We seem to be pretty clearly comfortable with dogs as pets(and, frankly, outside of abusive situations, dogs seem pretty enthusiastic as well)
Dogs are enthusiastic about being pets because they are pack animals. One of the reasons they are pack animals are to hunt for food together, and the other is companionship.
Since humans provide both in abundance (I imagine that a dog would react to a butcher shop somewhat like Soviet citizens who came over to the US...complete amazement at both the quantity and ease of acquisition of food), it's not surprising they are OK with being pets.
If by "hours", you mean "over a hundred hours", then, yes, you are correct. Until they are about a week old, puppies only crawl, since their legs are both too short and too weak to lift their body.
I believe you are thinking about cows, deer, horses, etc., which do walk within hours of being born.
What's the use of a fork, if the original developers can shut it down by refusing to license it? If you essentially have to ask for permission to distribute your fork, how is that 'libre' in any way?
It's not possible to change the license on code that was already released as GPLv2, since the license you would work from would be the one in force when you received your copy. In addition, the license can't be changed unless all copyright holders agree, and if the K-splice code contains any contributions that have not had copyright assigned to the K-splice team, then it might never change (unless Oracle has some really deep pockets...if I were in such a position, I would demand 100M shares of Oracle stock to assign my copyright to them).
But, no matter what, the worst case is that any future changes to the source or license might happen, and those might not be available to you, but you will always have the last "libre" version for your use.
If there are patent issues, that's a different story, but unless the code is used by a company with a lot of money, it would be unlikely that any lawsuit would happen (although if Lodsys is an example, everyone might have to worry about patent lawsuits in the future).
Besides, they claim their main bottleneck is the gigabit Ethernet interface - even software RAID, the PCIe x1, and the raw drive performance is less of a limiting factor.
This is absolutely true. Even with a pair of bonded 1Gb Ethernet connections, it's not nearly enough to keep up with a PCIe x1 in the real world. I'm moving to a single 10Gb connection from each server to iSCSI SAN because of this.
i wish they sold or someone sold the setup sans drives (or just the bare case)
TFA says the case is available from Protocase for $875 in single unit quantities.
A "pod" is just a standard x86 PC in this custom 4U case. Sure, it has a few specific extras, but all are standard, off-the-shelf hardware that you can easily buy. Appendix A in the Backblaze blog post gives every detail you need.
If you start with just 15 hard drives (for a total of 45TB), then the price would be about $3300. You probably only save about $500 by using an standard case, because a decent one with room for 15 or more drives will set you back at least $300.
What I meant was that if you just install NoScript (which by default denies all scripts) and then never enable scripts on any site, you end up with the "neutered web" that the GP wrote about. If you do that, you don't need NoScript...you can just disable Javascript in the browser.
I've tried to use it four or five times through the years, and I always end up removing it almost immediately. I find the UI to be confusing (and just plain bad) to the point of uselessness
What, exactly, is confusing about clicking one time on a menu item that reads "Allow slashdot.org" (for example)?
The only time I find there to be a problem is when a domain loads scripts from 5-10 other domains. That does make it difficult to figure out which scripts are required to make the site functional, but that's not a problem with NoScript...that's a problem with the site. And, it's exactly this "code from random sites" that makes NoScript important for browser security.
Re:Should have been a default in browsers from day
on
NoScript Awarded $10,000
·
· Score: 5, Informative
This, exactly. I would rather backup my machine properly and practice safe browsing habits then put up with NoScript's bullshit. Ive read for years people extolling its virtues, but i personally cannot stand the neutered web it presents.
The whole point of NoScript is to allow you to control whether scripts run on a finer level than the "off/on" that browsers support natively, and it does that easily, with one click per domain.
If you use NoScript to deny scripts globally, then you are using it wrong. Instead, you enable each domain (just once, as NoScript remembers the setting) that you deem safe. This makes browsing much more secure, although you can still be caught if a trusted domain starts serving malware scripts, but it's better than being open to attack from every domain.
How often do you reboot your phone? And don't you want to connect it to your computer after you do anyway, to restore stuff?
Why would you need to restore after a reboot?
I don't restart my phone (Android) that much, but sometimes an app dies and leaves the phone in a less than desirable state (e.g., un-killable background tasks that eat the battery). I've never lost any data because of a restart.
