I dunno. Others have speculated recently (and I happen to agree with them) that the likely space-faring races won't be biological, but mechanical/electrical. An AI that can manufacture it's own replacement parts & direct robots to repair itself could become effectively immortal...which makes the time for the trip between stars less of an issue.
So, there might only be one...and it might need resources. (In this case, though, it'd likely be more interested in the asteroid belt than us.)
Fluffbuster won't stop the integrations from loading on sites like CNN, though, nor will it stop URL from loading even on facebook. Greasemonkey scripts run *after* the page loads...so if you're uncomfortable with the tracking between cnn and facebook, for example, you need to stop the facebook integration URLs from loading in the first place (hence my AdBlocking comment above).
Don't get me wrong: I like FBPurity, and I use FBPurity. But it won't fix this particular problem.
Tortious interference, in the common law of tort, occurs when a person intentionally damages the plaintiff's contractual or other business relationships.
Tortious interference with business relationships occurs where the tortfeasor acts to prevent the plaintiff from successfully establishing or maintaining business relationships. This tort may occur when a first party's conduct intentionally causes a second party not to enter into a business relationship with a third party that otherwise would probably have occurred. Such conduct is termed tortious interference with prospective business relations, expectations, or advantage or with prospective economic advantage.
It wouldn't shut down the interwebs, it would shut down the interwebs connectivity for "critical infrastructure." So, each ISP that houses anything tagged as "critical" would have to have some process where they could isolate it from the rest of the 'net. That part, on its own, is easy ("You want me to drop BGP sessions X, Y, and Z? Okay."). The real challenge comes if they ask, instead, for the systems to be isolated from the net but still able to reach *each* *other*. That's not explicitly called for in the bill, and I think it leaves the potential for hilarity in the event of an actual emergency.
Bacon is sugary? Sausage is sugary? Granted, the cake entries are both high-fat and high-sugar, but saying all the food items are high-sugar is wrong. They are all high-fat, though.
Between the general welfare clause and the commerce clause (insurance being an interstate commerce issue) of the constitution, their constitutional authority is pretty strong.
Care to define who the "entitlement generation" is? According to this recent study, the average age of slashdot readers is 40.4. Are you implying that aging boomers/Gen X-ers are that "entitlement generation?"
That's going to depend really strongly on what kind of drunk the politicians are. The weepy drunks aren't going to be valuable, nor are the horny drunks (ick, try not to think about that too much), while the angry drunks will dominate discussion. (meanwhile the barfy ones will be in the back missing out on everything.) Come to think of it, this won't be that different from normal politics...
The problem is somewhat more complex than that. It's really a problem of inflation: the risk of getting hacked is increasing each year as new attack surfaces are found and new methods are invented. This requires an ever-increasing amount of money to be spent on security in order to keep the risk constant (or nearly so). So, reducing risk to a fixed range is becoming progressively more expensive each year, but the consequences of failure and the likelihood of the occurrences don't change with the extra money spent. This is unsustainable.
An example: a company without anti-virus, gets hacked twice in a year due to emailed trojans being opened by users. So they spend a year rolling out anti-virus across all their desktops...in the meantime the attackers have moved on to something that the a/v can't stop. The result: the company is still getting hacked 1-2 times per year, just from different emails. Adding the anti-virus has improved their security by preventing the old attacks, but it has not materially effected the end result: they're still getting hacked, and they're getting hacked just as often as before.
At some point, companies are going to say "enough" and stop increasing IT security budgets. Some thing's got to give here, as they can't keep spending bigger and bigger portions of their IT budget treading water.
They put the head of DHS in charge of it because DHS wants to make sure they get their monitoring gear in front of all these sites, and the easiest way to make that happen is for DHS to run it. It's the same idea as to why DHS is so heavily involved in the TIC project: they want a specific outcome, but that outcome isn't what's publicly stated.
Apropos of this, I'd summarize one of his points (he has many, all quite insightful) as: if we all do a little, we only accomplish a little.
Standby mode is a complete canard, and fixing it won't even come close to addressing our energy problems. Combine all of your standby mode power, and it would be dwarfed by the power taken up by your A/C, or your computer (how many of us have a 200-300W computer left on all the time?), or your TV. It would take hundreds of devices in standby mode to make up for the power taken up by a comparatively low-power computer that's left on 24/7. Fixing standby mode devices is fixing a problem that's almost an order of magnitude smaller than the real one.
The problem is, telling people to address the real problems involves asking them to use less (use less A/C, turn off your computers, watch less TV, buy a smaller/lower power TV), which is a complete non-starter in today's environment.
The first step to syncing your Zotero 2.0 library is to create a zotero.org account.
and took that to mean that it's primarily a cloud service with some outside storage allowed. Basically it looks like they're making a distinction between "data sync" and "file sync." The data sync is the interesting part, since it's the really hard part of all this...is there some other way to do the data sync they're talking about without a Zotero account?
