IMO, it is nontrivial if the laptop doesn't come with that software.
That is my point--
*Toshibas these days come with ConfigFree, which "sniffs" out non-broadcasting SSIDs
*Laptops with Intel WiFi come with ProSet, which has similar functionality in its GUI
*Dells have some ControlPoint garbage which does the same thing I think
Etc etc. My point was exactly that-- that many (most?) laptops these days have the functionality these days to "invade privacy" by sniffing out nonbroadcasting SSIDs and displaying the sniffed info. Necessarily, to get those hidden SSIDs, you must capture packets that were not "broadcast" (in the sense that they had one intended recipient) and could be considered private communication.
The 1st amendment prevents Congress from limiting what you say, what you write, what you believe, where you gather, and whether you can petition. It does NOT prevent Congress from limiting your actions taken because of a belief, or because of what you heard, or what you did while assembling, etc etc etc.
In other words, it is constitutional to prevent a murder being done in the name of religion, or as a form of protest, or during an assembly, etc etc.
And this is a crystal clear example of someone who neither read the article nor was familiar with the case summary, and subsequently getting modded up for their ignorance.
To be absolutely clear here, the court ruled IN FAVOR of 1st amendment protections-- they STRUCK DOWN the censorship law. Yea, real clear example of judges legislating from the bench.
Please, before posting a scathing comment about SCOTUS and its rulings, try to learn what their ruling actually was.
Thats not actually what the judges said. Several of them lamented the double standard; Thomas indicated that his agreement with the law was based on the idea that parents should have control of what their children take in, which he grounded on the framework that the founders would have had (which I dont think is an unreasonable way to approach the question of "What were they trying to say in the Constitution").
I didnt see any of them arguing the line that the state must censor-- in fact the ruling was that in this case the state could not.
These state and local judges are free to reach their own conclusions and, if they wish, allow sex and nudity in contexts the SC claims is forbidden.
Thats not at all what the suit was about. The suit was about whether the state could RESTRICT such things, not whether it could allow them. SCOTUS ruled 7-2 that it could NOT restrict them.
Anyway, it seems he changed his mind sometime around Noah
Yes, when solomon speaks of the beauty of his wife's breasts in "song of solomon", clearly the language is symbolic and hes not talking about sex at all.
it was pretty much established who has the right to kill and who should be the ones killed and then the killing commenced.
If one accepts the premise that there is a creator, and that there were certain people who violated his commands, and that said creator was enacting judgement on them, it begins to make sense to understand why the israelites were commanded to begin their conquest. I do not recall however any time where it was established that "you may always kill these groups of outsiders, and not these"; the command as I recall it was "you shall not murder". The difference? Judgement (or, if you prefer, a commanded enactment of justice) is not murder, and if said creator exists, it would certainly have the authority to issue such judgements.
If, of course, you want to commit the fallacy of rejecting half of the bible's premises and then using said rejection as the groundwork for disproving the remainder, feel free; I certainly dont intend to get into a discussion with someone who is going to start out with a rejection of logic.
Clarence Thomas is closer to the truth than you are. For starters, there ARE no 1st amendment rights, only protections-- the First Amendment does NOT say that you have a right to say certain things or to gather in certain places, but only that Congress shall not restrict it. The 14th amendment enshrines certain of those protections at the state level as well, though which apply to the states is always contentious (see DC's handgun laws).
Further, SCOTUS has ruled in the past that students in a schools-- even public schools-- may be prevented from speaking their mind because the school is at that point seen as an extension of the parent's authority.
The irony of Clarence Thomas' argument is that I agree with a lot of what he was saying-- basically, that parents need to parent. I disagree with the conclusion that he landed on, which is that we need the state to help the parents along the way; but this is less an issue (to my mind) of protecting the child's rights to do something and more an issue of what restrictions are being placed on the parent's rights.
even if unencrypted, data traveling over Wi-Fi networks is not considered "readily accessible to the general public," he found.
