EXACTLY. There is nothing we can do about bee's killing us but there is something we can do about terrorists killing us and that's kill them first.
That would be all fine and dandy if killing innocents in the process didn't influence more people to become terrorists.
Right, so if we end the war and the total number of innocent people being killed decreased but that caused an increase in innocents killed at home, you'd be ok with it?
Bee's aren't trying to kill people. Extremists are
Been down this road before your point always dead-ends because bees kill us just as dead as terrorists do and there is nothing we can do about it. "Nothing!" you want to exclaim, you can choose to avoid bees, you can't avoid terrorists because they are out to get you! Sure you can try, but bees still kill people, usually people who are allergic to them and are trying to avoid them. Shit still happens.
So how many more attacks do you need to see before the risk is worth the effort for a war?
How about starting at more innocent people than the war will kill?
Since the data can be searched with a warrant issued with cause, this eliminates the risk of mandated destruction destroying evidence that could have solved a crime -- and thus eliminates the opportunity for exploiting that as the basis for lobbying for extension in the "casual search" window for the data.
I believe that warrants are just one factor in protecting the public from over-zealous public officials. Another key factor is simply the difficulty of getting the information in the first place. That protects us from rubber-stamp warrants and other forms of illegitimate access. It's kind of like the difference between needing to go down to the telco to turn on a wiretap and being able to have any call anywhere in the country routed directly to the FBI with just a mouse click.
Family members have been instrumental in getting two corrupt cops sacked. I will not go into any more detail than that. I don't want your apology, just back off the trigger next time.
It stopped being a risk and became reality as soon as peoples lives were taken.
That's exactly the kind of piss-poor risk evaluation I'm talking about. Risk isn't binary. You might as well be arguing for trillion dollar war on bees because they kill more people than terrorists do.
I think the problem rests in old case law, developed when automation like this was just science fiction, that anything not on private property is fair game. We need a new legal concept of "public but ephemeral" that applies to information that is normally soon forgotten like who was in a parking lot a week ago. Any collection of ephemeral data that occurs without a warrant should itself expire within a short period of time as well should be distribution limited - i.e. no sending it off to another database at the FBI that is exempt.
That may still be too much of a slippery slope, because once its collected there will always be pressure to extend the retention and expand the distribution. All it would take is one kid getting kidnapped and the license plate data expiring a day before the cops thought to look at it and voila, ready-made emotional argument to push for doubling retention time.
In Florida, the cops download a list of license plates of interest and only check scanned plates against the list instead of uploading everything they scan to a database. I'm not too happy with that either because I don't think that requiring a driver to regularly prove their innocence is valid, even if it is done passively, but at least it is miles better than what Massachusetts is planning.
1) Realistically, the leader would just find a better bomb shelter rather than find a solution that doesn't involve violence
Not when their kids are drafted.
2)What non-violent solution could you possibly propose to an extremist organization that wants to wipe you off the face of the Earth?
A level-headed evaluation of the risk they pose would have been a good start. As it is now we have way too much incentive to over-react. Well, as it was a decade ago. Nowadays being war-weary and nearly broke in part because of that over-reaction seems to be partially filling for equanimity.
We support the free flow of information. Anonymous is actively campaigning for this goal everywhere in all forms. This necessitates the freedom of expression for: The Internet, for journalism and journalists, and citizens of the world. Though we recognize you may disagree, we believe that Anonymous is campaigning for you so that your voice may never be silenced.
Typical of psychology, there's a lot of anecdotal evidence and "this guy wrote this book and says so", but not that much in the way of hard scientific evidence in that article.
Dude, its a pop-culture magazine. If you want peer-reviewed research, you gotta follow up yourself.
What you don't seem to grasp is that standardization is not about innovation;
Never said it was, that's your defense for an incomplete and ill-defined standard.
it's about recognizing long-existing commonality and what has been proven to work or be useful,
No it's not. "Recognizing commonality" is just the means. Standardisation has one and only one legitimate purpose - making customers' lives easier. Half-assing a standard to the point of significant ambiguity is counter to the entire reason for standardisation.
In any case, I see you've declined to justify your example.
