Thanks! I wasn't sure which ones where which. There's a slew of 'em that pass through the filters. I do believe they'll be fixing Unicode in the stories but not adding the full list to the comments. At least something along those lines. (I've been paying attention to the various comments made by our new overlords. They've specifically referenced fixing them in stories but not in any other context.)
It's been a couple of years since I tripped last. Hmm... My mind could use a vacation, the chance to reground, and the introspective nature of it is something I appreciate. There's no such thing as a bad trip, they're only more interesting.
It's the first (or second) hop when you traceroute. Normally.
Windows, I take it?
Press Winkey + R Type CMD Press ENTER Type tracert google.com
It's the first or second one normally. If you have one router/modem then it's the first one.
kgiii@kgiii-desktop-4:~$traceroute google.com traceroute to google.com (216.58.219.238), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 192.168.1.254 (192.168.1.254) 0.472 ms 0.769 ms 1.031 ms
So, in my case, it is 192.168.1.254 but some router manufacturers seem to like to make a game out of it - they'll have their interface on a different port. For now, just think of it like that. However, if they have it on a different port and you can connect to it by the network manager then just connect and run netstat -a and you should be all set.
If it's not traceroute then it's tracert in Windows. It has been a minute since I've used a Windows box.
You can probably telnet into your router/modem. That's telnet [ip] and admin admin (or something like that - Google will tell you). Have fun. Go learn the what the command line does and how networking works. Also, learn what command line is good for. It's good for more than just copy/pasting a few lines from Google.
Now, we both know I like ya well enough and I think you're a great guy and all but are you really sure of that? (I'd ask myself the same thing, by the way.)
This is not meant as a slight nor is it intended to be in any way derogatory. Do you really *know* that you're better than that or is it that their code is distributed to a much wider scope of people?
I mean, I think one of my first interactions with you was my telling you about my Perl "safelist" script that I'd authored for a friend - and that I still bumped into some 20 years later. The one which used plain text files which nobody ever tucked into the folders they were supposed to, nobody every CHMODed them the way they were supposed to, and did things like keep the admin password in a plain text file that was supposed to be renamed, put into a separate folder, locked down by CHMOD and.htaccess, and never - ever, had that happen. Ever... And it's still out there...
I'll be the first to admit that I probably shouldn't do much more than edit someone else's code - and maybe not even that.;-) But, I gave 'em good directions as to how to keep it reasonably secure at the time. That was, pretty much, best policy at the time.
Do you *really* practice better safety than they or is it that you don't code on that scale, get security checked by that many bad people or researchers, or things like that?
It's very, very possible that you do. I do not.:/ (I try, I do try...)
I imagine it's also easier if it's a 'small' project and there's just one person doing the code - so they're aware (hopefully) of what all the other people are saying. (If you're not remembering what all the other voices in your head are telling you then that's kind of scary.) So, you might really be programming with better safety practices than they are - if you answer with an affirmative then I'll certainly believe you.
Now that I think about it, I imagine it's also more difficult to maintain good security with more people - at a certain point. There's always that pesky Law of Diminishing Returns. Always... Plus, there's the adage about a chain only being as strong as the weakest link. Sure, it's a pithy saying but it's true. So, they might have someone like you on their team - maybe even a dozen folks like you and then they've got one guy like me who's just good enough to get his stuff past QA and the automated checking - and not much better. Hey, it build damn it! Err... Where was I?
Oh yeah... So, don't get me wrong; I'll absolutely believe you, if you answer affirmatively, that you practice better safety standards than they do. I suppose we might say that I do but that's kind of a stretch. We didn't have things like automated script installers and Softaculous/Fantastico back in 1998. I had to put it in a readme.txt and nobody ever read the damned thing - or I wrote it like a novella and it was TL;DR. (Probably a little of both.)
> The post was meant to dissuade future devs attempts to turn BSD into Linux Distros.
Won't work. Not even close. There are many reasons but the largest one is that nobody really gives a shit what you tell them that they're allowed to do or not do. That's the thing about open source - and it is awesome.
Finally, you forgot BestBSD which is GhostBSD. GhostBSD is awesome.
