The take limits are based on past seasons and surveys. Not every hunt is successful and not every hunter takes 100% of their limit (especially not all in the first couple of trips). If drone-assisted hunting eliminates (or decreases) unsuccessful hunts or allows all hunters to take their limit on the first trip, then the limits may not be adequately well defined and there could be damage to the game populations.
Hunting access in general is operated from a "default deny" perspective with regard to time of access and technology allowed. It's perfectly normal to expect drone assistance to be disallowed before it is studied and specifically allowed. (If it ever is... "perfectly normal" doesn't mean "not debatable".)
What about five years down the line when neither of them are in their retail packaging and all of the logos have worn off the cheapo imitation. Are you too dumb to use a meter when you pick this up off of a bench and trust that it can actually handle 600 V without bursting into flames?
Without the SparkFun logo, anyone who has used a Fluke would look at the meter and say that it's a Fluke. This case has everything to do with trade dress:
Trade dress is a legal term of art that generally refers to characteristics of the visual appearance of a product or its packaging (or even the design of a building) that signify the source of the product to consumers.
But the styling is obviously worth something if the knock-off company went out of their way to make their clone have exactly the same styling.
Knock-off manufacturers deliberately making their poor quality imitations mistakable for high quality products is exactly what trademarks and trade dress laws are for.
Fluke would possibly take on some sort of legal liability (or at the least, popular association) by associating in any way with the infringing shipment. Since the shipment is made up of imports of questionable (and probably poor) quality, this would be a dangerous move from a liability, trade dress, marketing, and general safety perspective.
The instant someone sticks the probes in a wall socket and finds out that the meter wasn't really designed to handle anywhere close to the 600V it says, they'd be in a world of trouble. Would you want to publicly endorse cheap Chinese knock-offs of your quality product that's often used in dangerous environments?
I used to do that often as a kid. I would dream through a boring school-day in all it's tedious monotony and in excruciating detail... then wake up and find I had to do it all again. The last time it happened, the waking up and doing it a second time part was also just a dream and I went through that day three times. Thankfully, that was the last of that recurring dream sequence.
This seems to be a common failing among people who are good at manipulating other people into doing what they want. They conflate the ability to direct other people into fulfilling their wishes with the ability to make things happen by force of will (not realizing that their "power" only applies to things that people can actually change). It's probably confounded by the legions of yes-men who surround these people and further distance them from reality.
The funding came from NASA, but the study wasn't conducted by reassigned rocket scientists. It was carried out by people who understand what they were studying.
Also, this is well within the scope of NASA's interest: the whole point of the study is to understand NASA's future funding and direction. An analogy: if you're developing drugs for a certain market, conducting a study to determine if they'll take pills or tolerate injections or be able to afford the drug is valuable and worth funding even if it's outside of your specialty (And of course, you don't have the chemists do the study).
That's not personal, though. These people are endangering their own kids' lives because of their idiocy. They likely couldn't give a rat's ass about anyone else's kids.
Tell them about the mob that lynched the parents of the kid who wasn't vaccinated, who went to school with the kid that got sick and nearly died. Their kids getting polio or something would probably make them sad, but their life being on line would be serious business.
I'd love to try the streaming service more, but they seem to go out of their way to make it hard to use. Besides the limited library, the list of supported devices is tiny.
They've recently made some changes that (deliberately?) broke support on xbmc, so we don't stream from Amazon at home anymore. For some reason, there is no way to stream to Android phones, even though their Kindle Fire is Android based. They're deliberately limiting their streaming customer base and acting confused that nobody uses it?
They were accepting deposits in dollars, among other currencies. When they shut down, people with balances in accepted currencies lost real money. The wisdom in investing in bitcoin aside, the loss was not only in bitcoins.
And anyway, that argument is still bunk. As the various exchanges, including mtgox, have demonstrated, bitcoins had apparent and commonly-agreed-upon value. They may not have value to you, but your baseball card collection has no value to me and yet is still covered by laws against theft (as are stocks and other non-physical things).
If you don't mind spending a little (but not much) money, you can launder your mp3s through a service like iTunes Match or Amazon Prime.
Instead of storing duplicate copies of everybody's collection, they match as much of your collection as possible and just keep their own well-encoded copies. You can sign up for a month (or year or whatever), find matches for your music, and then redownload better copies. After that, there's no need to keep paying for their service (if you don't otherwise have any use for it).
