It may not be a big deal to most people, but someone might be peeved at this:
Online Comments and Personal Information:
We treat your name, city, state, and any comments you provide as public information. We may, for example, provide compilations of your comments to national leaders and other individuals participating in our efforts, without disclosing email addresses. We may also make comments along with your city and state available to the press and public online.
So, in order to tell them what you think via this site, make sure you want it in the Public Domain, as this implies you agree to that condition to comment.
He was a human being. I would have to disagree with those that believe nothing is lost when someone they don't know or don't like dies on this point alone. It may not impact me directly but it is more than callous to say his life had no value. Go look in a mirror.
You obviously have left your political filters out of whack following the election.:)
The reason he was on Capitol Hill as a climate expert was that his viewpoint combined with his name recognition as someone who "knows about" (i.e. writes fiction about) science made him a good tool for climate change denyers. That's it. Do you really think that it was anything other than a ploy by some parties?
Throw enough shit at something and even if none sticks, it still makes an awful smell - and public perception is more important than sound policy so if you can get enough smell to turn the public off you can sweep climate change under the rug for a few more years or decades.
Now think where linux would be if hardware manufacturers spent 1/10 that much contributing drivers to Linux for each device they sold versus the zero they contribute now.
Hell, think about where they'd be if they just let developers see their specs! I mean really, they don't even have to spend money to develop it themselves. There is probably some hacker out there who wants that particular device/brand to work with Linux.
Hey now, Puerto Rico at least, votes on statehood every so often. They always vote 'no' though. I wonder why that is? Perhaps they enjoy the freedoms and free money from the US but don't want to pay income tax? I suspect that is the case elsewhere as well.
Currently, Puerto Rico receives the protection of the United States in time of war. They also receive the benefits of being U.S. citizens without having to pay taxes to the U.S. government.
To be in an industry where you don't have to serve your customers but can instead unilaterally jack up rates and cut service.
The icing on the cake, of course, is that the we have paid billions in taxpayer money over the past 20 years directly to these same companies so this wouldn't happen. "Trust us" they said...
Today though, the Electoral College serves a very important function that anyone proposing to eliminate it must address. It is serving as a firewall against election fraud. For example, there will almost certainly be fraud in the local elections in IL, LA (my home state), NJ, etc. But little in the presidential election because there would be little point, none of those states are likely to be swingable. Watch where ACORN is putting the majority of it's troops.
Aside from the way you conflate election fraud and a truly democratic election. As you said yourself, there is surely to be election fraud today.
However, the actual idea is that it is easier to sway individual states by small margins through election fraud - which is what happens today, rather than to try to have to rig the entire national vote. Ohio comes to mind, somehow. You surely see the difference in scale of the necessary operations?
So, why are we using an Implementation - which is all that this is, really, when we:
1) know it is being gamed, has been, and will be 2) know more tamper resistant systems exist, such as counting the national vote
Ok, right ACORN. Ah I see - a true idealogue.
Our Republic would fall into a civil war.
Sure. Sorry, we don't need any more, thanks anyway.
Well sure, that's good and all for normal processes. There's no `kill -decapitate` switch, though and i think that's what you'd need. Of course, this depends on the variety of zombie - some species might just put their head back on... Which is why nuking from orbit is the only way to be sure (intone "I have become Shiva, destroyer of (virtual) worlds!" before rebooting).
On a serious note, WTF is up with zombies anyway? -I blame their parents.
Was his personal information in that file? Did he have reason to believe that the school district was not properly protecting his personal information?
If he has legitimate reason to believe that, then he should be approaching the relevant authorities with his concerns. But "I tried to crack your network and succeeded" isn't exactly legitimate grounds.
Just what have you been smoking? Perhaps you could tell me who "the relevant authorities" are for all the sites with have my information that i'm sure have some security lapses. And then for bonus points explain to me what exactly "the authorities" would do with that complaint to solve the issue.
I'm 100% certain that if you were to go to the FBI and complain that CitiBank or someone had lax network security (but only on your suspicion, not any hard data) not only would they not even tell me they would "look into it" it's possible they would laugh in your face at such an absurd complaint.
Does it matter anyway? What was he going to do if he really was testing for this purpose and discovered that his information was vulnerable, shout and stamp his foot? If you couldn't trust the relevant authorities enough to act on reasonable suspicions as above, why would you expect to get any better result just because you cracked their network?
Because it has been shown time and time again that companies respond to actual, publicized breaches and most of the time ignore "potential" holes even if they are being actively exploited.
It's intriguing that you know the networking protocols and database contents of a local company you've never dealt with. Would you like to explain to the rest of us how you came to know those things through some legitimate mechanism?
Are you just interested or are you attempting to somehow impugn the character of the poster by accusing him of illegal activities? And what does whatever he did have to do with the discussion of the topic? I didn't think character assassination was a reputable debating technique.
