Hey, welcome back dada21. Haven't seen you in a while.
Net neutrality can be enforced through more competition, which can only come through LESS regulations, not more.
You assume that regulation can never serve to increase competition, which is false.
As someone who agrees with the economic foundations of needing a free market (free-as-in-economically-free, not free-as-in-unregulated), I feel that it is important to regulate industries in order to promote a free market.
Please do not conflate the ideal free market of economics with the concept of an unregulated free market. Economic results that are to be expected from the first do not necessarily follow from the latter.
I specifically mentioned freedom of the press, not freedom of speech. I did that for a reason.
That dose not mean I have to give you a Sat Phone, Cell Phone, Telephone, Megaphone, Radio and Television Stations and A pipe to the internet so you can freely exercise it in any way you want. It just means the Government shouldn't be able to come in and shut your ass up because they do not like what you are saying.
Where did I ever claim anything like that? Nice straw man.
The problem is when even when you want to pay for all that, a government-supported entity is able to "come in and shut your ass up". This is the problem I have with not requiring net neutrality. It's too easy for a large, monolithic, government-supported entity to shut my ass up, to shut your ass up, and to shut the asses of anyone they damn well please up. A little quid pro quo goes a long way... individual legislators do favors for the telcos, and that's a two-way street.
I'd like net neutrality to be enshrined in law in order to preserve freedom of the press.
That's the point I've been trying to made, no OS unless it's completely locked down a la iPhone will protect you from user stupidity. Not Windows, not Linux, not BSD.
Tha'ts not the point you were trying to make in your OP. The point you were trying to make in your OP was that the exploit is worse in Linux than in Windows. I quote>
Since it's part of the PDF specs, it should work in Linux too. What's even worse than with Windows is that...
Another reason why it would be even more serious on Linux is the way you can pipe commands
Since most Linux systems dont even have the kind of application firewalls or antiviruses that Windows does, and because the Internet accessing is actually done via wget, they don't even get any kind of a "Give internet access to this application?" dialog.
You're clearly attempting to make the case that Linux is worse for security in this case than Windows.
It's OK. You can do that. Just don't lie and pretend you're doing something different.
As a "utility", internet service is pretty low on the ranking. Water is a biological necessity. Heat, during winter months, is a biological necessity. Phone is important for access to emergency services. Electric is generally required for delivery of water and/or heat in some fashion.
Here's the thing, though... how many of those necessary utilities are dependent on the internet today?
Do you think that there would be no problems in delivering water or electricity if the internet were shut off today? Customer service at utility companies is dependent on the internet, for one. Our banking system is dependent on the internet... if the banking system shuts down, so do the utilities.
I know, I'm making a comparison between the individual's right to access the public internet with the existence of the entire internet. But if the ability of individuals to access the internet is suppressed, doesn't that theoretically impact the level of competition in the marketplace? Only established entities get to use it?
I believe internet access is a right, even if it is not commonly acknowledged as such in the US.
The means to communicate via the internet is one of the most powerful tools we have for the ability to freely operate in our political system. I believe it is a direct analogue to the freedom of the press we have enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
When a government-supported entity (the telcos) take actions that suppress the ability of people to exercise their freedom of the press, then effectively the government is suppressing freedom of the press.
Seriously... wtf? The FCC was not trying to lay down exact procedures for implementation of systems that are packet-content-agnostic. Requiring net neutrality is NOT micromanaging.
You must think all regulations are micromanagement. Is prohibiting forgery micromanagement?
And I don't know you from a hole in the ground, so why would I accept your facts to be any more valid than any I have heard to the contrary (which is none, but I've not heard any in support before now, either)
Because you could just fucking google it. 15 seconds of your time was all that you would have needed to figure out that you had no idea what you were talking about.
Nowhere in my though process did I ever approach "smoking only affects the the respiratory system," which I knew was false
Sure you did, here's the quote:
Metastatic pancreatic cancer isn't a "smoking-related condition", unless he was smoking with his fucking pancreas
You are indirectly claiming that a "smoking-related condition" can only arise in the organ or system which smokes, which would be the respiratory system. Don't try to backtrack and play games with your words... this assertion of yours can only be true if indeed, smoking can only affect the respiratory system.
but you could have corrected me without being a douche, and I would have likely even thanked you for it.
