Because some people are criminals and terrorists, we now have no choice but to treat everyone as if they're criminals and terrorists, therefore no one will be allowed to have any ability to have any sort of private communications.
I don't give a damn what he said about 'warrants', either, that's just a piece of paper after all.
There is no real story here. It's a simple, if tragic, industrial accident. By even posting this, Slashdot is guilty of spreading FUD about completely fictional (and in this case entirely absent) AIs, pandering to the fears of people who are afraid they will 'take over'. Mod entire story down to (-1, Troll), and deprecate, disregard, delete.
I'm not claiming to know how the whole system works; I'm getting a quick education on the subject as we're discussing it. It sounds like the overall load is well-distributed. You seem to understand it well enough to answer this question: If, say, even 10% or so of everyone did an end-run around ISP-based DNS servers in this way, would it theoretically cause enough excessive traffic that it would annoy the admins responsible for them?
Hmm, that's a good point. However if too many people were going directly to the root servers, eventually wouldn't they take some action to limit access to whoever needs it (as opposed to who wants it) to reduce the workload on the servers? Bypassing all the lower strata of DNS servers kind of breaks the way the system was designed, doesn't it? Of course these nudnik ISPs and other bad actors out there 'tampering' with DNS for whatever their reasons are, are certainly breaking the way the system is supposed to work, too..
My point is that you have NO control over the root DNS servers (or any other DNS servers you don't own), or what happens in the route between you and any DNS servers, so how do you know what's really going on? If you were to directly use the root DNS servers, how do you know traffic in either direction isn't being tampered with? You have to assume that any data of any kind sent or received from the public Internet is inherently insecure, and there's plenty of historical evidence to prove not only it's plausibility, but it's likelihood. All you can do is make the best choices you can based on available information, and hope you're not being sold down the river by some three-letter agency, or who knows who.
You're assuming that what you think are the root DNS servers are actually the root DNS servers, and that they're not being spoofed by the CIA, NSA, or whoever in the first place. You're also assuming that your ISP would allow you to do such a thing, and not brand you as someone up to no good, and cut you off.
I never trusted OpenDNS much in the first place, certainly no more at best than I would any ISP's DNS servers.
How about you stop using the word 'idiot' completely, and contributing to the problem of the Internet being such a damned cesspool? I've read through some of your other comments. There's 'arguing a point' then there's 'being argumentative'. You appear to be the latter. Go away.
Yes, but as someone else also pointed out, solar and wind aren't really 'on demand' power, they're dependent on conditions being right for them to deliver. Current battery technology isn't going to cut it either, it doesn't seem like it scales up economically enough to be practical either. Perhaps in a future time we'll have an energy storage solution that is economical and efficient on a massive scale, and likely (since research is ongoing) even more efficient conversion of solar energy to electric, but for the time being it's just not cutting it. Also I'd like to point out that when someone says 'nuclear power' everyone assumes 'fission reactors', when there are other alternatives that would be safer and not as difficult to manage safely. Also every year we get a little closer to realizing fusion power. This whole subject is an ongoing journey, not a single destination, and there's going to be many milestones along the way. Wind, solar, and non-fusion nuclear are just some of those milestones. For all we know, 200 years from now we'll have antimatter power, or dark energy, or who knows what? But we have to keep moving forward one way or another.
So you personally attack me with insults? Who the hell do you think you are to treat people that way? Would you say that kind of thing to any complete stranger face to face? I think not, sooner or later you'd get punched in the nose and you know it. Get correct, friend. You can argue against my opinion all you want, but have the decency to be civil about it.
A thought just occurred to me: Assuming in the near to medium-term future we had many many large installations of battery banks (ala-Tesla batteries, for instance) charging and discharging constantly, how much waste heat would be generated by this, and how much would that waste heat contribute to global warming (positively or negatively)? Purely theoretical, I know.
Which 'job' is it of which you speak, anyway? Some environmentalists are just fine. Some of them are complete zealots and outright whack-jobs. Remember that there are plenty of 'environmentalists' who preach that the best thing humanity can do for the environment is to commit suicide, preferably as an entire race, and allow the Earth to return to it's 'natural' state. For the most part ignorance, wilfull or not, is what got us into our current messes in the first place; extremists need to be ignored, or 'dealt with' if required.