Slashdot 101; How to avoid having someone tell you: You're doing it wrong.
<blockquote> Don't use <quote> and </quote> They're programmed to disappear in a collapsed reply to allow for immediately showing the actual reply. </blockquote>
You're doing it wrong. Having the quoted text appear in the collapsed reply is the easiest way to ensure nobody reads your reply. The collapse reply should show the beginning of what the actual reply says.
If you have a cell connection, you can even drop the thing off in an out of the way place and travel for days before actually taking off. As you said, the pilot could be anywhere on earth.
[This stuff is fun to figure out... A base station of sorts could hold a second battery that keeps the cell modem alive and keeps the onboard battery charged up. Leave the whole thing out in the woods or on a rooftop or something while the pilot goes and hides out. Only the size of the base battery and the likelihood of discovery/accident limit how long it could sit in waiting until deployed.]
Columbine is by far the most common name for the flower, though, and is in fact the namesake of the town in Colorado. Also, Wikipedia seems to list most plants by their genus or genus and species. If you look hard enough (not you in particular), you'll find offense anywhere.
Honestly, I think any sort of skill at all would do. People holding a college degree or certification of mastery of some skilled labor or anything else would be a positive addition to our society. We're probably fine in the "people who can push a broom" category, though. It would only involve normalizing our immigration policies to those of most other countries. Intra-EU aside, most other countries aren't falling all over themselves to get as many of the unskilled, "immediately dependent on the state or crime" class of immigrants as possible.
This is (one of the reasons) why the idea of amnesty for current illegal immigrants is so backwards. Highly motivated people with money and PhDs take many years and tens of thousands of dollars to (sometimes unsuccessfully) get citizenship, but people with no skills, money, or education slip across a border (thus breaking laws in their first steps on US soil) and we'd give citizenship to them? Exactly what sort of society are we trying to build here?
Even for those who needed PowerPoint in order to present I would coach them to not read the slides. The audience will read the words on the slides as you speak. The presenter should be telling a story that engages an audience...
The easiest way to achieve this is to keep all but the most necessary words off of your slides. A big source of the disconnect between the audience and a speaker is the text being presented on the slide. The audience assumes that a slide full of text is a distillation of what the speaker is rambling on about (especially if the speaker keeps reading off of it).
Reserving the slides for helpful visuals keeps the audience's attention on what you're saying. This helps ensure that the Q&A part of the talk isn't just people asking questions that you addressed in your talk because they were too busy reading to listen to what you were actually saying.
(Another pet peeve is that the whiteboard markers in the room will often be dry, or the chalk missing; which makes the whiteboard/chalkboard useless.)
If you know you're going to a presentation, pack a box of dry erase markers and chalk in your bag before you leave. Once I started doing that, and keeping my own laser pointer and spare batteries, the number of presentation hiccups dropped to nearly zero.
If you're really pissed that you're expected to do a talk without being provided markers, bring some sharpies! That'll leave an impression (or bring a chisel for a blackboard... that'll really leave an impression!)
The article is about research presentations and not classes, but I completely agree with you wrt classes. One compromise that I like is slides for complicated figures (that would take forever for you to draw, poorly, on the board) and handouts of those slides so that the students don't have to try to recreate them (again, poorly). Then everything else goes on the board while talking.
As for research presentations, I love chalk talks (both giving and attending) and loathe powerpoint presentations. There's something about ppt that seems to make everybody check out.
I taught a couple of the GRE prep courses in college and I disagree (though not for the reasons the prep companies will likely say). The prep courses make you practice, which allows you to solve the problems more quickly and this makes a huge difference. These are timed tests.
I don't remember the SAT well (it's been forever since I took it, but I did do extremely well which helped moderate my poor high school GPA), but the GRE was based very heavily around high-school level skills that needed to be performed quickly to score well. If you hadn't solved some of these problems in years, you'd get them correct but waste time remembering the best strategy for solving them. (Trig, for instance, isn't hard but I never use it and I'm in a math-based field. It took a little while to remember how to quickly solve the problems.)
There's no need to take the prep courses to do well (I didn't), but practice pays off big and the courses encourage you to practice.
