99% of sound quality is the acoustic environment of the room you're listening in, not the "horizontal tracking angle error compensation" or whatever
Very good point except for one thing: the first thing I thought of was wow, now I can scratch without destroying my [insert record worth more than soul] record.
However, at the listed price, I would simply continue abstaining from scratching said items. ---
What a hell you live in if you are convinced that this awareness does not exist, that behind the firestorm of impressions, forms, qualia, platonic objects, that the fact you are aware of these things does not peek through the veil to remind you that your descriptions cannot enclose the fundamental fact that it is, that we are, and that no explanation for this is necessary. I think you've got me all wrong. There is a certain phenomenon that occurs and hasn't been explained. It's been called qualia. I do not automatically agree with all of the garbage that's been said about it, I'm just using it since there's no other term for the phenomenon. Now, with that out of the way. If you're saying what I think you're saying, then I agree fully. If you contrast what I said against what I was replying to, I think you'll see it. In short. Something happens that is observable by the conscious mind that no one understands. Since it's not understood, there's no stating that it just because of X, which is very complex. It could because Y, which might be complex or simple. No one knows. All I want to know is, if you're not experiencing qualia, why do you go on? ---
Neurons interact by releasing neurotransmitters at one another. Billions of them at a time, per firing, per neuron, several times per second. Quantum effects are dwarfed at that scale.
Consciousness, literally, yes. But explain qualia. About 50% of the time, when someone says 'consciousness', they mean 'qualia'. Perhaps it is a macro-phenomenon, but there's no telling -- the very idea of qualia is absurd to our current understanding of physics, macro-phenomena or no.
I suspect that either there's a spicific evolutionary advantage to experiencing qualia, or there's some real purpose behind human (and possibly -- probably -- animal) life. I'm siding with the former, but I'm not closed to the latter. ---
just say "I used a one-time pad, which I will not supply. Instead I will provide you with a plaintext version of it.") That seems to me to remove all of the teeth from this otherwise god-awful law.. am I mistaken?
That might work, but somehow I doubt that practice would be trusted for long. It would be obvious that people would practice this, and of course it would be illegal too.
The idea I have is two-fold: one, popularize the use of encryption such that everyone's using it. At this point, if enough people refused to comply, then the authorities would have a promlem on their hands. The second portion is more insidious: if a great number of people had possession of encrypted data that belonged to other people (and thus have no keys), had a lot of data that was just garbage (and looks like it could be encrypted), and also kept great amounts of encrypted garbage (i.e. cat/dev/urandom | xor 19q8 >/someplace/file) then there would be no way of verifying whether any data was real or not.
The problem with this is that it all requires mass-participation, which can be difficult to orchestrate with the majority -- those who need it the most. Sigh. ---
Personally, I don't mind (and often enjoy) when slashdot posters make speculations, and take some time to share whatever insight they may have. Unfortunately, Katz can't stop repeating what he said last paragraph, uses to much flowery language, etc. to the point where I won't read it.
I don't dislike what Katz does, just _how_ he does it -- which is why I read at most 2 paragraphs of a Katz article, then move on to the comments.
In order to compete on the desktop - which seems to be very important to the Linux community - there has to be a completely new focus on useability and UI. That's the point of the article.
Hold on here. Developers are people too. They have computers at home too. They sometimes even have machines that they will refer to as 'desktops'. Many of these very developers need the kind of tools they design (with poor idiot compliancy -er, user friendliness) because they operate better that way. For some, that's why they started uing Linux. I'm one of them.
I will agree that most people are stupid when it comes to interfaces, and therefore selling them a CLI based program just won't work. But I think that might just be a good thing, a very good thing. I don't know, and this is entirely idle speculation, but, it might be the glue of opensource. Think about it, if you write code, and all of the users of said code are competant, then there's a greater chance that they will contribute to your project than if (say) 5% of them were competant.
I know for a fact that many opensource projects behave this way, take Cistron Radius, when someone posts to the mailing list something they should know or have found out in due course, Alan Dekok is the first to not answer thier question, but tell them where they should have already checked. In many cases it appears that it would be more efficient to simply answer the question instead, but it seems he's trying to enforce competance, sometimes I'm so impressed that it brings a tear to my eye.
