If I ever got a diagnosis of a condition that would bankrupt my family with treatments that didn't cure the underlying condition or only gave me a short period to live anyway....
I would personally resolve the situation with one leap off a tall bridge or a quick little.22 through the cranium when it was clear that I could no longer be productive.
Problem solved.
We don't live forever. And there really are worse things than death.
Yeah... and when they light that mother up, it will kill the vehicle.
Unfortunately, it's also going to send a mega-volt spike into any nearby conductors that will be powerful enough to disrupt communications and power delivery, plus fry hundreds of million or billions of dollars worth of electronics.
In other words, to save one target, the thing ends up doing a DOS on an entire city.
If it isn't that powerful, then it won't work on the target.
Sorry to shout in the title (not really) but isn't it just obvious that all commercial aircraft should be fitted with some way to take remote control?
All you need is a few cameras, some electronics, a computer, and a radio. It isn't rocket science.
As for small private boats and cars, this is a phenominally stupid idea. First, it won't work. Any asshat looking to use a boat to blow something up is going to get the cheapest one available... which means one built in the 1980's wwithout any electronic controls at all.
Or they will buy a new one and just retrofit the damn thing to work around a kill switch. Just slap an old V8 in there, or build their own electronic fuel injection control (almost trivially easy) and shield the hell out of it and the kill switch is dead itself.
For large commercial jets, making them remote-able isn't a problem, and the airlines would go along with it for just the liability protection alone. For personal vehicles, fuhgeddaboudit.
Almost anyone can be gotten for a felony on a daily basis for nearly any action or inaction.
We have IIRC over 40,000 Federal felony statutes, and hundreds of thousands of regulations. Combine that with prosecutors and cops who take an "expansive view" of the definitions of the words in the code and someone committed a felony last night in their sleep.
approach to fighting illegal porn. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Perverts can easily use it to harvest email addresses (X) Other legitimate Internet uses would be affected ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money (X) It is defenseless against brute force attacks (X) It will stop porn for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it ( ) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it (X) Requires too much cooperation from pornographers ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists (X) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for the web (X) Open proxies in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses (X) Asshats ( ) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( ) Huge existing software investment in HTTP (X) Use of protocols other than HTTP to distribute (X) P2P Applications ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email (X) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes (X) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( ) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers (X) Dishonesty on the part of pornographers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlook (X) Getting sued for damages due to false positives (X) Getting sued for damages due to false negatives
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation (X) Blacklists suck (X) Whitelists suck (X) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud (X) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Sending email should be free (X) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses (X) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email (X) I don't want ISPs reading my traffic (X) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. (X) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
It is NOT "their traffic" at all. This is bandwidth that's been SOLD to the customers. It's not like using, say, a school or corporate network where the owner who pays the cost can shape and set policies of use at will.
A paying customer has an absolute right to use what they paid for. Dropping packets, snooping on the flows, overselling their capacity, et cetera are all inexcusable.
Really, with Comcast and Time-Warner, all we need to look at is what these company's core business is. They are content providers whose business model is threatened by the Internet.
Really, they seem to be trying to recreate the "old days" of closed and propreitary services like Compuserve or AOL.
So, basically all we're doing is taking some mainframe tech and moving it to x86 servers. Add in some hardware-based virtualization (say, to run old code on different physical processor technology), mix it with virtualizing the rest of the hardware, and give it a proper hypervisor and you have....
A Z9 mainframe.
Maybe IBM should just make some nice REALLY low-end mainframe-type PC servers with a "clustering" port.
Mainframe tech is great, except it's just too damn expensive, especially when you're not doing enterprise-level data crunching.
Hansen seemst to be yearning for an oligarchy. If we listen to him, we'll be ruled by our "betters", nave no rights, nor any input on political affairs. Sure, let's just be good little peasant slaves.
There is a reason for the rule of law and Constitutional limits of power. It's actually pretty simple too - enough injustice causes things to melt down into civil wars and rebellions.
The best response to "You reject the idea that the intellectual elite, which I think is fairly represented here, should not run this country??" is much stronger:
"I absolutely reject that idea, because sooner or later the 'peasents' will rise up and fucking kill you. Are you that stupid? Did you flunk history class? This country is a democratic Republic, not a kingdom or an oligarchy like you desire it to be. You, sir, should be charged with treason for even bringing forth that idea."
Hansen's response sounds like a true elitist who can't take any criticism whatsoever. He can't attack the message, so he attacks the messenger. In less polite company, the guy would be making an emergency dental visit.
