As soon as you have enough assets to become at all interesting economically, you make yourself a target for piracy. Think the drug cartels or mafia will protect you? History suggests otherwise; they'll just use you & hang you out to dry.
And trying to say "we can defend ourselves" means little, if anything. Think a few guns are going to be successful? History has repeatedly shown otherwise.
The kicker is as soon as you have any appreciable level of heavy arms, you can (and will) be declared a pirate yourself (or a haven for pirates), and a nation can claim universal jurisdiction and eliminate you.
Most importantly of all: It doesn't matter how much firepower you have on your little oil rig. It's still trivial to sink it or reduce it to rubble.
The wards are what pushed me towards NFSv4: - Kerberos is supported on NFSv4. - NFSv4 took inspiration from the good things in AFS; a full NFSv4 implementation will have local caching and will be securable over the Internet.
- If only somebody who has a clue would add support for something other than the old single DES for encryption (as is the case with NFSv3 & current builds of v4 on Linux). Sadly, I'm not that guy.
AFS is much more complicated to set up. I've set up & used AFS for a couple of months; AFS then smacked in the face with its shortcomings. AFS isn't a POSIX compliant FS - file locking in particular doesn't follow POSIX semantics, which introduces a number of limitations that aren't immediately apparent.
Fire up KDE or GNOME and watch things break in strange and confusing ways... Home folders for a Linux Desktop typically have some form of database or file that can be accessed by more than one process at once (such as SQLite or even an mbox mail file). File locking is important for GNOME and KDE, and things go awry when AFS is employed.
After fighting it for a couple of months, I gave up on using AFS for home directories. AFS does some neat things, but you have to know its limitations.
AFS looks pretty complex to set up, whereas Samba is dead simple. Am I missing something?
Must be. All I had to do was apt-get install netatalk and I had home directories. One line per share for additional directories to share took care of everything else. It just worked...
The problem (that is oh-so-common in the anti-Apple crowd) is that the world doesn't revolve around PC gaming. Many need to get past the belief that the only thing people care about is how many frames per second they can get in a game - and how small that part of the market really is.
This isn't about games, it's about getting real work done. And that is something that an external Thunderbolt GPU would be good for - when you're at the office, you plug in the GPU, and do your video editing and encoding using the external GPUs - and have additional monitors to help with video editing. You can use OpenCL to do compute-intensive work. For those that are ignorant: Apple makes heavy use of GPU acceleration, in everything from graphics editing and display to h.264 encoding. If they can use the GPU to accelerate it, they do. My graphics editor of choice uses Apple's GPU-accelrated API's to do just about everything with the images; filters run in real-time, rather than having to apply & undo while tweaking settings.
And most importantly: Thunderbolt isn't specific to notebooks. It allows professionals to plug in (and chain) multiple Thunderbolt devices into anything that has the port - be it a high end desktop that already has four GPU's churning away, to a notebook that has one. It allows for the user to scale the number of GPU resources in the same way we already scale storage with external drives.
The fact you could use it for games is a bit of a red herring - you could also use it to keep your drink warm.
But there is something wrong with just having the information given to the government at will.
The problem is in making the accusation that BlackBerry is just turning the data over, without any evidence to support it. I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt, because BlackBerry isn't so stupid as to think the law won't catch up with them if they are doing something illegal. They know their actions are going to be scrutinized.
If BlackBerry received proper warrants, then why shouldn't they publicly state they're helping in any way they can?
Is it better to keep that secret from your customers, or perhaps give them some warning that using their BlackBerry might not be the best idea?
I really don't see how it is any different than a regular wiretap: Blackberry gets a warrant on the grounds that the target is involved in a criminal activity, and BlackBerry is obligated to comply. It's certain that compliance with law enforcement is in the contract; they wouldn't be allowed to do business otherwise.
So my question is: Why do people think BlackBerry has a say in this? When the government asks them to jump, they jump - that is what the law demands. Failure to comply will result in fines and possibly forfeiture of their license to do business - either way their stock price drops further.
As always, the problem with PGP comes down to trust. Do you trust: - The other user's key - The other user's key has not been compromised (i.e.. stolen, 'missing', used by somebody else.) - The other users's device isn't compromised remotely (at the service provider level) - Keys the other user may have signed (or the other user's restraint in signing keys) are also valid - and so on along the chain.
And so on...
Encryption is a false security blanket in this case - it's already a given that mobile devices are, as a whole, remotely compromised by the service provider. The best you're going to hope for is that the communication to the other device is encrypted. There is no guarantee that the person holding it is your friend. The police could have already arrested her, and are in fact the ones you're sending incriminating messages to the police - which your phone happily decrypts for them.
There are more than enough competent federal employees. Don't make the mistake of assuming the lunacy of the generals also applies to the troops in the trenches.
You know, I'm not a fan of the pharma industry; but I have to admit they are stuck between a rock and a hard place - on one hand, they have products that really are wonders of the modern era. It takes decades and billions of dollars to research a drug, and even longer to get any sort of governmental approval. Charities they aren't.
What I can't excuse is the amount of money that's spent on "marketing" these drugs - often several times more than the cost of a drug's development and approval. That is, in my opinion, completely immoral to make a drug take 5-10 times longer to become profitable. The only reason I can think of that shareholders aren't in an uproar is because anybody who complains is "marketed" to with strippers.
On the other hand, whenever I hear "Big Pharma", my bullshit meter goes off. That's because, more than anything else, it's the catch phrase used by the "Nutritional" industry to sell their snake oil - products with no scientific basis at all, no regulation by any government agency, and a marketing department and expenditures that often puts the pharmaceutical companies to shame - enough that many doctors call them "Big Placebo", which is well earned scorn. People die because of false claims made by the nutritional companies, and unlike a pharmaceutical company, there's no recourse because there's no regulation.
And, of course, there's Homeopathy, ever railing against "Big Pharma", while conning people into spending obscene amounts of money for purified sugar and water; and killing people conned into believing that water will cure their staph infection. If homeopathy were true, then it's literally full of shit, and is in fact more potent than shit because it's been diluted.
At least pharmaceutical companies use science to try to help people, and can prove they are providing a real benefit. Nutritional and Homeopathy companies are motivated purely by profit - selling placebos which do nothing but make the customer poorer.
