What the purpose of moderation? Isn't it to reflect the likely interests of the reader? If most of the posts which should be marked as -1 redundant or flaimbait get marked as +1 insightful, what does that mean? Abolutely nothing?
Perhaps the moderation system really is a meaningless as you make it out to be, but considering how predictable the rating of a post is, I highly doubt it.
And yes, if you can predict something with great accuracy, it's probably not random (unless you have psychic powers). That also is a statistical truth.
self selecting survey fallacy yields no decent results on google. Is that a term you made up yourself?
In any case, if the people who moderate one article are independent from people who moderate another (if each is a random sample), then there is no fallacy. I see no reason to believe that the two groups of people do not intersect, and do not intersect heavily. Again, it's not something I'm interested in proving. Moderation is not public, so I couldn't prove it even if I wanted to.
If you'd like to sort through all the moderation and prove me wrong, knock yourself out. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke.
Boy, I think I already have one of these. It's called my brain, and when a web site asks me for personal information, I consult with my brain to see if I want to give it to them.
Yeah, but then I have to remember which false information I gave for which site. It would be much nicer if my computer could remember that I told ebay.com that my name was Bill Gates and I was born February 10, 1970, but when I signed up for hotmail.com I used the name Joe Schmoe and the birthdate May 16, 1975.
What if circuit city accidently marks the price of its TVs at $5.00? The value of the TV is $100. They were selling for $500. You hear about this "bug", and go to circuit city and buy 1000 TVs. The cashier accepts the purchase and you go home with 1000 TVs for $5000. The TVs are destroyed in an explosion when you get home. Should you owe Circuit City $95000, $495000, or nothing? Should you have to do community service, or spend time in jail?
If you hadn't noticed yet there are quite a few people who post on slashdot.
If you hadn't noticed there are some sentiments which are voted up and echoed over and over again, and others which are mostly ignored. Read my words. "the sentiment on Slashdot seems to be".
When 90% of upvotes on one article express one sentiment, and 90% of upvotes on another article express another, it is not unreasonable to think that there is an overlap between moderators who upvoted the posts in each.
First of all, I never suggested anything. I'm personally of the opinion that the internet should be free to all, only to be used as evidence of real life physical crimes.
The comment was brought up that censorship wouldn't work, because the sites could be moved into bin Laden friendly countries. My comment was that it would then be possible to bomb those sites.
That is something I would support. bin Laden is only as powerful as his communications infrastructure. If there is significant evidence that he (a known terrorist) is spreading propaganda through an internet site, that site should be shut down. If the site is in a country like Afghanistan, I would suggest that that hosting provider is a perfectly acceptable target.
I don't suggest bombing places which are inadvertantly spreading the communications of bin Laden. I don't suggeset bombing places which are intentionally spreading the communications of bin Laden sympathizers unless those sites are directly advocating murder. I don't suggest bombing in countries which we are not already bombing anyway. I don't suggest bombing when the civilian casualties will not be minimal. I don't suggest bombing when the site can be shut down through alternate means. I only suggested bombing in a country which was already a target if there are specific sites which are being run by bin Laden. That is violence. It may or may not be justice. But it's also self-defense.
I find it quite hypocritical that the sentiment on Slashdot seems to be that it is OK to bomb innocent civilians because they were celebrating about this tragedy, and on the other hand that it's not OK to arrest individuals who celebrate it online. Perhaps it's only because the "kill 'em all" sentiment was expressed closer to the tragedy, when less rational thought was being produced.
"Unencrypted email is like a postcard," she said, "open for anyone to read. Ask people if they want all mail to be as open as a postcard and they're going to say no."
Now ask people if they want there to be laws against government officials looking at the address information on a letter or postcard, or reading the postcard with a warrant. Most will say no.
Ask people if they want there to be laws making the use of envelopes illegal. Once again, you'll likely get an answer of no.
Carnivore isn't a problem. Banning all encryption is.
Triangulation works in three dimensions. Two spheres intersect in a circle, three spheres (a circle and a sphere) intersect at two points. One of the two points is generally an impossible answer (too high, for instance). This is how GPS works, with three satellites (although it is more accurate with four).
It's for this exact reason that I'm yet to purchase anything from a web site, save for my now non-existant domain name.
Oh c'mon. Do you think that your credit card numbers are safe when you buy something offline? Do you think offline companies don't sell your information? There's no difference, it all depends on the specific security and privacy policies of the company, not whether the company is online or offline.
My best friend lost $400 on his VISA, and if it wouldn't have been for the fraud protection, he would be in a deep hole right now (we're students, we're not rich people).
But there is fraud protection. If they don't have a signiture or other proof that you authorized the purchase, they can't make you pay for it. Credit card numbers are merely numbers, no more.
What if one of this attacks damaged the bottom line sufficiently so that a company with hundreds of employees went belly up?
