State Sponsor of Terrorism: Iran (also Syria) Genocidal Regime: Iraq, N. Korea (primarily against its own starving people) Rogue nation pursuing WMD: Iran, N. Korea, (also Syria)
You brought up a good point. Like you, I don't think the list should be only 3 countries long... there are plenty more I would add... but all in good time; we'll deal with the worst first.
So Iraq is in one of those categories. The category which just so happens to be the one that if you pick a country at random you probably have a good chance of picking a country in that category. A large number of which do so much better than Iraq could dream of.
Yet, Iraq is the country you invade?
That's dealing with the worst first?
Also you can't define "rogue nation" by giving a list of examples. Define it. What properties must a country have in order to be a "rogue nation"?
This may come as a surprise to you, but nothing would please most americans more than to simply be left alone. We didn't ask for this fight... but the Al-Queda have been targeting americans for over ten years, and it's time to deal with them, and the environment that's spawned them (radical islam and state terrorist sponsors).
Note, Iraq wasn't a hotbed of radical islam, and wasn't in your list of state terrorist sponsors (of course after America fucked with it, it is going to be a radical islamic state in the next decade or so...)
Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, seems to be a perfect match for your "environment".
Unless you have a really slow network you'll find the bottleneck is the with the disk, so time wise it won't help. Though of course not having to work out which chunks to put where is nice...
NSW has numerous police state laws on the books - and they are recent laws not ancient forgotten laws.
Youths can be held without charge for 24 hours. Police can search for knives and drugs without "probable cause". There are even a class of drug offences in which the presumption of innocence do not apply.
If you don't look Aboriginal and aren't under 25 and hanging out in a group you won't experience the sharp end of these laws. If you are then welcome to the police state.
Given the assumption that video games makes one violent, what games did Adolph Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Attilla the Hun and Jack the Ripper play when they were younger>
Given the assumption that flying planes into towers kills people, what planes were flown into which towers in Cambodia.
How the USA's whacko political governmental system works has little bearing on how Australia's system works.
Though since the Reps here is, by definition, controlled by the Government they are a little like talking to a brick wall, unless you happen to live in a marginal seat.
The Senate on the other hand has no single majority party/coalition at the moment, so campaigning to the significantly more than two senators in your state is reasonable - particularly the non-Coalition ones. Of course half of them aren't up for election and hence will probably also do a good impersonation of a brick wall.
Their front page says 2 days, well 1 day 11 hours now.
It's not the first time I've seen them almost completely sold out, in fact I don't think I've ever seen them not have something sold out.
Doesn't seem to have done them any harm. They are well known in the web hosting world (a large number of those $5/month web hosting places will use their machines) and have been in the market for a long time.
Except when you have a new data center about to open (you know in two days).
In which case you supply is about to significantly increase. Yes it would have been good to have the new supply a little earlier, but no one can plan perfectly. You get the bonus of pent up demand when you do supply the new machines.
See the Playstation 2 for an example...
And it is the equivalent of the cable company saying, Im sorry we haven't laid cable to your street yet, but the street will be cabled in two days time.
Machines are easy to get quickly. Space to put them is not.
You have to put the servers somewhere. You don't just dump them in a warehouse and have them magically find their own power sources and network connections.
That data center they are opening in less then two days wouldn't happen to be a place where such servers can be put, you think?
Maybe where you live data centers can also be created from thin air in under 2 weeks, but they happen not to be located in that wonderful place.
Having almost every machine you own being rented out and hence bringing in money every month is bad?
Having a new data center about to open in two days with (I assume) a large number of machines in it when you have almost all your current machines rented out it bad?
It's better to run a business so that you have a bunch of sunk capital (or rental costs if they in turn lease) not generating revenue?
Oh sorry, of course it's far better to expand far beyond your means and have tens of millions of dollars in capital not generating any revenue. It's the "dot com" way...
Good business plans and business sense (like say building some pent up demand when you are about to increase supply) are for dummies.
Buying SCO licenses, is good evidence of a lack of sense, though of course buying them in order to get some benefit from say Microsoft (cheaper licenses?) would be good business sense combined with a lack of ethics. But you weren't talking about that...
