Whoever gave this insightful fell asleep on the job.
I assume you're saying I'm wrong. The line you quote was written by a reporter, and, even so, the "in" does not clearly belong with "homes". Look at the direct quote from the police chief.
Do you think that if anyone had thought him to mean he wanted to place cameras INSIDE HOMES that he wouldn't have been questioned on this and an enormous fuss made about it? Instead the complaints were made about placing cameras in public areas, since that's clearly what was meant.
Just get the jpeg showing the laptop keyboard. It's full of meta tags. And most interesting:
SLUG: mag/hacker DATE: 12/19/2005 PHOTOGRAPHER: Sarah L. Voisin/TWP id#: LOCATION: Roland, OK CAPTION: PICTURED: Canon Canon EOS 20D Adobe Photoshop CS2 Macintosh 2006:02:16 15:44:49 Sarah L. Voisin
And Google for the town; pop 3000. Any flatfoot could find him in an hour.
suggest you go read Freakonomics, where they tackle the myth of crack-dealers earning lots and lots of cash.
And we only have the "botmaster's" word for the thousands per month he supposedly earns. Rule #1: Spammers lie.
That he agreed to be interviewed shows he enjoys the attention (though he perforce remains anonymous). Who knows how much he really earns? (And does he report this to the IRS -- that's how they got Capone -- no need to write special laws if they're breaking old ones.)
Yes; in the lobbies, elevators, hallways. Not IN the actual apartments. Though pedantically, it could include that, is there actually a police chief in the USA who would actually be insane and stupid enough to say he would want to put cameras inside people's homes? Even if he privately wanted to, he knows he'd be fired even for suggesting that.
He didn't, of course. The submitter (or perhaps Zonk) made that up. He never said "IN homes". he said "in large apartment complexes", meaning the public areas, and the exact words for honmes: "if a homeowner requires repeated police response, it is reasonable to require camera surveillance of the property". Which means the OUTSIDE of a property, unless the police chief is a raving lunatic. The lack of emphasis on this in TFA indicats this was understood to be the meaning.
Not to say there are no problems with the idea, but argue about what he actually proposed.
I'm talking about the real world of millions of offices who don't have computers as their main business and who need smart office workers who can use computers.
And learning to use a Linux desktop would make them stupid office workers?
if business, science and design students, plus the general highschool populace (who tend to learn very little about computers anyway) come out of the education system having only learned about linux, then they're going to walk into a brick wall when they start their first job and they're handed a sodding Windoze machine
Well, if in some wonderful alternate reality students did learn Linux, or for that matter, anything except Windows; companies would of necessity give them a two-day course on how to click on "Start" instead of a footprint, and so on. Though if everyone was using Linux in school I'd expect that most businesses would too. That's the reason Apple and MS both almost give away their software to schools. Personally, in my late 40s, the only computer I used at high school was a HP calculator. My daughter is in primary school and the computer classes they have are, except perhaps for keyboarding skills, i.e. typing, pretty much a waste of time. I'd rather she was reading a book or playing sport.
Since when is forcing adoption the right thing to do? Is this forced switch really in the best interest of the students?
RTFA. The cities and universities are applying for the program.
"We will start to receive applications next week. After screening candidate cities and universities, the test beds are likely to be decided by late March," MIC director Lee Do-kyu said.
Because out in the *real* world of work and the office, microsoft unfortunately rules the roost. You can't just create a little linux based utopian world inside schools
We're talking about universities, not evening schools. If you need to learn MS software, there are plenty of "For Dummies" books you can read over a weekend -- don't waste your probably one and only shot at higher education learning how to operate a black box that will be obsolete in two years.
If it's not even in many books, I doubt many history teachers are going to go out of their way to teach it. I never learned about this in school. I had to read up on it on my own.
Well, it's been pretty well-known for at least 20 years. If the subject of Mao came up in a history class I'd hope the teacher might have a clue. Or was he waving a Little Red Book and exhorting you to learn from Lei Feng?
"some computer thing" that nobody outside of the technical community understands or cares about.
At least two Chinese are in prison because Yahoo ratted them out to the government. That's not hard to understand or relate to. One was a reporter, another had posted some unkind remarks on a website.
all companies in the area where I live seem to charge for each computer connected to the net
Well, you can and should just connect a NAT router. Technically, it is a computer, and the only one connected directly. That it gives access to three desktop PCs is something you don't need to bother the ISPs with.
