To discuss something in a rational and moral light means to have a meta-discussion about the moral and rational ways that the thing can be viewed. Your view that niggers and jews are crushed under your boot are as valid in that discussion as anyone else's. You missed the point, and then made yourself look stupid by announcing your ignorance and calling me a dumbass. Try it without being anonymous next time moron.
In today's environment if a group of intelligent hackers with a wide range of skills deployed and attempted to control a Curious Yellow, they would probably succeed, although they would have to start with months of planning and exploit-discovering to make sure they had pre-prepared their own "zero-day" exploits for a wide variety of platforms (wintel may be dominant, but unices and even routers could be crucial to some of the attack plans). And in order to keep up an arms race, they will have to continually here of or discover on their own new exploits before they get widely patched.
The whole problem here revolves around the insecurity of most operating system installs (especially Wintel, but commercial and free *nix are also relatively insecure by default). The real solution to scenarios like Curious Yellow ona global scale would be to secure all the operating systems by default. If every OS vendor would take a slightly more OpenBSD-ish tack on security, disabling most services by default and warning users of potential risks of turning them on misconfigured, auditing their code, and perhaps most importantly, open-sourcing their code for peer-review... it would severly limit Curious Yellow's ability to infect in the first place.
However, I think it's a pretty safe assumption that that level of universal computer security won't happen in the near future, and that some bright people are already coding their Curious Yellow variants. In that case the best you can hope for is to secure your own systems against Curious Yellow by being more secure than the norm. You won't be able to stop the distributed attacks and service problems that will affect your network traffic, but at least you can avoid being part of the problem and avoid direct control of your machine. Take the cautious road - reploy an OS you can see the source of. Disable mostly everything that listens to a network port. Take advantage of security-upping kernel patches (grsecurity for linux comes to mind, a collection of stack protection, randomization of various things, finer grained access control, etc). Run a firewall, make sure you know what it's doing and why. Don't let any traffic in unless there's a need, and keep an eye on that traffic. As with human infections, early detection leads to a faster recovery. Snort is your freind.
Read up on the history of Corporations, and you will find that they are a very perverted form of the original intent. They were supposed to be formed for the common good, disbanded in 20 years. They were given very little of the rights of people (other than to do business as a combined entity for a limited period of time), but they were waived the resposbilities of people in order to attract investors (nobody wants to invest if they could lose more than they put in because of liability). If before the 20 years were up they stopped serving the common good, you could get them disbanded earlier.
At various points corporate law changed, and now they still have an immunity to real resposbility, but all of their previous limitations have been removed. They get all the plusses of being a person without liabilities. They don't have to serve the common good, they can exist for centuries, and they don't have to make amends if the screw up royally, they can just fold up the company and the investors dont lose anything they didn't put in.
Well, the DS3 example is of course crazy or people would be doing it. Over long wide area links serial tends to win, just like parallel wins on expansion card busses. However clock skew can be mitigated with buffering. However by eating the potential buffer time you increase the latency, which makes the tradeoff imperfect. YOu might gain 8x the bandwidth but double your latency or more. It would come down to actually measuring how things work out in a particular technology you're building to decide whether the amount of gained latency versus gained bandwidth paid off.
Of course you still have synchronization problems. Over an appreciable length, each fiber will be slightly different internally (and probably in path shape as well), which leads to the actual photons paths being significantly shorter or longer than each other.
I've been wanting to process word docs with my perl scripts for years, and they fscking know it. They don't have to have some down the road conversion to XML to allow me either, all they have to do is open their fscking standards. What I wouldn't give for a microsoft word document api on linux that was reliable instead of what we have: reverse-engineer peices of cruft that enever get things quite right.
Since they haven't opened up in the past, I don't expect them to know either. Either (1) the project will get buried, (2) Microsoft will use a subverted MSXML standard somehow to make sure it's not usable by us, or (3) the xml documents will be encrypted and protected by Palladium so that your only hope of realizing this perl promise is to use a licensed copy of Microsoft Visual Perl#++.
There's a difference between supressing *all* speech about a bad topic like those listed, versus just supressing the speech of the active supporting groups. In at least some of these cases I'd be willing to bet they banned (for instance) an anti-semetic hate-group's website, but not another that merely discusses anti-semitism in a rational and moral light.
Dear God,
Please execute some Slashdot souls who somehow get mod points and abuse them.
There's nothing Troll about my comment above. It's a consise and somewhat funny statement (little smiley being there and all) indicating my opinion to the asker that having an AIM->Shell gateway would be a *really* bad idea. And here you go muting my voice, possibly leading him down the path of insecurity indirectly.
