Come on, though. Re-publishing responses to fake sex ads is just comedy GOLD!
Re-publishing responses to fake sex ads, but keeping identifying details anonymous? Comedy gold to some. Re-publishing responses to fake sex ads and revealing identifying details? Pure douche-baggery.
Really? For science I rather find the more we understand, the more we realize we don't understand.
This is true. But this also increases our understanding, not decreases it. known unknowns > unknown unknowns. Scientific theories only hold out until something else comes along with more facts that change our understanding.
To a degree, yes. But a new theory doesn't usually completely obviate the old one. Newtons F=MA still works for the vast majority of the time for things us humans are likely to come into contact with, it just begins to break down as you approach the speed of light. Special relativity only becomes relevant in special cases.
The ideal would be for it to operate like any other civic infrastructure (water, sewer, power, etc.) where the homeowner is responsible only past a certain point (demarc point, property boundary, etc.) and the utility company is responsible for the rest
So how would that be different than it is now? I don't own the water pipes outside my home, nor the power cables. I don't WANT to own those things, nor does it really make much sense to do so. If you own it, you're responsible for fixing it. Nobody is going to want to be responsible for fixing the fiber, but not be able to charge you for that responsibility.
The one good suggestion I heard was someone who suggested an insurance model.
Like say some idiot knocking out your connection because they knocked it out with a backhoe. Or even the city tearing up the street, and saying you have to pay to relocate your fiber.
It's a hell of a lot easier for someone that owns a LOT of the fiber to hire lawyers and get someone else to pay for mistakes than it is for one person.
If they are reasonable people, they will honor a request that certain things not be on the activity list when Jimmy comes over to play.
I'd say reasonable people don't really want to try to parent by some other parents rules. We're not talking about hardcore pornography here, it's a silly beer pong game. Do I get to enforce equally silly rules on other parents, such as "don't let Johnny watch any Fox News when he's over there.. we don't want to poison his mind with that garbage". Yah think the "Fox News" watching parents might be more than a little offended by that request?
By your logic, what is the big deal about going up to the windows and photographing the interiors as well?
It's interesting you have to resort to a "by your logic" statement to try to make a point, even when there wasn't any "by your logic" going on. Anyway, I still don't understand what all the hoopla is about. Endlessly stating "private means private" shows nothing. I simply don't understand how someone seeing the outside of a house is so invasive.
Because your adult "child" might play this game away from home! Gotta protect the "kids", right? Why is it video games are the new evil that's replaced song lyrics?
Here's a message to the helicopter parents: Let Go.
that by extension the ground level databasing of a persons private property is an assumed privilege.
I'll never understand people that think they have some inherent right to control people taking a picture of something as mundane and non-personal as the outside of their house, or swimming pool.
Are you really trying to argue that a picture of your "private" house is somehow more personal than publishing pictures of your person?
The uproar about publishing pictures people in Google street view makes some sense, as people could be photographed going into an AA meeting, or shrink, or something else they wish to remain private. I really don't see how a picture of someones house is some big invasion of privacy.
The people in the modified photographs look enough like the the original person to still be identifiable. People are still going to recognize themselves in a google photograph, if for no other reason than the combination of hairstyle, face shape, and skin tone.
That's not to say it's not impressive technology. I just don't think it's at a very usable stage yet though.
Why shouldn't an administration be able to hire people on their side of the political fence?
Because it's illegal to do so for these types of Justice department jobs (and rightly so). Are you seriously going to sit there and tell me with a straight face that President Clinton's administration didn't weed out conservatives from executive branch jobs?
For prosecutors in the justice department? I'll tell you that with a very straight face unless you can show otherwise. Everything I've read says this just doesn't happen for these kinds of appointees. The fired prosecutors were shocked to be fired for political reasons. but I would assume that a given administration would not want to hire attorneys who hate everything that administration stands for, whether the administration is conservative, liberal or anything in between.
I find that a very strange attitude. Criminal prosecutions (which is what the Justice department does) shouldn't have a political slant to it. I'd hope you'd agree that that would be a horrible horrible thing no matter who was doing it. There's a reason why the image representing justice (the one holding the scales) is blindfolded.
Sounds to me like the only thing the studios are interested in is controlling the bad information. The studios want people ignorant as to if this is a good movie or not on opening night. Then a large group of people will risk their money to see it first, and the studio rakes in the dough even with a bad movie. From this perspective, T+38 hours is a hell of a lot better than T MINUS 2 weeks.
That explicit permission was given when the client asked the hosting provider to 'fix it'.
Pure nonsense.
