> Communicating, sharing, commenting is only good when there are consequences for what you've communicated, shared, or commented.
So contrary to the original idea of the internet and how it's functioned for decades, you think we should tie everyone's Internet accounts unambiguously to a person? You should think about how that type of system will be used by authoritarians to kill dissenters. If you're truly worried about Nazis that idea should scare you. You clearly have a proclivity towards authoritarianism, so maybe you buy into that idea because you always think your ideas will be in power and only used against "those bad thinkers". Even if you think "that could never happen" you should consider what might happen if "those bad thinkers" get in power instead and want revenge for your abuses. There's a reason America was founded on the principles of liberty and the protection of the minority against mob rule (aka "the majority").
> sometimes the consequence needs to be getting your big fat mouth shut for you
So you think censorship will work to change people's minds who already have some inclination towards conspiracies?
The fact that you've been modded down for making a joke that violates the accepted belief system perfectly illustrates the problem many people are trying to point out. Unfortunately even Slashdot is infiltrated by persistent anti-freedom posters. I remember when the prevailing sentiment on Slashdot was, "Just leave me the hell alone, and I'll leave you alone." That and Soviet and CmdrTaco jokes. We wouldn't even have the Internet if the original culture hadn't been one of freedom. Now, the freedom of the internet is allowing anti-freedom people to spread their views that the WWW should be censored. There's a lesson in there somewhere.
I agree comrade! We know much more than the average person. Rather than dealing with people on a one on one basis and sometimes agreeing to disagree, we should have our glorious and impartial tech, governmental, and corporate overlords decide what we can and cannot read, see, or hear!
On a serious note, we need to educate people to think critically. It's a long game and you'll have to fight the urge to drop into the fetal position when you fully understand that the vote of flat earth guy, who you've calmly reasoned with and still won't accept your conclusions, counts exactly as much as yours. One of the lessons of history is that control of knowledge is power. We should approach free speech the same way we should approach the justice system. It is better to let 100 guilty men free then to deprive one innocent man of his freedom by imprisonment.
Let's be realistic as well. NASA has some smart people, lots at JPL, but it's not the days of Gemini/Apollo (see: underfunding). You're only going to get the results you discuss when you have a program like SkunkWorks which attracts the very best of the best.
Probably most of them. If they're obviously not legit, then it's not worth paying them off.
That's not how this works. If it's cheaper to pay them off than litigating and maybe you get an NDA as part of the deal, then legitimacy doesn't really come in to play.
Report co-author and CEO of Luta Security, Katie Moussouris, doubled down on the findings, claiming that independent researchers are “better off pen testing or living the good life of in-house research staff.”
Katie started the bug bounty program at Microsoft and now owns a company doing pen testing. Guess what the report recommends? I wonder what it would recommend if she were still heading up a bug bounty program? Maybe I'm overly cynical, but it appears the authors are trying to structure bug bounty programs to be more like they are, security consultants. If you're going to propose such a large change, why look at only one data set? Even the Hacker One CEO said their data set isn't representative of the whole.
It's clear from the news article, which has a very clickbait-y title, that there are ways to improve bug bounty programs. As others have pointed out in comments here, it's still a useful tool. There's a blog post linked in the news article gives a good overview. That should've been the Slashdot submission.
You understand that a company has to make a net profit to stay in business right? You have to make enough money on the products you're currently selling to support them and develop the next version.
You sound like a bitter engineer that doesn't understand that a good company has engineering, sales, support, and marketing all working together to make a successful company.
I agree with the sentiment, but since this caused a cell network outage it's a bigger story. Also, the fact that a large company like this didn't have procedures in place for tracking renewal of certificates makes it a bigger deal. Like you mention, if they don't have these procedures in place, it calls into question how they're handling keys and other security-related items.
He was also talking about experimental test flights, not supposedly well-understood, reliably designed systems. It's pushing the envelope of knowledge and testing hypotheses versus the fairly well understood risks of modern spaceflight. Spaceflight might not be any less risky than what he was doing, but a lot of the spaceflight risk has been mitigated based on our knowledge. That was not the case for many of the planes Chuck was flying.