What if it did? Are you claiming that having these laws makes it impossible for that to happen? These attacks are not only possible regardless of the law, they can be done completely anonymously if executed properly. If one of these attacks damaged the bottom line of a company with hundreds of employees, chances are that insurance would pay for it. The money saved in taxes could easily go into the insurance premiums, and the insurance companies could enforce rules which force companies to enact much better security procedures. Most importantly, the insurance would be optional, so I don't have to pay to police Microsoft's servers, if I don't want the protection of my own.
I don't mind my tax money going to protect people from physical harm, but I do have a big problem with my tax money going to protect corporations from their own stupidity.
Routing on the Internet might be a problem that's worth attacking with this method, but aside from the similar issues, I can't see how this would benefit P2P networks.
Every file is a node. Every P2P app instance is a router. File searches become route lookups.
In a floor speech on Thursday, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire) called for a global prohibition on encryption products without backdoors for government surveillance.
Interesting coming from a senator whose state motto is "Live free or die". Apparently he's following the "Give up freedom because of fear of death" version.
In a floor speech on Thursday, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire) called for a global prohibition on encryption products without backdoors for government surveillance.
Becomes...
Wired news reports that Congress is considering restrictions on crypto software in the wake of the terrorist attack.
This is presented as an example of steganography - "The art of writing in cipher, or in characters which are not intelligible except to persons who have the key; cryptography."
"Running and hiding" are okay -- the president doesn't really have a say in this.
While the secret service will make strong recommendations, Bush always has the final word on such things.
Firement, Police men, Business men and women, Mothers, Fathers...
At least he's come to grips with the fact that women work in this country, even if he hasn't come to grips with the fact that they are part of our police and firefighting teams.
Oh, like I said, all of this can be accomplished with a dedicated box, except IPv6 tunnelling. Technically I guess it is possible to do an IPv6 tunnel through a NATed dynamic PPoE, but I have no clue how to do it, at least not with freenet6 or any other free tunnel. I do know how to set it up using my "virtual linksys" (vmware running a customized linux system), so that's what I'm doing at the moment.
If you have a non-commodity you want to donate to the red cross, auction it on ebay, then donate the money to the red cross. If you'd like mention on ebay that the proceeds will be donated, but don't expect anyone to believe you.
As I mentioned, all of this "can be done with a separate 24/7 machine behind a linksys," but if I'm going to run my machine 24/7 I'm not gaining anything by the linksys in the first place (still have the noise, no cost, still have the electricity usage). There's not even a security benefit in my case since I'm using vmware and running the "router" in an isolated virtual system anyway. Of course vmware isn't a solution for those who don't already have it, since it's expensive, but even without vmware you can gain all the functionality and only lose a very small amount of security (if set up properly). If vmware were only free, I'd publish a.dsk file and anyone could have his/her own virtual linksys running just like I do.
Can you create a VPN between it and your parents' house?
Can you call it with a modem for access from anywhere?
Can it act as an answering machine?
Can you run a mail server on it?
Other than IPv6, all the rest can be done with a separate 24/7 machine behind a linksys, but IPv6 tunnels do not work through a linksys on a dynamic IP, at least not with freenet6 or any other IPv6 tunnel service I know. Because of this I've personally been forced to stop using my linksys completely. What we need is an open-source linksys with a bios that can be programmed by the end user. I'd pay $100-200 for such a device.
And I say the government should stop spending their time protecting rich companies from their own stupidity and start protecting citizens from being killed. Poor poor Ebay lost a few million of fucking business. Let's stop people from killing each other before we worry about such things.
Re:50,000 copies of Windows destroyed?
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
That was meant to be a serious question, not +1 Funny. Sure, the companies have backups, but they also probably will be getting the new computers through companies which bundle the OS with the computer. I'm wondering if Microsoft will be making an exception on the licensing agreements with the manufacturers to allow the companies to buy computers without OSes and restore from a backup (or even better have them preinstalled but just not pay for the OS since they already have a license).
No, my appeal to extradition is not invalid. If the spread of Christianity is illegal in Afghanistan, then Afghanistan has every right to ask the U.S. for extradition. Of course the U.S. will say "fuck you", and then Afghanistan can try to mount a military strike against the U.S. to try to capture those people. They'll lose of course, and no one will help them, because that's a fucking stupid thing to start a war over.
Extradition agreements are made on a one-to-one basis; there is no international law that makes extradition a universal (or ever near-universal) norm.
I never claimed there was. I only claimed that international law was the only law which was relevant, and my point was that international law does not bar the US from retaliation against Afghanistan on the grounds that they refuse to extradite a known danger to us.
50,000 copies of Windows destroyed?
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 2, Funny
When the companies that worked in the WTC buy thousands of new computers, will they have to pay once again for the OS which was destroyed?