Business owners make good spies as well as having "off-the-books" income is a good thing for people who want to keep a part of their budget a secret. I kind of doubt the veracity of this story, by the way. However, the idea of a CIA front is nothing new. Some of them are even profitable. Businesses make good fronts. People come and go, they get invited to certain parties, and things like that. Hell... The CIA had its own airline for a while. Yeah, the CIA had an airline... Think about that.
It's a damned handy thing for them to have and I have no problem with the concept. (I do have problems with abuses.) The CIA is neither the NSA nor the FBI. In fact, they're very different. This is not only something that they've done for years but it's something that has always been done - since before we even had a CIA. (Gentlemen don't read other people's mail. There was a time - and we were really naive 'cause everybody was reading our "mail.")
At any rate... This story? This story is bullshit and makes no sense. This story is just retarded. This story is propaganda or a lie. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It just means that this story is bullshit. Haven't you seen the movies where the "company" is represented by a pudgy old guy who owns a bookstore? Haven't you read a book? This is not only common practice but it's a veritable trope in media. The stereotypical art-dealer cum spy who works in London but travels to Rome, Versailles, Berlin, Vienna, and Moscow on a regular basis? The wine maker in southern France? The guy who owns a bunch of houses (some of which are safe-houses) all across South America? Or, the newspaper that is actually an MI6 operation?
There's a good series, excellent documentaries too, called "Secrets of War." It's about 65 hours long before you get into the final season and then I think it's like 114 hours long. It's well worth watching and touches on some aspects of this. The last one that I mentioned? Yeah, that was in New York during the run-up to WWI but it wasn't MI6 at the time. It was handy, newspapers sent a lot of cables overseas.
LOL You really think they don't already have it? Did they collect a blood sample when you were born? Any other time? Never? (Blood's not actually the greatest way to get DNA, so I'm told - but it works or so I'm told. I'm not a DNA-octologist or nuffin.)
At any rate... Do you live in a first world nation? Yeah? I'm betting they either have it or can have it pretty easily - with or without your consent or even knowledge. I enlisted. They took blood. I'm betting they kept it. I'd not be remotely surprised to find out that they kept it. If not, I've been to the VA many times and have had buckets of blood taken over the years. I've pissed in a thousand cups. I've even pooped in a jug. There's perfectly good DNA in them there poops.
I seriously wouldn't be remotely surprised to find out that they'd kept a sample or just run it through the magic DNA-getting machine, possibly on the poop setting, and just kept that. I would be a little surprised if they'd kept a stool sample.
Are you advocating we incarcerate nobody? Are you saying there's a point where we have to just give up because it's too expensive and that anyone convicted after a certain financial criteria has been met just remains free?
Let me just be the first one to say that's a dumb idea.
Now, we (Americans) have way too many people incarcerated. True. However, we can't opt to not incarcerate large groups of people just to lower the budget. That's... Umm... Well, that's not justice. That's not even remotely justice.
So, how about we try incarcerating fewer people? Like, let's not incarcerate people for crimes that have no identifiable victim. If a victim, or a representative of that victim personally, can not come forward to make an accusation then how about we not incarcerate them - or even prosecute them? I know, that'd mean those nasty drug dealers might not go to jail unless they had a victim or personally represent a victim. That's crazy talk, I know... But, I don't think it's any less crazy than just reaching a certain financial criteria and then offenders go free after that point.
For the record, the burden of proof in your country is "beyonda reasonable doubt." It is not beyond a shadow of a doubt. Except in civil cases. In your country, the State must convince the judge or jury that the defendant "more likely than not" committed the alleged offense.
> Or are you one of those people who think that anything the government does is allowed unless it infringes on the Bill of Rights?
There are many, many people who have somehow managed to completely forget that amendment. It's unfortunate, too... All powers not granted by the Constitution where to be reserved for the people or for the individual States. Unfortunately, any time someone mentions "State's Rights" they get branded a racist (which is funny, 'cause I'm not white) and every other time they say stuff like "general welfare" or "interstate commerce." That's if they even know about the amendment to begin with.
