It's a lost cause. Our school sends home permission slips to allow the teachers to post pictures and videos of our kids on the school website at least once a year, sometimes more. I always say 'no' and my wife respects this, but she gets annoyed with me. She thinks I'm paranoid, and I told her I'm not paranoid, I'm just trying to make a point to the school, and in a way that's fairly painless for us.
Then one day she signed a permission for a video to be posted without consulting me. I was a bit upset, and she started saying that "it was password protected with a different password for each class." I got her to login to see our classes videos and pictures, and I could see at the top that once you were past the login page, it didn't seem like there was any session or anything. I showed her how I could take the URL for that picture and post it into another browser and it let me in without asking for a password. She still didn't quite get it or believe me. The URL was in the form of a GET request, with a picture ID number in the URL. I just started modifying the URL and typing in other numbers. Not every one was a hit, but I started bringing up pictures of kids in other classes. I said, "how can I see these if you've only entered the password for our daughter's class?" That finally seemed to prove my point, that the school (and whoever their web portal supplier was) just wasn't competent at making this secure, if I could get past their security in a few minutes. Unfortunately I can't really report that to the school or anything because I would just end up with police at my door.
Natalie Portman is an award winning actor and quite good in other movies. Hayden Christensen might be terrible, but you can't come to that conclusion solely on his performance in episodes 2 and 3 because clearly even a really good actor couldn't act well in that situation. The blame has to fall on Lucas. He thought he was inventing a new form of film-making where he could fix everything in post production so he didn't push for good performances. He was wrong.
If it goes to trial, one of the things the defense will care about is whether or not the people who reported it knew each other ahead of time. That's something could be verified with witnesses.
This is exactly my thought. Either they have strain gauges in the landing gear to measure the weight directly, or they're calculating it from some indirect source like passenger load. Either way the value was already in a computer before that person messed it up.
The scariest thing about living in a "democracy" (Republic) now is that the *majority* really don't care about their rights, as long as they can watch their reality TV and they have someone to publicly shame on Facebook/Twitter.
I'm hardly trying to change Linus (as I said, I don't think he did anything wrong), but the GP seems to think this is about the right to call someone names when they make a mistake (something Linus specifically did *not* do).
...also, I'm not saying that Linus was out of line here. He didn't specifically attack the programmer, just the code, which is great. The fact that he used a few swear words is not a big deal. It was fucking terrible code.
I don't see why being professional is so complicated: "This code is terrible, and here's proof - if you wrote it this way it would be much more understandable. It's not OK to submit code like this." That's acceptable, but "you're a fucking moron and my gramma is smarter than you" is not OK (for several reasons). Why is that so hard to understand?
You speak the truth, and yet I've worked with a lot of maintenance people and electricians who just don't lockout/tagout. They all think they're immune, I guess. Most electricians are used to working on live equipment.
Not exactly true. If you have a lot of people in their 20's, even at one child each, they'll be able to give birth faster than people dying, especially if you improve the health care (increasing life span) at the same time.
Yes it can be annoying to have to deal with their constant tech troubles, but you probably owe them (I have 3 young kids, and they definitely owe me big time). Let's face it, while people are still very active in their late 60's, you should enjoy it while it lasts because most people will really start to slow down in their early to mid 70's. As people age they become much more susceptible to scams (as you've noticed), so the only person you can really trust is you (or your siblings). I think that in 5 or 10 years you might have wished you could have spent more time with them.
If you have local access to the PC you could just use a sledgehammer. The old 120V into the network port almost always fries the NIC as well. The fact that someone with physical access can damage your PC shouldn't be a big surprise.
My understanding is that communes like this work as long as it's small enough that everyone knows everybody else. It has to be less than approximately 150 people max. This means it works but it limits the size of the society you can have under this system. A system which can organize a larger number of people to work together will ultimately have an advantage of strength, and that's what you have a market economy for.
First of all, Star Trek did a horrible job of explaining how this society worked, other than Picard's brief explanation in First Contact that people now sought to improve themselves. Not only was it glossed over like this, but there are lots of references to Credits and other forms of money. So trying to figure out how the economy of Star Trek worked is just an exercise in imagination. Admittedly that can be fun, but there's no real canonical answer.
Secondly, the economic system rests upon a much more fundamental difference. Roddenberry believed that in the future, if humanity wanted to go to the stars, they would have to put aside their "petty differences" and work together. Roddenberry worked very hard through all the shows to depict a future in which humans didn't fight with each other, often having arguments with writers like Ronald D. Moore who complained about how hard it was to create drama if people didn't do petty, mean, evil things to each other. Roddenberry insisted. This, by the way, is the main difference between the "new" films and the old ones. In the new Star Trek reboot, young Kirk finds himself in a bar fight a few minutes into the movie. Roddenberry never would have allowed such a depiction of humans behaving like this to each other (Picard, after all, did get mortally injured in a bar fight while he was a cadet, but it was with a Nossican (sp?)).
