Ummm... the way TFT(itle) is worded throws some gas over fire.
How's that for a believer: "If you believe in Inteligent Design, then you are bent by hell"? How this way of framing the topic helps a civilized tone for a discussion?
As far as I'm concerned, in my home a single entity that post on/. instead of doing the job that is paid for (that's me!) is more than enough.
I hereby do solemnly declare that my fridge doesn't and will never have any other option than to keep my food cool. Similar goes for all the other appliances I or will own (mobile phone included: a mobile phone is a phone, no photocam/GPS/gaming console or Internet-enabled-tracking-device... and it better stays this way dam'it, social contract or not).
Here in Australia we just elected in a right wing government, they are intent on fucking up our Broadband network as well to protect entrenched interests such as Murdock and Foxtel, so you're not alone.
The current right wing govt still promissed FttN. Well, for metro area, the good news: at least Optus and TPG (and, I hope, iiNet soon), are ready to offer you the FttP part with a 24 months lock-in contract.
Is this a damnation of Internet Explorer, or a damnation of a weak-ass privacy flag labeled "Do Not Track" that corporations can apparently ignore at will?
Newsflash: this is not a indication that Google is doing things the right way. This means Do Not Track needs to be fixed.
Good idea! While fixing it, please do also address the adherence to the RFC3514: examining my router/firewall logs shows a complete disregard of it. (Oh... btw... maybe you can do something about that pesky first law of thermodynamics? Or, by chance, the second? I mean... if you manage to push a new law criminalizing the use of any of them, we may solve the world's energy related problems)
Joke aside, my point is: if someone wants to track you, how are you going to stop that one? Making the tracking illegal is not going to solve it, as it doesn't solve the non-adherence to RFC3514; the attempt will be as useless as to repeal a law of physics by a parliament issued law or decree
How is it wasting your time if it inspires someone to prove you wrong? Isn't that what discovery is about?
Ah, I see... a case of age/experience induced:
a. wisdom - on the line of "for those always prepared to learn, nothing in this world is useless" (optimistic stance: there is some control over their own destiny)
b. enhanced skill in finding "ex post factum justifications", very useful in continuing to go ahead with the life (pessimistic stance: everything is useless, the most one can do is to bear whatever fate comes with).
c. a mixture of the above in any proportion.
(grin: congrats, you are likely to survive living with yourself, maybe you will reach - if not already there - the point of liking yourself)
Paging Mr. A. Sorkin to the writing room...
Now, this seems to suggest a quite high proportion of a. into the mixture.
(the opposite would be to illustrate that being proved wrong is nothing more than showing someone is on Duty Call).
(peace, brother. Just kidding... or trying to... To be frank, I am wasting my time on/. posing as a witty person. Anything to get a break from that boring documentation).
... can't tell the difference between humour and reality.
I can't.
Torvalds said no while nodding his head yes is a JOKE people, not a fucking admission. Please, save the tinfoil paranoia for Reddit, and keep the serious tech discussions here.
Unless I'm reading Linus'es admission of a joke, I will continue to be unable to tell the difference... if it's indeed a pure joke, I don't get it. That may make me "humor impaired", but since when being so is a symptom of paranoia?
Because of how banks are raising reserve ratios across the board, both due to more stict regulations and by choice,the money supply would decrease significantly if new currency wasn't issued to make up for the shortfall.
TFA/S mentions shadow banking system. Now the definition that pops up if you follow the link is (with my emphasis):
The shadow banking system is a pejorative term for the collection of non-bank financial intermediaries that provide services similar to traditional commercial banks.
...
The core activities of investment banks are subject to regulation and monitoring by central banks and other government institutions - but it has been common practice for investment banks to conduct many of their transactions in ways that don't show up on their conventional balance sheet accounting and so are not visible to regulators or unsophisticated investors.
Now, a shadow banking system not subject to any outside scrutiny and with an estimated value of $100 trillion... do you sleep well at night on the account of banks raising reserve values? I mean, how can you tell of the fractional reserve they are using inside the $100 trillion value shadow banking provide enough cover?
Inflation is, if anything, too low right now, at least in the US.
