Human are naturally unwilling to express their creativity which is why we need to restrict the right to read so they have financial incentive to do stuff, right?
You have no right to be lazy, educating yourself and being productive out of enjoyment. To aim for an Ancient Greek society with technology as a replacement for slavery is insane. Your only right is the right to be worked^W^Wwork. Everyone who doesn't enjoy this right is just lazy - remember to be divided and conquered and engage your bitterness to turn against your fellow man even while he wants a better life for you. Then turn your brain into a tradable commodity. Hemos pasado!
The term "application shop" was used for Symbian's shop for quite a while before Apple appeared with its iPhone, "shop" being a simple translation of the US English "store". And "app" has been a generic abbreviation for "application" at least since the late '80s on Acorn's RISC OS, newsgroup comp.sys.acorn.apps being proposed in early 1995.
You can argue that translations are irrelevant but this is not always so across the world. Regardless, it is ethically questionable to suggest that a generic phrase should become a trademark just because a word has been translated to another dialect of English.
Propaganda doesn't have to have an ulterior anything - if its dissemination is intended to influence someone's view of their position ("OK, I'm helpless") with a selective account of facts then it is propaganda.
Now neither of us have any evidence that the announcement is "in essence, 100% true". To state "you will be attacked" rather than "you may be attacked without warning" seems to be a choice made for psychological effect rather than an accurate statement of omnipresence and omniscience.
To state that the announcement was to benefit those innocent captains whose vessels would otherwise be killed trying to escape is spin - it may or may not be one of many reasons for making the announcement.
Assuming the US isn't releasing precisely the information it wants to - probably accurate without the no-fly zone, possibly inaccurate within - and just happy that there's another repeater of (mis)information for the enemy.
The conspiratorial extreme would be to assert that this Dutch fellow is knowingly cooperating with the US. The more likely truth is that fortune has just provided the US with another useful tool. If he soon goes quiet... well, we still cannot say for sure.
Define "honor-bound", please. I appreciate the good sentiment, but it sounds like a term which can be used to excuse anything. If the nation was seeking to oust its leader, there would be no leader. What's happening is that some of the nation is seeking to oust its leader - something which could be said of every nation on the earth. And almost all leaders, freedom-loving or dictatorial (but I repeat myself), crush such rebellions. Why are we caring so much about Libya? (why did we care so much about Iraq and Afghanistan?)
While everyone was looking at Japan, and while our countries (UK, France, USA) have so much shit to sort out at home, the bastards just managed to engage us in another offensive war.
The US government effectively includes a set of permanent privatised contractors who are allowed to put Intellectual Property[tm] protections their work. Wouldn't apply here, of course.
"Move and we'll immediately kill you," aka, "We're omnipresent and you're completely impotent - roll over and prepare to be conquered," is the asymptotic extreme of all propaganda, war or otherwise.
I don't understand why that would help. You have to provide the information in order to not smack into another aircraft, so every other aircraft/ATC in the vicinity needs to know how to decrypt the information. This means that the decryption keys are effectively public.
Anyway, is the US still consistent with its rule about most of the spectrum being a-ok to listen in on? Unlike the UK's Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949, where the default assumption is that you can't. And, of course, assuming he's in Holland... what about Dutch law?
The part after the "but" is a statement of logic: we cannot assume that a university in country X full of good researchers implies that country X provides good preparation for research (or any sort of good education). Are you asking for evidence that the US education system is not as good as its research output would speciously suggest?
Surely it is as interesting to find out what produces the excellent researchers as it is to find out what consumes them:
(i) from the PoV of improving education at home and abroad;
(ii) for countries with potential for local scientific growth to note where they are losing out and consider how to improve;
(iii) to perhaps produce a more distributed network of research centres rather than consolidating skills in a few dozen centres across the world. (Is so much centralisation necessary or even positive?)
