And if my house burns down with my key and my paper and I can no longer access a machine that, for whatever reason, is not consumed in the inferno?
Generally speaking the keys are designed to be connected to your machine and left there permanently. I have the Yubikey Nano, because my employer requires two factor authentication to Github, and I leave it in the machine. So if the key was destroyed in a fire, so was the machine I use to connect.
I used to carry the Yubikey on my key ring, but its own lanyard cut right through the metal loop on the back of it. Not well designed at all as a removable device.
You visit bbc.com. The great firewall inserts javascript to DoS attack another website.
You visit bbc.com. You read a simple article about foreign policy. In between you and the BBC, the text of the article has been replaced, changing your knowledge of facts, your opinion, and ultimately your vote.
You visit bbc.com. To preserve your privacy, you use a VPN or Tor. Your HTTP request has a BBC-UID cookie. Anyone snooping the connection can tell which link is yours as opposed to someone else's, and can track when you're there using the internet and which pages you go to.
You visit bbc.com. You're an activist in a country which would like to not have you around. Instead of receiving bbc.com, you receive child porn.
I would bet a pizza that Russian ISPs have done at least two of these things already, if not all of them. I would bet a second pizza that Russian ISPs did at least one of those things right now, as you're reading this. These are not theoretical attacks (except possibly the child porn dropper). They're actually happening in jurisdictions around the world. American companies created turn key equipment that can perform these attacks and sold them to anyone who could afford it.
The only people that can snoop his connection to the Internet are typically telecommunication companies putting court ordered intercepts in place.
Given how very very many Cisco back doors and exploits are currently known, nevermind how many more are still unknown, ANYONE can snoop his connection to the Internet. And already has.
It's still an utter mystery to me why this is even possible, given the draconian nature of copyright laws in the US. The webpage is copyrighted; the webpage with ads is therefore a modification of somebody else's copyrighted work.
Go ahead, try that with a work by (say) Disney, see how far you'll get. So why do ISPs regularly get away with it?
Because no web site owner has been willing to be the test case. I suspect Comcast is careful not to intrude their injections into web pages from companies with enough money to fund lawyers for a decade, especially not American companies that big. Little guys, they can fuck all day long, and they know it.
I would dearly love to see someone file suit, especially someone with thousands of apparently independent web sites, so they could demand a trillion dollar infringement award. Unfortunately anybody serving enough URLs to Comcast customers to really hit them hard enough to hurt them for their misbehavior will be hurt by Comcast when they retaliate by blackholing all of said URLs so Comcast customers can't reach them (and otherwise degrading or damaging connectivity). The time to have filed that suit was when the Net Neutrality rules were in effect, so when Comcast reflexively tried to punish the one who filed suit, they could file a second suit for Net Neutrality violations. Unfortunately it's now legal for Comcast to retaliate against any content company filing suit against them.
Yet another reason why Net Neutrality is absolutely required for proper functioning of the Internet.
Beyond that, as annoying as it may be, they don't have to sell you anything, but still get to keep copyright control.
That's not just annoying, that's blind stupid and wrong. The law is wrong, and needs to change.
The default is No Copyright. Copyright is a legal fiction created to try to incentive production of works. Until that legal fiction was created, there was no such "right". There still isn't any such fundamental right. It's only a legal right, and it can be changed. It should be changed, since the current terms are failing the public who agreed to a restriction of our rights, and are now no longer benefiting from the deal the way we should be.
Artistic works are culture. A people define their identities, piece by piece, bit by bit, by the art they produce and surround themselves with. But culture has to live and breath to work properly. It has to be adoptable and easy to spread to others, sometimes with changes. Copyright that lasts three and four and even six human generations is broken. Personally, I'm a proponent of eliminating it entirely, but I'm willing to compromise and allow a 14 year term, with formal registration required. No extensions.
Consider this: the central banks and the government have been pushing interest rates down to zero, and would have continued even further into negative territory but then any rational people would take their savings out of their accounts.
