So how does this differ from running old [computers] with old Microsoft software? For example Windows XP and office 2007 (or 2003) will still work fine on a PIII with 256MB RAM.
Yes, as will five to eight year old Windows malware. Great, and with the added joy of needing to pay the yearly extortion fees to antivirus vendors.:-P
People talk about how Linux can "breath new life" into old computers, but in my experience new distros get bloated just like new Windows versions.
Perhaps with the default install, yes, but you don't have to go that way. It's a lot easier to pare down a FLOSS box to run only the stuff that runs well on it. You don't need to run bleeding edge Gnome or KDE as your wm.
Nice username, btw. Certainly, you're not biased in any way.
If any of us got enough RL interaction we'd be out getting laid, not trolling this place. It stopped being a useful primary location for news and stuff that matters a long time ago.
I beg to differ. I often see stories posted on other sites pointing to a story hosted on/. Very often (though, of course, not always) the first time I hear about something it's thanks to a story on/.
Besides that, there is some value in that touchy-feely concept "community." People here know and care about stuff that many of my knowledgeable RL friends are oblivious to. Many of the latter have never heard of, nor would care about things like dmr, Righthaven, DMCA, Region Encoding, & etc.
Aside, I grew tired long ago of that way overused, "It stopped being a $blah a long time ago" crap. All it does is make its author look like a jaded child, and doubly so when used by an AC.
You'd take their most precious gift just because they took someone's money and/or assaulted them?
The way I read it is he'd advocate this course for anyone suspected of robbery. I guess that puts every criminal defence attorney out of business. No need for any of that bother now. "Hello, 911? My next door neighbour just stole my lawnmower. Could you please lob a grenade into his living room? Kay, thanks, bye."
["Citation needed" == "idiot". Never heard of IxQuick (or Google...)?]
It's not up to me to find evidence to support your opinion. It is up to you to support your opinion with evidence.
It's not up to me to do your research for you. If nothing shows up AFTER you look, then you can chastise me, or beg for pointers. I'm not your encyclopedia. There's lots of machines out there begging to fulfill that role for you.
No it's not. A sit-in won't cost you money because of all the added, useless, traffic. The public deciding to use your server all at once is not a DOSS attack.
A DOSS attack is the absolute lowest form of internet protest.
I don't understand your post at all. At best, it's hopelessly incoherent. I expect you intended to say "DDOS". Beyond that, I'm less sure.
Thousands of people who don't buy anything showing up at a lunch counter, will interfere with said counter's business.
Thousands/millions/??? of packets showing up at a paid up server, will cost nothing but lost future sales/business, assuming your admin has any sort of clue.
Did you mean "lowest" as in "mildest"? If so, I agree.
"Okay then. No harm done. You just proved yourself to be an idiot, yes?"
"Uhh..."
Random person on the street: "tqk is a pedo who hurts small children".
Headline in the Daily Fail: Mr tqk is a known Paedophile who has done great harm to a great number of children.
Both are lies to be sure but one has the potential to destroy your life the other will be dismissed as insane ramblings.
If your name connected to an accusation of paedophilia is published by a large publisher with readership in the millions would you not be upset.
I see your point, but then again, "Ah, BS, it's the Daily Fail! They're never credible, FFS! You can't believe a word of what they write."
Then again, some people do believe the most preposterous things on zero evidence. !@#$
Personally, I'd prefer to just point people at my record proving my innocence, which will prove my accusers to be fools in the eyes of the world.
Realistically, though, lots of people won't bother with the facts and I'll end up getting the !@#$ kicked out of me, or worse. However, I don't really see how getting a lawyer involved will do much to convince that sort of people.
Apropos the guy I was replying to, does that mean I should expect a big fat check from the Koch Bros? That'd be nice. "The enemy of your enemy...", and all that.
I too admit I'm ambivalent. Certainly, there may be man-made effects involved, but how involved? More than solar cycles, or any number of other phenomena? Is it [AGW], or just another natural process or cycle we've not previously run across?
At this point being ambivalent is the equivalent of never having bothered to check it out. Or really being a denier and just pretending to be ambivalent just to make people think you're objective. Since you threw in Al Gore as the sample "shady characters" but didn't mention Lehman Brothers or Oil Companies or the Koch Brothers, I'm guessing your ambivalence is a sham.
[Emphasis mine.] You sound like a Catholic priest talking to Galileo.
FWIW, I'm not a GOP apologist, I don't even like oil companies (though I'll admit I've worked for them in the IT part of their ops), and I only barely understand who the Koch Bros. are (I'm not US-ian). Please stop characaturing me.
I AM skeptical, and yes, I am going to check out the links you provided (thanks). You ignored this:
I do know that there's huge piles of cash to be made based on how the argument turns out, and there's lots of shady characters out there (including Al "Inconvenient Truth" Gore, he of three homes and jetsetter extraordinaire) who'd love to skew it in their direction to capitalize on that motherlode regardless of what's actually happening.