Roddenberry said that the humans depicted in Star Trek were just fundamentally different than ourselves. They're better than us. Of course a cashless society doesn't make any sense for us as we are right now. However, if you're already willing to imagine a new kind of person that can set aside petty differences and work together, then you've already imagined a person or society that's motivated by self-actualization rather than simple material wants.
On top of that, there are clearly still some limits on resources, energy, raw materials, etc. Nobody's running around in their own Galaxy Class starship. People "steal" shuttlecraft and runabouts... which doesn't make sense if you can have anything you want. It's a lot more likely that everyone has some kind of fixed ration of replicator time/energy, which is way more than enough to support their basic necessities and typical interests, and it's likely that people get together to do grander things, like pooling their resources together to tackle bigger projects, both for interest's sake and because they believe it's the right thing to do. That's probably the best that a post-scarcity society could really achieve, realistically.
That's not my experience of how men communicate in a professional way. Men *are* willing to say, "this is broken" with the implication being "you broke it." The other man will typically respond, "yes it is." The first says, "you need to redo this with x, y, and z." The second agrees. In my experience this is *not* how women communicate because there's a lot of worry about feelings, but in a case like this, men seem to be able to not worry so much about the emotional part and just focus on the facts at hand. I think this is where men and women's communication style clashes (in the case of taking something personally when it's clearly a matter of describing facts - and note that I'm generalizing too, as I was certainly a lot more sensitive to the hurt feelings side when I was a younger guy.) If the two men know each other socially, then perhaps there's a bit of "good natured ribbing" but that's not supposed to be present among colleagues who only work together. Any place where someone says, "you're being a fuckwad" is completely unprofessional and that's not acceptable behavior unless these are "buddies." There's never a need for an ad hominem attack. If the code sucks, say it's not acceptable, and say what you think should be done to correct it. Both men and women need to be willing to accept constructive criticism based on facts at hand. There's no need to call people names.
Honestly I find most paleontologist evidence to be really weak. I understand that they have very little to work with, but compared to other branches of science, they sure make very long jumps to conclusions. I suspect a lot of it is the paleontologist (is that the wrong word?) saying something like "this could be a hint that..." and the reporter saying, "scientists discover..."
Many things we assume are obvious should still be verified by measurement. Common sense is often incorrect, and that's where interesting new information comes from. Plus, Moms are frequently wrong about, oh... a whole lot of what they told us growing up. Just like everyone else, they parrot the first thing someone told them that sounded like something they wanted to hear. I know we like to worship the cult of Mom in our society (and Moms certainly deserve our appreciation), but they're hardly infallible.
My old Sierra pickup used to have the ABS fault light come on after every emissions test (because it detected that the rear wheels were spinning and the front were stationary). You just had to drive it for a few minutes for the light to go back out. I'm assuming the same condition it was sensing could be used to change some engine parameters.
So, a whole bunch of people just graduated from school and realized the way we're currently doing software development is a lot of hard work, and all you need to do is automate it with magical fairies. As if no other generation of programmers before have come out of school with the same ideas. Further (relevant) reading.
I think this is true. A lot of conversations now seem to involve people telling me about their new app, or their new pulse rate measurement thing, or all the intricate details of their cell phone contract. Seriously... I don't care... tell me a funny or interesting story but if you spent 98% of your time staring at your phone, what are the chances you have anything interesting to share other than a clickbait article or a funny cat video?
When I wanted to lose weight, I reduced the number of calories I was consuming, and I lost weight! Weird, it must be that I changed my "energy balance". Except I didn't change *what* I ate, just how much. I'm not saying it's easy, but if you eat fewer calories than you burn, as a general rule, you'll lose weight.
Yeah, but half those infected machines/networks are probably critical infrastructure like dams and nuclear plants. You know, the kind of software from vendors that won't warranty it if you install antivirus... I'm looking at you Rockwell Automation.
Well, I'm in Canada and you absolutely cannot connect anything to the grid unless it's cUL or CSA certified. That's on the 220/110 side at least. If you go through a CSA certified power adapter and come out at 12VDC, they don't really care. I know from experience in the US that things are a lot different.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a lost cause. Our school sends home permission slips to allow the teachers to post pictures and videos of our kids on the school website at least once a year, sometimes more. I always say 'no' and my wife respects this, but she gets annoyed with me. She thinks I'm paranoid, and I told her I'm not paranoid, I'm just trying to make a point to the school, and in a way that's fairly painless for us.
