You donÃ(TM)t get to decide what words everyone must use. In English, there are many synonyms.
Neither term is more valid or correct than the other. You donÃ(TM)t have to call it a clip, I wonÃ(TM)t presume to attempt to control your word choice. Feel free to call a clip a magazine, your choice.
A clip is a piece of metal that holds several rounds of ammunition together so that they can be fed into a firearm more easily as a unit (i.e., the rounds are "clipped" together). Clips are typically disposable, although they can be re-used. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clip_(firearms)
A magazine is a container for multiple rounds of ammunition. In portable firearms, they are typically removable and designed for re-use.
These are not synonymous terms, but the term "clip" is often used incorrectly by those not familiar with the technology used in firearms. Slashdot being a technology website, the difference should be salient in my opinion.
I think you are ok to call each number in Sunnyvale California as long as your calls are for a legitimate purpose; one of those legitimate (allowed by law) purposes (for example) is to conduct a telephone survey. If you are calling each of those numbers to find data protocol interfaces that you will then attempt to exploit illegally, then no, you would not be ok. You would probably be on shaky ground dialing those numbers just to search for data protocol interfaces. The original scenario is about enumerating an index in a URL for the purpose of accessing published records, not searching through a URL space for system vulnerabilities to exploit. I am contending that such usage was envisioned by the original protocol creators and is explicitly enabled by every single public tool that implements the protocol, and is therefore a reasonable use of the protocol.
This reminds me of the bacterium designed to break down the room temperature superconductors used on the Ringworld by the Puppeteers to eliminate the threat that they believed the inhabitants of the Ringworld posed to them. I hope that the tech people involved are smart enough to make sure the enzyme is controllable so that it only eats up waste plastics. Too much of our society is plastic-based at this point.
Am I hacking the system if I use my remote control to sequentially access channels on my DirecTV system instead of using the DirecTV directory?
Am I hacking the system if I conduct a (legitimate) telephone survey by progressing through the phone numbers for a given area code/prefix sequentially instead of using a telephone directory organized by name that translates to a telephone number?
Am I hacking the system if I go trick-or-treating by house number up and down the block instead of using the HOA directory to find people in my neighborhood by name then go to their their address?
The individual in question didn't evade any controls on the access to the information. He scanned the information that was made freely available by sequentially stepping through the information addresses rather than going through a central directory. The idea that the mere existence of a central directory makes it illegal to scan publicly available addresses directly to access unsecured information is ridiculous. The URL address system is a well-known public interface for accessing information. If the URL address system contains an obvious regular pattern, it is well within reasonable expectations that a) individuals will notice this regular pattern, and b) use the regular pattern to optimize their access to the information. The fact that every single web browser exposes the URL and allows direct manipulation of the URL suggests that URLs are not only capable of being used in this way, but that the original protocol designers and implementors intended for it to be used in this way.
Boeing is not in a fast moving market with lots of competition that is very sensitive to public perception.
If NTSB gives companies the choice between ignoring their rules or serious brand damage and short-term losses, the rules will be ignored.
It might well be a sign that the NTSB will have to get used to new times or they might end up with serious issues investigating future crashes.
This AC comment covers what I wanted to say very nicely, so I'll just quote it and say "What he/she/it said."
I used to work for a large company that had offices all over the United States, and a contract with Federal Express for overnight package delivery. The discount was so good that it was cheaper for me to ship my Christmas gifts back to my family by Federal Express "Next Day" service (through my company) than it was to send them via UPS or the USPS via ground shipping. Deep discounts for a guaranteed high volume of business are not unusual, and are not by themselves an indication of an unfair/money-losing deal. [This was before the existence of Amazon/Internet retailers in general]
Because the technology is in it's infancy? To me it's the equivelant of saying "this medical student is able to treat patients as long as he/she is supervised by an experienced doctor". We don't conclude that to mean that the experienced doctor should sleep in a chair and everyone should fully trust the med-student. Ready for use with supervision, and ready to be trusted, are very different things.
