I agree it shouldn't be relied upon as a troubleshooting step (you need to know what broke, why, and why it won't happen again). That said, if you go years without rebooting a machine... there is a good chance that if you ever do (to replace hardware for instance) it won't come back up without issue. Verifying that the system still boots correctly is imo a good idea.
Also, all that fancy high availability failover stuff... it's good to verify that it's still working as well.
The "my servers been up 3 years" e-pene days are gone folks.
Re:Another great Python 3.x series release
on
Python 3.2 Released
·
· Score: 2
That's exactly the approach my little "pea brain" was complaining about. Developing anything in streams forces people to pick one... or in most cases keep both of them around (which is usually a huge pain and involves all manner of hacks.. see using python 3 on gentoo).
Re:Another great Python 3.x series release
on
Python 3.2 Released
·
· Score: 2
Java did not
Probably one of the reasons it's so popular in the "serious business"[tm] crowd. I write something in Java, I know it's gonna work in 5 years without me needing to keep some legacy version of the JVM around. Stuff can be gradually migrated over to the replacements for deprecated functionality, without essentially having to fix everything before being able to migrate. See portage and many others for issues associated with the python approach.
Re:Another great Python 3.x series release
on
Python 3.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
should have gotten rid of this one-class-def-per-class-file non-sense.
I'm actually a fan of this! I do it in my c++ coding as well.
If a class is specialized enough to only really be useful to one class.. it can be defined as part of that class, but I generally avoid that for all but the most trivial stuff (specialized action listeners that need to take parameters being my most common reason for this).
Re:Another great Python 3.x series release
on
Python 3.2 Released
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
This is my biggest complaint with python (I have others, I'll admit I have little love for python). This is not the way to develop a language.
I'll admit I've never developed a programming language, but I have worked on large, long term libraries, and I think the same principle applies. All those stupid design decisions and approaches that are now obsolete and make no sense.. you have to make them still work anyway. You can spew lots of warnings.. but to me breaking backwards compatibility in a _programming language_ is sloppy and completely unacceptable.
I think there is a huge difference between meeting up with someone they're chatting with online and the other usual childhood "behind the parents back" type stuff that we all did and expect our kids to do (though will probably still freak out over).
Do you think your kid is going to actually put him/her self in real danger? Ok.. then yeah.. surveillance mode, but I would probably use some other tactic then this, and at the very least would tell the kid about it.
Beyond that, I think standard passive monitoring is called for. My parents didn't follow me around everywhere, but they had a pretty good idea of who I hung out with, and always knew where I was. I think the same kind of approach can be taken to the online world.
I think "beliefs" is kind of strong there. We're talking about kids talking to the wrong guy on facebook here.
The trust comes in the form of a parent knowing their kids judgment and behaviour such that they feel comfortable enough to not need to monitor them every second they are online. I don't think monitoring should be eliminated entirely, but this kind of secretive, absolute monitoring to me would send a pretty strong message to a kid if discovered.
This all just sounds like something that's gonna blow up when the kid inevitably finds the thing.
Also I think there is a substantial difference between the government/people and parent/child relationships.
My government doesn't know me. I mean, they kind of do.. but the government doesn't have an idea of my personality, my maturity, my judgment, etc. If the government spies on me... I understand it...
A parent on the other hand.... should.
I guess the question I would ask, is if this is an ok thing (as you said, doesn't restrict usage) why not tell the kid. My answer would be that you would basically be telling the kid "I don't trust you and need to monitor everything you do". Maybe kids don't think of it exactly like that, but I think that's the basic sentiment that would come through.
I don't so much have a problem with the privacy issue. Up to a certain age, I think a parent should supervise what their child is doing online.
More the method.
This seems like a half-ass solution to a problem arising from the sadly typical "both parents work, no one actually raises their own kids any more" society we have now. No, you can't monitor your kids all the time.. and there is an age between the "computer in the living room, only when I'm around" age and the "computer in your bedroom.. I trust you" age.. but this seems like a really bad solution for something that _should_ be solved by actual parenting.
So... this prevents someone copying a BD disk with a VCR? Or a TV capture card?
I’m actually confused here. Do people actually copy digital media this way any more? What does this prevent?