Re: American lion
"In 2008, the American lion was estimated to weigh up to 420 kg (930 lb)." That is a truly terrifying animal considering how dangerous a cougar is and according to Wikipedia cougars max out around 220 kg. The minimum weight estimated for an adult American lion is 175 kg.
A predatory cat the size of the modern grizzly bear is the stuff of nightmares.
OP was referencing pictures of the beaches in question, not pictures of other places in the Antarctic and Arctic. The one picture from the article itself was referenced in the OP as insufficient and I agree, it's a zoomed in picture where you have to create your own sense of scale based on assumptions.
Somehow, your comment is modded Informative, 5 when it doesn't answer OP's actual question.
>But of course the typical MAGA voter thinks that mass transportation is adopting communism or something like that so we don't get to have it.
Yes, blame *those* people over *there*. You know much better than them. Clearly you're much smarter.
Perhaps you could consider that people in rural areas don't see the need for their state or county taxes to increase to benefit city dwellers. There are perfectly logical economic and other reasons why people oppose mass transit none of which are because it's seen as "communism or something like that".
It's very easy to spend someone else's money. If it's so obviously better for capitalism that mass transit is better in population dense areas, then you should be able to make a killing helping businesses get it implemented.
Yes, it was wrong for them and it's wrong for Huawei now. Anandtech, HardOCP, Tom's, and others caught GPU manufacturers doing this and called them out just like now. Part of the reason for Anandtech's development of their own test suite was because they didn't completely trust that vendors weren't cheating the known industry benchmarks.
So far as I know, the above sites are still looking for cheating and GPU manufacturers have stopped. They've at least stopped obviously cheating by looking for when a known benchmark is running like Huawei got caught doing. They may still be tuning for benchmarks, and not real-world performance, but that's why real-world tests like Anandtech and HardOCP do are still useful for me.
And yet, good writing explains acronyms the first time they're used. Brand Americans all you like as ignorant. Only elitists throw acronyms around to keep their insular community elite. People who want to be understood make efforts to ensure that they are. If your job is writing and it takes seconds to make sure your audience understands what you're talking about (i.e. explaining an acronym), and you don't do that, you're objectively bad at your job.
I searched for "nytimes cia" and the first google result that's an article (the actual first result is the category listing all NYT CIA articles) literally spells out "Central Intelligence Agency" as its first three words (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/20/us/politics/gina-haspel-cia-director-influence-campaign.html). It's not hard to do. I've seen similar articles that even give a brief description of what the CIA is because it takes a sentence or two, and, again, if your _job_ is making sure people understand what you're saying, you do it.
If I have variables a and b then the compiler/interpreter will likely throw an error, but at least a warning if I do something like c = a b instead of c = a + b. I can't think of a single one that wouldn't. Even Python does.
If, however, like I just had to do yesterday, I need to pull a section of code out of a control block ('if' in my case), then I have to fool around with which exact indent it should live on instead of just finding the right closing brace and putting it there. It's annoying and maybe it's just because I gravitate towards more explicit languages like C or VHDL, but if I'm hacking something together, then I shouldn't have to scroll all over the file mentally lining things up or looking at the IDE's indications or column number to figure out what control block my code snippet is part of. Explicit languages have that covered. Yes, I can go back and refactor to use more functions and better code practices, but if I wasn't already hacking it together, then I'd just do it right in a different language.
Basically, I like Python; I like almost everything about it, but the one thing that's truly annoying is the lack of explicit control block structure. I'd love to see documentation from the designers about why they made that decision.
The moderation on my comment is all over the place and it looks like it's 'cause I got this wrong. My IDE is the thing whining about PEP8 non-compliance. So I got that wrong.
I still think my point about whitespace stands. More information is better. Explicit beginnings and endings of control structures is clearer, easier to debug, and just help clarify intent. It's like the Oxford comma. Why would you explicitly exclude something that requires almost no extra effort to do and its exclusion can cause problems due to ambiguity?
I disagree to a certain extent. Once you've set up your IDE, it's fine, but my main problem is that whitespace is significant. Why should I have to care how many indents there are? At least with C/C++ I can search for a '{' or '}'. You can't search for missing whitespace. Again, a well-set up IDE highlights and lines up brackets or whitespace, but whole concept is bad design in my opinion.