Why does a new scheduler need a new OS release? I have for years changed scheduler by a simple reboot (in linux, of course). I hear it can be changed by an even simpler echo into some system file.
So, you're saying that you can institute an arbitrary scheduling algorithm with a config value change, even if the code for the new algorithm isn't part of the system?
In general, you don't get things like a new scheduler without a new OS. In the case of Linux, that's a new kernel version (since Linux is just the kernel with a bunch of optional programs that make life easier for users). It would be the same in Windows, but because of Microsoft's version of "compatibility", they tend to need to change a lot more than just NTOSKRNL.EXE for such updates, so it's either a major service pack or a completely new version.
I suspect that there are a lot of people who purchase domains to have a fixed e-mail address but don't set up a web server at that domain, especially now that you can use sites like Facebook to post the kinds of things that most people would put on their personal website.
They had a program in 2009 called Clear to speed you through screening and it was abruptly shutdown without explanation.
I had heard that the company running the program wasn't making a profit. That, plus the laptop fiasco mentioned by the other poster killed it pretty quickly.
You need a webserver for your domain which has a http://example.com/.well-known/host-meta file which points to an URL where the public-key-information can be queried.
So, if you have only an e-mail domain (e.g., a domain purchased solely to allow you to have your own GMail domain), then you can't use this service.
There are also a lot of people who have e-mail through an ISP which either won't do this at all, or would screw it up in some way that your login wouldn't work (Verizon, Comcast, etc.). I don't even know if Google would support this, as all HTTP requests to gmail.com seem to redirect to google.com/mail.
That said, it takes 15 minutes or so to rip a DVD into a 1GB MKV file on my Core i7 laptop. In other words, we are well beyond the point where most consumers will see CPU speed being a limiting factor in everything they want to do.
Try the same thing with a Blu-Ray where you do any amount of image processing during the transcode. I had one movie where each pass took 10 hours. Admittedly, that's pathological, but it usually takes me about 1.5x real time per pass (so about 6 total hours for a 2 hour movie).
I'm not counting the time it takes to actually rip the Blu-Ray to the hard drive for the transcoding work...that's only about 30 minutes on most movies.
I actually have two CFL spirals fully visible in one bathroom. I think they look cool.:-)
I use the "globe" CFLs in my bathroom, and they look pretty much exactly like the incandescent version.
Overall, CFLs are great for uses where you don't need more than 100W incandescent, don't need dimming, and don't have limited space. When they solve those issues, then except for low-temperature locations, CFLs should be the best choice.
LEDs still need to work on light output for the size. I was thinking of replacing some of my in-ceiling lights with LED, but the current spotlights are in the 1500 lumen range, and the brightest LED I could find that fits the location was less than 500 lumen, and cost as much as a case of 12 regular bulbs.
BTW, there's a reason we don't use halogen bulbs everywhere. They're too hot. They represent a significant increase in fire risk over standard incandescent bulbs, and thus are unsuitable for many light fixtures.
A halogen bulb produces slightly more light per watt of input than an incandescent bulb. For both types of bulbs, what is not given off as light is given off as heat. Since the halogen bulb is more efficient, then it will actually be cooler for the same light output.
The reason you have the misconception that halogen bulbs are "too hot" is that you are thinking of the 300 or 500 watt bulbs, which do get very hot. But, 300W incandescent photo floods get even hotter than a 300W halogen. I have some 100W and 25W halogen bulbs, and they get no hotter than an equivalent incandescent.
Until CFLs and LCDs can be easily used in all applications that incandescent and halogen are currently used (control by dimmer and really bright bulbs are two that CFLs and LCDs both have problems handling), there really is no easy way to switch over.
8 looks like it is adding inherent support for html5 and other post-90s web standards (out-of-the-box Flash support without any Adobe software?), touch screens, ADHD multi-tasking
I don't really understand why any of those things require a new OS. All seem to be things that can either be handled by drivers, the web browser, or maybe a shell extension or two (unless the underlying scheduler is being changed).
You see, it has a surface area of 100 cm squared, but it is less than 0.03 mm thick.
No matter how I interpret this, it just can't be correct.
You can't mean a 100cm x 100cm plate as that's a meter on each side, and I don't know of any computer case that big.
