That would be a good point if we had a slightly different electoral system.
Right now, a person can win the presidency without having a majority of electoral votes. If we had a large number of parties, this would almost certainly happen, and on a regular basis. Some of these winners might align with more people than winners in the current system. It's certainly possible. It's also quite possible that they'd align with far fewer people than in the current system.
A system where candidates are ranked by the population would be slightly better from this perspective. You'd effectively be able to vote for a second choice, a third choice, etc. In theory, this would mean that political alignment would be maximized.
However, I still think that the best solution is to distribute power amongst the states. Nothing in that solution precludes having a better federal election system, and it certainly means that each person gets more of a choice of how to live their lives than we do now.
Adding parties takes votes away from one or more of the existing parties. That means that fewer people are accurately represented. That was my point. Right now, ostensibly, 50% of the population is represented by the presidential candidate. If we add a third party, and we assume an relatively even split of votes from the other two (reasonable, in your scenario), then only 33% of the population will be represented by the elected president. Now that 33% will be better represented, but whether that's better or worse is subjective.
More choices is often better when you're an individual, but it's not often better when you're making a group decision.
Of course, all of this is a problem simply because the federal government (in general) and the executive branch (in specific) have become far more powerful over the years than was intended by the compromise created by the founding fathers.
For your analogy to work, you'd have to be building your house on public land. Maybe communal land, like an apartment complex, would work better.
Nonetheless, public land or apartment complex, there are rules governing other people's use of your stuff. With an access point, the applicable rules are in the various computer use and hacking laws. The key question is probably whether or not the average person would consider the DHCP handshake as an invitation from one person for any given person to access his network. Chances are, the average person would not consider the DHCPOFFER to be an actual offer, in human terms. If it's not an offer, then it's trespassing, which is illegal.
It was a joke. If you look at the acronyms those words form, you might see it.
Going even further off-topic, I actually feel that FreeBSD is a cleaner, simpler implementation of Unix than Linux, and their focus on network throughput is pretty outstanding. I actually don't do much with the APP of my acronym, and even less since I'm messing with lighttpd a little more now (turning the acronym into the unintelligible mess of "FLPP".)
One of the neat things about FreeBSD over Linux is that it's got a stable ABI between releases.
More relevant is that a leecher probably doesn't know whether or not someone else is using the bandwidth. The question, "Why can't I use a negligible amount of bandwidth when you're not using it?" is irrelevant if I can't tell whether or not: a) My bandwidth use is negligible (does the grand parent poster do a speed test and throttle his use accordingly? In my area, we have ultra-cheap 64kpbs "broadband" for people who want an always-on connection that's about the same speed as a phone line.) b) That I'm not using the Internet at the time that s/he wants to use it?
If the grand parent does neither, then the point is really moot, isn't it?
If you leave your front door unlocked, you're probably not standing on the porch yelling "Free house, come and get it!" and handing out name tags. If you do, then you can't turn around and claim the guests were trespassing. A better analogy is that you buy a home, but the home builder doesn't tell you that there's an invisible man standing on the porch yelling to people to come on in in a voice too high pitched for you to hear, but that everyone else hears just fine. They put that information in the home's user manual, but hey, who reads those things. You just started using the home, and it kept the rain out, let you plug things in and use them, let you cook your dinner and watch your TV, so you assumed that everything was alright.
Bad analogy? Maybe, but if so, that's because analogies really don't work well in this case.
The argument against locking routers down by default, is that it's too complicated for the user. Bullshit! People use locks and keys all the time for their home, car, office, filing cabinet, safe deposit box... all things of value they wouldn't want to have stolen. How is your private, personal network any different ? If you don't want people poking around your shared files and internet access, then put a freakin' lock on the thing. Doors and locks have been around for centuries. Ubiquitous computing in the home has been around for a little over a decade, and home networks for even less time. People may eventually get to the point where they can figure these things out, but for now, they're still mystified by the pretty colors on their screen.
I have no pity for people who fail at common sense. The sad fact is that when many non-techie people start using computers, they simply freeze up. It's something so completely alien to them that they don't function well. Most people don't think about security anyway*, except that security which was explicitly drilled into their heads at a young age (lock the doors, keep your keys and wallet with you, don't leave your drink unattended at a restaurant or bar.) Why would you expect people to suddenly develop "common sense," as you put it, when presented with something alien, when they don't even use "common sense" to notice other insecure infrastructure that they aren't explicitly told about?
What will multiple parties do? It just means that whichever candidate wins the election will be less likely to match my views, or any other single person's views.
What we need is for the federal government to back off and give back some of the power that they've taken from the states. That way, we can move to the state which fits us best politically, and everyone's happy.
Well, the summary at least doesn't say that it's purely random. Weighted randomness is still handy, and it's more useful. You might not consider a terrorist attack on a bathroom to be particularly dangerous or common, so you might choose to send the police to the bathroom less frequently.
