In Scandinavia all banks combine the username and password with some sort of third option. Examples:
1.) My own bank requires a key-file (token). I can only log on to the system from computers with access to the actual key file. I have it on my notebook and that is sufficient for me. I can't log in to the system without the key, but I guess I could bring it along on a USB stick if I really needed to. No key-file, no access.
2.) The bank my best friend uses has an SMS based system. When he wants to access the bank systems he receives an 8 digit number valid for only 5 minutes, which must be entered on the logon page along with the username and password. Without his mobile phone he can't access the bank system - but hey: that goes for all the nasty guys as well.
3.) Some banks provide their customers with a stack of "one-time-only" login keys on small paper cards. In addition to their username and password customers have to enter a bunch of matching numbers from one of the cards. No valid card, no access. Once used, the card is thrown away.
All these alternatives are relatively cheap to implement, and require no expensive/fancy electronic tokens. Why are these methods of additional security not widespread in the US?
I find it unfortunate that SlashDot accepts an article with words such as:
this kind of crippling ignorance among professional astrophysicists is astonishing.
The writer displays a very poor understanding of the scientifical methods used in professional science. And SlashDot should have "filtered" this story.
I am tempted to write: This kind of crippling ignorance among article writers is astonishing. But I would rather not spoil my positive Karma...
Looking at the way politics work in America I can certainly understand you attitude.
I think some of that political problem is the fact that America tries to keep the government out of as much as possible. In theory this is a good thing, as it minimizes the political power. In everyday life it often works the opposite way: political power is increased by that approach.
Why?
Because the only things you ever turn over to politicians are the "important things". And incidently, these "important things" give power to a few select people - politicians or businessmen.
There is no real power or prestige in handling waste or offering recycling services to consumers. So why not turn that task over to the state? Why not admit that protecting the environment is a public matter and then turn it over to the state? What "abuse of power" in the areas of recycling are you worried about?
I think you are beeing way too carefull in your selection of areas that are turned over to public/political control. The abuse of power is, in my opinion, only so common in the US because too few areas (i.e. only the "important" ones) are handled by the state.
You have a valid point. And you address two problems at once:
1.) The usage of toxic/polluting materials in products, which are released into the environment when the product is disposed.
2.) The release of toxic/polluting materials at the time of production.
The first problem is solved very easy by simply putting tax on the polluting elements/chemicals themselves. If there is a tax on Arsenic (making the price represent the true cost of Arsenic when including environemtal considerations) the vendor would not need to think much about the disposal. The money for safe disposal would allready be collected before the toxic chemicals even arrived at the factory. And the safe disposal of the product would be handled by the state. Easy for the vendor, easy for the consumer, and efficient because there is no need for 10000 companies doing the same redundant work.
The second problem is more tricky, and can only be solved through restrictions and regulations on the production facility itself. The vendor can then try to bypass these restrictions by cheating or moving the production to a 3rd world country where control is either totally absent or where government official are corrupt. In both cases the "workaround" for the vendor is a display of poor ethics, and no regulation can combat that.
The only easy thing from problem 2 which is easy to get control over, is your example with coal-based powerstations. In that case the solution is easy: put a tax on the coal itself. This will reward the efficient powerstations and punish the inefficient ones. In simple terms: make the price of the coal (for the powerstation) reflect its true cost for the environment.:-)
A little lesson in basic economics for you. Not a single vendor in all of Europe has ever paid a dime in taxes.
A little lesson is hereby returned: Sure they have:-) The taxes are not collected as a part of the normal income/revenue tax. They are either collected when the products are imported, or the time of the actual sale (like the VAT).
You, the consumer, paid them through higher prices.
It is totally logical that you - the consumer - will eventually pay. But isn't that perfectly acceptable when we are talking about polluting products? The price of the product itself will rise, and the consumer will have to pay the (slightly) increased price in order to protect the environment.
Do you really think you can pay less just because the money is collected directly from the vendor? What makes you think the vendor is not going to collect it from the consumer anyway? In the end, who else should pay? Steve Jobs personally? Or perhaps all the people who didn't buy the product and therefore didn't pollute the environment? Who - if not the consumer of the polluting product???
It does not matter if the money needed for handling the waste products are collected through taxes or from the vendor directly. Either way the consumer will pay. So yes: you will eventually pay. No matter how it is implemented, the consumer will have to pay the cost. Naturally. And this has nothing to do with the method used to collect the money.
