No, the parent is either ignorant or a troll. Willfull copyright infringement is punishable with jail time, the length of which varies with the severity of the act.
Nothing in the RFC says you need to accept or respond to an echo request. If you are so inclined, you may simply drop the packet without doing anything.
You don't even have to do that, you could take advantage of the existing structure of a typical hard disk. Consider a 512 byte sectored disk. If the file's last sector is only using 12 bits of that sector, just attach an extra 500 bits of random gibberish based on entropy from the other devices. Functionally, as long as your player / kernel / whatever just ignores the additional junk tacked on the end of the file, it's the same. However, it's not an indentical file.
I would be more concerned about things like ECHELON anyway.
Speaking of ECHELON, maybe the reason people get so carried away with conspiracy theories is that our government is so bloody set against telling its own people what it does. AFAIK, even though a couple of European countries on the ECHELON project have admitted their membership, the U.S. government continues to deny such a thing even exists.
If this were a truly free country, we wouldn't have a government that's so hellbent on keeping things a secret. You can talk about the practical reasons behind keeping things secret to protect our interests and the people involved in the operations, but that doesn't change the fact that it makes the country non-free in the actual sense, and it gives people a very good reason to be jittery about snooping projects.
When the government is known to clam up and hide things, how can you ever be sure it's telling you the truth about its projects and that they really do what they're saying they do?
They ought to just declare HTTP, FTP, UDP, TCP, and IP illegal. After all, they're used for almost 100% of digital piracy. It would really save the imbeciles that draft laws these days a lot of time and effort if they just took that logical step. It's not like it would be any significant change from what they're doing now anyway since they obviously have no clue how the technology they're drafting against works.
In fact, let's just declare the intarweb illegal and impose fines for anyone who uses it. Then, we can begin our slow, painful descent into obscurity and technological darkness. It'll be great when we finally get so anti-progress that we're back to accusing people of being witches and burning them in the town square again.
Here's a better idea. People could stop voting for candidates who's agenda starts and stops with business interests. They could start voting for people who are actually interested in representing the, well, people. They could stop pretending there's really any such things as a "red" or "blue" state candidate. They could realize that it's time we purged the whole system and got some new blood in - people who actually care about the country and want to see it succeed.
I'm not holding my breath. Holding your government responsible for being.. well... responsible... is hard work, and a lot of Americans don't seem to like that. Just maintain the status quo, even though the status quo isn't really what you think it is anymore.
You completely missed that statement in there about the problem being that people don't document their data transfer models, didn't you?
Explain to me, please, how a tagged system is any better than a smaller, simpler format that is properly documented? It's not like you don't have to write the DTD to explain the XML that explains the data. How is that any different than having to write a small app to parse the config file that sets the data? I really fail to see what the allure of XML is over any other documented format.
What really aggravates me, however, is the morons that want to make "XML Databases" and "XML Language Modeling" and all other manner of assinine things that can have "XML" prepended.
There is no such thing as XML goodness. XML is a stupid idea from stupid people who sell it to other stupid people. I have never once encountered a situation where there was any need to encapsulate data in XML in which the gains in flexibility weren't outweighed by the problems of unnecessary bloat and additional complexity in maintenance.
If people were smart enough to document there data transmission procedures in the first place and modularize the components in their systems, it wouldn't take any more time to rewrite the transmission and storage methods of a system than it does to rewrite the stupid XML files and DTDs when you merge or change a system.
Oh, that would be just wonderful. I was just thinking about how I could take my nicely modularized source files and bloat them into 450kb monstrosities without actually adding any value along the way.
Wait, I have an idea, why don't we all just run this script before we start a new job and then paste bits of the junk output randomly throughout the source files?
Actually, he's the one with the itchy pen hand that keeps signing everything that gets dropped on his desk. So, in effect, much of what gets spent during his administration can, in some manner, be blamed on him. Just because he doesn't PROPOSE the spending doesn't mean he's not at least partially responsible for it.
