If Reddit provided leafnode-like caching for distributed storage and an open protocol to read/write comments to support non-web clients, it would do everything you ask for.
I would love to see someone develop a newer version of Usenet with better security.
Practically speaking, Reddit is turning into the new Usenet for me. A Reddit group = Usenet group, trn = Akregator, and each topic creates its own threaded reading (minus subject lines) on the Reddit web page. Orange inbox notifies me when I have something to reply to.
Downside is the whole thing falls apart when the server(s) go down unlike Usenet. But the interface isn't far off from Usenet at all.
I'm more worried that the proper care is made to archive the data for future generations.
I'm actually concerned that someone will begin cross-referencing Usenet, Facebook, blogs, Fidonet, BBS archives, web forums, etc., and create a posting history of everything tied to a particular person's name. Where googling a 50-year-old brings up a flamewar from a local BBS in 1985, versions of their resume spanning 20 years filling in all the holes they didn't want the next hiring manager to see, and a couple of at-the-time-anonymous alt.romance posts that now expose intimate details of their dating lives.
The quoted portion above demonstrates how the typical liberally-minded, anti-creation individual really ought to be against social programs. They make us weak, if you 'believe' in evolution.
How does manipulating someone's bank balance change their genetic code?
The classic example of this is someone who comes home from work and relaxes with a joint, does not drive, does not leave his home, and does not disturb his neighbors. What case is there for putting such a person through the nightmare world of our legal system? He or she is not violating anyone else's civil rights.
No, but he or she is guilty of unauthorized personal pleasure, and the powers that be can't have that.
According the all-knowing wiki, Bruce Tinsley attended at least three universities:
"He is a graduate of Bellarmine University with a degree in political science, and attended the Harvard University Summer Program as an undergraduate. While in High School, he won a cartoon contest sponsored by Louisville's Voice Newspaper chain, and began working as an editorial cartoonist at age 16. He attended the University of Missouri in Columbia, Missouri, studying journalism..."
Wonder why he hates them so much considering his own career appears to have benefited from them?
Employers started raising the bar on a living wage a long time ago. From "high school diploma" to "some college" and now "four year degree" are bare minimums just to get the resume past HR into the manager's hands. Hell, we just hired people with four year degrees into operator apprentice slots. I know a professional welder working on a BA on the side just so that he can't be fired for NOT having a degree.
And all that debt, gee employers really LOVE them some college debt. They know their new hires won't be striking out on their own to compete with them anytime soon. Same logic for why Silicon Valley corps love them their H1-Bs.
You want two-year schools to come back, find some freaking employers willing to hire the graduates.
The rest of that question is so far off topic it is not even worth discussing.
Well, no it's not off topic. The topic is about liability vs sharing, the form of the technology is just window dressing.
And your analogy isn't an analogy at all: child porn and copyright infringement are both aggressively pursued to absurd extremes, criminally in the former case and civilly/criminally in the latter. The only way to salvage your analogy would be to say the unknown guest downloaded child porn, copied it to a USB stick, and erased their tracks off your computer (perfectly - nothing in history, deleted space, etc.). The police show up and find ZERO evidence that you ever had child porn in your possession. Then what?
Let's move to older technology: phones. Loaning someone your phone doesn't make you liable for what they do on the call without your knowledge, but loaning them a phone right after they told you it was to call a drug dealer is obviously wrong. We accept phones as "default share", why not wifi too? I'm having a hard time disagreeing with people like Bruce Schneier who don't see any real harm in open access points.
It's safe to say he didn't. If he had configured his router to not broadcast the SSID, then he would, legally (in most jurisdictions, I assume Germany is no different), have taken proactive steps to secure his network (even if they were token efforts) and we wouldn't have a story.
This logic (opt-in security) makes me very nervous for two reasons:
1. For many years ISPs shipped and electronics stores sold access points that were open by default. A clueless customer sees the access point as an appliance: plug it in and it works. This logic says they gain liability as soon as it works, and then have to take extra steps to avoid that liability - steps that might in all honesty be beyond their skill level. I don't know any other non-regulated (i.e. not firearms) consumer good like that.