The battle between serial and parallel communications is neverending. Show me a Serial WAN connection like a DS3, and I can say "Well, since you never send partial bytes, we could strap 8 of these side by side, send one byte at a time with the bits split up over the 8 DS3s in parallel frames, and we get an 8x speed improvement that's usable by a single connection and no additional latency".
Or show me a parallel bus like IDE, and I can say "Look, having all those data lines next to each other causes additional interference we have to account for, and they're bulky, cost more, overly complex, blah blah. If we just put a serial bitstream on a pair of wires, it would be so much simpler that for the same cost we can turn up the bitrate more than enough to make up for the lost parallelism."
It's all the same. Various communication technologies tend to rise and fall, serial replacing parallel replacing serial replacing parallel ad infinitum. In some cases (like PCI busses) parallel just makes a lot more sense, but in a lot of cases (network stuff, storage stuff especially) there's a tradeoff where both are better and worse than the other in different ways. You could just pick one and stick with it and do you incremental improvements, but the occasional switcheroo provides upgrade revenues and more user "wow" factor and buzzwords.
There are lots of algorithms out there that seem to be multiples faster than quicksort in daily use. The problem is when you formally analyze them, you find out their not gauranteed to be faster, and could in fact be horribly slower. If you run it enough times against various wierd data, you'll probably hit one of these slow runs yourself. I can only guess because you haven't mentioned anything about the algorithm or shown any sample code. Read up on how to analyze your code for O() notation and figure out what the real worst case is mathematically.
As far as I'm aware (I do some coding for a small medical company, I've had to deal breifly with HIPAA), there's not actually any set-in-stone rules for what makes up HIPAA compliance. It boils down to you coming up with a HIPAA plan that describes how you will effectively secure patient information and sending it in and having it approved. Your plan might include PGP for email and SSL for web apps if that's where patient information flows at. Or you might devise your own schemes to protect it.
I guess what I'm saying is that all you have to do is treat patient records like you would your root password, follow good security practices, document them, and send them in for approval, and all should be ok.
I used to program in assembler, and I wish more people still did. Actually my ideal programming language is now "C++, but don't use templates, polymorphism, or multiple inheritance - dont bother with the STL unless it's a very clear win - and profile your code and recode any super-hot-spots in asm". I guess what I really want rather than C++ is C with just a few C++ features - like member functions for structs, private declarations, operator overloading, and constructors/destructors.
My point is, abstractions sometimes go a bit too far.
Re:the Conch Republic did this in the Florida Keys
on
The Free State Project
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
Dumb Floridians strike again. This is why Fark.Com has a section entitled "Florida". They're their own class of idiocy.
As a technical side note - they use the idea that the Border Patrol set up a border check point where they stopped ever car to search for aliens/drugs inside the US instead of at the border. They decided that this established a new border (they consider the line of the old checkpoint the border of their country).
For their information, the Border Patrol has a long established history of doing this with the Mexican border. There are checkpoints on every major Mexico-bound highway in Texas around 100 miles inside the US, as a double-check. They can (and sometimes do) stop every car coming through when they have good tips that shipments are moving at that time/location. Nobody has ever challenged this because it's perfectly reasonable and doesn't establish any new border.
Just my gambler's gut-feeling here, but I think finding an Eval(p) function that works for Go is gonna be about as hard as finding the question for 42.
Ok i wasn't completely dreaming, there's a Pravda.ru article about it, but then again take pravda.ru with a grain of salt as always: http://english.pravda.ru/world/2001/06/25/8622.htm l
Don't forget Bosnia though. I heard (don't ask me where, probably some lame Slashdot rumor) that in Bosnia they were somehow using cellphone radiation (from the towers or phones or perhaps both) to see stealth craft. Don't recall exactly how but it sounded cool at the time, anyone care to enlighten?
No, it's really true. It's not because I WANT to believe it, it's just the facts of society in the United States. At one point I lived Singapore, which has very strict gun control, to the point that there really are virtually zero guns in public hands. The police have their guns corded to their belts to make sure they can't be stolen. Any privately owned gun has to be stored at a government approved storage facility at a gun range where you can use it, and you need special permission to get it out to (for instance) put it in baggage and export it out to anotehr country to go hunting (there's no real hunting there). It worked wonders there, there is no violent gun crime, very little violent crime at all in fact.