... except to focus on my insult of Al Gore. Read it again, sans partisanship. Thanks for admitting this:
If you wanted the scientific evidence, it's not easy to find...
That's exactly where I stand. This subject has been a mess for a long time and making sense of it, and who's got what irons in the fire, isn't a simple job.
Insulting skeptics and slandering us as obvious deniers isn't helping anyone, much less proving your side of the argument. You're damned right I think Al Gore is a charlatan, and you should too. That's irrelevant to this discussion.
I too admit I'm ambivalent. Certainly, there may be man-made effects involved, but how involved? More than solar cycles, or any number of other phenomena? Is it AGM, or just another natural process or cycle we've not previously run across?
At this point being ambivalent is the equivalent of never having bothered to check it out. Or really being a denier and just pretending to be ambivalent just to make people think you're objective.
Do you hear yourself? Holy fuck, man, you're a believer!
What the hell is wrong with being skeptical? It offends your world view?
Get a grip! I'm trying to sort this stuff out for myself, but your hysterical screaming helps not at all. Jeebus!
While in theory (chuckle) science leaves the door open, at some point the practical scientist will just conclude the evidence of evolution is overwhelming and the creationist will continue to ramble forever because he's on a religious agenda. While there's natural variations in temperature it is starting to get extremely unlikely that there aren't man made effects at play,...
I too admit I'm ambivalent. Certainly, there may be man-made effects involved, but how involved? More than solar cycles, or any number of other phenomena? Is it AGM, or just another natural process or cycle we've not previously run across?
I do know that there's huge piles of cash to be made based on how the argument turns out, and there's lots of shady characters out there (including Al "Inconvenient Truth" Gore, he of three homes and jetsetter extraordinaire) who'd love to skew it in their direction to capitalize on that motherlode regardless of what's actually happening. We've already heard of proposals (seeding the upper atmosphere with $magicdust) from some to dial back GM that'd kill us if they're wrong.
Skepticism is not unwarranted and getting it wrong could be disastrous, and we ought to be mining the asteroid belt and building generation ships in the meantime.
So, seeing something Stuxnet based is not a surprise... I just wonder what will be attacked first, some power company whose idea of security is...
That's what first occurred to me. The last time we discussed this, a host of security people showed up to testify about the rampant lack of security they'd seen in this area. No air gap, the boss wants to access it from home, default passwords never changed, & etc. What Stuxnet really proved was how vulnerable many very important, powerful, and dangerous systems are. I mean, geez, viruses infiltrating Predator drone control networks? Yikes. Monumental failure doesn't begin to describe it.
I would be pretty angry to find out someone had betrayed my trust and did give my information out without my consent. Angry enough to beat the shit out of them.
Why? I've never understood this. So what if you get a couple of unsolicited emails a day? So what if you get a call on your cell that you didn't want? You've never heard of spam filtering, or Caller ID, or Delete, or Don't Answer?
I can understand not wanting intimate details of your private life bandied about willy nilly (who would?), but an email address or ph. no?!? What is it that you think that level of obscurity gets you? Seriously.
I will agree that trying to read, whether that is a phone, a book, or a newspaper is a bad idea. The phone rage is just a symptom of neo-ludditism though.
Here, it's called distracted driving. You're sharing a road with hundreds of other people all moving at high velocity in multi-ton vehicles. You need all your wits and attention to do that safely, for all involved. Check out the death while driving statistics if you don't believe me. It's far more dangerous than anything else we do.
You using a cell phone for anything while driving isn't anything we need. Just fscking pull over!
Slashdot Mirror
So how does this differ from running old [computers] with old Microsoft software? For example Windows XP and office 2007 (or 2003) will still work fine on a PIII with 256MB RAM.
Yes, as will five to eight year old Windows malware. Great, and with the added joy of needing to pay the yearly extortion fees to antivirus vendors. :-P
People talk about how Linux can "breath new life" into old computers, but in my experience new distros get bloated just like new Windows versions.
Perhaps with the default install, yes, but you don't have to go that way. It's a lot easier to pare down a FLOSS box to run only the stuff that runs well on it. You don't need to run bleeding edge Gnome or KDE as your wm.
Nice username, btw. Certainly, you're not biased in any way.
If any of us got enough RL interaction we'd be out getting laid, not trolling this place. It stopped being a useful primary location for news and stuff that matters a long time ago.
I beg to differ. I often see stories posted on other sites pointing to a story hosted on /. Very often (though, of course, not always) the first time I hear about something it's thanks to a story on /.
Besides that, there is some value in that touchy-feely concept "community." People here know and care about stuff that many of my knowledgeable RL friends are oblivious to. Many of the latter have never heard of, nor would care about things like dmr, Righthaven, DMCA, Region Encoding, & etc.