2. Back in the late 80's / early 90's computer professionals who were convicted of hacking got far worse sentences than clueless newbs, on the theory that they should be punished as one would a doctor or engineer who used their skill to harm society. I could see this logic extending that concept - that knowing more about the technology increases the liability - to regular consumers. A person who sets a BAD password, or hides the SSID while leaving no password, or subtly botches it in any other way might find themselves in deep water if their connection ends up being misused. They obviously know enough to secure their access point, so why shouldn't police believe them guilty of the crime that led to the access point?
Sharing your connection means you are also accepting responsibility for what anyone else does with it.
If you hosted a party and one of the guests (whom you do not know) made a local call on your house phone to a drug dealer, and then they left the party and bought a kilo of cocaine, were you an accessory to the illegal sale?
Obviously this discussion has to set aside the Terms of Service of most ISPs that prohibit you from sharing your connection anyway, but that's a contractual matter and not a legal one.
How does one define "sharing"? Does a wifi access point HAVE to have a password on it to say it isn't shared?
My neighborhood has lots of space between houses. My access point is a minimal DSL+wireless router, maybe four houses can get the signal, and I've never seen anyone else on the router's wireless client list as all of my neighbors have their own connections. For a stranger to get on, they would need to drive down my low-traffic residential road and park for a while. We never see that.
I think it's reasonable to say in my circumstances that I have no intent to share my wifi, even though I've got no password on it. I've had lots of trouble in the past with WEP/WPA(2) (old Linux machines with creaky wireless cards) so it's much more convenient just leaving it as is.
"You want these passwords? First give me something I can bring to court, so that when you screw up, you cannot try to blame me."
"I'm not giving you anything. Give me the passwords. If you don't, I'll fire you and then pursue criminal charges against you for withholding them. And now that there is precedent, you'll likely get 5 years in prison.
Tell you what, get a company car and get fired and refuse to return it and see what happens.
Your broken analogy might work if companies perceived passwords to be as serious as they perceive their physical assets to be. Hell, they might even pay sysadmins a wage commensurate with the risk of those systems going down.
But in the real world everyone treats cars and passwords differently, because physical possession of a car is nothing at all like knowing something that other people may or may not know.
verdict that, if rendered, puts all IT admins who withhold passwords after they are fired that only they know because no backup person was ever established by managementin danger."
Consider what a finding in favour of Childs would mean; any admin upset about termination could hold on to their passwords out of spite.
OR it would mean that anyone fired from their job will not be legally compelled under threat of prison time to continue supporting their ex-employer.
The city does have some culpability. They should have ensured at least one other person had the passwords, in case Childs was hit by a bus.
That's not "some", that's total culpability. What if Childs had merely won the lottery and moved to Hawaii? Or had a mental breakdown and was institutionalized? There are a million other ways he could have left their employ; the city is just trying to make this particular method of separation a felony.
I once had an employer reverse a direct deposit 3 days after it had gone in, resulting in a dozen overdraft fees on small purchases. I got it straightened out and the credit union was good enough to forgive the fees, but I learned a valuable lesson.
Turns out nearly every banking institution will reverse direct deposits up to 10 days after they go in. So now I have to worry both about mistakes on both ends (deposits and ATM cards).
My solution: direct deposits go into account A, ATM card is account B, "real" money goes into account C, Paypal comes out of account D, payments over the Internet come out of account E, and payments by check come out of account F. And a wholly separate bank has a single savings-only account for long-term savings.
It's absurd, but I've got no assurance than ANY pool of money can't be gotten into and my life fucked trying to fix it.
It's actually pretty easy to eat healthy in the US with only a little judgment
I wouldn't go so far to say it's "pretty easy" requiring only a "little judgment" for everyone. You need quite a bit of disposable food money -- or an equivalent amount of time to cook -- which not everyone can get depending on their job/life circumstances. Plus eating right can seriously distort your social life if it involved eating with other people before.
For me getting to where I could really control my calorie intake meant weighting access to a refrigerator, sufficient break times for multiple small meals, availability of local gyms, and commute time (to have time to go to those gyms) right up there with salary in my job search. My weight loss goals have already meant about 5% lower gross income. I'm very grateful that I can handle that, and I sympathize with those people who can't make that sacrifice.
This proves rather less about the virtue of low-carb dieting and more about how nasty our current food environment is.
It's a bit more complicated than that. I ate "normal" food, but not that much of it (2000-2500 calories / day), supposedly I should have been right where I needed to be for maintaining my weight. But I was also taking a medicine with weight gain as a side effect. Between the two I think there was no way to avoid gaining -- even when I switched back to low-carb while on the medicine I would still gain weight.
