Post your location so that local Slashdotters can reply. This website is full of people that could do the job if they could only talk to you in person.
Could a digital answering machine theoretically have a vulnerability? All I can think of is a buffer overflow, and presumably they account for humans talking too long; a DOS attack, which really doesn't cause problems; or a simple bad electrical signal, which requires someone attacking your physical phoneline or a really evil phone company.
It is a computer, though, so shouldn't it have bugs?
They're Native Americans, not American Indians! American Indian sounds too much like Indian-American, which is people like myself, Kumar in Harold and Kumar, Bose (the speaker guy), etc. You insensitive clod!
Clearly you've never read the Bible. Check out Leviticus sometime. Look at how God himself sends the Angel of Death to commit mass infanticide when he could've just teleported the Israelites out of Egypt.
Heard of punishment? Is it more just to arrest crime-committing members of opposing gangs, or "just" force them to move to different cities?
Have you ever read these "holy books"? The Qur'an in particular is clear in its message that holy war against the enemies of Islam is not only permissible but encouraged. Can you not see the difference between criticism and a call to war?
And how is this a holy war? Even secular governments know to follow basic rules such as not killing civilians for the fun of it. I would hope that with a nice "Thou shalt not kill" in the middle of it, you should know that the exemption for holy war is a very limited one.
Seriously, I'm sorry if you're a believing Christian who doesn't want to face the realities of his religion's history, but it's not my fault.
Where does the Bible call Christians into holy war? The wars of the Israelites and "spiritual warfare" do not count. Where is even the slightest justification for the Crusades?
Science and religion are polar opposites in their approaches to problem-solving that it's difficult to draw parallels between them.
Yes. To phrase it in an extreme way, science drives around looking for road signs. Religion gets out of the car and asks for directions, admitting that it's unable to find a way on its own. True, a systematic search will get you the right answer, and you can't trust any old Joe to know directions. But which is a smarter approach?
You simply deny that these passages even exist.
As do I. Here, BibleGateway has a search feature. Reply with a reference to the passages where we're told to "hate the darkies" and then I'll listen to you.
Speaking of darkies, Acts 8:26-38 shows a reference where Philip preaches to a leading Ethiopian statesman.
You can't show "infallible" scriptures to be wrong.
Yes you can. Nobody (well, nobody sane) said the text of the Bible is infallible. It's a human translation of a human translation of a human transcription of ideas that were once infallible and divinely inspired by God. Besides, Acts 10:9-16 shows God revoking the various food laws.
Under what contexts are the murder of thousands of innocent children acceptable? Or unleashing biological weapons on the entire Egyptian population? Or disrupting their water supply? Do you not see the parallels between Moses' actions and modern-day terrorism?
What about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Was there no justification for that? What about simply going to war? You're killing enemy soldiers who were probably drafted and have no serious ideological opinions in favor of the current party.
Stop this stupid arguing, for goodness sake. No-one ever needed knowledge and learning and a good brain; they only ever needed the Holy Spirit.
That makes no sense. Remember the parable about the talents? Where one guy invested his money and was praised, and the other guy buried it in the ground and was condemned? God gave us a brain. Use it.
Nah, it actually says "Action canceled." For those unsullied users who have never touched IE in their life, this means that the user pressed Stop at some point, and doesn't mean that it's not actually connected.
I wonder if this is like native asians and the letters 'r' and 'l'-- if you don't learn the difference when you are young then your brain will have problems thinking that way.
I can attest to that. My parents speak an Indic language that has about 2 "l"s and 3 "r"s, as well as hard and soft consonants and long and short vowels. I can never tell which one they're using, and I often confuse words that they use because the two words in the minimal pair (two words differing by one sound used to demonstrate that a language considers two sounds to be different) sound the same to my American English-trained ear.
(It's a long story why I didn't learn their language. I used to know it, but I had to replace it with English when I entered school.)