When I ask my phone company to fix the phone, does that give them explicit permission to enter my house and "fix it" if the problem exists within the house? It's an analogy, so it proves nothing. But I use it to illustrate the point of hand off of a problem. The phone company can tell me it's not a problem with their equipment and then ask me if I'd like to pay someone to come over to fix the problem. The problem of where responsibility lies with service providers isn't exactly new. The only thing that's new is that data is property just like a house is property.
Hosting companies need to learn where the problem hand off occurs. It's pretty straightforward that if the problem exists within the customers data, it's the customers problem and the hosting company shouldn't touch it unless they get explicit permission to do so. This is also good for hosting companies, since they can charge customers if they have to fix something in the customers data/setup. There's some grey areas in the interaction between the two pieces of course, but that's irrelevant for this particular question.
It depends on the motive. From the text it seems as if they looked at the database to determine whether the data in it was causing the problem. I would say that it is reasonable for any sysadmin to look at data when it pertains to the smooth running of their system
I don't agree. I don't think it's ever ethical to look at private data without permission, even if you're trying to "fix" the customers problem. If the customers website is interfering with the smooth operation of the hosting business, disable the website and get your customer to fix it. If they don't know how/can't, then ask permission to fix it. unless there was some explicit agreement that under no circumstances whatsoever were they to look at data.
That should be the norm, not the other way around. It's their hardware, and their system, but it's your data. It may not be legally defined like this but I'd never use a provider that didn't have this as part of the explicit agreement. It's rather sad that the attitude around here seems to be that admins can and should do whatever they please because "it's our hardware".
Who is this hosting company, and why are you protecting them? People should know what they're getting into when they enter into an agreement, and it sounds like this company isn't doing that. I don't know if this is "industry standard", legal, or whatever, but I'd run away very fast from this hosting company. Find another hosting company that'll give you assurances in writing that they won't look at your data without your permission. They can't ALL be douche bags.
including guns, drugs, pirated software, hookers, ect
I've never seen drugs for sale on craigslist, but everything else you listed can also be found in the yellow pages. Do you consider that seedy as well? If you want to include drugs, I've seen that for sale on ebay. Is ebay seedy?
Like the yellow pages the vast majority of things listed on craigslist is completely legitimate stuff from everyday people.
Craigslist has to be about the seediest place to do business on the internet.
I suspect you haven't been around "the internet" very much. You're honestly trying to say craigslist is as seedy as illegal drug sellers, offshore quasi-legal casino's, websites selling pirated software, malware/adware "free" software sites, or any number of other seedy places I haven't listed?
Craiglist is certainly no-frills, but it's not really that seedy. It's no more seedy than the local free newspaper. I've bought and sold many things on craiglist, and the vast majority of it was from fine upstanding people.
Translation please?
on
Linux 2.6.26 Out
·
· Score: 1, Informative
Some of these I know what they are, and some I can guess at. But what is:
read-only bind mounts x86 PAT (Page Attribute Tables) basic paravirtualization support BDI statistics and parameters per-process securebits device white-list for containers users
And what might I see as a result of these improvements somewhere along the line?
I predict it will not go well for them, however, mostly because high speed internet is so widespread and as usual people will buy it and bring it back when they can't run The Sims or whatever Windows game they run.
I just don't think you're in the target market for this product.
The target market is really techies who've heard about this Linux thing, but don't really trust a product you can get for free. They want to exchange some money and expect a modest level of support. (I'd hope this comes with a little support for your $20, but I don't know that it does). This isn't Joe Sixpack, though it might be his kid. They don't expect to be able to run a Windows game on it, though they do expect they'll be SOME games available for the thing.
The other target market might just be bargain hunters. They've got an old PC in the back room that's running slow after years of installing garbage on it, and couldn't even run Vista if they tried. They understand that it's not going to do everything Windows did for only $20. They only expect it'll make their computer run again (which it likely will). These bargain hunters aren't tech-savy enough to download a CD and burn it, but they're tech savy enough to put a CD in a drive and click through some screens. If it breaks, $20 isn't a lot of money, and the PC never worked right in the first place.
the ideas I've come up with for fighting this kind of reputation scam seem fairly weak.
How about people not believing everything they hear from a source they know nothing about? There's no general solution to the problem of people spreading unfounded rumors other than people being more skeptical of new untested information sources. This will take time as people come to realize that "the internet" isn't a single source of information.
I think the point is that there's essentially no way such a system is going to be economically viable, so nobody is ever going to produce such a system for the home.
