How long do we uphold the polite pretense that China isn't behind the overwhelming majority of real world hacking?
As long as we uphold the myth almost as many attacks originate by the USA for from the USA.
How long are we supposed to avoid to avoid offending them and continue to allow them to steal all of our intellectual property that we supposedly value?
I don't know probably until the economy collapses so much of the rest of trade relationship and financial relationship with China is based on various fictions I see no reason this should be different.
At least the Chinese government actually bothers to protect Chinese businesses from foreigners unlike the US government which only protects big business.
Citation please? From my observations working for a multinational with Chinese subsidiaries and talking to people there, corruption is pretty rampant. The business that get 'protection' are the state owned enterprises, and the ones that pay large enough bribes. China might have lots savings in the way of Federal Reserve notes, but in terms of resource availability, sustainability, and social stability is probably as much a house of cards as we are here in the US.
Yes this will log it. No its not a storage problem. Your typical F500 has probably as many users / devices as lot of ISPs have connected and trust me they log ever session.
Really 8 byte time stamp start, 8 byte time stamp end 4 byte origin src, 4 byte dst, 2 byte dst port 2 byte orign src port 2 byte src port, 4 byte src ( assumes pool could be a sing byte if its just an index into the pool) 1 byte for flags (tcp / udp, whatever else)
So 35 bytes per connection give or take depending on how you want to implement things. So you can store ~30 records per 1Kb. You don't store on a per udp packet basis. You make UDP have sessions. Basically you introduce a hold time. You only long the session when the hold time expires and you tear down the sessions.
Even if you have pretty chatty customers we are talking not more than a couple of gigs per hour. You keep a months worth on line or so and the rest goes off to cheap tape.
The certainty of being caught is the best weapon we have right now.
So what you are saying is that we have no effective weapon. The 911 terrorists did not even expect to survive if successful. I don't think they had much concern about being caught.
It appears the Boston bomber killed his older brother rather than allowing him to be taken alive. When your would be attackers don't value their own lives punishment capital or otherwise is not an effective deterrent.
So back to the original questions. Is the data collection itself turning our society into something different than it has been and is it desirable? Is the volume of data being collected resulting in intelligence spending a lot of time and energy running down unlikely threats and leads; dose that result in less safety gained than if they focused only on the more obvious standouts?
.. the collection of data helps after the fact, i.e., once someone is caught. The additional data allows a more solid case to be built, and makes it easier to find co-conspirators.
I'll buy that. Once you know who you can go back and sift through logs, security camera footage, peoples cell phone snaps, phone records, etc and find evidence. I don't Bruce would argue otherwise.
But...Where mass murder and terrorism is concerned what is our objective? Make sure we can punish the guilty or prevent attacks?
So far I am not aware of any revelation that has come out of all the surveillance that would have helped us 'prevent' the bombing. Plenty of things we might have done, but all things we already knew we could be doing but had rejected for reasons of civil liberties, cost, character of our nation etc.
Its also entirely possible that something that helps us identify and punish the guilty after the fact harms our ability to detect and prevent in terms of to much hay.
While hating anyone or group usually serves little use and is often as much to the detriment of the hater as the hated; I think the 'freedom to hate' is probably the most important to protect. The 'freedom to hate' is also the the very same freedom to have your own mind, form your own opinions, be truly able to love, and be a whole person with agency. Yes its shameful how many people use that agency so badly but the right answer is not to try and take it away from them.
If I don't have the freedom to say "I think the world would be better off without $GROUP" I am not really free to speak or think. We can't have go trying to have a list of approved thoughts and ideas; that will be far more anti-human than anything any hate group has ever done.
There is a big difference between having opinions and acting on them. Its action where the line should be. We should never loose site of that.
The major oil companies are promoting "No peak oil" stories to influence google results. They need to do this to keep asset prices up, soothe investors and keep the financing on which they depend flowing.
bahaha -- hold up can't stop laughing. okay okay..... The oil companies don't depend on financing they pay some of the larger dividends found in the large cap space. Access to credit is not something big oil thinks about as a 'risk'. Which is not to say they don't use it in these days of near zero sometimes negative real rates; but they don't *need* it and they don't worry about it.
