Yes, that's the same bloody tripe that I keep hearing: define addiction down so that any repetitive action that is done for pleasure now falls under that definition. This is how we end up with abominations like 'sex addiction' as a medical condition.
I don't deny that the habit of smoking is hard to break. The number in that piece of cigarette smokers that are classed as 'persistent users' does not surprise me one bit. A cigarette smoker lights up out of habit on every minor break. That tells us something of his habits, but nothing of the addictive properties of nicotine itself. Unless you redefine addiction of course.
This is on the same level as evolutionary psychology: it's redefining terms and cherry-picking numbers to push acceptable social norms. It's Puritanism in a white coat, and you can shove it.
Tabacco [sic] causes far more being legal, cheap and highly addictive (far more than heroin).
Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit.
And if you don't believe me, I'll challenge you to prove your point: I use between two and four grams tobacco daily. Now you start using the same amount of heroin, and after one week, we will both stop cold turkey. Who do you think will have more problems?
I'm very sorry to bust your little reactionary bubble, but the two Bush-Jr. governments have an observable bad track record on matters of security. If pointing that out is repugnant to you, I suggest it is you that has a problem.
And if you're the real Derek Lyons, then yes, complaining about Schneier's popularity does taste of sour grapes. Then again, your work in the SCO affair proved just how smart you are, so I am not surprised you get this wrong as well.
Erm, no? The original poster that started that thread on Usenet was specifically referring to ZFS on Solaris. A second poster piped up that he had similar problems on FreeBSD. And your posted link gives no information on how to solve the problem posted. It does give a lot of 'ZFS is great! Rah! Rah! Rah!' twaddle. Obviously written by a PR flack, not a real sysadmin. I like Sun kit, and they do produce good software, but their attitude to reported problems could be a lot better.
Come back when ZFS has decent filesystem maintenance tools.
And don't give me that 'ZFS doesn't need a fsck' crap. SGI tried to pull that with XFS, and it didn't work. Filesystem (at least metadata) corruption will happen, and once it does, ZFS doesn't have the tools to fix it.
Oh, and you're missing the point (like the other guy commenting on my other post), if you think that I am objecting to the technological safeguards in nuclear power. I am not. I am merely pointing out that there is also a human factor involved in implementing nuclear power, and that no-one in the pro-nuclear lobby is willing to look at the way the human factors have failed in the past, at least not at the top. There is plenty of blame for the low-level operator errors, of course.
As long as the human factor is not addressed, we will end up with nuclear power stations run by the same sort of companies, with the same sort of MBAs leading them, that pushed for financial deregulation. Do you really think that is a good idea?
I suggest you ask a marine biologist about the pollution of the Irish Sea by British Nuclear Fuels. Be prepared to have an earful of cursing though.
Seriously. Nuclear power isn't as unsafe as some suggest, but the way the industry has treated its problems does not engender trust. And the way you uncritically regurgitate the talking points of their PR marks you as not so smart at best
And no-one seriously injured in that incident in Japan? Are you fucking kidding me? Uranium and radiation poisoning is not serious injury?
Ahum. If you redefine 'major disaster' then of course nuclear power is safe.
Chernobyl is by no means the only disaster. Windscale? Nuclear pollution around Hanford? Nuclear pollution from the waste processing plants on the French coast? That nice little criticality incident in Japan?
Stop sucking the dicks of the Nuclear PR industry. Nuclear may be made safe, but denying the problems is not going to help in that process.
You know what? For forty years or more, the nuclear industry has been run by businesses intent on delivering it as cheap as possible, while saying to the public "Trust us, it's really safe". Unfortunately, a couple of incidents is enough to put the lie to that statement.
When said industry continues to say "Trust us, it's safe" and tries to sweep the incidents under the rug, it is unavoidable that trust breaks down.
I like nuclear in principle, and I don't doubt it can be made safe, and the waste problem can be solved. Unfortunately, those responsible for implementing said procedures seem to be more intent on gathering government subsidies and supplanting correct procedures with PR spin. So excuse me if I have serious doubts about the viability of nuclear power in the current climate.
How about you tell us what bugs you in Openoffice? Until you do, you put the lie to your 'honest effort'. As it stands, you sound like a Microsoft astroturfer.
A certificate is for asserting that the URL you just requested is being served by the server whose hostname is mentioned in the URL. That's all SSL can prove. No matter what the CA's marketing department tells you, it cannot verify the ownership of the server with 100% accuracy.
If you're always on the lookout for a good cheap wine, see if you can find someone who imports Macon. Macon is part of the Burgundy region, bordering on the Beaujolais.
The white Macon is a real Burgundy, usually 100% Chardonnay, and a very pleasing experience, I haven't found a bad house in the region yet.