Aside, I grew tired long ago of that way overused, "It stopped being a $blah a long time ago" crap. All it does is make its author look like a jaded child, and doubly so when used by an AC.
but I prefer conversing with intelligent people once in a while
Then what the hell are you doing here?
If that's what you think of /., what the hell are you doing here?!? Ritual masochism?
You'd take their most precious gift just because they took someone's money and/or assaulted them?
The way I read it is he'd advocate this course for anyone suspected of robbery. I guess that puts every criminal defence attorney out of business. No need for any of that bother now. "Hello, 911? My next door neighbour just stole my lawnmower. Could you please lob a grenade into his living room? Kay, thanks, bye."
I wonder when the DHS and (Canada's) CSIS get their own monitoring centres?
You think they don't already have the capability?
Up until a few months ago RIM was insisting that, due to the way BBs work, such monitoring centres were simply impossible - it couldn't be done.
Sad. I suspect this sounds the death knell for RIM.
Does India's justice system have an equivalent requirement for warrants prior to wiretaps?
I wonder when the DHS and (Canada's) CSIS get their own monitoring centres?
If your gun jams in the middle of a gunfight, then you don't know how to buy guns.
FTFY. :-)
["Citation needed" == "idiot". Never heard of IxQuick (or Google ...)?]
It's not up to me to find evidence to support your opinion. It is up to you to support your opinion with evidence.
It's not up to me to do your research for you. If nothing shows up AFTER you look, then you can chastise me, or beg for pointers. I'm not your encyclopedia. There's lots of machines out there begging to fulfill that role for you.
Welcome to the 21st Century.
I believe the word you were trying to use was Vigilante.
Damn the AutoCorrect!
A good carpenter never blames his tools.
If his hammer breaks when trying to hammer in a normal nail, he most certainly will.
A good carpenter also knows how to hammer in a nail without breaking his hammer, and how to buy quality tools that don't break.
But in this case, the target is correctly identified.
Excuse me if I don't shed a tear.
but vigilantes are far more likely to target the innocent.
Citation needed, as they say on Wikipedia.
False positives plus false negatives == injustice for all. Cf. "friendly fire." I don't want anyone who aims as badly as you do on my side.
["Citation needed" == "idiot". Never heard of IxQuick (or Google ...)?]
No it's not. A sit-in won't cost you money because of all the added, useless, traffic. The public deciding to use your server all at once is not a DOSS attack.
A DOSS attack is the absolute lowest form of internet protest.
I don't understand your post at all. At best, it's hopelessly incoherent. I expect you intended to say "DDOS". Beyond that, I'm less sure.
Thousands of people who don't buy anything showing up at a lunch counter, will interfere with said counter's business.
Thousands/millions/??? of packets showing up at a paid up server, will cost nothing but lost future sales/business, assuming your admin has any sort of clue.
Did you mean "lowest" as in "mildest"? If so, I agree.
I believe the word you were trying to use was Vigilante.
Damn the AutoCorrect!
A good carpenter never blames his tools.
"You're a pedophile and hurt small chidren!"
"Got any proof of that?"
"Ur, no. But you still are!"
"Okay then. No harm done. You just proved yourself to be an idiot, yes?"
"Uhh ..."
Random person on the street:
"tqk is a pedo who hurts small children".
Headline in the Daily Fail:
Mr tqk is a known Paedophile who has done great harm to a great number of children.
Both are lies to be sure but one has the potential to destroy your life the other will be dismissed as insane ramblings.
If your name connected to an accusation of paedophilia is published by a large publisher with readership in the millions would you not be upset.
I see your point, but then again, "Ah, BS, it's the Daily Fail! They're never credible, FFS! You can't believe a word of what they write."
Then again, some people do believe the most preposterous things on zero evidence. !@#$
Personally, I'd prefer to just point people at my record proving my innocence, which will prove my accusers to be fools in the eyes of the world.
Realistically, though, lots of people won't bother with the facts and I'll end up getting the !@#$ kicked out of me, or worse. However, I don't really see how getting a lawyer involved will do much to convince that sort of people.
FTFY.
Hardly. Try harder.
"You're a pedophile and hurt small chidren!"
"Got any proof of that?"
"Ur, no. But you still are!"
"Okay then. No harm done. You just proved yourself to be an idiot, yes?"
"Uhh ..."
Thank you for your posts, this one included. :)
Apropos the guy I was replying to, does that mean I should expect a big fat check from the Koch Bros? That'd be nice. "The enemy of your enemy ...", and all that.
I too admit I'm ambivalent. Certainly, there may be man-made effects involved, but how involved ? More than solar cycles, or any number of other phenomena? Is it [AGW], or just another natural process or cycle we've not previously run across?