And why would I bother bother being polite when the post I was responding to (yours) was already vitriolic? Why would you expect some kind of courtesy from me when you don't bother with the same? Why the double standard?
Now, granted, that the study is 10 years old now and more data may have come up since then (as I said, that particular link isn't made common knowledge among everyone else very often), but it seems to me that some data is missing for them to claim that 1/3 of pancreatic cancer deaths are due to smoking (that is what "responsible" means) with such a weak association.
That was one article of dozens available online. And that article is about the possible means of causality -- the intent of the article isn't to prove causality, because that is already pretty well accepted among cancer researchers. The point of the study was to determine the mechanism of causality.
Go ahead. If you really want to play games and attempt to ignorantly pick apart that article, please educate yourself first. There are boatloads of articles out there. Google is your friend.
I suppose the folks at Forrester Research think that IP protection is more important than protecting, say, personal medical information.
We can't make that supposition based on this paper.
What we can suppose is that the people at Forrester Research think that getting paid to write white papers is more important than what they personally think.:)
IMO: one of the key reasons that US employers have such a strong preference for offshore guest workers is that offshore quest workers can not easily change loves.
Horsepoop. It's about price. Offshore workers are notorious for jobhopping. That's changing right now, since growth has slowed in India, China, Indonesia, Brazil, etc... but my experience is that you're very lucky if you get a full year out of a worker in India before they jump ship for a 3% pay increase at another company (even when they are getting 5%+/yr at your company). If you mean onshore guest workers (like H1Bs in the US), then I think you're spot-on.
Accountants are concerned with one thing: the next quarter's numbers
Bullshit. What you think is fact is not true in general.
Accountants may be responsible for reporting next quarter's numbers. They may need to make some decisions based on quarterly numbers. That does not mean they work only to maximize next quarter's numbers. What is done with that reporting is a different matter.
My experience in finance is that accountants are more likely to consider the long-term impact of spending than a lot of other backgrounds. The worst, in my experience, are sales & marketing backgrounds. These people have been paid and judged their entire careers on quarterly and monthly numbers... and somehow we expect them to drop that background when they rise to positions of authority.
Also keep in mind that in most companies, decision-making is not made by accountants. It is made by CxOs, then given to the Controller or CFO to implement. Management says, 'We need to reduce expense 10% across the board, except for departments X and Y (usually marketing and sales)'.
America now generates its "wealth" not through the creation of tangible goods and improving productivity at existing enterprises, but rather by creating and selling a variety of bullshit financial instruments.
Ah, I see where you are coming from. You equate accountants with investment bankers. Never mind the fact that the people driving the investment bankers to do what they do are people like you and me, with their money in 401ks or other vehicles, who select investments based upon quarterly and annual returns.
Accountants are not the problem. Idiots who only understand one piece of the pie and then generalize their understanding of that one slice to the entire pie are the problem.
Except that the U.S. government is paying LESS than actual cost of procedures, so many doctors are quitting the profession due to increasing losses. You're better off to stay in a profession that doesn't have top-down price fixing (i.e. commercial, engineering or programming).
Citation please. All I've seen attached to this claim over the past several months is anecdotal "evidence" that involves a lot of other factors. Such as doctors who have inadequate controls over their expenses, and bemoan their inability to reduce expenses as the reason they are unable to provide service at the amount paid. Honestly, if we want to get some societal control over medical expenses, we *should* eliminate the practices that can't get by on the same amount of cash other practices prosper under.
There's a practice local to me that was making this claim... but I find it hard to stomach when they drive $85,000 dollar cars, they lease 180,000 square feet for a 2-doctor practice with a lobby (almost always near empty) that seats 30 and has three large-screen plasma TVs. It's an urgent-care facility that has a full suite of rehab equipment that they lease. Seriously... what a waste of cash. People in physical rehab should be going to a rehab center or specialist, not to a general urgent care facility. The only reason I could see them maintaining such a huge facility is if they are receiving payments for the capacity to handle urgent care overflow from the local hospitals. Otherwise, they are hemorrhaging cash, and then blaming lack of income for their negative gross.
A $10k increase at $50k will represent most of a 20% increase in net (discounting state & local).