Have you not heard of sarcasm? What about analogy?
How could anyone possibly not see the dripping sarcasm that I was using to make the point? Oh well, lets spell it out for those who have less grasp of English than most Chinese five year olds.
The prosecutors claim he made a million dollars. But why would anyone believe them, there's obvious precedents for such figures being made up - Mitnick's case was the example I used. For all we know the prosecutors found the highest "click through" rate on the internet and multiplied it by nine times the traffic Disney's site sees (since people probably type the name wrong nine times out of ten) and fudged it some more until they got a nice round million dollars. If he made a million dollars, do you think he would have got convicted - or would he be out of the country, or be able to buy his way out via the legal system...
Damn, I used a little sarcasm in that too...
And it's much longer and says nothing more than the original "And Mitnick did $300 million worth of damage." Since *everyone* knows that figure was inflated so the analogy should be *obvious* to anyone with two brain cells to rub together.
But I forgot for a moment that this is slashdot, and two brain cells would be a few standard deviations above the norm.
And before you get annoyed - your user ID is almost 50 times mine, so comments about slashdot users apply to me more than they do to you (unless you have other accounts of course), and hence the above is known as self-deprecation. People who don't know what sarcasm and analogy are probably haven't heard of it either, which means I have to ruin the brevity and accuracy available with such language elements and spell everything out with useless paragraphs like this.
See, this entire post says nothing (of relevance) above that said in my original post. Thanks for making is necessry to spell everything out, after all letting people think a little is such a bad thing. Thanks for saving all those people the trouble of engaging their brain and spoon feeding them.
And I've just thought:
What the hell did you think I was trying to say in my original post?
It was a reply, remember, and I quoted the sentence I was replying to.
It's pretty obvious I must have been saying something about the million dollars he apparently made.
Why would I bring up Mitnick for any reason other than to draw an analogy? Do you think I just mention his name in all my sentences or something?
Maybe I mentioned him to make people think about his situation.
Do you know a single person who doesn't think that the damage estimates were exagerated in Mitnick's case (ignoring the prosecutors and such who would at least claim they did)?
Please explain to me what interpretation you made of me relating the million dollars the prosecutors claimed this guy made, and the 300 million the prosecutors claimed Mitnick did in damage. I can't for the life of me see anything but "Mitnick's damages were exagerated, might it not be possible this guys profits were too?".
After all I still don't understand how directing kiddies without credit cards (and even if they take mummy's selling them porn is a good way to go straight to jail without passing go and without collecting $200) to porn sites could be profitable...
I anxiously await your reply,
Sam.
* The bold is just a joke from a previous "discussion" I had in this place, pretend it isn't there...
Fyodor is pulling a publicity stunt. He doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. And if SCO desired, they could rightfully sue him for breach of contract.
Except that there is no contract, since as you said nothing has been signed, and no verbal agreement has been reached.
Of course SCO can just keep on distributing. Fyodor can try suing them but that would cost money and give SCO, who everyone knows doesn't let the facts get in the way of a lawsuit, a free hit in the form of a counter suit. SCO would win anyway, since they are in compliance with the GPL with respect to nmap (I assume anyway, I haven't checked) as you stated.
Oh well, everyone else understands how English is used in the real world, and that "vulnerable" in that context doesn't mean "there is a bug which is exploitable" but "there is an exploit in the wild".
You might like living in your world of literal interpretation, most of the rest of us are happy with a language where context matters.
Now if that misquote was presented as a quote and not a paraphrase then the author is either a liar, hard of hearing, has trouble reading, or needs to be more careful when using those quote marks. But, for almost everyone the misquote has the same meaning anyway.
And in my case I was looking at the files one by one in a text editor and moving them with a command. My mistakes were not key press errors or interface errors, they were due to the fact that it is a mind numbingly tedious task and your brain switches off and tells you that the newsletter is spam even though you know it isn't.
The idea is to get Fred to classify some email into spam and non-spam. Get Fred to double and triple check. Have someone else look over it and point out any potential problems. Repeat a few more times.
We now have a set of spams and hams correctly classified by Fred according to Fred's definition of spam.
