I would only call that "addressed" if I were a fucking idiot. Since my IQ is above 90,
Just barely it seems.
I mean did you even think through any of this at all before you posted?
You just posited that I would consider building cities in the middle of nowhere when no one is actually there and you are asking me if I thought before I posted?
Even with an IQ of only 90 you can't possibly think that ANY city was ever built like that. Enjoy playing with your strawmen.
Nope, I think yours is - note how both 0.0.0.0 and 127.0.0.1 act the same.
Or I could learn to read better.
Either you have sshd not bound to INADDR_ANY (0.0.0.0) or you have it firewalled. You can check with netstat - try: netstat -an | grep ":22.*LISTEN" You will probably see something like:
127.0.0.1:22 _______ 0.0.0.0:* _______ LISTEN
instead of the more common:
0.0.0.0:22 _________ 0.0.0.0:* _______ LISTEN
In which case you've probably got the ListenAddress directive in the sshd_config file explicitly listing the interfaces for sshd to listen on instead of just the default of INADDDR_ANY.
He's also a kid though. Kids tend to be a lot more easy to radicalize because they have don't have as many roots put down yet nor have they been tempered with much in the way of life experiences. Let him marry a nice chinese girl and then he's going to have to start thinking about what its like to raise kids in a country without any family nearby. Chances are he'll also have to raise his family in a mostly foreign culture. Obviously plenty of Chinese people have decided that all that was worth it for the freedom and opportunities available outside of China. But its still a hard decision to make, and plenty of Chinese have decide to go back instead - especially with the growing prosperity back home.
In many ways it's difficult to imagine a government like the U.S. has, able to maintain the peace with 1.3 billion people.
I think its a prosperity issue. That cop on the road in china is as likely to take a bribe to go away as he is to actually ticket or arrest someone. Get the country to the point where bribery is no longer a practical necessity and I think you'll see government enforcement scale quite well to 1+ billion people.
What you're missing is the "wrong" and "right" of the situation. Europeans are right, Americans and Chinese are wrong, in addition to being vulgar and uncivilized.
Lol, mighty confident of yourself aren't you? Kinda funny how easy it is to switch the two groups around in that sentence without contradicting anything else in your post.
loopback is messy, use 0.0.0.0 instead. No connections to your own host, i actually run a simple http webserver on my machine.
Huh? Unless you've configured your webserver to only bind to specific addresses, then 0.0.0.0 is practically the same as loopback. Try it yourself - "ssh 0.0.0.0" (or just "ssh 0" - does the same thing with a lot less typing).
I listened to that video and what you took away from it is the worst possible interpretation. It's like you aren't interested in hearing what he said, only what you wanted him to say.
The video starts off with the guy decrying state controlled media and using the Rwandan massacre as an example. That ought to be a big clue as to his point of view right there. When he cites Venezuela, he's not endorsing Chavez, he's using the actions of oligopoly media in Venezuela at the time to support a coup rather than democratic change. In other words he's citing two examples of extremes - abusive state control of media and abusive private control of media.
You may be all for a coup to throw Chavez out, but he was democratically elected and at the time he certainly was a change for the better in the country - the percentage of people living poverty in Venezeula had more than doubled to two-thirds of the population over the two decades prior to his election. Just because he's gone overboard since then doesn't mean he didn't start off working to improve things, which is what that FCC guy was referring to with "begin to place things."
As for the "and we've had complaints about this ever since" line -- sounds to me like he's referring to the the CIA's involvement in the coup attempt - and I don't see a problem there, we constantly hear complaints about China and Israel trying to influence the US government, if they were part of an actual coup attempt in the US, we would never hear the last of it, we'd probably go to war over it.
Kind of funny-sad how going to google for this background info, all I got was a vast echo-chamber of blogs, none of them doing anything beyond parroting the invective, not one of them that I checked could be bothered to raise a single skeptical eyebrow instead of jumping on the bandwagon.
The entire idea that "the only goal of government is to make itself bigger" shows a warped view of the world.
The only goal of government is to serve it's protect - to protect them from threats both foreign and domestic, to help them secure the fruits of liberty and prosperity.
Your "only goal" is just as ridiculous as the first one.
Government has an indefinite number of goals - as dictated by each individual within the government.
Lol, I maybe an ignorant fuck, but at least I'm literate enough to read what I respond to instead of going off with a rant that was already addressed in the post I'm flaming.
That problem is mostly due to the centralized identity aspect of driver's license cards - if they were only used to verify the license to drive rather than as an identity proxy for a billion other uses then both of those weaknesses would be moot because the drivers license databases would back the information on the card - you wouldn't even need much in the way of security features, just the image of the person's face on the card and in the database to authenticate that the person holding the card is the person licensed.
oops, unclosed bracket ate half of what I wrote...
