I take it you've never compiled any KDE applications.-)
I'm kinda joking, but the compilation time for complex kde stuff is humongous. It's one of the few things I quite like about Gnome stuff - it's pure C and is real rapid to build.
I'm getting the impression that political theory is a one dimensional line for you.
Don't know if you've ever seen it, but http://www.politicalcompass.org/ is a good starting point to begin to understand that freedom of various forms makes this a multi-dimensional thing.
I'm not convinced it's as simple as political compass make it either, but for sure you can't put these things along a one dimensional line of "left" vs "right". That's just dumming down for dumming downs sake.
There are marked differences between fascism and socialism. Do some study so you don't look like so badly informed.-)
It makes me a sad panda to come across that kind of thing.
I guess here in Belgium I'm lucky enough to have a group of enlightened peers where I never see it.
I do know that in the U.K. (where I'm originally from) there is some intelligent design being pushing in schools which depresses me a little. I'd be surprised to see that agenda being blatantly pushed like in the US though. The British tend to be pretty uptight and keep their religion personal.
Thanks for taking your time to discuss.
Buy yourself a Belgian Beer - I'd recommend Orval or for something stronger a Westmalle Tripel:-)
I've noticed how trigger happy people are when it comes to discussing the validity and falsifiability of scientific theories and specifically evolution on Slashdot.
Are atheists and scientists so heavily pushed around by religious types (had a nastier expression in here earlier) in America that this is a common reflex?
You may be overestimating how certain we can possibly be about the world
I've explained myself badly. I'm perhaps not overestimating how certain we can be - I lean more towards underestimating how good our guesses are. I'll capitalise the words when I mean the scientific terminology.
Yes I am aware that a Law isn't a Theory, and that a Theory isn't an Hypothesis which is a little better than a Guess.
I still disagree - Law and / or Theory is not the highest level of certainty.
Here are some co-existing competing scientific Theories:
Perhaps you would argue these are not Theories in the scientific sense? If so ignore the rest:-)
How can multiple Theories have the highest certainty? This makes no sense.
For example - back when just the Theory of relativity existed - did it stop there?
No, they kept working, kept thinking and the Theory of special relativity was born that evolved the Theory into something better, with a higher certainty (than the previous Theory - relativity) that it better resembles the universe around us.
The falsifiability of scientific Theories (and Laws too) is one of the core tenets of scientific principles. We don't accept them as dogma - we continue to re-evaluate their worth and their applicability to evidence and facts.
Just because we haven't yet found a way to falsify a particular Theory or Law doesn't mean we should accept on faith that said Theory or Law is certain, or offers the highest certainty about something that we can imagine.
Except with TLS you are putting the logic and handling in every application. Putting it further down the stack makes it easier to update/patch etc.
There really needs to be just one place to put the necessary functionality and fix the bugs (which we have to fix anyway to get the implementation of IPSec/DNSSec correct).
While we are having our christmas internet list filled, can we also start using DNSSec/IPSec and distributed trust for authentication between email servers please?
Yep fair enough it was a little childish on my part. In my defence you also were putting words into my mouth.-):
Going back to your post, sounds like you condemn one scientists principles on evolution so you don't believe in evolution full stop? Probably not, but your post comes across like that. Do you also condemn the thousands of other scientists and their evidence, who back up the theory of evolution too?
These are the charges against me from your post I was responding too - sorry if I hurt your feelings but you're an Adult, right?
I don't think anywhere in my post I condemned Dawkins principles on evolution - I clearly stated I was condemning his distortion of scientific principles - i.e. Scientific theories have a confidence level. It just so happens that Dawkins is in the scientific field of Evolution.
Do you dispute that scientific theories have a confidence level? If they have a confidence level, having Dawkins espouse scientific theories as irrefutable is a distortion of scientific principles - and I stand by that.
Since you got blinded by "OMG someone who doesn't believe in Evolution!111" I'll explain it again for the children.
