And your description indicates that for you, it is a figure of speech. There is no problem with that, but that is what it is.
Well, I suppose we could get into a pedantic argument. Personally, I think you are being excessively literal. I would rebut by pointing out that by your definition someone would have to be in a dead, in a coma, or paralyzed to be unable to get out of bed by rolling/sliding out of the bed. They might be unable to rise from the floor after sliding out, but they could still theoretically get out of bed (ergo, not too sick to get out).
I think most people would have a literal definition of "too sick to get out of bed" that includes some functional ability once the bed egress has been accomplished.
No doubt we will be better off agreeing to disagree.
Meh, I have been afflicted by the flu significantly enough that I "couldn't get out of bed" for a week. The amount of time I spent not in a supine position could be considered rounding error (bathroom, walking slowly from couch to bed or vice versa, etc).
The term is a reasonable first-pass approximation, especially when speaking with others. Yes, you may be correct that most people this sick can, indeed, arise from bed; however, they cannot in any practical sense do so.
Hell, I had to take breaks while walking down the 10 meter hallway. Practically speaking, I couldn't really get out of bed.
If an Oracle appeared and told you climate change was definitely not happening, would you stop trying to reduce pollution?
Ooh, I like this question and how it is phrased. Of course I would continue to advocate reducing pollution; however, CO2 wouldn't be defined as a pollutant as a corollary to the Oracle's statement.
No reason not to use fossil fuels then, unless scientists discover that the underground reservoirs of petroleum are reducing the Earth's density and are the only thing keeping our planet floating in space. Then I would advocate reducing consumption to fight Global Sinking.
I look forward to the calm, rational, and coherent discussion!
For once, there may be a thread on this site that avoids tangenting off into politics. It will be refreshing to witness a debate that does not invoke Nazis, gun control, or the results of previous US elections, because those are totally offtopic and everyone will realize that.
what's the fourth amendment exclusion perimeter? I thought at first you meant the US borders (no 4th amendment allowed within), but that would be like 8,000 miles
Customs and Border Patrol have declared that their jurisdiction extends to within 100 miles of any border of the US.
Probably is some sort of mumble, mumble...Interstate Commerce!mumble mumble interpretation of the Constitution or something else that is intellectually dishonest and prima facie farcical, yet has been upheld by our perfidious judiciary as Constitutional.
It's shit like this that makes me wish we didn't have a written Constitution. The goddamn politicians were always going to do whatever they wanted, regardless of what any document says. At least if you don't have a written Constitution they don't look you in the eye and swear that growing chicken feed on your own land and feeding it to your own chickens is interstate commerce. Or that the Founders meant for border security to be able to turn the preponderance of the country into a police state. Or that simply existing is a legitimate rationale for levying a tax. Or that ex post facto regulations don't count as laws, even though you must abide by them or face punishment. Or that according to the 4th amendment it is fine for the federal government to track all mail forever, all phone calls forever, etc, etc.
It's the fucking hypocrisy that gets to me. I'm counting the years until I can get out.
I really don't give a fuck about the 'murican freedum for individuals to destroy their own health
...and I really don't give a fuck about your minimalistic view of freedom. You are an obnoxious, manipulative white knight of the type that encouraged me to start smoking smoking in the first place. So, be aware that your methods can backfire in paradoxical ways.
It's not like anyone is *unaware* of the deleterious effects of smoking at this stage. Further turning smokers into social pariahs isn't serving your cause.
Smokers are a burden on society.
Citations needed. Smokers are net contributors because the government has gotten into the tobacco business. Hell, the preponderance of the price per pack of cigarettes is taxes of one form or another. S-CHIP, state excise taxes, sales taxes, etc. Also, studies have shown that smokers are net contributors to "society" in terms of dying early and without lingering. Hell, we already pay for the increased actuarial cost in life and health insurance. What more do you want?
Furthermore, if *you* want to avoid being a burden on society, make sure you don't live to be old and linger on your way out... that's really costly to "society". Perhaps you should consider taking up a smoking habit for the common good of society, eh?
That's what you do when you're trying to save someone's life, and by extension, cure a cancer on society.
No, that's what you do, apparently.
I automatically think less of a person when I learn they're an active smoker.
...and I automatically thought less of you when I learned that you were someone who is eager to sacrifice our freedom to do with our bodies as we wish *especially* in ways that some others may disapprove of. You are probably a statist.
