I'm with you. In WoW, PvP is not something I do; it's something that gets done to me while I'm trying to do something enjoyable (like questing, or farming materials for crafting). My bad for rolling on a PvP server, but that's where my friends were rolling./sigh
So WOL won't be for me.
OTOH, my kid (who's a PvP fanatic) is already planning out his WOL character's career path.
I think I need more computers in the house capable of running these games, because there's already too much competition with just WoW.
What? Did you forget that Wikipedia's motto is "the free Atlas that anyone can edit?"
Meh. I read Wikipedia, and $DIETY knows I wind up citing it here often enough. I've even tweak-edited articles and done some vandal-stomping. But I find the prospect of getting into a losing edit war with an admin with an unfulfilled agenda and a overdeveloped power hunger somewhat discourages any impulse to really contribute. Certainly, in the final analysis, I concede that my opinion on what's notable, encyclopedic, well-attributed, and Wikipedia-worthy often differs from that of the admin staff, let alone the inner circle of the cabal. So, since ultimately it's their playground, I don't play there. I get enough futility in my day-to-day life without seeking out more.
With the drink, it's "authenticate how old they are."
With wifi, it's "authenticate who they are."
See, the parallel construction works just fine. It's not that much of a stretch.
Now, within the letter of this "law", you could still allow "anonymous" access:
WAP: "Who are you?" User: "I'm A. Nony Mouse". WAP, to himself: "Is 'A. Nony Mouse' allowed access? Since the authorized users list is the regular expression '.*', yes, he is authorized." WAP: "Welcome, Mr. Mouse"
Perfect compliance with the stated guidelines. Note the absence of any requirement:
to validate that an identity is genuine
to log or retain the submitted identity
to limit access in any fashion
Futility. It doesn't take that much cleverness to obey the guideline and still carry on as usual.
If the authorities are serious about stamping out WAP-based anonymity, they're gonna have to try harder.
The *iaa will start sending their dogs down the path of forcing ISPs and their lapdogs in congress to make sure that we know exactly WHO is on WHAT IP address at all times so all actions can be accountable. Think I am being crazy?
Yes, I think you're crazy, but I also think you're right.
In India, ongoing murderous terrorist violence against innocent citizens provokes a government drive to suppress Internet anonymity. In the US, it seems quite likely that the impetus for the government to take comparable action would be media pigopolies continuing to "lose revenues to piracy".
That fails the "authenticate" requirement. In fact, it completely ignores that authentication (clearly and accurately ascertaining the identity of the connection user) is intended to be a mandatory precondition to access.
By analogy (not a car analogy, sorry), if you operate a liquor store and your local jurisdiction imposes an age-verification requirement (authenticate purchaser's age) before you can make a sale of an intoxicating controlled beverage (authorize the transaction), your solution is to ignore the "carding" requirement and sell to whomever you feel like. Which works great until the authorities haul you off to jail.
At best, you can argue that this is civil disobedience. More likely, it's just scoffing at the law. But it's not a solution.
Wikipedia is nothing if not simplistic. The only thing you lose by not having backchannel is automatic retransmission of corrupted data segments. You can still detect and flag bad blocks, which will happen with only the same frequency as bad blocks in a bidirectional medium of comparable capacity. And, if you're willing to use a bit more bandwidth, you can apply forward error correction to fix bad packets at the "low" side. Otherwise, you make up a bad data list that you can sneaker-net back to the high side to control data retransmission.
Hell, I'm not gonna engineer the whole solution. Let's just say that the current user community (intelligence, military planning) automatically transfers data through data diodes in a daily volume only perhaps one order of magnitude smaller than CERN's. Any problem you care to name has already been addressed.
Isolating inbound command and control from outbound publicly-available data isn't a radical technical challenge; it's not even a novel problem. The solutions exist and work just fine. Only carelessness, laziness, or cheapness get in the way.
In the final analysis, a command-and-control net should only share electricity with the public network. EVER.
How 'bout this: "Data diode" Petabytes of data come out, nothing comes in. Ever. You wanna tell LHC something, you walk up to the console and tell it in person.
Sheesh, for the love of $DIETY, never NEVER NEVER connect the control system of anything more important than your soda machine to the public internet. Even through firewalls.
Well, it's your phone, but it's also the telco's cell tower and switch system. Do you own them? Do you own the data about that network transaction, by virtue of ownership of (at most) 1/3 of the participating nodes (phone, at least 1 tower, at least 1 switch)? You don't even have a majority stake in that data!