Then one day she signed a permission for a video to be posted without consulting me. I was a bit upset, and she started saying that "it was password protected with a different password for each class." I got her to login to see our classes videos and pictures, and I could see at the top that once you were past the login page, it didn't seem like there was any session or anything. I showed her how I could take the URL for that picture and post it into another browser and it let me in without asking for a password. She still didn't quite get it or believe me. The URL was in the form of a GET request, with a picture ID number in the URL. I just started modifying the URL and typing in other numbers. Not every one was a hit, but I started bringing up pictures of kids in other classes. I said, "how can I see these if you've only entered the password for our daughter's class?" That finally seemed to prove my point, that the school (and whoever their web portal supplier was) just wasn't competent at making this secure, if I could get past their security in a few minutes. Unfortunately I can't really report that to the school or anything because I would just end up with police at my door.
Natalie Portman is an award winning actor and quite good in other movies. Hayden Christensen might be terrible, but you can't come to that conclusion solely on his performance in episodes 2 and 3 because clearly even a really good actor couldn't act well in that situation. The blame has to fall on Lucas. He thought he was inventing a new form of film-making where he could fix everything in post production so he didn't push for good performances. He was wrong.
If it goes to trial, one of the things the defense will care about is whether or not the people who reported it knew each other ahead of time. That's something could be verified with witnesses.
This is exactly my thought. Either they have strain gauges in the landing gear to measure the weight directly, or they're calculating it from some indirect source like passenger load. Either way the value was already in a computer before that person messed it up.
The scariest thing about living in a "democracy" (Republic) now is that the *majority* really don't care about their rights, as long as they can watch their reality TV and they have someone to publicly shame on Facebook/Twitter.
I'm hardly trying to change Linus (as I said, I don't think he did anything wrong), but the GP seems to think this is about the right to call someone names when they make a mistake (something Linus specifically did *not* do).
...also, I'm not saying that Linus was out of line here. He didn't specifically attack the programmer, just the code, which is great. The fact that he used a few swear words is not a big deal. It was fucking terrible code.
I don't see why being professional is so complicated: "This code is terrible, and here's proof - if you wrote it this way it would be much more understandable. It's not OK to submit code like this." That's acceptable, but "you're a fucking moron and my gramma is smarter than you" is not OK (for several reasons). Why is that so hard to understand?
You speak the truth, and yet I've worked with a lot of maintenance people and electricians who just don't lockout/tagout. They all think they're immune, I guess. Most electricians are used to working on live equipment.
Not exactly true. If you have a lot of people in their 20's, even at one child each, they'll be able to give birth faster than people dying, especially if you improve the health care (increasing life span) at the same time.
Yes it can be annoying to have to deal with their constant tech troubles, but you probably owe them (I have 3 young kids, and they definitely owe me big time). Let's face it, while people are still very active in their late 60's, you should enjoy it while it lasts because most people will really start to slow down in their early to mid 70's. As people age they become much more susceptible to scams (as you've noticed), so the only person you can really trust is you (or your siblings). I think that in 5 or 10 years you might have wished you could have spent more time with them.
If you have local access to the PC you could just use a sledgehammer. The old 120V into the network port almost always fries the NIC as well. The fact that someone with physical access can damage your PC shouldn't be a big surprise.
True. I guess the only thing that lives in a post-scarcity society is $DEITY.
My understanding is that communes like this work as long as it's small enough that everyone knows everybody else. It has to be less than approximately 150 people max. This means it works but it limits the size of the society you can have under this system. A system which can organize a larger number of people to work together will ultimately have an advantage of strength, and that's what you have a market economy for.
Hell, TOS episode Trouble with Tribbles, Scotty starts a bar fight.
I believe he started a bar fight with the Klingons. I agree that's not a great thing for him to do, but it hardly disproves what I was saying.
Wow, that article had almost zero content.
First of all, Star Trek did a horrible job of explaining how this society worked, other than Picard's brief explanation in First Contact that people now sought to improve themselves. Not only was it glossed over like this, but there are lots of references to Credits and other forms of money. So trying to figure out how the economy of Star Trek worked is just an exercise in imagination. Admittedly that can be fun, but there's no real canonical answer.