A matter of trust, isn't it? Do you trust the same (type of) people that drove the world economy into GFC to act sensible and stop the inflation within the "safe zone"? With no external oversight, what would be their incentive to act responsible?
If inflation is too low, how come the house prices rose even if the sale volume dropped? Can you find any other explanation consistent with the price rise/sales dropping except an (at least, fear of) incoming significant inflation?
Here's an example: price rises but the buying power's erroded (a low sales situation should drive the price lower - aka deflation. It happens in the reverse, so what do you think this is a symptom for?).
... (if you are tempted to lecture me on "what actually inflation means", how the index is computed or anything on that line, don't. Let me stay a crackpot, I'll let you keep your head deeply stuck into your own ass and we can both agree to disagree).
You're confusing recognition with agreement. Acknowledging is not the same as approving. Knowing how the game is played is not the same as enjoying it. My personal unhappiness would have come through if you could have heard my tone of voice, but not in the neutral medium we're using though.
My apologies, then. Indeed I have an excuse in the medium we are using; it is just an excuse, though, and I feel my apologies are in order, so I'm presenting them to you.
And no, it mattered in the ascending parts too, you just wouldn't notice that they were fraudsters because it happened to look good.
You may be right, but that should happens closer to the "peak" - or anyway, when the situation becomes stable enough. During early ascension, there are too many risk in a "closer to survival level" situation for fraudsters to have success: if the society listens to them, chances are the society will end quickly. Why I feel the fraudsters start being listened closer to the peak: law of diminishing returns says that the real improvements are now costlier; unless disruptive, a real leader can't show enough progress for the incurred cost; therefore the fraudsters have a good soil to grow. But... the moment their actions start to have consequences, the descent begins.
Govt can index everything to inflation and print money. Have computers take care of the indexing so it's seamless. Then inflation is revealed to be the psychological game of control that it really is; not a necessary consequence of increasing the money supply.
You reckon? You didn't create enough value for the new money you printed, so inflation does really exists (with the yesterday dollar, you are now able to buy less things than before). The only "psychological game" (computerized or not): because the buying power is erroded, "consumers" scramble to buy now rather than tomorrow, creating an "artificial demand" and thus the oh-so-needed-illusion the economy started to work. In reality:
* the "1%" guys (which would be expected to "trickle down the money"), having "protected" their wealth during the worst part of the bust, are now creating the "shadow market" and are multiplying the new money in the "quantitative easing" by unregulated fractional reserves - there's no way there is a $100T value actually created during GFC. Guess what? They're fuelling already a new "boom" with the hope to sweap another chunk of whatever liquidity is still in the system. You can think of their strategy as pooring more gas over a fat stain and absorbing it into the rag they use to "clean" the stain: granted, the already absorbed fat will suffer a dillution as well, but some more fat will still be sucked from the fabric
My guts are telling me the bust is direly close this time: the US creditors (paid now with money more worthless as the time passes) as well as the "mortgage derivatives buyers of the past" may have learnt something in between. If persisting in this game, it will be quite short and I guarrantee you: the victims will still be the "99%"
Those shining brand new banknotes need to accumulate somewhere, preferable to those that would be impacted the most in absolute value by the ensuing inflation. You wouldn't expect "the 1%" to take the hit, that's what the "middle class" is for. The trickle economy is still operating, except that now it's no longer the "value" that trickles, it is the "value depreciation".
This has been true since the days of ancient Greece, and probably Egypt.
Yes, more specifically in the descending parts of their civilization/empires. Are you sure you are happy to agree with "Of course bad mouthing matters more..."?
What's so pollite in going under speed limits? Unless it's necessary, it's totally opposite of pollite to cause other people delays and endanger people.
A senior driver may have slower reaction time, therefore it maybe necessary (patience, greenhopper, you may yet live long enough for a direct experience, unless your haste kills you before that). Other than that, picking the left lane is, in some parts of the world, the choice impacting the traffic the least.