As an aside, if you have a wireless device, generally you can tell the protocols of broadcasting base stations if you are in range. Most computers are even good enough to tell you without a fuss. Also, something as simple as a mailing can let you know they have your data. Not that it makes any difference.
They even build into the APIs current developers of their apps need to implement various features.
What he's saying is that instead of actually coding the API's they take developers and shove their consciousness into the API's. It's like a Mechanical Turk, just a bit more advanced. This is needed to implement the various features of Windows. It explains why Windows gets so cranky and also the "myth" of billg stealing developer's souls.
Just remember to read all the fine print in your Microsoft EULAs...
I don't care if I have to pay for it. I just want to be able to play all Bluray media, including stuff with only HD audio codecs that are currently unsupported in Linux.
Now, I know some of you think this is unnecessary fluff. However, if Linux wants to compete with Windows it has to tackle the crucial stumbling blocks that force people to continue using Windows. Linux has lots of great home theater software and many aspirations towards filling that niche, but they amount to a hill of beans without support for all HD media.
Agreed. This is actually a pointer to a serious problem. It is the year of the linux desktop, except it's two years ago's desktop. Does Blueray "just work" on Windows XP (well, apart from the DRM...)? Mac OSX? There will be another update to some other subsystem. Let's hope it has a standard interface or Linux will once again be struggling to be able to use the tech. It's not likely at this point to be open hardware or specs, but royalty encumbered. I read another poster saying that no one on the linux side could even buy a license to distribute. Perhaps in 10 years it will be different...
I hope this doesn't sound like a troll, because It's not meant to be. I run a raid backup server at home using ubuntu atm and i've used linux for a while now, but my interfaces at work are windows and at home mac now.
If the only reason that it is stopped is that the proposed method is not effective, well, that's not good.
What if they do as instructed by the courts and decide to use an effective method? Will the courts allow them to do it then?
As we all know, the only effective measure for site filtering is a white list. Perhaps in this case, only trackers that host non-copyrighted content, a method to get your site white listed (and certify you won't distribute copyrighted material) etc. Of course it's draconian. People under the filter won't get to much of the web. But isn't that some people's ultimate vision - total control over the web (and I don't mean you)?
So although I hope it's still shot down, even on this count I was hoping for actual common sense, not a mere technicality. After all, engineers are good as solving technicalities if the Will to solution is there. Perhaps we should be more careful which problems we solve...
So, in other words you don't have free speech (by your defn).
After all, absolute generally means absolute. If you have no right to incite others to violence through speech it is not absolute - you cannot say absolutely anything you want, only a non-prohibited subset.
Similarly, if we had "absolute" freedom to move our bodies, I would absolutely have the right to move my body in such a way as to have my fist contact your face a high velocity. But we don't have that, either. In fact, I would be surprised to find any right that is actually absolute in the sense that it is entirely unconstrained.
The threat order, from most threatening to least, is:
1. Binary from an untrusted agent, no checksum
2. Binary from untrusted agent, with checksum
3. Binary from trusted agent, no checksum
4. Binary from trusted agent, with checksum
5. Source code from untrusted agent, with no checksum, scanned for security, recompiled
6. Source code from trusted agent, with checksum, scanned for security, recompiled with a new checksum.
I believe this is incorrect.
#5 is placed incorrectly, at least. If you believe it's not the case, let me give you source code for a custom linux kernel. Go ahead and "scan it for security." No fair doing a diff with the source from a trusted agent - if you had that you wouldn't need the source from an untrusted agent.
Being able to personally inspect the source code provides an additional level of protection, and is therefore SAFER from a security standpoint.
Nonesense. That is to say, malicious bugs are not sufficiently shallow to large groups of eyes in any complex program. #5 should most reasonably go before #3 and many people would say before #2. I'm sorry, but your security fu is probably just not up to snuff to discover a malicious flaw in 2M LOC, for example. And even if it is, I would be comfortable betting you that the secure coding understanding of 90% of the/. developers would not be up to the task either. Not to mention the time that would take.
In addition, a lot of people would disagree about your ordering of #2 && #3. Personally, I would be one of them. Unless you can point to widespread instances of trojaned program that hashes to the same checksum as its untrojaned counterpart, because I can surely point to hacked websites that were serving trojaned binaries. reordering gives:
1. Binary from an untrusted agent, no checksum. 5. Source code from untrusted agent, with no checksum, scanned for security, recompiled 3. Binary from trusted agent, no checksum 2. Binary from untrusted agent, with checksum. 4. Binary from trusted agent, with checksum 6. Source code from trusted agent, with checksum, scanned for security, recompiled with a new checksum.
Of course, this is reply so late as to be worthless. Oh well.
Considering that we are not ourselves members of an advanced civilization I don't believe we can say what they would do.
I imagine that even an advanced human civilization would be pretty incomprehensible to us.
The instinct to reproduce and grow in numbers is fundamental to all life.
Try telling that to today's first world societies. How many of them have negative net native population growth? So why couldn't an advanced species settle for zero population growth or even negative for a few hundred thousand years (e.g. if they did start out colonizing and then thought better of it).