But, even if you meant 100 square centimeters, that's 10cm x 10cm, which is about 4" on each side. That's a pretty big base plate, and although it could work, it would leave about 1" hanging over the edge of the CPU, and you'd trap hot air below this plate, somewhat negating the whole purpose of this style of heatsink.
There are several significant issues with modern CPUs. One of the most prevalent issues is heat dissipation. Thus, accurately described as a "brick wall", as it is effectively preventing the creation of faster, general purpose CPUs.
Not really. Faster CPUs are easy if they are more energy efficient, like the new Sandy Bridge chips from Intel.
The real issue is that with a CPU that uses over about 125W, you can't get rid of the heat fast enough and quietly enough for use in a general-purpose computer. For servers, it's pretty easy to put a 95W CPU in a 1U box with a 60mm fan and still keep it cool, and even a 125W CPU can be cooled with a reasonably small heatsink and no more than a 92mm fan. These fans will generate 60dB or more noise at 1 meter, but nobody cares because the box is in the server room, not beside a CEO's desk.
But, with Sandy Bridge, you can easily run them at 4.5GHz with less than 110W of generated heat, which can be kept cool enough with a fairly inexpensive heat sink.
So, because they can't crack encryption rated to be some of the highest in use, which is also recommended for most government office use, they are incompetent?
As others have stated, it is mostly about overall evidence, but it is also about the DOJ not having people who can find a way to decrypt the file. They don't have to brute force...they could use social engineering, could have made the arrest when the computer was turned on and the encryption password cached, or perhaps find out if the encryption is really that strong from the software author.
It really is no different from any other job that law enforcement has to do. For example, if criminals are using weapons that render current body armor useless, then perhaps law enforcement should find something that works other than (for example) preemptively shooting every suspect because they might have such a weapon. Law enforcement has to adapt to what criminals are doing, but they need to do it within the framework of the law.
Slashdot Mirror
We seem to be pretty clearly comfortable with dogs as pets(and, frankly, outside of abusive situations, dogs seem pretty enthusiastic as well)
Dogs are enthusiastic about being pets because they are pack animals. One of the reasons they are pack animals are to hunt for food together, and the other is companionship.
Since humans provide both in abundance (I imagine that a dog would react to a butcher shop somewhat like Soviet citizens who came over to the US...complete amazement at both the quantity and ease of acquisition of food), it's not surprising they are OK with being pets.
A puppy can walk hours after being born.
If by "hours", you mean "over a hundred hours", then, yes, you are correct. Until they are about a week old, puppies only crawl, since their legs are both too short and too weak to lift their body.
I believe you are thinking about cows, deer, horses, etc., which do walk within hours of being born.
What's the use of a fork, if the original developers can shut it down by refusing to license it? If you essentially have to ask for permission to distribute your fork, how is that 'libre' in any way?
It's not possible to change the license on code that was already released as GPLv2, since the license you would work from would be the one in force when you received your copy. In addition, the license can't be changed unless all copyright holders agree, and if the K-splice code contains any contributions that have not had copyright assigned to the K-splice team, then it might never change (unless Oracle has some really deep pockets...if I were in such a position, I would demand 100M shares of Oracle stock to assign my copyright to them).
But, no matter what, the worst case is that any future changes to the source or license might happen, and those might not be available to you, but you will always have the last "libre" version for your use.
If there are patent issues, that's a different story, but unless the code is used by a company with a lot of money, it would be unlikely that any lawsuit would happen (although if Lodsys is an example, everyone might have to worry about patent lawsuits in the future).
That is SQL.
No, that is a relational database with a lot of extras that protect the data.
SQL is a query language that could be used against any collection of data (with the correct parser and engine).
Besides, they claim their main bottleneck is the gigabit Ethernet interface - even software RAID, the PCIe x1, and the raw drive performance is less of a limiting factor.
This is absolutely true. Even with a pair of bonded 1Gb Ethernet connections, it's not nearly enough to keep up with a PCIe x1 in the real world. I'm moving to a single 10Gb connection from each server to iSCSI SAN because of this.
i wish they sold or someone sold the setup sans drives (or just the bare case)
TFA says the case is available from Protocase for $875 in single unit quantities.
A "pod" is just a standard x86 PC in this custom 4U case. Sure, it has a few specific extras, but all are standard, off-the-shelf hardware that you can easily buy. Appendix A in the Backblaze blog post gives every detail you need.