In particular, the headline "top science city" suggests that most of the work done is locally in producing the research, when as much input may have occurred elsewhere in nurturing an excellent researcher. For example, where the US is "number one" scientifically, it is increasingly so only in being able to identify which foreigners to import. Is that healthy?
"Number of links" has always struck me as an odd metric (see also PageRank). The greatest work from the PoV of scientific advancement isn't necessarily the most cited. The greatest determinant will be how fashionable a particular field is - a few leading researchers in a particular field are likely to have a huge number of cites, especially if they constitently reach the well-known publications, but it doesn't necessarily mean the field is very scientifically interesting.
Then, even if great progress has been made, you get the effect that people don't necessarily cite the seminal investigations so much as the pioneering refiners.
Another interesting effect, of course, is the difference between provenance of researcher and location of publication. The US and the UK are particularly good at draining other countries of already well-educated people, but this doesn't mean that the US or the UK have performed the academic preparation necessary to produce excellent researchers.
Clearly you have low expectations of your computing system. What is your primary platform?
You should try a VAX running VMS in 1985. VMS has had fine grained per-process resource limits since forever and degrades very gracefully. And overheating? My MicroVAX also makes an excellent space heater, but that doesn't seem to bother it.
What do you say to those who still use "queer" to mean odd and "gay" to mean happy? To those who use "nigger" as a term of comradeship? To those who use "niggardly" despite the obvious opportunity for mishearing? How far does your monopoly on word usage extend?
I find official attempts to rewrite the language much more insidious than organic changes. Whether it's "shell shock" becoming "PTSD", "crippled" becoming "differently abled" or "sick note" becoming "fit note" (thanks, England!), it's far worse when impact is taken out of words rather than added to them - ostensibly out of political correctness but fundamentally out of a desire to suppress human identity and frailty.
Words like "faggot" and "nigger" and "cripple" have a rich history pointing to our cultural development over the centuries. Let's understand that they did and still do have multiple meanings, and rather than condeming some meanings as WRONG and others as CORRECT, how about we instead only worry about whether people are causing harm? I've been able to spend my life using "queer" to mean "odd" and have never used it to mean "homosexual" (except when mentioning the '90s gay soap Queer as Folk). I've used "gay" to mean "homosexual", "effeminate" (this is not an insult - too many are worried that it is) or "lame" depending on context without anyone raising an eyebrow. If you're going to argue against use of "gay", then argue against it entirely when the word can be ambiguous - for example, it might be avoided in a technical environment just as any good engineer avoids a marketing buzzword. But don't deny it.
Software developers are going to have to consider increasing efficiency as they make their wares more complex! And we might have to actually implement concurrency research which is under two decades old!
Who knows, we might even end up with the responsiveness of my RISC OS 2 Acorn A3000 in 1990.
Dude, vigorous handwaving is no substitute for actually confronting the facts. I'll try it one more time because you may just have a genuine misconception, but I'm AFK after this...
There is no such concept as "1 IP address one machine" (as NAT itself demonstrates!) so you are making a conceptual error if you think that one of NAT's purposes is to hide the count of machines on your network from your ISP. Your ISP has every packet you send and receive available for a decent analysis if it really wanted a machine count. It could at the very least trivially confirm that your network configuration is designed to give the wrong impression of how many machines you're using.
To reiterate, the flaw is not in the implementation; it's in your conception of what NAT is.
Now, NAT may help obscure the particular machine used on a network from a remote host, but IPv6 privacy extensions do a better job of this (I can choose where and when they're applied). An application level proxy may be an even better solution in some cases, as it does not simply pass on a subset of identifying qualities of the original machine. In every case you're hoping that the remote host makes a sufficiently crude analysis of behaviour or other fingerprint.
Ireland learnt its two-decade lesson about monetary policy and raised the cloud tax. The invisible hand of God moved the clouds somewhere cheaper...
