I was talking in general, and I did add the qualifier "much". I'm sure it's happened, that wasn't my point. My point was that some people are hugely bothered by admitting mistakes, others are not so.
It was a mistake right there, to say "never", when more correct would've been "seldom". I'm sorry.
Knowing the picture came from a certain model camera isn't very useful as proof that a certain person took it, afterall there are many cameras that are produced by the million.
But it is -quite- useful for narrowing the field. Someone who doesn't posess such a camera very likely did NOT take the picture, that's useful information.
It's like, knowing that a criminal was about 30 and male isn't useful as proof that a certain person did it. But it is -very- useful for eliminating from the list of suspects people who are 15, or 50 or female. It's easier to thoroughly investigate a short list than a long list.
Dunno. I actually am an idiot on a regular basis and it never much bothered me to admit it. I think -that- may be a cultural thing though, some cultures have a strong focus on "success", being a "winner" and so there is a high personal cost to admitting a fuck-up. You're probably right that such ideas make it harder to back down once you've made the first mistake. Still, even so, there's a limit to how many times you normally can say: "Give me money ONE more time and I'll make you rich!" and have that person do it.
I could see a normal person doing it 2 times, but sending money 23 times, each time expecting that it's the last ? Sorry, but that really -is- dumb. Foor me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me -23- times, I'm a dumb fuck.
I don't think I'll never be a coward.
But I do think that if I ever make an expensive mistake, I won't follow-up by doing the same mistake again 22 more time, each time stupider than the previous.
*shrug* You're overstating it. This particular example isn't someone falling for a non-obvious con. It is someone persistently sending huge amounts of money to someone doing a VERY well-known type of con, despite being warned. It doesn't take a genius to avoid doing that.
Nah, it's not all you need, you also need a functioning brain.
Seriously, are you suggesting that all people are equally suspectible to being conned, or do you admit that there are HUGE individual differences in likeliness ?
And if there is a difference, is it not because some people have more sense than others ?
"immune to any kind" would be stretching it. But yes, there are huge differences between people in how easy it is to con them.
It's not even that hard to increase your con-resistance by orders of magnitude. "If something is too good to be true, it likely is" is sufficient in most cases.
Then again, a working bullshit-detector is useful for many more purposes than just avoiding being conned.
Nonsense. Very few people are -squarely- in one camp.
I imagine I'm quite average: New games that I really want to play, I buy new, often at a premium price shortly after release. If I want to try out some older game, sure I'll grab the $20 copy in the used-bin rather than the $39.95 new copy.
I've probably bought 50 games new for PS2 and PS3 combined. This means I'm "not their customer" ?
Several games I've first rented, because I wasn't sure if they where any good, then subsequently bougth. This was true for Shadow Hearts for example, I rented the first game, and subsequently bought the second and third in the series.
This is true, but on poor links I've found it MUCH superior to run the editor locally and simply edit the files on the server using sshfs or fish.
That way there's only network-traffic at all on initial read of the file and on file-save operations. I find a second of file-save lag a lot more acceptable than having the editor itself lag on me as is the case with remote-editing over a poor link, even in vi.
If you do that, you can run a gargantuan graphical editor over a 9600bps modem-link, it doesn't matter.
True enough. It is an easy way to debunk the "hydrogen-power" crowd, for example. Hydrogen may (or may not) be practical for energy storage and energy-transport, but it's certainly not a energy-source.
Sure. It's very simple. They want easy money. If you can convince them that your house is NOT a source of easy money, they won't bother. This typically means either your house ain't easy, or it ain't money.
The second approach works well for some items like half-expensive bikes. A friend of mine used to get bikes stolen on a regular basis, until he painted one pink with yellow stripes. The bike still works precisely as well as it ever did, but it's not longer easy to sell it on the black market.
Not easily. But anyway, you're missing the most obvious thing.
Most burglars are, infact, STUPID.
You don't need to be secure as in perfectly protected, you just need to be secure as in "more trouble than it's worth", or "more trouble than the house next door".
