Which add up to what - 10% of domestic energy in the US? 15%?
It was between 6 and 7% in 2004, I don't know how much it is today. I don't want to even attempt to predict anything in this field, but my expectation is that the goal of 100% in 10 years from 2008 will NOT be reached. Not even by half.
Why does everyone always point out that they "don't produce CO2" nowadays, when all they do is shove the CO2 production over the horizon, into someone else's yard?
Gasification technology, by contrast, converts nearly all of the waste into gases like hydrogen and carbon monoxide that can be used to run generators and furnaces
So instead of burning it (producing CO2) and generating energy locally, they produce carbon monoxyde that can be burned (producing just as much CO2) somewhere else, and suddenly they're "clean".
There is a benefit to using waste: if you just let it rot you get CO2 as well, so it's not a bad idea to gain some energy in the process. But gasification isn't any cleaner than other methods for getting energy out of waste.
There is a benefit to gasification, just in that you can use the gas somewhere else, closer to where the energy is needed. But mentioning CO2 as if it magically disappears is hypocritic.
A different topic maybe, but electric cars are just the same: no, they don't produce CO2. The CO2 is produced in the electricity plant that generates the current to charge your batteries instead. Or in a nuclear plant, creating its own kind of problems. And a small but growing part in clean alternative plants. The net effect of a "clean" electric car is that the energy has to come from somewhere else, shifting the responsibility for doing it in a clean way to someone else. Electric cars aren't clean, they're hypocritic.
It's not just car manufacturers and waste gasifiers, many are making themselves "clean" today by saddling someone else up with the problems.
Sorry, but what alternative OS disallows users to execute programs from their home directory? (Actually, NT4 did if you wanted it to, so I suppose it must still be possible in its descendants today.)
... US senators attempting to turn US copyright into a more compatible version of Europe's copyright because we signed a treaty with them (the Berne Convention)
The old US copyright laws were based on the Berne convention. That convention was held in 1886, and AFAIK that was a bit before Walt Disney and Sonny Bono were born.
Protection already lasted longer under the 1976 copyright act than in most other countries that signed the Berne convention.
The Mickey Mouse Protection Act of '98 and the DMCA have been the immediate reasons for the rest of the world beginning to changing its laws to remain compatible with the US, not the other way around.
No DNS entry for that domain here, and neither for help-israel-win.com Both domains pop up at google though, as #1 and #2 for "help israel win", so they must have existed. Google's cached version of the page reports 7040 registered botnet members.
Net-criminals have been known to try and make money out of natural disasters etc. before. War can be seen as a disaster too.
What guarantee did the 7786 in this case get that the botnet they've wilfully joined will be used for what they're being told, and not for more common purposes such as sending spam, hosting dirty pictures of big and/or little children, and selling fake medicine with the same advertized effect of making a certain male body part grow?
Vista isn't any less stable than XP, if you ask me. By that I mean that for as long as it has existed, the number of crashes or other instabilities (not counting third-party application bugs) I've seen in Vista is exactly the same as in XP: zero equals zero.
The only negative thing that can be said about it, is that it requires a ton of resources - but that was to be expected. Win2000 needed more than NT4, XP more than 2000, Vista more than XP. Each of those times, what was decent hardware for one OS became the bare minimum for the next.
I think the reason why people hate it the most is UAC with its extra dialogs, and I can easily imagine someone confusing that with instability - because I've seen it happen.
Someone at work (who calls himself a software engineer nonetheless, writes small device firmware in assembler, but at PC level knows nothing but VB, and even that only half-assed) saw an UAC pop-up on my machine shortly after I installed the first Vista in the company. He immediately went out to tell everyone (behind my back, as usual for him) that he had seen "Vista crash" and that I was a moron for wanting to use it. That while he himself refuses to even look at Linux because it's too difficult, and still runs Windows 95 on one of his own boxes because he's afraid some DOS-based programs he wrote in Clipper 15 years ago will stop working if he upgrades.
I mean, if even a professional - be it one I wouldn't hire - thinks an UAC popup is an error message, calls it a crash, what must non-IT professionals think?
No. It depends, but $100 is always far too cheap to be art.
Art is what you can barely afford and your neighbours can't. To some, a SUV is art. For me, it would have to be crashed into a tree or a 40-ton truck first. THEN it becomes art (the kind I can't afford).
The fact that they publish security updates proves them wrong.
Maybe there aren't many (or any) viruses, worms and whatnot targeting the platform today, but they will come, and when they arrive, it will be a good idea to have some protection installed beforehand. A relative few will still get infected before the AV industry can react, but the rest will be safe as soon as a definition update appears that detects the threat.
There's support and support. The first OS to have certified DOD compliant IPV6 support (what this topic is about) was Vista. Solaris 10 came second. Neither had IKEv2 capability. Then came Novell and RedHat, both with IKEv1 and IKEv2.
So it's not only a neck-to-neck race, but you can also be first, and you can be first (with IKEv2).
You can find the list, with certification dates, here.
Why was that modded troll? Someone with enough mod points who disagreed but couldn't come up with a good argument?
