Because he is reminiscing about what he used at the time, and many of his readers will find it interesting.
I was particularly interested in his talk of the SW1000XG, and Opcode OMS. He didn't have to include that detail, but I found it all the more interesting because of it. Probably because I used the same technology at the time.
Yeah, and for those not watching alone this is going to drive everyone else totally crazy. You're watching the action, when the doofus with the remote decides he wants to see what's happening on the sideline.
I predict a new wave of TV related domestic violence.
Driving at 150 MPH is legal in many areas. The Autobahn, Montana during the day... And it's not stupid.
Sorry, unless you are a professional racing driver with lightning reactions, driving at 150MPH is always stupid. And even if you are a racing driver, on public roads you can never anticipate what unexpected thing the driver next to you may do. At 150 MPH your safe margin of error is zero. Happy to put your life in their hands? Happy to risk the life of everyone about you?
But back on topic; the idea of not automatically connecting to every network available is sound. Even if you aren't logging into your bank website. For reasons that TFA suggests; it helps stop random companies you have no dealings with slurping up information about you, your movements and your behaviour. You may think what you browse on Wikipedia doesn't require security, but would you think the same if you discovered some company you've never even heard of has a complete record of your interests, and is selling it to others?
The distinction between secure and unsecure logins to websites is also lost on most people. They think it all the same. So a man-in-the-middle attack on an unsecure login can open the door to who-knows-what information.
Those with no problem connecting to any open connection they find should ask themselves this; if you were offered open wifi access, but specifically told that this access will be intercepted, probed and exploited in every way possible by persons unknown, would you still connect to it, placing all your trust in SSL and your own device's security? Or would you think; why take the risk? So why treat any other random open wifi differently?
And lastly; if your device is in the habit of connecting to whatever wifi it comes across, unless you are equally in the habit of always checking which connection you have active, you will sooner or later accidentally perform on the open wifi some operation you'd normally reserve for a secured connection. Guaranteed.
And by that point it would be a shit encyclopaedia full of stuff that properly belongs on the internet. I believe they have companies that index that kind of stuff and everything, so you can find it.
If the local pizza place puts up an entry it certainly isn't notable but the data is probably factually correct and useful to a few.
But is a global encyclopaedia the best place for that information? The key criteria about notability is "are people likely to come looking for this in Wikipedia"? Do you expect Wikipedia to list your local pizza place, with menu and opening times, and expect it to be better, more accurate and more up to date than your local pizza's place own website? If so, who do you expect to keep it in that state?
Wikipedia is not just a sub-set of the internet. It's an encyclopaedia. There is a lot of information in the world that is not suitable for inclusion on it, and shouldn't be on it. Just because some may find it "useful" is not the sole criteria.
99 times out of 100, these tip-offs come to nothing
That's not quite what was said. From the original blog ; "they mentioned that they do this about 100 times a week. And that 99 of those visits turn out to be nothing."
So we have three possibilities;
1/ this statistic is a bullshit overstatement, talking up a minimal danger 2/ they are arresting terrorist bombers at a rate of 1 a week 3/ they are prosecuting 1 person a week on an unrelated matter, after gaining access to their house on the pretext of "war against terrorism".
More likely it's to do with the rights of whoever buys a house. They may not be willing to take a risk with a gas oven, but do not know the previous owner was happy to take a risk. Makes everyone's life easier, and safer, if it can assumed that certain things are provided to a certain standard, by law.
Same goes for the "taxi" your travelling companion has booked.
It is the business of the city/state. A company is operating on the city's roads what is effectively public transport without having to conform to any of the regulations intended to make public transport safe. Dressing it up as "sharing" with "donations" is playing with words in a transparent attempt to disguise what is occurring.
this is an arrangement for services between consenting adults
No its not. It is arrangement between a company, which knows exactly what laws it is attempting to circumvent, what risks are being taken, and an adult who may not. The purpose of regulations are to protect you from situations like that.