The idea that hiding ID information will somehow protect us is, in any case, an appeal to security through obscurity.
Obscurity is a legitimate form of security in the right context. In this case, keeping domain specific identification prevents mass database cross referencing. The fact that the current system is already vulnerable is not an indictment of the solution, its a demonstration that the semi-centralized system we have today is already yielding privacy problems.
the answer is to separate security from any single identifier.
The problem is more than simple "harm" because everybody's definition of "harm" is different. Most people are not harmed by targeted marketing practices. Until the man with a vasectomy starts getting a lot of mailings advertising condoms and his wife starts to notice.
We don't need a "gargantuan mess of privacy laws" to avoid the problem. What we do need is a legal framework
You say potatoe, I say potato. I'll put my faith in a system that depends on the laws of physics over a system that depends on the laws of man any day of the week,
The idea that hiding ID information will somehow protect us is, in any case, an appeal to security through obscurity.
Obscurity is a legitimate form of security in the right context. In this case, keeping domain specific identification prevents mass database cross referencing. The fact that the current system is already vulnerable is not an indictment of the solution, its a demonstration that the semi-centralized system we have today is already yielding privacy problems.
the answer is to separate security from any single identifier.
We don't need a "gargantuan mess of privacy laws" to avoid the problem. What we do need is a legal framework
You say potatoe, I say potato. I'll put my faith in a system that depends on the laws of physics over a system that depends on the laws of man any day of the week,
And frankly, I'd rather not have my tax dollars going to paying for the errors and duplication of effort that come from not having a single, reliable personal ID.
So, you would rather have your tax dollars paying for the errors and bad assumoptions that come from having a single overly trusted id instead.
Life is never so simple as you appear to believe. There will never be such a thing as a "single, reliable personal ID" - for a whole host of reasons. Chief among them is that having just one ID is like having one big lock between the fraudsters and piles of money. Figure out how to forge that ID that everyone thinks is reliable and BAM they are in the promised land of fraud.
That duplication of effort you don't like? That's security and efficiency. Having application-specific IDs makes the system more secure because (a) a lot less people are going to be trying to forge each one - think 50 different driver's licenses versus one, that's 50 times the expertise required from the same number of forgers. (b) requiring multiple ids for certain high-value authentications makes those forgeries even harder while low value authentications don't need some uber-id, they just need to provide a reasonable level of confidence.
And don't forget (c) - unintended consequences - one id to rule them all means one key for every single database. That puts a handle on your entire life that anyone with malicious intent can grab ahold of and yank on. There is no need for me to have the same identity at the bank, at the grocery where I use a credit card, at the DMV, at my job, at the nighclub, etc. All of those places just need to authenticate me in their limited domain - the bank needs to know that I am the same person taking money out who puts money in, the grocery store just needs to know that I am the authorized user of my credit card, the DMV just needs to know that I am qualified to drive with no legal sanctions against it, my job only needs to know that I'm the same guy they interviewed, the nightclub only needs to know that I'm of legal age to drink alcohol and that they haven't kicked me out in the past, etc.
None of those organizations need to know what the other organization knows about me. But put everything under one number and you can count on them either sharing that information for their profit - not yours or my benefit - at the very least boxing all the info up in a database that they sell access to ala credit reporting agencies gone wild. And this isn't some chicken-little thing - DMVs have routinely sold their databases to companies who resell it to anyone willing to pay. That's despite cases like "My Sister Sam" where an actress had a stalker who pulled her DMV info to find her house, walked up to her door and shot her in the face, killing her dead. As it is today, any PI or other motivated individual can pull up a buttload of personal information on you for a couple of hundred dollars.
The solution isn't some gargantuan mess of privacy laws either - laws that will require tons of overhead for compliance, and can easily be changed at the whim of a panicked congress or just outright ignored by criminals. The solution is to stop trying to centralize identity. Leave it the fuck alone. Let each group do what it needs to do authentication the people it needs to authenticate, and no more.
if everyone who wanted to come to the U.S. did come to the U.S., the whole thing would fall apart.
I hear that a lot as if it were some sort of absolute truth. I don't believe it for a second
With a proper government, people are a net resource - the more people we've got here, the bigger the economy and the greater the ability to overcome obstacles.
At this point somebody usually trots out an argument about "limited resources" - like not enough water, or land, or food, or some other bullshit that's patently not true. While some of those resources are limited in some areas, that's hardly the case across the country. And the great thing about having more people around is that you've got more people to restructure those resources so that they are available where they need to be. Not enough land around los angeles? Build cities in the mid-west where water is also in abundance.