There are parts of evolution theory for which we do not have any evidence or examples in the fossil record - one such part being speciation events (rapid evolutionary leaps creating a new species). Theories exist for how speciation can occur are strongly backed up by corroborating evidence, but no direct evidence exists.
I 100% accept the facts and evidence we have of evolutionary fact.
I'm 100% behind evolutionary theory being the best explanation we have - but simply stating it is 100% correct goes against my scientific principles, and if you are a scientist it should go against yours, too. Real scientists don't blindy accept scientific theory.
Let me try just one more time to see if it sinks in:
Scientific theories have an associated confidence level - relativity was a widely accepted scientific theory with a high confidence level - yet special relativity showed the flaws in the theory.
Sorry mate, it is you who does not understand what a scientific theory is.
Further more using evolution is a particularly bad example, as there are parts that are observable fact (micro evolution, mutation and generational selection).
There are also parts that are in the realm of scientific theory (macro evolution, speciation events). We have no direct evidence or observations that make it 100% sure - thus it continues to be postulated theory.
Quite frankly abusing the scientific process in this manner it is only giving ammunition to the creationists since we look like politicians instead of logic followers.
Science treats you like an adult - that means that it tells us "here's our best guess" or "we don't know" rather than "it's fact".
Scientific theories come with varying levels of confidence. They don't magically get "100%" confidence by being accepted as a leading theory for something.
Whilst I respect Dawkins academic qualifications I condemn his distortion of the scientific principles in this regards.
And here's the thing about scientific theories - they come with varying degrees of confidence. Being a scientific theory does not infer we are necessarily as sure as we can possibly be - it's just perhaps the best current explanation for the evidence (and facts) we have.
And it's entirely possible (and indeed healthy) that we have multiple ones at the same time.
Rather "Huh, gravity implies there is a mass here that we can't see with our electromagnetic detection devices".
I admit:-) probably a bad choice of words - but gravitational theory is still that - a theory.
Without stronger corroborating evidence for the dark matter such as that provided by the above poster I was reluctant to take things such as dark matter on as fact.
I was inclined to accept it as a possible explanation but also entertain the chance that our existing theories are not rich enough and thus dark matter was a weak theory (or my bad term, fudge) until more evidence is given.
Given the evidence the grand parent makes I place much greater confidence in it existing.
I liked and agreed with the sentiments in the rest of your post apart from this bit:
It's not that I want to force my idea / style of government onto the people of China, but.. well.. besides North Korea and Cuba are there any other communistic states left? Would any people as a whole choose to convert to a communistic system. I'm thinking no.
If anything - shouldn't it be a push for self-government? Democratic communism falls under this banner.
I say if anything - since I lean strongly in favour of "if the people want it enough, they will get it themselves".
Hehehe I can't imagine that Harry Reid or Mitch McConnell give the first flying crap about idiots like me.
I'm a Brit living in Belgium who thinks any two party system of polarising public opinion and policy is broken. I'm for non-affiliated public representatives with proper proportional representation. A two party system is why you end up with policy like this - winner takes all and tyranny of the majority etc.
I just thought the piece was amusing (yes biased, but it's kinda hard to find anything that isn't about U.S. politics) and would be sure to get things going:-0
In the final leg through the House I'd agree with you.
I do think the initial debate and writing of the Bill was watered down with the "Bi-partisan" discussions and taking on board some of the Republican suggestions. I mean it wasn't exclusively written with input only from Democrats. That would make rather a mockery of the system, right?
For the record, I'm a Brit living in Belgium so I don't have a vested interest in seeing one party or the other "win" in this - I'm just hopeful that this might start to help the people that really need it.
Not looking after your sick is something to be ashamed of.
From the U.S. population point of view - there are very few people that seem to be against reform.
This bill in particular has basically been a power play between the two big parties if I understand correctly.
It didn't really pan out brilliantly for either side - the Republicans get egg on their face because the other side got their bill through anyway, whilst the Democrats didn't really get the thing they wanted because they watered down their original bill to try and get Republican support.