Now give the same set of email to Fred after some time has passed (but not enough time for Fred's definition of spam to have changed) and get him to classify it into spam and non-spam again.
Fred will most likely make some mistakes when doing this and hence will have a non-zero error rate.
The spam filter's error rate will most likely also be non-zero but less than Fred's.
It's got nothing to do with two people disagreeing on what is and what isn't spam. It's got to do with people making mistakes. That Bob would classify some of the email differently is irrelevant.
I've hand classified email before, and I made mistakes. My definition of spam didn't change between making the mistake and noticing it, I simply put a few emails in the wrong category.
They are learning algorithms. For measuring their accuracy you have to assume that the data is correctly classified so you can see how they do.
The point is that humans also aren't perfect. Have a person classify 10000 emails and they will make a few mistakes. Point out those mistakes, and they will say "yes, I got that wrong it is an email from my wife reminding me to pick up milk and not a spam trying to sell me printer ink, I must have been day dreaming."
Just like if you give a person a document and say "find all the spelling errors" they will probably miss some. This is not because they have a different definition of how those words are spelt, it is because they made some mistakes.
For the training/testing data, some double checking needs to be done to find the mistakes the human classifying it almost certainly made.
It's a pretty normal situation in any machine learning application, you don't have to be perfect to be as good as a human - after all humans are only human.
MUDs used plater created content just fine. Of course creating content wasn't usually done as part of the "game" but by hacking whatever language the MUD used for writing objects. Players who showed themselves to be contributing to the game would usually be given object authoring priviledges soon enough. Balance is achieved by other players with sch priviledges removing stuff that was unbalanced.
Player driven economies seem wonderful in theory. I love the idea, and that's what used in the perfect MMORPG that exists in my head as I guess it does for all those who have played MMORPGs and been disapointed. In practice it doesn't work because there simply aren't enough players online at any time to run a working economy, plus players don't like the money sinks that are needed (such as paying rent) if you break the economy by having unlimited money sources (such as monsters which drop gold when killed and when killed spawn again a short time later with more gold).
Such a player driven world would work well if you managed to get the right kind of players. However, intelligently enough most people/companies when creating as exepensive a game as a MMORPG want to attract the large bulk of players who just want to hack-n-slash.
MUDs were nice because they were reasonably low on resources (at first with few players) and easy to develop for with free (as in beer usually) engines easily downloadable. That let university students run them on university machines (and hence good connectivity) and other university students play them. I'm sure the university's didn't like it much, but that's how all the good MUDs I played started - created by people who wanted to play such a game and not by those who wanted to be paid by others who want to play such a game.
Machine's with good connectivity are cheapish now, and open source code is fashionable so maybe players will start writing MMORPGs. Of course creating the pretty graphics is harder than writing the networking code or the object scripting which I suspect is the current sticking point. Of course MUDs are still just as fun.
Companies like player created content because it is cheaper, they don't have to pay as many people to come up with new content if players are paying them for the priviledge.
Laureates in what, though? Is a Nobel prize winner for work in cosmology really worth listening on climatology? Does a prize for quantum physics give one the right to judge dangerous lead levels?
No, but such a prize probably means the scientist actually knows a bit about how to do science, and hence can judge whether censorship and political interference is going on at levels higher than "normal".
They may not know much about the science of lead levels, but they probably do know lots about the normal processes of science, and hence whether a committee is being stacked or a report censored.
Slashdot Mirror
State Sponsor of Terrorism: Iran (also Syria)
Genocidal Regime: Iraq, N. Korea (primarily against its own starving people)
Rogue nation pursuing WMD: Iran, N. Korea, (also Syria)
You brought up a good point. Like you, I don't think the list should be only 3 countries long... there are plenty more I would add... but all in good time; we'll deal with the worst first.
So Iraq is in one of those categories. The category which just so happens to be the one that if you pick a country at random you probably have a good chance of picking a country in that category. A large number of which do so much better than Iraq could dream of.
Yet, Iraq is the country you invade?
That's dealing with the worst first?
Also you can't define "rogue nation" by giving a list of examples. Define it. What properties must a country have in order to be a "rogue nation"?