To "hole up" is to accept death as the local star fades--contrary to the most basic life instinct.
...aproximately 5 BILLION years later...(or whatever) Assuming you haven't managed to figure out a way to stabilize it using, you know, your advanced civilization's technology. (reminds me of the new dr who series where they went to see earth being destroyed) Or that one couldn't wait until 10K years before catastrophe and just pick up then....etc.
Advanced civilizations don't "hole up," they spread.
cite needed, i think.:)
What's more likely is that an advanced tech society treats any form of uncontrolled emission as lost power. Sound, for example is an indication that you are losing energy. Broadcast EM spectrum waves may be similarly treated. They are not likely to be spewing massive amounts of powerful EM in all directions and certainly aren't likely to be shining massive laser/microwave/xray/neutrino/?? comm beams and such at random spots in the sky - that stuff'll be point to point and they'll even most likely recapture the transmission energy.
So, even if they spread out, there would be little way to notice them unless they get on a "call your friends when drunk" jag while we happen to be listening.
Maybe you should stop wasting money on $1000 a year Cable TV, or $900 a year Internet access, or $700 a year cellphone connections, or buying a new $2000 laptop every other year.
Maybe you should just shut up. Let's take those wastes. Hmm. Totals less than $20K over that five year period.
Let me introduce you to new words: "self-sacrifice" "self-help" and "self-responsibility/initiative"....As a result of this self-sacrifice, I have saved 1/2 a million in just five years,
Let me introduce you to new words:"self-righteous" "self-serving" "egotistical" "uncaring" . The fact that you are saving more than most other people has more to do with your high salary than any other factor.
To save 500K in 10 years breaks down to saving 50K a year. It doesn't take much to see that means your salary is north of that.
You could afford it too if you had SAVED your money, instead of demanding your neighbors' pay the bill for you (tax their paychecks & give the money to you).
Yeah, if I MADE over 100K a year, maybe I could save 50K/year too. Problem is that the bottom 20% median income was under 20K in 2007. And unemployed people can just find another job too, right? Oh yeah, one that pays over 100K, so they too can enjoy your type of safety net.
You don't seem to get the fact the part of the reason you have it so good is all those other people who make so much less than you and so have much less certain financial futures.
You are angry at the wrong people. You should be angry at the people who raised you to believe you deserve what you have and fuck everyone else when other people in the same city you live in don't have a home or food. That is "self-sacrifice", that is "self-responsibility": being willing to help out others not - "Able-bodied people should pay their own bills with their OWN money, not raid their neighbors' wallets."
Are there people who game the saftey net? Yes. I think you mis-characterize the issue by implying anyone who receives aid is gaming the system.
If you SAVED your money, instead of wasting it on non-important trivia, you wouldn't have to hold your hand out. You'd be able to pay your own bills.
A lot of people would say here that they wish you never have a large unexpected expense, because that $500K is just pocket change to the healthcare industry. I, on the other hand hope that you experience just what you ultimately wish on others - through no fault on your own you end up relying on the social safety net and find that it's not there. Hope you have fun on the street.
The problem with most liberals is that they are too soft. Everyone deserves a second chance and all and everyone's viewpoint is valid in some situations. I say people should take their own prescriptions and if they advocate something let them live the worst of it. That way all these screw your neighbor people can just go screw themselves.
I found your post informative for such an economic layman as myself. How would you fix the problem? It's worked for decades already and has kept a sizable portion of the world's population in comfortable living, so it isn't a horrible system. What would be better?
Thanks. I'm an economic layman myself but anyway here's what I'd do:
Balanced budgets. Pare down what we owe so we continually can service not only the interest but pay down the principal. Unsustainable growth rates can not be made sustainable through deficit spending and hoping for more GDP output. Reduce foreign aid. Reduce the military budget. Drop subsidies on a range of goods. Cut back Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. Eliminate corporate tax breaks. Make all companies that make money in the US declare those profits in their US subsidiaries. Raise taxes, both corporate and personal. Perhaps the highest income bracket should be paying ~80%. Also a different tack on our current "crisis" that includes all companies making full disclosure of holdings and assets, re-valuing bond and investment assets transparently - everyone. Or aren't we supposed to be trading on the actual strength of these companies? Get healthcare in order, or it will ruin any longer term plans you'd make (which is an entirely separate topic!).
Of course, for many of these the devil is in the details. Too many taxes can be just as bad as too few. Not enough of a safety net means too many people slip irrevocably into poverty (net percent loss to middle class), when the goal is to have a strong and vibrant middle class.
As you can see, no one would want to vote for that, though. Something in there for everyone to hate. Just like now. No one wants to hear that the party is over and they need to go to bed. Not when they can just vote someone else in who tells them to leave the debt to their children (not in so many words, mind you, they just don't mention probable long term the consequences of deficit spending positions). But why care when you can eat your cake today?
