I don't know if you intended this as a joke or not, but that's really how I feel about a lot of the government rhetoric lately.
This helps terrorism, that makes you a terrorist, X and Y give terrorists the means to Z. Give me a break. There is no way for a free society to be completely secure. This is a fact of life. Putting every little thing into either a "your helping the terrorists" or "your helping America fight the terrorists" light really doesn't do justice to the situation and trivializes the horrible things the terrorists have done by putting them into the same category as having an insecure wireless network. Come on.
This is not a good thing. Alerting people to the insecurities of wireless networks is a good thing. Setting up minimum standards for wireless security is a good thing (which is part of what HomSec wants to do). But saying that if you don't adhere to those minimum standards then you're helping terrorists is ludicrous.
If your admin isn't interested in security, then you've got a bad admin. Government regulations and threats of helping terrorists won't change that.
As far as the security of America goes, there are much more potent problems to deal with before worrying about terrorist's annonymous internet access. Our ports. Our porous borders. Our politicians.
So to sum up: HomSec may have a very valid point, but how they've addressed it is pathetic. There are more important things for the new department to be taking care of. If HomSec latches on to every little "security" problem in America, they'll get nowhere fast. If they choose big problems and start with those, the deparment might even make itself worthwhile.
Insecure wireless networks shouldn't be a matter of National Security, they should be a matter of personal security.
Re:There ought to be a law...
on
As the Spam Turns
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Okay. This is the first valid objection to my idea, so I'll go point by point.
Am I on crack? Not to my knowledge. But is this a crazy idea? Absolutely. Remember the Niehls Bohr quote "We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is
whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct."? Hell, if there's any place to place crazy theories, it's slashdot.
Good point. opt-in mailings, opt-out mailings, etc. all sort of get around my method. I have no idea how to deal with this, short of setting a Precedence = opt-in head flag. Problem is, with this flag, the waters are much murkier than with a spam flag (and harder to determine whether or not to filter).
Ignoring the law? I'll get back to this in a minute, but I think this problem is solved by how the Precedence = Spam (P=S) rule would be applied.
Annoyance to law enforcement? The trick is to make it so that law enforcement doesn't need to deal with it at all (or at least only rarely). I'll get back to this in a minute too.
Eh, I wasn't attempting a Megan's Law type of approach (the law which requires sex offenders to notify those in their neighborhood of their crime, conviction, and where they live). Changing labels is tough to deal with. Here's my approach:
If there were a blanket law, it should be that ISPs must deal with any user which has more than X unique complaints concerning spamming by either cancelling the account, forcing a P=S flag onto all their outgoing email, or making sure the user stops spamming by other means left to the ISP. This really only leaves the ISP with two options, and forces users to either not spam or spam with a P=S flag if they're using one of the ISPs under the jurisdiction of the law.
Now this does two main things. 1) It shoves enforcement to the ISP, after all, it's the ISP's user which is spamming, and what the ISP can do is clearly outlined by the law. Just dump the user if you don't want to deal with their spamming, you are allowed by law. 2) It would set up "rouge" ISPs which don't adhere to the law. If you know which ISPs allow spamming, they're easy to block, so this really isn't a large problem.
But here's my problem with the method: it feels too much like the Scarlet Letter. The circumstances are a bit different, but forcing someone (or something, even email) to have a unique identifier so you can identify it as something you might want to avoid is a very sketchy idea. It's also probably not constitutional (equal protection... even for spammers?).
That said, I think there is something to be said for my idea. It is flawed in certain areas (I still haven't given a good answer about enforcement of the laws/rules). It still lets spam flow freely (which I feel is a good thing) but gives people the ability to quickly filter it out. It still only affects spammers under its jurisdiction. If it worked, I'd be willing to be that somewhere between 70 and 85 percent of spam would be marked as such. And even if those numbers were lower, it would drastically reduce the amount of unwanted spam people got, as well as making it much easier for spam to be dropped at routers all over the internet (thereby alleviating the costs incurred by spam on so many systems).
