But assuming that you own the property in between...
Have you considered putting in a fiber link? On ebay, I just saw a 9k ft spool for ~$200 buyitnow awhile back. $30 for some 10baseT transcievers at each end. Renting a trencher for a weekend would cost what? Hell, it might be alot of work, but in 2 years when you decide you want a 100baseT link, or even gigabit, you buy some more (by then) cheap transcievers. For that matter, you might even be able to find the equipment to multiplex cable tv over the damn thing, if you wanted.
Like any other sane person, it is the yoctobots that I fear. Devices so small they can masquerade as a hydrogen atom to escape notice. They would float around on superstring loops, adjusting quantum spins on our very molecules!
What happens, when a swarm of these things invades your brain, and suddenly changes some unobserved quantum value to another unobserved quantum value? Your entire SOUL could change, and there is nothing you could do about it!!! Even if neurological science progesses to a fantastic level, upon examination, no one could conclude that your mind had been tampered with...
This is why I propose a worldwide ban, without exception, on yoctotechnology experimentation. We can't act soon enough!
I wholeheartedly concur with them, and fervently believe it should be an opt-in list. For telemarketers to call you, they should have to be able to prove to authorities that you are on the opt-in call list, which should be impossible for most people make themselves listed. If they are insane or something, and keep trying, it should require a 6 month waiting list, complete with psych evaluation and $1500 fees, and an in-person registration in DC, complete with 9 picture IDs, just to put your name on the list.
Any telemarketer violating this opt-in list, whether for commercial, charity, or survey purposes would be subject to life in a Mexican prison without parole. Then again, sending all our telemarketers to Mexico would probably be an act of war... my apologies to any mexicans reading this, I retract that last part.
In the situation you describe, not patching is indeed the user's fault, and no one elses.
But let's compare that to reality.
1) Microsoft intentionally markets to consumers that they know are incapable of mildy difficult technical tasks.
2) Microsoft patches are incredibly perverse in their installation procedures, often break other things, and sometimes don't work at all.
3) The sheer volume of Microsoft exploits means that a person would be compelled to spend the great majority of their waking hours applying the damn things, just to keep their head above water.
4) Microsoft hides news of their vulnerabilities in the Labyrinth of their website to the point that a person would be compelled to check a large list of other security websites just to remain aware of what the dangers were.
5) Many of these exploits are the end result of bad coding practices, bad design philosophies and ill-concieved architectures, and not just obtuse, hard-to-recognize bugs that slip through *anyone's* quality control.
6) And while not exactly relevant to this discussion, if I ever see someone dressed up in one of those butterfly costumes, they are DEAD. Literally, I intend to murder them. I'm fairly confident that most juries won't ever convict.
So, taking all this into consideration, the metaphor would be more accurate if this person were drugged/brainwashed from birth, taught that it is only appropriate to be led around in chains 24/7 by strange men, was often sold to the highest bidder, beaten whenever she spoke up, was given no choices or significant decision-making privileges, and then woke up in the strange bed.
It might not be rape exactly, but something horrible did happen, and she is most certainly some type of victim. To ignore all the circumstances leading up to that event, and then claim "she never said No" is absurd beyond the pale.
Thank you, I'll add that tonight. In the meantime though, I'm glad to answer this here.
First off, let me say that I have no ill will towards freenet. The more options, the better off we all are.
However, freenet is designed to simply be a secure p2p network. This is good for many things, but it lacks many of the things that I like about the internet proper. Things that have been abused or mismanaged. Mind you, there are people wanting to build an IP transport layer onto freenet, but this is the wrong approach IMO.
In the end, it's rather simple. The designers of freenet want a secure p2p network, and I want a secure IP network. Heck, maybe we should run freenet over Meta?;)
While you are generally correct, if the bum said "fuck" while expressing political speech, most good judges would be less inclined to punish him than if he were merely using the word to harass women.
What we really need to know, is how the ammendment does apply to this. For instance, if the bum goes into the corner grocery, does the same thing... he could be prosecuted for trespassing. But what if someone had a business with the primary purpose of allowing someone to speak their opinion? In the real world, there is no such thing that I'm aware of. But on the internet, slashdot certainly comes to mind, and possibly kuro5hin is an even better example. Would it be wrong to ban only some of those that want to express their opinion, while allowing others?
And if so, to what degree does this bulletin board accomplish the same purpose? Their primary business isn't providing a forum like slash or kuro5hin, but it does somehow seem deceptive of them to only want to allow "good speech". Would there be any difference if the guy were telling nasty truths about the company, instead of outright trolling?
I'd be much more comfortable if they were suing for slander/libel, to be honest. Then it could be decided solely on what he said, and how true it was. They'd still nail him, without reinforcing the power to silence anyone they didn't like.
