What are you talking about? Blowing stuff up and killing the weak are now America's chief exports. The rest is just inertia - give it another quarter century and pan-Asian intellectual property will match American.
But the better long term solution would be a global IPv6-only addressing scheme. If some software on a particular machine only understands IPv4, let it talk IPv4 locally and a gateway (separate hardware or on the machine itself) can translate packets to IPv6 appearing from machine's unique IPv6 address. MTU discovery will respond appropriately.
Well, NAT64 is like purgatory. You left earthly IPv4 in God's grace but you receive punishment for continued involvement with 32-bit sinners. And, yeah, I suppose purgatory needs a sunset period.
...the issue of a Papal Bull declaring that NAT Is Evil, perhaps with an international treaty to ban it? It's a shame Princess Diana isn't still alive - she'd probably have more consensus with that than tackling land mines.
Once you accept that humans tend toward rational selfishness, you can assume that whatever they are doing is designed to benefit them. Any complex behaviour must be intentional (ignoring the clinically insane) - we assume that rational humans are capable of being responsible for themselves. Therefore most behaviour is intentionally rational selfish.
Now, does that mean the behaviour is necessarily malicious? No. This is only judged by the observer when the observer of the behaviour happens to be at moral odds with the actor of the behaviour. But there's no reason this case shouldn't be happening all the time, considering any random pair of people.
It does not follow from the reasonable assumption that everyone tries to do things for his own gain (a consequence of free will) that "reptilians in the US government flew remote-controlled planes into the WTC".
Well, I now have a second point: improve your cognitive skills. A honeypot is not genuine in the sense that it is not providing a genuine public service, merely sitting there trying to lure ne'er-do-wells. And the person typing is not genuine in the sense that he is probably the video author, trying to get hits for his site by playing the almost risk-free "make geeks feel superior" gambit.
Looks like he's trolled about 620 thousand people. I think the best way to socially engineer a geek is to make them feel superior to you, because they cannot resist loudly correcting you and assuming you're an idiot from that point on.
First I just thought "well, not everyone is a super smart irrelevant cubicle IT support geek" and shrugged at the point that was trying to be made - which, I guess, is something along the lines of "it's really this easy to break in to some systems, and it's great to laugh at people who.. err.. manage it, because not everyone knows what to do next."
Then I saw them downloading W2Ksp3, and realised that the whole thing is just a bit of sensationalism to get pageviews. The hacker is as genuine as the honeypot.
The biggest vulnerability facing modern society is the cooperation of corporation and government. Entry points include the system of lobbying and the highly paid private consultant who used to work with and can whisper the right words to people in government.
I anticipate that tackling this problem will return approx. $1 trillion over the next decade. I believe my advice is worth at least $40 million, which I am willing to share with the first 39 people to reply to this post.
Clearly you're not talking about Apple. Most of their inventions (including but not limited to those patented) are quite trivial - check out Patently Apple some time. Apple's just good at identifying, integrating and commercialising other people's work. Then marketing it with the zeal of Mohammed.
Nope, I don't perceive see anything dishonest about blocking ads. Could you give me a step-by-step explanation? What did I agree to? What harm am I causing? Who is losing out, and precisely how? Make sure not to make any assumptions beyond that I choose to block ads.
So what you're saying is that, if some kid were to walk out into the road completely unexpectedly from behind a parked car, the fact that you were doing 40mph rather than 30mph wouldn't make it more likely that you kill them?
Lots of laws are preventative, like the one which stops you building an atom bomb in your back yard. Think of the car as the most dangerous weapon most people ever get to control.
Well, sort of. See Highway Code rule 18. It is an offence to loiter on a crossing.
Which means you can potentially enjoy criminal sanctions for crossing where you should be crossing, but not for crossing where you shouldn't. And this, m'lud, is why I never cross at crossings.
(It's like those stupid pavement railings close to crossings. It just means you have to make the extra effort of jumping the railing or hugging the kerb on the road side until the railing ends, which is far more dangerous than if they weren't there.)
Four dictators could form an alliance and release forests of overcomplicated documentation on their conquering of the world. At the end of the day, you're even worse off than with a single dictator: the chance that they'll all fall out and fight to the death is much less than the opportunity for relief when the single dictator expires or is otherwise put in his place.
Generalising, the heroic notion of large, competing corporations is a myth.
Finally, people are starting to realise (and argue) that today's HTML is no more "open" than Flash. It's just a cartel between a few major tech companies to promote particular implementations of particular technologies in their medium term interest. Apple's canvas is the most obvious culprit. Rather than freeing people from Flash, it gives such a seductive but incomplete alternative (to an already subpar platform) that developers are encouraged to write native Cocoa apps. It's msjvm deja vu all over again.
This is why everyone attending university gets ends up a shining star: professors, having accumulated years of knowledge and wisdom in their field, all make excellent teachers.
Slashdot Mirror
What are you talking about? Blowing stuff up and killing the weak are now America's chief exports. The rest is just inertia - give it another quarter century and pan-Asian intellectual property will match American.
Due to decades of flawed and failed immigration policies
Oh, I can smell where this is going...
There is absolutely no hope for these kids. They are failures in every way possible.
Nope, you've just illustrated a new failure mode which these kids don't have the privilege to indulge in.
