It could be argued, that the "No, really, let us show you the ads, because it pays for the content" mechanism is a payment mechanism to view protected content. By circumventing that to get unpaid access to the content, you are engaging in circumvention of a rights management system, and thus fall victim.
That's the thing with DRM-- it can be extremely feeble-- it still counts when considering the DMCA.
It could be argued that reading the article without "paying" for it (with your advert exposure) is piracy, and that to prevent you from doing this, the anti-blocker script was introduced.
Still a load of bullshit-- The need to circumvent protections that are onerous and not in the public good (or that prevent authorized special exception use, such as via a library) is very important but given short shrift as far as the DMCA is concerned.
I'm just waiting for the malware to hit these smart cars.
Just a few possibly lucrative scams that could manifest in due time:
Ransomware. "Pay us OMGWTFBBQ! dollars, or never drive your expensive status symbol ever again! We've encrypted the entire drive control computer's filesystem, so pay up."
Spyware: "Know where your spouse is REALLY going during the day! Our special software runs silently on smart cars to let you know exactly where and how long it has been running! Easy integration with our smartphone app!"
Law enforcement bullshit: "You say you were driving under the speed limit, but your car alerted us to the contrary. Enjoy your automated speeding ticket."
Adware: "Hello commuter! It looks like you are getting low on gas! Why not try Speedy's Gas and Go?" (Played loudly over the in-car speaker system, via coopted media control system., with no option to turn down the volume or stop the advert(s).)
And of course, the various kinds of dangerous hacker things--
Like:
"Drive your expensive smart car on remote control from a smart phone! (we wont be liable for damages or loss of life/injury from doing this.)"
Or--
Government black ops: "We caused his car to lock the user controls, and autodrove him off the side of an unfinished highway ramp. We made it look like he was driving while drunk."
I dont want to sound like a Luddite here, but really-- Not everything needs to be "Smart."
I have only modest experience working with *nix flavor boxes, and I fully understand the need for text based logs.
I see no real value in a binary based log, unless you want to attach some kind of diagnostic symbol metatdata to the log. (and if you did that, you had better have a dedicated storage array to store the logs...cause they will get big FAST.)
Basically, you need to be able to read the logs with the most minimal of tools, because you are going to be diagnosing it in a downed state most likely-- You cannot bank on having a full suite of binary manipulation tools on hand. You will be lucky if you have more than vi.
Also, text based logs compress REAALLY well for long term storage for audit purposes! Binary logs? Probably not so much.
Not to mention-- if the binary logs are in some stupid "easily damaged" format, then having a process suddenly die horribly from abnormal termination will result in corrupt logs, so good luck figuring out when or how the process died. Not so with good text logs. It can cut off right in the middle of the debug print, and the text file is still valid. Hell, the file chain can be damaged from FS corruption, and parts of the log will still be readable.
Keeping track of the PID is important if you want to kill the process reliably when it hangs up. (because invoking the executable to tell it to down wont work reliably with a hung process.)
That is, unless invoking./etc/init.d/foo shutdown is harder for you than doing ps -A to find the process ID then doing sudo kill FooID
I suppose you might feel it safe to use killall foo
but what if you have multiple instances of the daemon running? (say, different ssh server daemons on different ports)
Taking the time and enduring a little pain so that you can do./etc/init.d/foo#x shutdown
to shutdown instance x of the daemon saves lots of time and effort later.
sys V init is old. So are the old, genuine unix wizards.
SystemD is new. So is Pottering and Pals.
The divide comes from "old culture" vs "new culture." The old unix culture adores simplicity, sparseness, and adaptability. The new culture adores easiness, one-stop shopping, and cohesive wholes.
This argument will never really die. The old culture will point out the endless littany of security problems with software like systemd, simply because of the complexity and scope-creep of the project. (this increases its attack surface, and makes it attractive to malware authors and hackers.) The new culture will point out the endless littany of hair pulling and hours spent dealing with obtuse scripts and strange scripting behaviors for things they feel should be solvable with a mouseclick.
