I routinely work with compressed gases (~2500psi, medical oxygen on an ambulance). The tanks are tremendously well-built, and if you drop one you're worried about the valve because it protrudes - not the tank itself. And by my envelope calculations, there's something like 603k pounds trying to turn my tanks inside out.
Yes, I'd want to be damn sure I knew what that tank was doing, and how well it was built - but we're pretty good at making pressure vessels that won't rupture on their own, and equally good at making ones that are solid enough to withstand impacts.
Frankly, 15 gallons of gasoline worries me more. The kind of impact that would rupture a tank would aerosolize the gas, and I'd rather be in an explosion than an explosion with fire.
Not what I said. But if somebody robs my house if I leave it unlocked for a week while away, and I tell them "a maaster robber took my stuff", I'll get some funny looks.
That's different. Cracking the window glass is more like cracking (heh) since it's unauthorized by design. It may have been a bad analogy but the point stands.
Consider those cars with the entry code buttons - you punch in the code and the door unlocks. What if, on an old car, three of the buttons were very worn and the rest untouched? Sure, getting into my car by trying any of the 6 combinations would be wrong, but you wouldn't be a master thief.
Not even cracked. Please stop talking about this guy like he has some computer wiizardry - he guessed at recovery questions. If I leave a riddle taped to my safe that gives the combo when solved, how angry can I be when somebody figures it out?
User profile directories including appdata are specifically excluded, because this is best common practice. Programs/executables don't belong in any user's profile or appdata folder
I disagree, though not for Windows. On Linux, it's pretty common practice to install software locally to a user. For example I have a newer version of Python installed on my webserver than the stock, and it's just in my home directory.
Though I understand that your needs are likely different, I'm just pointing it out.
You're absolutely right. Letting your kid eat McDonalds, while perhaps bad parenting, isn't neglectful.
However, we can definitely look at particular things and say that they are unequivocally bad. From a medical standpoint, there's a lot of uncertainty - but there's a lot of certainty as well. Not treating your kids' infection is already considered neglect. Female genital cutting is as well, despite the fact that it's a cultural thing. There is little ambiguity that these are bad. It's (IMHO) the same with vaccines and homeopathy. There is a tremendous amount of evidence that vaccines work, and homeopathy doesn't - and none that show that vaccines cause damage, outside of some specific cases, or that homeopathy works.
Before we get bogged down in the other stuff, let's start by disallowing those decisions which are unquestionably harmful.
I'd completely agree with you, but these idiots aren't hurting themselves. They're hurting their (very young, infant) children. The kids aren't the ones saying "but I heard oprah", it's the parents.
It's the same thing as the homeopathy nonsense. My mother has a friend whose kid had Lyme disease, but she thought the treatment was too harsh and turned to homeopathic treatment (saline and sugar pills). He got better! He only a few neurologic defecits that held him back a year in school and changed his personality. So, heretic me looks up what the symptoms of not treating Lyme disease... and sees something familiar. The poor kid suffered for years and is damaged for life because his mom is a dumb bitch - is that "her" problem, or his?
I would fully support those people getting prosecuted for child abuse. People are allowed to be as stupid about their own health as they want, but not about their kids. Otherwise, they should be removed and placed in the care of people who will treat them properly - same as we do with other neglect.
I see what you're saying, but there's no reason you can't use them together. x509 is great for encryption, and webservers and browsers already support it. What I alluded to was, why not put an x509 cert fingerprint in the DNS? I don't like relying on some third-party money-grubbing infrastructure to re-authenticate a domain name for me. Why not just let me trust the domain name? Hence DNSSEC
There are some problems, and major, that you point out. But I don't see any that aren't easily fixable - as in, incomplete implementations that will be fixed as it's deployed more widely.
Because there's a trust chain. We can verify that the domain is supposed to be signed if.com says so, and we can trust that based on the root keys. Individual records can (I think) be left unsigned, but the domain can state that securely.