(...perhaps to Wales, which is reluctantly under Her Majesty's rule, but allows us some payback in local cloud tax for the support we've loaned to our green neighbours. Britain's main industry is clouds, you see... and only the white ones, since Thatcher abolished the black sooty ones after a wrestling match with Arthur Scargill in 1984.)
The discussion started off concerning a flawed method of breaking the ISP AUP, but Anthony Mouse suggested the benefit of a false sense of security. NAT solves neither problem (see my other posts in this thread).
It's not "flawed" for this reason. NAT's purpose is not to hide the count of hosts behind the NAT gateway and it's never done this effectively. But it does seem fairly typical of NAT proponents to have a gravely unfounded sense of security when using it.
If you want to engage in an arms race with your ISP to hide the count of hosts behind your network, you're welcome to do so. There's enough DPI already going on at ISPs that you're wasting your time to think you can win the race with nothing but a consumer gateway. IOW it would not even be sufficient to create a hypothetical perfect NAT implementation (heh) which avoided the "etc." that no-one's exhaustively enumerated.
And there's no active research going as far as trying to count the number of devices behind a consumer NAT router for the specific purpose of stopping people from exceeding the AUP on connected devices.
I've lived at the bottom of a hill, i.e. with bad TV reception. The switch from analogue to digital has basically ruined things for me, because it's quite easy to cope with a grainy picture and occasionally slightly hissy sound (but rarely - FM's damn resilient) but impossible to cope with the blockiness and intermittent loss of soung with DVB-T.
How well has the transition to digital satellite gone? When it's pissing down with rain, will I just get little lines on the screen like on my old analogue receiver, or is there a similarly horrible loss of actual watchability?
Slashdot Mirror
Human are naturally unwilling to express their creativity which is why we need to restrict the right to read so they have financial incentive to do stuff, right?
You have no right to be lazy, educating yourself and being productive out of enjoyment. To aim for an Ancient Greek society with technology as a replacement for slavery is insane. Your only right is the right to be worked^W^Wwork. Everyone who doesn't enjoy this right is just lazy - remember to be divided and conquered and engage your bitterness to turn against your fellow man even while he wants a better life for you. Then turn your brain into a tradable commodity. Hemos pasado!
The term "application shop" was used for Symbian's shop for quite a while before Apple appeared with its iPhone, "shop" being a simple translation of the US English "store". And "app" has been a generic abbreviation for "application" at least since the late '80s on Acorn's RISC OS, newsgroup comp.sys.acorn.apps being proposed in early 1995.
You can argue that translations are irrelevant but this is not always so across the world. Regardless, it is ethically questionable to suggest that a generic phrase should become a trademark just because a word has been translated to another dialect of English.
What is more, the term "app store" is clearly descriptive and non-distinctive as far as UK registration eligibility goes.
Propaganda doesn't have to have an ulterior anything - if its dissemination is intended to influence someone's view of their position ("OK, I'm helpless") with a selective account of facts then it is propaganda.
Now neither of us have any evidence that the announcement is "in essence, 100% true". To state "you will be attacked" rather than "you may be attacked without warning" seems to be a choice made for psychological effect rather than an accurate statement of omnipresence and omniscience.
To state that the announcement was to benefit those innocent captains whose vessels would otherwise be killed trying to escape is spin - it may or may not be one of many reasons for making the announcement.
Assuming the US isn't releasing precisely the information it wants to - probably accurate without the no-fly zone, possibly inaccurate within - and just happy that there's another repeater of (mis)information for the enemy.
The conspiratorial extreme would be to assert that this Dutch fellow is knowingly cooperating with the US. The more likely truth is that fortune has just provided the US with another useful tool. If he soon goes quiet... well, we still cannot say for sure.
Define "honor-bound", please. I appreciate the good sentiment, but it sounds like a term which can be used to excuse anything. If the nation was seeking to oust its leader, there would be no leader. What's happening is that some of the nation is seeking to oust its leader - something which could be said of every nation on the earth. And almost all leaders, freedom-loving or dictatorial (but I repeat myself), crush such rebellions. Why are we caring so much about Libya? (why did we care so much about Iraq and Afghanistan?)