Well, I should hope that's the cap, since a $10k increase at $50k represents a 20% increase in gross -- why should the net increase be larger than the increase in gross?
But your logic is flawed. Your argument tries to make the case that if you earn more money, you take home less because of the loss of things like the EIC (which, by the way, likely does not apply to *anyone* working full-time in IT). But that's not the case. The higher your gross, the higher your net. Yes, we have a progressive tax rate. But is that really a disincentive to take home more money?
or you're doing the exact same thing you're accusing me of.
No, it's not the same thing. You posted a false deduction as fact without regard to veracity. I knew the *facts* before I posted, whether I gave a citation or not. What you thought to be an obvious fact (that the pancreas is not part of the respiratory system, therefore smoking cannot cause pancreatic cancer) is false, and you posted without bothering to check whether your deduction was, in fact, true. Not only is your deduction false, but it demonstrates your lack of knowledge about physiology -- otherwise you would have known that inhaled substances get into the bloodstream and can affect other systems. You are in no position to be making the kind of ridiculous scathing posts you made.
Since you're too fucking lazy to bother with a quick googling when called out on your ignorance and misplaced cavalierness,
Seriously, it's been fairly common knowledge among everyone who is mildly interested in pancreatic cancer for at least ten years that cigarette smoking increases incidence of pancreatic cancer.
Metastatic pancreatic cancer isn't a "smoking-related condition", unless he was smoking with his fucking pancreas.
Oh? Did you bother to look that up, or are you just spouting something that seems logical to you?
The truth>/b> is, smokers have an increased incidence of pancreatic cancer. So do people who use "smokeless" tobacco products like snus or chew or dip.
Whether or not we can directly attribute Bill Hicks' cancer to smoking is a different story... but smoking was likely a contributing factor.
Before you berate someone with your ignorant opinions, please check the facts. You might be surprised.
I prefer manual transmissions... except I have a bum knee that makes the clutch very hard to operate... and a couple years ago I took a job in the 'burbs so now I need to deal with heavy traffic.
So I've switched to automatic transmissions, I had all the complaints you did until I figured out something very basic.
Cars with automatic transmissions have multiple gear settings. If you need to accelerate into traffic, or are having trouble maintaining speed up a hill, put it in "2nd gear", or even "1st gear". You'll get the acceleration you want unless the car is seriously underpowered. Just remember to put it back into the "Drive" settig or you'll find your gas tank emptying quickly.
Manuals are still more responsive than automatics... but your failure to drive an automatic properly should not condemn automatic transmissions. But just go ahead and keep knocking automatic transmissions, I'm sure you know better than people who actually know how to make use of them.
No, these are stars. Which were observed by the Spitzer telescope by observing the skies.
Yes, not exactly side-splitting humor, I know. But isn't that simple word-substitution joke obvious?
I must be really off today. You're the second person to think that was an error. Maybe I'll need to pepper my next joke post with more puns and word substitutions to make it less subtle.
I'm sure there are some hoteliers that will be excited about reducing their staffing for for washing and folding all the towels and sheets they go through.
Cost/efficiency? Probably cheaper to have poor immigrant labor continue to do it -- and that's for hotels that don't outsource linens. FYI, linens are already robotically pressed and folded in the big laundry service facilities.
Hospitals likely would love this too, since it wouldn't show up sick and help spread diseases on clean linens.
Hospital linens are, to my knowledge, pressed and folded in a sterile environment by robots, then packaged to maintain sterility before delivery back to the hospital. I know this is true for my two local hospitals, not sure about others.
They're not naked, for pete's sake. They are shrouded in interstellar dust.
We should be more concerned with the lack of parental oversight, didn't you ever read "Lord of the Skies"?
Pretty soon they'll be running around the cosmos wearing loincloths and putting pigs' heads on sticks and hunting each other down in the bush while celebrating the loss of their ability to make fire.
Well, maybe not that last bit, given the fact that they are stars.
Perhaps it would be more appropriate and even advisable to look at the entire thread of discussion before inserting a comment that, not to put too fine a point on it, exposes a certain crude, aggressive mentality that is significantly out of sync with accepted standards of mature discussion on the Internet
What internet do you use? It doesn't resemble the one I use.
