Cool. The cost of my services to you will then be
$$$$ and not $$$ as before. Because I have to pass certification+ license+taxes-on-hack+pay-the-cops+pay-the-mob
I wouldn't be so general. Such documents are not a "conspiration against Mankind" but more the result of petty domestic fights between lobbyists of different fields. Lawmakers gather laws from discusssions with experts, lunches with corporative managers, talks with government officials, letters from citizens, the mass-media (yuks!) and the greys:). In result they produce something like this. Generally they barely understand what is written here. Their main task is to create something practical, juridically correct and which will not burn their next election.
The problem here is that, probably someone managed to sniff his own stupidity into this treaty. Probably someone from the equivalent of the FBI or NSA in America. Probably he explained lawmakers how his life is a Hell because of these tools "roaming the Internet" and that "forbidding them would make life much more easy". Then a representative of a corporation like Microsoft may have told them that "these tools are the source of big losses", then an expert explained them vaguely what these tools may be used for. And, finally they decided to write this article without hearing anyone else because the quantity nd quality of experts was "enough". And consequently we got this piece of trash in the middle of a treaty that doesn't look so bad at all...
"a device, including a computer program, designed or adapted [specifically] [primarily] [particularly] for the purpose of committing any of the offences established in accordance with Article 2 - 5"
[...]
the possession of an item referred to in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) above, with intent that it be used for the purpose of committing the offenses established in Articles 2 - 5
The problem is that any security bug is potentially a break-in! So if you create a testing tool you might well giving ground to fall under the laws created through this treaty. Besides note that 2a talks about "intent... for purpose...". This foggy term reminds some stalinist times when, by possessing "burgeois" literature you are considered already a criminal. Because you already possess a "potential weapon" for commiting a crime.
What kind of "intent for purpose" can be understood before commit a real crime? Is the fact that I have a gun on my closet an "intent to be used for the purpose" of killing my neighbor or rob my bank?
Does the fact that I possess nmap on my computer be equivalent to an intent for the purpose of breaking into slashdot.org? Well they don't explain the intent. But they do link intent to purpose. In courts such games are the base to give you a cold shower:
Lawyer: Is nmap an instrument for the purpose to break into slasdot.org.
Expert: bla-bla-bla.. Generally yes.
Lawyer: So we have now demonstrated that Mr. Hacker possesses a weapon for the purpose to break into slashdot.org. So, CONSEQUENTLY, he had the INTENT to break into slashdot.org!
What should be done here is to wipe this article and write everything in a new way. Specially:
Remark the distribution of tools that specifically don't only explore a security bug but also may ease the manipulation of systems where a clear break in has been made.
Remark that these tools can be used as evidence (and how) in courts. This is much more important as many courts drop out cases as they don't know on how to deal with such software.
Forbid te distribution of data that may be resulted from these break-ins (by agravating penalties) or that may ease such break-ins. Specifically the words "password", access code" should be erased from here, by substituitng them into a more universal term. Something like: "data that allows access to computer system and its data, beyond the limits of the people/systems allowed to access it." This would include such things like spoofing, packet hijacking and others.
Mark more clearly the limits of using security tools for analysis/test/development and the criminal acts.
You know why Windows can't keep the pace of Unix?
Because it has more bugs? No. Because it is closed source? Noooooo. Because Microsoft owns it? Of course not.
Because Unix is much more manageable than Windows. That is what it makes Unix more secure. Even Linux has some ENORMOUS bugs on what concerns security. But here the reaction time is tremendously more faster than Windows. Even in times when Solaris was purely closed source, people managed to react more rapidly to any security threat.
Windows possesses a dumb interface that pretends to be "complete". However tons of backdoors/bugs are concealed inside this interface. You can't reach them in most cases because Windows interface is too restricted to allow control of many inner systems. So if one breaks in you can only face the fact.
Sincerly I was admired for a situation I fell in. When Windows ruled here, 1/3 of our Internet population played only one thing: "Hack Windows!" Because many found a series of backdoors and we couldn't do anything against that. Now, on Linux there was a HOLE that remained for approximately 6 monthes. You know? No one ever noted it. Why this? Because in the first month of Linux Era people got real hassled, as we reacted momentarly to any break. In the end, only 2-3 people out of 700 "crackers" remained. Btw ee don't touch them as we are afraid of the full extinction of this species...:)
Now most of this work is made 80% on the basis of analysis/studies/implementations of security systems. And this includes scanning & testing break-ins. Only a 5% are real "healing after the fire". If this law comes up, all this goes into the trashcan...
From the news:
?In part because of the ingenuity of lawyers and the ingenuity of [computer criminals] to get around the laws we?ve got, the laws we?ve got aren?t sufficient,? Hyde said. ?The draft convention?.will make it much easier for people to investigate. It will have an immense impact.?
What this JERK forgets to mention is the colossal analphabetism that runs among the police structures. The HUGE and COLOSSAL ignorance about computers and networks. Will the convention make much easier for people to investigate? ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. Because what will happen is that such law will give enforcement organisations the right to hassle computer experts and hackers. To get a cheap and easy-to-manipulate mass of technical experts that will work for these IDIOTS to avoid jail and/or other forms of persecution. This is putting all Security Experts hostage of a group of people that barely understands the technical and psychological specifics of our world of computers.
This will not help fighting cybercrime. ABSOLUTELY. Because what first goes into HELL is cybercrime pervention. You can't study/analyse security holes. You will be dependent of a mystical/abstract support from developers to implement security measures. What you get? A Cybercrime Freeway. Now when this happens who is going to be hassled first? Criminals? How? If police, even with the most modern systems cannot manage to understand some of the most basic principles of network/computer security? You of course! They will come to you because they know that you still do "something on the side" (you don't wanna loose your admin job right?). And they will hassle you to work "for them". OF COURSE they will REMIND you that you are a SINNER. So your work will cost [$$$ - (cost to keep you out of trouble)].
In the mean time wait for a whole trash of surveillance systems on your place. Why? Because you don't have the right anymore to do security. Well, in fact, they may leave you with that. but in a way, that practically, you have no rights at all. Because:
You don't have any information (bye BugTraq)
You can only rely on developers to fix bugs (we will fix it on our next release)
You cannot develop/study your systems for security (pay and you'll get it)
You fall into a double standard (are you fixing bugs or making security hacks? Are your development "inoccent"?)
If anything goes wrong, call 911. (In the meantime your systems are completely bleached)
So don't wonder if the badge guys will be knocking your door too frequently. Or even replace you...
Sorry for the long citations but I think this needs to be well remarked. Besides this is directly related to my previous post.
The newguidelines:
"Sites with unlawful content should not be listed in the directory. Examples of unlawful content include child pornography; material that infringes any intellectual property right; material that specifically advocates, solicits or abets illegal activity (such as fraud or violence); and material that is libelous.
Following these guidelines, editors should not use terms for subcategory names that would incorrectly suggest a category contains links to illegal content (e.g., Warez or Bootlegs). Similarly, ODP descriptions should not make reference to illegally obtained content (e.g., software or music), as such descriptions could incorrectly suggest an intent by an individual editor or the ODP to promote the distribution of such materials"
The old guidelines:
"Since US law governs the ODP, sites that infringe on US law should not be listed. Copyright infringement, certain kinds of pornography and death threats are illegal. The legality or illegality of a site is not based on the legality or illegality of the subject. When in doubt, just always remember - sites that clearly violate US laws or International law should not be listed."
Sincerly, a great move by AOL...:) US law stops governing ODP. Any law stops governing it. Now it is just unlawful/illegal. By who? The Supreme Court of Directors of AOL?
If anyone takes an agreement then he may find a "clause of exceptions". Usually it refers to situations that may void the agreement. It is practice to state strictly these exceptions or parties may get into court and get some Bad Weather there. This sort of "Examples of unlawful content" would probably be one of the reasons for Netscape to get wet in court. As these "examples" are too foggy to be understood. Frankly here it would be enough to send someone to court. As such rules should carry the term "According to the Laws of the Russian Federation..." (V sootvetstvii s Zakonodatelstvom Rossiskoi Federacii...). Without it you can't state that an activity is unlawful. It is not you who should decide it but the courts.
