I currently am suffering from somebody pulling a joe-job on an account at my company. Somebody is sending out e-mail ads for a penile enlargement scheme and forging one of our addresses as the sender.
Legally, where would I stand if I started scripting 1000 e-mail complaints a day to the advertiser?
Your post exactly identifies the meat of the issue: How well do you know this person?
If I had the young self-made hacker/admin on staff and knew/trusted him, I would likely prefer him to the "nerdy college kid."
On the other hand, if the only evidence of the applicant's skill is that he was caught hacking illegaly into somebody's computer system, I'm not that inclined to trust them.
Call it unfair if you like; but when I was doing the hiring for my Dad's company, I used to think that I had a 50/50 chance of hiring a crook from the general population. If I hired somebody with a record, I had a 100% chance. If I knew the person, maybe it would be different; but the employees, shareholders, and customers of my company depend on me to do what's best for them, which implies a little caution.
Reform may be great; but it is not the sole purpose of sending criminals to jail. It cannot be; because it is far too unreliable.
Part of the reason we send people to jail is punishment. We remove from them things that the rest of us who behave have access to: freedom, contact with friends and relatives, etc.
Despite what the establishment of psychology would like you to believe, our ability to analyze people's mental and emotional states and stability is very limited.
If somebody commits a serious crime, we can't simply give them a little counseling, prep them for their GED and set them up with a job on release; all because their psychologist (who only spends a few hours with them in a static and controlled environment) thinks they've been reformed.
Call it revenge if you like; but I hope that it never goes away.
I imagine programmers being a much more exclusive club 100 years from now. As computers get more complex and intelligent, I imagine people being able to do more for themselves without having to actually "code" a program. Their interaction with the computer will be such that they can get customized operations simply by conversing with the machine in some very high level conversational language.
Real coders will be more rare, and more highly trained.
Of course, nothing ever happens as quickly as we'd like or expect. What we predict 30 years from now is probably what we'll get in 100 years.
When you're operating in low visibility, you are always under the constant guidance of radar controllers. Because everybody is being "handled" and separation standards are being applied, there isn't a great danger of running into eachother.
The idea of new structures is more of an issue, though it is also an issue with the current system of radio beams. Strict controls are in effect with regards to the building of such structures.
Testing of approach systems is largely done in clear blue air until further on toward deployment. So I don't think there's any real concern for people living near these airports. As you mentioned, the FAA are not daredevil cowboys. Their certification process is very thorough and methodical.
Having said all of that, however, I do applaud your general assumption that the FAA should be a slow adopter of new technology when safety is a concern. And I think the current localizer/glideslope system for low visibility approaches is well designed and very reliable.
It's also amazingly accurate. Having flown with both GPS systems (enroute and approach), and the older vor/ils systems, I'm amazed at how accurate the older system is when relatively close to a station. I see no great burning need to replace it.
That's a GREAT movie! One of my favorites, actually.
Sergio Leone parodying himself. What a classic.
"I smell beans and bacon, Manita." "That's right. They're for the three men out there." "Better let me have `em. I don't think they'll be hungry much longer."
"The kind of man you're talking about doesn't exist." "Maybe you never meet them, or hardly ever; but they're the only ones that count."
I saw the images of the Iraqi prisoners of war on television; and I remarked to my wife that it was unsavory. I don't defend it in any way; but it's a far cry from scanning the dead faces of soldiers who appear to have been executed.
It was a poor decision on the part of the media; and for that matter, the soldiers the media accompanied. I don't know how much training the average soldier or war correspondent gets on the rules of the Geneva Convention; but I'm fairly certain that they all should have known better.
However, having seen both broadcasts (that of the Iraqi prisoners, and of the American - yes, you can see it here in the states, despite what the article implies) it is painfully obvious that there was a mean-spiritedness about the Iraqi broadcast that was absent from the American.
The Iraqi broadcast was meant as a taunt to the coalition forces, and as a motivation to the Iraqi forces/resistance. What you saw on the American broadcast was prisoners being given blankets, food, medical attention, sleep (at least until the damned cameras shined their lights on them), etc.
It was a bad decision by the Americans, my countrymen; but there is also a reality that the breaches of convention were not in any way equitable. Don't tell me that the Iraqi behavior was justified because our reporters got a little anxious for a "scoop."
I agree. I bought a 2003 Civic Hybrid in November, and I LOVE it. It not only does everything they promised (my best tank was 55mpg); but it looks, feels, and drives like a normal car. I can totally ignore the fact that it's a hybrid if I want. The only difference operationally is that I only have to fill the tank every 3 weeks (work close to home).
I bought the Civic rather than the Prius for the very reason that it looks just like the normal Civic.