If I set up a child care business without any care for the regulations, and called it a "child share" funded by donations, would that be ok? How is this different from being a passenger in the back seat of one of these cars? You have no idea of the driver's abilities, no idea of their insurance, no idea of the car's safety. At least with a taxi you have some reassurance.
If I want the safety of a gas oven built to regulations, I'll buy one. If I am willing to accept the risk of a death trap built to no regulations, where is the reason to disallow me to do that?
If I want the safety of medically prescribed medicine manufactured to regulations, I'll buy it. If I am willing to accept death from unregulated back-street medicine, where is the reason to disallow me to do that?
If I want the safety of a car built to regulations, I'll buy one....
If I want a safe house constructed to regulations...
You get my point. Half the time the person is not aware of the risk they are taking. Maybe they are assuming regulations apply when they are in fact being circumvented. Sometimes regulations are good. Sometimes they protect people from their own ignorance. Sometimes they protect other people for other's idiocy.
This adds nothing of value . . . except to the government and insurance agencies.... If you are using your car for professional purposes, you need to report it to your insurance company anyway.
I think you'd change your opinion if you were a passenger involved in a serious accident in one of these vehicles, and found that the driver was not adequately insured. Because the driver had not reported this use to their insurance company, and there wasn't any one checking they had, because they are not a registered taxi driver.
Never mind the millions of technological flaws in this dumb plan. What's morally wrong about this is threefold;
Firstly it is censorship. Once it's established that it's ok for your ISP to filter naughty pictures, it becomes ok for them to filter anything else that the government of the day decides you shouldn't look at/read/know. Unless you ask for special permission, and what would you be needing that for, you filthy pervert/terrorist/subversive?
Secondly the government is taking on the role of arbiter of what is 'porn'. Not 'illegal porn', just porn. So anything that they decide is a bit saucy, in their opinion, gets blocked as porn. No longer your decision if you'd class it as, say, educational.
Thirdly, the majority of this is going to be inevitably automated. And automation never works 100%. So entirely 'clean' websites, containing information that adults have a perfect right to know, are going to get blocked just because something triggers an automatic 'filth trigger'. End result will be websites being hyper-cautious about anything and everything that might possibly be considered 'adult', in case they get hit by a block that takes weeks to sort out. Welcome to the Disneyfication of the internet, where everything is reduced to the level of what's safe for a 5 year old.
the current monarchy is ultimately derived from William the Conqueror
If that's the basis of your calculations, you fail at the very start. The linage from William the Conqueror ceased with Elizabeth I. It's Scotland that has the longer lineage of royalty, and that's what should form the basis of any calculation if we're going that way.
I think it's clear to everyone but the most obsessive of fans that Lucas has been following the methodology of "making shit up as I go along" the entire time.
The idea that he had planned out an entire series of movies and over-arching plot, and that we were started somewhere in the middle of the saga in 1977, is appealing to fans, but frankly laughable.
"Star Wars" was a simple space opera that was a great success on that basis. As movie after movie gets added to the pile, its limitations become increasingly obvious and the plot is a mess that creaks under the weight of its own implausibilities and inconsistencies. Hence the continual re-hashing.
No-one eats them. Why do you think the company went bankrupt?
However, there is a meme that appears to have the perpetual life of the undead (rather like their shelf-life *rimshot*) that they are the food of choice for unhealthy slobs who don't cook everywhere. We are to believe has a big overlap on the geek population.
As far as observational comedy goes, it got old at least 20 years ago and went meta observational around the same time. Say, have you every noticed how many comedians use twinkies as a lazy reference to poor dietary habits? What's with that?
Well that's rather the point. Once you start blocking access to things, because someone is of the opinion you're not to be trusted to control yourself, or fully understand its limitations and dangers, then where do you draw the line?
Follow this line of thinking and ultimately you are advocating keeping people ignorant, because information, (any information) can be a dangerous thing.