TFA's headline talks about anti-psychotic medications, yet the article itself is about the entire class of psychoactive drugs.
Antipsychotics are a small sliver of the class of psycoactive drugs.
Antidepressants are psychoactive, but they are not anti-psychotic. The same applies for anti-anxiety durgs, such as Xanax, mood stabilizers for bipolar disorder (such as lithium), and for drugs used for Attention Defecit, such as ritalyn.
The problem is TFA lumps drugs used for depression and anxiety disorders in the same category as drugs used for treating schizophrenia.
In other words, the headline is misleading. Psychoactive != antipsychotic. The headline is purposefully misleading the reader into thinking that because someone takes a psychoactive drug, they are psychotic, and since americans take a lot of psychoactive drugs, Americans are psychotic.
This isn't a surprising headline for a news service whose primary audience isn't fond of Americans.
I'd expect to see the same sort of headline in a Scientologist publication.
Phenylalanine is one of the components of Aspertame (ie. NutraSweet). So diet soft drinks contain phenylalanine - which is why diet drinks have the warning Phenylketonurics: Contains phenylalanine. "Regular" (ie. sugar-based) soft drinks do not contain phenylalanine. Corn Syrup is still sugar: it's a combination of glucose (the simplest sugar), and fructose (yet another sugar).
Phenylalanine is an ammino acid (ie. the class of chemicals that are the building blocks of protien).
Everything with protien in it (meat, eggs, dairy products, soy, nuts, seeds) contains it. It's impossible to avoid consumption of phenylalanine, as protien is a necessary part of the human diet - vegans still must consume non-animal sources of protien, such as soy.
A Human genetic disorder (Phenylketonuria) results in the inability to metabolize phenylalanine, which results in a buildup of the stuff in the blood of affected individuals, and it's necessary for them to eliminate unnecessary sources of phenylalanine from their diet - such as those containing Aspertame.
Now imagine that the nuclear waste of all USA power plants is *NOT* yet in Yucca Mountain, to be reviewed and reprocessed in 300 years. It would be like Fukushima Unit 4 [wikipedia.org] (mind I DIDN't say unit 1-3! I mean the pool), but then squared.
There's no reason the spent fuel shouldn't be put into dry storage casks now and stored at the reactor site. Suitable casks already exist, and have been designed to handle any imagined cataclysm for over a thousand years - hurricanes, tsunamis, fire, earthquake, explosives, tornadoes, etc; transporting the casks is an unnecessary step, and Yucca Mountain is an unnecessary expenditure (the facility is less than half completed, by the way).
The push to re-open yucca mountain is just NIMBY from the communities that wanted the benefits of nuclear power, but are unwilling to accept its costs.
Do you seriously believe that in 100 years from now, god-emperor Nehemiah Scudder [wikipedia.org] of East Utah
WTF... What does a work of fiction have to do with reality? Are we going to bring in the Lord of the Rings and present it as fact too? How about Tom Clancy's "The Sum of All Fears"?
Most of the curies released into the environment have been from coal, not nuclear, and released in a way that is far more hazardous to health.
No. The amount released by the high altitude nuclear tests alone was over 5 exabecquerels - several times more than Chernobyl and Fukushima combined.
The primary health concern with burning of coal is from mercury vapor, not weakly radioactive isotopes with half-lives in the million-year range. The radiation from coal isn't much more dangerous than from eating a banana.
>Nevada (and the transit states of New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho, and Utah) have no nuclear plants. Why should they pay nearly all of the penalties, and enjoy none of the benefits?
Sorry.. You lost me right there... You do know that the first peaceful nuclear reactor in the us was in idaho, right? (idaho national labratory) and tons of other reactors? there is a GIANT reservation there for nuclear stuff. (and is the location of one of the very, very few nuclear incidents) If I remember right, the navy even trains there for their 'mop and glo's' for part of their training.
The only nuclear plants in Idaho are research reactors. There are no commercial power plants, and never have been. There was a plant intended for nuclear fuel reprocessing, but it was never put into use after congress outlawed processing of nuclear fuel (see a trend here? - no nuclear material gets transported.) There's a HUGE difference in scale between a commercial plant and a research reactor. Heck, the University of Utah has a small reactor - but just because it's a reactor doesn't make it dangerous - the radiation levels are so low that bare hands are used to work on the reactor core.
Do you realize how many nuclear weapons are sitting in Colorado and Wyoming? most of our ICBM's are located in those two states for craps sakes.
Patently false. Most of our ICBM's are submarine-based, and the few that are land-based are in North Dakota and Montana (A thousand miles shorter distance to get to the Soviet Union means you can carry more warheads.)
Remember war-games?
You mean the movie - a work of fiction?
NORAD is in cheyenne mountain, but there are no nukes there; it's a nuclear bunker for command and control - not for weapon storage.
Utah is where most nuclear testing took place, because of its very, very low population density.
Again, patently false. Utah has had zero nuclear tests.
More to the point: The detonations in Nevada threw up enough fallout to cause radioactive ash clouds to "snow" in Salt Lake City - whose population density isn't that different from most cities in the US. So densely populated areas were affected, and the number of people involved is quite high.
Being killed because you're a minority is no less of an outrage than being killed because you live in a rural area. Government sanction doesn't make it any less wrong.
I'm not trying to blame Harry Reid or pin it on anyone. I am merely pointing out the fact that without Harry Reid, all the rest wouldn't have the power and capability to prevent the US from going forward with storing nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain. Like it or not, that's the reality of the situation.
There are other powerful senators (such as Orrin Hatch of DCMA infamy) in neighboring states who are no less passionate about refusing nuclear waste.
Believe me: It's not just Nevada that fought Yucca Mountain. Utah also has a licensed nuclear waste disposal site - one that slipped past all congressional review because of a loophole in laws surrounding indian reservations; the company that instigated has had to run a massive PR campaign just to keep people from being violent to their employees. The surrounding states of Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Idaho were also vigorously opposed to Yucca Mountain.
Here's reality for you: When there was a shipment of high-level nuclear waste destined for the disposal site on the Goshute reservation, previous governors of Utah have ordered the national guard to blockade shipments of nuclear waste into the state, in clear violation of Federal mandate. We're not talking about a political disagreement; we're talking about armed conflict. It's not personal reputations or careers that are at stake, but lives, hopes and dreams.