It's not all just "free money" or otherwise companies would jump at the chance. If CodeWeavers was saying they were just gifting other companies with cash (no strings attached) not many would turn them down.
Very likely these other companies have concluded that while there may be more money in this route the risks and extra expenditures aren't worth it. Before you say there aren't any risks or expenditures maybe you should ask yourself the question again - "If it's just free money why doesn't every company jump on this if offered?" You state that it's win-win while blithely ignoring the companies (including the gp) that don't want to do it. Well, perhaps it's not quite so win-win as you think, then?
While I may be hard pressed to come up with a downside some people at some very prominent companies must have come up with enough of a downside to outweigh the "free money" aspect you tout - or they would be in business with CodeWeavers. There must be at least a perceived downside or we wouldn't be talking about this. Perhaps different companies have even found different things they have issues with, which would mean there could be more than one "downside".
Your comments almost make it seem like I am just shooting bull. While I may not be a lawyer, not only don't I watch law and order, I believe I *do* have a good idea on what the courts think about this issue.
I believe that I have the basic concept correct but there might be wiggle room in the details. It has been upheld pretty much universally in the US that cops can use evidence obtained investigating the commission of one crime to arrest someone else for another crime. There is no special immunity granted to law breakers just because another law breaker exposed their lawlessness.
The only issue would come from direct police involvement in illegally obtaining the evidence. In this case police neither encouraged or took part in hacking Palin's email account. They merely found about additional illegal activity on the victim's part while on a "routine" investigation of that incident.
What do you think happens if tomorrow China sells all its US dollar reserves to buy yuan or euros or whatever? And sells it's US treasury holdings as well?
To who? Where is the magical piggy bank of euros? Of course they could buy yuan with them but they would be selling them to themselves and still be stuck with them (while also inflating the yuan). What entity would continue to buy US$ from China when China has enough US$ to make your investment worthless the next day?
They can try to sell all their US$ "at once" but no one has the capital to buy them. Worse yet, other countries also hold significant reserves of US$ and these would be devalued as well dampening further any ability to buy dollars.
The US collapses the next day. Since oil is now $10,000 a barrel (or 80 euro), food is equally too expensive to afford.
Yes, US inflation is through the roof at that point. You are correct, the US economy would collapse. However so would the economies of the rest of the world. Contrariwise, if you state that China has enough manufacturing capability to survive selling to local markets, well, so does the US.
Considering the US are paying with IOU's at the moment, I dont think China would mind collecting. If China and the EU both decided to cut off the US at the moment and collect on their debts, if they get their money back their economies may bounce back and the US would be screwed.
Except that they can't. Certainly China and the EU can try to collect on their debts. What happens if the US actually pays them? The first question you should ask is how. We could take those IOU's and redeem them for cash. Were does that money come from? Well, since we don't have an actual reserve, we would just print it. Instant inflation, devaluing the dollar and devaluing their own portfolios.
The issue is that financials are truly global now. The mortgage crisis underlines that. The Conventional Wisdom was that this would be contained in the US. Oops. If you were surprised that the real-estate correction hit global markets hard you might be surprised at how much worse a correction in the value of the dollar would be, especially through such a confrontational method. Unless you read any of the economists that predict such an effect.
I think alot of people on here (I am assuming americans) overestimate how big of an exporter they really are in actual goods. You guys seem to forget the manufacturing parts of american business have been outsourced overseas for years now with Wall St being (quote Ralph Nayder) nothing more than a gambling casino.
It really doesn't matter. In fact this bolsters the opposite viewpoint rather than defeating it. Since the US is not as big an exporter -- what are those countries going to do with all that US money? In your scenario, China doesn't want US$ anymore, the EU doesn't want US$ either. So, who are they going to trade them to? The US? And do what - buy bonds?/sarcasm Or are they just going to burn them then? As soon as they try buying stuff in the US, prices will be driven up. If they don't buy from the US, what are they going to do with the money?
It really is quite a bit of mess. The whole world has helped in leveraging the US dollar. The total amount of wealth on the books does not match wealth in reality. Any attempt to realize that "wealth" causes that "wealth" to lose significant value.
It does look like this trend is unsustainable - that is we create more faery money at a greater rate than actual growth and insist that this is also "growth". This growing inequality is not just a figment of imagination and sooner or later must be addressed, but I'm not sure the "system shock" method is viable.
While some level of unreality is fine for economic markets, periodically all structures get touched with cold iron. When that faery support evaporates if the structure can no longer hold itself up it will collapse in a heap (or more politically correct, "be restructured"). The impression that US$ represent some stable container for value creates a portion of that value and that portion of value disappears into thin air the minute actions are taken that refute this impression.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok then! Thanks.
It may not be a big deal to most people, but someone might be peeved at this:
Online Comments and Personal Information:
We treat your name, city, state, and any comments you provide as public information. We may, for example, provide compilations of your comments to national leaders and other individuals participating in our efforts, without disclosing email addresses. We may also make comments along with your city and state available to the press and public online.
