He Mother Never Really Love Him
He Crimefighting Covers Up a
Basic Insecurity
He Dickey Covers Up an Adams Apple
The Size of a Toyota
He Basically Good-Hearted
But He'd Like to Smash that Kid
Against A Rock Knock! Knock! Knock!
Who's There?
His Head Looks Like Jack Nicholson
Don't Smile Like That,
It Will Stay That Way Yahmmmaahoohoaaaugh!
Wikipedia exists and I interact with it all the time. I learn much more from Wikipedia than from some old stone building in an isolated location that conveys nothing other than people did stuff here along time ago. Also Wikipedia's servers are very real things and in real locations for those who want to gawk at the computer chips.
All of the "World Wonders" are inside Wikipedia...
When will they get around to adding "Gravity, Air, Water, and The Earth" to the list of "World Wonders"... Some people are simply more easily amused than others, yet their counterparts may take too much for granted.
A World Heritage site should be something that exists in the world; something we interact with and can learn from.
All qualities that Wikipedia has....
However, the following sentences illustrate my skepticism as to it being a "wonder" of the world:
"Would you like to join my family and I on an all expense paid journey to visit The Great Pyramid of Giza?"
"Would you like to join my family and I on an all expense paid journey to visit The Web Site of Wikipedia?"
I mean, really... Who the fuck cares about useless ancient stone structures?! Oh, heritage, yeah, that thing I give a shit about because I'm an American Mutt who's family fled France/England/Germany (we don't know which), and changed our names when we got here.
Calling Wikipedia a wonder of the world is like calling the Great Pyramid a vital resource for much of the world's people... I wonder which is most significant to the world, and whether your opinion will hold true for future generations.
Those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it; Those who focus on the past walk backwards into fast moving traffic.
</snarkasm>
Or, i dunno... maybe we could use JavaScript to add flexible dynamic scripting to our existing stable Java platforms?...otherwise what's the point? To use a domain specific language for tasks it wasn't designed for or is very good at?
Personally, I'd rather use a slow dynamic scripting language to glue the fast compiled language code together, (see: Perl), not write the whole damn server in slow JS.
Hint: Just use Rino and be done with this nonsense.
If you make a product that looks exactly like the design patent that someone else owns, yes. Just as an example, take an iPhone and a Windows 7 phone.
Hey, on my Gnome2 desktop, I have an application menu that's pretty much just like XP's start menu, and I've got a row of buttons that allow me to toggle to the active window. Windows can be minimized, restored or closed using the familiar XP icons in the familiar XP order and button placement ( _ [] X ). The title bars are at the top, and can be used as handles to position the windows, the scroll bars are on the left and bottom. The application meus are at the top, and sport the same basic menu names: "File Edit... Help", in the same order as XP, and contain roughly the same functions (About is in the Help menu, exit is in the file menu, even though those options should be in a Misc menu, IMHO)
There is a desktop, with a picture background and icons that can be double (or single by option) clicked to launch applications or open files. A file browser with a list of common locations on the left, and a pane with folder icons for directories...
Apple had many of these same UI elements on the Macs -- Gem Desktop did too (on MSDOS), and so did many other shells.
All these damn UI designs are iterative, obvious, and it's ridiculous to allow patents over them -- same goes for smart phones. What happens when the desktop UI goes 3D. Are we suddenly going to stop arranging our office furniture in certain ways to avoid Apple UI patents?
In the late 80s, I made electronic motor control panels with each button containing the circuitry to tell the input processor its function. All the switches and buttons could then be rearranged -- plugged into any square slot on the input grid -- without having to rewire the motor control system, saved my dad's company tons of money; To meet a customer's design we just cut out the holes in the cover panel, slapped the buttons in the holes, and put stickers or etched labels on the buttons. Multiple input panels could be ganged to control more complex systems --- Much like how iOS has multiple "panels" of distinct movable buttons that each perform specific functions (or launch different apps), and can be re-arranged in a grid.
I was 9 years old when I "invented" panels of generic sockets with specific pin-outs! I'm no genius, this shit is Obvious, and was probably done before I thought of it.
USER INTERFACE HAS BEEN DONE, X (on a computer), or X (on a smartphone) shouldn't be patentable if X is fucking obvious. Next progress retarding patent please.
Not referencing attacks on Sony, but the actual act of hacking them has become mainstream. I'm sure it's funnier from our side than theirs.
I can confirm this -- I even hear this at work.
Hey, 'tex, check out this script kiddie trying to get in with ancient Apache server exploits.