If Joe Blow doesn't want to recieve spam, he can stop it. All of it.
If Random ISP doesn't want spam coming through its servers, done.
For everyone else, the spam can continue to flow.
In other words, if you don't want to see it, or it is costing you money, you can stop it. If it's harmless to you, or you don't care, or you're intrigued by some of the offers you recieve, then perfect, you can get that spam.
My method gives users and ISPs the option of what to do with spam. It doesn't get rid of it and it doesn't make it more rampant. And I think it's what people want, options. If you're just bombarded with it, and there's nothing you can do about it, then it's annoying. If you could turn it off at the snap of a finger, then great! That is what I propose. Nothing more, nothing less. Not a full solution, just a simple way of dealing with the issue which lets people choose what they want.
And I think it would work for the majority of spam. Not all spam, but most of it. And that, to me, is a Good Thing (tm).
But yeah, that's exactly my point. One of the most effective parts of my method is that it would corral the spammers to said desperate ISP, and then they'd be easy to block. If you know where the spam is coming from, it's easy to deal with.
My method does not get rid of spam, it just makes it easy to identify at a very basic level.
I just had an interesting idea after reading your comment and this comment.
What would happen if spammers were forced to add a "Precedence = spam" (P=S) (or something other than "bulk") line to the mail headers?
I think there would be two immediately helpful results:
Users could instantly filter all spam out at their end.
ISPs (rather, routers in general) could instantly filter out spam passing through their systems.
An ISP could say in its user agreement that one could send spam from their servers as long as it contained a P=S header line. Or there could be a law on the books requiring spam to contain the P=S header line. I feel this is good because it does not make spam illegal (I feel that would be going too far and would probably be too hard to police) but it does make it manageable.
With this in place, ISPs could easily manage their spammers and their spam. Users could easily manage their incoming spam, and miscellaneous routers all across the internet could easily dump spam trying to take up precious routing time.
Of course, this has its shortfallings. It would only apply to spam coming from ISPs with such rules and from jurisdictions under such laws. That said, I bet it would significantly cut down on the amount of spam, and the locations where such spam could originate from.
Exactly. There are actual arguments for and against slashdot based on the examples you've given.
As for Malda's grammar, I feel like you're just trolling. I've met Rob in person, and exchanged emails with him, and he has a fine grasp of the English language.
That said, maybe my original post was a little more combative than I meant it to be. I apologize if you took it in such a way.
Aside from other things, Slashdot does have a spellchecker. It just isn't a grammar checker. It doesn't correct the wrong word spelled correctly (i.e. thing where you meant think). Spellcheckers are limited.
My advice is, if you're reading slashdot for its literary merits, maybe you need to start browsing at -1. In lieu of that, lighten up. And I'm sorry if that sounded harsh, but seriously, if you want to judge slashdot, judge it by what types of stories get posted, by the ensuing conversations, but not by the occasional mistakes of the editors.
Imageine a spherical horse . ..
Well, actually, I think I've even seen that in textbooks.
And of course, there are the three laws of thermodynamics:
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't quit
Other head of NASA
on
Redirecting NASA
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Apparently not many people know this, but as I understand it, the Vice President of the United States is in charge of NASA.
NASA is not an independent agency like the FDA or FCC, which have their own agency hierarchy and don't really take orders directly from the White House. I'm not exactly sure how NASA was formed (I would assume through an act of Congress) but however it was formed, it was made responsible to the office of the Vice President.
The Vice President does not need to get involved with NASA at all, and could let it function independently if he so wished, but he has the power to control it. After the 2000 election, I was wondering what Cheney might do with NASA, because his party has been pretty vocal about wanting to spend money elsewhere, but he had a somewhat calmer voice. It seems like the cooler head (ack, am I really calling Cheney a cooler head?) prevailled, for I haven't seen changes in NASA like I expected to when Bush took over the White House. Maybe the real test is to see what happens come inaugurations in January, or later this month when the dead-heat in the Senate is broken.
