In economic theory, there is such a beast as the "Natural Monopoly." The reason it's a natural monopoly is because the barriers to entry are extremely high. Laying railroad track, laying power infrastructure - these have very high costs. So utilities are a natural monopoly.
Monopolies are typically bad because they allow extremely extractive costs to be imposed, instead of competitive costs. This reduces the benefit to the society which are the customers of the natural monopoly.
The whole point of civilization and society is for all members to get a better deal, not for merely maintaining or espousing a principle. In the case of utilities, it makes sense to leave it as a monopoly and have massive regulation on it.
Utility companies have found a way around it and now many if not most are also energy trading companies. Basically, they've gone Wall Street, becoming trading/betting companies.
We've run these experiments. Trying to increase the wealth of a society through novelty and innovation is good. But ONCE IT FAILS, it's time to end the experiment and institute the most beneficial system the historical experimental data supports.
Tell that to the lawyers working for the EFF. In case you didn't notice, they did an admirable job defending The Oatmeal in this case, and your rights online in general.
It's the Steve Jobs / Randy Pausch ("Last Lecture") effect. Relatively young, highly successful computing type suddenly laid low by pancreatic cancer. Folks can't help but speculate.
First: The only way to connect to your system is over a logical port. So, learn netfilter / IPtables and shut down all ports you don't need. The book "Running Linux" by Dalheimer and Welsh has a pretty good section on netfilter / IPtables. My recommendation - just leave port 22 and 80 (maybe 443 if you're having people log into your web application remotely). Default policy is drop packets unless it matches one of those ports.
Second: Turn off remote root login, typically found in sshd_config. This'll stop much of the probing.
Third: You don't want to allow someone to relentlessly try passwords. Get a program like Fail2ban. This will allow a certain number of login attempts before it bans the IP, just dropping the packets and not letting the password authentication module test them.
Fourth: Strong username/password combinations. The attacker has to guess the correct combination. Get jiggy with it. Unusual username and unusual passphrase password. Especially for the root user.
Fifth: Stop having Apache broadcast all of its version information. When someone is looking at response headers, they should see just that it's Apache and not Apache version XYZ. Apache loads several config files and reads them as one long config file (they're broken up for easier management). There's a setting in Apache to do that.
Sixth: In Apache's config files, turn off directory listings. Again, a simple configuration text file setting which eludes me at the moment. Apache The Definitive Guide by Laurie and Laurie is a good book to have. This info is also available on the web.
Seventh: Read your log files regularly. auth.log, error.log are very informative ones. Doing a lastlog command on a regular basis helps.
Finally - What is security? 1) You don't want people writing to where they shouldn't be writing. 2) You don't want people reading what they shouldn't be reading. 3) You don't want people executing what they shouldn't be executing.
Set up permissions well. Don't change them willy-nilly but if reading/writing most stuff on your box requires being part of the root group, that's pretty good security.
Finally, finally - keep reading various technical sites on the web for new security problems. Address as necessary.
Practical reasons: 1) So you knock some of the skin-flakes, hardened secretions and creepy-crawlies that feed on them out of the bed. Insects poop you know. Even the small ones. Sleeping in skin flakes, hardened secretions and insect poop is unlikely to positively impact your health. 2) Making the bed every day builds discipline, which is helpful in many areas in life.
Aesthetic reasons: 1) Airing out the bed in the course of making it will make the bed smell better. 2) And, having a nicely squared away bed looks better to many.
Summary: VB6 / VBA plus Access requires no support from the system administrator.
You have a sys admin who is solely interested in keeping his network up and running. You're in a department with little or no budget for development, but a need for database apps. System administrator has no interest in letting you touch his servers. And has no ability to develop apps. So you build a a VB / Access app, put the Access file on a shared network drive with other files, send the link to users, and voila, problem solved. An app which fills a real need.
This is probably not an uncommon situation in non-IT-oriented organizations.
They're up there, occasionally letting loose a missile, sending video back to operators. Does that provide any benefit to friendlies?