The red Macon is made from the Gamay varietal, and thus tastes a lot like Beaujolais, but since houses don't have the pressure to throw it onto the market as soon as possible, it's usually a bit more mature and complex. I'd rate a basic red Macon as comparable to the better Beaujolais-Villages or Fleurie.
Especially Burgundy and Bordeaux tend to fall in the category 'Expensive does not equal good'.
Burgundy is a crapshoot anyway. Many prestigious names are living on their name alone and producing middling wines, overoaking them to fool the palate of the less-trained wine drinkers.
The best white Burgundy I've tasted are from the Macon region, and nowhere near as expensive as Burgundy proper. They may age a little less gracefully, but then again I take a French attitude to wine: wine is for drinking, not for cellaring (a British connoiseur once half-jokingly referred to the French as 'oenopaedophiles'.
Red Burgundy is a crapshoot anyway, due to the legendary instability of the Pinot Noir grape. A minor grower may have luck and get a good yield, whereas a prestigious house might lose half the yield in a given year.
Bordeaux was killed by the English snobs with their love for expensive chateaux, and the French did the rest by dumbing down the flavour to the American palate. Dead giveaways for bad Bordeaux: 1. An English-only label. 2. Praising the wine for being 'balanced' or 'smooth', which is marketing-speak for 'bland and boring'. 3. No varietals used but Merlot and Cabernet Sauvignon (it's the minor varietals that give good Bordeaux its complexity).
My absolute favourite is Joseph Drouhin Macon Blanc. EUR 4.99 per bottle at the local supermarket. Dry, acidic, hints of oak, hints of flowers. With a prestigious house behind it, Robert Parker wouldn't hesitate to give it five stars.
No, expensive does not equal good. With French wines, knowledge of the local terroir, knowledge of the varietals allowed for the vintage, including the minor ones or the underappreciated major ones (Carignan can be used in great wines), and a willingness to overlook what label is on the bottle is much more important.
NT was designed as a multi-user OS with security in mind.
And yet, for all the features Microsoft wasted years of developer time on, services still run as LOCALSYSTEM. One bug, and you're owned.
As I pointed out before, Unix has a more primitive security infrastructure, and was not really designed to be secure from the ground up, yet by the time Dave Cutler started on NT, years of hacks and exploits had taught the *nix community how to work around that. Microsoft, in all their NIH wisdom, decided that none of that experience really mattered, but ACLs on every system object could substitute for bad system design. And here we are in 2008, and finally they start to realise that implicitly trusting outside input might be a bad idea, and that running with more than necessary privileges might just be plain stupid.
Microsoft deserves every bit of scorn heaped upon them for ignoring what the rest of the computer industry had known for decades
I give you one thing: the Symbian UI only makes sense if you're a longtime Nokia user, as the whole workflow is obviously based on the older non-smartphones. But that's also where it shines. To take your log example: if you're going to treat the phone like a computer, you're going to have to go through the main menu and then three levels deep to find the log. Or you can press the 'Call' button, and immediately be thrown into the call log (and logically, starting at the 'Placed calls' sublog).
Maybe you're mixing up the European and U.S. markets. In Europe, phones are subsidized by the carriers by selling them together with one- or two-year contracts. By law, once the initial contract runs out, a provider is obliged to give you the unlock code on request. The law may even be further tilted in favour of the consumer by setting the maximum term to one year, but I'm not sure about that.
And regardless, the only tying allowed is of the contract to the SIM. If you want to pay for another contract with SIM to use in your subsidized phone, they must let you; they can, however, make the SIM unusable in any other phone. Which is why most subsidy contracts sell with fixed-minute plans, and contracts with more variable costs are sold seperately.
I bought my Nokia E61i by extending my current contract for two more years, with a 70-minute monthly plan. I can, however, use my company's SIM in my E61i if I want to. Vice versa, my SIM was unlocked already, and they don't seem to have re-locked it, as I can use it in a different phone easily.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, that's the same bloody tripe that I keep hearing: define addiction down so that any repetitive action that is done for pleasure now falls under that definition. This is how we end up with abominations like 'sex addiction' as a medical condition.
I don't deny that the habit of smoking is hard to break. The number in that piece of cigarette smokers that are classed as 'persistent users' does not surprise me one bit. A cigarette smoker lights up out of habit on every minor break. That tells us something of his habits, but nothing of the addictive properties of nicotine itself. Unless you redefine addiction of course.
This is on the same level as evolutionary psychology: it's redefining terms and cherry-picking numbers to push acceptable social norms. It's Puritanism in a white coat, and you can shove it.
Mart
Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit.
