There are ISPs like that in the United States like that one. It just depends on where you live, and if you took the time to do your research. [broadbandreports.com]
I assume it's the same in Australia. Since Australia is huge too, I'll bet that most aussies couldn't get iinet even if they wanted to.
Actually, mostly we can. Australia has not been carved up into fiefdoms by the big telcos like the US has, though the suits certainly tried (and tried, and tried, and are still trying). And that was actually in part because we saw what happened in the US (e.g. with AT&T and the Baby Bells), and the government at the time went "hell, no". Whether future Aussie governments will continue to remember these lessons is anybody's guess. I hope so.
There is something else you can do about it - leave, and take those of similar view with you.
NOTE WELL: I'm not being rude. People often mention the four "boxes" (soap, poll, jury and ammo) but not so much the fifth (cargo). If you're descended from immigrants, then leaving in the hope of finding a better life is something your ancestors did. It's something that all immigrants do. It's an option that, if you seriously think your choices are shrinking to the fourth box, you should consider as a genuine alternative.
Frankly, I don't think it's down to that, yet. But if it does, or you think it has, nothing says you need to wait until the choice is taken from you - indeed, taking the fifth beats pleading it (after all, if your neighbours actually like what's happening to the country, they too would rather have you leave than have you start shooting). If you're wrong, at least nobody got killed, and if you're right, you got out before the border closed. Truly repressive regimes discourage leaving, for some reason.
(there's also the sixth box - sand, as in sticking one's head in - but we use that all the time)
I am not under the misapprehension that the action of "too much" will only make the planet nicer. Obviously, excessive/misdirected resources spent on any problem X can mean less resources available to spend on other problems not X. However, while we might expand the table to take this into account, we are then expanding the scope of the matrix beyond X. This is an initial approach matrix, not a comprehensive systems analysis.
Secondly, you mention depopulation as a solution proposed by others that you find unacceptable. I also find it unacceptable - and since my post was not about specific solutions, and you do not mention any proposals that you do find acceptable, I caution you against the use of strawman arguments.
Nor is it implicit in my table that the measures taken are actually effective. Indeed, the opposite is true (the action "Not Enough" covers this). Finally, regarding consensus and genuinely effective measures, I again reiterate that this is an initial decision matrix, so consensus or the lack thereof on effective measures is irrelevant to it.
I was saying that in the context of an argument if you only take into account what benefits you, then you really aren't actually producing an argument.
I dunno, it appears to me that's exactly what an argument is. If you were taking into account what benefits both sides, it would be compromise, or cooperation, or synthesis, whatever. If you aren't actually arguing with him, from this seat in the audience I'd say you're not doing too well (and if you are, I'd also say you're not doing too well).
Also, this:
I agree on the right to due process, but before making idealistic declarations actually consider how it would be achieved and how little benefit it would be.
The not so funny thing about due process is that if you stop following it even a little, you're not actually following it. "So what if I treated the perp a little roughly, he's still got his teeth, right?"
Furthermore, this is the GCSB, the New Zealand equivalent of the NSA. I imagine there's a heck more than a little benefit in having an intelligence agency that's trustworthy - and in being able to determine if it is or is not.
Yeah, but given your theme of "people who lie, cheat and steal... don't suddenly stop doing it", I'd be far more worried about a nation's intelligence agency apparently selling out to a foreign corporate cartel - what else might they have done?
Actually, no, thanks to relativity a light minute is a measure of spacetime. The universe is not newtonian (despite the latter's usefulness as a workable approximation for many human activities). If you look up at the sky, every star is visible from its relative moment of both space and time. Yay, science.:p
There's a portable version of KeePass Password Safe. I keep a copy on a USB stick. If you have a lot of valuable passwords, I suggest getting a stick that can be leashed to your belt (like an old-fashioned security guard's key ring), to avoid those embarrassing "oops, left it in the customer's machine" moments - then you just have to accidentally damage the USB port if you absent-mindedly leave the machine in a hurry.:)
One attempt per second per username per IP address (or subnet); record and display (and flag to sysadmin if high) number of attempts per username or address over time $foo. You can probably do further tweaks to improve the system's resiliency even more. And it still (barring unlikely circumstances) lets the real user in.