This may come as a surprise to you, but nothing would please most americans more than to simply be left alone. We didn't ask for this fight... but the Al-Queda have been targeting americans for over ten years, and it's time to deal with them, and the environment that's spawned them (radical islam and state terrorist sponsors).
Note, Iraq wasn't a hotbed of radical islam, and wasn't in your list of state terrorist sponsors (of course after America fucked with it, it is going to be a radical islamic state in the next decade or so...)
Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, seems to be a perfect match for your "environment".
Unless you have a really slow network you'll find the bottleneck is the with the disk, so time wise it won't help. Though of course not having to work out which chunks to put where is nice...
Meanwhile the Perl and Python have gotten everything right the first time.
If you ignore all the things they didn't.
perl threads, for example.
NSW has numerous police state laws on the books - and they are recent laws not ancient forgotten laws.
Youths can be held without charge for 24 hours. Police can search for knives and drugs without "probable cause". There are even a class of drug offences in which the presumption of innocence do not apply.
If you don't look Aboriginal and aren't under 25 and hanging out in a group you won't experience the sharp end of these laws. If you are then welcome to the police state.
In Australia you aren't allowed to create an mp3 from a non-protected audio CD that you own. Or copy your CD to a tape for playing in the car.
Of course there are ipod ads on TV and mp3 players can be bought everywhere a portable CD player can.
Given the assumption that video games makes one violent, what games did Adolph Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Attilla the Hun and Jack the Ripper play when they were younger>
Given the assumption that flying planes into towers kills people, what planes were flown into which towers in Cambodia.
A implies B does not mean B implies A.
That the no-name store brand instant noodles are probably made in the same factory as the premium brand ones.
Theworld's entire supply of exclamation marks would get used up in the resultant ranting...
How the USA's whacko political governmental system works has little bearing on how Australia's system works.
Though since the Reps here is, by definition, controlled by the Government they are a little like talking to a brick wall, unless you happen to live in a marginal seat.
The Senate on the other hand has no single majority party/coalition at the moment, so campaigning to the significantly more than two senators in your state is reasonable - particularly the non-Coalition ones. Of course half of them aren't up for election and hence will probably also do a good impersonation of a brick wall.
In that it rapidly spreads destroying C completely?
Their front page says 2 days, well 1 day 11 hours now.
It's not the first time I've seen them almost completely sold out, in fact I don't think I've ever seen them not have something sold out.
Doesn't seem to have done them any harm. They are well known in the web hosting world (a large number of those $5/month web hosting places will use their machines) and have been in the market for a long time.
Except when you have a new data center about to open (you know in two days).
In which case you supply is about to significantly increase. Yes it would have been good to have the new supply a little earlier, but no one can plan perfectly. You get the bonus of pent up demand when you do supply the new machines.
See the Playstation 2 for an example...
And it is the equivalent of the cable company saying, Im sorry we haven't laid cable to your street yet, but the street will be cabled in two days time.
Machines are easy to get quickly. Space to put them is not.
You have to put the servers somewhere. You don't just dump them in a warehouse and have them magically find their own power sources and network connections.
That data center they are opening in less then two days wouldn't happen to be a place where such servers can be put, you think?
Maybe where you live data centers can also be created from thin air in under 2 weeks, but they happen not to be located in that wonderful place.
Having almost every machine you own being rented out and hence bringing in money every month is bad?
Having a new data center about to open in two days with (I assume) a large number of machines in it when you have almost all your current machines rented out it bad?
It's better to run a business so that you have a bunch of sunk capital (or rental costs if they in turn lease) not generating revenue?
Oh sorry, of course it's far better to expand far beyond your means and have tens of millions of dollars in capital not generating any revenue. It's the "dot com" way...
Good business plans and business sense (like say building some pent up demand when you are about to increase supply) are for dummies.
Buying SCO licenses, is good evidence of a lack of sense, though of course buying them in order to get some benefit from say Microsoft (cheaper licenses?) would be good business sense combined with a lack of ethics. But you weren't talking about that...
All emerging economies pirate everything external to them. See the USA for the obvious historical example.