Once again, your entire post is speculation and unsubstantiated assertions. My "appeal to authority" was to show you that my perspective has more sources than just my rear. Your position appears to be that there is no added risk to storing sensitive things online (that's the opposite of what I'm stating, and you keep arguing with me) or that the idea of mitigating known risks is nonsense. You're going to have to back that up with something more substantial than breathy rants full of ellipses that ramble on until concluding that your position is correct.
Maintenance and depreciation need to accounted for so that equipment can be kept in good running condition (periodic service or service contracts) and replaced when needed. It's easy for a single lab's equipment to be managed because all of the costs come from a single lab(!). But the costs for shared instruments need to be spread over all of the users and getting the users to pony up that money is really hard.
In the end, filling out a logbook (or electronic equivalent) is bound to generate way fewer complaints than asking everyone to kick in money for support on equipment that they may or may not even use. The equipment needs to be paid for... the lab gear fairy doesn't drop it off for free.
None of this crap needs to be directly connected to the internet with it's own IP address.
This isn't where the problem is. A decent enough firewall can take care of the security as well as it would through NAT and your router. The biggest issue is that none of this crap needs to be connected to creepy Peeping Tom companies and their "analytics". I would love to check my house temperature from work or see what's in my fridge while I'm at the grocery store, but I don't need some creepy company cataloging everything I do for their own sociopathic purposes.
"The Internet of Things" has less and less to do with empowering people in their use of devices and more to do with spying on people by corporate creeps who are looking for a quick buck.
However, if you do use "good" passwords, chances are that you're also able to educate yourself enough about encryption to make - at least - an educated guess about the strength of an encryption scheme.
You're not getting it. Even Bruce Schneier says encryption is hard to get right. While the encryption scheme may be fine, the actual implementation may be utter crap (or subtly flawed). Trusting the encryption as your only line of defense is unwise.
In most companies...
This entire paragraph is just filled with speculation. You don't know the internal business practices of the cloud services any better than I do. Why would you assume that they care about security and separation of access privileges?
1. 2. 3. 4.
If you can't imagine solutions to simple problems like this, how do you feel qualified to judge the quality of encryption software?
As to 5, none of this relates to someone who wants to steal your passwords (as I specifically said in the post you responded to). This is more about mass harvesting of data in the cloud as is commonly done with credit cards, etc. Can you really not see the value in having access to hundreds or thousands of bank accounts?
If you think not blindly trusting random people at companies is paranoid then there's nothing I can say to convince you otherwise.
My point was that putting your password database "in the cloud" is a bad idea. Nothing more than that.
There's no way for a normal person to determine if an encryption implementation is any good or not, so the only way to keep your passwords reasonably private is to not put them in that leaky sieve of online storage. Any random employee, hacker, or government could have access to your files there and you wouldn't know it. Hell, a Dropbox admin could have a script that just scans their entire storage for known-weak password database files and you wouldn't hear about it until the breach surfaced. Treating any cloud services as remotely private is insane.
People put "password protected" zip files and Word documents and PDFs and such on Dropbox not knowing that the protection is junk, and most people here would scoff at the idea that they're safe.
I use the built-in OS's keychains and password managers. They're "encrypted", but I wouldn't put them online. I transfer them between computers using a USB drive when I need to. It's not that big of a pain and I'm not paranoid enough to think that people are actively trying to break into my specific computer to steal my passwords.
You're misunderstanding the concerns raised further up the thread. It's not insane to think that putting sensitive materials (which, presumably, your password database is) on cloud services is of questionable judgement.
There are also orders of magnitude more shoddy implementations of encryption than sound implementations (even if the underlying scheme is solid). Relying entirely on the security of someone else's encryption (especially if you don't have the understanding and ability to verify it) is very naive.
Putting these two observations together is hardly limited to the mind of paranoiacs. If you want to blow this out of proportion by comparing it to aliens, memory scraping, and VMs within VMs, then you're being intellectually dishonest.
Putting sensitive stuff on Dropbox is like storing your lockbox full of valuables at Joe's Totally Trustworthy Free Storage. You may trust your lockbox enough as an additional layer of security at your home, but do you really want to leave it in someone else's unmonitored possession?
I'll never understand why people are so blindly trusting of people they've never met and treat even the slightest bit of skepticism as paranoia. There's a world of difference between not being a gullible chump and hunkering down in a boobytrapped bomb shelter.