Our main criticism of IPsec is its complexity. IPsec contains too many options
and too much flexibility; there are often several ways of doing the same or similar
things. This is a typical committee effect. Committees are notorious for adding
features, options, and additional flexibility to satisfy various factions within the
committee. As we all know, this additional complexity and bloat is seriously
detrimental to a normal (functional) standard. However, it has a devastating
effect on a security standard.
conduct an investigation to determine which security products, protocols and standards have been deliberately weakened by the countries' intelligence services
I couldn't care less which are the ones that were weakened deliberately or by honest mistake. I'd feel much better if I'd know which algos/constants are still safe and/or what can be done with the algos/constant-sets that are under doubt.
Also, a simpler alternative to an unnecessary complicated IPSEC spec would be good (on the line of "as simple as possible, but no simpler") - though I expect this would be an engineering job rather than a pure crypto one.
These people do actual work with their hands, they are not chair faggots sitting in an office sipping Nespressos. Their fingerprints must be full of cracks and chemical burns anyways, how can you be sure it'll work?
The point for the FP scanners is not if they works or not. For the "chair faggots sitting in an office sipping Nespressos", the point in installing the FP is to make sure the workers aren't paid if they aren't detected as present on the job (isn't this the very purpose of clocking-in?).
Now, consider what you describe in the context of the above stated purpose: if a worker is not recognized by the FP scanner (but potentially s/he works anyway), is there any problem?. Maybe there is one, but... not for the management, no.
Slashdot Mirror
Ummm... the way TFT(itle) is worded throws some gas over fire.
How's that for a believer: "If you believe in Inteligent Design, then you are bent by hell"?
How this way of framing the topic helps a civilized tone for a discussion?
As far as I'm concerned, in my home a single entity that post on /. instead of doing the job that is paid for (that's me!) is more than enough.
I hereby do solemnly declare that my fridge doesn't and will never have any other option than to keep my food cool. Similar goes for all the other appliances I or will own (mobile phone included: a mobile phone is a phone , no photocam/GPS/gaming console or Internet-enabled-tracking-device... and it better stays this way dam'it, social contract or not).
Here in Australia we just elected in a right wing government, they are intent on fucking up our Broadband network as well to protect entrenched interests such as Murdock and Foxtel, so you're not alone.
The current right wing govt still promissed FttN.
Well, for metro area, the good news: at least Optus and TPG (and, I hope, iiNet soon), are ready to offer you the FttP part with a 24 months lock-in contract.
Is this a damnation of Internet Explorer, or a damnation of a weak-ass privacy flag labeled "Do Not Track" that corporations can apparently ignore at will?
Newsflash: this is not a indication that Google is doing things the right way. This means Do Not Track needs to be fixed.
Good idea! While fixing it, please do also address the adherence to the RFC3514: examining my router/firewall logs shows a complete disregard of it.
(Oh... btw... maybe you can do something about that pesky first law of thermodynamics? Or, by chance, the second? I mean... if you manage to push a new law criminalizing the use of any of them, we may solve the world's energy related problems)
Joke aside, my point is: if someone wants to track you, how are you going to stop that one?
Making the tracking illegal is not going to solve it, as it doesn't solve the non-adherence to RFC3514; the attempt will be as useless as to repeal a law of physics by a parliament issued law or decree
How is it wasting your time if it inspires someone to prove you wrong? Isn't that what discovery is about?
Ah, I see... a case of age/experience induced:
a. wisdom - on the line of "for those always prepared to learn, nothing in this world is useless" (optimistic stance: there is some control over their own destiny)
b. enhanced skill in finding "ex post factum justifications", very useful in continuing to go ahead with the life (pessimistic stance: everything is useless, the most one can do is to bear whatever fate comes with).
c. a mixture of the above in any proportion.
(grin: congrats, you are likely to survive living with yourself, maybe you will reach - if not already there - the point of liking yourself)
Paging Mr. A. Sorkin to the writing room...
Now, this seems to suggest a quite high proportion of a. into the mixture.
(the opposite would be to illustrate that being proved wrong is nothing more than showing someone is on Duty Call).
(peace, brother. Just kidding... or trying to... To be frank, I am wasting my time on /. posing as a witty person. Anything to get a break from that boring documentation).
How do I know? Because I grew up watching the Apollo program, and probably would not have gone into a STEM field if not for that.