It's the same for bug reports, every time someone gives too little information, the developers complain profusely. In an idiot-compliant scheme, you can't expect that complaining to anything other than futile. But again, I've seen it work. This is because most people involved in opensource projects are either competant or willing to become so. Even the 'end-users'.
So much for by-hackers-for-hackers. --- It's not smut it's data
use 'dd' to read the data off of the raw partition That is exactly my backup plan. Altough I hadn't thought of doing the blocksize thing, it's a great idea (thanks). The only trouble is that much of the data is binary -- worse still, much of that is compressed, so it has no 'keywords' save for the header. --- It's not smut it's data
Does anyone here have any expertise or suggestions about suitable books or webpages? Something along the lines of Applied Cryptography, except in the domain of cracking. Again, I'm looking higher-level material, not Online Hooliganism for Dummies:-)
What I did, in a similar situation, was to think like the dirtiest malicious-brand hacker. It was easy for me since I too was infatuated with the whole break n' enter side of things early on. I spent time reading exploits, and I was quite interested in how they worked. I sometimes felt the itch to do something stupid, but thankfully I was too chicken to actually mess around with systems -- unless I had permission.
My advice is to keep in the back of the mind how you would circumvent any security mechanism anywhere, especially outside your reign. This way you'll quickly spot exploitable configurations. It's amazing, when I started doing it myself, everything changed, I could instantly point out the weaknesses of any design I fully understood. This is really good for a programmer, very little will escape you if you pretend you're going to break you code later... but it also works with any system's configuration.
If you have in-house coding/development, talk to the developers, and find out what kind of access those programs have to your system that you don't want outsiders to get, ensure they're secured against abuse. Obscurity is (obviously) not a long-term solution to anything.
While doing this, learn about every service you provide... and look at all of the setuid programs that can be executed by users -- even if you don't give out shell access, if someone pulls a buffer-overflow on your webserver then thier 'nobody' user can still execute your setuid toys -- so really, you have to take a look at anything that people aren't supposed to have access to in the first place.
Finally, read CERT (and all the others) like you read slashdot, when an exploit is found, check to see if you're vulnerable.
Unmountable FSes, however, shouldn't happen unless you SERIOUSLY mangle things.
Well, it is mountable, but unusable. I can't get *any* data off of it. I don't even need full fs repair, I just want to recover a few inodes -- I'd welcome them in/lost+found. I just wish that I could recover the intelligible data that I know is there.
I doubt it's just a superblock problem, but I'll go ahead and try anyhow (I still have the partition in it's crashed state), I've got nothing to lose if that goes wrong anyhow.
I know all too well that when you delete stuff it should be gone, and I agree -- despite the fact that I once killed two hours of work by careless use of 'rm -r'... what concerns me is massive fs crashes. I had one once, rendering an ext2fs useless, and it had important data on it.
I know that if I knew the specs for ext2 the way I know some other things, I'd write up a quick program to recover the odd file, but I don't. I grabbed the most recent 'rescue disk' I could find and ran ext2fsck, with no luck.
I feel that fs recovery should be payed more attention. I know those files are still recoverable, but the fs itself is unmountable and (according to e2fsck) irrepairable. Sucks to be me.
Now, I don't have the right to bitch. My philosophy with linux revolves around why I started using it. The reason is twofold: Power, my god, does it ever have power, especially when combined with my second reason; learning, you must learn -- and you can. Honestly, I should be learning e2fs like I learned anything else I had to do for myself, and write said program, and release it to all of you folk.
Perhaps augment e2fsck? Whatever. But I don't have the time. Alas, full time jobs -- boon to money, bane to free time.
That could work, but funding without forming a company was part of the original goal. If no one wants to buy your documentation, you're screwed anyhow. I'm beginning to think that you have few options (asking for charity?), if you find yourself in the situation I had just presented. Unfortunately, I have found myself in said situation (and I know no one will pay for the docs), so I'll have to use the spare-time angle. ---
The only thing new in this article is that you've managed to say the same thing in about 5000% more words.
