Re:They've got a point
on
Happy Tau Day
·
· Score: 1
But what does -1 mean? Why are you ignoring it by adding 1 to it? Why does using Tau produce 1? Do you understand the formula at all or are you just scoring it based on aesthetics?
You don't have to be psychic to assume the webmaster didn't intend anyone to be able to pull up anyone else's email address.
Why? They put it up on a public webserver without a password. That's how you share documents.
If their server sends it, you're authorized to have it.
Bullshit. That's *EXACTLY* like saying "if a door is unlocked, you're authorized to enter it".
It's nothing like that. One is a door, any door, all doors, and the other is a publicly accessible webserver. Why not mangle a car analogy next?
You don't have a right to everything you can receive. If I leave my car unlocked, with the keys in the ignition, do you think you have the right to drive it? Absolutely not.
Oh, argh!
Listen. Webservers exist to share files. If they don't want to share the file they can simply return an error message and send you on your way.
Passwords are like locks. They are meant to enforce an already existing policy. Passwords are there to keep both accidental and deliberate trespassers out. The lack of a lock does not imply permission.
That's because in the physical world there are physical signs, both metaphorical like the door being on a private house, and literally like "Staff Only".
But webservers have defined standards. Ones they must follow to be able to parse requests and serve pages. Online you just fetch blindly and the server simply refuses to send you passworded material. That's how you check if something is private, ask for it.
And, if it's given to you, by web standards, that means you're allowed to have it.
If your phone has bluetooth turned on, does that mean anyone in range has the *right* and your *permission* to copy the contents of your phone for their own use?
It gives me permission to send whatever signals I want. If your phone chooses to send me its contents that's your issue with it, not me.
Do you not realize how fundamentally *insane* this whole idea is?
That you get to waltz in years later, use tech you don't understand, developed by a culture you don't understand, and have it perfectly conform to your norms? Yeah, that is insane
Why are you acting like the webmaster's intent, which I'd have to be psychic to know, has any relevance whatsoever? If their server sends it, you're authorized to have it. Otherwise, it wouldn't have sent the data to you. Get it?
Passwords. They are what you use for private data. Accept no less.
Not really. The security breach is only a big deal because it shows how the company isn't even trying to deliver on its responsibilities, exposing some email addresses themselves is hardly the end of the world.
And no, spammers harvest email addresses all the time and the government hasn't exactly jumped at criminalizing that.
As soon as it embarrasses a big company though, it's a terrible, terrible thing, and someone must pay!
Or, are you a member of the Navajo, Ak-Chin, Cocopah, etc, tribes? Because if not you're a just another hypocritical authoritarian on a bender. Sit down and shut up.
Even if your supervisor is dumb enough to support a law that implements racial profiling of his ethnic group just to stop the non-problem of unauthorized entry it's not a valid argument in general.
Oh please. I'm sure people made almost identical arguments against maps.
"With every road fully listed criminals will know where everything is, and every road the police could use to catch them! Maps are only okay when they're of small disconnected areas so that you could never use a map to tell how to get from here to there, or anything else dangerous."
Even if this stuff was so dangerous people could simply record their own by driving the path once with a cell-phone recording video. The cat has fully removed itself from the bag and is not going back. If that scares you, ask yourself what you don't want seen and what you could do to fix it.
You're displaying a perfect example of a common security failure - hyperfocus. It's usually because you haven't thought through the problem domain very deeply.
Everyone has a line beyond which they'll righteously betray you, perhaps for law or country, for love, or (most common) for spite. If you run around the world warning everyone about specific people you're ignoring that anyone you deal with could snap on you, for no reason that you could see. You can't defend against numerous attacks by blocking each specifically.
Just look out for your impact on the world. Be up-front. Take responsibility for your mistakes, however large or small. Live responsibly and you'll never have a problem, from this guy or any of the other 6.5B ticking time-bombs walking the world.
Those are tools, not solutions. Both can be defeated in various ways and neither is a complete solution to their base problem, only a band-aid over the most obvious threat vectors.
For most things on the list, no, they don't need protection. Treat them like passwords. If discovered, change them, don't legislate their secrecy and keep using them.
