If you don't want encryption, why should you be forced to use it? WEP has its flaws anyway, as has been repeatedly pointed out. Personally, I think MAC filtering is a much more hassle-free method of securing a network, especially for small home networks.
No, an access point that doesn't allow encryption is simply the wrong solution. It is the responsibility of the user to secure the network, and it's not like it's such a great deal of work.
Wow, who would have thought I'd see this on slashdot? It makes little sense to post this question here, but yet, it was posted. And I am reading it. Which is... interesting, since my brother too was diagnosed with schizophrenia, a little over two years ago now. This thread shouts out to me to say something about it, but I find now that it is harder than it seems.
He's my twin brother, not identical, but still very much a kindred spirit of mine. We got along very well in our youths, and were each other's best friend for many years. But then, slowly, almost unnoticably, we began to grow apart. While I, in my own geekish, unassuming way, started to mature into at least a semblance of adulthood, he seemed to resist it, opting instead to retreat further and further into his own internal world.
His is truly a Beautiful Mind; he is brilliant in many fields, not least language and lingustics. But more often than not, his mind was incorrecly applied, with sad results. For instance, one long period of his life was mostly spent lamenting the fact that the world does not share a single language. It seemed a little funny to others, including me, of course, but to him it was no joke. He would truly suffer emotionally as a result of this and other obsessions.
When the 'crash' came, he had deteriorated quite badly. Although he never did drugs or alchohol of any sort, as is common with schizophrenics, he might as well have. He was unemployed and not in school, moping around the house (our parents' house, where the both of us still lived at the time). He would seldom go outside, and would sit inside his room listening to esoteric music and writing furiously on any scrap of paper he could find. This had been a long-time habit of his, and he was (and is) a brilliant writer, but we would soon find out that these latest writings of his were of a rather sinister nature. It was typical schizophrenic musings; his imagined conversations with a supernatural being who was leading him through some sorts of rites of power, through which he would realize his true spiritual potential. If only that had been true.
Like I said, it has been 2 years now, and the situation isn't much better than it was in the beginning. My brother is still in and out of institutions, heavily medicated, and inactive. He is, frankly, a shell of what he used to be, and we can only hope this will change... someday. Yes, the film 'A Beautiful Mind' was truly a best-case scenario. Although my brother is probably not a worst-case scenario, he is pretty far from the almost-happy ideal portrayed in the film. He cannot control his fits in any rational manner.
Schizophrenia is not just seeing imaginary people. More often than not, that doesn't happen at all. Extreme, debilitating bouts of irrational, uncomfortable ideas, thoughts and feelings are more common, often followed by hallucinations of many sorts. Most of the time, it is things you cannot simply block out just by concentrating. The disease is hopelessly irrational, and it hijacks the brain completely. In fact, it becomes your brain, in a manner of speaking. How can you use your brain to supress something when it's your brain itself that needs to be supressed?
I know this isn't very comforting, but it is the truth. And, perhaps I myself will feel a little better after having shared this with the world.
Officials in Washington DC revealed plans to start a brand-new 'Precrime' program to arrest perpetrators before they even commit a crime, using sophisticated 'Comatose Psychic' technology.
Said one official: 'Yeah, we reckon this will beat everything we've seen so far. I mean, why profile people when you can have 'em psychics see the stuff happening, right? Much more reliable all in all.'
Yeah, much too soon. One minute you're an ape triumphantly hurtling a bone into the air under the theme of 'Also Sprach Zarathustra', and next thing you know, the bone turns into an orbiting satellite in the year 2001. Also, you've become human and there's this weird monolith on the moon.
Aren't there enough filesystems? All you need is one!
Yes, and 640K is enough for anyone, and everything worth inventing has already been invented.
But seriously, what's wrong with creating new things? A new filesystem just might be better than the current ones. Stranger things have happened. Much stranger things, in fact. Especially in Computer Science. Remember hierarchical databases? No? Well, they used to be all the rage back in the old days, before relational databases took over. These days, the idea of using any other database model seems ludicrous. However, even those might be superseded at some point in the future.
