... Soulskill. Thank you. I hadn't been reading slashdot very closely this week and was wondering if I was going to miss out on the blatant conservative pandering that is a regular feature of slashdot's front page. Not to let me down, soulskill comes through.
Thank you, I guess. And yes, I know I will be moderated straight down to hell for this. But you can't say I'm not right on the matter.
You could do something like that, but it would be redundant. As it is, if someone is shown to be doing fraudulent work they generally lose their position immediately and are effectively blacklisted from further academic work by virtue of having been fired for fraud. It doesn't matter how high up they are; I know of a local university that canned a dept chair for fraud and he is no longer in scientific research.
The tragedy though is he had some people working in his lab who were not involved in the fraud and they lost their careers by association with him.
While more money is spent in science, the scientists themselves have in general not had a meaningful raise in some time. Anyone who goes in to science to make money is, to say the least, misguided. Scientific research is often the least profitable venture you can pursue with a PhD.
The additional money being spent in science is largely going to keep the lights on in the lab. Scientists need to pay for their utilities and consumables, all of which have risen in price while their wages generally have not.
Even good studies can have aberrant results that start with promising findings and end in retraction. The fact that retractions are up is not inherently indicative of more fraud, it could just as well be indicative of more pressure and more thorough peer review.
Selling gTLDs is an epically bad idea. The enormous leeway that ICANN gives to owners of gTLDs is sickening and could open up a great number of new problems (new spamming mechanisms being just one of them) that we did not face before.
ICANN needs to go, if they are willing to commit such grave offenses against the internet community in the name of profit.
Naturally, when your state can't handle simple math, the science, technology, and engineering will end up failing as well. It's a good thing that Florida does so well at... wait, what was it that Florida did well?
I've never met a sane person who would declare MiniDisc to be "one of the most successful storage mediums of all time". Most expensive, perhaps. Most blatant example of an answer searching for a question, almost certainly. Most proprietary and frustrating, for sure. Most successful? Not really.
I never saw the cop who wrote the ticket. The court date was on the ticket when I received it, so I expected he was in the building.
That policy varies wildly from one jurisdiction to another. It seems a lot of locations now have traffic hearings in bulk on one day, where the ticketed can make a deal with the DA (or other representative), pay the fine outright, or arrange for another hearing in front of a judge. In those places you wouldn't expect to see the cop as you aren't there for a hearing with a judge any ways.
Years ago I was pulled over by a cop who claimed I was going 45 in a 30, which I knew to be complete bullshit. I was driving a car that could barely produce 70hp under really great conditions, with 500+ pounds of friends in the car (in addition to my own mass) and had just come to a complete stop and made a right-hand turn less than 100 yards prior. In other words, the cop was claiming that my woefully underpowered car from the 70s was accelerating like a modern Porsche.
He handed me my ticket, and I went to the court hearing at the scheduled time, date, and location. In that county the first meeting is with the DA, you have no option to see a judge that day no matter how much you ask for it. That county was over an hour's drive from work, a place I had never visited prior to the date of the offense. The DA made me an offer; take a plea bargain - which would not be reported to my insurance so long as I was not ticketed in their county again for a year (and carrier a lesser fine) - or come back at a later date to plea my case before a judge.
I decided my time was worth more than that, and took the plea. I could have taken the second hearing to plead my case before a judge, but the amount it cost me to drive there and back, plus time taken off of work, was likely more than the small fine I paid them that day.
That said, congrats to the professor for so handily showing the error in the cop's measurement without making them look like a baboon.
When the previous missiles were had names that were phonetically "Type O Dong", they were certain to work. Now that the missile names don't automatically lend themselves to silly jokes, they can't possibly work.
If the campaign is over, why do the candidates always say they have "suspended" it? Saw the same thing when Pawlenty, Bachmann, and the Godfather's Pizza Guy dropped out. The campaigns aren't coming back, so why are they saying they are only "suspended"?
Not only does roman_mir not have a clue of what he is talking about, he doesn't believe in it anyways. He's just here to get a rouse out of slashdot readers when he takes all of the bullshit that comes out of the cult of ron paul, rolls it into one undigestable pile of crap, and serves it up piping hot. It's not worth while to point out how what he says cannot possibly work, because he's not here for a discussion.
The cost difference between a regular gas sedan and a hybrid of the same size is generally not offset by the savings in fuel costs for driving it. Why do it again if it didn't work the first time?
