probably its an easy way to get research money. You just put some visual basic front end on some readily available tools and convince the military that now every soldier can take part in cyber-warfare. To update the list you as for more research money. To make it portable (html5 front end) you ask for more money.
If you ask me what is the bigger evil, pupils and parents getting confronted with slightly too serious consequences for violent and rude behaviour and mobbing or six year olds handling weapons on the shooting range with their parents, i choose the latter.
School bullies can be school bullies because it is somehow accepted. I would you that by putting a school bully into juvenile jail when he is 12 and forcing his parents to eat the legal cost of the court, then maybe appropriate behavior would be some kind of a topic at the aggressor families dinner table, beyond the usual approach of denying the problem or even ridiculing the victims.
I would wish the society would find other answers, but the US logic seems to dictate that a good society requires 1% of the adult population to be in jail. The US are the record holder in that respect, only rivaled by Russia; china has significantly less and Japan has roughly 1/10th of the incarceration rate and yet its more safe. If i put somebody in jail as soon as he is 18 for smaller crimes, then it logical to put a warning shoot when the person is younger. Its not my logic, but if you escalate the levels of sanctions in this way, it logical.
That is an oversimplified representation, which some of the of the ccc board stick to. It is neither shared by all board members, nor by the ccc in general, nor by bystanders and the press.
I dont see how a "please try to hack it" during a talk given during a hacker-camp is an abuse of the ccc's credibility. I was under the impression that hacking is what hacking camps are made for. Watch DDBs talk on youtube and jude yourself.
I assume more has been going on behind the scenes, but the arguments for the exclusion are clearly a pretext. I suspect there is some personal disappointment of Andy Müller-Maguhn who tried to negotiate between JA and DDB. Given the track record of all involved, that likely was no fun. The exclusion itself was under dubious circumstances and is perceived very negatively among the interested bystanders in Germany.
If DDB thinks that material (e.g. the no-fly-list) has chances of being seen by not-trusted people outside WL or inside WL before being carefully redacted to avoid tracking entries, then it is right not to transfer the material.
I don't spin anything. I just ask wonder sometimes about the naivety with with people consider WL.
But indeed the interview contains an interesting review of DDBs book (which i did not read) and the events, indeed. It boils down to "depressive people who complain to much and speak German English dont need to be listened to" and it seems to downplay his role (or otherwise the narrative that somebody not so deeply involved was allowed to set up the servers for WL would not increase my courage in WL).
to me, both (JA and DDB) seem a little bit nuts. Some of the points DDB raised may not have been valid, but some definitely were. And JAs decisions may have been guided by reason, but he sometimes does the best to hide it and make the impression of an narcissist.
Excuse me. maybe DDB knows what he is talking about. Maybe he identified a security problem (beyond having a fluctuating organization with a leader who is a egocentric and narcissistic dictator close to jail) and JA does just deny it? Wouldn't that fit to the personalities of both (maybe DDB did not communicate it in the most nice way)?
If would have put material there which put my ass in line i would appreciate destroying it instead of giving full uncensored control to a organization spinning out off control.
Well i followed the story. While i for sure think DDB could and should have handled thins differently his story makes as much sense as JAs story.
I cant judge it, but i find it curious that marrying the wrong woman put you automatically in suspicion of collaborating with the secret services is a little paranoid.
The essential point is that Daniel Domscheit-Berg does not trust that Wikileaks can guarantee the safety of the documents. He agree to return them as soon as it is safe, however it does not seem to be like that.
There are more weird things going on like a long continued throwing of mud onto openleaks/daniel by julian/wikileaks
i am not sure who is right, but this could be covered more deeply by somebody who submits it to his journal
There is a significant difference between not believing in tooth fairies and claiming that they *can not exist* because you did not observe them accidentally.
What you can do is set up a system to specifically test for the claimed/described phenomena and then use it to disprove specific hyphothesis but tooth fairyists. Or, if tooth faieries as described by tooth fairyists contradict a natural law, design a test to check the validity of this law.
Would you have explained quantum mechanics to a 19century physicist, you would have also gotten funny looks, maybe more than for the claim of tooth fairies.
Another fundamental thing is - and that is where the tooth fairy meets the creationists - that the tooth ferry supposedly interact with our physical reality, in the same way young-earth creationist like to believe god interacted with our physical reality.
That is very different from the belief that god created the universe. This is an untestable statement (for science), and therefore a matter of belief.
To build a good wireless you need a significant amount of cable and skill. And since Ethernet still is the best for a installation with a high density of systems (offices) and power over Ethernet makes attaching thin clients on the table very easy i don't see how Ethernet would vanish soon.
Email services have been extremely cumulated since some time. What will reduce are the people installing software (but this trend also exists already for some time) and searching for mistakes.
>The atheist is saying that there is no shred of evidence of existence of God. Therefore we can safely conclude that God does not exist.