Does he think he's trying to hack Sony?!
(P.S. Not that I actively exploit them, but even attack toolkits have known vulnerabilities; Just something for any aspiring script kiddie to think about...)
The stop condition is "when a fucker that fucks someone that ain't fucked over anyone, in a particularly upsetting manner, in recent memory, gets fucked, the fucker fucking this fucker doesn't deserve to be fucked."
It's simple. A child could understand it.
I'm glad you like the word "fuck"; However, it has clouded your logic. You just said: When someone who doesn't fuck any others has recently been brutally fucked, the person that fucked the innocent person does not deserve to be fucked.
In short: The Bad guys can hurt innocents, and the bad guys don't deserve any retaliation. I don't think that's anywhere close to a stop condition. I think that spawns a new train of fuckers fucking, or at least one new fucker, due to the revenge said innocent is likely to seek, and or promote others to seek on the Innocent's behalf.
I suggest using less expletives; It may help you express yourself more clearly.
The bad guys heard in the news, "Sony hacked -- Cause: Unpatched Apache web servers," and just realized, "Holy shit that's the dumbest thing ever! Sony is totally crackable; Let's go crack the other vulnerable Sony servers -- If they were dumb once, they were likely dumb all over the place!"
Granted, pissing off a bunch of hackers/crackers is not a smart move, but being known for having poor security practices is even worse.
Yet how will this interoperate with the Japanese version of RedHat MEME when that starts at UID 8000?
Well, actually, this will be fully compatible to the Japanese version; The docs state that compliant implementations start the UIDs at over 8000, which 9001 clearly is.
I think it's high time we think about extending the 2nd amendment (Right to bear arms), to include technology.
I know they're not busting in to raid a Bitcoin factory, but that doesn't mean they wont in the future.
I'm a coder, and occasionally I write ciphers. Lately I wrote a block cipher system that takes any hash algo, data stream, and a pass-phrase, and produces encrypted output via a type of Cipher Block Chaining on hash-length sized blocks (MD5=160bit, SHA1=256bit, SHA512=512bit encryption, and beyond; Bonus, any new hash comes out, implement it and bingo, stronger encryption).
I came very close to being in violation of federal law when I posted my program on my blog. Fortunately a friend told me that my program was considered extremely dangerous to the government, and that if anyone outside of the US downloaded it, I could be heavily fined and/or jailed. I immediately removed the code, and checked the server logs; Fortunately only my friend had downloaded it.
I didn't know that all strong encryption ciphers have to be registered with the US government (like firearms!? -- Strength at or above 64bit symmetric or 768 asymmetric, or 128 for elliptic curve), and that export of software that can perform encryption must be approved by the government before you put it online, or else it could be considered trafficking illegal controlled software.
I was told by some that if your code was open source, you could just fill out a form, and you were pre-approved, but I don't think that's the case anymore.
I've been tinkering with ciphers since I was 10 -- I don't think anyone outside the US got a hold of my tinker-code, but who knows? We swapped code at HAL-PC SIG's all the time...
With today's government's lack of respect for our freedoms and esp. digital privacy, I think it's time we added the right to bear technology & math, esp. cryptography to the Bill of Rights.
Hey, If I can be prosecuted for distributing my ciphers under the "munitions export restrictions" laws, then does that mean I already can assert my 2nd amendment privileges to USE MY PC TO TWIDDLE BITS? Does freedom of speech (1st amendment) not give me the right to post some byte-code hex to my blog? (Looks like it's illegal to sell your Beowulf Cluster on Ebay too.)
>then next-generation eEyes could enable the blind to not just detect objects, but to see again normally.
Why stop at normally? Full zoom, magnifications, color-filtering, recording mode... All the stuff up front is nigh-trivial compared to the interface they are working on. Once you have an interface, the world is your oyster.
Hell, I've given this some thought -- why stop at recording / filtering mode? Enable Playback too!
Also, let's have wireless streaming video from the eye into my computer. Oh, playback? Why can't that work both ways? Send optical data from the computer straight into the eye (MPAA would really like this -- DRM to the brain, but it can be used for good too).
We're starting to create limbs that can be operated by brain waves / nerve impulses, and patients train using a computer simulation -- hell, couple that with real time video input into your eye(s) and you're half way to the matrix.
People think I'm crazy when I start talking about building my robot body, but I'm serious. I already have carpel tunnel syndrome and I'm only 31 (been coding since 8, switching to Dvorak helped a bit in my 20s). My robot hands, and/or direct computer interface would allow me to keep making Free Software long after I would otherwise be retired as a cripple.