This is very true. Computer Science is certainly not the same thing as programming. It's generally much more high-level, focusing on genenal solutions to problems instead of specifics. Essentially, it's a very math-based subject, in that it deals with mathematical structures and concepts, such as algorithms and abstract data types. The problems in Computer Science are quite often similar to those in mathematics - they take a very similar mix of creativity and intellect as problems in mathematics do.
However, there are some fields of Computer Science that are less rigid, such as the study of development processes, interface design, and such. Other fields are very, very intensely mathematical; AI and graphics are prime examples. And within every field, the level of programming that you do is mostly dependent on your own interest in programming. Computer Science covers a fairly wide spectrum; it is fairly easy to find a niche that suits your skills and interest. Many Computer Scientists hardly ever program anything, while others are dedicated code-writing machines.
Of course, it is possible to be a programmer without being a Computer Scientist, but I like to think that CS gives you a much broader and more fulfilling view of what programming is. Plus, it always helps to know some theory before sitting down and spewing out code.
Usually, viruses have a goal, like collecting your personal information, DDOSing SCO, or SOMETHING...
Sorry, but that's not all that accurate. Most often, the virus/worm is a goal in itself (and by the way, Sasser is a worm, not a virus). Viruses and worms that are tools to carry out some separate agenda are the exception, not the rule. Although recent worms such as Bagle, Netsky and MyDoom (and their numerous variants) were crafted to be 'useful' in some way, this is a fairly recent phenomenon, and still a fairly uncommon one, if one looks at everything that's being released these days. It might become the norm in the future, but that hasn't happened just yet.
My theory is that someone wrote it to disable all the spamware-infested computers out there.
They can't be spamming us if they're rebooting constantly, can they?
Interesting theory, but there's one problem. Whoever wrote Sasser did not intend for it to crash systems. This is a side effect of sloppy coding; it's not intentional.
2. "Some have asked what IBM would get if Java were open-sourced: doesn't IBM already have the source?"
Gosling's answer: Again yes, they do have the source. It's also true that anyone can get the source. The major restriction is that if folks want to redistrubute their changes, they have to pass the test suite. Which means that about the only thing that they could get from liberalization is to be able to skip testing.
So it doesn't seem to be such a big issue after all. The source is already available, and all that is required to change it and redistribute it is to pass a standard suite of tests. Now, call me crazy, but I think that's not A Bad Thing. This restriction is what helps Java to be uniform and platform-independent.
The benefits of making Java fully open source therefore seem overrated. Isn't the availablity of the source most important? Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding something...
E.g. buy V1c0din from "HornyToad@hotmail.com" and get a 2000$ fine.
But you are not buying from "HornyToad@hotmail.com"; you are buying from Joe Schmoe via www.cheapdrugs.com. With spam, you never reply back to buy the stuff; you use an alternate method that's given to you in the spam email (such as a website). Unless the product you're buying is itself illegal, you can never be successfully prosecuted for buying it. Proving that you bought it because of a spam you received is impossible, and beside the point anyway.
Even though spam is the only method used to advertise the site, that's irrelevant. The site is there, and is offering a legal product. Anyone is free to visit it and buy whatever they want from it. The spam is the real problem, and can only be tackled directly.
If I were running my own private business, I'd be inclined to unplug everyone's network connections and hand out typewriters.
I think this is pure overkill. You would lose much, much more than you would gain by implementing a scheme such as this. Morale, for one, would suffer immensely. If they had connected computers before, and are suddenly forced into accepting a more inferior arrangement, they are bound to feel the loss. This, along with the loss of access to the information resource that the Internet is (yes, yes, I know 90% of the Internet is crap, but that still leaves 10% non-crap), will probably mean a considerable loss in productivity.
Also, I would like to say that I find the idea of making employers responsible for offensive, outside email unappealing (this is my personal opinion - I am not considering the legal aspects). Where would that stop? Would ISPs then be held accountable for all the spam that their users receive? This is just shifting the blame onto a more visible target. It's hard to attack the spammers directly, so to some it makes sense to blame someone else. It does not, however, make sense to me.