If the lawyer wrote a letter like that to the client then yes he should just be fired, but writing a letter like that on behalf of a client is malpractice. Clients paying good money for legal service deserve not have their interests endangered by incompetent, reckless or both representation. This is why attorneys are required to be licensed ( join the state bar ) in the first place.
So I don't agree it absolutely with you; I think this is egregious behavior that should get them kicked out of the profession.
Its school right? They have students right? While I don't think it would be good to go down the path of using what should be instructional hours to do maintenance on the school this one seems like there would be ways.
I have to assume there are some computer science, computing for business, personal business type courses where doing some operating system installs would be defensible as providing "useful background." So a couple class periods from those courses the students could be borrowed for the purpose. Then you have all the students serving detention who could also be allocated to this sort of work.
How much could it possible cost for a box of ~6GB usb thumbdrives, and Admin to dump a windows installer image with all the updates slip streamed, script out the installation of the whatever else they use ( they probably already have this from whatever their usual deployment method is and could simply adapt it ) and type up some instructions?
I am sure all of this could have been done and in less time at far lower cost than putting the contract out to bid. Let alone paying for the contract and waiting for the work to be done and machines delivered.
That is not the same thing at all. Your job is not to suck up to the boss. As to if its a good idea to strain your working relationship that is your business. Unless it rises to the level of harassment or something that requires HR to get involved; my guess nobody else in the organization really cares what form and tone correspondence between you and your boss takes.
The lawyers job on the other hand is to try and secure a favorable outcome for his/her client. Acting in a way that is obviously likely to result in the opposite outcome is a breach of professionalism. Just like if an Architect went around drawing plans for a bridge they expected would collapse.
Re:These version numbers are getting like Firefox
on
Linux 3.9 Released
·
· Score: 2
Really - I have felt the whole 3.x.x line has added lots of interesting new features with each second decimal point release. I guess some btrfs stuff might fall under filesystem of the week. But if you do any prototyping or visualization with Linux containers and the like btrfs improvements have been pretty interesting; as has the container specific stuff like kernel namespace enhancements.
Honestly I think there have been more interesting developments along the way in 3.x than there were from 2.4 -> 2.6.
Right; I think this is really the best argument for all those who want to 'regulate' drones. I don't like them. I know they are going to be abused and misused.
The problem is regulation won't fix that. It will just ensure a certain group gets to abuse the rest of us with them AND deny the rest of us the economic benefits, intellectual opportunities, and chance to return the favor for abuse.
You can't put the genie back in the bottle. All regulation does is create haves and have nots. The best most equitable thing to do is permit everyone to use and possess technologies. And that goes for fast computers, cryptography, high capacity high rate fire arms, unmanned air crafts, all of it.
The South and most of the Red states couldn't exist if not for the rather large subsidies that the Blue states provide.
The problem is this argument does not consider that really those red states are the nations bread basket; Do they get huge tax subsides you bet; but its more a monetary distortion than an actual transfer of wealth. though some of the Southwest Nevada(I am looking at you) probably get a free ride.
Yes New York does some agriculture and so does California but what do imagine food prices would be without all the Federal monies flowing to the South East and Mid West?
Don't get me wrong I don't get wrong. I think we would be much better off not distorting the value of these things but I think the real capital flows would surprise people. Its not like the folks in those places would just do without infrastructure if the Feds did not build it, local taxes would go up and be passed on and its not like the loss of the direct subsidies would not be passed on either. Staple food products are rather inelastic. So the Federal income tax rate would probably go way down; but you'd pay $12 for a box of Corn Flakes, and GDP of those Red states would look much closer to the Blue ones.
No sequestration was the only way to get cuts at all. Anytime you cut a specific program you have a group of people who are suddenly highly motivated to protect their sacred cow. As a politician you risk them pulling their monetary support from you and giving it to your opponents. Worse you might be challenged in a primary.