These two will never live under the same roof. Both are right, and both are wrong. There are systems and applications where sysVinit makes sense, and is desirable. There are systems and applications where systemd makes sense, and is desirable.
The real sin here is not heresey by either group.
The real sin is the decision of the foss community to pick a side, and in so doing, remove that choice from other people, by choosing to make systemd a hard requirement, solely for their own convenience.
clearly, i need to make a char device called magichat.
all it does is return a string of binary expressions until stopped, based on a single input: initial file position.
it generates its output on a permeutation of every possible value; once every possible value of one byte is reached, it moves the scope by one byte and computes again. it does this to a scope of infinity.
since this output is very orderly, it can be perfectly predicted, and by its very nature, will contain all data that a computer is capable of storing, and in a fashion easily accessed. all you need is an offset and a length. studious use of dd would let you play an mp3 directly from it, through a pipe.
this is what would destroy the riaa argument. this simple brute force generator would contain all storable knowledge, and would show that the making available is moot.
imagine the piracy potential. instead of a torrent, you send a 1kb text file containing the dd invocation with a bash header.
suddenly, telling people how to use dd becomes copyright infringement.
Indeed, I routinely get portscans en-mass from china.
Sometimes 5x a day or more. Really aggressive scans that last for hours.
Not a lot you can do about it. Scanning for open ports is a legitimate activity on networks you own, so naturally, a big internetwork like the internet is going to be drowning in automated portscans, and automated blocking of them would break many legitimate services, if they make too many queries too quickly. (say for instance, metacrawlers and pals.)
Just accept that the internet is not a cozy nice place. Bad things lie in wait for the unwary. Use modern protection, and be sensible in how you use it.
really, that's all you can do unless you have actual DDoS style attacks leveled at you. THEN you call the feds.
The lack of jupiter orbit type gas giants in the sample does not mean a dirth of possibly habitable candidate objects.
Like always, they completely ignore the prospect of large numbers of moons around extra solar gas giants, and thus ignore the prospects of possibly habitable moons.
Granted, there isnt sufficient data to make even rough estimates of that yet, since we cant really "direct image" extra solar planets to look for moons, but that is likely to change when James Webb launches and starts performing science.
I still find the failure to even acknowledge this possibility to be disturbing.
Which would make it a problem still present today on many small, dedicated devices that intend to be dice-roller substitutes. (They would tend to be based on very cheap, simplistic processors, like a z80, which does not have very big registers at all-- This would be because a z80 clone costs a few cents, where a 32bit SoC costs significantly more-- a buck or more per chip, and often comes with an NDA.)
The issue was with sequential values. I would have to reinitialize the RNG on EVERY pick, and wait a whole timer tick between iterations to get values that did not suffer this problem.
I remember, back when I was taking a quick basic class (LOL!), that I noticed an anomaly in how the random number generator produces numbers.
Specifically (well, as specifically as I can recall without digging out old source code) I noted that the output of the RNG favored multiples of 4, after having some "Difficulties" with random numbers not being random enough in one of my programs.
I wanted to test that notion, so I created a small program that "should" have painted the screen with random colored fuzz, using a random walk. (EG, the X coord, the Y coord, and the color value are all based on "random" picks from the RNG)
Imagine how much I laughed when I saw a diagonal banding pattern appear instead of random fuzz, out of the random walk.
computed random sources: Random enough for some applications, but caveat emptor!
Let's assume for a moment, that you aren't being a blatant troll here. With that in mind, here's why it is a smear.
1) The paris terrorists did not use encryption at all-- 2) The French government, and the US government already had people warning them about the impending attacks. 3) Snowden's leaks centered around *ILLEGAL* intelligence gathering practices, and his leaks were carefully sanitized and redacted by reporters with journalistic integrity. 4) Unless you think Russia is somehow behind the paris attacks, there is nothing that ties Snowden with said attacks-- and even that is just supposition. (There is shit little Snowden has given Russia besides PR.)
