I was wondering how FB's actions are not anti-competitive, but it's because they don't pretty much own the market like MS did at that time. Due to the ultra-conservatives having disposed of the old FTC and replaced them with people who's only qualification was to support the, then, current administration, it makes it less likely that they would even know what to do if they wanted to.
"The [entrapment] defense is not available if the officer merely created an opportunity for the commission of the crime by a person already planning or willing to commit it."
If someone has never seen a child porn site, but stumbles upon one, and is curious about why someone would find such things sexual, and stumbles upon such a site due to their being over 300% more sites (due to police running them), they might satisfy their curiosity, whereas if they had to search for such a site, they wouldn't have ever visited -- as that would be too much work.
It really depends on how such sites are found and how much a 300% increase in site availability would affect those who only have idle curiosity about such matters.
I can't help but think about how the feds, at one point, told the states that they couldn't allow legal, intrastate cannabis, as it would affect prices outside of the state and would thus be affecting interstate commerce. It was seen as a simple matter of supply & demand, with higher supply resulting in lower prices.
That was considered to be a "given". Here, if the cop-operated sites were a significant percentage of all such sites, I can't help but feel they would attract people that would otherwise have not been planning or willing to put in the work to find such a site and would have not, otherwise, visited such a site.
But I can see you firmly disagree and like I said -- that's why we have judges (and juries).
Article said they took down 1 but operated it for 13 days to entice more. Fine. But then it said they got permission to operate 23 such sites. To me that sounded like they used the 1 site and made 22 copies of it. There was nothing to indicate they got the 22 copies by busting 22 different servers -- at least not from what the article said.
Why would they need to get permission to operate 23 such sites when it sounds like they needed no permission at all to bust 1 site and operate it for 2 weeks after the bust. No -- they needed permission because they wanted to setup 22 more copies of the site. But taking down a site and not turning it off to uncover any related activity for 2 weeks is well within the scope of an investigation not needing pre-approval. The fact that they did need pre-approval indicated advance planning and wanting to setup 22 copies to go after unrelated traffic by setting out more sites to create a wider, more enticing net.
That's what I was thinking -- if the FBI was supplying a significant amount of porn sites compared to what is normally there, it is likely to have an effect.
Compare this to the argument that that intra-state sales of something affects inter-state pricing because intra-state sales affects availability. If the FBI is increasing availability, doesn't that mean it's lowering the difficulty in randomly coming across such a site and being tempted by it?
If the FBI increases supply by 383% (23 more sites compared to original 6), then it seems it would be considerably easier to find such a site by whatever method the news of such sites existing is spread. That HAS to bring in more people than the original 6 sites.
Note -- if the FBI offered only 1-2 sites added to original 6, the increased availability would be noticeable, but, *arguably* *necessary* to carry out the operation. But providing a 383% increase in the availability of such sites -- 80% of all such sites, they have to realize they are likely to advertise it to people who never would have known about such. The FBI is increasing the number of offenders by reaching a larger audience. That seems unethical, at least, and should, IMWO (in my worthless opinion,:-)), not be legal.
But say you bought a fleet of them just to rent out as a taxi service.
In fact, why not have a fleet of them be a taxi service? No people required.
That's related to this article. It was talking about who get to own the fruits of automation -- if I own a fleet of androids/robots and hire them out as lawyers or doctors (and they are fully trained and knowledgeable about whatever field I program them with), do I get full benefit from their employment?
What if I bought them from a tesla -- do they get to claim they are only licensing me the training SW that allows them to do the job, and therefore they can require I pay them a share?
Of course the above completely ignore the question of who developed the software or robots/androids and the likelihood that they are not unemployed because someone invented SW to write new SW for chosen professions that ended up putting themselves out of business... etc... of course, their "employers" own all the fruits of their labor... that's how capitalism works. You hire "workers" to do work for you, and you get the output of their work even if it is something that will permanently replace them. In other words, if they were worth $120K/year as a SW developer and @ age 25 developed SW that permanently unemploys them, is it really "fair" that they get nothing?
Note -- not talking about what is "legal", or what the employer can get away with, since that can change based on law. Example, it used to be the case in California, that employers could claim to own anything you developed while you were employed with them, though now, if you develop something outside work on your own time and equipment, then they don't automatically own your outside work (not true in all states and surely not all countries).
Nevertheless -- that law changed, so what was legal to do 30-40 years ago may not be legal now or tomorrow...
AC:"The goal is to make it so that anyone reading the class for the first time with no prior experience can understand its purpose and basic function without having to spend 5 minutes deobfuscating the code.That said, for personal consumption code, I don't generally bother going to that much effort to make my code clean/clear. ---- and ^^ That said, I do the same for my personal code -- since maybe 10-15 years back when I started seeing code that I'd written 2-5 years before that I knew I had written, but looked totally foreign to me. As time has gone on and I write code that builds on code that builds on more code (much going into libs), AND as I am forced by ever changing priorities to work on more projects in "parallel" (meaning I have more projects that have unfinished code waiting for more attention), I find that even spending a few months away from some code and I realize I didn't leave myself enough signposts to spend 'no-time' getting back up to speed.
The 2nd big point of this discussion is who decides what is "unnecessary" and what removal of "extra code" doesn't violate the premise that premature optimization is, at least, in the top 5 time-wasters category? I had a Dilbertian-boss, who only wanted bugs fixed that were reported by paying customers, and didn't want pre-release stress testing on multi-threaded kernel code ("Today's untested code can become tomorrow's paycheck."), but using short-term solutions for short-term OS-limitations was bad -- especially if documented. I.e. estimated time before limitation was removed: 2-3 years (was actually 18 months). Condition necessary to hit the "design-flaw": 25-30 years of continuous system *uptime* (no reboots or crashes). Admittedly this wasn't windows, but...