Weeknights interactive games are tolerable with hit & miss reliability for sustained streaming. Weekday mornings flawless service.
Ok, so I've designed this game network protocol which gives users with good bandwidth smooth gameplay and high precision, but gives lower bandwidth users smooth gameplay and lower precision -- client side prediction and synch rate are determined by a test -- a test at the beginning of your connection. This test says you have a monster awesome responsive network, and I'll give you the best experience you expect -- Until your BS ISP plan decides that you only get that for "bursts", and now you're in a fire-fight, lagging all to hell and wondering who's fucking host connection is retarded?!
Yeah, so now I can do three things -- 1. Tell you about the BS ISP plan you have (actually, that latency meter, it's more than just latency, it shows others just how shitty and unpredictable the connection is too). 2. Try to compensate by writing code that more quickly adapts to your shitty dynamic bandwidth ISP plan, (which sucks to do, because sometimes the algo guesses wrong and you end up with shitty connection for no reason, but it helps stop many other gamer complaints) or 3. Try a few "hacks" to enable bursting all the time.
I found out that most times if you're downloading a stream, and you drop that connection, then start a new one, you get "bursting" again! It's lame, but hey, this actually does work sometimes -- download something big with FF's download manager, watch the connection speed drop... now, hit the "pause" and "restart" button quickly to drop and re-connect (server needs resume support for this to work). The bursting will pick back up again with high speed. Neat eh? This doesn't work everywhere, in fact the server could be throttling too (which this start/stop actually mitigates sometimes), but it doesn't really hurt most connections, so why not do that?
So basically, as your connection gets shittier, I fire up another connection to the server, and once that's connected, and tests as higher than the current connection, we switch to that. (I say connection, but most times it's UDP, just via a different port). Sometimes, now this is strange, opening multiple ports/connections between client/hosts and distributing packets between the different port/connections actually gives better performance.
Overall shaping is in effect, but there is apparently per connection "bursting" going on as well. A slower solid connection sans bursting will give you better online play than a wildly jumpy bursting connection.
P.S. F'ing Buffer-bloat accounts for some of the erratic speeds mentioned above too, (and might also have affected TFA's speeds).
Ooh, it's a meaningful acronym -- a cleverly deceptive bit of wool -- A secret even when beneath nostrils!
Here, let me translate:
"The signatories of this statement are representatives of civil society from around the world working towards the promotion of Internet freedom, digital rights, and open communication. The French Presidency of the Gate is holding a Gate [Internet] meeting -- the e-Gate Forum -- immediately before the Gate Summit in Deauville, with a view to shaping the agenda of the Gate Summit regarding key global [Internet] policy. This meeting is significant because this is the first year that the [Internet's] role in society and the economy is explicitly on the Gate agenda. We believe that Gate Member States should use the e-Gate meeting as an opportunity to publicly commit to expanding [Internet] access for all, combating digital censorship and surveillance, limiting online intermediary liability, and upholding principles of net neutrality."
Yeah -- clever. Combating censorship and surveillance (from governments, not for people) limiting online intermediary liability (for businesses, not people), and upholding principles of net neutrality (which we can say, because that feel-good term is not concretely defined as anything at all).
In short, show your proof of netizenship papers at the Gate, select few shall decide construction details of the e-Gate.
TL;DR: $TFS =~ s/G8/Gate/gi;
P.S. The Internet -- Capitalized because it's Serious Business.
there should also be strict government oversight to ensure the vulnerabilities are being fixed.
... And that the fixes don't make it to other governments. See: VUPEN's alleged Chrome exploit.
VUPEN released a video of the exploit in action to demonstrate a drive-by download attack that successfully launches the calculator app without any user action.
The exploit shown in this video is one of the most sophisticated codes we have seen and created so far as it bypasses all security features including ASLR/DEP/Sandbox (and without exploiting a Windows kernel vulnerability), it is silent (no crash after executing the payload), it relies on undisclosed (0day) vulnerabilities discovered by VUPEN and it works on all Windows systems (32-bit and x64).
VUPEN, which sells vulnerability and exploit information to business and government customers, does not plan to provide technical details of the attack to anyone, including Google.
Guess it depends on who you think the "bad guys" are. I say, show the world and let the good 'n malicious duke it out -- hint: Bug fixes are often easier to code than full exploits.
Wait, it's distributed from the Marketplace, that means Google is violating the GPL if I give Google the "binary".apk for my GPL'd project. I must make the source code available to whomever I have distributed to -- this is Google not anyone else.