Read your quote. but this only occurred if the odd-man-out was in the right half of the visual field, and not when it was in the left half.
What they're saying is that if you see the guy with the USSR t-shirt out of the corner of your right eye, your response is training-dependent, but if you see him out of the corner of your left eye, your response is universal.
Naturally, the USSR t-shirt is a strained example. Sapir-Whorf says that people's thought processes are affected by how they can verbalize internally and thus by the language they use internally. People taught that blue and green were the same could differentiate blue and green just as well as everyone else if it was in their left eye.
Re:Gibson has no credibility
on
Nmap 4.00 Released
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
creating a cutsey neutered Paris Hilton froo-froo lap dog OS
I won't even begin to list the fallacies in that, but since we're back on topic...isn't that what Windows (or at least Windows XP Home) is? If you want to do cool things with it, get XP Pro. If you want to do really cool things, get Windows Server 2003. If you want to do extremely cool things and avoid the Windows paradigm, get Linux.
Paris Hilton needs an OS, and Microsoft has written it. Anyone who needs raw sockets on a regular basis should not also plan to use XP Home on a regular basis. Use the right tool for the job.
And how about the wing of the FBI that investiages kidnappings? If your child is kidnapped, you won't appreciate that?
How about the FBI department that handles serial killers? Surely that's an infringement of our freedom?
Of course, the FBI should have gotten a search warrant, but I'm sure they will now and I hope they can determine who sent the threats, because I want to live in a world where I know if someone sends me a death threat (or what-have-you), that they will be found and I won't have to fear my safety on their account.
You don't see a use for the FBI? Pleeease.
If they were in the news more for finding serial killers and recovering kidnapped children than they were for using the PATRIOTACT, then perhaps. There is a use for an FBI, but not this one.
Re:Gibson has no credibility
on
Nmap 4.00 Released
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Saying 'but he knows nothing about cars,' is not an ad hominum attack because my abilities, knowledge and experience are directly related to my ability to make a correct argument on this subject.
Correct.
No but it would lend support to the statement that he's a moron
Incorrect, non sequitur, and evidence of not understanding "ad hominem". Unless you're stating that he has that particular 10-point IQ range designated "moron", that fell out of use ages ago, calling him a moron is a personal attack. What if he's being paid off by an underling of Stallman to make as much noise as possible about Windows vulnerabilities - and since Windows is so vulnerable, he's generally right? What if he's just misguided but using useful sources? What if he jumped the shark some time back?
If you can lend any support to the theory "Gibson is unqualified to offer opinions on Windows security," you'd have a leg. If you can simply prove "Raw sockets do not affect the attack level of the Internet," your case would be done, and you would be attacking the argument, not the person. Why risk making an unrelated ad hominem that could be a fallacy, if it's far easier, and more relevant to the Slashdot discussion at large, to prove the original statement?
Here, to bring this on topic, refute these claims about raw sockets.
Raw sockets have no use in a workstation OS. If XP Home is coming without a webserver, a remote desktop, and so forth, then why does it need something as obscure as raw sockets?
If you need to build a specific interface that isn't, e.g., TCP/IP, then write a driver for the protocol, and either digitally sign it or let the user accept the unsigned driver.
If we need to allow application-level raw sockets, then only let it run as administrator. Kinda like UNIX only lets root run servers on the first 1024 ports.
Raw sockets are easily used by botnets to spoof their source address in a DDOS. Botnets exist.
The average user never needs raw sockets. (Nmap is not a tool for the average user.)
Therefore, just like everything else they've been recently disabling in the name of security, raw sockets have ample justification not to be there.
The wiretaps were immoral and in contravention of natural law and the rights of man. According to almost every political thinker in the late 1700s, they would constitute more than enough reason to overthrow the government.
Whether they were declared legal by the same government that did the wiretapping is perhaps an interesting point to debate when you're bored.
Since the government isn't supposed to engage in entrapment, private companies will.