Is it only shooting victims you are concerned about, cuz they guy brought down in Dallas wouldn't count as he was bombed.
Police are way too militarized & violence happy. How many police even carry a NON-lethal weapon to subdue suspects?
Of course, there are the killings that happen "by accident" in police custody, like 3 white women in Capitola, California in the 1st 3 months of the year that died by being left alone during opiate withdrawal -- something that their rules say should be done under medical supervision. Instead, they were put into the solitary 'detox' tank, where food is delivered to them, but otherwise are ignored.
The shooter in Dallas was explicitly upset about the two viral-videos of police murdering blacks that were in no way creating any threat to the police. In the Baton Rouge case, the mandatory personal-police-cams officers are supposed to wear when engaging in any police action were both left in their squad car -- if it hadn't been for a cellphone camera of an interested by-stander, there would have been no proof that the suspect was already pinned-down and helpless when the officer over him pulled his gun and shot the suspect, on the ground, point-blank in the chest.
The one in Minnesota -- the police asked for his license -- when he went for it, they shot him -- also caught on video showing he was not threatening the police or violent. He was survived by his wife and kid -- both in the car with him.
The cops can't continue to escalate violence w/o expecting any blow-back.
How many police shootings do you hear about in the UK, vs. the US? I have seen evidence that UK-prisons are far more humane than those in the US, that treat prisoners like animals. US prisons (a growth industry)and have a reputation for being "colleges" for criminals, where the idea of reform has been abandoned, and prisoners mostly learn to be "better" criminals from their peers.
Of course, I'm sure nonsensical laws, and long mandatory prison sentences have nothing to do with US officials (like a recent past V.P.) that have large investments in privately run prisons (like Chaney's, Texas-based, prison corporation).
I've constantly tried maintaining requirements for my SW to work from behind a proxy. Game manufacturers are probably the worst, but a huge hit in privacy -- I like the idea of a "smart home", -- but I want to control it from my home computer --- not a "smart phone". As near as I could tell, most of the home automation products will only work / can only be operated from one of their apps that you can get for various smartphones. None of them that I looked at had any way to record, control or analyze the info at home.
Even a stupid company that provided a smart plug to measure electrical usage had to be directly on the outside net (or "think that it was using NAT") to contact the manufacturer's website, then to monitor your data, you had to pay monthly service fees for various levels of access to your own usage data.
The state of smart "anything" (including the mandatory smart-electric meter required by my area-monopoly-electric provider (PG&E/CA/US) sucks. My electric usage rates went up by about 20% when they installed their new meter, but they won't allow me real-time access to the output to verify usage data -- I am only allowed website summary data some amount of time later.
Before they installed that, I looked for a smart meter that would allow me a serial line tap on getting data, that would also give integrity guarantees.
Basically, it came down to any device that allowed me real-time access to verify actual usage data, was not approved for use on their electrical network.
So now, they can monitor my usage, supposedly down to the their profiled-device database, but I'm not allowed to verify the meter's accuracy when their previous meter had supposedly been 20% inaccurate for decades?
Similar problems and constraints seem to apply to other "smart-enabled" (meaning externally monitor-able by a 3rd party) devices. The presumption and requirement that I have a smart-phone is becoming increasingly annoying -- including constant prompts from Google, Amazon, Steam, etc to secure my account with my SMS-enabled smartphone. Only google had an optional verification step (at one point, dunnow about now), that allowed them to call you at a POT and listen some numbers and type them into a website, but that option is not available for all of their services and is not available at all for many other companies' services.
Why was the above post marked troll when it's, indisputably, "one, correct way to look at thing". Some people may not agree with it, but I've seen the same opinion expressed many times.
Maybe it was marked 'troll', because of how close it hits to the truth?
(Seriously!) In a game, there are no consequences like dead bodies -- no need to feel remorse over such! It's completely artificial. A game is played to optimize its outcome and then it ends and you know the outcome. When "RL" ends, you won't care much about the outcome because you won't be around to think about it.
Had this happen under a Dilbertian boss.. Other guy was a 'pet' of boss, couldn't make his project work. He told boss it was almost done 1-2 weeks of work left that could be finished off by a less senior coder. The bug he was running into took 3-5 days of run-time / crash to find.
It was multi-threaded/multi-cpu code back in the days BEFORE the Intel Core processor (we used multi-cpu motherboards to allow development of parallelism.
Problem was he had zero experience with parallel or multithreaded design, whereas I did, so I was perceived as the logical choice to find the last few remaining problems..
I didn't realize how much of a poser the other guy was -- and was naive when I agreed to finish it (as though I had a choice).
The project that ended up taking about 2-3 months due to the need to rewrite most of his code He was a new 'senior engineer by pay-grade because he'd been here on an H1B visa and had gotten a permanent residency status. He'd been a "under-the-gun" gung-ho developer while he was under the H1-B, but due this 80-100 hour weeks and desire to have our company sponsor his permanent status (which they did, all at their expense).
After he got it, he hinted he might leave, so to keep him, he was given a senior position in order to quality him for the benefits and salary range he wanted -- as well as not making him finish the code he had no idea how to do.
It took me 3 months to finish his work -- with it being fully tested. My first approach had been to optimize the code so that reproducing the bug could be done in a reasonable time. With over a 10X speed up, the bu could be reproduced in 20-30 minutes, max. It was then traced to his code not releasing locks that he'd acquired -- which seemed to work when the code was very slow.
When my boss wanted to know why I turned 1-2 weeks of work into 3 months, I pointed out the errors. He accused me of shifting blame and finger pointing. I ended up getting the 'review' the other guy should have got next cycle, while he came up smelling like a rose.
