Before the *DIS*information starts flying fast and furious (doh, wait, it already has!) I recommend everyone read BAA 02-08, the request for proposals for technology that will be transitioned into the TIA system. Here is the link:
http://www.darpa.mil/iao/BAA02-08.pdf
This BAA describes exactly what RESEARCH DARPA is looking to fund (emphasis on research: DARPA is NOT a procurement agency, and DARPA is NOT an operational agency). They are not buying off-the-shelf systems, and they are not setting up systems to spy on people. There is even a component to this BAA regarding privacy-protecting technologies.
It is worth noting that many of the problems for which this BAA is looking for national-security-style solutions are problems common to many organizations, as well as fundamental computer-science questions. Not the malevolent stuff that Wired and others would have you think.
Yes, and that's also why it's a RESEARCH program. This was not made clear in the Wired article. They aren't looking for an off-the-shelf system, but innovative research proposals on how to solve some world-class information management problems.
In fact, it's dirt cheap. I'm attending two conferences over the next two weeks that are $600 and $500. But it's worth asking about a student discount. The fees may seem high, but the conference has to pay for things like the hotel meeting areas, services, food, etc -- it doesn't just pay for itself. The only way around that is to get a big corporation to sponsor the conference.
- check your credit report 1x per year. This may be free in the state you live in. This is vital, and the most worthwhile thing you can do.
- keep control of all credit card receipts
- shred any promotional mailings you get for credit cards, or, better
- call the relevant credit agencies and have a lifetime "promotional block" put on your file so you won't be sent them
- keep control of your SSN. Don't give it to anyone who doesn't need it for employment or credit purposes. If someone is being a jackass, simply use "078-05-1120", which was a sample number printed on cards throughout the 40s. If you're in school, ensure they don't print it all over creation.
- If you're really paranoid, you can tell the credit agencies to put your file on a "fraud watch". This will tell any lender who pulls your flie to verify your identity much more closely. Unfortunately, this burdens you.
Global opt-out (promotional block): 1-888-5OPTOUT (888-567-8688)
Re:Hmmm...Bryant wouldn't have been pleased
on
Greenbacks No More
·
· Score: 2
Yup, you're right (blush). Although, interestingly enough, it took me quite a while to find out *how much* silver you could get for your one dollar silver cert. The answer is obvious: the amount contained in one silver dollar! (how much that is, I dunno, but that's apparently the answer).
OT: Is there any reason I can't find the parent of both of our posts on the main page for this discussion, even at -1????
Right, but inflation is an economic thing, not a government thing. The government plays a part in that (perhaps by spending a lot of money it doesn't have in the form of bonds), but they can not control it -- I'm sure they wish they would.
As the previous poster pointed out, I was really wrong in my description of the various metal standards. However, I'm not sure I'd call leaving the gold/silver standard "devaluation". And I certainly wouldn't say that the average inflation rate we've had, even taking into account the 70s, is huge. Yes, you can't buy a candy bar for a nickel any more, but you can also talk for a minute from Boston to California.
Simply printing more currency doesn't a priori devalue the dollar. First, there are way more "notional" dollars than physical ones. So, all the treasury has to do is swap some "notional" ones for physical ones, and presto: we have more physical dollars and no devaluation.
As to the silverback issue: what do you mean, exchange for a POUND of silver? You could exchange your dollar for a dollar of silver. And you still can. You just have to go to some place where you can buy silver.
I still don't entirely understand. Format aside, you're going to be taking pictures with this thing. While you found a camera that used your desired format AND had good picture quality and resolution, are you saying you would SACRIFICE picture quality to stick with CF? It seems to me to be a strange bargain to strike.
Also, why spend that much money on a CF card? The Powershot S20 is a 3megapixel camera. At 1GB, you can take 42 RAW MODE images (i.e. no compression, no nothing). And probably several hundred if the camera writes the images in JPG at a modest rate of compression. This is way beyond what you will ever see on a screen or ever be able to print.
As a point of reference, I have a 5mp camera that on standard settings (5mp res, jpg format, 5% compression) holds 188 images on a 256mb card. I've never used half of the space in a single day.
That being said, unless he is selling the images: you have no legal "expectation of privacy" for the outside of your house. It's there for all to see. They don't have a leg to stand on (unless you can see *inside* their house with the camera, which is a different matter).
What did they tell you at the TV store? 18" and 24" dishes can be had for well less than $50 -- I just bought a 3' one for $75. It's just a bent, coated piece of metal.
Oh,wild -- I had no idea. Yup, looking at their web site, they do tons of that stuff. It still doesn't seem central to their business (their OLD business) to me, but I suppose the fact that digital certificates weren't exactly leaping off the shelf, and the domain thing would eventually come to an end, they had to look elsewhere.