Greenpeace (and most of the US) have failed to realize the obvious: vendor-based environmentalism is a mistake. It brings no profit to the vendor, only expenses. And it brings no easy disposal methods for the consumer because forcing each vendor to handle the return of the old gadgets automatically also forces the consumer to return each gadget at a different location (provided he/she can even figure out WHERE that is). And finally it is ludicrously inefficient.
In many European countries, and in all Scandinavian countries, the vendors pay a minor environment-tax for each item sold. The money is used to finance public recycling stations where anything can be disposed. So rather than asking the consumer to return his iPod at an apple store (even though he may have bought it somewhere else), return his old PC at some HP office nobody heard about, return his old TV at a store that handles Pioneer products and return his old cell phone at the nearest... (?) store, there is only ONE place to go: the recycling station.
The debate about "Apples toxic products" has a wrong focus. Why demand that Apple should dispose of the old products themselves? Asking each vendor for such services is a total waste of resources. Tens of thousands of companies will have to do redundant work and incorporate extensive recycling procedures - with the only effect of forcing the consumer to return his gadgets at a gazillion different places. It simply makes no sense?
If you are serious about recycling and practicing environmentalism, force the state into accepting the job. And fund it by adding a small tax to the toxic products themselves. Its easy, its fair, it requires only a single point of administration, and it is much easier for both the vendors and the consumers.
I do not have the same problem, and I am allready using S3 powermode.
A "broadcast" package is not a package with a single specific receiver, so why would a machine in S3 mode wake up when it detects a broadcast package? The whole point is to make sure the machine only wakes up from LAN access when there is traffic directed specifically for that interface/address?
Keep in mind that AMD recently greatly increased the clock frequency of their CPU's (as noted on slashdot), thereby also increasing the performace of single-thread applications and games.
Such madness is allready in effect in Denmark, where ISP's have been forced to deny their customers access to the russion MP3 music store "AllOfMP3".
Not surprisingly, this step was forced by the music industry (IFPI).
- Jesper
Slashdot Mirror
In Scandinavia all banks combine the username and password with some sort of third option. Examples:
1.) My own bank requires a key-file (token). I can only log on to the system from computers with access to the actual key file. I have it on my notebook and that is sufficient for me. I can't log in to the system without the key, but I guess I could bring it along on a USB stick if I really needed to. No key-file, no access.
2.) The bank my best friend uses has an SMS based system. When he wants to access the bank systems he receives an 8 digit number valid for only 5 minutes, which must be entered on the logon page along with the username and password. Without his mobile phone he can't access the bank system - but hey: that goes for all the nasty guys as well.
3.) Some banks provide their customers with a stack of "one-time-only" login keys on small paper cards. In addition to their username and password customers have to enter a bunch of matching numbers from one of the cards. No valid card, no access. Once used, the card is thrown away.
All these alternatives are relatively cheap to implement, and require no expensive/fancy electronic tokens. Why are these methods of additional security not widespread in the US?
- Jesper
The writer displays a very poor understanding of the scientifical methods used in professional science. And SlashDot should have "filtered" this story.
I am tempted to write: This kind of crippling ignorance among article writers is astonishing.
But I would rather not spoil my positive Karma
Looking at the way politics work in America I can certainly understand you attitude.
:-)
I think some of that political problem is the fact that America tries to keep the government out of as much as possible. In theory this is a good thing, as it minimizes the political power. In everyday life it often works the opposite way: political power is increased by that approach.
Why?
Because the only things you ever turn over to politicians are the "important things". And incidently, these "important things" give power to a few select people - politicians or businessmen.
There is no real power or prestige in handling waste or offering recycling services to consumers. So why not turn that task over to the state? Why not admit that protecting the environment is a public matter and then turn it over to the state? What "abuse of power" in the areas of recycling are you worried about?
I think you are beeing way too carefull in your selection of areas that are turned over to public/political control. The abuse of power is, in my opinion, only so common in the US because too few areas (i.e. only the "important" ones) are handled by the state.