There is an overall ignorance in much of the US that nuclear waste disposal in the region is in the most literal sense unacceptable - regular citizens who don't have strong feelings about anything would rather die fighting in a military conflict than be forced to accept the nuclear garbage of people thousands of miles away.
Trying to pin all of that on Harry Reid is an insult to everybody who fought for decades to protect themselves from the tyrrany of the majority. It wasn't just a victory for Nevada. Yucca Mountain was kept on hold before Harry Reid hit the scene; he just happened to be around when a former senatorial colleague from Illinois took the time to understand the level of opposition by those most affected, and conclude that it wasn't worth killing over.
Kamps said better sites for a repository include deep granite formations in places like New Hampshire, Wisconsin or Minnesota
I never mentioned any of the other proposed sites; so it must be a bit of cross-posting. Honestly, Yucca is the most logical choice for a central repository. And I do live in an affected area. I also believe that it makes far more sense for dry cask storage on-site than to transport it across the country to the central repository.
However, all governments need to take into account the human element, and political capital. To be honest, anything with nuclear waste disposal in the area is seen as a callous vote by 'east-coast' legislators who don't care about the local area - or the graves that are now filled because of them.
NIMBY generally refers to the fear that something might happen. The problem with Nevada (and the surrounding area) is that something bad already did happen, and the populace will be damned if they let something nuclear happen to them again - to the point of risking armed conflict. To say it's a failure of government is a massive understatement.
So while from an engineering standpoint, Yucca is a logical choice, from a political standpoint, you would have a hard time doing much worse - unlike the sites in New Hampshire, Minnesota, or Wisconsin, the people near Yucca have firsthand experience with widespread nuclear fallout, and will fight considerably more vigorously.
Food for thought (and a common complaint I hear): If the dry casks are supposed to be so safe, then what's the problem with leaving them at the nuclear plant? They've been designed to survive all of the cataclysms people are worrying about (explosives, train wrecks, tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, fires, nuclear holocausts...) so exactly how are they going to be any more dangerous at the power plant?
There's no question that the waste should be taken from spent fuel pools and put in dry casks now. But there are reasonable and practical arguments that the casks should never leave the site.
Regarding the reprocessing - if we ever did that on a large scale I expect the facility would be built near Yucca Mountain
I've seen designs for nuclear reactors that are supposed to take the spent fuel rods directly from a cask and burn it - with no reprocessing whatsoever. There's apparently no need for a reprocessing facility anywhere, so why run the risk of transporting the casks at all?
I’m a big proponent of nuclear energy- it's a necessary cornerstone to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I think the best thing we can do is build modern reactors that can use the nuclear 'waste' as fuel, and burn it down to isotopes that decay in a few human generations. However, I'm not ignorant about the tragic failure of government that is the primary cause for the opposition to Yucca Mountain, and am keenly aware that there is no political capital left to spend - and why.
Trying to pin the "problem" with Yucca Mountain on Harry Reid is just aiming for the guy at the top.
The fact is that pretty much every representative in Nevada - local and federal - for the decades Yucca Mountain has been planned - have opposed the facility.
Neighboring states also have an interest in making sure Yucca Mountain never stores waste - the most dangerous part of the task (aside from putting the waste in the casks) is the waste transit, and some-odd 70% of it goes through Utah, following a route that hits nearly every major city in the state, and affecting over 2/3 of the state's population.
Both Utah & Nevada (among others) have (and will continue to have) appalling rates of cancer and mortality due to the nation's nuclear policies in the past. I know more than a few people who live sans-thyroid (and federal compensation) because the same government that's promoting the waste facility decided to airburst several nuclear bombs & study the effects of fallout on the populace -- all without consent or even informing them about anything. People are still getting cancer from those tests - from kids to adults. The tally is estimated to eventually reach over 100,000 people - the number still climbing.
My wife's parents remember playing in "snow" in July - white, radioactive fallout ash falling like snow for several hours. They didn't understand why their parents made them come inside after they'd been playing in it for the better part of the day.
Normally when a government kills that many of its own civilians, the world community invokes sanctions and somebody tries to do something for those who are dying. When the United States does it to the people in Utah and Nevada, it's met with a shrug and forgotten.
The residents aren't ignorant of the effects of nuclear isotopes - there are few places on Earth where the populace is as intimately familiar with its effects -- as well as the callous regard its own government holds for the lives that were destroyed by nuclear isotopes.
It's not about the possibility that people might be hurt if there's an accident - It's about the tens of thousands of graves that are currently filled by friends and family because of past nuclear bungling.
The governors of the affected states have called up the National Guard to block shipments of nuclear waste in the past, and they'll do it again. There's no trust that the federal government will do anything for their safety - that political capital was exhausted decades ago, and until people stop dying (in a century or so), nothing will be enough to convince the states otherwise.
That is the failure of Yucca Mountain: the callous disregard for these smaller states, and the insistence that they "take one for the team" to the point the states are willing to risk a hopeless civil war.
The problem with "Yucca Mountain" has nothing to do with the facility - there are shortcomings, but I'm not aware of any place that would be better.
The problem is in the transport of the material to the facility - it affects more people, passes through densely populated areas, involves more congressional districts, and is easily the most dangerous part of the plan. The nation's nuclear failings and broken promises with the residents of the affected transit areas doesn't help either.
It's one thing to get past fears when speaking to a random group of people; it's another thing entirely to say it to a populace that's already suffered tens of thousands of deaths from Nuclear fallout, and are still expected to have tens of thousands more - and that's before anything involving waste from power plants is involved.
To many of the downwinders, it's not a "write your congressman" type of issue - it's an armed rebellion sort of problem.
Hate to tell you this, but the problem isn't really NIMBY - it's about several states being forced into something that's very much against their interests, and in a way that can potentially depopulate whole cities. The waste storage itself isn't the largest problem; the site can be secured relatively easily, and is safer than in the spent fuel pools at our nation's nuclear plants.
The problem lies outside Yucca Mountain: It's partly in safety, and mostly in politics.