Is the world a better place because of that? I mean... look at you, closer to 50 yo and still wasting your time posting on /.
(grin. Just kidding, no offense intended. After all, I'm wasting my time in the same way)
.
... can't tell the difference between humour and reality.
I can't.
Torvalds said no while nodding his head yes is a JOKE people, not a fucking admission. Please, save the tinfoil paranoia for Reddit, and keep the serious tech discussions here.
Unless I'm reading Linus'es admission of a joke, I will continue to be unable to tell the difference... if it's indeed a pure joke, I don't get it.
That may make me "humor impaired", but since when being so is a symptom of paranoia?
Baah... who'd want copper when you can have silver.
The idea that everything should be consolidated into one system is not in the spirit of the internet.
Oblig xkcd
You know? One of the countries in BRICS produces cheap routers.
And if they can trust one another to setup their own development bank and stop using the US dollar as a trade medium, they should be able to sort the matter of routers easily.
I agree with your points, but Occam's Razor is a heuristic and should be treated as such - often true but not guaranteed so.
And also a heuristic is the 3D rep of the world.
Because of how banks are raising reserve ratios across the board, both due to more stict regulations and by choice,the money supply would decrease significantly if new currency wasn't issued to make up for the shortfall.
TFA/S mentions shadow banking system . Now the definition that pops up if you follow the link is (with my emphasis):
The shadow banking system is a pejorative term for the collection of non-bank financial intermediaries that provide services similar to traditional commercial banks.
...
The core activities of investment banks are subject to regulation and monitoring by central banks and other government institutions - but it has been common practice for investment banks to conduct many of their transactions in ways that don't show up on their conventional balance sheet accounting and so are not visible to regulators or unsophisticated investors.
Now, a shadow banking system not subject to any outside scrutiny and with an estimated value of $100 trillion... do you sleep well at night on the account of banks raising reserve values? I mean, how can you tell of the fractional reserve they are using inside the $100 trillion value shadow banking provide enough cover?
Inflation is, if anything, too low right now, at least in the US.
A matter of trust, isn't it? Do you trust the same (type of) people that drove the world economy into GFC to act sensible and stop the inflation within the "safe zone"? With no external oversight, what would be their incentive to act responsible?
If inflation is too low, how come the house prices rose even if the sale volume dropped? Can you find any other explanation consistent with the price rise/sales dropping except an (at least, fear of) incoming significant inflation?
Here in Australia the Minister for science role has been scraped, effectively removing scientific opinion from the decision making process.
Sorry, it is called... ummm... "budget consciousness" (already took the decision to scrap the carbon tax, why would they need to hear other opinions?)
Here's an example: price rises but the buying power's erroded (a low sales situation should drive the price lower - aka deflation. It happens in the reverse, so what do you think this is a symptom for?).
...
(if you are tempted to lecture me on "what actually inflation means", how the index is computed or anything on that line, don't. Let me stay a crackpot, I'll let you keep your head deeply stuck into your own ass and we can both agree to disagree).
You're confusing recognition with agreement. Acknowledging is not the same as approving. Knowing how the game is played is not the same as enjoying it. My personal unhappiness would have come through if you could have heard my tone of voice, but not in the neutral medium we're using though.
My apologies, then. Indeed I have an excuse in the medium we are using; it is just an excuse, though, and I feel my apologies are in order, so I'm presenting them to you.
And no, it mattered in the ascending parts too, you just wouldn't notice that they were fraudsters because it happened to look good.
You may be right, but that should happens closer to the "peak" - or anyway, when the situation becomes stable enough.
During early ascension, there are too many risk in a "closer to survival level" situation for fraudsters to have success: if the society listens to them, chances are the society will end quickly.
Why I feel the fraudsters start being listened closer to the peak: law of diminishing returns says that the real improvements are now costlier; unless disruptive, a real leader can't show enough progress for the incurred cost; therefore the fraudsters have a good soil to grow. But... the moment their actions start to have consequences, the descent begins.
Govt can index everything to inflation and print money. Have computers take care of the indexing so it's seamless. Then inflation is revealed to be the psychological game of control that it really is; not a necessary consequence of increasing the money supply.