The only connection here is that Snowden drew attention to the US's (and its allies') use of illegal data collection for intelligence purposes, which gave the US a black eye, (and a much needed one at that.) and the administrators behind those illegal data collection practices want to try to assert (falsely) that they could have stopped the paris attack, if it hadn't been for that meddling kid-- Erhm-- Edward Snowden.
This is bullshit-- as again, the terrorists were using unencrypted channels of communication, AND were already known about by intelligence agents/agencies-- who already knew the attack was going to happen.
So, why didn't they stop it? Oh-- yeah-- Because Edward Snowden somehow used whistleblower black magic to somehow make it so they couldnt act on the intelligence they had already collected.... Somehow.
All that said-- Seriously, go troll somewhere else.
You know, there are still naturally occurring chemicals out there that exhibit broad spectrum antibiotic capabilities, that are not 'cillins, 'mycins, or 'oxins. Many of these are low molecular weight oliphins that show very strong inhibition on a wide assortment of disease organisms.
Take for instance, lemongrass oil. Stuff kills the shit out of MRSA on culture plates-- handily beats vancomycin in efficacy in the microgram quantities.
Better understanding of this and other oliphins, and how they cause such profound inhibition, would lead to a new class of broad spectrum antibiotics.
But do we do that? No. We keep doing in medicine research what japanese RPG makers do with games. "Stick to what we know, even though the handrwiting is on the wall."
It isnt because researchers arent actively looking for new classes of antibiotics-- it's because we arent devdeloping the discoveries made.
Outright poisonous plants are not illegal. You can buy hemlock plants, wolfsbane flowers, belladonna plants, foxgloves, and daturas as ornamentals, if you so wish. If you choose to eat them, and subsequently die from it, well too damn bad. (fyi, daffodils are also poisonous.)
But-- anything that might make you jumpy or might cause euphoria is a controlled substance, for the most part. ephedra falls into this category, as does the coca plant, peote cactus, psilocybin mushrooms, and a wealth of others.
Clearly, it is not because of these plants being potentially toxic; You can order daffodils and foxgloves in just about any flower and seed catalogue-- The reason is because those plants have clearly pharmacological grade substances that may be addicting in them, and people would want to poison themselves with them. But we have to by contrary-marys over that too, by having things like coffee, tobacco, alcohol products, et al on the open market.
Ultimately, the defining characteristic on if a given toxin containing plant will be illegal to grow or not boils down to the irrational demands of the public concerning said cultivation.
I dont want a regulatory agency policing based on public opinion. I want one that judges based on scientific data, and does so consistently and reliably.
The thing is-- Machines are getting to be better at *ALL* human endeavors, including theoretical future ones.
Already, machines are getting to be quite good at "creative" tasks, for instance.
This opinion bases itself on the (faulty) notion that there will always be a valid career path in the future for humans to grab on too. Eventually, in the face of perfect automation, there will simply be no task where employing humans is either efficient or profitable.
Slashdot Mirror
A redear is what you get when Dr Frankenstein and roadkill get together.
Forbes is a famous news source catering to rich conservatives. It features mostly business news, and political news with an economic or business bent.
Similar to Wall Street Journal, or Fortune magazine.
The stories on Forbes are often biased. Readers should take that with a grain of salt.
It could be argued, that the "No, really, let us show you the ads, because it pays for the content" mechanism is a payment mechanism to view protected content. By circumventing that to get unpaid access to the content, you are engaging in circumvention of a rights management system, and thus fall victim.
That's the thing with DRM-- it can be extremely feeble-- it still counts when considering the DMCA.
It could be argued that reading the article without "paying" for it (with your advert exposure) is piracy, and that to prevent you from doing this, the anti-blocker script was introduced.
Still a load of bullshit-- The need to circumvent protections that are onerous and not in the public good (or that prevent authorized special exception use, such as via a library) is very important but given short shrift as far as the DMCA is concerned.
