You said it's easy to secure your house such that it costs more than $10,000 to break in. I pointed out that no, it wouldn't cost more than $17 to break in. I can see why you might want to change your argument.
BTW, you can hook and book a Ferrari with an alarm. It's worth more than it takes to steal, so by your definition. it's. low hanging fruit. I don't think that. means what you think it means.
I think low hanging fruit is comparative - the bad Guy won't. break into my house of my neighbor leaves his door wide open. If we ALL lock our doors, the thief will get a crow bar.
Posted via crappy old phone that inserts extra periods.
I watched a thief check door handles once, looking for low hanging fruit. As I said, as long as he found plenty unlocked, the locked ones were safer. When four in a row were locked, he smashed a window. Locks didn't keep him out, not when either a lots of people used them or he saw something he wanted.
That thief is currently serving time for murder for hire.
I'd bet $100 I could simply kick in your door and walk out with your stuff.
You COULD spend $10,000 on a security system to protect your $10,000 worth of stuff. That would be stupid, though, wouldn't it.
Let's say you did spend $10,000 on security. In that case , a burglar would want to spend $4 on a ski mask and maybe $13 on a post driver to knock the door in. Then smash the door in an QUICKLY grab $3,000 worth of electronics etc. You spent $10,000, the bad guy spent $17 to defeat it (and didn't wait around for the security company to first call you, then call the cops.)
I used to work as a locksmith. Now I secure computer systems for a living. I've yet to see one I couldn't break with ease. There ARE some strong security measures you can take with a computer, just like there are quality locks. Quality locks won't stop a large crowbar and no amount of computer security will stop a root kit.
Given the overall percentage of libertarians (1%?) and the overall percentage of liberals (48%?), clearly it isn't anywhere near "all libertarians". This proves that:
The liberals are completely wrong.
That's the only conclusion that can be drawn by anyone who can follow simple logic. People who can follow simple logic knew that already, though.
I'm KIDDING you hyper-sensisitive liberal weenie who is furiously clicking the "reply" button. Sometimes liberals are right, even Obama. Obama was right when he said the lack of a federal budget was a sign of no leadership from the president. Obama was right when he said if the economy isn't back on track in early 2012 he shouldn't be re-elected. Obama was right when he said it would be irresponsible of him to run for president because a presidential candidate should "know what you're doing". Liberals are very often right.
While there may be millions of possible reconstructions for a fuzzy, ill-defined image, the simplest (sparsest) version is probably the best fit."
Of the millions of possibilities, the sparsest is MOST likely. Perhaps it's twice as likely as any other possibility. That still means it's 99.999% likely to be wrong.
As for the MRI, that fuzzy part is probably noise that can be deleted, except when it's a tumor.
"Locks keep people out of my house". They don't keep bad guys out. Anyone can kick the door in. I can pick the lock, as can many other people. A lock is a REQUEST. a "do not disturb" sign.
How about much bigger locks, like a bank vault? Have you ever noticed that most banks keep their vault door a) open and b) well polished? Does that look like security, or security theatre? Notice that next to the thick steel door is a plaster wall.
It's fairly rare that you can increase security enough that something is more expensive to steal than it's worth. Sometimes, but rarely. What you CAN do is avoid being low-hanging fruit. If only I use encryption while everyone else uses plain text, I'm safer. I don't have to outrun the bear, so to speak. If everyone encrypts their data , the bag actors will download the hack tool to decrypt it.
> But we already HAD a word for that and it was not "hackers" it was con artists..
I think the distinction is in your last three words, "hacking a system".
A con man or fraudster will get a _person_ to hand over their property. A hacker manipulates a _system_ to have it do something other than what it's supposed to do. TFA says:
"The group was able to change the DNS records managed by Network Solutions for a number of security companies".
They did a number of companies by exploiting NetSol's SYSTEM, not simply tricking one person, but exploiting holes in the system that the person what was part of. If you can fairly reliably exploit the system, it's a hack in my opinion whether that's a TCP/IP system, a phone system, a traffic light control system, or system that includes both computers and human.
Rule 1: don't be a jerk when you might be wrong. Rule 2: you can always be wrong. Rule 3: raymorris is never wrong (note rule 2 says YOU can be wrong, not me).
Hmm, come to think of it, I WAS wrong when I said Clinton didn't barricade open air monuments. My point, that such shenanigans are a new form of BS by democrats, was correct, though. Perhaps we need rule #4:
Rule 4: If it appears that raymorris is wrong, look at the bigger picture. He's always right about the big picture.