My bank already does this. The account pays 0.01% interest, but has a monthly fee of $6.95/month. The fee is waived because I have direct deposit activity. The bank has a carefully rigged set of thresholds where they will waive the fee only for active accounts. Otherwise they will steal all the money in it, eventually. While providing no service whatsoever. An inactive account costs them literally nothing. No network activity, no CPU activity, no more storage than they were already paying for. But they feel entitled to steal every dime out of an inactive account, however slowly.
We have the ability to twiddle some knobs in a machine learning dashboard we build, and around the world hundreds of thousands of people are going to quietly change their behavior in ways that, unbeknownst to them, feel second-nature but are really by design."
Vernor Vinge predicted this in 2006 in Rainbows End. Turns out he was optimistic: he predicted it for 2025. He called it the YGBM, an acronym for Ya Gotta Believe Me. He characterized it correctly: as a weapon.
Gay Characters? No problem. Female? Oh fer crissakes, we've had dem fereva. People freakin' love Wonder Woman, and even Catwoman. But here's da thing. You don't grow yer audience by telling most of them Fuck you! Oh shit - don't tell mom I swore okay? You keep your core audience, and you introduce New Characters!
That's a much better reason to create new characters than the usual, which seemed to mostly involve weed (lots of weed) and the question, "What if there was a guy who...?" There were so many mutants in the X-Men universe, many with wildly stupid abilities, that Marvel finally threw in the towel and nuked them all in the House of M event.
Lack of characters has never been a problem comics suffered from. Lack of characters written worth a damn, now those are lacking.
The moment I get the feeling the author deems me so dimwitted that they needn't bother with making something fit into canon, I get very, VERY annoyed with said author. And THAT more than anything makes me not want to read and much less buy this crap. You want to push your dogma? Go right ahead. I don't hold it against you. But make sure you pick me up on your journey gently and don't make me hop into a car going twenty miles an hour.
Canon got tossed into the trash bin of history in the early 1960s when DC created Earth-Two, and it's been downhill ever since. Crisis on Infinite Earths, Infinite Crisis, Ultimate Universe, and on and on and on. I don't know which is worse, the ones doing it because they're lazy writers or the ones doing it because they're better writers than the original. I gave up on comics written after the 1960s in large part because continuity became completely irrelevant to all comic book publishers, major and minor. Infinitely malleable fiction is one of the more boring and stupid tropes ever invented.
This is what happens when you let English majors try to write science fiction. A warp-capable civilization whose language is based on folklore and metaphor? Absurd to the point of stupidity. One of the more pathetic attempts to justify the writer's own feeble existence. You can't do engineering with memes.
Imagine if someone can break into a large ride sharing service and start all the autonomous cars and direct them on pedestrians... It can be far worse than 9/11.
In the US anywhere outside of New York City it's not a problem at all. First there would have to be pedestrians for them to be in any danger.
But I guess 9/11 happened in New York City, so there's that.
Same with "coconut milk", "cheezy poofs", and whatever other terms you can think of. Choose carefully, because it's simply not practical to regulate them all.
You severely underestimate the ability of a bureaucracy to generate paper.
How fit will you have to be to make one of these trips? If you have to be able to withstand up to 10G for any amount of time, even if just in an emergency, how do you determine who is fit enough to be a space tourist?
"You must be this tall to ride on this ride." There's one roller coaster in the world that achieves 6.3 Gs, and five others that achieve at least 5 Gs. Riders of New Shepard will have to be fit enough to ride a roller coaster, and for the same reasons. I expect that will be the standard. The US legal system likes nothing better than "this thing is a lot like that thing."
New Shepard is to New Glenn (the orbital rocket) as Falcon 1 is to Falcon 9 or maybe Falcon Heavy.
Not really. Falcon 1 was also an orbital rocket. New Shepard still just isn't.