If you start with just 15 hard drives (for a total of 45TB), then the price would be about $3300. You probably only save about $500 by using an standard case, because a decent one with room for 15 or more drives will set you back at least $300.
It's called Deniable Encryption
In the real world, deniable encryption means they beat you with the wrench even after you have given them a password that appears to work.
Yeah, I was a little unclear.
What I meant was that if you just install NoScript (which by default denies all scripts) and then never enable scripts on any site, you end up with the "neutered web" that the GP wrote about. If you do that, you don't need NoScript...you can just disable Javascript in the browser.
How is a forklift supposed to fit through the door to the basement and navigate the stairs?
It's attached to a "new" Dalek.
I've tried to use it four or five times through the years, and I always end up removing it almost immediately. I find the UI to be confusing (and just plain bad) to the point of uselessness
What, exactly, is confusing about clicking one time on a menu item that reads "Allow slashdot.org" (for example)?
The only time I find there to be a problem is when a domain loads scripts from 5-10 other domains. That does make it difficult to figure out which scripts are required to make the site functional, but that's not a problem with NoScript...that's a problem with the site. And, it's exactly this "code from random sites" that makes NoScript important for browser security.
This, exactly. I would rather backup my machine properly and practice safe browsing habits then put up with NoScript's bullshit. Ive read for years people extolling its virtues, but i personally cannot stand the neutered web it presents.
The whole point of NoScript is to allow you to control whether scripts run on a finer level than the "off/on" that browsers support natively, and it does that easily, with one click per domain.
If you use NoScript to deny scripts globally, then you are using it wrong. Instead, you enable each domain (just once, as NoScript remembers the setting) that you deem safe. This makes browsing much more secure, although you can still be caught if a trusted domain starts serving malware scripts, but it's better than being open to attack from every domain.
How often do you reboot your phone? And don't you want to connect it to your computer after you do anyway, to restore stuff?
Why would you need to restore after a reboot?
I don't restart my phone (Android) that much, but sometimes an app dies and leaves the phone in a less than desirable state (e.g., un-killable background tasks that eat the battery). I've never lost any data because of a restart.
Why does a new scheduler need a new OS release? I have for years changed scheduler by a simple reboot (in linux, of course). I hear it can be changed by an even simpler echo into some system file.
So, you're saying that you can institute an arbitrary scheduling algorithm with a config value change, even if the code for the new algorithm isn't part of the system?
In general, you don't get things like a new scheduler without a new OS. In the case of Linux, that's a new kernel version (since Linux is just the kernel with a bunch of optional programs that make life easier for users). It would be the same in Windows, but because of Microsoft's version of "compatibility", they tend to need to change a lot more than just NTOSKRNL.EXE for such updates, so it's either a major service pack or a completely new version.
I've never heard of an email only domain..?
I suspect that there are a lot of people who purchase domains to have a fixed e-mail address but don't set up a web server at that domain, especially now that you can use sites like Facebook to post the kinds of things that most people would put on their personal website.
They had a program in 2009 called Clear to speed you through screening and it was abruptly shutdown without explanation.
I had heard that the company running the program wasn't making a profit. That, plus the laptop fiasco mentioned by the other poster killed it pretty quickly.
You need a webserver for your domain which has a http://example.com/.well-known/host-meta file which points to an URL where the public-key-information can be queried.
So, if you have only an e-mail domain (e.g., a domain purchased solely to allow you to have your own GMail domain), then you can't use this service.
There are also a lot of people who have e-mail through an ISP which either won't do this at all, or would screw it up in some way that your login wouldn't work (Verizon, Comcast, etc.). I don't even know if Google would support this, as all HTTP requests to gmail.com seem to redirect to google.com/mail.
That said, it takes 15 minutes or so to rip a DVD into a 1GB MKV file on my Core i7 laptop. In other words, we are well beyond the point where most consumers will see CPU speed being a limiting factor in everything they want to do.
Try the same thing with a Blu-Ray where you do any amount of image processing during the transcode. I had one movie where each pass took 10 hours. Admittedly, that's pathological, but it usually takes me about 1.5x real time per pass (so about 6 total hours for a 2 hour movie).
