> so I don't wind up running things that don't (like ldd) as root."
But how does that help "Mr/Ms Desktop User"?
Most of Desktop User's "crown jewels" would be in the home directory, and even if it's not it would be fully accessible by the arbitrary code and subsequently installed malware since it would be running using "Desktop User"'s account.
The arbitrary code executed does not need root to turn the machine into a zombie and then execute other code, send spam, DDoS stuff, etc.
This fixation on "not getting root means I'm safe" is WRONG!
As long as we are using the current primitive privilege systems, it's not safe. Windows does allow some sandboxing, but there's a lot of room for improvement. Desktop Linux? There's SELinux and AppArmor, you're welcome to figure out how to make either/both "desktop ready".
There are already plenty of windows malware that don't give a damn about having admin or full system privileges. They become zombies, send spam, DDoS stuff, etc. None of that requires "root".
Speaking of problems, I know someone who was planning to install iBaby 1.0 first, and convert his Acquaintance 0.1 to Wife 1.0 all without checking system requirements or even compatibility.
All while his Acquaintance 0.1 was trying to abort the iBaby installation...
By that same logic nothing chopped down in a tropical rainforest is wasted even if the loggers only want 10% of the trees (hardwoods) and chop down the other 90% because they get in the way of getting to the 10% and dragging them out. After all something is going to eat those 90%. Various fungi will benefit, and some smaller trees will too since they now have more sun.
Yes that's fine if you like fungi, grass (and maybe even deserts). And you don't care about the benefits that come with forests.
Similarly, all that bycatch stuff is fine if you don't mind the results. It's not a problem for the gulls and bottom feeders. While scientific research has shown that humans do well on diets that include fish (minus the mercury, PCB, BPA etc), there's not much research on the effects of eating "what's left if we overfish".
If we keep at it, the bulk of our seafood might end up being stuff like plankton and anchovies. Say bye bye to tuna, cod etc.
Yeah terrible laws. But as you said the shrimpers even threw away the rock shrimp. I doubt there was a law forcing them to do that, they did it because of commercial reasons.
See, even if refrigeration/preservation technology is better, shrimpers may still throw away the "wrong shrimp" if the demand and prices are down for that type of shrimp. Storage space is limited, so there is an incentive for the boat to fill it up with stuff that will make them the most money and discard everything else. Go tell me that a commercial fisherman wouldn't do that.
Thus regulation has to create an incentive to not waste the ocean's resources, and we probably need some help from technology too - so we can reduce spoilage and bycatch.
AND, back somewhat to the story topic, we also need people to eat a wider range of species. Because unless technology improves a lot the fishermen will still end up catching significant quantities of "other stuff" - different types of seafood, fish etc. If we are too picky it means stuff will have to be thrown away. Whereas if we are willing to consider as food a far wider range of edible and decent tasting stuff[1] that the fishermen land, there'll be less wastage. I'm not saying we should always buy everything up, but I'm saying we should be willing to eat a wider range of stuff so there'll be a market for it.
[1] There are creatures out there that are healthy to eat, tasty, but there's no market for it because it has a bad name or is ugly or people don't know how to prepare/cook it, or some other poor reason.
This whole mess is such a huge shame and tragedy. That's why I want more people to know about it.
But people are still flaming me or saying I don't know anything, just because I don't own a shrimping boat or am not a fisherman, or because I'm proposing forcing people to do stuff.
Extinction of stuff will force change on fishermen anyway. Why wait till then? If people don't think fishes are going extinct well they should check again.
> and ironically you demand more laws and regulations made by the same to make them stop doing what the first set of laws forces them to do in the first place!
I don't see the irony at all. It's not about quantity. It's about quality.
What next? The nunmber of lines of code makes a computer program good? Or the number of words make a book good? Similarly it's not the number of laws, or the amount of Government.
If the law is bad, fix it.
> who are you to force anyone to do anything
Forcing people to do stuff is the business of Governments. Governments must maintain a monopoly on force.
I'm pointing out the problem and it should be fixed. If people have better ideas of how it should be fixed, by all means go ahead and fix it that way. As you yourself have pointed out the present system is badly broken.
I'm all for a free market, but a well regulated free market.