This kind of sounds like something that has been in the works for a while and is now irrelevant (now that AACS has been dealt with), but the guy’s at the top are two stupid (or afraid of getting fired) to stop it.
Tech like this.. money actually doesn't play much of a part. There is enough diversity in tablets, that if someone really wants one, they can probably find one in their price range.
Personally, I have no interest in a tablet. It has nothing to do with money.. it's just not something I want or need. The fact that a tablet costs more than the same weight in an arbitrary precious metal has nothing to do with anything.
When driving a big heavy thing that can easily kill people.. if you don't have the decency to pay attention, then when you do kill someone the penalty should be much steeper than a fine and/or slap on the wrist.
That said, I'd say there are enough questions here that it's 50/50 whether she is guilty or not. Luckily that's what investigations and trials are for.
Is taking data off really an issue anyway. If it's confidential data, destroy the disk when you need to dispose of it. Not repurposing or re-selling hardware with sensitive information on it sounds like a no-brainer.
That's probably because you are a person of at least room temperature intelligence. There are a lot of really stupid people out there.
Browse some youtube comments or yahoo answers. The rampant success of all the various "you'd have to be an idiot" scams will suddenly seem less surprising. It's actually quite depressing. Not to mention the extreme cases.. like people who fall for the Nigerian scams.
Even an experienced martial artist fighting a beginner is probably going to get hurt. Yes they'll win the fight.. but they won't likely come out unscathed.
Maybe because you're actually getting more than $5 worth of enjoyment out of it?
I kind of had that realization myself. We gripe about the cost of entertainment.. especially TV box sets. I paid somewhere in the area of $400 for the entire ST:DS9 series. That seems insane.. but when you actually think about how much "entertainment hours" that is... it suddenly seems a little more reasonable.
Very similar experience here. Doesn't make it right.. but I'm honest about it.
Although I think there is some value in convinience as well. I'm a very impulsive person. Give me the ability to pay and be watching something within 10 seconds (streaming) or an hour (full download) and you'd make a bit of money of me. As it stands I'm Canadian, and thanks to the CRTC/CBC.. this is generally not much of an option.
I'm actually pretty good about paying for content these days.
As for research... this thing was completely torn apart the last time it graced slashdot. Ergo the top bit of my comment. The fact that these points have been brought up by a huge number of people, and from my recollection arn't even touched on by the study, to me shows that their research was pretty thin. They are the ones writing the study.. they should have researched why I (and the huge crowd who share the same opinion) are wrong and presented that.
Or here's an idea.. _actually_ talk to a file sharer. Someone managed to get an interview with axxo once.. so it's not impossible.
I strongly doubt anyone is getting rich from the trickle of people who actually go to the URLs found in torrent info files. They seem to be more for notoriety than profit.
Yes, the trackers make money of the ads.. but unless there is some secret backroom deal where TPB and others funnel money to axxo and friends.. I don’t see the corollary between index site traffic and motivation for users to seed.
People do it for the e-pene. People were (and still are) doing this on IRC long before there was any way to make a profit. People insist on keeping their share ratios up, even when not required... and they see no profit either.
And the interview doesn’t _detail_ anything. It quickly explains some very shallow “research” with plenty of bias, then makes a pretty dubious guess, and finally proceeds to make an even lamer admonishment of people who illegally download.
_AND_ using TPB and Mininova as your main source of data good grief.
This isn't a few guys who've had a look at what's happening on BitTorrent a couple of times and made notes
Weird... cause that’s exactly what it feels like. This thing reads like some high school kid’s half assed research project. They grabbed some data.. made a bunch of broad assumptions.. then proceeded to unsubstantiated correlations.
This whole “study” is a complete joke. If these researchers had any brains they’d just let this thing quietly die and move onto something else.
Slashdot Mirror
I for one believe in frequent-ish reboots.
I agree it shouldn't be relied upon as a troubleshooting step (you need to know what broke, why, and why it won't happen again). That said, if you go years without rebooting a machine... there is a good chance that if you ever do (to replace hardware for instance) it won't come back up without issue. Verifying that the system still boots correctly is imo a good idea.
Also, all that fancy high availability failover stuff... it's good to verify that it's still working as well.
