Oh yeah, he was so responsible that he allowed the kid to get hold of the key AND put the game in the same place as the gun. Surely more kids are killed in firearms accidents because they "found" a gun while looking in places they shouldn't. You may as well "hide" the gun in the refrigerator or behind the favourite candy stash. That's like hiding the soda next to bottles of bleach, or decanting bleach into soda bottles then storing them in the fridge.
Imagine hiding something from your kids in such a way that ensures that if they do find it, they also find a deadly weapon. Failsafe ?
Why not spend the money on converting closed format documents to ODF ? The public benefits, both from increased capability to access government records, and from having to be somewhat IT literate in order to do the conversion work.
I'm sure there are plenty of other situations where having an army of operators ready to convert and/or digitise records would be to the public benefit. Exposure to OSS in schools would reduce costs, and increase knowledge and even help to address the claims of whiners who claim that there aren't enough OSS educational programs for use in general education.
Spend money now, to save money later. No matter which side of the political divide you're on, you have to accept that government by definition is inherently socialist, in that it seeks to promote or protect the well being of its citizens. Surely the freedom to access public records without paying for software and the freedom to create your own software to access those records is in the interests of every citizen. No public website should demand that you use a certain browser, or need access to proprietary software to view the content. You might even extend that to the service sector too. After all, there are regulations about disabled access already. Surely we are all disabled when a bank demands you run activex, or refuses to tell you your balance unless you are using IE, or you can't watch a video on a news site because you don't run the latest DRM encrusted media player. It's discrimination when these things occur, and that is one of the things government is supposed to eliminate.
My niece has just moved up to the next level of school and now needs a computer to do homework. But it has to be Windows. Whatever you say about the cost of Windows, it is not capable of standing alone in the market without professional people to support it. It is like requiring all school children to carry an expensive bucket which is known to have a hole in it. But that doesn't matter, because you create jobs by having other people follow the kids around with a non-holed bucket, and clearing up after them. It is not efficient, and lack of efficiency is what costs money. You never make things better by legislating inefficiency.
It's a bit like the old "teach a man to fish" saying. If you give kids only proprietary software, is it surprising that they have to keep paying for it in adulthood ? Teach them OSS and they have the tools for the rest of their lives, plus they come to expect that anything government related is open to inspection and criticism, which is the way it should be.
Flamebait ? I don't see anything deliberately contentious in any of what I said. Probably some one in group a), b) or c) lashing out with no thought (as is their wont).
Surely the point is to avoid waste entirely. If you buy products that have cleaner materials in the first place, that is better than buying products which you know will end up being unsafely recycled. Relying on someone else to clear up after you, however conscientious you are about recycling is just "out of sight out of mind".
In a world where such a large percentage are part of a botnet, surely people need to learn something more than point and click. It's not someone elses fault, you have ultimate control. Instead, you pay for antivirus, and spy sweepers, and updates and privacy violations. How much money is spent on things that should be irrelevant ? (don't start on the "if linux was as popular it would have just as many security issues" argument. If the users were taught to have a clue in the first place it would never have been an issue.)
When did the easiest thing ever be the right thing to do ?
Schools are supposed to teach you how to think, not which button to push. Would you allow McDonalds to influence your kids education, by conditioning them to happy meals ?
I don't know about you but I have to think harder to use a linux OS than I do a Windows OS (mainly due to Linux's massive scope for personal influence). And the sad part is people think that's a bad idea. Use it or lose it.
I think the issue with schools is that nobody is selling linux to schools, and schools are doing the minimum teaching they can get away with. Whereas Microsoft is making itself available and has zero real competitors in that market. Given their market dominance the sheep follow along. Who is going to break the cycle ?
I was disappointed you equated Richard Dawkins and a troll. It seems to me that most of the problems currently on this earth are due to a) the Muslims, b) the Jews and c) the Christians.
Fair play to anybody who stands up and says "Fuck off, God doesn't exist, what are you fighting about !". So much energy and life wasted on something whose whole purpose was to promote peace (allegedly).