I've thought about this before; and I don't know if the conclusions I've drawn are on the mark, or total b.s., but I've thought of a few reasons:
Unlike the tech world, nothing in flying is absolute but the Earth itself. It's a much more fluid and visceral environment requiring greater, more immediate attention.
You have to be much more careful about how you apply your own logic to flying. I've seen this one myself with students who upon being chastized for being low, or slow, or whatever reply "Yeah; but it's okay because..." I've had to deliver the old lecture about how "These lessons are learned in blood. Flying is safe now because it was dangerous back in the day. We know these things because people died ignoring them." Techies are exceedingly bad at swallowing that argument, even if you deliver the logical and technical explanation to them.
Finally, I think it's just sometimes too much trouble. You have to make appointments, drive out to the airport, freeze in the cold or bake in the sun while preflighting. Many appointments are missed because of weather, or schedules, etc. I think sometimes it's just too inconvenient for the average techie.
Try living in Alaska for a few years without them. Especially in Alaska, they're not joyriders so much as people carrying mail, supplies, other people.
While I'm very sensitive to what I feel is the encroachment of noise and pollution into every possible pore of this nation, in Alaska the airplanes are what make the place inhabitable by carrying the supplies needed to function in today's world. And much of that is done by "Private" aircraft used by commercial operators. Pipers, Cessnas, Beechcraft; they're all used extensively by commercial operators in Alaska.
There are no roads to many communities in Alaska. Without aviaion, they'd be isolated and abandoned by the rest of the world.
This second series is going to cover the ground of both the "Messiah" and "Children" books.
At least, that's the way it was sold when first proposed.
Re:Who Is the Greatest Programmer?
on
Immortal Code
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Not necessarily true. In India, the man who sells code might be known as the "code-walla." Therefore, his worker-bee might just be inclined to exclaim "Walla! The program now works!"
Actually, the airspace over 60k is Class E, Generally Controlled Airspace. Not that it really matters, though. He seems to have complied with FAR Part 101. Also, Airliners don't fly above, say 45k at the highest and are given traffic alerts; and the military aircraft that fly above that are generally under some radar guidance as well.
Although I probably would have done the experiment in a more remote location, he doesn't seem to have done anything illegal, or even wrong enough to point a direct finger at.
It was a neat project. I'm VERY impressed that it reached 80k.
This strikes me as being a lot like the customer's always right sort of thing. It's great as a philosophy for the professor(retailer); but as soon as the student(customer) co-opts it and begins to use it for their own purpose, often as a stick with which to beat the other, all usefulness for it has disappeared.
Certainly the professor has a responsibility to do the best job of teaching he/she can; but don't think that just because you spent your money (or somebody else's) that you have no responsibilities in the matter. If you're not paying attention because you think you already know the material, or because you drank too much last night, or because you're busy surfing, then do poorly in the class, it's not the professor's fault.
The whole philosophy of "It's not my job to struggle and learn, it's the professor's job to teach me despite myself" is just indicative of what's wrong with this country.
Nagios' new stanza-style config files makes the product much easier to set up and maintain than the previous approach; and the documentation is great. It does a good job of warning you about the difficulty of getting your first Nagios instance up and going.
My question for Ethan is this:
Network Monitoring is one of those projects that management considers "vitally important" but for which it allocates no human resources. So you end up with $100K Tivoli setups that sit dormant because nobody has time to pay attention to them or configure them properly.
What is your suggestion for getting past this problem, and how would you sell the PHB's on Nagios along the way?
The FAR's (Federal Aviation Regulations) on this matter were written in response to some test indicating that personal electronic devices could cause enough RF to penetrate the thin shielding in the wiring of older airliners and disrupt the flight control and navigational signals. In one well-known instance, a personal electronic device caused the needle to swing on a device used for precision instrument approaches (OBS - Omni Bearing Selector). While the airplane was on approach, the needle swung hard to one side, and the autopilot followed it, assuming that for whatever reason, the airplane had moved off course. I believe it was a video game that caused that particular incident; but you can imagine that if a video game can cause enough interference, any type of transmitter could easily cause fits.
The cell phone issue is related; but different. When you climb, the cell phone is able to reach many times the number of cell towers it could before. It causes the cellular network a great deal of work then, handling the phone.
Slashdot Mirror
On a related note:
I currently am suffering from somebody pulling a joe-job on an account at my company. Somebody is sending out e-mail ads for a penile enlargement scheme and forging one of our addresses as the sender.
Legally, where would I stand if I started scripting 1000 e-mail complaints a day to the advertiser?
I wonder...
Your post exactly identifies the meat of the issue: How well do you know this person?