The dietary changes between low-carb and now include zero caffeine, water only, switching from 3 to 6-7 meals per day, tracking all calories in, and including more variety of food (which is more like you say of higher veggies and meat and less starch). On top of that is a gym membership plus cardio equipment at home. I'm still not too entirely sure if I'd be able to hold my weight if I was still taking that medicine, but thankfully I'm off of it now.
Problem with the low-carb diet is that it is hard to maintain. HARD to maintain. All casual foods are ridiculously high in carbs. Still, when you can do it, it works every time and works extremely well.
Yup. Lost 80 lbs on low-carb, then gained much of it back once I started eating "normal" food, despite my total calorie intake being supposedly similar (1800-2500 calories/day). According to the medical-grade meters (whatever my doctor uses) my resting metabolic rate is 2600 calories, yet I will easily gain 1/3 lb PER DAY on that many calories.
I decided this time to lose weight the "right way", with 6-7 200-300 calorie meals spaced every 2-3 hours throughout the day, plus lots of cardio and strength training. I've got more muscle mass than ever -- at 300 lbs I can even do 1-2 overhand grip pullups -- and I'm clocking 2000-8000 calories burn per week, yet the weight is dropping at half the rate of a low-carb diet. It's dropping though, and I don't get tired/moody in the evenings, and I can have the occasional high-calorie meal without disrupting my metabolism for an entire week.
I've gained a lot of respect for the people who lose by controlling calorie usage. I've found about a 6:1 ratio of time required to lose:gain weight: six hours of cardio is required to undo the damage of one hour of fast food. I don't know any comparable activity that requires that much discipline.
Slashdot Mirror
You can give your people the internet when you get them sewers and a secular government first.
We'd have to ban the Internet in the United States if those were the rules.
If Reddit provided leafnode-like caching for distributed storage and an open protocol to read/write comments to support non-web clients, it would do everything you ask for.
I would love to see someone develop a newer version of Usenet with better security.
Practically speaking, Reddit is turning into the new Usenet for me. A Reddit group = Usenet group, trn = Akregator, and each topic creates its own threaded reading (minus subject lines) on the Reddit web page. Orange inbox notifies me when I have something to reply to.
Downside is the whole thing falls apart when the server(s) go down unlike Usenet. But the interface isn't far off from Usenet at all.
I'm more worried that the proper care is made to archive the data for future generations.
I'm actually concerned that someone will begin cross-referencing Usenet, Facebook, blogs, Fidonet, BBS archives, web forums, etc., and create a posting history of everything tied to a particular person's name. Where googling a 50-year-old brings up a flamewar from a local BBS in 1985, versions of their resume spanning 20 years filling in all the holes they didn't want the next hiring manager to see, and a couple of at-the-time-anonymous alt.romance posts that now expose intimate details of their dating lives.
The quoted portion above demonstrates how the typical liberally-minded, anti-creation individual really ought to be against social programs. They make us weak, if you 'believe' in evolution.
How does manipulating someone's bank balance change their genetic code?
The classic example of this is someone who comes home from work and relaxes with a joint, does not drive, does not leave his home, and does not disturb his neighbors. What case is there for putting such a person through the nightmare world of our legal system? He or she is not violating anyone else's civil rights.
No, but he or she is guilty of unauthorized personal pleasure, and the powers that be can't have that.
And he hates, hates, HATES colleges.
According the all-knowing wiki, Bruce Tinsley attended at least three universities:
"He is a graduate of Bellarmine University with a degree in political science, and attended the Harvard University Summer Program as an undergraduate. While in High School, he won a cartoon contest sponsored by Louisville's Voice Newspaper chain, and began working as an editorial cartoonist at age 16. He attended the University of Missouri in Columbia, Missouri, studying journalism ..."
Wonder why he hates them so much considering his own career appears to have benefited from them?
Employers started raising the bar on a living wage a long time ago. From "high school diploma" to "some college" and now "four year degree" are bare minimums just to get the resume past HR into the manager's hands. Hell, we just hired people with four year degrees into operator apprentice slots. I know a professional welder working on a BA on the side just so that he can't be fired for NOT having a degree.