For instance, military plans. If they do leak, assume they could have leaked twice and instead of cracking down, make new plans.
BTW, if you're afraid of terrorism you're a mindless puppet. Look at 9/11 - oppressed freedom fighters kill 3000 people to bring attention to ongoing injustice perpetrated by us. They're labelled terrorists and we kill well over a million people in response.
If you have evidence of a crime, the law requires you provide it.
Strange. Like how most police officers at the G20 attacks had taken their badge number off their riot uniforms in order to remain anonymous and now not a single officer "remembers" doing it or seeing another officer do it?
In this case, a bunch of mental retards committed acts of vandalism in violence in a crowd that probably had nearly as many recording devices as people deserve what they get.
You mean like how the G20 cops (and most of Vancouver's cops were shipped off to the G20...) went wild beating innocent people on camera and unlawfully incarcerating them and thus warrant charges?
No, of course not. It's amazing how the police (and their union) don't think this even warrants an investigation let alone charges when it's officers accused of misusing lethal force but suddenly call for tough treatment of a few looters. By any rational measure corrupt police officers are far worse than rioters, but from the police themselves and law-and-order types like yourself there's like zero push to actually investigate the serious crimes.
The police keep claiming there's a serious conspiracy of anarchists who all get dressed up in their black leather and motorcycle helmets and start riots, but always melt away before getting caught. This is ridiculous - anarchists are as interested in following orders as atheists are in church. And you'd think if these rioters were real, not agent provocateurs, they'd have managed to catch a couple by now and prove it.
No, in this I have to agree with him. Forums suffer when they become moderated. Posts stop being just the sum of their content. People start posting to please moderators or provoke others to say something that will get them down-modded, etc.
For instance c64-love/6502 is being followed by a flock of meta-trolls who waste more time than he could. If people just ignored those who wasted their time we wouldn't need the moderation apparatus or these self-righteous anti-trolls.
Ignoring all the "programmers" I've interviewed and/or worked with who simply cannot design a program, but instead keep throwing code at things until it seems to work, then quit...
That's a little bit of knowledge for ya... btw, make sure your interviews contain some actual coding. Like you'd ask a cook to cook before hiring them.
That's not where the student spends their time! They spend their time learning the arcana of whatever language is being taught, and this is enough material to completely obscure the conceptualization.
Depends who teaches them and how they do it.
I could show you how to program in Ruby, Scala, or LISP, (and have seen others do so in Haskel and other languages) in such a way you hardly notice the syntax.
Not everyone's brain works like a Slashdotter's.
Bullshit. (At least before school gets too them.) Almost everyone is capable of learning something like algebra or programming or auto mechanics or child care, etc. It just needs to be presented in a way they care about, and if they do have any learning disabilities, helping them find their own coping techniques.
For instance, don't teach spreadsheets, wait till your child wants money (for a toy or something) and ask why and what they'd do with just a little more or a little less, etc. Once they have the idea of refining their plans they'll want something that does what a spreadsheet does and you'll just have to let them see you use it for a similar problem that you're researching.
Most people accomplish tasks by performing a series of steps they were taught in training.
Largely because they don't understand there's a better way and weren't taught anything complex enough to require more. If you know the material you're teaching deeply enough you can construct a problem that's easy if done right but terribly tedious if not impossible if done the wrong way. Then you explain the mental model you wish to convey and those who listen finish instantly and their struggling peers not only have a motive to improve but also evidence their classmates can do it.
Slashdot Mirror
But what does -1 mean? Why are you ignoring it by adding 1 to it? Why does using Tau produce 1? Do you understand the formula at all or are you just scoring it based on aesthetics?
You don't have to be psychic to assume the webmaster didn't intend anyone to be able to pull up anyone else's email address.
Why? They put it up on a public webserver without a password. That's how you share documents.
If their server sends it, you're authorized to have it.
Bullshit. That's *EXACTLY* like saying "if a door is unlocked, you're authorized to enter it".
It's nothing like that. One is a door, any door, all doors, and the other is a publicly accessible webserver. Why not mangle a car analogy next?