If on the other hand you cut EVERYTHING by a small amount you don't leave any specific group feeling its in their direct economic interest to spend a bunch of money lobbying, standing up another candidate, donating to your political enemies across the isle etc. So you can actually get cuts passed.
The next problem you have is the federal budget is so big an complex trying go through it item by item and make equitable decisions is neigh on impossible, in the first place. No matter how many staffers you toss at the project really giving intelligent consideration to every line item in a document the size of a major metro area phone book is hard. So you end up with people wanted to eliminate programs or even departments whole sale; which I personally feel there are some valid candidates for, but many would disagree. So you get a political fight that ends in some lame compromise resulting in little or no actual changes.
Sorry but broad cross the board indiscriminate cutting is all we can do at this point. The system is far to broken to accomplish anything else.
The real blame falls on the executive branch here. The FAA folks KNEW this implementation would cause lots of pain and might get their funding restored. They had to cut X% in controller salaries; what that could have and should have done is eliminated all controllers at a few small airports (effectively shuttering them) but impacting a thousands of people only rather than the entire nation.
Making suggestions that some hackers take actions that would threaten the dignity of our public servants or the policies they choose to implement.
They would have to still have dignity. If you want people to respect the law than the law needs to be respectable. If government officials don't want to be called liars; they need to stop spreading disinformation.
What is wrong with ranting on Slashdot anyway? How is it so different than the pamphleteers of yesteryear? Sorry I don't agree. We absolutely should attack and lampoon dear old uncle Sam. We absolutely should attempt to built contempt and vitriol among the population toward him. That is how you get change. That is how you eventually push people to take the risk of throwing the bums out of office.
I tend to agree with you but there are two problems some are going argue of a legal perspective. There is no clearly enumerated right to travel. Yes the 10th Amendment should have enough tooth to cover you and I there but sadly a century of legal precedent (WRONG IMHO) does not support us. The second problem is like the parent poster did people are always going to insist as long as some mode of travel remains open to you; government should be allowed to restrict any particular mode of travel. Naturally all the particular ones will be all the practical ones.
What you do have is an explicit right to free assembly! Its there in plain ink! Now to assemble you must by definition go to where the assembly is taking place, and be there at the time it is taking place. Because of this I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that government should NOT be allowed to interfere with private travel as doing so interferes with your right to assemble with others. They should have to prepared to initiate some evidence based criminal process with court orders and warrants or leave you to your business.
That and its rarely done because frankly the typical LOB software developer does not know how to implement such things. Lets face it even the cheapest hardware is so good most of the time they don't need to. Its also true they should not have to. By the time someone is writing x = x * y; in Java or even C, other than being sensitive to data-type, will it overflow? is a float that is going to have precision truncated? etc; they ought to be able to depend on that working as expected. The right place to deal with the issue really is in hardware or not at all.
Well at the very least he was not given his Miranda rights when they apprehended him. It was "national security exception."
This is problem. Rights, due process, and the rule of law are not worth very much when there are so many exceptions. This was an injured man cowering in a boat. He was non-responsive. They made damn sure he would be stunned and unable to resist with flash grenades too. When they did grab him he did fight; there was no reason at all not to afford him the usual warning about his civil liberties.
1) The BSD license (and similarly liberal licenses) promotes freedom for everybody, while the GPL goes out of its way to restrict freedom (namely, the freedom to not redistribute modified code).
The only freedom this limits in practice use is the freedom to profit off the work of others. I am not a supported of IP as a concept in general but it exists; to that end GPL has succeeded in ensuring there is a workable free ecosystem that I really don't think would exist with out it.
2) The BSD license is used by developers who are interested in creating high-quality software, rather than partaking in ideological squabbles.
So people who are not interested in licensing considerations don't think about it much; a tautology.
3) The BSD license is attractive to commercial users, who often provide very valuable financial and personnel support, and who still end up contributing their work back to the community.
