What if in this particular case the entity that was wronged was not the government, not the customers, and not the competitors, but instead was the so-called marketplace. How do you propose that Microsoft remedy the wrongs they were accused of, if it is really the whole natural order of things that are supposed to happen in a free-market environment that Microsoft's behavior had upset?
The reason wiretapping threatens freedom of speech is that anonymous speech must be protected. Any time there is a fear of the consequences of being identified, then freedom is inhibited. There is no way to preserve anonymity when wiretapping provisions are built into the system.
When I was at Cessna, working in the Experimental department, we tested just such a system.
That was in 1985 or 1986. One major issue was that the interference with avionics was quite unacceptable, another was that the manufacturing cost was a lot more than the pneumatically inflated de-icing boots that were the status quo.
It was quite fun to hold a penny near the leading edge and have it disappear, then hear it hit the wall on the other side of the hangar.
Oh, yeah. That reminds me. Metal fatigue of the underlying structure. Simply not acceptable in aircraft.
I have had a little experience and agree with you and with the parent.
Let me explain.
I had a house that seemed to be a burglar magnet. It had lots of windows and outbuildings and was on a couple of acres, and there were open fields across the road and behind me, and on one side there was a church (on the corner). So there was relatively little chance any neighbors would see and report suspicious activity. Anyway, first most of the easily pawned tools and equipment was stolen out of the garage, and the back door into the house was busted, but nothing stolen from inside. Later a window frame and all was pried off the house, still there was not much worth stealing.
I did get paranoid and considered alarm systems, survelliance, traps, beefing up all the doors and windows, etc. I did put some lights and a stereo on timers, and did make sure that the easiest ways in had locks and latches as much as possible. I had a couple of girls living with me at the time and they were somewhat scared that someone would break in while they were there and rape or kidnap them. I even missed some work trying to mix up the pattern of visible vehicles in the driveway.
Realizing that the over reaction to the perceived threat was becoming worse than the actual risk I did go two weeks without locking the front door when I was at work. In my mind I had to imagine that the cost of replacing another door and frame was more than the value of anything left to steal. That two weeks was weird, but had the desired effect on me to get back into a more realistic mode of thinking, keeping me from getting into a pathologically paranoid pattern of behavior. End result there was no more burglaries, the burglars were either never coming back anyway, or came back without damaging or stealing anything.
Another time I was working on a ragtop convertible for a friend of my mother. The guy that owned it was afraid someone would steal his radio and locked the doors, but that only resulted in the top being cut adding to the cost of replacing the radio. While I was working on it I had the radio out anyway, but left a couple of old junk 8-track tape players sitting inside, first one, then another when the first one disappeared. Nothing else was stolen, and no need to replace the top.
Anyway, when analyzing the utility of a response to a percieved threat, one needs to rationally determine whether the obvious reaction, has any real benefit. Often enough what seems like the most apparent solution can easily become part of the problem.
One more example that I have heard of, but not from personal experience. Wireless cameras. You know, the one X10 promotes, and similar, also baby monitors. Seems like if you can monitor the hallway, side of the house, other rooms, without getting up that you might somehow be more secure by being aware of something you ordinarily would not be able to see, right? No! Apparently there are lots of burglars that use portable receivers, and when they pick up a signal from one of those cameras they get first of all the information that here lives someone with something worth protecting. Second, they get at the least a camera to steal and take to the pawnshop. Third, they can monitor whether any one is home. And best of all, they know that if you have money to waste on cameras, then you probably have lots of other stuff that they can steal.
Common sense often is only just common usually, and rarely is it really sensible.
I am sure that when push comes to shove, the folks will have convinced themselves that an all-knowing loving God can use the evil Genetic Engineering, the atheistic minions, to benefit the chosen few in whatever mysterious way He wishes. And, that the chosed need to be kept around until the correct Apocalyptic Plague, cause dying of the previous plague might cause one to suffer some afterlife inconveniences. So, their principles need not be compromised, because their logic need not be rational. And their rationalizations needn't be logical.
I lived in an apartment building that was a participant in a pilot study to reduce peak demand. The airconditioning compressors would be remotely disabled during times of unusually high demand for 15 minutes of each hour. In effect it made the A/C run hard for a while when the 15 minutes had expired. However the total effect did reduce the peak load somewhat. The utility had permission to give a special rate reduction to the participants in the study. The end result was that the equipment maintenance cost was almost exactly higher than expected by the same number of dollars as were saved by the special rate structure. So, in effect costs were shifted from the residents and the utility to the apartment building owners. Of course the owners passed on the higher equipment maintenance costs to the renters as leases came up for renewal, so the long term effect was the utility made a profit. Overall energy consumption was equal, but the cost of off peak electricity was much less to generate than during peak hours.
