True enough, but not every acre is as desirable as every other.
Better transport makes it possible for people to live further afield from their jobs.
Theoretically, but transport has been, overall, getting worse, at least in the US (especially around areas viewed as desirable) for the last few decades (think commuting into DC, Chicago, NYC). Plus speaking of desirability, no one wants a commute, whether it's possible or not.
It's also always possible to grow vertically by tearing down single-story dwellings and putting up multistory buildings--i.e., make dramatically more efficient use of some of the land we already use for housing.
Yes, but first of all, this makes the land more valuable, since those high-rise apartment complexes can house lots of people and bring in lots of rent, (we are after all talking about realestate prices). Second, there is a high value attached to having a house and land, as opposed to a cramped appartment. Which is to say, if a person could choose between having a house with a yard, or living in a condo on the 5th floor, all things being equal, I best almost everyone would take the house.
In otherwords, when I talk about realestate, I'm talking about land, especially land that has a desireble location. Not bedrooms. Yes we can make as many bedrooms as we need, but the land is pretty well a given that we have to work with.
Also, the US population growth rate is about 0.9%. Even with a constant housing supply, this puts an upper limit on how much you could expect the housing demand to grow per year--and it's less than the historical return of bonds and stocks, and the historical inflation rate.
First off I'm not denying that there has been a housing bubble. Second off, I don't think a direct (1-1) comparison between population growth and real-estate prices is legitimate. It seems to me market equilibrium should be expected to be a bit more complex than that. Finally, inflation rate, should be added onto the price, not compared to it, that is, we should expect the cost of housing to increase at least as fast as inflation.
Although I agree that pure speculation can be a major problem, your line:
Housing prices cannot keep going up forever
Isn't quite right, at least not in an immediately relevant sense. Aside from the effect of inflation, real estate has a limited supply, but the population continues to increase (i.e., demand continues going up). Thus the price of housing is going to continue to go up until either we find a way to make more land or the population stops increasing. Neither of which seems imminent.
My data came from the links AC posted, not sure how that is stale and out of date.
Your information is STALE, because that's currently not the case for Windows 7
No, it isn't STALE. What I said was that "eight of Window's 20 advisories have been 4's and one was a 5", this is not stale. It's true, per the links above.
BTW, the verb I used, 'have been', has what's called "perfect aspect". In context it means that MS shipped Windows 7 with seriousproblems and patched them later.
The 2 small ones Windows 7 has are EASILY worked around too, I wonder if the same can be said of the 11 outstanding issues on LINUX 2.6x??
Yes, for the most part the same can be said:
The most serious (allowing local privilege escalation), can be worked around by not using the firewire driver (which I would bet most Linux installs don't anyway), or by only allowing trusted users access to the system.
The second most serious (local network DoS via kNFSd) can be worked around by using "the user space NFS daemon instead", as the page itself says. Of course once again, I would bet most linux installs don't use knfsd anyway, and thus are already not affected.
The third most serious, can only be avoided by restricting local access to the system, but it is almost entirely theoretical for most setups: it allows a user with local access to read to random memory address, thus theoretically giving access to whatever sensitive information might be stored there. (It also includes a warning about a potential local DoS, again not really a high level concern.)
The fourth most serious involves crashing the local system or reading environment variables. So if you store your bank account info in your environment variables and give an evil person local access to your machine you might be affected.
Right. Let's feed the troll, and spin it another way:
Look at the severity of the advisories (They are rated from 1-5).
Neither windows nor Linux has any unpatched vulnerability rated higher than "less critical" (i.e., neither has anything unpatched that is 3 or higher). So for vulnerabilities >2/5, they both have a 100% patch rate. The difference is in "less critical" advisories, (1 or 2).
Window's 7, in its short life, has had 8 advisories rated "less critical" or lower. Of these 2 are unpatched. That means the patch rate for less pressing vulnerabilities is 75% (a full 25% are unpatched).
Linux (if I counted right) has had 191 advisories that were rated 1 or 2, since 2003, of these 11 remain unpatched, or ~5.8%.
The difference in the overall patch rate is due to the fact that far more of Window's vulnerabilities have been critical, >3/5, (specifically 12 of the 20) than linux's (26 of 217). Also note that linux has never had a vulnerability rated 4 or 5, it's highest vulnerability has been a 3. But eight of Window's 20 advisories have been 4's and one was a 5.
That is patently not true. A person who is part of an organization is always able to have personal opinions, unless of course, the person holds some sort of sole discretion in setting that particular policy, in which case one could safely presume that his opinion then is the policy. Admittedly: If the opinion directly touches on something he does at the organization, he may need to put a massive disclaimer on his statement (that these are his own opinions) or in extreme cases even abstain from comment altogether to avoid confusion. But that a person holds a high position in the government doesn't imply that his opinion as found in a privately-published book is government policy.
Well, in 2.6.33 (relatively modern, didn't check newer versions) Rx and Tx are stored in the struct net_device_stats (/include/linux/netdevice.h), both as unsigned longs. On 32 bit computers that is (IIRC) a 32bit int =4 Gig, far less than 250 Gig we are talking about.