> Tell us what industry you're in so we can start discussing "forcing" you to do various things
Why should I tell you what industry I'm in so that you can launch a personal attack that's likely to be off topic and a waste of time? Just so that you can feel good about yourself? Why don't you go and pleasure yourself in other ways.
Yeah that's the sad thing. Regulation can work, the fishes can recover (and the fishermen themselves actually benefit in the end). But so many governments refuse to do it - political reasons etc.
Limit the percentage of bycatch. And whatever is not bycatch has to be legal stuff. As for throwing away the juvenile fish, no, we should eat them - it is "unnatural" to not eat the baby fishes and instead only eat the big ones. It's "normal" for most fish species to lose millions of babies from each spawn. It's not so normal for them to lose most of the adults.
I know it's not easy, but I like eating fish, and there's plenty of scientific research out there that humans do better on diets that include fish (live longer, less depression etc). If regulation continues to be poor, lots of fishes will go extinct.
Yes it may raise the cost of fishing, but the "small time" fishermen in my country appear to still manage to scrape a living (albeit with some subsidies). So it might actually do them a big favour if the fishing industry stops being able to just "strip mine" the ocean, kill and discard stuff that their onboard canning factory doesn't have labels for.
And possibly half demented too. Maybe when I get "closer" I'll take up smoking and McD.
I dunno why so many "nanny state" countries keep worrying about "aging population" and at the same time try so hard to discourage people from smoking, or getting obese.
Give them a medal, they're sacrificing themselves for the nation.
Actually, maybe we should indeed be eating more different sorts of species to help "spread the damage", particularly for nonfarmed animals and plants.
One of the other things I am very disgusted about is "bycatch" in the fishing industries.
In simple terms what happens is a shrimp boat goes out to catch shrimp, and then for every 1 pound of shrimp they catch, they throw away 5-20 pounds of other animals (fish etc)- which do not survive (usually dead by that time).
Then a sardine boat goes out to catch sardines, and if they also catch shrimp or some unwanted fish they throw that away too (even if that species is edible).Then a tuna boat goes out to catch tuna (and throws away other fish). Then a cod boat goes out, etc...
Tons of perfectly edible fish are wasted and killed. Many of the discarded fishes are sold on the market for decent prices, they just happen to be landed by the "wrong boat".
That is a HUGE FUCKING WASTE. This practice should be banned!
If any fisherman can't cut down on bycatch and stay in business, he should be banned from commercial fishing.
Heck at worst force them to turn their "bycatch" to dogfood, if they can't figure out how to turn it to food for humans.
> while saving the wordpad doc i had left open with some notes in it.
Are you sure that happened? And it's not you who did it and forgot?
Did it really save the wordpad doc to a file? If it did, I consider it a bug. Whereas if it just suspended or saved the memory state ("hibernate") then that's fine.
Why? Because the first way creates opportunities for so many more side effects.
Slashdot Mirror
Bathroom lights tend to have more on/off cycles, and also are more likely to have cycles with very short "on" times. Many CFLs don't handle that well.
Some manufacturers have a warranty option where you don't have to return the drive.
Even Dell: http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/services/prosupport/en/us/Keep_Your_Hard_Drive.pdf
Emotions can help you learn. If you do not feel regret, it can be harder to avoid making the same mistakes over and over again.
:) ).
Emotions can help you make decisions. There are many decisions in life which are hard to make just based on _available_ facts and emotionless logic.
Something simple as deciding about chocolate or vanilla ice cream might take you longer (till you rationally decide to flip a coin
> so I don't wind up running things that don't (like ldd) as root."
But how does that help "Mr/Ms Desktop User"?
Most of Desktop User's "crown jewels" would be in the home directory, and even if it's not it would be fully accessible by the arbitrary code and subsequently installed malware since it would be running using "Desktop User"'s account.
The arbitrary code executed does not need root to turn the machine into a zombie and then execute other code, send spam, DDoS stuff, etc.
This fixation on "not getting root means I'm safe" is WRONG!
As long as we are using the current primitive privilege systems, it's not safe. Windows does allow some sandboxing, but there's a lot of room for improvement. Desktop Linux? There's SELinux and AppArmor, you're welcome to figure out how to make either/both "desktop ready".