The big difference between the US and most of the rest of the world (okay, EVERYPLACE I CAN THINK OF, but I don't want to make generalizations), is that in the US we have free local calling. That means that if you want to call your ISP downtown, you can be on 24/7 and it doesn't cost you a dime more on your phone bill.
In Hong Kong we have free local calls. But dialup Internet is billed by the hour, partly due to a telecommunications tax. Also dialup ties up your phoneline exclusively, you can't receive incoming calls or faxes, so if you were on 24/7 you'd need another line. ISPs can only serve as many customers as they have lines and modems. It often needed a lot of redialing to get a line at peak periods, like 9am or in the evening. Once DSL came along there was an inital period of profiteering, but the monopoly telephone company was forced to give access to other ISPs, bringing the price down, and so now you can get 24/7 DSL for less than $20/month, and I was often spending twice that for dialup.
that's a terrific way to overload your queue (and your server's resources): sending bounced messages back to non-existant addresses.
You may have noticed that very many servers DO send back bounces with inane messages in them already -- I get several a day when some asshole forges my address as the return. If that overloads your server I think you must have an extremely low capacity and/or a huge spam problem. If you look at what I was responding to, someone who has a strict whitelist wanted to allow unknown senders a chance to get through. I can't think of a way of telling legitimate senders that they didnt get through without sending a message -- do you advocate silently deleting? And personally, I wouldn't do this, I need to get business mail from new senders.
The US government,...should spend a little more time focusing on their own country and leave things like this alone.... is just not what good governments should be doing. The kind of governmental intrusion you are calling for is why the US is so hated east of the mediteranian.
It's not a government initiative, and it's in Canada, not the US.
In the end, it is at times absolutely necessary that complete strangers can contact us without prior warning. If we don't have email for this role, then we need something similar to replace it.
One method is to have whitelisted mail, and bounce others with a message asking you to do something difficult to automate, eg pointing to a web page where they can type in a message, maybe with a captcha.
What's the difference between you and a "clueless suspect"? Nothing,
If I had something possibly incriminating on my PC, I know enough to encrypt it using PGP or something that the government doesn't have a finger in. It doesn't take a great deal of intelligence to RTFM.
If governments force a backdoor to be installed, it'll be for sale to crackers before the gold masters are pressed, and common knowledge a few weeks later. So "trusted computing" can be subverted using the govt master key. And anyone who actually wants to keep secrets will install somethng that works while not requiring a magic dongle on the mobo. The govt will be able to read data from clueless suspects as they do now. So a win all round. And who doesn't suspect MS would leave backdoors anyway?
"If you want to tell me about typographical errors in Cryptonomicon, thank you, but don't bother. I am aware that the book has many typos. The publisher and I are trying to fix as many as we can in a subsequent printing."
Hitchhiker's Guide was originally a radio play, so statements (from TFA) such as "since most of the comedy was in the narrative language and descriptions" are baloney.
Well, no; in the radio version the description was actually spoken by the narrator, Peter Jones, "the voice of the Book". And I think worked much better than as words on the page.
Slashdot Mirror
FYI: The NSA on how to redact from MS Word and PDF.
I assume you're saying I'm wrong. The line you quote was written by a reporter, and, even so, the "in" does not clearly belong with "homes". Look at the direct quote from the police chief.
Do you think that if anyone had thought him to mean he wanted to place cameras INSIDE HOMES that he wouldn't have been questioned on this and an enormous fuss made about it? Instead the complaints were made about placing cameras in public areas, since that's clearly what was meant.
And we only have the "botmaster's" word for the thousands per month he supposedly earns. Rule #1: Spammers lie.
That he agreed to be interviewed shows he enjoys the attention (though he perforce remains anonymous). Who knows how much he really earns? (And does he report this to the IRS -- that's how they got Capone -- no need to write special laws if they're breaking old ones.)
Yes; in the lobbies, elevators, hallways. Not IN the actual apartments. Though pedantically, it could include that, is there actually a police chief in the USA who would actually be insane and stupid enough to say he would want to put cameras inside people's homes? Even if he privately wanted to, he knows he'd be fired even for suggesting that.
He didn't, of course. The submitter (or perhaps Zonk) made that up. He never said "IN homes". he said "in large apartment complexes", meaning the public areas, and the exact words for honmes: "if a homeowner requires repeated police response, it is reasonable to require camera surveillance of the property". Which means the OUTSIDE of a property, unless the police chief is a raving lunatic. The lack of emphasis on this in TFA indicats this was understood to be the meaning. Not to say there are no problems with the idea, but argue about what he actually proposed.