That experience and a few others like it really put me off working with other people -- as they, almost universally got stuck in their code with blame shifted to me. In no case was my code at fault -- but that doesn't stop management from blaming you.
Leave -- run, and avoid such situations at all costs. You will never come up with a positive result. The best you can do, usually is to minimize damage with copious amounts of evidence and documentation.
I thought about the idea of taking my SSI payout overseas in some 3rd world country where costs were 1/10th what they are in the US.
I found this is not allowed. If you payed into "your" SS account all your life, and expected to be able to withdraw on it after retirement age -- you could only do so in the US. Apparently, if you move overseas to retire -- you forfeit rights to money you paid into the system (at least while living abroad).
This is NOT about moving overseas and changing citizenship -- but is saying that US citizens can only receive US benefits if they remain in the US where SSI payouts qualify them for living under the US-poverty line.
What's up w/that? Of course many of the same supporters of such inane policies are also against paying benefits to those who immigrate into the US. The SSI rules are setup to prevent payouts to people who might move here to retire -- even if they become citizens, because benefits are based on money you pay in. So how can they justify NOT paying who live outside the US who did work?
If it wasn't the government doing it, it would be called fraud and theft... But in the US, such things as fraud and theft are merely standard policy and law.
They were bought out by "attachmate" -- a maker of appliance like office support stuff. Suse was a desktop & server company, now they are focusing on a closed & secure boot for supporting user-tamper proof appliances -- not that it won't be usable for laptops and such, but makes user control and configuration much more difficult.
They claim that they are following in the steps of redhat on many of these issues who's also going to have a secureboot offering (booting w/binaries signed by MS-certs.
I hope you don't expect to update any SW on your system for a while.
opensuse has gone out of their way to make their systems NOT be systemV compat... including moving to a requirement for booting from a ramdisk image (because systemd doesn't handle PATH, it uses fixed paths for it's binaries), integrating the power, device, udev and logging subsystems into systemd, with logging going to a binary MS-like format that is, by default, not saved.
Also put all the var/run files on ram disk, so progs that were used to their own directory for run/var/run/dir/xxx so they could run as non-root, need to have it recreated each boot....
it can be real hairy trying to get around all those problems and opensuse's official position is that any other config (including booting directly from your hard disk) is not supported.
When the computer industry was "young", there was little likely hood the NSA had co-opted your developers & SW providers. Now?
With every update you need to wonder if it contains a new backdoor at the request of the NSA, asked via a "security letter", which makes disclosure illegal.
Examples in linux abound as vendors stumble over each other to provide secure-boot distro's, complete with windows-like service managers (systemd), that move config control out of scripts where you can see what they are doing, into binaries, that you have to verify come from a source that is likely too large for most of us to audit -- not to mention the problem looking for a backdoor that might be very well hidden these days... (ex. pre-solved factoring keys for AES encryption), etc... You got the latest certs downloaded from *where-ever* (needed for https and such)? How many aren't already cracked?
I wouldn't have a problem with the NSA's spying, *IF* they didn't share anything not related to national security -- but our entire justice system is predicated on law-enforcement being 'human' and needing warrants to search private stuff -- but now? The NSA doesn't need those, and any info it finds is shared with generic, domestic law enforcement. It's already been seen that the FBI has been getting info dumps from the NSA that it's been using to start determined "take-down" efforts against *persons*. I.e. they just watch the people they want, and find some excuse to 'legally' find out the info, OR, find something else to bust them on.
Of course it's been well documented here on "/.", how both foreign visitors and US citizens lose their constitutional rights when they are at a border -- losing laptops and having decryption keys demanded.
What crap!.
One rectifying solution would be to have any illegally leaked evidence taint prosecution of someone for *any, "hidden", charge*, for some number of years (whatever statute of limitations might be). By hidden, I mean things they'd have to probe into to find out -- not armed robbery or such...
It sounds problematic, and the details would have to be ironed out, but between that, and the profit motive for "charging" a "rightless" property with "crimes" instead of the person, our legal rights as citizens are falling below western standards and down into the "outcast/illegal/brutal" regimes that we supposedly "invade" for....
Who's gonna invade us to save us from our government? I think the only ones with the ability to save us are "us".
You could always read the "Windows [OS] Internals" books and find that it's trying to keep disk indices up to date, keep time and certificates up to date/current with appropriate servers, looking for updates, optimizing disk access, looking for changes in propagated rights and restrictions (which get "pushed" down from above), so old credentials are timed out and/or updated (effects of group policy, primarily, as group membership doesn't change dynamically)...checking that subscriptions are up-to-date (multiple formats (url based, rss, email, other messaging, etc).
Window's supported API is much larger than what most other OS's provide -- with MS still supporting programs from the XP era 10 years ago as well as modern DirectX11 progs.. vs. Linux. HA!... My linux vendor can't be troubled to support **one level** of previous-releases with any current release.
Linux doesn't really have a 3rd party market API to support. Many WinXP games work on Win7. Show me 1 3D-graphics prog from 2000 that runs on the linux of that day and today with no changes. Doesn't exist.
With a move of data to the cloud, with slower data rates and constant updates, (you do want your phone to beep when you have a new message, right?), devices need to stay on longer to get info. Windows has LONG been about supporting centralized business control over client machines. Vista was about creating a trusted computing core that could be known to be "integrous" so it could play encrypted digital media in a way that would be able to give guarantees to media owners about the media being protected -- something still in infancy in Linux, but with companies like RedHat & SuSE(now an "AttachMate" subsidiary) getting closer to secure boot & running of signed-only SW and central service control with Systemd.