Don't forget confirming the obvious: Katz get's _private_ hatemail too =). Seroiusly, I don't appreciate his style at all. IMO, anything he has to say is lost in some sorry attemt at artistry. I'd sooner just ask him to stop posting than to die, however. But I really don't care. Some people obviously appreciate his posts, others simply don't mind. I just don't read them for the most part. Other's do. Who cares? No need to bitch. ---
What if you want to write a something specific -- maybe an API for something -- and it has no relation to the goals of your employer? Do you get a different job -- or better yet, career? What if it's something almost everyone wants, but no one stands to directly profit from it, in terms of money?
They then found out he had previous drug convictions (selling & possession). He wound up going to site, getting in a high-speed police chase, nearly hitting an officer, and got busted.
There is a difference between being certified and not having a criminal record. But, I do see what you mean. I just believe that the process is targeting the wrong people. Those who are doing the hiring should be competent at doing so, and in the case of Linux skills, you bring out the dead box.
Certification does not really prove anything, except that you've gotten a peice of paper. How many people in charge of hiring do you know that interview those providing the certification as well? In my opinion, it is the responsibility of the hiring company to ensure competance. Unfortunately, I must concede that this is impractical in many situations (how would you feel about uncertified, self-taught doctors working in a hospital?), but in others it's the only way to go.
When you're dealing with Linux, and you're not dealing with lives, those certifying you didn't do it to make you get a better job, they did it to get lots of money (that's why it costs so much, and why their tests a numerous and seem to overlap). When you're dealing with lives, the tests actually have reflect competence (besides, you don't just walk in and take one) or people would notice and sue. What's going to make bigger waves, an ISP goes down for an hour and someone gets fired, or someone dies as a result of incompetence on behalf of thier doctor?
Certification does do something, but it proves very little, especially in situations where those hiring generally do not know enough to verify the potential employee's skills. Sadly, this is where certification seems to be most relied upon.
I've never acquired any certification (and when clients ask "where did you get your certification", I proudly respond, "my basement") and when the time came,/I/ was called with a job offer.
The truth is, in my experience, school doesn't teach you anything much aside from 'how to conform'. I went with this and things panned out well. But there is one thing I appreciate about this certification, they aren't trying to teach you anything, and they don't appear to be offering.
Slashdot Mirror
99% of sound quality is the acoustic environment of the room you're listening in, not the "horizontal tracking angle error compensation" or whatever
Very good point except for one thing: the first thing I thought of was wow, now I can scratch without destroying my [insert record worth more than soul] record.
However, at the listed price, I would simply continue abstaining from scratching said items.
---
What a hell you live in if you are convinced that this awareness does not exist, that behind the firestorm of impressions, forms, qualia, platonic objects, that the fact you are aware of these things does not peek through the veil to remind you that your descriptions cannot enclose the fundamental fact that it is, that we are, and that no explanation for this is necessary. I think you've got me all wrong. There is a certain phenomenon that occurs and hasn't been explained. It's been called qualia. I do not automatically agree with all of the garbage that's been said about it, I'm just using it since there's no other term for the phenomenon. Now, with that out of the way. If you're saying what I think you're saying, then I agree fully. If you contrast what I said against what I was replying to, I think you'll see it. In short. Something happens that is observable by the conscious mind that no one understands. Since it's not understood, there's no stating that it just because of X, which is very complex. It could because Y, which might be complex or simple. No one knows. All I want to know is, if you're not experiencing qualia, why do you go on?
---
Neurons interact by releasing neurotransmitters at one another. Billions of them at a time, per firing, per neuron, several times per second. Quantum effects are dwarfed at that scale.
Consciousness, literally, yes. But explain qualia. About 50% of the time, when someone says 'consciousness', they mean 'qualia'. Perhaps it is a macro-phenomenon, but there's no telling -- the very idea of qualia is absurd to our current understanding of physics, macro-phenomena or no.
I suspect that either there's a spicific evolutionary advantage to experiencing qualia, or there's some real purpose behind human (and possibly -- probably -- animal) life. I'm siding with the former, but I'm not closed to the latter.
---
just say "I used a one-time pad, which I will not supply. Instead I will provide you with a plaintext version of it.") That seems to me to remove all of the teeth from this otherwise god-awful law.. am I mistaken?
/dev/urandom | xor 19q8 > /someplace/file) then there would be no way of verifying whether any data was real or not.
That might work, but somehow I doubt that practice would be trusted for long. It would be obvious that people would practice this, and of course it would be illegal too.