While everyone was looking at Japan, and while our countries (UK, France, USA) have so much shit to sort out at home, the bastards just managed to engage us in another offensive war.
The US government effectively includes a set of permanent privatised contractors who are allowed to put Intellectual Property[tm] protections their work. Wouldn't apply here, of course.
"Move and we'll immediately kill you," aka, "We're omnipresent and you're completely impotent - roll over and prepare to be conquered," is the asymptotic extreme of all propaganda, war or otherwise.
I don't understand why that would help. You have to provide the information in order to not smack into another aircraft, so every other aircraft/ATC in the vicinity needs to know how to decrypt the information. This means that the decryption keys are effectively public.
Anyway, is the US still consistent with its rule about most of the spectrum being a-ok to listen in on? Unlike the UK's Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949, where the default assumption is that you can't. And, of course, assuming he's in Holland... what about Dutch law?
(also, "begs the question" etc.)
The part before the "but" is covered above.
The part after the "but" is a statement of logic: we cannot assume that a university in country X full of good researchers implies that country X provides good preparation for research (or any sort of good education). Are you asking for evidence that the US education system is not as good as its research output would speciously suggest?
Surely it is as interesting to find out what produces the excellent researchers as it is to find out what consumes them:
(i) from the PoV of improving education at home and abroad;
(ii) for countries with potential for local scientific growth to note where they are losing out and consider how to improve;
(iii) to perhaps produce a more distributed network of research centres rather than consolidating skills in a few dozen centres across the world. (Is so much centralisation necessary or even positive?)
In particular, the headline "top science city" suggests that most of the work done is locally in producing the research, when as much input may have occurred elsewhere in nurturing an excellent researcher. For example, where the US is "number one" scientifically, it is increasingly so only in being able to identify which foreigners to import. Is that healthy?
"Number of links" has always struck me as an odd metric (see also PageRank). The greatest work from the PoV of scientific advancement isn't necessarily the most cited. The greatest determinant will be how fashionable a particular field is - a few leading researchers in a particular field are likely to have a huge number of cites, especially if they constitently reach the well-known publications, but it doesn't necessarily mean the field is very scientifically interesting.
Then, even if great progress has been made, you get the effect that people don't necessarily cite the seminal investigations so much as the pioneering refiners.
Another interesting effect, of course, is the difference between provenance of researcher and location of publication. The US and the UK are particularly good at draining other countries of already well-educated people, but this doesn't mean that the US or the UK have performed the academic preparation necessary to produce excellent researchers.
I would, but VAXen were discontinued in 2000.
Clearly you have low expectations of your computing system. What is your primary platform?
You should try a VAX running VMS in 1985. VMS has had fine grained per-process resource limits since forever and degrades very gracefully. And overheating? My MicroVAX also makes an excellent space heater, but that doesn't seem to bother it.
What do you say to those who still use "queer" to mean odd and "gay" to mean happy? To those who use "nigger" as a term of comradeship? To those who use "niggardly" despite the obvious opportunity for mishearing? How far does your monopoly on word usage extend?
I find official attempts to rewrite the language much more insidious than organic changes. Whether it's "shell shock" becoming "PTSD", "crippled" becoming "differently abled" or "sick note" becoming "fit note" (thanks, England!), it's far worse when impact is taken out of words rather than added to them - ostensibly out of political correctness but fundamentally out of a desire to suppress human identity and frailty.
Words like "faggot" and "nigger" and "cripple" have a rich history pointing to our cultural development over the centuries. Let's understand that they did and still do have multiple meanings, and rather than condeming some meanings as WRONG and others as CORRECT, how about we instead only worry about whether people are causing harm? I've been able to spend my life using "queer" to mean "odd" and have never used it to mean "homosexual" (except when mentioning the '90s gay soap Queer as Folk). I've used "gay" to mean "homosexual", "effeminate" (this is not an insult - too many are worried that it is) or "lame" depending on context without anyone raising an eyebrow. If you're going to argue against use of "gay", then argue against it entirely when the word can be ambiguous - for example, it might be avoided in a technical environment just as any good engineer avoids a marketing buzzword. But don't deny it.