If you've got the kind of stuff that would attract the non-stupid burglars, then this changes somewhat. If that's you, you can afford a professional alarm easily enough, though.
You know. This is getting boring. I asked three times for you to bother giving an actual reference. By now it's obvious you're not doing that because there is none. Fine with me. You could've saved yourself a lot of effort just saying so though.
"I'm right, it says so in Encyclopedia Britannica, now go read" -- how is that a reasonable position ?
Reading a 85 page document to support YOUR claim in an online forum is not a reasonable proposition, especially since I already said I took the effort to glance trough it, including looking for a index with an obvious section supporting your claim. If it's really in there, you can tell me where. If not, you can shut up.
If I make a wild-ass claim and then ask you to spend 3 hours verifying it for me, I doubt you'd bother.
Pointing at a tome and claiming "it's in there" isn't a reference, not even close. Particularily when that same tome says on one of the first pages that only limited research has been made on the topic of european spendings.
two hours worth of player-input, plus optionally up to two hours worth of voice chit-chat. Let's say a megabyte a minute, all counted. (give or take, but in the ballpark)
nope. I was just talking about the USA, rather than individuals. You have a economic systems that creates grotesque differences, it stands to reason there's many donors in a country with rather a few multi-millionaries too.
Even so, I'd be curious about the background for your claim that if we include private aid then the US "crushes" everyone. Where do you find numbers that support that claim ? Is it anywhere in the pdf you refer to ? A short glance didn't seem to turn it up, and I can't be bothered to do your homework for you.
The details don't really matters. My overall point is that many, even well-informed people in USA believe that USA is the most generous country in the world with foreign aid. Which is true dollar for dollar. But not even remotely close to true if you count per capita or as percentage of GPD. Arguably both measures make more sense than just the dollar-amount.
If you look only on the dollar-amount, for example, then the EU would become hugely more generous if they started to count as one country, but continued to donate the same amount they do today. Which is fairly silly, I think.
I'll argue that it's more generous of a person earning $3000/month to donate $1000 than it is for Bill Gates to donate $1500. I realize there can be different opinions on that one, but atleast compensating for the NUMBER OF PEOPLE is a nessecity.
Nobody can seriously suggest it's more generous for 2 people to donate $15 than it is for 1 person to donate $13, that's just plain silly.
It's propaganda. Put forward by politicians and spoke-persons with an agenda. Just a pity so many people have bought into the lie.
Only if you calculate it the way most favourable to yourself.
What is most fair, if you're comparing the generosity of different groups ?
Comparing which portion of their wealth the different groups give?
Comparing how much each group gives pro person ?
Or comparing how much each group gives in total ?
Only if you do the latter does USA look good. But this is the view where a 300 people group donating $1000 is consideres more generous than a 30 person group donating $500, which is frankly absurd.
If you do it per capita, then the leader is luxembur at $500/person/year, followed by 10 other countries above $100. USA is at $25.
If you do it relative to wealth, then Norway is top with donating $10 for every $1000 in gdp (i.e 1%), USA is horribly, embarassingly low on the list, donating not 1%, not 0.5%, but less than 0.2% of GDP.
It's not much to brag about that you've donated 10 times as much as sweden -- when you're a country 50 times as large as sweden.
Making offsite copies using rsync is a perfectly adequate way of doing backups assuming it's competently done.
*not* making backups typically mean the data exists in a single copy on a raid-5 array and *only* there. If the array is toast, the data is gone.
People who do that does indeed deserve what is coming to them. It's not anywhere close to what you're doing though, if one of your arrays where toast, you'd have a complete copy at each of the other offices, and another at the linux-nas. That's completely different.
There's no rule that backups must be on tape. There's just a rule that they must EXIST, and that it's better if they're not physically in the same building as the primary data.
Yes. It's amazing that the article presents the basic point so horribly poorly. The problem is not the capacity of the disks.