It doesn't seem like you understand what's going on here. Roots are trusted, they sign.com,.org, and so on, which sign your domain. I can verify that I'm talking to your authoritative servers by checking this trust chain, and since you can/will sign your own entries, I can verify from the top down that I'm getting the answer I should be.
This is where it gets cool. If we can trust the entries in DNS, why not put a public key there? I know it's accurate, so when I SSH I can verify the first time that it's correct. Or I could self-sign a SSL certificate - which is fine for encryption purposes - and put the fingerprint in DNS to ensure it's not tampered with.
Basically the roots replace the CAs in the trust model. It's at least as secure as the CAs, but there's a lot less of them and it's easier to safeguard your own private key than it is to trust every single one of the dozens of CAs to do their homework.
It also has the benefit of any tampering being much easier to notice, because it breaks everything under it.
So I'm not quite sure what you think the problem is, except that you're worried your registrar will charge you $300/yr for a certificate record... in which case you could switch to a decent registrar.
I think you're being awfully idealist... in my experience, people are only too happy to close their eyes to the world, even on things that directly affect them.
Horse shit. I've protested, I've marched, and damn it I knew what I was getting in to. I was ready (but not expecting) to be on the news with my face and name. I was NOT anonymous, delibrately so, and with all those consequences. I was ready for my name to point to a news article about that protest, where I was quoted.
Now, none of this happened, But I was ready and willing for it to happen.
Protest isn't supposed to be easy. In fact, it cheapens it if it is. If I download a program, run it in the background, then go back to watching TV or jacking off - how is that morally equivalent to people spending many hours of their life calling phones? Or more so - getting beat up or hosed down for standing up for yourself and your skin color?
But these "hactivists" don't understand WHAT they're doing, they don't understand WHY, and they think it's a joke and don't expect to get caught. Those disqualify this breed of vandalism three times over. If they understand what they were doing, the instructions would be more than "go to this website, download this, and type in paypal. lulz". If they understood why, they wouldn't be doing it - at least not Amazon. What, so Amazon is supposed to host Wikileaks despite the DDoS it was getting? That's like if I took a shit in your car, and some guy on the street beat you up for kicking me out. And they're fully expecting to never get caught - look at that idiot in Europe who was astonished to find out that his computer was sending PACKETS with his ADDRESS!
I basically support Wikileaks, mostly because it convinces me that things aren't that bad. Our operatives shouldn't be making stupid mistakes, but our government really should be protecting them. Holy shit, there are civilian casualties in a war? Pakistan is two faced? Stop the presses! Wikileaks hasn't leaked anything new to those of us paying attention to the world.
But these "hacktivists" are absolutely not protesting. They're clicking a button, grabbing a Coke, and playing XBox. By calling them protesters, or even activists, you cheapen what real protest is. Staring down a gun barrel for daring to protest Vietnam, and having a bit of lag on your MW2 because you ran some program you don't understand for reasons you don't understand - those are absolutely not the same thing.
Good try, but history sometimes is pretty black-and-white (at least compared to most history).
Gandhi was fighting a British state that was pretty much ready to give up their colonies anyway. Look at Canada, they just kinda let them go. I'm not saying that what he did wasn't important, significant, or difficult - I'm sure it was. But Britain wasn't exactly convinced anymore that they needed their colonies by that time - though in 1776 they fought like hell to keep the new States. You're also forgetting that the American colonists were largely British anyway - the native Americans, even by then, were pretty much subdued (regrettably). The Indians (from India) were absolutely *not* from Britain. The occupying force dynamic is much, much different than the "but we're British!" thing the Americans had. And Gandhi wasn't exactly a diplomat... he used force, but an entirely different kind of force.