In my book it's simple: You say "I don't have to explain myself to you, I simply do not want your service anymore, and if you refuse to cancel it I will refuse to continue paying you. I will return your equipment to your nearest office tomorrow, and get a receipt showing I returned it, and furthermore I will rip the wire out of the wall. Now please do your job and stop annoying me".
People are moving away from cable and satellite and towards the Internet (Hulu, Netflix, etc) and over-the-air broadcast television. Me? I am opposed to paying for Internet entertainment solutions, because I've got to pay for it, yet there are still commercials you have to sit through. At least with a DVR I can skip forward past the commercials, and OTA costs me nothing beyond the one-time expense of the antenna. At any given time I have more to watch on my DVR than I have free time to sit and watch it all, which is also a win-win: I have plenty to catch up on during the summertime when there's not much on.
It's high time we got over our aversion to nuclear power. People treat it like it's inherently evil, when the truth of the matter is that any problems with it have been through mismanagement and poor planning. We can do better, and need to do better. Wind and solar, while nice and clean, probably aren't going to ever be capable of delivering all the power the world needs/wants. I'll be honest with you: I'm one of the people who voted to shut down Rancho Seco back in the day, and I'm the one now saying: We need nuclear power, in one form or another.
I am not a pilot; I do not know if you are or not, but I suspect the latter. I did however work for someone for 8 years who was a pilot, and perhaps got some sense of the sensibilities a pilot should have if they want to stay alive, and I think that could be summarized as simply as this: Err on the side of caution. Would the propeller of the tanker aircraft used in firefighting likely survive chopping up a drone? Yes. Is that 100% certain? No. Is the pilot of said aircraft willing to take the chance? Absolutely not, I'd say. Furthermore, would said pilot be willing to discover through direct experience whether his aircraft would sustain any appreciable damage from any part of it striking a drone in mid-flight? Again, I'd have to imagine the answer would be a resounding absolutely not. Unlike driving a ground vehicle, where if there is some sort of collision that disables it, you just come to a stop, remember that if some critical damage occurs to an aircraft, it falls out of the sky, and in this particular case even if the pilot has a parachute and can get out before impact, he's jumping into a forest fire. If it's me, I'd also not be taking any unnecessary chances, and I'd hope that once this was all put into perspective for a non-pilot, they'd say they'd choose the path of caution as well.
On the subject of bureaucrats and other rule-makers: It seems like you're expecting people in these positions to have the Wisdom of the Ages directing their decisions. While I applaud your optimism of humankind in general, I, while being both hopeful and a cynic at the same time, set the bar substantially lower than you seem to be setting it. It's sad that politicians and bureaucrats apparently aren't smarter than the average bear so-to-speak, but it appears that, for the time being anyway, that's what we've got to work with. The Best and Brightest tend to steer away from politics and government, and towards the private sector where they can make substantially more money without all the hassles. So unfortunately what we end up with sometimes is situations like this: Beavis being stupid with his drone, causing major problems, and Butthead making knee-jerk rules, regulations, and laws because of it. Meanwhile the rest of us have to scream at the top of our lungs to try to get both of them to pay attention. At least Butthead is supposed be paying attention to what we're saying (sadly doesn't always work), whereas Beavis isn't likely to listen to anyone unless maybe they're wearing a badge and pointing a gun at them. All we can do is try to elect smarter people (admittedly hard to do when the candidate pool is so poor) and hope they appoint people to various positions who also are smarter (likewise chancy at best). Meanwhile, it is what it is and we work with it the best we can, yes?
That's an interesting take on the subject, and I'm grinning while nodding my approval of your anecdote (I know people's brains work that way; same thing with what you expect to be paid to do a job, you low-ball it and people suspect you're no good at it, for instance) but in my out-of-thin-air example of a nuclear reactor in your house, it's not someone stealing it I'm worried about, it's the ostensible owner of it failing to manage it correctly I'd referring to. Think Homer Simpson.
You know, the problem with the concept of 'common sense' is that it's anything but 'common' anymore, apparently. If it were I who owned a drone, and lived close enough to where there was a massive forest fire, where many firefighters, with air support, were trying to contain it, the last thing I'd think to do is anything to get in the way of them doing their jobs. That would most certainly include keeping my pricey little flying toy the hell away from the whole scene. I really can't imagine what would go through someone's mind that they'd think it was in any way justifiable to do such a thing.