There is a large office building downtown that prechills brine and stores the chilled brine in insulated tanks underground. They are on a rate that gives them electricity for about one eighth the normal peak rates as long as they are consuming their peak load during overnight hours. This works much better because it is a simpler system and does not wear out equipment faster and does not affect comfort in a negative way. The building has reflective windows and high efficiency lighting as well. Overall it would be considered an unqualified success except that no other buildings have been built to use the same strategy in the last twenty years here in this city.
Obsolescence used to be good protection, but no longer is. The advice is obsolete. As all advice will inevitably become at some point in the future.
I would recommend taking only advice that is guaranteed to remain obsolete, indefinitely, because otherwise currently out of date recommendations may come back into favor.
The above is no longer what I recommend, consider it obsolete.
I am not able to guarantee how current the above is, or will eventually become.
Six unpatched flaws, with aggregate total of 737 days since informed.
Redhat EL4
17 critical vulnerabilities [in 2005], Red Hat made fixes for every one of them available to customers via the Red Hat Network within two days of the vulnerabilities being known to the public, with 87 percent of them being available the first day. Source
[I calculate that as 19 days total exposure]
Arithmetic says: MS exposure 38.79 times as bad as RH!
One nice thing that the Kill-A-Watt meter does is measure the Kilowatt Hours consumption that has accumulated. Nice for determining things like power consumtion of a refrigerator or similar that cycles on and off automatically. To get the equivalent with a regular multimeter you would have to monitor and calculate duty cycle (unless you have a really fancy multimeter with data recording function just sitting around).
A place I worked started firing people that called in sick, that were seen to be out and about the day they called in. The offense was 'falsifying company records'. But, there was no reason to claim to be ill in order to use paid time off. So, I called in and told my boss I was 'feeling too well to come in' and that I would be in the next day 'if I am not feeling so good'.
Apparently the cow-orkers that were near his desk heard him mumble something about someone calling in that needed a mental health day.
I don't know enough about firecrackers and capguns to know if they'll be interpreted as explosives, though. Is gunpowder a common enough compound to be ignored? Down here in the south, people go hunting all the time and thus gun shot residue is all over them.
OK, three different kinds of items containing three very different classes of compounds. Firecrackers usually do have black powder, so you would be detecting nitrates with sulphur.
Capguns caps usually are ammonia tri-iodide coated sand inside the paper capsules. So there would be no nitrates, in fact it is not a very volatile compound as I recall. Probably it would not be detected in amounts resulting from residue from handling or using a capgun or caps.
Then there is the gun shot residue from hunting with a shotgun. Shotgun shells and rifle and handgun cartridges use smokeless powder which is mostly nitrocellulose. It would be an extremely badly thought out system that would ignore an indication of nitrocellulose since it is a major ingredient in dynamite and a powerful propellant/explosive in its own right.
There are other explosive and other offensive chemical agents one would want to detect, and each detection method would be guaranteed to have some false positives where a different chemical was present from the one that the system alerted the operator about, and also correct positive detections where the source of the chemical is not a hazard or prohibited.
Can swear words be taught out of existence? You would think that if people stopped taking offense to swear words that people would stop using them.
At one time most people would have taken great offense if you called them feisty. No longer, since it is not used to mean someone that farts a lot.
So, people have not stopped using the word, if anything it is more used. It just no longer means what it used to.
Re:The Slurpee's Secret to success
on
The Slurpee at 40
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Actually the bad tasting fruit drinks are made by someone else. Coca-cola, Minutemaid, Fanta, and others sell the syrup which is used. Same syrup as in a fountain soda pop dispenser.
Re:Um, Slush Puppy Anyone???
on
The Slurpee at 40
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The Slush Puppy actually ushered in the era of the iced crystal drink on November 12 1972. I fully expect a "Slush Puppy at 43" slashdot article this fall.
OK, but that will be jumping the gun by about ten years won't it?
Perens has laid into ONE aspect of the program - the Patent Commons Project - and ignored the rest - presumably just to start a flame war.
is where you assert, that there is only one possible reason for what Perens did. Further, there is a lot of difference between not giving the benefit of the doubt about someone's motivation, and claiming, without any supporting facts, that there is
..presumably just..
some purpose other than what was stated. What you did is to impute motivation. If you only meant to report media representation of his motivation, or if you meant to speculate, you certainly could have used verbiage along the lines of 'it has been reported that..' or 'I agree with commentators opinions that..' or 'In my opinion this appears like..'.
But, you did not use those phrases, and so I stand by my criticism of what you wrote in the comment that my comment was a replying to.
And thanks for giving your reasons in your response.