The problem is that the capacity has been growing faster than the transfer-bandwith. Thus it takes a longer and longer time to read (or write) a complete disk. This gives a larger window for double-failure.
This proves merely that if you are allowed to pick any numbers you please, and multiply them with eachother, you can arrive at any answer that you want to arrive at.
Truecrypt does this; overwrite the entire container with random data before starting to use it I mean. Which means that the free space is *always* random-looking. Sometimes it really IS random, and other times it really is an encrypted filesystem. But there should be no way of telling which of the two are the actual case.
If you mount the encrypted outer container *without* providing the second password, then truecrypt has no way of knowing that the free space contains another filesystem. If you write to the outer container such that the free space comes under what is needed for the inner filesystem, the inner filesystem will get overwritten.
So if there's 500MB of "outer" files and 400MB of "inner" files, then writing more than an additional 100MB to the "outer" container will fuck up the inner filesystem.
A duress-key that wipes data is no good. Any serious investigation will take a complete copy of the data as the first step, so wiping does you no good at all.
What you can do, and which is done, is to have "plausible deniability". Truecrypt does it like this:
You have a 1GB (for example) file that contains an encrypted filesystem that contains 500MB of files.
The free space (500MB) *may*, or may not, contain a second encrypted filesystem. There is no way to tell without knowing the second "inner"-key.
So, if pressed to give up the key, you give up the outer key, giving access to 500MB of perhaps mildly embarassing, but ultimately harmless stuff. If asked about the "inner"-key you say there isn't one. The default operation of Truecrypt is for there NOT to be one.
So, it's plausible you're telling the truth; could be the volume is larger than the filesystem simply because you wanted space for more files. It's not as if a half-full filesystem as such is suspicious.
It's unlikely they could force you to give up certain information without even showing a likeliness that the information EXISTS.
That's "plausible deniability".
You can say: "There is no second key", and there is no way of figuring out if that answer is truthful or not.
Slashdot Mirror
I was talking in general, and I did add the qualifier "much". I'm sure it's happened, that wasn't my point. My point was that some people are hugely bothered by admitting mistakes, others are not so.
It was a mistake right there, to say "never", when more correct would've been "seldom". I'm sorry.
It's still useful in a negative sense.
Knowing the picture came from a certain model camera isn't very useful as proof that a certain person took it, afterall there are many cameras that are produced by the million.
But it is -quite- useful for narrowing the field. Someone who doesn't posess such a camera very likely did NOT take the picture, that's useful information.
It's like, knowing that a criminal was about 30 and male isn't useful as proof that a certain person did it. But it is -very- useful for eliminating from the list of suspects people who are 15, or 50 or female. It's easier to thoroughly investigate a short list than a long list.
Dunno. I actually am an idiot on a regular basis and it never much bothered me to admit it. I think -that- may be a cultural thing though, some cultures have a strong focus on "success", being a "winner" and so there is a high personal cost to admitting a fuck-up. You're probably right that such ideas make it harder to back down once you've made the first mistake. Still, even so, there's a limit to how many times you normally can say: "Give me money ONE more time and I'll make you rich!" and have that person do it.
I could see a normal person doing it 2 times, but sending money 23 times, each time expecting that it's the last ? Sorry, but that really -is- dumb. Foor me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me -23- times, I'm a dumb fuck.
I don't think I'll never be a coward.
But I do think that if I ever make an expensive mistake, I won't follow-up by doing the same mistake again 22 more time, each time stupider than the previous.
*shrug* You're overstating it. This particular example isn't someone falling for a non-obvious con. It is someone persistently sending huge amounts of money to someone doing a VERY well-known type of con, despite being warned. It doesn't take a genius to avoid doing that.
Nah, it's not all you need, you also need a functioning brain.
Seriously, are you suggesting that all people are equally suspectible to being conned, or do you admit that there are HUGE individual differences in likeliness ?
And if there is a difference, is it not because some people have more sense than others ?
"immune to any kind" would be stretching it. But yes, there are huge differences between people in how easy it is to con them.