I don't need you to debug what's broken. I know exactly why both solaris and hpux behave the way they do because I ran it down along with a bunch of other posix ambiguities over the years. If you really want to debug it, go ahead - compile and run it yourself.
My point was simply that you cannot rely on undefined or implementation-defined behavior across implementations.
Really? Ya think? Thanks for clearing up the obvious.
Moreover, part of the purpose of a standard is to provide a centralized delineation of exactly what is defined behavior, what is implementation-defined behavior (including the set of possible implementation choices), and what is undefined behavior;
The thing you seem unable to grasp is that an incomplete standard is worse than no standard at all. Leaving key components undefined and not even mentioning that they are vendor-specific sure as hell ain't innovation, its just standards-group politics.
Am I to assume that the shared memory object named "/shm-test" already exists? f it does not, then I would expect a failure with errno set to ENOENT
As someone else pointed out, this is an "approved" method, meaning they have vetted the distro and believe it to be secure. This actually makes sense, and is much better than telling your soldiers "go download some live linux cd and make sure it is secure".
More likely it is about CYA. Government security runs on CYA. Having an approved distribution means that everyone else in the organisation can use it, recommend it, even mandate it without having to worry about taking the blame if there is something wrong with it. Without an approved distro, no distro would be permitted at all.
More generally government security is totally top down - you have groups of "experts" (who may or may not actually be experts) who come up with procedures and requirements. Those are then made into official policy and distributed downline to security officers and regular users who are expected to follow those procedures to the letter without trying to think through the actual goals. When the official policy is fuzzy, you get different sites making different interpretations, sometimes with head-shakingly comedic effect - like mandatory windows virus-scans on non-windows comptuers or forbidding the installation of ssh (because its not officially approved) while leaving rlogin in place. But even those, often ridiculous, interpretations still have full CYA as long as they don't violate the official documented policies.
Considering the normalized score for what is considered to be an IQ of 100 has steadily gone up and since it's hard to argue that humans have gotten significantly more intelligent over the past few decades, it's much more likely that IQ tests measure education and training, not intelligence.
I read about a study recently, and I should have bookmarked it, that showed that IQ was correlated with poverty. The hypothesis is that people have a finite amount of "cognitive throughput" and that being poor means you have to have to think a whole lot more about every financial decision you make. For example, deciding to pay the electricity bill this month and if that will leave you enough left over for food too. People who are well off don't need to think about such trade-offs as part of their daily lives so they have more brainpower left over to think about other things.
That sort of reduction on baseline cognitive load that comes with improvements in civilisation could possibly account for the rising raw IQ scores.
The study, by the way, compared IQ scores of farmers in south-east asia, before harvest and after harvest. Before harvest they tend to be cash-strapped and so have to make every penny count. After harvest they are relatively flush with cash and don't absolutely need to to penny-pinch. The study found a statistically significant increase in IQ scores after the harvest.
risk reduction is different from risk aversion. It's better to know about risk and work to mitigate it, than to avoid the problem (and progress) entirely, due to fear.
Indeed. It seems like the modern american gestalt is to increase risk due to excessive risk aversion. Like preventing minor yearly brush fires causes lots of brush to build up and ultimately result in massive forest fires every half decade or so.
When a parent says something like that they want their child to "just be a kid for one more year," that's just selfishness on their part. It isn't about letting the kid enjoy childhood, its about the parent holding their child's development back in order for the parent to take pleasure in the kid's innocence.
It is, as you say, undefined by POSIX. What's your point? What do you not understand about this?
Let me get this straight.
You are saying that a function that is included in the posix standard isn't really part of the posix standard because the standard doesn't fully define a required part of the function?
Well then, I guess we can just throw out about half of the standard then. Perhaps we could call what's left the POSIX2008.witten standard, eh?
funny, your comments are filled with ad-hominems here, talk about stereotypes.
Really? Do you know what an ad-hominem is? It ain't an insult. It's a argumentive fallacy that says "you are wrong because you suck." What I've done here is say "doing that means you suck because..." Like making up an excuse to not respond to my points but instead still posting about how he's so put upon and unwanted. That's sucking.
Note that he came back 24 hours later and still didn't live up to his word to respond with his own account, despite posting a non-denial elsewhere in this thread. That's more proof of sucking.
if they clone the vaccine factory 1:1, they don't need to do testing, that particular vaccine is already tested. you're going to tell them that they can't produce vaccine?