I used to be quite sure you believed in what you said. Then I started to doubt it as your posts became more and more trollish. Now I'm almost certain you are just trolling to make the extreme right look silly. It is amusing to watch you do that and yet still repeatedly get moderated very highly for spouting off self-contradictory nonsense.
Let's take a look at some examples you just provided:
more invasion of privacy,
This makes no sense in relation to the article. The summary plainly states that the Navy is purchasing used consoles and hacking in to them. These are being sold on the very same free market that you claim to love so much.
more unauthorised behaviour
The only one who doesn't authorize hacking in to game consoles that are freely purchased and outright owned are the manufacturers of said consoles. However you repeatedly post that you want to see the end of all patents and copyrights, so you should not be defending companies that want to dictate how end users use their products, either.
more deficit and debt
That is a straw man argument, at best. At this point government deficit and debt are like global entropy - they can only increase.
more government jobs
No reasonable person would ever argue for more unemployment. Of course, you are known to not be the least bit reasonable.
Less real economic activity,
How is the government purchasing items and putting people to work less economic activity? Oh, yes, it isn't.
less freedoms
Nonsense. By your argument if the US Army sourced a new scope for a rifle, other than the one that it was initially purchased with, that would also be "less freedoms".
What's funny is people on this site saying that people consume too many resources, so there needs to be birth control done by government.
That would be an interesting argument, if the post you linked to actually made that argument. Too bad it made no such argument in any way, shape or form. Did you mean to link to a different post?
They want government to control every aspect of human life
Can you show an example of someone on slashdot saying such a thing? Yeah, I didn't think so.
The REAL drain on the system is GOVERNMENT.
You can say what you want about the government, but you certainly haven't demonstrated that claim. If anything, you have supported the ever-increasingly-hypothesis that you are indeed just a slightly-more-refined-than-average troll.
They've only gotten worse. A professor in UC Berkeley today is making less than he/she was ten years ago. Most other state schools are not far from that.
Comparing salaries for academics across time is not as straightforward as one may hope. Schools seldom just say "we pay junior faculty X and senior faculty Y" because in reality it is usually more like "compensation for junior ranges from A - D and for senior from F - J", but that isn't the full story either. Faculty also negotiate for lab space and resources, they negotiate for how much of their salary needs to come through grant money, and how much they are compensated for various other expenses. Hence a school might be paying a faculty person less out of their own budget but that person is actually making more because of where the salary comes from.
Getting grants has also become harder, ever since republicans took control of Congress.
Absolutely true. The NIH, NSF, and DOE haven't had better-than-inflation (or in the NIH, even inflation-matching) increases in their overall budgets in many years. However some of them - at least the NIH - make inflationary adjustments to what they pay out, resulting in less money being available from them for new grants each successive year.
Indicates that at least you have some sense of what it will take to do this and what the end result may (or may not) end up like. Too many people would go into a project like this with the idea of saving money (doesn't work) or making something that is better than mass market version s and usable by others in the household (no real chance of that).
But if you're looking for an adventure, this may be a good choice for you.
The source you linked to, while having some valid points, is from 1999. Many things (particularly salaries) have changed quite a bit since then.
That said, thanks to the repeated crappy economic decisions this country has been making for decades, many of the criticisms in that source are still very valid. I certainly wouldn't take it as gospel at this point, though.
This is advice for science in general, but especially for the notion of "rampant fraud". Many of the people who make that allegation are not themselves involved in science. The vast majority of people working in science are in it because they love it, and they work within established ethical standards. However, like any industry, science does have some bad apples that rise from time to time for varied reasons.
As for tenure, if you're only finishing your undergrad now you have a long time before you will be worrying about such a thing. Some schools are doing away with it altogether. Be more concerned about staying on top of the field you want to go in to. Even more so, know what the funding situation is for that kind of work, and how to get yourself in on the funds available.
So unless you're allowing usernames such as "root" or "admin" or "administrator" AND using dictionary passwords wouldn't this fail? And be obvious in the logs?
Yes, it would be obvious in the logs. However, most of the common hacks are now scripted and distributed. They'll use a dictionary attack that is spread over some number (dozens or more) of distinct botnet systems, making it very inconvenient for you the admin to try to block all those addresses.