You have a valid point. And you address two problems at once: 1.) The usage of toxic/polluting materials in products, which are released into the environment when the product is disposed. 2.) The release of toxic/polluting materials at the time of production. The first problem is solved very easy by simply putting tax on the polluting elements/chemicals themselves. If there is a tax on Arsenic (making the price represent the true cost of Arsenic when including environemtal considerations) the vendor would not need to think much about the disposal. The money for safe disposal would allready be collected before the toxic chemicals even arrived at the factory. And the safe disposal of the product would be handled by the state. Easy for the vendor, easy for the consumer, and efficient because there is no need for 10000 companies doing the same redundant work. The second problem is more tricky, and can only be solved through restrictions and regulations on the production facility itself. The vendor can then try to bypass these restrictions by cheating or moving the production to a 3rd world country where control is either totally absent or where government official are corrupt. In both cases the "workaround" for the vendor is a display of poor ethics, and no regulation can combat that. The only easy thing from problem 2 which is easy to get control over, is your example with coal-based powerstations. In that case the solution is easy: put a tax on the coal itself. This will reward the efficient powerstations and punish the inefficient ones. In simple terms: make the price of the coal (for the powerstation) reflect its true cost for the environment. :-)
A little lesson is hereby returned: Sure they have
It is totally logical that you - the consumer - will eventually pay. But isn't that perfectly acceptable when we are talking about polluting products? The price of the product itself will rise, and the consumer will have to pay the (slightly) increased price in order to protect the environment.
Do you really think you can pay less just because the money is collected directly from the vendor? What makes you think the vendor is not going to collect it from the consumer anyway? In the end, who else should pay? Steve Jobs personally? Or perhaps all the people who didn't buy the product and therefore didn't pollute the environment? Who - if not the consumer of the polluting product???
It does not matter if the money needed for handling the waste products are collected through taxes or from the vendor directly. Either way the consumer will pay. So yes: you will eventually pay. No matter how it is implemented, the consumer will have to pay the cost. Naturally. And this has nothing to do with the method used to collect the money.
Greenpeace (and most of the US) have failed to realize the obvious: vendor-based environmentalism is a mistake. It brings no profit to the vendor, only expenses. And it brings no easy disposal methods for the consumer because forcing each vendor to handle the return of the old gadgets automatically also forces the consumer to return each gadget at a different location (provided he/she can even figure out WHERE that is). And finally it is ludicrously inefficient.
... (?) store, there is only ONE place to go: the recycling station.
In many European countries, and in all Scandinavian countries, the vendors pay a minor environment-tax for each item sold. The money is used to finance public recycling stations where anything can be disposed. So rather than asking the consumer to return his iPod at an apple store (even though he may have bought it somewhere else), return his old PC at some HP office nobody heard about, return his old TV at a store that handles Pioneer products and return his old cell phone at the nearest
The debate about "Apples toxic products" has a wrong focus. Why demand that Apple should dispose of the old products themselves? Asking each vendor for such services is a total waste of resources. Tens of thousands of companies will have to do redundant work and incorporate extensive recycling procedures - with the only effect of forcing the consumer to return his gadgets at a gazillion different places. It simply makes no sense?
If you are serious about recycling and practicing environmentalism, force the state into accepting the job. And fund it by adding a small tax to the toxic products themselves. Its easy, its fair, it requires only a single point of administration, and it is much easier for both the vendors and the consumers.
How hard can it be?
Just a theory: Could the network switch be caching the MAC for the port it is connected to?
The LAN interface is allways on (even when the machine is in S3 mode) so it would be safe for the switch to assume that the MAC was unchanged?
And in the case of .MOV files? Is there an OSS codec available for MPlayer?
:-)
(If not, the discussion seems a little pointless in the light of the main story *s*)
Ahemm, whats the third kind then?
I do not have the same problem, and I am allready using S3 powermode.
A "broadcast" package is not a package with a single specific receiver, so why would a machine in S3 mode wake up when it detects a broadcast package? The whole point is to make sure the machine only wakes up from LAN access when there is traffic directed specifically for that interface/address?
They can't at the moment.
They are too busy analyzing the benefits from switing to nVidia in their GPU division...
Keep in mind that AMD recently greatly increased the clock frequency of their CPU's (as noted on slashdot), thereby also increasing the performace of single-thread applications and games.
This may help them get back on track.
Ahemm, isn't MPlayer relying entirely on 3rd party codecs and thereby just as "proprietary"? - Jesper
Such madness is allready in effect in Denmark, where ISP's have been forced to deny their customers access to the russion MP3 music store "AllOfMP3". Not surprisingly, this step was forced by the music industry (IFPI). - Jesper