This decision is in no way surprising to anyone who knows copyright law. US Copyright law *explicitly* states that you do not have a right to resell digital copies, and if those guys had a lawyer advising them on their business when they set it up, they should be suing him for malpractice now. Look up "First Sale Doctrine" if you're having trouble sleeping.
If you're a cynic (as I am) this is evidence of the ridiculous influence of copyright owners on Washington.
However, there is *some* rational for this - if you buy a CD and then sell it to someone else, no new copies have been made. But, if you buy an MP3, and then sell it to someone else, to do so, you must make a copy. Which means you're now in copyright territory, since you're selling a copy of the work without the author's permission.
Now, personally speaking, I think if you're going to certify your copy has been destroyed, this shouldn't be a problem - but that's the law, now, and has been for more than a decade (maybe longer, I started paying attention when I was at EMusic ca. 1998).
It was user created content that caused all the controversy over GTA and Oblivion.
No. The "hot coffee" content was always in GTA, just not accessible. Can a Gameshark code be called "user-created content"?
Well, regardless, the point is that a proposal is on the table to make the ESRB play through "all" of the video games it rates. They could've played San Andreas for years, and they never would've found the "hot coffee" content, since it was not directly reachable from in the game. Or are you saying ESRB should be required to try every possible Gameshark code before it rates games?
For the purposes of this discussion, there's no difference between truly "user created content" and "enabling unreachable content by minor modification of the running executable." Neither of them is something the ESRB is going to be able to pass an opinion on until the modification happens. Since this legislation in supposedly in response to the recent "scandals" of GTA and Oblivion, it's worth noting that it would've prevented neither.
OTOH, if you're like me, I like to leave my WLAN open so that passersby can use it if they need it. I appreciate all of the open WLANs I make use of, so I like to return the favor. In that case, a VPN is critical.
Well, there is that, and I do that at home, as well, as much for friends who come over as for strangers. But, in general, I find there is little that I would ever need to be secure from just one place - I'll need to access it from another place (e.g., work), even if the physical network it's connected to is secure.
Also, the vast majority of my traffic - other than streaming music internally and the backup mentioned before - goes off my network, so I definitely don't want to think "Hey, I'm using an encrypted wireless link, so I'm safe!" for that stuff. Just in general, I tend to think that, if you're relying on the unbreakability of the network, it's very easy to end up accidentally sending information all over the place if you're not paying a lot of attention. Running all of your sensitive stuff on virtual-only VPN networks seems less likely to break without you noticing, to me.
And, at the end of the day, I'm really lazy. If I have to get the VPN going to make it possible to connect from work, anyway, why would I then bother with WPA?;) Finally, remember I had to make all this work originally using 2000-era WEP, which wasn't worth the trouble in any event. Now that it all works, WPA doesn't seem like it would add much, and I don't have to worry about any security flaws in it, moving forward.
I'm not sure how representative of Cisco in general this is because I'm pretty sure Cisco got into the wireless business the way they've gotten into basically every other business: They bought someone. Aironet, in this case, and not long before mine was made. The PCMCIA cards I had for it were marked Aironet, and the WAP is marked as "Cisco Aironet 340." It was MUCH more capable than the consumer WAPs are - it can be a bridge, or mesh, or repeater. I suspect that a factor in cutting the price from $700 is that they typically cut out all the non-WAP functionality for the consumer grade versions. So, if you want a WAP, that's one part number, if you want a bridge, that's another.
Be that as it may, however, the back does say "Assembled in USA." But, again, that may have more to do with Aironet's business setup than Cisco's. Also, at the time I bought this I believe it was essentially the only one available, so it may be that a big factor in cutting the price from $700 to $100 was not the cheaper assembly but the realities of competition.
Also, I'd like to correct my previous post - I'd misremembered that b was 1Mbps (I confused it with 10-base T ethernet, I guess), it was 11. So, in fact, my example 8 GB copy would take 99 minutes on 802.11b, and my Internet connection IS slower than 802.11b, anyway, at 6Mbps. More or less removing my entire justification, though 20 minutes to copy versus 99 is pretty nice:).
I had one of the first in-home 802.11b networks. I plunked down like $700 for a Cisco WAP back in 2000 or 2001 because I had a really challenging home network solution that would've cost a lot more than that to run wiring where I needed it. The WAP kept chugging along - those old Cisco units were really reliable - and I finally retired it about a month ago.
My DSL is (supposedly) 6Mbps downstream, so I could've justified it just on that grounds. My wireless was definitely slower than my network connection. But, at the end of the day, the fact that I process video and (now very large RAW) pictures on my laptop caused me to pull the trigger. After I'm done processing, I generally want to copy my files up to a server for backup. On a recent trip, I shot 8 GB of photos. Copying that on b would take about 18 hours. Copying it on g would take about 20 minutes. Obviously, even bigger video files would be worse.
As for security - I certainly don't trust ANY wireless (or wired, for that matter) system for security. I depend on application level security whenever I can get it (SSL, SSH) and VPNs when that's not an option. It's hard for me to imagine upgrading to g or n just for security - anything that does need to be secure in my world already is. Trusting ANY network is a good way to get caught with your pants down.
So, don't dismiss the performance gains from b to g. I increased my Internet download speed from 1Mbps to 6Mbps, and that was certainly worth the (compared to 2001) cheap cost of my new WAP. Even if your Internet connection is 1Mbps or slower, you may still have significant benefits if you copy large files around inside your network.
