No, it's not even that. The server which had the sensitive data was not a server on which anyone should be putting anything sensitive. Dozens and dozens of people have some level of access, from students unaffiliated with NSIT to people working on the server itself, and the policy is clear: don't do stupid things like put up private information!
So, some organization within the University (who I won't name) basically put up world-readable files with sensitive information on Krypton and, surprise, other people with access to Krypton were able to read said files.
Yes they still have RCAs, but RCAs are completely unaffiliated with NSIT (as I'm sure you know). They're employed through Residential Computing, which is part of Residence Halls & Commons.
First off, no, the problem is being fixed over this weekend. Even if someone does something stupid again, the files will not be exposed to other users.
Krypton was never designed to be a secure place to store files, and has thousands of users. This is no different than making files in your home directory world readable and then being surprised when users on the same machine can -- *gasp* -- read your files.
None of these files were ever, as far as I know, available directly from the internet. You had to have access to Krypton, at the least.
I should actually say that "fu" is not by itself a voiceless bilabial fricative, but the consonant part of it is. Japanese phones come in consonant-vowel pairs, except the solitary "n," though there could be some other exceptions that I don't know.
The Japanese "fu" is a voiceless bilabial fricative, while the normal "f" sound in English is a voiceless labiodental fricative.
As the original poster said, they have different points of articulation. There are no voiceless bilabial fricatives in English, though, so "fu" sounds like "f" to people who haven't studied Japanese (and to many who have), just as the Japanese have a difficult time distinguishing between "r" and "l" in English speech.
Slashdot is the one who first published this, wasn't it? If that's the case then it's not unreasonable to take at least some credit for AOL's response.
Not really. The point was that there's a whole mailing list dedicated to Gnome marketing, and that desktop-devel is not the appropriate place to discuss her idea.
You say as if what constitutes a "right" is as easy to define as something from a math textbook. I'm not really interested in continuing this here, but there are centuries worth of thought as to what exactly is a right, and not all of them agree with you (or me).
I do have redress, though: I can use a proxy. If you had a right to prevent me from using your website you could stop me, but really, there's no way to do that without stopping everyone. Unless you mean I have a specific legal redress, in which case, yes, I agree that in general I have no legal redress.
Legally, I call bullshit unless you cite me some precedent. I'd say putting your website on the public internet is an implicit statement that I'm allowed to use it. How can you have any reasonable expectationation of privacy?
Morally, I call bullshit, and will happily use your website as I see fit. Heck, I might even apply my own stylesheets to your website, or use a screenreader to read your website to me.
Because, I believe, things like this lend support to descent-with-modification views of macroevolution. The one I'm familiar with is Tierra, and, as I recall, it is very simple. You write a single program that simply makes copies of itself, and introduces random errors into the code it replicated at random times. This is very similar to the way microevolution works. In this digital environment, though, where you can breed billions of generations in hours, new "organisms" arise which were never anticipated (and nowhere near coded beforehand).
It's a matter of debate how accurately these "digial organisms" reflect what is really going on in nature, but on the face of it they seem to show that macroevolution, i.e., specication, does occur, and perhaps occurs with less effort than people think. The jump between microevolution and macroevolution is where most evolutionary biologists and creation "scientists" split, i.e., the latter think it's impossible for one species to evolve into another.
Of course, none of this is helped by the fact that nobody has a precise idea of what exactly constitutes a "species." Anyways, this is why both sides of the fence get riled up over these "experiments" in digital evolution.
Re:HAHAHA dead Jews are funny.... ASSHOLE!!!!!!!
on
LokiTorrent Shut Down
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Just so you don't think I'm crazy, here's a list of "shirts":
Blackshirts - Italian fascist paramilitary and Nazi SS, Oswald Mosley's "British Union of Fascists" in the UK Brownshirts - Nazi SA Blueshirts - Eoin O'Duffy's ACA (Irish fascists) Silvershirts - William Pelley's SLA (American fascists) Greenshirts - Plinio Salgado, a Brazilian fascist
Not all of these were actually called "blahshirts," but, in general, fascists seem to identify using distinctive colors and clothing (don't ask me why). But most people are only familiar with "Brownshirts" and "Blackshirts," so, you know, sue me if that's what I used.