Which is all well and good until the first asteroid miner brings home a literal gigatonne of gold.
It occurs to me that there's really only three fundamental commodities: Time * People = Happiness. Anything we can produce requires an investment of time by one or more people, whether it's six people spending eight hours sweating away over a forge or one person spending one second pushing a button in an air-conditioned office, and everything we do in life affects our happiness.
Society called the factor of the first two units the "man-hour", and since for any given population there is always a finite, precious amount of it available, projects were undertaken based on three datums: first, the cost in "man-hours" to complete and maintain the project (e.g. digging a well and keeping it clean), second, the return in "man-hours" after the project was completed (e.g. no longer having to walk each day to and from the nearest freshwater river), and third, the happiness, or quality of life, for those involved before, during and after the project (e.g. no longer having to worry about whether the tribe upriver is dumping their crap in it), with the primary goal being to obtain the most happiness with the secondary goal of doing so for the smallest cost and the greatest return.
Has anyone seriously investigated the feasibility of building a modern economic system based more closely on these fundamental commodities and objectives? The dollar is supposed to be a measure of this (in a Winston Churchill "democracy is the worst form of government except for all others that have been tried" kind of way), but our present system seems to be increasingly distancing the source and destination of those dollars (and as many a revolution demonstrates, e.g. the American Revolution, societal happiness is strongly proportional to the inverse of that distance).
Sounds almost like if you really want to run anything like an exit node, you should get yourself classified as a small ISP and avail yourself of carrier protections. Though that may be easier said than done depending on your country's laws (and those laws may also mean the police/TLAs can show up and "request" that you install their little black box next to your router).
From the sounds of it, it's basically a rootkit, and if you're logged in as root/administrator and deliberately letting something like that in, well of course the OS is going to get owned.
Windows: "Let me see your spyware's identification." FBI Dad: "You don't need to see its identification." Windows: "I don't need to see its identification." FBI Dad: "This is not the spyware your task manager is looking for." Windows: "This is not the spyware my task manager is looking for."
Have you tried submitting your one-offs with a statutory/notarized/your-country's-equivalent declaration that the work in question is your own / made with royalty free sources?
You know, "encrypt it" might work for an individual, but no amount of encryption can make storing your entire nation's digital infrastructure in a foreign country's server farms a reasonable idea.
Yes to the first, but no to the second. Psychopathy indeed "directly hinders job performance" in many roles, as the last link in the summary explains:
Senior managers of financial companies have what is called "fiduciary duty" -- a legal obligation to act in the best interests of their clients and investors rather than themselves. Here's the rub: psychopaths simply cannot do that. They are medically impaired from acting in good faith on behalf of others.
Ok, so something is broken. Fix it. But psycho tests?
Um. The something that is broken is (a) the psychopaths themselves, and (b) the psychopaths being allowed into positions where they can do more damage.
We don't let inebriated people drive. Seems reasonable to implement a similar solution re "(b)" until we can fix "(a)".
However, your argument fails because the ability to emotionally detach from a situation is not the same as the inability to form emotional attachments at all.
A psychopath cannot honestly take a loyalty oath, whether to enter a military service or uphold a fiduciary duty, because they are physically incapable of that loyalty. This problem is actually the stated crux of the last article linked in the summary.
1. This was something I meant to ask in a previous informative/. encounter with you: is that damages limit per patent, per holder of a set of patents, or for all patents infringed? It's one thing if you're violating only a few patents, but the article makes the claim that a smartphone is covered by a quarter-million of them. If I get sued by a hundred, a thousand or ten thousand different patent holders....
2. Another thing I've noticed is slashdot posters who are claiming they are specifically being told by their legal departments that they should NOT look at existing patents (and this is not something new). If this is endemic, what does it mean for the part of the purpose of the patent system whereby future inventors are supposed to build upon the work of previous inventors rather than waste resources reinventing the wheel? Does it need fixing and how could it be fixed?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, mostly we can. Australia has not been carved up into fiefdoms by the big telcos like the US has, though the suits certainly tried (and tried, and tried, and are still trying). And that was actually in part because we saw what happened in the US (e.g. with AT&T and the Baby Bells), and the government at the time went "hell, no". Whether future Aussie governments will continue to remember these lessons is anybody's guess. I hope so.