The Linux versions that don't use much power are not providing those newer features and likely aren't systemd based.
What windows does in background is well documented -- and is a considerably longer list than what Linux provides. I can't even install and run a newer generation of "perl" on my linux box without being told it is "unsupported", vs. Windows providing Visual C interfaces from 2000-2013 in side-by-side libs that usually work).
I can't believe a comment based on ignorance got rated so highly for "insightful".....
(None of the above should be thought to indicate a love for MS or Windows... which give me ample reasons to hate them... But the wild-west development and support[sic] existing in Linux is getting worse as time goes on and giving me more reasons to appreciate the MS elephant in the room...)
Why is it that every half wit thinks that bitcoin is all about drug transactions and prostitution?
Because it's the propaganda spread by Federal law enforcement to get people "not to care" about something that is only used for such. That way, they have far more freedom trample on rights w/o the public at large being shocked or as upset...
I'm sure the ""Federated"-LargeBankClub (sometimes called the Federal Reserve Board, or "the Fed", like it has anything to do with the Federal government) is also trying to manipulate public perception. If they lost control of both issuing and constantly devaluing the currency -- and a currency like Bitcoin was perceived as not devaluing, (relative to other currencies), then deliberately devalued currencies (like the dollar -- usually only 2-3%/year, but, since Bush handed over ~ 50% of a years budget to his finance buds, it's been closer to double that (~6%/year).
The standard of living in the US as a whole continues to drop as we are told that a shrinking dollar is really "flat" inflation... yeah, right.
Now try to buy foreign-made products that would normally have gotten cheaper over the past 6-7 years as tech ages and becomes cheaper to produce. Instead of that -- prices have remained flat or gone up in areas where before there were about 15-20% price drops/year (as measured in $$/constant unit, where constant unit= things like CPU seconds (of some fixed generation), or $$/processor, or $$/diskspace unit, or memory... you name it, hasn't dropped nearly as much as before we were Bush-Wacked!
So if you create a website, and like nearly everyone else, you try to get ad-slots (probably using google) filled, to defray the costs or support server upgrades, wouldn't that allow them to call you "commercial"? I.e. if you take ads from them or anyone are you commercial?
Suppose you take "donations" -- and in return give "benefits" (examples include more space, on server, more downloads of "valued material" (whatever it is that people on the site want), or voting rights of what features will be implemented in 'vim'). The way things stand, google already supports such ventures through various google "offerings" (google groups, for example).
Are they going to set a limit of how much you can make per/year to be considered non-commercial? If you are a non-profit organization (or religious or political organization) are you exempt?
What a mushy, arbitrary line -- perfect for selective enforcement and abuse.
China is doing a great job of accumulating it's own massive debt. At some point it will probably turn into a race to see who gets there first although I'd give China the edge because I think their economy is not sustainable. For at least a decade some have suggested that China has been exaggerating it's economic growth and from what I know I tend to believe it. Sure things are great, for a very small subset of the population. Meanwhile the majority is exploited in the name of economic success.
And this is different from the US, how? Top CEO's earn 1000's of times what their exploited workers make:
The US is in the difficult position that they're the world's military.
And how did that come to be? By lying to their citizens, exploiting them and corrupting the government officials that were suppose to be protecting our interests.
China may not have doodoo that does not smell, but that doesn't mean they don't make valid points at times.
[blockquote]Let me repeat this, so it's clear: In the US, commercial TV broadcast is funded by advertising time. (And, in part, by selling rebroadcasting rights to cable channels.) That's why it's been classically "free" off-air to viewers. It's a different model from other countries, where you get taxed for owning a TV. The only exception is the US government sponsored PBS channel, which is still "free" to receive but is funded in part by income tax.[/blockquote]
The above model is seriously messed up in many areas were you can't receive more than 1-2 over-the air channels and need cable just to get the main 3 networks.
What's worse, IF we have cable , rebroadcast rights have already been paid by the cable company. I bitched to the cable company about having to pay extra for digital to get free-off-the-air digital channels. Comcast in my area is a monopoly, and sets their prices as they wish.
The TV broadcasters, sounds like they are simply making a play to demand more money from end-users. It's nothing about their rights being violated. Their rights have been paid for by cable and advertising fees. Now they want more just because I can record something and watch it elsewhere?
It's all about the entire entertainment industries desire to move to paying for each "play" of "their material"....
Notice how distribution is shifting away from hard goods -- and even they often need online connections for stuff to be validated? You can't buy many goods anymore -- just "license them"... which should be crap.
Thanks for confirming my suspicions... The new generation of script kiddies think little of being major pains. They've grown up in a world with no real feedback -- they don't have to see your face, nor be afraid of reprisals...
Gaming DOS's? Witnesses first hand a site down for 2 weeks over some 16'y/o being told to read the rules (which he'd violated in multiple ways) -- not that he was told in anything remotely, what I would call, a polite manner (i.e. the site "asked" for the treatment they got...). It was trivial though for him to just fly off the handle over a slight magnified by adolescent hormones and lack of experience. He was only stopped because the site had international members and one finally drove to the city where the kid lived and talked to his parents...
The BIG problem is that you (original poster) CANNOT stop or deal with the DOS on your end. It doesn't matter what you do with your router -- by the time it hits your router, the connection from you ISP to you has already been saturated. Do the wireshark thing(s) and gather evidence, but enlist your ISP's help -- technically, it is your ISP that is relaying the packets to your computer -- and if the traffic can be characterized, they could put in a filter at their end to disallow incoming traffic that fits some abusive pattern (with the idea that the filter would be a temporary solution)....
