Do you foresee the "right to encrypt" surviving as an essential tool in the right to privacy? With recent expansions in domestic surveillance capabilities and requests by the DoJ to expand those powers even further, some are predicting that regulations regarding the use of encryption are inevitable (e.g. a return of the Clipper chip). Do you believe that the legitmate uses for encrypting personal data and communication will outweigh the possibility that criminals will also use encryption now that increased fear of terrorism has given that much more weight to the old "four horsemen" (terrorists, drug dealers, pedophiles, and money launderers)?
See this article about Amazon CO2 emissions for more info on using trees. In short, studies have shown that the Amazon is belching a lot more CO2 than previously thought and old growth forests are not effective as carbon sinks.
You're confusing ASP with VBScript. VBScript is fairly limited, but you don't have to write ASP pages in VBScript. I routinely use Perlscript.
For HTTP Get/Put/Post, use Perl's LWP. I use this for running external pages as "subroutines" as well as for parsing external search results for specific info.
For basic TCP/IP, use the appropriate Perl module. They're all in there...
For encryption, it's trivial to write most algorithms in Perl, and they're reasonably fast. I do RSA and Blowfish encryption as well as SHA-1 hashing in Perlscript ASP.
For file uploads, it's simple to extract posted file data using Perl (see any old CGI upload script) and save the data as a binary file using binmode on the open file.
For file I/O, simply use Perl's file handling.
For db connectivity, I always use ADODB since I write for IIS, but I'd bet you a donut you could use DBI in a Perlscipt ASP page.
Basically, ASP is just a framework that provides session, request, and other objects to interact nicely with the server. Choose whatever language addresses your problem, and don't get hung up on VBScripts limitations.
I write a lot of ASP, and I rarely use COM to do my heavy lifting.
One of the great things about ASP is that you can mix script languages. I use VBScript because it's dead-simple and quick to write. For "hard" problems, I switch to Perlscript. There's almost nothing you can't do in Perl, and I've found it fast enough in most cases. I use Perlscript ASP routines when I need to encrypt, hash, process binary files, etc.
I do use COM components to handle zip functions, but I'll bet I could get around that if I had to. As long as the ChiliSoft engine lets you switch script languages, I'm not nearly as constrained as you seem to think.
Even a cursory examination should show that these numbers don't have enough uniqueness to be globally unique IDs. Microsoft's GUID had 128 bits; a good hash function might have 160 bits; those serial numbers, culled from widely scattered machines, aren't unique enough.
It's beside the point, but exactly how many bits do you think are in there?
It looks like you have 48 characters after the colons. That's more than enough bytes to encode the bits you say you need to be a unique ID. If each pair of characters is a hex representation of an 8-bit number, then you have a 192-bit space.
One major advantage of having a revision history for laws would be that it would be simple to identify and examine 11th hour changes. A lot of our laws are amended at the last moment or slipped into other unrelated bills in order to work out compromises among legislators. Anything that highlights the "law enforcement" addendum to the "children's healthcare" bill would be a true window on the inner workings of our system.
An algorithm had to be free of patent and other
intellectual property claims in order to apply
as an AES candidate. Rijndael is not a "standout"
in this respect as this was required as part of
the process. Credit goes to NIST, which knew a
standard would never be a standard if it was
encumbered by IP.
Er- I love how he says that packets can move at twice the temporal density. Ignoring the units mismatch (does this mean I can now read slashdot at twice the pressure, or get in my car and do 0-60 at twice the volume?), isn't this just a marketroid way of saying twice as fast?
Definitely not twice as fast! Saying you can send two packets in the time it takes someone else to send one does not mean yours move twice as fast. The time it takes will be the same. He's just claiming that since his packets are smaller, he can send "more" in the same time.
Senator Hatch is also the senator who believes that "profit is unAmerican".
He made that statement when lambasting Bill Gates during the Microsoft hearings. We may all want to take his side in fighting the "great evil", but this comment makes it clear that he's willing to ignore fact and principle in order to make a nice sound bite.
