From TFA: There's always the possibility some gave bogus information. And it's promising that others did realize they gave away too much information, if belatedly.
Point of information--
Are you against debate on moral issues, or is that you believe that the moral issues we debate are less significant than other issues?
First I thought it was the former...
One of the major instruments of the ruling political class is to divide and distract public opinion with intense moral-laden debate about subjects that in most other countries are treated as private matters....but as I read your post I wasn't so sure.
It seems apparent that the other issues are also moral issues. In fact, I can't off the top of my head think of any issues which are not, on some level, moral issues--from warfare to economics to whatever.
So far as the populace being easily distracted by "bread and circuses"...no argument there.
Please consider: Our experiences may make us who we are (that is, differentiate you from the person next to you), but it isn't apparent that they can make us what we are--human beings.
If you posit this is the case, it begs the question, which experiences are necessary to make us human? What quality or quantity of experience?
There have been plenty of abuses in the past (we don't need to go into the litany) because some people with power decided that it was ok to mark other people as "less than human." They made this decision because they decided that, on the sliding scale of factors that determine humanity, the victims were below some arbitrary point, and the abusers were above it.
These atrocities have served to convince me that the very act of trying to determine such a scale, and of basing your decisions about "who to kill" upon it, are at least morally suspect. It would be far better to do away with the very notion, don't you think?
There may still be reasons to kill other human beings. I'm not convinced on that issue yet. I'm simply proposing that to suppose "It's ok, because the person under my gun is less human than I" is wrong.
Sure, but also consider the number of young kids these days who are medicated. Individually, they don't have any say in whether or not they take ritalin or prozac or what-have-you. By the time they reach age of consent, the damage is done and they are a part of drug-consumer society, which is bad even if they restrict themselves to legal drugs.
Well, in this case an amateur can break into those boxen quicker than your users can log in:)
I feel your pain, but please don't give up on security just because it's frustrating.
I'm glad that your company is on the bleeding edge and that you enjoy your work and are well paid. But when it comes down to it, who's smarter--the guy who got a slack job with guaranteed medical/dental coverage and gets to cut out at 3 to play the back nine, or the guy who gets to break his back making someone else money, just for a lousy retirement or a "fuck you" when the industry gets tight?
You're obviously motivated by job satisfaction...kudos. But don't mistake motivation for cleverness:)
No offense or anything, but I think you should consider taking a real, experienced incident handler to lunch sometime. Ask him or her about what kinds of attacks they see most often; what kinds of attacks succeed most often; what kinds of attacks cost the most. I can probably find you hundreds of servers running old, unpatched versions of IIS that someone with "weathered" skills could compromise; likewise old versions of BIND or what-have-you. I have personally engineered access to a company's most vital secrets without ever touching a keyboard. I think perhaps it is your own skills which need to be updated.
Surely it is. Think Secret owes absolutely no legal or other obligation to Apple; therefore if anything this is about flexing corporate muscle. Happens all the time, right? Fine. But the tactic they are attempting could set a dangerous precedent: that you can violate journalistic integrity in order to safeguard someone's cash flow. This is something I think we would all rather not see.
You may be technically correct, but what I wonder is, has NASA just given up on trying to fire people's imagination? Would ONE full-color shot to replicate what the surface would look like if you were standing on it hurt? Would it have been so bad to have a microphone that didn't record everything as "SHHHHHHHHH?"
I was not disappointed in their achievements, but they just completely blew ANOTHER chance to get people interested in space. Way to go:(
Yeah, and have everyone walking around with little minature radios, which they think are phones.
The spectrum is getting tighter and tighter as we trade off the utility of public radio bandwidth (search and rescue, emergency, etc.) for stuff that actually generates revenue for people. Just another example of government agencies being more concerned with money than with something that is actually useful/helpful.
We're now only one step away from having an actual versificator. Sadly, under current digital rights laws, the versificator will still have more rights than both real artists playing real music and customers purchasing CDs.
I've thought for a while now that this would be a good business idea... to give people a website to track the current location of police cars. Not to help criminals, but to help good law abiding citizens avoid trouble spots... A real money maker, thanks to this court's decision this would be a lot more economical than just tailing cops a having people report their positions.
I'm sorry, but this sounds like a pretty weak argument. "Trouble spots?" Do you mean that as in "speed traps" or "DUI checkpoints," or as in "high crime areas?"
Aside from the annoyance of being checked out by the cops, any "good law-abiding citizen" would have nothing to fear from speed traps or dui checkpoints (provided they weren't speeding or driving drunk).
As for crime rates, those are a matter of public record and can be requested from the city.
Sorry if I'm overgeneralizing, I have to wonder why the/. bashes (for instance) Microsoft for adding functionality at the expense of security...but then you have people who think doing such things in the REAL WORLD is a good idea. No offense, but it's not.
I read recently that the NYT wants special protection from having to reveal informants--sort of like universal special shield laws for all journalists.
Nick dePlume qualifies as a journalist, ergo, if the NYT is serious, they ought to support him (and the bloggers, too).
