Don't be silly. It's not that Americans are too stupid to understand voting reform. It's that any elected official got where they are by beating the current system. They have no interest in fixing the system because the current system has clearly benefitted them. If you're crushing it at Omaha you don't call 7 card high low when it's your deal.
In America you have freedom of speech. You don't have the right to anyone's help in spreading your speech.
Unless it's Verizon, Comcast, Charter, or AT&T?
If network neutrality is vital to a free and open internet, then at some point *all* infrastructure services -- web hosts, DNS, SSL providers, search engines -- should be held to the same standard. If Google decided to remove your site from search results, is it reasonable to say, "just use Bing"? What if IANA or ARIN decided that your site should be excluded from services?
Who gets to decide what should be excluded from your internet?
It really depends on the capabilities of the weapon and what its effects are. The article implies the weapon is anti-materiel. Those are sometimes banned from use on soft targets. What happens when the weapon strikes a human target? Does it cause significant burns like white phosphorus? Many weapons that inflict particularly gruesome injuries end up banned. I assume blindness would be essentially instantaneous, regardless of the exposure. Most weapons that are intended to cause permanent injury to the ears or eyes have been banned, too.
Carbon sheets are as antiquated as dot matrix printers. Laser and inkjet printers just print multiple copies. The paper is cheaper because it's COTS, the printer is cheaper because it's COTS, the toner is cheaper because it's COTS, and if we're talking laser the printing is faster because the whole page prints at once.
There was a time when you could take pride in your country, and think that "your" intelligence agencies were working for freedom.
That time is long past. Long, long past.
I would suspect that's largely due to globalization and the Internet making dissemination of information that much more public and difficult to control rather than any righteousness on the part of any intelligence agency. It's not that the spies of today are less ethical, it's that they can't lie so convincingly anymore.
Re:wrong wrong wrong about copyleft
on
On Being Pro-GPL
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The fundamental misunderstanding people have is that the GPL is a distribution license, not a use license. That's why it's called a "copyleft" and not an "end user freedom agreement." The GPL is exactly not an end user license agreement. There are no terms of use for GPL software, and the OSI's definition of Open Source explicitly prohibits that.
Technically, all those GPL Windows programs that make you click "I agree with these terms" during install for the GPL are wrong to do so. The GPL requires that the user be notified of his or her rights and obligations with the GPL, but users are not required to accept the terms of the GPL because the GPL only applies to persons distributing the software. The installers should require no agreement checkbox, and the button should say "Next" and never "I Agree".
You can do whatever the hell you want with GPL software -- or, indeed, any OSI approved license, AFAIK -- and if you don't try to give it to a third party you don't have to publish squat. It's perfectly legal to have proprietary modifications to GPL code. You just can't distribute that software to anybody else without giving them the ability to get your code modifications.
This is how Google is able to run a custom version of MySQL for their search engine and they don't have to show the code to anybody. They don't have to do that because they're not distributing Google Custom MySQL to anybody in any form.
If you think that's an honest call for segregation, than I shudder to think what happens when you're at a stand-up comedy show. Then again, Jerry Seinfeld made that point recently.
So is stating that women are not capable of handling criticism (unless you've got some objective evidence).
How about the example where the Nobel prize winning scientist made a poor joke that they can't take criticism, and it blew up into a huge feminist issue with him being labelled a misogynist?
Cygwin is the worst answer to pretty much any issue on Windows ever. Forcing a POSIX environment onto the Windows environment to do basic tasks is why Linux admins are so shit at administering Windows. Just learn the damn system you're using.
If you need to have a script saved, just use PowerShell:
If you really want you can parse the output from http://download.cdn.mozilla.ne..., but that seems like a huge waste of time. Just fetch a reasonably recent version and plan to update twice.
Like TFA says, you need to look at it like a research OS. One that has critical flaws that are designed in, but that design has a purpose: to function in a different way. Doing so can expose new lines of thinking and novel approaches to "solved" problems. No, it won't function in a real world of networked computing, but it's not supposed to fit into that idiom. It still has some very interesting ideas. Spending time solving every problem again isn't the goal. There was a time when virtual memory didn't exist, for example, and computing still worked well enough to run businesses, banks, telephone networks, and governments. We don't need a research OS to show us that virtual address spaces are useful. We know that already. So, ignore it as not relevant, and do something that is a novel approach.
Looking at the ideas in TempleOS like they will replace Linux or Windows is silly, but they might give us ideas for new types of computing. The idea that everything would be better as a Linux device is, quite honestly, poisonous to the development real progress in the field of computing as a whole.