You've got the Civil War turned on its head here. The South seceded after Lincoln was elected, like they said they would. They also largely didn't vote in his Presidential election - funny that he won, isn't it? It'd be like if the Northeast and California just didn't vote in 2004. But in any case, the South fired the first shot (at Fort Sumter) and started the war. Not exactly Lincoln's political motivation at work, but he was perfectly willing, and expecting it, so you might count that. I'm not quite sure how you compare Iraq to the Civil War. What if Texas said "we're our own state" then started shooting us for good measure? Responding to an insurrection is absolutely different than going on some snipe hunt justified by lies. And for the record, the Civil War was *absolutely* about slaves, at least to the South. Read some of their declarations - they're full of "they're infringing on our right to keep slaves" or "they think slaves count as too much of a person" or so on. To the North (or Lincoln at least), the South hadn't seceded because that was impossible, so in his mind it was really a war against the "states currently in rebellion" as he put it. So it wasn't a war about slavery to Lincoln, it probably was to most of the North (though they may have agreed with Lincoln), and it definitely was for the South.
What happened to the Germans at WWII was quite unfair, and there's a good case that Hitler wouldn't have found the necessary public support (he got elected) were there not so much anti-everyone sentiment, not to mention fear of the Communists next door. But, according to you, shouldn't he have sought remedy through diplomatic channels instead of engaging in lebensraum? And before you talk about the Munich agreement and "peace for our time", that wasn't exactly diplomacy since Hitler wasn't acting in good faith. But disregarding WWI for a moment, and assuming that the situation sprang into being (of course not true), how else could you deal with it?
Your view of history has been twisted by your ideology. Don't worry, that happens pretty commonly - it's really the origin of a lot of quotes about history, really. But you've turned the Civil War, in particular, on its head. I suggest you read a number of different takes on history, from different viewpoints. It's fascinating stuff.
I'm by no means a warmonger, and the US has gotten involved in a bunch of stupid wars. Having said that: the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and World War II were almost unquestioningly necessary. In each case, action was necessary, and diplomacy had been thoroughly exhausted. But, as much as I hate to say it, sometimes you need to beat the crap out of an enemy for your safety or for what's right. It was time for the colonies to be independent, the union is not a fair-weather friend, and Hitler/Japan needed to be put in their place.
If you disagree, how would you have handled the above situations? Keep in mind that colonial control, secession, and a Nazi Europe are not acceptable outcomes in this game.
I'd like to point out that this is *ONLY* autocomplete. They're not doing anything about search results, but they're preventing copyright infringement-related terms from appearing in autocomplete - RTFTitle.
As most slashdotters have probably noticed, they do the same thing for pornography. Searching "midget fis" doesn't suggest anything, but there are 71k results for "midget fisting" (isn't it terrifying?) if you just go ahead and hit enter.
Frankly, Google's autocomplete shouldn't be the reason that an otherwise non-infringing person finds out about thepiratebay.org. IMHO, this is a good thing.
But you installed Skype. This is a stupid issue, since Apple doesn't know how to validate the data passed via the handler... it's up to the app launched from a (possibly untrusted) source to check it all. Most apps do this, and I would've done it out of habit.
It's a Skype bug that's easy to fix. I'm sure they'll have a patch out in the week.
int main(char** argc, int argv) {
int x=–5;
printf("%d\n", x); }
The errors are fairly obvious if you compile, but it's not easy to see. Now you could tell me that C isn't designed to be written in Unicode, and you'd be right, but at least it's pretty clear which characters are wrong. A language designed for unicode would be even worse, since the characters wouldn't be illegal outright, and it might try to convert emdashes to - for a subtraction, etc.
Bad idea. Code is terse by design. Ever noticed how much harder it is to say precisely what you mean in, say, Applescript? Adding a character set of 100k is a terrible idea.
Slashdot Mirror
That wasa a joke, right? I really appreciated the ability to load child comments without a whole new tab, and this works even better than D2.
Uh... I mean... IT SUCKS AND I'LL LEAVE
I routinely work with compressed gases (~2500psi, medical oxygen on an ambulance). The tanks are tremendously well-built, and if you drop one you're worried about the valve because it protrudes - not the tank itself. And by my envelope calculations, there's something like 603k pounds trying to turn my tanks inside out.