Not so. US Laws governing wiretaps and electronic surveillance are explicit in the distinction between "monitoring" and "recording." Law enforcement personnel are typically granted much leeway to monitor but very little to record. They are often told "You can listen to anything you want, just don't record it."
I couldn't find in the article any support for the author's accusation that Overpeer is exploiting this vulnerability to compromise filesharer's computers...only some intentionally vague language written in the passive voice.
Do you believe that scientists are free of bias, or that they are at least able to prevent it from tainting their work? If so, may I suggest to you that you should not attribute to scientists some power that nobody else on earth has?
I give you Margaret Meade as a case study. Go look up the footnotes to Coming of Age in Samoa and have a laugh--this work, which should have been absolutely gored by peer review, was and still is accepted as holy writ by behavioral researchers because it plays into what they want to believe. Y'know...those scientists who do so much work to eliminate bias...please.
Sure, this is a problem. But the problem of taking "objective measurements" is recognized throughout the empirical sciences.
Say, for example, that you want to establish an "objective" measurement of the weight of a quantity of sodium. Repeated measurements will not result in the same quantity each time. How do you account for random error? How do you account for any systematic error in the measuring process? How do you even [i]detect[/i] these things? And how do you determine what the real weight is, after all is said and done?
In truth, empiricism is limited. Bohr was forced to criticize empiricism because of new information we learned at the dawn of the era of quantum mechanics, and from this we have robust statistical analysis, information theory, and all kinds of other goodies that have made science "better"--but we still have the same old problems to deal with.
Science is still unable to tell us everything (it cannot access all truths).
Easy. You have to fight for your rights because there will always be people trying to take them away from you. Your argument seems to be that because people want to take them away, then you have no "right" to your rights (forgive me if I'm misreading it). Whereas, I would say that this is wishful thinking on the part of those with power who wish to prey upon those who do not.
Our inalienable rights, in the USA, are ensured or guaranteed by a government, but the government is not the source of those rights. The source of those rights is the human condition. They should apply to everyone, everywhere.
May suggest some reading? The philosophies of Kant, de Tocqueville, and Rousseau were all referenced during the formation of the Constitution. Perhaps they can fill in some of your knowledge gaps.
Slashdot Mirror
Hopefully Firefly will be reincarnated after September, though.
From TFA:
There's always the possibility some gave bogus information. And it's promising that others did realize they gave away too much information, if belatedly.
Point of information-- Are you against debate on moral issues, or is that you believe that the moral issues we debate are less significant than other issues? First I thought it was the former... One of the major instruments of the ruling political class is to divide and distract public opinion with intense moral-laden debate about subjects that in most other countries are treated as private matters. ...but as I read your post I wasn't so sure.
It seems apparent that the other issues are also moral issues. In fact, I can't off the top of my head think of any issues which are not, on some level, moral issues--from warfare to economics to whatever.
So far as the populace being easily distracted by "bread and circuses"...no argument there.
Interesting points.
Please consider:
Our experiences may make us who we are (that is, differentiate you from the person next to you), but it isn't apparent that they can make us what we are--human beings.
If you posit this is the case, it begs the question, which experiences are necessary to make us human? What quality or quantity of experience?
There have been plenty of abuses in the past (we don't need to go into the litany) because some people with power decided that it was ok to mark other people as "less than human." They made this decision because they decided that, on the sliding scale of factors that determine humanity, the victims were below some arbitrary point, and the abusers were above it.
These atrocities have served to convince me that the very act of trying to determine such a scale, and of basing your decisions about "who to kill" upon it, are at least morally suspect. It would be far better to do away with the very notion, don't you think?
There may still be reasons to kill other human beings. I'm not convinced on that issue yet. I'm simply proposing that to suppose "It's ok, because the person under my gun is less human than I" is wrong.
Sure, but also consider the number of young kids these days who are medicated. Individually, they don't have any say in whether or not they take ritalin or prozac or what-have-you. By the time they reach age of consent, the damage is done and they are a part of drug-consumer society, which is bad even if they restrict themselves to legal drugs.
Just a thought.
How do I know if I'm interested in it or not if I have no idea what it is?
/. to tell you what you should be interested in :)
I'm guessing you already know if something interests you or not.
Or are you asking if you should be interested? Take my advice, kid--don't depend on
Well, in this case an amateur can break into those boxen quicker than your users can log in :)
I feel your pain, but please don't give up on security just because it's frustrating.
Hear that whizzing sound over your head? That was the joke.
I'm glad that your company is on the bleeding edge and that you enjoy your work and are well paid. But when it comes down to it, who's smarter--the guy who got a slack job with guaranteed medical/dental coverage and gets to cut out at 3 to play the back nine, or the guy who gets to break his back making someone else money, just for a lousy retirement or a "fuck you" when the industry gets tight? You're obviously motivated by job satisfaction...kudos. But don't mistake motivation for cleverness :)
No offense or anything, but I think you should consider taking a real, experienced incident handler to lunch sometime. Ask him or her about what kinds of attacks they see most often; what kinds of attacks succeed most often; what kinds of attacks cost the most. I can probably find you hundreds of servers running old, unpatched versions of IIS that someone with "weathered" skills could compromise; likewise old versions of BIND or what-have-you. I have personally engineered access to a company's most vital secrets without ever touching a keyboard. I think perhaps it is your own skills which need to be updated.