Although of course as you point out, it should fail if they are going for root or equivalent. That said from my experience the botnets usually seem to do a white pages type list of common usernames and then try either blank or extremely common user names to try to get in by. So you may also want to ensure that if you have users who use very common (English) first names as their login names, they are using strong passwords.
Thankfully, ssh generally returns the same password prompt for a valid username as it does for a nonexistent one, and the same wrong password response regardless of whether or not the username exists, so at least your system won't be giving them useful information on which usernames are worth trying again with other passwords.
Most of the bruteforce attacks I see on my home server are trying to get in as root. I don't allow remote root logins anyways (and even say so on the ssh greeting) so they'll never get in, even if they do manage to guess the password.
Hence their most optimal rate for my system would be never, because they won't get in that way. Not that my system is impenetrable - I'm sure an intelligent hacker could compromise it - but they will never get in trying to ssh in as root.
If they're doing white pages username + dictionary password - or white pages username + blank password (I've seen both, from botnet attacks), they still won't get in on my system as none of the common user names are used there.
I have entire pages of comments (in fact if you just look at my comments right now, it's filled with that stuff), with comments that had been moderated up and down a few times, +5 to -1 to +5 to -1 or 0. All that while there are many replies to them, so clearly, these comments generate 'interest', whatever it is.
Moderation exists so that comments are properly tagged and scored based on their characteristics. If your comments end up scored (-1, flamebait), its because people felt your comment was flamebait. Likewise if it scored (+5, insightful). There are plenty of flamebait / troll comments that get lots of replies; the presence of replies does not indicate a good comment any more than the absence of the same indicates a bad comment.
Does it make sense to have wild swings in comment moderation in that case, doesn't it mean that in reality those comments are at least 'interesting' enough to a large number of people?
Quite a few people read slashdot discussions with very low thresholds for score, and will see comments that are moderated down. People who moderate and read the instructions know that they should
It looks to me, the real problem with/. is a weird moderation scheme that encourages people to moderate not based on merit of the comment, but instead based on their own biases and it's used to silence opinions.
More often than not, flamebait and troll are applied fairly accurately. The down mod that gets abused the most by far is overrated.
Slashdot Mirror
... Soulskill. Thank you. I hadn't been reading slashdot very closely this week and was wondering if I was going to miss out on the blatant conservative pandering that is a regular feature of slashdot's front page. Not to let me down, soulskill comes through.
Thank you, I guess. And yes, I know I will be moderated straight down to hell for this. But you can't say I'm not right on the matter.
You could do something like that, but it would be redundant. As it is, if someone is shown to be doing fraudulent work they generally lose their position immediately and are effectively blacklisted from further academic work by virtue of having been fired for fraud. It doesn't matter how high up they are; I know of a local university that canned a dept chair for fraud and he is no longer in scientific research.
The tragedy though is he had some people working in his lab who were not involved in the fraud and they lost their careers by association with him.
There's more money in it now.
While more money is spent in science, the scientists themselves have in general not had a meaningful raise in some time. Anyone who goes in to science to make money is, to say the least, misguided. Scientific research is often the least profitable venture you can pursue with a PhD.
The additional money being spent in science is largely going to keep the lights on in the lab. Scientists need to pay for their utilities and consumables, all of which have risen in price while their wages generally have not.
Even good studies can have aberrant results that start with promising findings and end in retraction. The fact that retractions are up is not inherently indicative of more fraud, it could just as well be indicative of more pressure and more thorough peer review.
Selling gTLDs is an epically bad idea. The enormous leeway that ICANN gives to owners of gTLDs is sickening and could open up a great number of new problems (new spamming mechanisms being just one of them) that we did not face before.
ICANN needs to go, if they are willing to commit such grave offenses against the internet community in the name of profit.
Naturally, when your state can't handle simple math, the science, technology, and engineering will end up failing as well. It's a good thing that Florida does so well at ... wait, what was it that Florida did well?
That's one of the better AC posts I've seen around here in a while, really.
I've never met a sane person who would declare MiniDisc to be "one of the most successful storage mediums of all time". Most expensive, perhaps. Most blatant example of an answer searching for a question, almost certainly. Most proprietary and frustrating, for sure. Most successful? Not really.
I never saw the cop who wrote the ticket. The court date was on the ticket when I received it, so I expected he was in the building.