The issue is that large, populous states, nearly all of which are east of the Mississippi river, are forcing Nevada to take the waste. With only three in the house and two senators to oppose, Nevada is largely powerless to stop it. The choice of Yucca mountain is in large part because the populous states with nuclear plants outvote Nevada by a factor approaching 100. Nevada doesn't even have a nuclear plant.
The issue is about state soverignty and why they should be involuntarily turned into a garbage dump for the East Coast. - Nevada (and the transit states of New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho, and Utah) have no nuclear plants. Why should they pay nearly all of the penalties, and enjoy none of the benefits?
There has been more than enough suffering from broken nuclear energy promises in these states. For the residents affected, nuclear fallout isn't a distant fear, or a paranoid fantasy - it is a hard reality. It's not that it might happen, but that it already has, and it was forced upon them involuntarily. - These states have already suffered the terrible cost (in lives) from radioactive fallout from the nuclear tests of the cold war, with tens of thousands dead, and many times more fighting thyroid cancer. (American film icons John Wayne and Susan Hayward died from cancer induced from the fallout of these tests).
- The amount of radiation exposure in these states was over 5.5 exabecquerels - levels that dwarf that of Chernobyl and Fukushima combined. - Why should these states (again) pay the penalty for nuclear energy - espescially when they receive no benefit from it? - Why should these states believe yet another "promise" of safety from an industry (and government) that's proven highly effective at covering up problems and killing their family members?
We're talking about the same government who decided it was a good idea to store and dispose of the nation's (extensive) supply of nerve gas only a few miles away from a population center of two million, and the same industry that has been found covering up massive problems in order to extend the lives of reactors well beyond their design and safety limits.
The waste will travel through New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, and Nevada - exposing all of those states to the bulk of what is by far the most dangerous part of the whole project - transit of the waste. Estimates put 70% of the waste traveling through the Salt Lake Valley - population of ~2 million or so. It's not possible to secure the transit routes - there are just too many miles, too many people. The dry casks are tough, but they're not perfect. It's impossible to secure an entire city, or even the tracks along the route. I don't want to bring up "terrorism" here, but it doesn't even take a release of material - just an incident terrorists can claim they caused - to cause a lot of recrimination and panic.
Governers can and have called out the national guard (ie. state-controlled military) to prevent waste from entering the state. Tanks, helicopters, and a company of heavily armed, and highly motivated national guardsman is a pretty big deterrent to a mere shipping company. It inevitably ends up as a standoff where the Federal Government backs down, because frankly, how good does it look to the rest of the World if the US uses its military on one of its own states for not allowing themselves to be the waste dump of the most dangerous stuff on Earth - espescially when the waste comes from thousands of miles
As far as solid state mass storage: Since Apple is buying their solid state storage directly from Samsung, it's difficult to argue that Apple is infringing on Samsung's solid state storage patents. It makes as much sense as Western Digital suing Apple because Macs use drive technology patented by WD, or Ford suing an auto parts store that carries Ford parts. There's not much hope of winning anything there.
For the wireless patents: I've read a review from a patent lawyer who stated that if the patents in question are necessary for 3G, then Samsung is still up a creek because they're bound by their agreements to the 3GPP standards body to license them under FRAND ("Fair", reasonable, and non-discriminatory) terms. In other words, they'd be unable to force Apple to enter into a cross-licensing agreement; Apple would pay a FRAND pittance for the patent license, and be on their merry way. (http://thisismynext.com/2011/04/29/samsung-sues-apple-infringing-10-patents-closer/)
All in all, it's interesting: I'm not sure I see the value in the things Apple is trying to force Samsung to change, nor do I see Samsung as having much chance of winning on its counter-claims. Must be a good day to be a lawyer.
Then why hasn't Samsung worked around the patents already?
This is especially true of the design patents. Pick another icon, for crying out loud. One of Apple's claims is the 'phone' icon is nearly identical - and they're right; it's nearly identical - more than close enough to violate the design patent. Same goes for the Weather, Text messaging, Mail, Notes, and Calendar app. (Seriously - does the calendar have to have a red bar on top exactly like Apple's, and even in the same shade of red?). Even the 'photos' icon has a sunflower on it - just like Apple's design patent.
One needs only look at the variety of alternate icons for Photo or Weather apps to see that it's not hard to work around the design patents.
The design patents are absolutely trivial to work around, yet Samsung refuses to do so; this refusal, I think indicates that Samsung knows they are violating the patents, and have no intention of changing anything.
Samsung's attempt at blocking iPhone imports seems to indicate that Samsung feels it's likely that it will lose, that it has no intention to work around Apple's patents, and is therefore shooting for more favorable terms (ie. a cross-licensing agreement, instead of having change their products).
Whether one agrees with the design patent is another story; but the fact is that they were granted, and Apple is within its rights to enforce them.
Anytime I hear somebody talk "western mindset", I see somebody who's never actually left the West. Visiting urban 'westernized' cities in other parts of the world doesn't count.
Documentaries on TV show what will get the target audience to sit through commericals. Audiences eat up documentaries that portray non-western cultures as idyllic, peaceful, and beautiful places to live, where there is more enlightenment and care for each other. Material that doesn't agree with the audience-demanded image of a better, greener, more ethical way to live doesn't make the cut.
Filmmakers don't show you the world as it is: They show you the world you want to see so they can get paid.
The law is so asinine I'd make the several hundred mile trip to San Francisco just to buy a pet there out of civil disobedience.
The euthanasia of unwanted companion animals is tragic, but handing animal shelters a monopoly in companion animals isn't going to make those animals any more wanted.
Shelters generally only have two species: cats & dogs.
There are many people who cannot have a dog or cat in their home (because of allergies, landlord, Homeowner's Assosciation, medical conditions, etc.) Many pets are less expensive to keep than a cat or dog.
You're not going to convince somebody that wants an iguana that a mutt is a better alternative. When was the last time you saw a fish in an animal shelter? How about a gecko or a hermit crab? A bird? How about a turtle?
What if (gasp!) somebody wants a responsibly bred animal, whose parents don't have any of a number of inherited conditions?
It's clear the law isn't about caring for animals at all: It's about denying people the right to love and care for another creature, which is an inalienable. It's despicable.
Slashdot Mirror
As soon as you have enough assets to become at all interesting economically, you make yourself a target for piracy. Think the drug cartels or mafia will protect you? History suggests otherwise; they'll just use you & hang you out to dry.