This is true of the GPL and LGPL as well; both of which ensure that those commercial users actually do give back where the BSD and like licenses don't.
4) The BSD license is being used by more and more of today's new, successful projects. This is because it promotes free collaboration, rather than forced collaboration.
Yes and this is really unfortunate. Just like at all the time and energy wasted unlocking devices and such. I think its really to bad Linus did not take the kernel GPL3; if he had the droid ecosystem would actually be open. Your BSD licensed compiler sure will be great when you and I can't find a hardware platform to run it. Tivoization is quickly going to ensure that having free software will be of no use because all you will never be able to use anything but someone else signed binary blob anyway.
How on earth are you going to have threads in DOS?
The same way you always have the same way its done on every embed platform. A private to your application threading model. There is nothing to stop you from implementing any kind of scheduling your want on top of DOS as it does not do any, and nothing that will stop you from doing whatever you like with interrupts, software or otherwise.
You also have the long long int type, where if you need to use that on a 32bit system, it will need emulated
yes. Just like what used to be done for floats and 32-bit values on x86 DOS platforms.
there were for sale bundles of firewood, wrapped in plastic, from Lithuania (!) advertised as "green" so you have you open pit or woodstove, in-efficient combustion, wood that was transported across the ocean....
Well wood burning could be considered green in that its at least a renewable resource. It could arguably be considered carbon neutral as well; if we got to the point were we re-planted as much acreage of forest as we harvest.
The transporting it across the ocean part though is pretty messed up.
That $40 bottle of wine really is better than that $5 bottle.
Maybe on that. There have been lots of blind test; even one done by the Freakonics guys that determined many people could not reliably distinguish and those who could expressed a preference for the in expensive bottle almost as frequently as the expensive one.
So there is lot of subjectivity is what a "good wine" actually is and it may come down to personal preference, in absence of social pressure to prefer the higher priced bottle. There may be authentic quality issues as you go downward into the very bottom rot gut how the heck can fill and ship the bottles profitably at that price entries, in that those might not get much in the way of fining or control around MOTG (matter other than grape).
nstead, this looks like some Mom & Pop company that started on some bootstring budget and couldn't afford to put in those kind of safety features into their plant design.
Right because only a hand full of Mega-Corps should ever be allowed to do anything other than operate a retail kiosk. We all know that leads to a stable and secure economy.
I am not disagreeing with your post really. I am sure there are some lessons to be learned here and some basic safety standards that need to be put in place or improved. I just want to point out that we need to keep in mind a sense of balance. What we don't want to do is set the requirements so high they become a barrier to entry in the marketplace.
I know there is a segment of the slashdot crowd is just sure the owners were thinking "I am going maximize profits no matter what; and hey if the plant explodes fuck-it I'll declare bankruptcy and disappear." I suggest its far more likely they were doing everything they felt they reasonably could do to run a safe business that could continue to operate and provide for their future and that of their employees. While accidents like this happen they don't happen all the time so we must already be doing things mostly right.
you can't impersonate an https site without a cert.
Maybe. The recent browser releases have taken a step to improve the situation by remembering if they used https for a host before and doing it by default the next time but its not 100%.
Consider: You type thinkgeek.com in your url bar. You don't specify the protocol because only those of us slashdot readers understand the risks inherent in not doing so bother and your browser decides to use plain http. An important omission was made but no typo. I intercept your clear text 80 traffic and rather than the remote host sending a 302; I send you a 302 and point you at https://thinkgeak.com/ which redirects to a server I control and have a valid certificate for. Your browser issues no warnings. Will you notice if I have done a good job cloning the site? Hell maybe I actually proxy your requests to the real host so you can even order and get your stuff like nothing is wrong, meanwhile I snag your CC and CVC as it goes by with a ciphers I selected.
https is pretty good but its still possible to do some amount of spoofing under the right conditions.
Slashdot Mirror
How long do we uphold the polite pretense that China isn't behind the overwhelming majority of real world hacking?