This means that, since Google is redistributing my.apk, they are responsible for responding to requests for the GPL'd source code, NOT ME. Google can ask me for the source code, and I'll give them a copy, but since they are going to distribute the GPL'd code, the hosting of said GPL'd code for those they distribute to is Google's burden!
We've already been through this with Apple's application repository. The result was that Apple didn't want to distribute GPL'd code anymore.
The GPL allows distributors to redistribute binaries if they are unchanged, and they can point requests to the available GPL'd sources, but in my contrived example, (where I do not publish the source code publicly), Google is in violation of the GPL if they distribute my application.
Seriously -- Version numbering does mean something, and when someone says 2.8 or 3.0 to someone who knows the version numbering scheme it actually means something.
Since 2004, after version 2.6.0 was released, the kernel developers held several discussions... ultimately Linus Torvalds and others decided that a much shorter release cycle would be beneficial. Since then, the version has been composed of three or four numbers. The first two numbers became largely irrelevant, and the third number is the actual version of the kernel. The fourth number accounts for bug and security fixes (only) to the kernel version.
The first use of the fourth number occurred when a grave error, which required immediate fixing, was encountered in 2.6.8's NFS code. However, there were not enough other changes to legitimize the release of a new minor revision (which would have been 2.6.9). So, 2.6.8.1 was released, with the only change being the fix of that error. With 2.6.11, this was adopted as the new official versioning policy. Later it became customary to continuously back-port major bug-fixes and security patches to released kernels and indicate that by updating the fourth number.
Additionally, When you change the first (major) version number it usually means a significant re-write. Whereas the second version number would mean still mostly the same code-base, but with major features added/removed/rewritten.
Take from this what you will, but to say the version numbers are arbitrary is just plain ignorant.
I checked your comments -- both of them mention ladyboys. I challenge you to mention ladyboys in every comment you make from here on out -- It would be epic.
If you need help you could just use ladyboys instead of cars for your analogies.
If spending profit to improve the worth of your company actually resulted in higher short term stock prices, maybe... Currently it does the opposite.
Want faster Internet? Too bad, that kills our stock prices -- the investors won't allow it, we have to charge the customers more without letting the investors latch on to that profit so that we can spend it on improving our services. Too bad it's illegal to do that once you go public.
If it costs anything beyond standard maintenance, it's not coming to the giant ISPs. That's what was so great about the smaller ISPs, they could risk more to provide better service and eventually end up with better stock prices in the end. The big ISPs of today are so immobile, the transition would take too long and cause the short-sighted investors jump ship.
Seen it happen many times, don't take my word for it, do your own damn research if you actually care -- but you don't; so let's just bitch about not having fiber to the home, and make excuses for why our speeds suck in the US compared to smaller places, while marveling at new advances that will never reach us.
Not to mention, the Googlebot user agent is announce BEFORE Facebook willingly gives Google the data.
Googlebot: Hi Facebook, I want page facebook.com/xxxx. Facebook: Sure, Googlebot, here you go! [transfers publicly visible data] Googlebot: BuhBie! I'll talk to you again in a second or two!
How is it NOT Facebook's fault? There are two willing parties in a Client / Server connection.
Facebook promotes Like buttons and badges everywhere, then bitches when a web crawler, crawls those links, and Facebook gives it the data.
Truly Asinine. Glad I never signed up for that bullshit service.
Hey, have you used any Facebook apps? Did you know that the token in the URL for those apps can be used by anyone with that token to impersonate you? Did you know that token, since it's in the URL, can be seen by ads that are in that app (HTTP-REFERER [sic]). All it takes is someone "hacker" to scrape "index of" for an ad network's http log to snag thousands of these tokens, and impersonate thousands of Facebook users. Change Your Facebook Password & re-auth any apps. This shit really works -- it's like Firesheep, only the tokens are out in the wild in possibly unsecured server logs, or even link-back farms (where ad networks automatically provide links back via posting a public link to the HTTP-REFERER URL).
What MORON doesn't time limit tokens!? It's like Facebook was TRYING to give ad networks full access to your accounts.
Slashdot Mirror
"he NY Times reports"
Come on everyone, Sing along!
He Jock it Made of Steel
Eats Sushi from a Pail
Jet Jaguar? Jet Jaguar!
He Mother Never Really Love Him
He Crimefighting Covers Up a
Basic Insecurity
He Dickey Covers Up an Adams Apple
The Size of a Toyota
He Basically Good-Hearted
But He'd Like to Smash that Kid
Against A Rock
Knock! Knock! Knock!