No private citizen NEEDS a gun either; or a car, or a computer, or porno magazines. That doesn't mean we can't have them.
Sure, I totally agree with that statement. However, if you use your gun to commit murder, or you're allowing access of your porno magazines to minors, or using your computer to commit crimes, then you're completely and totally wrong and need to be caught and punished. If we lived in a perfect world, we'd all be allowed to own and operate small nuclear reactors in our houses, but we're not because there are too many irresponsible (if not outright criminal) people out there who can't be trusted with dangerous things. If something that isn't inherently dangerous (like one of these toy drones) starts being used by people in a dangerous manner, then it ends up getting treated like an inherently dangerous thing anyway because other people shouldn't have to worry about being endangered by/protecting themselves from idiots, thoughtless, malicious, or otherwise. Hence what I've been saying for years: The surest way to ruin a good thing is to get a bunch of people involved in it. Don't blame the car, or the gun, or the computer, or even the porno magazines, blame the idiots who misuse them, ruining their potential for the rest of us.
So you don't believe anyone should have anything they don't need? Log off immediately and throw your computer in the bin, hypocrite.
Looking at your other comments it's clear that you're one of those people who just likes to argue, so that's all I'm going to point out here. Getting in a 'discussion' with someone like you is a negative-sum game at best.
Huh. Usually when I see 'Anonymous Coward' comments I brace myself for more sophomoric trolling. In your case, not even close. How refreshing..
Anyway, tell you what: I'll agree to a concession on the line from my comment you quoted:
'Muh freedoms' end where putting other people's safety at risk begins -- in this specific case, that means impeding the work of the pilot(s) of the firefighting aircraft(s), putting them at risk.
That a little more agreeable?
Yes, it's sad that a few dumbasses being irresponsible with their toys are going to end up causing knee-jerking politicians and bureaucrats to write a bunch of rules, regulations, and laws to restrict the use of drones, but I maintain that you have to place the blame for that squarely on the shoulders of the idiots flying the drones and nobody else.
Oh come on people, there's no story here. Notice how the video ended just as whoever it was put a foot on the 'hoverboard'? It's obvious that while there may be magnets involved, it wasn't for-real and as soon as any weight was put on it, it was on the ground and not going anywhere. Old trick, nothing to see here, move along, people.. At best this 'story' is just a shameless shill for Lexus, even more reason to ignore it.
The reality of the situation, though, is this: No private citizen needs a drone. They sure as fuck have NO justification for flying one above a massive forest fire that fire crews are trying to get under control. In this case the drone pilot, ideally, should be caught, perhaps criminally charged, and definitely be forced to pay for the costs incurred for playing with their toy in an inappropriate and dangerous manner. If their drone had been struck by one of the tanker aircraft, causing it to crash, they'd need to be charged criminally for that, and for murder if any of the crew died because of it. As I said elsewhere, 'muh freedoms' doesn't extend to people being morons.
Consumer-grade 'drones' are fun toys to play with (I don't own one but I'll take it on faith that they are). But as with just about anything, my 'rule of thumb' holds true: Get a large group of people involved in something that's otherwise good, and they'll find a way to ruin it for everyone else. Because of that here's what's likely to happen: All drones, regardless of being miltary, government, commercial, or privately owned, will have to be registered (similar to any other aircraft), and perhaps be required by law to have some sort of transponder incorporated into their design, so they can be identified remotely just like any other aircraft. Furthermore, all prospective drone pilots will be required to take and pass a training course before even being allowed to purchase a drone. That way drone owners, like in this article, can be held accountable for their actions, and maybe the dumbshits that would do something like this can be weeded out before they even get their hands on a drone in the first place.
..and before you get mad at me for saying this, I suggest you direct your rage at the moron who's flying his drone in the airspace of firefighting aircraft trying to do their job. 'Muh freedoms' doesn't, and shouldn't, extend to anyone being stupid, inconsiderate, and borderline illegal.
..and it's activated by turning the power switch to 'Off'.
If it really worries you that much then unplug the damned thing from the wall, along with turning off your cellphone, and any other RF-enabled devices you may have. Toss your microwave oven into the trash. While you're at it line the walls, floors, and ceiling with aluminum foil (don't forget the door!) and ground it to a solid earth ground, forming a Faraday cage. Be sure to have 9 month supply of food and water on hand.