Are they learning things, as they say? Yes. Are they learning relevant things? Some. Not very much. They've gotten really good at landing something that never really goes very fast. Being able to build any rocket that can ignite, fire, and shut off without exploding is an achievement, of sorts, but the Max-Q New Shepard experiences is nothing like the Max-Q an orbital vehicle experiences. Their engine people are maybe learning useful things. Their structures people aren't being pushed at all.
The GOP has not been on the right side of this issue, but attacking any of them regardless of what they do (right or wrong) is both typical and sad.
Random comments on the Internet are not an attack on this guy. The primary challenge he's going to face for failing to toe the party line is the attack he should watch out for.
If the power supply in a production server catches fire, best practice is to schedule a meeting to determine whether DevOps should fix it, or whether the software team can issue a software patch to correct the issue.
The result of the meeting will be that the software team should rush out an untested patch which will set the redundant power supply on fire as well.
The leftist pro-USSR America hating media told us SDI could never work but what is so hard about tracking a large projectile over huge distances with known speed and trajectory and hitting it with something?
Lots of things, the biggest being sheer speed. ICBM payloads are moving very fast when they reenter. Hitting fast things is hard. The second biggest is, you DON'T know the speed and trajectory. You have an approximation, in a cloud of countermeasures. Do you even know that you're targeting a real warhead? Maybe not. Lastly, say you are targeting a real warhead. Can you kill it? Because of the speed problem, SDI's idea was to use gigantic lasers. Lasers so big that no normal energy source could power them up in the time required to react (because warheads are fast). Physics got in the way of every part of SDI.
These days there are lasers which are notably more efficient than those available in the 80s, but they're still not good enough, and the energy systems aren't powerful enough, to actually produce successful laser-based kills of a warhead in transit, even with considerable advanced warning.
Quite aside from the Outer Space Treaty which makes all of SDI illegal anyway.
At the very least provide some references for that. I tried googling "spaceX bought their space rating from congress", but came up with nothing so I guess they've been bribed too.
That guy has been spewing that same line for the past 5 years. He claims he was a member of the evaluation team and was forced to sign off, in other versions. Quite blatantly a ULA partisan, and an incompetent one at that.
Or he's a Russian shill. So hard to tell these days.
the government doesn't really have legal justification it can use to tell a private company that it can't censor traffic on its own network.
The government has the legal justification to tell a private company that it can't censor traffic on its network because its network is not private. It is utterly dependent on public rights of way, it is at least nominally available to each and every member of the general public (unless they don't feel like servicing your area, despite getting massive tax breaks for 27 years to do so), and it is fundamentally a public utility because of the physical and financial realities of how it is deployed.
Your original statement that "ISPs should ALWAYS have the right to censor traffic" is wrong.
Until AT&T pays the $400 billion in back taxes they owe for failing to live up to their part of the National Infrastructure Initiative bargain, until I can charge AT&T for every inch of their lines that cross my property for every month they're there, AT&T's network is not private enough to claim exemption from regulation that would prevent them from breaking the fucking Internet.
The Internet as it existed, with de facto neutrality, because ISPs had not yet had the nerve to try to break it for profit, is so valuable, to the tune of $500 billion annually to the US economy, that it must be protected as a public good. If you really believe their nominal status as private entities makes them immune from regulation, then I will advocate for seizing their assets and nationalizing every last one of them, forcibly removing every ISP from the media conglomerate into which it has been sucked. It's that important that they not be allowed to break it. For more money.
Slashdot Mirror
And if my house burns down with my key and my paper and I can no longer access a machine that, for whatever reason, is not consumed in the inferno?
Generally speaking the keys are designed to be connected to your machine and left there permanently. I have the Yubikey Nano, because my employer requires two factor authentication to Github, and I leave it in the machine. So if the key was destroyed in a fire, so was the machine I use to connect.
I used to carry the Yubikey on my key ring, but its own lanyard cut right through the metal loop on the back of it. Not well designed at all as a removable device.