For example, I like 2 spaces for tabs for tighter indentation, but I can't do that in Python because the language designers decided that 4 spaces is exactly right for everyone. That type of thing shouldn't be inherent in the language design.
I do think Python gets a bad rap because it's so easy to use and so bad programmers don't have a high barrier to entry to writing their terrible code. In my experience, you can write good code in Python. There are many things it's not great at, but it's a useful tool.
This appears different from spam in that it would be much more traceable. Also, part of solving the societal problem is the traceability. The idea is that if the originators start getting arrested along with those that perpetrate violence, others are less likely to start these types of rumors.
I use Tuleap and make a Kanban board for each of my categories (Work, Honey-do, Personal, etc.). It runs CentOS 6 or RHEL 6. I run it on CentOS 6 within its own VM. I have it hosted myself as I'm not crazy about putting all of my tasks on some cloud service. After quite a bit of searching this is what I settled on. I've been using it for almost 9 months now and I'm quite happy with it.
I too, comrade^H^H^H^H^H^H^H fellow American citizen, prefer the FSB to the NSA. They are to be much more trusted than evil NSA. Make Russia^H^H^H^H^H^H America Great Again!
The point is not that Microsoft is perfect in what it signs, it's that even them screwing up occasionally is better than driver writers at large have unchecked access to the kernel space.
Would disabling internet access be enough? You could have your app unload the Ethernet driver when it runs and then reload the driver when it exits. Of course your app would have to have system level permissions to futz with Ethernet and you'd have to deny those permissions to the user.
I'm not sure how you could disable running other applications if you're not allowed to change the OS configuration.
Then just make a distinction between the meanings:
1) What the author meant when they wrote it
2) What the work meant to the culture of the time
3) What the work means to us now
What's hard about that? Why should someone else be able to say what the author meant? On the other hand the author shouldn't be able to tell others that they can't take a different meaning out of it, they can just be told that's not what the author said they meant.
Slashdot Mirror
> Communicating, sharing, commenting is only good when there are consequences for what you've communicated, shared, or commented.
So contrary to the original idea of the internet and how it's functioned for decades, you think we should tie everyone's Internet accounts unambiguously to a person? You should think about how that type of system will be used by authoritarians to kill dissenters. If you're truly worried about Nazis that idea should scare you. You clearly have a proclivity towards authoritarianism, so maybe you buy into that idea because you always think your ideas will be in power and only used against "those bad thinkers". Even if you think "that could never happen" you should consider what might happen if "those bad thinkers" get in power instead and want revenge for your abuses. There's a reason America was founded on the principles of liberty and the protection of the minority against mob rule (aka "the majority").
> sometimes the consequence needs to be getting your big fat mouth shut for you
So you think censorship will work to change people's minds who already have some inclination towards conspiracies?
At time of posting parent was at 0, Offtopic.
The fact that you've been modded down for making a joke that violates the accepted belief system perfectly illustrates the problem many people are trying to point out. Unfortunately even Slashdot is infiltrated by persistent anti-freedom posters. I remember when the prevailing sentiment on Slashdot was, "Just leave me the hell alone, and I'll leave you alone." That and Soviet and CmdrTaco jokes. We wouldn't even have the Internet if the original culture hadn't been one of freedom. Now, the freedom of the internet is allowing anti-freedom people to spread their views that the WWW should be censored. There's a lesson in there somewhere.
I agree comrade! We know much more than the average person. Rather than dealing with people on a one on one basis and sometimes agreeing to disagree, we should have our glorious and impartial tech, governmental, and corporate overlords decide what we can and cannot read, see, or hear!
On a serious note, we need to educate people to think critically. It's a long game and you'll have to fight the urge to drop into the fetal position when you fully understand that the vote of flat earth guy, who you've calmly reasoned with and still won't accept your conclusions, counts exactly as much as yours. One of the lessons of history is that control of knowledge is power. We should approach free speech the same way we should approach the justice system. It is better to let 100 guilty men free then to deprive one innocent man of his freedom by imprisonment.