Why has Saudi Arabia become emboldened to act now? Because the disclosure of the PRISM program makes them immune from international criticism. They can rightly point out that the US government already has access to the data. It shouldn't take long for other countries to follow suit with similar demands.
All countries involved with PRISM have waved goodbye to any moral high ground they ever had any claim to. They're monitoring private communications exactly like the worse of any repressive regime. And before anyone takes issue; I'm not saying they are as bad as a repressive regime, but that they have given all repressive regimes an easy and justifiable defence for their activities. Why should the US have access to data on their citizens that they don't?
Whether the governments of countries involved in PRISM care that they've lost the moral high ground is another matter. But you'd think their citizens would. Perhaps all governments are fine with the monitoring actions of the others. Universal monitoring would make all their jobs easier.
Why wouldn't you allow them to make that decision for themselves?
It's amazing what desperate people may be prepared to do for even the chance of a (better) job. But many civilised countries have decided that companies exploiting desperate people is not acceptable. Perhaps it about time the United States joined them?
"community of drivers who work together to fight traffic"
That's strange. I've always thought that drivers are traffic. Are they fighting themselves? Or just other communities of drivers?
There's definitely scope for competition here. Different communities, different apps, swore deadly enemies fighting to the death! Which one can stage a fake traffic jam that sends the other into a futile five mile detour, leaving the road half empty?
Slashdot Mirror
Because he is reminiscing about what he used at the time, and many of his readers will find it interesting.
I was particularly interested in his talk of the SW1000XG, and Opcode OMS. He didn't have to include that detail, but I found it all the more interesting because of it. Probably because I used the same technology at the time.
I think we're working to the mind-set of "If I can't see/feel it myself, nothing you can say will ever prove anything."
Very popular position amongst conspiracy theorists.
Yeah, and for those not watching alone this is going to drive everyone else totally crazy. You're watching the action, when the doofus with the remote decides he wants to see what's happening on the sideline.
I predict a new wave of TV related domestic violence.
Driving at 150 MPH is legal in many areas. The Autobahn, Montana during the day... And it's not stupid.
Sorry, unless you are a professional racing driver with lightning reactions, driving at 150MPH is always stupid. And even if you are a racing driver, on public roads you can never anticipate what unexpected thing the driver next to you may do. At 150 MPH your safe margin of error is zero. Happy to put your life in their hands? Happy to risk the life of everyone about you?
But back on topic; the idea of not automatically connecting to every network available is sound. Even if you aren't logging into your bank website. For reasons that TFA suggests; it helps stop random companies you have no dealings with slurping up information about you, your movements and your behaviour. You may think what you browse on Wikipedia doesn't require security, but would you think the same if you discovered some company you've never even heard of has a complete record of your interests, and is selling it to others?
The distinction between secure and unsecure logins to websites is also lost on most people. They think it all the same. So a man-in-the-middle attack on an unsecure login can open the door to who-knows-what information.
Those with no problem connecting to any open connection they find should ask themselves this; if you were offered open wifi access, but specifically told that this access will be intercepted, probed and exploited in every way possible by persons unknown, would you still connect to it, placing all your trust in SSL and your own device's security? Or would you think; why take the risk? So why treat any other random open wifi differently?
And lastly; if your device is in the habit of connecting to whatever wifi it comes across, unless you are equally in the habit of always checking which connection you have active, you will sooner or later accidentally perform on the open wifi some operation you'd normally reserve for a secured connection. Guaranteed.
Another interpretation would be that the dolphin sometimes approached people at the pool edge and made noises.
Sometimes those people would give the dolphin fish.
Everything else is only a product of your "as if"s.
And by that point it would be a shit encyclopaedia full of stuff that properly belongs on the internet. I believe they have companies that index that kind of stuff and everything, so you can find it.
If the local pizza place puts up an entry it certainly isn't notable but the data is probably factually correct and useful to a few.
But is a global encyclopaedia the best place for that information? The key criteria about notability is "are people likely to come looking for this in Wikipedia"? Do you expect Wikipedia to list your local pizza place, with menu and opening times, and expect it to be better, more accurate and more up to date than your local pizza's place own website? If so, who do you expect to keep it in that state?