In addition, he's a republican president with a republican congress. What's he going to do, risk pissing off his party's fair weather friends (and since we're talking politics, that's everybody in the party) by telling them to cut their pork out of bills or he'll veto? Part of the reason a democratic president and a republican congress work so well together is that they go back and forth more and are forced into more compromises. I mean, honestly now, do you think Clinton was anymore concerned about agitating Tom Delay than Bush is about agitating Ted Kennedy? If the repubs put up a bill Clinton didn't like, he could always just tell them to go pound sound and veto it. Bush can't do that with this Congress because otherwise he'll start taking crap from conservatives, republicans, etc. Like any good politician, he's not going to stand up and show some backbone by bitchslapping his own party when it gets out of hand. That's a political suicide move these days.
You can't have these inbred governments like we've got now. Look at all the havoc they're wreaking.
Just do the right thing and put a tarp down first.
Re:PARENT OVERRATED, MOD DOWN ( "Pop Sci Garbage"
on
BBC on Global Dimming
·
· Score: 1
How does it feel to waste all that time typing up a post nobody will read thanks to the subject of "MOD PARENT SOMEHOW"?
Oh... and the fact that you sound like a lunatic getting psyched up to go bomb a Hummer dealership....... and don't actually provide any citations for your random claims.....
You're not very good at trolling. Maybe it's just not for you. I'd suggest that tinkertoys may be more your speed.
Yes... when about 5 percent of the world's population uses between 20 and 40 percent of the world's energy, depending on the type you're discussing, I'd say there's a problem with that particular 5 percents energy policy.
Any other posts you'd like to make so people can come back and make you sound stupid?
Because TFA is a load of horseshit, and I'm commenting on it. If I ever watch the show, maybe I'll comment on that too.
Otherwise, since I didn't mention the show at all, only the article, you're offtopic and, possibly, suffering from a mild learning disorder that causes you to seriously lack basic reading comprehension skills.
I understand the process he's claiming is happening. What I'm pointing out is that nowhere in that article is the conclusion that anything at all is happening is defended.
You can't just say "oh, a scientist said this so it must be true" when there's no evidence. Based on that article, I have no reason to believe that the conclusion being presented by that scientist is even remotely accurate. Maybe it is, maybe it's not. Maybe he has mountains of observations and tests to back it up, maybe he's a raving lunatic living under a bridge somewhere. The article doesn't even begin to help the reader decide on that and just irresponsibly presents the conclusions in a manner that suggests they're correct.
It was only recently, when his conclusions were confirmed by Australian scientists using a completely different method to estimate solar radiation, that climate scientists at last woke up to the reality of global dimming.
I like when news outlets use this type of language. "Woke up". As if the other scientists were slope-headed morons rejecting some obvious truth just because they did something sooooo horrible as wait for independent confirmation of one guy's conclusions.
Because we all know that science has advanced the world over the last 4000 years or so by jumping on every statement made by anybody who ever put forward a hypothesis.
But it now appears the warming from greenhouse gases has been offset by a strong cooling effect from dimming - in effect two of our pollutants have been cancelling each other out.
In addition, this is quite a conclusion to jump to. There are many, many factors involved in climate changes on Earth. To suggest that little or no climate changed is being "caused" by something man made without backing it up goes beyond the bounds of irresponsible journalism to the point that I'd have to question whether the individual who wrote this story ought to be left in the employ of the BBC.
I just love reading the pop-sci crap that gets fed to the public. We observe less solar radiation all over the world, and the next thing you know, we're jumping straight into the conclusion that two man made pollutants are cancelling each other out and keeping the greenhouse effect - an incredibly complicated process to discuss - in check.
I love the media. It's so much fun. Too bad it's about as informational as repeatedly banging your head against a brick wall.
P.S.: The expression is "in the cards", not "on the cards".
Wow. Even if that were true, which I wouldn't know because I didn't read it, nor will I, it would only be relevant to the conversation currently underway if you'd presented it to Bush two and half years ago and he'd used it as the justification then.
I'm sure we'll get a lot of war/Bush supporters here that pop up with all sorts of justifications now, but look, the justifications given over and over by Bush and his crew was that they (the wmds) were either there, or that Saddam had the capability to either make them, or get them from someone else.