I guess we can agree on e-cigs and people dropping addictions they don't want. I have no desire to see people smoking if they feel unhappily compelled by their addiction. Contrariwise, I felt psychologically fulfilled by every aspect of the ritual every time I lit up—I was confirming my identity. That's the principal reason it was so difficult to convince myself to stop merely for "health".
It's not like I did not know that smoking caused high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, emphysema, and cancer before I started. So, if I knew about that before I started then how is that knowledge going to convince me to stop?
I have a colleague who went the e-cig way as well, and he stinks a strange chemical smell since he started. You can't be in a closed room with him.
I would suspect the e-cig or the juice (ha ha, tautology is tautology). The e-cig atomizers can get build up from the flavorings or the propylene glycol/vegetable glycerin over time. They are consumable and should be replaced. Conversely, most of the nicotine "juices" have flavorings. Again, that can build up and get to be funky.
Keeping the device clean/replacing atomizers as appropriate should ameliorate any such smell.
No, because I didn't pressure them to stop smoking.
Since this is Slashdot, I believe a car analogy is expected. Let's say you like to drive your gas-guzzling muscle cars. Someday someone gives you a Prius as a gift. Furthermore, that person doesn't ever bother you about whether or not you are using the Prius.
That's not meddling.
In contrast to the anti-smoking campaigners, I didn't use guilt, pressure, coercion, or logical fallacies. Instead I sent them the e-cig as a random gift with a note that suggested they try the e-cig as an upgraded nicotine delivery device. However, I never subsequently inquired if they used it. I was actually surprised when they all contacted me to report subsequently ceasing their use of nicotine altogether after using the e-cig.
Whatever, it's their choice. My personal rule is that I discontinue my addictions when I am no longer enjoying them. Therefore, I was happy they were happy about breaking their unwanted addiction nicotine, even though I find my nicotine addiction to be fulfilling.
I started smoking at age 20. Deliberately. Of my own volition. Primarily for the stimulant effect and secondarily to defy the goddamn anti-smoking meddlers... their disingenuous, logical fallacy-laden TV commercials really induced my rage.
I collected approximately nine pack-years of cigarette smoking.
I broke the nicotine physical addiction several times over those years (zero nicotine intake for 3+ weeks); however, what kept dragging me back to smoking was the fact that I mentally identified myself as a smoker. Smoking was part of my identity, which meant that cessation was always in dichotomous tension between "health" and "self". To put it in perspective, I likely self-identified more strongly with the term "smoker" than the term "American".
I quit my smoking habit permanently the day I had my first e-cig delivered in 2009. A few months later I tried a single cigarette, found the taste revolting, and haven't smoked since then. Smoking is unwieldy and a serious inconvenience during the winter (I never smoked inside my domicile). Downsides of quitting smoking included having my sense of taste/smell return... the world is revolting and ignorance is bliss.
Notwithstanding, after several years of "vaping" e-cigs inside our home no one has ever been able to tell—my life partner would tell me, because she hates the smell of cigarettes and always comments whenever we are near someone who recently smoked.
I have given e-cigs to all my smoker friends and relatives. All of these people have subsequently quit smoking (some of these smokers had been engaged in the habit for 30+ years). In fact, they all quit using nicotine altogether, leaving me as the sole remaining individual in my monkeysphere who cultivates a nicotine addiction.
Yes, I RTFA and they are nigh devoid of requisite detail.
No doubt there would be legitimate concerns if "greater operational control" meant something like "allow us to perform Chernobyl-like experiments with the reactor".
However, my guess is that they are demanding this control to protect their £billion investment. Nuclear power plant operators always have a political sword of Damocles over their heads. If anything, it is in their interest to operate safely to avoid having their license revoked and their colossal investment's value reduced to a negative number (due to mothballing/demolition costs).
Either way, we can't know without more information, all of which is likely going to be heavily tinged by political spin.
I understand your position. I have taken many actions in my life on principle with the knowledge that these would result in adverse consequences for me.
I was just tendering some examples for those who were inquiring. In case you didn't notice, people were assuming the worst.
Anyway, I don't have a problem with the Scouts having freedom of association and having religious membership requirements. Just like I don't have a problem with the myriad of other organizations that were setup for the benefit of people different than me. My perspective is that I don't feel like forcing others to accept me into their group they formed for people unlike me.
However, I fully expect that favor to be returned. If I form a group of people who fit a certain demographic/ideology, then anyone else who wants to force our group to change to accept them can FOAD.
