There is one scenario where "deregulation" (actually the removal of a state-granted monopoly) could temporarily cause power problems: power companies stop constructing new plants because they're uncertain of whether they will be able to run the plants once they have been built. I don't know whether this is the case, but I suspect that it's at least part of why California has been having electricity shortages every evening this week.
OTOH, IMO putting a strict limit on the amount of pollution that a given plant can put out is not a good solution, and neither is blocking the construction of new plants. A much fairer way to discourage pollution is to tax it of it based on the how much the pollution costs society, or how much it would cost to clean up. That way, we wouldn't get suddenly get interruptions, blackouts, and high prices at load conditions that shouldn't produce those problems.
My school is on interruptible power. This means that when the supply is low, we are told to shut off our power during part of the evening (which is when power consumption is highest); in return, we get substantially lower electricity rates.
In a stage two emergency, they tell one or more blocks to shut off power during some part of the evening. (The evening is when power consumption is highest.) If we don't shut off our power, we get charged about 90 times as we normally do (from our lowered rate). This has happened about 10 times this semester (which is much higher than any other semester during the last 10 years).
Since finals are next week, the school decided to leave power on for the dorms during the outages, but only leave emergency lights on in academics. This is costing a lot of money, so most students try to turn off their computers when they find out that our block is supposed to be interrupted.
Btw, CA was at stage 3 for a while yesterday (pdf link), but I don't know if they actually started involuntary rolling blackouts.
it should definately be regulated. What if someone figured out a way to compress voip to less than 6 kilobytes/second? Then they could run a modem over the system a few times and have unlimited bandwidth. That would make DoS attacks too easy.
I just registered sseRud (my screen name minus the first two letters) so nobody can do this to my main screen name. I also registered jsserud and tried to register esserud because the securityfocus and upsidetoday articles didn't convince me that I didn't need to register them as well. Esserud turned out to already be registered, which surprised me, but it's not important that I own those userids, just that the buggy registration thingie knows they're not available.
(Note: I'm not trying to imply that it's ok for there to be such a huge security hole by posting these instructions to slashdot. I just want to point out that it's possible to protect your account without going through too much trouble.)
Moderators: I'm above the karma cap, but I'm still a karma whore, so do whatever you want to this post.
True enough. So, why can't people who love doing this sort of thing be registered, have to physically show up somewhere with several pieces of ID, and a 1M$ Bond, and get a Registered Systems Hacker ID#. Then they could play around and leave their ID#'s as proof of their white-hattedness?
How about a creating a (free) system like zeroknowledge where you're anonymous unless the maintainers of the system agree that you've done something bad? Wait, I already see a few problems with that idea:
- I'm not sure I would want to go through even that little bit of trouble after thinking of some random possible security hole. I just want to see if it's there and if it is, tell the people who own the system.
- Malicious crackers would probably take a hint and decide to use zeroknowledge (but at least they would become aware of the idea of the idea of white-hat hacking, and they'd still have to pay for zk (I think)).
- Setting up that kind of service might legitimize the idea that "hacking other people's computers is bad".
- There's a huge incentive to crack one of the routers for this system: you get to watch people crack other systems, and then you can either "make" them do bad things on the systems they've cracked (and get them in trouble) or crack the systems yourself.
2. the fact you can't minimize the file download window, despite the fact this has been in bugzilla for more than a year
You could probably say the same for most projects that use private bug systems, if you could look at their bug lists. So what? For both open and closed projects, plenty of "newer" bugs have been fixed, and new bugs can just as easily be severe or easy to fix as old bugs can.
Whining about that kind of thing discourages other companies from moving to open bug systems. It also discourages developers from documenting known bugs that they think they won't be able to fix in a given product cycle, which hampers outside source code contributors who want to find features and bugs that other programmers aren't working on. Whine about a severe bug if you want to, but please don't whine about an "old" bug.
Netscape would have been better served by enhancing the Mozilla preject in the key areas it is lacking (speed, bugs) rather than adding tons of useless marketing features.
Netscape put a lot of developer time into building Mozilla and fixing bugs before branching Mozilla. (After branching, they mainly focused on stability bugs, and the trunk was somewhat untended for a while.) I'll grant that you can argue that Netscape should have put higher priority on performance than stability, or should have left out certain marketing features in the first release to keep ram usage down, or should have fixed bug 36283 before rtm. Please don't assume that Netscape didn't make any effort in these areas, though, or that marketing features are "useless" (they're a large part of how Netscape makes money from the browser product).
Netscape _was_ a "champion" of OSS and a leader in the anti-MS compaign.
I don't see why any of this makes Netscape any less a "'champion' of OSS". They're still contributing to Mozilla as much as they have in the past, and they're still showing the world that it's possible to create open-source software and generate revenue at the same time.
I think the correct way to make that joke would have been "But if you don't find those, a good story or textual description of sex can turn me on too." Although yours is shorter.
(I seriously did not intend the last statement to come out like that.)
In addition, the registrars would be required by ICANN to have registrants submit a link to the proposed site (or submit a copy of the entire site on a CD, DVD, or other storage media).
The problem is that if larger cities "randomly" throw out 1-2% of all presidential votes, and smaller counties don't throw any out, the election is skewed slightly toward whoever is more popular in rural areas. The article gives some more detail and better numbers.
Chicago Tribune article: large cities use more automated vote-counting methods, which throw out more ballots than hand counts. Gore tends to have more support in urban areas, so he probably would have won if urban and rural areas used the same counting methods (either hand counts or machine counts).
According to a new study on the interaction between memory and lack of sleep has yielded tantalizing results
Sleep dep also makes it difficult to put long sentences together, whcih isn't very helpful when you have a hum paper do at 11 am, which i really should be working on.