You don't have a right to everything you can receive. If I leave my car unlocked, with the keys in the ignition, do you think you have the right to drive it? Absolutely not.
Oh, argh!
Listen. Webservers exist to share files. If they don't want to share the file they can simply return an error message and send you on your way.
Passwords are like locks. They are meant to enforce an already existing policy. Passwords are there to keep both accidental and deliberate trespassers out. The lack of a lock does not imply permission.
That's because in the physical world there are physical signs, both metaphorical like the door being on a private house, and literally like "Staff Only".
But webservers have defined standards. Ones they must follow to be able to parse requests and serve pages. Online you just fetch blindly and the server simply refuses to send you passworded material. That's how you check if something is private, ask for it.
And, if it's given to you, by web standards, that means you're allowed to have it.
If your phone has bluetooth turned on, does that mean anyone in range has the *right* and your *permission* to copy the contents of your phone for their own use?
It gives me permission to send whatever signals I want. If your phone chooses to send me its contents that's your issue with it, not me.
Do you not realize how fundamentally *insane* this whole idea is?
That you get to waltz in years later, use tech you don't understand, developed by a culture you don't understand, and have it perfectly conform to your norms? Yeah, that is insane
Exactly. What went around is coming around.
I see nothing wrong with the influx, merely the (current) natives who insist they've got some sort of right to be here.
Awesomely good. When you get home-invaded, father-raped, and killed, I'll be sure to tell people it was a legitimate transfer of power.
What's your address? I'll help you file to expedite the process.
Why are you acting like the webmaster's intent, which I'd have to be psychic to know, has any relevance whatsoever? If their server sends it, you're authorized to have it. Otherwise, it wouldn't have sent the data to you. Get it?
Passwords. They are what you use for private data. Accept no less.
It's your fucking server. If you don't want it to send certain data, password it!
Besides, it wasn't even random.
Not really. The security breach is only a big deal because it shows how the company isn't even trying to deliver on its responsibilities, exposing some email addresses themselves is hardly the end of the world.
And no, spammers harvest email addresses all the time and the government hasn't exactly jumped at criminalizing that.
As soon as it embarrasses a big company though, it's a terrible, terrible thing, and someone must pay!
They're always looking for new ones who don't know how the last ones got screwed.
Great. Get the fuck out then.
Or, are you a member of the Navajo, Ak-Chin, Cocopah, etc, tribes? Because if not you're a just another hypocritical authoritarian on a bender. Sit down and shut up.
Specially written queries. Oh well then, that's that.
There's no way that would mean a URL with a sequential numeric ID in it.
Even if your supervisor is dumb enough to support a law that implements racial profiling of his ethnic group just to stop the non-problem of unauthorized entry it's not a valid argument in general.
164 dead, over 300 wounded
Oh my! That's like two days traffic fatalities. Perhaps they're missing the bigger picture?
Oh please. I'm sure people made almost identical arguments against maps.
"With every road fully listed criminals will know where everything is, and every road the police could use to catch them! Maps are only okay when they're of small disconnected areas so that you could never use a map to tell how to get from here to there, or anything else dangerous."
Even if this stuff was so dangerous people could simply record their own by driving the path once with a cell-phone recording video. The cat has fully removed itself from the bag and is not going back. If that scares you, ask yourself what you don't want seen and what you could do to fix it.
Did the criminals know the carjacking victims and act in perceived vengeance? If not I don't think it's relevant.
Given that each drone can remotely and without consequence for the wielders destroy an entire primary school, I think we should all pause to reflect.
Or were you just bitching about taxes?
You're displaying a perfect example of a common security failure - hyperfocus. It's usually because you haven't thought through the problem domain very deeply.
Everyone has a line beyond which they'll righteously betray you, perhaps for law or country, for love, or (most common) for spite. If you run around the world warning everyone about specific people you're ignoring that anyone you deal with could snap on you, for no reason that you could see. You can't defend against numerous attacks by blocking each specifically.
Just look out for your impact on the world. Be up-front. Take responsibility for your mistakes, however large or small. Live responsibly and you'll never have a problem, from this guy or any of the other 6.5B ticking time-bombs walking the world.