And if you don't believe me, I'll challenge you to prove your point: I use between two and four grams tobacco daily. Now you start using the same amount of heroin, and after one week, we will both stop cold turkey. Who do you think will have more problems?
Mart
I'm very sorry to bust your little reactionary bubble, but the two Bush-Jr. governments have an observable bad track record on matters of security. If pointing that out is repugnant to you, I suggest it is you that has a problem.
And if you're the real Derek Lyons, then yes, complaining about Schneier's popularity does taste of sour grapes. Then again, your work in the SCO affair proved just how smart you are, so I am not surprised you get this wrong as well.
Mart
And since when exactly has the builtin firewall in XP stopped outgoing connections?
If the infection vector is one of the many IE exploits, the XP firewall is not going to stop the PC from becoming a zombie.
Mart
You know, if the point is to raise awareness of security beyond the PGP-using geeks and nerds, what's wrong with being popular?
Your comment has the distinct taste of sour grapes.
Mart
Erm, no? The original poster that started that thread on Usenet was specifically referring to ZFS on Solaris. A second poster piped up that he had similar problems on FreeBSD. And your posted link gives no information on how to solve the problem posted. It does give a lot of 'ZFS is great! Rah! Rah! Rah!' twaddle. Obviously written by a PR flack, not a real sysadmin. I like Sun kit, and they do produce good software, but their attitude to reported problems could be a lot better.
And thread drift? That's normal in asr.
Mart
Come back when ZFS has decent filesystem maintenance tools.
And don't give me that 'ZFS doesn't need a fsck' crap. SGI tried to pull that with XFS, and it didn't work. Filesystem (at least metadata) corruption will happen, and once it does, ZFS doesn't have the tools to fix it.
Mart
Oh, and you're missing the point (like the other guy commenting on my other post), if you think that I am objecting to the technological safeguards in nuclear power. I am not. I am merely pointing out that there is also a human factor involved in implementing nuclear power, and that no-one in the pro-nuclear lobby is willing to look at the way the human factors have failed in the past, at least not at the top. There is plenty of blame for the low-level operator errors, of course.
As long as the human factor is not addressed, we will end up with nuclear power stations run by the same sort of companies, with the same sort of MBAs leading them, that pushed for financial deregulation. Do you really think that is a good idea?
Mart
I suggest you ask a marine biologist about the pollution of the Irish Sea by British Nuclear Fuels. Be prepared to have an earful of cursing though.
Seriously. Nuclear power isn't as unsafe as some suggest, but the way the industry has treated its problems does not engender trust. And the way you uncritically regurgitate the talking points of their PR marks you as not so smart at best
And no-one seriously injured in that incident in Japan? Are you fucking kidding me? Uranium and radiation poisoning is not serious injury?
Mart
If the limitations of the design are obvious, and yet the design is implemented anyway, then, so to say, the resulting mess is by design, isn't it?
Mart
What mob? What thugs? One guy suggesting a patch, that's what I see.
Aren't you being a bit hysterical?
Mart
Not just Sony. Have you seen the amount of posts here equating a request for a patch with rioting, bomb threats and beheadings?
Sometimes I wonder how the human race got as far as it got, with the amount of stupidity on display.
Mart
Ahum. If you redefine 'major disaster' then of course nuclear power is safe.
Chernobyl is by no means the only disaster. Windscale? Nuclear pollution around Hanford? Nuclear pollution from the waste processing plants on the French coast? That nice little criticality incident in Japan?
Stop sucking the dicks of the Nuclear PR industry. Nuclear may be made safe, but denying the problems is not going to help in that process.
Mart
You know what? For forty years or more, the nuclear industry has been run by businesses intent on delivering it as cheap as possible, while saying to the public "Trust us, it's really safe". Unfortunately, a couple of incidents is enough to put the lie to that statement.
When said industry continues to say "Trust us, it's safe" and tries to sweep the incidents under the rug, it is unavoidable that trust breaks down.
I like nuclear in principle, and I don't doubt it can be made safe, and the waste problem can be solved. Unfortunately, those responsible for implementing said procedures seem to be more intent on gathering government subsidies and supplanting correct procedures with PR spin. So excuse me if I have serious doubts about the viability of nuclear power in the current climate.
Mart
How about you tell us what bugs you in Openoffice? Until you do, you put the lie to your 'honest effort'. As it stands, you sound like a Microsoft astroturfer.
Mart
No. Just plain no.
A certificate is for asserting that the URL you just requested is being served by the server whose hostname is mentioned in the URL. That's all SSL can prove. No matter what the CA's marketing department tells you, it cannot verify the ownership of the server with 100% accuracy.
Mart
How about...UID 99501?