By 15, mean 0, right? I see that in the 1980s a service member and a CIA agent were prosecuted for selling information to the Soviets. I'm not finding any journalists being prosecuted until Obama.
What do you mean "of you don't want to participate in culture in it's exact form as it exists right now"? Right now, you can buy from a boutique retailer who buys from a distributor, you can buy direct from the manufacturer, or many choices in between.
I bought my last pair of glasses from 39dollarglasses.com. They are the same glasses the retailer in the mall will sell me for $160. The differences include - the retailer will measure the distance between my eyes for me, help me find a pair that looks nice, adjust them for me, and charge more. Both choices are "culture as it exists right now". Right now you can buy direct from the manufacturer who is 1,000 miles away, buy from a discount store, or a boutique shop. You can have it any way you want. Why do you insist that I also have to have it your way, that I'm not allowed to getvalue added by a dealer? What posesses you to need to take away the last bit if freedom I have left?
If aggregators, dealers, and other "middle men" don't offer you anything you want, don't use them. Simple.
Note that the grocery store, gas station, and just about every other business you use is a middle man. If the grocery store doesn't offer you any advantage over ordering items shipped directly from manufacturers and producers, you can make that choice. Sometimes, I order things direct. Most of the time, it's more convenient and cheaper to go through an aggregator / retailer like Walmart.
If you want some of the services of a middle man but not all, you have that choice too. Sam's Club and other warehouse stores sell cases at low prices, just like buying direct. Internet distributors are another in-between option. Yet, most of the time we prefer the services of a middle man, a retailer.
More on topic, I have bought, and continue to buy data services through a middle man. The backbone providers sell 10Gb connections. They aren't interested in the 50Mbps I want to buy. My retailer IS very interested in my 50Mbps account and they work hard to keep me happy. If there's a problem with one of the backbones, they have the expertise and the pull to get it fixed.
It seems to me that the larger the bill and the larger the company sending that bill, the lower the competency.
Our three-person company handles web sites serving hundreds of thousands of users per day for a few thousand dollars. We could easily handle a few million users by adding a few more database servers at a cost of around ten thousand.
People at work are always saying "the user is doing it wrong". They say that all the time because users do it wrong all the time. A guy named Murphy made it a law - if there's a wrong way to do it, someone will do it wrong. (That's the actual original Murphy's law.)
I'm constantly pointing out that yes, we KNOW that the users will do it wrong if we let them. We also know how to easily prevent those mistakes. Idiots exist, so idiot proof your software.
The turn of the century was the time of Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, and Henry Ford - certainly a time when the US was booming. The top tax rate in 1900 was 0%. In 1913 the top tax rate was 7%.
The roaring twenties were a good time for America, right? Through the 1920s, the top tax rate was reduced to 24%.
During Word War II rates were greatly increased and through the 1970s, taxes were extremely high, as you said. By 1970, the US economy was screwed and we started seeing headlines about how the US ranked near the bottom in ____, where you could fill in the blank with education or many other things.
1998 rates were cut dramitally, to 28%. The early 1990s boom followed.
My previous subject line mentioned Clinton, but I didn't expand on that in the body. After envy was a big loser for Mondale in 1984, Clinton in 1992 said it was a bad idea. He even pointed that out in his inauguration speech.
So you could say that the envy trend began after the early 60s, was modetately strong in 1980, and had been recognized as error by 1992, but still used for political manipulation in 2008.
Obviously the decline of the republic is a process over time, not an event on a single day . To get bookends on the time frame, compare Kennedy's speeches to Mondale.
JFK spoke of the promise of America, where a store clerk could, through hard work, become president. Twenty years later, Mondale's speeches have a very different tone, a full of class envy and idea that "the man is keeping you down". So the big change in the US was somewhere between 1960-1980. Monadale tried that in 1984 and lost big , so the majority still rejected it. Obama did it in 2008 and won big, so apparently the trend continued.
Of course I'm speaking of the US. Other countries went through the same thing at other times. Stalin, Potpot, Mao, and Castro all took power based on their own brands of class envy.
Time was, the best and brightest WANTED to come to America and they did become Americans. US citizenship was a dream of many through the 1980s. Today, those who still come are waving Mexican flags. How often do you hear people dreaming of becoming an American these days?
> and then the rich realized they could redistrict
Gerrymandering was a well known in 1812. That was 200 years ago. The US started going down the hole around 1970. The country flourished when taxes when on success were a LOT lower. Come to think of it, the huge taxes started around 1970, then the country went to shit.