Secondly, the economic system rests upon a much more fundamental difference. Roddenberry believed that in the future, if humanity wanted to go to the stars, they would have to put aside their "petty differences" and work together. Roddenberry worked very hard through all the shows to depict a future in which humans didn't fight with each other, often having arguments with writers like Ronald D. Moore who complained about how hard it was to create drama if people didn't do petty, mean, evil things to each other. Roddenberry insisted. This, by the way, is the main difference between the "new" films and the old ones. In the new Star Trek reboot, young Kirk finds himself in a bar fight a few minutes into the movie. Roddenberry never would have allowed such a depiction of humans behaving like this to each other (Picard, after all, did get mortally injured in a bar fight while he was a cadet, but it was with a Nossican (sp?)).
Roddenberry said that the humans depicted in Star Trek were just fundamentally different than ourselves. They're better than us. Of course a cashless society doesn't make any sense for us as we are right now. However, if you're already willing to imagine a new kind of person that can set aside petty differences and work together, then you've already imagined a person or society that's motivated by self-actualization rather than simple material wants.
On top of that, there are clearly still some limits on resources, energy, raw materials, etc. Nobody's running around in their own Galaxy Class starship. People "steal" shuttlecraft and runabouts... which doesn't make sense if you can have anything you want. It's a lot more likely that everyone has some kind of fixed ration of replicator time/energy, which is way more than enough to support their basic necessities and typical interests, and it's likely that people get together to do grander things, like pooling their resources together to tackle bigger projects, both for interest's sake and because they believe it's the right thing to do. That's probably the best that a post-scarcity society could really achieve, realistically.
That's not my experience of how men communicate in a professional way. Men *are* willing to say, "this is broken" with the implication being "you broke it." The other man will typically respond, "yes it is." The first says, "you need to redo this with x, y, and z." The second agrees. In my experience this is *not* how women communicate because there's a lot of worry about feelings, but in a case like this, men seem to be able to not worry so much about the emotional part and just focus on the facts at hand. I think this is where men and women's communication style clashes (in the case of taking something personally when it's clearly a matter of describing facts - and note that I'm generalizing too, as I was certainly a lot more sensitive to the hurt feelings side when I was a younger guy.) If the two men know each other socially, then perhaps there's a bit of "good natured ribbing" but that's not supposed to be present among colleagues who only work together. Any place where someone says, "you're being a fuckwad" is completely unprofessional and that's not acceptable behavior unless these are "buddies." There's never a need for an ad hominem attack. If the code sucks, say it's not acceptable, and say what you think should be done to correct it. Both men and women need to be willing to accept constructive criticism based on facts at hand. There's no need to call people names.
Honestly I find most paleontologist evidence to be really weak. I understand that they have very little to work with, but compared to other branches of science, they sure make very long jumps to conclusions. I suspect a lot of it is the paleontologist (is that the wrong word?) saying something like "this could be a hint that..." and the reporter saying, "scientists discover..."
Many things we assume are obvious should still be verified by measurement. Common sense is often incorrect, and that's where interesting new information comes from. Plus, Moms are frequently wrong about, oh... a whole lot of what they told us growing up. Just like everyone else, they parrot the first thing someone told them that sounded like something they wanted to hear. I know we like to worship the cult of Mom in our society (and Moms certainly deserve our appreciation), but they're hardly infallible.
My old Sierra pickup used to have the ABS fault light come on after every emissions test (because it detected that the rear wheels were spinning and the front were stationary). You just had to drive it for a few minutes for the light to go back out. I'm assuming the same condition it was sensing could be used to change some engine parameters.
So, a whole bunch of people just graduated from school and realized the way we're currently doing software development is a lot of hard work, and all you need to do is automate it with magical fairies. As if no other generation of programmers before have come out of school with the same ideas. Further (relevant) reading.
I think this is true. A lot of conversations now seem to involve people telling me about their new app, or their new pulse rate measurement thing, or all the intricate details of their cell phone contract. Seriously... I don't care... tell me a funny or interesting story but if you spent 98% of your time staring at your phone, what are the chances you have anything interesting to share other than a clickbait article or a funny cat video?
When I wanted to lose weight, I reduced the number of calories I was consuming, and I lost weight! Weird, it must be that I changed my "energy balance". Except I didn't change *what* I ate, just how much. I'm not saying it's easy, but if you eat fewer calories than you burn, as a general rule, you'll lose weight.
Yeah, but half those infected machines/networks are probably critical infrastructure like dams and nuclear plants. You know, the kind of software from vendors that won't warranty it if you install antivirus... I'm looking at you Rockwell Automation.
Well, I'm in Canada and you absolutely cannot connect anything to the grid unless it's cUL or CSA certified. That's on the 220/110 side at least. If you go through a CSA certified power adapter and come out at 12VDC, they don't really care. I know from experience in the US that things are a lot different.