I'm not gay, but I'm not welcome in the Boy Scouts for odious discriminatory reasons. So why do I hang around?
May I ask why? Feel free to give a list of other discrimination they practice if you'd rather not be specific, as I ask so I can be better informed, rather than trying to poke my nose into your personal life.
I'm not the GP, but one possibility is that the poster is an avowed atheist. Though there is no particularly mandated religion in Boy Scouts (e.g. Hindus are welcome), atheism is not allowed.
The poster could also be a Quaker, as Boy Scouts have a Scout Oath that must be repeated and Quakers adhere to the biblical command from Jesus not to swear oaths.
These are just off the top of my head, so there may be others.
See, you completely misunderstood and decided to knee-jerk.
The reason I don't want to live in a liberal hell-hole is that it's populated with your ilk. It's not about gun rights; that is merely a bellwether that approximates to a first-order whether the culture of the area is rife with people who are constitutionally incapable of minding their own business.
By all means, please keep yourself and people like you away from the remaining nice places to live. Your kind flees what your policies have wrought, whereupon you alight in an unsullied locale and ironically begin to recapitulate the same political agenda that despoiled where you left. Cf. what the left coasters have done to the Front Range of Colorado, Jackson Wyoming, etc.
I will return the favor by staying far away from your preferred environs. *Please* continue to believe there is nothing but corn, rust, and mandatory church attendance (punishable by burning at the stake) in non-liberal America.
Move? Perhaps I wasn't clear when I said "some of us can't afford the luxury of residing in..."
Oh, please. Don't couch this as a need, when it's clearly just the integrated outcome of your decisions to stay in (what I infer to be) "...god damn New Jersey".
I know for a fact that I would literally turn down $500k/year in salary if the job required me to live in NJ (or any of those other godforsaken liberal hellhole states). I would be much happier even if I could only make a tenth of that while living in relative freedom.
So, I believe that when you define moving to live in freedom as impossible, you must be including your standard of living preconceived notions, etc. This is disingenuous if you don't qualify your absolute "can't afford it" statement. Otherwise, are you literally claiming you can't just walk away from your material possessions and start over someplace more free? Or is it, as I suspect, more that you just don't want to do so?
So in short you see no harm whatsoever in warning terrorists to avoid means of communication that leave them vulnerable and help to protect the rest of us?
Precisely. Who watches the watchers? Life is inherently risky, and freedom requires risk.
The insane part is that we have built this surveillance state in response to the deaths of 0.001% of our population. I would far rather run the risk of me and my family being killed by terrorist action than to have our country destroyed by our own twisted government (as they seem hell-bent upon accomplishing in the shortest possible time).
Let PRISM proceed to log this for future reference / character assassination purposes.
When risk tolerance is low the burden of proof is really on those who want to promote the risky behavior. There is no proof that it is impossible to read a zeroed drive (and it is unlikely there every will be until we reach the point where the uncertainty principle kicks in).
Oh, please. I concur with your point about weighing the relative cost of risk, but this is borderline magical thinking.
Try this similarly absurd argument: "There is no proof that it is impossible to trivially crack all known cryptographic algorithms." Furthermore, there's no proof it is impossible to recover data from hard drives that have been multiply wiped, shredded, and melted (hey, perhaps physics will discover an exception to the Curie temperature effect).
The risk tolerance may be low, but one needs to retain a sense of proportionality. There is no known way to read a zeroed disk. There is no known way to trivially crack AES. Magnetic domains heated past the Curie temperature will randomize/lose their data as far as we know.
There is no guarantee that using a water heater won't cause a BLEVE, but the risk has been mitigated. I think I will just embrace that risk in order to have hot water. Much the same with zeroing disks before releasing them.
Besides, as Schneier frequently points out, security is only as strong as your weakest link. It's much easier to compromise a human than to attempt to invent some new nanodomain technique to steal some fighter design. And that's before we lower the standard of confidentiality to the level that applies to a random person's medical history.
Speak for yourself. I plan on going up in the rapture with Jesus...
Meh, no doubt so did most people present during the monologue of Matthew 16:27-28.
Ha ha, but clearly the joke was on them because Jesus must have known that the Wandering Jew was standing just behind the disciples. I mean, that's basic Occam's Razor, right?
This is the more common scenario that has made raid6/raidz popular, because often during a mirror or raid5 rebuild, you discover corrupt data that is thus unrecoverable.