Is there something like Zotero that *isn't* a cloud service? I'm really getting tired of the whole "give us all your data" services floating around. I'd love to use something like Zotero, if and only if I can control the server that the data lives on.
The market seems hypnotized by the "cloud" BS, which makes me sad.
It's not that privacy is illegal...it's that privacy + spamming = violation. CAN-SPAM, for all its toothlessness, requires valid contact information for the domains involved in mass emails, so using anonymized WHOIS entries is right out if you're sending mass emails. This is, I think, perfectly fine. If you're going to be contacting millions of people, it's only fair that they should be able to contact you back.
That says noting about your ability to run a small business with anonymized WHOIS off a small DSL line...as long as you're not sending mass emails around, your WHOIS anonymity will never run afoul of the spam laws.
It's not noticeable for most people...but for those of us in situations where it is noticeable that sort of difference is interesting. For example, my office has a debian box that runs at a continuous load average of around 5. Shave 10% off that & we'd notice.
Lawyers don't do that because they think you're dumb...they do it as a way to build out existing precedent. If there already is law or precedent covering sealed envelopes, for example, and you can show that the situation you're looking at is functionally the same as a sealed envelope, then you can argue that existing precedent covers the situation and no new law is necessary. Creating new precedent and/or law is rare, and judges are hesitant to do it unless there's a clear need. If the lawyers can present their case as a simple analogy to existing laws and precedents, rather than having to break new ground, then they stand a much better chance of getting their case across to a judge.
I agree that a different approach would be good. Personally, I'd love to see one that didn't make a distinction between management & employees, but instead enforced a "don't be a dick" policy across the board. I'd like to see a "union v2" (for lack of a better term) that had procedures/policies for how employees should act, and others for how management should act, and enforced those on both ends with the company's cooperation.
Basically, I see no reason why the organization that punishes management for promoting a crony over someone qualified should be any different from the one that punishes an employee for sleeping on the job. If the checks & balances worked in both directions, I suspect the organization would be much healthier.
Slashdot Mirror
who said this was limited to fanboys?
Yes, you are. They are not your property, and never were.
I dunno. Others have speculated recently (and I happen to agree with them) that the likely space-faring races won't be biological, but mechanical/electrical. An AI that can manufacture it's own replacement parts & direct robots to repair itself could become effectively immortal...which makes the time for the trip between stars less of an issue.
So, there might only be one...and it might need resources. (In this case, though, it'd likely be more interested in the asteroid belt than us.)
Fluffbuster won't stop the integrations from loading on sites like CNN, though, nor will it stop URL from loading even on facebook. Greasemonkey scripts run *after* the page loads...so if you're uncomfortable with the tracking between cnn and facebook, for example, you need to stop the facebook integration URLs from loading in the first place (hence my AdBlocking comment above).
Don't get me wrong: I like FBPurity, and I use FBPurity. But it won't fix this particular problem.
I ended up AdBlocking a bunch of facebook URLs to solve this. Annoying, but it did work. The ones I blocked:
http://connect.facebook.net/*
http://www.facebook.com/connect/*
http://www.facebook.com/plugins/*
http://www.facebook.com/ajax/connect/*
http://www.facebook.com/connect.php/js/FB.SharePro/
http://api.facebook.com/restserver.php?*
(PS: why does slashcode convert text-only URLs into hyperlinks inside a blockquote?)
And shortly after that "amateur" videos will flood the net with images of very awkward sex.
Grey? I think I see your problem: stop sleeping with women from other planets.
As mentioned above, it wouldn't be anti-trust, it would probably be Tortious interference with business. Quoting from Wikipedia:
It wouldn't shut down the interwebs, it would shut down the interwebs connectivity for "critical infrastructure." So, each ISP that houses anything tagged as "critical" would have to have some process where they could isolate it from the rest of the 'net. That part, on its own, is easy ("You want me to drop BGP sessions X, Y, and Z? Okay."). The real challenge comes if they ask, instead, for the systems to be isolated from the net but still able to reach *each* *other*. That's not explicitly called for in the bill, and I think it leaves the potential for hilarity in the event of an actual emergency.
No, it's sucked dork. You know you've reached a low point when you're willing to suck dork for your fix.
Bacon is sugary? Sausage is sugary? Granted, the cake entries are both high-fat and high-sugar, but saying all the food items are high-sugar is wrong. They are all high-fat, though.
Nowhere does it call for the FBI, either...what was your point?
Between the general welfare clause and the commerce clause (insurance being an interstate commerce issue) of the constitution, their constitutional authority is pretty strong.
Care to define who the "entitlement generation" is? According to this recent study, the average age of slashdot readers is 40.4. Are you implying that aging boomers/Gen X-ers are that "entitlement generation?"