Yes, I'd want to be damn sure I knew what that tank was doing, and how well it was built - but we're pretty good at making pressure vessels that won't rupture on their own, and equally good at making ones that are solid enough to withstand impacts.
Frankly, 15 gallons of gasoline worries me more. The kind of impact that would rupture a tank would aerosolize the gas, and I'd rather be in an explosion than an explosion with fire.
Fucking snakes, they think they can go wherever they want
Yeah, except Stuxnet attacks Windows hosts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet
I've given up on "hacker" vs "cracker"... but this guy is neither.
Well put. After all the responses, I wish I'd put it that way... I was addressing the 'hacker' designation mostly.
Not what I said. But if somebody robs my house if I leave it unlocked for a week while away, and I tell them "a maaster robber took my stuff", I'll get some funny looks.
That's different. Cracking the window glass is more like cracking (heh) since it's unauthorized by design. It may have been a bad analogy but the point stands.
Consider those cars with the entry code buttons - you punch in the code and the door unlocks. What if, on an old car, three of the buttons were very worn and the rest untouched? Sure, getting into my car by trying any of the 6 combinations would be wrong, but you wouldn't be a master thief.
Not even cracked. Please stop talking about this guy like he has some computer wiizardry - he guessed at recovery questions. If I leave a riddle taped to my safe that gives the combo when solved, how angry can I be when somebody figures it out?
User profile directories including appdata are specifically excluded, because this is best common practice. Programs/executables don't belong in any user's profile or appdata folder
I disagree, though not for Windows. On Linux, it's pretty common practice to install software locally to a user. For example I have a newer version of Python installed on my webserver than the stock, and it's just in my home directory.
Though I understand that your needs are likely different, I'm just pointing it out.
You're absolutely right. Letting your kid eat McDonalds, while perhaps bad parenting, isn't neglectful.
However, we can definitely look at particular things and say that they are unequivocally bad. From a medical standpoint, there's a lot of uncertainty - but there's a lot of certainty as well. Not treating your kids' infection is already considered neglect. Female genital cutting is as well, despite the fact that it's a cultural thing. There is little ambiguity that these are bad. It's (IMHO) the same with vaccines and homeopathy. There is a tremendous amount of evidence that vaccines work, and homeopathy doesn't - and none that show that vaccines cause damage, outside of some specific cases, or that homeopathy works.
Before we get bogged down in the other stuff, let's start by disallowing those decisions which are unquestionably harmful.
I'd completely agree with you, but these idiots aren't hurting themselves. They're hurting their (very young, infant) children. The kids aren't the ones saying "but I heard oprah", it's the parents.
It's the same thing as the homeopathy nonsense. My mother has a friend whose kid had Lyme disease, but she thought the treatment was too harsh and turned to homeopathic treatment (saline and sugar pills). He got better! He only a few neurologic defecits that held him back a year in school and changed his personality. So, heretic me looks up what the symptoms of not treating Lyme disease... and sees something familiar. The poor kid suffered for years and is damaged for life because his mom is a dumb bitch - is that "her" problem, or his?
I would fully support those people getting prosecuted for child abuse. People are allowed to be as stupid about their own health as they want, but not about their kids. Otherwise, they should be removed and placed in the care of people who will treat them properly - same as we do with other neglect.
I see what you're saying, but there's no reason you can't use them together. x509 is great for encryption, and webservers and browsers already support it. What I alluded to was, why not put an x509 cert fingerprint in the DNS? I don't like relying on some third-party money-grubbing infrastructure to re-authenticate a domain name for me. Why not just let me trust the domain name? Hence DNSSEC
There are some problems, and major, that you point out. But I don't see any that aren't easily fixable - as in, incomplete implementations that will be fixed as it's deployed more widely.
Because there's a trust chain. We can verify that the domain is supposed to be signed if .com says so, and we can trust that based on the root keys. Individual records can (I think) be left unsigned, but the domain can state that securely.