Regardless of how I'd like it to be, general discussion on the internet is dominated by internet tough guys and inconsiderate assholes who, if they spoke in person as the write in forums, would have their asses handed to them on a plate.
I think you're missing a big thing -- a lot of Apple's offerings, while massively popular among "regular" people, are substandard for those with technical know-how.
The original iPod? It was lame indeed, for anyone who had technical ability and a lot of their music already ripped to mp3.
The iPhone? Lame also, for anyone on the bleeding edge of smartphones (which includes a large portion of slashdotters).
Here's the thing... this is a geek site. Geeks have different criteria for evaluating technology than regular people do. And as for the iPad -- no matter how popular/unpopular it proves to be... the general consensus on slashdot will hold true. The iPad is a sub-standard device compared to what else is out there at that price. Whether it gets massively adopted or not, we (the geeks) will be technologically poorer for it, since it lowers the bar for functionality of tablet PCs.
FWIW, I think if you expect slashdotters to have a good understanding of society in general, then you're a little off-base. This is not a sociology site. This is a geek site, and you should expect slashdot in general to understand geek stuff best. It's like doing evaluations of apps you're thinking of purchasing -- you usually don't have the same people evaluating the UI and the technical specs. If you want non-technical understanding, you're in the wrong place.
Slashdot Mirror
You assume that regulation can never serve to increase competition, which is false.
As someone who agrees with the economic foundations of needing a free market (free-as-in-economically-free, not free-as-in-unregulated), I feel that it is important to regulate industries in order to promote a free market.
Please do not conflate the ideal free market of economics with the concept of an unregulated free market. Economic results that are to be expected from the first do not necessarily follow from the latter.
Where did I ever claim anything like that? Nice straw man.
The problem is when even when you want to pay for all that, a government-supported entity is able to "come in and shut your ass up". This is the problem I have with not requiring net neutrality. It's too easy for a large, monolithic, government-supported entity to shut my ass up, to shut your ass up, and to shut the asses of anyone they damn well please up. A little quid pro quo goes a long way... individual legislators do favors for the telcos, and that's a two-way street.
I'd like net neutrality to be enshrined in law in order to preserve freedom of the press.
Speak for yourself, wimp.
Only weaklings run with any permissions profile other than root, no matter what OS they use.
Want to learn how you too can be a manly man and run as root?
Read more here.
Tha'ts not the point you were trying to make in your OP. The point you were trying to make in your OP was that the exploit is worse in Linux than in Windows. I quote>
You're clearly attempting to make the case that Linux is worse for security in this case than Windows.
It's OK. You can do that. Just don't lie and pretend you're doing something different.
Here's the thing, though... how many of those necessary utilities are dependent on the internet today?
Do you think that there would be no problems in delivering water or electricity if the internet were shut off today? Customer service at utility companies is dependent on the internet, for one. Our banking system is dependent on the internet... if the banking system shuts down, so do the utilities.
I know, I'm making a comparison between the individual's right to access the public internet with the existence of the entire internet. But if the ability of individuals to access the internet is suppressed, doesn't that theoretically impact the level of competition in the marketplace? Only established entities get to use it?
I believe internet access is a right, even if it is not commonly acknowledged as such in the US.
The means to communicate via the internet is one of the most powerful tools we have for the ability to freely operate in our political system. I believe it is a direct analogue to the freedom of the press we have enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
When a government-supported entity (the telcos) take actions that suppress the ability of people to exercise their freedom of the press, then effectively the government is suppressing freedom of the press.
How is requiring net neutrality micromanaging?
Seriously... wtf? The FCC was not trying to lay down exact procedures for implementation of systems that are packet-content-agnostic. Requiring net neutrality is NOT micromanaging.
You must think all regulations are micromanagement. Is prohibiting forgery micromanagement?
Because you could just fucking google it. 15 seconds of your time was all that you would have needed to figure out that you had no idea what you were talking about.
Sure you did, here's the quote:
You are indirectly claiming that a "smoking-related condition" can only arise in the organ or system which smokes, which would be the respiratory system. Don't try to backtrack and play games with your words... this assertion of yours can only be true if indeed, smoking can only affect the respiratory system.