So, in order to tell them what you think via this site, make sure you want it in the Public Domain, as this implies you agree to that condition to comment.
Huh. I wonder if they can do that?
Anyone know?
So what.
He was a human being. I would have to disagree with those that believe nothing is lost when someone they don't know or don't like dies on this point alone. It may not impact me directly but it is more than callous to say his life had no value. Go look in a mirror.
You obviously have left your political filters out of whack following the election. :)
The reason he was on Capitol Hill as a climate expert was that his viewpoint combined with his name recognition as someone who "knows about" (i.e. writes fiction about) science made him a good tool for climate change denyers. That's it. Do you really think that it was anything other than a ploy by some parties?
Throw enough shit at something and even if none sticks, it still makes an awful smell - and public perception is more important than sound policy so if you can get enough smell to turn the public off you can sweep climate change under the rug for a few more years or decades.
Now think where linux would be if hardware manufacturers spent 1/10 that much contributing drivers to Linux for each device they sold versus the zero they contribute now.
Hell, think about where they'd be if they just let developers see their specs! I mean really, they don't even have to spend money to develop it themselves. There is probably some hacker out there who wants that particular device/brand to work with Linux.
Hey now, Puerto Rico at least, votes on statehood every so often. They always vote 'no' though. I wonder why that is? Perhaps they enjoy the freedoms and free money from the US but don't want to pay income tax? I suspect that is the case elsewhere as well.
http://www.essortment.com/all/puertoricansta_rdla.htm
Currently, Puerto Rico receives the protection of the United States in time of war. They also receive the benefits of being U.S. citizens without having to pay taxes to the U.S. government.
To be in an industry where you don't have to serve your customers but can instead unilaterally jack up rates and cut service.
The icing on the cake, of course, is that the we have paid billions in taxpayer money over the past 20 years directly to these same companies so this wouldn't happen. "Trust us" they said...
Today though, the Electoral College serves a very important function that anyone proposing to eliminate it must address. It is serving as a firewall against election fraud. For example, there will almost certainly be fraud in the local elections in IL, LA (my home state), NJ, etc. But little in the presidential election because there would be little point, none of those states are likely to be swingable. Watch where ACORN is putting the majority of it's troops.
Aside from the way you conflate election fraud and a truly democratic election. As you said yourself, there is surely to be election fraud today.
However, the actual idea is that it is easier to sway individual states by small margins through election fraud - which is what happens today, rather than to try to have to rig the entire national vote. Ohio comes to mind, somehow. You surely see the difference in scale of the necessary operations?
So, why are we using an Implementation - which is all that this is, really, when we:
1) know it is being gamed, has been, and will be
2) know more tamper resistant systems exist, such as counting the national vote
Ok, right ACORN. Ah I see - a true idealogue.
Our Republic would fall into a civil war.
Sure. Sorry, we don't need any more, thanks anyway.
What's wrong with kill -9???
Well sure, that's good and all for normal processes. There's no `kill -decapitate` switch, though and i think that's what you'd need. Of course, this depends on the variety of zombie - some species might just put their head back on... Which is why nuking from orbit is the only way to be sure (intone "I have become Shiva, destroyer of (virtual) worlds! " before rebooting).
On a serious note, WTF is up with zombies anyway? -I blame their parents.
Was his personal information in that file? Did he have reason to believe that the school district was not properly protecting his personal information?
If he has legitimate reason to believe that, then he should be approaching the relevant authorities with his concerns. But "I tried to crack your network and succeeded" isn't exactly legitimate grounds.
Just what have you been smoking? Perhaps you could tell me who "the relevant authorities" are for all the sites with have my information that i'm sure have some security lapses. And then for bonus points explain to me what exactly "the authorities" would do with that complaint to solve the issue.
I'm 100% certain that if you were to go to the FBI and complain that CitiBank or someone had lax network security (but only on your suspicion, not any hard data) not only would they not even tell me they would "look into it" it's possible they would laugh in your face at such an absurd complaint.
Does it matter anyway? What was he going to do if he really was testing for this purpose and discovered that his information was vulnerable, shout and stamp his foot? If you couldn't trust the relevant authorities enough to act on reasonable suspicions as above, why would you expect to get any better result just because you cracked their network?
Because it has been shown time and time again that companies respond to actual, publicized breaches and most of the time ignore "potential" holes even if they are being actively exploited.
It's intriguing that you know the networking protocols and database contents of a local company you've never dealt with. Would you like to explain to the rest of us how you came to know those things through some legitimate mechanism?
Are you just interested or are you attempting to somehow impugn the character of the poster by accusing him of illegal activities? And what does whatever he did have to do with the discussion of the topic? I didn't think character assassination was a reputable debating technique.
As an aside, if you have a wireless device, generally you can tell the protocols of broadcasting base stations if you are in range. Most computers are even good enough to tell you without a fuss. Also, something as simple as a mailing can let you know they have your data. Not that it makes any difference.
No, no - you've got it all wrong. He said:
They even build into the APIs current developers of their apps need to implement various features.