And trying to say "we can defend ourselves" means little, if anything. Think a few guns are going to be successful? History has repeatedly shown otherwise.
The kicker is as soon as you have any appreciable level of heavy arms, you can (and will) be declared a pirate yourself (or a haven for pirates), and a nation can claim universal jurisdiction and eliminate you.
Most importantly of all: It doesn't matter how much firepower you have on your little oil rig. It's still trivial to sink it or reduce it to rubble.
The wards are what pushed me towards NFSv4:
- Kerberos is supported on NFSv4.
- NFSv4 took inspiration from the good things in AFS; a full NFSv4 implementation will have local caching and will be securable over the Internet.
- If only somebody who has a clue would add support for something other than the old single DES for encryption (as is the case with NFSv3 & current builds of v4 on Linux). Sadly, I'm not that guy.
AFS and AFP are not the same thing.
D'oh. You are correct, sir.
AFS is much more complicated to set up. I've set up & used AFS for a couple of months; AFS then smacked in the face with its shortcomings. AFS isn't a POSIX compliant FS - file locking in particular doesn't follow POSIX semantics, which introduces a number of limitations that aren't immediately apparent.
Fire up KDE or GNOME and watch things break in strange and confusing ways... Home folders for a Linux Desktop typically have some form of database or file that can be accessed by more than one process at once (such as SQLite or even an mbox mail file). File locking is important for GNOME and KDE, and things go awry when AFS is employed.
After fighting it for a couple of months, I gave up on using AFS for home directories. AFS does some neat things, but you have to know its limitations.
AFS looks pretty complex to set up, whereas Samba is dead simple. Am I missing something?
Must be. All I had to do was apt-get install netatalk and I had home directories. One line per share for additional directories to share took care of everything else. It just worked...
The problem (that is oh-so-common in the anti-Apple crowd) is that the world doesn't revolve around PC gaming. Many need to get past the belief that the only thing people care about is how many frames per second they can get in a game - and how small that part of the market really is.
This isn't about games, it's about getting real work done. And that is something that an external Thunderbolt GPU would be good for - when you're at the office, you plug in the GPU, and do your video editing and encoding using the external GPUs - and have additional monitors to help with video editing. You can use OpenCL to do compute-intensive work. For those that are ignorant: Apple makes heavy use of GPU acceleration, in everything from graphics editing and display to h.264 encoding. If they can use the GPU to accelerate it, they do. My graphics editor of choice uses Apple's GPU-accelrated API's to do just about everything with the images; filters run in real-time, rather than having to apply & undo while tweaking settings.
And most importantly: Thunderbolt isn't specific to notebooks. It allows professionals to plug in (and chain) multiple Thunderbolt devices into anything that has the port - be it a high end desktop that already has four GPU's churning away, to a notebook that has one. It allows for the user to scale the number of GPU resources in the same way we already scale storage with external drives.
The fact you could use it for games is a bit of a red herring - you could also use it to keep your drink warm.
But there is something wrong with just having the information given to the government at will.
The problem is in making the accusation that BlackBerry is just turning the data over, without any evidence to support it. I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt, because BlackBerry isn't so stupid as to think the law won't catch up with them if they are doing something illegal. They know their actions are going to be scrutinized.
If BlackBerry received proper warrants, then why shouldn't they publicly state they're helping in any way they can?
Is it better to keep that secret from your customers, or perhaps give them some warning that using their BlackBerry might not be the best idea?
I really don't see how it is any different than a regular wiretap: Blackberry gets a warrant on the grounds that the target is involved in a criminal activity, and BlackBerry is obligated to comply. It's certain that compliance with law enforcement is in the contract; they wouldn't be allowed to do business otherwise.
So my question is: Why do people think BlackBerry has a say in this? When the government asks them to jump, they jump - that is what the law demands. Failure to comply will result in fines and possibly forfeiture of their license to do business - either way their stock price drops further.
As always, the problem with PGP comes down to trust. Do you trust:
- The other user's key
- The other user's key has not been compromised (i.e.. stolen, 'missing', used by somebody else.)
- The other users's device isn't compromised remotely (at the service provider level)
- Keys the other user may have signed (or the other user's restraint in signing keys) are also valid - and so on along the chain.
And so on...
Encryption is a false security blanket in this case - it's already a given that mobile devices are, as a whole, remotely compromised by the service provider. The best you're going to hope for is that the communication to the other device is encrypted. There is no guarantee that the person holding it is your friend. The police could have already arrested her, and are in fact the ones you're sending incriminating messages to the police - which your phone happily decrypts for them.
There are more than enough competent federal employees. Don't make the mistake of assuming the lunacy of the generals also applies to the troops in the trenches.
It's not just slashdot. It's the entire astrophysicist community.
We should never forget "Black Holes" that destroy anything that come close enough - that's both racist and sexist.
You know, I'm not a fan of the pharma industry; but I have to admit they are stuck between a rock and a hard place - on one hand, they have products that really are wonders of the modern era. It takes decades and billions of dollars to research a drug, and even longer to get any sort of governmental approval. Charities they aren't.
What I can't excuse is the amount of money that's spent on "marketing" these drugs - often several times more than the cost of a drug's development and approval. That is, in my opinion, completely immoral to make a drug take 5-10 times longer to become profitable. The only reason I can think of that shareholders aren't in an uproar is because anybody who complains is "marketed" to with strippers.
On the other hand, whenever I hear "Big Pharma", my bullshit meter goes off. That's because, more than anything else, it's the catch phrase used by the "Nutritional" industry to sell their snake oil - products with no scientific basis at all, no regulation by any government agency, and a marketing department and expenditures that often puts the pharmaceutical companies to shame - enough that many doctors call them "Big Placebo", which is well earned scorn. People die because of false claims made by the nutritional companies, and unlike a pharmaceutical company, there's no recourse because there's no regulation.
And, of course, there's Homeopathy, ever railing against "Big Pharma", while conning people into spending obscene amounts of money for purified sugar and water; and killing people conned into believing that water will cure their staph infection. If homeopathy were true, then it's literally full of shit, and is in fact more potent than shit because it's been diluted.