Well, I 'read' the article (skimmed over it, more like), and it has precisely this to say about finite conciousness:
In this case, if one treats consciousness, conservatively, as merely a form of computation,
then one can derive a finite total lifetime for any civilization in an accelerating universe.
This conclusion results from the fact that
in such a universe one ultimately has access to only a finite volume, even after an infinite time.
In the case of actual conscious living systems, it is difficult to quantify the nature of this limit,
because we do not currently understand the precise relationship between computational complexity and consciousness.
...
If consciousness involves information processing, then when one is ultimately able to determine the minimum complexity of a conscious being in terms of the information-processing rate in bits/sec, then an upper limit on the future of consciousness within an accelerating universe can be derived.
Conclusion: They are talking about the total possible lifetime of consciousness as suck within the universe, not the finity of any single consciousness.
In close succession, Einstein received visits from physicist Werner Heisenberg, who led the Nazi German A-bomb effort, and Aage Bohr, son of physicist Niels Bohr, who became Heisenberg's rival. Fantova recounted that after the visits, Einstein called Heisenberg "a big Nazi" and commented that Bohr was more pleasant but spoke constantly.
From the context, it seems clear that Einstein is referring to Heisenberg's demeanour, perhaps also his expressed opinions and world-views. Heisenberg's past is not the issue here. Einstein was stating his personal perception of Heisenberg, as established from his own acquaintance with him.
Your beef is that people are confusing hacking with cracking yet again. I myself have developed an instinctive reaction to this phenomenon, which is simply to unconciously translate their 'hacking' into my 'cracking'
So, it doesn't bother me so much anymore. But now that you've said it, it's a perfectly valid point, and one that is too often forgotten. Everyone write this 100 times on the board now:
Please cite the section that makes it criminal to posess a "hacking device".
This seems to fit the bill:
[Begin Quote]
Article 6 - Misuse of devices
1. Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law, when committed intentionally and without right:
a. the production, sale, procurement for use, import, distribution or otherwise making available of:
1. a device, including a computer program, designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of committing any of the offences established in accordance with Article 2 - 5;
2. a computer password, access code, or similar data by which the whole or any part of a computer system is capable of being accessed with intent that it be used for the purpose of committing any of the offences established in Articles 2 - 5; and
b. the possession of an item referred to in paragraphs (a)(1) or (2) above, with intent that it be used for the purpose of committing any of the offences established in Articles 2 - 5. A Party may require by law that a number of such items be possessed before criminal liability attaches.
[End Quote]
Note that this also applies to passwords and other data. Interesting.
This is the kind of stuff that makes me want to just rant and rant. I will, however, try to restrain myself.
The most important question here, in my view, is this: Why the hell are corporations and 'business groups' teaching classes to kids anyway? Well, obviously because they see an advantage in it. So let me rephrase that: Why the hell are they allowed to do this? This is basically nothing more than advertising delivered directly at the kids, and hey, get this: They can't ignore it, because it's happening in their school, which they are legally required to attend!
There is something fundamentally wrong when publically funded, mandatory education is subsidized by private corporations in order to spread their own agendas. And 'best' of all, it's usually the poorest schools that end up simply needing to do something like this, just to afford basic necessities.
Allright, so this has probably been a rant. But it needed to be said. Just one more thing: Just how is this class learning? How can anything so biased, so value-laden, be classified as learning? I for one, am obviously a little to unimaginative to see that...
Slashdot Mirror
If you don't want encryption, why should you be forced to use it? WEP has its flaws anyway, as has been repeatedly pointed out. Personally, I think MAC filtering is a much more hassle-free method of securing a network, especially for small home networks.
No, an access point that doesn't allow encryption is simply the wrong solution. It is the responsibility of the user to secure the network, and it's not like it's such a great deal of work.
... Civ-style simulation ...
