Some other DIY/tinkering stuff
on
Makers of MAKE
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I can't listen to the interview (at work), but I think I get the idea behind MAKE (a DIY project magazine that makes use of broken, obsolete, or unused gadgets around the house, eh?). It sounds like a great addition to my collection of Nuts & Volts magazine, QST, and Circuit Cellar.
I'd post a link to my site with pictures/notes on my own hand-built tube amp project or my mini-GPS/APRS project (not yet out of planning), but I'm afraid of the/.-ing I'd take.:)
ITYM, 'allow.' HTH. HAND. (Pedantry is fun, I should have tried this earlier!)
...people to say what they intend to say without busting their ass because they don't feel the need to conform to the rules of some arbitrary seventeenth-century prescriptive grammarian...
Now, about that first part...are you trying to say that people should be able to say what they intend to say without *me* busting their asses (notice the plural form)? Or, are you saying that people should be able to say what they want to say without busting their *own* asses? Regardless, I would like to point out that, although today is my birthday, I am not from the 17th Century, nor am I a prescriptive (or proscriptive, which I think is the more appropriate adjective) grammarian.(This pedantry *is* loads of fun, and cheap entertainment to boot!)
Now, seriously, if you've made it this far, my original reply to the parent post was made in jest. I was only having fun with the double negative, not castigating the OP on his use of grammar. My replies above, to your post, are meant in the same lighthearted, 'can't we all get along and enjoy making fun of each other' way. I certainly hope you're open minded enough to see it that way.
Unless you really mean those mean things you said to me (you know, the part about not being a normal human...which, incidentally, I take pride in not being, if you define the average TV-addled Joe to be 'normal'). In which case, I will issue a call for all moderators to mod you down as Troll or Flamebait or maybe even LacksSenseOfHumor.
Applying some very basic logic, if we accept that blogs 'are not going nowhere,' that must mean that they *are* going somewhere. Agreed?
Now, your next assertion:
...but still, blogs are here to stay...
*must* be false if we accept, as you have stated earlier (although somewhat illogically), that blogs are going somewhere. The blogs in question can not simultaneously 'not go nowhere' and be 'here to stay.'
You realize that will just make you even more attractive to others, right? Humans, being human, want most that which they can have the least. Your enuchization will be the ultimate aphrodisiac!
(But, not for me)
Or, perhaps you already know this and have the domain registered and the site ready to go.
;)
From the title: Computer Security Lacking at Homeland Security
From the summary (no, I'm not going to RTFA when the subject and summary are so far out of whack):
Adequate backups were lacking for networks that... in most cases failed to prepare sufficiently written disaster recovery plans that would..."
So, if I have valid backups of all the patient data here, I guess those HIPAA security requirements are met, eh? Or do I have to have valid backups and a DR plan to achieve 'computer security' nirvana?
Now, if the issue were that their backup tapes were going offsite, unsecured and unencrypted, then the subject might make sense. But, this is silliness. Almost as silly as the DHS itself (hint: The Department of Homeland Security isn't supposed to keep the people safe from terrorists, it's supposed to keep the government safe...think about that one), but...whatever. (sigh)
...So, US government is either too dumb for words or wants to be like Big Brother. Don't know which of the two is more scary...
When you put it that way, it sounds like those are mutually exclusive motivations. On the one hand, it's entirely possible for both cases to be simultaneously true. On the other hand, my father once counselled me, 'Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.'
...The unemployed former computer engineer is accused of causing the US government $1billion of damage by breaking into its most secure computers at the Pentagon and Nasa...
Maybe it's just me, but any device connected to any other device is no longer to be considered as secure.
I would have guessed that the gubbermint's "most secure computers" would be airgapped, but apparently that is not the case. Or, perhaps, the author of TFA is being just a bit sensational and overdramatic.;)
The FA was actually a decent read. It brings to mind that science class in middle school where we dissected worms to find out that they had five 'hearts.' Has anyone created a worm (of the malicious network variety) that can survive having pieces hacked off? I'm imagining the anti-virus/security companies issuing a new definition file and the worm, realzing it has lost it's tail, continues with the other four hearts intact. Hrmm.
