Plus a LFTR can burn up some of that spent uranium fuel that is left over from conventional reactors, in fact it needs to in order for the reactor to start up, thorium is 6 times more abundant than uranium, LFTR designs are inherently fail-safe, and it's hard to make weapons grade material with a LFTR. It's just the right way forward. I was reading an article about how the closing of reactors in California has lead to coal based power plants, and not wind or solar, stepping in to fill the breach . Wind and solar are nice, I guess, but we need either available base load power , or battery technology that would make it trivial to cache the power from those unreliable sources. I'm thinking the former is the easier problem to solve.
Sounds to me like the kids are bored with last year's toys and have become envious of the cool kids' new toys. Strange, because overall the old toys are still more popular than the new toys.
So if I install a gas furnace and start hauling tanks in every month (I'm out in the sticks), someone will pay me twice what I'm paying now for heating? Cool. Sign me up.
OK. Let me know when you want to install that heat pump, and I'll start bitching about the inefficiency of light bulbs. Until then, they are just as efficient as the electric furnace I can't afford to replace.
I don't think that's quite right. The shouting is about people advocating a ban on some weapons. I'm a strong 2nd amendment advocate, but I think there are a lot of people who should refrain from having guns. They just don't have the self discipline. On the other hand, 313M people in the US, 270M guns, and only ~8K murders by gun last year. Either we are exceptionally lousy shots, or maybe people have more restraint then I am giving them credit for.
Since her employer is a governmental body, doesn't this violate her rights under the 4th amendment to be secure in her private papers, and the 5th amendment in that she can not be forced to incriminate herself by allowing them access to her account?
We also have: fool, hoax, hoodwink, bamboozle, con, pull a fast one on, put one over on, gull, euchre, hornswoggle, or flim flam if we want to be more precise.
No, it really doesn't. The fact that a user *can* change it is the only thing that matters. This is the issue with many (not all) devs in general. Say something they wrote isn't easy or is unintuitive and instead of fixing it they say "well nobody with a brain would do that" or "if they don't know how to figure it out then too bad for them". These are not valid comebacks.
Absolutely right. Our job as software developers is to write software that's invisible, because we are the only people that are interested in software and computers. Everyone else is interested in getting a job done. If
our code gets in the way of that, then to some extent we have failed, and excuses or pointing a finger at competing OSes doesn't get the job done. No one said software was easy, and good UI code has to be among the hardest code to write simply because half of the human/computer interface is completely irrational .
So was this a mistake or deliberate on the part of the bank employee? What possible email address could be the right one to send this data to? bob123@hmail.com ? And are we to understand that none of this is automated, when loan information on thousands of accounts is transferred from A to B the addresses are typed in by hand? And this information was being sent, why? What did these accounts have in common? How many of these transfers happen daily? The gmail account address came from somewhere; someone's address book, a mailto on a web page, something like that. Surely they already knew the identity of the account's owner. So, would it better for a bank to appear incompetent to its customers, or for it to be known that one of your employees was trying to commit identity fraud? Which one is more actionable on the part of the bank's customers? Of course you send a second email, to yourself, asking that you don't open the first email. That's just basic deniability in case you ever get discovered.
who are you going to trust this to, some guy called bob on sourceforge, or a multi billion dollar company with resources to get you out of the shit?
Bob. At least I know his name, and can actually talk to him, the developer, before making a decision. Megacorp may have lots of resources, but they aren't my resources. They have an interest in getting me out of the shit only if they can profit from it and even then only if they can profit from it more than they can by expending those resources elsewhere. More likely in this situation their resources are going to be directed into their legal department to get them out of the shit. Bob, on the other hand, really wants his software to work well as a point of pride, and will be positively giddy to take the relatively small amount of money, compared to Megacorp's support contract, that we will offer him to fix his code right frickin now. Bob and 10 of his best buddies will be living on caffeine and sugar until they get a patch out the door because this is the brass ring, getting paid to work on code you otherwise would work on for free. Bob, because if he screws me then I and my large organization can crush him and his buddies like bugs. I'm not in a dominant position when doing business with Megacorp, I am with Bob,
so from a very Machiavellian standpoint I'm better off doing business with Bob.