You visit bbc.com. The great firewall inserts javascript to DoS attack another website.
You visit bbc.com. You read a simple article about foreign policy. In between you and the BBC, the text of the article has been replaced, changing your knowledge of facts, your opinion, and ultimately your vote.
You visit bbc.com. To preserve your privacy, you use a VPN or Tor. Your HTTP request has a BBC-UID cookie. Anyone snooping the connection can tell which link is yours as opposed to someone else's, and can track when you're there using the internet and which pages you go to.
You visit bbc.com. You're an activist in a country which would like to not have you around. Instead of receiving bbc.com, you receive child porn.
I would bet a pizza that Russian ISPs have done at least two of these things already, if not all of them. I would bet a second pizza that Russian ISPs did at least one of those things right now, as you're reading this. These are not theoretical attacks (except possibly the child porn dropper). They're actually happening in jurisdictions around the world. American companies created turn key equipment that can perform these attacks and sold them to anyone who could afford it.
The only people that can snoop his connection to the Internet are typically telecommunication companies putting court ordered intercepts in place.
Given how very very many Cisco back doors and exploits are currently known, nevermind how many more are still unknown, ANYONE can snoop his connection to the Internet. And already has.
It's still an utter mystery to me why this is even possible, given the draconian nature of copyright laws in the US. The webpage is copyrighted; the webpage with ads is therefore a modification of somebody else's copyrighted work.
Go ahead, try that with a work by (say) Disney, see how far you'll get. So why do ISPs regularly get away with it?
Because no web site owner has been willing to be the test case. I suspect Comcast is careful not to intrude their injections into web pages from companies with enough money to fund lawyers for a decade, especially not American companies that big. Little guys, they can fuck all day long, and they know it.
I would dearly love to see someone file suit, especially someone with thousands of apparently independent web sites, so they could demand a trillion dollar infringement award. Unfortunately anybody serving enough URLs to Comcast customers to really hit them hard enough to hurt them for their misbehavior will be hurt by Comcast when they retaliate by blackholing all of said URLs so Comcast customers can't reach them (and otherwise degrading or damaging connectivity). The time to have filed that suit was when the Net Neutrality rules were in effect, so when Comcast reflexively tried to punish the one who filed suit, they could file a second suit for Net Neutrality violations. Unfortunately it's now legal for Comcast to retaliate against any content company filing suit against them.
Yet another reason why Net Neutrality is absolutely required for proper functioning of the Internet.
"Language Klingon is the future of all computer science because fuck it"
Luckily all the required glyphs are in Unicode now. No code snippets pasted to Slashdot though...
Beyond that, as annoying as it may be, they don't have to sell you anything, but still get to keep copyright control.
That's not just annoying, that's blind stupid and wrong. The law is wrong, and needs to change.
The default is No Copyright. Copyright is a legal fiction created to try to incentive production of works. Until that legal fiction was created, there was no such "right". There still isn't any such fundamental right. It's only a legal right, and it can be changed. It should be changed, since the current terms are failing the public who agreed to a restriction of our rights, and are now no longer benefiting from the deal the way we should be.
Artistic works are culture. A people define their identities, piece by piece, bit by bit, by the art they produce and surround themselves with. But culture has to live and breath to work properly. It has to be adoptable and easy to spread to others, sometimes with changes. Copyright that lasts three and four and even six human generations is broken. Personally, I'm a proponent of eliminating it entirely, but I'm willing to compromise and allow a 14 year term, with formal registration required. No extensions.
Consider this: the central banks and the government have been pushing interest rates down to zero, and would have continued even further into negative territory but then any rational people would take their savings out of their accounts.
My bank already does this. The account pays 0.01% interest, but has a monthly fee of $6.95/month. The fee is waived because I have direct deposit activity. The bank has a carefully rigged set of thresholds where they will waive the fee only for active accounts. Otherwise they will steal all the money in it, eventually. While providing no service whatsoever. An inactive account costs them literally nothing. No network activity, no CPU activity, no more storage than they were already paying for. But they feel entitled to steal every dime out of an inactive account, however slowly.