At least pharmaceutical companies use science to try to help people, and can prove they are providing a real benefit. Nutritional and Homeopathy companies are motivated purely by profit - selling placebos which do nothing but make the customer poorer.
TFA's headline talks about anti-psychotic medications, yet the article itself is about the entire class of psychoactive drugs.
Antipsychotics are a small sliver of the class of psycoactive drugs.
Antidepressants are psychoactive, but they are not anti-psychotic. The same applies for anti-anxiety durgs, such as Xanax, mood stabilizers for bipolar disorder (such as lithium), and for drugs used for Attention Defecit, such as ritalyn.
The problem is TFA lumps drugs used for depression and anxiety disorders in the same category as drugs used for treating schizophrenia.
In other words, the headline is misleading. Psychoactive != antipsychotic. The headline is purposefully misleading the reader into thinking that because someone takes a psychoactive drug, they are psychotic, and since americans take a lot of psychoactive drugs, Americans are psychotic.
This isn't a surprising headline for a news service whose primary audience isn't fond of Americans.
I'd expect to see the same sort of headline in a Scientologist publication.
This isn't quite accurate.
Phenylalanine is one of the components of Aspertame (ie. NutraSweet). So diet soft drinks contain phenylalanine - which is why diet drinks have the warning Phenylketonurics: Contains phenylalanine. "Regular" (ie. sugar-based) soft drinks do not contain phenylalanine. Corn Syrup is still sugar: it's a combination of glucose (the simplest sugar), and fructose (yet another sugar).
Phenylalanine is an ammino acid (ie. the class of chemicals that are the building blocks of protien).
Everything with protien in it (meat, eggs, dairy products, soy, nuts, seeds) contains it. It's impossible to avoid consumption of phenylalanine, as protien is a necessary part of the human diet - vegans still must consume non-animal sources of protien, such as soy.
A Human genetic disorder (Phenylketonuria) results in the inability to metabolize phenylalanine, which results in a buildup of the stuff in the blood of affected individuals, and it's necessary for them to eliminate unnecessary sources of phenylalanine from their diet - such as those containing Aspertame.
Now imagine that the nuclear waste of all USA power plants is *NOT* yet in Yucca Mountain, to be reviewed and reprocessed in 300 years. It would be like Fukushima Unit 4 [wikipedia.org] (mind I DIDN't say unit 1-3! I mean the pool), but then squared.
There's no reason the spent fuel shouldn't be put into dry storage casks now and stored at the reactor site. Suitable casks already exist, and have been designed to handle any imagined cataclysm for over a thousand years - hurricanes, tsunamis, fire, earthquake, explosives, tornadoes, etc; transporting the casks is an unnecessary step, and Yucca Mountain is an unnecessary expenditure (the facility is less than half completed, by the way).
The push to re-open yucca mountain is just NIMBY from the communities that wanted the benefits of nuclear power, but are unwilling to accept its costs.
Do you seriously believe that in 100 years from now, god-emperor Nehemiah Scudder [wikipedia.org] of East Utah
WTF... What does a work of fiction have to do with reality? Are we going to bring in the Lord of the Rings and present it as fact too? How about Tom Clancy's "The Sum of All Fears"?
Most of the curies released into the environment have been from coal, not nuclear, and released in a way that is far more hazardous to health.
No. The amount released by the high altitude nuclear tests alone was over 5 exabecquerels - several times more than Chernobyl and Fukushima combined.
The primary health concern with burning of coal is from mercury vapor, not weakly radioactive isotopes with half-lives in the million-year range. The radiation from coal isn't much more dangerous than from eating a banana.
>Nevada (and the transit states of New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho, and Utah) have no nuclear plants. Why should they pay nearly all of the penalties, and enjoy none of the benefits?
Sorry.. You lost me right there... You do know that the first peaceful nuclear reactor in the us was in idaho, right? (idaho national labratory) and tons of other reactors? there is a GIANT reservation there for nuclear stuff. (and is the location of one of the very, very few nuclear incidents) If I remember right, the navy even trains there for their 'mop and glo's' for part of their training.
The only nuclear plants in Idaho are research reactors. There are no commercial power plants, and never have been. There was a plant intended for nuclear fuel reprocessing, but it was never put into use after congress outlawed processing of nuclear fuel (see a trend here? - no nuclear material gets transported.) There's a HUGE difference in scale between a commercial plant and a research reactor. Heck, the University of Utah has a small reactor - but just because it's a reactor doesn't make it dangerous - the radiation levels are so low that bare hands are used to work on the reactor core.
Do you realize how many nuclear weapons are sitting in Colorado and Wyoming? most of our ICBM's are located in those two states for craps sakes.
Patently false. Most of our ICBM's are submarine-based, and the few that are land-based are in North Dakota and Montana (A thousand miles shorter distance to get to the Soviet Union means you can carry more warheads.)
Remember war-games?
You mean the movie - a work of fiction?
NORAD is in cheyenne mountain, but there are no nukes there; it's a nuclear bunker for command and control - not for weapon storage.
Utah is where most nuclear testing took place, because of its very, very low population density.
Again, patently false. Utah has had zero nuclear tests.
More to the point: The detonations in Nevada threw up enough fallout to cause radioactive ash clouds to "snow" in Salt Lake City - whose population density isn't that different from most cities in the US. So densely populated areas were affected, and the number of people involved is quite high.
Being killed because you're a minority is no less of an outrage than being killed because you live in a rural area. Government sanction doesn't make it any less wrong.
I'm not trying to blame Harry Reid or pin it on anyone. I am merely pointing out the fact that without Harry Reid, all the rest wouldn't have the power and capability to prevent the US from going forward with storing nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain. Like it or not, that's the reality of the situation.
There are other powerful senators (such as Orrin Hatch of DCMA infamy) in neighboring states who are no less passionate about refusing nuclear waste.
Believe me: It's not just Nevada that fought Yucca Mountain. Utah also has a licensed nuclear waste disposal site - one that slipped past all congressional review because of a loophole in laws surrounding indian reservations; the company that instigated has had to run a massive PR campaign just to keep people from being violent to their employees. The surrounding states of Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Idaho were also vigorously opposed to Yucca Mountain.
