The law (these days in the US) is mostly a tool to control and oppress citizens. It has lost all usefulness as a tool to protect citizens a while ago. One of the defining characteristics in a police-state is that the law almost never gets used to put the government and its agents into place, it gets only applied to citizens that do something "authorities" do not like. A free society looks different. No, that there are worse police-states and even full-blown ideological or religious fascist states does not excuse this evil in any way.
To a lot of really bad people that not only richly deserved it for their crimes against decency and human rights, but that were plotting to commit even more deeply dangerous and highly unethical things. The only thing not right here is that those exposed are not in prison and that Snowden is treated as a criminal instead.
And on the other hand, as soon as a civilization is living in a simulation, it cannot create a simulation of equal complexity anymore, so as soon as it has happened, the complexity of the possible simulations drop (for simplicity, assume below 0.5 of the surrounding simulation), so withing a small number of steps (simulation-in-simulation-in-simulation...), we have that any simulated world will have a simulation complexity very close to zero. As our world clearly has a complexity significantly above zero, the probability of us living in a simulation is essentially zero. The beautiful thing is that we are both right!
The real question is, why does it matter if we're in a simulation?
Philosophical interest. Also some hard science interest in the nature of the world. For example, if this world is a simulation, then there is a hard limit on the power any computing machinery can ever have, but there may not be one or a different one on what individuals can do, namely if individuals perceive to live in this simulation but (Matrix style) are not created by the simulation.
That may indeed have been what they did. Junk-statistics at its finest. And in some sense it would even be correct: If you know absolutely nothing, assuming uniform distribution of the cases you know is a valid approach. Of course, what you do not get with this assumption is any error estimation, and hence the reliability of the statement is essentially be "none at all".
While it is a possible world-model, there is absolutely no basis for a probability estimation with a reasonable error margin. These people do not understand what they are doing or, alternately, they are lying in order to get publicity. Oh, and look, it worked!
Obviously, these people think that the Chinese are handling online free-speech and free access to information just right and want to copy their success-story. Sure, people can still get around this (DNS filtering and blocking is the cheapest, least-secure option), but that can simply be made illegal. In the end, the UK "Internet" will end up as a "walled garden" where only content deemed appropriate by the "authorities" is easy and legal to access. Rogue browsing will be treated according to another success-story, namely the treatment of people that listened to non-German radio stations during the 3rd Reich: Send them to concentration camps.
Sure, the UK has been unfortunate so far to not have had any direct experience with totalitarianism and fascism, but your intrepid politicians are hard at work to correct that historic oversight.
Maybe this only takes the beginning of the curve into account. Overall, I would expect more like 20% in th next 10 years and 50-70% long-term.
Now, the way to deal with this is not to try and stop it (because that is futile), the way is to find other methods to distribute the wealth society has.
It is worse than that. If you do solid research as a PhD candidate, and you find things that put some parts of the established wisdom into question, you find it very hard to publish. Happened to me. Solution was to find conferences a bit to the side of the topic, with a different crowd of PC members. Where I got rejections with trumped-up reasons that could not hold water before, I suddenly got best-paper awards. This was a pretty eye-opening experience. Of course, this took me a while to realize and by then my PhD had taken longer than expected and all chances of an academic career had vanished. So this is another thing that is very, very bad: The current system weeds out good researchers and rewards conformists that do not dare to think independently. These people then only do incremental research in tiny steps. It is no surprise that scientific progress has become glacially slow in many areas.
My take is that politics, greed and big egos have fully broken the practice of Science. These days you need to verify most published results yourself, and many turn out to be bad, no matter how reputable the conference or journal.
That is utter bullshit. Early boot information comes from the _kernel_ (you may have heard of it?) Anything journald can to is _late_ boot information. Unless you are so brain-washed that you thing systemd is the kernel?
It is about not blocking people because of race, gender, nationality. (Blocking anybody because of religion is always fine and in fact recommended, because they have proven they are stupid...). If the statistics do not follow that move, maybe it is people's choice?
And then look at where you actually _can_ sniff passwords today. It is not in many situations. Not secured wireless LAN is basically the only one or it gets pretty expensive and high effort. But I am most certainly not arguing for log-ins from a non-encrypted WLAN on the other side of the world over telnet. There are other scenarios where it still makes sense, for example if you are already in a secure network.
