Also when you figure per capita, the US has almost 4 times the population, which makes US sales roughly 2.5 times better.
Their sample is a bit skewed too. They took this survey at a book fair? Where people who love books go? It'd be less biased if it were a "reading fair", but that's like going to a classic car fair and asking people whether they'd give up their car for a new hybrid.
Yeah, I could easily find several million people in the US who will agree with Mr. Kasperski. Some kind of a psychological analysis would be nice to look at. Or, the conclusions drawn by the psych people, anyway. Any takers?
I agree with what I assume to be Kasperski's motive: without anonymity, we'd know who controls all these spambots or who is involved in identity theft, or who's writing all this malware, or who writes all those racist trolls on Slashdot. The Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory is undeniably true... make someone attach their name to what they write and they're more civil, more reasoned, and they generally tend to take responsibility for their words. Throw anonymity into the mix with an audience and you get a total fuckwad.
Imagine if people could drive a vehicle on the roads and be guaranteed that nobody could ever find out whose vehicle it was or who the driver was? Can you imagine the level of road rage that would result if someone pissed you off and you could simply ram them off the road with no repercussion? Today, the only anonymity we have on the roads is by walking, using a bicycle, or through a proxy such as a bus or taxi where someone else's identity is responsible for the driving.
The problem with Kasperski's approach is that it's completely impossible to retrofit the entire Internet for this kind of identification. Not only that, but there's no technical way to guarantee that it's unhackable. Your computer gets compromised somehow and now someone has the ability to do anything using your identity. And it fails to take into account a family computer, for example. Did John Smith really write that, or was it one of his kids fooling around?
So unless we want to turn the Internet into a place as highly regulated and enforced as the average Western nation's public roads, mostly anonymous it is.
It's all part of the free software model. According to Stallman, those laid off highly skilled engineers should now be selling support services helping others install Linux, configure Linux config files, and so on.
That would be a hassle for me, and what's my motivation to write this guy some separate, more permissive license?
Why do you feel the need to put it under a license? You could always simply send him the code with no license and say "Enjoy! I hope it saves you some time."
As the copyright holder, you're free to release the code to this one individual under whatever terms you want. Just because you released it once under one set of conditions doesn't mean that you're bound to release it to the MSU guy under the same conditions. Being the creator, you're free to re-license anything you want. Assuming your code isn't mixed up with someone else's, just license the Ruby code as a separate work.
Obviously it wouldn't work for transient content such as chat. However, for persistent content (eg: someone creates a penis-shaped building in Second Life) the community could mark it R rated or something and that area could be hidden from children. As to whether this would work in sue-happy puritanical America, who knows... but allowing the community to moderate is at least a tad better than having no ability to moderate.
It's the difference between letting kids read Slashdot only at +2 or higher versus having all posts unmoderated and having all the racist/sexist/bizarre posts as visible as any other.
... from which to evaluate aspects of online games that are beyond the purview of other would-be raters, including the quality of the game's moderation system, programmed restrictions on chat and known player demographics.
It's like saying "Hey parents, we can't control what other people write on Slashdot, but they have a really decent moderation system." If (for those poor at comprehension, we call this a hypothetical statement) Slashdot offered parental controls to set the minimum threshold on your kids' accounts, they could conclude "While there is some nasty stuff when browsing at -1 which we have no control over, fortunately Slashdot offers you the ability to restrict your kids viewing to a much higher threshold and mitigate the risk of them reading material inappropriate for their age."
This analogy doesn't work very well. You cannot have Firefox without Gecko...
Replace the Gecko rendering engine with the Chromium engine or the WebKit/KHTML engine and keep all the Firefox stuff on top. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Gecko doesn't implement the plugins, bookmarks, and so on -- that's Firefox doing all that userland stuff and passing anything relevant down to the Gecko engine... which it could just as easily pass down to the Chromium engine for example.
It's interesting what people are accustomed to. Those that claim it should just be called Linux because Linux is the kernel and GNU is only the userspace wouldn't call their browser Gecko even though Gecko is the kernel and Firefox is only the userspace. And saying "I run Firefox/Gecko" just sounds entirely too pedantic.