However, this is due to the fact that this represents the exploitation of minors (the fact that it's sick and degenerative tends to help people come up with legal rationalizations as to why it should be banned).
Please find another word than "fact" to use to describe those statements, because there are plenty of people who disagree with them.
does this legitimize the upgrade cycle? I always thought it was in Microsoft's best interests to make users forget about the upgrade cycle each time they purchased software, and instead make them think they're buying the last version they'll need for at least several years.
Why can't the filter check the url and/or post data to determine whether you're using the translation/caching/anonymity service to bypass the filter? It seems like it should be possible...
If the programmers are too lame to check post data, they could block the post version and hand out copies of the "frmget" bookmarklet:
javascript:x = document.forms; for (i = 0; i x.length; ++i) x[i].method="get"; void(0);
(the variables need to be obfuscated to make it less likely that they'll interfere with javascript on the webpage. it might also be useful to make the bookmarklet work with frames, but that's tricky when sites like http://www.m-w.com/ have frames in other domains. i hereby put the bookmarklet and this paragraph in the public domain.)
I don't understand the point of a.sucks domain, because only one person can register a.sucks domain for each company. It makes more sense, IMO, to provide forums to discuss other sites, where both negative and positive messages are allowed. And there's no need for one company to "own" an official ".sucks" domain. Maybe really.fuckingsucks.net should set up a modified version of slash that lets people post comments in each subdomain.
Slashdot Mirror
OTOH, IMO putting a strict limit on the amount of pollution that a given plant can put out is not a good solution, and neither is blocking the construction of new plants. A much fairer way to discourage pollution is to tax it of it based on the how much the pollution costs society, or how much it would cost to clean up. That way, we wouldn't get suddenly get interruptions, blackouts, and high prices at load conditions that shouldn't produce those problems.
--
In a stage two emergency, they tell one or more blocks to shut off power during some part of the evening. (The evening is when power consumption is highest.) If we don't shut off our power, we get charged about 90 times as we normally do (from our lowered rate). This has happened about 10 times this semester (which is much higher than any other semester during the last 10 years).
Since finals are next week, the school decided to leave power on for the dorms during the outages, but only leave emergency lights on in academics. This is costing a lot of money, so most students try to turn off their computers when they find out that our block is supposed to be interrupted.
Btw, CA was at stage 3 for a while yesterday (pdf link), but I don't know if they actually started involuntary rolling blackouts.
--
--
--
--
--
(Note: I'm not trying to imply that it's ok for there to be such a huge security hole by posting these instructions to slashdot. I just want to point out that it's possible to protect your account without going through too much trouble.)
Moderators: I'm above the karma cap, but I'm still a karma whore, so do whatever you want to this post.
--
Wow, they managed to find users who haven't used a computer or typewriter keyboard. I think that's surprising or something.
--
How about a creating a (free) system like zeroknowledge where you're anonymous unless the maintainers of the system agree that you've done something bad? Wait, I already see a few problems with that idea:
- I'm not sure I would want to go through even that little bit of trouble after thinking of some random possible security hole. I just want to see if it's there and if it is, tell the people who own the system.
- Malicious crackers would probably take a hint and decide to use zeroknowledge (but at least they would become aware of the idea of the idea of white-hat hacking, and they'd still have to pay for zk (I think)).
- Setting up that kind of service might legitimize the idea that "hacking other people's computers is bad".
- There's a huge incentive to crack one of the routers for this system: you get to watch people crack other systems, and then you can either "make" them do bad things on the systems they've cracked (and get them in trouble) or crack the systems yourself.
--
Aren't there more effective ways to buy votes with $129,000 than forcing everyone in the city to use linux? Oh wait, never mind, wrong story.
--
You could probably say the same for most projects that use private bug systems, if you could look at their bug lists. So what? For both open and closed projects, plenty of "newer" bugs have been fixed, and new bugs can just as easily be severe or easy to fix as old bugs can.
Whining about that kind of thing discourages other companies from moving to open bug systems. It also discourages developers from documenting known bugs that they think they won't be able to fix in a given product cycle, which hampers outside source code contributors who want to find features and bugs that other programmers aren't working on. Whine about a severe bug if you want to, but please don't whine about an "old" bug.
--
Netscape put a lot of developer time into building Mozilla and fixing bugs before branching Mozilla. (After branching, they mainly focused on stability bugs, and the trunk was somewhat untended for a while.) I'll grant that you can argue that Netscape should have put higher priority on performance than stability, or should have left out certain marketing features in the first release to keep ram usage down, or should have fixed bug 36283 before rtm. Please don't assume that Netscape didn't make any effort in these areas, though, or that marketing features are "useless" (they're a large part of how Netscape makes money from the browser product).
Netscape _was_ a "champion" of OSS and a leader in the anti-MS compaign.
I don't see why any of this makes Netscape any less a "'champion' of OSS". They're still contributing to Mozilla as much as they have in the past, and they're still showing the world that it's possible to create open-source software and generate revenue at the same time.
--
(I seriously did not intend the last statement to come out like that.)
--
--
There are ports other than 80...
--
--
--
--
Sleep dep also makes it difficult to put long sentences together, whcih isn't very helpful when you have a hum paper do at 11 am, which i really should be working on.
--
--
Please find another word than "fact" to use to describe those statements, because there are plenty of people who disagree with them.
--
--
--
If the programmers are too lame to check post data, they could block the post version and hand out copies of the "frmget" bookmarklet:
javascript:x = document.forms; for (i = 0; i x.length; ++i) x[i].method="get"; void(0);
(the variables need to be obfuscated to make it less likely that they'll interfere with javascript on the webpage. it might also be useful to make the bookmarklet work with frames, but that's tricky when sites like http://www.m-w.com/ have frames in other domains. i hereby put the bookmarklet and this paragraph in the public domain.)
--
--