No, this will not effect future participants willingness to say things.
It will certainly affect them though. Seriously, most of the time I don't give a shit about grammar or spelling, but when you substitute one word for another it makes your post hard to read. Please learn the difference between effect and affect. I know the verb form of the noun effect is affect and that makes it slightly more confusing, but effect is also a verb that means something different than affect. In the context of your sentence, by using "effect" you've actually said that this decision will encourage future participants to engage in speech, the exact opposite of what you meant.
I really hate grammar and spelling nazis. I rarely make those kinds of mistakes, and I normally get "affect" and "effect" right, because I know the difference is a big deal. Unfortunately your condescension and combative tone are extremely irritating, and now I feel like I should try to make the mistake more often just to annoy you personally.
If you want to change people's behavior, try a little humor and a bit of understanding that people make mistakes. It will go a lot farther than an obnoxious rant with a disclaimer at the end about not trying to be a 'dick'. Because guess what, you are.
First, the point is not that this will effect the participants ability to say whatever they said. The point is that it will effect future participants willingness to say things. It's about the chilling effect, not about the given participants first amendment rights exactly.
Secondly, I do have a privacy interest in my IP address. If I didn't, then why do services like Tor exist to hide it? If nobody cared about that, then nobody would use Tor, but many people clearly do. So people do have a privacy interest in their IP address. So the 4th amendment does apply.
I am not convinced that there is any amount of money that would solve the problem. And whether or not some solution exists is completely orthogonal to the question of whether or not libraries make good maker spaces anyway. The fact is, currently, libraries make a very poor place for learning.
The Twin Cities is very non-conducive to homelessness. The bitter winters set it up so that if you're homeless in Minneapolis you have to at least be able to follow the rules of living in a shelter or you die. I know. I've lived there. It is a very minor problem in Minneapolis' public libraries, but it is not that bad.
I live in Seattle now, and it's a much worse problem here, though it's still reasonable to go into a library if you adopt a certain set of behavioral strategies designed to deal with it. I haven't been into a library in San Francisco, but I bet I would not want to be in one no matter what behavioral strategies I adopted.
Well, I have not read the article, which is actually somewhat unusual for me. I was worried that the proposal was to turn maker spaces into public resources rather than leaving them as semi-private. In other words, I was worried that the idea was to do away with private ones, or make them into public ones.
That phenomenon is hardly the fault of either homeless or public libraries.
Indeed it is not. And that makes libraries an environment that is neither conducive to studying or to making things. Therefor I wish maker spaces to remain semi-private. I don't want to turn them into public resources like libraries are.
I agree completely with all the points you make. My point is this makes it so libraries cannot effectively serve the mission of educating people or providing a collaborative space for people to make stuff.
And that sort of environment is not conducive to creating things. While I think Make magazine has a point, I prefer that maker spaces stay semi-private so this does not happen to them. I also want to make sure that other government agencies don't feel that it's their right to start sending the overflow of what they have to deal with to the maker spaces I enjoy.
100% disagreement on this. Being a fan does not give you one ounce of rights towards the author (or any other artist). You pay and get the book; this is the complete transaction. Everything beyond this is voluntary service from the author. CU, Martin
I disagree with you. When an author creates a book, it's already done. Any sales of that book are a down payment on the author writing more. If I didn't care if the author wrote anymore, I'd not buy the book but get an electronic copy somewhere and read that.
Now, in some cases, this is a general "You do good stuff, please keep it up.", with no specific expectation. But sometimes there is an expectation associated with it, particularly in the case of a series.
But, I would rather wait for the book the author wants to write, rather than forcing h(im/er) to publish a book that isn't ready.
It isn't done. It's just 'done enough' that the publishers feels like they should roll out a date. The publisher has, at various times, rolled out dates in the past only to have them be missed. I will believe it when I see it.
Really. What branch of law enforcement? HB Geary Federal is a private company selling services and products (and no small amount of snake oil from what's being described).
One of their big customers appears to be the FBI. So, that's who I'm talking about. And yes, HB Geary is more than just a contractor for the FBI, but it seems that being a contractor for the FBI is a big part of their business.
As for being script kiddies - there's some individuals within that organization that have considerably higher abilities than script kiddies.
*nod* Yeah, characterizing them that way is not completely on the mark. It was evident from the article and some of their capabilities that there is indeed some real talent in the organization. But the organization itself appears to be run by incompetent good old boys who have no clue what they're doing or how to run an organization like that.
Having worked infosec within several government organizations myself, I share a general dim tone towards government capability. But one still has to maintain a realistic view - and a focused one at that.
*nod* This is true. I always assume that when government really wants to do something, there's an off chance somebody competent will be put in charge and you'll be dealing with someone who really knows what they're doing. While I don't think that chance is not high, I think it's certainly higher than, say, your 1024-bit RSA key being broken.