Why would Verisign get into such an unrelated business as this? They're not a telecom company! If CALEA-compliance is too expensive for the telcos, I can't believe that Verisign is better positioned. This is totally unrelated to their business model!
ok so is he saying that the media are better at promoting truth?
No, go back and reread the article. I don't understand why you persist in saying this. Friedman specifically cites television (an old-guard media if there ever was one, but a VERY POWERFUL one) as central in spreading disinformation. You seem to be mistaking the messenger for the message.
The Internet is definitely a vital tool for those who live in repressed countries or those with strangleholds on the local media (for instance, most Arab nations). So is satellite TV -- many Middle Eastern nations hate Al Jazeera as much as western nations. But make no mistake: there is a boatload of crap out there, and it's incredibly easy to fall prey to it.
The speed with which globalization moves information these days indicates that we have to follow up with other avenues of contact. Friedman doesn't say anything about traditional media: what he does call for is traditional human contact -- in the next to last line of the article:
It can be reversed only with education, exchanges, diplomacy and human interaction -- stuff you have to upload the old-fashioned way, one on one.
So we are to be surprised that an anti-globalization site posts an article signed "Socialist Worker" that is anti-Friedman? Yea, those Socialists really helped out the third world. Oh, yea, baby -- people are just clawing to get into THOSE countries, with all their opportunities.
Other than a few quotes ripped from Friedman's columns, the znet article doesn't provide ANY actual specific criticism of Friedman's ideas, or of any of the realities on the ground. Speaking of hacks. It's not well-done -- it's a lot of whining.
And although YOU side with Blackadder, you haven't refuted any of the premises of the original Friedman article cited -- that falsehood spreads as quickly, in fact *faster*, on the Internet than in conventional media.
You really need to read more Tom Friedman before you go foaming off at the mouth, specifically "The Lexus and the Olive Tree", one of the best books ever written about globalization.
Friedman completely realizes the power of the Internet, but that doesn't refute for ONE MINUTE the points he made. The Internet is, by and large, a refuse-ridden electronic drooling cup, and we haven't BEGUN to tap its power for good yet. There is no doubt in my mind (or Friedman's, if you read his book) that we can do so.
As if being kept on the upgrade treadmill by Microsoft isn't bad enough!
You can't pick an arbitrary point in time when software is "too old", or "known to have security holes!" If you could do the latter, you'd just fix the security holes...!
I based my reasoning on real-world numbers, not conjecture. We use 1U supermicro servers with 250W power supplies. These are rackmountable boxes capable of taking dual Intel Tulatin CPUS at 1.2Ghz, up to *4GB* of memory, and two hotswap SCSI drives (as well as onboard video, memory, etc).
Now, assuming you don't have a balls-to-the-wall system (say 1 processor, 1 disk, and 1-2gb, it's reasonable to assume you're only going to be drawing maybe 150W, or slightly more than 1 Amp. If you are using something like a desktop as your server, it will probably be less.
While I wholeheartedly agree that power is important, one circuit per server is very extravagant except in the most mission-critical circumstances. It's going to cost more than the aforementioned $50/circuit in parts to implement that solution, not counting electrician time (oh, $100/hour?). That'll include plug assemblies, cable, and breakers -- and a brand new breaker box if you don't have enough slots in your current one. And think of the bundle of cables! Remember, this guy was asking about small closet-sized server rooms, not something for an E911 system!
But the point and formula is simple: take the time to add up what all your power supplies say. Then get a circuit put in that gives you a quarter to a third overhead.
Yea, they might get weird, but not totally off the map! You don't GIVE UP all civil liberties in that case -- the guards can't rip your clothes off, steal your money, keep your possessions, kick you in the nads, and say "oh, sorry, we thought you had a bomb or were a criminal".
If they suspected he had a bomb, it seems to me that there should have been a process that they followed, not just snapping things off at random! " Gee, what's this?" "Oh, just the power to my...pacemaker! "
But then again, did anyone see the problems the WWII veteran with a *CONGRESSIONAL MEDAL OF HONOR* went through? Pretty much similar -- and this is a medal for which there are 40 living recipients.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to be gauche and follow up to my own posting, but the juicy stuff in the BAA PDF file starts on p.19.
Before the *DIS*information starts flying fast and furious (doh, wait, it already has!) I recommend everyone read BAA 02-08, the request for proposals for technology that will be transitioned into the TIA system. Here is the link:
http://www.darpa.mil/iao/BAA02-08.pdf
This BAA describes exactly what RESEARCH DARPA is looking to fund (emphasis on research: DARPA is NOT a procurement agency, and DARPA is NOT an operational agency). They are not buying off-the-shelf systems, and they are not setting up systems to spy on people. There is even a component to this BAA regarding privacy-protecting technologies.