Rendezvous with Rama, by Arthur C. Clarke. Great novel the perfectly fits the classic sci-fi genre and deals with the "what if" of alien contact and how it could possibly come about. It has ties to biblical stories (eg: Noah's ark) and packs quite a bit of detail (physics, biology, computers, etc.) into a fairly easy read. Rama II was a decent followup and goes more into social issues, but the subsequent novels go progressively downhill and are only worth reading just to find out what happens.
I hate to break it to you, but all ports below 1024 typically require superuser privileges to be opened.
This thread is about running SSH on ports > 1023 which a regular user can do. Nobody so far has claimed that running on a port below 1024 doesn't require superuser privileges.
That's some fine internet tough talk, but realistically the best solution open to the common man is to simply vote with your dollars and leave. Verizon is probably happy enough to let a squeaky wheel out of any time contract, if they really are in violation, knowing that the unwashed masses will not notice these kinds of failings.
The problem is if the six month install process came with a hefty price tag (article is Slashdotted, so can't read up on it). Voting with your feet and going elsewhere implies a massive sunk cost that may not be recoverable, depending on how open the fiber accessibility is to other providers.
A more transparent way would be to leave the negative review and then follow it up with the successful resolution. Otherwise, the review might have been "Product A's feature X is totally buggy and doesn't work as advertised" and Newegg's resolution might have been "We'll exchange that for Product B if we can remove that review". So while the consumer got his resolution, it doesn't resolve the fact that Product A has a buggy feature.
Slashdot Mirror
Also when you figure per capita, the US has almost 4 times the population, which makes US sales roughly 2.5 times better.
Their sample is a bit skewed too. They took this survey at a book fair? Where people who love books go? It'd be less biased if it were a "reading fair", but that's like going to a classic car fair and asking people whether they'd give up their car for a new hybrid.
Long delayed echoes (LDEs) are radio echoes which return to the sender several seconds after a radio transmission has occurred.
Unless someone has discovered faster than light communications, probably not.
Yeah, I could easily find several million people in the US who will agree with Mr. Kasperski. Some kind of a psychological analysis would be nice to look at. Or, the conclusions drawn by the psych people, anyway. Any takers?
I agree with what I assume to be Kasperski's motive: without anonymity, we'd know who controls all these spambots or who is involved in identity theft, or who's writing all this malware, or who writes all those racist trolls on Slashdot. The Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory is undeniably true... make someone attach their name to what they write and they're more civil, more reasoned, and they generally tend to take responsibility for their words. Throw anonymity into the mix with an audience and you get a total fuckwad.
Imagine if people could drive a vehicle on the roads and be guaranteed that nobody could ever find out whose vehicle it was or who the driver was? Can you imagine the level of road rage that would result if someone pissed you off and you could simply ram them off the road with no repercussion? Today, the only anonymity we have on the roads is by walking, using a bicycle, or through a proxy such as a bus or taxi where someone else's identity is responsible for the driving.
The problem with Kasperski's approach is that it's completely impossible to retrofit the entire Internet for this kind of identification. Not only that, but there's no technical way to guarantee that it's unhackable. Your computer gets compromised somehow and now someone has the ability to do anything using your identity. And it fails to take into account a family computer, for example. Did John Smith really write that, or was it one of his kids fooling around?
So unless we want to turn the Internet into a place as highly regulated and enforced as the average Western nation's public roads, mostly anonymous it is.
It's all part of the free software model. According to Stallman, those laid off highly skilled engineers should now be selling support services helping others install Linux, configure Linux config files, and so on.
Well, the fly DID come back thinking it was a secret agent on Mars...
That would be a hassle for me, and what's my motivation to write this guy some separate, more permissive license?
Why do you feel the need to put it under a license? You could always simply send him the code with no license and say "Enjoy! I hope it saves you some time."