Slashdot Mirror
Because some people are criminals and terrorists, we now have no choice but to treat everyone as if they're criminals and terrorists, therefore no one will be allowed to have any ability to have any sort of private communications.
I don't give a damn what he said about 'warrants', either, that's just a piece of paper after all.
There is no real story here. It's a simple, if tragic, industrial accident. By even posting this, Slashdot is guilty of spreading FUD about completely fictional (and in this case entirely absent) AIs, pandering to the fears of people who are afraid they will 'take over'. Mod entire story down to (-1, Troll), and deprecate, disregard, delete.
I'm not claiming to know how the whole system works; I'm getting a quick education on the subject as we're discussing it. It sounds like the overall load is well-distributed. You seem to understand it well enough to answer this question: If, say, even 10% or so of everyone did an end-run around ISP-based DNS servers in this way, would it theoretically cause enough excessive traffic that it would annoy the admins responsible for them?
Hmm, that's a good point. However if too many people were going directly to the root servers, eventually wouldn't they take some action to limit access to whoever needs it (as opposed to who wants it) to reduce the workload on the servers? Bypassing all the lower strata of DNS servers kind of breaks the way the system was designed, doesn't it? Of course these nudnik ISPs and other bad actors out there 'tampering' with DNS for whatever their reasons are, are certainly breaking the way the system is supposed to work, too..
My point is that you have NO control over the root DNS servers (or any other DNS servers you don't own), or what happens in the route between you and any DNS servers, so how do you know what's really going on? If you were to directly use the root DNS servers, how do you know traffic in either direction isn't being tampered with? You have to assume that any data of any kind sent or received from the public Internet is inherently insecure, and there's plenty of historical evidence to prove not only it's plausibility, but it's likelihood. All you can do is make the best choices you can based on available information, and hope you're not being sold down the river by some three-letter agency, or who knows who.
You're assuming that what you think are the root DNS servers are actually the root DNS servers, and that they're not being spoofed by the CIA, NSA, or whoever in the first place. You're also assuming that your ISP would allow you to do such a thing, and not brand you as someone up to no good, and cut you off.
I never trusted OpenDNS much in the first place, certainly no more at best than I would any ISP's DNS servers.
How about you stop using the word 'idiot' completely, and contributing to the problem of the Internet being such a damned cesspool? I've read through some of your other comments. There's 'arguing a point' then there's 'being argumentative'. You appear to be the latter. Go away.
Yes, but as someone else also pointed out, solar and wind aren't really 'on demand' power, they're dependent on conditions being right for them to deliver. Current battery technology isn't going to cut it either, it doesn't seem like it scales up economically enough to be practical either. Perhaps in a future time we'll have an energy storage solution that is economical and efficient on a massive scale, and likely (since research is ongoing) even more efficient conversion of solar energy to electric, but for the time being it's just not cutting it. Also I'd like to point out that when someone says 'nuclear power' everyone assumes 'fission reactors', when there are other alternatives that would be safer and not as difficult to manage safely. Also every year we get a little closer to realizing fusion power. This whole subject is an ongoing journey, not a single destination, and there's going to be many milestones along the way. Wind, solar, and non-fusion nuclear are just some of those milestones. For all we know, 200 years from now we'll have antimatter power, or dark energy, or who knows what? But we have to keep moving forward one way or another.
So you personally attack me with insults? Who the hell do you think you are to treat people that way? Would you say that kind of thing to any complete stranger face to face? I think not, sooner or later you'd get punched in the nose and you know it. Get correct, friend. You can argue against my opinion all you want, but have the decency to be civil about it.
A thought just occurred to me: Assuming in the near to medium-term future we had many many large installations of battery banks (ala-Tesla batteries, for instance) charging and discharging constantly, how much waste heat would be generated by this, and how much would that waste heat contribute to global warming (positively or negatively)? Purely theoretical, I know.
RE: 'Environmentalists'
Which 'job' is it of which you speak, anyway?