You give way too little credit to the government. They could just have avoided coming up with the idea of entrapment in the first place. All of these defenses and legal terms were either coined by the government (through civil law), or used by a clever lawyer and accepted by the judge (through common law). If they wanted to, they could've built a Star Chamber. They haven't*. Here's a surprise: the justice system is actually meant to carry out justice.
Why should private companies be distinguishable from governments? In a capitalist society, private companies are the best group of the people - and where have you heard those last three words before?
*Yes, I know there are some Star Chambers in the US, but they're only used for a few cases like terrorism where you can't get a fair trial in the US anyway. Not that I'm defending them, just that this particular case will be tried in a fair courtroom.
I just wish they would stop calling it "child pornography".
Actually, isn't "child" exactly the right word? If you use something like "pedopornography" or "prepubescent pornography", then you make it a sexual definition. The word "child" refers to someone who is socially immature, not necessarily sexually immature. It refers to someone who hasn't lived long enough to learn what the consequences of his or her actions may be. It's the same "child" in the phrase "think of the children".
Me too. From what I figured even in the summary, he downloaded it, printed it out, and held a bonfire because he felt it was evil - and was prosecuted for printing it. That would have made even less sense.
Well, ignoring the fact that puberty doesn't happen overnight, the point is that we're not looking for a sexually mature model. We really don't care about the particular sexual deviancies of the viewer; we're worried that a young girl may be sold into the porn industry either without consent or with "consent" - but she's too young to understand all its ramifications. 18 is the age of majority, when you're capable of making legal decisions on your own.
What would you prefer, that anyone under 16 (for example) is a child, anyone over 18 is an adult, and you're at the judge's mercy if the picture is of a 16 to 18-year-old as to whether they're a child or an adult? Should we roll a d20+age to see if they're a child?
There's no better option for a law than setting a sharp cutoff, and 18 seems to be working well.
Slashdot Mirror
Post your location so that local Slashdotters can reply. This website is full of people that could do the job if they could only talk to you in person.
Could a digital answering machine theoretically have a vulnerability? All I can think of is a buffer overflow, and presumably they account for humans talking too long; a DOS attack, which really doesn't cause problems; or a simple bad electrical signal, which requires someone attacking your physical phoneline or a really evil phone company.
It is a computer, though, so shouldn't it have bugs?
Sign up for Gmail using SMS - this lets them limit the number of accounts per cell phone number
Um, judicial review?
Just a thought...
Why would anyone use a word like "blog" when it is not needed. Especially in this case where it makes no friggen sense.
Why would anyone use a word like "friggen" when it is not needed? For the fun of it.
People are too sensitive these days.
They're Native Americans, not American Indians! American Indian sounds too much like Indian-American, which is people like myself, Kumar in Harold and Kumar, Bose (the speaker guy), etc. You insensitive clod!
Clearly you've never read the Bible. Check out Leviticus sometime. Look at how God himself sends the Angel of Death to commit mass infanticide when he could've just teleported the Israelites out of Egypt.
Heard of punishment? Is it more just to arrest crime-committing members of opposing gangs, or "just" force them to move to different cities?
Have you ever read these "holy books"? The Qur'an in particular is clear in its message that holy war against the enemies of Islam is not only permissible but encouraged. Can you not see the difference between criticism and a call to war?
And how is this a holy war? Even secular governments know to follow basic rules such as not killing civilians for the fun of it. I would hope that with a nice "Thou shalt not kill" in the middle of it, you should know that the exemption for holy war is a very limited one.
Seriously, I'm sorry if you're a believing Christian who doesn't want to face the realities of his religion's history, but it's not my fault.
Where does the Bible call Christians into holy war? The wars of the Israelites and "spiritual warfare" do not count. Where is even the slightest justification for the Crusades?
Science and religion are polar opposites in their approaches to problem-solving that it's difficult to draw parallels between them.