How do you define a legitimate journalist organization? More importantly, how does US law define it?
From what I understand, the New York Times also reported (some of) Manning's leaks. Are you claiming the New York Times broke the law?
There was also this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers
Are you claiming that the New York Times should not have released the Pentagon Papers and in fact did so illegally?
There is something else you can do about it - leave, and take those of similar view with you.
NOTE WELL: I'm not being rude. People often mention the four "boxes" (soap, poll, jury and ammo) but not so much the fifth (cargo). If you're descended from immigrants, then leaving in the hope of finding a better life is something your ancestors did. It's something that all immigrants do. It's an option that, if you seriously think your choices are shrinking to the fourth box, you should consider as a genuine alternative.
Frankly, I don't think it's down to that, yet. But if it does, or you think it has, nothing says you need to wait until the choice is taken from you - indeed, taking the fifth beats pleading it (after all, if your neighbours actually like what's happening to the country, they too would rather have you leave than have you start shooting). If you're wrong, at least nobody got killed, and if you're right, you got out before the border closed. Truly repressive regimes discourage leaving, for some reason.
(there's also the sixth box - sand, as in sticking one's head in - but we use that all the time)
Actually, no.
I am not under the misapprehension that the action of "too much" will only make the planet nicer. Obviously, excessive/misdirected resources spent on any problem X can mean less resources available to spend on other problems not X. However, while we might expand the table to take this into account, we are then expanding the scope of the matrix beyond X. This is an initial approach matrix, not a comprehensive systems analysis.
Secondly, you mention depopulation as a solution proposed by others that you find unacceptable. I also find it unacceptable - and since my post was not about specific solutions, and you do not mention any proposals that you do find acceptable, I caution you against the use of strawman arguments.
Nor is it implicit in my table that the measures taken are actually effective. Indeed, the opposite is true (the action "Not Enough" covers this). Finally, regarding consensus and genuinely effective measures, I again reiterate that this is an initial decision matrix, so consensus or the lack thereof on effective measures is irrelevant to it.
Um, bet on it? That's sort of a reverse Pascal's Wager, isn't it? I mean, look at the decision/outcome matrix:
AGW Severity: Nonexistant, Minor, Major, Runaway.
Action Taken: Too Much, Enough, Not Enough, Don't Bother.
Outcomes: Nicer Planet, Same Old Planet, Worse Planet, Nightmare Planet, Humanity Extinct.
Write up the table. Which option gives us the best odds of a positive outcome?
I dunno, it appears to me that's exactly what an argument is. If you were taking into account what benefits both sides, it would be compromise, or cooperation, or synthesis, whatever. If you aren't actually arguing with him, from this seat in the audience I'd say you're not doing too well (and if you are, I'd also say you're not doing too well).
Also, this:
The not so funny thing about due process is that if you stop following it even a little, you're not actually following it. "So what if I treated the perp a little roughly, he's still got his teeth, right?"
Furthermore, this is the GCSB, the New Zealand equivalent of the NSA. I imagine there's a heck more than a little benefit in having an intelligence agency that's trustworthy - and in being able to determine if it is or is not.
Yeah, but given your theme of "people who lie, cheat and steal... don't suddenly stop doing it", I'd be far more worried about a nation's intelligence agency apparently selling out to a foreign corporate cartel - what else might they have done?
Actually, no, thanks to relativity a light minute is a measure of spacetime. The universe is not newtonian (despite the latter's usefulness as a workable approximation for many human activities). If you look up at the sky, every star is visible from its relative moment of both space and time. Yay, science. :p
There's a portable version of KeePass Password Safe. I keep a copy on a USB stick. If you have a lot of valuable passwords, I suggest getting a stick that can be leashed to your belt (like an old-fashioned security guard's key ring), to avoid those embarrassing "oops, left it in the customer's machine" moments - then you just have to accidentally damage the USB port if you absent-mindedly leave the machine in a hurry. :)
One attempt per second per username per IP address (or subnet); record and display (and flag to sysadmin if high) number of attempts per username or address over time $foo. You can probably do further tweaks to improve the system's resiliency even more. And it still (barring unlikely circumstances) lets the real user in.