It is worth noting that many of the problems for which this BAA is looking for national-security-style solutions are problems common to many organizations, as well as fundamental computer-science questions. Not the malevolent stuff that Wired and others would have you think.
Yes, and that's also why it's a RESEARCH program. This was not made clear in the Wired article. They aren't looking for an off-the-shelf system, but innovative research proposals on how to solve some world-class information management problems.
In fact, it's dirt cheap. I'm attending two conferences over the next two weeks that are $600 and $500. But it's worth asking about a student discount. The fees may seem high, but the conference has to pay for things like the hotel meeting areas, services, food, etc -- it doesn't just pay for itself. The only way around that is to get a big corporation to sponsor the conference.
- check your credit report 1x per year. This may be free in the state you live in. This is vital, and the most worthwhile thing you can do.
- keep control of all credit card receipts
- shred any promotional mailings you get for credit cards, or, better
- call the relevant credit agencies and have a lifetime "promotional block" put on your file so you won't be sent them
- keep control of your SSN. Don't give it to anyone who doesn't need it for employment or credit purposes. If someone is being a jackass, simply use "078-05-1120", which was a sample number printed on cards throughout the 40s. If you're in school, ensure they don't print it all over creation. - If you're really paranoid, you can tell the credit agencies to put your file on a "fraud watch". This will tell any lender who pulls your flie to verify your identity much more closely. Unfortunately, this burdens you.
Experian: 1-866-200-6020 http://www.experian.com
Equifax: 1-800-685-1111 http://www.equifax.com
Transunion: 1-800-888-4213 http://www.transunion.com
Global opt-out (promotional block): 1-888-5OPTOUT (888-567-8688)
Yup, you're right (blush). Although, interestingly enough, it took me quite a while to find out *how much* silver you could get for your one dollar silver cert. The answer is obvious: the amount contained in one silver dollar! (how much that is, I dunno, but that's apparently the answer).
OT: Is there any reason I can't find the parent of both of our posts on the main page for this discussion, even at -1????
Right, but inflation is an economic thing, not a government thing. The government plays a part in that (perhaps by spending a lot of money it doesn't have in the form of bonds), but they can not control it -- I'm sure they wish they would.
As the previous poster pointed out, I was really wrong in my description of the various metal standards. However, I'm not sure I'd call leaving the gold/silver standard "devaluation". And I certainly wouldn't say that the average inflation rate we've had, even taking into account the 70s, is huge. Yes, you can't buy a candy bar for a nickel any more, but you can also talk for a minute from Boston to California.
Simply printing more currency doesn't a priori devalue the dollar. First, there are way more "notional" dollars than physical ones. So, all the treasury has to do is swap some "notional" ones for physical ones, and presto: we have more physical dollars and no devaluation.
As to the silverback issue: what do you mean, exchange for a POUND of silver? You could exchange your dollar for a dollar of silver. And you still can. You just have to go to some place where you can buy silver.
I still don't entirely understand. Format aside, you're going to be taking pictures with this thing. While you found a camera that used your desired format AND had good picture quality and resolution, are you saying you would SACRIFICE picture quality to stick with CF? It seems to me to be a strange bargain to strike.
Also, why spend that much money on a CF card? The Powershot S20 is a 3megapixel camera. At 1GB, you can take 42 RAW MODE images (i.e. no compression, no nothing). And probably several hundred if the camera writes the images in JPG at a modest rate of compression. This is way beyond what you will ever see on a screen or ever be able to print.
As a point of reference, I have a 5mp camera that on standard settings (5mp res, jpg format, 5% compression) holds 188 images on a 256mb card. I've never used half of the space in a single day.
Why would you choose a camera based on the memory media? That's the LEAST important feature.
That being said, unless he is selling the images: you have no legal "expectation of privacy" for the outside of your house. It's there for all to see. They don't have a leg to stand on (unless you can see *inside* their house with the camera, which is a different matter).
What did they tell you at the TV store? 18" and 24" dishes can be had for well less than $50 -- I just bought a 3' one for $75. It's just a bent, coated piece of metal.
Oh,wild -- I had no idea. Yup, looking at their web site, they do tons of that stuff. It still doesn't seem central to their business (their OLD business) to me, but I suppose the fact that digital certificates weren't exactly leaping off the shelf, and the domain thing would eventually come to an end, they had to look elsewhere.