AOL/Netscape state examples. What can be behind? Reverse Engineering? On what bases? In Russia it is legal to do it under certain restrictions. Cracking? In Norway it seems that law can be only broken if someone does invades other's computer. Material that infringes any property right? On what base, under which law - UCITA, Millenium or Trepanarian acts? Or what the author believes is violation? Like Microsoft that even forbides to cite its user guide for nuns? Libelous? Under which base? The court decision or a phone call of the offended guy?
And what is beyond "Examples"? "Flame AOL!"?, "Anarchy"? "Communism"? "Cult of the Dead Cow"? "UFO's"? "Martian Anomalies"? In this last example I still remember that I was kicked out of Yahoo! just because I was too harsh to NASA's folks. This flagrant example of Internet censorship was never explained to me. However I know this was made just by a few E-mails or phone calls from some "scientific authority at Stanford University", who considered that even Malin's place deserved a place at "Entertainment->Paranormalia->Martian Anomalies". This casts some shadows on this possible move of dmoz. You write something that doesn't fit the general trend and you get the label "outlaw"...
Ethics and moral are beyond Democracy. Democracy accepts even the expression of those values that are against Democracy itself. Democracy is not just a form of government but also a form of civil action on society. Do not miss American Democracy with Democracy as a philosophical concept. A concept of decision taking, expression and communication that gives freedom to express his own ideas and take decisions on the base of election. American Democracy has got a too mechanical stamp on ruling terms for the last times and has lost many of its civil values expressed by its creators.
The enforcing of ethics or any form of moral concepts is a blow against Democracy as they violate the principles of free thought and expression. Besides they are expensive. There should be organisms to control this enforcing. In Internet this means more people, more hardware, more programs. Now you know that all this costs money and also that Internet grows exponentially on most fields. To keep such filters working, to hold up the growing amount of information you need more money, more hardware, more programs. And it is impossible today to achieve this. Or you blow up your connection or you are forced to admit that Democracy is not only a better value but also more feasable in terms of economy of resources. Sincerly I believe that Democracy wins in this world, mostly because it costs less to hold it up...
If you checked sources then you may find a curious fact that both proverbs exist and for quite long. "the mountain will come to Mohamed" is somehow a way to say that even if one does not wish to achieve a fate then the fate will forcefully achieve you. As you may know the Prophet did not want to accept the role that was given to him. However, in time, he understood that he had to do it. No matter the hardships and barriers in front of him. It is still a question to consider if he did go to mountain Arafat or montain Arafat reached him...
What saves Linux is exactly the fact that no one enforces even the licenses. Problems and fights? Correct. But if we stick into the ONE License so we get several problems. First that many people if not most people would like to have a more direct rewarding system. Reward through GPL soft is an art. An art between you not violating its principles and getting money supporting people working on it. It is difficult to deliver soft without getting a penny and getting its reward through development/implementation/support of this software in very concrete tasks. Many of my colleagues consider me a jerk. However I now get much more than implementing/devloping/supporting Windows environments...
Besides GPL is a philosophy. And most licenses, in one way or the other reflect some sort of philosophy. Are you telling me that everyone should go to the ONE philosophy? Well I am a GPL partisan. Because I know on how to live with it. But should I enforce GPL on everywhere I go? NO! That's raw communism. That's the Wonderful New World, the Animal Farm. GPL should be presented as one of the best type of licenses but not the ONE license. I prefer to have Microsoft alikes roaming around here than building a new "Stalin skyscrapper" of ideals that are far from being perfect. To use GPL in full force you need to be a hacker. On all aspects. But not everyone wants/can be such.
Licenses should be many. Yes there should be interagreements between them. But let's hope no one manages to enforce a "ONE" license.
The author of the post missed some words. This objec a planetesimal or _minor_ planet. Yes it may be too small to be called a planet but that mention in the article that "should independently orbit a star" is just ridiculous:
Pluton - Charon - which of them are to be considered to be the planet and the ????
Earth - Moon. Yes it is the Moon that mostly looses in this game. However this stuff is too heavy that it is hard to consider Earth moving "independently" around the Sun. So people we are living in a planetesimal...
Moons from the Jovian planets. One of them seems to be even bigger than Mercury if I'm not mistaken.
And to end. Recently there was some discussion sbout a "wandering planet". Well an object bigger than Jupiter but short of being a star. Wandering away from any star at high speeds. So, according to this article that is not a planet. So what it is? Flash Gordon's Mongo?
One point about this Columbine HS tragedy. Well I have been on this Earth for quite some time. And, as far as I have seen, children have been in the possession of weapons for quite a long time. There seems that even in America it is practice to get your child to shoot range to get some practice. Besides there are children that acted as soldiers/partisans in several wars. I have never noted such a gratuit and massive killing made by children anywhere before.
Now if everyone well remembers, the event happened when a harsh campaign for gun controls, "family values", children censorware and some other things was going full steam. Couldn't this be one of the MAIN reasons for what happened? Dissident children, haunted by "new values, new morale", poisoned by the santity of politicians and the damnation of the showbizz? What will happen to a child that sees Rambos, Commandos, X-Files, Dooms, Quakes, Hot Pussies and, suddenly, people mark him as a degenerate because his family does not carry "the values", a delinquent because he passes his time seeing "what children shouldn't see", a criminal because he can shoot? What this child, who listed the Mein Kampf and tell him he is an uncurable outsider will decide? What ideas/dreams/fantasies will roam in his head while he sees the "right" children, those that still eat Chuppa-Chupps, M&Ms, those who never carried a gun but consider that they are more "right" than him? What he is thinking about those that read comics and schoolbooks, he who have eaten the forbidden fruit, who have read the secret scrolls from Hell. He the warrior, the mage, the exorcist in the shadows... What happens if parents/teachers try to _force_ such child to become "exemplar", cut him access to computer, books, try to adapt him to these abstract family values so to become a "normal" member of the society? A society that he already despises and incriminates?
Frankly what censorship will help to do with such child if he have already seen the whole trashcan?
Well, if I am still living in the same dimension I was 5 minutes ago then there is something real wrong 'round here./. was mostly a pro-standartisation... If my head is still in its place I still remember posts talking about how good was RedHat and how bad were the kernel mutators... Well time seems in place. I don't see nothing strange 'round here. Is this and aftershock of/. getting hot about his journalistic quest? Maybe... A 180 degree move and not quite for the right place... Too much 180 degree.
Well frankly I am a mutator partisan. Paraphrasing Zhirinovskii, the reactionary political radical schizo here: "Mutate linux. Mutate the progs, the scripts, the source. Mutate the kernel! Everything should mutate, even the Tux the penguin and Torvalds." Maybe this is tooo radical. But still sounds good. As what makes linux is its capabilty to mutate. Think about what would happen if we sticked to "One License, one GUI, one Platform". That is exactly what M$ does. And that is what most companies do willingly or unwillingly.
If Linux had stucked into a strict environement then it would be never what it is now. Linux is the most multiplatform of all systems, from 86 to S/390. Meanwhile it is the systems that carries most of the Old and New World. In fact it is not only a continuation of UNIX but also of DOS and old Windows platforms. It even carries enough power to carry/emulate software from platforms that are long forgotten, such as ZX Spectrum or Commodore. Or to hold up emulation of weird platforms like Nintendo or Palm. It is a system capable of being a server or a desktop system. In this last point I should note that the author of the article is deeply wrong. linux is already ready for many desktops. I have seen/participated on the implementation of desktop systems for Internet & Office appliances. 68% of people don't want Windows back. And only a few stubbornly decry Linux as an Office system.
In one point I would still declare Linux a drawback. On vector design systems. Here Linux is still a way to go, even if Corel 9 is already out. On the rest Linux is already conquering. Yes, it is HARD to install it. To professionaly and carefully install it. But it is a system that works on the base "fire & forget". Once fired, technical support becomes miserable. So technicians are kicked to R&D, making its progress even faster and smoother.
It is mutation that makes this. And this is what M$ should be afraid of. Because this system is capable of inveding every computer and make it much more faster and reliable for a wide range of tasks.
However this should be taken with a few grains of pepper. Mutations are good if we can control them. If we change things too much then we may face future incompatibilities. But this does not mean keeping the kernel in one piece or flaming someone for choosing BlackBox against Gnome or KDE. The problem are not the changes but the rules of conduct to implement them. some sort of comitemments that would allow every program/mutation/patch/fix/implementation to live peacefully side by side. and to be used when they are needed, where they are needed. This is much better than having an abstract "Unity" on Linux.