Mind you, they already have that power technically, but it doesn't mean they have the moral right to use it capriciously.
Hardly. You entered into an implied non-verbal contract with them, merely by being born on planet earth. As such, your critical review is in direct violation of the EILA (Earth Inhabitant Licensing Agreement).
And if you think this is silly, listen to some TV executives on how they feel about commercial-skipping technology...
Only religionists and other fruitcakes believe that humanity is the product of some supernatural event, and therefor is not part of the natural world.
Even then, everything else in the universe supposedly was also, but still retains its natural condition, go figure, eh?
Philosophically, if something isn't natural, it can only be supernatural. A condition, trait or phenomena that no one has ever found actual evidence for. Possibly some rare events in physics experiments qualify, depending on how you stretch the definition.
Even so, humans are not excluded from the natural word, nor is there any compelling reason to do so. As such, I don't believe I was being unfair in any of what I said. While I don't really know all the formal names for fallacies and debating cheats, I do recognize that people who use the same tone of words as me, often take an irrelevant detail and distract listeners from the real point. I was not trying to do so, and I feel completely justified when the parent poster rests his case on a foundation that anything made by man is unnatural. It is patently false, and the lie should be corrected where ever and whenever you hear it.
Actually they can. I live in the natural world (as opposed to a hypothetical supernatural world) and I have seen automobiles with my own eyes on multiple occassions. I have never see the space shuttle, though there is indeed much corroborative evidence that it does exist in the natural world. I can personally vouch for Perl, and can arrange a demonstration should you request one. Snackie cakes do indeed exist, much to my waistline's sorrow.
1) I was being sarcastic. 2) I respect the nuances and small details of security, even if I'm not an expert. 3) I'm not an expert, I'm at the lowest rungs of IT, and it's taken 3 years to get there. 4) I'm not some asshole faker posting to "ask slashdot" begging someone to help him look good. 5) I know VMS, if only as a hobbyist.
As for whether I could be replaced by a collection of shell scripts, I think you are going overkill. On most days, I could be replaced by a slightly trained chimp. Shell scripts could probably replace 10 of me.
If I meant anything at all by my previous post, it was that this jackass would probably laugh at me too, on any day other than the one he needed to use me to fake skills he doesn't have.
But I had been building my own little microcosm of the internet, complete with a few vaxen. All the windows monkeys at work look at me with a strange grimace, and sometimes utter things like "What is the point in all of that? No one *ever* uses it anymore...".
But don't worry, security is a simple thing, and even someone that knows nothing of VMS can fake it in a few days. I'm sure that 99.999% of kiddiots will never be able to exploit a VMS hole that you have no chance of catching....
I have a DirecPC pci card I'd like to play with it, maybe they haven't changed much since then. Think I also have the external USB box for it to, but it uses a funky power supply I don't have (they need 5v for electronics, but 13v for the LNB?).
Their idiotic hurrahs, I'd like to point out how sinister this actually is.
The only literal thing that has happened, is that they promise not to push for laws that insist on hardware DRM. The manufacturers are of course free to implement it on their own.
Which is the only possible explanation as to why the RIAA would cave like they have.
My state/nation gave up whatever moral right it had to sales tax, when it started taxing income.
So I dont't really give a flying fuck if they're eating it or not. They tax spending, they tax saving, and the only thing they encourage is earning no income at all. Sorry, but if they want to play these games, they'll have to do better. I actually know my way around the net.
Is how politicians always have it ass-backwards. Rather than decide that there is a specific need for revenue, and then figure out how to meet it in a fair and non-burdensome way, they are always in "taxable industry" hunting mode.
"Let's just take what we can, and figure out how to spend it all later."
"No, let's tax air! Everyone breathes it, and we can give exemptions to people with emphysema!"
The way they run things, 5 years from now when they can't meet their budget, will they find a second internet to tax to make up for it? They need to learn to do sustainable budgeting.
That you just violated the DMCA by posting that movie script. Pretty sure the film starred Tom Hanks in the role of ugly guy with only a few months of life left(this isn't literal, it is a metaphor for the MPAA/RIAA business model).
Slashdot Mirror
But assuming that you own the property in between...
Have you considered putting in a fiber link? On ebay, I just saw a 9k ft spool for ~$200 buyitnow awhile back. $30 for some 10baseT transcievers at each end. Renting a trencher for a weekend would cost what? Hell, it might be alot of work, but in 2 years when you decide you want a 100baseT link, or even gigabit, you buy some more (by then) cheap transcievers. For that matter, you might even be able to find the equipment to multiplex cable tv over the damn thing, if you wanted.
Just a thought.