Just a heads up. Wasn't sure if you were aware of this, but you responded to a fabricated (well, edited) article, not actual news.
Here's the confession. Unless of course, I've fallen for yet another one of his trollings [which I hope I haven't].
vivIsel, congrats on the second place win. Use that geforce well =]
Re:Inflation != Multiple Universes
on
One of Many
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Yup. That's the theory.
The laws of physics as we know them are the laws of physics for this universe and this universe alone. A different universe would have different laws of physics altogether.
The theories and the article both state this very clearly. That's one of the fascinating things about our universe: that it's laws are so precise as to allow stars, and subsequently life, to form. Only a narrow range of laws allow such formations, and our universe is one of the few (although possibly infinite) number of universes with laws capable of creating and sustaining life.
Re:Inflation != Multiple Universes
on
One of Many
·
· Score: 5, Informative
From reading the article, the following is my understanding of why inflation predicts multiple universes:
Inflation is predicated upon certain conditions within the universe just a few planck times after the big bang (a planck time is on the order of 10^-32 or so seconds, I can't remember exactly off the top of my head).
If these conditions hold, inflation will occur. People pretty much believe that inflation did occur, for there is no other current way to accurately explain the rapid expansion of the universe in the first few planck times after the big bang.
Now, assuming inflation did occur, that means the conditions for inflation must have been met. Here is where "inflation=multiple universes" as you put, it comes into play. Those conditions necessary to create inflation exist in certain pockets of space-time (most notably at singularities, such as in the center of a black hole) in our universe.
Hence, if the conditions for inflation are met, surley something must be inflating. But we can't see results of such inflation in our universe, and therefore it probably means that the inflation is occuring in another universe. This is where the article is weak, and you are probably having your problem. They did not speak about the theories which allow for "new" universes to be created with different laws of physics, and how the preconditions for inflation meet these criteria. These theories have been around for quite some time, and are generally regarded as possible. That said, conditions which would cause these new universes are theoretical, and whether or not they exist are under debate. It just so happens that inflation theory forces some of these alternate universes to exist.
So if there are random points in our universe which cause inflation and the creation of new universes, then it is very possible that our universe is one such inflation due to circumstances within another universe. And so on, creating a "web" of inflated universes: the multiverse.
I hope I've done some justice to the theories (sorry for the lack of links, I'll rumage through my books and try and post a followup later). If I'm wrong, or remembering things poorly, don't flame me, just reply and set things straight.
Actually, one of the episodes this week deals with the SG1 team being transformed into robots. It'll play either tomorrow or Thursday at 1am [well, I guess that makes it Thursday or Friday morning].
In addition, because most people suddenly have 30 mod points a piece on brak, I just had my first post ever marked as a Troll: here. It's moderation totals are as follows: Flamebait=1, Troll=3, Redundant=1, Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Informative=2, Funny=1, Overrated=2, Total=12. Wow. It was just a little comment about the server working and hoping the actual moves goes smoothly.
I agree completely. The point is, Com2Kid was saying it was a deficiany in Debian which should be fixed. I was saying that it wasn't specific to Debian at all. So you're correct, it should most certainly be addressed, but I didn't miss the point of his argument at all, I was simply stating that his argument was directed at the wrong issue.
USB is hardly plug and play under any operating system other than Windows.
Up until relatively recently USB support was a pain in the ass under Linux. Tools for dealing with USB devices are still in their infancy, and if something doesn't work the first time around, it usally takes a lot of tweaking to get things working.
usbutils is a good package, but you still have to learn it before you can just go ahead and plug in a usb mouse or joystick or cablemodem and get it working.
In other words, at least for the moment, dealing with USB devices is best left to a Linux USB-Howto (there are a few) and not to a specific installation guide.
Ever wanted a good reason to not use paypal? There are tons at: PayPalSucks.com. Now I guess they have to add this AbiWord travesty to their list.
I, for one, cannot understand how paypal is allowed to get away with all this. People even suggested that things might change once eBay took them over, but apparently that hasn't happened yet. What a shame, I remember when PayPal was actually quite a helpful service. Now it just appears to be too much trouble, especially if something goes wrong.