Hmm... Yeah, I'm going to spare you the novella. Pretend that I went on a long, insightful, witty, and accurate rant. <rant>blah blah<rant> There... I'd write it out but nobody would read it - except maybe you. There's not much point in writing it for you, that'd be like preaching to the choir. It'd be a waste of time that I'm lacking. Also, fill it with bad grammar, improperly used quotes, and an occasional joke - but not great jokes - I'm not that funny.
For the record, however, military matters are well and truly within the scope of the Federal government. The CIA is actually one of those things that is Constitutional, as is the NSA. What they aren't, is following their charter as well as violating other parts of the Constitution. However, in and of themselves, they exist within the framework just fine.
I don't normally do this and, in fact, I'm pretty sure this is the first time I've ever done this...
I think Mr Zuckerberg is intentionally trying to trigger new laws that set NO limits.
FTFY
I thought about it and yeah, limits would mean he could go so far and no further and would know where his liability would begin as well as present a clear limit for civil actions that may happen at some point. But, I should think his wish for those new laws would be no limits, no limits at all. If he can get that codified then he'd be all set.
I'm not really sure that I've time to vocalize all of my thoughts on the subject. I also don't really have time for a novella right now.
I'd like to see them make up-front notification mandatory. I want to say that it should be opt-in and never opt-out. I want to say that you should have a choice. But, doing so means that I take the freedom from the vendor away. I think a vendor should be allowed to track users all they want - so long as the user consents to it. It should be in clear text that is easy to understand. If the vendor wants to make use contingent on that tracking then the vendor should be free to do so. However... The client/customer/user should be aware of this beforehand and be able to make an informed decision. With that, I suppose, we should probably also make notification mandatory that it is optional when it is, factually, optional.
If Party A wants to buy Product Z and Party A is fully aware that it will track them then Party A should be allowed to do so. Vendor of Product Z should be free to provision that product so long as they have made it clear that data is being collected, why it is being collected, and who will have access to that data as well as how long they'll retain that data. Such information should be clear, factual, and not subject to change by either party without consent by both parties. If Party A transfers the product or service to another then it is Party A's responsibility to inform the new Party prior to the transfer.
There's a whole lotta party up in there. That's also about as clear as mud. Hopefully it makes sense.
> There's NO reason for a company to collect data, period.
That's right! They should just blindly develop stuff without any user feedback at all. No data, at all, should be collected. They shouldn't collect your billing address, they should just send 'em out to random people! They shouldn't find out what features you use more, they should just disable all the features - including the start button.
Wait, what?
Are you daft or did you mean to say that it should be opt-in?
I don't mind Ubuntu. More accurately, I prefer Lubuntu. The reasons I prefer it are LXDE and access to the Ubuntu ecosystem - it's rather quick to just be able to grab something and almost everything is ready for it. Less time futzing about is more time accomplishing my goals. So, for my needs, Lubuntu is a perfect fit. (Yes, I prefer the simplicity that is LXDE. That it is screaming fast on new hardware is a bonus.)
Instead of banning it, we should not let *them* prohibit us from owning it. As it is, I believe some States still prohibit body armor entirely and some ban body armor of different grades/classes.
Harder jackets and higher speeds would be the next logical steps but will probably mean more lined barrels. I'd guesstimate 20 years out unless we've a major conflict with lots of money invested. If that's the case, expect 2-3 years and a total of about 5 for the new weapons to be really effective. That's all assuming this is something that can be scaled up into production sizes to suit. I obviously haven't read the article but tech like this languishes until needed for large-scale conflicts and then gets incorporated quickly and prices drop as well as production times are lowered.
Man is never so motivated as when he's trying to kill someone or to stop someone from killing him.
I'm sure they've already thought of this and declined to try it for good reasons but nobody has explained the reasons to me why they don't use a chute for part of their decent, drop it at a certain altitude, and then use the remaining fuel for the controlled burn during the landing stage.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks! I wasn't sure which ones where which. There's a slew of 'em that pass through the filters. I do believe they'll be fixing Unicode in the stories but not adding the full list to the comments. At least something along those lines. (I've been paying attention to the various comments made by our new overlords. They've specifically referenced fixing them in stories but not in any other context.)