Slashdot Mirror
The take limits are based on past seasons and surveys. Not every hunt is successful and not every hunter takes 100% of their limit (especially not all in the first couple of trips). If drone-assisted hunting eliminates (or decreases) unsuccessful hunts or allows all hunters to take their limit on the first trip, then the limits may not be adequately well defined and there could be damage to the game populations.
Hunting access in general is operated from a "default deny" perspective with regard to time of access and technology allowed. It's perfectly normal to expect drone assistance to be disallowed before it is studied and specifically allowed. (If it ever is... "perfectly normal" doesn't mean "not debatable".)
What about five years down the line when neither of them are in their retail packaging and all of the logos have worn off the cheapo imitation. Are you too dumb to use a meter when you pick this up off of a bench and trust that it can actually handle 600 V without bursting into flames?
Without the SparkFun logo, anyone who has used a Fluke would look at the meter and say that it's a Fluke. This case has everything to do with trade dress:
But the styling is obviously worth something if the knock-off company went out of their way to make their clone have exactly the same styling.
Knock-off manufacturers deliberately making their poor quality imitations mistakable for high quality products is exactly what trademarks and trade dress laws are for.
Fluke would possibly take on some sort of legal liability (or at the least, popular association) by associating in any way with the infringing shipment. Since the shipment is made up of imports of questionable (and probably poor) quality, this would be a dangerous move from a liability, trade dress, marketing, and general safety perspective.
The instant someone sticks the probes in a wall socket and finds out that the meter wasn't really designed to handle anywhere close to the 600V it says, they'd be in a world of trouble. Would you want to publicly endorse cheap Chinese knock-offs of your quality product that's often used in dangerous environments?
I used to do that often as a kid. I would dream through a boring school-day in all it's tedious monotony and in excruciating detail... then wake up and find I had to do it all again. The last time it happened, the waking up and doing it a second time part was also just a dream and I went through that day three times. Thankfully, that was the last of that recurring dream sequence.
This seems to be a common failing among people who are good at manipulating other people into doing what they want. They conflate the ability to direct other people into fulfilling their wishes with the ability to make things happen by force of will (not realizing that their "power" only applies to things that people can actually change). It's probably confounded by the legions of yes-men who surround these people and further distance them from reality.
The funding came from NASA, but the study wasn't conducted by reassigned rocket scientists. It was carried out by people who understand what they were studying.
Also, this is well within the scope of NASA's interest: the whole point of the study is to understand NASA's future funding and direction. An analogy: if you're developing drugs for a certain market, conducting a study to determine if they'll take pills or tolerate injections or be able to afford the drug is valuable and worth funding even if it's outside of your specialty (And of course, you don't have the chemists do the study).
That's not personal, though. These people are endangering their own kids' lives because of their idiocy. They likely couldn't give a rat's ass about anyone else's kids.
Tell them about the mob that lynched the parents of the kid who wasn't vaccinated, who went to school with the kid that got sick and nearly died. Their kids getting polio or something would probably make them sad, but their life being on line would be serious business.
I'd love to try the streaming service more, but they seem to go out of their way to make it hard to use. Besides the limited library, the list of supported devices is tiny.
They've recently made some changes that (deliberately?) broke support on xbmc, so we don't stream from Amazon at home anymore. For some reason, there is no way to stream to Android phones, even though their Kindle Fire is Android based. They're deliberately limiting their streaming customer base and acting confused that nobody uses it?
They were accepting deposits in dollars, among other currencies. When they shut down, people with balances in accepted currencies lost real money. The wisdom in investing in bitcoin aside, the loss was not only in bitcoins.
And anyway, that argument is still bunk. As the various exchanges, including mtgox, have demonstrated, bitcoins had apparent and commonly-agreed-upon value. They may not have value to you, but your baseball card collection has no value to me and yet is still covered by laws against theft (as are stocks and other non-physical things).
If you don't mind spending a little (but not much) money, you can launder your mp3s through a service like iTunes Match or Amazon Prime.
Instead of storing duplicate copies of everybody's collection, they match as much of your collection as possible and just keep their own well-encoded copies. You can sign up for a month (or year or whatever), find matches for your music, and then redownload better copies. After that, there's no need to keep paying for their service (if you don't otherwise have any use for it).