The fact is that America has a capitalist economy so there is nothing more American than "profit". We can still choose to be altruistic if we want, but there is nothing "unAmerican" about profit, regardless of what Mr. Hatch would have you believe (and in spite of Mr. Hatch's substantial fortune made in the retail furniture business where profit margins exceed those in the software industry).
Clearly this is an ally you'd want to watch carefully.
Not all "isolates" are isolated by choice. I happen to live in a very small town because of my SO's occupation. I telecommute as a software developer and have a near-constant flow of emails and periodic phone communication with the main office, but I don't take part in staff meetings, much less social events.
Locally, I have no peer group because chicken farmers (at least the ones I know) don't write code. There are people to socialize with, but I have zero face time with/. types.
I guess I qualify for this broad generalization, but the stereotype doesn't necessarily address the cause.
I sympathize with the H1B workers who now have to
give up homes and careers to return to their countries, and it's easy to say "gee, let's just change the rules and let them stay." However, they entered the country under a specific set of guidelines and they knew full well the conditions of their visa. Changing the rules now seems hypocritical and capricious.
How would/.ers feel about a similar rule change:
"I know the original code was under GPL, but we've made so many improvements and worked so hard, it's just not fair that we can't change the license."
FWIW, I went through the steps to "close" my account back when I joined the boycott. As detailed in my post in this thread titled "on a related note", closing the account does not necessarily mean that they delete the related information. I continue to receive emails, so it's clear that I'm still on their list.
Especially now that they've classified your data as a saleable asset belonging to them, it's doubtful they will actually delete it from their database.
On a related note, Amazon apparently lied to users when they said that users could be removed from the customer database.
Several months ago I opted to take part in the boycott against Amazon because of their patent stances. I had been a long-time and frequent customer to that point, so I sent a note to their customer service address explaining my position and asking to be deleted. One of their people responded very politely with an explanation of their position on the patent issue. We traded several emails discussing the point. Obviously my position did not change, and the customer service representative agreed to delete my records.
I recently received an email notification from them regarding their change in policy making customer data a saleable asset. This makes it obvious that I was not, in fact, deleted from their database. While they may have "closed" my account to make it inaccessible, they retain my data as an asset.
These points have been refuted by earlier replies, so I won't reiterate. I'd only point out that your fourth point (that the black death in Europe led to advanced technology) is a ridiculously Euro-centric position.
Us white boys tend to idolize our white forefathers, but tech evolved simultaneously all over the world. Chinese, Arabian and Indian civilizations made the same leaps independently. Your claim that we would have never achieved technology without decimating Europe is an extension of your claim that 20 individuals did all the work. You neglect all the smart people who've been ignored by history.
We're not talking about the police (i.e. government) doing anything. We're talking about a private business taking steps to insure its business.
The US Constitution's First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech from _government_ censorship. That is, it limits the power of government. It does not say that one private citizen (or business) *must* bear the burden to insure another citizen's freedom of speech. I can choose to stand up for you, but I can't be compelled to do so. That's my freedom.
I'm sure you've seen the signs in restaurants that say "we reserve the right to refuse service". That's basically what this is, and there's probably a similar clause in the ISPs AUP to cover it. It wasn't done for any reason that could be covered by civil rights legislation (they aren't terminating the account because the user posted religious opinion). It was done because that one person's patronage was hurting business.
A more apt analogy would be to compare this to ISPs who terminate accounts using Napster. That is, something you did used an unfair share of system resources and we choose not to support your activity in the future.
I think it's unfair to the user (essentially an innocent bystander) and it's a damn shame it's come to this, but the ISP has a point. If you want to throw stones, throw them at the script kiddies who are censoring the net.
I get a lot of spam from "legitimate" companies trying to sell me good products. These aren't just copier toner supplies, but server components and high-end applications. In cases like this, I send a polite reply saying that their product looks very interesting and I have a definite need, but my company has an explicit policy of not doing business with spammers, so I'll have to look into their competitors.