Re:HAHAHA dead Jews are funny.... ASSHOLE!!!!!!!
on
LokiTorrent Shut Down
·
· Score: 1
There's a general fascist aesthetic just as there is a general communist aesthetic -- you know, workers toiling in simple clothes, or a fearless leader pointing off into the distance with a clenched jaw, stuff like that. Confusing a fascist aesthetic for a Nazi one is just endemic of the same issue, viz., people not understanding fascism and especially conflating fascism and Naziism. The fact the fascists in general focus on collective identity means they're going to share a similar aesthetic, e.g., Mussolini's "Black Shirts" and the black shirts of the SS, or the brown shirts of the SA. Yes, this general look-and-feel, so to speak, most people associate with Naziism because, well, most people who didn't live in the early 20th century aren't familiar with fascism beyond those pictures of SS troops they see in history books.
The drama of the unknown is powerful and is a perfectly valid plot device. Just because there aren't, you know, neutrino streams disrupting our transponder relay chain, or whatever, doesn't mean there's no "science" in it. I like what another poster said: the "science" in "science fiction" doesn't mean "physical science" or even "technology." Plenty of science fiction has been based around the social and political sciences.
In any case, no, I'm not that interested in why you don't think it's hard science fiction. So don't worry about posting your questions/issues.
Re:HAHAHA dead Jews are funny.... ASSHOLE!!!!!!!
on
LokiTorrent Shut Down
·
· Score: 1
I never once mentioned Hitler, and if you think that Naziism is equivalent to fascism you're just ignorant of history. Indeed, some brands explicitly repudiated Hitler's solution to the "Jewish Question." As an example, Carl Schmitt, who was considered the "crown jurist" of the Nazi party and fascist political theorist (See: The Concept of the Political or The Crisis in Parliamentary Democracy), became a pariah within the Nazi party because of his outspokenness on this issue.
Hitler may have been on the map in my original post, but by no means was I comparing the Holocaust to the MPAA shutting down some random torrent website. I just thought the image, you know, "YOU CAN CLICK BUT YOU CAN'T HIDE!" sounded fascist (not necessarily Nazi) to me.
In summary, chill out and maybe read a few books about fascism in the early 20th century.
I think our opinions must differ from what is "hard sci-fi" because I consider BSG to be in the same vein as Blade Runner, which I definitely consider "hard" science fiction.
What I want to know is, if I were to work for the MPAA, would I get a cute proto-fascist uniform? You know, maybe black or a rich tan color, with a little armband and small hat. Because if I did then I'd definitely work for them.
Right, well, the line "I don't think that word means what you think it means" is from a pretty popular movie. That's what I was talking about. Next time (not that there'll be one) I'll be more explicit we won't have to have special after-class time.
Anyhow, the situation of having to harm a friend or friends for the good of everyone is a pretty classic moral dilemma. The plot device would still be powerful -- you have to at least admit that, just look at how violently you've reacted to it -- though perhaps not as powerful before 9/11. If you saw a movie about the Vietnam War where a bunch of Vietcong were driving a jeep toward an army encampment they weren't supposed to be near and army personnel were deciding whether or not to shoot them or let them pass, would you think to yourself, "Hey, that's just like 9/11!"
My point is, the general situation of having to make a decision to kill a friend is much older than it is in the context of people flying planes into buildings and 9/11. 9/11 just makes the plot device more powerful, as I said.
I'm going to end this part of the conversation, too. Finito.
Slashdot Mirror
I hope you're never put in charge of a serious web server.
I don't think you understand the size of Krypton and just how many files and users of various levels of access there are.