Let's be realistic as well. NASA has some smart people, lots at JPL, but it's not the days of Gemini/Apollo (see: underfunding). You're only going to get the results you discuss when you have a program like SkunkWorks which attracts the very best of the best.
Probably most of them. If they're obviously not legit, then it's not worth paying them off.
That's not how this works. If it's cheaper to pay them off than litigating and maybe you get an NDA as part of the deal, then legitimacy doesn't really come in to play.
Report co-author and CEO of Luta Security, Katie Moussouris, doubled down on the findings, claiming that independent researchers are “better off pen testing or living the good life of in-house research staff.”
Katie started the bug bounty program at Microsoft and now owns a company doing pen testing. Guess what the report recommends? I wonder what it would recommend if she were still heading up a bug bounty program? Maybe I'm overly cynical, but it appears the authors are trying to structure bug bounty programs to be more like they are, security consultants. If you're going to propose such a large change, why look at only one data set? Even the Hacker One CEO said their data set isn't representative of the whole.
It's clear from the news article, which has a very clickbait-y title, that there are ways to improve bug bounty programs. As others have pointed out in comments here, it's still a useful tool. There's a blog post linked in the news article gives a good overview. That should've been the Slashdot submission.
The game you describe is telephone or Chinese whispers.
You understand that a company has to make a net profit to stay in business right? You have to make enough money on the products you're currently selling to support them and develop the next version.
You sound like a bitter engineer that doesn't understand that a good company has engineering, sales, support, and marketing all working together to make a successful company.
I agree with the sentiment, but since this caused a cell network outage it's a bigger story. Also, the fact that a large company like this didn't have procedures in place for tracking renewal of certificates makes it a bigger deal. Like you mention, if they don't have these procedures in place, it calls into question how they're handling keys and other security-related items.
He was also talking about experimental test flights, not supposedly well-understood, reliably designed systems. It's pushing the envelope of knowledge and testing hypotheses versus the fairly well understood risks of modern spaceflight. Spaceflight might not be any less risky than what he was doing, but a lot of the spaceflight risk has been mitigated based on our knowledge. That was not the case for many of the planes Chuck was flying.
Re: American lion
"In 2008, the American lion was estimated to weigh up to 420 kg (930 lb)." That is a truly terrifying animal considering how dangerous a cougar is and according to Wikipedia cougars max out around 220 kg. The minimum weight estimated for an adult American lion is 175 kg.
A predatory cat the size of the modern grizzly bear is the stuff of nightmares.
OP was referencing pictures of the beaches in question, not pictures of other places in the Antarctic and Arctic. The one picture from the article itself was referenced in the OP as insufficient and I agree, it's a zoomed in picture where you have to create your own sense of scale based on assumptions.
Somehow, your comment is modded Informative, 5 when it doesn't answer OP's actual question.
>But of course the typical MAGA voter thinks that mass transportation is adopting communism or something like that so we don't get to have it.
Yes, blame *those* people over *there*. You know much better than them. Clearly you're much smarter.
Perhaps you could consider that people in rural areas don't see the need for their state or county taxes to increase to benefit city dwellers. There are perfectly logical economic and other reasons why people oppose mass transit none of which are because it's seen as "communism or something like that".
It's very easy to spend someone else's money. If it's so obviously better for capitalism that mass transit is better in population dense areas, then you should be able to make a killing helping businesses get it implemented.
Yes, it was wrong for them and it's wrong for Huawei now. Anandtech, HardOCP, Tom's, and others caught GPU manufacturers doing this and called them out just like now. Part of the reason for Anandtech's development of their own test suite was because they didn't completely trust that vendors weren't cheating the known industry benchmarks.
So far as I know, the above sites are still looking for cheating and GPU manufacturers have stopped. They've at least stopped obviously cheating by looking for when a known benchmark is running like Huawei got caught doing. They may still be tuning for benchmarks, and not real-world performance, but that's why real-world tests like Anandtech and HardOCP do are still useful for me.