I'm just waiting for the malware to hit these smart cars.
Just a few possibly lucrative scams that could manifest in due time:
Ransomware. "Pay us OMGWTFBBQ! dollars, or never drive your expensive status symbol ever again! We've encrypted the entire drive control computer's filesystem, so pay up."
Spyware: "Know where your spouse is REALLY going during the day! Our special software runs silently on smart cars to let you know exactly where and how long it has been running! Easy integration with our smartphone app!"
Law enforcement bullshit: "You say you were driving under the speed limit, but your car alerted us to the contrary. Enjoy your automated speeding ticket."
Adware: "Hello commuter! It looks like you are getting low on gas! Why not try Speedy's Gas and Go?" (Played loudly over the in-car speaker system, via coopted media control system., with no option to turn down the volume or stop the advert(s).)
And of course, the various kinds of dangerous hacker things--
Like:
"Drive your expensive smart car on remote control from a smart phone! (we wont be liable for damages or loss of life/injury from doing this.)"
Or--
Government black ops: "We caused his car to lock the user controls, and autodrove him off the side of an unfinished highway ramp. We made it look like he was driving while drunk."
I dont want to sound like a Luddite here, but really-- Not everything needs to be "Smart."
I have only modest experience working with *nix flavor boxes, and I fully understand the need for text based logs.
I see no real value in a binary based log, unless you want to attach some kind of diagnostic symbol metatdata to the log. (and if you did that, you had better have a dedicated storage array to store the logs...cause they will get big FAST.)
Basically, you need to be able to read the logs with the most minimal of tools, because you are going to be diagnosing it in a downed state most likely-- You cannot bank on having a full suite of binary manipulation tools on hand. You will be lucky if you have more than vi.
Also, text based logs compress REAALLY well for long term storage for audit purposes! Binary logs? Probably not so much.
Not to mention-- if the binary logs are in some stupid "easily damaged" format, then having a process suddenly die horribly from abnormal termination will result in corrupt logs, so good luck figuring out when or how the process died. Not so with good text logs. It can cut off right in the middle of the debug print, and the text file is still valid. Hell, the file chain can be damaged from FS corruption, and parts of the log will still be readable.
Text logs are just plain better in those regards.
Keeping track of the PID is important if you want to kill the process reliably when it hangs up. (because invoking the executable to tell it to down wont work reliably with a hung process.)
That is, unless invoking ./etc/init.d/foo shutdown is harder for you than doing
ps -A
to find the process ID then doing
sudo kill FooID
I suppose you might feel it safe to use
killall foo
but what if you have multiple instances of the daemon running? (say, different ssh server daemons on different ports)
Taking the time and enduring a little pain so that you can do ./etc/init.d/foo#x shutdown
to shutdown instance x of the daemon saves lots of time and effort later.
Uh huh.
And how did that work out for Gnome3, Ubuntu's choice of Unity, or MS's choice of Metro?
Oh, right. It resulted in a user revolt.
It's a two-way street, even if you don't like that fact. Developers become irrelevent without user satisfaction.
This is a problem with "old vs new".
sys V init is old. So are the old, genuine unix wizards.
SystemD is new. So is Pottering and Pals.
The divide comes from "old culture" vs "new culture." The old unix culture adores simplicity, sparseness, and adaptability. The new culture adores easiness, one-stop shopping, and cohesive wholes.
This argument will never really die. The old culture will point out the endless littany of security problems with software like systemd, simply because of the complexity and scope-creep of the project. (this increases its attack surface, and makes it attractive to malware authors and hackers.) The new culture will point out the endless littany of hair pulling and hours spent dealing with obtuse scripts and strange scripting behaviors for things they feel should be solvable with a mouseclick.
These two will never live under the same roof. Both are right, and both are wrong. There are systems and applications where sysVinit makes sense, and is desirable. There are systems and applications where systemd makes sense, and is desirable.
The real sin here is not heresey by either group.