That's exactly how I feel. On the other hand, I know many people who want to use Debian for that same flexibility later on (apt-getting packages at a later stage) but have problems with the initial install and getting the right set of starter packages on the machine.
I, for one, will stick with the ncurses generic Debian install, for it is what I use and like, but I will also welcome the graphical installer, for it will be quite helpful to other people and bring more people over to use Debian who were initially scared away by the hardcore install.
In other words, I don't see this as a matter of improving the install, but simply making it more readily available to those for whom the install was previously too complicated for. This is a good thing.
[I apologize for any incoherence in the previous statements, I'm running on no sleep... again.]
Yeah, Debian can be like that. You either know exactly which packages you want, or you grab at random, or use something like tasksel to start you off. Tasksel is actually very useful, although sometimes it will install more than you want. Of course, that's better than not installing enough.
In addition, the guys in #debian on irc.debian.org (once the openprojects.net server, who knows what the deal is now with the fundraising fiasco) are extremely helpful if you're trying to figure things out, lost, or just tinkering around.
Slashdot Mirror
This helps terrorism, that makes you a terrorist, X and Y give terrorists the means to Z. Give me a break. There is no way for a free society to be completely secure. This is a fact of life. Putting every little thing into either a "your helping the terrorists" or "your helping America fight the terrorists" light really doesn't do justice to the situation and trivializes the horrible things the terrorists have done by putting them into the same category as having an insecure wireless network. Come on.
</rant>
If your admin isn't interested in security, then you've got a bad admin. Government regulations and threats of helping terrorists won't change that.
As far as the security of America goes, there are much more potent problems to deal with before worrying about terrorist's annonymous internet access. Our ports. Our porous borders. Our politicians.
So to sum up: HomSec may have a very valid point, but how they've addressed it is pathetic. There are more important things for the new department to be taking care of. If HomSec latches on to every little "security" problem in America, they'll get nowhere fast. If they choose big problems and start with those, the deparment might even make itself worthwhile.
Insecure wireless networks shouldn't be a matter of National Security, they should be a matter of personal security.
Am I on crack? Not to my knowledge. But is this a crazy idea? Absolutely. Remember the Niehls Bohr quote "We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct."? Hell, if there's any place to place crazy theories, it's slashdot.
Eh, I wasn't attempting a Megan's Law type of approach (the law which requires sex offenders to notify those in their neighborhood of their crime, conviction, and where they live). Changing labels is tough to deal with. Here's my approach:
If there were a blanket law, it should be that ISPs must deal with any user which has more than X unique complaints concerning spamming by either cancelling the account, forcing a P=S flag onto all their outgoing email, or making sure the user stops spamming by other means left to the ISP. This really only leaves the ISP with two options, and forces users to either not spam or spam with a P=S flag if they're using one of the ISPs under the jurisdiction of the law.
Now this does two main things. 1) It shoves enforcement to the ISP, after all, it's the ISP's user which is spamming, and what the ISP can do is clearly outlined by the law. Just dump the user if you don't want to deal with their spamming, you are allowed by law. 2) It would set up "rouge" ISPs which don't adhere to the law. If you know which ISPs allow spamming, they're easy to block, so this really isn't a large problem.
But here's my problem with the method: it feels too much like the Scarlet Letter. The circumstances are a bit different, but forcing someone (or something, even email) to have a unique identifier so you can identify it as something you might want to avoid is a very sketchy idea. It's also probably not constitutional (equal protection... even for spammers?).
That said, I think there is something to be said for my idea. It is flawed in certain areas (I still haven't given a good answer about enforcement of the laws/rules). It still lets spam flow freely (which I feel is a good thing) but gives people the ability to quickly filter it out. It still only affects spammers under its jurisdiction. If it worked, I'd be willing to be that somewhere between 70 and 85 percent of spam would be marked as such. And even if those numbers were lower, it would drastically reduce the amount of unwanted spam people got, as well as making it much easier for spam to be dropped at routers all over the internet (thereby alleviating the costs incurred by spam on so many systems).