Stuff on your phone not involving the phone network, you clearly own. That's why normal personal search-and-seizure laws apply to the phone book and call log in the phone itself. However, most of the meaningful stuff you do with a phone involves assets belonging to someone else, and therefore ownership of data isn't quite so clear-cut.
The court got it right. But it wasn't a slam-dunk like you think it should have been.
Yes, the data is mine, it's completely about me so it is mine. It cannot be considered directory information or public records.
<discussion type="Devil's advocate">And if I wrote an unauthorized biography of you, based on private investigators tailing you and observing your publicly-accessible data and publicly-viewable facts (such as the location of the newsstand where you bought that *ahem* picture magazine), is that data yours? I'm not sure that case law agrees.</discussion>
I agree with the district court's judgement. But there are arguments and precedent which could have swung the decision the other way.
Also, I liked his concept of aliens, which were actually alien
And also eerily like Usenet. Have you read some the fringe posters from the late '80s? Scarier than the "Alliance for the Defense" posts in the book.
Yah, I thought about the Net of a Million Lies when I read this/. article headline. I wonder what kind of lag you'd get playing WoW from, say Relay. I hope the realm server is in the Upper Beyond.
(If none of this makes sense, kind reader, get the book or ignore me. Thank you.)
you don't need to be a drunk, but enjoy something like booze once in a while.
Many low-functioning lushes are self-described "social drinkers". It's an easy, and to the outsider credible, denial.
"I'm a social drinker. When my buddy says he'll have a drink, I say 'So shall I!'"
ObTruthInDrinkingDisclaimer: I drink, sparingly. I drink expensive stuff. I can't afford to be a lush. And you'll find no pictures of me, at all, drinking or not, on teh Intarweb. I'm old school. And not particularly photogenic. And antisocial.
I'm sure the rocket scientist in GP post was just using the switched ports (4, on the typical Linksys home router product) on the LAN side, not realizing that the router's firmware was still active even if it was just being used as a dumb switch.
Hell, if you've gone from wired to wireless at your house, and you happen to have this old router laying around now, and you need a few more 10/100ports... whadday gonna do, run out and buy a new switch, or grab the one you've already got? And who's gonna think of disabling the DHCP service at first, if it was configured running months ago when you decommisioned it?
A perfectly forseeable screw-up, and another good example why lusers aren't allowed to plug their crap into the network.
In the immortal words of some faux-German sage: "Das Network is nicht fur gefingerpoken und mittengrabben."
Specifically stating the license grants them promotional usage of all user content seems pretty evil in my eyes, they do not need that right in order for the site to funtion.
"Function". "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
You seem to think that "function" means "satisfy the user's intended purposes". What "function" really means, from the service provider's perspective, is "make the company money", and promotion is a critical and non-negotiable part of that function.
It's a natural mistake, really. If you can sustain a long-term, mutually beneficial relationship with a company, you come to see it as a friend. The company, being a fictitious person with no personal existence, doesn't make that mistake, and would be entirely happy to throw you under the bus if it could make more money that way. (OK, not "happy"; that's too anthopomorphic. And anthropomorphizing is the root of this expectation problem.)
Google is not your friend. Google is not your buddy. Google is not your service animal (seeing eye dog, helper monkey, etc.). It's a publicly-traded for-profit corporate entity. It makes money by offering valuable services to users, but that's just part of the "how". The "why"? Making money, and that's still job 1.
Don't forget: Google doesn't has users; it has eyeballs and page impressions and clickthroughs. It's not going to go that far in compromising its ability to make profits and enhance growth, "Make money without doing evil" notwithstanding. At least they clearly and explicitly warned you, which is a step away from evil in my book.
Well, I'm certainly no expert on gaming the mod system here, but I believe that "Underrated" gives karma, and has the valuable side effect of not being a blatant lie. YMMV.
Now, "Funny" would have been perfectly appropriate. And as much as it pains me to say it, when I've posted something funny I have always wished people would use the appropriate moderation. I've earned my karma the hard way: whoring for it. And that's not the same as class-clowning it.
Eh, what can you expect from an aircraft called "Nimrod?"
Good story, though, about partially updating old old tech. (Anyone who's had to maintain large bodies of legacy software is probably already familiar with the effect, though.)
Oooh, ooh, this discussion suddenly became even more on-topic. The US counterpart to the BAE MRA4 Nimrod is the Lockheed P-3C Orion. Eerie, isn't it?
If I recall correctly, most of the restaurants put the blame on their suppliers, who sold them filets as opposed to whole fish. Without buying whole fish, the claim that the restaurant was duped is quite easy to believe.