A good CMS to migrate to is Plone. I've been working the last few months with Plone and I love it! Plone is well structured and easy to develop for, the documentation on their site is a bit thin, and the documentation you can google is often outdated. However their IRC channel has plenty of nice peeps willing to help.
Plone is somewhat of a hairball, multiplied by the bits of Zope3 that have been included. If you look up "overengineering" or "java envy" in the dictionary, you will see the Zope3 logo. This is unfortunate because Plone has by far the best UI of any CMS that I've seen. And Zope2, while somewhat wooly, had some very interesting ideas in it. I would really like to like Plone, but even creating a new skin is a major undertaking, requiring the special buildout tools, and learning their special dictionary of CSS tags. It's very "One True Way". I'm not building a cathedral, just a website. I think a better tool in most cases is Django. The chief advantage is that it is less tightly coupled, making it easier to integrate other python products and just generally making it more approachable. YMMV.
You got the meme wrong. Security through obscurity alone is not enough, but obscurity in addition to other measures certainly helps. Or are you sugegsting that our secret CIA operatives inside the Taliban would be more effective if they stood up in the middle of prayers and announced they worked for the Agency?
Right. Most people just call this camouflage, and it's been an effective strategy for millions of years. In fact, it's been so effective that I have to question whether this aphorism is true at all, or if it's just being misapplied here. Certainly denying you have security holes in your code is a bad idea, particularly if the bad guys already know about them. But making a machine on a net appear to be something other than it is, that sounds pretty effective to me, if it's done right.
And wherever He goes, there could be shrines erected. Stallman sat beneath this tree and dreamed a dream of software unencumbered by patents. The people of the villages that spring up around the shrines could place their tired, broken Ipods at the foot of the shrine and pray for deliverance from DRM. Pilgrims, either barefoot or on a Segway, could travel the path that He travelled, and in the journey come to know Him through His Works.
That is totally unfair! I'm a reseller for godaddy and I just checked. They're charging $80 to save some nimrod who can't keep his shit together, and I don't get a piece of it? You Bastards!
As to the original topic, won't this recent change in ICANN policy largely eliminate the problems with drop catching? Tasting is the real problem and where most of the accidentally dropped names get caught up in the wash, at least if it's not a valuable generic domain name. If you let a generic name drop, take it as a lesson in the value of domain names.
That is a valid point, certainly. However, for many of the criminals, there are some obvious patterns involved. In particular, the criminals generally purchase several dozen (or more?) domains in a single day. If you are aware of a good reason why a legitimate business or individual would want to do such a thing, I'm interested in hearing it.
WTF? Because they believe those domains are valuable in and of themselves? Picking up the leftover crumbs in the domain investment world? This sounds just like the argument against P2P technology: "We don't do it, therefore it's probably criminal."
Back when I was in grad school, I had an office mate who was an older woman from China, old enough to remember China before Mao. Her english wasn't very good, but we managed to become friends, or at least attempt to communicate with each other. One day she was gone, moved to the big office on the next floor, where most of the PRC students hung out. Later I ran into her and she told me that she had been told to move because we were talking too much, and a PRC grad student who was a party member/political officer didn't like it. So maybe the PRC students you ran into just didn't want to get in trouble.
Where do linkfarms enter in? Those are sites that are redundantly linked to one another in order to fool a search engine, FYI .
I see that like every other censor before you, you are the sole arbiter of what useful content is. I've never understood where
the Slashdot crowd gets their sanctimonious zeal against web advertising. The world, or at least the human world, runs on commerce.
And commerce is initiated by advertising. Even the most strident, hair-shirted, GPLed project has to advertise in order to attract a
community to it. Your resume is advertising. Web based, non-popup advertising has to be the most innocuous form of advertising there is. No one
is calling you up during dinner and asking you to buy their crap. No one is filling your mailbox with spam. You chose to go to the page with advertising on it. No one forced you or tricked you into going there. And if you don't like the content of that parked page, click away. How hard is that?
But don't claim that there's no valuable content there, because the value can easily be tallied in the bank account of the owner of that page.