Not only are they apparently not there (notwithstanding the "Syrian conspiracy theory" and such), a conclusion backed by three reports (Kay, 9/11, Duelfer) and this, the justification cannot be changed now just because it was wrong in the first place (in other words, you can't come back and respond to this news story by saying "but we liberated the iraqis" - yes, we did, but that wasn't the justification given for war, so it's a topic for a different discussion). Bush and his pals didn't say "we're going in because Saddam is an evil wicked little man who mistreats his people" in anything more than the most superficial manner. He did it by evoking images (well, that was more Cheney's job, actually) of an Iraq-backed attack spready doom across the continental United States and saying he knew something we didn't about all this.
Well, he was wrong. You can either sit and make stupid excuses and try to say "well, it doesn't matter because of..", but the fact is, this administration was wrong.
Responsible people would now stand up and explain what happened and what they plan to do about the fallout caused by their error. Irresponsible people, or people who were lying in the first place, will come back and try to change the subject or sweep it under the rug.
I'd like to think that the United States is a responsible nation, but with the way this has been addressed by this administration - attempting to shake its head and say no, really, we were right even though almost nothing we said before the war was true - and the way it's unlikely about to be addressed here, I have serious doubts that this country is currently anything close to responsible.
That's fine though. Keep it up. We'll see how long the rest of the world puts up with us if our trustworthiness turns into a chronic, glaring problem. You can only stay a superpower for so long when you rely on the rest of the world for your way of life and you're not willing to change it when you can't rely on the world anymore. Bring out the "woo woo! america is teh r0xx0rz!" crap instead of admitting you're wrong. We'll see just how well that works in the long run.
(on an unrelated note, why did this disappear from the frontpage...?)
Not only that, as always, e-mail from one network to another across unknown intermediaries is not private. It travels on public wires across public networks. If there's a value in someone targetting you and you're not technically competent enough to know you shouldn't use gmail for important discussions, they can just snap a packet sniffer onto your gateway and watch everything you send and receive right at the source with little fuss and no muss.
First thing's first: you ought not be relying on generated passwords that come in an e-mail. You get it, you change it, that's that.
Second thing: it's called encryption, m'friends. It doesn't matter what's in the envelope when a bad guy intercepts it if he can't open it.
Slashdot Mirror
You're either with the Change Management Consultants, or you're with the terrorists.
No, the parent is either ignorant or a troll. Willfull copyright infringement is punishable with jail time, the length of which varies with the severity of the act.
Heh. You're probably the first person ever to say that in any form for any reason.
No flamefest erupted... I.... i i i.... I feel so... deprived.....
Nothing in the RFC says you need to accept or respond to an echo request. If you are so inclined, you may simply drop the packet without doing anything.
They could ignore pings indefinitely.
You don't even have to do that, you could take advantage of the existing structure of a typical hard disk. Consider a 512 byte sectored disk. If the file's last sector is only using 12 bits of that sector, just attach an extra 500 bits of random gibberish based on entropy from the other devices. Functionally, as long as your player / kernel / whatever just ignores the additional junk tacked on the end of the file, it's the same. However, it's not an indentical file.
I would be more concerned about things like ECHELON anyway.
Speaking of ECHELON, maybe the reason people get so carried away with conspiracy theories is that our government is so bloody set against telling its own people what it does. AFAIK, even though a couple of European countries on the ECHELON project have admitted their membership, the U.S. government continues to deny such a thing even exists.
If this were a truly free country, we wouldn't have a government that's so hellbent on keeping things a secret. You can talk about the practical reasons behind keeping things secret to protect our interests and the people involved in the operations, but that doesn't change the fact that it makes the country non-free in the actual sense, and it gives people a very good reason to be jittery about snooping projects.
When the government is known to clam up and hide things, how can you ever be sure it's telling you the truth about its projects and that they really do what they're saying they do?
define:sarcasm
trolltalk ->
They ought to just declare HTTP, FTP, UDP, TCP, and IP illegal. After all, they're used for almost 100% of digital piracy. It would really save the imbeciles that draft laws these days a lot of time and effort if they just took that logical step. It's not like it would be any significant change from what they're doing now anyway since they obviously have no clue how the technology they're drafting against works.
In fact, let's just declare the intarweb illegal and impose fines for anyone who uses it. Then, we can begin our slow, painful descent into obscurity and technological darkness. It'll be great when we finally get so anti-progress that we're back to accusing people of being witches and burning them in the town square again.