While I generally agree with your sentiment, even 1:1 clonage still leaves the issue of quality control open since that's ultimately a human process. That's where Chinese stuff seems to fall down, cloned or not - e.g. the melamine in the mlk, chinese drywall, lead in toys, etc.
Hello, McFly? Don't you get it? That's is not relevant under the current law. if it were relevant, then they wouldn't even be trying to come up with this "settlement" (as if you can even "settle" with someone for the rights of a 3rd party).
Who the hell gave you the right to object anyway? Are you a rights holder?
Yes. Yes I am. Copyright is merely a temporary loan from the public domain. We are all rights holders and thus we all get a say.
I'm not sure that it's entirely fair to insist that Google should be fighting for the rights of its competitors, only that it not reduce those rights.
Since culture is a public good, I do think it is entirely reasonable to expect that any exemptions to the copyright social contract be take into account the good of the public. Merely being the one to spend a lot of money because you are the one with the most to gain from such exemptions shouldn't lessen that requirement.
Really, Congress should be taking a hand, IMHO.
On this, we agree.
and the precedent will only make things easier for others to win the same access, even if it's not enshrined in the this specific settlement.
On this, we do not. It is entirely possible that the existence of such an agreement will be enough to take the wind out of the sails of any corrective legislation, after all if google's making everything available "for free" then why do we need a new law to do the same?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sick of people proffering this and only this as a reason to Google+ growth. There is something more to it,
Probably not. What you are objecting to is really just shorthand for "Google has a good reputation and everybody hates facebook."
EXACTLY. There is nothing we can do about bee's killing us but there is something we can do about terrorists killing us and that's kill them first.
That would be all fine and dandy if killing innocents in the process didn't influence more people to become terrorists.
Right, so if we end the war and the total number of innocent people being killed decreased but that caused an increase in innocents killed at home, you'd be ok with it?
Yep.
Bee's aren't trying to kill people. Extremists are
Been down this road before your point always dead-ends because bees kill us just as dead as terrorists do and there is nothing we can do about it. "Nothing!" you want to exclaim, you can choose to avoid bees, you can't avoid terrorists because they are out to get you! Sure you can try, but bees still kill people, usually people who are allergic to them and are trying to avoid them. Shit still happens.
So how many more attacks do you need to see before the risk is worth the effort for a war?
How about starting at more innocent people than the war will kill?
Since the data can be searched with a warrant issued with cause, this eliminates the risk of mandated destruction destroying evidence that could have solved a crime -- and thus eliminates the opportunity for exploiting that as the basis for lobbying for extension in the "casual search" window for the data.
I believe that warrants are just one factor in protecting the public from over-zealous public officials. Another key factor is simply the difficulty of getting the information in the first place. That protects us from rubber-stamp warrants and other forms of illegitimate access. It's kind of like the difference between needing to go down to the telco to turn on a wiretap and being able to have any call anywhere in the country routed directly to the FBI with just a mouse click.
Enlighten me. I'll apologize.
Family members have been instrumental in getting two corrupt cops sacked. I will not go into any more detail than that. I don't want your apology, just back off the trigger next time.
It stopped being a risk and became reality as soon as peoples lives were taken.
That's exactly the kind of piss-poor risk evaluation I'm talking about. Risk isn't binary. You might as well be arguing for trillion dollar war on bees because they kill more people than terrorists do.
I think the problem rests in old case law, developed when automation like this was just science fiction, that anything not on private property is fair game. We need a new legal concept of "public but ephemeral" that applies to information that is normally soon forgotten like who was in a parking lot a week ago. Any collection of ephemeral data that occurs without a warrant should itself expire within a short period of time as well should be distribution limited - i.e. no sending it off to another database at the FBI that is exempt.
That may still be too much of a slippery slope, because once its collected there will always be pressure to extend the retention and expand the distribution. All it would take is one kid getting kidnapped and the license plate data expiring a day before the cops thought to look at it and voila, ready-made emotional argument to push for doubling retention time.