And all that debt, gee employers really LOVE them some college debt. They know their new hires won't be striking out on their own to compete with them anytime soon. Same logic for why Silicon Valley corps love them their H1-Bs.
You want two-year schools to come back, find some freaking employers willing to hire the graduates.
The rest of that question is so far off topic it is not even worth discussing.
Well, no it's not off topic. The topic is about liability vs sharing, the form of the technology is just window dressing.
And your analogy isn't an analogy at all: child porn and copyright infringement are both aggressively pursued to absurd extremes, criminally in the former case and civilly/criminally in the latter. The only way to salvage your analogy would be to say the unknown guest downloaded child porn, copied it to a USB stick, and erased their tracks off your computer (perfectly - nothing in history, deleted space, etc.). The police show up and find ZERO evidence that you ever had child porn in your possession. Then what?
Let's move to older technology: phones. Loaning someone your phone doesn't make you liable for what they do on the call without your knowledge, but loaning them a phone right after they told you it was to call a drug dealer is obviously wrong. We accept phones as "default share", why not wifi too? I'm having a hard time disagreeing with people like Bruce Schneier who don't see any real harm in open access points.
It's safe to say he didn't. If he had configured his router to not broadcast the SSID, then he would, legally (in most jurisdictions, I assume Germany is no different), have taken proactive steps to secure his network (even if they were token efforts) and we wouldn't have a story.
This logic (opt-in security) makes me very nervous for two reasons:
1. For many years ISPs shipped and electronics stores sold access points that were open by default. A clueless customer sees the access point as an appliance: plug it in and it works. This logic says they gain liability as soon as it works, and then have to take extra steps to avoid that liability - steps that might in all honesty be beyond their skill level. I don't know any other non-regulated (i.e. not firearms) consumer good like that.
2. Back in the late 80's / early 90's computer professionals who were convicted of hacking got far worse sentences than clueless newbs, on the theory that they should be punished as one would a doctor or engineer who used their skill to harm society. I could see this logic extending that concept - that knowing more about the technology increases the liability - to regular consumers. A person who sets a BAD password, or hides the SSID while leaving no password, or subtly botches it in any other way might find themselves in deep water if their connection ends up being misused. They obviously know enough to secure their access point, so why shouldn't police believe them guilty of the crime that led to the access point?
Sharing your connection means you are also accepting responsibility for what anyone else does with it.
If you hosted a party and one of the guests (whom you do not know) made a local call on your house phone to a drug dealer, and then they left the party and bought a kilo of cocaine, were you an accessory to the illegal sale?
Obviously this discussion has to set aside the Terms of Service of most ISPs that prohibit you from sharing your connection anyway, but that's a contractual matter and not a legal one.
How does one define "sharing"? Does a wifi access point HAVE to have a password on it to say it isn't shared?
My neighborhood has lots of space between houses. My access point is a minimal DSL+wireless router, maybe four houses can get the signal, and I've never seen anyone else on the router's wireless client list as all of my neighbors have their own connections. For a stranger to get on, they would need to drive down my low-traffic residential road and park for a while. We never see that.
I think it's reasonable to say in my circumstances that I have no intent to share my wifi, even though I've got no password on it. I've had lots of trouble in the past with WEP/WPA(2) (old Linux machines with creaky wireless cards) so it's much more convenient just leaving it as is.
Most DNS is UDP, not TCP.
"You want these passwords? First give me something I can bring to court, so that when you screw up, you cannot try to blame me."
"I'm not giving you anything. Give me the passwords. If you don't, I'll fire you and then pursue criminal charges against you for withholding them. And now that there is precedent, you'll likely get 5 years in prison.
Now give me the passwords."
People today are broken and oversocialized, and more importantly, too careful.
Considering how absurdly easy it is to get fired for not fitting in, can you really blame anyone who decides to be "too careful"?
denying access
He was fired; access was no longer his to grant or deny.
If you are no longer employed somewhere, under what legal theory do you still retain responsibility for failure to perform your ex-duties?
Tell you what, get a company car and get fired and refuse to return it and see what happens.
Your broken analogy might work if companies perceived passwords to be as serious as they perceive their physical assets to be. Hell, they might even pay sysadmins a wage commensurate with the risk of those systems going down.
But in the real world everyone treats cars and passwords differently, because physical possession of a car is nothing at all like knowing something that other people may or may not know.
verdict that, if rendered, puts all IT admins who withhold passwords after they are fired that only they know because no backup person was ever established by management in danger."