Scientifically speaking that is wrong. At each time there have been many things which there was no shred of evidence. From a lack of data you can not conclude anything. You can only falsify hypotheses (e.g.: the earth was created 6600bc in 7 days). So the scientific way is to ask the people to make their hypothesis, and then try to falsify it.
You should go and read Popper.
Moreover *by definition* of the word universe its clear that it is the ultimate domain of observation, which means you may end up with no idea why it is there.
Imagine you make a cellular automaton complicated enough to support some life, which tries to figure out what is going on. Any observer in the automaton could maybe find the rules, but not why these are there.
I am an agnostic and from my viewpoint atheism is a religion. I can explain that in the following way: There are hypotheses which can observe and test, and the results of the observations and tests must be independent of the observer. If we make theories grouping such observations then we call it science.
There are hypotheses, which are fundamentally beyond our capability to observe things, not due to a limit in our current capabilities. Among these i would classify theories about the origin and the purpose of the universe, or the laws of nature. Whether it was created (and why) or accidentally exists is something we cant answer.
Everybody who claims to have an answer to the latter call of question is religious. Everybody who claims that his answer to the latter class of question implies some answer for observations deviating from the observations made, is a fundamentalist. Everybody who relies on "you cant know for sure" to push a question into the second class is an idiot. All questions where religion contradicted new theories by this argument did not go well for religion. (The Earth is *not* the center of the universe. Cats are not from the devil and they dont bring the pest. etc.
It is expensive not in terms of the overhead in comparison to a the same instances running on a physical machine, but in the sense that copying instance memory needlessly occupies ressources.
i.e. you should not compare 10 virtualized web serving linux instances with 10 physical machines, but with the ideal use of the hardware, where the 10 servers are served by different (ideally) threads on the same machine. I promise, the overhead will be much higher than 2%.
Slashdot Mirror
Its not fake software. Attaching a gui to some tool is work. It can serve to reduce the number of the people involved in the specific attack.
probably its an easy way to get research money. You just put some visual basic front end on some readily available tools and convince the military that now every soldier can take part in cyber-warfare. To update the list you as for more research money. To make it portable (html5 front end) you ask for more money.
so who will buy the HP Mobile business (formerly Palm AFAIU)?
its called gentoo.
If you ask me what is the bigger evil, pupils and parents getting confronted with slightly too serious consequences for violent and rude behaviour and mobbing or six year olds handling weapons on the shooting range with their parents, i choose the latter.
School bullies can be school bullies because it is somehow accepted. I would you that by putting a school bully into juvenile jail when he is 12 and forcing his parents to eat the legal cost of the court, then maybe appropriate behavior would be some kind of a topic at the aggressor families dinner table, beyond the usual approach of denying the problem or even ridiculing the victims.
I would wish the society would find other answers, but the US logic seems to dictate that a good society requires 1% of the adult population to be in jail. The US are the record holder in that respect, only rivaled by Russia; china has significantly less and Japan has roughly 1/10th of the incarceration rate and yet its more safe. If i put somebody in jail as soon as he is 18 for smaller crimes, then it logical to put a warning shoot when the person is younger. Its not my logic, but if you escalate the levels of sanctions in this way, it logical.
So essentially the android app market would not be allowed to have a switch for turning off unsigned apps?
RTFW
Power over Ethernet is very different from the attempts to transfer data over a normal AC line.
That is an oversimplified representation, which some of the of the ccc board stick to. It is neither shared by all board members, nor by the ccc in general, nor by bystanders and the press.
I dont see how a "please try to hack it" during a talk given during a hacker-camp is an abuse of the ccc's credibility. I was under the impression that hacking is what hacking camps are made for. Watch DDBs talk on youtube and jude yourself.
I assume more has been going on behind the scenes, but the arguments for the exclusion are clearly a pretext. I suspect there is some personal disappointment of Andy Müller-Maguhn who tried to negotiate between JA and DDB. Given the track record of all involved, that likely was no fun. The exclusion itself was under dubious circumstances and is perceived very negatively among the interested bystanders in Germany.
If DDB thinks that material (e.g. the no-fly-list) has chances of being seen by not-trusted people outside WL or inside WL before being carefully redacted to avoid tracking entries, then it is right not to transfer the material.
I don't spin anything. I just ask wonder sometimes about the naivety with with people consider WL.
But indeed the interview contains an interesting review of DDBs book (which i did not read) and the events, indeed. It boils down to "depressive people who complain to much and speak German English dont need to be listened to" and it seems to downplay his role (or otherwise the narrative that somebody not so deeply involved was allowed to set up the servers for WL would not increase my courage in WL).
to me, both (JA and DDB) seem a little bit nuts. Some of the points DDB raised may not have been valid, but some definitely were. And JAs decisions may have been guided by reason, but he sometimes does the best to hide it and make the impression of an narcissist.