Who's There?
His Head Looks Like Jack Nicholson
Don't Smile Like That,
It Will Stay That Way
Yahmmmaahoohoaaaugh!
Mass on orbit is worth more then gold on earth.
Unless it isn't. Then it's just dangerous space trash.
Gold would make good shielding.
I agree. It could be an important component in our fully automated solar powered self replicating asteroid farming robots...
Wikipedia exists and I interact with it all the time. I learn much more from Wikipedia than from some old stone building in an isolated location that conveys nothing other than people did stuff here along time ago. Also Wikipedia's servers are very real things and in real locations for those who want to gawk at the computer chips.
All of the "World Wonders" are inside Wikipedia...
When will they get around to adding "Gravity, Air, Water, and The Earth" to the list of "World Wonders"... Some people are simply more easily amused than others, yet their counterparts may take too much for granted.
A World Heritage site should be something that exists in the world; something we interact with and can learn from.
All qualities that Wikipedia has....
However, the following sentences illustrate my skepticism as to it being a "wonder" of the world:
I mean, really... Who the fuck cares about useless ancient stone structures?! Oh, heritage, yeah, that thing I give a shit about because I'm an American Mutt who's family fled France/England/Germany (we don't know which), and changed our names when we got here.
Calling Wikipedia a wonder of the world is like calling the Great Pyramid a vital resource for much of the world's people... I wonder which is most significant to the world, and whether your opinion will hold true for future generations.
Those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it; Those who focus on the past walk backwards into fast moving traffic. </snarkasm>
Or, i dunno... maybe we could use JavaScript to add flexible dynamic scripting to our existing stable Java platforms? ...otherwise what's the point? To use a domain specific language for tasks it wasn't designed for or is very good at?
Personally, I'd rather use a slow dynamic scripting language to glue the fast compiled language code together, (see: Perl), not write the whole damn server in slow JS.
Hint: Just use Rino and be done with this nonsense.
Can they call it the Camel Camel Book?
Then all they'd need is a Perl book with a picture of a string of pearls worn by Minnie Pearl. Then we could have the Minnie Pearl Pearl Perl Book.
Surely you jest; Everyone knows that the only sensible response to a "Camel in action" is a purse wearing Bedouin wielding a club.
Hence, when presented imagery of such an attired person, one immediately concludes: Oh snap! A Camel got loose.
If you make a product that looks exactly like the design patent that someone else owns, yes. Just as an example, take an iPhone and a Windows 7 phone.
Hey, on my Gnome2 desktop, I have an application menu that's pretty much just like XP's start menu, and I've got a row of buttons that allow me to toggle to the active window. Windows can be minimized, restored or closed using the familiar XP icons in the familiar XP order and button placement ( _ [] X ). The title bars are at the top, and can be used as handles to position the windows, the scroll bars are on the left and bottom. The application meus are at the top, and sport the same basic menu names: "File Edit ... Help", in the same order as XP, and contain roughly the same functions (About is in the Help menu, exit is in the file menu, even though those options should be in a Misc menu, IMHO)
There is a desktop, with a picture background and icons that can be double (or single by option) clicked to launch applications or open files. A file browser with a list of common locations on the left, and a pane with folder icons for directories...
Apple had many of these same UI elements on the Macs -- Gem Desktop did too (on MSDOS), and so did many other shells.
All these damn UI designs are iterative, obvious, and it's ridiculous to allow patents over them -- same goes for smart phones. What happens when the desktop UI goes 3D. Are we suddenly going to stop arranging our office furniture in certain ways to avoid Apple UI patents?
In the late 80s, I made electronic motor control panels with each button containing the circuitry to tell the input processor its function. All the switches and buttons could then be rearranged -- plugged into any square slot on the input grid -- without having to rewire the motor control system, saved my dad's company tons of money; To meet a customer's design we just cut out the holes in the cover panel, slapped the buttons in the holes, and put stickers or etched labels on the buttons. Multiple input panels could be ganged to control more complex systems --- Much like how iOS has multiple "panels" of distinct movable buttons that each perform specific functions (or launch different apps), and can be re-arranged in a grid.
I was 9 years old when I "invented" panels of generic sockets with specific pin-outs! I'm no genius, this shit is Obvious, and was probably done before I thought of it.
USER INTERFACE HAS BEEN DONE, X (on a computer), or X (on a smartphone) shouldn't be patentable if X is fucking obvious. Next progress retarding patent please.