Remember - all actions are viewed FROM a perspective, and WITHIN a context. Dropping the atomic bomb on Japan, from the perspective of allied troops girding for the invasion of the Japanese mainland, and viewed within the context of the greater wold war swirling about them, was a great idea. From the perspective of the Emperor, it was a terrible idea. From the perspective of the Japanese citizens about to be incinerated and crushed, it was a terrible idea.
Perspective and context. Always necessary to take into account when analyzing an action.
It is THE program which slows down my older computers, driving me to upgrade computers. However, it seems to work pretty well. I know a fellow whose laptop was constantly getting virii. He kept calling me to help him fix it. He had a free or inexpensive virus scanner, I don't remember which. After the computer was reset-to-factory spec yet again, I told him to try getting Norton's consumer product. He hasn't gotten a virus in like two years, by far the longest he's gone.
What we have now is totally different. There's no rebellion, secession, martial law, etc. Just a government that's decided they don't feel like following a rule of law and would rather just assassinate anyone they find inconvenient.
If by "inconvenient" you mean they are "enemy combatants attempting to harm or destroy the USA", then I guess that's true. However, my only point is that such individuals have in the past, also been targeted and killed. In large numbers, actually. The Civil War is such an example.
The United States of America did not accept the secession, so in the eyes of the USA, the Confederate States of America was not a recognized country. See the "Emancipation Proclamation" which the USA issued to free the slaves in the entire USA, which also covered the breakaway southern states. The secession was a contested issue. So the killing of people in the states attempting to secede, in the eyes of the USA, was still the killing of Americans, in an attempt to stop the secession from completing successfully.
If you're talking about the US, I fail to see where the difference is. The current President of the US authorized the assassination of a US citizen overseas without due process: http://www.salon.com/2010/04/07/assassinations_2/ [salon.com] and now he's dead. [1]
Not without precedent. The American South seceded and the president ordered lots of Americans killed to stop it.
That light-dark cycle has been going on for billions of years, ceaselessly, perfectly. An amazing machine.
The importance of perspective is underscored as well. From the geostationary satellite, it looks as though the earth is still. And it is - from that perspective. From the perspective of other universal bodies however, the earth is moving.
Kudos to the Russkies for capturing this perspective and to James Drake for creating the video.
The basic problem with public transportation is that it's not flexible enough for us. It doesn't stop at our front door and let us off in front of our destination. If it manages to do that, then it will become much, much more popular. Currently, public transportation is like a circulatory system without the capillaries.
Or maybe we went to war, because some of our politicians have actually read history, and don't want a repeat of WWII. You know the one where Hitler damn near conquered all of Europe, and was on his way to conquering Asia, until the Japanese did something stupid and pissed off the American people?
Hitler raced through his surrounding countries like a knife through butter. Saddam fought an ineffectual multi-year, very bloody war with Iran which ground to a stalemate. He couldn't even fly an airplane in his own airspace due to the no-fly zone after Gulf War I. World War III was not an issue here. And ascribing to politicians any great wisdom is truly a mistake.
Saddam was an insane sadistic bastard.
Quite true. But he was the only one brutal enough to keep the peace in that country. You saw what happened with sectarian violence after he was unseated.
It's funny how no one ever complains about the first war against Iraq? You know the one where the UN told us to go and bomb the fuck out of him, for invading Kuwait and killing untolds thousands of people?
The UN does not tell the United States to do anything.
The UN is a bureaucratic formality.
But you're right, the Democrats blame everything on Bush, so it must be his fault.
I am on-board with calories in/calories out. If one maintains a calorie deficit such that after several days, the deficit adds up to 3500 calories, he will have lost a pound. I don't question this.
HOWEVER - the study noted that composition of food intake had an effect on the body. Namely, that body mass increased and daily caloric burn increased with higher protein, within the context of taking in excess calories than the body burns. An effect that was not seen with a low protein intake.