At this point being ambivalent is the equivalent of never having bothered to check it out. Or really being a denier and just pretending to be ambivalent just to make people think you're objective. Since you threw in Al Gore as the sample "shady characters" but didn't mention Lehman Brothers or Oil Companies or the Koch Brothers, I'm guessing your ambivalence is a sham.
[Emphasis mine.] You sound like a Catholic priest talking to Galileo.
FWIW, I'm not a GOP apologist, I don't even like oil companies (though I'll admit I've worked for them in the IT part of their ops), and I only barely understand who the Koch Bros. are (I'm not US-ian). Please stop characaturing me.
I AM skeptical, and yes, I am going to check out the links you provided (thanks). You ignored this:
I do know that there's huge piles of cash to be made based on how the argument turns out, and there's lots of shady characters out there (including Al "Inconvenient Truth" Gore, he of three homes and jetsetter extraordinaire) who'd love to skew it in their direction to capitalize on that motherlode regardless of what's actually happening.
... except to focus on my insult of Al Gore. Read it again, sans partisanship. Thanks for admitting this:
If you wanted the scientific evidence, it's not easy to find ...
That's exactly where I stand. This subject has been a mess for a long time and making sense of it, and who's got what irons in the fire, isn't a simple job.
Insulting skeptics and slandering us as obvious deniers isn't helping anyone, much less proving your side of the argument. You're damned right I think Al Gore is a charlatan, and you should too. That's irrelevant to this discussion.
I too admit I'm ambivalent. Certainly, there may be man-made effects involved, but how involved? More than solar cycles, or any number of other phenomena? Is it AGM, or just another natural process or cycle we've not previously run across?
At this point being ambivalent is the equivalent of never having bothered to check it out. Or really being a denier and just pretending to be ambivalent just to make people think you're objective.
Do you hear yourself? Holy fuck, man, you're a believer!
What the hell is wrong with being skeptical? It offends your world view?
Get a grip! I'm trying to sort this stuff out for myself, but your hysterical screaming helps not at all. Jeebus!
Crap. s/GM/GW/g
While in theory (chuckle) science leaves the door open, at some point the practical scientist will just conclude the evidence of evolution is overwhelming and the creationist will continue to ramble forever because he's on a religious agenda. While there's natural variations in temperature it is starting to get extremely unlikely that there aren't man made effects at play, ...
I too admit I'm ambivalent. Certainly, there may be man-made effects involved, but how involved? More than solar cycles, or any number of other phenomena? Is it AGM, or just another natural process or cycle we've not previously run across?
I do know that there's huge piles of cash to be made based on how the argument turns out, and there's lots of shady characters out there (including Al "Inconvenient Truth" Gore, he of three homes and jetsetter extraordinaire) who'd love to skew it in their direction to capitalize on that motherlode regardless of what's actually happening. We've already heard of proposals (seeding the upper atmosphere with $magicdust) from some to dial back GM that'd kill us if they're wrong.
Skepticism is not unwarranted and getting it wrong could be disastrous, and we ought to be mining the asteroid belt and building generation ships in the meantime.
Oh, and to finish this, what the US/Israel/$whoever could do to Iran, Iran can do to US/Israel/$whoever.
So, seeing something Stuxnet based is not a surprise... I just wonder what will be attacked first, some power company whose idea of security is ...
That's what first occurred to me. The last time we discussed this, a host of security people showed up to testify about the rampant lack of security they'd seen in this area. No air gap, the boss wants to access it from home, default passwords never changed, & etc. What Stuxnet really proved was how vulnerable many very important, powerful, and dangerous systems are. I mean, geez, viruses infiltrating Predator drone control networks? Yikes. Monumental failure doesn't begin to describe it.
I would be pretty angry to find out someone had betrayed my trust and did give my information out without my consent. Angry enough to beat the shit out of them.
Why? I've never understood this. So what if you get a couple of unsolicited emails a day? So what if you get a call on your cell that you didn't want? You've never heard of spam filtering, or Caller ID, or Delete, or Don't Answer?
I can understand not wanting intimate details of your private life bandied about willy nilly (who would?), but an email address or ph. no?!? What is it that you think that level of obscurity gets you? Seriously.
And wear a condom while you drive, you'll be that much safer.
Darwin principle in action, ya gotta love it. Please use a telephone pole, not some innocent bystander to do it. Bye.
I will agree that trying to read, whether that is a phone, a book, or a newspaper is a bad idea. The phone rage is just a symptom of neo-ludditism though.
Here, it's called distracted driving. You're sharing a road with hundreds of other people all moving at high velocity in multi-ton vehicles. You need all your wits and attention to do that safely, for all involved. Check out the death while driving statistics if you don't believe me. It's far more dangerous than anything else we do.
You using a cell phone for anything while driving isn't anything we need. Just fscking pull over!