Slashdot Mirror
I was wondering how FB's actions are not anti-competitive, but it's because they don't pretty much own the market like MS did at that time. Due to the ultra-conservatives having disposed of the old FTC and replaced them with people who's only qualification was to support the, then, current administration, it makes it less likely that they would even know what to do if they wanted to.
And that's why we have a court system. ;^)
@ http://legal-dictionary.thefre..., they say this (among many other things):
"The [entrapment] defense is not available if the officer merely created an opportunity for the commission of the crime by a person already planning or willing to commit it."
If someone has never seen a child porn site, but stumbles upon one, and is curious about why someone would find such things sexual, and stumbles upon such a site due to their being over 300% more sites (due to police running them), they might satisfy their curiosity, whereas if they had to search for such a site, they wouldn't have ever visited -- as that would be too much work.
It really depends on how such sites are found and how much a 300% increase in site availability would affect those who only have idle curiosity about such matters.
I can't help but think about how the feds, at one point, told the states that they couldn't allow legal, intrastate cannabis, as it would affect prices outside of the state and would thus be affecting interstate commerce. It was seen as a simple matter of supply & demand, with higher supply resulting in lower prices.
That was considered to be a "given". Here, if the cop-operated sites were a significant percentage of all such sites, I can't help but feel they would attract people that would otherwise have not been planning or willing to put in the work to find such a site and would have not, otherwise, visited such a site.
But I can see you firmly disagree and like I said -- that's why we have
judges (and juries).
Um, isn't that the norm? They are doing it for the children!
Article said they took down 1 but operated it for 13 days to entice more. Fine. But then it said they got permission to operate 23 such sites. To me that sounded like they used the 1 site and made 22 copies of it. There was nothing to indicate they got the 22 copies by busting 22 different servers -- at least not from what the article said.
Why would they need to get permission to operate 23 such sites when it sounds like they needed no permission at all to bust 1 site and operate it for 2 weeks after the bust. No -- they needed permission because they wanted to setup 22 more copies of the site. But taking down a site and not turning it off to uncover any related activity for 2 weeks is well within the scope of an investigation not needing pre-approval. The fact that they did need pre-approval indicated advance planning and wanting to setup 22 copies to go after unrelated traffic by setting out more sites to create a wider, more enticing net.
Doesn't sound ethical to me.
That's what I was thinking -- if the FBI was supplying a significant amount of porn sites compared to what is normally there, it is likely to have an effect.
Compare this to the argument that that intra-state sales of something affects inter-state pricing because intra-state sales affects availability. If the FBI is increasing availability, doesn't that mean it's lowering the difficulty in randomly coming across such a site and being tempted by it?
If the FBI increases supply by 383% (23 more sites compared to original 6), then it seems it would be considerably easier to find such a site by whatever method the news of such sites existing is spread. That HAS to bring in more people than the original 6 sites.
Note -- if the FBI offered only 1-2 sites added to original 6, the increased availability would be noticeable, but, *arguably* *necessary* to carry out the operation. But providing a 383% increase in the availability of such sites -- 80% of all such sites, they have to realize they are likely to advertise it to people who never would have known about such. The FBI is increasing the number of offenders by reaching a larger audience. That seems unethical, at least, and should, IMWO (in my worthless opinion, :-)), not be legal.
Gotta hide those underage stars...
Why is this not entrapment?
If they offer 23 out of 29 sites, that would seem to be increasing enticement...
But say you bought a fleet of them just to rent out as a taxi service.
In fact, why not have a fleet of them be a taxi service? No people required.
That's related to this article. It was talking about who get to own the fruits of automation -- if I own a fleet of androids/robots and hire them out as lawyers or doctors (and they are fully trained and knowledgeable about whatever field I program them with), do I get full benefit from their employment?
What if I bought them from a tesla -- do they get to claim they are only licensing me the training SW that allows them to do the job, and therefore they can require I pay them a share?
Of course the above completely ignore the question of who developed the software or robots/androids and the likelihood that they are not unemployed because someone invented SW to write new SW for chosen professions that ended up putting themselves out of business... etc... of course, their "employers" own all the fruits of their labor... that's how capitalism works. You hire "workers" to do work for you, and you get the output of their work even if it is something that will permanently replace them. In other words, if they were worth $120K/year as a SW developer and @ age 25 developed SW that permanently unemploys them, is it really "fair" that they get nothing?
Note -- not talking about what is "legal", or what the employer can get away with, since that can change based on law. Example, it used to be the case in California, that employers could claim to own anything you developed while you were employed with them, though now, if you develop something outside work on your own time and equipment, then they don't automatically own your outside work (not true in all states and surely not all countries).
Nevertheless -- that law changed, so what was legal to do 30-40 years ago may not be legal now or tomorrow...
Finally someone is standing up to the capitalistic lowering of standards to the lowest level possible... Capitalist pigs!
^^^ +1
I wondered about this too, since my local 10Gb link uses the same 8-wire CAT6 (likely CAT5e w/in homes) as my 1Gb.
AC:"The goal is to make it so that anyone reading the class for the first time
with no prior experience can understand its purpose and basic function
without having to spend 5 minutes deobfuscating the code.That said, for
personal consumption code, I don't generally bother going to that much effort
to make my code clean/clear.
----
and ^^ That said, I do the same for my personal code -- since maybe 10-15 years back when I started seeing code that I'd written 2-5 years before that I knew I had written, but looked totally foreign to me. As time has gone on and I write code that builds on code that builds on more code (much going into libs), AND as I am forced by ever changing priorities to work on more projects in "parallel" (meaning I have more projects that have unfinished code waiting for more attention), I find that even spending a few months away from some code and I realize I didn't leave myself enough signposts to spend 'no-time' getting back up to speed.