So at the time (early 90's) I wrote in a letter to the editor in response to some article on Gun Control in the USA Today, which got published. My letter expressed my sincere belief that gun controls work and whatnot. I was a full-on gun control believer at the time.
After a few years abck in the good old US of course, I realized that thigns are different here. You just can't disarm the US, it will never work. Your best bet is a widely armed public, otherwise the criminals have all the power.
When using off-the-shelf software like I have to at work, the IDE solution is far more expensive. We can't do our policies correctly without having the disks emulate a tape library, the DX30 unit I referred to is 3TB of IDE storage for about $55k list price, which works out to around $18/GB. Cheap IDE drives can be had for $1/GB, but then you've got to come up with a system for using large amounts of IDE disks as a virtual tape system, or get your backup software to natively support emulating tapes to local HDD, one of the two. Or buy the DX30 (linux based last I heard) at $18/GB.
In any case, the IDE solution generally doesn't offsite well. If you want backups you can ship off, it needs to be removable media.
You're going to have to believe the concealed carry statistics, they're very obvious. Florida and Texas are great examples where violent crime dropped like a rock after concealed carry was passed. You will never seal off criminals from owning guns, history proves this impossible. Lowering the total amount of guns in Europe may have reduced crime, but I would be willing to bet that the rise in crimes when the black market flooded would have been somewhat mitigated if the euro civilians had still been better armed - in other words, their tight gun control is what set them up for the crime wave.
Thanks again to the insightful moderators of Slashdot for making this killer moderation decision. My comment, rated as Flamebait and knocked down two points, is just the opposite of the parent post's sig line. If this is a one-time flamebait, then his every post is a flamebait with that sig - yet he doesn't get modded for it? Enquiring minds want to know:)
In the long run, Tapes are still the cheapest solution for backups, in terms of $$/GB of space. Some people opt for putting some of their on-sites into cheap HDD storage, like the DX30 (3TB of IDE disk that emulates a tape library through scsi/fc interfaces), since while it's more expensive per gig, it's also a great deal faster and has nice random access compared to a tape library. However, DVDs are still gonna be slow to burn and slow to randomly access a given DVD out of a library.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know if I'd call OSX "crunchy" after the recently revealed mach core that's optimized for the wrong endian-ness.
Dear Mr Stupid Fucking Cowardly Anonymous Poster,
To discuss something in a rational and moral light means to have a meta-discussion about the moral and rational ways that the thing can be viewed. Your view that niggers and jews are crushed under your boot are as valid in that discussion as anyone else's. You missed the point, and then made yourself look stupid by announcing your ignorance and calling me a dumbass. Try it without being anonymous next time moron.
In today's environment if a group of intelligent hackers with a wide range of skills deployed and attempted to control a Curious Yellow, they would probably succeed, although they would have to start with months of planning and exploit-discovering to make sure they had pre-prepared their own "zero-day" exploits for a wide variety of platforms (wintel may be dominant, but unices and even routers could be crucial to some of the attack plans). And in order to keep up an arms race, they will have to continually here of or discover on their own new exploits before they get widely patched.
The whole problem here revolves around the insecurity of most operating system installs (especially Wintel, but commercial and free *nix are also relatively insecure by default). The real solution to scenarios like Curious Yellow ona global scale would be to secure all the operating systems by default. If every OS vendor would take a slightly more OpenBSD-ish tack on security, disabling most services by default and warning users of potential risks of turning them on misconfigured, auditing their code, and perhaps most importantly, open-sourcing their code for peer-review... it would severly limit Curious Yellow's ability to infect in the first place.
However, I think it's a pretty safe assumption that that level of universal computer security won't happen in the near future, and that some bright people are already coding their Curious Yellow variants. In that case the best you can hope for is to secure your own systems against Curious Yellow by being more secure than the norm. You won't be able to stop the distributed attacks and service problems that will affect your network traffic, but at least you can avoid being part of the problem and avoid direct control of your machine. Take the cautious road - reploy an OS you can see the source of. Disable mostly everything that listens to a network port. Take advantage of security-upping kernel patches (grsecurity for linux comes to mind, a collection of stack protection, randomization of various things, finer grained access control, etc). Run a firewall, make sure you know what it's doing and why. Don't let any traffic in unless there's a need, and keep an eye on that traffic. As with human infections, early detection leads to a faster recovery. Snort is your freind.
mod parent up
Read up on the history of Corporations, and you will find that they are a very perverted form of the original intent. They were supposed to be formed for the common good, disbanded in 20 years. They were given very little of the rights of people (other than to do business as a combined entity for a limited period of time), but they were waived the resposbilities of people in order to attract investors (nobody wants to invest if they could lose more than they put in because of liability). If before the 20 years were up they stopped serving the common good, you could get them disbanded earlier.