So for the legal buffs out there-- if google can demonstrate compellingly that that reasoning is wrong (in a way that a judge accepts), would google then have any leverage to again file for dismissal, since the reason their motion was overturned would have been removed?
I ask because one might be able to demonstrate that many laptops these days DO intercept unencrypted traffic in order to reveal "non-broadcasting" SSIDs-- in order to reveal their existence, packets must be "intercepted", and their target SSID / MAC shown. Further, as Im sure google will argue, software like Kismet, GrimWEPa, WiFite, Aircrack, et al very trivially and automatically begin gathering traffic; it takes no special expertise these days (after 10 years of progressively better WEP crackers) to do what it seems Google did.
Most malware is made up of compiled assembly language instructions. I guess that means there are no advanced viruses, since they had compiled assembly language instruction-based viruses 25 years ago.
See what I did there?
Modern bootkits remain quite advanced, combining MBR manipulation with hidden partitions running special, encrypted filesystems, downloading instructions from a P2P network guarded with public key cryptography all the while cloaking its activity from detection by all but the most advanced detection tools. Just because they had bootkits 25 years ago doesnt change the fact that today, the most advanced malware types are bootkits.
Until the portableapps gets hit by sality, that is.
Im not going to link resources to sality, as the new slashdot wouldnt let you click them anyways. Seriously, how hard is it to keep the website working in at least ONE of the major browsers?
Reinstalling doesnt remove all viruses: *The MBR can be infected, surviving reinstalls. This is the type of infection popureb is, in fact. *downloaded drivers may remain infected, as may any other executable content that you neglect to re-download. (Sality is a common virus that seeks out and infects every binary it can find)
Luckily for you, these two types of virus are incredibly common.
More like Microsoft corrected the once-again incorrect slashdot headlines, which misquoted them. The original statement refered to restoring the MBR, then performing a system recovery; the headline indicated "REFORMAT ZOMG".
Oh, you want SAS SSDs? Yea, youre not getting that for $300. The prices I quoted were for desktop grade HDD and SDD-- the "enterprise-grade" SSDs Ive seen were several times more expensive than the desktop grade (thousands).
Server-grade 2TB SATA drives (RE4 or equiv) go for about $200, which is about $0.10 per GB, still 10x cheaper than even desktop grade SSDs.
Noone seriously argues that SSDs can even remotely compete on capacity with HDDs; the area they compete is speed, and thats not always relevant when youre running an 8-disk array-- many controllers wouldnt be able to handle 8 SSDs, and fewer disks might lack the redundancy or capacity you want.
Ah, if only it werent an awful idea to shoot ionized air and ionized particles into a sensitive computer case. Enjoy having grime and crap plastered over all your components (protip, ever seen how filthy Ionic Breeze filters get, and how hard they become to clean?)
SSDs remain what, 1/6th the capacity and about 25x the cost per GB of spinning platters? Yea, thats a lot of nails in the HDD coffin alright.
Last I checked, a 2TB drive could be had for $80, which is $0.04 per GB, and you can scale to 3TB if you want. A 256GB SSD drive retails for what, $200? $300? Thats $1.00 per GB. I dont know what magical world you live in where that is suitable for every use case, but its certainly no good for large data storage, particularly when there are questions regarding reliability and what real-world flash failure looks like (is it still readable? Does the controller start spewing garbage?) Certainly theres a lot of speculation, but theres just not the same history, so it would be foolhardy to treat SSDs like theyre "battle tested" when theyre not.
Just wanted to add-- theres some kind of irony in accusing others of racism while simultaneously ridiculing them for the way they speak (presumably based on their geographic background).
The new "Spam" is adding people to every fucking mailing list they can buy, and scraping for email addresses everywhere.
Microsoft is a huge offender in this regard, and unlike most of the other legitimate spammers, they make it impossible to delist (have to sign up for a live account, adjust spam settings, and they still ignore them).
spamming out screeds about how "if you don't think what we think and hate those brownskinned people then Yer Not A Real Amurrikkan!"