"With the exception of the barrier, the cap is of unitary construction." So, make the cap of two or more pieces. "The cap has one or more integrally formed prongs extending from the inner surface of the disc toward the barrier." So, have the prong not be integral. "The prongs move in an axial direction toward the barrier and may also spread apart radially when the outer surface of the flexible member or an actuator connected to it is depressed by the user's finger." So, don't have the user press anything - maybe a twisting motion?
This patent is very, very specific to this individual design. The exothermic reaction is almost secondary to the patent claims.
What has you chained to your firewall?
on
Tear Down the Firewall
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Two words: Regulatory Compliance. Thanks to standards like CISP (the Visa security standard) and SAS-70 (the accounting standard), HIPPA (the medical privacy standard), firewalls are mandated for many US businesses, even small ones.
At my last company, we didn't have a firewall on the website, because my philosophy was "I'm running port scanning to make sure 22, 80 and 443 are the only ports listening on the boxes - why should I put a firewall in front of it to only let those ports through?"
Unfortunately, now, if you don't have a firewall, you're not in compliance. It's simply a cost of doing business - the security concerns are completely irellevent.
Obviously, you should be building your networks so they would work without firewalls - that's a lot more secure. But, unfortunately, you can't just throw the firewalls out even if you don't need them.
So, to be clear, if anyone else has Germanic trouble:
1) Install the plugin 2) Restart Firefox. It & the plugin will come up in German. 3) Do whatever's necessary to get past the opening dialog in German 4) Close Firefox 5) Run firefox again and it will be in English.
I am, of course, presuming that you don't *want* your Firefox to be in German. If you do, stop at number 2.:)
Yes, we've certainly seen how the ACLU has been disbanded by government edict for its criticism. I myself watched last week as a neighbor with a "no blood for oil" bumpersticker was dragged away by Bush's jackbooted thugs while we all stood helpess, paralyzed by fear.
*rolls eyes*
Get over it, people. If you think this is a police state you have no idea what a police state is. They're going to allow the FBI to do to suspected terrorists with no known foreign connections what they already do to terrorists with known foreign connections and they've been able to do to enforce the controlled substances act for 20 years. That's not a police state. A police state is is when no one dares even say that the Patriot Act is bad because they know they'll vanish if they do.
Certainly, we should remain vigilant to keep one from occuring here (and keep our firearms in working order as well). But calling what we have now a police state (and I realize that you, Mattsson, didn't, but a lot of other people have and I'm talkig to them) is just crying wolf. Should anyone actually try to institute a police state, you're going to make it harder for those of us opposing to to be taken seriously.
At least I'm not so scared I can't post under my own name.:)
As you can see from my other posts in this thread, I am far from uncritical of the state of rights in this country. I just happen to think that infantile fantasies about GWB declaring a police state are a distraction from the real crusades against our rights that have been going on for the past thirty years.
GWB isn't going to declare himself President for life. It's an unwarrented, ridiculous charge. Even if he was planning to do so, anyone who thinks he could actually get away with it is either deluding themselves or watched Revenge of the Sith one too many times (although some would argue a single viewing would cross that threshold;). GWB will step down, on schedule, January 20, 2009. For him to not do so would be completely unprecedented in American politics and would not be tolerated for any noticable length of time. If you think otherwise on either count, you have so marginalized yourself from the rest of this country that your opinion is largely irellevant.
I don't think that was the implication. But, if he did, I think that has a snowball's chance in hell of happening. Amending the constitution is hard. It wouldn't be practical without the help of the Democratic party, and that just ain't gonna happen. You need either a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress to start an amendment, or a majority vote of 2/3 of the state legislatures. Even if you get that, then 3/4 of the state legislatures have to vote for it. I seriously doubt you could get it done before 2008 even if the Republicans had 2/3 majorities in both houses (they don't) and controled 3/4 of the state legislatures (they don't; they control 21 of 50). That idea is going nowhere, fast.
Yeah, but not one that'll work here. We don't have (for example) a state-run media. We also have a people who are very proud of their 229 history of elections and aren't going to throw it out.
Seriously, if you think this is actually going to happen, and that he'd get away with it you have some serious issues with reality, and I hope you feel as sheepish on January 21, 2009 as all those Republicans extremists who predicted Clinton wouldn't give up power felt on January 21, 2001. Believe it or not, there were some. And I think the Democrats who spew ridiculous things like this about Bush are making about as much sense as Republicans who used to say stuff like this about Clinton. You may disagree with him, but if you honestly think he's so corrupt that he'd manipulate an event in order to turn himself into a literal dictator - and, worse than that, that the media, the military and the Democratic party would let him get away with it - well, I think you're going to feel pretty ridiculous when you look back on this in ten years.
As such an "in touch" person who sees what's really going on - you do realize that most of the powers the Patriot Act gave to the FBI to fight terrorists, it's had to fight the drug war since 1982? And to fight Medicare fraud since 1997? And have been used by federal agencies from OSHA to the SEC in the verification of their regulations? That, in fact, the only thing that's kept the FBI from using these powers against you for the past twenty years is that they're either basically honest or just don't give a damn about you?