Back in 95 there was an attempt here to implement a censorware system. Reasons were various and did not included moral/ethical issues. One of them was porno. Porno was killing all channels and we had to do something with it. The few weeks this system lived have shown:
1: Some may know this phrase: "If Mohamed doesn't get to the mountain then the mountain comes to Mohamed." That is the first historical record of the existence of the Internet...
2: What is porno for you, for him/her? What is erotics? What is medicine? Besides how easy is to filter jpgs or gifs?
3: You first shut porno, then erotics, then the picture of every woman, then the word "woman", then the word "man", then every word, then the Internet...
4: This was the Soviet Union some years ago. So if you say censorship, people ask: censorship? Censorship? CENSORSHIP? @%@*%$* C-E-N-S-O-R-S-H-I-P????????!!!! Hold the doors! The crowd is coming to take the Lubianka!!!!
5: Ethics and moral are good. If you have enough money to technically afford them. Lots of them... Democracy is much more economical.
However the end of this was really simple and stupid. One very BIG GUY needed some information about the University of Sussex. Naturally the system didn't allow him to get into this little town. But the guy needed BADLY this small town. When he got the news why he couldn't reach it when he needed so BADLY, he made a BIG NOISE and THREATENED to send the whole University to court. It ocurred that, juridically, such filters are equivalent to "surveillance measures". If you don't have a badge and you don't carry a court order, you don't have the right to use them. The system was promptly removed. It was the first and last censorware experiment here. Right now, if a channel is stuffed with pictures of hot chilly chicks we don't have the right even to sniff it...:))))))))
You're absolutely correct. I have been inside journalistics and outside them. It was amazing to see how journalists swarmed 'round here on the eve of the "Millenium bug". They glued like flies and some of us didn't resist the attemption to say a few serious words about it (me included). However my 20 minutes interview didn't make any lines. Tow other long interviews by my collegues didn't also make it. Demistification was not news and we were dropped out. in the meantime one collegue had the unfortunate idea to say a journalist something like: "I believe there is nothing to worry about."
And you know what happened. From just this phrase that damned journalist made a half-page news. A tabloid commentary where this jerk cites my colleague, then remarks the "I believe", bashes him and then writes an Armageddon scenario. On how we will line in front of banks, storm shops, eat under candleligths and see the World ending... A whole half page of this trash. All he needed from us was to have a name to start from. He got it and surely had a good reward because several lamers started calling us and asking for redemption...
That is what 90% of present journalism is. Make noise. If you have something for them they'll be after you. Even your name is enough to create news. I am the "69th most dangerous hacker in the world" in this region because some damn journalist decided to write about me. He didn't get nothing, so he INVENTED me! Now on every computer place I come in and say my name, people ask "aren't you?.." Yes I'm Ektanoor - "The BlackStar" but I don't know the HELL WHERE Soho Bank, UbiSoft OR DODOSOFT ARE! And what considers NASA, waters there are much more muddy than this jerk may ever imagine!"
Slashdot should be held responsible for what it publishes. Sincerly I consider that there have been recently many flaws in Slashdot publications.
There have been examples of pure hoaxes being published. Correct,/. has apologized for these slipperies. However the level of some hoaxes can create some serious damage. Specially if we consider that it takes some time for/. to apologize. On Internet, information runs in a flash. Specially if this information is scandalous by its nature. However, even here, apologies take a harder path to reach people.
There is some tendency for yellow journalism and less real news/opinions. Right, the opinion of the author may not be the one of the editorial board. Unfortunately the editorial board is to emotional and less analytic/critic/impartial. Many times we may see how the editors speak about their emotions about the news. Pressing an emotional point on a news is a way to manage the masses.
Following this point I have noted that the control for the news has been quite weird. You post an article, get rejected and later you get this article with a dumb commentary and less information. For the two years I have been reading Slashdot I have seen some flagrant examples of this. In the mean time I have noted that if we catch news criticizing someone/something then other "positive" news about the same stuff get rejected. This may be correct for situations when the posts are still going on. But if a week or two are gone then no one can get the stuff that matters to pass through the "bunch of..." Sometimes the inverse happens. This is not information but manipulation. Most people may stay uninformed about "the other side of the story". We stand on the what/. leaders think are news.
In the mean time I should call for the "beware responsability". What makes Slashdot the "effect" is the fact that many things pass through here that barely we would see somewhere else. In the meantime Slashdot is a news gatherer of high quality even today. News and information that would go unnoticed are remarked here.In the meantime comments are moderated but never censored. And even some flamebaits are of peculiar importance. Specially if the person is an expert on the field but he can't hold his tongue...
There should be a mean on this stuff. I think comments should remain the way they are. Anyway they are the pure responsability of the author and there is nothing for/. to do here. However news posts should have another nature of selection. And sincerly i consider that Rob will get nothing but studying journalistics here. The only thing it would help him would be to hold some silly emotions and get more inflexible on selecting news. I think this is not a solution having Rob in bad mood crying "REJECTED!" to every hello. The problem are the posters. And here we should have to choose. Or we reform the system or we turn/. into another Media Emporium.
I sincerly consider that the selection of news should be made much larger than now. And create a voting system much like Meta-Moderation. How large it should be I don't know. There could be several technical and moral issues here that may turn this into a headache. The idealistic way would be to have a separate Slashdot much more as a "voting boot". People post and people choose what should be or shouldn't be news. Maybe here Rob and his team should still have a "last voice" on the stuff. A Supreme Court for some critical issues that may happen. However this would made/. the most progressive and revolutionary news system in the world. Sincerly "News for Nerds, Stuff that matters"
Well it seems I achieved the heat I wanted. But I think I should explain a pair of things.
First I'm living near Asia. and I have a lot of asian friends. Btw I have a son living near the place supposed to benefit from this project.
Second the context of the phrase was racial. The way I use the word gooks may carry a taste of Russian idiomatics that may not fit well in the American context. News for Gooks - why? Well try to follow my line. This project is supposed to help a desertic and less populated region of China. Meanwhile this same project affects directly or indirectly the basins of three major rivers: Mekong, Yangtse and Brahmaputra. If something gets wrong it is the people living in these basins that will suffer most. It would be like calling gooks to everyone living in there.
News for Gooks. News about a new Wonder of the World that discares the welfare, health and future of billions of Asians (that's exactly what you see - billions). What is the fate of these gooks in front of a Super-dam made with nukes? Who cares about people with leukemia, deformed limbs, tumors and laking eyes when we face a new technological progress?
Frankly even during the discussion here I noted that people concentrated more on the local problems the dam may cause and benefits/dangers of the objective. However I saw little about the consequences that will happen when this nuclear trash will follow down the rivers. So tell me if this is not news for gooks: "Ok gooks, we are having here some funny time nuking mountains, so wait for the trash..."
First I am not from Kiev but I lived there for some time.
Second it is not smart to consider that you mess a lot to get a lot more. Nuclear explosions are not the same as nuclear power plants. You don't see my point. I am no pacifist and accept the use of nuclear weapons in certain cases. However I perfectly know that after making some mess with a nuclear bomb you get a whole radioactive waste field for tens or hundreds of years. Hiroshima & Nagasaki took years to get cleaned. Nevada is till now a waste field and the place takes tens of years to get cleaned. Bikini is till now a place "under question" because some places are still radioactive. But if you think this is all BS than take a trip to Lake Death in Semipalatinsk and drink a cup of water on my health.
What is dangerous here is that the use of a nuclear device will obligatory leave waste. This waste will be washed out by this new dam and fall over all Southeastern Asia. To avoid this you need to make a serious cleanup that may last tens of years. I don't think chinese will have the pacience to do this, first blow and then wait 30-40 years to build the dam.
And what considers people at my local university... Well I'm sitting right in the place where one of the first medical labs for radiation studies was created. The lab moved but people remember why it was formed... Part of the Soviet A-Bomb was planned/tested a few hundreds of meters from here... That's for the troll...