As a side note, it's vaguely interesting that the spellchecker in firefox complains about not using capital first letters for christians and muslims, but misunderstands jews completely.
The whole idea is to find out how it's all put together. God has no place in that process other than to remain elusive. And still we get ever closer. I don't believe we'll ever know it all anyway, but the quest is what drives us.
Humour conceals a lot of things, mostly truth.
P.S. In case you missed it, I think God is a concept, not a being.
You present it as an "either or" situation. If you were in the business of needing reference material, and had no google you would probably have already been in the library. Instead you have a "library" at home. The real world library hasn't ceased to exist. People still drive there, it still gets heated and lighted. So the facility of google is using energy over and above the energy used by the library. It has saved you a trip, but that's not the same as being more efficient.
Plus you have a computer which probably does more than 1 internet search a day, which didn't exist before, googles servers didn't exist before, it's all extra. Whether the articles figures are accurate or not, it does no-one any good to pretend that we are getting all this convenience ecologically impact free. Surely the first step is to establish accurate figures so we know what the impact is, and work from there.
I thought the figure was a little high myself, but I've seen data of 0.97Kg CO2 per 1KwH for a coal powered station so it's probably not far off. That's a lot if you're on the net all day.
I'm sorry but honestly why do I care what happens to this village in China? They aren't innocent victums, they willingly bring the toxic crap in and have their citizens work on it. As soon as they want to they can stop taking shipments when they feel the health risks are too great... Until they do that, why should I feel bad for problems they have brought on themselves?
You can't be serious? Do you really think the people working with this toxic waste know the dangers? I'm sure their government does but China isn't exactly a free society.
More to the point, you are responsible for throwing the stuff away in the first place. So pretending they brought the problems on themselves is pathetic evasion. You're just defending your right to pollute. Somebody still has to clean up after you. Broken window fallacy much ?
I don't agree. Tying a failed login attempt to the account is basically branding the account as bad. It's not the account that has problems it is the user who doesn't know the password. It doesn't matter if the botnet does spawn new sessions or switch IPs if they don't know the password. They will just run into the delay again. The legitimate user can log in at any stage because they know the correct password, and therefore do not enter a delaying loop. The only way you might run into trouble is if you share the same IP as the imposter. How likely is that ?
Ever heard of threads ? The login script doesn't care who is trying to log in. It simply checks its tables to see if variable X is associated with variable Y. If not, they don't get in. In addition, if this is the 2nd or subsequent failed attempt from that IP, they don't get an answer for a gradually increasing time. This is the same script for ALL logins. You get the same delaying tactic if you get the username wrong too. All that matters is having X and Y together. When they do have the correct combination, then all the user specific stuff is fired up, by passing a variable to a separate script. It would be a waste of resources to do it any other way. The only way you could "delay DoS" anybody is by filling the pipes with requests which keeps you from accessing the login script at all, which is not a built in script delay at all, just a standard overloading of resources.
Lots of frothing about encryption and privacy, when in fact encryption won't help and privacy is moot. The ISPs already have logs of who connected to who and when. This plan merely seeks to increase and then enshrine the length of time they are kept, into law.
And advertising in general doesn't mislead young parents ?
Which world do you live in ? In this world, advertising is mostly the art of convincing someone to buy something they don't need, and had never thought of needing. Take any ad by JML for instance.
Besides which, anybody who puts advertising on their site is "hoping" that enough people will click through to provide an income stream. Nobody is forced to click an ad, in fact asking your customers to do so is against the T&C of most ad companies. So how is my blocking an ad which they can't force me to click on immoral ? I'm simply not interested in buying so why look at the ad in the first place ? Blocking it is the most humane way of avoiding ads because I save bandwidth for both parties.
I'm getting heartily sick of these shills who believe that the almighty corporations should have complete sway over what I do and think, and that avoiding their messages is akin to treason. Building a website that relies on ads to support it is fishing, plain and simple. Would it get done without the ads ? Unlikely. This is why there are so many typo-squatters set up as link farms. At least they're honest about what they're doing.