We have the ability to twiddle some knobs in a machine learning dashboard we build, and around the world hundreds of thousands of people are going to quietly change their behavior in ways that, unbeknownst to them, feel second-nature but are really by design."
Vernor Vinge predicted this in 2006 in Rainbows End. Turns out he was optimistic: he predicted it for 2025. He called it the YGBM, an acronym for Ya Gotta Believe Me. He characterized it correctly: as a weapon.
Hugo and Locus Award winner for 2007. Good book.
Let's set up a special prosecutor to look at the Democrats.
They did. Where were you?
Gay Characters? No problem. Female? Oh fer crissakes, we've had dem fereva. People freakin' love Wonder Woman, and even Catwoman. But here's da thing. You don't grow yer audience by telling most of them Fuck you! Oh shit - don't tell mom I swore okay? You keep your core audience, and you introduce New Characters!
That's a much better reason to create new characters than the usual, which seemed to mostly involve weed (lots of weed) and the question, "What if there was a guy who...?" There were so many mutants in the X-Men universe, many with wildly stupid abilities, that Marvel finally threw in the towel and nuked them all in the House of M event.
Lack of characters has never been a problem comics suffered from. Lack of characters written worth a damn, now those are lacking.
The moment I get the feeling the author deems me so dimwitted that they needn't bother with making something fit into canon, I get very, VERY annoyed with said author. And THAT more than anything makes me not want to read and much less buy this crap. You want to push your dogma? Go right ahead. I don't hold it against you. But make sure you pick me up on your journey gently and don't make me hop into a car going twenty miles an hour.
Canon got tossed into the trash bin of history in the early 1960s when DC created Earth-Two, and it's been downhill ever since. Crisis on Infinite Earths, Infinite Crisis, Ultimate Universe, and on and on and on. I don't know which is worse, the ones doing it because they're lazy writers or the ones doing it because they're better writers than the original. I gave up on comics written after the 1960s in large part because continuity became completely irrelevant to all comic book publishers, major and minor. Infinitely malleable fiction is one of the more boring and stupid tropes ever invented.
Shut the fuck up you white racists, Superman is now a proud black transsexual and you all can fucking eat it.
Superman was already a proud black man. Bizarro is his opposite, and he's pasty white. Therefore Superman is black.
Darmok and Jalad, at Tanagra.
This is what happens when you let English majors try to write science fiction. A warp-capable civilization whose language is based on folklore and metaphor? Absurd to the point of stupidity. One of the more pathetic attempts to justify the writer's own feeble existence. You can't do engineering with memes.
(I now wait for Slashdot to attempt it.)
Also, obligatory XKCD.
Imagine if someone can break into a large ride sharing service and start all the autonomous cars and direct them on pedestrians... It can be far worse than 9/11.
In the US anywhere outside of New York City it's not a problem at all. First there would have to be pedestrians for them to be in any danger.
But I guess 9/11 happened in New York City, so there's that.
Same with "coconut milk", "cheezy poofs", and whatever other terms you can think of. Choose carefully, because it's simply not practical to regulate them all.
You severely underestimate the ability of a bureaucracy to generate paper.
How fit will you have to be to make one of these trips? If you have to be able to withstand up to 10G for any amount of time, even if just in an emergency, how do you determine who is fit enough to be a space tourist?
"You must be this tall to ride on this ride." There's one roller coaster in the world that achieves 6.3 Gs, and five others that achieve at least 5 Gs. Riders of New Shepard will have to be fit enough to ride a roller coaster, and for the same reasons. I expect that will be the standard. The US legal system likes nothing better than "this thing is a lot like that thing."
New Shepard is to New Glenn (the orbital rocket) as Falcon 1 is to Falcon 9 or maybe Falcon Heavy.