This is simply incompetent design, made by morons that think that they like it is enough indication that it must be good. You never, ever fail silently if there is even a slight chance you can push a diagnostic to the sysadmin. But that obviously is an outdated Unix idea and the brave new world of system management does not need any old ideas, as new is clearly universally better than old.
My employer has a policy that you may install Linux with systemd, but it must be gone before anything goes productive. This thing is far, far too much of a risk for very little gain (usually none at all).
I don't think this is a valid counterpoint. Apple has nice design and an impressive cult-based marketing, but they never did anything to further technology. In fact it seems more like Apple is somewhat behind with regards to technology. Sure, if you compare them with Microsoft, they are paragons of innovation, but anybody looks good compared to the class retard.
As soon as OSS got traction, quite a few big-ego-small-skills people moved in and took over projects that they did not have the skills to do well. Firefiox, systemd, Gnome, etc. are all problems, not solutions. Open/LibreOffice managed to do fork at the last moment and is doing fine. The Linux kernel has successfully repelled hostile borders from the SJW-people and is still doing fine (although Linus has to avoid being alone in a room with women).
But the bottom line is this: People that have vast ambitions but no skills to match exist anywhere and far to often they manage to get into positions of power. The OSS world is no exception to that. Firefox is just one of the latest victims.
It is not "wrongheaded" at all. Blindly believing in technology is though. Realistically, we will _not_ have the tech for this for the next 100 years or so, so revisiting the idea in 50 years is about right. May still turn out to be far too early.
It has its uses. Some devices cannot support ssh (too small), or ssh cannot get though an internal firewall, for example. Sure, you need to limit usage to secure networks or networks where anybody sniffing passwords is rather unlikely for other reasons, but telnet still has its uses.
Aaaaaand, fail! You can run a telnet server on the default port an be completely secure. Depends entirely on what you do with it. The primary problem here is not "telnet", but "default password".
Simple: The design was done by the cheapest morons available. This is so obviously completely incompetent, that the ones responsible must be management for hiring the wrong people.
Slashdot Mirror
The law (these days in the US) is mostly a tool to control and oppress citizens. It has lost all usefulness as a tool to protect citizens a while ago. One of the defining characteristics in a police-state is that the law almost never gets used to put the government and its agents into place, it gets only applied to citizens that do something "authorities" do not like. A free society looks different. No, that there are worse police-states and even full-blown ideological or religious fascist states does not excuse this evil in any way.
Obvious troll is obvious.
To a lot of really bad people that not only richly deserved it for their crimes against decency and human rights, but that were plotting to commit even more deeply dangerous and highly unethical things. The only thing not right here is that those exposed are not in prison and that Snowden is treated as a criminal instead.
I was just pointing out by example that the whole line of reasoning is nonsense.
And on the other hand, as soon as a civilization is living in a simulation, it cannot create a simulation of equal complexity anymore, so as soon as it has happened, the complexity of the possible simulations drop (for simplicity, assume below 0.5 of the surrounding simulation), so withing a small number of steps (simulation-in-simulation-in-simulation...), we have that any simulated world will have a simulation complexity very close to zero. As our world clearly has a complexity significantly above zero, the probability of us living in a simulation is essentially zero. The beautiful thing is that we are both right!
The real question is, why does it matter if we're in a simulation?
Philosophical interest. Also some hard science interest in the nature of the world. For example, if this world is a simulation, then there is a hard limit on the power any computing machinery can ever have, but there may not be one or a different one on what individuals can do, namely if individuals perceive to live in this simulation but (Matrix style) are not created by the simulation.
That may indeed have been what they did. Junk-statistics at its finest. And in some sense it would even be correct: If you know absolutely nothing, assuming uniform distribution of the cases you know is a valid approach. Of course, what you do not get with this assumption is any error estimation, and hence the reliability of the statement is essentially be "none at all".
While it is a possible world-model, there is absolutely no basis for a probability estimation with a reasonable error margin. These people do not understand what they are doing or, alternately, they are lying in order to get publicity. Oh, and look, it worked!
Obviously, these people think that the Chinese are handling online free-speech and free access to information just right and want to copy their success-story. Sure, people can still get around this (DNS filtering and blocking is the cheapest, least-secure option), but that can simply be made illegal. In the end, the UK "Internet" will end up as a "walled garden" where only content deemed appropriate by the "authorities" is easy and legal to access. Rogue browsing will be treated according to another success-story, namely the treatment of people that listened to non-German radio stations during the 3rd Reich: Send them to concentration camps.