Not referencing attacks on Sony, but the actual act of hacking them has become mainstream. I'm sure it's funnier from our side than theirs.
I can confirm this -- I even hear this at work.
Hey, 'tex, check out this script kiddie trying to get in with ancient Apache server exploits.
Does he think he's trying to hack Sony?!
(P.S. Not that I actively exploit them, but even attack toolkits have known vulnerabilities; Just something for any aspiring script kiddie to think about...)
The stop condition is "when a fucker that fucks someone that ain't fucked over anyone, in a particularly upsetting manner, in recent memory, gets fucked, the fucker fucking this fucker doesn't deserve to be fucked." It's simple. A child could understand it.
I'm glad you like the word "fuck"; However, it has clouded your logic. You just said: When someone who doesn't fuck any others has recently been brutally fucked, the person that fucked the innocent person does not deserve to be fucked.
In short: The Bad guys can hurt innocents, and the bad guys don't deserve any retaliation. I don't think that's anywhere close to a stop condition. I think that spawns a new train of fuckers fucking, or at least one new fucker, due to the revenge said innocent is likely to seek, and or promote others to seek on the Innocent's behalf.
I suggest using less expletives; It may help you express yourself more clearly.
The bad guys heard in the news, "Sony hacked -- Cause: Unpatched Apache web servers," and just realized, "Holy shit that's the dumbest thing ever! Sony is totally crackable; Let's go crack the other vulnerable Sony servers -- If they were dumb once, they were likely dumb all over the place!"
Granted, pissing off a bunch of hackers/crackers is not a smart move, but being known for having poor security practices is even worse.
Yet how will this interoperate with the Japanese version of RedHat MEME when that starts at UID 8000?
Well, actually, this will be fully compatible to the Japanese version; The docs state that compliant implementations start the UIDs at over 8000, which 9001 clearly is.
multiple parts of speech makes the situation murky. Ask a linguist. Also, "fifteen minute
WOAH, wait... Stop-Right-There, buddy: What does the player of a linguine noodle strung instrument have to do with Language?!
Meh, it's got "blades" -- it might as well be a Beowulf cluster.
Does this mean famous people won't be able to lie about their age anymore?
I think it's high time we think about extending the 2nd amendment (Right to bear arms), to include technology.
I know they're not busting in to raid a Bitcoin factory, but that doesn't mean they wont in the future.
I'm a coder, and occasionally I write ciphers. Lately I wrote a block cipher system that takes any hash algo, data stream, and a pass-phrase, and produces encrypted output via a type of Cipher Block Chaining on hash-length sized blocks (MD5=160bit, SHA1=256bit, SHA512=512bit encryption, and beyond; Bonus, any new hash comes out, implement it and bingo, stronger encryption).
I came very close to being in violation of federal law when I posted my program on my blog. Fortunately a friend told me that my program was considered extremely dangerous to the government, and that if anyone outside of the US downloaded it, I could be heavily fined and/or jailed. I immediately removed the code, and checked the server logs; Fortunately only my friend had downloaded it.
I didn't know that all strong encryption ciphers have to be registered with the US government (like firearms!? -- Strength at or above 64bit symmetric or 768 asymmetric, or 128 for elliptic curve), and that export of software that can perform encryption must be approved by the government before you put it online, or else it could be considered trafficking illegal controlled software.
I was told by some that if your code was open source, you could just fill out a form, and you were pre-approved, but I don't think that's the case anymore.
I've been tinkering with ciphers since I was 10 -- I don't think anyone outside the US got a hold of my tinker-code, but who knows? We swapped code at HAL-PC SIG's all the time...
With today's government's lack of respect for our freedoms and esp. digital privacy, I think it's time we added the right to bear technology & math, esp. cryptography to the Bill of Rights.
Hey, If I can be prosecuted for distributing my ciphers under the "munitions export restrictions" laws, then does that mean I already can assert my 2nd amendment privileges to USE MY PC TO TWIDDLE BITS? Does freedom of speech (1st amendment) not give me the right to post some byte-code hex to my blog? (Looks like it's illegal to sell your Beowulf Cluster on Ebay too.)
>then next-generation eEyes could enable the blind to not just detect objects, but to see again normally.
Why stop at normally? Full zoom, magnifications, color-filtering, recording mode... All the stuff up front is nigh-trivial compared to the interface they are working on. Once you have an interface, the world is your oyster.
Hell, I've given this some thought -- why stop at recording / filtering mode? Enable Playback too!