That is true but that's easy when rebuffing trolls. Hell, even *I* look insightful when rebuffing (or rebuking) trolls. ;-)
Where'd you get that? That's a strange conclusion to draw or you were talking to idiots. Firearms don't make one any less a coward.
It's been a couple of years since I tripped last. Hmm... My mind could use a vacation, the chance to reground, and the introspective nature of it is something I appreciate. There's no such thing as a bad trip, they're only more interesting.
You will have to ask them. If you put just one slash in, it adds the second one.
...
*sighs*
It's the first (or second) hop when you traceroute. Normally.
Windows, I take it?
Press Winkey + R
Type CMD
Press ENTER
Type tracert google.com
It's the first or second one normally. If you have one router/modem then it's the first one.
So, in my case, it is 192.168.1.254 but some router manufacturers seem to like to make a game out of it - they'll have their interface on a different port. For now, just think of it like that. However, if they have it on a different port and you can connect to it by the network manager then just connect and run netstat -a and you should be all set.
If it's not traceroute then it's tracert in Windows. It has been a minute since I've used a Windows box.
You can probably telnet into your router/modem. That's telnet [ip] and admin admin (or something like that - Google will tell you). Have fun. Go learn the what the command line does and how networking works. Also, learn what command line is good for. It's good for more than just copy/pasting a few lines from Google.
Now, we both know I like ya well enough and I think you're a great guy and all but are you really sure of that? (I'd ask myself the same thing, by the way.)
This is not meant as a slight nor is it intended to be in any way derogatory. Do you really *know* that you're better than that or is it that their code is distributed to a much wider scope of people?
I mean, I think one of my first interactions with you was my telling you about my Perl "safelist" script that I'd authored for a friend - and that I still bumped into some 20 years later. The one which used plain text files which nobody ever tucked into the folders they were supposed to, nobody every CHMODed them the way they were supposed to, and did things like keep the admin password in a plain text file that was supposed to be renamed, put into a separate folder, locked down by CHMOD and .htaccess, and never - ever, had that happen. Ever... And it's still out there...
I'll be the first to admit that I probably shouldn't do much more than edit someone else's code - and maybe not even that. ;-) But, I gave 'em good directions as to how to keep it reasonably secure at the time. That was, pretty much, best policy at the time.
Do you *really* practice better safety than they or is it that you don't code on that scale, get security checked by that many bad people or researchers, or things like that?
It's very, very possible that you do. I do not. :/ (I try, I do try...)
I imagine it's also easier if it's a 'small' project and there's just one person doing the code - so they're aware (hopefully) of what all the other people are saying. (If you're not remembering what all the other voices in your head are telling you then that's kind of scary.) So, you might really be programming with better safety practices than they are - if you answer with an affirmative then I'll certainly believe you.
Now that I think about it, I imagine it's also more difficult to maintain good security with more people - at a certain point. There's always that pesky Law of Diminishing Returns. Always... Plus, there's the adage about a chain only being as strong as the weakest link. Sure, it's a pithy saying but it's true. So, they might have someone like you on their team - maybe even a dozen folks like you and then they've got one guy like me who's just good enough to get his stuff past QA and the automated checking - and not much better. Hey, it build damn it! Err... Where was I?
Oh yeah... So, don't get me wrong; I'll absolutely believe you, if you answer affirmatively, that you practice better safety standards than they do. I suppose we might say that I do but that's kind of a stretch. We didn't have things like automated script installers and Softaculous/Fantastico back in 1998. I had to put it in a readme.txt and nobody ever read the damned thing - or I wrote it like a novella and it was TL;DR. (Probably a little of both.)
Hmm... Does a cable modem actually modulate and demodulate the signal or does it just route the signal at the end?
> The post was meant to dissuade future devs attempts to turn BSD into Linux Distros.
Won't work. Not even close. There are many reasons but the largest one is that nobody really gives a shit what you tell them that they're allowed to do or not do. That's the thing about open source - and it is awesome.
Finally, you forgot BestBSD which is GhostBSD. GhostBSD is awesome.
In order...
Lots of reasons - a Google away, probably.
Your government. They always have.