It doesn't seem like you understand what's going on here. Roots are trusted, they sign .com, .org, and so on, which sign your domain. I can verify that I'm talking to your authoritative servers by checking this trust chain, and since you can/will sign your own entries, I can verify from the top down that I'm getting the answer I should be.
This is where it gets cool. If we can trust the entries in DNS, why not put a public key there? I know it's accurate, so when I SSH I can verify the first time that it's correct. Or I could self-sign a SSL certificate - which is fine for encryption purposes - and put the fingerprint in DNS to ensure it's not tampered with.
Basically the roots replace the CAs in the trust model. It's at least as secure as the CAs, but there's a lot less of them and it's easier to safeguard your own private key than it is to trust every single one of the dozens of CAs to do their homework.
It also has the benefit of any tampering being much easier to notice, because it breaks everything under it.
So I'm not quite sure what you think the problem is, except that you're worried your registrar will charge you $300/yr for a certificate record... in which case you could switch to a decent registrar.
I think you're being awfully idealist... in my experience, people are only too happy to close their eyes to the world, even on things that directly affect them.
You ought to try SCII again. It's listed as Platinum, which means it works out-of-the-box.
I don't see some /b/tard spending international rates to wardial. That'd be a tremendous amount of money.
Horse shit. I've protested, I've marched, and damn it I knew what I was getting in to. I was ready (but not expecting) to be on the news with my face and name. I was NOT anonymous, delibrately so, and with all those consequences. I was ready for my name to point to a news article about that protest, where I was quoted.
Now, none of this happened, But I was ready and willing for it to happen.
Protest isn't supposed to be easy. In fact, it cheapens it if it is. If I download a program, run it in the background, then go back to watching TV or jacking off - how is that morally equivalent to people spending many hours of their life calling phones? Or more so - getting beat up or hosed down for standing up for yourself and your skin color?
But these "hactivists" don't understand WHAT they're doing, they don't understand WHY, and they think it's a joke and don't expect to get caught. Those disqualify this breed of vandalism three times over. If they understand what they were doing, the instructions would be more than "go to this website, download this, and type in paypal. lulz". If they understood why, they wouldn't be doing it - at least not Amazon. What, so Amazon is supposed to host Wikileaks despite the DDoS it was getting? That's like if I took a shit in your car, and some guy on the street beat you up for kicking me out. And they're fully expecting to never get caught - look at that idiot in Europe who was astonished to find out that his computer was sending PACKETS with his ADDRESS!
I basically support Wikileaks, mostly because it convinces me that things aren't that bad. Our operatives shouldn't be making stupid mistakes, but our government really should be protecting them. Holy shit, there are civilian casualties in a war? Pakistan is two faced? Stop the presses! Wikileaks hasn't leaked anything new to those of us paying attention to the world.
But these "hacktivists" are absolutely not protesting. They're clicking a button, grabbing a Coke, and playing XBox. By calling them protesters, or even activists, you cheapen what real protest is. Staring down a gun barrel for daring to protest Vietnam, and having a bit of lag on your MW2 because you ran some program you don't understand for reasons you don't understand - those are absolutely not the same thing.
Good try, but history sometimes is pretty black-and-white (at least compared to most history).
Gandhi was fighting a British state that was pretty much ready to give up their colonies anyway. Look at Canada, they just kinda let them go. I'm not saying that what he did wasn't important, significant, or difficult - I'm sure it was. But Britain wasn't exactly convinced anymore that they needed their colonies by that time - though in 1776 they fought like hell to keep the new States. You're also forgetting that the American colonists were largely British anyway - the native Americans, even by then, were pretty much subdued (regrettably). The Indians (from India) were absolutely *not* from Britain. The occupying force dynamic is much, much different than the "but we're British!" thing the Americans had. And Gandhi wasn't exactly a diplomat... he used force, but an entirely different kind of force.