The "my servers been up 3 years" e-pene days are gone folks.
That's exactly the approach my little "pea brain" was complaining about. Developing anything in streams forces people to pick one... or in most cases keep both of them around (which is usually a huge pain and involves all manner of hacks.. see using python 3 on gentoo).
Java did not
Probably one of the reasons it's so popular in the "serious business"[tm] crowd. I write something in Java, I know it's gonna work in 5 years without me needing to keep some legacy version of the JVM around. Stuff can be gradually migrated over to the replacements for deprecated functionality, without essentially having to fix everything before being able to migrate. See portage and many others for issues associated with the python approach.
should have gotten rid of this one-class-def-per-class-file non-sense.
I'm actually a fan of this! I do it in my c++ coding as well.
If a class is specialized enough to only really be useful to one class.. it can be defined as part of that class, but I generally avoid that for all but the most trivial stuff (specialized action listeners that need to take parameters being my most common reason for this).
This is my biggest complaint with python (I have others, I'll admit I have little love for python). This is not the way to develop a language.
I'll admit I've never developed a programming language, but I have worked on large, long term libraries, and I think the same principle applies. All those stupid design decisions and approaches that are now obsolete and make no sense.. you have to make them still work anyway. You can spew lots of warnings.. but to me breaking backwards compatibility in a _programming language_ is sloppy and completely unacceptable.
I think there is a huge difference between meeting up with someone they're chatting with online and the other usual childhood "behind the parents back" type stuff that we all did and expect our kids to do (though will probably still freak out over).
Do you think your kid is going to actually put him/her self in real danger? Ok.. then yeah.. surveillance mode, but I would probably use some other tactic then this, and at the very least would tell the kid about it.
Beyond that, I think standard passive monitoring is called for. My parents didn't follow me around everywhere, but they had a pretty good idea of who I hung out with, and always knew where I was. I think the same kind of approach can be taken to the online world.
I think "beliefs" is kind of strong there. We're talking about kids talking to the wrong guy on facebook here.
The trust comes in the form of a parent knowing their kids judgment and behaviour such that they feel comfortable enough to not need to monitor them every second they are online. I don't think monitoring should be eliminated entirely, but this kind of secretive, absolute monitoring to me would send a pretty strong message to a kid if discovered.
Well put!
This thing really does sound more like a punishment for violating trust than a preventative measure.
This all just sounds like something that's gonna blow up when the kid inevitably finds the thing.
Also I think there is a substantial difference between the government/people and parent/child relationships.
My government doesn't know me. I mean, they kind of do.. but the government doesn't have an idea of my personality, my maturity, my judgment, etc. If the government spies on me... I understand it...
A parent on the other hand.... should.
I guess the question I would ask, is if this is an ok thing (as you said, doesn't restrict usage) why not tell the kid. My answer would be that you would basically be telling the kid "I don't trust you and need to monitor everything you do". Maybe kids don't think of it exactly like that, but I think that's the basic sentiment that would come through.
I don't so much have a problem with the privacy issue. Up to a certain age, I think a parent should supervise what their child is doing online.
More the method.
This seems like a half-ass solution to a problem arising from the sadly typical "both parents work, no one actually raises their own kids any more" society we have now. No, you can't monitor your kids all the time.. and there is an age between the "computer in the living room, only when I'm around" age and the "computer in your bedroom.. I trust you" age.. but this seems like a really bad solution for something that _should_ be solved by actual parenting.
I don't think any parent would sacrifice anything to make sure nothing happens to their children
If you are so out of touch with what your kid does online that you need this.. then you forgot to sacrifice something somewhere along the way.
No, you can't watch your kids all the time .. and at a certain age you can't just say "internet only when I'm around" either.
You can however educate your child on the risks out there, and have a good understanding of your childs judgment is.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2002632&cid=35247890
But yeah.. I can't believe I did that, as well as "guy’s at the". Just a bad grammer day :(
* are too stupid
may the great fire cactus forgive me... it's Friday :(
So... this prevents someone copying a BD disk with a VCR? Or a TV capture card?
I’m actually confused here. Do people actually copy digital media this way any more? What does this prevent?