In Florida, the cops download a list of license plates of interest and only check scanned plates against the list instead of uploading everything they scan to a database. I'm not too happy with that either because I don't think that requiring a driver to regularly prove their innocence is valid, even if it is done passively, but at least it is miles better than what Massachusetts is planning.
1) Realistically, the leader would just find a better bomb shelter rather than find a solution that doesn't involve violence
Not when their kids are drafted.
2)What non-violent solution could you possibly propose to an extremist organization that wants to wipe you off the face of the Earth?
A level-headed evaluation of the risk they pose would have been a good start. As it is now we have way too much incentive to over-react. Well, as it was a decade ago. Nowadays being war-weary and nearly broke in part because of that over-reaction seems to be partially filling for equanimity.
You do know that Anonymous isn't one grandly unified body, and that it's made up of individuals who may have slightly differing opinions to the rest?
And so it comes down to which individuals have possession of the files.
Anyway, we're talking about Anonymous, not Wikileaks.
For which a significant portion embrace the Operation Payback Manifesto. which says, in part:
We support the free flow of information. Anonymous is actively campaigning for this goal everywhere in all forms. This necessitates the freedom of expression for: The Internet, for journalism and journalists, and citizens of the world. Though we recognize you may disagree, we believe that Anonymous is campaigning for you so that your voice may never be silenced.
And since I doubt that you did anything about it, that make you complicit. So you are also equally as bad, except maybe more cowardly.
You doubt wrongly.
Typical of psychology, there's a lot of anecdotal evidence and "this guy wrote this book and says so", but not that much in the way of hard scientific evidence in that article.
Dude, its a pop-culture magazine. If you want peer-reviewed research, you gotta follow up yourself.
What you don't seem to grasp is that standardization is not about innovation;
Never said it was, that's your defense for an incomplete and ill-defined standard.
it's about recognizing long-existing commonality and what has been proven to work or be useful,
No it's not. "Recognizing commonality" is just the means. Standardisation has one and only one legitimate purpose - making customers' lives easier. Half-assing a standard to the point of significant ambiguity is counter to the entire reason for standardisation.
In any case, I see you've declined to justify your example.
I don't need you to debug what's broken. I know exactly why both solaris and hpux behave the way they do because I ran it down along with a bunch of other posix ambiguities over the years. If you really want to debug it, go ahead - compile and run it yourself.
My point was simply that you cannot rely on undefined or implementation-defined behavior across implementations.
Really? Ya think? Thanks for clearing up the obvious.
Moreover, part of the purpose of a standard is to provide a centralized delineation of exactly what is defined behavior, what is implementation-defined behavior (including the set of possible implementation choices), and what is undefined behavior;
The thing you seem unable to grasp is that an incomplete standard is worse than no standard at all. Leaving key components undefined and not even mentioning that they are vendor-specific sure as hell ain't innovation, its just standards-group politics.
Am I to assume that the shared memory object named "/shm-test" already exists? f it does not, then I would expect a failure with errno set to ENOENT
Again with the captain obvious stuff.
As someone else pointed out, this is an "approved" method, meaning they have vetted the distro and believe it to be secure. This actually makes sense, and is much better than telling your soldiers "go download some live linux cd and make sure it is secure".
More likely it is about CYA. Government security runs on CYA. Having an approved distribution means that everyone else in the organisation can use it, recommend it, even mandate it without having to worry about taking the blame if there is something wrong with it. Without an approved distro, no distro would be permitted at all.
More generally government security is totally top down - you have groups of "experts" (who may or may not actually be experts) who come up with procedures and requirements. Those are then made into official policy and distributed downline to security officers and regular users who are expected to follow those procedures to the letter without trying to think through the actual goals. When the official policy is fuzzy, you get different sites making different interpretations, sometimes with head-shakingly comedic effect - like mandatory windows virus-scans on non-windows comptuers or forbidding the installation of ssh (because its not officially approved) while leaving rlogin in place. But even those, often ridiculous, interpretations still have full CYA as long as they don't violate the official documented policies.
Considering the normalized score for what is considered to be an IQ of 100 has steadily gone up and since it's hard to argue that humans have gotten significantly more intelligent over the past few decades, it's much more likely that IQ tests measure education and training, not intelligence.