Why would Verisign get into such an unrelated business as this? They're not a telecom company! If CALEA-compliance is too expensive for the telcos, I can't believe that Verisign is better positioned. This is totally unrelated to their business model!
How much is ComCast charging you for such a brain-dead service?
And are you actually going to pay for it?
Why is this ranked "funny"? The US Government *already does this*...!
Oh, I get it -- funny "sad", not funny "haha"...
ok so is he saying that the media are better at promoting truth?
No, go back and reread the article. I don't understand why you persist in saying this. Friedman specifically cites television (an old-guard media if there ever was one, but a VERY POWERFUL one) as central in spreading disinformation. You seem to be mistaking the messenger for the message.
The Internet is definitely a vital tool for those who live in repressed countries or those with strangleholds on the local media (for instance, most Arab nations). So is satellite TV -- many Middle Eastern nations hate Al Jazeera as much as western nations. But make no mistake: there is a boatload of crap out there, and it's incredibly easy to fall prey to it.
The speed with which globalization moves information these days indicates that we have to follow up with other avenues of contact. Friedman doesn't say anything about traditional media: what he does call for is traditional human contact -- in the next to last line of the article:
It can be reversed only with education, exchanges, diplomacy and human interaction -- stuff you have to upload the old-fashioned way, one on one.
So we are to be surprised that an anti-globalization site posts an article signed "Socialist Worker" that is anti-Friedman? Yea, those Socialists really helped out the third world. Oh, yea, baby -- people are just clawing to get into THOSE countries, with all their opportunities.
Other than a few quotes ripped from Friedman's columns, the znet article doesn't provide ANY actual specific criticism of Friedman's ideas, or of any of the realities on the ground. Speaking of hacks. It's not well-done -- it's a lot of whining.
And although YOU side with Blackadder, you haven't refuted any of the premises of the original Friedman article cited -- that falsehood spreads as quickly, in fact *faster*, on the Internet than in conventional media.
Oh yea, that's worked so well for English speakers!
Would you like a cookie recipe? And, have you seen that photo of the guy on the WTC!?!? OMGFG!!*@#?!@!!
:-)
You really need to read more Tom Friedman before you go foaming off at the mouth, specifically "The Lexus and the Olive Tree", one of the best books ever written about globalization.
Friedman completely realizes the power of the Internet, but that doesn't refute for ONE MINUTE the points he made. The Internet is, by and large, a refuse-ridden electronic drooling cup, and we haven't BEGUN to tap its power for good yet. There is no doubt in my mind (or Friedman's, if you read his book) that we can do so.
Perhaps because it's only compatable with RMAIL through a one-of-a-kind elisp interface?
The correct question is, why hasn't someone taken it and tried to hook it into a somewhat more common platform.
So based on that concept, the software should simply refuse to run from the get-go!!! :-)
As if being kept on the upgrade treadmill by Microsoft isn't bad enough!
You can't pick an arbitrary point in time when software is "too old", or "known to have security holes!" If you could do the latter, you'd just fix the security holes...!
I based my reasoning on real-world numbers, not conjecture. We use 1U supermicro servers with 250W power supplies. These are rackmountable boxes capable of taking dual Intel Tulatin CPUS at 1.2Ghz, up to *4GB* of memory, and two hotswap SCSI drives (as well as onboard video, memory, etc).
Now, assuming you don't have a balls-to-the-wall system (say 1 processor, 1 disk, and 1-2gb, it's reasonable to assume you're only going to be drawing maybe 150W, or slightly more than 1 Amp. If you are using something like a desktop as your server, it will probably be less.
While I wholeheartedly agree that power is important, one circuit per server is very extravagant except in the most mission-critical circumstances. It's going to cost more than the aforementioned $50/circuit in parts to implement that solution, not counting electrician time (oh, $100/hour?). That'll include plug assemblies, cable, and breakers -- and a brand new breaker box if you don't have enough slots in your current one. And think of the bundle of cables! Remember, this guy was asking about small closet-sized server rooms, not something for an E911 system!
But the point and formula is simple: take the time to add up what all your power supplies say. Then get a circuit put in that gives you a quarter to a third overhead.
Yea, they might get weird, but not totally off the map! You don't GIVE UP all civil liberties in that case -- the guards can't rip your clothes off, steal your money, keep your possessions, kick you in the nads, and say "oh, sorry, we thought you had a bomb or were a criminal".
If they suspected he had a bomb, it seems to me that there should have been a process that they followed, not just snapping things off at random! " Gee, what's this?" "Oh, just the power to my...pacemaker! "
But then again, did anyone see the problems the WWII veteran with a *CONGRESSIONAL MEDAL OF HONOR* went through? Pretty much similar -- and this is a medal for which there are 40 living recipients.