It means that the bathroom is less safe than other areas of the airport, but if it's a lower-value target, then it all works out.
As far as predictablility, I'm sure that they'll use obscurity (i.e. they won't publish the algorithm) in order to address that.
Applying pseudo-random elements and mathematical formulas to give them statistical properties of random data does not guarantee the results of operating the algorithm are not predictable. Unless they're using an actual random number generator, and not a pseudo-random number generator, then the results aren't guaranteed to be unpredictable, anyway.
Eh, Linux is ok on the desktop, but for servers, I really prefer FreeBSD.
Sometimes I get tired of that, and use NetBSD for a while. A short stint with NetBSD, Apache, Postgresql, and PHP usually refreshes me long enough so that I can FreeBSD, Apache, Postgresql, and PHP again.
My problem with the death penalty is that it isn't PUNISHMENT and it doesn't provide reducation...the death penalty is just society giving up on someone. It's intended, at least to some degree, as a deterrent. People fear death--it's one of the great unknowns about our existence. So the idea that you might be put to death for committing a crime is a pretty scary thought.
Now I'm not inclined to argue the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent, but then again, my post isn't meant to be in support of the death penalty.
There's also always some database overhead involved in creating a prepared query. If you're only going to use the query once, it may be that performance will be faster to build the query on the web server.
Generally speaking, I'd rather sacrifice database performance for security, but the manager doesn't always agree, does s/he?
I've never had problems with nVidia's drivers, nor I've felt the need to look at the sauce, nor I've felt nVidia would do anything bad to me with their closed sauce drivers. So? Other people have.
Nvidia's drivers have had bugs in them in the past. Bugs which other people could have fixed if they'd had access to the source. Instead, we wait for Nvidia's release cycle to be complete (and, might I add, they tend to add new features in with their bugfixes--a software development no-no.)
Different investigation agencies probably do things differently. I can tell you that the RIAA has just hopped on, grabbed the peer list, and then hopped off (I work for an ISP and we actually have to deal with this crap.)
Most of the time, when people talk about bad coding practices in the context of UAC, they're talking about programs which assume that the user will be running as Administrator, and thus they stomp all over areas which should remain protected (both on the filesystem and in the registry.)
Aside from annoying users, UAC ostensibly exists to keep privilege escalation from occuring. If a program really needs the privileges, it can get them granted by the user. If it doesn't, the user can deny them. In practice, one has to question how effective this really is (does the user know when it's a program or a privilege escalation attempt?)
Well, thanks for the compliments and thoughts. I guess I was giving stewie the benefit of the doubt.
Regarding replies like these, I understand the sentiment. I've often wished that Slashdot had a way for users to message each other privately. Past a certain point (be it time, thread depth, or some combination of the two) it's probably okay, though.
WinSCP has a standalone option, or you can get it with an installer. I've also used various utilities to modify my phone, most of which came as standalone executables.
Generally speaking, upgrading Windows brings in cruft from the previous installation. In some cases, it can cause pretty bad instability.
So the only way that I'd do an "upgrade" is if it allowed me to wipe the previous installation completely--which traditionally you've been able to do with Windows upgrades. Only, if there's no real benefit to actually changing Windows versions, why not just wipe and reinstall with the version of Windows that you already have?
I have so many "partially" uninstalled apps in WinXP because the uninstaller failed midway through, that I'm sure there's tons of stuff left behind getting in the way. This, however, is not my fault as the user. It's not XP's fault, either. It's the fault of the uninstaller that failed to correctly remove all of its components.
This is a common misconception, though. People think that Windows is doing the work of uninstalling programs just because the common way of doing it is through a Windows component--the Add/Remove Programs applet in the Control Panel. But all that does is index software which registers itself, and the "Remove" button just calls the programs registered uninstaller.
In Mac OSX, for example, there is no uninstall feature, yet it is perfectly ok to just throw the executable portion away and not worry about the remnants ever messing with your system (same goes for installing as well). I've seen bits and pieces left over from such "uninstalled" OS X software. The biggest difference is that it tends not to bog down the system.
The fault here is the architecture of how windows handles files and the clunky, outdated method of going about installing and uninstalling bits of code. I don't know about that. I think there's actual utility in having software registered with the OS, for example, but there's no requirement that Windows software do anything to install, uninstall, or register. You can quite easily download software and run it from a single executable, or from its own folder, as long as the software developer designed it that way.
There are too many variables to pin it to XP. Maybe it's the fact that people who write software for XP are just that awful, and that they leave around too much when the software is uninstalled? Maybe it's because nearly every family member in the history of computing managed to get infected with more and more malware, causing the computer to ultimately slow down and die?