No, it's not even that. The server which had the sensitive data was not a server on which anyone should be putting anything sensitive. Dozens and dozens of people have some level of access, from students unaffiliated with NSIT to people working on the server itself, and the policy is clear: don't do stupid things like put up private information!
So, some organization within the University (who I won't name) basically put up world-readable files with sensitive information on Krypton and, surprise, other people with access to Krypton were able to read said files.
Yes they still have RCAs, but RCAs are completely unaffiliated with NSIT (as I'm sure you know). They're employed through Residential Computing, which is part of Residence Halls & Commons.
First off, no, the problem is being fixed over this weekend. Even if someone does something stupid again, the files will not be exposed to other users.
Second, Chicago does not use SSNs as student IDs.
Krypton was never designed to be a secure place to store files, and has thousands of users. This is no different than making files in your home directory world readable and then being surprised when users on the same machine can -- *gasp* -- read your files.
None of these files were ever, as far as I know, available directly from the internet. You had to have access to Krypton, at the least.
And for the long jump you just stepped off the pad for ten seconds or so and then stepped back on. Wow, I jumped 100 feet!
It's free, functional, and doesn't pester you with ads?
Yes, but not to a rude little worm like you. Go read a book, or, better yet, search Google.
I should actually say that "fu" is not by itself a voiceless bilabial fricative, but the consonant part of it is. Japanese phones come in consonant-vowel pairs, except the solitary "n," though there could be some other exceptions that I don't know.
The Japanese "fu" is a voiceless bilabial fricative, while the normal "f" sound in English is a voiceless labiodental fricative.
As the original poster said, they have different points of articulation. There are no voiceless bilabial fricatives in English, though, so "fu" sounds like "f" to people who haven't studied Japanese (and to many who have), just as the Japanese have a difficult time distinguishing between "r" and "l" in English speech.
Slashdot is the one who first published this, wasn't it? If that's the case then it's not unreasonable to take at least some credit for AOL's response.
Not really. The point was that there's a whole mailing list dedicated to Gnome marketing, and that desktop-devel is not the appropriate place to discuss her idea.
You say as if what constitutes a "right" is as easy to define as something from a math textbook. I'm not really interested in continuing this here, but there are centuries worth of thought as to what exactly is a right, and not all of them agree with you (or me).
I do have redress, though: I can use a proxy. If you had a right to prevent me from using your website you could stop me, but really, there's no way to do that without stopping everyone. Unless you mean I have a specific legal redress, in which case, yes, I agree that in general I have no legal redress.
Expectationation? Haha. I crack myself up.
That, of course, was supposed to be "expectation."
Legally, I call bullshit unless you cite me some precedent. I'd say putting your website on the public internet is an implicit statement that I'm allowed to use it. How can you have any reasonable expectationation of privacy?
Morally, I call bullshit, and will happily use your website as I see fit. Heck, I might even apply my own stylesheets to your website, or use a screenreader to read your website to me.
Can you stop me?
Because, I believe, things like this lend support to descent-with-modification views of macroevolution. The one I'm familiar with is Tierra, and, as I recall, it is very simple. You write a single program that simply makes copies of itself, and introduces random errors into the code it replicated at random times. This is very similar to the way microevolution works. In this digital environment, though, where you can breed billions of generations in hours, new "organisms" arise which were never anticipated (and nowhere near coded beforehand).
It's a matter of debate how accurately these "digial organisms" reflect what is really going on in nature, but on the face of it they seem to show that macroevolution, i.e., specication, does occur, and perhaps occurs with less effort than people think. The jump between microevolution and macroevolution is where most evolutionary biologists and creation "scientists" split, i.e., the latter think it's impossible for one species to evolve into another.
Of course, none of this is helped by the fact that nobody has a precise idea of what exactly constitutes a "species." Anyways, this is why both sides of the fence get riled up over these "experiments" in digital evolution.