Yes, hopefully you would get a notification before that juncture. I suggest you consider cron'ing a weekly zfs scrub for your array. It will recalculate all the checksums and look for disks that are rotting (and repair the affected corruption from redundant data, if possible). ZFS can do all this while the volume is online, and a scrub runs at idle priority so it doesn't affect your ability to continue to use your volumes.
Everything written by the poster above is exactly why 99% of people will just buy/rent/stream whatever they want from major outlets like Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Best Buy etc...
I disagree. This was a known highly technical solution to a problem that, as you point out, the average consumer has no clue exists. So, I highly doubt the average consumer is making decisions based on something they don't know about.
The average consumer has no clue about bitrot, does not care about it and is not going to spend all that effort to store and protect media.
Yes, and so they won't expend all that effort. They will just drop their files on a disk, *maybe* back it up once every three years and suffer silent bitrot without even knowing that's "a thing".
I have a large collection of mp3's dating all the way back to Napster days sitting on a Windows Home Server (because WHS just works)
Let's compare apples to apples—FreeNAS "just works" if you don't care about encrypting entire hard drives while using them in a ZFS RAID that prevents bitrot.
As a matter of fact, I would say plain vanilla FreeNAS is more "just-worky" than WHS because you just drop it on a USB stick, boot the machine, and it's good to go. Standard configuration is for it to run from the stick. There's no licensing-based hobbling of the OS, "phone home" activation, installation CDs, etc.
But sure, most people aren't even going to bother with setting up any form of NAS at all (even WHS). They likely don't have a clue they could even have a NAS at home at all.
Slashdot Mirror
And your description indicates that for you, it is a figure of speech. There is no problem with that, but that is what it is.
Well, I suppose we could get into a pedantic argument. Personally, I think you are being excessively literal. I would rebut by pointing out that by your definition someone would have to be in a dead, in a coma, or paralyzed to be unable to get out of bed by rolling/sliding out of the bed. They might be unable to rise from the floor after sliding out, but they could still theoretically get out of bed (ergo, not too sick to get out).
I think most people would have a literal definition of "too sick to get out of bed" that includes some functional ability once the bed egress has been accomplished.
No doubt we will be better off agreeing to disagree.
Meh, I have been afflicted by the flu significantly enough that I "couldn't get out of bed" for a week. The amount of time I spent not in a supine position could be considered rounding error (bathroom, walking slowly from couch to bed or vice versa, etc).
The term is a reasonable first-pass approximation, especially when speaking with others. Yes, you may be correct that most people this sick can, indeed, arise from bed; however, they cannot in any practical sense do so.
Hell, I had to take breaks while walking down the 10 meter hallway. Practically speaking, I couldn't really get out of bed.
So a company who is launching satellites for the military is also delivering cargo to the International Space Station. Did I miss something?
Or do you really think that the ISS is a part of some global conspiracy to conquer the Earth?
I think what djupedal is saying is, why conquer the Earth when you can hold the nations hostage and demand ONE... MILLION... DOLLARS?
If an Oracle appeared and told you climate change was definitely not happening, would you stop trying to reduce pollution?
Ooh, I like this question and how it is phrased. Of course I would continue to advocate reducing pollution; however, CO2 wouldn't be defined as a pollutant as a corollary to the Oracle's statement.
No reason not to use fossil fuels then, unless scientists discover that the underground reservoirs of petroleum are reducing the Earth's density and are the only thing keeping our planet floating in space. Then I would advocate reducing consumption to fight Global Sinking.
Collecting money from opensource-companys? Daryl McBride will turn in his grave if Larry is even stupid enough to try it...
Eh? I don't think that the Mormons bury their living, no matter how ghoulish are the corporations that they helm.
I'm afraid Daryl McBride will be quite operational when your friends' commits arrive...
... for SkyNet?
No, that already exists. We're just waiting for the moment it becomes self-aware and inevitably concludes we are a threat.
I look forward to the calm, rational, and coherent discussion!
For once, there may be a thread on this site that avoids tangenting off into politics. It will be refreshing to witness a debate that does not invoke Nazis, gun control, or the results of previous US elections, because those are totally offtopic and everyone will realize that.
what's the fourth amendment exclusion perimeter? I thought at first you meant the US borders (no 4th amendment allowed within), but that would be like 8,000 miles
Customs and Border Patrol have declared that their jurisdiction extends to within 100 miles of any border of the US.