It helps get them up to speed, allowing local industry to copy stuff from foreign sources and hence get production/distribution/etc working.
Granting protection to foreign IP comes later - and is forced when you want start making your own and want foreign protection of it.
Just like "minimum wage" laws, environmental regulations, etc., etc. These things come after when the local populace demands them.
Have you not heard of sarcasm? What about analogy?
How could anyone possibly not see the dripping sarcasm that I was using to make the point? Oh well, lets spell it out for those who have less grasp of English than most Chinese five year olds.
The prosecutors claim he made a million dollars. But why would anyone believe them, there's obvious precedents for such figures being made up - Mitnick's case was the example I used. For all we know the prosecutors found the highest "click through" rate on the internet and multiplied it by nine times the traffic Disney's site sees (since people probably type the name wrong nine times out of ten) and fudged it some more until they got a nice round million dollars. If he made a million dollars, do you think he would have got convicted - or would he be out of the country, or be able to buy his way out via the legal system...
Damn, I used a little sarcasm in that too...
And it's much longer and says nothing more than the original "And Mitnick did $300 million worth of damage." Since *everyone* knows that figure was inflated so the analogy should be *obvious* to anyone with two brain cells to rub together.
But I forgot for a moment that this is slashdot, and two brain cells would be a few standard deviations above the norm.
And before you get annoyed - your user ID is almost 50 times mine, so comments about slashdot users apply to me more than they do to you (unless you have other accounts of course), and hence the above is known as self-deprecation. People who don't know what sarcasm and analogy are probably haven't heard of it either, which means I have to ruin the brevity and accuracy available with such language elements and spell everything out with useless paragraphs like this.
See, this entire post says nothing (of relevance) above that said in my original post. Thanks for making is necessry to spell everything out, after all letting people think a little is such a bad thing. Thanks for saving all those people the trouble of engaging their brain and spoon feeding them.
And I've just thought:
What the hell did you think I was trying to say in my original post?
It was a reply, remember, and I quoted the sentence I was replying to.
It's pretty obvious I must have been saying something about the million dollars he apparently made.
Why would I bring up Mitnick for any reason other than to draw an analogy? Do you think I just mention his name in all my sentences or something?
Maybe I mentioned him to make people think about his situation.
Do you know a single person who doesn't think that the damage estimates were exagerated in Mitnick's case (ignoring the prosecutors and such who would at least claim they did)?
Please explain to me what interpretation you made of me relating the million dollars the prosecutors claimed this guy made, and the 300 million the prosecutors claimed Mitnick did in damage. I can't for the life of me see anything but "Mitnick's damages were exagerated, might it not be possible this guys profits were too?".
After all I still don't understand how directing kiddies without credit cards (and even if they take mummy's selling them porn is a good way to go straight to jail without passing go and without collecting $200) to porn sites could be profitable...
I anxiously await your reply,
Sam.
* The bold is just a joke from a previous "discussion" I had in this place, pretend it isn't there...
he made a million dollars apparently?
And Mitnick did $300 million worth of damage.
There are no goats, and those non-existant goats don't seem to be having sex.
For the goat-lovers amongst us the domain name probably caused them great mental anguish due to its misleading nature.
Fyodor is pulling a publicity stunt. He doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. And if SCO desired, they could rightfully sue him for breach of contract.
Except that there is no contract, since as you said nothing has been signed, and no verbal agreement has been reached.
Of course SCO can just keep on distributing. Fyodor can try suing them but that would cost money and give SCO, who everyone knows doesn't let the facts get in the way of a lawsuit, a free hit in the form of a counter suit. SCO would win anyway, since they are in compliance with the GPL with respect to nmap (I assume anyway, I haven't checked) as you stated.
Oh well, everyone else understands how English is used in the real world, and that "vulnerable" in that context doesn't mean "there is a bug which is exploitable" but "there is an exploit in the wild".
You might like living in your world of literal interpretation, most of the rest of us are happy with a language where context matters.
Now if that misquote was presented as a quote and not a paraphrase then the author is either a liar, hard of hearing, has trouble reading, or needs to be more careful when using those quote marks. But, for almost everyone the misquote has the same meaning anyway.