I say the real risk is not having too many people in the USA, the real risk is having such a crappy government that the people who are here aren't productive.
Maybe in the short term. But long-term the effects may be substantially different. It is certainly easy to visualize an outcome where the government is shamed into more open policies. Of course, its easy to visualize the reverse too. Which, if nothing else, suggests that the answer here really isn't known - only time will tell.
After all, if it were automated, you'd have a great product to sell to physicians who could then hire a vast cadre of nurses to do the patient interviews and generate the diagnoses, which they could then swoop in and bill for.
I think a lot of doctors would have an instinctual reaction to a product like that along the lines of, "you can't replace *me* with a machine" and their resistance would make developing a market for it pretty hard. After all, its been widely reported that doctors in the US have been pretty resistant to science-guided treatment and drug regimens, preferring their own personal (anecdotal) experience over guidelines derived from broad-based studies.
They don't appear to be off to a good start, at least not according to this rating of various services where they got nearly the worst rating of the bunch.
Which is my bias talking? My perceiving a seeming lack of intentionality in jury nullification's inclusion in the legal system? Hm. I hadn't thought of that belief as being a matter of bias... And I can't quite think of what bias would have influenced it, so I would invite you to explain any theory you've got on that.
Well, when you said that it "sounds like a way to fuck up the system" I assumed you weren't in favor of fucking up the system. My bad.
In particular, the descriptions of how it is a de facto power and quotes like the following:
Yeah, that's the thing about wikipedia, especially in articles with those little warning boxes at the top, some things are facts and some things are opinion. That line you cited, that's an opinion. A SCOTUS ruling? That's a fact.
Slashdot Mirror
WSAEADDRNOTAVAIL
LOL - you've been embraced and extended. Can't help you with arbitrary microsoft restrictions.
I would only call that "addressed" if I were a fucking idiot. Since my IQ is above 90,
Just barely it seems.
I mean did you even think through any of this at all before you posted?
You just posited that I would consider building cities in the middle of nowhere when no one is actually there and you are asking me if I thought before I posted?
Even with an IQ of only 90 you can't possibly think that ANY city was ever built like that. Enjoy playing with your strawmen.
Nope, I think yours is - note how both 0.0.0.0 and 127.0.0.1 act the same.
Or I could learn to read better.
Either you have sshd not bound to INADDR_ANY (0.0.0.0) or you have it firewalled.
You can check with netstat - try: netstat -an | grep ":22.*LISTEN"
You will probably see something like:
127.0.0.1:22 _______ 0.0.0.0:* _______ LISTEN
instead of the more common:
0.0.0.0:22 _________ 0.0.0.0:* _______ LISTEN
In which case you've probably got the ListenAddress directive in the sshd_config file explicitly listing the interfaces for sshd to listen on instead of just the default of INADDDR_ANY.
If this is what they're doing, it's pretty smart.
And should have been made common place well over a decade ago.
Nope, I think yours is - note how both 0.0.0.0 and 127.0.0.1 act the same.
You've probably got something firewalled.
I've been working on various unices for over 20 years and 0.0.0.0 has always worked unless something was broken.
He's also a kid though. Kids tend to be a lot more easy to radicalize because they have don't have as many roots put down yet nor have they been tempered with much in the way of life experiences. Let him marry a nice chinese girl and then he's going to have to start thinking about what its like to raise kids in a country without any family nearby. Chances are he'll also have to raise his family in a mostly foreign culture. Obviously plenty of Chinese people have decided that all that was worth it for the freedom and opportunities available outside of China. But its still a hard decision to make, and plenty of Chinese have decide to go back instead - especially with the growing prosperity back home.
In many ways it's difficult to imagine a government like the U.S. has, able to maintain the peace with 1.3 billion people.
I think its a prosperity issue. That cop on the road in china is as likely to take a bribe to go away as he is to actually ticket or arrest someone. Get the country to the point where bribery is no longer a practical necessity and I think you'll see government enforcement scale quite well to 1+ billion people.
What you're missing is the "wrong" and "right" of the situation. Europeans are right, Americans and Chinese are wrong, in addition to being vulgar and uncivilized.
Lol, mighty confident of yourself aren't you? Kinda funny how easy it is to switch the two groups around in that sentence without contradicting anything else in your post.
loopback is messy, use 0.0.0.0 instead. No connections to your own host, i actually run a simple http webserver on my machine.
Huh? Unless you've configured your webserver to only bind to specific addresses, then 0.0.0.0 is practically the same as loopback.