No, I get that point, but that's not what's going on here. Law enforcement is not only hampered by issues like this. They're totally incompetent in general. It's quite sad.
I want warrants and due process. Yes, Anonymous has the advantage of not having to bother with these things. And it is a large advantage. And even if law enforcement had the same advantage, I still think they'd fall all over themselves and be completely incompetent.
I mean, basically law enforcement already has that advantage. There are enough people that think like you in the field that I assume that they violate the constitution a a nearly continuous basis anyway. There certainly has been enough evidence this is the case that's come out over the years. But they are still complete failures.
No. This isn't about due process. Though, I'm all about warrants and restricting the power of law enforcement.
It just seems that when law enforcement really does have something to investigate, they don't, or they don't do a decent job. These HBGeary people were basically a branch of law enforcement. A particularly dirty branch even. But they are basically complete incompetents. They are little better than an organized band of script kiddies.
I wouldn't be surprised if they never came up with anything useful in any investigation, or anything useful they came up with would be so horribly tainted as to be easily refuted in court. They're idiots, and everything I've seen about how law enforcement operates makes me think they're SOP in the field.
It is really sad when we have vigilantes who are better and more capable than our own law enforcement at just about every aspect of what law enforcement is supposed to do.
#1- What the hell is a CPU leak?? There is no such thing.
A CPU leak is when some process consumes increasingly large amounts of CPU over time. There is some task that it performs that it begins performing more and more often, or some other thing changes to cause it to start using more CPU. I invented the term to describe the behavior. It's like a memory leak in that it consumes more and more resources over time, but it consumes CPU instead of memory. Most people seemed to have no difficulty in understanding what I was getting at, so I think I did well in coining the term.
#2- For what in the world are you leaving a browser open for weeks??
Why does it matter? I am. Why should I have to use my browser in a particular way in order for it to work?
Or, better yet, be like Google Chrome and start using a separate OS process for each website or thing you want to manage. I think that's the better solution. It requires a significant re-architecting of how the browser works though.
OSes also need to start having features to allow processes to run in an OS enforced sandbox.
Well, my session typically is very expensive to bring back up. I normally have about 40-50 tabs open. I feel bad for the websites I visit when I bring my browser back up because they get a mini-DOS from my computer suddenly requesting 10 or 15 pages at the same time from them.
And, you know, I like Firefox. That's why I'm using it. Getting all hostile at me over this is a little ridiculous. But, you know, I guess this is Slashdot.
I feel like the problem is too nebulous to file a bug about, and I haven't had the time or energy to pin it down. I've taken to doing a kill -STOP on the browser after iconifying all the windows until I'm ready to use it again. That seems to cause the problem to take longer to express itself.:-)
What I actually suspect it is is the badly written IM system of a particular website I visit. I wish they would throw up an XMPP server and have done with it.
My Firefox has a CPU leak. I have to kill it and start over every couple of weeks because the CPU usage slowly rises until it hits 100%. This, of course, may be an extension or plugin that's doing it.
I would like the various browsers to have some way of controlling the CPU usage of plugins and web pages running Javascript.
Most energy efficient technologies are actually an economic net win. After an initial push the government doesn't need to be involved. I see the government involvement in this sort of thing as more a swift kick to the economy to push it out of a local minima, and that's how it should stay.
The site claims that various providers offer speeds to my house that are about 3 times what they actually offer, and about 4-5 times what they actually deliver. If this site is based on voluntary reporting by carrier, they are lying. If it's based on anything else, I'd really like to know where all the bad data is coming from.
*rolls eyes* I don't whine about caps. And blocks require active effort to maintain, so I don't understand why they'd be cheaper. Yes, pay more money so you can actually use the Internet service you were sold...
I don't think my ISP even _has_ a business plan. And they certainly don't advertise a lack of caps or blocks as being a feature if they do.
Yes, and lose physical control over my stuff. No thank you. If someone is going to come for my servers, they're going to have to come to my house and have a real warrant.
I actually do check blocklists periodically because I use them myself and understand the danger. I don't think I've ever found myself listed in any of them.
That's another thing, my email is always just eaten. I always make sure that either delivery is refused when the email is being sent (in the case of a blocklist) or that it's delivered. I do not reject mail after I've accepted it for delivery to avoid being a source of backscatter spam. But I do use RBLs and other cheap-to-execute tools to reject mail before I accept it for delivery. I consider it to be the polite thing to do. If someone sends me an email that has no chance of ever reaching me, they should at least be told why.
Slashdot Mirror
No, this will not effect future participants willingness to say things.