And why would I bother bother being polite when the post I was responding to (yours) was already vitriolic? Why would you expect some kind of courtesy from me when you don't bother with the same? Why the double standard?
That was one article of dozens available online. And that article is about the possible means of causality -- the intent of the article isn't to prove causality, because that is already pretty well accepted among cancer researchers. The point of the study was to determine the mechanism of causality.
Go ahead. If you really want to play games and attempt to ignorantly pick apart that article, please educate yourself first. There are boatloads of articles out there. Google is your friend.
Mooning? I read it as "I teabag Phil".
You can't even see that. The pic is a long exposure (look at the stars for reference). Makes me wonder what a short exposure time would look like.
We can't make that supposition based on this paper.
:)
What we can suppose is that the people at Forrester Research think that getting paid to write white papers is more important than what they personally think.
That's my view on Forrester, Gartner, etc.
Horsepoop. It's about price. Offshore workers are notorious for jobhopping. That's changing right now, since growth has slowed in India, China, Indonesia, Brazil, etc... but my experience is that you're very lucky if you get a full year out of a worker in India before they jump ship for a 3% pay increase at another company (even when they are getting 5%+/yr at your company). If you mean onshore guest workers (like H1Bs in the US), then I think you're spot-on.
And both the median and the mean are "averages".
It's common for people to think 'average' and 'mean' are synonyms, but they are not.
Bullshit. What you think is fact is not true in general.
Accountants may be responsible for reporting next quarter's numbers. They may need to make some decisions based on quarterly numbers. That does not mean they work only to maximize next quarter's numbers. What is done with that reporting is a different matter.
My experience in finance is that accountants are more likely to consider the long-term impact of spending than a lot of other backgrounds. The worst, in my experience, are sales & marketing backgrounds. These people have been paid and judged their entire careers on quarterly and monthly numbers... and somehow we expect them to drop that background when they rise to positions of authority.
Also keep in mind that in most companies, decision-making is not made by accountants. It is made by CxOs, then given to the Controller or CFO to implement. Management says, 'We need to reduce expense 10% across the board, except for departments X and Y (usually marketing and sales)'.
Ah, I see where you are coming from. You equate accountants with investment bankers. Never mind the fact that the people driving the investment bankers to do what they do are people like you and me, with their money in 401ks or other vehicles, who select investments based upon quarterly and annual returns.
Accountants are not the problem. Idiots who only understand one piece of the pie and then generalize their understanding of that one slice to the entire pie are the problem.
Citation please. All I've seen attached to this claim over the past several months is anecdotal "evidence" that involves a lot of other factors. Such as doctors who have inadequate controls over their expenses, and bemoan their inability to reduce expenses as the reason they are unable to provide service at the amount paid. Honestly, if we want to get some societal control over medical expenses, we *should* eliminate the practices that can't get by on the same amount of cash other practices prosper under.
There's a practice local to me that was making this claim... but I find it hard to stomach when they drive $85,000 dollar cars, they lease 180,000 square feet for a 2-doctor practice with a lobby (almost always near empty) that seats 30 and has three large-screen plasma TVs. It's an urgent-care facility that has a full suite of rehab equipment that they lease. Seriously... what a waste of cash. People in physical rehab should be going to a rehab center or specialist, not to a general urgent care facility. The only reason I could see them maintaining such a huge facility is if they are receiving payments for the capacity to handle urgent care overflow from the local hospitals. Otherwise, they are hemorrhaging cash, and then blaming lack of income for their negative gross.
Well, I should hope that's the cap, since a $10k increase at $50k represents a 20% increase in gross -- why should the net increase be larger than the increase in gross?
But your logic is flawed. Your argument tries to make the case that if you earn more money, you take home less because of the loss of things like the EIC (which, by the way, likely does not apply to *anyone* working full-time in IT). But that's not the case. The higher your gross, the higher your net. Yes, we have a progressive tax rate. But is that really a disincentive to take home more money?
No, it's not the same thing. You posted a false deduction as fact without regard to veracity. I knew the *facts* before I posted, whether I gave a citation or not. What you thought to be an obvious fact (that the pancreas is not part of the respiratory system, therefore smoking cannot cause pancreatic cancer) is false, and you posted without bothering to check whether your deduction was, in fact, true. Not only is your deduction false, but it demonstrates your lack of knowledge about physiology -- otherwise you would have known that inhaled substances get into the bloodstream and can affect other systems. You are in no position to be making the kind of ridiculous scathing posts you made.