The lead up to why this silly thing got pushed through can basically be summarised as follows (stolen from Digg - it's a great summation):
Democrats: "We need health care reform" Republicans: "Liberal fascists! Give us a majority and we'll do it better" Democrats: "Done, you have majority of both houses"
12 years later, health care is irrefutably worse in every respect for every single person in the United States
Democrats: "We need health care reform" Republicans: "Liberal fascists! Americans are tired of partisan politics!" Democrats: "OK, let's compromise" Republicans: "OK, get rid of half your ideas" Democrats: "Done" Republicans: "Too liberal, get rid of half your ideas" Democrats: "Done" Republicans: "Too liberal, get rid of half your ideas" Democrats: "Done" Republicans: "Too liberal, get rid of half your ideas" Democrats: "Done" Republicans: "Too liberal, get rid of half your ideas" Democrats: "Done. Time to end debate" Republicans: "Too liberal, we need more debate, we will filibuster to prevent you from voting" Democrats: "OK, we'll vote--sorry guys, debate is ended. It's time to vote on the bill" Republicans: "Too liberal, we vote no" Democrats: "OK, it passed anyway--sorry guys."
One month later
Republicans: "Wait--wait, OK, we have less of a minority now so we can filibuster forever." Democrats: "Sorry, the bill already passed, we need it to pass the House now" Republicans: "But we have enough to filibuster" Democrats: "Sorry, the bill already passed, we need it to pass the House now" Republicans: "Liberal fascists! You haven't listened to our ideas! You've shut us out of this whole process!" Democrats: "Sorry, show us your proposal" Republicans: "Smaller government" Democrats: "That's not very specific" Republicans: "OK, here's our detailed proposal--It's our common-sense ideas we spent 12 years not enacting" Democrats: "OK, we'll add a bunch more of your ideas" Republicans: "Liberal fascists! You included all these back-room deals" Democrats: "OK, we'll get rid of the back-room deals" Republicans: "Liberal fascists! You're using obscure procedural tricks to eliminate the back-room deals!" Democrats: "No, we're using reconciliation, which both parties have used dozens of times for much larger bills" Republicans: "Liberal fascists! You're pressuring Congressmen to vote for your bill! Scandal!" Democrats: "It's called 'whipping', it's been done since 1789" Republicans: "Liberal fascists! Can't you see the American people don't want this?" Democrats: "This bill is mildly unpopular (40-50%), doing nothing (your proposal) is extraordinarily unpopular (4-6%)" Republicans: "We need to start over! We need to start over!" Democrats: "We should really consider voting--" Republicans: "Liberal fascists! Start over! Clean slate! Common-sense! America!" Democrats: "OK, suit yourselves, here it comes"
but I have to question how useful it is to require people to change their passwords often.
I think the idea is keep the attack window for brute forcing a password as slim as possible.
Assuming they can only make so many attempts with a specified time window - changing the password after 30 days or less means any attacker only has that window in which to work their way through their dictionary and character sequences. After that time they've got to start again.
In practice of course they might not know when that 30 day window starts or ends - which reduces the window even further.
Basically - not changing the password at all means I can spend 6 months brute forcing a password - probably at a rate that you might not see the network activity (presumably login failures would get noticed - but that depends on if the service in question correctly logs the failures).
Well according to the wikipedia info (not sure how up to date it is) - the problem is that Sun chose (on purpose) an open license (CDDL) that makes distributing a derivative work of it and GPL software illegal.
Even a clean room implementation may have issues due to patents.
You can apparently try to run it in userspace (that's the FUSE stuff the other posters are talking about) but that's a messy solution for sure.
Chances are we'll have a production btrfs before we get an in-kernel ZFS implementation.
Slashdot Mirror
I take it you've never compiled any KDE applications .-)
I'm kinda joking, but the compilation time for complex kde stuff is humongous. It's one of the few things I quite like about Gnome stuff - it's pure C and is real rapid to build.