I read about a study recently, and I should have bookmarked it, that showed that IQ was correlated with poverty. The hypothesis is that people have a finite amount of "cognitive throughput" and that being poor means you have to have to think a whole lot more about every financial decision you make. For example, deciding to pay the electricity bill this month and if that will leave you enough left over for food too. People who are well off don't need to think about such trade-offs as part of their daily lives so they have more brainpower left over to think about other things.
That sort of reduction on baseline cognitive load that comes with improvements in civilisation could possibly account for the rising raw IQ scores.
The study, by the way, compared IQ scores of farmers in south-east asia, before harvest and after harvest. Before harvest they tend to be cash-strapped and so have to make every penny count. After harvest they are relatively flush with cash and don't absolutely need to to penny-pinch. The study found a statistically significant increase in IQ scores after the harvest.
risk reduction is different from risk aversion. It's better to know about risk and work to mitigate it, than to avoid the problem (and progress) entirely, due to fear.
Indeed. It seems like the modern american gestalt is to increase risk due to excessive risk aversion. Like preventing minor yearly brush fires causes lots of brush to build up and ultimately result in massive forest fires every half decade or so.
On a similar note, the Atlantic recently ran this article about how
coddling children robs them of an important part of childhood.
When a parent says something like that they want their child to "just be a kid for one more year," that's just selfishness on their part. It isn't about letting the kid enjoy childhood, its about the parent holding their child's development back in order for the parent to take pleasure in the kid's innocence.
It is, as you say, undefined by POSIX. What's your point? What do you not understand about this?
Let me get this straight.
You are saying that a function that is included in the posix standard isn't really part of the posix standard because the standard doesn't fully define a required part of the function?
Well then, I guess we can just throw out about half of the standard then. Perhaps we could call what's left the POSIX2008.witten standard, eh?
funny, your comments are filled with ad-hominems here, talk about stereotypes.
Really? Do you know what an ad-hominem is? It ain't an insult. It's a argumentive fallacy that says "you are wrong because you suck." What I've done here is say "doing that means you suck because ..." Like making up an excuse to not respond to my points but instead still posting about how he's so put upon and unwanted. That's sucking.
Note that he came back 24 hours later and still didn't live up to his word to respond with his own account, despite posting a non-denial elsewhere in this thread. That's more proof of sucking.
but when you see a cop and immediately think "scumbag", is it any surprise that only people who are genuinely scumbags aspire to the position?
I think you have cause and effect reversed.
if they clone the vaccine factory 1:1, they don't need to do testing, that particular vaccine is already tested. you're going to tell them that they can't produce vaccine?
While I generally agree with your sentiment, even 1:1 clonage still leaves the issue of quality control open since that's ultimately a human process. That's where Chinese stuff seems to fall down, cloned or not - e.g. the melamine in the mlk, chinese drywall, lead in toys, etc.
I thought of something more sleasy and inconspicuous like poison, it seemed more M$'ish.
Embrace and distend?
Still, the job ought to carry a little respect just in case one of the cops isn't a scumbag.
Respect that is mandatory is no respect at all.
It makes a mockery of anyone who actually deserves respect.
These authors are dead.
Hello, McFly? Don't you get it? That's is not relevant under the current law. if it were relevant, then they wouldn't even be trying to come up with this "settlement" (as if you can even "settle" with someone for the rights of a 3rd party).
Who the hell gave you the right to object anyway? Are you a rights holder?
Yes. Yes I am. Copyright is merely a temporary loan from the public domain. We are all rights holders and thus we all get a say.
I'm not sure that it's entirely fair to insist that Google should be fighting for the rights of its competitors, only that it not reduce those rights.
Since culture is a public good, I do think it is entirely reasonable to expect that any exemptions to the copyright social contract be take into account the good of the public. Merely being the one to spend a lot of money because you are the one with the most to gain from such exemptions shouldn't lessen that requirement.
Really, Congress should be taking a hand, IMHO.
On this, we agree.
and the precedent will only make things easier for others to win the same access, even if it's not enshrined in the this specific settlement.
On this, we do not. It is entirely possible that the existence of such an agreement will be enough to take the wind out of the sails of any corrective legislation, after all if google's making everything available "for free" then why do we need a new law to do the same?