Correct, maybe I didn't differ them quite well in the text. Beta & Alphas are called rays because they are emitted at high velocities. In this point they look similar to light. Besides they were found in a time when people still didn't make big differences between particles and light. If you take a look, a lot of people talk about gamma & beta rays. Betas are nothing more than electrons at high velocity. Alpha, as far as I remember are helium nuclei.
You are not correct abou inhaling them. The danger of these particles is on the fact that they are launched at very high velocities. And so their energy becomes quite high. You are correct that clothes may stop them. But I wouldn't risk...
On what concerns "you can make a device". I don't think so. As far as I remember alphas are one of the main actors on the first levels of fission. Air is mostly enough to stop their path beyond a certain radius. Betas are usually originated by the interaction of air with gamma rays. Yes I could be really mistaken here because I studied this 15 years ago. But as far as I remember, while you can get rid of alpha the same doesn't go for beta and gamma rays.
Dnepr sands, in that place were irradiating the equivalent of 30 roentgens/hour. That's how the doctor we talked with "translated" for most of us the level of radiation. Usually such types of radiation are measured with other units. Roentgensas far as I know are a measure of intensity of elctromagnetic rays but most people don't understand Beckerels & other stuff so he told us this way. - Measure was taken in place by a special team of the Medical Institute at Kiev.
The effect was much like the one you get on a 1 degree fireburn. After a few days, if I didn't touch the burn, skin forms something that looks like snakeskin. A pass of the hand through it drops the whole skin and I got back on the same reddish/pinkish area I had from start. It does not depend on time, few hours or days and I got the same. It was quite painful and sometimes it glued to my clothes (the thing layed on my upper limb, so I had to hold up). Meanwhile, around the burn, I had small deep wounds that didn't heal at all. These wounds were the last that disappeared. No medications connected to fireburns did help. Covering the area with plasters or equivalent produced quite painful results (it produced a lot of lymphatic moisture & blood). The thing started to recede by itself and after six monthes it ended. For nearly two years this area continued to produce a funny skin. I just pick it up and get a 3-4 square centimeters of skin out of my body. Now I have nothing special except that capilars grow a little weird there (they keep growing under the skin). The initial affected area was nearly 5 square centimeters.
"uhm the sun?"
Cool. You don't need the Ozone layer. You don't even need the atmosphere maybe...
well what the hell were you touching? you dont get burns like that from air contamination.
Laying on the sand... Nothing more than laying on the sand near the Dnepr river on a hot Summer Sun. When the sunburn didn't go after two weeks I got worried. And got the happy news. The place was highly radioactive and only then people noted it. One friend got it over a larger portion of the body and two others had it on the legs. As far as I know no one suffered from it longer than a year.
Once again I note:
"there are no radiological clean _blasts_ in nature"
A: Nuclear fission in an explosive device ALWAYS creates byproducts
B: Do not compare controlled energy event with UNCONTROLLED one. An explosion, even from a petard is ALWAYS UNCONTROLLED within the radius of the event. You may try to control the limits of the explosion not the explosion itself. and on what concerns nuclear devices this becames more problematic, due to the fact you are dealing with atoms and making a large blow of energy.
C: Nuclear blasts also IRRADIATE the environment through the whole spectre of light. So there can be several consequences, ranging from heat burns on living beings to formation of short-living isotopes. You may try to reach an "optimal" burn of the nuclear device. But what about the rest? Anyway you can't get rid off the gamma, alpha & beta rays.
D: A nuclear device creates isotopes. Several of them. They will live a N time. This N time ranges from hours to thousands of years. They are not only dangerous because they irradiate soemthing. They are also dangerous because they decay and are consequently the ground for mutations. Mutations that may not happen with you or your children but which will appear on your granson or grandchild.
E: Don't mess things between a controlled irradiation of humans/animals and such things as atomic weapons for military/engineering purposes. You stopped short here on claiming on small amounts are beneficial. Even some of the harshest levels of gamma rays are used to cure people with cancer. Levels that, if produced over the whole body, would give a few minutes/hours of life. Nearly enough to ask for the coffin, kiss your wife, and say bye to your kids...
"I've always wondered why nobody has ever actually used nuclear explosives in civil engineering projects, if (and this is a BIG if) the blasts can be made reasonably radiologically clean."
First - the article mentions Soviet Union as the only country who used nuclear devices for civil pruposes.
Second - Yes USSR did it. And the consequences have shown that it is not worth to do it again. Radiaton and several other factors make the use of nuclear devices a big problem. Until now there are a few places on the Urals and Ukraine that give trouble due to the levels of radiation. One of them is located right on one of the biggest coal basins of the world where population density is quite high.
Third - curiously, during this year, I have noted several references on the net related to civil use of nuclear explosives. So it amazes me a little that someone talks about "radiological clean" blasts. There are no radiological clean nuclear blasts in nature and it is stupid to claim such thing.
Fourth - Some people may not be aware of this. The problem with nuclear explosions is not only related to radiation but also to how you can control it. Nuclear blasts cannot be fully predictable. Sometimes calculations make errors of of 2-3 times or even more. Second the blasting of a device and the failure of the fission/fusion process can be of unpredictable consequences. Imagine if such situation happens in this dam(n) project. You risk to poison the entire Eastern Asia, the most populated place on Earth.
Fifth - If you know History than you may see that China's government has a harsh dossier on what relates to use of nuclear devices. During Cold War they made an experiment where they dropped thousands of soldiers near an atmospheric nuclear blast. If we compare the pictures to American and Russian military "rabbits", these guys were completely naked to radiation effects. Now I know what radiation may cause to someone. I had a neighbor who slowly died from radiation from exactly one of these military "experiments". He was equipped according to all standards and still radiation caught him. The picture is horrible. Think about a guy that pushes one leg while walking, lost nearly all teeth, nearly cannot speak, his skin completely burned and having cancer slooooooowly eating his bones. The most horrible is that he is living 20 YEARS with this.
Radiation is a snipper you see only two late. Myself I got burned from a radiation "hot spot" near Kiev, less then two years after Chernobyl. I never guessed what was happening on my right limb until one friend told me they had found the spot in that place (I got the equivalent of a 1 degree burn that took just 6 monthes to heal).
Sometimes I wonder if people do read the articles before posting here. Sincerly the average IQ, quality and quantity of Slashdot articles have downgraded drastically for the last time. Time for you people to seriously think about this or soon this will be News for Gooks. Stuff that mutters.
I've been using 2.4 in regular scale since the first test1 appeared. Generally it is much more stable on my machine. Besides the SMP is clearly better and does not suffer some weirdnesses I noted while using 2.2. Besides I need 2.4 for my 3D card as I use XFree4, UDMA/66 and a TVcard. These things are somehow in 2.2 also. But they are mostly patches, with several bugfixes and not working so well as in 2.4.
Yes there are several bugs and features on 2.4. But that depends for what you are using it. On a production server it may still carry some risks. On my workstation it fits perfectly for my tasks.
Well funny to see this article. Here we have the INVERSE of this... If we get anyone sneaking NT or Win00 servers then he may get a hot time with us... Windows servers are not allowed for major network task. Choose Linux, Solaris, BSD, Novell or the Hell. M$ is OUTTA HERE!
This is done for these reasons:
There are some piracy issues around here and we don't wanna take even the slightest risk of supporting a pirated platform, specially after the dumb M$ sneak-under-your-desk-for-pirate-soft campaign in Moscow.
We have a quite long experience with M$ platform soft. On servers the results were from bad to catasthrophic. The only thing we managed to do with such systems was to create small one-task servers for a very specific range of problems and conditions. Our specifics demand that servers should carry several tasks, generally process some terabytes per week and serve a few thousands of users. That is impossible to achieve under an M$ environment.
There is also the financial aspect. We have highly qualified experts. The TCO for *NIX soft is nothing to be compared with Windows. M$ support is frankly miserable here. Windows workstation support is the heaviest cost we have here. Our practical experience has shown that the support for NT reaches 10-60 hours week in a network of 70 machines and needs 2-3 people tied in their seats. On Linux it is an amazing 4 hour/week and requires only one person who doesn't need to stay 'round the clock in his place.
And, to end the financial aspect, we had a case when we paid Microsoft for nothing, just because they force OEMs to bundle soft in their machines. Probably only 10%-15% of this soft is really used here. The rest was humanitarian help from us to Bill Gates...