As I understand it, the anonymity only works as long as enough nodes aren't being snooped.
Which is all well and good until the first asteroid miner brings home a literal gigatonne of gold.
It occurs to me that there's really only three fundamental commodities: Time * People = Happiness. Anything we can produce requires an investment of time by one or more people, whether it's six people spending eight hours sweating away over a forge or one person spending one second pushing a button in an air-conditioned office, and everything we do in life affects our happiness.
Society called the factor of the first two units the "man-hour", and since for any given population there is always a finite, precious amount of it available, projects were undertaken based on three datums: first, the cost in "man-hours" to complete and maintain the project (e.g. digging a well and keeping it clean), second, the return in "man-hours" after the project was completed (e.g. no longer having to walk each day to and from the nearest freshwater river), and third, the happiness, or quality of life, for those involved before, during and after the project (e.g. no longer having to worry about whether the tribe upriver is dumping their crap in it), with the primary goal being to obtain the most happiness with the secondary goal of doing so for the smallest cost and the greatest return.
Has anyone seriously investigated the feasibility of building a modern economic system based more closely on these fundamental commodities and objectives? The dollar is supposed to be a measure of this (in a Winston Churchill "democracy is the worst form of government except for all others that have been tried" kind of way), but our present system seems to be increasingly distancing the source and destination of those dollars (and as many a revolution demonstrates, e.g. the American Revolution, societal happiness is strongly proportional to the inverse of that distance).
Sounds almost like if you really want to run anything like an exit node, you should get yourself classified as a small ISP and avail yourself of carrier protections. Though that may be easier said than done depending on your country's laws (and those laws may also mean the police/TLAs can show up and "request" that you install their little black box next to your router).
Addicts need their fix, and that need can short-circuit the normal decision-making process. Doesn't matter whether it's alcohol, nicotine or porn.
From the sounds of it, it's basically a rootkit, and if you're logged in as root/administrator and deliberately letting something like that in, well of course the OS is going to get owned.
Windows: "Let me see your spyware's identification."
FBI Dad: "You don't need to see its identification."
Windows: "I don't need to see its identification."
FBI Dad: "This is not the spyware your task manager is looking for."
Windows: "This is not the spyware my task manager is looking for."
Etcetera.
Have you tried submitting your one-offs with a statutory/notarized/your-country's-equivalent declaration that the work in question is your own / made with royalty free sources?
You know, "encrypt it" might work for an individual, but no amount of encryption can make storing your entire nation's digital infrastructure in a foreign country's server farms a reasonable idea.
Yes to the first, but no to the second. Psychopathy indeed "directly hinders job performance" in many roles, as the last link in the summary explains:
Um. The something that is broken is (a) the psychopaths themselves, and (b) the psychopaths being allowed into positions where they can do more damage.
We don't let inebriated people drive. Seems reasonable to implement a similar solution re "(b)" until we can fix "(a)".
However, your argument fails because the ability to emotionally detach from a situation is not the same as the inability to form emotional attachments at all.
A psychopath cannot honestly take a loyalty oath, whether to enter a military service or uphold a fiduciary duty, because they are physically incapable of that loyalty. This problem is actually the stated crux of the last article linked in the summary.
Hmm. What's the legality of deliberately releasing pest species?
I've heard "mid-aughts" and "mid-naughts" used as the spoken form; the former more often.
1. This was something I meant to ask in a previous informative /. encounter with you: is that damages limit per patent, per holder of a set of patents, or for all patents infringed? It's one thing if you're violating only a few patents, but the article makes the claim that a smartphone is covered by a quarter-million of them. If I get sued by a hundred, a thousand or ten thousand different patent holders....
2. Another thing I've noticed is slashdot posters who are claiming they are specifically being told by their legal departments that they should NOT look at existing patents (and this is not something new). If this is endemic, what does it mean for the part of the purpose of the patent system whereby future inventors are supposed to build upon the work of previous inventors rather than waste resources reinventing the wheel? Does it need fixing and how could it be fixed?
Yeah, it's not his job. He wasn't getting paid for it. After all, what's more dangerous to excessive profits than an altruist?