I can state pretty well that I've seen extremely casual-use XP machines last for very nearly the lifetime of XP itself. And I've seen some machines that need to be formated twice a year. User abuse is one thing that you always have to consider. I'm pretty sure that if I tried, I could make a Linux machine run dog slow. Is it Linux's fault that such a possibility exists?
Or, GP is a troll. If so, he was a good one. Or I'm just getting slower in my old age.
Seriously, I've had plenty of bad experiences with cheap hardware. Some people think that it's reasonable to blame XP for that, but I'm not one of them.
Slashdot Mirror
That would be a good point if we had a slightly different electoral system.
Right now, a person can win the presidency without having a majority of electoral votes. If we had a large number of parties, this would almost certainly happen, and on a regular basis. Some of these winners might align with more people than winners in the current system. It's certainly possible. It's also quite possible that they'd align with far fewer people than in the current system.
A system where candidates are ranked by the population would be slightly better from this perspective. You'd effectively be able to vote for a second choice, a third choice, etc. In theory, this would mean that political alignment would be maximized.
However, I still think that the best solution is to distribute power amongst the states. Nothing in that solution precludes having a better federal election system, and it certainly means that each person gets more of a choice of how to live their lives than we do now.
Adding parties takes votes away from one or more of the existing parties. That means that fewer people are accurately represented. That was my point. Right now, ostensibly, 50% of the population is represented by the presidential candidate. If we add a third party, and we assume an relatively even split of votes from the other two (reasonable, in your scenario), then only 33% of the population will be represented by the elected president. Now that 33% will be better represented, but whether that's better or worse is subjective.
More choices is often better when you're an individual, but it's not often better when you're making a group decision.
Of course, all of this is a problem simply because the federal government (in general) and the executive branch (in specific) have become far more powerful over the years than was intended by the compromise created by the founding fathers.
For your analogy to work, you'd have to be building your house on public land. Maybe communal land, like an apartment complex, would work better.
Nonetheless, public land or apartment complex, there are rules governing other people's use of your stuff. With an access point, the applicable rules are in the various computer use and hacking laws. The key question is probably whether or not the average person would consider the DHCP handshake as an invitation from one person for any given person to access his network. Chances are, the average person would not consider the DHCPOFFER to be an actual offer, in human terms. If it's not an offer, then it's trespassing, which is illegal.
It was a joke. If you look at the acronyms those words form, you might see it.
Going even further off-topic, I actually feel that FreeBSD is a cleaner, simpler implementation of Unix than Linux, and their focus on network throughput is pretty outstanding. I actually don't do much with the APP of my acronym, and even less since I'm messing with lighttpd a little more now (turning the acronym into the unintelligible mess of "FLPP".)
One of the neat things about FreeBSD over Linux is that it's got a stable ABI between releases.
More relevant is that a leecher probably doesn't know whether or not someone else is using the bandwidth. The question, "Why can't I use a negligible amount of bandwidth when you're not using it?" is irrelevant if I can't tell whether or not:
a) My bandwidth use is negligible (does the grand parent poster do a speed test and throttle his use accordingly? In my area, we have ultra-cheap 64kpbs "broadband" for people who want an always-on connection that's about the same speed as a phone line.)
b) That I'm not using the Internet at the time that s/he wants to use it?
If the grand parent does neither, then the point is really moot, isn't it?
Bad analogy? Maybe, but if so, that's because analogies really don't work well in this case. The argument against locking routers down by default, is that it's too complicated for the user. Bullshit! People use locks and keys all the time for their home, car, office, filing cabinet, safe deposit box... all things of value they wouldn't want to have stolen. How is your private, personal network any different ? If you don't want people poking around your shared files and internet access, then put a freakin' lock on the thing. Doors and locks have been around for centuries. Ubiquitous computing in the home has been around for a little over a decade, and home networks for even less time. People may eventually get to the point where they can figure these things out, but for now, they're still mystified by the pretty colors on their screen. I have no pity for people who fail at common sense. The sad fact is that when many non-techie people start using computers, they simply freeze up. It's something so completely alien to them that they don't function well. Most people don't think about security anyway*, except that security which was explicitly drilled into their heads at a young age (lock the doors, keep your keys and wallet with you, don't leave your drink unattended at a restaurant or bar.) Why would you expect people to suddenly develop "common sense," as you put it, when presented with something alien, when they don't even use "common sense" to notice other insecure infrastructure that they aren't explicitly told about?
*Bruce Schneier recently wrote an article on just this topic--the security mindset isn't a part of most people's thinking. http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/03/the_security_mi_1.html
What will multiple parties do? It just means that whichever candidate wins the election will be less likely to match my views, or any other single person's views.
What we need is for the federal government to back off and give back some of the power that they've taken from the states. That way, we can move to the state which fits us best politically, and everyone's happy.
It means that the bathroom is less safe than other areas of the airport, but if it's a lower-value target, then it all works out.