A) possibly watch what lists you sign up for and B) you just went from "insightful" to "deranged ranting". Ive never heard anyone on any side of the spectrum say anything resembling that. I've certainly heard attacks on irresponsible spending from the "tea party", but if you want to conflate that with racism, carry on i suppose.
When I play games, I generally always see the CPU spiked to 100%-- even doing something like WoW several years ago on a core2 duo. Changing graphics cards definately upped my FPS, but CPU tends to stay pegged.
My understanding is that no matter what game it is (generally), its going to peg the CPU and GPU as hard as it can to get as much physics and rendering done as it can, and whatever it cant get done it just skips.
As for the business scenario you mentioned, my understanding is that the CPU will take over to some extent when the GPU is insufficient-- though it does a rather poor job of rendering. Possibly Im wrong and thats only for integrated graphics scenarios.
Ive always heard people talk about how faster cards need a faster CPU, and that if you do a 2.2ghz 2core AMD you will end up bottlenecking your high-end 6990 card, but Ive never really seen it quantified or explained; surely the CPU isnt processing data that the GPU spits out onto the DVI port; and we are well past the days of needing the CPU to intervene on RAM and HDD requests; a lot of the point of AGP and PCIe (IIRC) is that they do not require CPU intervention to access memory-- they have a direct link to the controller.
What Im getting at is, why WOULDNT the 2.9ghz Llano be sufficient for your Llano+ 2x HD6990 combo?
Ah, but if you get a discrete ATI card, it looks like the integrated graphics teams up with it in some kind of bizarre Crossfire setup, so the AMD processor would be even better than the i3. Good luck setting up dual-rendering between intel integrated and an nVidia or ATI card.
Slashdot Mirror
Woosh, you missed the part where cisco doesnt care about his preferences, and nor do their target demographic.
IMO, it is nontrivial if the laptop doesn't come with that software.
That is my point--
Etc etc. My point was exactly that-- that many (most?) laptops these days have the functionality these days to "invade privacy" by sniffing out nonbroadcasting SSIDs and displaying the sniffed info. Necessarily, to get those hidden SSIDs, you must capture packets that were not "broadcast" (in the sense that they had one intended recipient) and could be considered private communication.
And no, by the way, the first command was NOT about the apple (Gen 2), but as parent stated "be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1).
It really does say something about your knowledge of the Bible when you cant be bothered to even double check when someone corrects you.
The 1st amendment prevents Congress from limiting what you say, what you write, what you believe, where you gather, and whether you can petition. It does NOT prevent Congress from limiting your actions taken because of a belief, or because of what you heard, or what you did while assembling, etc etc etc.
In other words, it is constitutional to prevent a murder being done in the name of religion, or as a form of protest, or during an assembly, etc etc.
And this is a crystal clear example of someone who neither read the article nor was familiar with the case summary, and subsequently getting modded up for their ignorance.
To be absolutely clear here, the court ruled IN FAVOR of 1st amendment protections-- they STRUCK DOWN the censorship law. Yea, real clear example of judges legislating from the bench.
Please, before posting a scathing comment about SCOTUS and its rulings, try to learn what their ruling actually was.
Thats not actually what the judges said. Several of them lamented the double standard; Thomas indicated that his agreement with the law was based on the idea that parents should have control of what their children take in, which he grounded on the framework that the founders would have had (which I dont think is an unreasonable way to approach the question of "What were they trying to say in the Constitution").
I didnt see any of them arguing the line that the state must censor-- in fact the ruling was that in this case the state could not.
These state and local judges are free to reach their own conclusions and, if they wish, allow sex and nudity in contexts the SC claims is forbidden.
Thats not at all what the suit was about. The suit was about whether the state could RESTRICT such things, not whether it could allow them. SCOTUS ruled 7-2 that it could NOT restrict them.
Anyway, it seems he changed his mind sometime around Noah
Yes, when solomon speaks of the beauty of his wife's breasts in "song of solomon", clearly the language is symbolic and hes not talking about sex at all.
it was pretty much established who has the right to kill and who should be the ones killed and then the killing commenced.