- So, Johnny, what did you learn in school today?
- I learned that it is always good to back up your words with nuclear weapons, dad!
While we're at it, I think we need to get this one out of the way as well:
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of bluescreens!
The key is to detect the attack.
Ah, you are referring to something like this?
Wow, who would have thought I'd see this on slashdot? It makes little sense to post this question here, but yet, it was posted. And I am reading it. Which is ... interesting, since my brother too was diagnosed with schizophrenia, a little over two years ago now. This thread shouts out to me to say something about it, but I find now that it is harder than it seems.
He's my twin brother, not identical, but still very much a kindred spirit of mine. We got along very well in our youths, and were each other's best friend for many years. But then, slowly, almost unnoticably, we began to grow apart. While I, in my own geekish, unassuming way, started to mature into at least a semblance of adulthood, he seemed to resist it, opting instead to retreat further and further into his own internal world.
His is truly a Beautiful Mind; he is brilliant in many fields, not least language and lingustics. But more often than not, his mind was incorrecly applied, with sad results. For instance, one long period of his life was mostly spent lamenting the fact that the world does not share a single language. It seemed a little funny to others, including me, of course, but to him it was no joke. He would truly suffer emotionally as a result of this and other obsessions.
When the 'crash' came, he had deteriorated quite badly. Although he never did drugs or alchohol of any sort, as is common with schizophrenics, he might as well have. He was unemployed and not in school, moping around the house (our parents' house, where the both of us still lived at the time). He would seldom go outside, and would sit inside his room listening to esoteric music and writing furiously on any scrap of paper he could find. This had been a long-time habit of his, and he was (and is) a brilliant writer, but we would soon find out that these latest writings of his were of a rather sinister nature. It was typical schizophrenic musings; his imagined conversations with a supernatural being who was leading him through some sorts of rites of power, through which he would realize his true spiritual potential. If only that had been true.
Like I said, it has been 2 years now, and the situation isn't much better than it was in the beginning. My brother is still in and out of institutions, heavily medicated, and inactive. He is, frankly, a shell of what he used to be, and we can only hope this will change ... someday. Yes, the film 'A Beautiful Mind' was truly a best-case scenario. Although my brother is probably not a worst-case scenario, he is pretty far from the almost-happy ideal portrayed in the film. He cannot control his fits in any rational manner.
Schizophrenia is not just seeing imaginary people. More often than not, that doesn't happen at all. Extreme, debilitating bouts of irrational, uncomfortable ideas, thoughts and feelings are more common, often followed by hallucinations of many sorts. Most of the time, it is things you cannot simply block out just by concentrating. The disease is hopelessly irrational, and it hijacks the brain completely. In fact, it becomes your brain, in a manner of speaking. How can you use your brain to supress something when it's your brain itself that needs to be supressed?
I know this isn't very comforting, but it is the truth. And, perhaps I myself will feel a little better after having shared this with the world.
... here
Officials in Washington DC revealed plans to start a brand-new 'Precrime' program to arrest perpetrators before they even commit a crime, using sophisticated 'Comatose Psychic' technology.
Said one official: 'Yeah, we reckon this will beat everything we've seen so far. I mean, why profile people when you can have 'em psychics see the stuff happening, right? Much more reliable all in all.'
More details here
'Too Soon From the Cave, Too Far From the Stars'
Yeah, much too soon. One minute you're an ape triumphantly hurtling a bone into the air under the theme of 'Also Sprach Zarathustra', and next thing you know, the bone turns into an orbiting satellite in the year 2001. Also, you've become human and there's this weird monolith on the moon.
Talk about culture shock ...
Aren't there enough filesystems? All you need is one!
Yes, and 640K is enough for anyone, and everything worth inventing has already been invented.
But seriously, what's wrong with creating new things? A new filesystem just might be better than the current ones. Stranger things have happened. Much stranger things, in fact. Especially in Computer Science. Remember hierarchical databases? No? Well, they used to be all the rage back in the old days, before relational databases took over. These days, the idea of using any other database model seems ludicrous. However, even those might be superseded at some point in the future.