It sure sounds like Beckerman and Hansen have different definitions of "rule of law". Beckerman seems to be in the camp of following the law as written within bounds of the Constitution. Hansen seems to be more for "rule of lawyer" where anything can be redefined to the point of eliminating the law entirely where it is inconvenient for his side, and strictly enforced on his "enemy" - and if the law doesn't exist, he'd have judges make it up.
Your analysis ignores the fact that storage has ALWAYS been measured in Base-10 nomenclature. Thus, the attack on the "greedy manufacturers" should fail simply because the units used are understood historically to mean 1k = 1000, 1M = 1,000,000, etc.
In other words, the entire argument is based on a fallacy that ignores history and customary use of the units.
Memory has been customarily measured in Base-2 (basically, KiB, MiB, GiB, etc). Although "common use" confuses the units, it does not change historical usage.
This is akin to a lawsuit over, say, gold sales. Gold is measured in "Troy Ounces" not "Avoirdupois" ounces like nearly everything else, and has been for centuries. They are not identical, but in common use gold is quoted per "ounce".
NATO? I'm talking about a reload. Just for kicks I took a 9mm reload, put it in a cup of water for 2 weeks, then took it out to the range. It went "bang".
I guess nobody there ever heard of using qmail? Implementing a full-blown SMTP, POP3, and IMAP server with full and complete archiving of every message is trivial with it. Hell, I can build a cluster with these tools in a day or so to cover even a pretty heavy load.
And... I will not allow any proprietary email systems into my organization in any way, shape, or form.
No, options do not suck. Nor do they necessarily make for more difficult coding and debugging if the programmers did their jobs properly. Keep things segregated so that options can't step on each other so much.
Don't mix core functionality code with interface stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
So, basically you advocate subsidizing stupidity and non-productive behavior?
So, we're all supposed to carry the "moochers" out of fear of rioting and crime?
Screw it. I'll just mooch.
Of course, I won't actually produce anything either. It's just too expensive.
If I ever got a diagnosis of a condition that would bankrupt my family with treatments that didn't cure the underlying condition or only gave me a short period to live anyway....
.22 through the cranium when it was clear that I could no longer be productive.
I would personally resolve the situation with one leap off a tall bridge or a quick little
Problem solved.
We don't live forever. And there really are worse things than death.
I can deal with that.
Ends with "shall not be infringed."
Yeah... and when they light that mother up, it will kill the vehicle.
Unfortunately, it's also going to send a mega-volt spike into any nearby conductors that will be powerful enough to disrupt communications and power delivery, plus fry hundreds of million or billions of dollars worth of electronics.
In other words, to save one target, the thing ends up doing a DOS on an entire city.
If it isn't that powerful, then it won't work on the target.
Sorry to shout in the title (not really) but isn't it just obvious that all commercial aircraft should be fitted with some way to take remote control?
All you need is a few cameras, some electronics, a computer, and a radio. It isn't rocket science.
As for small private boats and cars, this is a phenominally stupid idea. First, it won't work. Any asshat looking to use a boat to blow something up is going to get the cheapest one available... which means one built in the 1980's wwithout any electronic controls at all.
Or they will buy a new one and just retrofit the damn thing to work around a kill switch. Just slap an old V8 in there, or build their own electronic fuel injection control (almost trivially easy) and shield the hell out of it and the kill switch is dead itself.
For large commercial jets, making them remote-able isn't a problem, and the airlines would go along with it for just the liability protection alone. For personal vehicles, fuhgeddaboudit.
Why recuse himself? What does he have to lose?
He's the top judge in the circuit, and is unlikely to be overturned by the other judges THERE.
And SCOTUS won't take a trivial case like this. And Congress won't impeach.
He's safe.
Almost anyone can be gotten for a felony on a daily basis for nearly any action or inaction.
We have IIRC over 40,000 Federal felony statutes, and hundreds of thousands of regulations. Combine that with prosecutors and cops who take an "expansive view" of the definitions of the words in the code and someone committed a felony last night in their sleep.
Is there anyone on Slashdot who HASN'T seen Goatse multiple times?
Your post advocates a
(X) technical ( ) legislative (X) market-based (X) vigilante
approach to fighting illegal porn. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Perverts can easily use it to harvest email addresses
(X) Other legitimate Internet uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
(X) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
(X) It will stop porn for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
(X) Requires too much cooperation from pornographers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
(X) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for the web
(X) Open proxies in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(X) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in HTTP
(X) Use of protocols other than HTTP to distribute
(X) P2P Applications
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
(X) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
(X) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
(X) Dishonesty on the part of pornographers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
(X) Getting sued for damages due to false positives
(X) Getting sued for damages due to false negatives
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
(X) Blacklists suck
(X) Whitelists suck
(X) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
(X) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
(X) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
(X) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
(X) I don't want ISPs reading my traffic
(X) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
(X) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!