At various points corporate law changed, and now they still have an immunity to real resposbility, but all of their previous limitations have been removed. They get all the plusses of being a person without liabilities. They don't have to serve the common good, they can exist for centuries, and they don't have to make amends if the screw up royally, they can just fold up the company and the investors dont lose anything they didn't put in.
Wow, it's funny how many grammar and spelling mistakes I can make per second this early in the morning.
Well, the DS3 example is of course crazy or people would be doing it. Over long wide area links serial tends to win, just like parallel wins on expansion card busses. However clock skew can be mitigated with buffering. However by eating the potential buffer time you increase the latency, which makes the tradeoff imperfect. YOu might gain 8x the bandwidth but double your latency or more. It would come down to actually measuring how things work out in a particular technology you're building to decide whether the amount of gained latency versus gained bandwidth paid off.
Of course you still have synchronization problems. Over an appreciable length, each fiber will be slightly different internally (and probably in path shape as well), which leads to the actual photons paths being significantly shorter or longer than each other.
I've been wanting to process word docs with my perl scripts for years, and they fscking know it. They don't have to have some down the road conversion to XML to allow me either, all they have to do is open their fscking standards. What I wouldn't give for a microsoft word document api on linux that was reliable instead of what we have: reverse-engineer peices of cruft that enever get things quite right.
Since they haven't opened up in the past, I don't expect them to know either. Either (1) the project will get buried, (2) Microsoft will use a subverted MSXML standard somehow to make sure it's not usable by us, or (3) the xml documents will be encrypted and protected by Palladium so that your only hope of realizing this perl promise is to use a licensed copy of Microsoft Visual Perl#++.
There's a difference between supressing *all* speech about a bad topic like those listed, versus just supressing the speech of the active supporting groups. In at least some of these cases I'd be willing to bet they banned (for instance) an anti-semetic hate-group's website, but not another that merely discusses anti-semitism in a rational and moral light.
Dear God,
Please execute some Slashdot souls who somehow get mod points and abuse them.
There's nothing Troll about my comment above. It's a consise and somewhat funny statement (little smiley being there and all) indicating my opinion to the asker that having an AIM->Shell gateway would be a *really* bad idea. And here you go muting my voice, possibly leading him down the path of insecurity indirectly.
WTF? TROLL?
ARG Slashdot can be so sickening.
The battle between serial and parallel communications is neverending. Show me a Serial WAN connection like a DS3, and I can say "Well, since you never send partial bytes, we could strap 8 of these side by side, send one byte at a time with the bits split up over the 8 DS3s in parallel frames, and we get an 8x speed improvement that's usable by a single connection and no additional latency".
Or show me a parallel bus like IDE, and I can say "Look, having all those data lines next to each other causes additional interference we have to account for, and they're bulky, cost more, overly complex, blah blah. If we just put a serial bitstream on a pair of wires, it would be so much simpler that for the same cost we can turn up the bitrate more than enough to make up for the lost parallelism."
It's all the same. Various communication technologies tend to rise and fall, serial replacing parallel replacing serial replacing parallel ad infinitum. In some cases (like PCI busses) parallel just makes a lot more sense, but in a lot of cases (network stuff, storage stuff especially) there's a tradeoff where both are better and worse than the other in different ways. You could just pick one and stick with it and do you incremental improvements, but the occasional switcheroo provides upgrade revenues and more user "wow" factor and buzzwords.
Set up an AIM->Shell gateway on your box. Give me the AIM number so I can help you debug it please
There are lots of algorithms out there that seem to be multiples faster than quicksort in daily use. The problem is when you formally analyze them, you find out their not gauranteed to be faster, and could in fact be horribly slower. If you run it enough times against various wierd data, you'll probably hit one of these slow runs yourself. I can only guess because you haven't mentioned anything about the algorithm or shown any sample code. Read up on how to analyze your code for O() notation and figure out what the real worst case is mathematically.
As far as I'm aware (I do some coding for a small medical company, I've had to deal breifly with HIPAA), there's not actually any set-in-stone rules for what makes up HIPAA compliance. It boils down to you coming up with a HIPAA plan that describes how you will effectively secure patient information and sending it in and having it approved. Your plan might include PGP for email and SSL for web apps if that's where patient information flows at. Or you might devise your own schemes to protect it.