Maybe TempleOS is like non-Euclidean geometry. Sometimes need drives the development of new math -- Newton's development of Calculus -- and sometimes the math is developed and sits idle, doing nothing for nearly a hundred years before changing the world -- like Boolean algebra. A computer system is just a very complicated set of mathematical rules. Changing the rules of math and seeing what happens has been one of the major forces of change, as different systems are often best expressed in different forms of mathematics.
Does TempleOS make it easier to understand how computers operate? Does it make it easier to learn what a program actually is? Is it just an example of being closer to the bare metal, like you were flipping bit switches on an old Altair 8800? What if, for example, a system like this makes it very easy to model artificial intelligence? It can basically reprogram itself, after all, as everything is JIT and source code is readily available for literally everything at all times. That seems incredibly powerful. Is it possible to write a self-refining program in HolyC?
Just because I don't understand what something could be used to do doesn't mean it's useless. It might just mean I don't have a very good understanding yet. The questions to ask are, "What kind of system benefits from the design of TempleOS? What kind of system benefits from raw, unimpeded access from the user or input to the hardware?"
the vendor merely has to certify that they tested the update for any effect on clinical function.
So, it's exactly like he said and no updates are allowed to be installed.
ISVs are shit at security because nothing about security is their problem. Being in healthcare doesn't change that; if anything, it makes it worse. I would expect a vendor to spend exactly zero effort on verifying security updates, and less than that on notifying customers. If it ain't a new sale, they ain't interested.
Honestly, I hope some hospital gets the balls to sue an ISV for failing to act in a timely manner for perpetually ignoring security like we all know they do. It's not going to change until someone holds them accountable. They'll just hide behind their EULAs until then, and hospitals will get the bill for letting people die because of security holes.
Wow, so if I decide to stop using your payment service or even decide to cancel a third party service which happens to use your service for payments, I only have to change my bank account to get you to stop charging me.
It doesn't have to be difficult in order to make it completely ridiculous.
People who are religious are idiots and should be treated like second class citizens.
Well, it's good to know that just because you're atheist you don't think any different than the religious folks you despise so much. Idiots with opinions like, "people who disagree with me should be treated like second class citizens," was the entire purpose behind the First Amendment. I'm reassured it won't stop being relevant as the current population ages.
Wait until you start coming across the websites that only have "mobile optimized" versions, which, apparently means "set the default zoom level to 200% and put images and giant buttons everywhere."
IMO, never read an article about a SCOTUS opinion. Always read the opinion itself. They are not difficult to find and not difficult to read.
It doesn't look like he was under the influence at the time, but the term "driving out of his lane" does kind of give reasonable cause for drug use, but maybe thats profiling.
No, it really doesn't.
Maybe the driver was futzing with their cell phone. Maybe their eyesight has degraded but they still have a license. Maybe there was something in the road that the officer didn't see. Maybe there was a bee in the car. Maybe the passenger grabbed the wheel. Maybe the vehicle is malfunctioning (say, headlights are out). Maybe the driver hit a pothole. Maybe the lines were unclear, having been repainted. Maybe the driver was falling asleep.
The core issue here was that the police officer was finished with the traffic stop. Then he asked to do a search, and the driver refused, and then he detained the driver.
Searches are legal, but waiting for backup to conduct a search isn't?
You can't detain someone longer than is reasonable (4th Amendment), and the decision says it's only reasonable to detain someone as long as it takes to complete the traffic stop (a definition established in Illinois v. Caballes in 2005). So case law says that the 4th Amendment's "reasonable" means "as long as it takes to finish the traffic stop." By the officer's own admission, the traffic stop was complete. Since nothing incriminating had been discovered by that point, that makes further detention or search unreasonable, and that makes the it all unconstitutional.
Pfft. Then you just add another layer of NAT! You can make 4 million two host networks with 10,0.0.0/24. Then you can put 4 million two host networks on each of those networks, too. Now you've got support for 17 trillion end user devices!
Much like turtles, the Internet could be IPv4 NAT all the way down....
Honestly, without regulation or legislation, I suspect that's how we'll end up.
The Chinese love American cars. Last year both GM and Ford had double digit sales increases there. For GM at least, the largest market is China, not the US.
Because when you get a call, anonymous or otherwise, that a shooting has happened, someone has been killed, and hostages have been taken and are being threatened, the police are not likely to send a beat cop to ring the bell with his hat in his hands.
I agree this is a symptom of the problem with the militarization of police, though. There needs to be a middle ground for an appropriate response that doesn't include a SWAT team.
Slashdot Mirror
Eh, either way it's not that hard. Buy a metal pet cage or garbage can and snap a ferrite bead on the power cable and network cable.
Don't be silly. It's not that Americans are too stupid to understand voting reform. It's that any elected official got where they are by beating the current system. They have no interest in fixing the system because the current system has clearly benefitted them. If you're crushing it at Omaha you don't call 7 card high low when it's your deal.