The idea I have is two-fold: one, popularize the use of encryption such that everyone's using it. At this point, if enough people refused to comply, then the authorities would have a promlem on their hands. The second portion is more insidious: if a great number of people had possession of encrypted data that belonged to other people (and thus have no keys), had a lot of data that was just garbage (and looks like it could be encrypted), and also kept great amounts of encrypted garbage (i.e. cat
The problem with this is that it all requires mass-participation, which can be difficult to orchestrate with the majority -- those who need it the most. Sigh.
---
Personally, I don't mind (and often enjoy) when slashdot posters make speculations, and take some time to share whatever insight they may have. Unfortunately, Katz can't stop repeating what he said last paragraph, uses to much flowery language, etc. to the point where I won't read it.
I don't dislike what Katz does, just _how_ he does it -- which is why I read at most 2 paragraphs of a Katz article, then move on to the comments.
---
In order to compete on the desktop - which seems to be very important to the Linux community - there has to be a completely new focus on useability and UI. That's the point of the article.
Hold on here. Developers are people too. They have computers at home too. They sometimes even have machines that they will refer to as 'desktops'. Many of these very developers need the kind of tools they design (with poor idiot compliancy -er, user friendliness) because they operate better that way. For some, that's why they started uing Linux. I'm one of them.
I will agree that most people are stupid when it comes to interfaces, and therefore selling them a CLI based program just won't work. But I think that might just be a good thing, a very good thing. I don't know, and this is entirely idle speculation, but, it might be the glue of opensource. Think about it, if you write code, and all of the users of said code are competant, then there's a greater chance that they will contribute to your project than if (say) 5% of them were competant.
I know for a fact that many opensource projects behave this way, take Cistron Radius, when someone posts to the mailing list something they should know or have found out in due course, Alan Dekok is the first to not answer thier question, but tell them where they should have already checked. In many cases it appears that it would be more efficient to simply answer the question instead, but it seems he's trying to enforce competance, sometimes I'm so impressed that it brings a tear to my eye.
It's the same for bug reports, every time someone gives too little information, the developers complain profusely. In an idiot-compliant scheme, you can't expect that complaining to anything other than futile. But again, I've seen it work. This is because most people involved in opensource projects are either competant or willing to become so. Even the 'end-users'.
So much for by-hackers-for-hackers.
---
It's not smut it's data
use 'dd' to read the data off of the raw partition That is exactly my backup plan. Altough I hadn't thought of doing the blocksize thing, it's a great idea (thanks). The only trouble is that much of the data is binary -- worse still, much of that is compressed, so it has no 'keywords' save for the header.
---
It's not smut it's data
how about @5t34k, I'm hungry ;)
---
It's not smut it's data
Does anyone here have any expertise or suggestions about suitable books or webpages? Something along the lines of Applied Cryptography, except in the domain of cracking. Again, I'm looking higher-level material, not Online Hooliganism for Dummies :-)
What I did, in a similar situation, was to think like the dirtiest malicious-brand hacker. It was easy for me since I too was infatuated with the whole break n' enter side of things early on. I spent time reading exploits, and I was quite interested in how they worked. I sometimes felt the itch to do something stupid, but thankfully I was too chicken to actually mess around with systems -- unless I had permission.
My advice is to keep in the back of the mind how you would circumvent any security mechanism anywhere, especially outside your reign. This way you'll quickly spot exploitable configurations. It's amazing, when I started doing it myself, everything changed, I could instantly point out the weaknesses of any design I fully understood. This is really good for a programmer, very little will escape you if you pretend you're going to break you code later... but it also works with any system's configuration.
If you have in-house coding/development, talk to the developers, and find out what kind of access those programs have to your system that you don't want outsiders to get, ensure they're secured against abuse. Obscurity is (obviously) not a long-term solution to anything.
While doing this, learn about every service you provide... and look at all of the setuid programs that can be executed by users -- even if you don't give out shell access, if someone pulls a buffer-overflow on your webserver then thier 'nobody' user can still execute your setuid toys -- so really, you have to take a look at anything that people aren't supposed to have access to in the first place.
Finally, read CERT (and all the others) like you read slashdot, when an exploit is found, check to see if you're vulnerable.