The 2nd big point of this discussion is who decides what is "unnecessary" and what removal of "extra code" doesn't violate the premise that premature optimization is, at least, in the top 5 time-wasters category? I had a Dilbertian-boss, who only wanted bugs fixed that were reported by paying customers, and didn't want pre-release stress testing on multi-threaded kernel code ("Today's untested code can become tomorrow's paycheck."), but using short-term solutions for short-term OS-limitations was bad -- especially if documented. I.e. estimated time before limitation was removed: 2-3 years (was actually 18 months). Condition necessary to hit the "design-flaw": 25-30 years of continuous system *uptime* (no reboots or crashes). Admittedly this wasn't windows, but ...
Is it only shooting victims you are concerned about, cuz they guy brought down in Dallas wouldn't count as he was bombed.
Police are way too militarized & violence happy. How many police even carry a NON-lethal weapon to subdue suspects?
Of course, there are the killings that happen "by accident" in police custody, like 3 white women in Capitola, California in the 1st 3 months of the year that died by being left alone during opiate withdrawal -- something that their rules say should be done under medical supervision. Instead, they were put into the solitary 'detox' tank, where food is delivered to them, but otherwise are ignored.
The shooter in Dallas was explicitly upset about the two viral-videos of police murdering blacks that were in no way creating any threat to the police. In the Baton Rouge case, the mandatory personal-police-cams officers are supposed to wear when engaging in any police action were both left in their squad car -- if it hadn't been for a cellphone camera of an interested by-stander, there would have been no proof that the suspect was already pinned-down and helpless when the officer over him pulled his gun and shot the suspect, on the ground, point-blank in the chest.
The one in Minnesota -- the police asked for his license -- when he went for it, they shot him -- also caught on video showing he was not threatening the police or violent. He was survived by his wife and kid -- both in the car with him.
The cops can't continue to escalate violence w/o expecting any blow-back.
How many police shootings do you hear about in the UK, vs. the US? I have seen evidence that UK-prisons are far more humane than those in the US, that treat prisoners like animals. US prisons (a growth industry)and have a reputation for being "colleges" for criminals, where the idea of reform has been abandoned, and prisoners mostly learn to be "better" criminals from their peers.
Of course, I'm sure nonsensical laws, and long mandatory prison sentences have nothing to do with US officials (like a recent past V.P.) that have large investments in privately run prisons (like Chaney's, Texas-based, prison corporation).
I've constantly tried maintaining requirements for my SW to work from behind
a proxy. Game manufacturers are probably the worst, but a huge hit in privacy -- I like the idea of a "smart home", -- but I want to control it from my home computer --- not a "smart phone". As near as I could tell, most of the home automation products will only work / can only be operated from one of their apps that you can get for various smartphones. None of them that I looked at had any way to record, control or analyze the info at home.
Even a stupid company that provided a smart plug to measure electrical usage had to be directly on the outside net (or "think that it was using NAT") to contact the manufacturer's website, then to monitor your data, you had to pay monthly service fees for various levels of access to your own usage data.
The state of smart "anything" (including the mandatory smart-electric meter required by my area-monopoly-electric provider (PG&E/CA/US) sucks. My electric usage rates went up by about 20% when they installed their new meter, but they won't allow me real-time access to the output to verify usage data -- I am only allowed website summary data some amount of time later.
Before they installed that, I looked for a smart meter that would allow me a serial line tap on getting data, that would also give integrity guarantees.
Basically, it came down to any device that allowed me real-time access to verify actual usage data, was not approved for use on their electrical network.
So now, they can monitor my usage, supposedly down to the their profiled-device database, but I'm not allowed to verify the meter's accuracy when their previous meter had supposedly been 20% inaccurate for decades?
Similar problems and constraints seem to apply to other "smart-enabled" (meaning externally monitor-able by a 3rd party) devices. The presumption and requirement that I have a smart-phone is becoming increasingly annoying -- including constant prompts from Google, Amazon, Steam, etc to secure my account with my SMS-enabled smartphone. Only google had an optional verification step (at one point, dunnow about now), that allowed them to call you at a POT and listen some numbers and type them into a website, but
that option is not available for all of their services and is not available at all for many other companies' services.
Why was the above post marked troll when it's, indisputably, "one, correct way to look at thing". Some people may not agree with it, but I've seen the same opinion expressed many times.
Maybe it was marked 'troll', because of how close it hits to the truth?
(Seriously!) In a game, there are no consequences like dead bodies -- no need to feel remorse over such! It's completely artificial. A game is played to optimize its outcome and then it ends and you know the outcome. When "RL" ends, you won't care much about the outcome because you won't be around to think about it.
Had this happen under a Dilbertian boss.. Other guy was a 'pet' of boss, couldn't make his project work. He told boss it was almost done 1-2 weeks of work left that could be finished off by a less senior coder. The bug he was running into took 3-5 days of run-time / crash to find.
It was multi-threaded/multi-cpu code back in the days BEFORE the Intel Core processor (we used multi-cpu motherboards to allow development of parallelism.
Problem was he had zero experience with parallel or multithreaded design, whereas I did, so I was perceived as the logical choice to find the last few remaining problems..
I didn't realize how much of a poser the other guy was -- and was naive when I agreed to finish it (as though I had a choice).
The project that ended up taking about 2-3 months due to the need to rewrite most of his code He was a new 'senior engineer by pay-grade because he'd been here on an H1B visa and had gotten a permanent residency status. He'd been a "under-the-gun" gung-ho developer while he was under the H1-B, but due this 80-100 hour weeks and desire to have our company sponsor his permanent status (which they did, all at their expense).
After he got it, he hinted he might leave, so to keep him, he was given a senior position in order to quality him for the benefits and salary range he wanted -- as well as not making him finish the code he had no idea how to do.