The war on drugs did far more to trample the rights of the citizens of the US than the war on terrorism ever has (or will). People whining about this stuff now have been asleep at the switch for a very long time. You want to crusade for freedom - don't start trying to block minor enhancements to FBI power like this. Start by trying to roll back all the laws and court decisions over the past twenty years that have rolled back your 4th and 5th amendment rights, that have elimninated any expectation of privacy in financial transactions, that have made it very difficult to do anything significant in cash. Undo law enforcement's ridiculous powers to sieze your property without trial and sell it for their profit. End racial profile stops that result in drug searches.
It's not some Bush or Republican plot. They're just trying to do to terrorists what we've been doing to drug users and dealers for a really long time. The elimination of our rights has come from both parties, as they've both controlled Congress and the White House over the time this has occurred. If you're mad at Bush personally about the Patriot Act, you're blinding yourself to the fact that it passed the Senate 98-1. No party or president has a monopoly on favoring expedience over principle. While Brave Democratic Senators stand up against these largely meaningless provisions of the Patriot Act, no person in any party is making any move to restore the rights we've already had stolen from us.
This Patriot Act crap is mouse nuts compared to what Congress and the courts have done to our rights in order to stop demon weed over the past two decades. I'll be impressed with your clarity of vision when you start being mad about the stuff that's important.
Yes. A little perspective here, please. Whatever you think of this proposal to expand the Patriot Act, recognize that it is only a proposal. The original article states: The FBI has gained new powers to demand documents from companies without a judge's approval...
The FBI has gained nothing. No laws have been changed. There is no new secret, Judge-free subpoena power. It is possible that there will be such a power in the future, but this is just one of the very first steps needed to get it done.
Other commenters in this thread have bemoaned that poor state of education in the US, that so many citizens don't know what rights they have. Well, it's not quite as grand as all that, but here's a little civics lesson for those of you whose main political information comes from/.:
Laws in this country must be passed in both the Senate and the House. The process is often very messy and cantankerous. Even a very popular bill can get stalled using different parlementary techniques, and it is not uncommon that a bill that looked unbeatable in January will end up dying in some comittee and not passing by the end of the year. More controversial bills are even harder to get through, and there is a very complicated chess game that goes on in which bills are ammended and revised as they move through the process.
This particular bill apparently passed the Senate Intelligence Commite, 11-4, a couple of days ago. If you look in more serious news accounts, they make it a lot more clear that no new powers have been granted, and this is but merely the opening salvo in a long Congressional negotiation on this topic.
From here, the bill travels to the Senate Judiciary Committe, where "Feinstein and other Democrats planned to again offer amendments." Even if it makes it through there as-is, it would need to be considered by the whole Senate. Even if it passes there, a parallel bill will have been going through an analogous process in the House. Those two bills probably won't be the same by the time they pass both houses of Congress, so from there it's off to the joint committee to come up with a "compromise version" that everyone expects will pass both houses. Finally, the House of Representatives and Senate both vote on the final version, and, if it passes, it goes to the President for his signature.
It is quite impossible to say at this point if some provision voted into a bill in an early Senate committee is going to make it into law.
I believe concerns about this particular provision of the bill to be a bit misplaced. As best as I can determine, this takes the existing system for issuing subpoenas to companies for relevant documentation that exists in "foreign intelligence" cases and applies the same standard in domestive "terrorism" cases. So, for example, if the CIA turned up evidence that someone trained in Pakistan and is a member of Al Qaeda, as it stands right now, they could issue a subpoena without a Judge's prior approval to gather information from (i.e.) the phone company to try to build a case against him. However, if the FBI determined that a purely domestic terrorist was planning on blowing something up, they would not be able to use the same power.
I would like to see a frank and open debate in this country about the privacy and expectation of privacy of records owned by companies. Under the existing US Constitution and laws, if I make a phone call, the record of that phone call belongs to the phone company, not me. The phone company has no fourth amendment protection against "unreasonable searches and seziures," and it is therefore much easier, from a constitutional basis, to get a warrent to request some documents. As well, the phone company has no particular interest in fighting such requests, so it complies with the
True. He has admitted that he speaks with god or jesus. I suppose he could announce that Jesus told him to serve a third term - and there are enough crazy religious sheeple in this country that would accept it.
Anyone who seriously thinks the US is a "police state" right now because of the "war on terrorism" is seriously lacking in historical perspective. The "war on drugs" has been much more harmful to civil liberties for the average American than anything the Bush administration or the last couple of Congresses have done.
As to the original idea - that there are so many "crazy religious sheeple in this country" that GWB could simply declare himself the next coming of Jesus and do whatever he wants: Assuming you're not just kidding, it's a ridiculous statement.
I would happily bet you (or the author of the parent of your post) $1,000 that GWB will not be President of the United States on January 21, 2009. Do you seriously think A) he would just ignore the constitution and B) everyone else would let him get away with it (especially including whomever the Democratic candidate for President is)? How would that work, exactly? He'd call off the election? You think states would stand for that? He'd let the election happen and then...what? Refuse to move out like a tenant who can't pay the rent? If you think that would last more than about three hours you seriously misunderstand this country. Evangelical Christians are a larger percentage of the electorate than I (as an atheist) would prefer, but they are far from a majority in this country. Even if they were able to wield power far in excess of ther size, they are by no means a monolothic block. A large percentage of them, believe it or not, respect the order of law and don't actually want a theocracy in this country (even if they do hold some moral beliefs informed by their religion that I disagree with). Not many of them would want a religiously annointed, unelected leader. Believe it or not.