Hell, it's just a crazy idea.
If Joe Blow doesn't want to recieve spam, he can stop it. All of it.
If Random ISP doesn't want spam coming through its servers, done.
For everyone else, the spam can continue to flow.
In other words, if you don't want to see it, or it is costing you money, you can stop it. If it's harmless to you, or you don't care, or you're intrigued by some of the offers you recieve, then perfect, you can get that spam.
My method gives users and ISPs the option of what to do with spam. It doesn't get rid of it and it doesn't make it more rampant. And I think it's what people want, options. If you're just bombarded with it, and there's nothing you can do about it, then it's annoying. If you could turn it off at the snap of a finger, then great! That is what I propose. Nothing more, nothing less. Not a full solution, just a simple way of dealing with the issue which lets people choose what they want.
And I think it would work for the majority of spam. Not all spam, but most of it. And that, to me, is a Good Thing (tm).
My method does not get rid of spam, it just makes it easy to identify at a very basic level.
What would happen if spammers were forced to add a "Precedence = spam" (P=S) (or something other than "bulk") line to the mail headers?
I think there would be two immediately helpful results:
An ISP could say in its user agreement that one could send spam from their servers as long as it contained a P=S header line. Or there could be a law on the books requiring spam to contain the P=S header line. I feel this is good because it does not make spam illegal (I feel that would be going too far and would probably be too hard to police) but it does make it manageable.
With this in place, ISPs could easily manage their spammers and their spam. Users could easily manage their incoming spam, and miscellaneous routers all across the internet could easily dump spam trying to take up precious routing time.
Of course, this has its shortfallings. It would only apply to spam coming from ISPs with such rules and from jurisdictions under such laws. That said, I bet it would significantly cut down on the amount of spam, and the locations where such spam could originate from.
So, am I making sense or being ridiculous?
As for Malda's grammar, I feel like you're just trolling. I've met Rob in person, and exchanged emails with him, and he has a fine grasp of the English language.
That said, maybe my original post was a little more combative than I meant it to be. I apologize if you took it in such a way.
Aside from other things, Slashdot does have a spellchecker. It just isn't a grammar checker. It doesn't correct the wrong word spelled correctly (i.e. thing where you meant think). Spellcheckers are limited.
My advice is, if you're reading slashdot for its literary merits, maybe you need to start browsing at -1. In lieu of that, lighten up. And I'm sorry if that sounded harsh, but seriously, if you want to judge slashdot, judge it by what types of stories get posted, by the ensuing conversations, but not by the occasional mistakes of the editors.
Well, actually, I think I've even seen that in textbooks.
And of course, there are the three laws of thermodynamics:
NASA is not an independent agency like the FDA or FCC, which have their own agency hierarchy and don't really take orders directly from the White House. I'm not exactly sure how NASA was formed (I would assume through an act of Congress) but however it was formed, it was made responsible to the office of the Vice President.
The Vice President does not need to get involved with NASA at all, and could let it function independently if he so wished, but he has the power to control it. After the 2000 election, I was wondering what Cheney might do with NASA, because his party has been pretty vocal about wanting to spend money elsewhere, but he had a somewhat calmer voice. It seems like the cooler head (ack, am I really calling Cheney a cooler head?) prevailled, for I haven't seen changes in NASA like I expected to when Bush took over the White House. Maybe the real test is to see what happens come inaugurations in January, or later this month when the dead-heat in the Senate is broken.
Heh. I somewhat remember a diatribe about this from Office Space when they attempt to do the same thing to their company's banking software.
Just a heads up. Wasn't sure if you were aware of this, but you responded to a fabricated (well, edited) article, not actual news. Here's the confession. Unless of course, I've fallen for yet another one of his trollings [which I hope I haven't].
vivIsel, congrats on the second place win. Use that geforce well =]
The laws of physics as we know them are the laws of physics for this universe and this universe alone. A different universe would have different laws of physics altogether.
