I didn't take his post as saying those three were involved in this SCOTUS ruling. I took them as examples of "people with too much power dedicating their voices to speaking out against what they hate most about themselves".
Facebook does let you lock down your profile pretty well nowadays.
One thing to note is that regardless of however hidden your information is from random visitors to the website...
Your information is still laid entirely bare to a for-profit organization with a history of privacy abuses run by a right-winger with ties to government intelligence. It's called Facebook.
More accurately, "Since when is the pope a trustable expert on ethics?"
As in, ``I'm not an expert on ethics issues, nor necessarily a competent ethicist you'll trust, but I'm going to have to put "intentionally giving people crabs" in the unethical column.''
The pope is an authority.
He's probably very well versed in ethics, too.
But any pure ethical knowledge he's got needs to be modulated by the papal role requirement of maintaining power before it's presented to a broader audience.
Especially considering a very large percent of that slice of the pie is actually spent on foreign invasion instead of just keeping up a military for protection.
"Just under three thousand people would disagree... (Score:5, Insightful)"
To say that 9/11 hasn't made the US safer afterwards... because of the loss during the event itself... is confused. (You are referring to the 2,976 killed on 9/11, aren't you?) For that to be scored 5 Insightful demonstrates there is something faulty with the rating system here.
Now, what you referenced about thousands of US soldiers (about 4,400) being killed is insightful. 9/11 endangered our troops by whipping up popular need for retribution, thus enabling politically and financially motivated persons in positions of power to push through an invasion of a country unrelated to 9/11.
Those among us who supported the invasion of Iraq in the frenzy of fear that followed it should take time to think about it. Here's a good moment. What harm can be done when you're lashing out while emotionally charged? That's thousands of young US soldiers killed without cause. That's over 30,000 troops wounded. Because you backed a needless invasion. And this doesn't even begin to address the cost in innocent Iraqi lives.
I thought you read a file line by line in Bourne with something like:
while read line do
echo $line done </path/to/file
But "working with servers" doesn't normally include processing files line by line, does it? My shell scripts usually handle files whole with munging utilities like sed or other utilities like grep. And I think the value in being "system-oriented" isn't purely or perhaps even primarily in functionality or expressiveness. Sure, those things are valuable for systems programming, and I still believe they tend to be done better in shell languages (though I solicit your continued provision of counter-examples if there are good ones), but I imagine the footprints (memory, disk) of/bin/sh compete very favorably with those of Ruby and Perl. Busybox includes sh, for example. Footprint and simplicity (with regards to installation and execution) seem very important. Critical, really. These have implications for availability. Which is critical. The appropriateness of expression is almost like gravy. Or maybe more like a veggie side.
Maybe a Ruby Lite or a Perl Lite would suit the role that sh handles, if such things could be produced.
Agreed, about the Slashdot article title. More accuracy in the future, please? Or someone else start a news for nerds site? Thanks.
But this: "it's really talking about a social-engineering security vulnerability with several email providers" is not quite right.
The vulnerability exists because of a lack of protocol and is (loosely) a social engineering vulnerability between the CAs and those email providers. That is, the CAs are also part of the vulnerability.
We can actually validate certificates relatively well using "notaries". This gives us in effect validation of identity. It's better than trusting CAs, and you don't have to buy certificates:
Very interesting. If the problem were mismatch between mitochondrial and nuclear products, wouldn't we expect much more problems with regular births considering situations where the offspring may get a lot of nuclear dna from the father? Especially in genetically diverse couples?
This is the fundamental thing to take away from this incident, and, while it may be obvious, it deserves stating plainly:
Domain control / email address control is an authentication tool.
We've brushed by the concept in prior conversations about validating new user sign-ups.
Implications include, as in this scenario, human verification by looking at a web page of a familiar domain, human verification by email correspondence with a familiar email address, and password resetting when in control of an email address; SSL certificate-based identity (if the decrypted certificate can also be acquired), URL -referenced data validity (executables for download), and probably a number of other authentication/control mechanisms reliant on domain/address -- your ideas are solicited.
DNS hijacking, then, should be a serious concern. DJB warned about cache poisoning via brute-force source port + transaction ID spoofing in 1999. A long time went by before the issue got enough publicity (in 2008) to force the major DNS software purveyors to clean up their acts. This guy needs to be taken seriously.
(I understand the article discusses racial bias rather than racism.)
Racism is promoted by fear. The experience of chaos or mistreatment in formative years causes a sense of poor self-esteem and a belief that generally the world is malicious.
Combine that social fear with the human tendency towards groupism, throw in some bullying (gives the bully a comfortingly elevated sense of self-worth by placing them superiorly to their victims), and racism can easily result.