(Or are you just trolling?)
That's going to depend really strongly on what kind of drunk the politicians are. The weepy drunks aren't going to be valuable, nor are the horny drunks (ick, try not to think about that too much), while the angry drunks will dominate discussion. (meanwhile the barfy ones will be in the back missing out on everything.) Come to think of it, this won't be that different from normal politics...
The problem is somewhat more complex than that. It's really a problem of inflation: the risk of getting hacked is increasing each year as new attack surfaces are found and new methods are invented. This requires an ever-increasing amount of money to be spent on security in order to keep the risk constant (or nearly so). So, reducing risk to a fixed range is becoming progressively more expensive each year, but the consequences of failure and the likelihood of the occurrences don't change with the extra money spent. This is unsustainable.
An example: a company without anti-virus, gets hacked twice in a year due to emailed trojans being opened by users. So they spend a year rolling out anti-virus across all their desktops...in the meantime the attackers have moved on to something that the a/v can't stop. The result: the company is still getting hacked 1-2 times per year, just from different emails. Adding the anti-virus has improved their security by preventing the old attacks, but it has not materially effected the end result: they're still getting hacked, and they're getting hacked just as often as before.
At some point, companies are going to say "enough" and stop increasing IT security budgets. Some thing's got to give here, as they can't keep spending bigger and bigger portions of their IT budget treading water.
Today's lesson: don't let philosophers dictate meaning.
They put the head of DHS in charge of it because DHS wants to make sure they get their monitoring gear in front of all these sites, and the easiest way to make that happen is for DHS to run it. It's the same idea as to why DHS is so heavily involved in the TIC project: they want a specific outcome, but that outcome isn't what's publicly stated.
Apropos of this, I'd summarize one of his points (he has many, all quite insightful) as: if we all do a little, we only accomplish a little.
Standby mode is a complete canard, and fixing it won't even come close to addressing our energy problems. Combine all of your standby mode power, and it would be dwarfed by the power taken up by your A/C, or your computer (how many of us have a 200-300W computer left on all the time?), or your TV. It would take hundreds of devices in standby mode to make up for the power taken up by a comparatively low-power computer that's left on 24/7. Fixing standby mode devices is fixing a problem that's almost an order of magnitude smaller than the real one.
The problem is, telling people to address the real problems involves asking them to use less (use less A/C, turn off your computers, watch less TV, buy a smaller/lower power TV), which is a complete non-starter in today's environment.
Huh...interesting. I read this from their docs:
and took that to mean that it's primarily a cloud service with some outside storage allowed. Basically it looks like they're making a distinction between "data sync" and "file sync." The data sync is the interesting part, since it's the really hard part of all this...is there some other way to do the data sync they're talking about without a Zotero account?
Is there something like Zotero that *isn't* a cloud service? I'm really getting tired of the whole "give us all your data" services floating around. I'd love to use something like Zotero, if and only if I can control the server that the data lives on.
The market seems hypnotized by the "cloud" BS, which makes me sad.
It's not that privacy is illegal...it's that privacy + spamming = violation. CAN-SPAM, for all its toothlessness, requires valid contact information for the domains involved in mass emails, so using anonymized WHOIS entries is right out if you're sending mass emails. This is, I think, perfectly fine. If you're going to be contacting millions of people, it's only fair that they should be able to contact you back.
That says noting about your ability to run a small business with anonymized WHOIS off a small DSL line...as long as you're not sending mass emails around, your WHOIS anonymity will never run afoul of the spam laws.
It's not noticeable for most people...but for those of us in situations where it is noticeable that sort of difference is interesting. For example, my office has a debian box that runs at a continuous load average of around 5. Shave 10% off that & we'd notice.
Lawyers don't do that because they think you're dumb...they do it as a way to build out existing precedent. If there already is law or precedent covering sealed envelopes, for example, and you can show that the situation you're looking at is functionally the same as a sealed envelope, then you can argue that existing precedent covers the situation and no new law is necessary. Creating new precedent and/or law is rare, and judges are hesitant to do it unless there's a clear need. If the lawyers can present their case as a simple analogy to existing laws and precedents, rather than having to break new ground, then they stand a much better chance of getting their case across to a judge.
I agree that a different approach would be good. Personally, I'd love to see one that didn't make a distinction between management & employees, but instead enforced a "don't be a dick" policy across the board. I'd like to see a "union v2" (for lack of a better term) that had procedures/policies for how employees should act, and others for how management should act, and enforced those on both ends with the company's cooperation.
Basically, I see no reason why the organization that punishes management for promoting a crony over someone qualified should be any different from the one that punishes an employee for sleeping on the job. If the checks & balances worked in both directions, I suspect the organization would be much healthier.