Interesting point. To which I add the observation that software behaves differently than the "real world", including medical interns. This point was emphasized early and often in my Systems Engineering classes. Most engineers (non-software engineers) train in a world dominated by physics, where failures are usually gradual [not always, but usually]. Differential equations don't usually have step functions. The behavior of a medical intern might be characterized the same way. Software behaves differently, typically working right up to the point where it doesn't. Most people are experienced in the real world, and don't really expect a physical machine (like a car) to fail in the manner that software does, even though they have probably observed a computer crash first-hand. But a cyber-physical machine (like a Tesla Auto-pilot driven car) can fail dramatically in the fashion of software. Surprise!
I don't know why the parent was marked down to -1. The poster has expressed his/her opinion of why the Indian government may want to establish a form of identification/authentication tied directly to individuals, and cited examples of potential fraud in the US system that by analogy are relevant.
I have personally observed similar instances of potential fraud, and have had other instances related to me, so the poster's observations appear valid and relevant to me.
If you were in my household, you would hear it often. In the spring time, just as it is starting to actually be light outside when we are all getting up and ready for the day, along comes DST and fucks it back up again. I detest having to get up before the sun rises, and I hate getting a hint of daylight as I rise only to have it snatched away again by DST, especially since DST was moved earlier in the spring in the mid-2000s so that the effect hit more noticeably. So, yes, I get pissed that it is still dark in the morning due to DST, and I'll be cursing it next Monday morning.
Your claim that it is almost impossible to get a large group to adjust to anything without some central oversight is interesting. There is, to the best of my knowledge, no law requiring workplaces to observe 8 am to 5 pm (roughly) as "working hours," yet this observance is reasonably well represented across the United States. Some variances - 7:30 am to 4:30 pm, and so on. More similarities than differences, though. In your second paragraph you say just that - "the vast majority of people opted to come in between 7-8"; and they did so without a central authority.
As for noon aligning with the high sun point, that is all "noon" originally was - the dividing point marked by the observable fact that the sun was at its highest point in the sky. Whatever conventions were developed did so because that is what people decided made sense. If people were having lunch at noon, it is because that is the point in the daylight cycle that made sense to them, not the fact that the clock said "noon." The reason why the sun's high point doesn't always match exactly with "noon" on the clock probably has more to do with standardized time zones than DST. That the alignment is as radically different at different points in the year (12:50 versus 13:50) is probably attributable to DST. Although I'm not a fan of DST, I do think that standardized timezone's make sense. An alternative would be either one time zone for everyone (which has been suggested before), or "micro-timezones" which adjust so that every city and town can have noon at the point when the sun is at the highest location at their longitude. Wouldn't that be fun?
The real problem, in my mind, is that a central authority decides that it would be a good idea for EVERYONE to show up for work an hour earlier, or an hour later, which they obviously can't legislate (at least not without serious pushback). So they move the clock around instead, and people, being creatures of habit, maintain their clock-based schedules and go to work an hour later, or an hour earlier (than the sun-based time), just like the legislature wanted to make them do.
Yes. Please. End the madness. I (almost) don't care which direction it ends up in, as long as the changes stop. It is one of the most idiotic examples of legislatures making people dance to the tune of idiot lawmakers I can imagine. The only thing that surpasses the idiocy of DST in the first place was the mid-2000s HUGE effort to alter, slightly, the date of the start and the end of DST in the United States. Sheer stupidity.
I know someone who works for a federally funded research and development lab in the DC area. The HR department has initiated a campaign to "diversify" the workforce by bringing in more "early career" individuals. This organization has a more or less "points-based" pay scale (you get so many points for each year of experience, for each advanced degree, etc.) that determine your pay scale regardless of your ability or fit for the job. I'm sure the fact that the "early career" folks will be paid less based on the "points-based" pay scale didn't enter into their minds at all when they decided to actively discriminate against older individuals in favor of "early career" new hires.