As long as we uphold the myth almost as many attacks originate by the USA for from the USA.
How long are we supposed to avoid to avoid offending them and continue to allow them to steal all of our intellectual property that we supposedly value?
I don't know probably until the economy collapses so much of the rest of trade relationship and financial relationship with China is based on various fictions I see no reason this should be different.
At least the Chinese government actually bothers to protect Chinese businesses from foreigners unlike the US government which only protects big business.
Citation please? From my observations working for a multinational with Chinese subsidiaries and talking to people there, corruption is pretty rampant. The business that get 'protection' are the state owned enterprises, and the ones that pay large enough bribes. China might have lots savings in the way of Federal Reserve notes, but in terms of resource availability, sustainability, and social stability is probably as much a house of cards as we are here in the US.
Yes this will log it. No its not a storage problem. Your typical F500 has probably as many users / devices as lot of ISPs have connected and trust me they log ever session.
Really
8 byte time stamp start,
8 byte time stamp end
4 byte origin src,
4 byte dst,
2 byte dst port
2 byte orign src port
2 byte src port,
4 byte src ( assumes pool could be a sing byte if its just an index into the pool)
1 byte for flags (tcp / udp, whatever else)
So 35 bytes per connection give or take depending on how you want to implement things. So you can store ~30 records per 1Kb. You don't store on a per udp packet basis. You make UDP have sessions. Basically you introduce a hold time. You only long the session when the hold time expires and you tear down the sessions.
Even if you have pretty chatty customers we are talking not more than a couple of gigs per hour. You keep a months worth on line or so and the rest goes off to cheap tape.
The certainty of being caught is the best weapon we have right now.
So what you are saying is that we have no effective weapon. The 911 terrorists did not even expect to survive if successful. I don't think they had much concern about being caught.
It appears the Boston bomber killed his older brother rather than allowing him to be taken alive. When your would be attackers don't value their own lives punishment capital or otherwise is not an effective deterrent.
So back to the original questions. Is the data collection itself turning our society into something different than it has been and is it desirable? Is the volume of data being collected resulting in intelligence spending a lot of time and energy running down unlikely threats and leads; dose that result in less safety gained than if they focused only on the more obvious standouts?
.. the collection of data helps after the fact, i.e., once someone is caught. The additional data allows a more solid case to be built, and makes it easier to find co-conspirators.
I'll buy that. Once you know who you can go back and sift through logs, security camera footage, peoples cell phone snaps, phone records, etc and find evidence. I don't Bruce would argue otherwise.
But...Where mass murder and terrorism is concerned what is our objective? Make sure we can punish the guilty or prevent attacks?
So far I am not aware of any revelation that has come out of all the surveillance that would have helped us 'prevent' the bombing. Plenty of things we might have done, but all things we already knew we could be doing but had rejected for reasons of civil liberties, cost, character of our nation etc.
Its also entirely possible that something that helps us identify and punish the guilty after the fact harms our ability to detect and prevent in terms of to much hay.
While hating anyone or group usually serves little use and is often as much to the detriment of the hater as the hated; I think the 'freedom to hate' is probably the most important to protect. The 'freedom to hate' is also the the very same freedom to have your own mind, form your own opinions, be truly able to love, and be a whole person with agency. Yes its shameful how many people use that agency so badly but the right answer is not to try and take it away from them.
If I don't have the freedom to say "I think the world would be better off without $GROUP" I am not really free to speak or think. We can't have go trying to have a list of approved thoughts and ideas; that will be far more anti-human than anything any hate group has ever done.
There is a big difference between having opinions and acting on them. Its action where the line should be. We should never loose site of that.
The major oil companies are promoting "No peak oil" stories to influence google results. They need to do this to keep asset prices up, soothe investors and keep the financing on which they depend flowing.
bahaha -- hold up can't stop laughing. okay okay.....