That money came from people who found that page valuable, because other people clicked thru and found that advertising valuable. And here's another harsh truth to face: the world doesn't revolve around you or me, or our ideas of what people should find valuable. Do you think that this conversation, or any conversation on slashdot has anywhere near the universal appeal, the value, of one parked page on http://candy.com/ ? If you do, you're dreaming.
There is no good content or bad content, there's just what's contained in the <body> tag. Anyone who says different is trying to play you.
Owns traffic? Who the hell owns traffic? Traffic just is, like fish in the sea. Tasters are just trying to harvest as much traffic as they can by programmatically acquiring the best domains they can. The problem is when someone accidentally drops a domain and it ends up in the tasting churn for weeks or months. Or if tasters collude with registrars for preferential treatment in dropped domains. We would be better off if you had to eat the misspelled domains you register. No one makes that many mistakes a year, and the grace period cure is far worse than the disease. It's not evil, it's just a bad idea.
>>I will never understand what they expected to gain from grabbing a no-value name like that. >It's all automatic, an outfit will harvest and release tens of thousands of names a day, without any human seeing them.
It's called "domain tasting" and takes advantage of the grace period at the beginning of domain registrations. They keep the ones that have high traffic and void the registration of the ones that don't. While I don't see anything wrong with people having hundreds or thousands of domains and doing nothing with them (nothing being in the eye of the beholder), it seems to me that they should pay their money and take their chances, just like anything else in life. A retailer doesn't get to buy a shop and then back out when they realize they're not getting the foot traffic they hoped for, for instance. Same thing here. ICANN should modify their policy and limit the number of times a registrant can do this, implement a "restocking" fee, or something to curb this practice.
I think we're looking at this the wrong way around. I'm gonna dust off those Morphix CDs, build a distro or two, and stand in line for the Microsoft bucks! Make sure you look whipped as you're signing, and only grudgingly accept the check!
Slashdot Mirror
Plus a LFTR can burn up some of that spent uranium fuel that is left over from conventional reactors, in fact it needs to in order for the reactor to start up, thorium is 6 times more abundant than uranium, LFTR designs are inherently fail-safe, and it's hard to make weapons grade material with a LFTR. It's just the right way forward. I was reading an article about how the closing of reactors in California has lead to coal based power plants, and not wind or solar, stepping in to fill the breach . Wind and solar are nice, I guess, but we need either available base load power , or battery technology that would make it trivial to cache the power from those unreliable sources. I'm thinking the former is the easier problem to solve.
Sounds to me like the kids are bored with last year's toys and have become envious of the cool kids' new toys. Strange, because overall the old toys are still more popular than the new toys.
So if I install a gas furnace and start hauling tanks in every month (I'm out in the sticks), someone will pay me twice what I'm paying now for heating? Cool. Sign me up.
OK. Let me know when you want to install that heat pump, and I'll start bitching about the inefficiency of light bulbs. Until then, they are just as efficient as the electric furnace I can't afford to replace.
What's inefficient? My house needs both light and heat. 100% efficiency as far as I'm concerned.
I don't think that's quite right. The shouting is about people advocating a ban on some weapons. I'm a strong 2nd amendment advocate, but I think there are a lot of people who should refrain from having guns. They just don't have the self discipline. On the other hand, 313M people in the US, 270M guns, and only ~8K murders by gun last year. Either we are exceptionally lousy shots, or maybe people have more restraint then I am giving them credit for.
Since her employer is a governmental body, doesn't this violate her rights under the 4th amendment to be secure in her private papers, and the 5th amendment in that she can not be forced to incriminate herself by allowing them access to her account?
We also have: fool, hoax, hoodwink, bamboozle, con, pull a fast one on, put one over on, gull, euchre, hornswoggle, or flim flam
if we want to be more precise.
A variable user interface based on where the request is coming from. When you do that to Google, don't they call that cloaking?
No, it really doesn't. The fact that a user *can* change it is the only thing that matters. This is the issue with many (not all) devs in general. Say something they wrote isn't easy or is unintuitive and instead of fixing it they say "well nobody with a brain would do that" or "if they don't know how to figure it out then too bad for them". These are not valid comebacks.