Since you're too fucking lazy to bother with a quick googling when called out on your ignorance and misplaced cavalierness,
here you go.
Seriously, it's been fairly common knowledge among everyone who is mildly interested in pancreatic cancer for at least ten years that cigarette smoking increases incidence of pancreatic cancer.
Oh? Did you bother to look that up, or are you just spouting something that seems logical to you?
The truth>/b> is, smokers have an increased incidence of pancreatic cancer. So do people who use "smokeless" tobacco products like snus or chew or dip.
Whether or not we can directly attribute Bill Hicks' cancer to smoking is a different story... but smoking was likely a contributing factor.
Before you berate someone with your ignorant opinions, please check the facts. You might be surprised.
I prefer manual transmissions... except I have a bum knee that makes the clutch very hard to operate... and a couple years ago I took a job in the 'burbs so now I need to deal with heavy traffic.
So I've switched to automatic transmissions, I had all the complaints you did until I figured out something very basic.
Cars with automatic transmissions have multiple gear settings. If you need to accelerate into traffic, or are having trouble maintaining speed up a hill, put it in "2nd gear", or even "1st gear". You'll get the acceleration you want unless the car is seriously underpowered. Just remember to put it back into the "Drive" settig or you'll find your gas tank emptying quickly.
Manuals are still more responsive than automatics... but your failure to drive an automatic properly should not condemn automatic transmissions. But just go ahead and keep knocking automatic transmissions, I'm sure you know better than people who actually know how to make use of them.
No, these are stars. Which were observed by the Spitzer telescope by observing the skies.
Yes, not exactly side-splitting humor, I know. But isn't that simple word-substitution joke obvious?
I must be really off today. You're the second person to think that was an error. Maybe I'll need to pepper my next joke post with more puns and word substitutions to make it less subtle.
Cost/efficiency? Probably cheaper to have poor immigrant labor continue to do it -- and that's for hotels that don't outsource linens. FYI, linens are already robotically pressed and folded in the big laundry service facilities.
Hospital linens are, to my knowledge, pressed and folded in a sterile environment by robots, then packaged to maintain sterility before delivery back to the hospital. I know this is true for my two local hospitals, not sure about others.
They're not naked, for pete's sake. They are shrouded in interstellar dust.
We should be more concerned with the lack of parental oversight, didn't you ever read "Lord of the Skies"?
Pretty soon they'll be running around the cosmos wearing loincloths and putting pigs' heads on sticks and hunting each other down in the bush while celebrating the loss of their ability to make fire.
Well, maybe not that last bit, given the fact that they are stars.
What internet do you use? It doesn't resemble the one I use.
Regardless of how I'd like it to be, general discussion on the internet is dominated by internet tough guys and inconsiderate assholes who, if they spoke in person as the write in forums, would have their asses handed to them on a plate.
I think you're missing a big thing -- a lot of Apple's offerings, while massively popular among "regular" people, are substandard for those with technical know-how.
The original iPod? It was lame indeed, for anyone who had technical ability and a lot of their music already ripped to mp3.
The iPhone? Lame also, for anyone on the bleeding edge of smartphones (which includes a large portion of slashdotters).
Here's the thing... this is a geek site. Geeks have different criteria for evaluating technology than regular people do. And as for the iPad -- no matter how popular/unpopular it proves to be... the general consensus on slashdot will hold true. The iPad is a sub-standard device compared to what else is out there at that price. Whether it gets massively adopted or not, we (the geeks) will be technologically poorer for it, since it lowers the bar for functionality of tablet PCs.
FWIW, I think if you expect slashdotters to have a good understanding of society in general, then you're a little off-base. This is not a sociology site. This is a geek site, and you should expect slashdot in general to understand geek stuff best. It's like doing evaluations of apps you're thinking of purchasing -- you usually don't have the same people evaluating the UI and the technical specs. If you want non-technical understanding, you're in the wrong place.
Well, duh.
They used 32k of RAM in the machine, but 4k of that was used to make the screen display ASCII porn on power-on, so only 28k was available to users.