The oil companies don't depend on financing they pay some of the larger dividends found in the large cap space. Access to credit is not something big oil thinks about as a 'risk'. Which is not to say they don't use it in these days of near zero sometimes negative real rates; but they don't *need* it and they don't worry about it.
If the lawyer wrote a letter like that to the client then yes he should just be fired, but writing a letter like that on behalf of a client is malpractice. Clients paying good money for legal service deserve not have their interests endangered by incompetent, reckless or both representation. This is why attorneys are required to be licensed ( join the state bar ) in the first place.
So I don't agree it absolutely with you; I think this is egregious behavior that should get them kicked out of the profession.
Its school right? They have students right? While I don't think it would be good to go down the path of using what should be instructional hours to do maintenance on the school this one seems like there would be ways.
I have to assume there are some computer science, computing for business, personal business type courses where doing some operating system installs would be defensible as providing "useful background." So a couple class periods from those courses the students could be borrowed for the purpose. Then you have all the students serving detention who could also be allocated to this sort of work.
How much could it possible cost for a box of ~6GB usb thumbdrives, and Admin to dump a windows installer image with all the updates slip streamed, script out the installation of the whatever else they use ( they probably already have this from whatever their usual deployment method is and could simply adapt it ) and type up some instructions?
I am sure all of this could have been done and in less time at far lower cost than putting the contract out to bid. Let alone paying for the contract and waiting for the work to be done and machines delivered.
That is not the same thing at all. Your job is not to suck up to the boss. As to if its a good idea to strain your working relationship that is your business. Unless it rises to the level of harassment or something that requires HR to get involved; my guess nobody else in the organization really cares what form and tone correspondence between you and your boss takes.
The lawyers job on the other hand is to try and secure a favorable outcome for his/her client. Acting in a way that is obviously likely to result in the opposite outcome is a breach of professionalism. Just like if an Architect went around drawing plans for a bridge they expected would collapse.
Really - I have felt the whole 3.x.x line has added lots of interesting new features with each second decimal point release. I guess some btrfs stuff might fall under filesystem of the week. But if you do any prototyping or visualization with Linux containers and the like btrfs improvements have been pretty interesting; as has the container specific stuff like kernel namespace enhancements.
Honestly I think there have been more interesting developments along the way in 3.x than there were from 2.4 -> 2.6.
"Noise" includes "those who don't know what the they're talking about".
I have more criteria for public decision-making, but "everyone agrees" is good for the first one.
So wait which is it, everyone agrees or a small and not doubt elite group you decide are qualified to vote agree?
Right; I think this is really the best argument for all those who want to 'regulate' drones. I don't like them. I know they are going to be abused and misused.
The problem is regulation won't fix that. It will just ensure a certain group gets to abuse the rest of us with them AND deny the rest of us the economic benefits, intellectual opportunities, and chance to return the favor for abuse.
You can't put the genie back in the bottle. All regulation does is create haves and have nots. The best most equitable thing to do is permit everyone to use and possess technologies. And that goes for fast computers, cryptography, high capacity high rate fire arms, unmanned air crafts, all of it.
The South and most of the Red states couldn't exist if not for the rather large subsidies that the Blue states provide.
The problem is this argument does not consider that really those red states are the nations bread basket; Do they get huge tax subsides you bet; but its more a monetary distortion than an actual transfer of wealth. though some of the Southwest Nevada(I am looking at you) probably get a free ride.
Yes New York does some agriculture and so does California but what do imagine food prices would be without all the Federal monies flowing to the South East and Mid West?
Don't get me wrong I don't get wrong. I think we would be much better off not distorting the value of these things but I think the real capital flows would surprise people. Its not like the folks in those places would just do without infrastructure if the Feds did not build it, local taxes would go up and be passed on and its not like the loss of the direct subsidies would not be passed on either. Staple food products are rather inelastic. So the Federal income tax rate would probably go way down; but you'd pay $12 for a box of Corn Flakes, and GDP of those Red states would look much closer to the Blue ones.