Same with FF and Opera. And IE9 will support it as long as the codec is installed. Which means that when these versions actually role out, the vast majority of desktop browsers that support the video tag with also support WebM.
Out of curiosity, is there any established standard for what constitutes knowing that something is copyrighted? As in, if the defendant has a suspicion it might be (for example, he knows it is a popular song, getting air time, etc., and that odds are it almost certainly is so protected given the way the industry works), is he obligated to take steps to find out, or does simple ignorance equate to innocence?
I acknowledge that the market can be dumb and emotional; I deny that it is so emotional that it places any significant value on "makes stuff" as opposed to "does other stuff that makes money".
You think they just realized over the last couple years that Apple make hardware?
There is one simple reason that accounts for the majority of high PEs: perceived potential for growth.
If you want a nice visual, follow each of these links, click annual, and compare the charts: Apple income statements MS income statements I'll sum it up for you, Apple's revenue has grown significantly every year for the last 3 (going from 19B to almost 43B in 3 years). Their EPS has grown even more extremely, from 2.27 to 9.08. MS on the other hand looks like it is treading water, the revenue has grown somewhat, but their profit margin is falling, leaving their net income fairly steady (from 12.6B to 14.6B), and their EPS during the same time frame has gone from 1.31 to 1.65.
On top of this there is the intangible: Apple has grown a great deal of mind-share. They have a huge intangible asset insofar as they are viewed by the world as a trend-setting company. If anything it is this intangible, not the fact that they make stuff, that has them so highly valued (and the fact that the numbers show they know how to run a business and turn that mindshare into cash).
That's fine. But the point is that if you wander out of your basement and get trashed, you have to be ready to accept the possibility that on Monday morning all of your coworkers are going to have a picture of you dancing in your underwear in their inbox. This isn't a problem with FB per se; the problem is that, as you pointed out, everyone has a camera phone, and with the internet as it is, there are a million free and easy ways to make those pictures available to anyone who knows how to use google. In this respect FB is no worse (in fact it is in some ways better) than a blog or photobucket.
This isn't a problem with facebook. This is a problem with digital cameras. If you don't want incriminating pictures of yourself on the internet don't do incriminating things, at least not in front of people with cameras whom you don't trust.
I just want to point out 2 things more or less relevant to this thread:
First, google paid over $124 million for this codec, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say they dropped a penny or two on legal to figure out just what they were getting before they made the check out.
Second, they are using this codec themselves (in chrome, on youtube, etc). They have a vested interest in defending it from patent suits, if those suits should arise.
I don't understand how they could make a pattern out of it if it is random. Sure, if each client followed the same cycle of font-substitutions on some known, fixed schedule then they could figure it out. Or if they managed to finesse the method so they could say, "well we have this sub-combination which seems likely to be unique (say, linux, with Opera v.10, swfdec, and Apple Garamond light) so we are going to ignore these fonts that don't match as noise." But that is going to have a higher error rate (because there is noise, and it's noise in some of the most informative/identifiable data they have), and it's going to have to be fairly advanced tech.
Isn't there a really simple way to change the fingerprint?
Why not make a script that just periodically installs some bogus fonts (to avoid having these fonts weeded out automatically, we could create a list of real but unusual fonts that practically never get used in webpages).
Then the fingerprint will contain more bits, but it won't matter because it changes regularly. If we wanted to really go all out we could do something similar with plugins.
Although I suspect browsers only load system fonts and plugins at startup, so you would retain a fingerprint until you restarted the browser.
Slashdot Mirror
Commenting to undo accidental mod, "funny" and "overrated" are next to each other. Thanks for the chuckle though.
unless you run it through a proxy:
ssh -2ND 1080 username@some-server-you-can-ssh-into
Then config your browser to localhost:1080 as a socks proxy.
There is plenty of land.
True enough, but not every acre is as desirable as every other.
Better transport makes it possible for people to live further afield from their jobs.
Theoretically, but transport has been, overall, getting worse, at least in the US (especially around areas viewed as desirable) for the last few decades (think commuting into DC, Chicago, NYC). Plus speaking of desirability, no one wants a commute, whether it's possible or not.
It's also always possible to grow vertically by tearing down single-story dwellings and putting up multistory buildings--i.e., make dramatically more efficient use of some of the land we already use for housing.
Yes, but first of all, this makes the land more valuable, since those high-rise apartment complexes can house lots of people and bring in lots of rent, (we are after all talking about realestate prices). Second, there is a high value attached to having a house and land, as opposed to a cramped appartment. Which is to say, if a person could choose between having a house with a yard, or living in a condo on the 5th floor, all things being equal, I best almost everyone would take the house.
In otherwords, when I talk about realestate, I'm talking about land, especially land that has a desireble location. Not bedrooms. Yes we can make as many bedrooms as we need, but the land is pretty well a given that we have to work with.
Also, the US population growth rate is about 0.9%. Even with a constant housing supply, this puts an upper limit on how much you could expect the housing demand to grow per year--and it's less than the historical return of bonds and stocks, and the historical inflation rate.