The theories and the article both state this very clearly. That's one of the fascinating things about our universe: that it's laws are so precise as to allow stars, and subsequently life, to form. Only a narrow range of laws allow such formations, and our universe is one of the few (although possibly infinite) number of universes with laws capable of creating and sustaining life.
- Inflation is predicated upon certain conditions within the universe just a few planck times after the big bang (a planck time is on the order of 10^-32 or so seconds, I can't remember exactly off the top of my head).
- If these conditions hold, inflation will occur. People pretty much believe that inflation did occur, for there is no other current way to accurately explain the rapid expansion of the universe in the first few planck times after the big bang.
- Now, assuming inflation did occur, that means the conditions for inflation must have been met. Here is where "inflation=multiple universes" as you put, it comes into play. Those conditions necessary to create inflation exist in certain pockets of space-time (most notably at singularities, such as in the center of a black hole) in our universe.
- Hence, if the conditions for inflation are met, surley something must be inflating. But we can't see results of such inflation in our universe, and therefore it probably means that the inflation is occuring in another universe. This is where the article is weak, and you are probably having your problem. They did not speak about the theories which allow for "new" universes to be created with different laws of physics, and how the preconditions for inflation meet these criteria. These theories have been around for quite some time, and are generally regarded as possible. That said, conditions which would cause these new universes are theoretical, and whether or not they exist are under debate. It just so happens that inflation theory forces some of these alternate universes to exist.
- So if there are random points in our universe which cause inflation and the creation of new universes, then it is very possible that our universe is one such inflation due to circumstances within another universe. And so on, creating a "web" of inflated universes: the multiverse.
I hope I've done some justice to the theories (sorry for the lack of links, I'll rumage through my books and try and post a followup later). If I'm wrong, or remembering things poorly, don't flame me, just reply and set things straight.I shit you not.
In addition, because most people suddenly have 30 mod points a piece on brak, I just had my first post ever marked as a Troll: here. It's moderation totals are as follows: Flamebait=1, Troll=3, Redundant=1, Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Informative=2, Funny=1, Overrated=2, Total=12. Wow. It was just a little comment about the server working and hoping the actual moves goes smoothly.
Moving on, apparently we agree on the subject.
By the way, do you know any good ways of removing one's foot from one's mouth?
heh, point taken. But you know what I meant =]
I agree completely. The point is, Com2Kid was saying it was a deficiany in Debian which should be fixed. I was saying that it wasn't specific to Debian at all. So you're correct, it should most certainly be addressed, but I didn't miss the point of his argument at all, I was simply stating that his argument was directed at the wrong issue.
Up until relatively recently USB support was a pain in the ass under Linux. Tools for dealing with USB devices are still in their infancy, and if something doesn't work the first time around, it usally takes a lot of tweaking to get things working.
usbutils is a good package, but you still have to learn it before you can just go ahead and plug in a usb mouse or joystick or cablemodem and get it working.
In other words, at least for the moment, dealing with USB devices is best left to a Linux USB-Howto (there are a few) and not to a specific installation guide.
I, for one, cannot understand how paypal is allowed to get away with all this. People even suggested that things might change once eBay took them over, but apparently that hasn't happened yet. What a shame, I remember when PayPal was actually quite a helpful service. Now it just appears to be too much trouble, especially if something goes wrong.
I, for one, will stick with the ncurses generic Debian install, for it is what I use and like, but I will also welcome the graphical installer, for it will be quite helpful to other people and bring more people over to use Debian who were initially scared away by the hardcore install.
In other words, I don't see this as a matter of improving the install, but simply making it more readily available to those for whom the install was previously too complicated for. This is a good thing.
[I apologize for any incoherence in the previous statements, I'm running on no sleep... again.]
In addition, the guys in #debian on irc.debian.org (once the openprojects.net server, who knows what the deal is now with the fundraising fiasco) are extremely helpful if you're trying to figure things out, lost, or just tinkering around.