Wikipedia is not just a sub-set of the internet. It's an encyclopaedia. There is a lot of information in the world that is not suitable for inclusion on it, and shouldn't be on it. Just because some may find it "useful" is not the sole criteria.
If your edits are anything like your clueless argument here, I'm not surprised they got reverted.
Speaking of clues;
First clue; his name is Wales, not Whales. Second clue; calling someone a "faggot" makes you sound like a 12 year old having a tantrum.
99 times out of 100, these tip-offs come to nothing
That's not quite what was said. From the original blog ; "they mentioned that they do this about 100 times a week. And that 99 of those visits turn out to be nothing."
So we have three possibilities;
1/ this statistic is a bullshit overstatement, talking up a minimal danger
2/ they are arresting terrorist bombers at a rate of 1 a week
3/ they are prosecuting 1 person a week on an unrelated matter, after gaining access to their house on the pretext of "war against terrorism".
Which do we think it is?
Yeah. Great Dad. Uses his son's bedroom as a playroom for his hobby with his pal.
Son may be ok about it just now, but what happens when he decides he's too old for his father's toys?
Man, you seriously have no idea of the cost of curtain rings and the large slice they take out of the average household budget.
I'm still repaying the debt I ran up with them when I was a student. If only I'd had a 3D printer in them days.
More likely it's to do with the rights of whoever buys a house. They may not be willing to take a risk with a gas oven, but do not know the previous owner was happy to take a risk. Makes everyone's life easier, and safer, if it can assumed that certain things are provided to a certain standard, by law.
Same goes for the "taxi" your travelling companion has booked.
It is the business of the city/state. A company is operating on the city's roads what is effectively public transport without having to conform to any of the regulations intended to make public transport safe. Dressing it up as "sharing" with "donations" is playing with words in a transparent attempt to disguise what is occurring.
this is an arrangement for services between consenting adults
No its not. It is arrangement between a company, which knows exactly what laws it is attempting to circumvent, what risks are being taken, and an adult who may not. The purpose of regulations are to protect you from situations like that.
If I set up a child care business without any care for the regulations, and called it a "child share" funded by donations, would that be ok? How is this different from being a passenger in the back seat of one of these cars? You have no idea of the driver's abilities, no idea of their insurance, no idea of the car's safety. At least with a taxi you have some reassurance.
If I want the safety of a gas oven built to regulations, I'll buy one. If I am willing to accept the risk of a death trap built to no regulations, where is the reason to disallow me to do that?
If I want the safety of medically prescribed medicine manufactured to regulations, I'll buy it. If I am willing to accept death from unregulated back-street medicine, where is the reason to disallow me to do that?
If I want the safety of a car built to regulations, I'll buy one. ...
If I want a safe house constructed to regulations...
You get my point. Half the time the person is not aware of the risk they are taking. Maybe they are assuming regulations apply when they are in fact being circumvented. Sometimes regulations are good. Sometimes they protect people from their own ignorance. Sometimes they protect other people for other's idiocy.
This adds nothing of value . . . except to the government and insurance agencies. ... If you are using your car for professional purposes, you need to report it to your insurance company anyway.
I think you'd change your opinion if you were a passenger involved in a serious accident in one of these vehicles, and found that the driver was not adequately insured. Because the driver had not reported this use to their insurance company, and there wasn't any one checking they had, because they are not a registered taxi driver.
Never mind the millions of technological flaws in this dumb plan. What's morally wrong about this is threefold;
Firstly it is censorship. Once it's established that it's ok for your ISP to filter naughty pictures, it becomes ok for them to filter anything else that the government of the day decides you shouldn't look at/read/know. Unless you ask for special permission, and what would you be needing that for, you filthy pervert/terrorist/subversive?