Good question. I don't know why.
Just so you don't think I'm crazy, here's a list of "shirts":
Blackshirts - Italian fascist paramilitary and Nazi SS, Oswald Mosley's "British Union of Fascists" in the UK
Brownshirts - Nazi SA
Blueshirts - Eoin O'Duffy's ACA (Irish fascists)
Silvershirts - William Pelley's SLA (American fascists)
Greenshirts - Plinio Salgado, a Brazilian fascist
Not all of these were actually called "blahshirts," but, in general, fascists seem to identify using distinctive colors and clothing (don't ask me why). But most people are only familiar with "Brownshirts" and "Blackshirts," so, you know, sue me if that's what I used.
There's a general fascist aesthetic just as there is a general communist aesthetic -- you know, workers toiling in simple clothes, or a fearless leader pointing off into the distance with a clenched jaw, stuff like that. Confusing a fascist aesthetic for a Nazi one is just endemic of the same issue, viz., people not understanding fascism and especially conflating fascism and Naziism. The fact the fascists in general focus on collective identity means they're going to share a similar aesthetic, e.g., Mussolini's "Black Shirts" and the black shirts of the SS, or the brown shirts of the SA. Yes, this general look-and-feel, so to speak, most people associate with Naziism because, well, most people who didn't live in the early 20th century aren't familiar with fascism beyond those pictures of SS troops they see in history books.
So, tra la la.
The drama of the unknown is powerful and is a perfectly valid plot device. Just because there aren't, you know, neutrino streams disrupting our transponder relay chain, or whatever, doesn't mean there's no "science" in it. I like what another poster said: the "science" in "science fiction" doesn't mean "physical science" or even "technology." Plenty of science fiction has been based around the social and political sciences.
In any case, no, I'm not that interested in why you don't think it's hard science fiction. So don't worry about posting your questions/issues.
I never once mentioned Hitler, and if you think that Naziism is equivalent to fascism you're just ignorant of history. Indeed, some brands explicitly repudiated Hitler's solution to the "Jewish Question." As an example, Carl Schmitt, who was considered the "crown jurist" of the Nazi party and fascist political theorist (See: The Concept of the Political or The Crisis in Parliamentary Democracy), became a pariah within the Nazi party because of his outspokenness on this issue.
Hitler may have been on the map in my original post, but by no means was I comparing the Holocaust to the MPAA shutting down some random torrent website. I just thought the image, you know, "YOU CAN CLICK BUT YOU CAN'T HIDE!" sounded fascist (not necessarily Nazi) to me.
In summary, chill out and maybe read a few books about fascism in the early 20th century.
I think our opinions must differ from what is "hard sci-fi" because I consider BSG to be in the same vein as Blade Runner, which I definitely consider "hard" science fiction.
What I want to know is, if I were to work for the MPAA, would I get a cute proto-fascist uniform? You know, maybe black or a rich tan color, with a little armband and small hat. Because if I did then I'd definitely work for them.
Right, well, the line "I don't think that word means what you think it means" is from a pretty popular movie. That's what I was talking about. Next time (not that there'll be one) I'll be more explicit we won't have to have special after-class time.
Anyhow, the situation of having to harm a friend or friends for the good of everyone is a pretty classic moral dilemma. The plot device would still be powerful -- you have to at least admit that, just look at how violently you've reacted to it -- though perhaps not as powerful before 9/11. If you saw a movie about the Vietnam War where a bunch of Vietcong were driving a jeep toward an army encampment they weren't supposed to be near and army personnel were deciding whether or not to shoot them or let them pass, would you think to yourself, "Hey, that's just like 9/11!"
My point is, the general situation of having to make a decision to kill a friend is much older than it is in the context of people flying planes into buildings and 9/11. 9/11 just makes the plot device more powerful, as I said.
I'm going to end this part of the conversation, too. Finito.
-- CONVERSATION END --