---
It's not smut it's data
Unmountable FSes, however, shouldn't happen unless you SERIOUSLY mangle things.
/lost+found. I just wish that I could recover the intelligible data that I know is there.
Well, it is mountable, but unusable. I can't get *any* data off of it. I don't even need full fs repair, I just want to recover a few inodes -- I'd welcome them in
I doubt it's just a superblock problem, but I'll go ahead and try anyhow (I still have the partition in it's crashed state), I've got nothing to lose if that goes wrong anyhow.
At the very least, thanks for your advice.
---
It's not smut it's data
I know all too well that when you delete stuff it should be gone, and I agree -- despite the fact that I once killed two hours of work by careless use of 'rm -r'... what concerns me is massive fs crashes. I had one once, rendering an
ext2fs useless, and it had important data on it.
I know that if I knew the specs for ext2 the way I know some other things, I'd write up a quick program to recover the odd file, but I don't. I grabbed the most recent 'rescue disk' I could find and ran ext2fsck, with no luck.
I feel that fs recovery should be payed more attention. I know those files are still recoverable, but the fs itself is unmountable and (according to e2fsck) irrepairable. Sucks to be me.
Now, I don't have the right to bitch. My philosophy with linux revolves around why I started using it. The reason is twofold: Power, my god, does it ever have power, especially when combined with my second reason; learning, you must learn -- and you can. Honestly, I should be learning e2fs like I learned anything else I had to do for myself, and write said program, and release it to all of you folk.
Perhaps augment e2fsck? Whatever. But I don't have the time. Alas, full time jobs -- boon to money, bane to free time.
---
It's not smut it's data
That could work, but funding without forming a company was part of the original goal. If no one wants to buy your documentation, you're screwed anyhow. I'm beginning to think that you have few options (asking for charity?), if you find yourself in the situation I had just presented. Unfortunately, I have found myself in said situation (and I know no one will pay for the docs), so I'll have to use the spare-time angle.
---
The only thing new in this article is that you've managed to say the same thing in about 5000% more words.
Don't forget confirming the obvious: Katz get's _private_ hatemail too =).
Seroiusly, I don't appreciate his style at all. IMO, anything he has to say is lost in some sorry attemt at artistry. I'd sooner just ask him to stop posting than to die, however. But I really don't care. Some people obviously appreciate his posts, others simply don't mind. I just don't read them for the most part. Other's do. Who cares? No need to bitch.
---
What if you want to write a something specific -- maybe an API for something -- and it has no relation to the goals of your employer? Do you get a different job -- or better yet, career? What if it's something almost everyone wants, but no one stands to directly profit from it, in terms of money?
---
They then found out he had previous drug convictions (selling & possession). He wound up going to site, getting in a high-speed police chase, nearly hitting an officer, and got busted.
/I/ was called with a job offer.
There is a difference between being certified and not having a criminal record. But, I do see what you mean. I just believe that the process is targeting the wrong people. Those who are doing the hiring should be competent at doing so, and in the case of Linux skills, you bring out the dead box.
Certification does not really prove anything, except that you've gotten a peice of paper. How many people in charge of hiring do you know that interview those providing the certification as well? In my opinion, it is the responsibility of the hiring company to ensure competance. Unfortunately, I must concede that this is impractical in many situations (how would you feel about uncertified, self-taught doctors working in a hospital?), but in others it's the only way to go.
When you're dealing with Linux, and you're not dealing with lives, those certifying you didn't do it to make you get a better job, they did it to get lots of money (that's why it costs so much, and why their tests a numerous and seem to overlap). When you're dealing with lives, the tests actually have reflect competence (besides, you don't just walk in and take one) or people would notice and sue. What's going to make bigger waves, an ISP goes down for an hour and someone gets fired, or someone dies as a result of incompetence on behalf of thier doctor?
Certification does do something, but it proves very little, especially in situations where those hiring generally do not know enough to verify the potential employee's skills. Sadly, this is where certification seems to be most relied upon.
I've never acquired any certification (and when clients ask "where did you get your certification", I proudly respond, "my basement") and when the time came,
The truth is, in my experience, school doesn't teach you anything much aside from 'how to conform'. I went with this and things panned out well. But there is one thing I appreciate about this certification, they aren't trying to teach you anything, and they don't appear to be offering.
---