Anybody who has a site with good content and then relies on ads for other corporations products to support it is just cheap. Either charge for access, sell your own goods, or just leave the ads out. If you can't do any of those, then just don't bother. It's not like you have anything original to offer anyway. Now if it were more like the newspaper model, where the ad space is paid for up front, I could accept that. At least the money is being used to support the content. Just plastering the pages with ads when you have no way of knowing what the returns are going to be, smacks of desperation.
Ok. Over at NASAs Earth Observatory site, they have some interesting viewpoints and research together with images. There is a study (published 2006) that has been tracking the re-growth of forests after fires. Part of this work takes place in the far north of Canada, and Alaska.
Since the 1990s, scientists have known that increasing global temperatures have lengthened the growing season in the Arctic. With carbon dioxide, one of the key ingredients in photosynthesis, also on the rise, the forest should have been thriving. But it wasn't. The forest was getting browner, not greener.
They go on to discover that because of a warming climate, there are droughts occurring which deprive the forests of water, and so gradually they die. And although other trees can move in, they will suffer the same limitations. Overall, the effect is to reduce the amount of carbon held out of the atmosphere by trees, and also to extract less as time goes on leading to a higher build up of CO2, sooner. Forest on the Threshold
Who cares about the money ? For that matter who says that anything found or made in space has to be useful on earth ? If it's useful, use it. It's less to send up on a rocket. Self sufficiency is the goal both in space and on the ground. It's easier to design the perfect eco-environment when you will have to depend on it entirely. Necessity, mothers etc. On earth you can just prevaricate. Endless meetings because something else was more important. I bet the crew and the builders of the ISS have thousands of ideas on how to improve the station, but they don't have the budget. Half the reason they don't have the budget is because they don't seem to achieve anything. But they'll never achieve anything without a budget.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh yeah, he was so responsible that he allowed the kid to get hold of the key AND put the game in the same place as the gun. Surely more kids are killed in firearms accidents because they "found" a gun while looking in places they shouldn't. You may as well "hide" the gun in the refrigerator or behind the favourite candy stash. That's like hiding the soda next to bottles of bleach, or decanting bleach into soda bottles then storing them in the fridge.
Imagine hiding something from your kids in such a way that ensures that if they do find it, they also find a deadly weapon. Failsafe ?
Why not spend the money on converting closed format documents to ODF ? The public benefits, both from increased capability to access government records, and from having to be somewhat IT literate in order to do the conversion work.
I'm sure there are plenty of other situations where having an army of operators ready to convert and/or digitise records would be to the public benefit. Exposure to OSS in schools would reduce costs, and increase knowledge and even help to address the claims of whiners who claim that there aren't enough OSS educational programs for use in general education.
Spend money now, to save money later. No matter which side of the political divide you're on, you have to accept that government by definition is inherently socialist, in that it seeks to promote or protect the well being of its citizens. Surely the freedom to access public records without paying for software and the freedom to create your own software to access those records is in the interests of every citizen. No public website should demand that you use a certain browser, or need access to proprietary software to view the content. You might even extend that to the service sector too. After all, there are regulations about disabled access already. Surely we are all disabled when a bank demands you run activex, or refuses to tell you your balance unless you are using IE, or you can't watch a video on a news site because you don't run the latest DRM encrusted media player. It's discrimination when these things occur, and that is one of the things government is supposed to eliminate.
My niece has just moved up to the next level of school and now needs a computer to do homework. But it has to be Windows. Whatever you say about the cost of Windows, it is not capable of standing alone in the market without professional people to support it. It is like requiring all school children to carry an expensive bucket which is known to have a hole in it. But that doesn't matter, because you create jobs by having other people follow the kids around with a non-holed bucket, and clearing up after them. It is not efficient, and lack of efficiency is what costs money. You never make things better by legislating inefficiency.
It's a bit like the old "teach a man to fish" saying. If you give kids only proprietary software, is it surprising that they have to keep paying for it in adulthood ? Teach them OSS and they have the tools for the rest of their lives, plus they come to expect that anything government related is open to inspection and criticism, which is the way it should be.