FTFY.
Consider what a finding in favour of Childs would mean; any admin upset about termination could hold on to their passwords out of spite.
OR it would mean that anyone fired from their job will not be legally compelled under threat of prison time to continue supporting their ex-employer.
The city does have some culpability. They should have ensured at least one other person had the passwords, in case Childs was hit by a bus.
That's not "some", that's total culpability. What if Childs had merely won the lottery and moved to Hawaii? Or had a mental breakdown and was institutionalized? There are a million other ways he could have left their employ; the city is just trying to make this particular method of separation a felony.
I once had an employer reverse a direct deposit 3 days after it had gone in, resulting in a dozen overdraft fees on small purchases. I got it straightened out and the credit union was good enough to forgive the fees, but I learned a valuable lesson.
Turns out nearly every banking institution will reverse direct deposits up to 10 days after they go in. So now I have to worry both about mistakes on both ends (deposits and ATM cards).
My solution: direct deposits go into account A, ATM card is account B, "real" money goes into account C, Paypal comes out of account D, payments over the Internet come out of account E, and payments by check come out of account F. And a wholly separate bank has a single savings-only account for long-term savings.
It's absurd, but I've got no assurance than ANY pool of money can't be gotten into and my life fucked trying to fix it.
Historically, Mussolini, Hitler, and Franco drew their countries into ruinous wars, which are very hard on corporate profits.
They were only ruinous because they lost those wars.
It's actually pretty easy to eat healthy in the US with only a little judgment
I wouldn't go so far to say it's "pretty easy" requiring only a "little judgment" for everyone. You need quite a bit of disposable food money -- or an equivalent amount of time to cook -- which not everyone can get depending on their job/life circumstances. Plus eating right can seriously distort your social life if it involved eating with other people before.
For me getting to where I could really control my calorie intake meant weighting access to a refrigerator, sufficient break times for multiple small meals, availability of local gyms, and commute time (to have time to go to those gyms) right up there with salary in my job search. My weight loss goals have already meant about 5% lower gross income. I'm very grateful that I can handle that, and I sympathize with those people who can't make that sacrifice.
This proves rather less about the virtue of low-carb dieting and more about how nasty our current food environment is.
Agreed 100%.
It's a bit more complicated than that. I ate "normal" food, but not that much of it (2000-2500 calories / day), supposedly I should have been right where I needed to be for maintaining my weight. But I was also taking a medicine with weight gain as a side effect. Between the two I think there was no way to avoid gaining -- even when I switched back to low-carb while on the medicine I would still gain weight.
The dietary changes between low-carb and now include zero caffeine, water only, switching from 3 to 6-7 meals per day, tracking all calories in, and including more variety of food (which is more like you say of higher veggies and meat and less starch). On top of that is a gym membership plus cardio equipment at home. I'm still not too entirely sure if I'd be able to hold my weight if I was still taking that medicine, but thankfully I'm off of it now.
Problem with the low-carb diet is that it is hard to maintain. HARD to maintain. All casual foods are ridiculously high in carbs. Still, when you can do it, it works every time and works extremely well.
Yup. Lost 80 lbs on low-carb, then gained much of it back once I started eating "normal" food, despite my total calorie intake being supposedly similar (1800-2500 calories/day). According to the medical-grade meters (whatever my doctor uses) my resting metabolic rate is 2600 calories, yet I will easily gain 1/3 lb PER DAY on that many calories.
I decided this time to lose weight the "right way", with 6-7 200-300 calorie meals spaced every 2-3 hours throughout the day, plus lots of cardio and strength training. I've got more muscle mass than ever -- at 300 lbs I can even do 1-2 overhand grip pullups -- and I'm clocking 2000-8000 calories burn per week, yet the weight is dropping at half the rate of a low-carb diet. It's dropping though, and I don't get tired/moody in the evenings, and I can have the occasional high-calorie meal without disrupting my metabolism for an entire week.
I've gained a lot of respect for the people who lose by controlling calorie usage. I've found about a 6:1 ratio of time required to lose:gain weight: six hours of cardio is required to undo the damage of one hour of fast food. I don't know any comparable activity that requires that much discipline.
Which major features in bind9 are going to be thrown out (and stay out even beyond beta) for bind10?