Hehe, yes, I'm a gentoo ricer.
I have altered the deal. Pray I do not alter it further.
I'm getting the impression that political theory is a one dimensional line for you.
Don't know if you've ever seen it, but http://www.politicalcompass.org/ is a good starting point to begin to understand that freedom of various forms makes this a multi-dimensional thing.
I'm not convinced it's as simple as political compass make it either, but for sure you can't put these things along a one dimensional line of "left" vs "right". That's just dumming down for dumming downs sake.
There are marked differences between fascism and socialism. Do some study so you don't look like so badly informed .-)
It makes me a sad panda to come across that kind of thing.
I guess here in Belgium I'm lucky enough to have a group of enlightened peers where I never see it.
I do know that in the U.K. (where I'm originally from) there is some intelligent design being pushing in schools which depresses me a little. I'd be surprised to see that agenda being blatantly pushed like in the US though. The British tend to be pretty uptight and keep their religion personal.
Thanks for taking your time to discuss.
Buy yourself a Belgian Beer - I'd recommend Orval or for something stronger a Westmalle Tripel :-)
I've noticed how trigger happy people are when it comes to discussing the validity and falsifiability of scientific theories and specifically evolution on Slashdot.
Are atheists and scientists so heavily pushed around by religious types (had a nastier expression in here earlier) in America that this is a common reflex?
I've explained myself badly. I'm perhaps not overestimating how certain we can be - I lean more towards underestimating how good our guesses are. I'll capitalise the words when I mean the scientific terminology.
Yes I am aware that a Law isn't a Theory, and that a Theory isn't an Hypothesis which is a little better than a Guess.
I still disagree - Law and / or Theory is not the highest level of certainty.
Here are some co-existing competing scientific Theories:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n21_v143/ai_13797600/
Perhaps you would argue these are not Theories in the scientific sense? If so ignore the rest :-)
How can multiple Theories have the highest certainty? This makes no sense.
For example - back when just the Theory of relativity existed - did it stop there?
No, they kept working, kept thinking and the Theory of special relativity was born that evolved the Theory into something better, with a higher certainty (than the previous Theory - relativity) that it better resembles the universe around us.
The falsifiability of scientific Theories (and Laws too) is one of the core tenets of scientific principles. We don't accept them as dogma - we continue to re-evaluate their worth and their applicability to evidence and facts.
Just because we haven't yet found a way to falsify a particular Theory or Law doesn't mean we should accept on faith that said Theory or Law is certain, or offers the highest certainty about something that we can imagine.
This is slashdot. I wouldn't if I was you.
Except with TLS you are putting the logic and handling in every application. Putting it further down the stack makes it easier to update/patch etc.
There really needs to be just one place to put the necessary functionality and fix the bugs (which we have to fix anyway to get the implementation of IPSec/DNSSec correct).
Totally agree.
While we are having our christmas internet list filled, can we also start using DNSSec/IPSec and distributed trust for authentication between email servers please?
Yep fair enough it was a little childish on my part. In my defence you also were putting words into my mouth .-):
These are the charges against me from your post I was responding too - sorry if I hurt your feelings but you're an Adult, right?
I don't think anywhere in my post I condemned Dawkins principles on evolution - I clearly stated I was condemning his distortion of scientific principles - i.e. Scientific theories have a confidence level. It just so happens that Dawkins is in the scientific field of Evolution.
Do you dispute that scientific theories have a confidence level? If they have a confidence level, having Dawkins espouse scientific theories as irrefutable is a distortion of scientific principles - and I stand by that.
I knew about the cmbr, I didn't know it was corroborating evidence for dark matter.
Thanks for the heads up.
Since you got blinded by "OMG someone who doesn't believe in Evolution!111" I'll explain it again for the children.
There are parts of evolution theory for which we do not have any evidence or examples in the fossil record - one such part being speciation events (rapid evolutionary leaps creating a new species). Theories exist for how speciation can occur are strongly backed up by corroborating evidence, but no direct evidence exists.