Slashdot 101; How to avoid having someone tell you: You're doing it wrong.
<blockquote> Don't use <quote> and </quote> They're programmed to disappear in a collapsed reply to allow for immediately showing the actual reply. </blockquote>
You're doing it wrong. Having the quoted text appear in the collapsed reply is the easiest way to ensure nobody reads your reply. The collapse reply should show the beginning of what the actual reply says.
If you have a cell connection, you can even drop the thing off in an out of the way place and travel for days before actually taking off. As you said, the pilot could be anywhere on earth.
[This stuff is fun to figure out... A base station of sorts could hold a second battery that keeps the cell modem alive and keeps the onboard battery charged up. Leave the whole thing out in the woods or on a rooftop or something while the pilot goes and hides out. Only the size of the base battery and the likelihood of discovery/accident limit how long it could sit in waiting until deployed.]
Columbine is by far the most common name for the flower, though, and is in fact the namesake of the town in Colorado. Also, Wikipedia seems to list most plants by their genus or genus and species. If you look hard enough (not you in particular), you'll find offense anywhere.
Honestly, I think any sort of skill at all would do. People holding a college degree or certification of mastery of some skilled labor or anything else would be a positive addition to our society. We're probably fine in the "people who can push a broom" category, though. It would only involve normalizing our immigration policies to those of most other countries. Intra-EU aside, most other countries aren't falling all over themselves to get as many of the unskilled, "immediately dependent on the state or crime" class of immigrants as possible.
This is (one of the reasons) why the idea of amnesty for current illegal immigrants is so backwards. Highly motivated people with money and PhDs take many years and tens of thousands of dollars to (sometimes unsuccessfully) get citizenship, but people with no skills, money, or education slip across a border (thus breaking laws in their first steps on US soil) and we'd give citizenship to them? Exactly what sort of society are we trying to build here?
Even for those who needed PowerPoint in order to present I would coach them to not read the slides. The audience will read the words on the slides as you speak. The presenter should be telling a story that engages an audience...
The easiest way to achieve this is to keep all but the most necessary words off of your slides. A big source of the disconnect between the audience and a speaker is the text being presented on the slide. The audience assumes that a slide full of text is a distillation of what the speaker is rambling on about (especially if the speaker keeps reading off of it).
Reserving the slides for helpful visuals keeps the audience's attention on what you're saying. This helps ensure that the Q&A part of the talk isn't just people asking questions that you addressed in your talk because they were too busy reading to listen to what you were actually saying.
(Another pet peeve is that the whiteboard markers in the room will often be dry, or the chalk missing; which makes the whiteboard/chalkboard useless.)
If you know you're going to a presentation, pack a box of dry erase markers and chalk in your bag before you leave. Once I started doing that, and keeping my own laser pointer and spare batteries, the number of presentation hiccups dropped to nearly zero.
If you're really pissed that you're expected to do a talk without being provided markers, bring some sharpies! That'll leave an impression (or bring a chisel for a blackboard... that'll really leave an impression!)
The article is about research presentations and not classes, but I completely agree with you wrt classes. One compromise that I like is slides for complicated figures (that would take forever for you to draw, poorly, on the board) and handouts of those slides so that the students don't have to try to recreate them (again, poorly). Then everything else goes on the board while talking.
As for research presentations, I love chalk talks (both giving and attending) and loathe powerpoint presentations. There's something about ppt that seems to make everybody check out.
I taught a couple of the GRE prep courses in college and I disagree (though not for the reasons the prep companies will likely say). The prep courses make you practice, which allows you to solve the problems more quickly and this makes a huge difference. These are timed tests.
I don't remember the SAT well (it's been forever since I took it, but I did do extremely well which helped moderate my poor high school GPA), but the GRE was based very heavily around high-school level skills that needed to be performed quickly to score well. If you hadn't solved some of these problems in years, you'd get them correct but waste time remembering the best strategy for solving them. (Trig, for instance, isn't hard but I never use it and I'm in a math-based field. It took a little while to remember how to quickly solve the problems.)
There's no need to take the prep courses to do well (I didn't), but practice pays off big and the courses encourage you to practice.