And to safeguard their reputations, they probably need to start DNA-testing their purchases. A statistically-valid random sampling scheme wouldn't cost outrageously much, and being able to say that your tai is really red snapper ("Red snapper... very tasty!") would be (to coin a phrase) priceless.
If the sushi shops are not buying whole fish, it would be easy to be deceived. But I have to believe that any quality sushi restaurant starts with a whole fish, and in that case the mislabeling would have to be blamed on the restaurant.
Damn straight. Even in the arid midst of the Great American Desert, you can get good sushi and bad sushi, and with the good sushi you can watch the chef slice the neta right off the fish. I wouldn't have it any other way, and no one should.
updated 22 Aug 2008 CentOS acknowledge CVE-2007-4752 and are reviewing our build and signing processes and hosts for signs of tampering subsequent to retrieval of SRPMs.
This is Russ Herrold's blog, so you can consider it authoritative. I think that this announcement has become the channel MOTD on #centos as well.
Executive summary: They're aware of the issue and examining their stuff to see whether they got bit.
And other comments on this thread also show Hawk as not quite the virtuous freedom fighter that he presents
And apparently you believe all of those fine/. comments, just like you seem to believe the ignorant horse hockey about a non-existent blouse-shot.
I've read Hawk's own words. My opinion? He's arrogant, confrontational, bull-headed, and nonetheless basically right. His detractors, on the other hand, seem to suffer from the same arrogance, confrontationalism, and bull-headedness without the redeeming virtue of being right.
Again: you and many like you are letting the man interfere with the message. The message is: For causes neither rational nor reasonable, people in positions of trivial power are attempting to limit your rights. You have a moral obligation not to let them.
Slashdot Mirror
but I heard it was moist and delicious
That is also a lie, but it's a moist and delicious lie. In fact, the lie is the most moist and delicious thing on the McPortal menu.
McPortal: We do what we must because we're lovin' it!
I'm with you. In WoW, PvP is not something I do; it's something that gets done to me while I'm trying to do something enjoyable (like questing, or farming materials for crafting). My bad for rolling on a PvP server, but that's where my friends were rolling. /sigh
So WOL won't be for me.
OTOH, my kid (who's a PvP fanatic) is already planning out his WOL character's career path.
I think I need more computers in the house capable of running these games, because there's already too much competition with just WoW.
Makes me feel stupid for spending my childhood throwing rocks at cats.
Don't feel bad; you make me feel stupid for spending my childhood throwing cats at rocks. Your way works a lot better.
Are the pigopolists looking for some kind of unilateral gag order?
"Mom, make him shut up, he's talking about us!"
RIAA legal team == tards of the worst order. When the revolution comes, they won't survive long enough to be stood up against the wall.
What? Did you forget that Wikipedia's motto is "the free Atlas that anyone can edit?"
Meh. I read Wikipedia, and $DIETY knows I wind up citing it here often enough. I've even tweak-edited articles and done some vandal-stomping. But I find the prospect of getting into a losing edit war with an admin with an unfulfilled agenda and a overdeveloped power hunger somewhat discourages any impulse to really contribute. Certainly, in the final analysis, I concede that my opinion on what's notable, encyclopedic, well-attributed, and Wikipedia-worthy often differs from that of the admin staff, let alone the inner circle of the cabal. So, since ultimately it's their playground, I don't play there. I get enough futility in my day-to-day life without seeking out more.
With the drink, it's "authenticate how old they are."
With wifi, it's "authenticate who they are."
See, the parallel construction works just fine. It's not that much of a stretch.
Now, within the letter of this "law", you could still allow "anonymous" access:
WAP: "Who are you?"
User: "I'm A. Nony Mouse".
WAP, to himself: "Is 'A. Nony Mouse' allowed access? Since the authorized users list is the regular expression '.*', yes, he is authorized."
WAP: "Welcome, Mr. Mouse"
Perfect compliance with the stated guidelines. Note the absence of any requirement:
Futility. It doesn't take that much cleverness to obey the guideline and still carry on as usual.
If the authorities are serious about stamping out WAP-based anonymity, they're gonna have to try harder.
The *iaa will start sending their dogs down the path of forcing ISPs and their lapdogs in congress to make sure that we know exactly WHO is on WHAT IP address at all times so all actions can be accountable. Think I am being crazy?
Yes, I think you're crazy, but I also think you're right.
In India, ongoing murderous terrorist violence against innocent citizens provokes a government drive to suppress Internet anonymity. In the US, it seems quite likely that the impetus for the government to take comparable action would be media pigopolies continuing to "lose revenues to piracy".