Genetic Mutation Not Required To Reduce Racism
Improve self-esteem, lessen unreasonable fear. Adequate self-worth and reasonable fear undermine the urges that push people towards racism.
Show children (and others) that you care about them. Be consistent, not chaotic or prone to emotional explosion.
We can't let ourselves fear. When we do, it exacerbates our tendency towards dividing. Fear causes us to think of people as "other" and to care less for them. When that happens "big exceptions" are more likely. This is the crux -- those big exceptions, those instances of people being evil, they were fostered by the fearfulness of the perpetrators.
There are other factors that promote dividing, but fear is perhaps the biggest.
Sure, I carry a knife, though I expect not to need it. The difference between my attitude and the attitude of the fearful is that I'm not motivated to push others away. I don't look for excuses to condemn or devalue. I'm ready to incapacitate you if you mean serious harm, but my primary goal is your health and well-being. Regardless of who you are.
One of these villains even became extremely high profile over the past decade. I wonder if his disregard for the welfare of others stems from his own issues of fear / poor sense of self-worth.
People like this, with money and power, wanting more money and power, without regard for others, they seem to be ever present. How awful do you have to be to make profit this way rather than, say, the also destructive but slightly less antisocial way of selling highly processed food-like products?
Yes, our ignorance of their influence and our susceptibility to their fear-mongering enable and promote the conflict and destruction they use to feed off humanity. We're tools, tools when we clamor for a fight. We would do well to be aware of these villains' objectives, and at least we should try to be strong and not give in to believing in and cowering from bogeymen.
Yes, sad. But I think there's hope. The more that some of us are aware that it's fearfulness that enables the aforementioned gullibility, the more we can work to reduce that fearfulness.
Slashdot Mirror
it's a song about a brownie recipe
Cookies, more like. No chocolate involved. Eggless. Maybe some hash.
They also use words like "focus" and even "the". Try not to get too hung up on someone else's abuse of a good thing.
Foldit has given out prizes.
This blog entry shows a 3D-printed protein.
They should probably also look into these.
I didn't take his post as saying those three were involved in this SCOTUS ruling. I took them as examples of "people with too much power dedicating their voices to speaking out against what they hate most about themselves".
Like Ted Haggard.
Facebook does let you lock down your profile pretty well nowadays.
One thing to note is that regardless of however hidden your information is from random visitors to the website...
Your information is still laid entirely bare to a for-profit organization with a history of privacy abuses run by a right-winger with ties to government intelligence. It's called Facebook.
Hm, the article says they did the lab processing in 3 weeks. I'm guessing this stuff lends itself to parallel processing — I wonder if they used that.
What I'd like to see is the actual 3D data. That would be fun to get at.
More accurately, "Since when is the pope a trustable expert on ethics?"
As in, ``I'm not an expert on ethics issues, nor necessarily a competent ethicist you'll trust, but I'm going to have to put "intentionally giving people crabs" in the unethical column.''
The pope is an authority.
He's probably very well versed in ethics, too.
But any pure ethical knowledge he's got needs to be modulated by the papal role requirement of maintaining power before it's presented to a broader audience.
As percent of GDP? What about as percent of total expenditure? Or percent of income generated by the state itself (taxes)?
Doesn't seem like such a low number then.
http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7a/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png
Especially considering a very large percent of that slice of the pie is actually spent on foreign invasion instead of just keeping up a military for protection.
"Just under three thousand people would disagree... (Score:5, Insightful)"
To say that 9/11 hasn't made the US safer afterwards ... because of the loss during the event itself ... is confused. (You are referring to the 2,976 killed on 9/11, aren't you?) For that to be scored 5 Insightful demonstrates there is something faulty with the rating system here.
Now, what you referenced about thousands of US soldiers (about 4,400) being killed is insightful. 9/11 endangered our troops by whipping up popular need for retribution, thus enabling politically and financially motivated persons in positions of power to push through an invasion of a country unrelated to 9/11.
Those among us who supported the invasion of Iraq in the frenzy of fear that followed it should take time to think about it. Here's a good moment. What harm can be done when you're lashing out while emotionally charged? That's thousands of young US soldiers killed without cause. That's over 30,000 troops wounded. Because you backed a needless invasion. And this doesn't even begin to address the cost in innocent Iraqi lives.
Busybox includes sh, for example.
Of course you realize this... I don't mean to be rude. I'm trying to point something out about sh. I hope you understand.