It took me 3 months to finish his work -- with it being fully tested. My first approach had been to optimize the code so that reproducing the bug could be done in a reasonable time. With over a 10X speed up, the bu could be reproduced in 20-30 minutes, max. It was then traced to his code not releasing locks that he'd acquired -- which seemed to work when the code was very slow.
When my boss wanted to know why I turned 1-2 weeks of work into 3 months, I pointed out the errors. He accused me of shifting blame and finger pointing. I ended up getting the 'review' the other guy should have got next cycle, while he came up smelling like a rose.
That experience and a few others like it really put me off working with other people -- as they, almost universally got stuck in their code with blame shifted to me. In no case was my code at fault -- but that doesn't stop management from blaming you.
Leave -- run, and avoid such situations at all costs. You will never come up with a positive result. The best you can do, usually is to minimize damage with copious amounts of evidence and documentation.
I thought about the idea of taking my SSI payout overseas in some 3rd world country where costs were 1/10th what they are in the US.
I found this is not allowed. If you payed into "your" SS account all your life, and expected to be able to withdraw on it after retirement age -- you could only do so in the US. Apparently, if you move overseas to retire -- you forfeit rights to money you paid into the system (at least while living abroad).
This is NOT about moving overseas and changing citizenship -- but is saying that US citizens can only receive US benefits if they remain in the US where SSI payouts qualify them for living under the US-poverty line.
What's up w/that? Of course many of the same supporters of such inane policies are also against paying benefits to those who immigrate into the US. The SSI rules are setup to prevent payouts to people who might move here to retire -- even if they become citizens, because benefits are based on money you pay in. So how can they justify NOT paying who live outside the US who did work?
If it wasn't the government doing it, it would be called fraud and theft...
But in the US, such things as fraud and theft are merely standard policy and law.
They were bought out by "attachmate" -- a maker of appliance like office support stuff. Suse was a desktop & server company, now they are focusing on a closed & secure boot for supporting user-tamper proof appliances -- not that it won't be usable for laptops and such, but makes user control and configuration much more difficult.
They claim that they are following in the steps of redhat on many of these issues who's also going to have a secureboot offering (booting w/binaries signed by MS-certs.
*shiver*.
Good luck w/that.
I hope you don't expect to update any SW on your system for a while.
opensuse has gone out of their way to make their systems NOT be systemV compat... including moving to a requirement for booting from a ramdisk image (because systemd doesn't handle PATH, it uses fixed paths for it's binaries), integrating the power, device, udev and logging subsystems into systemd, with logging going to a binary MS-like format that is, by default, not saved.
Also put all the var/run files on ram disk, so progs that were used to their own directory for run /var/run/dir/xxx so they could run as non-root, need to have it recreated each boot....
it can be real hairy trying to get around all those problems and opensuse's official position is that any other config (including booting directly from your hard disk) is not supported.
When the computer industry was "young", there was little likely hood the NSA had co-opted your developers & SW providers. Now?
With every update you need to wonder if it contains a new backdoor at the request of the NSA, asked via a "security letter", which makes disclosure illegal.
Examples in linux abound as vendors stumble over each other to provide secure-boot distro's, complete with windows-like service managers (systemd), that move config control out of scripts where you can see what they are doing, into binaries, that you have to verify come from a source that is likely too large for most of us to audit -- not to mention the problem looking for a backdoor that might be very well hidden these days... (ex. pre-solved factoring keys for AES encryption), etc... You got the latest certs downloaded from *where-ever* (needed for https and such)? How many aren't already cracked?
I wouldn't have a problem with the NSA's spying, *IF* they didn't share anything not related to national security -- but our entire justice system is predicated on law-enforcement being 'human' and needing warrants to search private stuff -- but now? The NSA doesn't need those, and any info it finds is shared with generic, domestic law enforcement. It's already been seen that the FBI has been getting info dumps from the NSA that it's been using to start determined "take-down" efforts against *persons*. I.e. they just watch the people they want, and find some excuse to 'legally' find out the info, OR, find something else to bust them on.
Of course it's been well documented here on "/.", how both foreign visitors and US citizens lose their constitutional rights when they are at a border -- losing laptops and having decryption keys demanded.
What crap!.
One rectifying solution would be to have any illegally leaked evidence taint prosecution of someone for *any, "hidden", charge*, for some number of years (whatever statute of limitations might be).
By hidden, I mean things they'd have to probe into to find out -- not armed robbery or such...
It sounds problematic, and the details would have to be ironed out, but between that, and the profit motive for "charging" a "rightless" property with "crimes" instead of the person, our legal rights as citizens are falling below western standards and down into the "outcast/illegal/brutal" regimes that we supposedly "invade" for....
Who's gonna invade us to save us from our government? I think the only ones with the ability to save us are "us".
You could always read the "Windows [OS] Internals" books and find that it's trying to keep disk indices up to date, keep time and certificates up to date/current with appropriate servers, looking for updates, optimizing disk access, looking for changes in propagated rights and restrictions (which get "pushed" down from above), so old credentials are timed out and/or updated (effects of group policy, primarily, as group membership doesn't change dynamically)...checking that subscriptions are up-to-date (multiple formats (url based, rss, email, other messaging, etc).
Window's supported API is much larger than what most other OS's provide -- with MS still supporting programs from the XP era 10 years ago as well as modern DirectX11 progs .. vs. Linux. HA!... My linux vendor can't be troubled to support **one level** of previous-releases with any current release.
Linux doesn't really have a 3rd party market API to support. Many WinXP games work on Win7. Show me 1 3D-graphics prog from 2000 that runs on the linux of that day and today with no changes. Doesn't exist.