Slashdot Mirror
Cool. The cost of my services to you will then be
$$$$ and not $$$ as before. Because I have to pass certification+ license+taxes-on-hack+pay-the-cops+pay-the-mob
I wouldn't be so general. Such documents are not a "conspiration against Mankind" but more the result of petty domestic fights between lobbyists of different fields. Lawmakers gather laws from discusssions with experts, lunches with corporative managers, talks with government officials, letters from citizens, the mass-media (yuks!) and the greys :). In result they produce something like this. Generally they barely understand what is written here. Their main task is to create something practical, juridically correct and which will not burn their next election.
The problem here is that, probably someone managed to sniff his own stupidity into this treaty. Probably someone from the equivalent of the FBI or NSA in America. Probably he explained lawmakers how his life is a Hell because of these tools "roaming the Internet" and that "forbidding them would make life much more easy". Then a representative of a corporation like Microsoft may have told them that "these tools are the source of big losses", then an expert explained them vaguely what these tools may be used for. And, finally they decided to write this article without hearing anyone else because the quantity nd quality of experts was "enough". And consequently we got this piece of trash in the middle of a treaty that doesn't look so bad at all...
Have your read carefully this article:
... for purpose...". This foggy term reminds some stalinist times when, by possessing "burgeois" literature you are considered already a criminal. Because you already possess a "potential weapon" for commiting a crime.
"a device, including a computer program, designed or adapted [specifically] [primarily] [particularly] for the purpose of committing any of the offences established in accordance with Article 2 - 5"
[...]
the possession of an item referred to in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) above, with intent that it be used for the purpose of committing the offenses established in Articles 2 - 5
The problem is that any security bug is potentially a break-in! So if you create a testing tool you might well giving ground to fall under the laws created through this treaty. Besides note that 2a talks about "intent
What kind of "intent for purpose" can be understood before commit a real crime? Is the fact that I have a gun on my closet an "intent to be used for the purpose" of killing my neighbor or rob my bank?
Does the fact that I possess nmap on my computer be equivalent to an intent for the purpose of breaking into slashdot.org? Well they don't explain the intent. But they do link intent to purpose. In courts such games are the base to give you a cold shower:
Lawyer: Is nmap an instrument for the purpose to break into slasdot.org.
Expert: bla-bla-bla.. Generally yes.
Lawyer: So we have now demonstrated that Mr. Hacker possesses a weapon for the purpose to break into slashdot.org. So, CONSEQUENTLY, he had the INTENT to break into slashdot.org!
What should be done here is to wipe this article and write everything in a new way. Specially:
Remark the distribution of tools that specifically don't only explore a security bug but also may ease the manipulation of systems where a clear break in has been made.
Remark that these tools can be used as evidence (and how) in courts. This is much more important as many courts drop out cases as they don't know on how to deal with such software.
Forbid te distribution of data that may be resulted from these break-ins (by agravating penalties) or that may ease such break-ins. Specifically the words "password", access code" should be erased from here, by substituitng them into a more universal term. Something like: "data that allows access to computer system and its data, beyond the limits of the people/systems allowed to access it." This would include such things like spoofing, packet hijacking and others.
Mark more clearly the limits of using security tools for analysis/test/development and the criminal acts.
You know why Windows can't keep the pace of Unix?
:)
Because it has more bugs? No. Because it is closed source? Noooooo. Because Microsoft owns it? Of course not.
Because Unix is much more manageable than Windows. That is what it makes Unix more secure. Even Linux has some ENORMOUS bugs on what concerns security. But here the reaction time is tremendously more faster than Windows. Even in times when Solaris was purely closed source, people managed to react more rapidly to any security threat.
Windows possesses a dumb interface that pretends to be "complete". However tons of backdoors/bugs are concealed inside this interface. You can't reach them in most cases because Windows interface is too restricted to allow control of many inner systems. So if one breaks in you can only face the fact.
Sincerly I was admired for a situation I fell in. When Windows ruled here, 1/3 of our Internet population played only one thing: "Hack Windows!" Because many found a series of backdoors and we couldn't do anything against that. Now, on Linux there was a HOLE that remained for approximately 6 monthes. You know? No one ever noted it. Why this? Because in the first month of Linux Era people got real hassled, as we reacted momentarly to any break. In the end, only 2-3 people out of 700 "crackers" remained. Btw ee don't touch them as we are afraid of the full extinction of this species...
Now most of this work is made 80% on the basis of analysis/studies/implementations of security systems. And this includes scanning & testing break-ins. Only a 5% are real "healing after the fire". If this law comes up, all this goes into the trashcan...
From the news:
?In part because of the ingenuity of lawyers and the ingenuity of [computer criminals] to get around the laws we?ve got, the laws we?ve got aren?t sufficient,? Hyde said. ?The draft convention?.will make it much easier for people to investigate. It will have an immense impact.?
What this JERK forgets to mention is the colossal analphabetism that runs among the police structures. The HUGE and COLOSSAL ignorance about computers and networks. Will the convention make much easier for people to investigate? ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. Because what will happen is that such law will give enforcement organisations the right to hassle computer experts and hackers. To get a cheap and easy-to-manipulate mass of technical experts that will work for these IDIOTS to avoid jail and/or other forms of persecution. This is putting all Security Experts hostage of a group of people that barely understands the technical and psychological specifics of our world of computers.
This will not help fighting cybercrime. ABSOLUTELY. Because what first goes into HELL is cybercrime pervention. You can't study/analyse security holes. You will be dependent of a mystical/abstract support from developers to implement security measures. What you get? A Cybercrime Freeway. Now when this happens who is going to be hassled first? Criminals? How? If police, even with the most modern systems cannot manage to understand some of the most basic principles of network/computer security? You of course! They will come to you because they know that you still do "something on the side" (you don't wanna loose your admin job right?). And they will hassle you to work "for them". OF COURSE they will REMIND you that you are a SINNER. So your work will cost [$$$ - (cost to keep you out of trouble)].
In the mean time wait for a whole trash of surveillance systems on your place. Why? Because you don't have the right anymore to do security. Well, in fact, they may leave you with that. but in a way, that practically, you have no rights at all. Because:
You don't have any information (bye BugTraq)
You can only rely on developers to fix bugs (we will fix it on our next release)
You cannot develop/study your systems for security (pay and you'll get it)
You fall into a double standard (are you fixing bugs or making security hacks? Are your development "inoccent"?)
If anything goes wrong, call 911. (In the meantime your systems are completely bleached)
So don't wonder if the badge guys will be knocking your door too frequently. Or even replace you...
Sorry for the long citations but I think this needs to be well remarked. Besides this is directly related to my previous post.
:) US law stops governing ODP. Any law stops governing it. Now it is just unlawful/illegal. By who? The Supreme Court of Directors of AOL?
The newguidelines:
"Sites with unlawful content should not be listed in the directory. Examples of unlawful content include child pornography; material that infringes any intellectual property right; material that specifically advocates, solicits or abets illegal activity (such as fraud or violence); and material that is libelous.
Following these guidelines, editors should not use terms for subcategory names that would incorrectly suggest a category contains links to illegal content (e.g., Warez or Bootlegs). Similarly, ODP descriptions should not make reference to illegally obtained content (e.g., software or music), as such descriptions could incorrectly suggest an intent by an individual editor or the ODP to promote the distribution of such materials"
The old guidelines:
"Since US law governs the ODP, sites that infringe on US law should not be listed. Copyright infringement, certain kinds of pornography and death threats are illegal. The legality or illegality of a site is not based on the legality or illegality of the subject. When in doubt, just always remember - sites that clearly violate US laws or International law should not be listed."
Sincerly, a great move by AOL...
If anyone takes an agreement then he may find a "clause of exceptions". Usually it refers to situations that may void the agreement. It is practice to state strictly these exceptions or parties may get into court and get some Bad Weather there. This sort of "Examples of unlawful content" would probably be one of the reasons for Netscape to get wet in court. As these "examples" are too foggy to be understood. Frankly here it would be enough to send someone to court. As such rules should carry the term "According to the Laws of the Russian Federation..." (V sootvetstvii s Zakonodatelstvom Rossiskoi Federacii...). Without it you can't state that an activity is unlawful. It is not you who should decide it but the courts.