It will certainly affect them though. Seriously, most of the time I don't give a shit about grammar or spelling, but when you substitute one word for another it makes your post hard to read. Please learn the difference between effect and affect. I know the verb form of the noun effect is affect and that makes it slightly more confusing, but effect is also a verb that means something different than affect. In the context of your sentence, by using "effect" you've actually said that this decision will encourage future participants to engage in speech, the exact opposite of what you meant.
I really hate grammar and spelling nazis. I rarely make those kinds of mistakes, and I normally get "affect" and "effect" right, because I know the difference is a big deal. Unfortunately your condescension and combative tone are extremely irritating, and now I feel like I should try to make the mistake more often just to annoy you personally.
If you want to change people's behavior, try a little humor and a bit of understanding that people make mistakes. It will go a lot farther than an obnoxious rant with a disclaimer at the end about not trying to be a 'dick'. Because guess what, you are.
First, the point is not that this will effect the participants ability to say whatever they said. The point is that it will effect future participants willingness to say things. It's about the chilling effect, not about the given participants first amendment rights exactly.
Secondly, I do have a privacy interest in my IP address. If I didn't, then why do services like Tor exist to hide it? If nobody cared about that, then nobody would use Tor, but many people clearly do. So people do have a privacy interest in their IP address. So the 4th amendment does apply.
I am not convinced that there is any amount of money that would solve the problem. And whether or not some solution exists is completely orthogonal to the question of whether or not libraries make good maker spaces anyway. The fact is, currently, libraries make a very poor place for learning.
The Twin Cities is very non-conducive to homelessness. The bitter winters set it up so that if you're homeless in Minneapolis you have to at least be able to follow the rules of living in a shelter or you die. I know. I've lived there. It is a very minor problem in Minneapolis' public libraries, but it is not that bad.
I live in Seattle now, and it's a much worse problem here, though it's still reasonable to go into a library if you adopt a certain set of behavioral strategies designed to deal with it. I haven't been into a library in San Francisco, but I bet I would not want to be in one no matter what behavioral strategies I adopted.
Well, I have not read the article, which is actually somewhat unusual for me. I was worried that the proposal was to turn maker spaces into public resources rather than leaving them as semi-private. In other words, I was worried that the idea was to do away with private ones, or make them into public ones.
Avoid the symptoms, ignore the disease?
And how is forcing myself to be around a bunch of people who are mostly mentally ill really helping anybody at all?
That phenomenon is hardly the fault of either homeless or public libraries.
Indeed it is not. And that makes libraries an environment that is neither conducive to studying or to making things. Therefor I wish maker spaces to remain semi-private. I don't want to turn them into public resources like libraries are.
I agree completely with all the points you make. My point is this makes it so libraries cannot effectively serve the mission of educating people or providing a collaborative space for people to make stuff.
And that sort of environment is not conducive to creating things. While I think Make magazine has a point, I prefer that maker spaces stay semi-private so this does not happen to them. I also want to make sure that other government agencies don't feel that it's their right to start sending the overflow of what they have to deal with to the maker spaces I enjoy.
100% disagreement on this. Being a fan does not give you one ounce of rights towards the author (or any other artist). You pay and get the book; this is the complete transaction. Everything beyond this is voluntary service from the author. CU, Martin
I disagree with you. When an author creates a book, it's already done. Any sales of that book are a down payment on the author writing more. If I didn't care if the author wrote anymore, I'd not buy the book but get an electronic copy somewhere and read that.
Now, in some cases, this is a general "You do good stuff, please keep it up.", with no specific expectation. But sometimes there is an expectation associated with it, particularly in the case of a series.
But, I would rather wait for the book the author wants to write, rather than forcing h(im/er) to publish a book that isn't ready.
It isn't done. It's just 'done enough' that the publishers feels like they should roll out a date. The publisher has, at various times, rolled out dates in the past only to have them be missed. I will believe it when I see it.
Really. What branch of law enforcement? HB Geary Federal is a private company selling services and products (and no small amount of snake oil from what's being described).
One of their big customers appears to be the FBI. So, that's who I'm talking about. And yes, HB Geary is more than just a contractor for the FBI, but it seems that being a contractor for the FBI is a big part of their business.
As for being script kiddies - there's some individuals within that organization that have considerably higher abilities than script kiddies.
*nod* Yeah, characterizing them that way is not completely on the mark. It was evident from the article and some of their capabilities that there is indeed some real talent in the organization. But the organization itself appears to be run by incompetent good old boys who have no clue what they're doing or how to run an organization like that.
Having worked infosec within several government organizations myself, I share a general dim tone towards government capability. But one still has to maintain a realistic view - and a focused one at that.