The success of IPV4, and the reason it survived so long, has always been its simplicity. The right way would have been to extend the address space while still obeying to the KISS principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid).
IPV6 is such an example of bloat that you'd almost believe Microsoft wrote the specs. The OSI model splits things up in levels for a reason. Trying to stuff too many levels into a single protocol is a stupid idea. IPV6's biggest fault is that it tries to go grab land up to the presentation layer, jumping two levels above the two that IPV4 was already doing.
That's no attempt to troll, it's simply my view on why IPV6 still hasn't taken over. And just wait until it does, then you'll see the result: more complexity only leads to more problems.
Cray just announced a new closed-source $25K supercomputer two months ago. IBM is going open source on its supercomputers, but last August is not what I would call "the last few years".
Absolutely! Who needs a terabyte of storage at home, if not for illegal purposes? 640K should be enough for anyone, even Gates already knew that in '81.
I think you're wrong about one point: AFAIK US courts, according to US law, DO have jurisdiction over foreign nationals for acts committed on foreign ground, as soon as US citizens or companies are affected (as alleged victims). There was even some dismay in the news media here in Europe when the US adapted a law allowing US Marshals to arrest (read "kidnap") foreign nationals abroad to drag them before US courts. I don't remember what period that was exactly, but it's at least 10 years ago.
In France, using encryption has long been illegal. I believe even SSL connections weren't allowed until the law changed in 1999. So I wouldn't call this "stretching credibility", it's just on par for the course in that country where the government clearly doesn't have a clue about IT.
Worse, they're learning about IT - from the media mafia. For example, a year ago there were voices calling out for a complete internet ban for whoever is caught sharing a file, enforcing ISP's to act as police, attorney, jury and judge. Who came up with that idea? The IFPI. Who fell for it? The government.
If I were an extortionist, a simple everyday bank account "at the bank over there at the street corner" would be the last thing I'd be using. A Swiss bank perhaps? I think there may be countries that are even more "secure" for the perp.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah sure, replace something with known security holes with something new where they still have to be discovered :)
How does one disable autoplay in XP, without making a half dozen manual registry changes?
Through a policy (gpedit.msc).
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/953252
The article is about 10 times as long as it needs to be, look for the subtitle "How to use Group Policy settings to disable all Autorun features".
Which add up to what - 10% of domestic energy in the US? 15%?
It was between 6 and 7% in 2004, I don't know how much it is today. I don't want to even attempt to predict anything in this field, but my expectation is that the goal of 100% in 10 years from 2008 will NOT be reached. Not even by half.
Why does everyone always point out that they "don't produce CO2" nowadays, when all they do is shove the CO2 production over the horizon, into someone else's yard?
So instead of burning it (producing CO2) and generating energy locally, they produce carbon monoxyde that can be burned (producing just as much CO2) somewhere else, and suddenly they're "clean".
There is a benefit to using waste: if you just let it rot you get CO2 as well, so it's not a bad idea to gain some energy in the process. But gasification isn't any cleaner than other methods for getting energy out of waste.
There is a benefit to gasification, just in that you can use the gas somewhere else, closer to where the energy is needed. But mentioning CO2 as if it magically disappears is hypocritic.
A different topic maybe, but electric cars are just the same: no, they don't produce CO2. The CO2 is produced in the electricity plant that generates the current to charge your batteries instead. Or in a nuclear plant, creating its own kind of problems. And a small but growing part in clean alternative plants.
The net effect of a "clean" electric car is that the energy has to come from somewhere else, shifting the responsibility for doing it in a clean way to someone else. Electric cars aren't clean, they're hypocritic.
It's not just car manufacturers and waste gasifiers, many are making themselves "clean" today by saddling someone else up with the problems.
Sorry, but what alternative OS disallows users to execute programs from their home directory?
(Actually, NT4 did if you wanted it to, so I suppose it must still be possible in its descendants today.)
The old US copyright laws were based on the Berne convention. That convention was held in 1886, and AFAIK that was a bit before Walt Disney and Sonny Bono were born.
Protection already lasted longer under the 1976 copyright act than in most other countries that signed the Berne convention.
The Mickey Mouse Protection Act of '98 and the DMCA have been the immediate reasons for the rest of the world beginning to changing its laws to remain compatible with the US, not the other way around.
The article site appears to be slashdotted.
OTOH, I'm using a Belkin router. Do you think they'd dare...?
Not hearing any sirens yet? Exactly what I thought - the NSA don't use sirens :)
No DNS entry for that domain here, and neither for help-israel-win.com
Both domains pop up at google though, as #1 and #2 for "help israel win", so they must have existed.
Google's cached version of the page reports 7040 registered botnet members.
Net-criminals have been known to try and make money out of natural disasters etc. before. War can be seen as a disaster too.
What guarantee did the 7786 in this case get that the botnet they've wilfully joined will be used for what they're being told, and not for more common purposes such as sending spam, hosting dirty pictures of big and/or little children, and selling fake medicine with the same advertized effect of making a certain male body part grow?