I haven't RTFA, nor do I intend to, so this is just speculation:
Could it be that the NEA is behind the 'license foreign students' push in some way, and corporate America is behind the 'give everyone that wants one an H1B' push? The two groups are huge contributors to opposing (right...haha, that's a good fiction) political parties, so it's not like they'd be working together on something like this. Perhaps that's where the disconnect comes from? Just thinking out loud.
One aspect that doesn't seem to have been addressed is the copyright protection afforded the 'recipe' for reassembling the Bxxx blocks. Some disjointed thoughts follow:
Once the recipe is published, does it not acquire the same protections as the copyrighted works that the recipe is facilitating the infringement of? I wonder how that would play into the legal aspects of the 'War on (some) Pirates.' Having a book with instructions on building a nuclear weapon is legal, as is publishing said book, right?
I suppose the recipes themselves could be reproduced from other recipes, allowing for the construction of a recursive system. Although, I'm not sure how useful that would be.
If an application were developed to encode the recipes in 'plain text' I wonder if any infringement could be proved, absent posession of the re-assembled infringing material (presumably the reason for having this whole Blocks system in the first place).
Never mind, I thought I read the whole article, but was interrupted and didn't catch the last couple of paragraphs or the 'continue' link.
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
I still say it's a power trip. In the case they cite, they arrested the library patron because he used his own ID card. The reason they want to go to fingerprints is to prevent people from using other's ID cards.
Think about that. If the cops show up at your house and say they want to talk to you about the kiddy pr0n you were surfing at the library the other day and how you maybe exposed yourself to some minors, are you going to say, 'Oh, it wasn't me, I loaned my ID card to a buddy, but in the interest of protecting him I'm not going to tell you his name.' or are you going to say, 'WTF?! I let my buddy Bob use my card. I'm going to kill him!' They'd still get the right person, assuming there were witnesses to the indecency, wouldn't they? And it didn't require fingerprints.
Library officials say the added security is necessary to ensure people who are using the computers are who they say they are.
Why is it necessary to ensure that the people who are using the computers are who they say they are? Is there a problem with criminal activity being perpetrated via the library's computers?
How will the library verify that the IDs that are presented are not counterfeit in the first place? Will they be coordinating with the Secretary of State or are they relying solely on the honesty of the patron?
IM!HO, someone's on a power trip and the people who use the library are buying the ticket.
I can't really see much point in integrating desktop searching with 'web' searching. For instance, if I'm looking for files on my local drive that contain the words 'weekend' and/or 'beach,' I don't really want results linking me to this or, worse yet, this.
What I would really like to see on my lone Windows machine is something like:
C:\> find./ -type f -exec egrep "weekend|beach" {} \; -print
That's probably because most people are only familiar with their west coast operations. In fact, most of their (very well compensated) employees work out of the MPAA offices in Washington, D.C. You can see them, hard at work in the Capitol Building, located at the east end of the National Mall on Capitol Hill.
I'm not saying whether I'm for or against the whole H1B program, but recently Microsoft came out in favor of either increasing the number of H1B visas, or eliminating the cap all together.
So, if Ballmer thinks they should stay out of public policy, will they backdown from that as well? Or is 'business' policy a different animal in their view?
I wish I could edit posts.:) In reflecting on the Bhopal disaster, I believe parts of my earlier post was in error. The Indian government was *not* in partnership with UC on the Bhopal plant, but rather took over the site after the disaster. Also, I think the Dow-UC acquisition started around 1999 or 2000, but didn't actually reach completion until one or two years ago (I could be wrong, but would need to research that).
Also, it might be useful to note that UCIL (the Indian venture) was sued in the US by Bhopal citizens, but the case was rejected on Appeal, as the plaintiffs did not have standing. IIRC, the US Supreme Court refused to hear the case, allowing the Appeals court decision to stand. Again, I think the initial case against UC was actually brought in the US, but it was moved to India because of standing and jurisdiction issues (UCIL was operated in India by Indians, so it was a separate entity).