If I had the young self-made hacker/admin on staff and knew/trusted him, I would likely prefer him to the "nerdy college kid."
On the other hand, if the only evidence of the applicant's skill is that he was caught hacking illegaly into somebody's computer system, I'm not that inclined to trust them.
Call it unfair if you like; but when I was doing the hiring for my Dad's company, I used to think that I had a 50/50 chance of hiring a crook from the general population. If I hired somebody with a record, I had a 100% chance. If I knew the person, maybe it would be different; but the employees, shareholders, and customers of my company depend on me to do what's best for them, which implies a little caution.
Reform may be great; but it is not the sole purpose of sending criminals to jail. It cannot be; because it is far too unreliable.
Part of the reason we send people to jail is punishment. We remove from them things that the rest of us who behave have access to: freedom, contact with friends and relatives, etc.
Despite what the establishment of psychology would like you to believe, our ability to analyze people's mental and emotional states and stability is very limited.
If somebody commits a serious crime, we can't simply give them a little counseling, prep them for their GED and set them up with a job on release; all because their psychologist (who only spends a few hours with them in a static and controlled environment) thinks they've been reformed.
Call it revenge if you like; but I hope that it never goes away.
I imagine programmers being a much more exclusive club 100 years from now. As computers get more complex and intelligent, I imagine people being able to do more for themselves without having to actually "code" a program. Their interaction with the computer will be such that they can get customized operations simply by conversing with the machine in some very high level conversational language.
Real coders will be more rare, and more highly trained.
Of course, nothing ever happens as quickly as we'd like or expect. What we predict 30 years from now is probably what we'll get in 100 years.
When you're operating in low visibility, you are always under the constant guidance of radar controllers. Because everybody is being "handled" and separation standards are being applied, there isn't a great danger of running into eachother.
The idea of new structures is more of an issue, though it is also an issue with the current system of radio beams. Strict controls are in effect with regards to the building of such structures.
Testing of approach systems is largely done in clear blue air until further on toward deployment. So I don't think there's any real concern for people living near these airports. As you mentioned, the FAA are not daredevil cowboys. Their certification process is very thorough and methodical.
Having said all of that, however, I do applaud your general assumption that the FAA should be a slow adopter of new technology when safety is a concern. And I think the current localizer/glideslope system for low visibility approaches is well designed and very reliable.
It's also amazingly accurate. Having flown with both GPS systems (enroute and approach), and the older vor/ils systems, I'm amazed at how accurate the older system is when relatively close to a station. I see no great burning need to replace it.
YES! YES! YES!
That's a GREAT movie! One of my favorites, actually.
Sergio Leone parodying himself. What a classic.
"I smell beans and bacon, Manita."
"That's right. They're for the three men out there."
"Better let me have `em. I don't think they'll be hungry much longer."
"The kind of man you're talking about doesn't exist."
"Maybe you never meet them, or hardly ever; but they're the only ones that count."
I could go on forever.
I wish I had mod points.
I saw the images of the Iraqi prisoners of war on television; and I remarked to my wife that it was unsavory. I don't defend it in any way; but it's a far cry from scanning the dead faces of soldiers who appear to have been executed.
It was a poor decision on the part of the media; and for that matter, the soldiers the media accompanied. I don't know how much training the average soldier or war correspondent gets on the rules of the Geneva Convention; but I'm fairly certain that they all should have known better.
However, having seen both broadcasts (that of the Iraqi prisoners, and of the American - yes, you can see it here in the states, despite what the article implies) it is painfully obvious that there was a mean-spiritedness about the Iraqi broadcast that was absent from the American.
The Iraqi broadcast was meant as a taunt to the coalition forces, and as a motivation to the Iraqi forces/resistance. What you saw on the American broadcast was prisoners being given blankets, food, medical attention, sleep (at least until the damned cameras shined their lights on them), etc.
It was a bad decision by the Americans, my countrymen; but there is also a reality that the breaches of convention were not in any way equitable. Don't tell me that the Iraqi behavior was justified because our reporters got a little anxious for a "scoop."
You mean like this place?
Agreed. On my servers the percentage has jumped from about 60% to almost 70% in the last month.
Help out Humanity: Add a Book!
Can you say "The Book of the Dead"?
I understand how a plane flies, but I can't fly one.
You pull back it goes up. You push forward it goes down. Left is left and right is right. What more do you need to know? Hey! You're a pilot!
We'll see who catches that movie reference.
I agree. I bought a 2003 Civic Hybrid in November, and I LOVE it. It not only does everything they promised (my best tank was 55mpg); but it looks, feels, and drives like a normal car. I can totally ignore the fact that it's a hybrid if I want. The only difference operationally is that I only have to fill the tank every 3 weeks (work close to home).