Software developers are going to have to consider increasing efficiency as they make their wares more complex! And we might have to actually implement concurrency research which is under two decades old!
Who knows, we might even end up with the responsiveness of my RISC OS 2 Acorn A3000 in 1990.
Well, it's easier to opt out of newspaper buying than tax paying.
Although I try as hard as possible to avoid both.
Dude, vigorous handwaving is no substitute for actually confronting the facts. I'll try it one more time because you may just have a genuine misconception, but I'm AFK after this...
There is no such concept as "1 IP address one machine" (as NAT itself demonstrates!) so you are making a conceptual error if you think that one of NAT's purposes is to hide the count of machines on your network from your ISP. Your ISP has every packet you send and receive available for a decent analysis if it really wanted a machine count. It could at the very least trivially confirm that your network configuration is designed to give the wrong impression of how many machines you're using.
To reiterate, the flaw is not in the implementation; it's in your conception of what NAT is.
Now, NAT may help obscure the particular machine used on a network from a remote host, but IPv6 privacy extensions do a better job of this (I can choose where and when they're applied). An application level proxy may be an even better solution in some cases, as it does not simply pass on a subset of identifying qualities of the original machine. In every case you're hoping that the remote host makes a sufficiently crude analysis of behaviour or other fingerprint.
Ireland learnt its two-decade lesson about monetary policy and raised the cloud tax. The invisible hand of God moved the clouds somewhere cheaper...
(...perhaps to Wales, which is reluctantly under Her Majesty's rule, but allows us some payback in local cloud tax for the support we've loaned to our green neighbours. Britain's main industry is clouds, you see... and only the white ones, since Thatcher abolished the black sooty ones after a wrestling match with Arthur Scargill in 1984.)
The discussion started off concerning a flawed method of breaking the ISP AUP, but Anthony Mouse suggested the benefit of a false sense of security. NAT solves neither problem (see my other posts in this thread).
It's not "flawed" for this reason. NAT's purpose is not to hide the count of hosts behind the NAT gateway and it's never done this effectively. But it does seem fairly typical of NAT proponents to have a gravely unfounded sense of security when using it.
If you want to engage in an arms race with your ISP to hide the count of hosts behind your network, you're welcome to do so. There's enough DPI already going on at ISPs that you're wasting your time to think you can win the race with nothing but a consumer gateway. IOW it would not even be sufficient to create a hypothetical perfect NAT implementation (heh) which avoided the "etc." that no-one's exhaustively enumerated.
Fortunately, there are no ways to detect whether a NAT router is being used.
Wait, no, that's trivial.
And there's no active research going as far as trying to count the number of devices behind a consumer NAT router for the specific purpose of stopping people from exceeding the AUP on connected devices.
Oh, never mind.
Like I said, IPv6 NAT has no uses.
May I take a year of your life?
You're the third person not to know about IPv6 Privacy Extensions.
It's a once-in-1000-years event, which in engineering is a rather acceptable risk to take.
Commissioned 1971. Was due to operate another few years.
50/1000 = 1/20. No, it isn't acceptable.
I've lived at the bottom of a hill, i.e. with bad TV reception. The switch from analogue to digital has basically ruined things for me, because it's quite easy to cope with a grainy picture and occasionally slightly hissy sound (but rarely - FM's damn resilient) but impossible to cope with the blockiness and intermittent loss of soung with DVB-T.
How well has the transition to digital satellite gone? When it's pissing down with rain, will I just get little lines on the screen like on my old analogue receiver, or is there a similarly horrible loss of actual watchability?