It never hurts to keep an open mind you know...
This is very true. Computer Science is certainly not the same thing as programming. It's generally much more high-level, focusing on genenal solutions to problems instead of specifics. Essentially, it's a very math-based subject, in that it deals with mathematical structures and concepts, such as algorithms and abstract data types. The problems in Computer Science are quite often similar to those in mathematics - they take a very similar mix of creativity and intellect as problems in mathematics do.
However, there are some fields of Computer Science that are less rigid, such as the study of development processes, interface design, and such. Other fields are very, very intensely mathematical; AI and graphics are prime examples. And within every field, the level of programming that you do is mostly dependent on your own interest in programming. Computer Science covers a fairly wide spectrum; it is fairly easy to find a niche that suits your skills and interest. Many Computer Scientists hardly ever program anything, while others are dedicated code-writing machines.
Of course, it is possible to be a programmer without being a Computer Scientist, but I like to think that CS gives you a much broader and more fulfilling view of what programming is. Plus, it always helps to know some theory before sitting down and spewing out code.
Usually, viruses have a goal, like collecting your personal information, DDOSing SCO, or SOMETHING...
Sorry, but that's not all that accurate. Most often, the virus/worm is a goal in itself (and by the way, Sasser is a worm, not a virus). Viruses and worms that are tools to carry out some separate agenda are the exception, not the rule. Although recent worms such as Bagle, Netsky and MyDoom (and their numerous variants) were crafted to be 'useful' in some way, this is a fairly recent phenomenon, and still a fairly uncommon one, if one looks at everything that's being released these days. It might become the norm in the future, but that hasn't happened just yet.
My theory is that someone wrote it to disable all the spamware-infested computers out there.
They can't be spamming us if they're rebooting constantly, can they?
Interesting theory, but there's one problem. Whoever wrote Sasser did not intend for it to crash systems. This is a side effect of sloppy coding; it's not intentional.
Question from the artice:
2. "Some have asked what IBM would get if Java were open-sourced: doesn't IBM already have the source?"
Gosling's answer: Again yes, they do have the source. It's also true that anyone can get the source. The major restriction is that if folks want to redistrubute their changes, they have to pass the test suite. Which means that about the only thing that they could get from liberalization is to be able to skip testing.
So it doesn't seem to be such a big issue after all. The source is already available, and all that is required to change it and redistribute it is to pass a standard suite of tests. Now, call me crazy, but I think that's not A Bad Thing. This restriction is what helps Java to be uniform and platform-independent.
The benefits of making Java fully open source therefore seem overrated. Isn't the availablity of the source most important? Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding something ...
This Ballmer quote sticks out in particular, and pretty much sums it all up:
Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux ...
Legally, this will never work. Why?
E.g. buy V1c0din from "HornyToad@hotmail.com" and get a 2000$ fine.
But you are not buying from "HornyToad@hotmail.com"; you are buying from Joe Schmoe via www.cheapdrugs.com. With spam, you never reply back to buy the stuff; you use an alternate method that's given to you in the spam email (such as a website). Unless the product you're buying is itself illegal, you can never be successfully prosecuted for buying it. Proving that you bought it because of a spam you received is impossible, and beside the point anyway.
Even though spam is the only method used to advertise the site, that's irrelevant. The site is there, and is offering a legal product. Anyone is free to visit it and buy whatever they want from it. The spam is the real problem, and can only be tackled directly.
If I were running my own private business, I'd be inclined to unplug everyone's network connections and hand out typewriters.
I think this is pure overkill. You would lose much, much more than you would gain by implementing a scheme such as this. Morale, for one, would suffer immensely. If they had connected computers before, and are suddenly forced into accepting a more inferior arrangement, they are bound to feel the loss. This, along with the loss of access to the information resource that the Internet is (yes, yes, I know 90% of the Internet is crap, but that still leaves 10% non-crap), will probably mean a considerable loss in productivity.