That policy varies wildly from one jurisdiction to another. It seems a lot of locations now have traffic hearings in bulk on one day, where the ticketed can make a deal with the DA (or other representative), pay the fine outright, or arrange for another hearing in front of a judge. In those places you wouldn't expect to see the cop as you aren't there for a hearing with a judge any ways.
Years ago I was pulled over by a cop who claimed I was going 45 in a 30, which I knew to be complete bullshit. I was driving a car that could barely produce 70hp under really great conditions, with 500+ pounds of friends in the car (in addition to my own mass) and had just come to a complete stop and made a right-hand turn less than 100 yards prior. In other words, the cop was claiming that my woefully underpowered car from the 70s was accelerating like a modern Porsche.
He handed me my ticket, and I went to the court hearing at the scheduled time, date, and location. In that county the first meeting is with the DA, you have no option to see a judge that day no matter how much you ask for it. That county was over an hour's drive from work, a place I had never visited prior to the date of the offense. The DA made me an offer; take a plea bargain - which would not be reported to my insurance so long as I was not ticketed in their county again for a year (and carrier a lesser fine) - or come back at a later date to plea my case before a judge.
I decided my time was worth more than that, and took the plea. I could have taken the second hearing to plead my case before a judge, but the amount it cost me to drive there and back, plus time taken off of work, was likely more than the small fine I paid them that day.
That said, congrats to the professor for so handily showing the error in the cop's measurement without making them look like a baboon.
As a result of this unfortunate coincidence, the O's perception of reality did not properly re ect reality.
It's too bad that statement cannot be quickly supported in many other cases.
When the previous missiles were had names that were phonetically "Type O Dong", they were certain to work. Now that the missile names don't automatically lend themselves to silly jokes, they can't possibly work.
Perhaps they shouldn't have set up the "submit an anonymous bomb threat" web site?
If the campaign is over, why do the candidates always say they have "suspended" it? Saw the same thing when Pawlenty, Bachmann, and the Godfather's Pizza Guy dropped out. The campaigns aren't coming back, so why are they saying they are only "suspended"?
Not only does roman_mir not have a clue of what he is talking about, he doesn't believe in it anyways. He's just here to get a rouse out of slashdot readers when he takes all of the bullshit that comes out of the cult of ron paul, rolls it into one undigestable pile of crap, and serves it up piping hot. It's not worth while to point out how what he says cannot possibly work, because he's not here for a discussion.
Nothing so see here, move one. This is on every media outlet.
Just drudge-dot pandering to their conservative base. In other words, it's Tuesday.
The cost difference between a regular gas sedan and a hybrid of the same size is generally not offset by the savings in fuel costs for driving it. Why do it again if it didn't work the first time?
Let's take a look at some examples you just provided:
more invasion of privacy,
This makes no sense in relation to the article. The summary plainly states that the Navy is purchasing used consoles and hacking in to them. These are being sold on the very same free market that you claim to love so much.
more unauthorised behaviour
The only one who doesn't authorize hacking in to game consoles that are freely purchased and outright owned are the manufacturers of said consoles. However you repeatedly post that you want to see the end of all patents and copyrights, so you should not be defending companies that want to dictate how end users use their products, either.
more deficit and debt
That is a straw man argument, at best. At this point government deficit and debt are like global entropy - they can only increase.
more government jobs
No reasonable person would ever argue for more unemployment. Of course, you are known to not be the least bit reasonable.
Less real economic activity,
How is the government purchasing items and putting people to work less economic activity? Oh, yes, it isn't.
less freedoms
Nonsense. By your argument if the US Army sourced a new scope for a rifle, other than the one that it was initially purchased with, that would also be "less freedoms".
What's funny is people on this site saying that people consume too many resources, so there needs to be birth control done by government.
That would be an interesting argument, if the post you linked to actually made that argument. Too bad it made no such argument in any way, shape or form. Did you mean to link to a different post?
They want government to control every aspect of human life
Can you show an example of someone on slashdot saying such a thing? Yeah, I didn't think so.
The REAL drain on the system is GOVERNMENT.
You can say what you want about the government, but you certainly haven't demonstrated that claim. If anything, you have supported the ever-increasingly-hypothesis that you are indeed just a slightly-more-refined-than-average troll.
They've only gotten worse. A professor in UC Berkeley today is making less than he/she was ten years ago. Most other state schools are not far from that.