Now, here is my speculation, based on the report results: That the increased body mass and daily caloric burn effect might also be seen in the context of taking in fewer calories than the daily caloric burn level. So, as weight loss involves maintaining a calorie deficit, if the body is burning more calories, it will be easier to maintain a deficit with more food taken in. Which leads to the conclusion that eating predominantly Twinkies is going to lead to a more difficult weight loss than eating predominantly higher protein foods. I admit, this is my speculation, but the study provides some intriguing hints.
One has to be careful with calorie restriction and be sure to get all the necessary nutrients. A longer term deficit of something important can come back to bite you. Hard. Be sure to get enough:
1) Potassium 2) Fat 3) Protein 4) The vitamins and minerals found in a good multivitamin/mineral (like Centrum or One A Day maximum).
Before going on a calorie-restricted regimen, I would strongly urge people to spend some time figuring out what nutrients the body needs, and from where they plan to get these nutrients.
but in the end weight is just a matter of calories in vs calories out.
It's not ENTIRELY this, though this is a big part of it. The Journal of the American Medical Association recently published a study in which participants were fed an extra 1000 calories a day during an approximately 3 month period. One subgroup received 25 percent of daily calories as protein, one received 15 percent protein, and one group received five percent protein.
A typical light bulb only weighs a few grams. The LED bulbs I've hefted are quite heavy in comparison. Hundreds of grams. So, will light fixtures be able to support them? I've got a somewhat precariously perched desk lamp. It has a weighted base. I'd like to try an LED in it but the weight differentials of the LED bulb and the current bulb got me to thinking about the impact of the LED bulb's mass on the system.
You have two multibillion dollar companies hiring the best lawyers money can buy, both arguing complex legal and technical issues. And a group of yokels you picked at random off the street - a group that can afford to sit through a long trial - is supposed to correctly decide the case on its merits?
I think the jury system, while laudable in its intent, is terribly flawed.
In the end, I'm not certain that distinguishing between `honest' and `dishonest' dissent is very fruitful. Whether honest or not, dissent is important to prevent falling into a morbid state of what Feyerabend calls ``conceptual conservatism.''
Attacking someone's motives or character instead of the theories they advance, is a logical fallacy - "ad hominem."
Slashdot Mirror
In economic theory, there is such a beast as the "Natural Monopoly." The reason it's a natural monopoly is because the barriers to entry are extremely high. Laying railroad track, laying power infrastructure - these have very high costs. So utilities are a natural monopoly.
Monopolies are typically bad because they allow extremely extractive costs to be imposed, instead of competitive costs. This reduces the benefit to the society which are the customers of the natural monopoly.
The whole point of civilization and society is for all members to get a better deal, not for merely maintaining or espousing a principle. In the case of utilities, it makes sense to leave it as a monopoly and have massive regulation on it.
Utility companies have found a way around it and now many if not most are also energy trading companies. Basically, they've gone Wall Street, becoming trading/betting companies.
We've run these experiments. Trying to increase the wealth of a society through novelty and innovation is good. But ONCE IT FAILS, it's time to end the experiment and institute the most beneficial system the historical experimental data supports.
Gandhi was a lawyer.
But then, so is Carreon.
Might as well be now. Could spur space development, new technology, all kinds of interesting stuff. Plus, you know, stop the next bolide.
See Chicxulub Crater. It is 2012.
Congress can draft you, and send you to the front.
Conflating legal and illegal immigration furthers the agenda of the illegal immigration advocates.
It's the Steve Jobs / Randy Pausch ("Last Lecture") effect. Relatively young, highly successful computing type suddenly laid low by pancreatic cancer. Folks can't help but speculate.
First: The only way to connect to your system is over a logical port. So, learn netfilter / IPtables and shut down all ports you don't need. The book "Running Linux" by Dalheimer and Welsh has a pretty good section on netfilter / IPtables. My recommendation - just leave port 22 and 80 (maybe 443 if you're having people log into your web application remotely). Default policy is drop packets unless it matches one of those ports.
Second: Turn off remote root login, typically found in sshd_config. This'll stop much of the probing.
Third: You don't want to allow someone to relentlessly try passwords. Get a program like Fail2ban. This will allow a certain number of login attempts before it bans the IP, just dropping the packets and not letting the password authentication module test them.