Probably is some sort of mumble, mumble...Interstate Commerce!mumble mumble interpretation of the Constitution or something else that is intellectually dishonest and prima facie farcical, yet has been upheld by our perfidious judiciary as Constitutional.
It's shit like this that makes me wish we didn't have a written Constitution. The goddamn politicians were always going to do whatever they wanted, regardless of what any document says. At least if you don't have a written Constitution they don't look you in the eye and swear that growing chicken feed on your own land and feeding it to your own chickens is interstate commerce. Or that the Founders meant for border security to be able to turn the preponderance of the country into a police state. Or that simply existing is a legitimate rationale for levying a tax. Or that ex post facto regulations don't count as laws, even though you must abide by them or face punishment. Or that according to the 4th amendment it is fine for the federal government to track all mail forever, all phone calls forever, etc, etc.
It's the fucking hypocrisy that gets to me. I'm counting the years until I can get out.
I really don't give a fuck about the 'murican freedum for individuals to destroy their own health
...and I really don't give a fuck about your minimalistic view of freedom. You are an obnoxious, manipulative white knight of the type that encouraged me to start smoking smoking in the first place. So, be aware that your methods can backfire in paradoxical ways.
It's not like anyone is *unaware* of the deleterious effects of smoking at this stage. Further turning smokers into social pariahs isn't serving your cause.
Smokers are a burden on society.
Citations needed. Smokers are net contributors because the government has gotten into the tobacco business. Hell, the preponderance of the price per pack of cigarettes is taxes of one form or another. S-CHIP, state excise taxes, sales taxes, etc. Also, studies have shown that smokers are net contributors to "society" in terms of dying early and without lingering. Hell, we already pay for the increased actuarial cost in life and health insurance. What more do you want?
Furthermore, if *you* want to avoid being a burden on society, make sure you don't live to be old and linger on your way out... that's really costly to "society". Perhaps you should consider taking up a smoking habit for the common good of society, eh?
That's what you do when you're trying to save someone's life, and by extension, cure a cancer on society.
No, that's what you do, apparently.
I automatically think less of a person when I learn they're an active smoker.
...and I automatically thought less of you when I learned that you were someone who is eager to sacrifice our freedom to do with our bodies as we wish *especially* in ways that some others may disapprove of. You are probably a statist.
I guess we can agree on e-cigs and people dropping addictions they don't want. I have no desire to see people smoking if they feel unhappily compelled by their addiction. Contrariwise, I felt psychologically fulfilled by every aspect of the ritual every time I lit up—I was confirming my identity. That's the principal reason it was so difficult to convince myself to stop merely for "health".
It's not like I did not know that smoking caused high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, emphysema, and cancer before I started. So, if I knew about that before I started then how is that knowledge going to convince me to stop?
I have a colleague who went the e-cig way as well, and he stinks a strange chemical smell since he started. You can't be in a closed room with him.
I would suspect the e-cig or the juice (ha ha, tautology is tautology). The e-cig atomizers can get build up from the flavorings or the propylene glycol/vegetable glycerin over time. They are consumable and should be replaced. Conversely, most of the nicotine "juices" have flavorings. Again, that can build up and get to be funky.
Keeping the device clean/replacing atomizers as appropriate should ameliorate any such smell.
No, because I didn't pressure them to stop smoking.
Since this is Slashdot, I believe a car analogy is expected. Let's say you like to drive your gas-guzzling muscle cars. Someday someone gives you a Prius as a gift. Furthermore, that person doesn't ever bother you about whether or not you are using the Prius.
That's not meddling.
In contrast to the anti-smoking campaigners, I didn't use guilt, pressure, coercion, or logical fallacies. Instead I sent them the e-cig as a random gift with a note that suggested they try the e-cig as an upgraded nicotine delivery device. However, I never subsequently inquired if they used it. I was actually surprised when they all contacted me to report subsequently ceasing their use of nicotine altogether after using the e-cig.
Whatever, it's their choice. My personal rule is that I discontinue my addictions when I am no longer enjoying them. Therefore, I was happy they were happy about breaking their unwanted addiction nicotine, even though I find my nicotine addiction to be fulfilling.
I started smoking at age 20. Deliberately. Of my own volition. Primarily for the stimulant effect and secondarily to defy the goddamn anti-smoking meddlers... their disingenuous, logical fallacy-laden TV commercials really induced my rage.
I collected approximately nine pack-years of cigarette smoking.