Business owners make good spies as well as having "off-the-books" income is a good thing for people who want to keep a part of their budget a secret. I kind of doubt the veracity of this story, by the way. However, the idea of a CIA front is nothing new. Some of them are even profitable. Businesses make good fronts. People come and go, they get invited to certain parties, and things like that. Hell... The CIA had its own airline for a while. Yeah, the CIA had an airline... Think about that.
It's a damned handy thing for them to have and I have no problem with the concept. (I do have problems with abuses.) The CIA is neither the NSA nor the FBI. In fact, they're very different. This is not only something that they've done for years but it's something that has always been done - since before we even had a CIA. (Gentlemen don't read other people's mail. There was a time - and we were really naive 'cause everybody was reading our "mail.")
At any rate... This story? This story is bullshit and makes no sense. This story is just retarded. This story is propaganda or a lie. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It just means that this story is bullshit. Haven't you seen the movies where the "company" is represented by a pudgy old guy who owns a bookstore? Haven't you read a book? This is not only common practice but it's a veritable trope in media. The stereotypical art-dealer cum spy who works in London but travels to Rome, Versailles, Berlin, Vienna, and Moscow on a regular basis? The wine maker in southern France? The guy who owns a bunch of houses (some of which are safe-houses) all across South America? Or, the newspaper that is actually an MI6 operation?
There's a good series, excellent documentaries too, called "Secrets of War." It's about 65 hours long before you get into the final season and then I think it's like 114 hours long. It's well worth watching and touches on some aspects of this. The last one that I mentioned? Yeah, that was in New York during the run-up to WWI but it wasn't MI6 at the time. It was handy, newspapers sent a lot of cables overseas.
LOL You really think they don't already have it? Did they collect a blood sample when you were born? Any other time? Never? (Blood's not actually the greatest way to get DNA, so I'm told - but it works or so I'm told. I'm not a DNA-octologist or nuffin.)
At any rate... Do you live in a first world nation? Yeah? I'm betting they either have it or can have it pretty easily - with or without your consent or even knowledge. I enlisted. They took blood. I'm betting they kept it. I'd not be remotely surprised to find out that they kept it. If not, I've been to the VA many times and have had buckets of blood taken over the years. I've pissed in a thousand cups. I've even pooped in a jug. There's perfectly good DNA in them there poops.
I seriously wouldn't be remotely surprised to find out that they'd kept a sample or just run it through the magic DNA-getting machine, possibly on the poop setting, and just kept that. I would be a little surprised if they'd kept a stool sample.
Wait. What?
Are you advocating we incarcerate nobody? Are you saying there's a point where we have to just give up because it's too expensive and that anyone convicted after a certain financial criteria has been met just remains free?
Let me just be the first one to say that's a dumb idea.
Now, we (Americans) have way too many people incarcerated. True. However, we can't opt to not incarcerate large groups of people just to lower the budget. That's... Umm... Well, that's not justice. That's not even remotely justice.
So, how about we try incarcerating fewer people? Like, let's not incarcerate people for crimes that have no identifiable victim. If a victim, or a representative of that victim personally, can not come forward to make an accusation then how about we not incarcerate them - or even prosecute them? I know, that'd mean those nasty drug dealers might not go to jail unless they had a victim or personally represent a victim. That's crazy talk, I know... But, I don't think it's any less crazy than just reaching a certain financial criteria and then offenders go free after that point.
Banjos. Didn't you read the rest of the sub-thread?
For the record, the burden of proof in your country is "beyonda reasonable doubt." It is not beyond a shadow of a doubt. Except in civil cases. In your country, the State must convince the judge or jury that the defendant "more likely than not" committed the alleged offense.
> Or are you one of those people who think that anything the government does is allowed unless it infringes on the Bill of Rights?
There are many, many people who have somehow managed to completely forget that amendment. It's unfortunate, too... All powers not granted by the Constitution where to be reserved for the people or for the individual States. Unfortunately, any time someone mentions "State's Rights" they get branded a racist (which is funny, 'cause I'm not white) and every other time they say stuff like "general welfare" or "interstate commerce." That's if they even know about the amendment to begin with.