Comparing salaries for academics across time is not as straightforward as one may hope. Schools seldom just say "we pay junior faculty X and senior faculty Y" because in reality it is usually more like "compensation for junior ranges from A - D and for senior from F - J", but that isn't the full story either. Faculty also negotiate for lab space and resources, they negotiate for how much of their salary needs to come through grant money, and how much they are compensated for various other expenses. Hence a school might be paying a faculty person less out of their own budget but that person is actually making more because of where the salary comes from.
Getting grants has also become harder, ever since republicans took control of Congress.
Absolutely true. The NIH, NSF, and DOE haven't had better-than-inflation (or in the NIH, even inflation-matching) increases in their overall budgets in many years. However some of them - at least the NIH - make inflationary adjustments to what they pay out, resulting in less money being available from them for new grants each successive year.
I also think it will a good programming adventure
Indicates that at least you have some sense of what it will take to do this and what the end result may (or may not) end up like. Too many people would go into a project like this with the idea of saving money (doesn't work) or making something that is better than mass market version s and usable by others in the household (no real chance of that).
But if you're looking for an adventure, this may be a good choice for you.
The source you linked to, while having some valid points, is from 1999. Many things (particularly salaries) have changed quite a bit since then.
That said, thanks to the repeated crappy economic decisions this country has been making for decades, many of the criticisms in that source are still very valid. I certainly wouldn't take it as gospel at this point, though.
This is advice for science in general, but especially for the notion of "rampant fraud". Many of the people who make that allegation are not themselves involved in science. The vast majority of people working in science are in it because they love it, and they work within established ethical standards. However, like any industry, science does have some bad apples that rise from time to time for varied reasons.
As for tenure, if you're only finishing your undergrad now you have a long time before you will be worrying about such a thing. Some schools are doing away with it altogether. Be more concerned about staying on top of the field you want to go in to. Even more so, know what the funding situation is for that kind of work, and how to get yourself in on the funds available.
So unless you're allowing usernames such as "root" or "admin" or "administrator" AND using dictionary passwords wouldn't this fail? And be obvious in the logs?
Yes, it would be obvious in the logs. However, most of the common hacks are now scripted and distributed. They'll use a dictionary attack that is spread over some number (dozens or more) of distinct botnet systems, making it very inconvenient for you the admin to try to block all those addresses.
Although of course as you point out, it should fail if they are going for root or equivalent. That said from my experience the botnets usually seem to do a white pages type list of common usernames and then try either blank or extremely common user names to try to get in by. So you may also want to ensure that if you have users who use very common (English) first names as their login names, they are using strong passwords.
Thankfully, ssh generally returns the same password prompt for a valid username as it does for a nonexistent one, and the same wrong password response regardless of whether or not the username exists, so at least your system won't be giving them useful information on which usernames are worth trying again with other passwords.
Most of the bruteforce attacks I see on my home server are trying to get in as root. I don't allow remote root logins anyways (and even say so on the ssh greeting) so they'll never get in, even if they do manage to guess the password.
Hence their most optimal rate for my system would be never, because they won't get in that way. Not that my system is impenetrable - I'm sure an intelligent hacker could compromise it - but they will never get in trying to ssh in as root.
If they're doing white pages username + dictionary password - or white pages username + blank password (I've seen both, from botnet attacks), they still won't get in on my system as none of the common user names are used there.
I have entire pages of comments (in fact if you just look at my comments right now, it's filled with that stuff), with comments that had been moderated up and down a few times, +5 to -1 to +5 to -1 or 0. All that while there are many replies to them, so clearly, these comments generate 'interest', whatever it is.
Moderation exists so that comments are properly tagged and scored based on their characteristics. If your comments end up scored (-1, flamebait), its because people felt your comment was flamebait. Likewise if it scored (+5, insightful). There are plenty of flamebait / troll comments that get lots of replies; the presence of replies does not indicate a good comment any more than the absence of the same indicates a bad comment.
Does it make sense to have wild swings in comment moderation in that case, doesn't it mean that in reality those comments are at least 'interesting' enough to a large number of people?
Quite a few people read slashdot discussions with very low thresholds for score, and will see comments that are moderated down. People who moderate and read the instructions know that they should
It looks to me, the real problem with /. is a weird moderation scheme that encourages people to moderate not based on merit of the comment, but instead based on their own biases and it's used to silence opinions.
More often than not, flamebait and troll are applied fairly accurately. The down mod that gets abused the most by far is overrated.