Some environmentalists are just fine. Some of them are complete zealots and outright whack-jobs. Remember that there are plenty of 'environmentalists' who preach that the best thing humanity can do for the environment is to commit suicide, preferably as an entire race, and allow the Earth to return to it's 'natural' state. For the most part ignorance, wilfull or not, is what got us into our current messes in the first place; extremists need to be ignored, or 'dealt with' if required.
RE: 'Consumer retention' tactics
In my book it's simple: You say "I don't have to explain myself to you, I simply do not want your service anymore, and if you refuse to cancel it I will refuse to continue paying you. I will return your equipment to your nearest office tomorrow, and get a receipt showing I returned it, and furthermore I will rip the wire out of the wall. Now please do your job and stop annoying me".
cable
People are moving away from cable and satellite and towards the Internet (Hulu, Netflix, etc) and over-the-air broadcast television. Me? I am opposed to paying for Internet entertainment solutions, because I've got to pay for it, yet there are still commercials you have to sit through. At least with a DVR I can skip forward past the commercials, and OTA costs me nothing beyond the one-time expense of the antenna. At any given time I have more to watch on my DVR than I have free time to sit and watch it all, which is also a win-win: I have plenty to catch up on during the summertime when there's not much on.
It's high time we got over our aversion to nuclear power. People treat it like it's inherently evil, when the truth of the matter is that any problems with it have been through mismanagement and poor planning. We can do better, and need to do better. Wind and solar, while nice and clean, probably aren't going to ever be capable of delivering all the power the world needs/wants. I'll be honest with you: I'm one of the people who voted to shut down Rancho Seco back in the day, and I'm the one now saying: We need nuclear power, in one form or another.
Sure thing buddy, you're totally right. Have a nice day!
I am not a pilot; I do not know if you are or not, but I suspect the latter. I did however work for someone for 8 years who was a pilot, and perhaps got some sense of the sensibilities a pilot should have if they want to stay alive, and I think that could be summarized as simply as this: Err on the side of caution. Would the propeller of the tanker aircraft used in firefighting likely survive chopping up a drone? Yes. Is that 100% certain? No. Is the pilot of said aircraft willing to take the chance? Absolutely not, I'd say. Furthermore, would said pilot be willing to discover through direct experience whether his aircraft would sustain any appreciable damage from any part of it striking a drone in mid-flight? Again, I'd have to imagine the answer would be a resounding absolutely not. Unlike driving a ground vehicle, where if there is some sort of collision that disables it, you just come to a stop, remember that if some critical damage occurs to an aircraft, it falls out of the sky, and in this particular case even if the pilot has a parachute and can get out before impact, he's jumping into a forest fire. If it's me, I'd also not be taking any unnecessary chances, and I'd hope that once this was all put into perspective for a non-pilot, they'd say they'd choose the path of caution as well.
On the subject of bureaucrats and other rule-makers: It seems like you're expecting people in these positions to have the Wisdom of the Ages directing their decisions. While I applaud your optimism of humankind in general, I, while being both hopeful and a cynic at the same time, set the bar substantially lower than you seem to be setting it. It's sad that politicians and bureaucrats apparently aren't smarter than the average bear so-to-speak, but it appears that, for the time being anyway, that's what we've got to work with. The Best and Brightest tend to steer away from politics and government, and towards the private sector where they can make substantially more money without all the hassles. So unfortunately what we end up with sometimes is situations like this: Beavis being stupid with his drone, causing major problems, and Butthead making knee-jerk rules, regulations, and laws because of it. Meanwhile the rest of us have to scream at the top of our lungs to try to get both of them to pay attention. At least Butthead is supposed be paying attention to what we're saying (sadly doesn't always work), whereas Beavis isn't likely to listen to anyone unless maybe they're wearing a badge and pointing a gun at them. All we can do is try to elect smarter people (admittedly hard to do when the candidate pool is so poor) and hope they appoint people to various positions who also are smarter (likewise chancy at best). Meanwhile, it is what it is and we work with it the best we can, yes?
That's an interesting take on the subject, and I'm grinning while nodding my approval of your anecdote (I know people's brains work that way; same thing with what you expect to be paid to do a job, you low-ball it and people suspect you're no good at it, for instance) but in my out-of-thin-air example of a nuclear reactor in your house, it's not someone stealing it I'm worried about, it's the ostensible owner of it failing to manage it correctly I'd referring to. Think Homer Simpson.