Hmm... Yeah, I'm going to spare you the novella. Pretend that I went on a long, insightful, witty, and accurate rant. <rant>blah blah<rant> There... I'd write it out but nobody would read it - except maybe you. There's not much point in writing it for you, that'd be like preaching to the choir. It'd be a waste of time that I'm lacking. Also, fill it with bad grammar, improperly used quotes, and an occasional joke - but not great jokes - I'm not that funny.
For the record, however, military matters are well and truly within the scope of the Federal government. The CIA is actually one of those things that is Constitutional, as is the NSA. What they aren't, is following their charter as well as violating other parts of the Constitution. However, in and of themselves, they exist within the framework just fine.
Nah, "similar what HTC has done..." makes even less sense!
I don't normally do this and, in fact, I'm pretty sure this is the first time I've ever done this...
I think Mr Zuckerberg is intentionally trying to trigger new laws that set NO limits.
FTFY
I thought about it and yeah, limits would mean he could go so far and no further and would know where his liability would begin as well as present a clear limit for civil actions that may happen at some point. But, I should think his wish for those new laws would be no limits, no limits at all. If he can get that codified then he'd be all set.
I'm not really sure that I've time to vocalize all of my thoughts on the subject. I also don't really have time for a novella right now.
I'd like to see them make up-front notification mandatory. I want to say that it should be opt-in and never opt-out. I want to say that you should have a choice. But, doing so means that I take the freedom from the vendor away. I think a vendor should be allowed to track users all they want - so long as the user consents to it. It should be in clear text that is easy to understand. If the vendor wants to make use contingent on that tracking then the vendor should be free to do so. However... The client/customer/user should be aware of this beforehand and be able to make an informed decision. With that, I suppose, we should probably also make notification mandatory that it is optional when it is, factually, optional.
If Party A wants to buy Product Z and Party A is fully aware that it will track them then Party A should be allowed to do so. Vendor of Product Z should be free to provision that product so long as they have made it clear that data is being collected, why it is being collected, and who will have access to that data as well as how long they'll retain that data. Such information should be clear, factual, and not subject to change by either party without consent by both parties. If Party A transfers the product or service to another then it is Party A's responsibility to inform the new Party prior to the transfer.
There's a whole lotta party up in there. That's also about as clear as mud. Hopefully it makes sense.
> There's NO reason for a company to collect data, period.
That's right! They should just blindly develop stuff without any user feedback at all. No data, at all, should be collected. They shouldn't collect your billing address, they should just send 'em out to random people! They shouldn't find out what features you use more, they should just disable all the features - including the start button.
Wait, what?
Are you daft or did you mean to say that it should be opt-in?
I don't mind Ubuntu. More accurately, I prefer Lubuntu. The reasons I prefer it are LXDE and access to the Ubuntu ecosystem - it's rather quick to just be able to grab something and almost everything is ready for it. Less time futzing about is more time accomplishing my goals. So, for my needs, Lubuntu is a perfect fit. (Yes, I prefer the simplicity that is LXDE. That it is screaming fast on new hardware is a bonus.)
Instead of banning it, we should not let *them* prohibit us from owning it. As it is, I believe some States still prohibit body armor entirely and some ban body armor of different grades/classes.
Harder jackets and higher speeds would be the next logical steps but will probably mean more lined barrels. I'd guesstimate 20 years out unless we've a major conflict with lots of money invested. If that's the case, expect 2-3 years and a total of about 5 for the new weapons to be really effective. That's all assuming this is something that can be scaled up into production sizes to suit. I obviously haven't read the article but tech like this languishes until needed for large-scale conflicts and then gets incorporated quickly and prices drop as well as production times are lowered.
Man is never so motivated as when he's trying to kill someone or to stop someone from killing him.
That's Arch. We had a guy try it six years ago and he still hasn't returned from the installation process.
Umm... They can see you when you download, they can see you when you hit the update servers, they can see you when you browse the web.
I thought they *did* use a chute on Mars to put the rovers down? That and bouncy balls.
I'm sure they've already thought of this and declined to try it for good reasons but nobody has explained the reasons to me why they don't use a chute for part of their decent, drop it at a certain altitude, and then use the remaining fuel for the controlled burn during the landing stage.