Surely it is. Think Secret owes absolutely no legal or other obligation to Apple; therefore if anything this is about flexing corporate muscle. Happens all the time, right? Fine. But the tactic they are attempting could set a dangerous precedent: that you can violate journalistic integrity in order to safeguard someone's cash flow. This is something I think we would all rather not see.
You may be technically correct, but what I wonder is, has NASA just given up on trying to fire people's imagination? Would ONE full-color shot to replicate what the surface would look like if you were standing on it hurt? Would it have been so bad to have a microphone that didn't record everything as "SHHHHHHHHH?"
:(
I was not disappointed in their achievements, but they just completely blew ANOTHER chance to get people interested in space. Way to go
Yeah, and have everyone walking around with little minature radios, which they think are phones.
The spectrum is getting tighter and tighter as we trade off the utility of public radio bandwidth (search and rescue, emergency, etc.) for stuff that actually generates revenue for people. Just another example of government agencies being more concerned with money than with something that is actually useful/helpful.
73's, jotok
We're now only one step away from having an actual versificator. Sadly, under current digital rights laws, the versificator will still have more rights than both real artists playing real music and customers purchasing CDs.
Yes...Youth sees the sun rise and denies that the previous day ever occurred.
I've thought for a while now that this would be a good business idea... to give people a website to track the current location of police cars. Not to help criminals, but to help good law abiding citizens avoid trouble spots... A real money maker, thanks to this court's decision this would be a lot more economical than just tailing cops a having people report their positions.
/. bashes (for instance) Microsoft for adding functionality at the expense of security...but then you have people who think doing such things in the REAL WORLD is a good idea. No offense, but it's not.
I'm sorry, but this sounds like a pretty weak argument. "Trouble spots?" Do you mean that as in "speed traps" or "DUI checkpoints," or as in "high crime areas?"
Aside from the annoyance of being checked out by the cops, any "good law-abiding citizen" would have nothing to fear from speed traps or dui checkpoints (provided they weren't speeding or driving drunk).
As for crime rates, those are a matter of public record and can be requested from the city.
Sorry if I'm overgeneralizing, I have to wonder why the
I read recently that the NYT wants special protection from having to reveal informants--sort of like universal special shield laws for all journalists.
Nick dePlume qualifies as a journalist, ergo, if the NYT is serious, they ought to support him (and the bloggers, too).
Um...you do realize they're blackmailing him, right?
Just out of curiosity, do you make any distinction between typical plea-bargaining that occurs in criminal cases and blackmail?
Not so. US Laws governing wiretaps and electronic surveillance are explicit in the distinction between "monitoring" and "recording." Law enforcement personnel are typically granted much leeway to monitor but very little to record. They are often told "You can listen to anything you want, just don't record it."
I couldn't find in the article any support for the author's accusation that Overpeer is exploiting this vulnerability to compromise filesharer's computers...only some intentionally vague language written in the passive voice.
Did I miss something?
Remind me to get you a copy of some E. Michael Jones books for your birthday :)
Do you believe that scientists are free of bias, or that they are at least able to prevent it from tainting their work? If so, may I suggest to you that you should not attribute to scientists some power that nobody else on earth has?
I give you Margaret Meade as a case study. Go look up the footnotes to Coming of Age in Samoa and have a laugh--this work, which should have been absolutely gored by peer review, was and still is accepted as holy writ by behavioral researchers because it plays into what they want to believe. Y'know...those scientists who do so much work to eliminate bias...please.
Sure, this is a problem. But the problem of taking "objective measurements" is recognized throughout the empirical sciences.
Say, for example, that you want to establish an "objective" measurement of the weight of a quantity of sodium. Repeated measurements will not result in the same quantity each time. How do you account for random error? How do you account for any systematic error in the measuring process? How do you even [i]detect[/i] these things? And how do you determine what the real weight is, after all is said and done?
In truth, empiricism is limited. Bohr was forced to criticize empiricism because of new information we learned at the dawn of the era of quantum mechanics, and from this we have robust statistical analysis, information theory, and all kinds of other goodies that have made science "better"--but we still have the same old problems to deal with.
Science is still unable to tell us everything (it cannot access all truths).
You cannot use the scientific method to prove that the scientific method works. Should we discard it, then?
I say no, even though I am religious. The question itself was raised by Nils Bohr as a criticism of the way we do science.
In the end, science itself requires some measure of trust or faith.
Easy. You have to fight for your rights because there will always be people trying to take them away from you. Your argument seems to be that because people want to take them away, then you have no "right" to your rights (forgive me if I'm misreading it). Whereas, I would say that this is wishful thinking on the part of those with power who wish to prey upon those who do not.
Our inalienable rights, in the USA, are ensured or guaranteed by a government, but the government is not the source of those rights. The source of those rights is the human condition. They should apply to everyone, everywhere.
May suggest some reading? The philosophies of Kant, de Tocqueville, and Rousseau were all referenced during the formation of the Constitution. Perhaps they can fill in some of your knowledge gaps.