With a move of data to the cloud, with slower data rates and constant updates, (you do want your phone to beep when you have a new message, right?), devices need to stay on longer to get info. Windows has LONG been about supporting centralized business control over client machines. Vista was about creating a trusted computing core that could be known to be "integrous" so it could play encrypted digital media in a way that would be able to give guarantees to media owners about the media being protected -- something still in infancy in Linux, but with companies like RedHat & SuSE(now an "AttachMate" subsidiary) getting closer to secure boot & running of signed-only SW and central service control with Systemd.
The Linux versions that don't use much power are not providing those newer features and likely aren't systemd based.
What windows does in background is well documented -- and is a considerably longer list than what Linux provides. I can't even install and run a newer generation of "perl" on my linux box without being told it is "unsupported", vs. Windows providing Visual C interfaces from 2000-2013 in side-by-side libs that usually work).
I can't believe a comment based on ignorance got rated so highly for "insightful".....
(None of the above should be thought to indicate a love for MS or Windows... which give me ample reasons to hate them... But the wild-west development and support[sic] existing in Linux is getting worse as time goes on and giving me more reasons to appreciate the MS elephant in the room...)
Because it's the propaganda spread by Federal law enforcement to get people "not to care" about something that is only used for such. That way, they have far more freedom trample on rights w/o the public at large being shocked or as upset...
I'm sure the ""Federated"-LargeBankClub (sometimes called the Federal Reserve Board, or "the Fed", like it has anything to do with the Federal government) is also trying to manipulate public perception. If they lost control of both issuing and constantly devaluing the currency -- and a currency like Bitcoin was perceived as not devaluing, (relative to other currencies), then deliberately devalued currencies (like the dollar -- usually only 2-3%/year, but, since Bush handed over ~ 50% of a years budget to his finance buds, it's been closer to double that (~6%/year).
The standard of living in the US as a whole continues to drop as we are told that a shrinking dollar is really "flat" inflation... yeah, right.
Now try to buy foreign-made products that would normally have gotten cheaper over the past 6-7 years as tech ages and becomes cheaper to produce. Instead of that -- prices have remained flat or gone up in areas where before there were about 15-20% price drops/year (as measured in $$/constant unit, where constant unit= things like CPU seconds (of some fixed generation), or $$/processor, or $$/diskspace unit, or memory... you name it, hasn't dropped nearly as much as before we were Bush-Wacked!
So if you create a website, and like nearly everyone else, you try to get ad-slots (probably using google) filled, to defray the costs or support server upgrades, wouldn't that allow them to call you "commercial"? I.e. if you take ads from them or anyone are you commercial?
Suppose you take "donations" -- and in return give "benefits" (examples include more space, on server, more downloads of "valued material" (whatever it is that people on the site want), or voting rights of what features will be implemented in 'vim'). The way things stand, google already supports such ventures through various google "offerings" (google groups, for example).
Are they going to set a limit of how much you can make per/year to be considered non-commercial? If you are a non-profit organization (or religious or political organization) are you exempt?
What a mushy, arbitrary line -- perfect for selective enforcement and abuse.
And this is different from the US, how? Top CEO's earn 1000's of times what their exploited workers make:
And how did that come to be? By lying to their citizens, exploiting them and corrupting the government officials that were suppose to be protecting our interests.
China may not have doodoo that does not smell, but that doesn't mean they don't make valid points at times.
[blockquote]Let me repeat this, so it's clear: In the US, commercial TV broadcast is funded by advertising time. (And, in part, by selling rebroadcasting rights to cable channels.) That's why it's been classically "free" off-air to viewers. It's a different model from other countries, where you get taxed for owning a TV. The only exception is the US government sponsored PBS channel, which is still "free" to receive but is funded in part by income tax.[/blockquote]
The above model is seriously messed up in many areas were you can't receive more than 1-2 over-the air channels and need cable just to get the main 3 networks.
What's worse, IF we have cable , rebroadcast rights have already been paid by the cable company. I bitched to the cable company about having to pay extra for digital to get free-off-the-air digital channels. Comcast in my area is a monopoly, and sets their prices as they wish.
The TV broadcasters, sounds like they are simply making a play to demand more money from end-users. It's nothing about their rights being violated. Their rights have been paid for by cable and advertising fees. Now they want more just because I can record something and watch it elsewhere?
It's all about the entire entertainment industries desire to move to paying for each "play" of "their material"....
Notice how distribution is shifting away from hard goods -- and even they often need online connections for stuff to be validated? You can't buy many goods anymore -- just "license them"... which should be crap.
Thanks for confirming my suspicions... The new generation of script kiddies think little of being major pains. They've grown up in a world with no real feedback -- they don't have to see your face, nor be afraid of reprisals...
Gaming DOS's? Witnesses first hand a site down for 2 weeks over some 16'y/o being told to read the rules (which he'd violated in multiple ways) -- not that he was told in anything remotely, what I would call, a polite manner (i.e. the site "asked" for the treatment they got...). It was trivial though for him to just fly off the handle over a slight magnified by adolescent hormones and lack of experience. He was only stopped because the site had international members and one finally drove to the city where the kid lived and talked to his parents...
The BIG problem is that you (original poster) CANNOT stop or deal with the DOS on your end. It doesn't matter what you do with your router -- by the time it hits your router, the connection from you ISP to you has already been saturated. Do the wireshark thing(s) and gather evidence, but enlist your ISP's help -- technically, it is your ISP that is relaying the packets to your computer -- and if the traffic can be characterized, they could put in a filter at their end to disallow incoming traffic that fits some abusive pattern (with the idea that the filter would be a temporary solution)....
Good luck!