I broke the nicotine physical addiction several times over those years (zero nicotine intake for 3+ weeks); however, what kept dragging me back to smoking was the fact that I mentally identified myself as a smoker. Smoking was part of my identity, which meant that cessation was always in dichotomous tension between "health" and "self". To put it in perspective, I likely self-identified more strongly with the term "smoker" than the term "American".
I quit my smoking habit permanently the day I had my first e-cig delivered in 2009. A few months later I tried a single cigarette, found the taste revolting, and haven't smoked since then. Smoking is unwieldy and a serious inconvenience during the winter (I never smoked inside my domicile). Downsides of quitting smoking included having my sense of taste/smell return... the world is revolting and ignorance is bliss.
Notwithstanding, after several years of "vaping" e-cigs inside our home no one has ever been able to tell—my life partner would tell me, because she hates the smell of cigarettes and always comments whenever we are near someone who recently smoked.
I have given e-cigs to all my smoker friends and relatives. All of these people have subsequently quit smoking (some of these smokers had been engaged in the habit for 30+ years). In fact, they all quit using nicotine altogether, leaving me as the sole remaining individual in my monkeysphere who cultivates a nicotine addiction.
Yes, I RTFA and they are nigh devoid of requisite detail.
No doubt there would be legitimate concerns if "greater operational control" meant something like "allow us to perform Chernobyl-like experiments with the reactor".
However, my guess is that they are demanding this control to protect their £billion investment. Nuclear power plant operators always have a political sword of Damocles over their heads. If anything, it is in their interest to operate safely to avoid having their license revoked and their colossal investment's value reduced to a negative number (due to mothballing/demolition costs).
Either way, we can't know without more information, all of which is likely going to be heavily tinged by political spin.
What will he say next week to be in the news ?
Indeed. He's the second coming of Dean Kamen.
Precisely. He's like Dean Kamen, but with hookers and blackjack^W^W^Welectric cars and rockets capable of achieving orbit.
I understand your position. I have taken many actions in my life on principle with the knowledge that these would result in adverse consequences for me.
I was just tendering some examples for those who were inquiring. In case you didn't notice, people were assuming the worst.
Anyway, I don't have a problem with the Scouts having freedom of association and having religious membership requirements. Just like I don't have a problem with the myriad of other organizations that were setup for the benefit of people different than me. My perspective is that I don't feel like forcing others to accept me into their group they formed for people unlike me.
However, I fully expect that favor to be returned. If I form a group of people who fit a certain demographic/ideology, then anyone else who wants to force our group to change to accept them can FOAD.
A military coup that's going to lead to civil war most likely.
--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
I guess Egypt is on "ammo", then...
I'm not gay, but I'm not welcome in the Boy Scouts for odious discriminatory reasons. So why do I hang around?
May I ask why? Feel free to give a list of other discrimination they practice if you'd rather not be specific, as I ask so I can be better informed, rather than trying to poke my nose into your personal life.
I'm not the GP, but one possibility is that the poster is an avowed atheist. Though there is no particularly mandated religion in Boy Scouts (e.g. Hindus are welcome), atheism is not allowed.
The poster could also be a Quaker, as Boy Scouts have a Scout Oath that must be repeated and Quakers adhere to the biblical command from Jesus not to swear oaths.
These are just off the top of my head, so there may be others.
See, you completely misunderstood and decided to knee-jerk.
The reason I don't want to live in a liberal hell-hole is that it's populated with your ilk. It's not about gun rights; that is merely a bellwether that approximates to a first-order whether the culture of the area is rife with people who are constitutionally incapable of minding their own business.
By all means, please keep yourself and people like you away from the remaining nice places to live. Your kind flees what your policies have wrought, whereupon you alight in an unsullied locale and ironically begin to recapitulate the same political agenda that despoiled where you left. Cf. what the left coasters have done to the Front Range of Colorado, Jackson Wyoming, etc.
I will return the favor by staying far away from your preferred environs. *Please* continue to believe there is nothing but corn, rust, and mandatory church attendance (punishable by burning at the stake) in non-liberal America.
I think everyone will be happier that way.
Move? Perhaps I wasn't clear when I said "some of us can't afford the luxury of residing in..."
Oh, please. Don't couch this as a need, when it's clearly just the integrated outcome of your decisions to stay in (what I infer to be) "...god damn New Jersey".