If you really cared about investing something to save you money, photo-voltaic is going to be a LOT more bang/buck than this crazy waste-water power system that doesn't even exist. There's also many other things you could poor money into if you really wanted to save a few bucks on power. Better insulation, wind generator, geo-thermal heating/cooling, low-flow toilets, more energy efficient appliances, etc. A system that doesn't exist and you have to inflate the numbers and start talking about what power costs MIGHT be is pretty low on that list to look towards.
This sounds like a play by the Secretary of State to win some political points than anything else. Consider the following:
1. No money changed hands. 2. No bids were actually placed. 3. The Secretary of State is an elected official. 4. The SoS office is playing this up big with statements about VFWs and trivializing votes like they caught some big criminal here. 5. The ebayer is some dumb college kid who's either making a statement, or a dumb joke, or both.
As far as the "people died to preserve your right to vote", I'd say those people also died to protect peoples rights of expression. This dumb stunt sounds a lot more like expression than an honest attempt at vote selling and profiteering.
The problem I see is mostly that somebody needs to start manufacturing such turbines, complete with standard output to a battery
No, the problem is there's an incredibly tiny amount of energy in the water from a toilet flush falling 30 feet.
energy joules = m(kg)*h(m)*g(9.8 m/s)
= (3.8*3) * 30/3.28 * 9.8 = 1021 joules.
a kilowatt hour is 3,600,000 joules. so we're talking about 1021/3600000, or.00028 kilowatt hours. My power costs about.10/kilowatt hour, so one flush is equal to $0.000028. If you flush 4 times a day for a year, that's $.04 of electricity. (and this is assuming you're able to capture ALL of the energy, which you can't do, and the water falls 30 feet, which isn't happening in anyones home anyway.
radio-isotopic proportions for the elements have changed over the years, and it is nearly impossible to create such a pure laboratory environment as you are suggesting here.
Who said you had to create a pure environment? You're not trying to date to a specific year hear, only avoid the post 1945 contamination. You just need an environment with a low amount of contaminants. The contaminants are more than likely all in the soil. So instead of using soil, grow in some other substrate like rockwool. For nutrients, find some 60+ year old wood and clean it very well (I've got tons of it just in the floorboards of my house). Then burn it. Suddenly you have fertilizer.
The point is of course that as soon as someone creates a fence, other people figure out a way to jump it.
Slashdot Mirror
Come on, though. Re-publishing responses to fake sex ads is just comedy GOLD!
Re-publishing responses to fake sex ads, but keeping identifying details anonymous? Comedy gold to some.
Re-publishing responses to fake sex ads and revealing identifying details? Pure douche-baggery.
Really? For science I rather find the more we understand, the more we realize we don't understand.
This is true. But this also increases our understanding, not decreases it. known unknowns > unknown unknowns.
Scientific theories only hold out until something else comes along with more facts that change our understanding.
To a degree, yes. But a new theory doesn't usually completely obviate the old one. Newtons F=MA still works for the vast majority of the time for things us humans are likely to come into contact with, it just begins to break down as you approach the speed of light. Special relativity only becomes relevant in special cases.
The ideal would be for it to operate like any other civic infrastructure (water, sewer, power, etc.) where the homeowner is responsible only past a certain point (demarc point, property boundary, etc.) and the utility company is responsible for the rest
So how would that be different than it is now? I don't own the water pipes outside my home, nor the power cables. I don't WANT to own those things, nor does it really make much sense to do so. If you own it, you're responsible for fixing it. Nobody is going to want to be responsible for fixing the fiber, but not be able to charge you for that responsibility.
The one good suggestion I heard was someone who suggested an insurance model.
Like say some idiot knocking out your connection because they knocked it out with a backhoe. Or even the city tearing up the street, and saying you have to pay to relocate your fiber.
It's a hell of a lot easier for someone that owns a LOT of the fiber to hire lawyers and get someone else to pay for mistakes than it is for one person.
the dehumanizing effect of anonymity.
Naw, it's got nothing to do with anonymity. It's all about fist distance. People are more polite when they're within fist range.
The real question is more why troll in the first place? I'm not sure there's a single answer to that question.
If they are reasonable people, they will honor a request that certain things not be on the activity list when Jimmy comes over to play.
I'd say reasonable people don't really want to try to parent by some other parents rules. We're not talking about hardcore pornography here, it's a silly beer pong game. Do I get to enforce equally silly rules on other parents, such as "don't let Johnny watch any Fox News when he's over there.. we don't want to poison his mind with that garbage". Yah think the "Fox News" watching parents might be more than a little offended by that request?
By your logic, what is the big deal about going up to the windows and photographing the interiors as well?