The US did great for 200 years, inventing all kinds of things, raising our standard of living by literally 1000%, etc.
Then we traded hard work and dedication for laziness and envy. The majority of our society outright rejects as "old ideas" precisely those things that once made the country great. At the national level, we've gone from taking a few years to put a man on the moon to taking four years to pass an ANNUAL budget through just the senate. We've gone from "defeat the Soviet Union" to "emulate the French"
At the individual level, we used to be the greatest scientists in the world - whether we were born here or immigrated here, the best scientists were Americans. Now, even on a site for nerds most of us can't define the word science.
The American dream was to work hard in school, then work hard at your job so you can buy your own home. America represented economic freedom - you could own your own house and even your own business, beholdenn to no-one. Today half of us dream of punishing "those people" who live that way. We aspire to rent control, dream of moving to the city where big brother will tell us what kind of soda we can have with lunch.
My understanding is that no, they didn't attempt to capture the energy in a meaningful way. That really doesn't seem too hard, as all energy turns to heat pretty damn readily, but apparently that's tricky for fusion.
So sure it's a minor milestone, but a minor milestone on something that's a big friggin deal. Potentially as significant as when man learned to harness electricity.
To achieve fusion, you heat fuel to about 50 times as hot as the interior of the sun. So you're WAY beyond red hot, like a million times red, when it's operating. That's one of the major problems - it tends to melt anything that gets near it, so how do you hold it in place?
If it got out of control, you'd let go, allow it to fall to the floor. 1 gram of hot fuel + 10,000 kilograms of cold concrete = cold, inert fuel. Alternatively, allow air in. Air mixed with the fuel would dilute it and the reaction would stop.
Suppose you couldn't drop it or otherwise disrupt the perfect conditions required for the reaction to continue? The reaction slows down if it gets TOO hot, so it can't get above that temperature. It would stay hot. That's about it. You'd have a VERY hot little cloud of hydrogen.
I'm not a nuclear physisist. I welcome corrections from any who are present.
Slashdot Mirror
You said it's easy to secure your house such that it costs more than $10,000 to break in. I pointed out that no, it wouldn't cost more than $17 to break in. I can see why you might want to change your argument.
BTW, you can hook and book a Ferrari with an alarm. It's worth more than it takes to steal, so by your definition. it's. low hanging fruit. I don't think that. means what you think it means.
I think low hanging fruit is comparative - the bad Guy won't. break into my house of my neighbor leaves his door wide open. If we ALL lock our doors, the thief will get a crow bar.
Posted via crappy old phone that inserts extra periods.
I watched a thief check door handles once, looking for low hanging fruit. As I said, as long as he found plenty unlocked, the locked ones were safer. When four in a row were locked, he smashed a window. Locks didn't keep him out, not when either a lots of people used them or he saw something he wanted.
That thief is currently serving time for murder for hire.
I'd bet $100 I could simply kick in your door and walk out with your stuff.
You COULD spend $10,000 on a security system to protect your $10,000 worth of stuff. That would be stupid, though, wouldn't it.
Let's say you did spend $10,000 on security. In that case , a burglar would want to spend $4 on a ski mask and maybe $13 on a post driver to knock the door in. Then smash the door in an QUICKLY grab $3,000 worth of electronics etc. You spent $10,000, the bad guy spent $17 to defeat it (and didn't wait around for the security company to first call you, then call the cops.)
I used to work as a locksmith. Now I secure computer systems for a living. I've yet to see one I couldn't break with ease. There ARE some strong security measures you can take with a computer, just like there are quality locks. Quality locks won't stop a large crowbar and no amount of computer security will stop a root kit.
Given the overall percentage of libertarians (1%?) and the overall percentage of liberals (48%?), clearly it isn't anywhere near "all libertarians". This proves that:
The liberals are completely wrong.
That's the only conclusion that can be drawn by anyone who can follow simple logic. People who can follow simple logic knew that already, though.
I'm KIDDING you hyper-sensisitive liberal weenie who is furiously clicking the "reply" button. Sometimes liberals are right, even Obama. Obama was right when he said the lack of a federal budget was a sign of no leadership from the president. Obama was right when he said if the economy isn't back on track in early 2012 he shouldn't be re-elected. Obama was right when he said it would be irresponsible of him to run for president because a presidential candidate should "know what you're doing". Liberals are very often right.
While there may be millions of possible reconstructions for a fuzzy, ill-defined image, the simplest (sparsest) version is probably the best fit."
Of the millions of possibilities, the sparsest is MOST likely. Perhaps it's twice as likely as any other possibility. That still means it's 99.999% likely to be wrong.