Also, let's have wireless streaming video from the eye into my computer. Oh, playback? Why can't that work both ways? Send optical data from the computer straight into the eye (MPAA would really like this -- DRM to the brain, but it can be used for good too).
We're starting to create limbs that can be operated by brain waves / nerve impulses, and patients train using a computer simulation -- hell, couple that with real time video input into your eye(s) and you're half way to the matrix.
People think I'm crazy when I start talking about building my robot body, but I'm serious. I already have carpel tunnel syndrome and I'm only 31 (been coding since 8, switching to Dvorak helped a bit in my 20s). My robot hands, and/or direct computer interface would allow me to keep making Free Software long after I would otherwise be retired as a cripple.
Weeknights interactive games are tolerable with hit & miss reliability for sustained streaming. Weekday mornings flawless service.
Ok, so I've designed this game network protocol which gives users with good bandwidth smooth gameplay and high precision, but gives lower bandwidth users smooth gameplay and lower precision -- client side prediction and synch rate are determined by a test -- a test at the beginning of your connection. This test says you have a monster awesome responsive network, and I'll give you the best experience you expect -- Until your BS ISP plan decides that you only get that for "bursts", and now you're in a fire-fight, lagging all to hell and wondering who's fucking host connection is retarded?!
Yeah, so now I can do three things -- 1. Tell you about the BS ISP plan you have (actually, that latency meter, it's more than just latency, it shows others just how shitty and unpredictable the connection is too). 2. Try to compensate by writing code that more quickly adapts to your shitty dynamic bandwidth ISP plan, (which sucks to do, because sometimes the algo guesses wrong and you end up with shitty connection for no reason, but it helps stop many other gamer complaints) or 3. Try a few "hacks" to enable bursting all the time.
I found out that most times if you're downloading a stream, and you drop that connection, then start a new one, you get "bursting" again! It's lame, but hey, this actually does work sometimes -- download something big with FF's download manager, watch the connection speed drop... now, hit the "pause" and "restart" button quickly to drop and re-connect (server needs resume support for this to work). The bursting will pick back up again with high speed. Neat eh? This doesn't work everywhere, in fact the server could be throttling too (which this start/stop actually mitigates sometimes), but it doesn't really hurt most connections, so why not do that?
So basically, as your connection gets shittier, I fire up another connection to the server, and once that's connected, and tests as higher than the current connection, we switch to that. (I say connection, but most times it's UDP, just via a different port). Sometimes, now this is strange, opening multiple ports/connections between client/hosts and distributing packets between the different port/connections actually gives better performance.
Overall shaping is in effect, but there is apparently per connection "bursting" going on as well. A slower solid connection sans bursting will give you better online play than a wildly jumpy bursting connection.
P.S. F'ing Buffer-bloat accounts for some of the erratic speeds mentioned above too, (and might also have affected TFA's speeds).
Here, let me translate:
"The signatories of this statement are representatives of civil society from around the world working towards the promotion of Internet freedom, digital rights, and open communication. The French Presidency of the Gate is holding a Gate [Internet] meeting -- the e-Gate Forum -- immediately before the Gate Summit in Deauville, with a view to shaping the agenda of the Gate Summit regarding key global [Internet] policy. This meeting is significant because this is the first year that the [Internet's] role in society and the economy is explicitly on the Gate agenda. We believe that Gate Member States should use the e-Gate meeting as an opportunity to publicly commit to expanding [Internet] access for all, combating digital censorship and surveillance, limiting online intermediary liability, and upholding principles of net neutrality."
Yeah -- clever. Combating censorship and surveillance (from governments, not for people) limiting online intermediary liability (for businesses, not people), and upholding principles of net neutrality (which we can say, because that feel-good term is not concretely defined as anything at all).
In short, show your proof of netizenship papers at the Gate, select few shall decide construction details of the e-Gate.
TL;DR: $TFS =~ s/G8/Gate/gi;
P.S. The Internet -- Capitalized because it's Serious Business.
there should also be strict government oversight to ensure the vulnerabilities are being fixed.
... And that the fixes don't make it to other governments. See: VUPEN's alleged Chrome exploit.
VUPEN released a video of the exploit in action to demonstrate a drive-by download attack that successfully launches the calculator app without any user action.
VUPEN, which sells vulnerability and exploit information to business and government customers, does not plan to provide technical details of the attack to anyone, including Google.
Guess it depends on who you think the "bad guys" are. I say, show the world and let the good 'n malicious duke it out -- hint: Bug fixes are often easier to code than full exploits.
