The writer was envisioning a start trek style utopia where money really isn't needed. As you build once, work out the bugs, and forward the plans on to a machine which then can build an unlimited number.
The problem with that type of utoptia is that when you think it all the way through, after a few iterations of "working out the bugs" it turns out that the most efficient solution to those problems just happens to be "use money".
Today's kids grew up w/ the likes of FB/twitter/etc, and saw no problems with sharing everything about their lives on the 'net.
We have a whole generation of kids who are going to be in for a VERY rude awakening in a decade or so when they find themselves entering the workforce and discovering that having all of their (perfectly normal) youthful indiscretions documented for posterity and only a google search away for anyone who cares to look might have been a really bad idea....
All these people so worried about being recorded in public are already being recorded in public!!!
So, let's say that once a week while you're walking in to work, a stranger runs up and punches you in the gut.
That makes it A-OK if someone else decides they want to start doing it hourly, right? After all, you were ALREADY getting punched in the gut, why would you object to more?
Or, in a nutshell, your reasoning is fucking idiotic.
I would venture to state that "if" one's system is open enough (a stranger has root privileges) for some unwanted person to view that text file, then one has much more to worry about than the fact that one's wifi password is not encrypted.
This ignores multiuser systems.
Simply having an account on a multiuser system does not mean I want all admins on that system to have access to my info.
Worse than that, if you accept that argument as valid, then there is no point in encrypting and/or hashing passwords. Ever. Just store the file in a "safe" place.
Frankly I'm fed up with the complacency of this species, at everyone's willingness to just stay put on our fragile little world, and never try anything hard or dangerous.
The objection isn't to trying things that are hard and dangerous.
The objection is to doing obviously stupid shit that has zero chance of working.
What I don't understand is the people saying they shouldn't even try.
I won't go so far as to flat out say "They shouldn't try".
What I will say is that I can see some moral issues raised by this project.
They're sending human beings on a one-way trip to Mars. The one-way aspect is a big deal here. The plans for financing this are revenue generated from a reality TV show? How many TV shows remain popular for an entire human lifetime? Exactly none that I'm aware of. And what about any children born on Mars? Now they have to fund this for more than one human lifetime.
The way I see this playing out, if it gets off the ground, is that in a relatively short time the organization's funding dries up, at which point world governments get stuck with the burden of either sending continuous supply missions, or mounting rescue missions.
I do believe this project has a slim, outside chance of actually landing people on Mars. Do I think this project has the potential to live up to their obligation to keep the colonists supplied for the long haul? Not a chance in hell.
The footage taken in North Liberty, looks pretty much the same as what I saw myself just south of Des Moines, which in turn matches pretty closely with descriptions from people who saw it over by Council Bluffs.
If you take a look at an Iowa map, you'll find that covers most of the width of the entire state.
That would seem to indicate a sizeable object and a long distance. It was substantially bigger and brighter than the "shooting star" meteors that one can spot on a pretty regular basis.
Yes they are management, but both work in deciding what technologies and software to use/buy. That means they should have (and surprisingly often they have) a technical background.
Equally surprisingly often, Outlook and Excel are the sum total of their technical ability. And in many cases, their Excel skills are "read-only".
Probably descending into semantics at this point, but while many of them have come up from a tech background, those positions themselves don't require it. Anecdotally, it's been my observation that lower level managers are much more likely to have good tech skills, while the upper levels are mostly populated by people who spent their careers honing their political, rather than technical, skills.
Slashdot Mirror
The writer was envisioning a start trek style utopia where money really isn't needed. As you build once, work out the bugs, and forward the plans on to a machine which then can build an unlimited number.
The problem with that type of utoptia is that when you think it all the way through, after a few iterations of "working out the bugs" it turns out that the most efficient solution to those problems just happens to be "use money".
Today's kids grew up w/ the likes of FB/twitter/etc, and saw no problems with sharing everything about their lives on the 'net.
We have a whole generation of kids who are going to be in for a VERY rude awakening in a decade or so when they find themselves entering the workforce and discovering that having all of their (perfectly normal) youthful indiscretions documented for posterity and only a google search away for anyone who cares to look might have been a really bad idea....
All these people so worried about being recorded in public are already being recorded in public!!!
So, let's say that once a week while you're walking in to work, a stranger runs up and punches you in the gut.
That makes it A-OK if someone else decides they want to start doing it hourly, right? After all, you were ALREADY getting punched in the gut, why would you object to more?
Or, in a nutshell, your reasoning is fucking idiotic.
has allowed you to believe in magical beings.
Who said I have any sort of religious beliefs? I don't.
They will know the company's wifi passwords.
That doesn't mean they have any business seeing, for example, the home wifi password on an employee's company laptop.