I know for a fact that I would literally turn down $500k/year in salary if the job required me to live in NJ (or any of those other godforsaken liberal hellhole states). I would be much happier even if I could only make a tenth of that while living in relative freedom.
So, I believe that when you define moving to live in freedom as impossible, you must be including your standard of living preconceived notions, etc. This is disingenuous if you don't qualify your absolute "can't afford it" statement. Otherwise, are you literally claiming you can't just walk away from your material possessions and start over someplace more free? Or is it, as I suspect, more that you just don't want to do so?
So in short you see no harm whatsoever in warning terrorists to avoid means of communication that leave them vulnerable and help to protect the rest of us?
Precisely. Who watches the watchers? Life is inherently risky, and freedom requires risk.
The insane part is that we have built this surveillance state in response to the deaths of 0.001% of our population. I would far rather run the risk of me and my family being killed by terrorist action than to have our country destroyed by our own twisted government (as they seem hell-bent upon accomplishing in the shortest possible time).
Let PRISM proceed to log this for future reference / character assassination purposes.
Anybody who is actively and successfully evading the CIA/NSA probably has a lot more insight into just what is required to do so then either of us.
Yes, but remember, the courier is the weak link (haha).
When risk tolerance is low the burden of proof is really on those who want to promote the risky behavior. There is no proof that it is impossible to read a zeroed drive (and it is unlikely there every will be until we reach the point where the uncertainty principle kicks in).
Oh, please. I concur with your point about weighing the relative cost of risk, but this is borderline magical thinking.
Try this similarly absurd argument: "There is no proof that it is impossible to trivially crack all known cryptographic algorithms." Furthermore, there's no proof it is impossible to recover data from hard drives that have been multiply wiped, shredded, and melted (hey, perhaps physics will discover an exception to the Curie temperature effect).
The risk tolerance may be low, but one needs to retain a sense of proportionality. There is no known way to read a zeroed disk. There is no known way to trivially crack AES. Magnetic domains heated past the Curie temperature will randomize/lose their data as far as we know.
There is no guarantee that using a water heater won't cause a BLEVE, but the risk has been mitigated. I think I will just embrace that risk in order to have hot water. Much the same with zeroing disks before releasing them.
Besides, as Schneier frequently points out, security is only as strong as your weakest link. It's much easier to compromise a human than to attempt to invent some new nanodomain technique to steal some fighter design. And that's before we lower the standard of confidentiality to the level that applies to a random person's medical history.
Speak for yourself. I plan on going up in the rapture with Jesus...
Meh, no doubt so did most people present during the monologue of Matthew 16:27-28.
Ha ha, but clearly the joke was on them because Jesus must have known that the Wandering Jew was standing just behind the disciples. I mean, that's basic Occam's Razor, right?
Right?
This is the more common scenario that has made raid6/raidz popular, because often during a mirror or raid5 rebuild, you discover corrupt data that is thus unrecoverable.
Yes, hopefully you would get a notification before that juncture. I suggest you consider cron'ing a weekly zfs scrub for your array. It will recalculate all the checksums and look for disks that are rotting (and repair the affected corruption from redundant data, if possible). ZFS can do all this while the volume is online, and a scrub runs at idle priority so it doesn't affect your ability to continue to use your volumes.
Everything written by the poster above is exactly why 99% of people will just buy/rent/stream whatever they want from major outlets like Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Best Buy etc...
I disagree. This was a known highly technical solution to a problem that, as you point out, the average consumer has no clue exists. So, I highly doubt the average consumer is making decisions based on something they don't know about.
The average consumer has no clue about bitrot, does not care about it and is not going to spend all that effort to store and protect media.
Yes, and so they won't expend all that effort. They will just drop their files on a disk, *maybe* back it up once every three years and suffer silent bitrot without even knowing that's "a thing".
I have a large collection of mp3's dating all the way back to Napster days sitting on a Windows Home Server (because WHS just works)
Let's compare apples to apples—FreeNAS "just works" if you don't care about encrypting entire hard drives while using them in a ZFS RAID that prevents bitrot.
As a matter of fact, I would say plain vanilla FreeNAS is more "just-worky" than WHS because you just drop it on a USB stick, boot the machine, and it's good to go. Standard configuration is for it to run from the stick. There's no licensing-based hobbling of the OS, "phone home" activation, installation CDs, etc.
But sure, most people aren't even going to bother with setting up any form of NAS at all (even WHS). They likely don't have a clue they could even have a NAS at home at all.