No private citizen NEEDS a gun either; or a car, or a computer, or porno magazines. That doesn't mean we can't have them.
Sure, I totally agree with that statement. However, if you use your gun to commit murder, or you're allowing access of your porno magazines to minors, or using your computer to commit crimes, then you're completely and totally wrong and need to be caught and punished. If we lived in a perfect world, we'd all be allowed to own and operate small nuclear reactors in our houses, but we're not because there are too many irresponsible (if not outright criminal) people out there who can't be trusted with dangerous things. If something that isn't inherently dangerous (like one of these toy drones) starts being used by people in a dangerous manner, then it ends up getting treated like an inherently dangerous thing anyway because other people shouldn't have to worry about being endangered by/protecting themselves from idiots, thoughtless, malicious, or otherwise. Hence what I've been saying for years: The surest way to ruin a good thing is to get a bunch of people involved in it. Don't blame the car, or the gun, or the computer, or even the porno magazines, blame the idiots who misuse them, ruining their potential for the rest of us.
So you don't believe anyone should have anything they don't need? Log off immediately and throw your computer in the bin, hypocrite.
Looking at your other comments it's clear that you're one of those people who just likes to argue, so that's all I'm going to point out here. Getting in a 'discussion' with someone like you is a negative-sum game at best.
Anyway, tell you what: I'll agree to a concession on the line from my comment you quoted:
'Muh freedoms' end where putting other people's safety at risk begins -- in this specific case, that means impeding the work of the pilot(s) of the firefighting aircraft(s), putting them at risk.
That a little more agreeable?
Yes, it's sad that a few dumbasses being irresponsible with their toys are going to end up causing knee-jerking politicians and bureaucrats to write a bunch of rules, regulations, and laws to restrict the use of drones, but I maintain that you have to place the blame for that squarely on the shoulders of the idiots flying the drones and nobody else.
Oh come on people, there's no story here. Notice how the video ended just as whoever it was put a foot on the 'hoverboard'? It's obvious that while there may be magnets involved, it wasn't for-real and as soon as any weight was put on it, it was on the ground and not going anywhere. Old trick, nothing to see here, move along, people..
At best this 'story' is just a shameless shill for Lexus, even more reason to ignore it.
The reality of the situation, though, is this: No private citizen needs a drone. They sure as fuck have NO justification for flying one above a massive forest fire that fire crews are trying to get under control. In this case the drone pilot, ideally, should be caught, perhaps criminally charged, and definitely be forced to pay for the costs incurred for playing with their toy in an inappropriate and dangerous manner. If their drone had been struck by one of the tanker aircraft, causing it to crash, they'd need to be charged criminally for that, and for murder if any of the crew died because of it. As I said elsewhere, 'muh freedoms' doesn't extend to people being morons.
Get a bunch of people involved in it.
Consumer-grade 'drones' are fun toys to play with (I don't own one but I'll take it on faith that they are). But as with just about anything, my 'rule of thumb' holds true: Get a large group of people involved in something that's otherwise good, and they'll find a way to ruin it for everyone else. Because of that here's what's likely to happen:
All drones, regardless of being miltary, government, commercial, or privately owned, will have to be registered (similar to any other aircraft), and perhaps be required by law to have some sort of transponder incorporated into their design, so they can be identified remotely just like any other aircraft. Furthermore, all prospective drone pilots will be required to take and pass a training course before even being allowed to purchase a drone. That way drone owners, like in this article, can be held accountable for their actions, and maybe the dumbshits that would do something like this can be weeded out before they even get their hands on a drone in the first place.
..and before you get mad at me for saying this, I suggest you direct your rage at the moron who's flying his drone in the airspace of firefighting aircraft trying to do their job. 'Muh freedoms' doesn't, and shouldn't, extend to anyone being stupid, inconsiderate, and borderline illegal.
..and it's activated by turning the power switch to 'Off'.
If it really worries you that much then unplug the damned thing from the wall, along with turning off your cellphone, and any other RF-enabled devices you may have. Toss your microwave oven into the trash. While you're at it line the walls, floors, and ceiling with aluminum foil (don't forget the door!) and ground it to a solid earth ground, forming a Faraday cage. Be sure to have 9 month supply of food and water on hand.
What are your thoughts on why it is that Linux doesn't have a higher adoption rate?