But - I keep hearing that American workers haven't had a "real" pay increase in a decade or more, and that the minimum wage is too low (not a "living" wage). The principles of supply and demand would seem to dictate that the US not bring in external workers to increase the supply of workers (and thus prevent wages from rising as demand for workers outstrips the supply). It certainly won't work to keep bringing in external workers and just legislate that business should pay employees more, will it?
The breakup of the AT&T telephone monopoly in the United States had significant benefits for consumers. Sure, some of the divested Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCS) managed to reform into regional monopolies, but overall the cost of telephone services plummeted and consumer flexibility and choice increased significantly. I grew up in a household that could only afford to rent one telephone (not one telephone line - one *telephone*) from the phone company, from which we could only afford to make calls within our own town and parts of the adjoining towns (about a 10 square mile area). In-state toll calls were expensive, and out of state long distance was ridiculous. Now I live in a household where for about the same monthly cost (in unadjusted dollars) I can have as many phones as I want, and I can make lengthy calls throughout the United States and Canada all month long for my one fixed price phone service charge.
I think you should pick a different example to make the case that breaking up (true) monopolies doesn't yield benefits.
I've known people who would deliberately park next to the cars they see out at the end of a parking lot with lots of spaces around them. So, someone might just be screwing with you.
Many thanks. Didn't realize the connection to Cockney rhyming slang, which I find to be a rather peculiar yet engaging form of linguistic expression, especially when the rhyming word is no where to be found in the actual utterance.
It may be a crime, just like walking in your neighbor's using the key they hid under their potted plant may be a crime. But it shouldn't be a felony. A felony implies great harm to something valuable. If the organization cared so little for their IT resources that they protected them so laxly, a felony charge is not warranted.
In this case, given the relatively trivial "protection" placed upon the IT resources in question, the organization can't have placed much value upon them. It would seem to me that a felony charge is not warranted, as a felony implies harm to something of great value.
Its not a felony to poke around in unlocked filing cabinets in your colleague's locked offices that you entered using the office master key hanging on the hook in the break room. It may not be nice, but it is not a felony.
The closest Google got me was the dangers of flushing toilets in a house using a septic system that had iced up in the winter time, and I'm not sure that is where you were going...
I left home for a variety of reasons and lived in several different parts of the country. When I finally "settled down" (i.e., got married/had kids) I was far from home where my mom and Dad were, in part because of the cost of living there. Ditto for my wife. My wife and I shared child care when kids were young, used day care when they were older, and worked offset schedules once they were school-aged so that one saw them off in the morning, the other took care of the afternoon.
Was it more difficult? In some ways yes, in other ways no. We didn't have cheap baby sitting for going out on Friday/Saturday nights, but we spent more time together as a family. Moms (on both sides) flew in to visit, stayed a while, went home. We included both parents' locations as vacation destinations for family trips. Saved/invested more money than we otherwise might have managed. Was it the *best* thing to do? Who knows. It worked. Life is full of problems. Our challenge is to optimize for ourselves within our constraints taking advantage of our opportunities.
My brother lives in the same neighborhood that we grew up in. It is three times more dense than it was when we were young, and much more expensive. He managed it because my mother split her lot in half and sold the extra piece to him for next to nothing, and he built a house with a lot of sweat equity. He and his wife have used his and her parents for cheap child care, and that worked well for them. I wouldn't want to live there myself because it is too crowded for me.
If you live someplace where lots of other people want to live, chances are densities and cost of living will increase over time. Even without any net inflow of outside people, after a couple of generations it is possible that young adults getting a start won't be able to afford a house in the exact same area because of the increased competition for the local land resources, even if their parents/grandparents could.
When phrases like "tough on crime" are used I want them to refer to the consequences handed out to people who are found guilty of crime in a court of law. I wish for the police to be always professional and enforce the law, making arrests when appropriate, but I don't want them being "tough on crime." I want prosecutors and judges to be "tough on crime."