What he's saying is that instead of actually coding the API's they take developers and shove their consciousness into the API's. It's like a Mechanical Turk, just a bit more advanced. This is needed to implement the various features of Windows. It explains why Windows gets so cranky and also the "myth" of billg stealing developer's souls.
Just remember to read all the fine print in your Microsoft EULAs...
Proper Bluray media support.
I don't care if I have to pay for it. I just want to be able to play all Bluray media, including stuff with only HD audio codecs that are currently unsupported in Linux.
Now, I know some of you think this is unnecessary fluff. However, if Linux wants to compete with Windows it has to tackle the crucial stumbling blocks that force people to continue using Windows. Linux has lots of great home theater software and many aspirations towards filling that niche, but they amount to a hill of beans without support for all HD media.
Agreed. This is actually a pointer to a serious problem. It is the year of the linux desktop, except it's two years ago's desktop. Does Blueray "just work" on Windows XP (well, apart from the DRM...)? Mac OSX? There will be another update to some other subsystem. Let's hope it has a standard interface or Linux will once again be struggling to be able to use the tech. It's not likely at this point to be open hardware or specs, but royalty encumbered. I read another poster saying that no one on the linux side could even buy a license to distribute. Perhaps in 10 years it will be different...
I hope this doesn't sound like a troll, because It's not meant to be. I run a raid backup server at home using ubuntu atm and i've used linux for a while now, but my interfaces at work are windows and at home mac now.
If the only reason that it is stopped is that the proposed method is not effective, well, that's not good.
What if they do as instructed by the courts and decide to use an effective method? Will the courts allow them to do it then?
As we all know, the only effective measure for site filtering is a white list. Perhaps in this case, only trackers that host non-copyrighted content, a method to get your site white listed (and certify you won't distribute copyrighted material) etc. Of course it's draconian. People under the filter won't get to much of the web. But isn't that some people's ultimate vision - total control over the web (and I don't mean you)?
So although I hope it's still shot down, even on this count I was hoping for actual common sense, not a mere technicality. After all, engineers are good as solving technicalities if the Will to solution is there. Perhaps we should be more careful which problems we solve...
So, in other words you don't have free speech (by your defn).
After all, absolute generally means absolute. If you have no right to incite others to violence through speech it is not absolute - you cannot say absolutely anything you want, only a non-prohibited subset.
Similarly, if we had "absolute" freedom to move our bodies, I would absolutely have the right to move my body in such a way as to have my fist contact your face a high velocity. But we don't have that, either. In fact, I would be surprised to find any right that is actually absolute in the sense that it is entirely unconstrained.
just read it in Shatner's voice
So, is your list theoretical, or practical, then? Would you say, to those people who like list to go by, that they should follow this one?
Or they should only follow it with the caveat that they should be able to scan source code for malicious obfuscated implanted vulnerabilities?
So, as a specific critique, I don't believe that the list, as you ordered, would be correct for over 90% of the possible audience. How's that?
The threat order, from most threatening to least, is:
1. Binary from an untrusted agent, no checksum
2. Binary from untrusted agent, with checksum
3. Binary from trusted agent, no checksum
4. Binary from trusted agent, with checksum
5. Source code from untrusted agent, with no checksum, scanned for security, recompiled
6. Source code from trusted agent, with checksum, scanned for security, recompiled with a new checksum.
I believe this is incorrect.
#5 is placed incorrectly, at least. If you believe it's not the case, let me give you source code for a custom linux kernel. Go ahead and "scan it for security." No fair doing a diff with the source from a trusted agent - if you had that you wouldn't need the source from an untrusted agent.
Being able to personally inspect the source code provides an additional level of protection, and is therefore SAFER from a security standpoint.
Nonesense. That is to say, malicious bugs are not sufficiently shallow to large groups of eyes in any complex program. #5 should most reasonably go before #3 and many people would say before #2. I'm sorry, but your security fu is probably just not up to snuff to discover a malicious flaw in 2M LOC, for example. And even if it is, I would be comfortable betting you that the secure coding understanding of 90% of the /. developers would not be up to the task either. Not to mention the time that would take.
In addition, a lot of people would disagree about your ordering of #2 && #3. Personally, I would be one of them. Unless you can point to widespread instances of trojaned program that hashes to the same checksum as its untrojaned counterpart, because I can surely point to hacked websites that were serving trojaned binaries. reordering gives:
1. Binary from an untrusted agent, no checksum.
5. Source code from untrusted agent, with no checksum, scanned for security, recompiled
3. Binary from trusted agent, no checksum
2. Binary from untrusted agent, with checksum.
4. Binary from trusted agent, with checksum
6. Source code from trusted agent, with checksum, scanned for security, recompiled with a new checksum.
Of course, this is reply so late as to be worthless. Oh well.
Considering that we are not ourselves members of an advanced civilization I don't believe we can say what they would do.
I imagine that even an advanced human civilization would be pretty incomprehensible to us.