I believe we are on the same side on the real issue of intellectual property, we may have to just agree to disagree about what would be possible to do at this time, and how to try to achieve that without losing sight of the long term goal.
P.S. I had to look up your id and find your other comments to get a better idea of what your position is.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong kid. It was Southwestern Bell that purchased AT&T.
Just nitpicking your nitpick.
It is getting better at chess, it takes more concentration each time, but still I win.
Wasn't me. I swear.
You are welcome.
What if in this particular case the entity that was wronged was not the government, not the customers, and not the competitors, but instead was the so-called marketplace. How do you propose that Microsoft remedy the wrongs they were accused of, if it is really the whole natural order of things that are supposed to happen in a free-market environment that Microsoft's behavior had upset?
Just wondering.
The reason wiretapping threatens freedom of speech is that anonymous speech must be protected. Any time there is a fear of the consequences of being identified, then freedom is inhibited. There is no way to preserve anonymity when wiretapping provisions are built into the system.
When I was at Cessna, working in the Experimental department, we tested just such a system. That was in 1985 or 1986. One major issue was that the interference with avionics was quite unacceptable, another was that the manufacturing cost was a lot more than the pneumatically inflated de-icing boots that were the status quo. It was quite fun to hold a penny near the leading edge and have it disappear, then hear it hit the wall on the other side of the hangar. Oh, yeah. That reminds me. Metal fatigue of the underlying structure. Simply not acceptable in aircraft.
I have had a little experience and agree with you and with the parent.
Let me explain.
I had a house that seemed to be a burglar magnet. It had lots of windows and outbuildings and was on a couple of acres, and there were open fields across the road and behind me, and on one side there was a church (on the corner). So there was relatively little chance any neighbors would see and report suspicious activity. Anyway, first most of the easily pawned tools and equipment was stolen out of the garage, and the back door into the house was busted, but nothing stolen from inside. Later a window frame and all was pried off the house, still there was not much worth stealing.
I did get paranoid and considered alarm systems, survelliance, traps, beefing up all the doors and windows, etc. I did put some lights and a stereo on timers, and did make sure that the easiest ways in had locks and latches as much as possible. I had a couple of girls living with me at the time and they were somewhat scared that someone would break in while they were there and rape or kidnap them. I even missed some work trying to mix up the pattern of visible vehicles in the driveway.
Realizing that the over reaction to the perceived threat was becoming worse than the actual risk I did go two weeks without locking the front door when I was at work. In my mind I had to imagine that the cost of replacing another door and frame was more than the value of anything left to steal. That two weeks was weird, but had the desired effect on me to get back into a more realistic mode of thinking, keeping me from getting into a pathologically paranoid pattern of behavior. End result there was no more burglaries, the burglars were either never coming back anyway, or came back without damaging or stealing anything.
Another time I was working on a ragtop convertible for a friend of my mother. The guy that owned it was afraid someone would steal his radio and locked the doors, but that only resulted in the top being cut adding to the cost of replacing the radio. While I was working on it I had the radio out anyway, but left a couple of old junk 8-track tape players sitting inside, first one, then another when the first one disappeared. Nothing else was stolen, and no need to replace the top.
Anyway, when analyzing the utility of a response to a percieved threat, one needs to rationally determine whether the obvious reaction, has any real benefit. Often enough what seems like the most apparent solution can easily become part of the problem.
One more example that I have heard of, but not from personal experience. Wireless cameras. You know, the one X10 promotes, and similar, also baby monitors. Seems like if you can monitor the hallway, side of the house, other rooms, without getting up that you might somehow be more secure by being aware of something you ordinarily would not be able to see, right? No! Apparently there are lots of burglars that use portable receivers, and when they pick up a signal from one of those cameras they get first of all the information that here lives someone with something worth protecting. Second, they get at the least a camera to steal and take to the pawnshop. Third, they can monitor whether any one is home. And best of all, they know that if you have money to waste on cameras, then you probably have lots of other stuff that they can steal.
Common sense often is only just common usually, and rarely is it really sensible.
I am sure that when push comes to shove, the folks will have convinced themselves that an all-knowing loving God can use the evil Genetic Engineering, the atheistic minions, to benefit the chosen few in whatever mysterious way He wishes. And, that the chosed need to be kept around until the correct Apocalyptic Plague, cause dying of the previous plague might cause one to suffer some afterlife inconveniences. So, their principles need not be compromised, because their logic need not be rational. And their rationalizations needn't be logical.