Try it yourself - "ssh 0.0.0.0" (or just "ssh 0" - does the same thing with a lot less typing).
Dude, you are a nut or a lemming.
I listened to that video and what you took away from it is the worst possible interpretation. It's like you aren't interested in hearing what he said, only what you wanted him to say.
The video starts off with the guy decrying state controlled media and using the Rwandan massacre as an example. That ought to be a big clue as to his point of view right there. When he cites Venezuela, he's not endorsing Chavez, he's using the actions of oligopoly media in Venezuela at the time to support a coup rather than democratic change. In other words he's citing two examples of extremes - abusive state control of media and abusive private control of media.
You may be all for a coup to throw Chavez out, but he was democratically elected and at the time he certainly was a change for the better in the country - the percentage of people living poverty in Venezeula had more than doubled to two-thirds of the population over the two decades prior to his election. Just because he's gone overboard since then doesn't mean he didn't start off working to improve things, which is what that FCC guy was referring to with "begin to place things."
As for the "and we've had complaints about this ever since" line -- sounds to me like he's referring to the the CIA's involvement in the coup attempt - and I don't see a problem there, we constantly hear complaints about China and Israel trying to influence the US government, if they were part of an actual coup attempt in the US, we would never hear the last of it, we'd probably go to war over it.
Kind of funny-sad how going to google for this background info, all I got was a vast echo-chamber of blogs, none of them doing anything beyond parroting the invective, not one of them that I checked could be bothered to raise a single skeptical eyebrow instead of jumping on the bandwagon.
Consider it a pre-echo of the cultural revolution.
The entire idea that "the only goal of government is to make itself bigger" shows a warped view of the world.
The only goal of government is to serve it's protect - to protect them from threats both foreign and domestic, to help them secure the fruits of liberty and prosperity.
Your "only goal" is just as ridiculous as the first one.
Government has an indefinite number of goals - as dictated by each individual within the government.
Lol, I maybe an ignorant fuck, but at least I'm literate enough to read what I respond to instead of going off with a rant that was already addressed in the post I'm flaming.
That problem is mostly due to the centralized identity aspect of driver's license cards - if they were only used to verify the license to drive rather than as an identity proxy for a billion other uses then both of those weaknesses would be moot because the drivers license databases would back the information on the card - you wouldn't even need much in the way of security features, just the image of the person's face on the card and in the database to authenticate that the person holding the card is the person licensed.
oops, unclosed bracket ate half of what I wrote...
The idea that hiding ID information will somehow protect us is, in any case, an appeal to security through obscurity.
Obscurity is a legitimate form of security in the right context. In this case, keeping domain specific identification prevents mass database cross referencing. The fact that the current system is already vulnerable is not an indictment of the solution, its a demonstration that the semi-centralized system we have today is already yielding privacy problems.
the answer is to separate security from any single identifier.
The problem is more than simple "harm" because everybody's definition of "harm" is different. Most people are not harmed by targeted marketing practices. Until the man with a vasectomy starts getting a lot of mailings advertising condoms and his wife starts to notice.
We don't need a "gargantuan mess of privacy laws" to avoid the problem. What we do need is a legal framework
You say potatoe, I say potato. I'll put my faith in a system that depends on the laws of physics over a system that depends on the laws of man any day of the week,
The idea that hiding ID information will somehow protect us is, in any case, an appeal to security through obscurity.
Obscurity is a legitimate form of security in the right context. In this case, keeping domain specific identification prevents mass database cross referencing. The fact that the current system is already vulnerable is not an indictment of the solution, its a demonstration that the semi-centralized system we have today is already yielding privacy problems.
the answer is to separate security from any single identifier.
We don't need a "gargantuan mess of privacy laws" to avoid the problem. What we do need is a legal framework
You say potatoe, I say potato. I'll put my faith in a system that depends on the laws of physics over a system that depends on the laws of man any day of the week,
And frankly, I'd rather not have my tax dollars going to paying for the errors and duplication of effort that come from not having a single, reliable personal ID.
So, you would rather have your tax dollars paying for the errors and bad assumoptions that come from having a single overly trusted id instead.
Life is never so simple as you appear to believe. There will never be such a thing as a "single, reliable personal ID" - for a whole host of reasons. Chief among them is that having just one ID is like having one big lock between the fraudsters and piles of money. Figure out how to forge that ID that everyone thinks is reliable and BAM they are in the promised land of fraud.
That duplication of effort you don't like? That's security and efficiency. Having application-specific IDs makes the system more secure because (a) a lot less people are going to be trying to forge each one - think 50 different driver's licenses versus one, that's 50 times the expertise required from the same number of forgers. (b) requiring multiple ids for certain high-value authentications makes those forgeries even harder while low value authentications don't need some uber-id, they just need to provide a reasonable level of confidence.