As for the MRI, that fuzzy part is probably noise that can be deleted, except when it's a tumor.
"
"Locks keep people out of my house". They don't keep bad guys out. Anyone can kick the door in. I can pick the lock, as can many other people. A lock is a REQUEST. a "do not disturb" sign.
How about much bigger locks, like a bank vault? Have you ever noticed that most banks keep their vault door a) open and b) well polished? Does that look like security, or security theatre? Notice that next to the thick steel door is a plaster wall.
It's fairly rare that you can increase security enough that something is more expensive to steal than it's worth. Sometimes, but rarely. What you CAN do is avoid being low-hanging fruit. If only I use encryption while everyone else uses plain text, I'm safer. I don't have to outrun the bear, so to speak. If everyone encrypts their data , the bag actors will download the hack tool to decrypt it.
> But we already HAD a word for that and it was not "hackers" it was con artists..
I think the distinction is in your last three words, "hacking a system".
A con man or fraudster will get a _person_ to hand over their property.
A hacker manipulates a _system_ to have it do something other than what it's supposed to do.
TFA says:
"The group was able to change the DNS records managed by Network Solutions for a number of security companies".
They did a number of companies by exploiting NetSol's SYSTEM, not simply tricking one person, but exploiting
holes in the system that the person what was part of. If you can fairly reliably exploit the system, it's a hack in my opinion whether that's a TCP/IP system, a phone system, a traffic light control system, or system that includes both
computers and human.
However, see also the Jargon File for original meanings of the term:
http://www.dourish.com/goodies/jargon.html
http://www.outpost9.com/reference/jargon/jargon_23.html#SEC30
Rule 1: don't be a jerk when you might be wrong.
Rule 2: you can always be wrong.
Rule 3: raymorris is never wrong (note rule 2 says YOU can be wrong, not me).
Hmm, come to think of it, I WAS wrong when I said Clinton didn't barricade open air monuments.
My point, that such shenanigans are a new form of BS by democrats, was correct, though. Perhaps we need rule #4:
Rule 4: If it appears that raymorris is wrong, look at the bigger picture. He's always right about the big picture.
It sucks to be wrong when you're being a jerk, doesn't it.
Rule 1: don't be a jerk when you might be wrong.
Rule 2: you can always be wrong.
By 15, mean 0, right? I see that in the 1980s a service member and a CIA agent were prosecuted for selling information to the Soviets. I'm not finding any journalists being prosecuted until Obama.
What do you mean "of you don't want to participate in culture in it's exact form as it exists right now"?
Right now, you can buy from a boutique retailer who buys from a distributor, you can buy direct from the manufacturer, or many choices in between.
I bought my last pair of glasses from 39dollarglasses.com. They are the same glasses the retailer in the mall will sell me for $160. The differences include - the retailer will measure the distance between my eyes for me, help me find a pair that looks nice, adjust them for me, and charge more. Both choices are "culture as it exists right now". Right now you can buy direct from the manufacturer who is 1,000 miles away, buy from a discount store, or a boutique shop. You can have it any way you want. Why do you insist that I also have to have it your way, that I'm not allowed to getvalue added by a dealer? What posesses you to need to take away the last bit if freedom I have left?
If aggregators, dealers, and other "middle men" don't offer you anything you want, don't use them. Simple.
Note that the grocery store, gas station, and just about every other business you use is a middle man. If the grocery store doesn't offer you any advantage over ordering items shipped directly from manufacturers and producers, you can make that choice. Sometimes, I order things direct. Most of the time, it's more convenient and cheaper to go through an aggregator / retailer like Walmart.
If you want some of the services of a middle man but not all, you have that choice too. Sam's Club and other warehouse stores sell cases at low prices, just like buying direct. Internet distributors are another in-between option. Yet, most of the time we prefer the services of a middle man, a retailer.
More on topic, I have bought, and continue to buy data services through a middle man. The backbone providers sell 10Gb connections. They aren't interested in the 50Mbps I want to buy. My retailer IS very interested in my 50Mbps account and they work hard to keep me happy. If there's a problem with one of the backbones, they have the expertise and the pull to get it fixed.
It seems to me that the larger the bill and the larger the company sending that bill, the lower the competency.
Our three-person company handles web sites serving hundreds of thousands of users per day for a few thousand dollars. We could easily handle a few million users by adding a few more database servers at a cost of around ten thousand.
Depends on if it happens during a bachelor party.