It's interesting you have to resort to a "by your logic" statement to try to make a point, even when there wasn't any "by your logic" going on. Anyway, I still don't understand what all the hoopla is about. Endlessly stating "private means private" shows nothing. I simply don't understand how someone seeing the outside of a house is so invasive.
Because your adult "child" might play this game away from home! Gotta protect the "kids", right? Why is it video games are the new evil that's replaced song lyrics?
Here's a message to the helicopter parents: Let Go.
that by extension the ground level databasing of a persons private property is an assumed privilege.
I'll never understand people that think they have some inherent right to control people taking a picture of something as mundane and non-personal as the outside of their house, or swimming pool.
Are you really trying to argue that a picture of your "private" house is somehow more personal than publishing pictures of your person?
The uproar about publishing pictures people in Google street view makes some sense, as people could be photographed going into an AA meeting, or shrink, or something else they wish to remain private. I really don't see how a picture of someones house is some big invasion of privacy.
The people in the modified photographs look enough like the the original person to still be identifiable. People are still going to recognize themselves in a google photograph, if for no other reason than the combination of hairstyle, face shape, and skin tone.
That's not to say it's not impressive technology. I just don't think it's at a very usable stage yet though.
Why shouldn't an administration be able to hire people on their side of the political fence?
Because it's illegal to do so for these types of Justice department jobs (and rightly so).
Are you seriously going to sit there and tell me with a straight face that President Clinton's administration didn't weed out conservatives from executive branch jobs?
For prosecutors in the justice department? I'll tell you that with a very straight face unless you can show otherwise. Everything I've read says this just doesn't happen for these kinds of appointees. The fired prosecutors were shocked to be fired for political reasons.
but I would assume that a given administration would not want to hire attorneys who hate everything that administration stands for, whether the administration is conservative, liberal or anything in between.
I find that a very strange attitude. Criminal prosecutions (which is what the Justice department does) shouldn't have a political slant to it. I'd hope you'd agree that that would be a horrible horrible thing no matter who was doing it. There's a reason why the image representing justice (the one holding the scales) is blindfolded.
Sounds to me like the only thing the studios are interested in is controlling the bad information. The studios want people ignorant as to if this is a good movie or not on opening night. Then a large group of people will risk their money to see it first, and the studio rakes in the dough even with a bad movie. From this perspective, T+38 hours is a hell of a lot better than T MINUS 2 weeks.
That explicit permission was given when the client asked the hosting provider to 'fix it'.
Pure nonsense.
When I ask my phone company to fix the phone, does that give them explicit permission to enter my house and "fix it" if the problem exists within the house? It's an analogy, so it proves nothing. But I use it to illustrate the point of hand off of a problem. The phone company can tell me it's not a problem with their equipment and then ask me if I'd like to pay someone to come over to fix the problem. The problem of where responsibility lies with service providers isn't exactly new. The only thing that's new is that data is property just like a house is property.
Hosting companies need to learn where the problem hand off occurs. It's pretty straightforward that if the problem exists within the customers data, it's the customers problem and the hosting company shouldn't touch it unless they get explicit permission to do so. This is also good for hosting companies, since they can charge customers if they have to fix something in the customers data/setup. There's some grey areas in the interaction between the two pieces of course, but that's irrelevant for this particular question.
It depends on the motive. From the text it seems as if they looked at the database to determine whether the data in it was causing the problem. I would say that it is reasonable for any sysadmin to look at data when it pertains to the smooth running of their system
I don't agree. I don't think it's ever ethical to look at private data without permission, even if you're trying to "fix" the customers problem. If the customers website is interfering with the smooth operation of the hosting business, disable the website and get your customer to fix it. If they don't know how/can't, then ask permission to fix it.
unless there was some explicit agreement that under no circumstances whatsoever were they to look at data.
That should be the norm, not the other way around. It's their hardware, and their system, but it's your data. It may not be legally defined like this but I'd never use a provider that didn't have this as part of the explicit agreement. It's rather sad that the attitude around here seems to be that admins can and should do whatever they please because "it's our hardware".
Who is this hosting company, and why are you protecting them? People should know what they're getting into when they enter into an agreement, and it sounds like this company isn't doing that. I don't know if this is "industry standard", legal, or whatever, but I'd run away very fast from this hosting company. Find another hosting company that'll give you assurances in writing that they won't look at your data without your permission. They can't ALL be douche bags.
including guns, drugs, pirated software, hookers, ect
I've never seen drugs for sale on craigslist, but everything else you listed can also be found in the yellow pages. Do you consider that seedy as well? If you want to include drugs, I've seen that for sale on ebay. Is ebay seedy?
Like the yellow pages the vast majority of things listed on craigslist is completely legitimate stuff from everyday people.