AOL/Netscape state examples. What can be behind? Reverse Engineering? On what bases? In Russia it is legal to do it under certain restrictions. Cracking? In Norway it seems that law can be only broken if someone does invades other's computer. Material that infringes any property right? On what base, under which law - UCITA, Millenium or Trepanarian acts? Or what the author believes is violation? Like Microsoft that even forbides to cite its user guide for nuns? Libelous? Under which base? The court decision or a phone call of the offended guy?
And what is beyond "Examples"? "Flame AOL!"?, "Anarchy"? "Communism"? "Cult of the Dead Cow"? "UFO's"? "Martian Anomalies"? In this last example I still remember that I was kicked out of Yahoo! just because I was too harsh to NASA's folks. This flagrant example of Internet censorship was never explained to me. However I know this was made just by a few E-mails or phone calls from some "scientific authority at Stanford University", who considered that even Malin's place deserved a place at "Entertainment->Paranormalia->Martian Anomalies". This casts some shadows on this possible move of dmoz. You write something that doesn't fit the general trend and you get the label "outlaw"...
Ethics and moral are beyond Democracy. Democracy accepts even the expression of those values that are against Democracy itself. Democracy is not just a form of government but also a form of civil action on society. Do not miss American Democracy with Democracy as a philosophical concept. A concept of decision taking, expression and communication that gives freedom to express his own ideas and take decisions on the base of election. American Democracy has got a too mechanical stamp on ruling terms for the last times and has lost many of its civil values expressed by its creators.
The enforcing of ethics or any form of moral concepts is a blow against Democracy as they violate the principles of free thought and expression. Besides they are expensive. There should be organisms to control this enforcing. In Internet this means more people, more hardware, more programs. Now you know that all this costs money and also that Internet grows exponentially on most fields. To keep such filters working, to hold up the growing amount of information you need more money, more hardware, more programs. And it is impossible today to achieve this. Or you blow up your connection or you are forced to admit that Democracy is not only a better value but also more feasable in terms of economy of resources. Sincerly I believe that Democracy wins in this world, mostly because it costs less to hold it up...
If you checked sources then you may find a curious fact that both proverbs exist and for quite long. "the mountain will come to Mohamed" is somehow a way to say that even if one does not wish to achieve a fate then the fate will forcefully achieve you. As you may know the Prophet did not want to accept the role that was given to him. However, in time, he understood that he had to do it. No matter the hardships and barriers in front of him. It is still a question to consider if he did go to mountain Arafat or montain Arafat reached him...
What saves Linux is exactly the fact that no one enforces even the licenses. Problems and fights? Correct. But if we stick into the ONE License so we get several problems. First that many people if not most people would like to have a more direct rewarding system. Reward through GPL soft is an art. An art between you not violating its principles and getting money supporting people working on it. It is difficult to deliver soft without getting a penny and getting its reward through development/implementation/support of this software in very concrete tasks. Many of my colleagues consider me a jerk. However I now get much more than implementing/devloping/supporting Windows environments...
Besides GPL is a philosophy. And most licenses, in one way or the other reflect some sort of philosophy. Are you telling me that everyone should go to the ONE philosophy? Well I am a GPL partisan. Because I know on how to live with it. But should I enforce GPL on everywhere I go? NO! That's raw communism. That's the Wonderful New World, the Animal Farm. GPL should be presented as one of the best type of licenses but not the ONE license. I prefer to have Microsoft alikes roaming around here than building a new "Stalin skyscrapper" of ideals that are far from being perfect. To use GPL in full force you need to be a hacker. On all aspects. But not everyone wants/can be such.
Licenses should be many. Yes there should be interagreements between them. But let's hope no one manages to enforce a "ONE" license.
The author of the post missed some words. This objec a planetesimal or _minor_ planet. Yes it may be too small to be called a planet but that mention in the article that "should independently orbit a star" is just ridiculous:
Pluton - Charon - which of them are to be considered to be the planet and the ????
Earth - Moon. Yes it is the Moon that mostly looses in this game. However this stuff is too heavy that it is hard to consider Earth moving "independently" around the Sun. So people we are living in a planetesimal...
Moons from the Jovian planets. One of them seems to be even bigger than Mercury if I'm not mistaken.
And to end. Recently there was some discussion sbout a "wandering planet". Well an object bigger than Jupiter but short of being a star. Wandering away from any star at high speeds. So, according to this article that is not a planet. So what it is? Flash Gordon's Mongo?
One point about this Columbine HS tragedy. Well I have been on this Earth for quite some time. And, as far as I have seen, children have been in the possession of weapons for quite a long time. There seems that even in America it is practice to get your child to shoot range to get some practice. Besides there are children that acted as soldiers/partisans in several wars. I have never noted such a gratuit and massive killing made by children anywhere before.
Now if everyone well remembers, the event happened when a harsh campaign for gun controls, "family values", children censorware and some other things was going full steam. Couldn't this be one of the MAIN reasons for what happened? Dissident children, haunted by "new values, new morale", poisoned by the santity of politicians and the damnation of the showbizz? What will happen to a child that sees Rambos, Commandos, X-Files, Dooms, Quakes, Hot Pussies and, suddenly, people mark him as a degenerate because his family does not carry "the values", a delinquent because he passes his time seeing "what children shouldn't see", a criminal because he can shoot? What this child, who listed the Mein Kampf and tell him he is an uncurable outsider will decide? What ideas/dreams/fantasies will roam in his head while he sees the "right" children, those that still eat Chuppa-Chupps, M&Ms, those who never carried a gun but consider that they are more "right" than him? What he is thinking about those that read comics and schoolbooks, he who have eaten the forbidden fruit, who have read the secret scrolls from Hell. He the warrior, the mage, the exorcist in the shadows... What happens if parents/teachers try to _force_ such child to become "exemplar", cut him access to computer, books, try to adapt him to these abstract family values so to become a "normal" member of the society? A society that he already despises and incriminates?
Frankly what censorship will help to do with such child if he have already seen the whole trashcan?
Well, if I am still living in the same dimension I was 5 minutes ago then there is something real wrong 'round here. /. was mostly a pro-standartisation... If my head is still in its place I still remember posts talking about how good was RedHat and how bad were the kernel mutators... Well time seems in place. I don't see nothing strange 'round here. Is this and aftershock of /. getting hot about his journalistic quest? Maybe... A 180 degree move and not quite for the right place... Too much 180 degree.
Well frankly I am a mutator partisan. Paraphrasing Zhirinovskii, the reactionary political radical schizo here: "Mutate linux. Mutate the progs, the scripts, the source. Mutate the kernel! Everything should mutate, even the Tux the penguin and Torvalds." Maybe this is tooo radical. But still sounds good. As what makes linux is its capabilty to mutate. Think about what would happen if we sticked to "One License, one GUI, one Platform". That is exactly what M$ does. And that is what most companies do willingly or unwillingly.
If Linux had stucked into a strict environement then it would be never what it is now. Linux is the most multiplatform of all systems, from 86 to S/390. Meanwhile it is the systems that carries most of the Old and New World. In fact it is not only a continuation of UNIX but also of DOS and old Windows platforms. It even carries enough power to carry/emulate software from platforms that are long forgotten, such as ZX Spectrum or Commodore. Or to hold up emulation of weird platforms like Nintendo or Palm. It is a system capable of being a server or a desktop system. In this last point I should note that the author of the article is deeply wrong. linux is already ready for many desktops. I have seen/participated on the implementation of desktop systems for Internet & Office appliances. 68% of people don't want Windows back. And only a few stubbornly decry Linux as an Office system.
In one point I would still declare Linux a drawback. On vector design systems. Here Linux is still a way to go, even if Corel 9 is already out. On the rest Linux is already conquering. Yes, it is HARD to install it. To professionaly and carefully install it. But it is a system that works on the base "fire & forget". Once fired, technical support becomes miserable. So technicians are kicked to R&D, making its progress even faster and smoother.
It is mutation that makes this. And this is what M$ should be afraid of. Because this system is capable of inveding every computer and make it much more faster and reliable for a wide range of tasks.
However this should be taken with a few grains of pepper. Mutations are good if we can control them. If we change things too much then we may face future incompatibilities. But this does not mean keeping the kernel in one piece or flaming someone for choosing BlackBox against Gnome or KDE. The problem are not the changes but the rules of conduct to implement them. some sort of comitemments that would allow every program/mutation/patch/fix/implementation to live peacefully side by side. and to be used when they are needed, where they are needed. This is much better than having an abstract "Unity" on Linux.