The real sin is the decision of the foss community to pick a side, and in so doing, remove that choice from other people, by choosing to make systemd a hard requirement, solely for their own convenience.
+1 irony
Creating a filter, to counteract the effects of filtering of ideas.
Better suggestion: remove the filtering features from social media services. This makes the creation of echo-chambers nearly impossible.
clearly, i need to make a char device called magichat.
all it does is return a string of binary expressions until stopped, based on a single input: initial file position.
it generates its output on a permeutation of every possible value; once every possible value of one byte is reached, it moves the scope by one byte and computes again. it does this to a scope of infinity.
since this output is very orderly, it can be perfectly predicted, and by its very nature, will contain all data that a computer is capable of storing, and in a fashion easily accessed. all you need is an offset and a length. studious use of dd would let you play an mp3 directly from it, through a pipe.
this is what would destroy the riaa argument. this simple brute force generator would contain all storable knowledge, and would show that the making available is moot.
imagine the piracy potential. instead of a torrent, you send a 1kb text file containing the dd invocation with a bash header.
suddenly, telling people how to use dd becomes copyright infringement.
Indeed, I routinely get portscans en-mass from china.
Sometimes 5x a day or more. Really aggressive scans that last for hours.
Not a lot you can do about it. Scanning for open ports is a legitimate activity on networks you own, so naturally, a big internetwork like the internet is going to be drowning in automated portscans, and automated blocking of them would break many legitimate services, if they make too many queries too quickly. (say for instance, metacrawlers and pals.)
Just accept that the internet is not a cozy nice place. Bad things lie in wait for the unwary. Use modern protection, and be sensible in how you use it.
really, that's all you can do unless you have actual DDoS style attacks leveled at you. THEN you call the feds.
Lead paint was in use for a very long time, BECAUSE it was known to be toxic.
That's why it was used on ocean going ships and submarines. It kills barnacles.
The toxicity of lead has been known about since at least the roman empire.
The lack of jupiter orbit type gas giants in the sample does not mean a dirth of possibly habitable candidate objects.
Like always, they completely ignore the prospect of large numbers of moons around extra solar gas giants, and thus ignore the prospects of possibly habitable moons.
Granted, there isnt sufficient data to make even rough estimates of that yet, since we cant really "direct image" extra solar planets to look for moons, but that is likely to change when James Webb launches and starts performing science.
I still find the failure to even acknowledge this possibility to be disturbing.
Our business model relies on our ability to DUPE theater goers into thinking the movie will be GREAT!! when in fact, it is actually shit on a screen!
Pre-release exposure of our product prevents us from selling shit on a screen as if it were GREAT!!, which impacts our bottom line!
We DEMAND restitution from these groups that leaked our shit product, revealing it for the shit that it is!
*sigh
Pecan Pie
Hamburger
Both are inventions of the USA.
Which would make it a problem still present today on many small, dedicated devices that intend to be dice-roller substitutes. (They would tend to be based on very cheap, simplistic processors, like a z80, which does not have very big registers at all-- This would be because a z80 clone costs a few cents, where a 32bit SoC costs significantly more-- a buck or more per chip, and often comes with an NDA.)
Yes I did.
The issue was with sequential values. I would have to reinitialize the RNG on EVERY pick, and wait a whole timer tick between iterations to get values that did not suffer this problem.
I remember, back when I was taking a quick basic class (LOL!), that I noticed an anomaly in how the random number generator produces numbers.
Specifically (well, as specifically as I can recall without digging out old source code) I noted that the output of the RNG favored multiples of 4, after having some "Difficulties" with random numbers not being random enough in one of my programs.
I wanted to test that notion, so I created a small program that "should" have painted the screen with random colored fuzz, using a random walk. (EG, the X coord, the Y coord, and the color value are all based on "random" picks from the RNG)
Imagine how much I laughed when I saw a diagonal banding pattern appear instead of random fuzz, out of the random walk.
computed random sources: Random enough for some applications, but caveat emptor!