Flamebait ?
I don't see anything deliberately contentious in any of what I said. Probably some one in group a), b) or c) lashing out with no thought (as is their wont).
No, I'm not missing the point.
Surely the point is to avoid waste entirely. If you buy products that have cleaner materials in the first place, that is better than buying products which you know will end up being unsafely recycled. Relying on someone else to clear up after you, however conscientious you are about recycling is just "out of sight out of mind".
In a world where such a large percentage are part of a botnet, surely people need to learn something more than point and click. It's not someone elses fault, you have ultimate control. Instead, you pay for antivirus, and spy sweepers, and updates and privacy violations. How much money is spent on things that should be irrelevant ? (don't start on the "if linux was as popular it would have just as many security issues" argument. If the users were taught to have a clue in the first place it would never have been an issue.)
When did the easiest thing ever be the right thing to do ?
Schools are supposed to teach you how to think, not which button to push. Would you allow McDonalds to influence your kids education, by conditioning them to happy meals ?
I don't know about you but I have to think harder to use a linux OS than I do a Windows OS (mainly due to Linux's massive scope for personal influence). And the sad part is people think that's a bad idea. Use it or lose it.
I think the issue with schools is that nobody is selling linux to schools, and schools are doing the minimum teaching they can get away with. Whereas Microsoft is making itself available and has zero real competitors in that market. Given their market dominance the sheep follow along. Who is going to break the cycle ?
I was disappointed you equated Richard Dawkins and a troll. It seems to me that most of the problems currently on this earth are due to a) the Muslims, b) the Jews and c) the Christians.
Fair play to anybody who stands up and says "Fuck off, God doesn't exist, what are you fighting about !". So much energy and life wasted on something whose whole purpose was to promote peace (allegedly).
As a side note, it's vaguely interesting that the spellchecker in firefox complains about not using capital first letters for christians and muslims, but misunderstands jews completely.
Only if you don't think about it.
Who said we wanted to ?
So you're saying the people who devised these experiments are stupid ?
And that is how science is done ...
The whole idea is to find out how it's all put together. God has no place in that process other than to remain elusive. And still we get ever closer. I don't believe we'll ever know it all anyway, but the quest is what drives us.
Humour conceals a lot of things, mostly truth.
P.S. In case you missed it, I think God is a concept, not a being.
You are leading two lives Mr Anderson
...
One of these lives has a future
Go on,
Pray tell ?
Hear, hear,
Adblock for the win !
You present it as an "either or" situation. If you were in the business of needing reference material, and had no google you would probably have already been in the library. Instead you have a "library" at home. The real world library hasn't ceased to exist. People still drive there, it still gets heated and lighted. So the facility of google is using energy over and above the energy used by the library. It has saved you a trip, but that's not the same as being more efficient.
Plus you have a computer which probably does more than 1 internet search a day, which didn't exist before, googles servers didn't exist before, it's all extra. Whether the articles figures are accurate or not, it does no-one any good to pretend that we are getting all this convenience ecologically impact free. Surely the first step is to establish accurate figures so we know what the impact is, and work from there.
I thought the figure was a little high myself, but I've seen data of 0.97Kg CO2 per 1KwH for a coal powered station so it's probably not far off. That's a lot if you're on the net all day.
More to the point, you are responsible for throwing the stuff away in the first place. So pretending they brought the problems on themselves is pathetic evasion. You're just defending your right to pollute. Somebody still has to clean up after you.
Broken window fallacy much ?
I don't agree. Tying a failed login attempt to the account is basically branding the account as bad. It's not the account that has problems it is the user who doesn't know the password. It doesn't matter if the botnet does spawn new sessions or switch IPs if they don't know the password. They will just run into the delay again. The legitimate user can log in at any stage because they know the correct password, and therefore do not enter a delaying loop. The only way you might run into trouble is if you share the same IP as the imposter. How likely is that ?