I lived in an apartment building that was a participant in a pilot study to reduce peak demand. The airconditioning compressors would be remotely disabled during times of unusually high demand for 15 minutes of each hour. In effect it made the A/C run hard for a while when the 15 minutes had expired. However the total effect did reduce the peak load somewhat. The utility had permission to give a special rate reduction to the participants in the study. The end result was that the equipment maintenance cost was almost exactly higher than expected by the same number of dollars as were saved by the special rate structure. So, in effect costs were shifted from the residents and the utility to the apartment building owners. Of course the owners passed on the higher equipment maintenance costs to the renters as leases came up for renewal, so the long term effect was the utility made a profit. Overall energy consumption was equal, but the cost of off peak electricity was much less to generate than during peak hours.
There is a large office building downtown that prechills brine and stores the chilled brine in insulated tanks underground. They are on a rate that gives them electricity for about one eighth the normal peak rates as long as they are consuming their peak load during overnight hours. This works much better because it is a simpler system and does not wear out equipment faster and does not affect comfort in a negative way. The building has reflective windows and high efficiency lighting as well. Overall it would be considered an unqualified success except that no other buildings have been built to use the same strategy in the last twenty years here in this city.
Obsolescence used to be good protection, but no longer is.
The advice is obsolete. As all advice will inevitably become at some point in the future.
I would recommend taking only advice that is guaranteed to remain obsolete, indefinitely,
because otherwise currently out of date recommendations may come back into favor.
The above is no longer what I recommend, consider it obsolete.
I am not able to guarantee how current the above is, or will eventually become.
Out.
"Look here brother, who you jivin' with that Cosmic Debris?"
Six unpatched flaws, with aggregate total of 737 days since informed.
Redhat EL4
17 critical vulnerabilities [in 2005], Red Hat made fixes for every one of them available to customers via the Red Hat Network within two days of the vulnerabilities being known to the public, with 87 percent of them being available the first day. Source
[I calculate that as 19 days total exposure]
Arithmetic says: MS exposure 38.79 times as bad as RH!
Aboot 1.16 Canadian millimeters?
There is no 'Patriot' act. There is a USAPATRIOT act. It is a 'Patriot' act about as much as it is a 'U SAP A RIOT' act.
One nice thing that the Kill-A-Watt meter does is measure the Kilowatt Hours consumption that has accumulated. Nice for determining things like power consumtion of a refrigerator or similar that cycles on and off automatically. To get the equivalent with a regular multimeter you would have
to monitor and calculate duty cycle (unless you have a really fancy multimeter with data recording function just sitting around).
A place I worked started firing people that called in sick, that were seen to be out and about the day they called in. The offense was 'falsifying company records'. But, there was no reason to claim to be ill in order to use paid time off. So, I called in and told my boss I was 'feeling too well to come in' and that I would be in the next day 'if I am not feeling so good'.
Apparently the cow-orkers that were near his desk heard him mumble something about someone calling in that needed a mental health day.
What ever.
Back in the day SED stood for Smoke Emitting Diodes.
What a coincidence, that is where I keep my briefcase.
OK, three different kinds of items containing three very different classes of compounds.
Firecrackers usually do have black powder, so you would be detecting nitrates with sulphur.
Capguns caps usually are ammonia tri-iodide coated sand inside the paper capsules. So there would be no nitrates, in fact it is not a very volatile compound as I recall. Probably it would not be detected in amounts resulting from residue from handling or using a capgun or caps.
Then there is the gun shot residue from hunting with a shotgun. Shotgun shells and rifle and handgun cartridges use smokeless powder which is mostly nitrocellulose. It would be an extremely badly thought out system that would ignore an indication of nitrocellulose since it is a major ingredient in dynamite and a powerful propellant/explosive in its own right.
There are other explosive and other offensive chemical agents one would want to detect, and each detection method would be guaranteed to have some false positives where a different chemical was present from the one that the system alerted the operator about, and also correct positive detections where the source of the chemical is not a hazard or prohibited.
At one time most people would have taken great offense if you called them feisty. No longer, since it is not used to mean someone that farts a lot.
So, people have not stopped using the word, if anything it is more used. It just no longer means what it used to.
Actually the bad tasting fruit drinks are made by someone else. Coca-cola, Minutemaid, Fanta, and others sell the syrup which is used. Same syrup as in a fountain soda pop dispenser.
OK, but that will be jumping the gun by about ten years won't it?
Slurpee was licensed from Icee. Icee machines were first sold in 1960, forty-five years ago. So, no. They were no invented by Southland.
But, you did not use those phrases, and so I stand by my criticism of what you wrote in the comment that my comment was a replying to.
And thanks for giving your reasons in your response.
I believe we are on the same side on the real issue of intellectual property, we may have to just agree to disagree about what would be possible to do at this time, and how to try to achieve that without losing sight of the long term goal.
P.S. I had to look up your id and find your other comments to get a better idea of what your position is.