Here's reality for you: When there was a shipment of high-level nuclear waste destined for the disposal site on the Goshute reservation, previous governors of Utah have ordered the national guard to blockade shipments of nuclear waste into the state, in clear violation of Federal mandate. We're not talking about a political disagreement; we're talking about armed conflict. It's not personal reputations or careers that are at stake, but lives, hopes and dreams.
There is an overall ignorance in much of the US that nuclear waste disposal in the region is in the most literal sense unacceptable - regular citizens who don't have strong feelings about anything would rather die fighting in a military conflict than be forced to accept the nuclear garbage of people thousands of miles away.
Trying to pin all of that on Harry Reid is an insult to everybody who fought for decades to protect themselves from the tyrrany of the majority. It wasn't just a victory for Nevada. Yucca Mountain was kept on hold before Harry Reid hit the scene; he just happened to be around when a former senatorial colleague from Illinois took the time to understand the level of opposition by those most affected, and conclude that it wasn't worth killing over.
Kamps said better sites for a repository include deep granite formations in places like New Hampshire, Wisconsin or Minnesota
I never mentioned any of the other proposed sites; so it must be a bit of cross-posting. Honestly, Yucca is the most logical choice for a central repository. And I do live in an affected area. I also believe that it makes far more sense for dry cask storage on-site than to transport it across the country to the central repository.
However, all governments need to take into account the human element, and political capital. To be honest, anything with nuclear waste disposal in the area is seen as a callous vote by 'east-coast' legislators who don't care about the local area - or the graves that are now filled because of them.
NIMBY generally refers to the fear that something might happen. The problem with Nevada (and the surrounding area) is that something bad already did happen, and the populace will be damned if they let something nuclear happen to them again - to the point of risking armed conflict. To say it's a failure of government is a massive understatement.
So while from an engineering standpoint, Yucca is a logical choice, from a political standpoint, you would have a hard time doing much worse - unlike the sites in New Hampshire, Minnesota, or Wisconsin, the people near Yucca have firsthand experience with widespread nuclear fallout, and will fight considerably more vigorously.
Food for thought (and a common complaint I hear): If the dry casks are supposed to be so safe, then what's the problem with leaving them at the nuclear plant? They've been designed to survive all of the cataclysms people are worrying about (explosives, train wrecks, tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, fires, nuclear holocausts...) so exactly how are they going to be any more dangerous at the power plant?
There's no question that the waste should be taken from spent fuel pools and put in dry casks now. But there are reasonable and practical arguments that the casks should never leave the site.
Regarding the reprocessing - if we ever did that on a large scale I expect the facility would be built near Yucca Mountain
I've seen designs for nuclear reactors that are supposed to take the spent fuel rods directly from a cask and burn it - with no reprocessing whatsoever. There's apparently no need for a reprocessing facility anywhere, so why run the risk of transporting the casks at all?
I’m a big proponent of nuclear energy- it's a necessary cornerstone to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I think the best thing we can do is build modern reactors that can use the nuclear 'waste' as fuel, and burn it down to isotopes that decay in a few human generations. However, I'm not ignorant about the tragic failure of government that is the primary cause for the opposition to Yucca Mountain, and am keenly aware that there is no political capital left to spend - and why.
Trying to pin the "problem" with Yucca Mountain on Harry Reid is just aiming for the guy at the top.
The fact is that pretty much every representative in Nevada - local and federal - for the decades Yucca Mountain has been planned - have opposed the facility.
Neighboring states also have an interest in making sure Yucca Mountain never stores waste - the most dangerous part of the task (aside from putting the waste in the casks) is the waste transit, and some-odd 70% of it goes through Utah, following a route that hits nearly every major city in the state, and affecting over 2/3 of the state's population.
Both Utah & Nevada (among others) have (and will continue to have) appalling rates of cancer and mortality due to the nation's nuclear policies in the past. I know more than a few people who live sans-thyroid (and federal compensation) because the same government that's promoting the waste facility decided to airburst several nuclear bombs & study the effects of fallout on the populace -- all without consent or even informing them about anything. People are still getting cancer from those tests - from kids to adults. The tally is estimated to eventually reach over 100,000 people - the number still climbing.
My wife's parents remember playing in "snow" in July - white, radioactive fallout ash falling like snow for several hours. They didn't understand why their parents made them come inside after they'd been playing in it for the better part of the day.
Normally when a government kills that many of its own civilians, the world community invokes sanctions and somebody tries to do something for those who are dying. When the United States does it to the people in Utah and Nevada, it's met with a shrug and forgotten.
The residents aren't ignorant of the effects of nuclear isotopes - there are few places on Earth where the populace is as intimately familiar with its effects -- as well as the callous regard its own government holds for the lives that were destroyed by nuclear isotopes.
It's not about the possibility that people might be hurt if there's an accident - It's about the tens of thousands of graves that are currently filled by friends and family because of past nuclear bungling.
The governors of the affected states have called up the National Guard to block shipments of nuclear waste in the past, and they'll do it again. There's no trust that the federal government will do anything for their safety - that political capital was exhausted decades ago, and until people stop dying (in a century or so), nothing will be enough to convince the states otherwise.
That is the failure of Yucca Mountain: the callous disregard for these smaller states, and the insistence that they "take one for the team" to the point the states are willing to risk a hopeless civil war.
The problem with "Yucca Mountain" has nothing to do with the facility - there are shortcomings, but I'm not aware of any place that would be better.
The problem is in the transport of the material to the facility - it affects more people, passes through densely populated areas, involves more congressional districts, and is easily the most dangerous part of the plan. The nation's nuclear failings and broken promises with the residents of the affected transit areas doesn't help either.
It's one thing to get past fears when speaking to a random group of people; it's another thing entirely to say it to a populace that's already suffered tens of thousands of deaths from Nuclear fallout, and are still expected to have tens of thousands more - and that's before anything involving waste from power plants is involved.
To many of the downwinders, it's not a "write your congressman" type of issue - it's an armed rebellion sort of problem.
Hate to tell you this, but the problem isn't really NIMBY - it's about several states being forced into something that's very much against their interests, and in a way that can potentially depopulate whole cities. The waste storage itself isn't the largest problem; the site can be secured relatively easily, and is safer than in the spent fuel pools at our nation's nuclear plants.
The problem lies outside Yucca Mountain: It's partly in safety, and mostly in politics.