I'm not counting the time it takes to actually rip the Blu-Ray to the hard drive for the transcoding work...that's only about 30 minutes on most movies.
FTFS:
The company said it would Netflix raise the Internet-plus-DVDs-in-the-mail plan
What, exactly, does it meant to "Netflix raise" the price of something?
I actually have two CFL spirals fully visible in one bathroom. I think they look cool. :-)
I use the "globe" CFLs in my bathroom, and they look pretty much exactly like the incandescent version.
Overall, CFLs are great for uses where you don't need more than 100W incandescent, don't need dimming, and don't have limited space. When they solve those issues, then except for low-temperature locations, CFLs should be the best choice.
LEDs still need to work on light output for the size. I was thinking of replacing some of my in-ceiling lights with LED, but the current spotlights are in the 1500 lumen range, and the brightest LED I could find that fits the location was less than 500 lumen, and cost as much as a case of 12 regular bulbs.
BTW, there's a reason we don't use halogen bulbs everywhere. They're too hot. They represent a significant increase in fire risk over standard incandescent bulbs, and thus are unsuitable for many light fixtures.
A halogen bulb produces slightly more light per watt of input than an incandescent bulb. For both types of bulbs, what is not given off as light is given off as heat. Since the halogen bulb is more efficient, then it will actually be cooler for the same light output.
The reason you have the misconception that halogen bulbs are "too hot" is that you are thinking of the 300 or 500 watt bulbs, which do get very hot. But, 300W incandescent photo floods get even hotter than a 300W halogen. I have some 100W and 25W halogen bulbs, and they get no hotter than an equivalent incandescent.
Until CFLs and LCDs can be easily used in all applications that incandescent and halogen are currently used (control by dimmer and really bright bulbs are two that CFLs and LCDs both have problems handling), there really is no easy way to switch over.
8 looks like it is adding inherent support for html5 and other post-90s web standards (out-of-the-box Flash support without any Adobe software?), touch screens, ADHD multi-tasking
I don't really understand why any of those things require a new OS. All seem to be things that can either be handled by drivers, the web browser, or maybe a shell extension or two (unless the underlying scheduler is being changed).
6. you get to deplane first (this is a biggie!)
Only if you have no checked luggage.
You see, it has a surface area of 100 cm squared, but it is less than 0.03 mm thick.
No matter how I interpret this, it just can't be correct.
You can't mean a 100cm x 100cm plate as that's a meter on each side, and I don't know of any computer case that big.
But, even if you meant 100 square centimeters, that's 10cm x 10cm, which is about 4" on each side. That's a pretty big base plate, and although it could work, it would leave about 1" hanging over the edge of the CPU, and you'd trap hot air below this plate, somewhat negating the whole purpose of this style of heatsink.
There are several significant issues with modern CPUs. One of the most prevalent issues is heat dissipation. Thus, accurately described as a "brick wall", as it is effectively preventing the creation of faster, general purpose CPUs.
Not really. Faster CPUs are easy if they are more energy efficient, like the new Sandy Bridge chips from Intel.
The real issue is that with a CPU that uses over about 125W, you can't get rid of the heat fast enough and quietly enough for use in a general-purpose computer. For servers, it's pretty easy to put a 95W CPU in a 1U box with a 60mm fan and still keep it cool, and even a 125W CPU can be cooled with a reasonably small heatsink and no more than a 92mm fan. These fans will generate 60dB or more noise at 1 meter, but nobody cares because the box is in the server room, not beside a CEO's desk.
But, with Sandy Bridge, you can easily run them at 4.5GHz with less than 110W of generated heat, which can be kept cool enough with a fairly inexpensive heat sink.
So, because they can't crack encryption rated to be some of the highest in use, which is also recommended for most government office use, they are incompetent?
As others have stated, it is mostly about overall evidence, but it is also about the DOJ not having people who can find a way to decrypt the file. They don't have to brute force...they could use social engineering, could have made the arrest when the computer was turned on and the encryption password cached, or perhaps find out if the encryption is really that strong from the software author.
It really is no different from any other job that law enforcement has to do. For example, if criminals are using weapons that render current body armor useless, then perhaps law enforcement should find something that works other than (for example) preemptively shooting every suspect because they might have such a weapon. Law enforcement has to adapt to what criminals are doing, but they need to do it within the framework of the law.