I 100% accept the facts and evidence we have of evolutionary fact.
I'm 100% behind evolutionary theory being the best explanation we have - but simply stating it is 100% correct goes against my scientific principles, and if you are a scientist it should go against yours, too. Real scientists don't blindy accept scientific theory.
Let me try just one more time to see if it sinks in:
Scientific theories have an associated confidence level - relativity was a widely accepted scientific theory with a high confidence level - yet special relativity showed the flaws in the theory.
Or "Scientific theories evolve".
Sorry mate, it is you who does not understand what a scientific theory is.
Further more using evolution is a particularly bad example, as there are parts that are observable fact (micro evolution, mutation and generational selection).
There are also parts that are in the realm of scientific theory (macro evolution, speciation events). We have no direct evidence or observations that make it 100% sure - thus it continues to be postulated theory.
Quite frankly abusing the scientific process in this manner it is only giving ammunition to the creationists since we look like politicians instead of logic followers.
Science treats you like an adult - that means that it tells us "here's our best guess" or "we don't know" rather than "it's fact".
Scientific theories come with varying levels of confidence. They don't magically get "100%" confidence by being accepted as a leading theory for something.
Whilst I respect Dawkins academic qualifications I condemn his distortion of the scientific principles in this regards.
And here's the thing about scientific theories - they come with varying degrees of confidence. Being a scientific theory does not infer we are necessarily as sure as we can possibly be - it's just perhaps the best current explanation for the evidence (and facts) we have.
And it's entirely possible (and indeed healthy) that we have multiple ones at the same time.
I admit :-) probably a bad choice of words - but gravitational theory is still that - a theory.
Without stronger corroborating evidence for the dark matter such as that provided by the above poster I was reluctant to take things such as dark matter on as fact.
I was inclined to accept it as a possible explanation but also entertain the chance that our existing theories are not rich enough and thus dark matter was a weak theory (or my bad term, fudge) until more evidence is given.
Given the evidence the grand parent makes I place much greater confidence in it existing.
Very nice. Thank you for explaining a little about what evidence we have for dark matter.
I knew about the fudge factor we needed to get the equations to work - I didn't know we have actually seen something like that.
I liked and agreed with the sentiments in the rest of your post apart from this bit:
If anything - shouldn't it be a push for self-government? Democratic communism falls under this banner.
I say if anything - since I lean strongly in favour of "if the people want it enough, they will get it themselves".
Hehehe I can't imagine that Harry Reid or Mitch McConnell give the first flying crap about idiots like me.
I'm a Brit living in Belgium who thinks any two party system of polarising public opinion and policy is broken. I'm for non-affiliated public representatives with proper proportional representation. A two party system is why you end up with policy like this - winner takes all and tyranny of the majority etc.
I just thought the piece was amusing (yes biased, but it's kinda hard to find anything that isn't about U.S. politics) and would be sure to get things going :-0
In the final leg through the House I'd agree with you.
I do think the initial debate and writing of the Bill was watered down with the "Bi-partisan" discussions and taking on board some of the Republican suggestions. I mean it wasn't exclusively written with input only from Democrats. That would make rather a mockery of the system, right?
For the record, I'm a Brit living in Belgium so I don't have a vested interest in seeing one party or the other "win" in this - I'm just hopeful that this might start to help the people that really need it.
Not looking after your sick is something to be ashamed of.
From the U.S. population point of view - there are very few people that seem to be against reform.
This bill in particular has basically been a power play between the two big parties if I understand correctly.
It didn't really pan out brilliantly for either side - the Republicans get egg on their face because the other side got their bill through anyway, whilst the Democrats didn't really get the thing they wanted because they watered down their original bill to try and get Republican support.
