS that is hard to work with. Customers have shown time and again they'll put up with a good amount of annoyance, so WAT just stays in that range and few people will actually move their money elsewhere.
NB: This is the impression I get from the IT types posting on slashdot. I am sure someone with actual IT experience can elaborate and/or correct what I am saying.
Windows would be so much better without Microsoft.
Nah, they need to get into politics. Get rid of our corporate-run government.
AT&T and Comcast have plenty of resources to upgrade their systems and drop their prices. Because they are effectively a monopoly, they don't want to. If Google starts stealing all of their customers, AT&T and the rest will drag their feet and throw lawyers at the problem for a while, but those companies aren't about to go away. They will adapt if they have no other option.
I'll take some antibodies for meatloaf, that way Aunt Mary's "specialty" causes an immune response and I can claim to be allergic.
I've generally agreed with the "terrorists have won" idea, but I realize it still misses the point. Our government is using terrorists and pedophiles to scare us into giving up our rights and freedoms- "terrorists have won" blames the terrorists instead of politicians. Your claim helps get people to question, and hopefully see through the government's smokescreen/paranoia (malice or ignorance?), but we need to bring the focus squarely back where it belongs. Just like I grudgingly give in to the pedantic "don't call piracy stealing" argument, I think it might be good to always explicitly bring blame back to the government.
I find the message of "first they came for" to mean either everyone gets the same rights, or no one will have rights. There are things 4chan does that wouldn't fall under protected speech- I don't mean to support that. But just like the nazi holdouts in America, they (often) do things that harm no one, yet no one supports. I'm only trying to draw attention to the fact that just because we don't care for 4chan's "speech" doesn't make it less important to protect. We don't need to preserve it, mind you, just protect it for a few moments, then hope it goes away on its own.
Just to be clear, I realize "first they came for" originally referred to actions against people's lives- I do not intend to draw this 4chan issue to similar proportions. I see the message as a broad one that applies in very non-life threatening situations too.
I was referring to the implication that 4chan could get shut down without impact, which the parent made. THAT would be a breach of free speech, however unimportant their speech may be. Verizon briefly blocking them is unfortunate but certainly not something to get worked up about.
You sound like you just want to be annoyed, so you misread everything to suit your purposes... Most of the time when your first impression is someone is an idiot, you're misunderstanding him. I've done that and I have taught myself to give people the benefit of the doubt- unfortunately a lot of people here don't, so half of the arguments I see on slashdot are just miscommunication. I'm forcing myself not to flame, but it is hard not to think of you as an idiot the way you respond. I doubt you care for or need me to lecture you on how to write calm, non-offending posts, but do consider it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are a reasonable person, although I am not sure how that would hold up if you decide to reply in the same tone as above.
One of the common complaints of management these days is that they are only concerned about short-term profit. If executives' stock was valued largely upon the lowest stock price in the last X years, they would have to avoid killing stock prices or it will hurt them for a good while. In the case of a merger, an executive has to stay working for the buying company for a while, otherwise he is stuck with the rock-bottom share price his company was at shortly before it ceased to exist. With corporations being required to work for the greater benefit of the shareholders (who can still trade at the current price), an executive may have no choice if offered a good merger deal that hurts him personally.
I don't claim this would be a perfect solution, but it still rewards success, it minimizes impact on employees, and executives would fear failure more.
I don't agree with "nothing of value will be lost". We have all heard "first they came for... then they came for... then no one was left to help me." As far as the internet goes, 4chan is the "first they came for".
Whenever a big company does something that looks good on paper, most people here stop and look for the catch. We have seen Cuomo repeatedly putting his name into national news, so these stories are starting to trigger the same reflex. I agree being 100% biased against him is overdoing it, but it is still relevant to include his political motivation in addition to the purely legal issues here.
I actually laughed out loud reading the headline. He thinks he's selling entertainment, but the joke's on him. He's the entertainment.
I don't know linux and the malware fight very well, but are those direct attacks intended to work on Windows machines, so that those 10% are the only attacks that even work against a linux box?
As a slashdot reader who doesn't know much about linux, it often sounds like linux is this magical program that can't do wrong, so clarification for the under-informed would be helpful.
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} .*images.google.*$ [NC,OR] RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} .*images.search.yahoo.*$ [NC]
I don't see Bing on there.
Given failed results wouldn't need as much verification, it may be possible for researchers to submit under pseudonyms to avoid embarrassment, and I should think not all researchers are so full of themselves to fear helping others. I agree we won't see the best stories reach this journal, but if nothing else it will be a good way for the honest, cooperative researchers to know they aren't alone.
To go with your solution all products would need to list their carbon footprint on the label, and perhaps a brief explanation to help people evaluate the numbers- like how nutrition labels give you %DV for a 2000 calorie diet.
Fast food restaurants have been kicking and screaming to avoid printing calories on their menus and packaging, as they know consumers seem to think if the item doesn't say anything bad on the label, there must be nothing wrong with it. Not that "low carbon footprint!" wouldn't help sales, but providing complete information is necessary for the market to establish the correct value to environmental friendliness.
Is there any reason it would be a bad idea, if someone has control over millions in assets, two people's login credentials should be required to confirm a transaction? It's bad enough to have someone responsible for that much money be foolish enough to fall for a phishing scam, but I should hope there is a low chance two people could run a company successfully but both fall for the same scam.
It would be very interesting to be able to pull up a personal task manager. I could watch how the digestive system varies after lunch, follow how hard my immune system is working when I have a cold... it could also be insightful to see how my brain functions when I attempt to multitask.
The only problem is if management makes me upload the data so they can make sure Job.exe is getting the most attention.
Let's say we have 8 different antibacterial products. Would it be wrong to think of a bacterium developing resistance to 7 of them, then losing one of those resistances in order to pick up the last one? I am assuming it is more accurate to think of it as a computer under attack, where it can be patched and potentially immune to all attacks.
The only way I can see for us to "win" the war against germs is to have more antibiotics/antibacterials etc. than they can possibly be immune to, but the cynic in me is assuming that is not how the science works.
Not everything in business is about short term profit. Or atleast it didn't use to be...
There is a trade-off in speaking anonymously. On one hand, people can't lash out at you for your criticism. On the other hand, with no name behind the statement, its credibility has to be taken with an extra grain of salt. Anonymous speech is good for exposing a problem so others who can speak openly can deal with it- others have to verify the anonymous claims before anything is taken too seriously.
As you point out, it gets problematic when people forget the verify step.
Ask Gates if he regrets stepping down and you're getting a closer comparison.
Many (not all) movies only devote a fraction of scenes to action. Most of the rest is development of the plot to lead to and from those action sequences. While I do agree football games are more drawn out than they should be, the time in-between plays is used for the teams to plan, the commentators to discuss what happened and is going to happen, and for you to talk with your friends about the latest developments. Unlike a movie, you are expected to talk as you are watching with the people around you.
I am not a football fan, although I will occasionally sit down and watch the Bears play/lose a game (same thing). Even so, I would not appreciate the experience as much if it were condensed down to the highlights unless that is all I have time for. Also, I generally will only watch a sports game with someone, as it does get boring otherwise.