Fourth: Strong username/password combinations. The attacker has to guess the correct combination. Get jiggy with it. Unusual username and unusual passphrase password. Especially for the root user.
Fifth: Stop having Apache broadcast all of its version information. When someone is looking at response headers, they should see just that it's Apache and not Apache version XYZ. Apache loads several config files and reads them as one long config file (they're broken up for easier management). There's a setting in Apache to do that.
Sixth: In Apache's config files, turn off directory listings. Again, a simple configuration text file setting which eludes me at the moment. Apache The Definitive Guide by Laurie and Laurie is a good book to have. This info is also available on the web.
Seventh: Read your log files regularly. auth.log, error.log are very informative ones. Doing a lastlog command on a regular basis helps.
Finally - What is security?
1) You don't want people writing to where they shouldn't be writing.
2) You don't want people reading what they shouldn't be reading.
3) You don't want people executing what they shouldn't be executing.
Set up permissions well. Don't change them willy-nilly but if reading/writing most stuff on your box requires being part of the root group, that's pretty good security.
Finally, finally - keep reading various technical sites on the web for new security problems. Address as necessary.
Practical reasons:
1) So you knock some of the skin-flakes, hardened secretions and creepy-crawlies that feed on them out of the bed. Insects poop you know. Even the small ones. Sleeping in skin flakes, hardened secretions and insect poop is unlikely to positively impact your health.
2) Making the bed every day builds discipline, which is helpful in many areas in life.
Aesthetic reasons:
1) Airing out the bed in the course of making it will make the bed smell better.
2) And, having a nicely squared away bed looks better to many.
Summary: VB6 / VBA plus Access requires no support from the system administrator.
You have a sys admin who is solely interested in keeping his network up and running. You're in a department with little or no budget for development, but a need for database apps. System administrator has no interest in letting you touch his servers. And has no ability to develop apps. So you build a a VB / Access app, put the Access file on a shared network drive with other files, send the link to users, and voila, problem solved. An app which fills a real need.
This is probably not an uncommon situation in non-IT-oriented organizations.
They're up there, occasionally letting loose a missile, sending video back to operators. Does that provide any benefit to friendlies?
Remember - all actions are viewed FROM a perspective, and WITHIN a context. Dropping the atomic bomb on Japan, from the perspective of allied troops girding for the invasion of the Japanese mainland, and viewed within the context of the greater wold war swirling about them, was a great idea. From the perspective of the Emperor, it was a terrible idea. From the perspective of the Japanese citizens about to be incinerated and crushed, it was a terrible idea.
Perspective and context. Always necessary to take into account when analyzing an action.
I have a love-hate relationship with Norton.
It is THE program which slows down my older computers, driving me to upgrade computers. However, it seems to work pretty well. I know a fellow whose laptop was constantly getting virii. He kept calling me to help him fix it. He had a free or inexpensive virus scanner, I don't remember which. After the computer was reset-to-factory spec yet again, I told him to try getting Norton's consumer product. He hasn't gotten a virus in like two years, by far the longest he's gone.
But wow, it is a resource hog.
If by "inconvenient" you mean they are "enemy combatants attempting to harm or destroy the USA", then I guess that's true. However, my only point is that such individuals have in the past, also been targeted and killed. In large numbers, actually. The Civil War is such an example.
The United States of America did not accept the secession, so in the eyes of the USA, the Confederate States of America was not a recognized country. See the "Emancipation Proclamation" which the USA issued to free the slaves in the entire USA, which also covered the breakaway southern states. The secession was a contested issue. So the killing of people in the states attempting to secede, in the eyes of the USA, was still the killing of Americans, in an attempt to stop the secession from completing successfully.
Not without precedent. The American South seceded and the president ordered lots of Americans killed to stop it.
That light-dark cycle has been going on for billions of years, ceaselessly, perfectly. An amazing machine.