I bought the Civic rather than the Prius for the very reason that it looks just like the normal Civic.
ad hominem
What'd you call me?!
I've thought about this before; and I don't know if the conclusions I've drawn are on the mark, or total b.s., but I've thought of a few reasons:
Unlike the tech world, nothing in flying is absolute but the Earth itself. It's a much more fluid and visceral environment requiring greater, more immediate attention.
You have to be much more careful about how you apply your own logic to flying. I've seen this one myself with students who upon being chastized for being low, or slow, or whatever reply "Yeah; but it's okay because..." I've had to deliver the old lecture about how "These lessons are learned in blood. Flying is safe now because it was dangerous back in the day. We know these things because people died ignoring them." Techies are exceedingly bad at swallowing that argument, even if you deliver the logical and technical explanation to them.
Finally, I think it's just sometimes too much trouble. You have to make appointments, drive out to the airport, freeze in the cold or bake in the sun while preflighting. Many appointments are missed because of weather, or schedules, etc. I think sometimes it's just too inconvenient for the average techie.
It's a shame really.
Try living in Alaska for a few years without them. Especially in Alaska, they're not joyriders so much as people carrying mail, supplies, other people.
While I'm very sensitive to what I feel is the encroachment of noise and pollution into every possible pore of this nation, in Alaska the airplanes are what make the place inhabitable by carrying the supplies needed to function in today's world. And much of that is done by "Private" aircraft used by commercial operators. Pipers, Cessnas, Beechcraft; they're all used extensively by commercial operators in Alaska.
There are no roads to many communities in Alaska. Without aviaion, they'd be isolated and abandoned by the rest of the world.
This second series is going to cover the ground of both the "Messiah" and "Children" books.
At least, that's the way it was sold when first proposed.
Not necessarily true. In India, the man who sells code might be known as the "code-walla." Therefore, his worker-bee might just be inclined to exclaim "Walla! The program now works!"
That would be further proof that this whole GNU thing has gone to his head.
Actually, the airspace over 60k is Class E, Generally Controlled Airspace. Not that it really matters, though. He seems to have complied with FAR Part 101. Also, Airliners don't fly above, say 45k at the highest and are given traffic alerts; and the military aircraft that fly above that are generally under some radar guidance as well.
Although I probably would have done the experiment in a more remote location, he doesn't seem to have done anything illegal, or even wrong enough to point a direct finger at.
It was a neat project. I'm VERY impressed that it reached 80k.
of where all the missing socks go.
It's up to the professor to...
This strikes me as being a lot like the customer's always right sort of thing. It's great as a philosophy for the professor(retailer); but as soon as the student(customer) co-opts it and begins to use it for their own purpose, often as a stick with which to beat the other, all usefulness for it has disappeared.
Certainly the professor has a responsibility to do the best job of teaching he/she can; but don't think that just because you spent your money (or somebody else's) that you have no responsibilities in the matter. If you're not paying attention because you think you already know the material, or because you drank too much last night, or because you're busy surfing, then do poorly in the class, it's not the professor's fault.
The whole philosophy of "It's not my job to struggle and learn, it's the professor's job to teach me despite myself" is just indicative of what's wrong with this country.
Oooooh, I don't wanna be the guy that leaves that database backup on the dash of his car.
Ringo got shafted again.
He isn't as visible as the others; but he's done a lot of post-Beatles work for charity.
Cheers, Ringo.
Nagios' new stanza-style config files makes the product much easier to set up and maintain than the previous approach; and the documentation is great. It does a good job of warning you about the difficulty of getting your first Nagios instance up and going.
My question for Ethan is this:
Network Monitoring is one of those projects that management considers "vitally important" but for which it allocates no human resources. So you end up with $100K Tivoli setups that sit dormant because nobody has time to pay attention to them or configure them properly.
What is your suggestion for getting past this problem, and how would you sell the PHB's on Nagios along the way?
The FAR's (Federal Aviation Regulations) on this matter were written in response to some test indicating that personal electronic devices could cause enough RF to penetrate the thin shielding in the wiring of older airliners and disrupt the flight control and navigational signals. In one well-known instance, a personal electronic device caused the needle to swing on a device used for precision instrument approaches (OBS - Omni Bearing Selector). While the airplane was on approach, the needle swung hard to one side, and the autopilot followed it, assuming that for whatever reason, the airplane had moved off course. I believe it was a video game that caused that particular incident; but you can imagine that if a video game can cause enough interference, any type of transmitter could easily cause fits.
The cell phone issue is related; but different. When you climb, the cell phone is able to reach many times the number of cell towers it could before. It causes the cellular network a great deal of work then, handling the phone.