That fails the "authenticate" requirement. In fact, it completely ignores that authentication (clearly and accurately ascertaining the identity of the connection user) is intended to be a mandatory precondition to access.
By analogy (not a car analogy, sorry), if you operate a liquor store and your local jurisdiction imposes an age-verification requirement (authenticate purchaser's age) before you can make a sale of an intoxicating controlled beverage (authorize the transaction), your solution is to ignore the "carding" requirement and sell to whomever you feel like. Which works great until the authorities haul you off to jail.
At best, you can argue that this is civil disobedience. More likely, it's just scoffing at the law. But it's not a solution.
Wikipedia is nothing if not simplistic. The only thing you lose by not having backchannel is automatic retransmission of corrupted data segments. You can still detect and flag bad blocks, which will happen with only the same frequency as bad blocks in a bidirectional medium of comparable capacity. And, if you're willing to use a bit more bandwidth, you can apply forward error correction to fix bad packets at the "low" side. Otherwise, you make up a bad data list that you can sneaker-net back to the high side to control data retransmission.
Hell, I'm not gonna engineer the whole solution. Let's just say that the current user community (intelligence, military planning) automatically transfers data through data diodes in a daily volume only perhaps one order of magnitude smaller than CERN's. Any problem you care to name has already been addressed.
Isolating inbound command and control from outbound publicly-available data isn't a radical technical challenge; it's not even a novel problem. The solutions exist and work just fine. Only carelessness, laziness, or cheapness get in the way.
In the final analysis, a command-and-control net should only share electricity with the public network. EVER.
How 'bout this: "Data diode" Petabytes of data come out, nothing comes in. Ever. You wanna tell LHC something, you walk up to the console and tell it in person.
Sheesh, for the love of $DIETY, never NEVER NEVER connect the control system of anything more important than your soda machine to the public internet. Even through firewalls.
Well, it's your phone, but it's also the telco's cell tower and switch system. Do you own them? Do you own the data about that network transaction, by virtue of ownership of (at most) 1/3 of the participating nodes (phone, at least 1 tower, at least 1 switch)? You don't even have a majority stake in that data!
Stuff on your phone not involving the phone network, you clearly own. That's why normal personal search-and-seizure laws apply to the phone book and call log in the phone itself. However, most of the meaningful stuff you do with a phone involves assets belonging to someone else, and therefore ownership of data isn't quite so clear-cut.
The court got it right. But it wasn't a slam-dunk like you think it should have been.
Yes, the data is mine, it's completely about me so it is mine. It cannot be considered directory information or public records.
<discussion type="Devil's advocate">And if I wrote an unauthorized biography of you, based on private investigators tailing you and observing your publicly-accessible data and publicly-viewable facts (such as the location of the newsstand where you bought that *ahem* picture magazine), is that data yours? I'm not sure that case law agrees.</discussion>
I agree with the district court's judgement. But there are arguments and precedent which could have swung the decision the other way.
Also, I liked his concept of aliens, which were actually alien
And also eerily like Usenet. Have you read some the fringe posters from the late '80s? Scarier than the "Alliance for the Defense" posts in the book.
Yah, I thought about the Net of a Million Lies when I read this /. article headline. I wonder what kind of lag you'd get playing WoW from, say Relay. I hope the realm server is in the Upper Beyond.
(If none of this makes sense, kind reader, get the book or ignore me. Thank you.)
you don't need to be a drunk, but enjoy something like booze once in a while.
Many low-functioning lushes are self-described "social drinkers". It's an easy, and to the outsider credible, denial.
"I'm a social drinker. When my buddy says he'll have a drink, I say 'So shall I!'"
ObTruthInDrinkingDisclaimer: I drink, sparingly. I drink expensive stuff. I can't afford to be a lush. And you'll find no pictures of me, at all, drinking or not, on teh Intarweb. I'm old school. And not particularly photogenic. And antisocial.
I'm sure the rocket scientist in GP post was just using the switched ports (4, on the typical Linksys home router product) on the LAN side, not realizing that the router's firmware was still active even if it was just being used as a dumb switch.
Hell, if you've gone from wired to wireless at your house, and you happen to have this old router laying around now, and you need a few more 10/100ports ... whadday gonna do, run out and buy a new switch, or grab the one you've already got? And who's gonna think of disabling the DHCP service at first, if it was configured running months ago when you decommisioned it?
A perfectly forseeable screw-up, and another good example why lusers aren't allowed to plug their crap into the network.