You reckon? You didn't create enough value for the new money you printed, so inflation does really exists (with the yesterday dollar, you are now able to buy less things than before). The only "psychological game" (computerized or not): because the buying power is erroded, "consumers" scramble to buy now rather than tomorrow, creating an "artificial demand" and thus the oh-so-needed-illusion the economy started to work. In reality:
* the "99%" of the people will start trying to "invest" in something that won't depreciate that easy - why do you think the house prices are the first to jump, even when new homes sales are low?
* the "1%" guys (which would be expected to "trickle down the money"), having "protected" their wealth during the worst part of the bust, are now creating the "shadow market" and are multiplying the new money in the "quantitative easing" by unregulated fractional reserves - there's no way there is a $100T value actually created during GFC.
Guess what? They're fuelling already a new "boom" with the hope to sweap another chunk of whatever liquidity is still in the system.
You can think of their strategy as pooring more gas over a fat stain and absorbing it into the rag they use to "clean" the stain: granted, the already absorbed fat will suffer a dillution as well, but some more fat will still be sucked from the fabric
My guts are telling me the bust is direly close this time: the US creditors (paid now with money more worthless as the time passes) as well as the "mortgage derivatives buyers of the past" may have learnt something in between. If persisting in this game, it will be quite short and I guarrantee you: the victims will still be the "99%"
Those shining brand new banknotes need to accumulate somewhere, preferable to those that would be impacted the most in absolute value by the ensuing inflation.
You wouldn't expect "the 1%" to take the hit, that's what the "middle class" is for. The trickle economy is still operating, except that now it's no longer the "value" that trickles, it is the "value depreciation".
How can pseudonymity — one of the key foundations of early internet communities — be saved?
By not using services on the web that don't allow it.
On long run, may not be enough. Need to add: by creating and maintaining online services/communities which allow pseudonims.
This has been true since the days of ancient Greece, and probably Egypt.
Yes, more specifically in the descending parts of their civilization/empires.
Are you sure you are happy to agree with "Of course bad mouthing matters more..."?
What's so pollite in going under speed limits? Unless it's necessary, it's totally opposite of pollite to cause other people delays and endanger people.
A senior driver may have slower reaction time, therefore it maybe necessary (patience, greenhopper, you may yet live long enough for a direct experience, unless your haste kills you before that). Other than that, picking the left lane is, in some parts of the world, the choice impacting the traffic the least.
Then why is it ever possible to swat a fly?
Why... that's elementary! The flys are so bored to death by watching you in slo-mo, some will fall asleep.
Sitting in the left lane going ten under the speed limit while the world screams by.
That's absolutely the fairest and most polite road behaviour in some parts of the world.
Our main criticism of IPsec is its complexity. IPsec contains too many options and too much flexibility; there are often several ways of doing the same or similar things. This is a typical committee effect. Committees are notorious for adding features, options, and additional flexibility to satisfy various factions within the committee. As we all know, this additional complexity and bloat is seriously detrimental to a normal (functional) standard. However, it has a devastating effect on a security standard.
(my emphasis).
conduct an investigation to determine which security products, protocols and standards have been deliberately weakened by the countries' intelligence services
I couldn't care less which are the ones that were weakened deliberately or by honest mistake. I'd feel much better if I'd know which algos/constants are still safe and/or what can be done with the algos/constant-sets that are under doubt.
Also, a simpler alternative to an unnecessary complicated IPSEC spec would be good (on the line of "as simple as possible, but no simpler") - though I expect this would be an engineering job rather than a pure crypto one.
These people do actual work with their hands, they are not chair faggots sitting in an office sipping Nespressos. Their fingerprints must be full of cracks and chemical burns anyways, how can you be sure it'll work?
The point for the FP scanners is not if they works or not. For the "chair faggots sitting in an office sipping Nespressos", the point in installing the FP is to make sure the workers aren't paid if they aren't detected as present on the job (isn't this the very purpose of clocking-in?).
Now, consider what you describe in the context of the above stated purpose: if a worker is not recognized by the FP scanner (but potentially s/he works anyway), is there any problem?. Maybe there is one, but... not for the management, no.