I mean, you're talking about a man with 45% approval ratings. You seriously think he'd be able to say - whatever his justification - "I'm not going to give up this office," and other people - especially the other people who want said office - are simply going to let him do it?
As to your last point, I agree that I wish people were more educated about the unalienable rights we have. I wish more people understood the way the Constitution attempts to lock the government off to prevent those rights being trampled on. But that's not a new, unique phenomenon - the average American is woefully uneducated about much of our laws and history. I recall reading in the 80s that a majority of high school seniors identified the phrase "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" as being a phrase from the US constitution. So, having no idea what's in that document isn't a new phenomenon.
In summary: The ACLU needed to be screaming more about the rights we lost in the war on drugs. Most of this Patriot Act whining they're doing now is over things of little actual consequence. My fear is that, like the boy who cried wolf, when some future Congress or President really does try to institute a police state no one will be paying attention to the ACLU because "they always scream about everything, but nothing really bad ever happens."
Re:Info on what exactly SHA-1 is ...
on
SHA-1 Broken
·
· Score: 1
His statements aren't contradictory: this failure in this hashing system didn't come about from the increase in computing speeds. Cryptographic and hashing functions are designed such that the most effecient attack is a "brute force attack," in other words, simply trying every possible combination. Then, you choose a key size (or digest length in SHA-1's case) that you calculate that, even with the predictable doubling of computing power every 18 months, will still result in the message taking an awfully long time to brute force. You're usually looking at numbers in the 50-100 year time frame before even major-world-government-level attackers can brute force it.
This isn't an attack based on, all of the sudden, "Wow! Computers got faster than we thought and that 50 year time horizon is all of the sudden six months!" These attackers analyzed SHA-1 and figured out a way to do it faster than brute force. However fast the computer it's being run on. So it isn't contradictory to say "I would've predicted that computers would've gotten this fast, but I'm very surprised SHA-1 only lasted ten years." If the hypothesis of its designers was correct (that the most effecient attack against it was the brute-force), then even the march of computing power shouldn't have caused it any problems for many decades to come. It was designed with the increase in computing power in mind.
So, in the poster in the picture of the clock, she's holding a gun. On IMDB, she's holding a gun. But on IMDB's poster link, her hands are open. What's up with that?
Bzzt. They have two-player games for it. If you RTFA, there's a Set of 2 Commodore 64 30-in-1 Classic Plug & Play Video Game available as well, in which the second joystick plugs into the first joystick. Certainly the reason is a combination of space limitations and lack of ability to license those games at a reasonable cost.
I think the big chain retail bookstores are a more realistic model for how successful retailers are going to adapt to the net. Four or five years ago, the buzz was that Amazon.com was going to flat put all of them out of business. So, Barnes & Nobel and Borders realized that people needed a good reason to come into their stores. I worked in a Waldenbooks fifteen years ago, and we had no facilities for lingering over books (and actively discouraged browsing by those who seemed unlikely to buy). Beverages were forbidden. But now, you go into a major chain bookstore, you'll find chairs to sit in and a cafe to buy drinks from.
The successful retailers are going to realize that they can't compete on price, but they can compete on experience. A big chunk of consumers are going to be perfectly happy to pay a premium for a conveniently located store with friendly service that makes them feel at home. Contrary to the assertion that we can "Look forward to people being kicked out by security," the stores that actually make it are going to be the ones that invite you down to just browse, to hang out, and check out all the models. Some percentage of those customers are going to decide they want it now, and will want to give their business to the company that was so helpful.
Is my local retailer that's rude and expensive going to die out? Sure, if it doesn't change. But I'm not going to lose much sleep over that.
I'll address your second first, because it's easier. Go to Tools->Options->Advanced->Accessabulity and uncheck "Begin finding when you begin typing." I'm not 100% sure that addresses all your concerns, but it's a start.
On the first one - I realize this is a lot more of a pain than deleting libullplugin, but I think I have solution for you. I presume you are mostly complaining about flash. Download and install the adblock extension. Ad an adblock extension for *.swf, and adblock will block all flash for you, and I'm betting that'll happen before it looks for the plugin and stop the warnings.
I think this hits it on the head - Images isn't updated very often. Check out, for example, pictures of the toddler who was rescued from a well a week ago. A regular Google search for Jermere McMillan photo returns 117 results, the first of which has a picture. An image search for Jermere McMillan returns no result. Although it's hard to imagine what the Bush administration's angle is on supressing that picture.
Even more clearly that this is not a sinister Bush/Rove plot: Ashley Faulkner is a girl whose mother died on September 11, 2001. There is a recently famous picture of George Bush giving Ashley a hug that a Bush-friendly 527 made into a political ad. This picture has been known about for some time; the picture was taken at the beginning of May and was reported on at the time. It's certainly had time to propagate through the net: A google search for Ashley Faulkner Bush photo returns 4290 results, the first few of which all include the picture. A Google image search for Ashley Faulkner Bush returns no images. Explain to me again how propagating this image would be "Politcally Undesirable" for the Bush administration.
Rob just speculating this is government malfeasance is ridiculous. There is no evidence to support his positiona and no evidence to even suggest it. Slashdot should post a conspicious retraction to this groundless acusation. The story here isn't "Bush represses Google," it's "Google's image index isn't updated very often." Stick to reporting the news, please, not your tired conspiracy theories!