In America you have freedom of speech. You don't have the right to anyone's help in spreading your speech.
Unless it's Verizon, Comcast, Charter, or AT&T?
If network neutrality is vital to a free and open internet, then at some point *all* infrastructure services -- web hosts, DNS, SSL providers, search engines -- should be held to the same standard. If Google decided to remove your site from search results, is it reasonable to say, "just use Bing"? What if IANA or ARIN decided that your site should be excluded from services?
Who gets to decide what should be excluded from your internet?
Windows 2000 not running Microsoft Bob was the fix. It's not a bug, it's a feature!
It really depends on the capabilities of the weapon and what its effects are. The article implies the weapon is anti-materiel. Those are sometimes banned from use on soft targets. What happens when the weapon strikes a human target? Does it cause significant burns like white phosphorus? Many weapons that inflict particularly gruesome injuries end up banned. I assume blindness would be essentially instantaneous, regardless of the exposure. Most weapons that are intended to cause permanent injury to the ears or eyes have been banned, too.
Carbon sheets are as antiquated as dot matrix printers. Laser and inkjet printers just print multiple copies. The paper is cheaper because it's COTS, the printer is cheaper because it's COTS, the toner is cheaper because it's COTS, and if we're talking laser the printing is faster because the whole page prints at once.
I would suspect that's largely due to globalization and the Internet making dissemination of information that much more public and difficult to control rather than any righteousness on the part of any intelligence agency. It's not that the spies of today are less ethical, it's that they can't lie so convincingly anymore.
By tampering with the unencrypted update request, and modifying the WSUS server to serve malicious files.
Change it from: "Hey, I'd like update CumulativeIEUpdate20150801.msu."
To: "Hey, I'd like SilentBackdoorAndBitcoinMiner.txt"
The compromised server says, "Sure, this uses CommandLineInstallation via the signed executable PsExec.exe."
Er, the British Royal Navy has been sailing ships under the name Enterprise longer than the US Navy has existed.
"Darth Sudo" has an ominous ring to it.
The fundamental misunderstanding people have is that the GPL is a distribution license, not a use license. That's why it's called a "copyleft" and not an "end user freedom agreement." The GPL is exactly not an end user license agreement. There are no terms of use for GPL software, and the OSI's definition of Open Source explicitly prohibits that.
Technically, all those GPL Windows programs that make you click "I agree with these terms" during install for the GPL are wrong to do so. The GPL requires that the user be notified of his or her rights and obligations with the GPL, but users are not required to accept the terms of the GPL because the GPL only applies to persons distributing the software. The installers should require no agreement checkbox, and the button should say "Next" and never "I Agree".
You can do whatever the hell you want with GPL software -- or, indeed, any OSI approved license, AFAIK -- and if you don't try to give it to a third party you don't have to publish squat. It's perfectly legal to have proprietary modifications to GPL code. You just can't distribute that software to anybody else without giving them the ability to get your code modifications.
This is how Google is able to run a custom version of MySQL for their search engine and they don't have to show the code to anybody. They don't have to do that because they're not distributing Google Custom MySQL to anybody in any form.
If you think that's an honest call for segregation, than I shudder to think what happens when you're at a stand-up comedy show. Then again, Jerry Seinfeld made that point recently.
How about the example where the Nobel prize winning scientist made a poor joke that they can't take criticism, and it blew up into a huge feminist issue with him being labelled a misogynist?
Cygwin is the worst answer to pretty much any issue on Windows ever. Forcing a POSIX environment onto the Windows environment to do basic tasks is why Linux admins are so shit at administering Windows. Just learn the damn system you're using.
If you need to have a script saved, just use PowerShell:
Invoke-WebRequest -Uri 'ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/38.0.5/win32/en-US/Firefox Setup 38.0.5.exe' -OutFile 'C:\Firefox Setup 38.0.5.exe'
If you really want you can parse the output from http://download.cdn.mozilla.ne..., but that seems like a huge waste of time. Just fetch a reasonably recent version and plan to update twice.
Otherwise, just use ftp.exe.
Obviously.
Like TFA says, you need to look at it like a research OS. One that has critical flaws that are designed in, but that design has a purpose: to function in a different way. Doing so can expose new lines of thinking and novel approaches to "solved" problems. No, it won't function in a real world of networked computing, but it's not supposed to fit into that idiom. It still has some very interesting ideas. Spending time solving every problem again isn't the goal. There was a time when virtual memory didn't exist, for example, and computing still worked well enough to run businesses, banks, telephone networks, and governments. We don't need a research OS to show us that virtual address spaces are useful. We know that already. So, ignore it as not relevant, and do something that is a novel approach.