As far as predictablility, I'm sure that they'll use obscurity (i.e. they won't publish the algorithm) in order to address that. Applying pseudo-random elements and mathematical formulas to give them statistical properties of random data does not guarantee the results of operating the algorithm are not predictable. Unless they're using an actual random number generator, and not a pseudo-random number generator, then the results aren't guaranteed to be unpredictable, anyway.
That would be the joke, but I was going for a touch more subtlety.
Eh, Linux is ok on the desktop, but for servers, I really prefer FreeBSD.
Sometimes I get tired of that, and use NetBSD for a while. A short stint with NetBSD, Apache, Postgresql, and PHP usually refreshes me long enough so that I can FreeBSD, Apache, Postgresql, and PHP again.
Now I'm not inclined to argue the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent, but then again, my post isn't meant to be in support of the death penalty.
There's also always some database overhead involved in creating a prepared query. If you're only going to use the query once, it may be that performance will be faster to build the query on the web server.
Generally speaking, I'd rather sacrifice database performance for security, but the manager doesn't always agree, does s/he?
Eh, that joke's been around for longer than that.
Nvidia's drivers have had bugs in them in the past. Bugs which other people could have fixed if they'd had access to the source. Instead, we wait for Nvidia's release cycle to be complete (and, might I add, they tend to add new features in with their bugfixes--a software development no-no.)
Different investigation agencies probably do things differently. I can tell you that the RIAA has just hopped on, grabbed the peer list, and then hopped off (I work for an ISP and we actually have to deal with this crap.)
Oh, to have mod points for you.
Some people just don't understand that "Open Source" doesn't mean "license-compatible with my license of choice."
Theora is a last-generation codec. It's pretty good, but quality/compression-wise, it's comparable to DivX.
What we really want is something which is comparable to h.264.
Most of the time, when people talk about bad coding practices in the context of UAC, they're talking about programs which assume that the user will be running as Administrator, and thus they stomp all over areas which should remain protected (both on the filesystem and in the registry.)
Aside from annoying users, UAC ostensibly exists to keep privilege escalation from occuring. If a program really needs the privileges, it can get them granted by the user. If it doesn't, the user can deny them. In practice, one has to question how effective this really is (does the user know when it's a program or a privilege escalation attempt?)
Well, thanks for the compliments and thoughts. I guess I was giving stewie the benefit of the doubt.
Regarding replies like these, I understand the sentiment. I've often wished that Slashdot had a way for users to message each other privately. Past a certain point (be it time, thread depth, or some combination of the two) it's probably okay, though.
Such software is out there.
WinSCP has a standalone option, or you can get it with an installer. I've also used various utilities to modify my phone, most of which came as standalone executables.
Most commercial software does use an installer.
Generally speaking, upgrading Windows brings in cruft from the previous installation. In some cases, it can cause pretty bad instability.
So the only way that I'd do an "upgrade" is if it allowed me to wipe the previous installation completely--which traditionally you've been able to do with Windows upgrades. Only, if there's no real benefit to actually changing Windows versions, why not just wipe and reinstall with the version of Windows that you already have?
This is a common misconception, though. People think that Windows is doing the work of uninstalling programs just because the common way of doing it is through a Windows component--the Add/Remove Programs applet in the Control Panel. But all that does is index software which registers itself, and the "Remove" button just calls the programs registered uninstaller. In Mac OSX, for example, there is no uninstall feature, yet it is perfectly ok to just throw the executable portion away and not worry about the remnants ever messing with your system (same goes for installing as well). I've seen bits and pieces left over from such "uninstalled" OS X software. The biggest difference is that it tends not to bog down the system. The fault here is the architecture of how windows handles files and the clunky, outdated method of going about installing and uninstalling bits of code. I don't know about that. I think there's actual utility in having software registered with the OS, for example, but there's no requirement that Windows software do anything to install, uninstall, or register. You can quite easily download software and run it from a single executable, or from its own folder, as long as the software developer designed it that way.
Ah, I see.
The intent was that 2 year old hardware ought to be able to run XP just fine, not that a 2 year old install of XP ought to run just fine.
There are too many variables to pin it to XP. Maybe it's the fact that people who write software for XP are just that awful, and that they leave around too much when the software is uninstalled? Maybe it's because nearly every family member in the history of computing managed to get infected with more and more malware, causing the computer to ultimately slow down and die?
I can state pretty well that I've seen extremely casual-use XP machines last for very nearly the lifetime of XP itself. And I've seen some machines that need to be formated twice a year. User abuse is one thing that you always have to consider. I'm pretty sure that if I tried, I could make a Linux machine run dog slow. Is it Linux's fault that such a possibility exists?
Seriously, I've had plenty of bad experiences with cheap hardware. Some people think that it's reasonable to blame XP for that, but I'm not one of them.