No sequestration was the only way to get cuts at all. Anytime you cut a specific program you have a group of people who are suddenly highly motivated to protect their sacred cow. As a politician you risk them pulling their monetary support from you and giving it to your opponents. Worse you might be challenged in a primary.
If on the other hand you cut EVERYTHING by a small amount you don't leave any specific group feeling its in their direct economic interest to spend a bunch of money lobbying, standing up another candidate, donating to your political enemies across the isle etc. So you can actually get cuts passed.
The next problem you have is the federal budget is so big an complex trying go through it item by item and make equitable decisions is neigh on impossible, in the first place. No matter how many staffers you toss at the project really giving intelligent consideration to every line item in a document the size of a major metro area phone book is hard. So you end up with people wanted to eliminate programs or even departments whole sale; which I personally feel there are some valid candidates for, but many would disagree. So you get a political fight that ends in some lame compromise resulting in little or no actual changes.
Sorry but broad cross the board indiscriminate cutting is all we can do at this point. The system is far to broken to accomplish anything else.
The real blame falls on the executive branch here. The FAA folks KNEW this implementation would cause lots of pain and might get their funding restored. They had to cut X% in controller salaries; what that could have and should have done is eliminated all controllers at a few small airports (effectively shuttering them) but impacting a thousands of people only rather than the entire nation.
Making suggestions that some hackers take actions that would threaten the dignity of our public servants or the policies they choose to implement.
They would have to still have dignity. If you want people to respect the law than the law needs to be respectable. If government officials don't want to be called liars; they need to stop spreading disinformation.
What is wrong with ranting on Slashdot anyway? How is it so different than the pamphleteers of yesteryear? Sorry I don't agree. We absolutely should attack and lampoon dear old uncle Sam. We absolutely should attempt to built contempt and vitriol among the population toward him. That is how you get change. That is how you eventually push people to take the risk of throwing the bums out of office.
I tend to agree with you but there are two problems some are going argue of a legal perspective. There is no clearly enumerated right to travel. Yes the 10th Amendment should have enough tooth to cover you and I there but sadly a century of legal precedent (WRONG IMHO) does not support us. The second problem is like the parent poster did people are always going to insist as long as some mode of travel remains open to you; government should be allowed to restrict any particular mode of travel. Naturally all the particular ones will be all the practical ones.
What you do have is an explicit right to free assembly! Its there in plain ink! Now to assemble you must by definition go to where the assembly is taking place, and be there at the time it is taking place. Because of this I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that government should NOT be allowed to interfere with private travel as doing so interferes with your right to assemble with others. They should have to prepared to initiate some evidence based criminal process with court orders and warrants or leave you to your business.
yes and that PART would be the BIG part.
That and its rarely done because frankly the typical LOB software developer does not know how to implement such things. Lets face it even the cheapest hardware is so good most of the time they don't need to. Its also true they should not have to. By the time someone is writing x = x * y; in Java or even C, other than being sensitive to data-type, will it overflow? is a float that is going to have precision truncated? etc; they ought to be able to depend on that working as expected.
The right place to deal with the issue really is in hardware or not at all.
Well at the very least he was not given his Miranda rights when they apprehended him. It was "national security exception."
This is problem. Rights, due process, and the rule of law are not worth very much when there are so many exceptions. This was an injured man cowering in a boat. He was non-responsive. They made damn sure he would be stunned and unable to resist with flash grenades too. When they did grab him he did fight; there was no reason at all not to afford him the usual warning about his civil liberties.
1) The BSD license (and similarly liberal licenses) promotes freedom for everybody, while the GPL goes out of its way to restrict freedom (namely, the freedom to not redistribute modified code).
The only freedom this limits in practice use is the freedom to profit off the work of others. I am not a supported of IP as a concept in general but it exists; to that end GPL has succeeded in ensuring there is a workable free ecosystem that I really don't think would exist with out it.
2) The BSD license is used by developers who are interested in creating high-quality software, rather than partaking in ideological squabbles.
So people who are not interested in licensing considerations don't think about it much; a tautology.