And don't forget (c) - unintended consequences - one id to rule them all means one key for every single database. That puts a handle on your entire life that anyone with malicious intent can grab ahold of and yank on. There is no need for me to have the same identity at the bank, at the grocery where I use a credit card, at the DMV, at my job, at the nighclub, etc. All of those places just need to authenticate me in their limited domain - the bank needs to know that I am the same person taking money out who puts money in, the grocery store just needs to know that I am the authorized user of my credit card, the DMV just needs to know that I am qualified to drive with no legal sanctions against it, my job only needs to know that I'm the same guy they interviewed, the nightclub only needs to know that I'm of legal age to drink alcohol and that they haven't kicked me out in the past, etc.
None of those organizations need to know what the other organization knows about me. But put everything under one number and you can count on them either sharing that information for their profit - not yours or my benefit - at the very least boxing all the info up in a database that they sell access to ala credit reporting agencies gone wild. And this isn't some chicken-little thing - DMVs have routinely sold their databases to companies who resell it to anyone willing to pay. That's despite cases like "My Sister Sam" where an actress had a stalker who pulled her DMV info to find her house, walked up to her door and shot her in the face, killing her dead. As it is today, any PI or other motivated individual can pull up a buttload of personal information on you for a couple of hundred dollars.
The solution isn't some gargantuan mess of privacy laws either - laws that will require tons of overhead for compliance, and can easily be changed at the whim of a panicked congress or just outright ignored by criminals. The solution is to stop trying to centralize identity. Leave it the fuck alone. Let each group do what it needs to do authentication the people it needs to authenticate, and no more.
if everyone who wanted to come to the U.S. did come to the U.S., the whole thing would fall apart.
I hear that a lot as if it were some sort of absolute truth. I don't believe it for a second
With a proper government, people are a net resource - the more people we've got here, the bigger the economy and the greater the ability to overcome obstacles.
At this point somebody usually trots out an argument about "limited resources" - like not enough water, or land, or food, or some other bullshit that's patently not true. While some of those resources are limited in some areas, that's hardly the case across the country. And the great thing about having more people around is that you've got more people to restructure those resources so that they are available where they need to be. Not enough land around los angeles? Build cities in the mid-west where water is also in abundance.
I say the real risk is not having too many people in the USA, the real risk is having such a crappy government that the people who are here aren't productive.
He should abuse the shit out of these retards.
I bet these prophecies don't say anything about him putting his followers into poverty for his own personal vices.
Tell them he's not their messiah but he wants all of their money so he can spend it on hookers and blow.
Although that still might not work, after all scientology has a way more suckers than these share international fools.
the Chinese people.
Maybe in the short term. But long-term the effects may be substantially different. It is certainly easy to visualize an outcome where the government is shamed into more open policies. Of course, its easy to visualize the reverse too. Which, if nothing else, suggests that the answer here really isn't known - only time will tell.
The brilliance behind FOSS is that anarchy and totalitarianism can actually strike a balance that feels a lot like democracy:
Perhaps there should be a name for such a system - I nominate forkocracy.
Neo said there is no spoon, but there definitely is a fork.
After all, if it were automated, you'd have a great product to sell to physicians who could then hire a vast cadre of nurses to do the patient interviews and generate the diagnoses, which they could then swoop in and bill for.
I think a lot of doctors would have an instinctual reaction to a product like that along the lines of, "you can't replace *me* with a machine" and their resistance would make developing a market for it pretty hard. After all, its been widely reported that doctors in the US have been pretty resistant to science-guided treatment and drug regimens, preferring their own personal (anecdotal) experience over guidelines derived from broad-based studies.
If they solve the privacy concerns,
They don't appear to be off to a good start, at least not according to this rating of various services where they got nearly the worst rating of the bunch.
http://patientprivacyrights.org/personal-health-records/
Which is my bias talking? My perceiving a seeming lack of intentionality in jury nullification's inclusion in the legal system? Hm. I hadn't thought of that belief as being a matter of bias... And I can't quite think of what bias would have influenced it, so I would invite you to explain any theory you've got on that.
Well, when you said that it "sounds like a way to fuck up the system" I assumed you weren't in favor of fucking up the system. My bad.
In particular, the descriptions of how it is a de facto power and quotes like the following:
Yeah, that's the thing about wikipedia, especially in articles with those little warning boxes at the top, some things are facts and some things are opinion. That line you cited, that's an opinion. A SCOTUS ruling? That's a fact.
http://wso.williams.edu/~rcarson/lizards.html
That is all.