The lead up to why this silly thing got pushed through can basically be summarised as follows (stolen from Digg - it's a great summation):
Democrats: "We need health care reform"
Republicans: "Liberal fascists! Give us a majority and we'll do it better"
Democrats: "Done, you have majority of both houses"
12 years later, health care is irrefutably worse in every respect for every single person in the United States
Democrats: "We need health care reform"
Republicans: "Liberal fascists! Americans are tired of partisan politics!"
Democrats: "OK, let's compromise"
Republicans: "OK, get rid of half your ideas"
Democrats: "Done"
Republicans: "Too liberal, get rid of half your ideas"
Democrats: "Done"
Republicans: "Too liberal, get rid of half your ideas"
Democrats: "Done"
Republicans: "Too liberal, get rid of half your ideas"
Democrats: "Done"
Republicans: "Too liberal, get rid of half your ideas"
Democrats: "Done. Time to end debate"
Republicans: "Too liberal, we need more debate, we will filibuster to prevent you from voting"
Democrats: "OK, we'll vote--sorry guys, debate is ended. It's time to vote on the bill"
Republicans: "Too liberal, we vote no"
Democrats: "OK, it passed anyway--sorry guys."
One month later
Republicans: "Wait--wait, OK, we have less of a minority now so we can filibuster forever."
Democrats: "Sorry, the bill already passed, we need it to pass the House now"
Republicans: "But we have enough to filibuster"
Democrats: "Sorry, the bill already passed, we need it to pass the House now"
Republicans: "Liberal fascists! You haven't listened to our ideas! You've shut us out of this whole process!"
Democrats: "Sorry, show us your proposal"
Republicans: "Smaller government"
Democrats: "That's not very specific"
Republicans: "OK, here's our detailed proposal--It's our common-sense ideas we spent 12 years not enacting"
Democrats: "OK, we'll add a bunch more of your ideas"
Republicans: "Liberal fascists! You included all these back-room deals"
Democrats: "OK, we'll get rid of the back-room deals"
Republicans: "Liberal fascists! You're using obscure procedural tricks to eliminate the back-room deals!"
Democrats: "No, we're using reconciliation, which both parties have used dozens of times for much larger bills"
Republicans: "Liberal fascists! You're pressuring Congressmen to vote for your bill! Scandal!"
Democrats: "It's called 'whipping', it's been done since 1789"
Republicans: "Liberal fascists! Can't you see the American people don't want this?"
Democrats: "This bill is mildly unpopular (40-50%), doing nothing (your proposal) is extraordinarily unpopular (4-6%)"
Republicans: "We need to start over! We need to start over!"
Democrats: "We should really consider voting--"
Republicans: "Liberal fascists! Start over! Clean slate! Common-sense! America!"
Democrats: "OK, suit yourselves, here it comes"
I think the idea is keep the attack window for brute forcing a password as slim as possible.
Assuming they can only make so many attempts with a specified time window - changing the password after 30 days or less means any attacker only has that window in which to work their way through their dictionary and character sequences. After that time they've got to start again.
In practice of course they might not know when that 30 day window starts or ends - which reduces the window even further.
Basically - not changing the password at all means I can spend 6 months brute forcing a password - probably at a rate that you might not see the network activity (presumably login failures would get noticed - but that depends on if the service in question correctly logs the failures).
The usual keywords like "crack" "moderators" "on".
Re-arrange into a well know slashdot saying.
Well according to the wikipedia info (not sure how up to date it is) - the problem is that Sun chose (on purpose) an open license (CDDL) that makes distributing a derivative work of it and GPL software illegal.
Even a clean room implementation may have issues due to patents.
You can apparently try to run it in userspace (that's the FUSE stuff the other posters are talking about) but that's a messy solution for sure.
Chances are we'll have a production btrfs before we get an in-kernel ZFS implementation.
You mean they didn't write a visual basic GUI to trace an IP address?.
From the sounds of this story the Aussie Gov't hired the technical consultants from 24 as their sysadmin and security guy.
You're right of course. I just lazily lumped non process mapped under "free" (since there is disk buffering too for inodes etc).