Call it cold fusion
Claim zero-point energy
Add porn to research
As the copyright holder, you're free to release the code to this one individual under whatever terms you want. Just because you released it once under one set of conditions doesn't mean that you're bound to release it to the MSU guy under the same conditions. Being the creator, you're free to re-license anything you want. Assuming your code isn't mixed up with someone else's, just license the Ruby code as a separate work.
Obviously it wouldn't work for transient content such as chat. However, for persistent content (eg: someone creates a penis-shaped building in Second Life) the community could mark it R rated or something and that area could be hidden from children. As to whether this would work in sue-happy puritanical America, who knows... but allowing the community to moderate is at least a tad better than having no ability to moderate.
It's the difference between letting kids read Slashdot only at +2 or higher versus having all posts unmoderated and having all the racist/sexist/bizarre posts as visible as any other.
Wow, lots of people saying they're not lawyers.
The last sentence is the one to focus on:
It's like saying "Hey parents, we can't control what other people write on Slashdot, but they have a really decent moderation system." If (for those poor at comprehension, we call this a hypothetical statement) Slashdot offered parental controls to set the minimum threshold on your kids' accounts, they could conclude "While there is some nasty stuff when browsing at -1 which we have no control over, fortunately Slashdot offers you the ability to restrict your kids viewing to a much higher threshold and mitigate the risk of them reading material inappropriate for their age."
I think "would've" would have been better.
Bravo! It's been a while since I've laughed that hard from a post on Slashdot!
This analogy doesn't work very well. You cannot have Firefox without Gecko...
Replace the Gecko rendering engine with the Chromium engine or the WebKit/KHTML engine and keep all the Firefox stuff on top. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Gecko doesn't implement the plugins, bookmarks, and so on -- that's Firefox doing all that userland stuff and passing anything relevant down to the Gecko engine... which it could just as easily pass down to the Chromium engine for example.
It's interesting what people are accustomed to. Those that claim it should just be called Linux because Linux is the kernel and GNU is only the userspace wouldn't call their browser Gecko even though Gecko is the kernel and Firefox is only the userspace. And saying "I run Firefox/Gecko" just sounds entirely too pedantic.
You mean biots? Remember that sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from pure fantasy crab robot stuff.
Rendezvous with Rama, by Arthur C. Clarke. Great novel the perfectly fits the classic sci-fi genre and deals with the "what if" of alien contact and how it could possibly come about. It has ties to biblical stories (eg: Noah's ark) and packs quite a bit of detail (physics, biology, computers, etc.) into a fairly easy read. Rama II was a decent followup and goes more into social issues, but the subsequent novels go progressively downhill and are only worth reading just to find out what happens.
Mod up... that's the best explanation of this issue I've read yet.
I hate to break it to you, but all ports below 1024 typically require superuser privileges to be opened.
This thread is about running SSH on ports > 1023 which a regular user can do. Nobody so far has claimed that running on a port below 1024 doesn't require superuser privileges.
That's some fine internet tough talk, but realistically the best solution open to the common man is to simply vote with your dollars and leave. Verizon is probably happy enough to let a squeaky wheel out of any time contract, if they really are in violation, knowing that the unwashed masses will not notice these kinds of failings.
The problem is if the six month install process came with a hefty price tag (article is Slashdotted, so can't read up on it). Voting with your feet and going elsewhere implies a massive sunk cost that may not be recoverable, depending on how open the fiber accessibility is to other providers.
A more transparent way would be to leave the negative review and then follow it up with the successful resolution. Otherwise, the review might have been "Product A's feature X is totally buggy and doesn't work as advertised" and Newegg's resolution might have been "We'll exchange that for Product B if we can remove that review". So while the consumer got his resolution, it doesn't resolve the fact that Product A has a buggy feature.
Someone posted one four hours ago. But I guess reading the comments and reading the article are sort of mutually exclusive. :)
Both your humorous comment and your .sig are of equal comedic quality!
Equally lousy? :)
Anyone not wearing one million sunblock is going to have a real bad day, get it?
Not only did Bush not respect international law, but he doesn't even respect physical law and the limits on the speed of light!