The importance of perspective is underscored as well. From the geostationary satellite, it looks as though the earth is still. And it is - from that perspective. From the perspective of other universal bodies however, the earth is moving.
Kudos to the Russkies for capturing this perspective and to James Drake for creating the video.
The basic problem with public transportation is that it's not flexible enough for us. It doesn't stop at our front door and let us off in front of our destination. If it manages to do that, then it will become much, much more popular. Currently, public transportation is like a circulatory system without the capillaries.
If this threatens the insurance companies, they will launch a massive lobbying campaign to stop it.
Hitler raced through his surrounding countries like a knife through butter. Saddam fought an ineffectual multi-year, very bloody war with Iran which ground to a stalemate. He couldn't even fly an airplane in his own airspace due to the no-fly zone after Gulf War I. World War III was not an issue here. And ascribing to politicians any great wisdom is truly a mistake.
Quite true. But he was the only one brutal enough to keep the peace in that country. You saw what happened with sectarian violence after he was unseated.
The UN does not tell the United States to do anything.
The UN is a bureaucratic formality.
Politics never stops.
I am on-board with calories in/calories out. If one maintains a calorie deficit such that after several days, the deficit adds up to 3500 calories, he will have lost a pound. I don't question this.
HOWEVER - the study noted that composition of food intake had an effect on the body. Namely, that body mass increased and daily caloric burn increased with higher protein, within the context of taking in excess calories than the body burns. An effect that was not seen with a low protein intake.
Now, here is my speculation, based on the report results: That the increased body mass and daily caloric burn effect might also be seen in the context of taking in fewer calories than the daily caloric burn level. So, as weight loss involves maintaining a calorie deficit, if the body is burning more calories, it will be easier to maintain a deficit with more food taken in. Which leads to the conclusion that eating predominantly Twinkies is going to lead to a more difficult weight loss than eating predominantly higher protein foods. I admit, this is my speculation, but the study provides some intriguing hints.
One has to be careful with calorie restriction and be sure to get all the necessary nutrients. A longer term deficit of something important can come back to bite you. Hard. Be sure to get enough:
1) Potassium
2) Fat
3) Protein
4) The vitamins and minerals found in a good multivitamin/mineral (like Centrum or One A Day maximum).
Before going on a calorie-restricted regimen, I would strongly urge people to spend some time figuring out what nutrients the body needs, and from where they plan to get these nutrients.
It's not ENTIRELY this, though this is a big part of it. The Journal of the American Medical Association recently published a study in which participants were fed an extra 1000 calories a day during an approximately 3 month period. One subgroup received 25 percent of daily calories as protein, one received 15 percent protein, and one group received five percent protein.
The kicker? All groups gained the same amount of fat. However: the normal and high protein groups actually increased lean body mass and increased resting energy expenditure. The low protein group did not gain any lean body mass nor increase their resting energy rate. Here's the link to the JAMA study (it's the highlights - there are many articles on the web discussing the study)
A typical light bulb only weighs a few grams. The LED bulbs I've hefted are quite heavy in comparison. Hundreds of grams. So, will light fixtures be able to support them? I've got a somewhat precariously perched desk lamp. It has a weighted base. I'd like to try an LED in it but the weight differentials of the LED bulb and the current bulb got me to thinking about the impact of the LED bulb's mass on the system.
"Sex Panther: 60% of the time, it works every time."
You have two multibillion dollar companies hiring the best lawyers money can buy, both arguing complex legal and technical issues. And a group of yokels you picked at random off the street - a group that can afford to sit through a long trial - is supposed to correctly decide the case on its merits?
I think the jury system, while laudable in its intent, is terribly flawed.
Attacking someone's motives or character instead of the theories they advance, is a logical fallacy - "ad hominem."
The argument attacks a position by appealing to the despicable qualities, moral turpitude, and over-all lowness and meanness of the people who hold the position..
These examples illustrate classic uses of ad hominem attacks, in which an argument is rejected, or advanced, based on a personal characteristic of an individual rather than on reasons for or against the claim itself.
While trading insults may be fun and invigorating, it doesn't advance the debate.