It's not even that hard to increase your con-resistance by orders of magnitude. "If something is too good to be true, it likely is" is sufficient in most cases.
Then again, a working bullshit-detector is useful for many more purposes than just avoiding being conned.
Nonsense. Very few people are -squarely- in one camp.
I imagine I'm quite average: New games that I really want to play, I buy new, often at a premium price shortly after release. If I want to try out some older game, sure I'll grab the $20 copy in the used-bin rather than the $39.95 new copy.
I've probably bought 50 games new for PS2 and PS3 combined. This means I'm "not their customer" ?
Several games I've first rented, because I wasn't sure if they where any good, then subsequently bougth. This was true for Shadow Hearts for example, I rented the first game, and subsequently bought the second and third in the series.
This is true, but on poor links I've found it MUCH superior to run the editor locally and simply edit the files on the server using sshfs or fish.
That way there's only network-traffic at all on initial read of the file and on file-save operations. I find a second of file-save lag a lot more acceptable than having the editor itself lag on me as is the case with remote-editing over a poor link, even in vi.
If you do that, you can run a gargantuan graphical editor over a 9600bps modem-link, it doesn't matter.
True enough. It is an easy way to debunk the "hydrogen-power" crowd, for example. Hydrogen may (or may not) be practical for energy storage and energy-transport, but it's certainly not a energy-source.
Sure. It's very simple. They want easy money. If you can convince them that your house is NOT a source of easy money, they won't bother. This typically means either your house ain't easy, or it ain't money.
The second approach works well for some items like half-expensive bikes. A friend of mine used to get bikes stolen on a regular basis, until he painted one pink with yellow stripes. The bike still works precisely as well as it ever did, but it's not longer easy to sell it on the black market.
Not easily. But anyway, you're missing the most obvious thing.
Most burglars are, infact, STUPID.
You don't need to be secure as in perfectly protected, you just need to be secure as in "more trouble than it's worth", or "more trouble than the house next door".
If you've got the kind of stuff that would attract the non-stupid burglars, then this changes somewhat. If that's you, you can afford a professional alarm easily enough, though.
You know. This is getting boring. I asked three times for you to bother giving an actual reference. By now it's obvious you're not doing that because there is none. Fine with me. You could've saved yourself a lot of effort just saying so though.
"I'm right, it says so in Encyclopedia Britannica, now go read" -- how is that a reasonable position ?
Reading a 85 page document to support YOUR claim in an online forum is not a reasonable proposition, especially since I already said I took the effort to glance trough it, including looking for a index with an obvious section supporting your claim. If it's really in there, you can tell me where. If not, you can shut up.
If I make a wild-ass claim and then ask you to spend 3 hours verifying it for me, I doubt you'd bother.
Pointing at a tome and claiming "it's in there" isn't a reference, not even close. Particularily when that same tome says on one of the first pages that only limited research has been made on the topic of european spendings.
two hours worth of player-input, plus optionally up to two hours worth of voice chit-chat. Let's say a megabyte a minute, all counted. (give or take, but in the ballpark)
nope. I was just talking about the USA, rather than individuals. You have a economic systems that creates grotesque differences, it stands to reason there's many donors in a country with rather a few multi-millionaries too.
Even so, I'd be curious about the background for your claim that if we include private aid then the US "crushes" everyone. Where do you find numbers that support that claim ? Is it anywhere in the pdf you refer to ? A short glance didn't seem to turn it up, and I can't be bothered to do your homework for you.
The details don't really matters. My overall point is that many, even well-informed people in USA believe that USA is the most generous country in the world with foreign aid. Which is true dollar for dollar. But not even remotely close to true if you count per capita or as percentage of GPD. Arguably both measures make more sense than just the dollar-amount.
If you look only on the dollar-amount, for example, then the EU would become hugely more generous if they started to count as one country, but continued to donate the same amount they do today. Which is fairly silly, I think.
I'll argue that it's more generous of a person earning $3000/month to donate $1000 than it is for Bill Gates to donate $1500. I realize there can be different opinions on that one, but atleast compensating for the NUMBER OF PEOPLE is a nessecity.