I'm not challenging your statement, because it is true. My new (or not so new) idea is that it would be a relief to jettison Seattle due to its geographically disproportionate influence over the rest of the state. I live in the urbanized west of Washington, but I'm not so urbanized as the folks in Seattle, I guess.
Slashdot Mirror
A clip is a piece of metal that holds several rounds of ammunition together so that they can be fed into a firearm more easily as a unit (i.e., the rounds are "clipped" together). Clips are typically disposable, although they can be re-used. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clip_(firearms)
A magazine is a container for multiple rounds of ammunition. In portable firearms, they are typically removable and designed for re-use.
These are not synonymous terms, but the term "clip" is often used incorrectly by those not familiar with the technology used in firearms. Slashdot being a technology website, the difference should be salient in my opinion.
I think you are ok to call each number in Sunnyvale California as long as your calls are for a legitimate purpose; one of those legitimate (allowed by law) purposes (for example) is to conduct a telephone survey. If you are calling each of those numbers to find data protocol interfaces that you will then attempt to exploit illegally, then no, you would not be ok. You would probably be on shaky ground dialing those numbers just to search for data protocol interfaces. The original scenario is about enumerating an index in a URL for the purpose of accessing published records, not searching through a URL space for system vulnerabilities to exploit. I am contending that such usage was envisioned by the original protocol creators and is explicitly enabled by every single public tool that implements the protocol, and is therefore a reasonable use of the protocol.
This reminds me of the bacterium designed to break down the room temperature superconductors used on the Ringworld by the Puppeteers to eliminate the threat that they believed the inhabitants of the Ringworld posed to them. I hope that the tech people involved are smart enough to make sure the enzyme is controllable so that it only eats up waste plastics. Too much of our society is plastic-based at this point.
For the edification of those who don't recognize the reference, http://www.larryniven.net/puppeteer/puppol.shtml.
Am I hacking the system if I use my remote control to sequentially access channels on my DirecTV system instead of using the DirecTV directory?
Am I hacking the system if I conduct a (legitimate) telephone survey by progressing through the phone numbers for a given area code/prefix sequentially instead of using a telephone directory organized by name that translates to a telephone number?
Am I hacking the system if I go trick-or-treating by house number up and down the block instead of using the HOA directory to find people in my neighborhood by name then go to their their address?
The individual in question didn't evade any controls on the access to the information. He scanned the information that was made freely available by sequentially stepping through the information addresses rather than going through a central directory. The idea that the mere existence of a central directory makes it illegal to scan publicly available addresses directly to access unsecured information is ridiculous. The URL address system is a well-known public interface for accessing information. If the URL address system contains an obvious regular pattern, it is well within reasonable expectations that a) individuals will notice this regular pattern, and b) use the regular pattern to optimize their access to the information. The fact that every single web browser exposes the URL and allows direct manipulation of the URL suggests that URLs are not only capable of being used in this way, but that the original protocol designers and implementors intended for it to be used in this way.
This AC comment covers what I wanted to say very nicely, so I'll just quote it and say "What he/she/it said."
I used to work for a large company that had offices all over the United States, and a contract with Federal Express for overnight package delivery. The discount was so good that it was cheaper for me to ship my Christmas gifts back to my family by Federal Express "Next Day" service (through my company) than it was to send them via UPS or the USPS via ground shipping. Deep discounts for a guaranteed high volume of business are not unusual, and are not by themselves an indication of an unfair/money-losing deal. [This was before the existence of Amazon/Internet retailers in general]
Interesting point. To which I add the observation that software behaves differently than the "real world", including medical interns. This point was emphasized early and often in my Systems Engineering classes. Most engineers (non-software engineers) train in a world dominated by physics, where failures are usually gradual [not always, but usually]. Differential equations don't usually have step functions. The behavior of a medical intern might be characterized the same way. Software behaves differently, typically working right up to the point where it doesn't. Most people are experienced in the real world, and don't really expect a physical machine (like a car) to fail in the manner that software does, even though they have probably observed a computer crash first-hand. But a cyber-physical machine (like a Tesla Auto-pilot driven car) can fail dramatically in the fashion of software. Surprise!