Here's a better idea. People could stop voting for candidates who's agenda starts and stops with business interests. They could start voting for people who are actually interested in representing the, well, people. They could stop pretending there's really any such things as a "red" or "blue" state candidate. They could realize that it's time we purged the whole system and got some new blood in - people who actually care about the country and want to see it succeed.
I'm not holding my breath. Holding your government responsible for being.. well... responsible... is hard work, and a lot of Americans don't seem to like that. Just maintain the status quo, even though the status quo isn't really what you think it is anymore.
You completely missed that statement in there about the problem being that people don't document their data transfer models, didn't you?
Explain to me, please, how a tagged system is any better than a smaller, simpler format that is properly documented? It's not like you don't have to write the DTD to explain the XML that explains the data. How is that any different than having to write a small app to parse the config file that sets the data? I really fail to see what the allure of XML is over any other documented format.
What really aggravates me, however, is the morons that want to make "XML Databases" and "XML Language Modeling" and all other manner of assinine things that can have "XML" prepended.
There is no such thing as XML goodness. XML is a stupid idea from stupid people who sell it to other stupid people. I have never once encountered a situation where there was any need to encapsulate data in XML in which the gains in flexibility weren't outweighed by the problems of unnecessary bloat and additional complexity in maintenance.
If people were smart enough to document there data transmission procedures in the first place and modularize the components in their systems, it wouldn't take any more time to rewrite the transmission and storage methods of a system than it does to rewrite the stupid XML files and DTDs when you merge or change a system.
Wait, I have an idea, why don't we all just run this script before we start a new job and then paste bits of the junk output randomly throughout the source files?Dumbest. Idea. Ever.
Actually, he's the one with the itchy pen hand that keeps signing everything that gets dropped on his desk. So, in effect, much of what gets spent during his administration can, in some manner, be blamed on him. Just because he doesn't PROPOSE the spending doesn't mean he's not at least partially responsible for it.
In addition, he's a republican president with a republican congress. What's he going to do, risk pissing off his party's fair weather friends (and since we're talking politics, that's everybody in the party) by telling them to cut their pork out of bills or he'll veto? Part of the reason a democratic president and a republican congress work so well together is that they go back and forth more and are forced into more compromises. I mean, honestly now, do you think Clinton was anymore concerned about agitating Tom Delay than Bush is about agitating Ted Kennedy? If the repubs put up a bill Clinton didn't like, he could always just tell them to go pound sound and veto it. Bush can't do that with this Congress because otherwise he'll start taking crap from conservatives, republicans, etc. Like any good politician, he's not going to stand up and show some backbone by bitchslapping his own party when it gets out of hand. That's a political suicide move these days.
You can't have these inbred governments like we've got now. Look at all the havoc they're wreaking.
integretity
Huh? What the hell were you doing in your other tabs when you typed this?
Why let that stop you?
Just do the right thing and put a tarp down first.
How does it feel to waste all that time typing up a post nobody will read thanks to the subject of "MOD PARENT SOMEHOW"?
.. and don't actually provide any citations for your random claims.....
Oh... and the fact that you sound like a lunatic getting psyched up to go bomb a Hummer dealership.....
You're not very good at trolling. Maybe it's just not for you. I'd suggest that tinkertoys may be more your speed.
Yes... when about 5 percent of the world's population uses between 20 and 40 percent of the world's energy, depending on the type you're discussing, I'd say there's a problem with that particular 5 percents energy policy.
Any other posts you'd like to make so people can come back and make you sound stupid?
Because TFA is a load of horseshit, and I'm commenting on it. If I ever watch the show, maybe I'll comment on that too.
Otherwise, since I didn't mention the show at all, only the article, you're offtopic and, possibly, suffering from a mild learning disorder that causes you to seriously lack basic reading comprehension skills.
Thanks for playing, with love,
the_mad_poster
The ARTICLE is crap. I didn't watch the program, so I can't comment on it one way or another.
I did read the first linked article, however, and it is, most definitely, crap.
I understand the process he's claiming is happening. What I'm pointing out is that nowhere in that article is the conclusion that anything at all is happening is defended.
You can't just say "oh, a scientist said this so it must be true" when there's no evidence. Based on that article, I have no reason to believe that the conclusion being presented by that scientist is even remotely accurate. Maybe it is, maybe it's not. Maybe he has mountains of observations and tests to back it up, maybe he's a raving lunatic living under a bridge somewhere. The article doesn't even begin to help the reader decide on that and just irresponsibly presents the conclusions in a manner that suggests they're correct.