Those are tools, not solutions. Both can be defeated in various ways and neither is a complete solution to their base problem, only a band-aid over the most obvious threat vectors.
Instead of bitching about the new reality make use of the tools it provides to help wipe out corruption.
Exactly. Freedom to choose to leak details of the crimes the government is committing instead of becoming complicit by keeping its secrets.
For the record, Wikileaks rocks and you should die in fire. Have a nice day.
Yeah, because poor freedom fighters are going to have the resources the build nukes.
Is there medication you forgot to take?
For most things on the list, no, they don't need protection. Treat them like passwords. If discovered, change them, don't legislate their secrecy and keep using them.
For instance, military plans. If they do leak, assume they could have leaked twice and instead of cracking down, make new plans.
BTW, if you're afraid of terrorism you're a mindless puppet. Look at 9/11 - oppressed freedom fighters kill 3000 people to bring attention to ongoing injustice perpetrated by us. They're labelled terrorists and we kill well over a million people in response.
If you have evidence of a crime, the law requires you provide it.
Strange. Like how most police officers at the G20 attacks had taken their badge number off their riot uniforms in order to remain anonymous and now not a single officer "remembers" doing it or seeing another officer do it?
In this case, a bunch of mental retards committed acts of vandalism in violence in a crowd that probably had nearly as many recording devices as people deserve what they get.
You mean like how the G20 cops (and most of Vancouver's cops were shipped off to the G20...) went wild beating innocent people on camera and unlawfully incarcerating them and thus warrant charges?
No, of course not. It's amazing how the police (and their union) don't think this even warrants an investigation let alone charges when it's officers accused of misusing lethal force but suddenly call for tough treatment of a few looters. By any rational measure corrupt police officers are far worse than rioters, but from the police themselves and law-and-order types like yourself there's like zero push to actually investigate the serious crimes.
The police keep claiming there's a serious conspiracy of anarchists who all get dressed up in their black leather and motorcycle helmets and start riots, but always melt away before getting caught. This is ridiculous - anarchists are as interested in following orders as atheists are in church. And you'd think if these rioters were real, not agent provocateurs, they'd have managed to catch a couple by now and prove it.
How long were you in the coma? We had rules about that sort of thing at one time, back before software and business model patents.
No, in this I have to agree with him. Forums suffer when they become moderated. Posts stop being just the sum of their content. People start posting to please moderators or provoke others to say something that will get them down-modded, etc.
For instance c64-love/6502 is being followed by a flock of meta-trolls who waste more time than he could. If people just ignored those who wasted their time we wouldn't need the moderation apparatus or these self-righteous anti-trolls.
Ignoring all the "programmers" I've interviewed and/or worked with who simply cannot design a program, but instead keep throwing code at things until it seems to work, then quit...
That's a little bit of knowledge for ya... btw, make sure your interviews contain some actual coding. Like you'd ask a cook to cook before hiring them.
That's not where the student spends their time! They spend their time learning the arcana of whatever language is being taught, and this is enough material to completely obscure the conceptualization.
Depends who teaches them and how they do it.
I could show you how to program in Ruby, Scala, or LISP, (and have seen others do so in Haskel and other languages) in such a way you hardly notice the syntax.
Not everyone's brain works like a Slashdotter's.
Bullshit. (At least before school gets too them.) Almost everyone is capable of learning something like algebra or programming or auto mechanics or child care, etc. It just needs to be presented in a way they care about, and if they do have any learning disabilities, helping them find their own coping techniques.
For instance, don't teach spreadsheets, wait till your child wants money (for a toy or something) and ask why and what they'd do with just a little more or a little less, etc. Once they have the idea of refining their plans they'll want something that does what a spreadsheet does and you'll just have to let them see you use it for a similar problem that you're researching.
Most people accomplish tasks by performing a series of steps they were taught in training.
Largely because they don't understand there's a better way and weren't taught anything complex enough to require more. If you know the material you're teaching deeply enough you can construct a problem that's easy if done right but terribly tedious if not impossible if done the wrong way. Then you explain the mental model you wish to convey and those who listen finish instantly and their struggling peers not only have a motive to improve but also evidence their classmates can do it.