Slashdot Mirror
What the purpose of moderation? Isn't it to reflect the likely interests of the reader? If most of the posts which should be marked as -1 redundant or flaimbait get marked as +1 insightful, what does that mean? Abolutely nothing?
Perhaps the moderation system really is a meaningless as you make it out to be, but considering how predictable the rating of a post is, I highly doubt it.
And yes, if you can predict something with great accuracy, it's probably not random (unless you have psychic powers). That also is a statistical truth.
self selecting survey fallacy yields no decent results on google. Is that a term you made up yourself?
In any case, if the people who moderate one article are independent from people who moderate another (if each is a random sample), then there is no fallacy. I see no reason to believe that the two groups of people do not intersect, and do not intersect heavily. Again, it's not something I'm interested in proving. Moderation is not public, so I couldn't prove it even if I wanted to.
If you'd like to sort through all the moderation and prove me wrong, knock yourself out. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke.
Boy, I think I already have one of these. It's called my brain, and when a web site asks me for personal information, I consult with my brain to see if I want to give it to them.
Yeah, but then I have to remember which false information I gave for which site. It would be much nicer if my computer could remember that I told ebay.com that my name was Bill Gates and I was born February 10, 1970, but when I signed up for hotmail.com I used the name Joe Schmoe and the birthdate May 16, 1975.
What if circuit city accidently marks the price of its TVs at $5.00? The value of the TV is $100. They were selling for $500. You hear about this "bug", and go to circuit city and buy 1000 TVs. The cashier accepts the purchase and you go home with 1000 TVs for $5000. The TVs are destroyed in an explosion when you get home. Should you owe Circuit City $95000, $495000, or nothing? Should you have to do community service, or spend time in jail?
If you hadn't noticed yet there are quite a few people who post on slashdot.
If you hadn't noticed there are some sentiments which are voted up and echoed over and over again, and others which are mostly ignored. Read my words. "the sentiment on Slashdot seems to be".
When 90% of upvotes on one article express one sentiment, and 90% of upvotes on another article express another, it is not unreasonable to think that there is an overlap between moderators who upvoted the posts in each.
First of all, I never suggested anything. I'm personally of the opinion that the internet should be free to all, only to be used as evidence of real life physical crimes.
The comment was brought up that censorship wouldn't work, because the sites could be moved into bin Laden friendly countries. My comment was that it would then be possible to bomb those sites.
That is something I would support. bin Laden is only as powerful as his communications infrastructure. If there is significant evidence that he (a known terrorist) is spreading propaganda through an internet site, that site should be shut down. If the site is in a country like Afghanistan, I would suggest that that hosting provider is a perfectly acceptable target.
I don't suggest bombing places which are inadvertantly spreading the communications of bin Laden. I don't suggeset bombing places which are intentionally spreading the communications of bin Laden sympathizers unless those sites are directly advocating murder. I don't suggest bombing in countries which we are not already bombing anyway. I don't suggest bombing when the civilian casualties will not be minimal. I don't suggest bombing when the site can be shut down through alternate means. I only suggested bombing in a country which was already a target if there are specific sites which are being run by bin Laden. That is violence. It may or may not be justice. But it's also self-defense.
I find it quite hypocritical that the sentiment on Slashdot seems to be that it is OK to bomb innocent civilians because they were celebrating about this tragedy, and on the other hand that it's not OK to arrest individuals who celebrate it online. Perhaps it's only because the "kill 'em all" sentiment was expressed closer to the tragedy, when less rational thought was being produced.
There would be nothing stopping Osama Bin Laden using a server located in a country friendly to their cause
What about bombs? In the middle of the night. When the number of workers is at a minimum.
"Unencrypted email is like a postcard," she said, "open for anyone to read. Ask people if they want all mail to be as open as a postcard and they're going to say no."
Now ask people if they want there to be laws against government officials looking at the address information on a letter or postcard, or reading the postcard with a warrant. Most will say no.
Ask people if they want there to be laws making the use of envelopes illegal. Once again, you'll likely get an answer of no.
Carnivore isn't a problem. Banning all encryption is.
Triangulation works in three dimensions. Two spheres intersect in a circle, three spheres (a circle and a sphere) intersect at two points. One of the two points is generally an impossible answer (too high, for instance). This is how GPS works, with three satellites (although it is more accurate with four).
It's for this exact reason that I'm yet to purchase anything from a web site, save for my now non-existant domain name.
Oh c'mon. Do you think that your credit card numbers are safe when you buy something offline? Do you think offline companies don't sell your information? There's no difference, it all depends on the specific security and privacy policies of the company, not whether the company is online or offline.
My best friend lost $400 on his VISA, and if it wouldn't have been for the fraud protection, he would be in a deep hole right now (we're students, we're not rich people).