Absolutely right. Our job as software developers is to write software that's invisible, because we are the only people that are interested in software and computers. Everyone else is interested in getting a job done. If our code gets in the way of that, then to some extent we have failed, and excuses or pointing a finger at competing OSes doesn't get the job done. No one said software was easy, and good UI code has to be among the hardest code to write simply because half of the human/computer interface is completely irrational .
So was this a mistake or deliberate on the part of the bank employee? What possible email address could be the right one to send this data to? bob123@hmail.com ? And are we to understand that none of this is automated, when loan information on thousands of accounts is transferred from A to B the addresses are typed in by hand? And this information was being sent, why? What did these accounts have in common? How many of these transfers happen daily? The gmail account address came from somewhere; someone's address book, a mailto on a web page, something like that. Surely they already knew the identity of the account's owner. So, would it better for a bank to appear incompetent to its customers, or for it to be known that one of your employees was trying to commit identity fraud? Which one is more actionable on the part of the bank's customers? Of course you send a second email, to yourself, asking that you don't open the first email. That's just basic deniability in case you ever get discovered.
These youngsters and their cams! I seem to remember this started out as a finger daemon, or maybe that was a different set of bored grad students.
So basically you're at the end of an uncontrolled firehose tethered to a boat? Didn't Buster Keaton or Charlie Chaplin do this?
who are you going to trust this to, some guy called bob on sourceforge, or a multi billion dollar company with resources to get you out of the shit?
Bob. At least I know his name, and can actually talk to him, the developer, before making a decision. Megacorp may have lots of resources, but they aren't my resources. They have an interest in getting me out of the shit only if they can profit from it and even then only if they can profit from it more than they can by expending those resources elsewhere. More likely in this situation their resources are going to be directed into their legal department to get them out of the shit. Bob, on the other hand, really wants his software to work well as a point of pride, and will be positively giddy to take the relatively small amount of money, compared to Megacorp's support contract, that we will offer him to fix his code right frickin now. Bob and 10 of his best buddies will be living on caffeine and sugar until they get a patch out the door because this is the brass ring, getting paid to work on code you otherwise would work on for free. Bob, because if he screws me then I and my large organization can crush him and his buddies like bugs. I'm not in a dominant position when doing business with Megacorp, I am with Bob, so from a very Machiavellian standpoint I'm better off doing business with Bob.
A good CMS to migrate to is Plone. I've been working the last few months with Plone and I love it! Plone is well structured and easy to develop for, the documentation on their site is a bit thin, and the documentation you can google is often outdated. However their IRC channel has plenty of nice peeps willing to help.
Plone is somewhat of a hairball, multiplied by the bits of Zope3 that have been included. If you look up "overengineering" or "java envy" in the dictionary, you will see the Zope3 logo. This is unfortunate because Plone has by far the best UI of any CMS that I've seen. And Zope2, while somewhat wooly, had some very interesting ideas in it. I would really like to like Plone, but even creating a new skin is a major undertaking, requiring the special buildout tools, and learning their special dictionary of CSS tags. It's very "One True Way". I'm not building a cathedral, just a website. I think a better tool in most cases is Django. The chief advantage is that it is less tightly coupled, making it easier to integrate other python products and just generally making it more approachable. YMMV.
You got the meme wrong. Security through obscurity alone is not enough, but obscurity in addition to other measures certainly helps. Or are you sugegsting that our secret CIA operatives inside the Taliban would be more effective if they stood up in the middle of prayers and announced they worked for the Agency?
Right. Most people just call this camouflage, and it's been an effective strategy for millions of years. In fact, it's been so effective that I have to question whether this aphorism is true at all, or if it's just being misapplied here. Certainly denying you have security holes in your code is a bad idea, particularly if the bad guys already know about them. But making a machine on a net appear to be something other than it is, that sounds pretty effective to me, if it's done right.
We haven't had an honest and decent President[1] in over a century http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/williamhowardtaft/ and few people today seem inclined to crack history books. I'm not surprised there's so much ignorance.
Jimmy Carter. Maybe not all that effective, but honest and decent.