Back in 95 there was an attempt here to implement a censorware system. Reasons were various and did not included moral/ethical issues. One of them was porno. Porno was killing all channels and we had to do something with it. The few weeks this system lived have shown:
:))))))))
1: Some may know this phrase: "If Mohamed doesn't get to the mountain then the mountain comes to Mohamed." That is the first historical record of the existence of the Internet...
2: What is porno for you, for him/her? What is erotics? What is medicine? Besides how easy is to filter jpgs or gifs?
3: You first shut porno, then erotics, then the picture of every woman, then the word "woman", then the word "man", then every word, then the Internet...
4: This was the Soviet Union some years ago. So if you say censorship, people ask: censorship? Censorship? CENSORSHIP? @%@*%$* C-E-N-S-O-R-S-H-I-P????????!!!! Hold the doors! The crowd is coming to take the Lubianka!!!!
5: Ethics and moral are good. If you have enough money to technically afford them. Lots of them... Democracy is much more economical.
However the end of this was really simple and stupid. One very BIG GUY needed some information about the University of Sussex. Naturally the system didn't allow him to get into this little town. But the guy needed BADLY this small town. When he got the news why he couldn't reach it when he needed so BADLY, he made a BIG NOISE and THREATENED to send the whole University to court. It ocurred that, juridically, such filters are equivalent to "surveillance measures". If you don't have a badge and you don't carry a court order, you don't have the right to use them. The system was promptly removed. It was the first and last censorware experiment here. Right now, if a channel is stuffed with pictures of hot chilly chicks we don't have the right even to sniff it...
You're absolutely correct. I have been inside journalistics and outside them. It was amazing to see how journalists swarmed 'round here on the eve of the "Millenium bug". They glued like flies and some of us didn't resist the attemption to say a few serious words about it (me included). However my 20 minutes interview didn't make any lines. Tow other long interviews by my collegues didn't also make it. Demistification was not news and we were dropped out. in the meantime one collegue had the unfortunate idea to say a journalist something like: "I believe there is nothing to worry about."
And you know what happened. From just this phrase that damned journalist made a half-page news. A tabloid commentary where this jerk cites my colleague, then remarks the "I believe", bashes him and then writes an Armageddon scenario. On how we will line in front of banks, storm shops, eat under candleligths and see the World ending... A whole half page of this trash. All he needed from us was to have a name to start from. He got it and surely had a good reward because several lamers started calling us and asking for redemption...
That is what 90% of present journalism is. Make noise. If you have something for them they'll be after you. Even your name is enough to create news. I am the "69th most dangerous hacker in the world" in this region because some damn journalist decided to write about me. He didn't get nothing, so he INVENTED me! Now on every computer place I come in and say my name, people ask "aren't you?.." Yes I'm Ektanoor - "The BlackStar" but I don't know the HELL WHERE Soho Bank, UbiSoft OR DODOSOFT ARE! And what considers NASA, waters there are much more muddy than this jerk may ever imagine!"
Slashdot should be held responsible for what it publishes. Sincerly I consider that there have been recently many flaws in Slashdot publications.
/. has apologized for these slipperies. However the level of some hoaxes can create some serious damage. Specially if we consider that it takes some time for /. to apologize. On Internet, information runs in a flash. Specially if this information is scandalous by its nature. However, even here, apologies take a harder path to reach people.
/. leaders think are news.
/. to do here. However news posts should have another nature of selection. And sincerly i consider that Rob will get nothing but studying journalistics here. The only thing it would help him would be to hold some silly emotions and get more inflexible on selecting news. I think this is not a solution having Rob in bad mood crying "REJECTED!" to every hello. The problem are the posters. And here we should have to choose. Or we reform the system or we turn /. into another Media Emporium.
/. the most progressive and revolutionary news system in the world. Sincerly "News for Nerds, Stuff that matters"
There have been examples of pure hoaxes being published. Correct,
There is some tendency for yellow journalism and less real news/opinions. Right, the opinion of the author may not be the one of the editorial board. Unfortunately the editorial board is to emotional and less analytic/critic/impartial. Many times we may see how the editors speak about their emotions about the news. Pressing an emotional point on a news is a way to manage the masses.
Following this point I have noted that the control for the news has been quite weird. You post an article, get rejected and later you get this article with a dumb commentary and less information. For the two years I have been reading Slashdot I have seen some flagrant examples of this. In the mean time I have noted that if we catch news criticizing someone/something then other "positive" news about the same stuff get rejected. This may be correct for situations when the posts are still going on. But if a week or two are gone then no one can get the stuff that matters to pass through the "bunch of..." Sometimes the inverse happens. This is not information but manipulation. Most people may stay uninformed about "the other side of the story". We stand on the what
In the mean time I should call for the "beware responsability". What makes Slashdot the "effect" is the fact that many things pass through here that barely we would see somewhere else. In the meantime Slashdot is a news gatherer of high quality even today. News and information that would go unnoticed are remarked here.In the meantime comments are moderated but never censored. And even some flamebaits are of peculiar importance. Specially if the person is an expert on the field but he can't hold his tongue...
There should be a mean on this stuff. I think comments should remain the way they are. Anyway they are the pure responsability of the author and there is nothing for
I sincerly consider that the selection of news should be made much larger than now. And create a voting system much like Meta-Moderation. How large it should be I don't know. There could be several technical and moral issues here that may turn this into a headache. The idealistic way would be to have a separate Slashdot much more as a "voting boot". People post and people choose what should be or shouldn't be news. Maybe here Rob and his team should still have a "last voice" on the stuff. A Supreme Court for some critical issues that may happen. However this would made
Well it seems I achieved the heat I wanted. But I think I should explain a pair of things.
First I'm living near Asia. and I have a lot of asian friends. Btw I have a son living near the place supposed to benefit from this project.
Second the context of the phrase was racial. The way I use the word gooks may carry a taste of Russian idiomatics that may not fit well in the American context. News for Gooks - why? Well try to follow my line. This project is supposed to help a desertic and less populated region of China. Meanwhile this same project affects directly or indirectly the basins of three major rivers: Mekong, Yangtse and Brahmaputra. If something gets wrong it is the people living in these basins that will suffer most. It would be like calling gooks to everyone living in there.
News for Gooks. News about a new Wonder of the World that discares the welfare, health and future of billions of Asians (that's exactly what you see - billions). What is the fate of these gooks in front of a Super-dam made with nukes? Who cares about people with leukemia, deformed limbs, tumors and laking eyes when we face a new technological progress?
Frankly even during the discussion here I noted that people concentrated more on the local problems the dam may cause and benefits/dangers of the objective. However I saw little about the consequences that will happen when this nuclear trash will follow down the rivers. So tell me if this is not news for gooks: "Ok gooks, we are having here some funny time nuking mountains, so wait for the trash..."
First I am not from Kiev but I lived there for some time.
Second it is not smart to consider that you mess a lot to get a lot more. Nuclear explosions are not the same as nuclear power plants. You don't see my point. I am no pacifist and accept the use of nuclear weapons in certain cases. However I perfectly know that after making some mess with a nuclear bomb you get a whole radioactive waste field for tens or hundreds of years. Hiroshima & Nagasaki took years to get cleaned. Nevada is till now a waste field and the place takes tens of years to get cleaned. Bikini is till now a place "under question" because some places are still radioactive. But if you think this is all BS than take a trip to Lake Death in Semipalatinsk and drink a cup of water on my health.
What is dangerous here is that the use of a nuclear device will obligatory leave waste. This waste will be washed out by this new dam and fall over all Southeastern Asia. To avoid this you need to make a serious cleanup that may last tens of years. I don't think chinese will have the pacience to do this, first blow and then wait 30-40 years to build the dam.
And what considers people at my local university... Well I'm sitting right in the place where one of the first medical labs for radiation studies was created. The lab moved but people remember why it was formed... Part of the Soviet A-Bomb was planned/tested a few hundreds of meters from here... That's for the troll...