*nod* This is true. I always assume that when government really wants to do something, there's an off chance somebody competent will be put in charge and you'll be dealing with someone who really knows what they're doing. While I don't think that chance is not high, I think it's certainly higher than, say, your 1024-bit RSA key being broken.
No, I get that point, but that's not what's going on here. Law enforcement is not only hampered by issues like this. They're totally incompetent in general. It's quite sad.
I want warrants and due process. Yes, Anonymous has the advantage of not having to bother with these things. And it is a large advantage. And even if law enforcement had the same advantage, I still think they'd fall all over themselves and be completely incompetent.
I mean, basically law enforcement already has that advantage. There are enough people that think like you in the field that I assume that they violate the constitution a a nearly continuous basis anyway. There certainly has been enough evidence this is the case that's come out over the years. But they are still complete failures.
No. This isn't about due process. Though, I'm all about warrants and restricting the power of law enforcement.
It just seems that when law enforcement really does have something to investigate, they don't, or they don't do a decent job. These HBGeary people were basically a branch of law enforcement. A particularly dirty branch even. But they are basically complete incompetents. They are little better than an organized band of script kiddies.
I wouldn't be surprised if they never came up with anything useful in any investigation, or anything useful they came up with would be so horribly tainted as to be easily refuted in court. They're idiots, and everything I've seen about how law enforcement operates makes me think they're SOP in the field.
It is really sad when we have vigilantes who are better and more capable than our own law enforcement at just about every aspect of what law enforcement is supposed to do.
#1- What the hell is a CPU leak?? There is no such thing.
A CPU leak is when some process consumes increasingly large amounts of CPU over time. There is some task that it performs that it begins performing more and more often, or some other thing changes to cause it to start using more CPU. I invented the term to describe the behavior. It's like a memory leak in that it consumes more and more resources over time, but it consumes CPU instead of memory. Most people seemed to have no difficulty in understanding what I was getting at, so I think I did well in coining the term.
#2- For what in the world are you leaving a browser open for weeks??
Why does it matter? I am. Why should I have to use my browser in a particular way in order for it to work?
Or, better yet, be like Google Chrome and start using a separate OS process for each website or thing you want to manage. I think that's the better solution. It requires a significant re-architecting of how the browser works though.
OSes also need to start having features to allow processes to run in an OS enforced sandbox.
Well, my session typically is very expensive to bring back up. I normally have about 40-50 tabs open. I feel bad for the websites I visit when I bring my browser back up because they get a mini-DOS from my computer suddenly requesting 10 or 15 pages at the same time from them.
And, you know, I like Firefox. That's why I'm using it. Getting all hostile at me over this is a little ridiculous. But, you know, I guess this is Slashdot.
I feel like the problem is too nebulous to file a bug about, and I haven't had the time or energy to pin it down. I've taken to doing a kill -STOP on the browser after iconifying all the windows until I'm ready to use it again. That seems to cause the problem to take longer to express itself. :-)
What I actually suspect it is is the badly written IM system of a particular website I visit. I wish they would throw up an XMPP server and have done with it.
My Firefox has a CPU leak. I have to kill it and start over every couple of weeks because the CPU usage slowly rises until it hits 100%. This, of course, may be an extension or plugin that's doing it.
I would like the various browsers to have some way of controlling the CPU usage of plugins and web pages running Javascript.
Most energy efficient technologies are actually an economic net win. After an initial push the government doesn't need to be involved. I see the government involvement in this sort of thing as more a swift kick to the economy to push it out of a local minima, and that's how it should stay.
The site claims that various providers offer speeds to my house that are about 3 times what they actually offer, and about 4-5 times what they actually deliver. If this site is based on voluntary reporting by carrier, they are lying. If it's based on anything else, I'd really like to know where all the bad data is coming from.
*rolls eyes* I don't whine about caps. And blocks require active effort to maintain, so I don't understand why they'd be cheaper. Yes, pay more money so you can actually use the Internet service you were sold...
I don't think my ISP even _has_ a business plan. And they certainly don't advertise a lack of caps or blocks as being a feature if they do.
I've debated doing that. It makes it easier for a third party to collect my outbound email, but only slightly.
Yes, and lose physical control over my stuff. No thank you. If someone is going to come for my servers, they're going to have to come to my house and have a real warrant.
I actually do check blocklists periodically because I use them myself and understand the danger. I don't think I've ever found myself listed in any of them.
That's another thing, my email is always just eaten. I always make sure that either delivery is refused when the email is being sent (in the case of a blocklist) or that it's delivered. I do not reject mail after I've accepted it for delivery to avoid being a source of backscatter spam. But I do use RBLs and other cheap-to-execute tools to reject mail before I accept it for delivery. I consider it to be the polite thing to do. If someone sends me an email that has no chance of ever reaching me, they should at least be told why.