Cruise control can fail catastrophically when driving on slippery roads (e.g., wet roads, icy/snowy roads). https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wild-when-wet/
I don't know why the parent was marked down to -1. The poster has expressed his/her opinion of why the Indian government may want to establish a form of identification/authentication tied directly to individuals, and cited examples of potential fraud in the US system that by analogy are relevant.
I have personally observed similar instances of potential fraud, and have had other instances related to me, so the poster's observations appear valid and relevant to me.
If you were in my household, you would hear it often. In the spring time, just as it is starting to actually be light outside when we are all getting up and ready for the day, along comes DST and fucks it back up again. I detest having to get up before the sun rises, and I hate getting a hint of daylight as I rise only to have it snatched away again by DST, especially since DST was moved earlier in the spring in the mid-2000s so that the effect hit more noticeably. So, yes, I get pissed that it is still dark in the morning due to DST, and I'll be cursing it next Monday morning.
Your claim that it is almost impossible to get a large group to adjust to anything without some central oversight is interesting. There is, to the best of my knowledge, no law requiring workplaces to observe 8 am to 5 pm (roughly) as "working hours," yet this observance is reasonably well represented across the United States. Some variances - 7:30 am to 4:30 pm, and so on. More similarities than differences, though. In your second paragraph you say just that - "the vast majority of people opted to come in between 7-8"; and they did so without a central authority.
As for noon aligning with the high sun point, that is all "noon" originally was - the dividing point marked by the observable fact that the sun was at its highest point in the sky. Whatever conventions were developed did so because that is what people decided made sense. If people were having lunch at noon, it is because that is the point in the daylight cycle that made sense to them, not the fact that the clock said "noon." The reason why the sun's high point doesn't always match exactly with "noon" on the clock probably has more to do with standardized time zones than DST. That the alignment is as radically different at different points in the year (12:50 versus 13:50) is probably attributable to DST. Although I'm not a fan of DST, I do think that standardized timezone's make sense. An alternative would be either one time zone for everyone (which has been suggested before), or "micro-timezones" which adjust so that every city and town can have noon at the point when the sun is at the highest location at their longitude. Wouldn't that be fun?
The real problem, in my mind, is that a central authority decides that it would be a good idea for EVERYONE to show up for work an hour earlier, or an hour later, which they obviously can't legislate (at least not without serious pushback). So they move the clock around instead, and people, being creatures of habit, maintain their clock-based schedules and go to work an hour later, or an hour earlier (than the sun-based time), just like the legislature wanted to make them do.
Yes. Please. End the madness. I (almost) don't care which direction it ends up in, as long as the changes stop. It is one of the most idiotic examples of legislatures making people dance to the tune of idiot lawmakers I can imagine. The only thing that surpasses the idiocy of DST in the first place was the mid-2000s HUGE effort to alter, slightly, the date of the start and the end of DST in the United States. Sheer stupidity.
I know someone who works for a federally funded research and development lab in the DC area. The HR department has initiated a campaign to "diversify" the workforce by bringing in more "early career" individuals. This organization has a more or less "points-based" pay scale (you get so many points for each year of experience, for each advanced degree, etc.) that determine your pay scale regardless of your ability or fit for the job. I'm sure the fact that the "early career" folks will be paid less based on the "points-based" pay scale didn't enter into their minds at all when they decided to actively discriminate against older individuals in favor of "early career" new hires.
But - I keep hearing that American workers haven't had a "real" pay increase in a decade or more, and that the minimum wage is too low (not a "living" wage). The principles of supply and demand would seem to dictate that the US not bring in external workers to increase the supply of workers (and thus prevent wages from rising as demand for workers outstrips the supply). It certainly won't work to keep bringing in external workers and just legislate that business should pay employees more, will it?
Just wait a little longer - I have an iPhone 5, and I'm no longer nagged to upgrade IOS.