Multi-user systems don't need all users to be an administrator.
True.
But in most organizations of any size, a multi-user system will also be a multi-admin system.
As an admin, there are plenty of ways I can, if I choose, keep my data from being viewable by my fellow admins.
Yes, it takes a bit of extra work, but it's entirely doable.....
I would venture to state that "if" one's system is open enough (a stranger has root privileges) for some unwanted person to view that text file, then one has much more to worry about than the fact that one's wifi password is not encrypted.
This ignores multiuser systems.
Simply having an account on a multiuser system does not mean I want all admins on that system to have access to my info.
Worse than that, if you accept that argument as valid, then there is no point in encrypting and/or hashing passwords. Ever. Just store the file in a "safe" place.
Religion has no evidence to back it up,
Sure it does. Lots of it, in fact.
You may not accept it as persuasive evidence, but it is evidence nonetheless....
No, I can not test if my brain is merely living in a vat. Which is why I do not believe that my brain is living in a vat.
However, if your brain is, in fact, living in a vat, your lack of belief does not alter that fact.
Therefore, your unwillingness to believe that something may be true simply because it's untestable is illogical.
Or vice-versa.
Yeah... Or that... Oops... :)
Frankly I'm fed up with the complacency of this species, at everyone's willingness to just stay put on our fragile little world, and never try anything hard or dangerous.
The objection isn't to trying things that are hard and dangerous.
The objection is to doing obviously stupid shit that has zero chance of working.
What I don't understand is the people saying they shouldn't even try.
I won't go so far as to flat out say "They shouldn't try".
What I will say is that I can see some moral issues raised by this project.
They're sending human beings on a one-way trip to Mars. The one-way aspect is a big deal here. The plans for financing this are revenue generated from a reality TV show? How many TV shows remain popular for an entire human lifetime? Exactly none that I'm aware of. And what about any children born on Mars? Now they have to fund this for more than one human lifetime.
The way I see this playing out, if it gets off the ground, is that in a relatively short time the organization's funding dries up, at which point world governments get stuck with the burden of either sending continuous supply missions, or mounting rescue missions.
I do believe this project has a slim, outside chance of actually landing people on Mars. Do I think this project has the potential to live up to their obligation to keep the colonists supplied for the long haul? Not a chance in hell.
is they all go on about how free they are, and how much they value their freedoms,
and then at the drop of a pin, they get the hell scared out of them and they run begging the government to keep them safe.
Those are two distinct and separate subsets of Americans.
so it probably wasn't anything very big
The footage taken in North Liberty, looks pretty much the same as what I saw myself just south of Des Moines, which in turn matches pretty closely with descriptions from people who saw it over by Council Bluffs.
If you take a look at an Iowa map, you'll find that covers most of the width of the entire state.
That would seem to indicate a sizeable object and a long distance. It was substantially bigger and brighter than the "shooting star" meteors that one can spot on a pretty regular basis.
There is nothing illegal about it.
Unfortunately, this is true.
That fact should worry people MUCH more than the spying itself.
It wouldn't even matter if such proof existed. The means do not always justify the ends.
The CCTV date-time stamp shows Dec. 26, 2013, at 17:43 hours. This is 5:43 PM on the day after Christmas.
That's the correct time.
then it came out of TX or the south.
Odd, I didn't know Texas was straight east from Iowa...
Or it was too timely.
This.
These days slashdot is a great place to go when you want to discuss last week's news....
At that point, your job is half developer, half admin
Every *good* admin I know would be perfectly competent working as a developer. Often even more so that those whose actual job title is "developer".
(There are plenty of incredibly talented developers out there. The above comment is not directed at them.)
Yes they are management, but both work in deciding what technologies and software to use/buy. That means they should have (and surprisingly often they have) a technical background.
Equally surprisingly often, Outlook and Excel are the sum total of their technical ability. And in many cases, their Excel skills are "read-only".
Probably descending into semantics at this point, but while many of them have come up from a tech background, those positions themselves don't require it. Anecdotally, it's been my observation that lower level managers are much more likely to have good tech skills, while the upper levels are mostly populated by people who spent their careers honing their political, rather than technical, skills.
GUI's usually have the miraculous "UNDO" option, unlike CLIs.
There are many ways to "undo" on the command line, assuming you're experienced enough to take advantage of them.
Apple? No, you're not thinking far enough back. Apple didn't have a GUI until the Lisa, and didn't have one worth mentioning until the Mac.
the inability to use the CLI == incompetent.
So is the over reliance on a CLI. There are many things a GUI can to faster than a CLI.
I'm not arguing against using a GUI at all. I'm arguing against ONLY being able to use a GUI, and thinking you're qualified for an IT job.