In the immortal words of some faux-German sage: "Das Network is nicht fur gefingerpoken und mittengrabben."
Specifically stating the license grants them promotional usage of all user content seems pretty evil in my eyes, they do not need that right in order for the site to funtion.
"Function". "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
You seem to think that "function" means "satisfy the user's intended purposes". What "function" really means, from the service provider's perspective, is "make the company money", and promotion is a critical and non-negotiable part of that function.
It's a natural mistake, really. If you can sustain a long-term, mutually beneficial relationship with a company, you come to see it as a friend. The company, being a fictitious person with no personal existence, doesn't make that mistake, and would be entirely happy to throw you under the bus if it could make more money that way. (OK, not "happy"; that's too anthopomorphic. And anthropomorphizing is the root of this expectation problem.)
Google is not your friend. Google is not your buddy. Google is not your service animal (seeing eye dog, helper monkey, etc.). It's a publicly-traded for-profit corporate entity. It makes money by offering valuable services to users, but that's just part of the "how". The "why"? Making money, and that's still job 1.
Don't forget: Google doesn't has users; it has eyeballs and page impressions and clickthroughs. It's not going to go that far in compromising its ability to make profits and enhance growth, "Make money without doing evil" notwithstanding. At least they clearly and explicitly warned you, which is a step away from evil in my book.
My ancient Dell Powerconnect 3024 has an option to mirror one port onto another. That's what I'd use in that case.
Well, I'm certainly no expert on gaming the mod system here, but I believe that "Underrated" gives karma, and has the valuable side effect of not being a blatant lie. YMMV.
Now, "Funny" would have been perfectly appropriate. And as much as it pains me to say it, when I've posted something funny I have always wished people would use the appropriate moderation. I've earned my karma the hard way: whoring for it. And that's not the same as class-clowning it.
Another installment in the ongoing saga, "Why no one should ever, ever, ever Ask Slashdot".
BTW, there is no URL. The domain in question is email only. So there's nothing to SEO. Kthxbye.
And if you really overclock, all you need is some frozen French fries and something to scoop 'em with and you've got a tasty snack!
Eh, what can you expect from an aircraft called "Nimrod?"
Good story, though, about partially updating old old tech. (Anyone who's had to maintain large bodies of legacy software is probably already familiar with the effect, though.)
Oooh, ooh, this discussion suddenly became even more on-topic. The US counterpart to the BAE MRA4 Nimrod is the Lockheed P-3C Orion. Eerie, isn't it?
If I recall correctly, most of the restaurants put the blame on their suppliers, who sold them filets as opposed to whole fish. Without buying whole fish, the claim that the restaurant was duped is quite easy to believe.
And to safeguard their reputations, they probably need to start DNA-testing their purchases. A statistically-valid random sampling scheme wouldn't cost outrageously much, and being able to say that your tai is really red snapper ("Red snapper... very tasty!") would be (to coin a phrase) priceless.
If the sushi shops are not buying whole fish, it would be easy to be deceived. But I have to believe that any quality sushi restaurant starts with a whole fish, and in that case the mislabeling would have to be blamed on the restaurant.
Damn straight. Even in the arid midst of the Great American Desert, you can get good sushi and bad sushi, and with the good sushi you can watch the chef slice the neta right off the fish. I wouldn't have it any other way, and no one should.
Truth in sushi is relevant to my interests.
Per http://orcorc.blogspot.com/2008/08/cve-2007-4752-and-centos.html via http://planet.centos.org/:
This is Russ Herrold's blog, so you can consider it authoritative. I think that this announcement has become the channel MOTD on #centos as well.
Executive summary: They're aware of the issue and examining their stuff to see whether they got bit.
I would call a down cleavage photograph sexual harassment.
I would too. But that's completely off-topic for this discussion.
My God, did you at least try to look at the photo in question? Or do you truly prefer spouting venom and ignorance?
Here, click. Educate yourself a little.
And other comments on this thread also show Hawk as not quite the virtuous freedom fighter that he presents
And apparently you believe all of those fine /. comments, just like you seem to believe the ignorant horse hockey about a non-existent blouse-shot.
I've read Hawk's own words. My opinion? He's arrogant, confrontational, bull-headed, and nonetheless basically right. His detractors, on the other hand, seem to suffer from the same arrogance, confrontationalism, and bull-headedness without the redeeming virtue of being right.
Again: you and many like you are letting the man interfere with the message. The message is: For causes neither rational nor reasonable, people in positions of trivial power are attempting to limit your rights. You have a moral obligation not to let them.