Sure, the UK has been unfortunate so far to not have had any direct experience with totalitarianism and fascism, but your intrepid politicians are hard at work to correct that historic oversight.
Maybe this only takes the beginning of the curve into account. Overall, I would expect more like 20% in th next 10 years and 50-70% long-term.
Now, the way to deal with this is not to try and stop it (because that is futile), the way is to find other methods to distribute the wealth society has.
It is worse than that. If you do solid research as a PhD candidate, and you find things that put some parts of the established wisdom into question, you find it very hard to publish. Happened to me. Solution was to find conferences a bit to the side of the topic, with a different crowd of PC members. Where I got rejections with trumped-up reasons that could not hold water before, I suddenly got best-paper awards. This was a pretty eye-opening experience. Of course, this took me a while to realize and by then my PhD had taken longer than expected and all chances of an academic career had vanished. So this is another thing that is very, very bad: The current system weeds out good researchers and rewards conformists that do not dare to think independently. These people then only do incremental research in tiny steps. It is no surprise that scientific progress has become glacially slow in many areas.
My take is that politics, greed and big egos have fully broken the practice of Science. These days you need to verify most published results yourself, and many turn out to be bad, no matter how reputable the conference or journal.
That is utter bullshit. Early boot information comes from the _kernel_ (you may have heard of it?) Anything journald can to is _late_ boot information. Unless you are so brain-washed that you thing systemd is the kernel?
It is about not blocking people because of race, gender, nationality. (Blocking anybody because of religion is always fine and in fact recommended, because they have proven they are stupid...). If the statistics do not follow that move, maybe it is people's choice?
And then look at where you actually _can_ sniff passwords today. It is not in many situations. Not secured wireless LAN is basically the only one or it gets pretty expensive and high effort. But I am most certainly not arguing for log-ins from a non-encrypted WLAN on the other side of the world over telnet. There are other scenarios where it still makes sense, for example if you are already in a secure network.
And where dis you see me talking about telnet "with no password"? Can you point that out to me? Because I am pretty sure I did not.
Back at you. There must be something seriously wrong with you to come up with that suggestion in this situation.
This is simply incompetent design, made by morons that think that they like it is enough indication that it must be good. You never, ever fail silently if there is even a slight chance you can push a diagnostic to the sysadmin. But that obviously is an outdated Unix idea and the brave new world of system management does not need any old ideas, as new is clearly universally better than old.
My employer has a policy that you may install Linux with systemd, but it must be gone before anything goes productive. This thing is far, far too much of a risk for very little gain (usually none at all).
"you are simply wrong" = "I strongly believe you are wrong, but have no supporting evidence and a big ego so I think I do not need any"
I call that a fail.
I don't think this is a valid counterpoint. Apple has nice design and an impressive cult-based marketing, but they never did anything to further technology. In fact it seems more like Apple is somewhat behind with regards to technology. Sure, if you compare them with Microsoft, they are paragons of innovation, but anybody looks good compared to the class retard.
As soon as OSS got traction, quite a few big-ego-small-skills people moved in and took over projects that they did not have the skills to do well. Firefiox, systemd, Gnome, etc. are all problems, not solutions. Open/LibreOffice managed to do fork at the last moment and is doing fine. The Linux kernel has successfully repelled hostile borders from the SJW-people and is still doing fine (although Linus has to avoid being alone in a room with women).
But the bottom line is this: People that have vast ambitions but no skills to match exist anywhere and far to often they manage to get into positions of power. The OSS world is no exception to that. Firefox is just one of the latest victims.
It is not "wrongheaded" at all. Blindly believing in technology is though. Realistically, we will _not_ have the tech for this for the next 100 years or so, so revisiting the idea in 50 years is about right. May still turn out to be far too early.
It has its uses. Some devices cannot support ssh (too small), or ssh cannot get though an internal firewall, for example. Sure, you need to limit usage to secure networks or networks where anybody sniffing passwords is rather unlikely for other reasons, but telnet still has its uses.
Indeed. "Gross negligence" seems to be too tame a description for it.
Aaaaaand, fail! You can run a telnet server on the default port an be completely secure. Depends entirely on what you do with it. The primary problem here is not "telnet", but "default password".
Well, yes, security is hard, but these people are not even trying.
Simple: The design was done by the cheapest morons available. This is so obviously completely incompetent, that the ones responsible must be management for hiring the wrong people.