Ever heard of threads ? The login script doesn't care who is trying to log in. It simply checks its tables to see if variable X is associated with variable Y. If not, they don't get in. In addition, if this is the 2nd or subsequent failed attempt from that IP, they don't get an answer for a gradually increasing time. This is the same script for ALL logins. You get the same delaying tactic if you get the username wrong too. All that matters is having X and Y together. When they do have the correct combination, then all the user specific stuff is fired up, by passing a variable to a separate script. It would be a waste of resources to do it any other way. The only way you could "delay DoS" anybody is by filling the pipes with requests which keeps you from accessing the login script at all, which is not a built in script delay at all, just a standard overloading of resources.
Mod parent up.
Lots of frothing about encryption and privacy, when in fact encryption won't help and privacy is moot. The ISPs already have logs of who connected to who and when. This plan merely seeks to increase and then enshrine the length of time they are kept, into law.
Their logs are going to be full of spam anyway.
And advertising in general doesn't mislead young parents ?
Which world do you live in ?
In this world, advertising is mostly the art of convincing someone to buy something they don't need, and had never thought of needing. Take any ad by JML for instance.
Besides which, anybody who puts advertising on their site is "hoping" that enough people will click through to provide an income stream. Nobody is forced to click an ad, in fact asking your customers to do so is against the T&C of most ad companies.
So how is my blocking an ad which they can't force me to click on immoral ? I'm simply not interested in buying so why look at the ad in the first place ? Blocking it is the most humane way of avoiding ads because I save bandwidth for both parties.
I'm getting heartily sick of these shills who believe that the almighty corporations should have complete sway over what I do and think, and that avoiding their messages is akin to treason. Building a website that relies on ads to support it is fishing, plain and simple. Would it get done without the ads ? Unlikely. This is why there are so many typo-squatters set up as link farms. At least they're honest about what they're doing.
Anybody who has a site with good content and then relies on ads for other corporations products to support it is just cheap. Either charge for access, sell your own goods, or just leave the ads out. If you can't do any of those, then just don't bother. It's not like you have anything original to offer anyway.
Now if it were more like the newspaper model, where the ad space is paid for up front, I could accept that. At least the money is being used to support the content. Just plastering the pages with ads when you have no way of knowing what the returns are going to be, smacks of desperation.
Over at NASAs Earth Observatory site, they have some interesting viewpoints and research together with images. There is a study (published 2006) that has been tracking the re-growth of forests after fires. Part of this work takes place in the far north of Canada, and Alaska.
Since the 1990s, scientists have known that increasing global temperatures have lengthened the growing season in the Arctic. With carbon dioxide, one of the key ingredients in photosynthesis, also on the rise, the forest should have been thriving. But it wasn't. The forest was getting browner, not greener.
They go on to discover that because of a warming climate, there are droughts occurring which deprive the forests of water, and so gradually they die. And although other trees can move in, they will suffer the same limitations. Overall, the effect is to reduce the amount of carbon held out of the atmosphere by trees, and also to extract less as time goes on leading to a higher build up of CO2, sooner.
Forest on the Threshold
And yes, pure Oxygen is poisonous.
Why ? Surely whatever we are talking about here allows multiple logins ? I can have gmail open on 2 PCs at once, I can login over SSH more than once.
Yeah, my favourite is sticking a script in cron.daily that emails them saying "still here !".
Heron Island was good, 70km off NE Queensland. As was Uluru.
You missed the fourth mindset ; Just get off the damn earth already ! Stop fucking arguing and do it together !
All the mindsets have value, but none is going to succeed alone.
Who cares about the money ? For that matter who says that anything found or made in space has to be useful on earth ? If it's useful, use it. It's less to send up on a rocket. Self sufficiency is the goal both in space and on the ground. It's easier to design the perfect eco-environment when you will have to depend on it entirely. Necessity, mothers etc. On earth you can just prevaricate. Endless meetings because something else was more important. I bet the crew and the builders of the ISS have thousands of ideas on how to improve the station, but they don't have the budget. Half the reason they don't have the budget is because they don't seem to achieve anything. But they'll never achieve anything without a budget.