Craigslist has to be about the seediest place to do business on the internet.
I suspect you haven't been around "the internet" very much. You're honestly trying to say craigslist is as seedy as illegal drug sellers, offshore quasi-legal casino's, websites selling pirated software, malware/adware "free" software sites, or any number of other seedy places I haven't listed?
Craiglist is certainly no-frills, but it's not really that seedy. It's no more seedy than the local free newspaper. I've bought and sold many things on craiglist, and the vast majority of it was from fine upstanding people.
Some of these I know what they are, and some I can guess at. But what is:
read-only bind mounts
x86 PAT (Page Attribute Tables)
basic paravirtualization support
BDI statistics and parameters
per-process securebits
device white-list for containers users
And what might I see as a result of these improvements somewhere along the line?
I predict it will not go well for them, however, mostly because high speed internet is so widespread and as usual people will buy it and bring it back when they can't run The Sims or whatever Windows game they run.
I just don't think you're in the target market for this product.
The target market is really techies who've heard about this Linux thing, but don't really trust a product you can get for free. They want to exchange some money and expect a modest level of support. (I'd hope this comes with a little support for your $20, but I don't know that it does). This isn't Joe Sixpack, though it might be his kid. They don't expect to be able to run a Windows game on it, though they do expect they'll be SOME games available for the thing.
The other target market might just be bargain hunters. They've got an old PC in the back room that's running slow after years of installing garbage on it, and couldn't even run Vista if they tried. They understand that it's not going to do everything Windows did for only $20. They only expect it'll make their computer run again (which it likely will). These bargain hunters aren't tech-savy enough to download a CD and burn it, but they're tech savy enough to put a CD in a drive and click through some screens. If it breaks, $20 isn't a lot of money, and the PC never worked right in the first place.
the ideas I've come up with for fighting this kind of reputation scam seem fairly weak.
How about people not believing everything they hear from a source they know nothing about? There's no general solution to the problem of people spreading unfounded rumors other than people being more skeptical of new untested information sources. This will take time as people come to realize that "the internet" isn't a single source of information.
I think the point is that there's essentially no way such a system is going to be economically viable, so nobody is ever going to produce such a system for the home.
If you really cared about investing something to save you money, photo-voltaic is going to be a LOT more bang/buck than this crazy waste-water power system that doesn't even exist. There's also many other things you could poor money into if you really wanted to save a few bucks on power. Better insulation, wind generator, geo-thermal heating/cooling, low-flow toilets, more energy efficient appliances, etc. A system that doesn't exist and you have to inflate the numbers and start talking about what power costs MIGHT be is pretty low on that list to look towards.
You can make a statement without actually participating in voter fraud.
This is true. That's why it's a dumb stunt and not a brilliant statement.
This sounds like a play by the Secretary of State to win some political points than anything else. Consider the following:
1. No money changed hands.
2. No bids were actually placed.
3. The Secretary of State is an elected official.
4. The SoS office is playing this up big with statements about VFWs and trivializing votes like they caught some big criminal here.
5. The ebayer is some dumb college kid who's either making a statement, or a dumb joke, or both.
As far as the "people died to preserve your right to vote", I'd say those people also died to protect peoples rights of expression. This dumb stunt sounds a lot more like expression than an honest attempt at vote selling and profiteering.
The problem I see is mostly that somebody needs to start manufacturing such turbines, complete with standard output to a battery
No, the problem is there's an incredibly tiny amount of energy in the water from a toilet flush falling 30 feet.
energy joules = m(kg)*h(m)*g(9.8 m/s)
= (3.8*3) * 30/3.28 * 9.8
= 1021 joules.
a kilowatt hour is 3,600,000 joules. so we're talking about 1021/3600000, or .00028 kilowatt hours. My power costs about .10/kilowatt hour, so one flush is equal to $0.000028. If you flush 4 times a day for a year, that's $.04 of electricity. (and this is assuming you're able to capture ALL of the energy, which you can't do, and the water falls 30 feet, which isn't happening in anyones home anyway.
radio-isotopic proportions for the elements have changed over the years, and it is nearly impossible to create such a pure laboratory environment as you are suggesting here.
Who said you had to create a pure environment? You're not trying to date to a specific year hear, only avoid the post 1945 contamination. You just need an environment with a low amount of contaminants. The contaminants are more than likely all in the soil. So instead of using soil, grow in some other substrate like rockwool. For nutrients, find some 60+ year old wood and clean it very well (I've got tons of it just in the floorboards of my house). Then burn it. Suddenly you have fertilizer.
The point is of course that as soon as someone creates a fence, other people figure out a way to jump it.