And learning to use a Linux desktop would make them stupid office workers?
if business, science and design students, plus the general highschool populace (who tend to learn very little about computers anyway) come out of the education system having only learned about linux, then they're going to walk into a brick wall when they start their first job and they're handed a sodding Windoze machine
Well, if in some wonderful alternate reality students did learn Linux, or for that matter, anything except Windows; companies would of necessity give them a two-day course on how to click on "Start" instead of a footprint, and so on. Though if everyone was using Linux in school I'd expect that most businesses would too. That's the reason Apple and MS both almost give away their software to schools. Personally, in my late 40s, the only computer I used at high school was a HP calculator. My daughter is in primary school and the computer classes they have are, except perhaps for keyboarding skills, i.e. typing, pretty much a waste of time. I'd rather she was reading a book or playing sport.
RTFA. The cities and universities are applying for the program.
We're talking about universities, not evening schools. If you need to learn MS software, there are plenty of "For Dummies" books you can read over a weekend -- don't waste your probably one and only shot at higher education learning how to operate a black box that will be obsolete in two years.
Well, it's been pretty well-known for at least 20 years. If the subject of Mao came up in a history class I'd hope the teacher might have a clue. Or was he waving a Little Red Book and exhorting you to learn from Lei Feng?
Woops -- sorry for the non sequitar. Reading two threads at once....
At least two Chinese are in prison because Yahoo ratted them out to the government. That's not hard to understand or relate to. One was a reporter, another had posted some unkind remarks on a website.
What schools teach you about Mao in "a positive way"?
China's "Great Leap Forward" around 1960. The typical estimate given for the number of people who died is generally placed around 30 million people.
Well, you can and should just connect a NAT router. Technically, it is a computer, and the only one connected directly. That it gives access to three desktop PCs is something you don't need to bother the ISPs with.
In Hong Kong we have free local calls. But dialup Internet is billed by the hour, partly due to a telecommunications tax. Also dialup ties up your phoneline exclusively, you can't receive incoming calls or faxes, so if you were on 24/7 you'd need another line. ISPs can only serve as many customers as they have lines and modems. It often needed a lot of redialing to get a line at peak periods, like 9am or in the evening. Once DSL came along there was an inital period of profiteering, but the monopoly telephone company was forced to give access to other ISPs, bringing the price down, and so now you can get 24/7 DSL for less than $20/month, and I was often spending twice that for dialup.
You may have noticed that very many servers DO send back bounces with inane messages in them already -- I get several a day when some asshole forges my address as the return. If that overloads your server I think you must have an extremely low capacity and/or a huge spam problem. If you look at what I was responding to, someone who has a strict whitelist wanted to allow unknown senders a chance to get through. I can't think of a way of telling legitimate senders that they didnt get through without sending a message -- do you advocate silently deleting? And personally, I wouldn't do this, I need to get business mail from new senders.
It's not a government initiative, and it's in Canada, not the US.
One method is to have whitelisted mail, and bounce others with a message asking you to do something difficult to automate, eg pointing to a web page where they can type in a message, maybe with a captcha.
If I had something possibly incriminating on my PC, I know enough to encrypt it using PGP or something that the government doesn't have a finger in. It doesn't take a great deal of intelligence to RTFM.
I read it as meaning deliberately lost by the suspect. As in "Lose your gun after the hit"; "Lose your tail", etc.
If governments force a backdoor to be installed, it'll be for sale to crackers before the gold masters are pressed, and common knowledge a few weeks later. So "trusted computing" can be subverted using the govt master key. And anyone who actually wants to keep secrets will install somethng that works while not requiring a magic dongle on the mobo. The govt will be able to read data from clueless suspects as they do now. So a win all round. And who doesn't suspect MS would leave backdoors anyway?
Laziness, ignorance; the same that prevents them from using encryption now.
His page is here.
"If you want to tell me about typographical errors in Cryptonomicon, thank you, but don't bother. I am aware that the book has many typos. The publisher and I are trying to fix as many as we can in a subsequent printing."
Maybe he's trying to build up credibility before he starts sneaking his links in again.
Well, no; in the radio version the description was actually spoken by the narrator, Peter Jones, "the voice of the Book". And I think worked much better than as words on the page.