Once again, your entire post is speculation and unsubstantiated assertions. My "appeal to authority" was to show you that my perspective has more sources than just my rear. Your position appears to be that there is no added risk to storing sensitive things online (that's the opposite of what I'm stating, and you keep arguing with me) or that the idea of mitigating known risks is nonsense. You're going to have to back that up with something more substantial than breathy rants full of ellipses that ramble on until concluding that your position is correct.
Maintenance and depreciation need to accounted for so that equipment can be kept in good running condition (periodic service or service contracts) and replaced when needed. It's easy for a single lab's equipment to be managed because all of the costs come from a single lab(!). But the costs for shared instruments need to be spread over all of the users and getting the users to pony up that money is really hard.
In the end, filling out a logbook (or electronic equivalent) is bound to generate way fewer complaints than asking everyone to kick in money for support on equipment that they may or may not even use. The equipment needs to be paid for... the lab gear fairy doesn't drop it off for free.
None of this crap needs to be directly connected to the internet with it's own IP address.
This isn't where the problem is. A decent enough firewall can take care of the security as well as it would through NAT and your router. The biggest issue is that none of this crap needs to be connected to creepy Peeping Tom companies and their "analytics". I would love to check my house temperature from work or see what's in my fridge while I'm at the grocery store, but I don't need some creepy company cataloging everything I do for their own sociopathic purposes.
"The Internet of Things" has less and less to do with empowering people in their use of devices and more to do with spying on people by corporate creeps who are looking for a quick buck.
However, if you do use "good" passwords, chances are that you're also able to educate yourself enough about encryption to make - at least - an educated guess about the strength of an encryption scheme.
You're not getting it. Even Bruce Schneier says encryption is hard to get right. While the encryption scheme may be fine, the actual implementation may be utter crap (or subtly flawed). Trusting the encryption as your only line of defense is unwise.
In most companies...
This entire paragraph is just filled with speculation. You don't know the internal business practices of the cloud services any better than I do. Why would you assume that they care about security and separation of access privileges?
1. 2. 3. 4.
If you can't imagine solutions to simple problems like this, how do you feel qualified to judge the quality of encryption software?
As to 5, none of this relates to someone who wants to steal your passwords (as I specifically said in the post you responded to). This is more about mass harvesting of data in the cloud as is commonly done with credit cards, etc. Can you really not see the value in having access to hundreds or thousands of bank accounts?
If you think not blindly trusting random people at companies is paranoid then there's nothing I can say to convince you otherwise.
My point was that putting your password database "in the cloud" is a bad idea. Nothing more than that.
There's no way for a normal person to determine if an encryption implementation is any good or not, so the only way to keep your passwords reasonably private is to not put them in that leaky sieve of online storage. Any random employee, hacker, or government could have access to your files there and you wouldn't know it. Hell, a Dropbox admin could have a script that just scans their entire storage for known-weak password database files and you wouldn't hear about it until the breach surfaced. Treating any cloud services as remotely private is insane.
People put "password protected" zip files and Word documents and PDFs and such on Dropbox not knowing that the protection is junk, and most people here would scoff at the idea that they're safe.
I use the built-in OS's keychains and password managers. They're "encrypted", but I wouldn't put them online. I transfer them between computers using a USB drive when I need to. It's not that big of a pain and I'm not paranoid enough to think that people are actively trying to break into my specific computer to steal my passwords.
You're misunderstanding the concerns raised further up the thread. It's not insane to think that putting sensitive materials (which, presumably, your password database is) on cloud services is of questionable judgement.
There are also orders of magnitude more shoddy implementations of encryption than sound implementations (even if the underlying scheme is solid). Relying entirely on the security of someone else's encryption (especially if you don't have the understanding and ability to verify it) is very naive.
Putting these two observations together is hardly limited to the mind of paranoiacs. If you want to blow this out of proportion by comparing it to aliens, memory scraping, and VMs within VMs, then you're being intellectually dishonest.
Putting sensitive stuff on Dropbox is like storing your lockbox full of valuables at Joe's Totally Trustworthy Free Storage. You may trust your lockbox enough as an additional layer of security at your home, but do you really want to leave it in someone else's unmonitored possession?
I'll never understand why people are so blindly trusting of people they've never met and treat even the slightest bit of skepticism as paranoia. There's a world of difference between not being a gullible chump and hunkering down in a boobytrapped bomb shelter.