Slashdot Mirror
This decision is in no way surprising to anyone who knows copyright law. US Copyright law *explicitly* states that you do not have a right to resell digital copies, and if those guys had a lawyer advising them on their business when they set it up, they should be suing him for malpractice now. Look up "First Sale Doctrine" if you're having trouble sleeping.
If you're a cynic (as I am) this is evidence of the ridiculous influence of copyright owners on Washington.
However, there is *some* rational for this - if you buy a CD and then sell it to someone else, no new copies have been made. But, if you buy an MP3, and then sell it to someone else, to do so, you must make a copy. Which means you're now in copyright territory, since you're selling a copy of the work without the author's permission.
Now, personally speaking, I think if you're going to certify your copy has been destroyed, this shouldn't be a problem - but that's the law, now, and has been for more than a decade (maybe longer, I started paying attention when I was at EMusic ca. 1998).
Well, regardless, the point is that a proposal is on the table to make the ESRB play through "all" of the video games it rates. They could've played San Andreas for years, and they never would've found the "hot coffee" content, since it was not directly reachable from in the game. Or are you saying ESRB should be required to try every possible Gameshark code before it rates games?
For the purposes of this discussion, there's no difference between truly "user created content" and "enabling unreachable content by minor modification of the running executable." Neither of them is something the ESRB is going to be able to pass an opinion on until the modification happens. Since this legislation in supposedly in response to the recent "scandals" of GTA and Oblivion, it's worth noting that it would've prevented neither.
OTOH, if you're like me, I like to leave my WLAN open so that passersby can use it if they need it. I appreciate all of the open WLANs I make use of, so I like to return the favor. In that case, a VPN is critical.
;) Finally, remember I had to make all this work originally using 2000-era WEP, which wasn't worth the trouble in any event. Now that it all works, WPA doesn't seem like it would add much, and I don't have to worry about any security flaws in it, moving forward.
Well, there is that, and I do that at home, as well, as much for friends who come over as for strangers. But, in general, I find there is little that I would ever need to be secure from just one place - I'll need to access it from another place (e.g., work), even if the physical network it's connected to is secure.
Also, the vast majority of my traffic - other than streaming music internally and the backup mentioned before - goes off my network, so I definitely don't want to think "Hey, I'm using an encrypted wireless link, so I'm safe!" for that stuff. Just in general, I tend to think that, if you're relying on the unbreakability of the network, it's very easy to end up accidentally sending information all over the place if you're not paying a lot of attention. Running all of your sensitive stuff on virtual-only VPN networks seems less likely to break without you noticing, to me.
And, at the end of the day, I'm really lazy. If I have to get the VPN going to make it possible to connect from work, anyway, why would I then bother with WPA?
I'm not sure how representative of Cisco in general this is because I'm pretty sure Cisco got into the wireless business the way they've gotten into basically every other business: They bought someone. Aironet, in this case, and not long before mine was made. The PCMCIA cards I had for it were marked Aironet, and the WAP is marked as "Cisco Aironet 340." It was MUCH more capable than the consumer WAPs are - it can be a bridge, or mesh, or repeater. I suspect that a factor in cutting the price from $700 is that they typically cut out all the non-WAP functionality for the consumer grade versions. So, if you want a WAP, that's one part number, if you want a bridge, that's another.
:).
Be that as it may, however, the back does say "Assembled in USA." But, again, that may have more to do with Aironet's business setup than Cisco's. Also, at the time I bought this I believe it was essentially the only one available, so it may be that a big factor in cutting the price from $700 to $100 was not the cheaper assembly but the realities of competition.
Also, I'd like to correct my previous post - I'd misremembered that b was 1Mbps (I confused it with 10-base T ethernet, I guess), it was 11. So, in fact, my example 8 GB copy would take 99 minutes on 802.11b, and my Internet connection IS slower than 802.11b, anyway, at 6Mbps. More or less removing my entire justification, though 20 minutes to copy versus 99 is pretty nice
I had one of the first in-home 802.11b networks. I plunked down like $700 for a Cisco WAP back in 2000 or 2001 because I had a really challenging home network solution that would've cost a lot more than that to run wiring where I needed it. The WAP kept chugging along - those old Cisco units were really reliable - and I finally retired it about a month ago.
My DSL is (supposedly) 6Mbps downstream, so I could've justified it just on that grounds. My wireless was definitely slower than my network connection. But, at the end of the day, the fact that I process video and (now very large RAW) pictures on my laptop caused me to pull the trigger. After I'm done processing, I generally want to copy my files up to a server for backup. On a recent trip, I shot 8 GB of photos. Copying that on b would take about 18 hours. Copying it on g would take about 20 minutes. Obviously, even bigger video files would be worse.
As for security - I certainly don't trust ANY wireless (or wired, for that matter) system for security. I depend on application level security whenever I can get it (SSL, SSH) and VPNs when that's not an option. It's hard for me to imagine upgrading to g or n just for security - anything that does need to be secure in my world already is. Trusting ANY network is a good way to get caught with your pants down.
So, don't dismiss the performance gains from b to g. I increased my Internet download speed from 1Mbps to 6Mbps, and that was certainly worth the (compared to 2001) cheap cost of my new WAP. Even if your Internet connection is 1Mbps or slower, you may still have significant benefits if you copy large files around inside your network.