There was much going on in Bhopal after the disaster that didn't make much sense. The Indian government took 15 years to disburse the money from the settlement, earning something like $350million in interest in the mean time. There was a Univ. of Arizona technology center near there that the government bulldozed because UCIL had contributed money to it. UCIL setup a trust for victims and their families but the government rejected the money. That kind of nonsense. There is a lot of blame to go around for the suffering, notwithstanding the independent findings of sabotage and the subsequent delivery of the individual's name, and the evidence against him, to the Indian government (who have done nothing with it).
These corrections don't, in my opinon, invalidate my earlier question as to why the parent believes the US government should punish Dow, though.
Actually, it was not the Dow-Union Carbide disaster, although it was (and still is) a disaster for Bhopal. At the time, it was Union Carbide alone. Dow Chemical did not acquire Union Carbide until a year or so ago, and the liability for the Bhopal disaster was not supposed to be a part of the acquisition, IIRC.
Also, I may be wrong, but my recollection was that UC was in 'partnership' with the Indian government at the time, or the Indian government held a stake in the venture. Perhaps, if that is in fact true, they should bear some of the blame.
Further, all of the claims arising out of the gas leak (in 1984) were settled 15 years ago, under direction from the Supreme Court of India.
Of course, this begs the question, "Why would the US government push Dow Chemical, who was not involved in the 1984 disaster, or Union Carbide's Indian operation, presumably not subject to US laws and regulations, to settle or acknowledge wrong doing?" Especially considering that the governing authority, the Indian government, through their Supreme Court directed and approved the settlements fifteen years ago?
Or perhaps Union Carbide, and Dow Chemical (who purchased only the UC assets), should be punished into perpetuity? I'm curious what facts and information you have regarding the disaster that weren't available to the Indian courts and that would justify that action.
(no, I don't work for Dow Chemical, Union Carbide or the Indian government)
Look at things like...the Dow-Corning breast implant bankruptcy for our "oh so responsible" corporate citizens walking away from their bills
The Dow Corning silicone breast implant lawsuits were based on junk science.
Contrary to your assertion, the bankruptcy did not allow Dow Corning to walk "away from their bills." The Dow Corning Trust is doling out $4.4 billion dollars to women who settled, women who went to court and won *and* to Dow Corning creditors.
But, I suppose it is possible that you consider it irresponsible for a corporation who lost court cases based on flawed studies, bad statistics (as if there are good), and, in some cases, outright lies to actually pay up on the settlements they've negotiated.
Slashdot Mirror
Other great DIY 'tinkering' sites I like are AX84.com, 18watt.com, and Byonics.
I'd post a link to my site with pictures/notes on my own hand-built tube amp project or my mini-GPS/APRS project (not yet out of planning), but I'm afraid of the /.-ing I'd take. :)
I wondered where Linux came from.
For that, I'm adding you as a friend!
Are you implying that I'm not a normal human? I take offense! (not really)
Now, I'm curious as to how exactly you intend that. Is your horse high, as in tall, or high as in stoned? More importantly, Are You Experienced©®? (I say 'your horse' in lieu of the 'our horse' you used, as I don't own even a partial interest in an horse)
ITYM, 'allow.' HTH. HAND. (Pedantry is fun, I should have tried this earlier!)
Now, about that first part...are you trying to say that people should be able to say what they intend to say without *me* busting their asses (notice the plural form)? Or, are you saying that people should be able to say what they want to say without busting their *own* asses? Regardless, I would like to point out that, although today is my birthday, I am not from the 17th Century, nor am I a prescriptive (or proscriptive, which I think is the more appropriate adjective) grammarian.(This pedantry *is* loads of fun, and cheap entertainment to boot!)
Now, seriously, if you've made it this far, my original reply to the parent post was made in jest. I was only having fun with the double negative, not castigating the OP on his use of grammar. My replies above, to your post, are meant in the same lighthearted, 'can't we all get along and enjoy making fun of each other' way. I certainly hope you're open minded enough to see it that way.