Yes. To phrase it in an extreme way, science drives around looking for road signs. Religion gets out of the car and asks for directions, admitting that it's unable to find a way on its own. True, a systematic search will get you the right answer, and you can't trust any old Joe to know directions. But which is a smarter approach?
You simply deny that these passages even exist.
As do I. Here, BibleGateway has a search feature. Reply with a reference to the passages where we're told to "hate the darkies" and then I'll listen to you.
Speaking of darkies, Acts 8:26-38 shows a reference where Philip preaches to a leading Ethiopian statesman.
You can't show "infallible" scriptures to be wrong.
Yes you can. Nobody (well, nobody sane) said the text of the Bible is infallible. It's a human translation of a human translation of a human transcription of ideas that were once infallible and divinely inspired by God. Besides, Acts 10:9-16 shows God revoking the various food laws.
Under what contexts are the murder of thousands of innocent children acceptable? Or unleashing biological weapons on the entire Egyptian population? Or disrupting their water supply? Do you not see the parallels between Moses' actions and modern-day terrorism?
What about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Was there no justification for that? What about simply going to war? You're killing enemy soldiers who were probably drafted and have no serious ideological opinions in favor of the current party.
Stop this stupid arguing, for goodness sake. No-one ever needed knowledge and learning and a good brain; they only ever needed the Holy Spirit.
That makes no sense. Remember the parable about the talents? Where one guy invested his money and was praised, and the other guy buried it in the ground and was condemned? God gave us a brain. Use it.
Nah, it actually says "Action canceled." For those unsullied users who have never touched IE in their life, this means that the user pressed Stop at some point, and doesn't mean that it's not actually connected.
I wonder if this is like native asians and the letters 'r' and 'l'-- if you don't learn the difference when you are young then your brain will have problems thinking that way.
I can attest to that. My parents speak an Indic language that has about 2 "l"s and 3 "r"s, as well as hard and soft consonants and long and short vowels. I can never tell which one they're using, and I often confuse words that they use because the two words in the minimal pair (two words differing by one sound used to demonstrate that a language considers two sounds to be different) sound the same to my American English-trained ear.
(It's a long story why I didn't learn their language. I used to know it, but I had to replace it with English when I entered school.)
Read your quote. but this only occurred if the odd-man-out was in the right half of the visual field, and not when it was in the left half.
What they're saying is that if you see the guy with the USSR t-shirt out of the corner of your right eye, your response is training-dependent, but if you see him out of the corner of your left eye, your response is universal.
Naturally, the USSR t-shirt is a strained example. Sapir-Whorf says that people's thought processes are affected by how they can verbalize internally and thus by the language they use internally. People taught that blue and green were the same could differentiate blue and green just as well as everyone else if it was in their left eye.
creating a cutsey neutered Paris Hilton froo-froo lap dog OS
I won't even begin to list the fallacies in that, but since we're back on topic...isn't that what Windows (or at least Windows XP Home) is? If you want to do cool things with it, get XP Pro. If you want to do really cool things, get Windows Server 2003. If you want to do extremely cool things and avoid the Windows paradigm, get Linux.
Paris Hilton needs an OS, and Microsoft has written it. Anyone who needs raw sockets on a regular basis should not also plan to use XP Home on a regular basis. Use the right tool for the job.
And how about the wing of the FBI that investiages kidnappings? If your child is kidnapped, you won't appreciate that?
How about the FBI department that handles serial killers? Surely that's an infringement of our freedom?
Of course, the FBI should have gotten a search warrant, but I'm sure they will now and I hope they can determine who sent the threats, because I want to live in a world where I know if someone sends me a death threat (or what-have-you), that they will be found and I won't have to fear my safety on their account.
You don't see a use for the FBI? Pleeease.
If they were in the news more for finding serial killers and recovering kidnapped children than they were for using the PATRIOTACT, then perhaps. There is a use for an FBI, but not this one.