Secondly the government is taking on the role of arbiter of what is 'porn'. Not 'illegal porn', just porn. So anything that they decide is a bit saucy, in their opinion, gets blocked as porn. No longer your decision if you'd class it as, say, educational.
Thirdly, the majority of this is going to be inevitably automated. And automation never works 100%. So entirely 'clean' websites, containing information that adults have a perfect right to know, are going to get blocked just because something triggers an automatic 'filth trigger'. End result will be websites being hyper-cautious about anything and everything that might possibly be considered 'adult', in case they get hit by a block that takes weeks to sort out. Welcome to the Disneyfication of the internet, where everything is reduced to the level of what's safe for a 5 year old.
the current monarchy is ultimately derived from William the Conqueror
If that's the basis of your calculations, you fail at the very start. The linage from William the Conqueror ceased with Elizabeth I. It's Scotland that has the longer lineage of royalty, and that's what should form the basis of any calculation if we're going that way.
I think it's clear to everyone but the most obsessive of fans that Lucas has been following the methodology of "making shit up as I go along" the entire time.
The idea that he had planned out an entire series of movies and over-arching plot, and that we were started somewhere in the middle of the saga in 1977, is appealing to fans, but frankly laughable.
"Star Wars" was a simple space opera that was a great success on that basis. As movie after movie gets added to the pile, its limitations become increasingly obvious and the plot is a mess that creaks under the weight of its own implausibilities and inconsistencies. Hence the continual re-hashing.
Don't know about deceit, but I do know that my Firefox's noscript blocked no less than sixteen (16) separate sites running scripts on TFA.
So if anyone has an interest in fast browsers, they have.
I mean, 16, what possible excuse is there for that on what is effectively just a news article?
No-one eats them. Why do you think the company went bankrupt?
However, there is a meme that appears to have the perpetual life of the undead (rather like their shelf-life *rimshot*) that they are the food of choice for unhealthy slobs who don't cook everywhere. We are to believe has a big overlap on the geek population.
As far as observational comedy goes, it got old at least 20 years ago and went meta observational around the same time. Say, have you every noticed how many comedians use twinkies as a lazy reference to poor dietary habits? What's with that?
Wow, it is true. Some English speaking Canadians really do have a giant chip on their shoulder about the French Canadians.
I would explain where my personal experience directly contradicts your ridiculous claim, but you already know you're talking crap, don't you?
Well that's rather the point. Once you start blocking access to things, because someone is of the opinion you're not to be trusted to control yourself, or fully understand its limitations and dangers, then where do you draw the line?
Follow this line of thinking and ultimately you are advocating keeping people ignorant, because information, (any information) can be a dangerous thing.
QFT. Mod parent up.
Why has Saudi Arabia become emboldened to act now? Because the disclosure of the PRISM program makes them immune from international criticism. They can rightly point out that the US government already has access to the data. It shouldn't take long for other countries to follow suit with similar demands.
All countries involved with PRISM have waved goodbye to any moral high ground they ever had any claim to. They're monitoring private communications exactly like the worse of any repressive regime. And before anyone takes issue; I'm not saying they are as bad as a repressive regime, but that they have given all repressive regimes an easy and justifiable defence for their activities. Why should the US have access to data on their citizens that they don't?
Whether the governments of countries involved in PRISM care that they've lost the moral high ground is another matter. But you'd think their citizens would. Perhaps all governments are fine with the monitoring actions of the others. Universal monitoring would make all their jobs easier.
Why wouldn't you allow them to make that decision for themselves?
It's amazing what desperate people may be prepared to do for even the chance of a (better) job. But many civilised countries have decided that companies exploiting desperate people is not acceptable. Perhaps it about time the United States joined them?
"community of drivers who work together to fight traffic"
That's strange. I've always thought that drivers are traffic. Are they fighting themselves? Or just other communities of drivers?
There's definitely scope for competition here. Different communities, different apps, swore deadly enemies fighting to the death! Which one can stage a fake traffic jam that sends the other into a futile five mile detour, leaving the road half empty?