Yes, and people sometimes get that wrong too.
And in my case I was looking at the files one by one in a text editor and moving them with a command. My mistakes were not key press errors or interface errors, they were due to the fact that it is a mind numbingly tedious task and your brain switches off and tells you that the newsletter is spam even though you know it isn't.
That's irrelevant.
The idea is to get Fred to classify some email into spam and non-spam. Get Fred to double and triple check. Have someone else look over it and point out any potential problems. Repeat a few more times.
We now have a set of spams and hams correctly classified by Fred according to Fred's definition of spam.
Now give the same set of email to Fred after some time has passed (but not enough time for Fred's definition of spam to have changed) and get him to classify it into spam and non-spam again.
Fred will most likely make some mistakes when doing this and hence will have a non-zero error rate.
The spam filter's error rate will most likely also be non-zero but less than Fred's.
It's got nothing to do with two people disagreeing on what is and what isn't spam. It's got to do with people making mistakes. That Bob would classify some of the email differently is irrelevant.
I've hand classified email before, and I made mistakes. My definition of spam didn't change between making the mistake and noticing it, I simply put a few emails in the wrong category.
Not according to my dictionary which gives as one definition:
A past tense and a past participle of spell.
But my spelling and grammar is awful and always will be awful - it's a subconscious rebellion against my English teacher father...
They are learning algorithms. For measuring their accuracy you have to assume that the data is correctly classified so you can see how they do.
The point is that humans also aren't perfect. Have a person classify 10000 emails and they will make a few mistakes. Point out those mistakes, and they will say "yes, I got that wrong it is an email from my wife reminding me to pick up milk and not a spam trying to sell me printer ink, I must have been day dreaming."
Just like if you give a person a document and say "find all the spelling errors" they will probably miss some. This is not because they have a different definition of how those words are spelt, it is because they made some mistakes.
For the training/testing data, some double checking needs to be done to find the mistakes the human classifying it almost certainly made.
It's a pretty normal situation in any machine learning application, you don't have to be perfect to be as good as a human - after all humans are only human.
MUDs used plater created content just fine. Of course creating content wasn't usually done as part of the "game" but by hacking whatever language the MUD used for writing objects. Players who showed themselves to be contributing to the game would usually be given object authoring priviledges soon enough. Balance is achieved by other players with sch priviledges removing stuff that was unbalanced.
Player driven economies seem wonderful in theory. I love the idea, and that's what used in the perfect MMORPG that exists in my head as I guess it does for all those who have played MMORPGs and been disapointed. In practice it doesn't work because there simply aren't enough players online at any time to run a working economy, plus players don't like the money sinks that are needed (such as paying rent) if you break the economy by having unlimited money sources (such as monsters which drop gold when killed and when killed spawn again a short time later with more gold).
Such a player driven world would work well if you managed to get the right kind of players. However, intelligently enough most people/companies when creating as exepensive a game as a MMORPG want to attract the large bulk of players who just want to hack-n-slash.
MUDs were nice because they were reasonably low on resources (at first with few players) and easy to develop for with free (as in beer usually) engines easily downloadable. That let university students run them on university machines (and hence good connectivity) and other university students play them. I'm sure the university's didn't like it much, but that's how all the good MUDs I played started - created by people who wanted to play such a game and not by those who wanted to be paid by others who want to play such a game.
Machine's with good connectivity are cheapish now, and open source code is fashionable so maybe players will start writing MMORPGs. Of course creating the pretty graphics is harder than writing the networking code or the object scripting which I suspect is the current sticking point. Of course MUDs are still just as fun.
Companies like player created content because it is cheaper, they don't have to pay as many people to come up with new content if players are paying them for the priviledge.
Laureates in what, though? Is a Nobel prize winner for work in cosmology really worth listening on climatology? Does a prize for quantum physics give one the right to judge dangerous lead levels?
No, but such a prize probably means the scientist actually knows a bit about how to do science, and hence can judge whether censorship and political interference is going on at levels higher than "normal".
They may not know much about the science of lead levels, but they probably do know lots about the normal processes of science, and hence whether a committee is being stacked or a report censored.