The instinct to reproduce and grow in numbers is fundamental to all life.
Try telling that to today's first world societies. How many of them have negative net native population growth? So why couldn't an advanced species settle for zero population growth or even negative for a few hundred thousand years (e.g. if they did start out colonizing and then thought better of it).
To "hole up" is to accept death as the local star fades--contrary to the most basic life instinct.
...aproximately 5 BILLION years later...(or whatever) Assuming you haven't managed to figure out a way to stabilize it using, you know, your advanced civilization's technology. (reminds me of the new dr who series where they went to see earth being destroyed) Or that one couldn't wait until 10K years before catastrophe and just pick up then....etc.
Advanced civilizations don't "hole up," they spread.
cite needed, i think. :)
What's more likely is that an advanced tech society treats any form of uncontrolled emission as lost power. Sound, for example is an indication that you are losing energy. Broadcast EM spectrum waves may be similarly treated. They are not likely to be spewing massive amounts of powerful EM in all directions and certainly aren't likely to be shining massive laser/microwave/xray/neutrino/?? comm beams and such at random spots in the sky - that stuff'll be point to point and they'll even most likely recapture the transmission energy.
So, even if they spread out, there would be little way to notice them unless they get on a "call your friends when drunk" jag while we happen to be listening.
To do that you'd have to be repeating the number synchronously with me. Ok. I've chosen the prime. Now, go... :)
Maybe you should stop wasting money on $1000 a year Cable TV, or $900 a year Internet access, or $700 a year cellphone connections, or buying a new $2000 laptop every other year.
Maybe you should just shut up. Let's take those wastes. Hmm. Totals less than $20K over that five year period.
Let me introduce you to new words: "self-sacrifice" "self-help" and "self-responsibility/initiative"....As a result of this self-sacrifice, I have saved 1/2 a million in just five years,
Let me introduce you to new words:"self-righteous" "self-serving" "egotistical" "uncaring" . The fact that you are saving more than most other people has more to do with your high salary than any other factor.
To save 500K in 10 years breaks down to saving 50K a year. It doesn't take much to see that means your salary is north of that.
You could afford it too if you had SAVED your money, instead of demanding your neighbors' pay the bill for you (tax their paychecks & give the money to you).
Yeah, if I MADE over 100K a year, maybe I could save 50K/year too. Problem is that the bottom 20% median income was under 20K in 2007. And unemployed people can just find another job too, right? Oh yeah, one that pays over 100K, so they too can enjoy your type of safety net.
You don't seem to get the fact the part of the reason you have it so good is all those other people who make so much less than you and so have much less certain financial futures.
You are angry at the wrong people. You should be angry at the people who raised you to believe you deserve what you have and fuck everyone else when other people in the same city you live in don't have a home or food. That is "self-sacrifice", that is "self-responsibility": being willing to help out others not - "Able-bodied people should pay their own bills with their OWN money, not raid their neighbors' wallets."
Are there people who game the saftey net? Yes. I think you mis-characterize the issue by implying anyone who receives aid is gaming the system.
If you SAVED your money, instead of wasting it on non-important trivia, you wouldn't have to hold your hand out. You'd be able to pay your own bills.
A lot of people would say here that they wish you never have a large unexpected expense, because that $500K is just pocket change to the healthcare industry. I, on the other hand hope that you experience just what you ultimately wish on others - through no fault on your own you end up relying on the social safety net and find that it's not there. Hope you have fun on the street.
The problem with most liberals is that they are too soft. Everyone deserves a second chance and all and everyone's viewpoint is valid in some situations. I say people should take their own prescriptions and if they advocate something let them live the worst of it. That way all these screw your neighbor people can just go screw themselves.
I found your post informative for such an economic layman as myself. How would you fix the problem? It's worked for decades already and has kept a sizable portion of the world's population in comfortable living, so it isn't a horrible system. What would be better?
Thanks. I'm an economic layman myself but anyway here's what I'd do:
Balanced budgets. Pare down what we owe so we continually can service not only the interest but pay down the principal. Unsustainable growth rates can not be made sustainable through deficit spending and hoping for more GDP output.
Reduce foreign aid.
Reduce the military budget.
Drop subsidies on a range of goods.
Cut back Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.
Eliminate corporate tax breaks. Make all companies that make money in the US declare those profits in their US subsidiaries.
Raise taxes, both corporate and personal. Perhaps the highest income bracket should be paying ~80%.
Also a different tack on our current "crisis" that includes all companies making full disclosure of holdings and assets, re-valuing bond and investment assets transparently - everyone. Or aren't we supposed to be trading on the actual strength of these companies?
Get healthcare in order, or it will ruin any longer term plans you'd make (which is an entirely separate topic!).
Of course, for many of these the devil is in the details. Too many taxes can be just as bad as too few. Not enough of a safety net means too many people slip irrevocably into poverty (net percent loss to middle class), when the goal is to have a strong and vibrant middle class.