If one accepts the premise that there is a creator, and that there were certain people who violated his commands, and that said creator was enacting judgement on them, it begins to make sense to understand why the israelites were commanded to begin their conquest. I do not recall however any time where it was established that "you may always kill these groups of outsiders, and not these"; the command as I recall it was "you shall not murder". The difference? Judgement (or, if you prefer, a commanded enactment of justice) is not murder, and if said creator exists, it would certainly have the authority to issue such judgements.
If, of course, you want to commit the fallacy of rejecting half of the bible's premises and then using said rejection as the groundwork for disproving the remainder, feel free; I certainly dont intend to get into a discussion with someone who is going to start out with a rejection of logic.
A good starting point for all this is to vilify the right-wing Christian culture that preaches violence over sex
And a good starting point seems to be building a strawman that exists in about 0.01% of culture that claims to be christian.
Kudos for getting the ball rolling.
The media is only responding to what a large portion of the populace demands.
Clarence Thomas is closer to the truth than you are. For starters, there ARE no 1st amendment rights, only protections-- the First Amendment does NOT say that you have a right to say certain things or to gather in certain places, but only that Congress shall not restrict it. The 14th amendment enshrines certain of those protections at the state level as well, though which apply to the states is always contentious (see DC's handgun laws).
Further, SCOTUS has ruled in the past that students in a schools-- even public schools-- may be prevented from speaking their mind because the school is at that point seen as an extension of the parent's authority.
The irony of Clarence Thomas' argument is that I agree with a lot of what he was saying-- basically, that parents need to parent. I disagree with the conclusion that he landed on, which is that we need the state to help the parents along the way; but this is less an issue (to my mind) of protecting the child's rights to do something and more an issue of what restrictions are being placed on the parent's rights.
even if unencrypted, data traveling over Wi-Fi networks is not considered "readily accessible to the general public," he found.
So for the legal buffs out there-- if google can demonstrate compellingly that that reasoning is wrong (in a way that a judge accepts), would google then have any leverage to again file for dismissal, since the reason their motion was overturned would have been removed?
I ask because one might be able to demonstrate that many laptops these days DO intercept unencrypted traffic in order to reveal "non-broadcasting" SSIDs-- in order to reveal their existence, packets must be "intercepted", and their target SSID / MAC shown. Further, as Im sure google will argue, software like Kismet, GrimWEPa, WiFite, Aircrack, et al very trivially and automatically begin gathering traffic; it takes no special expertise these days (after 10 years of progressively better WEP crackers) to do what it seems Google did.
Most malware is made up of compiled assembly language instructions. I guess that means there are no advanced viruses, since they had compiled assembly language instruction-based viruses 25 years ago.
See what I did there?
Modern bootkits remain quite advanced, combining MBR manipulation with hidden partitions running special, encrypted filesystems, downloading instructions from a P2P network guarded with public key cryptography all the while cloaking its activity from detection by all but the most advanced detection tools. Just because they had bootkits 25 years ago doesnt change the fact that today, the most advanced malware types are bootkits.
Until the portableapps gets hit by sality, that is.
Im not going to link resources to sality, as the new slashdot wouldnt let you click them anyways. Seriously, how hard is it to keep the website working in at least ONE of the major browsers?
Reinstalling doesnt remove all viruses:
*The MBR can be infected, surviving reinstalls. This is the type of infection popureb is, in fact.
*downloaded drivers may remain infected, as may any other executable content that you neglect to re-download. (Sality is a common virus that seeks out and infects every binary it can find)
Luckily for you, these two types of virus are incredibly common.
More like Microsoft corrected the once-again incorrect slashdot headlines, which misquoted them. The original statement refered to restoring the MBR, then performing a system recovery; the headline indicated "REFORMAT ZOMG".
who says youre th one making the decision?
Just did some research....