Nobody can seriously suggest it's more generous for 2 people to donate $15 than it is for 1 person to donate $13, that's just plain silly.
It's propaganda. Put forward by politicians and spoke-persons with an agenda. Just a pity so many people have bought into the lie.
Only if you calculate it the way most favourable to yourself.
What is most fair, if you're comparing the generosity of different groups ?
Comparing which portion of their wealth the different groups give?
Comparing how much each group gives pro person ?
Or comparing how much each group gives in total ?
Only if you do the latter does USA look good. But this is the view where a 300 people group donating $1000 is consideres more generous than a 30 person group donating $500, which is frankly absurd.
If you do it per capita, then the leader is luxembur at $500/person/year, followed by 10 other countries above $100. USA is at $25.
If you do it relative to wealth, then Norway is top with donating $10 for every $1000 in gdp (i.e 1%), USA is horribly, embarassingly low on the list, donating not 1%, not 0.5%, but less than 0.2% of GDP.
It's not much to brag about that you've donated 10 times as much as sweden -- when you're a country 50 times as large as sweden.
Making offsite copies using rsync is a perfectly adequate way of doing backups assuming it's competently done.
*not* making backups typically mean the data exists in a single copy on a raid-5 array and *only* there. If the array is toast, the data is gone.
People who do that does indeed deserve what is coming to them. It's not anywhere close to what you're doing though, if one of your arrays where toast, you'd have a complete copy at each of the other offices, and another at the linux-nas. That's completely different.
There's no rule that backups must be on tape. There's just a rule that they must EXIST, and that it's better if they're not physically in the same building as the primary data.
Yes. It's amazing that the article presents the basic point so horribly poorly. The problem is not the capacity of the disks.
The problem is that the capacity has been growing faster than the transfer-bandwith. Thus it takes a longer and longer time to read (or write) a complete disk. This gives a larger window for double-failure.
Simple as that.
Why would anyone paint a CPU ? And just what is a Macintosh-CPU anyways ?
Hint; the largish box connected to the monitor CONTAINS the cpu, and about a dozen other components...
This proves merely that if you are allowed to pick any numbers you please, and multiply them with eachother, you can arrive at any answer that you want to arrive at.
That's really all the Drake-equation shows.
Truecrypt does this; overwrite the entire container with random data before starting to use it I mean. Which means that the free space is *always* random-looking. Sometimes it really IS random, and other times it really is an encrypted filesystem. But there should be no way of telling which of the two are the actual case.
It doesn't.
If you mount the encrypted outer container *without* providing the second password, then truecrypt has no way of knowing that the free space contains another filesystem. If you write to the outer container such that the free space comes under what is needed for the inner filesystem, the inner filesystem will get overwritten.
So if there's 500MB of "outer" files and 400MB of "inner" files, then writing more than an additional 100MB to the "outer" container will fuck up the inner filesystem.
A duress-key that wipes data is no good. Any serious investigation will take a complete copy of the data as the first step, so wiping does you no good at all.
What you can do, and which is done, is to have "plausible deniability". Truecrypt does it like this:
You have a 1GB (for example) file that contains an encrypted filesystem that contains 500MB of files.
The free space (500MB) *may*, or may not, contain a second encrypted filesystem. There is no way to tell without knowing the second "inner"-key.
So, if pressed to give up the key, you give up the outer key, giving access to 500MB of perhaps mildly embarassing, but ultimately harmless stuff. If asked about the "inner"-key you say there isn't one. The default operation of Truecrypt is for there NOT to be one.
So, it's plausible you're telling the truth; could be the volume is larger than the filesystem simply because you wanted space for more files. It's not as if a half-full filesystem as such is suspicious.
It's unlikely they could force you to give up certain information without even showing a likeliness that the information EXISTS.
That's "plausible deniability".
You can say: "There is no second key", and there is no way of figuring out if that answer is truthful or not.