Excuse me. maybe DDB knows what he is talking about. Maybe he identified a security problem (beyond having a fluctuating organization with a leader who is a egocentric and narcissistic dictator close to jail) and JA does just deny it? Wouldn't that fit to the personalities of both (maybe DDB did not communicate it in the most nice way)?
If would have put material there which put my ass in line i would appreciate destroying it instead of giving full uncensored control to a organization spinning out off control.
Well i followed the story. While i for sure think DDB could and should have handled thins differently his story makes as much sense as JAs story.
I cant judge it, but i find it curious that marrying the wrong woman put you automatically in suspicion of collaborating with the secret services is a little paranoid.
The essential point is that Daniel Domscheit-Berg does not trust that Wikileaks can guarantee the safety of the documents. He agree to return them as soon as it is safe, however it does not seem to be like that.
There are more weird things going on like a long continued throwing of mud onto openleaks/daniel by julian/wikileaks
i am not sure who is right, but this could be covered more deeply by somebody who submits it to his journal
Oh yes. All the time when i hit some really obvious, annoying and simple bug and looked it up to discover it had been there for a long time.
???
So a fork of a open source project is immediatly magically more free than the original? Thats an interesting vievpoint.
There is a significant difference between not believing in tooth fairies and claiming that they *can not exist* because you did not observe them accidentally.
What you can do is set up a system to specifically test for the claimed/described phenomena and then use it to disprove specific hyphothesis but tooth fairyists. Or, if tooth faieries as described by tooth fairyists contradict a natural law, design a test to check the validity of this law.
Would you have explained quantum mechanics to a 19century physicist, you would have also gotten funny looks, maybe more than for the claim of tooth fairies.
Another fundamental thing is - and that is where the tooth fairy meets the creationists - that the tooth ferry supposedly interact with our physical reality, in the same way young-earth creationist like to believe god interacted with our physical reality.
That is very different from the belief that god created the universe. This is an untestable statement (for science), and therefore a matter of belief.
Yes. I seem to do it wrong. But probably you know what wireless magic goes into the free plug on the access point.
To build a good wireless you need a significant amount of cable and skill. And since Ethernet still is the best for a installation with a high density of systems (offices) and power over Ethernet makes attaching thin clients on the table very easy i don't see how Ethernet would vanish soon.
Email services have been extremely cumulated since some time. What will reduce are the people installing software (but this trend also exists already for some time) and searching for mistakes.
>The atheist is saying that there is no shred of evidence of existence of God. Therefore we can safely conclude that God does not exist.
Scientifically speaking that is wrong. At each time there have been many things which there was no shred of evidence. From a lack of data you can not conclude anything. You can only falsify hypotheses (e.g.: the earth was created 6600bc in 7 days). So the scientific way is to ask the people to make their hypothesis, and then try to falsify it.
You should go and read Popper.
Moreover *by definition* of the word universe its clear that it is the ultimate domain of observation, which means you may end up with no idea why it is there.
Imagine you make a cellular automaton complicated enough to support some life, which tries to figure out what is going on. Any observer in the automaton could maybe find the rules, but not why these are there.
I am an agnostic and from my viewpoint atheism is a religion. I can explain that in the following way: There are hypotheses which can observe and test, and the results of the observations and tests must be independent of the observer. If we make theories grouping such observations then we call it science.
There are hypotheses, which are fundamentally beyond our capability to observe things, not due to a limit in our current capabilities. Among these i would classify theories about the origin and the purpose of the universe, or the laws of nature. Whether it was created (and why) or accidentally exists is something we cant answer.
Everybody who claims to have an answer to the latter call of question is religious. Everybody who claims that his answer to the latter class of question implies some answer for observations deviating from the observations made, is a fundamentalist. Everybody who relies on "you cant know for sure" to push a question into the second class is an idiot. All questions where religion contradicted new theories by this argument did not go well for religion. (The Earth is *not* the center of the universe. Cats are not from the devil and they dont bring the pest. etc.
DSPs killed of many analog designs.
MC and PLCs killed of digital controls
image recognition killed of many specialized sensing techniques.
People building control panels are replaces by gui designers.
Wiring of sensors in industrial plants is replaced by a single digital bus.
Put it in front of such statements:
"If you ask me as a scientist, and as you know we are in a science class here, then....."
It is expensive not in terms of the overhead in comparison to a the same instances running on a physical machine, but in the sense that copying instance memory needlessly occupies ressources.
i.e. you should not compare 10 virtualized web serving linux instances with 10 physical machines, but with the ideal use of the hardware, where the 10 servers are served by different (ideally) threads on the same machine. I promise, the overhead will be much higher than 2%.
Different applications, different strengths, different weaknesses.
and tab, return in dialog boxes, escape and alt-tab
and (annoys me most) pg up and pg down!
and the triple click in word processing.
but its cheap in human resources since it is the ultimate reuse of code.