Mart
An insult is not the same thing as an ad hominem. And I gave an example, which you didn't address
You're a moron.
First off, people who use 'fixed that for you' are complete and utter lusers.
Second, you cannot read. I specifically mentioned that the *nix community has worked on their security issues.
If you can't bother to read, don't bother to answer. I have better things to do than waste my time with idiots, thank you very much.
Mart
If you're always on the lookout for a good cheap wine, see if you can find someone who imports Macon. Macon is part of the Burgundy region, bordering on the Beaujolais.
The white Macon is a real Burgundy, usually 100% Chardonnay, and a very pleasing experience, I haven't found a bad house in the region yet.
The red Macon is made from the Gamay varietal, and thus tastes a lot like Beaujolais, but since houses don't have the pressure to throw it onto the market as soon as possible, it's usually a bit more mature and complex. I'd rate a basic red Macon as comparable to the better Beaujolais-Villages or Fleurie.
Mart
Especially Burgundy and Bordeaux tend to fall in the category 'Expensive does not equal good'.
Burgundy is a crapshoot anyway. Many prestigious names are living on their name alone and producing middling wines, overoaking them to fool the palate of the less-trained wine drinkers.
The best white Burgundy I've tasted are from the Macon region, and nowhere near as expensive as Burgundy proper. They may age a little less gracefully, but then again I take a French attitude to wine: wine is for drinking, not for cellaring (a British connoiseur once half-jokingly referred to the French as 'oenopaedophiles'.
Red Burgundy is a crapshoot anyway, due to the legendary instability of the Pinot Noir grape. A minor grower may have luck and get a good yield, whereas a prestigious house might lose half the yield in a given year.
Bordeaux was killed by the English snobs with their love for expensive chateaux, and the French did the rest by dumbing down the flavour to the American palate. Dead giveaways for bad Bordeaux: 1. An English-only label. 2. Praising the wine for being 'balanced' or 'smooth', which is marketing-speak for 'bland and boring'. 3. No varietals used but Merlot and Cabernet Sauvignon (it's the minor varietals that give good Bordeaux its complexity).
My absolute favourite is Joseph Drouhin Macon Blanc. EUR 4.99 per bottle at the local supermarket. Dry, acidic, hints of oak, hints of flowers. With a prestigious house behind it, Robert Parker wouldn't hesitate to give it five stars.
No, expensive does not equal good. With French wines, knowledge of the local terroir, knowledge of the varietals allowed for the vintage, including the minor ones or the underappreciated major ones (Carignan can be used in great wines), and a willingness to overlook what label is on the bottle is much more important.
Mart
And yet, for all the features Microsoft wasted years of developer time on, services still run as LOCALSYSTEM. One bug, and you're owned.
As I pointed out before, Unix has a more primitive security infrastructure, and was not really designed to be secure from the ground up, yet by the time Dave Cutler started on NT, years of hacks and exploits had taught the *nix community how to work around that. Microsoft, in all their NIH wisdom, decided that none of that experience really mattered, but ACLs on every system object could substitute for bad system design. And here we are in 2008, and finally they start to realise that implicitly trusting outside input might be a bad idea, and that running with more than necessary privileges might just be plain stupid.
Microsoft deserves every bit of scorn heaped upon them for ignoring what the rest of the computer industry had known for decades
Mart
I call bullshit.
I give you one thing: the Symbian UI only makes sense if you're a longtime Nokia user, as the whole workflow is obviously based on the older non-smartphones. But that's also where it shines. To take your log example: if you're going to treat the phone like a computer, you're going to have to go through the main menu and then three levels deep to find the log. Or you can press the 'Call' button, and immediately be thrown into the call log (and logically, starting at the 'Placed calls' sublog).
Mart
Maybe you're mixing up the European and U.S. markets. In Europe, phones are subsidized by the carriers by selling them together with one- or two-year contracts. By law, once the initial contract runs out, a provider is obliged to give you the unlock code on request. The law may even be further tilted in favour of the consumer by setting the maximum term to one year, but I'm not sure about that.
And regardless, the only tying allowed is of the contract to the SIM. If you want to pay for another contract with SIM to use in your subsidized phone, they must let you; they can, however, make the SIM unusable in any other phone. Which is why most subsidy contracts sell with fixed-minute plans, and contracts with more variable costs are sold seperately.
I bought my Nokia E61i by extending my current contract for two more years, with a 70-minute monthly plan. I can, however, use my company's SIM in my E61i if I want to. Vice versa, my SIM was unlocked already, and they don't seem to have re-locked it, as I can use it in a different phone easily.
Mart
You can take your fucking strawman and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.
Go back to school, and don't come back until you've learned what a good source is.
Moron.
Mart