It was only recently, when his conclusions were confirmed by Australian scientists using a completely different method to estimate solar radiation, that climate scientists at last woke up to the reality of global dimming.
I like when news outlets use this type of language. "Woke up". As if the other scientists were slope-headed morons rejecting some obvious truth just because they did something sooooo horrible as wait for independent confirmation of one guy's conclusions.
Because we all know that science has advanced the world over the last 4000 years or so by jumping on every statement made by anybody who ever put forward a hypothesis.
But it now appears the warming from greenhouse gases has been offset by a strong cooling effect from dimming - in effect two of our pollutants have been cancelling each other out.
In addition, this is quite a conclusion to jump to. There are many, many factors involved in climate changes on Earth. To suggest that little or no climate changed is being "caused" by something man made without backing it up goes beyond the bounds of irresponsible journalism to the point that I'd have to question whether the individual who wrote this story ought to be left in the employ of the BBC.
I just love reading the pop-sci crap that gets fed to the public. We observe less solar radiation all over the world, and the next thing you know, we're jumping straight into the conclusion that two man made pollutants are cancelling each other out and keeping the greenhouse effect - an incredibly complicated process to discuss - in check.
I love the media. It's so much fun. Too bad it's about as informational as repeatedly banging your head against a brick wall.
P.S.: The expression is "in the cards", not "on the cards".
Wow. Even if that were true, which I wouldn't know because I didn't read it, nor will I, it would only be relevant to the conversation currently underway if you'd presented it to Bush two and half years ago and he'd used it as the justification then.
Please try to stay on topic.
I'm sure we'll get a lot of war/Bush supporters here that pop up with all sorts of justifications now, but look, the justifications given over and over by Bush and his crew was that they (the wmds) were either there, or that Saddam had the capability to either make them, or get them from someone else.
Not only are they apparently not there (notwithstanding the "Syrian conspiracy theory" and such), a conclusion backed by three reports (Kay, 9/11, Duelfer) and this, the justification cannot be changed now just because it was wrong in the first place (in other words, you can't come back and respond to this news story by saying "but we liberated the iraqis" - yes, we did, but that wasn't the justification given for war, so it's a topic for a different discussion). Bush and his pals didn't say "we're going in because Saddam is an evil wicked little man who mistreats his people" in anything more than the most superficial manner. He did it by evoking images (well, that was more Cheney's job, actually) of an Iraq-backed attack spready doom across the continental United States and saying he knew something we didn't about all this.
Well, he was wrong. You can either sit and make stupid excuses and try to say "well, it doesn't matter because of..", but the fact is, this administration was wrong.
Responsible people would now stand up and explain what happened and what they plan to do about the fallout caused by their error. Irresponsible people, or people who were lying in the first place, will come back and try to change the subject or sweep it under the rug.
I'd like to think that the United States is a responsible nation, but with the way this has been addressed by this administration - attempting to shake its head and say no, really, we were right even though almost nothing we said before the war was true - and the way it's unlikely about to be addressed here, I have serious doubts that this country is currently anything close to responsible.
That's fine though. Keep it up. We'll see how long the rest of the world puts up with us if our trustworthiness turns into a chronic, glaring problem. You can only stay a superpower for so long when you rely on the rest of the world for your way of life and you're not willing to change it when you can't rely on the world anymore. Bring out the "woo woo! america is teh r0xx0rz!" crap instead of admitting you're wrong. We'll see just how well that works in the long run.
(on an unrelated note, why did this disappear from the frontpage...?)
Agreed.
Not only that, as always, e-mail from one network to another across unknown intermediaries is not private. It travels on public wires across public networks. If there's a value in someone targetting you and you're not technically competent enough to know you shouldn't use gmail for important discussions, they can just snap a packet sniffer onto your gateway and watch everything you send and receive right at the source with little fuss and no muss.
First thing's first: you ought not be relying on generated passwords that come in an e-mail. You get it, you change it, that's that.
Second thing: it's called encryption, m'friends. It doesn't matter what's in the envelope when a bad guy intercepts it if he can't open it.