> (Hopefully she doesn't do this as root.)
So what if she doesn't do this as root?
There are already plenty of windows malware that don't give a damn about having admin or full system privileges. They become zombies, send spam, DDoS stuff, etc. None of that requires "root".
To me Executive Decision was a noteworthy movie because of a rather unexpected bit halfway through the movie... Nope, not going to give it away :p.
Strangely enough there was a crappier clone movie of Executive Decision called Strategic Command (Executive Command was the working title).
Speaking of problems, I know someone who was planning to install iBaby 1.0 first, and convert his Acquaintance 0.1 to Wife 1.0 all without checking system requirements or even compatibility.
All while his Acquaintance 0.1 was trying to abort the iBaby installation...
By that same logic nothing chopped down in a tropical rainforest is wasted even if the loggers only want 10% of the trees (hardwoods) and chop down the other 90% because they get in the way of getting to the 10% and dragging them out. After all something is going to eat those 90%. Various fungi will benefit, and some smaller trees will too since they now have more sun.
Yes that's fine if you like fungi, grass (and maybe even deserts). And you don't care about the benefits that come with forests.
Similarly, all that bycatch stuff is fine if you don't mind the results. It's not a problem for the gulls and bottom feeders. While scientific research has shown that humans do well on diets that include fish (minus the mercury, PCB, BPA etc), there's not much research on the effects of eating "what's left if we overfish".
If we keep at it, the bulk of our seafood might end up being stuff like plankton and anchovies. Say bye bye to tuna, cod etc.
OK I just read it. From what I see, someone is still going to have to force people to obey those locally created rules and institutions.
The "catch and share" stuff doesn't seem to have sprung up "emergently" from fishermen over the centuries and longer.
Yeah terrible laws. But as you said the shrimpers even threw away the rock shrimp. I doubt there was a law forcing them to do that, they did it because of commercial reasons.
See, even if refrigeration/preservation technology is better, shrimpers may still throw away the "wrong shrimp" if the demand and prices are down for that type of shrimp. Storage space is limited, so there is an incentive for the boat to fill it up with stuff that will make them the most money and discard everything else. Go tell me that a commercial fisherman wouldn't do that.
Thus regulation has to create an incentive to not waste the ocean's resources, and we probably need some help from technology too - so we can reduce spoilage and bycatch.
AND, back somewhat to the story topic, we also need people to eat a wider range of species. Because unless technology improves a lot the fishermen will still end up catching significant quantities of "other stuff" - different types of seafood, fish etc. If we are too picky it means stuff will have to be thrown away. Whereas if we are willing to consider as food a far wider range of edible and decent tasting stuff[1] that the fishermen land, there'll be less wastage. I'm not saying we should always buy everything up, but I'm saying we should be willing to eat a wider range of stuff so there'll be a market for it.
[1] There are creatures out there that are healthy to eat, tasty, but there's no market for it because it has a bad name or is ugly or people don't know how to prepare/cook it, or some other poor reason.
This whole mess is such a huge shame and tragedy. That's why I want more people to know about it.
But people are still flaming me or saying I don't know anything, just because I don't own a shrimping boat or am not a fisherman, or because I'm proposing forcing people to do stuff.
Extinction of stuff will force change on fishermen anyway. Why wait till then? If people don't think fishes are going extinct well they should check again.
> Said end benefits are cold comfort if the fishermen have starved in the meantime.
How sad, just like the people who were dependent on hunting the Great Auk.
Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod#Endangered-species_controversies_in_Canada_and_Europe
> and ironically you demand more laws and regulations made by the same to make them stop doing what the first set of laws forces them to do in the first place!
I don't see the irony at all. It's not about quantity. It's about quality.
What next? The nunmber of lines of code makes a computer program good? Or the number of words make a book good? Similarly it's not the number of laws, or the amount of Government.
If the law is bad, fix it.
> who are you to force anyone to do anything
Forcing people to do stuff is the business of Governments. Governments must maintain a monopoly on force.
I'm pointing out the problem and it should be fixed. If people have better ideas of how it should be fixed, by all means go ahead and fix it that way. As you yourself have pointed out the present system is badly broken.