Not really. Falcon 1 was also an orbital rocket. New Shepard still just isn't.
Are they learning things, as they say? Yes. Are they learning relevant things? Some. Not very much. They've gotten really good at landing something that never really goes very fast. Being able to build any rocket that can ignite, fire, and shut off without exploding is an achievement, of sorts, but the Max-Q New Shepard experiences is nothing like the Max-Q an orbital vehicle experiences. Their engine people are maybe learning useful things. Their structures people aren't being pushed at all.
The GOP has not been on the right side of this issue, but attacking any of them regardless of what they do (right or wrong) is both typical and sad.
Random comments on the Internet are not an attack on this guy. The primary challenge he's going to face for failing to toe the party line is the attack he should watch out for.
If the power supply in a production server catches fire, best practice is to schedule a meeting to determine whether DevOps should fix it, or whether the software team can issue a software patch to correct the issue.
The result of the meeting will be that the software team should rush out an untested patch which will set the redundant power supply on fire as well.
We should use actually in place of the previously used literally. Until that is corrupted too.
Too late. Far too late. "It's actually insane" is a common phrase in the vernacular today.
The leftist pro-USSR America hating media told us SDI could never work but what is so hard about tracking a large projectile over huge distances with known speed and trajectory and hitting it with something?
Lots of things, the biggest being sheer speed. ICBM payloads are moving very fast when they reenter. Hitting fast things is hard. The second biggest is, you DON'T know the speed and trajectory. You have an approximation, in a cloud of countermeasures. Do you even know that you're targeting a real warhead? Maybe not. Lastly, say you are targeting a real warhead. Can you kill it? Because of the speed problem, SDI's idea was to use gigantic lasers. Lasers so big that no normal energy source could power them up in the time required to react (because warheads are fast). Physics got in the way of every part of SDI.
These days there are lasers which are notably more efficient than those available in the 80s, but they're still not good enough, and the energy systems aren't powerful enough, to actually produce successful laser-based kills of a warhead in transit, even with considerable advanced warning.
Quite aside from the Outer Space Treaty which makes all of SDI illegal anyway.
Like what? That OOP is inherently unfair because it uses classes?
Where's a mod point when you need one...
At the very least provide some references for that. I tried googling "spaceX bought their space rating from congress", but came up with nothing so I guess they've been bribed too.
That guy has been spewing that same line for the past 5 years. He claims he was a member of the evaluation team and was forced to sign off, in other versions. Quite blatantly a ULA partisan, and an incompetent one at that.
Or he's a Russian shill. So hard to tell these days.
the government doesn't really have legal justification it can use to tell a private company that it can't censor traffic on its own network.
The government has the legal justification to tell a private company that it can't censor traffic on its network because its network is not private. It is utterly dependent on public rights of way, it is at least nominally available to each and every member of the general public (unless they don't feel like servicing your area, despite getting massive tax breaks for 27 years to do so), and it is fundamentally a public utility because of the physical and financial realities of how it is deployed.
Your original statement that "ISPs should ALWAYS have the right to censor traffic" is wrong.
Until AT&T pays the $400 billion in back taxes they owe for failing to live up to their part of the National Infrastructure Initiative bargain, until I can charge AT&T for every inch of their lines that cross my property for every month they're there, AT&T's network is not private enough to claim exemption from regulation that would prevent them from breaking the fucking Internet.
The Internet as it existed, with de facto neutrality, because ISPs had not yet had the nerve to try to break it for profit, is so valuable, to the tune of $500 billion annually to the US economy, that it must be protected as a public good. If you really believe their nominal status as private entities makes them immune from regulation, then I will advocate for seizing their assets and nationalizing every last one of them, forcibly removing every ISP from the media conglomerate into which it has been sucked. It's that important that they not be allowed to break it. For more money.
A content delivery system supported by ad revenue. What medium am I describing?
Radio. But not the telegraph.