People at work are always saying "the user is doing it wrong". They say that all the time because users do it wrong all the time. A guy named Murphy made it a law - if there's a wrong way to do it, someone will do it wrong. (That's the actual original Murphy's law.)
I'm constantly pointing out that yes, we KNOW that the users will do it wrong if we let them. We also know how to easily prevent those mistakes. Idiots exist, so idiot proof your software.
Our setup related scripts refuse to run if the software is already configured. Something like:
if ($config['basedir']) screwoff();
That's in case someone forgets to delete them.
The turn of the century was the time of Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, and Henry Ford - certainly a time when the US was booming.
The top tax rate in 1900 was 0%. In 1913 the top tax rate was 7%.
The roaring twenties were a good time for America, right? Through the 1920s, the top tax rate was reduced to 24%.
During Word War II rates were greatly increased and through the 1970s, taxes were extremely high, as you said.
By 1970, the US economy was screwed and we started seeing headlines about how the US ranked near the bottom in ____, where you could fill in the blank with education or many other things.
1998 rates were cut dramitally, to 28%. The early 1990s boom followed.
My previous subject line mentioned Clinton, but I didn't expand on that in the body. After envy was a big loser for Mondale in 1984, Clinton in 1992 said it was a bad idea. He even pointed that out in his inauguration speech.
So you could say that the envy trend began after the early 60s, was modetately strong in 1980, and had been recognized as error by 1992, but still used for political manipulation in 2008.
Obviously the decline of the republic is a process over time, not an event on a single day . To get bookends on the time frame, compare Kennedy's speeches to Mondale.
JFK spoke of the promise of America, where a store clerk could, through hard work, become president. Twenty years later, Mondale's speeches have a very different tone, a full of class envy and idea that "the man is keeping you down". So the big change in the US was somewhere between 1960-1980. Monadale tried that in 1984 and lost big , so the majority still rejected it. Obama did it in 2008 and won big, so apparently the trend continued.
Of course I'm speaking of the US. Other countries went through the same thing at other times. Stalin, Potpot, Mao, and Castro all took power based on their own brands of class envy.
Time was, the best and brightest WANTED to come to America and they did become Americans. US citizenship was a dream of many through the 1980s. Today, those who still come are waving Mexican flags. How often do you hear people dreaming of becoming an American these days?
> and then the rich realized they could redistrict
Gerrymandering was a well known in 1812. That was 200 years ago. The US started going down the hole around 1970. The country flourished when taxes when on success were a LOT lower. Come to think of it, the huge taxes started around 1970, then the country went to shit.
Are you a time traveler from before 1990?
The US did great for 200 years, inventing all kinds of things, raising our standard of living by literally 1000%, etc.
Then we traded hard work and dedication for laziness and envy. The majority of our society outright rejects as "old ideas" precisely those things that once made the country great. At the national level, we've gone from taking a few years to put a man on the moon to taking four years to pass an ANNUAL budget through just the senate. We've gone from "defeat the Soviet Union" to "emulate the French"
At the individual level, we used to be the greatest scientists in the world - whether we were born here or immigrated here, the best scientists were Americans. Now, even on a site for nerds most of us can't define the word science.
The American dream was to work hard in school, then work hard at your job so you can buy your own home. America represented economic freedom - you could own your own house and even your own business, beholdenn to no-one. Today half of us dream of punishing "those people" who live that way. We aspire to rent control, dream of moving to the city where big brother will tell us what kind of soda we can have with lunch.
My understanding is that no, they didn't attempt to capture the energy in a meaningful way. That really doesn't seem too hard, as all energy turns to heat pretty damn readily, but apparently that's tricky for fusion.
So sure it's a minor milestone, but a minor milestone on something that's a big friggin deal. Potentially as significant as when man learned to harness electricity.
To achieve fusion, you heat fuel to about 50 times as hot as the interior of the sun. So you're WAY beyond red hot, like a million times red, when it's operating. That's one of the major problems - it tends to melt anything that gets near it, so how do you hold it in place?
If it got out of control, you'd let go, allow it to fall to the floor. 1 gram of hot fuel + 10,000 kilograms of cold concrete = cold, inert fuel. Alternatively, allow air in. Air mixed with the fuel would dilute it and the reaction would stop.
Suppose you couldn't drop it or otherwise disrupt the perfect conditions required for the reaction to continue? The reaction slows down if it gets TOO hot, so it can't get above that temperature. It would stay hot. That's about it. You'd have a VERY hot little cloud of hydrogen.
I'm not a nuclear physisist. I welcome corrections from any who are present.
O