You've got the Civil War turned on its head here. The South seceded after Lincoln was elected, like they said they would. They also largely didn't vote in his Presidential election - funny that he won, isn't it? It'd be like if the Northeast and California just didn't vote in 2004. But in any case, the South fired the first shot (at Fort Sumter) and started the war. Not exactly Lincoln's political motivation at work, but he was perfectly willing, and expecting it, so you might count that. I'm not quite sure how you compare Iraq to the Civil War. What if Texas said "we're our own state" then started shooting us for good measure? Responding to an insurrection is absolutely different than going on some snipe hunt justified by lies. And for the record, the Civil War was *absolutely* about slaves, at least to the South. Read some of their declarations - they're full of "they're infringing on our right to keep slaves" or "they think slaves count as too much of a person" or so on. To the North (or Lincoln at least), the South hadn't seceded because that was impossible, so in his mind it was really a war against the "states currently in rebellion" as he put it. So it wasn't a war about slavery to Lincoln, it probably was to most of the North (though they may have agreed with Lincoln), and it definitely was for the South.
What happened to the Germans at WWII was quite unfair, and there's a good case that Hitler wouldn't have found the necessary public support (he got elected) were there not so much anti-everyone sentiment, not to mention fear of the Communists next door. But, according to you, shouldn't he have sought remedy through diplomatic channels instead of engaging in lebensraum? And before you talk about the Munich agreement and "peace for our time", that wasn't exactly diplomacy since Hitler wasn't acting in good faith. But disregarding WWI for a moment, and assuming that the situation sprang into being (of course not true), how else could you deal with it?
Your view of history has been twisted by your ideology. Don't worry, that happens pretty commonly - it's really the origin of a lot of quotes about history, really. But you've turned the Civil War, in particular, on its head. I suggest you read a number of different takes on history, from different viewpoints. It's fascinating stuff.
I'm by no means a warmonger, and the US has gotten involved in a bunch of stupid wars. Having said that: the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and World War II were almost unquestioningly necessary. In each case, action was necessary, and diplomacy had been thoroughly exhausted. But, as much as I hate to say it, sometimes you need to beat the crap out of an enemy for your safety or for what's right. It was time for the colonies to be independent, the union is not a fair-weather friend, and Hitler/Japan needed to be put in their place.
If you disagree, how would you have handled the above situations? Keep in mind that colonial control, secession, and a Nazi Europe are not acceptable outcomes in this game.
I'd like to point out that this is *ONLY* autocomplete. They're not doing anything about search results, but they're preventing copyright infringement-related terms from appearing in autocomplete - RTFTitle.
As most slashdotters have probably noticed, they do the same thing for pornography. Searching "midget fis" doesn't suggest anything, but there are 71k results for "midget fisting" (isn't it terrifying?) if you just go ahead and hit enter.
Frankly, Google's autocomplete shouldn't be the reason that an otherwise non-infringing person finds out about thepiratebay.org. IMHO, this is a good thing.
But you installed Skype. This is a stupid issue, since Apple doesn't know how to validate the data passed via the handler... it's up to the app launched from a (possibly untrusted) source to check it all. Most apps do this, and I would've done it out of habit.
It's a Skype bug that's easy to fix. I'm sure they'll have a patch out in the week.
John McCain has been a cornerstone of the "broken" system for a long time, yet hasn't done all that much (at least in the last 10 years) about it.
#include <stdio.h>
int main(char** argc, int argv) {
int x=–5;
printf("%d\n", x);
}
The errors are fairly obvious if you compile, but it's not easy to see. Now you could tell me that C isn't designed to be written in Unicode, and you'd be right, but at least it's pretty clear which characters are wrong. A language designed for unicode would be even worse, since the characters wouldn't be illegal outright, and it might try to convert emdashes to - for a subtraction, etc.
Bad idea. Code is terse by design. Ever noticed how much harder it is to say precisely what you mean in, say, Applescript? Adding a character set of 100k is a terrible idea.