Vista isn't any less stable than XP, if you ask me. By that I mean that for as long as it has existed, the number of crashes or other instabilities (not counting third-party application bugs) I've seen in Vista is exactly the same as in XP: zero equals zero.
The only negative thing that can be said about it, is that it requires a ton of resources - but that was to be expected. Win2000 needed more than NT4, XP more than 2000, Vista more than XP. Each of those times, what was decent hardware for one OS became the bare minimum for the next.
I think the reason why people hate it the most is UAC with its extra dialogs, and I can easily imagine someone confusing that with instability - because I've seen it happen.
Someone at work (who calls himself a software engineer nonetheless, writes small device firmware in assembler, but at PC level knows nothing but VB, and even that only half-assed) saw an UAC pop-up on my machine shortly after I installed the first Vista in the company. He immediately went out to tell everyone (behind my back, as usual for him) that he had seen "Vista crash" and that I was a moron for wanting to use it. That while he himself refuses to even look at Linux because it's too difficult, and still runs Windows 95 on one of his own boxes because he's afraid some DOS-based programs he wrote in Clipper 15 years ago will stop working if he upgrades.
I mean, if even a professional - be it one I wouldn't hire - thinks an UAC popup is an error message, calls it a crash, what must non-IT professionals think?
Vista already has something very similar built in.
It's called ReadyBoost.
I think $30 per GB is why nobody mentions them.
With a starting price of $2400 per card, I don't extect to find them on desktops any time soon.
Ok, those figures are a year old - they may have dropped a bit since, I don't know. ;):
This is where I got them (the numbers, not the iodrive
http://www.gadgettastic.com/2007/10/05/fusion-io-launches-the-iodrive-640gb-pcie-hard-drive/
http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/28/more-info-on-fusions-iodrive-the-pcie-card-with-massive-flash/
No. It depends, but $100 is always far too cheap to be art.
Art is what you can barely afford and your neighbours can't. To some, a SUV is art. For me, it would have to be crashed into a tree or a 40-ton truck first. THEN it becomes art (the kind I can't afford).
The fact that they publish security updates proves them wrong.
Maybe there aren't many (or any) viruses, worms and whatnot targeting the platform today, but they will come, and when they arrive, it will be a good idea to have some protection installed beforehand. A relative few will still get infected before the AV industry can react, but the rest will be safe as soon as a definition update appears that detects the threat.
There's support and support. The first OS to have certified DOD compliant IPV6 support (what this topic is about) was Vista. Solaris 10 came second. Neither had IKEv2 capability. Then came Novell and RedHat, both with IKEv1 and IKEv2.
So it's not only a neck-to-neck race, but you can also be first, and you can be first (with IKEv2).
You can find the list, with certification dates, here.
Why was that modded troll? Someone with enough mod points who disagreed but couldn't come up with a good argument?
The success of IPV4, and the reason it survived so long, has always been its simplicity. The right way would have been to extend the address space while still obeying to the KISS principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid).
IPV6 is such an example of bloat that you'd almost believe Microsoft wrote the specs.
The OSI model splits things up in levels for a reason. Trying to stuff too many levels into a single protocol is a stupid idea. IPV6's biggest fault is that it tries to go grab land up to the presentation layer, jumping two levels above the two that IPV4 was already doing.
That's no attempt to troll, it's simply my view on why IPV6 still hasn't taken over.
And just wait until it does, then you'll see the result: more complexity only leads to more problems.
EMACS is a decent operating system, but it could use a better text editor.
Cray just announced a new closed-source $25K supercomputer two months ago.
IBM is going open source on its supercomputers, but last August is not what I would call "the last few years".
You mean they sent $250M worth of sand up there?
Sorry, the link I included didn't clearly illustrate what it was supposed to.
This one should be better (and it's "caught three times", not "caught").
Absolutely! Who needs a terabyte of storage at home, if not for illegal purposes?
640K should be enough for anyone, even Gates already knew that in '81.
I think you're wrong about one point: AFAIK US courts, according to US law, DO have jurisdiction over foreign nationals for acts committed on foreign ground, as soon as US citizens or companies are affected (as alleged victims).
There was even some dismay in the news media here in Europe when the US adapted a law allowing US Marshals to arrest (read "kidnap") foreign nationals abroad to drag them before US courts. I don't remember what period that was exactly, but it's at least 10 years ago.
In France, using encryption has long been illegal. I believe even SSL connections weren't allowed until the law changed in 1999.
So I wouldn't call this "stretching credibility", it's just on par for the course in that country where the government clearly doesn't have a clue about IT.
Worse, they're learning about IT - from the media mafia. For example, a year ago there were voices calling out for a complete internet ban for whoever is caught sharing a file, enforcing ISP's to act as police, attorney, jury and judge. Who came up with that idea? The IFPI. Who fell for it? The government.
If I were an extortionist, a simple everyday bank account "at the bank over there at the street corner" would be the last thing I'd be using.
A Swiss bank perhaps? I think there may be countries that are even more "secure" for the perp.