This kind of sounds like something that has been in the works for a while and is now irrelevant (now that AACS has been dealt with), but the guy’s at the top are two stupid (or afraid of getting fired) to stop it.
Indeed.
Tech like this.. money actually doesn't play much of a part. There is enough diversity in tablets, that if someone really wants one, they can probably find one in their price range.
Personally, I have no interest in a tablet. It has nothing to do with money.. it's just not something I want or need. The fact that a tablet costs more than the same weight in an arbitrary precious metal has nothing to do with anything.
Totally agree if she did it.
When driving a big heavy thing that can easily kill people.. if you don't have the decency to pay attention, then when you do kill someone the penalty should be much steeper than a fine and/or slap on the wrist.
That said, I'd say there are enough questions here that it's 50/50 whether she is guilty or not. Luckily that's what investigations and trials are for.
Encrypting it?
Is taking data off really an issue anyway. If it's confidential data, destroy the disk when you need to dispose of it. Not repurposing or re-selling hardware with sensitive information on it sounds like a no-brainer.
I would delete the file without a second thought.
That's probably because you are a person of at least room temperature intelligence. There are a lot of really stupid people out there.
Browse some youtube comments or yahoo answers. The rampant success of all the various "you'd have to be an idiot" scams will suddenly seem less surprising. It's actually quite depressing. Not to mention the extreme cases.. like people who fall for the Nigerian scams.
Oops.. replied to wrong comment! Though still applies, just remove the first sentence :(
Not necessarily.
Even an experienced martial artist fighting a beginner is probably going to get hurt. Yes they'll win the fight.. but they won't likely come out unscathed.
Maybe because you're actually getting more than $5 worth of enjoyment out of it?
I kind of had that realization myself. We gripe about the cost of entertainment.. especially TV box sets. I paid somewhere in the area of $400 for the entire ST:DS9 series. That seems insane.. but when you actually think about how much "entertainment hours" that is... it suddenly seems a little more reasonable.
Yup!
Very similar experience here. Doesn't make it right.. but I'm honest about it.
Although I think there is some value in convinience as well. I'm a very impulsive person. Give me the ability to pay and be watching something within 10 seconds (streaming) or an hour (full download) and you'd make a bit of money of me. As it stands I'm Canadian, and thanks to the CRTC/CBC.. this is generally not much of an option.
Oh man.. nostalgia trip!
I actually used bitchx for chat! For a long damn time too. I resisted irssi (with it's silly activity numbers) for quite some time.
and now I use xchat.
sigh...
someone who likes to pirate entertainment
I'm actually pretty good about paying for content these days.
As for research... this thing was completely torn apart the last time it graced slashdot. Ergo the top bit of my comment. The fact that these points have been brought up by a huge number of people, and from my recollection arn't even touched on by the study, to me shows that their research was pretty thin. They are the ones writing the study.. they should have researched why I (and the huge crowd who share the same opinion) are wrong and presented that.
Or here's an idea.. _actually_ talk to a file sharer. Someone managed to get an interview with axxo once.. so it's not impossible.
_AGAIN_ with this nonsense?
I strongly doubt anyone is getting rich from the trickle of people who actually go to the URLs found in torrent info files. They seem to be more for notoriety than profit.
Yes, the trackers make money of the ads.. but unless there is some secret backroom deal where TPB and others funnel money to axxo and friends.. I don’t see the corollary between index site traffic and motivation for users to seed.
People do it for the e-pene. People were (and still are) doing this on IRC long before there was any way to make a profit. People insist on keeping their share ratios up, even when not required... and they see no profit either.
And the interview doesn’t _detail_ anything. It quickly explains some very shallow “research” with plenty of bias, then makes a pretty dubious guess, and finally proceeds to make an even lamer admonishment of people who illegally download.
_AND_ using TPB and Mininova as your main source of data good grief.
This isn't a few guys who've had a look at what's happening on BitTorrent a couple of times and made notes
Weird... cause that’s exactly what it feels like. This thing reads like some high school kid’s half assed research project. They grabbed some data.. made a bunch of broad assumptions.. then proceeded to unsubstantiated correlations.
This whole “study” is a complete joke. If these researchers had any brains they’d just let this thing quietly die and move onto something else.