And wherever He goes, there could be shrines erected. Stallman sat beneath this tree and dreamed a dream of software unencumbered by patents. The people of the villages that spring up around the shrines could place their tired, broken Ipods at the foot of the shrine and pray for deliverance from DRM. Pilgrims, either barefoot or on a Segway, could travel the path that He travelled, and in the journey come to know Him through His Works.
All Praise To Him! Praise Him! Praise Him!
That is totally unfair! I'm a reseller for godaddy and I just checked. They're charging $80 to save some nimrod who can't keep his shit together, and I don't get a piece of it? You Bastards!
As to the original topic, won't this recent change in ICANN policy largely eliminate the problems with drop catching? Tasting is the real problem and where most of the accidentally dropped names get caught up in the wash, at least if it's not a valuable generic domain name. If you let a generic name drop, take it as a lesson in the value of domain names.
WTF? Because they believe those domains are valuable in and of themselves? Picking up the leftover crumbs in the domain investment world? This sounds just like the argument against P2P technology: "We don't do it, therefore it's probably criminal."
Back when I was in grad school, I had an office mate who was an older woman from China, old enough to remember China before Mao. Her english wasn't very good, but we managed to become friends, or at least attempt to communicate with each other. One day she was gone, moved to the big office on the next floor, where most of the PRC students hung out. Later I ran into her and she told me that she had been told to move because we were talking too much, and a PRC grad student who was a party member/political officer didn't like it. So maybe the PRC students you ran into just didn't want to get in trouble.
Where do linkfarms enter in? Those are sites that are redundantly linked to one another in order to fool a search engine, FYI . I see that like every other censor before you, you are the sole arbiter of what useful content is. I've never understood where the Slashdot crowd gets their sanctimonious zeal against web advertising. The world, or at least the human world, runs on commerce. And commerce is initiated by advertising. Even the most strident, hair-shirted, GPLed project has to advertise in order to attract a community to it. Your resume is advertising. Web based, non-popup advertising has to be the most innocuous form of advertising there is. No one is calling you up during dinner and asking you to buy their crap. No one is filling your mailbox with spam. You chose to go to the page with advertising on it. No one forced you or tricked you into going there. And if you don't like the content of that parked page, click away. How hard is that?
But don't claim that there's no valuable content there, because the value can easily be tallied in the bank account of the owner of that page. That money came from people who found that page valuable, because other people clicked thru and found that advertising valuable. And here's another harsh truth to face: the world doesn't revolve around you or me, or our ideas of what people should find valuable. Do you think that this conversation, or any conversation on slashdot has anywhere near the universal appeal, the value, of one parked page on http://candy.com/ ? If you do, you're dreaming.
There is no good content or bad content, there's just what's contained in the <body> tag. Anyone who says different is trying to play you.
Owns traffic? Who the hell owns traffic? Traffic just is, like fish in the sea. Tasters are just trying to harvest as much traffic as they can by programmatically acquiring the best domains they can. The problem is when someone accidentally drops a domain and it ends up in the tasting churn for weeks or months. Or if tasters collude with registrars for preferential treatment in dropped domains. We would be better off if you had to eat the misspelled domains you register. No one makes that many mistakes a year, and the grace period cure is far worse than the disease. It's not evil, it's just a bad idea.
>>I will never understand what they expected to gain from grabbing a no-value name like that.
>It's all automatic, an outfit will harvest and release tens of thousands of names a day, without any human seeing them.
It's called "domain tasting" and takes advantage of the grace period at the beginning of domain registrations. They keep the ones that have high traffic and void the registration of the ones that don't. While I don't see anything wrong with people having hundreds or thousands of domains and doing nothing with them (nothing being in the eye of the beholder), it seems to me that they should pay their money and take their chances, just like anything else in life. A retailer doesn't get to buy a shop and then back out when they realize they're not getting the foot traffic they hoped for, for instance. Same thing here. ICANN should modify their policy and limit the number of times a registrant can do this, implement a "restocking" fee, or something to curb this practice.
I think we're looking at this the wrong way around. I'm gonna dust off those Morphix CDs, build a distro or two, and stand in line for the Microsoft bucks! Make sure you look whipped as you're signing, and only grudgingly accept the check!