Also, I would like to say that I find the idea of making employers responsible for offensive, outside email unappealing (this is my personal opinion - I am not considering the legal aspects). Where would that stop? Would ISPs then be held accountable for all the spam that their users receive? This is just shifting the blame onto a more visible target. It's hard to attack the spammers directly, so to some it makes sense to blame someone else. It does not, however, make sense to me.
Err - Freudian slip there ... as suck -> as such ... :P
Well, I 'read' the article (skimmed over it, more like), and it has precisely this to say about finite conciousness:
In this case, if one treats consciousness, conservatively, as merely a form of computation, then one can derive a finite total lifetime for any civilization in an accelerating universe.
This conclusion results from the fact that in such a universe one ultimately has access to only a finite volume, even after an infinite time. In the case of actual conscious living systems, it is difficult to quantify the nature of this limit, because we do not currently understand the precise relationship between computational complexity and consciousness.
...
If consciousness involves information processing, then when one is ultimately able to determine the minimum complexity of a conscious being in terms of the information-processing rate in bits/sec, then an upper limit on the future of consciousness within an accelerating universe can be derived.
Conclusion: They are talking about the total possible lifetime of consciousness as suck within the universe, not the finity of any single consciousness.
It's about time someone asked SCO "Stop crying like a spoiled brat and tell us what your exact complaint is"
And the answer is:
"I wanna Linux .... I wanna I wanna I wanna!"
If you connect it, they will come.
Hehehe - I am reminded now of this little comic strip. It's outrageous, in more ways than one.
This is from the article:
In close succession, Einstein received visits from physicist Werner Heisenberg, who led the Nazi German A-bomb effort, and Aage Bohr, son of physicist Niels Bohr, who became Heisenberg's rival. Fantova recounted that after the visits, Einstein called Heisenberg "a big Nazi" and commented that Bohr was more pleasant but spoke constantly.
From the context, it seems clear that Einstein is referring to Heisenberg's demeanour, perhaps also his expressed opinions and world-views. Heisenberg's past is not the issue here. Einstein was stating his personal perception of Heisenberg, as established from his own acquaintance with him.
Ah yes, I see what you mean now.
Your beef is that people are confusing hacking with cracking yet again. I myself have developed an instinctive reaction to this phenomenon, which is simply to unconciously translate their 'hacking' into my 'cracking'
So, it doesn't bother me so much anymore. But now that you've said it, it's a perfectly valid point, and one that is too often forgotten. Everyone write this 100 times on the board now:
Hacking != cracking
Please cite the section that makes it criminal to posess a "hacking device".
This seems to fit the bill:
[Begin Quote]
Article 6 - Misuse of devices
1. Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law, when committed intentionally and without right:
a. the production, sale, procurement for use, import, distribution or otherwise making available of:
b. the possession of an item referred to in paragraphs (a)(1) or (2) above, with intent that it be used for the purpose of committing any of the offences established in Articles 2 - 5. A Party may require by law that a number of such items be possessed before criminal liability attaches.
[End Quote]
Note that this also applies to passwords and other data. Interesting.
Many of us will have to use our computers even when its summer.
Excuse me, but just what kind of a geek are you ??
This is the kind of stuff that makes me want to just rant and rant. I will, however, try to restrain myself.
The most important question here, in my view, is this: Why the hell are corporations and 'business groups' teaching classes to kids anyway? Well, obviously because they see an advantage in it. So let me rephrase that: Why the hell are they allowed to do this? This is basically nothing more than advertising delivered directly at the kids, and hey, get this: They can't ignore it, because it's happening in their school, which they are legally required to attend!
There is something fundamentally wrong when publically funded, mandatory education is subsidized by private corporations in order to spread their own agendas. And 'best' of all, it's usually the poorest schools that end up simply needing to do something like this, just to afford basic necessities.
Allright, so this has probably been a rant. But it needed to be said. Just one more thing: Just how is this class learning? How can anything so biased, so value-laden, be classified as learning? I for one, am obviously a little to unimaginative to see that ...