Clearly we're in desperate need of an "Ignore; Moron -1" moderation...
And, Lord knows, this was a slashdot-specific story, and you certainly couldn't have gotten details anywhere else before you opened your mouth.
Yes, this patent is *very* specific:
"With the exception of the barrier, the cap is of unitary construction." So, make the cap of two or more pieces. "The cap has one or more integrally formed prongs extending from the inner surface of the disc toward the barrier." So, have the prong not be integral. "The prongs move in an axial direction toward the barrier and may also spread apart radially when the outer surface of the flexible member or an actuator connected to it is depressed by the user's finger." So, don't have the user press anything - maybe a twisting motion?
This patent is very, very specific to this individual design. The exothermic reaction is almost secondary to the patent claims.
Two words: Regulatory Compliance. Thanks to standards like CISP (the Visa security standard) and SAS-70 (the accounting standard), HIPPA (the medical privacy standard), firewalls are mandated for many US businesses, even small ones.
At my last company, we didn't have a firewall on the website, because my philosophy was "I'm running port scanning to make sure 22, 80 and 443 are the only ports listening on the boxes - why should I put a firewall in front of it to only let those ports through?"
Unfortunately, now, if you don't have a firewall, you're not in compliance. It's simply a cost of doing business - the security concerns are completely irellevent.
Obviously, you should be building your networks so they would work without firewalls - that's a lot more secure. But, unfortunately, you can't just throw the firewalls out even if you don't need them.
Thanks! That worked for me, too.
:)
So, to be clear, if anyone else has Germanic trouble:
1) Install the plugin
2) Restart Firefox. It & the plugin will come up in German.
3) Do whatever's necessary to get past the opening dialog in German
4) Close Firefox
5) Run firefox again and it will be in English.
I am, of course, presuming that you don't *want* your Firefox to be in German. If you do, stop at number 2.
Yes, it's quite insistent on my Linux box that it install in German - and turn the whole app into German, too!
Any idea how to fix this? Uninstalling, thankfully, seems to help with the language issue, but I'm interested in having the tool...
There ya go! Laura vs. Hillary in '08! Catfight!
Yes, we've certainly seen how the ACLU has been disbanded by government edict for its criticism. I myself watched last week as a neighbor with a "no blood for oil" bumpersticker was dragged away by Bush's jackbooted thugs while we all stood helpess, paralyzed by fear.
*rolls eyes*
Get over it, people. If you think this is a police state you have no idea what a police state is. They're going to allow the FBI to do to suspected terrorists with no known foreign connections what they already do to terrorists with known foreign connections and they've been able to do to enforce the controlled substances act for 20 years. That's not a police state. A police state is is when no one dares even say that the Patriot Act is bad because they know they'll vanish if they do.
Certainly, we should remain vigilant to keep one from occuring here (and keep our firearms in working order as well). But calling what we have now a police state (and I realize that you, Mattsson, didn't, but a lot of other people have and I'm talkig to them) is just crying wolf. Should anyone actually try to institute a police state, you're going to make it harder for those of us opposing to to be taken seriously.
At least I'm not so scared I can't post under my own name. :)
;). GWB will step down, on schedule, January 20, 2009. For him to not do so would be completely unprecedented in American politics and would not be tolerated for any noticable length of time. If you think otherwise on either count, you have so marginalized yourself from the rest of this country that your opinion is largely irellevant.
As you can see from my other posts in this thread, I am far from uncritical of the state of rights in this country. I just happen to think that infantile fantasies about GWB declaring a police state are a distraction from the real crusades against our rights that have been going on for the past thirty years.
GWB isn't going to declare himself President for life. It's an unwarrented, ridiculous charge. Even if he was planning to do so, anyone who thinks he could actually get away with it is either deluding themselves or watched Revenge of the Sith one too many times (although some would argue a single viewing would cross that threshold
I don't think that was the implication. But, if he did, I think that has a snowball's chance in hell of happening. Amending the constitution is hard. It wouldn't be practical without the help of the Democratic party, and that just ain't gonna happen. You need either a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress to start an amendment, or a majority vote of 2/3 of the state legislatures. Even if you get that, then 3/4 of the state legislatures have to vote for it. I seriously doubt you could get it done before 2008 even if the Republicans had 2/3 majorities in both houses (they don't) and controled 3/4 of the state legislatures (they don't; they control 21 of 50). That idea is going nowhere, fast.
Yeah, but not one that'll work here. We don't have (for example) a state-run media. We also have a people who are very proud of their 229 history of elections and aren't going to throw it out.
Seriously, if you think this is actually going to happen, and that he'd get away with it you have some serious issues with reality, and I hope you feel as sheepish on January 21, 2009 as all those Republicans extremists who predicted Clinton wouldn't give up power felt on January 21, 2001. Believe it or not, there were some. And I think the Democrats who spew ridiculous things like this about Bush are making about as much sense as Republicans who used to say stuff like this about Clinton. You may disagree with him, but if you honestly think he's so corrupt that he'd manipulate an event in order to turn himself into a literal dictator - and, worse than that, that the media, the military and the Democratic party would let him get away with it - well, I think you're going to feel pretty ridiculous when you look back on this in ten years.