But there is fraud protection. If they don't have a signiture or other proof that you authorized the purchase, they can't make you pay for it. Credit card numbers are merely numbers, no more.
What if one of this attacks damaged the bottom line sufficiently so that a company with hundreds of employees went belly up?
What if it did? Are you claiming that having these laws makes it impossible for that to happen? These attacks are not only possible regardless of the law, they can be done completely anonymously if executed properly. If one of these attacks damaged the bottom line of a company with hundreds of employees, chances are that insurance would pay for it. The money saved in taxes could easily go into the insurance premiums, and the insurance companies could enforce rules which force companies to enact much better security procedures. Most importantly, the insurance would be optional, so I don't have to pay to police Microsoft's servers, if I don't want the protection of my own.
I don't mind my tax money going to protect people from physical harm, but I do have a big problem with my tax money going to protect corporations from their own stupidity.
Routing on the Internet might be a problem that's worth attacking with this method, but aside from the similar issues, I can't see how this would benefit P2P networks.
Every file is a node. Every P2P app instance is a router. File searches become route lookups.
In a floor speech on Thursday, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire) called for a global prohibition on encryption products without backdoors for government surveillance.
Interesting coming from a senator whose state motto is "Live free or die". Apparently he's following the "Give up freedom because of fear of death" version.
In a floor speech on Thursday, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire) called for a global prohibition on encryption products without backdoors for government surveillance.
Becomes...
Wired news reports that Congress is considering restrictions on crypto software in the wake of the terrorist attack.
This is presented as an example of steganography - "The art of writing in cipher, or in characters which are not intelligible except to persons who have the key; cryptography."
"Running and hiding" are okay -- the president doesn't really have a say in this.
While the secret service will make strong recommendations, Bush always has the final word on such things.
Firement, Police men, Business men and women, Mothers, Fathers...
At least he's come to grips with the fact that women work in this country, even if he hasn't come to grips with the fact that they are part of our police and firefighting teams.
Oh, like I said, all of this can be accomplished with a dedicated box, except IPv6 tunnelling. Technically I guess it is possible to do an IPv6 tunnel through a NATed dynamic PPoE, but I have no clue how to do it, at least not with freenet6 or any other free tunnel. I do know how to set it up using my "virtual linksys" (vmware running a customized linux system), so that's what I'm doing at the moment.
If you have a non-commodity you want to donate to the red cross, auction it on ebay, then donate the money to the red cross. If you'd like mention on ebay that the proceeds will be donated, but don't expect anyone to believe you.
As I mentioned, all of this "can be done with a separate 24/7 machine behind a linksys," but if I'm going to run my machine 24/7 I'm not gaining anything by the linksys in the first place (still have the noise, no cost, still have the electricity usage). There's not even a security benefit in my case since I'm using vmware and running the "router" in an isolated virtual system anyway. Of course vmware isn't a solution for those who don't already have it, since it's expensive, but even without vmware you can gain all the functionality and only lose a very small amount of security (if set up properly). If vmware were only free, I'd publish a .dsk file and anyone could have his/her own virtual linksys running just like I do.
Other than IPv6, all the rest can be done with a separate 24/7 machine behind a linksys, but IPv6 tunnels do not work through a linksys on a dynamic IP, at least not with freenet6 or any other IPv6 tunnel service I know. Because of this I've personally been forced to stop using my linksys completely. What we need is an open-source linksys with a bios that can be programmed by the end user. I'd pay $100-200 for such a device.
Corporations don't eat.
And I say the government should stop spending their time protecting rich companies from their own stupidity and start protecting citizens from being killed. Poor poor Ebay lost a few million of fucking business. Let's stop people from killing each other before we worry about such things.
That was meant to be a serious question, not +1 Funny. Sure, the companies have backups, but they also probably will be getting the new computers through companies which bundle the OS with the computer. I'm wondering if Microsoft will be making an exception on the licensing agreements with the manufacturers to allow the companies to buy computers without OSes and restore from a backup (or even better have them preinstalled but just not pay for the OS since they already have a license).
No, my appeal to extradition is not invalid. If the spread of Christianity is illegal in Afghanistan, then Afghanistan has every right to ask the U.S. for extradition. Of course the U.S. will say "fuck you", and then Afghanistan can try to mount a military strike against the U.S. to try to capture those people. They'll lose of course, and no one will help them, because that's a fucking stupid thing to start a war over.
Extradition agreements are made on a one-to-one basis; there is no international law that makes extradition a universal (or ever near-universal) norm.
I never claimed there was. I only claimed that international law was the only law which was relevant, and my point was that international law does not bar the US from retaliation against Afghanistan on the grounds that they refuse to extradite a known danger to us.
When the companies that worked in the WTC buy thousands of new computers, will they have to pay once again for the OS which was destroyed?