And yet, good writing explains acronyms the first time they're used. Brand Americans all you like as ignorant. Only elitists throw acronyms around to keep their insular community elite. People who want to be understood make efforts to ensure that they are. If your job is writing and it takes seconds to make sure your audience understands what you're talking about (i.e. explaining an acronym), and you don't do that, you're objectively bad at your job. I searched for "nytimes cia" and the first google result that's an article (the actual first result is the category listing all NYT CIA articles) literally spells out "Central Intelligence Agency" as its first three words (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/20/us/politics/gina-haspel-cia-director-influence-campaign.html). It's not hard to do. I've seen similar articles that even give a brief description of what the CIA is because it takes a sentence or two, and, again, if your _job_ is making sure people understand what you're saying, you do it.
If I have variables a and b then the compiler/interpreter will likely throw an error, but at least a warning if I do something like c = a b instead of c = a + b. I can't think of a single one that wouldn't. Even Python does.
If, however, like I just had to do yesterday, I need to pull a section of code out of a control block ('if' in my case), then I have to fool around with which exact indent it should live on instead of just finding the right closing brace and putting it there. It's annoying and maybe it's just because I gravitate towards more explicit languages like C or VHDL, but if I'm hacking something together, then I shouldn't have to scroll all over the file mentally lining things up or looking at the IDE's indications or column number to figure out what control block my code snippet is part of. Explicit languages have that covered. Yes, I can go back and refactor to use more functions and better code practices, but if I wasn't already hacking it together, then I'd just do it right in a different language.
Basically, I like Python; I like almost everything about it, but the one thing that's truly annoying is the lack of explicit control block structure. I'd love to see documentation from the designers about why they made that decision.
The moderation on my comment is all over the place and it looks like it's 'cause I got this wrong. My IDE is the thing whining about PEP8 non-compliance. So I got that wrong.
I still think my point about whitespace stands. More information is better. Explicit beginnings and endings of control structures is clearer, easier to debug, and just help clarify intent. It's like the Oxford comma. Why would you explicitly exclude something that requires almost no extra effort to do and its exclusion can cause problems due to ambiguity?
I disagree to a certain extent. Once you've set up your IDE, it's fine, but my main problem is that whitespace is significant. Why should I have to care how many indents there are? At least with C/C++ I can search for a '{' or '}'. You can't search for missing whitespace. Again, a well-set up IDE highlights and lines up brackets or whitespace, but whole concept is bad design in my opinion. For example, I like 2 spaces for tabs for tighter indentation, but I can't do that in Python because the language designers decided that 4 spaces is exactly right for everyone. That type of thing shouldn't be inherent in the language design. I do think Python gets a bad rap because it's so easy to use and so bad programmers don't have a high barrier to entry to writing their terrible code. In my experience, you can write good code in Python. There are many things it's not great at, but it's a useful tool.
This appears different from spam in that it would be much more traceable. Also, part of solving the societal problem is the traceability. The idea is that if the originators start getting arrested along with those that perpetrate violence, others are less likely to start these types of rumors.
https://www.tuleap.org/
I use Tuleap and make a Kanban board for each of my categories (Work, Honey-do, Personal, etc.). It runs CentOS 6 or RHEL 6. I run it on CentOS 6 within its own VM. I have it hosted myself as I'm not crazy about putting all of my tasks on some cloud service. After quite a bit of searching this is what I settled on. I've been using it for almost 9 months now and I'm quite happy with it.
I too, comrade^H^H^H^H^H^H^H fellow American citizen, prefer the FSB to the NSA. They are to be much more trusted than evil NSA. Make Russia^H^H^H^H^H^H America Great Again!
The point is not that Microsoft is perfect in what it signs, it's that even them screwing up occasionally is better than driver writers at large have unchecked access to the kernel space.
Would disabling internet access be enough? You could have your app unload the Ethernet driver when it runs and then reload the driver when it exits. Of course your app would have to have system level permissions to futz with Ethernet and you'd have to deny those permissions to the user.
I'm not sure how you could disable running other applications if you're not allowed to change the OS configuration.
The above comment was misplaced. I replied to the wrong comment. The real one's at http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2368596&cid=37026018
Then just make a distinction between the meanings:
1) What the author meant when they wrote it
2) What the work meant to the culture of the time
3) What the work means to us now
What's hard about that? Why should someone else be able to say what the author meant? On the other hand the author shouldn't be able to tell others that they can't take a different meaning out of it, they can just be told that's not what the author said they meant.