As such an "in touch" person who sees what's really going on - you do realize that most of the powers the Patriot Act gave to the FBI to fight terrorists, it's had to fight the drug war since 1982? And to fight Medicare fraud since 1997? And have been used by federal agencies from OSHA to the SEC in the verification of their regulations? That, in fact, the only thing that's kept the FBI from using these powers against you for the past twenty years is that they're either basically honest or just don't give a damn about you?
The war on drugs did far more to trample the rights of the citizens of the US than the war on terrorism ever has (or will). People whining about this stuff now have been asleep at the switch for a very long time. You want to crusade for freedom - don't start trying to block minor enhancements to FBI power like this. Start by trying to roll back all the laws and court decisions over the past twenty years that have rolled back your 4th and 5th amendment rights, that have elimninated any expectation of privacy in financial transactions, that have made it very difficult to do anything significant in cash. Undo law enforcement's ridiculous powers to sieze your property without trial and sell it for their profit. End racial profile stops that result in drug searches.
It's not some Bush or Republican plot. They're just trying to do to terrorists what we've been doing to drug users and dealers for a really long time. The elimination of our rights has come from both parties, as they've both controlled Congress and the White House over the time this has occurred. If you're mad at Bush personally about the Patriot Act, you're blinding yourself to the fact that it passed the Senate 98-1. No party or president has a monopoly on favoring expedience over principle. While Brave Democratic Senators stand up against these largely meaningless provisions of the Patriot Act, no person in any party is making any move to restore the rights we've already had stolen from us.
This Patriot Act crap is mouse nuts compared to what Congress and the courts have done to our rights in order to stop demon weed over the past two decades. I'll be impressed with your clarity of vision when you start being mad about the stuff that's important.
Yes. A little perspective here, please. Whatever you think of this proposal to expand the Patriot Act, recognize that it is only a proposal. The original article states:
/.:
The FBI has gained new powers to demand documents from companies without a judge's approval...
The FBI has gained nothing. No laws have been changed. There is no new secret, Judge-free subpoena power. It is possible that there will be such a power in the future, but this is just one of the very first steps needed to get it done.
Other commenters in this thread have bemoaned that poor state of education in the US, that so many citizens don't know what rights they have. Well, it's not quite as grand as all that, but here's a little civics lesson for those of you whose main political information comes from
Laws in this country must be passed in both the Senate and the House. The process is often very messy and cantankerous. Even a very popular bill can get stalled using different parlementary techniques, and it is not uncommon that a bill that looked unbeatable in January will end up dying in some comittee and not passing by the end of the year. More controversial bills are even harder to get through, and there is a very complicated chess game that goes on in which bills are ammended and revised as they move through the process.
This particular bill apparently passed the Senate Intelligence Commite, 11-4, a couple of days ago. If you look in more serious news accounts, they make it a lot more clear that no new powers have been granted, and this is but merely the opening salvo in a long Congressional negotiation on this topic.
From here, the bill travels to the Senate Judiciary Committe, where "Feinstein and other Democrats planned to again offer amendments." Even if it makes it through there as-is, it would need to be considered by the whole Senate. Even if it passes there, a parallel bill will have been going through an analogous process in the House. Those two bills probably won't be the same by the time they pass both houses of Congress, so from there it's off to the joint committee to come up with a "compromise version" that everyone expects will pass both houses. Finally, the House of Representatives and Senate both vote on the final version, and, if it passes, it goes to the President for his signature.
It is quite impossible to say at this point if some provision voted into a bill in an early Senate committee is going to make it into law.
I believe concerns about this particular provision of the bill to be a bit misplaced. As best as I can determine, this takes the existing system for issuing subpoenas to companies for relevant documentation that exists in "foreign intelligence" cases and applies the same standard in domestive "terrorism" cases. So, for example, if the CIA turned up evidence that someone trained in Pakistan and is a member of Al Qaeda, as it stands right now, they could issue a subpoena without a Judge's prior approval to gather information from (i.e.) the phone company to try to build a case against him. However, if the FBI determined that a purely domestic terrorist was planning on blowing something up, they would not be able to use the same power.
I would like to see a frank and open debate in this country about the privacy and expectation of privacy of records owned by companies. Under the existing US Constitution and laws, if I make a phone call, the record of that phone call belongs to the phone company, not me. The phone company has no fourth amendment protection against "unreasonable searches and seziures," and it is therefore much easier, from a constitutional basis, to get a warrent to request some documents. As well, the phone company has no particular interest in fighting such requests, so it complies with the
True. He has admitted that he speaks with god or jesus. I suppose he could announce that Jesus told him to serve a third term - and there are enough crazy religious sheeple in this country that would accept it.
Anyone who seriously thinks the US is a "police state" right now because of the "war on terrorism" is seriously lacking in historical perspective. The "war on drugs" has been much more harmful to civil liberties for the average American than anything the Bush administration or the last couple of Congresses have done.
As to the original idea - that there are so many "crazy religious sheeple in this country" that GWB could simply declare himself the next coming of Jesus and do whatever he wants: Assuming you're not just kidding, it's a ridiculous statement.