I thought you read a file line by line in Bourne with something like:
while read line
do
echo $line
done <
But "working with servers" doesn't normally include processing files line by line, does it? My shell scripts usually handle files whole with munging utilities like sed or other utilities like grep. And I think the value in being "system-oriented" isn't purely or perhaps even primarily in functionality or expressiveness. Sure, those things are valuable for systems programming, and I still believe they tend to be done better in shell languages (though I solicit your continued provision of counter-examples if there are good ones), but I imagine the footprints (memory, disk) of /bin/sh compete very favorably with those of Ruby and Perl. Busybox includes sh, for example. Footprint and simplicity (with regards to installation and execution) seem very important. Critical, really. These have implications for availability. Which is critical. The appropriateness of expression is almost like gravy. Or maybe more like a veggie side.
Maybe a Ruby Lite or a Perl Lite would suit the role that sh handles, if such things could be produced.
Rob Tow's Fair Witness, pre-2003.
What criteria change a lost item into a stolen item in circumstances like this?
Knowing roughly who it belongs to?
Agreed, about the Slashdot article title. More accuracy in the future, please? Or someone else start a news for nerds site? Thanks.
But this: "it's really talking about a social-engineering security vulnerability with several email providers" is not quite right.
The vulnerability exists because of a lack of protocol and is (loosely) a social engineering vulnerability between the CAs and those email providers. That is, the CAs are also part of the vulnerability.
...your ideas are solicited.
An idea, in the form of more detail on the "email address control" part: Just the left hand side of an email address.
We can actually validate certificates relatively well using "notaries". This gives us in effect validation of identity. It's better than trusting CAs, and you don't have to buy certificates:
"Perspectives"
Demo
About
Firefox extension
Very interesting. If the problem were mismatch between mitochondrial and nuclear products, wouldn't we expect much more problems with regular births considering situations where the offspring may get a lot of nuclear dna from the father? Especially in genetically diverse couples?
This is the fundamental thing to take away from this incident, and, while it may be obvious, it deserves stating plainly:
Domain control / email address control is an authentication tool.
We've brushed by the concept in prior conversations about validating new user sign-ups.
Implications include, as in this scenario, human verification by looking at a web page of a familiar domain, human verification by email correspondence with a familiar email address, and password resetting when in control of an email address; SSL certificate-based identity (if the decrypted certificate can also be acquired), URL -referenced data validity (executables for download), and probably a number of other authentication/control mechanisms reliant on domain/address -- your ideas are solicited.
DNS hijacking, then, should be a serious concern. DJB warned about cache poisoning via brute-force source port + transaction ID spoofing in 1999. A long time went by before the issue got enough publicity (in 2008) to force the major DNS software purveyors to clean up their acts. This guy needs to be taken seriously.
(I understand the article discusses racial bias rather than racism.)
Racism is promoted by fear. The experience of chaos or mistreatment in formative years causes a sense of poor self-esteem and a belief that generally the world is malicious.
Combine that social fear with the human tendency towards groupism, throw in some bullying (gives the bully a comfortingly elevated sense of self-worth by placing them superiorly to their victims), and racism can easily result.
Genetic Mutation Not Required To Reduce Racism
Improve self-esteem, lessen unreasonable fear. Adequate self-worth and reasonable fear undermine the urges that push people towards racism.
Show children (and others) that you care about them. Be consistent, not chaotic or prone to emotional explosion.
But I for one wish simply to drive my car rather than build it. You gonna have me reinvent the wheel yet again?
This may be a good time to review the "defense in depth" concept; having a quality password can actually help in some circumstances.
2D version of that list:
dependence v. physical harm
We can't let ourselves fear. When we do, it exacerbates our tendency towards dividing. Fear causes us to think of people as "other" and to care less for them. When that happens "big exceptions" are more likely. This is the crux -- those big exceptions, those instances of people being evil, they were fostered by the fearfulness of the perpetrators.
There are other factors that promote dividing, but fear is perhaps the biggest.
Sure, I carry a knife, though I expect not to need it. The difference between my attitude and the attitude of the fearful is that I'm not motivated to push others away. I don't look for excuses to condemn or devalue. I'm ready to incapacitate you if you mean serious harm, but my primary goal is your health and well-being. Regardless of who you are.
One of these villains even became extremely high profile over the past decade. I wonder if his disregard for the welfare of others stems from his own issues of fear / poor sense of self-worth.
People like this, with money and power, wanting more money and power, without regard for others, they seem to be ever present. How awful do you have to be to make profit this way rather than, say, the also destructive but slightly less antisocial way of selling highly processed food-like products?
Yes, our ignorance of their influence and our susceptibility to their fear-mongering enable and promote the conflict and destruction they use to feed off humanity. We're tools, tools when we clamor for a fight. We would do well to be aware of these villains' objectives, and at least we should try to be strong and not give in to believing in and cowering from bogeymen.
Yes, sad. But I think there's hope. The more that some of us are aware that it's fearfulness that enables the aforementioned gullibility, the more we can work to reduce that fearfulness.