If the IPv4-only software on that machine needs to do so, a DNS lookup would set up a mapping, no?
But /. is full of dropouts who spend their lives trying to convince everyone that they're just as good. Just as good, except that they dropped out.
But the better long term solution would be a global IPv6-only addressing scheme. If some software on a particular machine only understands IPv4, let it talk IPv4 locally and a gateway (separate hardware or on the machine itself) can translate packets to IPv6 appearing from machine's unique IPv6 address. MTU discovery will respond appropriately.
Well, NAT64 is like purgatory. You left earthly IPv4 in God's grace but you receive punishment for continued involvement with 32-bit sinners. And, yeah, I suppose purgatory needs a sunset period.
...the issue of a Papal Bull declaring that NAT Is Evil, perhaps with an international treaty to ban it? It's a shame Princess Diana isn't still alive - she'd probably have more consensus with that than tackling land mines.
(Too soon?)
Once you accept that humans tend toward rational selfishness, you can assume that whatever they are doing is designed to benefit them. Any complex behaviour must be intentional (ignoring the clinically insane) - we assume that rational humans are capable of being responsible for themselves. Therefore most behaviour is intentionally rational selfish.
Now, does that mean the behaviour is necessarily malicious? No. This is only judged by the observer when the observer of the behaviour happens to be at moral odds with the actor of the behaviour. But there's no reason this case shouldn't be happening all the time, considering any random pair of people.
It requires extra evidence to judge stupidity.
It does not follow from the reasonable assumption that everyone tries to do things for his own gain (a consequence of free will) that "reptilians in the US government flew remote-controlled planes into the WTC".
I've heard that so often, but I've never understood: why?
Well, I now have a second point: improve your cognitive skills. A honeypot is not genuine in the sense that it is not providing a genuine public service, merely sitting there trying to lure ne'er-do-wells. And the person typing is not genuine in the sense that he is probably the video author, trying to get hits for his site by playing the almost risk-free "make geeks feel superior" gambit.
Looks like he's trolled about 620 thousand people. I think the best way to socially engineer a geek is to make them feel superior to you, because they cannot resist loudly correcting you and assuming you're an idiot from that point on.
First I just thought "well, not everyone is a super smart irrelevant cubicle IT support geek" and shrugged at the point that was trying to be made - which, I guess, is something along the lines of "it's really this easy to break in to some systems, and it's great to laugh at people who.. err.. manage it, because not everyone knows what to do next."
Then I saw them downloading W2Ksp3, and realised that the whole thing is just a bit of sensationalism to get pageviews. The hacker is as genuine as the honeypot.
Hey, I only learnt last week that NASA freed Egypt from the British!
The biggest vulnerability facing modern society is the cooperation of corporation and government. Entry points include the system of lobbying and the highly paid private consultant who used to work with and can whisper the right words to people in government.
I anticipate that tackling this problem will return approx. $1 trillion over the next decade. I believe my advice is worth at least $40 million, which I am willing to share with the first 39 people to reply to this post.
off of another company expensive R&D
Clearly you're not talking about Apple. Most of their inventions (including but not limited to those patented) are quite trivial - check out Patently Apple some time. Apple's just good at identifying, integrating and commercialising other people's work. Then marketing it with the zeal of Mohammed.
Nope, I don't perceive see anything dishonest about blocking ads. Could you give me a step-by-step explanation? What did I agree to? What harm am I causing? Who is losing out, and precisely how? Make sure not to make any assumptions beyond that I choose to block ads.
...to take your money. That is all.
You're very odd.
So what you're saying is that, if some kid were to walk out into the road completely unexpectedly from behind a parked car, the fact that you were doing 40mph rather than 30mph wouldn't make it more likely that you kill them?
Lots of laws are preventative, like the one which stops you building an atom bomb in your back yard. Think of the car as the most dangerous weapon most people ever get to control.
Well, sort of. See Highway Code rule 18. It is an offence to loiter on a crossing.
Which means you can potentially enjoy criminal sanctions for crossing where you should be crossing, but not for crossing where you shouldn't. And this, m'lud, is why I never cross at crossings.
(It's like those stupid pavement railings close to crossings. It just means you have to make the extra effort of jumping the railing or hugging the kerb on the road side until the railing ends, which is far more dangerous than if they weren't there.)
Four dictators could form an alliance and release forests of overcomplicated documentation on their conquering of the world. At the end of the day, you're even worse off than with a single dictator: the chance that they'll all fall out and fight to the death is much less than the opportunity for relief when the single dictator expires or is otherwise put in his place.
Generalising, the heroic notion of large, competing corporations is a myth.
Finally, people are starting to realise (and argue) that today's HTML is no more "open" than Flash. It's just a cartel between a few major tech companies to promote particular implementations of particular technologies in their medium term interest. Apple's canvas is the most obvious culprit. Rather than freeing people from Flash, it gives such a seductive but incomplete alternative (to an already subpar platform) that developers are encouraged to write native Cocoa apps. It's msjvm deja vu all over again.
This is why everyone attending university gets ends up a shining star: professors, having accumulated years of knowledge and wisdom in their field, all make excellent teachers.
The evidence you have that no logging and warranted monitoring occurs on image boards is...