It is NOT "their traffic" at all. This is bandwidth that's been SOLD to the customers. It's not like using, say, a school or corporate network where the owner who pays the cost can shape and set policies of use at will.
A paying customer has an absolute right to use what they paid for. Dropping packets, snooping on the flows, overselling their capacity, et cetera are all inexcusable.
Really, with Comcast and Time-Warner, all we need to look at is what these company's core business is. They are content providers whose business model is threatened by the Internet.
Really, they seem to be trying to recreate the "old days" of closed and propreitary services like Compuserve or AOL.
Saddam. He did the same thing (argued with the judge, tried to walk out of court, etc.)
Too bad it's just disbarment at stake here.
Under no circumstances will I ever use hosted apps and data for any business purposes. Our data stays on our systems in our facility - period.
Looks like Bill G has run out of vision, and is now moving back to the good old mainframe days.
That's innovation?
700 threads in JAVA? Why not use C++, actually optimize the hell out of the code, and get it down considerably. Or get a lot more done per thread.
Or... is this just a way to avoid having to get the really good coders who are more costly than the burn-bags?
So, basically all we're doing is taking some mainframe tech and moving it to x86 servers. Add in some hardware-based virtualization (say, to run old code on different physical processor technology), mix it with virtualizing the rest of the hardware, and give it a proper hypervisor and you have....
A Z9 mainframe.
Maybe IBM should just make some nice REALLY low-end mainframe-type PC servers with a "clustering" port.
Mainframe tech is great, except it's just too damn expensive, especially when you're not doing enterprise-level data crunching.
If you are in an at-will employment, why bother to give notice? Management doesn't have to do so, so why not reciprocate their rules?
The longest notice I ever gave was about 1 hour.
NDA's are only scary if they become overly broad in scope, and can apply to other activities that don't compromise the "data" disclosed.
Build a good load balanced web cluster some time. It's easy to saturate a GbE connection to the back-end storage boxes.
Memory bandwidth is not problem right now. I/O is too slow. We need faster disks and LANs first.
Hansen seemst to be yearning for an oligarchy. If we listen to him, we'll be ruled by our "betters", nave no rights, nor any input on political affairs. Sure, let's just be good little peasant slaves.
There is a reason for the rule of law and Constitutional limits of power. It's actually pretty simple too - enough injustice causes things to melt down into civil wars and rebellions.
The best response to "You reject the idea that the intellectual elite, which I think is fairly represented here, should not run this country??" is much stronger:
"I absolutely reject that idea, because sooner or later the 'peasents' will rise up and fucking kill you. Are you that stupid? Did you flunk history class? This country is a democratic Republic, not a kingdom or an oligarchy like you desire it to be. You, sir, should be charged with treason for even bringing forth that idea."
Hansen's response sounds like a true elitist who can't take any criticism whatsoever. He can't attack the message, so he attacks the messenger. In less polite company, the guy would be making an emergency dental visit.
It sure sounds like Beckerman and Hansen have different definitions of "rule of law". Beckerman seems to be in the camp of following the law as written within bounds of the Constitution. Hansen seems to be more for "rule of lawyer" where anything can be redefined to the point of eliminating the law entirely where it is inconvenient for his side, and strictly enforced on his "enemy" - and if the law doesn't exist, he'd have judges make it up.
In other words, he sounds like an asshat.
Your analysis ignores the fact that storage has ALWAYS been measured in Base-10 nomenclature. Thus, the attack on the "greedy manufacturers" should fail simply because the units used are understood historically to mean 1k = 1000, 1M = 1,000,000, etc.
In other words, the entire argument is based on a fallacy that ignores history and customary use of the units.
Memory has been customarily measured in Base-2 (basically, KiB, MiB, GiB, etc). Although "common use" confuses the units, it does not change historical usage.
This is akin to a lawsuit over, say, gold sales. Gold is measured in "Troy Ounces" not "Avoirdupois" ounces like nearly everything else, and has been for centuries. They are not identical, but in common use gold is quoted per "ounce".
NATO? I'm talking about a reload. Just for kicks I took a 9mm reload, put it in a cup of water for 2 weeks, then took it out to the range. It went "bang".
Centerfire ammo is waterproof.
I guess nobody there ever heard of using qmail? Implementing a full-blown SMTP, POP3, and IMAP server with full and complete archiving of every message is trivial with it. Hell, I can build a cluster with these tools in a day or so to cover even a pretty heavy load.
And... I will not allow any proprietary email systems into my organization in any way, shape, or form.
No, options do not suck. Nor do they necessarily make for more difficult coding and debugging if the programmers did their jobs properly. Keep things segregated so that options can't step on each other so much.
Don't mix core functionality code with interface stuff.