Looking at the ideas in TempleOS like they will replace Linux or Windows is silly, but they might give us ideas for new types of computing. The idea that everything would be better as a Linux device is, quite honestly, poisonous to the development real progress in the field of computing as a whole.
Maybe TempleOS is like non-Euclidean geometry. Sometimes need drives the development of new math -- Newton's development of Calculus -- and sometimes the math is developed and sits idle, doing nothing for nearly a hundred years before changing the world -- like Boolean algebra. A computer system is just a very complicated set of mathematical rules. Changing the rules of math and seeing what happens has been one of the major forces of change, as different systems are often best expressed in different forms of mathematics.
Does TempleOS make it easier to understand how computers operate? Does it make it easier to learn what a program actually is? Is it just an example of being closer to the bare metal, like you were flipping bit switches on an old Altair 8800? What if, for example, a system like this makes it very easy to model artificial intelligence? It can basically reprogram itself, after all, as everything is JIT and source code is readily available for literally everything at all times. That seems incredibly powerful. Is it possible to write a self-refining program in HolyC?
Just because I don't understand what something could be used to do doesn't mean it's useless. It might just mean I don't have a very good understanding yet. The questions to ask are, "What kind of system benefits from the design of TempleOS? What kind of system benefits from raw, unimpeded access from the user or input to the hardware?"
So, it's exactly like he said and no updates are allowed to be installed.
ISVs are shit at security because nothing about security is their problem. Being in healthcare doesn't change that; if anything, it makes it worse. I would expect a vendor to spend exactly zero effort on verifying security updates, and less than that on notifying customers. If it ain't a new sale, they ain't interested.
Honestly, I hope some hospital gets the balls to sue an ISV for failing to act in a timely manner for perpetually ignoring security like we all know they do. It's not going to change until someone holds them accountable. They'll just hide behind their EULAs until then, and hospitals will get the bill for letting people die because of security holes.
Wow, so if I decide to stop using your payment service or even decide to cancel a third party service which happens to use your service for payments, I only have to change my bank account to get you to stop charging me.
It doesn't have to be difficult in order to make it completely ridiculous.
Well, it's good to know that just because you're atheist you don't think any different than the religious folks you despise so much. Idiots with opinions like, "people who disagree with me should be treated like second class citizens," was the entire purpose behind the First Amendment. I'm reassured it won't stop being relevant as the current population ages.
Er... Tinahe-2 uses Xeon processors and Xeon Phi coprocessors.
Wait until you start coming across the websites that only have "mobile optimized" versions, which, apparently means "set the default zoom level to 200% and put images and giant buttons everywhere."
The only one that I recall of the top of my head is Wizards of the Coast.
IMO, never read an article about a SCOTUS opinion. Always read the opinion itself. They are not difficult to find and not difficult to read.
No, it really doesn't.
Maybe the driver was futzing with their cell phone. Maybe their eyesight has degraded but they still have a license. Maybe there was something in the road that the officer didn't see. Maybe there was a bee in the car. Maybe the passenger grabbed the wheel. Maybe the vehicle is malfunctioning (say, headlights are out). Maybe the driver hit a pothole. Maybe the lines were unclear, having been repainted. Maybe the driver was falling asleep.
The core issue here was that the police officer was finished with the traffic stop. Then he asked to do a search, and the driver refused, and then he detained the driver.
You can't detain someone longer than is reasonable (4th Amendment), and the decision says it's only reasonable to detain someone as long as it takes to complete the traffic stop (a definition established in Illinois v. Caballes in 2005). So case law says that the 4th Amendment's "reasonable" means "as long as it takes to finish the traffic stop." By the officer's own admission, the traffic stop was complete. Since nothing incriminating had been discovered by that point, that makes further detention or search unreasonable, and that makes the it all unconstitutional.
Pfft. Then you just add another layer of NAT! You can make 4 million two host networks with 10,0.0.0/24. Then you can put 4 million two host networks on each of those networks, too. Now you've got support for 17 trillion end user devices!
Much like turtles, the Internet could be IPv4 NAT all the way down....
Honestly, without regulation or legislation, I suspect that's how we'll end up.
I suppose you run your email servers without a spam filter, too? I mean, they're never 100% accurate.
Welcome to SlashDot^W the Internet!
The Chinese love American cars. Last year both GM and Ford had double digit sales increases there. For GM at least, the largest market is China, not the US.
Because when you get a call, anonymous or otherwise, that a shooting has happened, someone has been killed, and hostages have been taken and are being threatened, the police are not likely to send a beat cop to ring the bell with his hat in his hands.
I agree this is a symptom of the problem with the militarization of police, though. There needs to be a middle ground for an appropriate response that doesn't include a SWAT team.