Are you being serious?
Let's assume for a moment, that you aren't being a blatant troll here. With that in mind, here's why it is a smear.
1) The paris terrorists did not use encryption at all--
2) The French government, and the US government already had people warning them about the impending attacks.
3) Snowden's leaks centered around *ILLEGAL* intelligence gathering practices, and his leaks were carefully sanitized and redacted by reporters with journalistic integrity.
4) Unless you think Russia is somehow behind the paris attacks, there is nothing that ties Snowden with said attacks-- and even that is just supposition. (There is shit little Snowden has given Russia besides PR.)
The only connection here is that Snowden drew attention to the US's (and its allies') use of illegal data collection for intelligence purposes, which gave the US a black eye, (and a much needed one at that.) and the administrators behind those illegal data collection practices want to try to assert (falsely) that they could have stopped the paris attack, if it hadn't been for that meddling kid-- Erhm-- Edward Snowden.
This is bullshit-- as again, the terrorists were using unencrypted channels of communication, AND were already known about by intelligence agents/agencies-- who already knew the attack was going to happen.
So, why didn't they stop it? Oh-- yeah-- Because Edward Snowden somehow used whistleblower black magic to somehow make it so they couldnt act on the intelligence they had already collected.... Somehow.
All that said-- Seriously, go troll somewhere else.
"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
Rahm Emanuel
Aren't politics grand? Gotta further an agenda while the corpses are still warm. (You lose impact any other way, you see.) /s
Just a few citations to back the prior post.
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1995764510601290
jac.oxfordjournals.org/content/47/5/565.short
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0378874184900576
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2672.1999.00780.x/
The stuff actually does work.
You know, there are still naturally occurring chemicals out there that exhibit broad spectrum antibiotic capabilities, that are not 'cillins, 'mycins, or 'oxins. Many of these are low molecular weight oliphins that show very strong inhibition on a wide assortment of disease organisms.
Take for instance, lemongrass oil. Stuff kills the shit out of MRSA on culture plates-- handily beats vancomycin in efficacy in the microgram quantities.
Better understanding of this and other oliphins, and how they cause such profound inhibition, would lead to a new class of broad spectrum antibiotics.
But do we do that? No. We keep doing in medicine research what japanese RPG makers do with games. "Stick to what we know, even though the handrwiting is on the wall."
It isnt because researchers arent actively looking for new classes of antibiotics-- it's because we arent devdeloping the discoveries made.
I always see the differences in facial bone structure. Male heads are just morphologically different from female heads. They just are.
Outright poisonous plants are not illegal. You can buy hemlock plants, wolfsbane flowers, belladonna plants, foxgloves, and daturas as ornamentals, if you so wish. If you choose to eat them, and subsequently die from it, well too damn bad. (fyi, daffodils are also poisonous.)
But-- anything that might make you jumpy or might cause euphoria is a controlled substance, for the most part. ephedra falls into this category, as does the coca plant, peote cactus, psilocybin mushrooms, and a wealth of others.
Clearly, it is not because of these plants being potentially toxic; You can order daffodils and foxgloves in just about any flower and seed catalogue-- The reason is because those plants have clearly pharmacological grade substances that may be addicting in them, and people would want to poison themselves with them. But we have to by contrary-marys over that too, by having things like coffee, tobacco, alcohol products, et al on the open market.
Ultimately, the defining characteristic on if a given toxin containing plant will be illegal to grow or not boils down to the irrational demands of the public concerning said cultivation.
I dont want a regulatory agency policing based on public opinion. I want one that judges based on scientific data, and does so consistently and reliably.
The thing is-- Machines are getting to be better at *ALL* human endeavors, including theoretical future ones.
Already, machines are getting to be quite good at "creative" tasks, for instance.
This opinion bases itself on the (faulty) notion that there will always be a valid career path in the future for humans to grab on too. Eventually, in the face of perfect automation, there will simply be no task where employing humans is either efficient or profitable.