The issue is that large, populous states, nearly all of which are east of the Mississippi river, are forcing Nevada to take the waste. With only three in the house and two senators to oppose, Nevada is largely powerless to stop it. The choice of Yucca mountain is in large part because the populous states with nuclear plants outvote Nevada by a factor approaching 100. Nevada doesn't even have a nuclear plant.
The issue is about state soverignty and why they should be involuntarily turned into a garbage dump for the East Coast. - Nevada (and the transit states of New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho, and Utah) have no nuclear plants. Why should they pay nearly all of the penalties, and enjoy none of the benefits?
There has been more than enough suffering from broken nuclear energy promises in these states. For the residents affected, nuclear fallout isn't a distant fear, or a paranoid fantasy - it is a hard reality. It's not that it might happen, but that it already has, and it was forced upon them involuntarily.
- These states have already suffered the terrible cost (in lives) from radioactive fallout from the nuclear tests of the cold war, with tens of thousands dead, and many times more fighting thyroid cancer. (American film icons John Wayne and Susan Hayward died from cancer induced from the fallout of these tests).
- The amount of radiation exposure in these states was over 5.5 exabecquerels - levels that dwarf that of Chernobyl and Fukushima combined.
- Why should these states (again) pay the penalty for nuclear energy - espescially when they receive no benefit from it?
- Why should these states believe yet another "promise" of safety from an industry (and government) that's proven highly effective at covering up problems and killing their family members?
We're talking about the same government who decided it was a good idea to store and dispose of the nation's (extensive) supply of nerve gas only a few miles away from a population center of two million, and the same industry that has been found covering up massive problems in order to extend the lives of reactors well beyond their design and safety limits.
The waste will travel through New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, and Nevada - exposing all of those states to the bulk of what is by far the most dangerous part of the whole project - transit of the waste. Estimates put 70% of the waste traveling through the Salt Lake Valley - population of ~2 million or so. It's not possible to secure the transit routes - there are just too many miles, too many people. The dry casks are tough, but they're not perfect. It's impossible to secure an entire city, or even the tracks along the route. I don't want to bring up "terrorism" here, but it doesn't even take a release of material - just an incident terrorists can claim they caused - to cause a lot of recrimination and panic.
Governers can and have called out the national guard (ie. state-controlled military) to prevent waste from entering the state. Tanks, helicopters, and a company of heavily armed, and highly motivated national guardsman is a pretty big deterrent to a mere shipping company. It inevitably ends up as a standoff where the Federal Government backs down, because frankly, how good does it look to the rest of the World if the US uses its military on one of its own states for not allowing themselves to be the waste dump of the most dangerous stuff on Earth - espescially when the waste comes from thousands of miles
As far as solid state mass storage: Since Apple is buying their solid state storage directly from Samsung, it's difficult to argue that Apple is infringing on Samsung's solid state storage patents. It makes as much sense as Western Digital suing Apple because Macs use drive technology patented by WD, or Ford suing an auto parts store that carries Ford parts. There's not much hope of winning anything there.
For the wireless patents: I've read a review from a patent lawyer who stated that if the patents in question are necessary for 3G, then Samsung is still up a creek because they're bound by their agreements to the 3GPP standards body to license them under FRAND ("Fair", reasonable, and non-discriminatory) terms. In other words, they'd be unable to force Apple to enter into a cross-licensing agreement; Apple would pay a FRAND pittance for the patent license, and be on their merry way. (http://thisismynext.com/2011/04/29/samsung-sues-apple-infringing-10-patents-closer/)
All in all, it's interesting: I'm not sure I see the value in the things Apple is trying to force Samsung to change, nor do I see Samsung as having much chance of winning on its counter-claims. Must be a good day to be a lawyer.
Then why hasn't Samsung worked around the patents already?
This is especially true of the design patents. Pick another icon, for crying out loud. One of Apple's claims is the 'phone' icon is nearly identical - and they're right; it's nearly identical - more than close enough to violate the design patent. Same goes for the Weather, Text messaging, Mail, Notes, and Calendar app. (Seriously - does the calendar have to have a red bar on top exactly like Apple's, and even in the same shade of red?). Even the 'photos' icon has a sunflower on it - just like Apple's design patent.
One needs only look at the variety of alternate icons for Photo or Weather apps to see that it's not hard to work around the design patents.
The design patents are absolutely trivial to work around, yet Samsung refuses to do so; this refusal, I think indicates that Samsung knows they are violating the patents, and have no intention of changing anything.
Samsung's attempt at blocking iPhone imports seems to indicate that Samsung feels it's likely that it will lose, that it has no intention to work around Apple's patents, and is therefore shooting for more favorable terms (ie. a cross-licensing agreement, instead of having change their products).
Whether one agrees with the design patent is another story; but the fact is that they were granted, and Apple is within its rights to enforce them.
Yes... western mindset...
Anytime I hear somebody talk "western mindset", I see somebody who's never actually left the West. Visiting urban 'westernized' cities in other parts of the world doesn't count.
Documentaries on TV show what will get the target audience to sit through commericals. Audiences eat up documentaries that portray non-western cultures as idyllic, peaceful, and beautiful places to live, where there is more enlightenment and care for each other. Material that doesn't agree with the audience-demanded image of a better, greener, more ethical way to live doesn't make the cut.
Filmmakers don't show you the world as it is: They show you the world you want to see so they can get paid.
The law is so asinine I'd make the several hundred mile trip to San Francisco just to buy a pet there out of civil disobedience.
The euthanasia of unwanted companion animals is tragic, but handing animal shelters a monopoly in companion animals isn't going to make those animals any more wanted.
Shelters generally only have two species: cats & dogs.
There are many people who cannot have a dog or cat in their home (because of allergies, landlord, Homeowner's Assosciation, medical conditions, etc.) Many pets are less expensive to keep than a cat or dog.
You're not going to convince somebody that wants an iguana that a mutt is a better alternative. When was the last time you saw a fish in an animal shelter? How about a gecko or a hermit crab? A bird? How about a turtle?
What if (gasp!) somebody wants a responsibly bred animal, whose parents don't have any of a number of inherited conditions?
It's clear the law isn't about caring for animals at all: It's about denying people the right to love and care for another creature, which is an inalienable. It's despicable.