Correct, maybe I didn't differ them quite well in the text. Beta & Alphas are called rays because they are emitted at high velocities. In this point they look similar to light. Besides they were found in a time when people still didn't make big differences between particles and light. If you take a look, a lot of people talk about gamma & beta rays. Betas are nothing more than electrons at high velocity. Alpha, as far as I remember are helium nuclei.
You are not correct abou inhaling them. The danger of these particles is on the fact that they are launched at very high velocities. And so their energy becomes quite high. You are correct that clothes may stop them. But I wouldn't risk...
On what concerns "you can make a device". I don't think so. As far as I remember alphas are one of the main actors on the first levels of fission. Air is mostly enough to stop their path beyond a certain radius. Betas are usually originated by the interaction of air with gamma rays. Yes I could be really mistaken here because I studied this 15 years ago. But as far as I remember, while you can get rid of alpha the same doesn't go for beta and gamma rays.
Dnepr sands, in that place were irradiating the equivalent of 30 roentgens/hour. That's how the doctor we talked with "translated" for most of us the level of radiation. Usually such types of radiation are measured with other units. Roentgensas far as I know are a measure of intensity of elctromagnetic rays but most people don't understand Beckerels & other stuff so he told us this way. - Measure was taken in place by a special team of the Medical Institute at Kiev.
The effect was much like the one you get on a 1 degree fireburn. After a few days, if I didn't touch the burn, skin forms something that looks like snakeskin. A pass of the hand through it drops the whole skin and I got back on the same reddish/pinkish area I had from start. It does not depend on time, few hours or days and I got the same. It was quite painful and sometimes it glued to my clothes (the thing layed on my upper limb, so I had to hold up). Meanwhile, around the burn, I had small deep wounds that didn't heal at all. These wounds were the last that disappeared. No medications connected to fireburns did help. Covering the area with plasters or equivalent produced quite painful results (it produced a lot of lymphatic moisture & blood). The thing started to recede by itself and after six monthes it ended. For nearly two years this area continued to produce a funny skin. I just pick it up and get a 3-4 square centimeters of skin out of my body. Now I have nothing special except that capilars grow a little weird there (they keep growing under the skin). The initial affected area was nearly 5 square centimeters.
"uhm the sun?"
Cool. You don't need the Ozone layer. You don't even need the atmosphere maybe...
well what the hell were you touching? you dont get burns like that from air contamination.
Laying on the sand... Nothing more than laying on the sand near the Dnepr river on a hot Summer Sun. When the sunburn didn't go after two weeks I got worried. And got the happy news. The place was highly radioactive and only then people noted it. One friend got it over a larger portion of the body and two others had it on the legs. As far as I know no one suffered from it longer than a year.
Once again I note:
"there are no radiological clean _blasts_ in nature"
A: Nuclear fission in an explosive device ALWAYS creates byproducts
B: Do not compare controlled energy event with UNCONTROLLED one. An explosion, even from a petard is ALWAYS UNCONTROLLED within the radius of the event. You may try to control the limits of the explosion not the explosion itself. and on what concerns nuclear devices this becames more problematic, due to the fact you are dealing with atoms and making a large blow of energy.
C: Nuclear blasts also IRRADIATE the environment through the whole spectre of light. So there can be several consequences, ranging from heat burns on living beings to formation of short-living isotopes. You may try to reach an "optimal" burn of the nuclear device. But what about the rest? Anyway you can't get rid off the gamma, alpha & beta rays.
D: A nuclear device creates isotopes. Several of them. They will live a N time. This N time ranges from hours to thousands of years. They are not only dangerous because they irradiate soemthing. They are also dangerous because they decay and are consequently the ground for mutations. Mutations that may not happen with you or your children but which will appear on your granson or grandchild.
E: Don't mess things between a controlled irradiation of humans/animals and such things as atomic weapons for military/engineering purposes. You stopped short here on claiming on small amounts are beneficial. Even some of the harshest levels of gamma rays are used to cure people with cancer. Levels that, if produced over the whole body, would give a few minutes/hours of life. Nearly enough to ask for the coffin, kiss your wife, and say bye to your kids...
"I've always wondered why nobody has ever actually used nuclear explosives in civil engineering projects, if (and this is a BIG if) the blasts can be made reasonably radiologically clean."
First - the article mentions Soviet Union as the only country who used nuclear devices for civil pruposes.
Second - Yes USSR did it. And the consequences have shown that it is not worth to do it again. Radiaton and several other factors make the use of nuclear devices a big problem. Until now there are a few places on the Urals and Ukraine that give trouble due to the levels of radiation. One of them is located right on one of the biggest coal basins of the world where population density is quite high.
Third - curiously, during this year, I have noted several references on the net related to civil use of nuclear explosives. So it amazes me a little that someone talks about "radiological clean" blasts. There are no radiological clean nuclear blasts in nature and it is stupid to claim such thing.
Fourth - Some people may not be aware of this. The problem with nuclear explosions is not only related to radiation but also to how you can control it. Nuclear blasts cannot be fully predictable. Sometimes calculations make errors of of 2-3 times or even more. Second the blasting of a device and the failure of the fission/fusion process can be of unpredictable consequences. Imagine if such situation happens in this dam(n) project. You risk to poison the entire Eastern Asia, the most populated place on Earth.
Fifth - If you know History than you may see that China's government has a harsh dossier on what relates to use of nuclear devices. During Cold War they made an experiment where they dropped thousands of soldiers near an atmospheric nuclear blast. If we compare the pictures to American and Russian military "rabbits", these guys were completely naked to radiation effects. Now I know what radiation may cause to someone. I had a neighbor who slowly died from radiation from exactly one of these military "experiments". He was equipped according to all standards and still radiation caught him. The picture is horrible. Think about a guy that pushes one leg while walking, lost nearly all teeth, nearly cannot speak, his skin completely burned and having cancer slooooooowly eating his bones. The most horrible is that he is living 20 YEARS with this.
Radiation is a snipper you see only two late. Myself I got burned from a radiation "hot spot" near Kiev, less then two years after Chernobyl. I never guessed what was happening on my right limb until one friend told me they had found the spot in that place (I got the equivalent of a 1 degree burn that took just 6 monthes to heal).
Sometimes I wonder if people do read the articles before posting here. Sincerly the average IQ, quality and quantity of Slashdot articles have downgraded drastically for the last time. Time for you people to seriously think about this or soon this will be News for Gooks. Stuff that mutters.
I've been using 2.4 in regular scale since the first test1 appeared. Generally it is much more stable on my machine. Besides the SMP is clearly better and does not suffer some weirdnesses I noted while using 2.2. Besides I need 2.4 for my 3D card as I use XFree4, UDMA/66 and a TVcard. These things are somehow in 2.2 also. But they are mostly patches, with several bugfixes and not working so well as in 2.4.
Yes there are several bugs and features on 2.4. But that depends for what you are using it. On a production server it may still carry some risks. On my workstation it fits perfectly for my tasks.
Well funny to see this article. Here we have the INVERSE of this... If we get anyone sneaking NT or Win00 servers then he may get a hot time with us... Windows servers are not allowed for major network task. Choose Linux, Solaris, BSD, Novell or the Hell. M$ is OUTTA HERE!
This is done for these reasons:
There are some piracy issues around here and we don't wanna take even the slightest risk of supporting a pirated platform, specially after the dumb M$ sneak-under-your-desk-for-pirate-soft campaign in Moscow.
We have a quite long experience with M$ platform soft. On servers the results were from bad to catasthrophic. The only thing we managed to do with such systems was to create small one-task servers for a very specific range of problems and conditions. Our specifics demand that servers should carry several tasks, generally process some terabytes per week and serve a few thousands of users. That is impossible to achieve under an M$ environment.
There is also the financial aspect. We have highly qualified experts. The TCO for *NIX soft is nothing to be compared with Windows. M$ support is frankly miserable here. Windows workstation support is the heaviest cost we have here. Our practical experience has shown that the support for NT reaches 10-60 hours week in a network of 70 machines and needs 2-3 people tied in their seats. On Linux it is an amazing 4 hour/week and requires only one person who doesn't need to stay 'round the clock in his place.
And, to end the financial aspect, we had a case when we paid Microsoft for nothing, just because they force OEMs to bundle soft in their machines. Probably only 10%-15% of this soft is really used here. The rest was humanitarian help from us to Bill Gates...