Like any other sane person, it is the yoctobots that I fear. Devices so small they can masquerade as a hydrogen atom to escape notice. They would float around on superstring loops, adjusting quantum spins on our very molecules!
What happens, when a swarm of these things invades your brain, and suddenly changes some unobserved quantum value to another unobserved quantum value? Your entire SOUL could change, and there is nothing you could do about it!!! Even if neurological science progesses to a fantastic level, upon examination, no one could conclude that your mind had been tampered with...
This is why I propose a worldwide ban, without exception, on yoctotechnology experimentation. We can't act soon enough!
I wholeheartedly concur with them, and fervently believe it should be an opt-in list. For telemarketers to call you, they should have to be able to prove to authorities that you are on the opt-in call list, which should be impossible for most people make themselves listed. If they are insane or something, and keep trying, it should require a 6 month waiting list, complete with psych evaluation and $1500 fees, and an in-person registration in DC, complete with 9 picture IDs, just to put your name on the list.
Any telemarketer violating this opt-in list, whether for commercial, charity, or survey purposes would be subject to life in a Mexican prison without parole. Then again, sending all our telemarketers to Mexico would probably be an act of war... my apologies to any mexicans reading this, I retract that last part.
In the situation you describe, not patching is indeed the user's fault, and no one elses.
But let's compare that to reality.
1) Microsoft intentionally markets to consumers that they know are incapable of mildy difficult technical tasks.
2) Microsoft patches are incredibly perverse in their installation procedures, often break other things, and sometimes don't work at all.
3) The sheer volume of Microsoft exploits means that a person would be compelled to spend the great majority of their waking hours applying the damn things, just to keep their head above water.
4) Microsoft hides news of their vulnerabilities in the Labyrinth of their website to the point that a person would be compelled to check a large list of other security websites just to remain aware of what the dangers were.
5) Many of these exploits are the end result of bad coding practices, bad design philosophies and ill-concieved architectures, and not just obtuse, hard-to-recognize bugs that slip through *anyone's* quality control.
6) And while not exactly relevant to this discussion, if I ever see someone dressed up in one of those butterfly costumes, they are DEAD. Literally, I intend to murder them. I'm fairly confident that most juries won't ever convict.
So, taking all this into consideration, the metaphor would be more accurate if this person were drugged/brainwashed from birth, taught that it is only appropriate to be led around in chains 24/7 by strange men, was often sold to the highest bidder, beaten whenever she spoke up, was given no choices or significant decision-making privileges, and then woke up in the strange bed.
It might not be rape exactly, but something horrible did happen, and she is most certainly some type of victim. To ignore all the circumstances leading up to that event, and then claim "she never said No" is absurd beyond the pale.
Thank you, I'll add that tonight. In the meantime though, I'm glad to answer this here.
;)
First off, let me say that I have no ill will towards freenet. The more options, the better off we all are.
However, freenet is designed to simply be a secure p2p network. This is good for many things, but it lacks many of the things that I like about the internet proper. Things that have been abused or mismanaged. Mind you, there are people wanting to build an IP transport layer onto freenet, but this is the wrong approach IMO.
In the end, it's rather simple. The designers of freenet want a secure p2p network, and I want a secure IP network. Heck, maybe we should run freenet over Meta?
Or check out my sig. Would be alot cheaper than emmigration every 5 years.
Actually I would be upset about it. I would worry to no end, that they would be up to any number of shenanigans.
While you are generally correct, if the bum said "fuck" while expressing political speech, most good judges would be less inclined to punish him than if he were merely using the word to harass women.
What we really need to know, is how the ammendment does apply to this. For instance, if the bum goes into the corner grocery, does the same thing... he could be prosecuted for trespassing. But what if someone had a business with the primary purpose of allowing someone to speak their opinion? In the real world, there is no such thing that I'm aware of. But on the internet, slashdot certainly comes to mind, and possibly kuro5hin is an even better example. Would it be wrong to ban only some of those that want to express their opinion, while allowing others?
And if so, to what degree does this bulletin board accomplish the same purpose? Their primary business isn't providing a forum like slash or kuro5hin, but it does somehow seem deceptive of them to only want to allow "good speech". Would there be any difference if the guy were telling nasty truths about the company, instead of outright trolling?
I'd be much more comfortable if they were suing for slander/libel, to be honest. Then it could be decided solely on what he said, and how true it was. They'd still nail him, without reinforcing the power to silence anyone they didn't like.
Mind you, they already have that power technically, but it doesn't mean they have the moral right to use it capriciously.
Hardly. You entered into an implied non-verbal contract with them, merely by being born on planet earth. As such, your critical review is in direct violation of the EILA (Earth Inhabitant Licensing Agreement).