I would happily bet you (or the author of the parent of your post) $1,000 that GWB will not be President of the United States on January 21, 2009. Do you seriously think A) he would just ignore the constitution and B) everyone else would let him get away with it (especially including whomever the Democratic candidate for President is)? How would that work, exactly? He'd call off the election? You think states would stand for that? He'd let the election happen and then...what? Refuse to move out like a tenant who can't pay the rent? If you think that would last more than about three hours you seriously misunderstand this country. Evangelical Christians are a larger percentage of the electorate than I (as an atheist) would prefer, but they are far from a majority in this country. Even if they were able to wield power far in excess of ther size, they are by no means a monolothic block. A large percentage of them, believe it or not, respect the order of law and don't actually want a theocracy in this country (even if they do hold some moral beliefs informed by their religion that I disagree with). Not many of them would want a religiously annointed, unelected leader. Believe it or not.
I mean, you're talking about a man with 45% approval ratings. You seriously think he'd be able to say - whatever his justification - "I'm not going to give up this office," and other people - especially the other people who want said office - are simply going to let him do it?
As to your last point, I agree that I wish people were more educated about the unalienable rights we have. I wish more people understood the way the Constitution attempts to lock the government off to prevent those rights being trampled on. But that's not a new, unique phenomenon - the average American is woefully uneducated about much of our laws and history. I recall reading in the 80s that a majority of high school seniors identified the phrase "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" as being a phrase from the US constitution. So, having no idea what's in that document isn't a new phenomenon.
In summary: The ACLU needed to be screaming more about the rights we lost in the war on drugs. Most of this Patriot Act whining they're doing now is over things of little actual consequence. My fear is that, like the boy who cried wolf, when some future Congress or President really does try to institute a police state no one will be paying attention to the ACLU because "they always scream about everything, but nothing really bad ever happens."
This isn't an attack based on, all of the sudden, "Wow! Computers got faster than we thought and that 50 year time horizon is all of the sudden six months!" These attackers analyzed SHA-1 and figured out a way to do it faster than brute force. However fast the computer it's being run on. So it isn't contradictory to say "I would've predicted that computers would've gotten this fast, but I'm very surprised SHA-1 only lasted ten years." If the hypothesis of its designers was correct (that the most effecient attack against it was the brute-force), then even the march of computing power shouldn't have caused it any problems for many decades to come. It was designed with the increase in computing power in mind.
So, in the poster in the picture of the clock, she's holding a gun. On IMDB, she's holding a gun. But on IMDB's poster link, her hands are open. What's up with that?
Bzzt. They have two-player games for it. If you RTFA, there's a Set of 2 Commodore 64 30-in-1 Classic Plug & Play Video Game available as well, in which the second joystick plugs into the first joystick. Certainly the reason is a combination of space limitations and lack of ability to license those games at a reasonable cost.
I think the big chain retail bookstores are a more realistic model for how successful retailers are going to adapt to the net. Four or five years ago, the buzz was that Amazon.com was going to flat put all of them out of business. So, Barnes & Nobel and Borders realized that people needed a good reason to come into their stores. I worked in a Waldenbooks fifteen years ago, and we had no facilities for lingering over books (and actively discouraged browsing by those who seemed unlikely to buy). Beverages were forbidden. But now, you go into a major chain bookstore, you'll find chairs to sit in and a cafe to buy drinks from.
The successful retailers are going to realize that they can't compete on price, but they can compete on experience. A big chunk of consumers are going to be perfectly happy to pay a premium for a conveniently located store with friendly service that makes them feel at home. Contrary to the assertion that we can "Look forward to people being kicked out by security," the stores that actually make it are going to be the ones that invite you down to just browse, to hang out, and check out all the models. Some percentage of those customers are going to decide they want it now, and will want to give their business to the company that was so helpful.
Is my local retailer that's rude and expensive going to die out? Sure, if it doesn't change. But I'm not going to lose much sleep over that.
I'll address your second first, because it's easier. Go to Tools->Options->Advanced->Accessabulity and uncheck "Begin finding when you begin typing." I'm not 100% sure that addresses all your concerns, but it's a start.
On the first one - I realize this is a lot more of a pain than deleting libullplugin, but I think I have solution for you. I presume you are mostly complaining about flash. Download and install the adblock extension. Ad an adblock extension for *.swf, and adblock will block all flash for you, and I'm betting that'll happen before it looks for the plugin and stop the warnings.
I think this hits it on the head - Images isn't updated very often. Check out, for example, pictures of the toddler who was rescued from a well a week ago. A regular Google search for Jermere McMillan photo returns 117 results, the first of which has a picture. An image search for Jermere McMillan returns no result. Although it's hard to imagine what the Bush administration's angle is on supressing that picture.
/Rove plot: Ashley Faulkner is a girl whose mother died on September 11, 2001. There is a recently famous picture of George Bush giving Ashley a hug that a Bush-friendly 527 made into a political ad. This picture has been known about for some time; the picture was taken at the beginning of May and was reported on at the time. It's certainly had time to propagate through the net: A google search for Ashley Faulkner Bush photo returns 4290 results, the first few of which all include the picture. A Google image search for Ashley Faulkner Bush returns no images. Explain to me again how propagating this image would be "Politcally Undesirable" for the Bush administration.
Even more clearly that this is not a sinister Bush
Rob just speculating this is government malfeasance is ridiculous. There is no evidence to support his positiona and no evidence to even suggest it. Slashdot should post a conspicious retraction to this groundless acusation. The story here isn't "Bush represses Google," it's "Google's image index isn't updated very often." Stick to reporting the news, please, not your tired conspiracy theories!