Unless you really mean those mean things you said to me (you know, the part about not being a normal human...which, incidentally, I take pride in not being, if you define the average TV-addled Joe to be 'normal'). In which case, I will issue a call for all moderators to mod you down as Troll or Flamebait or maybe even LacksSenseOfHumor.
<wink, wink, nod, nod>
Hrmm, let's expand the contraction so we get:
Applying some very basic logic, if we accept that blogs 'are not going nowhere,' that must mean that they *are* going somewhere. Agreed?
Now, your next assertion:
*must* be false if we accept, as you have stated earlier (although somewhat illogically), that blogs are going somewhere. The blogs in question can not simultaneously 'not go nowhere' and be 'here to stay.'
Now who's doing the wishful thinking, hrmm?
(But, not for me)
Or, perhaps you already know this and have the domain registered and the site ready to go.
;)
From the summary (no, I'm not going to RTFA when the subject and summary are so far out of whack):
Adequate backups were lacking for networks that ... in most cases failed to prepare sufficiently written disaster recovery plans that would ..."
So, if I have valid backups of all the patient data here, I guess those HIPAA security requirements are met, eh? Or do I have to have valid backups and a DR plan to achieve 'computer security' nirvana?
Now, if the issue were that their backup tapes were going offsite, unsecured and unencrypted, then the subject might make sense. But, this is silliness. Almost as silly as the DHS itself (hint: The Department of Homeland Security isn't supposed to keep the people safe from terrorists, it's supposed to keep the government safe...think about that one), but...whatever. (sigh)
When you put it that way, it sounds like those are mutually exclusive motivations. On the one hand, it's entirely possible for both cases to be simultaneously true. On the other hand, my father once counselled me, 'Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.'
-- .sig you are looking for.
This is not the
But, back to the matter at hand, namely Google Maps. Should these North-South streets be a lot closer together, then?
Maybe it's just me, but any device connected to any other device is no longer to be considered as secure.
I would have guessed that the gubbermint's "most secure computers" would be airgapped, but apparently that is not the case. Or, perhaps, the author of TFA is being just a bit sensational and overdramatic. ;)
The FA was actually a decent read. It brings to mind that science class in middle school where we dissected worms to find out that they had five 'hearts.' Has anyone created a worm (of the malicious network variety) that can survive having pieces hacked off? I'm imagining the anti-virus/security companies issuing a new definition file and the worm, realzing it has lost it's tail, continues with the other four hearts intact. Hrmm.
I guess if they encourage development outside of the Sony realm, they'd be fostering a 'Splinter Cell?'
Will the Feds follow the money? The Fed's *are* the money, so in short, 'No.' (note: I'm well aware that the Federal Reserve is neither)
Could it be that the NEA is behind the 'license foreign students' push in some way, and corporate America is behind the 'give everyone that wants one an H1B' push? The two groups are huge contributors to opposing (right...haha, that's a good fiction) political parties, so it's not like they'd be working together on something like this. Perhaps that's where the disconnect comes from? Just thinking out loud.
Once the recipe is published, does it not acquire the same protections as the copyrighted works that the recipe is facilitating the infringement of? I wonder how that would play into the legal aspects of the 'War on (some) Pirates.' Having a book with instructions on building a nuclear weapon is legal, as is publishing said book, right?
I suppose the recipes themselves could be reproduced from other recipes, allowing for the construction of a recursive system. Although, I'm not sure how useful that would be.
If an application were developed to encode the recipes in 'plain text' I wonder if any infringement could be proved, absent posession of the re-assembled infringing material (presumably the reason for having this whole Blocks system in the first place).