As you can see, no one would want to vote for that, though. Something in there for everyone to hate. Just like now. No one wants to hear that the party is over and they need to go to bed. Not when they can just vote someone else in who tells them to leave the debt to their children (not in so many words, mind you, they just don't mention probable long term the consequences of deficit spending positions). But why care when you can eat your cake today?
It's not all just "free money" or otherwise companies would jump at the chance. If CodeWeavers was saying they were just gifting other companies with cash (no strings attached) not many would turn them down.
Very likely these other companies have concluded that while there may be more money in this route the risks and extra expenditures aren't worth it. Before you say there aren't any risks or expenditures maybe you should ask yourself the question again - "If it's just free money why doesn't every company jump on this if offered?" You state that it's win-win while blithely ignoring the companies (including the gp) that don't want to do it. Well, perhaps it's not quite so win-win as you think, then?
While I may be hard pressed to come up with a downside some people at some very prominent companies must have come up with enough of a downside to outweigh the "free money" aspect you tout - or they would be in business with CodeWeavers. There must be at least a perceived downside or we wouldn't be talking about this. Perhaps different companies have even found different things they have issues with, which would mean there could be more than one "downside".
Your comments almost make it seem like I am just shooting bull. While I may not be a lawyer, not only don't I watch law and order, I believe I *do* have a good idea on what the courts think about this issue.
I believe that I have the basic concept correct but there might be wiggle room in the details. It has been upheld pretty much universally in the US that cops can use evidence obtained investigating the commission of one crime to arrest someone else for another crime. There is no special immunity granted to law breakers just because another law breaker exposed their lawlessness.
The only issue would come from direct police involvement in illegally obtaining the evidence. In this case police neither encouraged or took part in hacking Palin's email account. They merely found about additional illegal activity on the victim's part while on a "routine" investigation of that incident.
What do you think happens if tomorrow China sells all its US dollar reserves to buy yuan or euros or whatever? And sells it's US treasury holdings as well?
To who? Where is the magical piggy bank of euros? Of course they could buy yuan with them but they would be selling them to themselves and still be stuck with them (while also inflating the yuan). What entity would continue to buy US$ from China when China has enough US$ to make your investment worthless the next day?
They can try to sell all their US$ "at once" but no one has the capital to buy them. Worse yet, other countries also hold significant reserves of US$ and these would be devalued as well dampening further any ability to buy dollars.
The US collapses the next day. Since oil is now $10,000 a barrel (or 80 euro), food is equally too expensive to afford.
Yes, US inflation is through the roof at that point. You are correct, the US economy would collapse. However so would the economies of the rest of the world. Contrariwise, if you state that China has enough manufacturing capability to survive selling to local markets, well, so does the US.
Considering the US are paying with IOU's at the moment, I dont think China would mind collecting. If China and the EU both decided to cut off the US at the moment and collect on their debts, if they get their money back their economies may bounce back and the US would be screwed.
Except that they can't. Certainly China and the EU can try to collect on their debts. What happens if the US actually pays them? The first question you should ask is how. We could take those IOU's and redeem them for cash. Were does that money come from? Well, since we don't have an actual reserve, we would just print it. Instant inflation, devaluing the dollar and devaluing their own portfolios.
The issue is that financials are truly global now. The mortgage crisis underlines that. The Conventional Wisdom was that this would be contained in the US. Oops. If you were surprised that the real-estate correction hit global markets hard you might be surprised at how much worse a correction in the value of the dollar would be, especially through such a confrontational method. Unless you read any of the economists that predict such an effect.
I think alot of people on here (I am assuming americans) overestimate how big of an exporter they really are in actual goods. You guys seem to forget the manufacturing parts of american business have been outsourced overseas for years now with Wall St being (quote Ralph Nayder) nothing more than a gambling casino.
It really doesn't matter. In fact this bolsters the opposite viewpoint rather than defeating it. Since the US is not as big an exporter -- what are those countries going to do with all that US money? In your scenario, China doesn't want US$ anymore, the EU doesn't want US$ either. So, who are they going to trade them to? The US? And do what - buy bonds? /sarcasm Or are they just going to burn them then? As soon as they try buying stuff in the US, prices will be driven up. If they don't buy from the US, what are they going to do with the money?
It really is quite a bit of mess. The whole world has helped in leveraging the US dollar. The total amount of wealth on the books does not match wealth in reality. Any attempt to realize that "wealth" causes that "wealth" to lose significant value.
It does look like this trend is unsustainable - that is we create more faery money at a greater rate than actual growth and insist that this is also "growth". This growing inequality is not just a figment of imagination and sooner or later must be addressed, but I'm not sure the "system shock" method is viable.
While some level of unreality is fine for economic markets, periodically all structures get touched with cold iron. When that faery support evaporates if the structure can no longer hold itself up it will collapse in a heap (or more politically correct, "be restructured"). The impression that US$ represent some stable container for value creates a portion of that value and that portion of value disappears into thin air the minute actions are taken that refute this impression.