3) The BSD license is attractive to commercial users, who often provide very valuable financial and personnel support, and who still end up contributing their work back to the community.
This is true of the GPL and LGPL as well; both of which ensure that those commercial users actually do give back where the BSD and like licenses don't.
4) The BSD license is being used by more and more of today's new, successful projects. This is because it promotes free collaboration, rather than forced collaboration.
Yes and this is really unfortunate. Just like at all the time and energy wasted unlocking devices and such. I think its really to bad Linus did not take the kernel GPL3; if he had the droid ecosystem would actually be open. Your BSD licensed compiler sure will be great when you and I can't find a hardware platform to run it. Tivoization is quickly going to ensure that having free software will be of no use because all you will never be able to use anything but someone else signed binary blob anyway.
How on earth are you going to have threads in DOS?
The same way you always have the same way its done on every embed platform. A private to your application threading model. There is nothing to stop you from implementing any kind of scheduling your want on top of DOS as it does not do any, and nothing that will stop you from doing whatever you like with interrupts, software or otherwise.
You also have the long long int type, where if you need to use that on a 32bit system, it will need emulated
yes. Just like what used to be done for floats and 32-bit values on x86 DOS platforms.
there were for sale bundles of firewood, wrapped in plastic, from Lithuania (!) advertised as "green"
so you have you open pit or woodstove, in-efficient combustion, wood that was transported across the ocean....
Well wood burning could be considered green in that its at least a renewable resource. It could arguably be considered carbon neutral as well; if we got to the point were we re-planted as much acreage of forest as we harvest.
The transporting it across the ocean part though is pretty messed up.
That $40 bottle of wine really is better than that $5 bottle.
Maybe on that. There have been lots of blind test; even one done by the Freakonics guys that determined many people could not reliably distinguish and those who could expressed a preference for the in expensive bottle almost as frequently as the expensive one.
So there is lot of subjectivity is what a "good wine" actually is and it may come down to personal preference, in absence of social pressure to prefer the higher priced bottle. There may be authentic quality issues as you go downward into the very bottom rot gut how the heck can fill and ship the bottles profitably at that price entries, in that those might not get much in the way of fining or control around MOTG (matter other than grape).
nstead, this looks like some Mom & Pop company that started on some bootstring budget and couldn't afford to put in those kind of safety features into their plant design.
Right because only a hand full of Mega-Corps should ever be allowed to do anything other than operate a retail kiosk. We all know that leads to a stable and secure economy.
I am not disagreeing with your post really. I am sure there are some lessons to be learned here and some basic safety standards that need to be put in place or improved. I just want to point out that we need to keep in mind a sense of balance. What we don't want to do is set the requirements so high they become a barrier to entry in the marketplace.
I know there is a segment of the slashdot crowd is just sure the owners were thinking "I am going maximize profits no matter what; and hey if the plant explodes fuck-it I'll declare bankruptcy and disappear." I suggest its far more likely they were doing everything they felt they reasonably could do to run a safe business that could continue to operate and provide for their future and that of their employees. While accidents like this happen they don't happen all the time so we must already be doing things mostly right.
you can't impersonate an https site without a cert.
Maybe. The recent browser releases have taken a step to improve the situation by remembering if they used https for a host before and doing it by default the next time but its not 100%.
Consider:
You type thinkgeek.com in your url bar. You don't specify the protocol because only those of us slashdot readers understand the risks inherent in not doing so bother and your browser decides to use plain http. An important omission was made but no typo. I intercept your clear text 80 traffic and rather than the remote host sending a 302; I send you a 302 and point you at https://thinkgeak.com/ which redirects to a server I control and have a valid certificate for. Your browser issues no warnings. Will you notice if I have done a good job cloning the site? Hell maybe I actually proxy your requests to the real host so you can even order and get your stuff like nothing is wrong, meanwhile I snag your CC and CVC as it goes by with a ciphers I selected.
https is pretty good but its still possible to do some amount of spoofing under the right conditions.