In several cases I have gotten indignant replies saying that they would never, ever spam and how could I possibly be so confused. It sometimes takes me three or four exchanges before I make them understand that UCE=spam (or I just get tired and quit trying).
If more companies realized that their "targetted marketing" is really spam and it's alienating the very consumers it's trying to reach, they'd stop.
The key is to have a very long memory (or a vindictive streak) so you can remember and punish long after the first incident.
If you really want to get their attention on accessibility, show them what their site looks like on the web-browsing cell phones that all the stock traders carry.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you foresee the "right to encrypt" surviving as an essential tool in the right to privacy? With recent expansions in domestic surveillance capabilities and requests by the DoJ to expand those powers even further, some are predicting that regulations regarding the use of encryption are inevitable (e.g. a return of the Clipper chip). Do you believe that the legitmate uses for encrypting personal data and communication will outweigh the possibility that criminals will also use encryption now that increased fear of terrorism has given that much more weight to the old "four horsemen" (terrorists, drug dealers, pedophiles, and money launderers)?
See this article about Amazon CO2 emissions for more info on using trees. In short, studies have shown that the Amazon is belching a lot more CO2 than previously thought and old growth forests are not effective as carbon sinks.
Basically, ASP is just a framework that provides session, request, and other objects to interact nicely with the server. Choose whatever language addresses your problem, and don't get hung up on VBScripts limitations.
One of the great things about ASP is that you can mix script languages. I use VBScript because it's dead-simple and quick to write. For "hard" problems, I switch to Perlscript. There's almost nothing you can't do in Perl, and I've found it fast enough in most cases. I use Perlscript ASP routines when I need to encrypt, hash, process binary files, etc.
I do use COM components to handle zip functions, but I'll bet I could get around that if I had to. As long as the ChiliSoft engine lets you switch script languages, I'm not nearly as constrained as you seem to think.
It's beside the point, but exactly how many bits do you think are in there?
It looks like you have 48 characters after the colons. That's more than enough bytes to encode the bits you say you need to be a unique ID. If each pair of characters is a hex representation of an 8-bit number, then you have a 192-bit space.
One major advantage of having a revision history for laws would be that it would be simple to identify and examine 11th hour changes. A lot of our laws are amended at the last moment or slipped into other unrelated bills in order to work out compromises among legislators. Anything that highlights the "law enforcement" addendum to the "children's healthcare" bill would be a true window on the inner workings of our system.
An algorithm had to be free of patent and other intellectual property claims in order to apply as an AES candidate. Rijndael is not a "standout" in this respect as this was required as part of the process. Credit goes to NIST, which knew a standard would never be a standard if it was encumbered by IP.
It's pronounced Aye-Eee-Ess.
How hard is that?
Definitely not twice as fast! Saying you can send two packets in the time it takes someone else to send one does not mean yours move twice as fast. The time it takes will be the same. He's just claiming that since his packets are smaller, he can send "more" in the same time.
And his dials go to eleven...
Senator Hatch is also the senator who believes that "profit is unAmerican".
He made that statement when lambasting Bill Gates during the Microsoft hearings. We may all want to take his side in fighting the "great evil", but this comment makes it clear that he's willing to ignore fact and principle in order to make a nice sound bite.
The fact is that America has a capitalist economy so there is nothing more American than "profit". We can still choose to be altruistic if we want, but there is nothing "unAmerican" about profit, regardless of what Mr. Hatch would have you believe (and in spite of Mr. Hatch's substantial fortune made in the retail furniture business where profit margins exceed those in the software industry).
Clearly this is an ally you'd want to watch carefully.
Not all "isolates" are isolated by choice. I happen to live in a very small town because of my SO's occupation. I telecommute as a software developer and have a near-constant flow of emails and periodic phone communication with the main office, but I don't take part in staff meetings, much less social events.