I'm all for a free market, but a well regulated free market.
> Tell us what industry you're in so we can start discussing "forcing" you to do various things
Why should I tell you what industry I'm in so that you can launch a personal attack that's likely to be off topic and a waste of time? Just so that you can feel good about yourself? Why don't you go and pleasure yourself in other ways.
Yeah that's the sad thing. Regulation can work, the fishes can recover (and the fishermen themselves actually benefit in the end). But so many governments refuse to do it - political reasons etc.
Limit the percentage of bycatch. And whatever is not bycatch has to be legal stuff. As for throwing away the juvenile fish, no, we should eat them - it is "unnatural" to not eat the baby fishes and instead only eat the big ones. It's "normal" for most fish species to lose millions of babies from each spawn. It's not so normal for them to lose most of the adults.
I know it's not easy, but I like eating fish, and there's plenty of scientific research out there that humans do better on diets that include fish (live longer, less depression etc). If regulation continues to be poor, lots of fishes will go extinct.
Yes it may raise the cost of fishing, but the "small time" fishermen in my country appear to still manage to scrape a living (albeit with some subsidies). So it might actually do them a big favour if the fishing industry stops being able to just "strip mine" the ocean, kill and discard stuff that their onboard canning factory doesn't have labels for.
And possibly half demented too. Maybe when I get "closer" I'll take up smoking and McD.
I dunno why so many "nanny state" countries keep worrying about "aging population" and at the same time try so hard to discourage people from smoking, or getting obese.
Give them a medal, they're sacrificing themselves for the nation.
Protest slogans, "Save Humanity" stickers, that sort of thing.
It's all cleaned up with the help of robots of course...
Actually, maybe we should indeed be eating more different sorts of species to help "spread the damage", particularly for nonfarmed animals and plants.
One of the other things I am very disgusted about is "bycatch" in the fishing industries.
In simple terms what happens is a shrimp boat goes out to catch shrimp, and then for every 1 pound of shrimp they catch, they throw away 5-20 pounds of other animals (fish etc)- which do not survive (usually dead by that time).
Then a sardine boat goes out to catch sardines, and if they also catch shrimp or some unwanted fish they throw that away too (even if that species is edible).Then a tuna boat goes out to catch tuna (and throws away other fish). Then a cod boat goes out, etc...
Tons of perfectly edible fish are wasted and killed. Many of the discarded fishes are sold on the market for decent prices, they just happen to be landed by the "wrong boat".
That is a HUGE FUCKING WASTE. This practice should be banned!
If any fisherman can't cut down on bycatch and stay in business, he should be banned from commercial fishing.
Heck at worst force them to turn their "bycatch" to dogfood, if they can't figure out how to turn it to food for humans.
Unless they're badly treated in captivity, they're probably about as happy as they would be in the wild.
See: Dan Gilbert: Why are we happy? Why aren't we happy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTO_dZUvbJA
I'm sure it applies to most animals.
I can't escape the confines of the Earth, but I don't let it bother me all the time.
There's also this:
Barry Schwartz: The paradox of choice
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO6XEQIsCoM
If he succeeds in submitting something new here then that's what I call an Internet...
Done already. You run those apps with vmware player.
> It'd be nice if governments grew a pair and started doing their job.
It'd be nice if voters grew some brains and started doing their jobs too.
Hopefully the US people get lucky with Obama...
> while saving the wordpad doc i had left open with some notes in it.
Are you sure that happened? And it's not you who did it and forgot?
Did it really save the wordpad doc to a file? If it did, I consider it a bug. Whereas if it just suspended or saved the memory state ("hibernate") then that's fine.
Why? Because the first way creates opportunities for so many more side effects.
Uh you miss the point.
The problem was not that his servers didn't have power for long enough.
His problem was he had no cooling.
Generators to keep your cooling systems working can cost a fair bit more.
> I was asking for advice on USB/LAN-based temp sensors
But why do you need those sensors? I thought most servers have temperature sensors built in, and they are software readable.
Why not use those instead?
And "show environment" works on some cisco routers.
Even my home pc's motherboard has temp sensors (and so does its cpu).