The breakup of the AT&T telephone monopoly in the United States had significant benefits for consumers. Sure, some of the divested Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCS) managed to reform into regional monopolies, but overall the cost of telephone services plummeted and consumer flexibility and choice increased significantly. I grew up in a household that could only afford to rent one telephone (not one telephone line - one *telephone*) from the phone company, from which we could only afford to make calls within our own town and parts of the adjoining towns (about a 10 square mile area). In-state toll calls were expensive, and out of state long distance was ridiculous. Now I live in a household where for about the same monthly cost (in unadjusted dollars) I can have as many phones as I want, and I can make lengthy calls throughout the United States and Canada all month long for my one fixed price phone service charge.
I think you should pick a different example to make the case that breaking up (true) monopolies doesn't yield benefits.
I don't find the definition of "moran" in the dictionary. Perhaps you meant "morons"? Ah, the irony.
I've known people who would deliberately park next to the cars they see out at the end of a parking lot with lots of spaces around them. So, someone might just be screwing with you.
Many thanks. Didn't realize the connection to Cockney rhyming slang, which I find to be a rather peculiar yet engaging form of linguistic expression, especially when the rhyming word is no where to be found in the actual utterance.
It may be a crime, just like walking in your neighbor's using the key they hid under their potted plant may be a crime. But it shouldn't be a felony. A felony implies great harm to something valuable. If the organization cared so little for their IT resources that they protected them so laxly, a felony charge is not warranted.
In this case, given the relatively trivial "protection" placed upon the IT resources in question, the organization can't have placed much value upon them. It would seem to me that a felony charge is not warranted, as a felony implies harm to something of great value.
Its not a felony to poke around in unlocked filing cabinets in your colleague's locked offices that you entered using the office master key hanging on the hook in the break room. It may not be nice, but it is not a felony.
It was kind of you to decode SPOD. Thank you.
Now could you do the same for:
The closest Google got me was the dangers of flushing toilets in a house using a septic system that had iced up in the winter time, and I'm not sure that is where you were going...
I left home for a variety of reasons and lived in several different parts of the country. When I finally "settled down" (i.e., got married/had kids) I was far from home where my mom and Dad were, in part because of the cost of living there. Ditto for my wife. My wife and I shared child care when kids were young, used day care when they were older, and worked offset schedules once they were school-aged so that one saw them off in the morning, the other took care of the afternoon.
Was it more difficult? In some ways yes, in other ways no. We didn't have cheap baby sitting for going out on Friday/Saturday nights, but we spent more time together as a family. Moms (on both sides) flew in to visit, stayed a while, went home. We included both parents' locations as vacation destinations for family trips. Saved/invested more money than we otherwise might have managed. Was it the *best* thing to do? Who knows. It worked. Life is full of problems. Our challenge is to optimize for ourselves within our constraints taking advantage of our opportunities.
My brother lives in the same neighborhood that we grew up in. It is three times more dense than it was when we were young, and much more expensive. He managed it because my mother split her lot in half and sold the extra piece to him for next to nothing, and he built a house with a lot of sweat equity. He and his wife have used his and her parents for cheap child care, and that worked well for them. I wouldn't want to live there myself because it is too crowded for me.
If you live someplace where lots of other people want to live, chances are densities and cost of living will increase over time. Even without any net inflow of outside people, after a couple of generations it is possible that young adults getting a start won't be able to afford a house in the exact same area because of the increased competition for the local land resources, even if their parents/grandparents could.
When phrases like "tough on crime" are used I want them to refer to the consequences handed out to people who are found guilty of crime in a court of law. I wish for the police to be always professional and enforce the law, making arrests when appropriate, but I don't want them being "tough on crime." I want prosecutors and judges to be "tough on crime."
I'm not challenging your statement, because it is true. My new (or not so new) idea is that it would be a relief to jettison Seattle due to its geographically disproportionate influence over the rest of the state. I live in the urbanized west of Washington, but I'm not so urbanized as the folks in Seattle, I guess.