Never mind, I thought I read the whole article, but was interrupted and didn't catch the last couple of paragraphs or the 'continue' link. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I still say it's a power trip. In the case they cite, they arrested the library patron because he used his own ID card. The reason they want to go to fingerprints is to prevent people from using other's ID cards. Think about that. If the cops show up at your house and say they want to talk to you about the kiddy pr0n you were surfing at the library the other day and how you maybe exposed yourself to some minors, are you going to say, 'Oh, it wasn't me, I loaned my ID card to a buddy, but in the interest of protecting him I'm not going to tell you his name.' or are you going to say, 'WTF?! I let my buddy Bob use my card. I'm going to kill him!' They'd still get the right person, assuming there were witnesses to the indecency, wouldn't they? And it didn't require fingerprints.
Why is it necessary to ensure that the people who are using the computers are who they say they are? Is there a problem with criminal activity being perpetrated via the library's computers?
How will the library verify that the IDs that are presented are not counterfeit in the first place? Will they be coordinating with the Secretary of State or are they relying solely on the honesty of the patron?
IM!HO, someone's on a power trip and the people who use the library are buying the ticket.
What I would really like to see on my lone Windows machine is something like:
That's probably because most people are only familiar with their west coast operations. In fact, most of their (very well compensated) employees work out of the MPAA offices in Washington, D.C. You can see them, hard at work in the Capitol Building, located at the east end of the National Mall on Capitol Hill.
So, if Ballmer thinks they should stay out of public policy, will they backdown from that as well? Or is 'business' policy a different animal in their view?
Also, it might be useful to note that UCIL (the Indian venture) was sued in the US by Bhopal citizens, but the case was rejected on Appeal, as the plaintiffs did not have standing. IIRC, the US Supreme Court refused to hear the case, allowing the Appeals court decision to stand. Again, I think the initial case against UC was actually brought in the US, but it was moved to India because of standing and jurisdiction issues (UCIL was operated in India by Indians, so it was a separate entity).
There was much going on in Bhopal after the disaster that didn't make much sense. The Indian government took 15 years to disburse the money from the settlement, earning something like $350million in interest in the mean time. There was a Univ. of Arizona technology center near there that the government bulldozed because UCIL had contributed money to it. UCIL setup a trust for victims and their families but the government rejected the money. That kind of nonsense. There is a lot of blame to go around for the suffering, notwithstanding the independent findings of sabotage and the subsequent delivery of the individual's name, and the evidence against him, to the Indian government (who have done nothing with it).
These corrections don't, in my opinon, invalidate my earlier question as to why the parent believes the US government should punish Dow, though.
Also, I may be wrong, but my recollection was that UC was in 'partnership' with the Indian government at the time, or the Indian government held a stake in the venture. Perhaps, if that is in fact true, they should bear some of the blame.
Further, all of the claims arising out of the gas leak (in 1984) were settled 15 years ago, under direction from the Supreme Court of India.
Of course, this begs the question, "Why would the US government push Dow Chemical, who was not involved in the 1984 disaster, or Union Carbide's Indian operation, presumably not subject to US laws and regulations, to settle or acknowledge wrong doing?" Especially considering that the governing authority, the Indian government, through their Supreme Court directed and approved the settlements fifteen years ago?
Or perhaps Union Carbide, and Dow Chemical (who purchased only the UC assets), should be punished into perpetuity? I'm curious what facts and information you have regarding the disaster that weren't available to the Indian courts and that would justify that action.
(no, I don't work for Dow Chemical, Union Carbide or the Indian government)
Look at things like...the Dow-Corning breast implant bankruptcy for our "oh so responsible" corporate citizens walking away from their bills
The Dow Corning silicone breast implant lawsuits were based on junk science. Contrary to your assertion, the bankruptcy did not allow Dow Corning to walk "away from their bills." The Dow Corning Trust is doling out $4.4 billion dollars to women who settled, women who went to court and won *and* to Dow Corning creditors.
But, I suppose it is possible that you consider it irresponsible for a corporation who lost court cases based on flawed studies, bad statistics (as if there are good), and, in some cases, outright lies to actually pay up on the settlements they've negotiated.
(no, I don't work for Dow Corning)
Wouldn't a true communist be happy to pay their taxes? 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need' and all that.
Anyone else hear the rumor that the Phantom console is going to have two of these?