Correct.
No but it would lend support to the statement that he's a moron
Incorrect, non sequitur, and evidence of not understanding "ad hominem". Unless you're stating that he has that particular 10-point IQ range designated "moron", that fell out of use ages ago, calling him a moron is a personal attack. What if he's being paid off by an underling of Stallman to make as much noise as possible about Windows vulnerabilities - and since Windows is so vulnerable, he's generally right? What if he's just misguided but using useful sources? What if he jumped the shark some time back?
If you can lend any support to the theory "Gibson is unqualified to offer opinions on Windows security," you'd have a leg. If you can simply prove "Raw sockets do not affect the attack level of the Internet," your case would be done, and you would be attacking the argument, not the person. Why risk making an unrelated ad hominem that could be a fallacy, if it's far easier, and more relevant to the Slashdot discussion at large, to prove the original statement?
Here, to bring this on topic, refute these claims about raw sockets.
Therefore, just like everything else they've been recently disabling in the name of security, raw sockets have ample justification not to be there.
The wiretaps were immoral and in contravention of natural law and the rights of man. According to almost every political thinker in the late 1700s, they would constitute more than enough reason to overthrow the government.
Whether they were declared legal by the same government that did the wiretapping is perhaps an interesting point to debate when you're bored.
Or the best combination [of] Music+Google: Moogle!
Moogle!
There is no music in the Googleplex. The music is committing suicide at the gates of Mountain View.
Ad hominem. Just because one idea was debunked doesn't necessarily mean that all of Gibson's theories are dead wrong.
Since the government isn't supposed to engage in entrapment, private companies will.
You give way too little credit to the government. They could just have avoided coming up with the idea of entrapment in the first place. All of these defenses and legal terms were either coined by the government (through civil law), or used by a clever lawyer and accepted by the judge (through common law). If they wanted to, they could've built a Star Chamber. They haven't*. Here's a surprise: the justice system is actually meant to carry out justice.
Why should private companies be distinguishable from governments? In a capitalist society, private companies are the best group of the people - and where have you heard those last three words before?
*Yes, I know there are some Star Chambers in the US, but they're only used for a few cases like terrorism where you can't get a fair trial in the US anyway. Not that I'm defending them, just that this particular case will be tried in a fair courtroom.
I knew I had seen that name before...Thanks Wikipedia. Dr. Baron-Cohen is the cousin of Sacha Baron Cohen, alias Ali G.
I just wish they would stop calling it "child pornography".
Actually, isn't "child" exactly the right word? If you use something like "pedopornography" or "prepubescent pornography", then you make it a sexual definition. The word "child" refers to someone who is socially immature, not necessarily sexually immature. It refers to someone who hasn't lived long enough to learn what the consequences of his or her actions may be. It's the same "child" in the phrase "think of the children".
This greatly offends me as an Asian-American.
You greatly offend me as an Asian-American. I thought we were smart. Evidently I was wrong.
If you've never heard the phrase "chink in the armor" then you obviously don't know enough about the English language to criticize use of it.
Me too. From what I figured even in the summary, he downloaded it, printed it out, and held a bonfire because he felt it was evil - and was prosecuted for printing it. That would have made even less sense.
Well, ignoring the fact that puberty doesn't happen overnight, the point is that we're not looking for a sexually mature model. We really don't care about the particular sexual deviancies of the viewer; we're worried that a young girl may be sold into the porn industry either without consent or with "consent" - but she's too young to understand all its ramifications. 18 is the age of majority, when you're capable of making legal decisions on your own.
What would you prefer, that anyone under 16 (for example) is a child, anyone over 18 is an adult, and you're at the judge's mercy if the picture is of a 16 to 18-year-old as to whether they're a child or an adult? Should we roll a d20+age to see if they're a child?
There's no better option for a law than setting a sharp cutoff, and 18 seems to be working well.