500GB SAS 6gb drive for $125
2TB SAS drive for $260
As for SSDs...
http://www.newegg.com/Store/SubCategory.aspx?SubCategory=2021&Tid=11691&name=Enterprise-SSD
What on that page looks even remotely comparable? I see several SSDs in the "multi-thousand" range, none of them hitting 2TB.
Oh, you want SAS SSDs? Yea, youre not getting that for $300. The prices I quoted were for desktop grade HDD and SDD-- the "enterprise-grade" SSDs Ive seen were several times more expensive than the desktop grade (thousands).
Server-grade 2TB SATA drives (RE4 or equiv) go for about $200, which is about $0.10 per GB, still 10x cheaper than even desktop grade SSDs.
Noone seriously argues that SSDs can even remotely compete on capacity with HDDs; the area they compete is speed, and thats not always relevant when youre running an 8-disk array-- many controllers wouldnt be able to handle 8 SSDs, and fewer disks might lack the redundancy or capacity you want.
Ah, if only it werent an awful idea to shoot ionized air and ionized particles into a sensitive computer case. Enjoy having grime and crap plastered over all your components (protip, ever seen how filthy Ionic Breeze filters get, and how hard they become to clean?)
SSDs remain what, 1/6th the capacity and about 25x the cost per GB of spinning platters? Yea, thats a lot of nails in the HDD coffin alright.
Last I checked, a 2TB drive could be had for $80, which is $0.04 per GB, and you can scale to 3TB if you want. A 256GB SSD drive retails for what, $200? $300? Thats $1.00 per GB. I dont know what magical world you live in where that is suitable for every use case, but its certainly no good for large data storage, particularly when there are questions regarding reliability and what real-world flash failure looks like (is it still readable? Does the controller start spewing garbage?) Certainly theres a lot of speculation, but theres just not the same history, so it would be foolhardy to treat SSDs like theyre "battle tested" when theyre not.
Just wanted to add-- theres some kind of irony in accusing others of racism while simultaneously ridiculing them for the way they speak (presumably based on their geographic background).
The new "Spam" is adding people to every fucking mailing list they can buy, and scraping for email addresses everywhere.
Microsoft is a huge offender in this regard, and unlike most of the other legitimate spammers, they make it impossible to delist (have to sign up for a live account, adjust spam settings, and they still ignore them).
spamming out screeds about how "if you don't think what we think and hate those brownskinned people then Yer Not A Real Amurrikkan!"
A) possibly watch what lists you sign up for
and B) you just went from "insightful" to "deranged ranting". Ive never heard anyone on any side of the spectrum say anything resembling that. I've certainly heard attacks on irresponsible spending from the "tea party", but if you want to conflate that with racism, carry on i suppose.
When I play games, I generally always see the CPU spiked to 100%-- even doing something like WoW several years ago on a core2 duo. Changing graphics cards definately upped my FPS, but CPU tends to stay pegged.
My understanding is that no matter what game it is (generally), its going to peg the CPU and GPU as hard as it can to get as much physics and rendering done as it can, and whatever it cant get done it just skips.
As for the business scenario you mentioned, my understanding is that the CPU will take over to some extent when the GPU is insufficient-- though it does a rather poor job of rendering. Possibly Im wrong and thats only for integrated graphics scenarios.
Ive always heard people talk about how faster cards need a faster CPU, and that if you do a 2.2ghz 2core AMD you will end up bottlenecking your high-end 6990 card, but Ive never really seen it quantified or explained; surely the CPU isnt processing data that the GPU spits out onto the DVI port; and we are well past the days of needing the CPU to intervene on RAM and HDD requests; a lot of the point of AGP and PCIe (IIRC) is that they do not require CPU intervention to access memory-- they have a direct link to the controller.
What Im getting at is, why WOULDNT the 2.9ghz Llano be sufficient for your Llano+ 2x HD6990 combo?
Ah, but if you get a discrete ATI card, it looks like the integrated graphics teams up with it in some kind of bizarre Crossfire setup, so the AMD processor would be even better than the i3. Good luck setting up dual-rendering between intel integrated and an nVidia or ATI card.