A good night's sleep, frequent breaks, and rest periods. Whenever I switch to a new task, I methodically clean up after the last one - close terminals, browser tabs, diagnostic programs, everything. Sometimes interruptions are avoidable, and I have to open a ticket for something, but I make the quickest note possible so I can get back to my task right away.
How would one "go" plain text, exactly? Start using telnet for remote logins? Stop hashing passwords?
Anyway, I didn't change my practices. I had already assumed that all of my web and email traffic should be treated as if it were completely public.
IMHO, a removed line should count for 10 times as much as an added line.
Rather annoying that it's called a "first amendment" right. It has nothing to do with the first amendment. If anything, the ninth amendment is a better justification. The very best justification is that there is no law against it.
> Isn't this the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl?
Yes. As the submitter said.
> Should the summary read a bit more like 'averting a worse nuclear disaster than Chernobyl'?
No. Basically, all their efforts failed, so it was as bad as it could have been. And it was still much less severe than Chernobyl.
"One thing I hadn't realized was just how close workers came to averting the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl."
It was the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl.
Yes, and that is what the anonymous submitter said. I don't think you parsed the sentence correctly.
A better title for this post would be "US Supreme Court Upholds Extrajudicial Confinement".
I was going to be irritated by the one-sidedness of the summary, but after reading the article, it's apparent that the submitter is spot on. Blount's rant is one of the most ignorant tirades I've ever read, and the "Luddite" title fits him like a glove. He wants job protection for no other reason than some jobs are threatened:
- There is no copyright violation
- There is no patent violation
- There is no contractual violation
- There is no theft
There is basically no violation of the law or any ethical guideline.
To enact his suggestion would prevent a large number of people from benefiting from this technology. He would make readers into leeches at the expense of the public. He is an embarrassment.
An extensive survey of the two groups showed that the exclusion of violence didn't diminish players' enjoyment of the game.
I hope they did more then just ask them how much they enjoyed themselves. People can be unreliable when asked such questions, for any number of reasons, such as not wanting to appear like bloodthirsty savages when questioned by authority figures.
Strange - it almost seems like you interpreted everything on that page as a criticism.
it has not crashed more than 1 or 2 times in 2237 days of cumulative uptime
Apparently, you have pre-existing stability problems with this box. The fact that it crashed yet again yesterday should come as no great surprise.
Please read more of the article before posting. The activity being described is a brute-force SSH login attack that is distributed across a botnet.
(Yes, the title of the article is misleading, as botnets are by definition distributed; the interesting bit is that SSH brute-force attacks against a specific host don't seem to have been distributed before.)
Here's the relevant bit:
See for example the attempts to log on as the alias user, 14 attempts are made from 13 different hosts, with only 70-46-140-187.orl.fdn.com trying more than once. Then thirteen attempts are made for the amanda user, from 13 other hosts.
fail2ban is not effective against this.
I dunno, this seems like double-talk to me:
Obama and Biden will fight for a trade policy that opens up foreign markets to support good American jobs. They will use trade agreements to spread good labor and environmental standards around the world...
The first sentence is contradicted by the second. When you insist on extra conditions as prerequisites to trade agreements, such as good labor and environmental standards, you necessarily increase the cost of trade to whomever you're negotiating with. Thus, the likelihood of trade is decreased. Decreasing trade is the opposite of opening up foreign markets.
This is independent of the question of whether insisting on labor and environmental standards is good.