Wait, it's distributed from the Marketplace, that means Google is violating the GPL if I give Google the "binary" .apk for my GPL'd project. I must make the source code available to whomever I have distributed to -- this is Google not anyone else.
This means that, since Google is redistributing my .apk, they are responsible for responding to requests for the GPL'd source code, NOT ME. Google can ask me for the source code, and I'll give them a copy, but since they are going to distribute the GPL'd code, the hosting of said GPL'd code for those they distribute to is Google's burden!
We've already been through this with Apple's application repository. The result was that Apple didn't want to distribute GPL'd code anymore.
The GPL allows distributors to redistribute binaries if they are unchanged, and they can point requests to the available GPL'd sources, but in my contrived example, (where I do not publish the source code publicly), Google is in violation of the GPL if they distribute my application.
Seriously -- Version numbering does mean something, and when someone says 2.8 or 3.0 to someone who knows the version numbering scheme it actually means something.
As usual, FTWA:
Since 2004, after version 2.6.0 was released, the kernel developers held several discussions ... ultimately Linus Torvalds and others decided that a much shorter release cycle would be beneficial. Since then, the version has been composed of three or four numbers. The first two numbers became largely irrelevant, and the third number is the actual version of the kernel. The fourth number accounts for bug and security fixes (only) to the kernel version.
The first use of the fourth number occurred when a grave error, which required immediate fixing, was encountered in 2.6.8's NFS code. However, there were not enough other changes to legitimize the release of a new minor revision (which would have been 2.6.9). So, 2.6.8.1 was released, with the only change being the fix of that error. With 2.6.11, this was adopted as the new official versioning policy. Later it became customary to continuously back-port major bug-fixes and security patches to released kernels and indicate that by updating the fourth number.
Additionally, When you change the first (major) version number it usually means a significant re-write. Whereas the second version number would mean still mostly the same code-base, but with major features added/removed/rewritten.
Take from this what you will, but to say the version numbers are arbitrary is just plain ignorant.
I thought they said aristocrats.
Aristocrat zombies, that could be interesting...
I was thinking "The Aristocrats" too... but more in the horribly raunchy joke form.
I checked your comments -- both of them mention ladyboys. I challenge you to mention ladyboys in every comment you make from here on out -- It would be epic.
If you need help you could just use ladyboys instead of cars for your analogies.
If spending profit to improve the worth of your company actually resulted in higher short term stock prices, maybe... Currently it does the opposite.
Want faster Internet? Too bad, that kills our stock prices -- the investors won't allow it, we have to charge the customers more without letting the investors latch on to that profit so that we can spend it on improving our services. Too bad it's illegal to do that once you go public.
If it costs anything beyond standard maintenance, it's not coming to the giant ISPs. That's what was so great about the smaller ISPs, they could risk more to provide better service and eventually end up with better stock prices in the end. The big ISPs of today are so immobile, the transition would take too long and cause the short-sighted investors jump ship.
Seen it happen many times, don't take my word for it, do your own damn research if you actually care -- but you don't; so let's just bitch about not having fiber to the home, and make excuses for why our speeds suck in the US compared to smaller places, while marveling at new advances that will never reach us.
Not to mention, the Googlebot user agent is announce BEFORE Facebook willingly gives Google the data.
Googlebot: Hi Facebook, I want page facebook.com/xxxx.
Facebook: Sure, Googlebot, here you go! [transfers publicly visible data]
Googlebot: BuhBie! I'll talk to you again in a second or two!
How is it NOT Facebook's fault? There are two willing parties in a Client / Server connection.
Facebook promotes Like buttons and badges everywhere, then bitches when a web crawler, crawls those links, and Facebook gives it the data.
Truly Asinine. Glad I never signed up for that bullshit service.
Hey, have you used any Facebook apps? Did you know that the token in the URL for those apps can be used by anyone with that token to impersonate you? Did you know that token, since it's in the URL, can be seen by ads that are in that app (HTTP-REFERER [sic]). All it takes is someone "hacker" to scrape "index of" for an ad network's http log to snag thousands of these tokens, and impersonate thousands of Facebook users. Change Your Facebook Password & re-auth any apps. This shit really works -- it's like Firesheep, only the tokens are out in the wild in possibly unsecured server logs, or even link-back farms (where ad networks automatically provide links back via posting a public link to the HTTP-REFERER URL).
What MORON doesn't time limit tokens!? It's like Facebook was TRYING to give ad networks full access to your accounts.