I guess what I'm saying is that all you have to do is treat patient records like you would your root password, follow good security practices, document them, and send them in for approval, and all should be ok.
I used to program in assembler, and I wish more people still did. Actually my ideal programming language is now "C++, but don't use templates, polymorphism, or multiple inheritance - dont bother with the STL unless it's a very clear win - and profile your code and recode any super-hot-spots in asm". I guess what I really want rather than C++ is C with just a few C++ features - like member functions for structs, private declarations, operator overloading, and constructors/destructors.
My point is, abstractions sometimes go a bit too far.
Dumb Floridians strike again. This is why Fark.Com has a section entitled "Florida". They're their own class of idiocy.
As a technical side note - they use the idea that the Border Patrol set up a border check point where they stopped ever car to search for aliens/drugs inside the US instead of at the border. They decided that this established a new border (they consider the line of the old checkpoint the border of their country).
For their information, the Border Patrol has a long established history of doing this with the Mexican border. There are checkpoints on every major Mexico-bound highway in Texas around 100 miles inside the US, as a double-check. They can (and sometimes do) stop every car coming through when they have good tips that shipments are moving at that time/location. Nobody has ever challenged this because it's perfectly reasonable and doesn't establish any new border.
Chemistry is just a mislabelled branch of physics
Just my gambler's gut-feeling here, but I think finding an Eval(p) function that works for Go is gonna be about as hard as finding the question for 42.
Ok i wasn't completely dreaming, there's a Pravda.ru article about it, but then again take pravda.ru with a grain of salt as always: http://english.pravda.ru/world/2001/06/25/8622.ht
Don't forget Bosnia though. I heard (don't ask me where, probably some lame Slashdot rumor) that in Bosnia they were somehow using cellphone radiation (from the towers or phones or perhaps both) to see stealth craft. Don't recall exactly how but it sounded cool at the time, anyone care to enlighten?
No, it's really true. It's not because I WANT to believe it, it's just the facts of society in the United States. At one point I lived Singapore, which has very strict gun control, to the point that there really are virtually zero guns in public hands. The police have their guns corded to their belts to make sure they can't be stolen. Any privately owned gun has to be stored at a government approved storage facility at a gun range where you can use it, and you need special permission to get it out to (for instance) put it in baggage and export it out to anotehr country to go hunting (there's no real hunting there). It worked wonders there, there is no violent gun crime, very little violent crime at all in fact.
So at the time (early 90's) I wrote in a letter to the editor in response to some article on Gun Control in the USA Today, which got published. My letter expressed my sincere belief that gun controls work and whatnot. I was a full-on gun control believer at the time.
After a few years abck in the good old US of course, I realized that thigns are different here. You just can't disarm the US, it will never work. Your best bet is a widely armed public, otherwise the criminals have all the power.
When using off-the-shelf software like I have to at work, the IDE solution is far more expensive. We can't do our policies correctly without having the disks emulate a tape library, the DX30 unit I referred to is 3TB of IDE storage for about $55k list price, which works out to around $18/GB. Cheap IDE drives can be had for $1/GB, but then you've got to come up with a system for using large amounts of IDE disks as a virtual tape system, or get your backup software to natively support emulating tapes to local HDD, one of the two. Or buy the DX30 (linux based last I heard) at $18/GB.
In any case, the IDE solution generally doesn't offsite well. If you want backups you can ship off, it needs to be removable media.
You're going to have to believe the concealed carry statistics, they're very obvious. Florida and Texas are great examples where violent crime dropped like a rock after concealed carry was passed. You will never seal off criminals from owning guns, history proves this impossible. Lowering the total amount of guns in Europe may have reduced crime, but I would be willing to bet that the rise in crimes when the black market flooded would have been somewhat mitigated if the euro civilians had still been better armed - in other words, their tight gun control is what set them up for the crime wave.
Thanks again to the insightful moderators of Slashdot for making this killer moderation decision. My comment, rated as Flamebait and knocked down two points, is just the opposite of the parent post's sig line. If this is a one-time flamebait, then his every post is a flamebait with that sig - yet he doesn't get modded for it? Enquiring minds want to know
In the long run, Tapes are still the cheapest solution for backups, in terms of $$/GB of space. Some people opt for putting some of their on-sites into cheap HDD storage, like the DX30 (3TB of IDE disk that emulates a tape library through scsi/fc interfaces), since while it's more expensive per gig, it's also a great deal faster and has nice random access compared to a tape library. However, DVDs are still gonna be slow to burn and slow to randomly access a given DVD out of a library.