And if you think this is silly, listen to some TV executives on how they feel about commercial-skipping technology...
I've always been fed up with "political" solutions, but my disgust with the concept is certainly at an all time low.
Besides, I think I know of a technical solution, that even these crooks wouldn't dare attack.
Only religionists and other fruitcakes believe that humanity is the product of some supernatural event, and therefor is not part of the natural world.
Even then, everything else in the universe supposedly was also, but still retains its natural condition, go figure, eh?
Philosophically, if something isn't natural, it can only be supernatural. A condition, trait or phenomena that no one has ever found actual evidence for. Possibly some rare events in physics experiments qualify, depending on how you stretch the definition.
Even so, humans are not excluded from the natural word, nor is there any compelling reason to do so. As such, I don't believe I was being unfair in any of what I said. While I don't really know all the formal names for fallacies and debating cheats, I do recognize that people who use the same tone of words as me, often take an irrelevant detail and distract listeners from the real point. I was not trying to do so, and I feel completely justified when the parent poster rests his case on a foundation that anything made by man is unnatural. It is patently false, and the lie should be corrected where ever and whenever you hear it.
Strangely, they also didn't have Windows, AmigaOS, or Apple ProDOS on the Unix Rosetta Stone. It must really suck or something, eh?
Actually they can. I live in the natural world (as opposed to a hypothetical supernatural world) and I have seen automobiles with my own eyes on multiple occassions. I have never see the space shuttle, though there is indeed much corroborative evidence that it does exist in the natural world. I can personally vouch for Perl, and can arrange a demonstration should you request one. Snackie cakes do indeed exist, much to my waistline's sorrow.
So, what was your point?
1) I was being sarcastic.
2) I respect the nuances and small details of security, even if I'm not an expert.
3) I'm not an expert, I'm at the lowest rungs of IT, and it's taken 3 years to get there.
4) I'm not some asshole faker posting to "ask slashdot" begging someone to help him look good.
5) I know VMS, if only as a hobbyist.
As for whether I could be replaced by a collection of shell scripts, I think you are going overkill. On most days, I could be replaced by a slightly trained chimp. Shell scripts could probably replace 10 of me.
If I meant anything at all by my previous post, it was that this jackass would probably laugh at me too, on any day other than the one he needed to use me to fake skills he doesn't have.
I am not an old fart by any definition.
But I had been building my own little microcosm of the internet, complete with a few vaxen. All the windows monkeys at work look at me with a strange grimace, and sometimes utter things like "What is the point in all of that? No one *ever* uses it anymore...".
But don't worry, security is a simple thing, and even someone that knows nothing of VMS can fake it in a few days. I'm sure that 99.999% of kiddiots will never be able to exploit a VMS hole that you have no chance of catching....
Not exactly. It's worthless for getting a job, but mine demands that I have it.
And I have been turned down for temp work, rollouts and what not, for lack of it.
The europeans use the metric shitload measurement. So quit picking on us, gd.
Most of mine never knew what "format" was...
Data Fishing? I mean, you never know if you'll catch anything.
You're thinking of starband. Totally different service and hardware.
What azimuth and elevation for the satellite?
I have a DirecPC pci card I'd like to play with it, maybe they haven't changed much since then. Think I also have the external USB box for it to, but it uses a funky power supply I don't have (they need 5v for electronics, but 13v for the LNB?).
Now if only I had some starband hardware...
Their idiotic hurrahs, I'd like to point out how sinister this actually is.
The only literal thing that has happened, is that they promise not to push for laws that insist on hardware DRM. The manufacturers are of course free to implement it on their own.
Which is the only possible explanation as to why the RIAA would cave like they have.
This isn't a good thing, by far.
My state/nation gave up whatever moral right it had to sales tax, when it started taxing income.
So I dont't really give a flying fuck if they're eating it or not. They tax spending, they tax saving, and the only thing they encourage is earning no income at all. Sorry, but if they want to play these games, they'll have to do better. I actually know my way around the net.
Is how politicians always have it ass-backwards. Rather than decide that there is a specific need for revenue, and then figure out how to meet it in a fair and non-burdensome way, they are always in "taxable industry" hunting mode.
"Let's just take what we can, and figure out how to spend it all later."
"No, let's tax air! Everyone breathes it, and we can give exemptions to people with emphysema!"
The way they run things, 5 years from now when they can't meet their budget, will they find a second internet to tax to make up for it? They need to learn to do sustainable budgeting.
That you just violated the DMCA by posting that movie script. Pretty sure the film starred Tom Hanks in the role of ugly guy with only a few months of life left(this isn't literal, it is a metaphor for the MPAA/RIAA business model).