Locally, I have no peer group because chicken farmers (at least the ones I know) don't write code. There are people to socialize with, but I have zero face time with /. types.
I guess I qualify for this broad generalization, but the stereotype doesn't necessarily address the cause.
I sympathize with the H1B workers who now have to give up homes and careers to return to their countries, and it's easy to say "gee, let's just change the rules and let them stay." However, they entered the country under a specific set of guidelines and they knew full well the conditions of their visa. Changing the rules now seems hypocritical and capricious.
How would /.ers feel about a similar rule change:
"I know the original code was under GPL, but we've made so many improvements and worked so hard, it's just not fair that we can't change the license."
FWIW, I went through the steps to "close" my account back when I joined the boycott. As detailed in my post in this thread titled "on a related note", closing the account does not necessarily mean that they delete the related information. I continue to receive emails, so it's clear that I'm still on their list.
Especially now that they've classified your data as a saleable asset belonging to them, it's doubtful they will actually delete it from their database.
C'est la vie, or so it seems.
On a related note, Amazon apparently lied to users when they said that users could be removed from the customer database.
Several months ago I opted to take part in the boycott against Amazon because of their patent stances. I had been a long-time and frequent customer to that point, so I sent a note to their customer service address explaining my position and asking to be deleted. One of their people responded very politely with an explanation of their position on the patent issue. We traded several emails discussing the point. Obviously my position did not change, and the customer service representative agreed to delete my records.
I recently received an email notification from them regarding their change in policy making customer data a saleable asset. This makes it obvious that I was not, in fact, deleted from their database. While they may have "closed" my account to make it inaccessible, they retain my data as an asset.
Bad Bezos, no donut.
These points have been refuted by earlier replies, so I won't reiterate. I'd only point out that your fourth point (that the black death in Europe led to advanced technology) is a ridiculously Euro-centric position.
Us white boys tend to idolize our white forefathers, but tech evolved simultaneously all over the world. Chinese, Arabian and Indian civilizations made the same leaps independently. Your claim that we would have never achieved technology without decimating Europe is an extension of your claim that 20 individuals did all the work. You neglect all the smart people who've been ignored by history.
It doesn't release *air* from water. Cavitation occurs when the pressure drops enough for liquid water to convert to water vapor.
Water vapor is a gas, but it's not air.
We're not talking about the police (i.e. government) doing anything. We're talking about a private business taking steps to insure its business.
The US Constitution's First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech from _government_ censorship. That is, it limits the power of government. It does not say that one private citizen (or business) *must* bear the burden to insure another citizen's freedom of speech. I can choose to stand up for you, but I can't be compelled to do so. That's my freedom.
I'm sure you've seen the signs in restaurants that say "we reserve the right to refuse service". That's basically what this is, and there's probably a similar clause in the ISPs AUP to cover it. It wasn't done for any reason that could be covered by civil rights legislation (they aren't terminating the account because the user posted religious opinion). It was done because that one person's patronage was hurting business.
A more apt analogy would be to compare this to ISPs who terminate accounts using Napster. That is, something you did used an unfair share of system resources and we choose not to support your activity in the future.
I think it's unfair to the user (essentially an innocent bystander) and it's a damn shame it's come to this, but the ISP has a point. If you want to throw stones, throw them at the script kiddies who are censoring the net.
micco
To paraphrase Bukowski's comment on writing poetry,
you don't become a programmer because you want to.
You write code because you can't not write code.
In several cases I have gotten indignant replies saying that they would never, ever spam and how could I possibly be so confused. It sometimes takes me three or four exchanges before I make them understand that UCE=spam (or I just get tired and quit trying).
If more companies realized that their "targetted marketing" is really spam and it's alienating the very consumers it's trying to reach, they'd stop.
The key is to have a very long memory (or a vindictive streak) so you can remember and punish long after the first incident.
micco
If you really want to get their attention on accessibility,
show them what their site looks like on the web-browsing cell phones that all the stock traders carry.
micco