First off I'm not denying that there has been a housing bubble. Second off, I don't think a direct (1-1) comparison between population growth and real-estate prices is legitimate. It seems to me market equilibrium should be expected to be a bit more complex than that. Finally, inflation rate, should be added onto the price, not compared to it, that is, we should expect the cost of housing to increase at least as fast as inflation.
Housing prices cannot keep going up forever
Isn't quite right, at least not in an immediately relevant sense.
Aside from the effect of inflation, real estate has a limited supply, but the population continues to increase (i.e., demand continues going up). Thus the price of housing is going to continue to go up until either we find a way to make more land or the population stops increasing. Neither of which seems imminent.
Your information is STALE, because that's currently not the case for Windows 7
No, it isn't STALE. What I said was that "eight of Window's 20 advisories have been 4's and one was a 5", this is not stale. It's true, per the links above.
BTW, the verb I used, 'have been', has what's called "perfect aspect". In context it means that MS shipped Windows 7 with serious problems and patched them later.
The 2 small ones Windows 7 has are EASILY worked around too, I wonder if the same can be said of the 11 outstanding issues on LINUX 2.6x??
Yes, for the most part the same can be said:
The rest are classified as "not critical" because they only involve a local DoS.
Anyway, enough troll-feeding for me.
Right. Let's feed the troll, and spin it another way:
Look at the severity of the advisories (They are rated from 1-5). Neither windows nor Linux has any unpatched vulnerability rated higher than "less critical" (i.e., neither has anything unpatched that is 3 or higher). So for vulnerabilities >2/5, they both have a 100% patch rate. The difference is in "less critical" advisories, (1 or 2).
Window's 7, in its short life, has had 8 advisories rated "less critical" or lower. Of these 2 are unpatched. That means the patch rate for less pressing vulnerabilities is 75% (a full 25% are unpatched).
Linux (if I counted right) has had 191 advisories that were rated 1 or 2, since 2003, of these 11 remain unpatched, or ~5.8%.
The difference in the overall patch rate is due to the fact that far more of Window's vulnerabilities have been critical, >3/5, (specifically 12 of the 20) than linux's (26 of 217).
Also note that linux has never had a vulnerability rated 4 or 5, it's highest vulnerability has been a 3. But eight of Window's 20 advisories have been 4's and one was a 5.
That is patently not true. A person who is part of an organization is always able to have personal opinions, unless of course, the person holds some sort of sole discretion in setting that particular policy, in which case one could safely presume that his opinion then is the policy.
Admittedly: If the opinion directly touches on something he does at the organization, he may need to put a massive disclaimer on his statement (that these are his own opinions) or in extreme cases even abstain from comment altogether to avoid confusion. But that a person holds a high position in the government doesn't imply that his opinion as found in a privately-published book is government policy.
In the future, I don't think i would mention that it took you 15 years to figure out.
Well, in 2.6.33 (relatively modern, didn't check newer versions) Rx and Tx are stored in the struct net_device_stats (/include/linux/netdevice.h), both as unsigned longs. On 32 bit computers that is (IIRC) a 32bit int =4 Gig, far less than 250 Gig we are talking about.
You get 10 times as many emails a month as I've gotten in the last ~7 years.
That counter rolls over periodically, and resets when you turn the computer off, iirc.
Same with FF and Opera. And IE9 will support it as long as the codec is installed. Which means that when these versions actually role out, the vast majority of desktop browsers that support the video tag with also support WebM.
The petition argues that there are.
Out of curiosity, is there any established standard for what constitutes knowing that something is copyrighted? As in, if the defendant has a suspicion it might be (for example, he knows it is a popular song, getting air time, etc., and that odds are it almost certainly is so protected given the way the industry works), is he obligated to take steps to find out, or does simple ignorance equate to innocence?
The question is who modded him to +5.
My sig gets truer every day.
I take that back; Apparently I was confused about how futures work and was thinking of prepaid forward contracts.
They also raise capital.
I acknowledge that the market can be dumb and emotional; I deny that it is so emotional that it places any significant value on "makes stuff" as opposed to "does other stuff that makes money".
You think they just realized over the last couple years that Apple make hardware?
There is one simple reason that accounts for the majority of high PEs: perceived potential for growth.
If you want a nice visual, follow each of these links, click annual, and compare the charts:
Apple income statements
MS income statements
I'll sum it up for you, Apple's revenue has grown significantly every year for the last 3 (going from 19B to almost 43B in 3 years). Their EPS has grown even more extremely, from 2.27 to 9.08.
MS on the other hand looks like it is treading water, the revenue has grown somewhat, but their profit margin is falling, leaving their net income fairly steady (from 12.6B to 14.6B), and their EPS during the same time frame has gone from 1.31 to 1.65.
On top of this there is the intangible: Apple has grown a great deal of mind-share. They have a huge intangible asset insofar as they are viewed by the world as a trend-setting company. If anything it is this intangible, not the fact that they make stuff, that has them so highly valued (and the fact that the numbers show they know how to run a business and turn that mindshare into cash).
Investors can be an emotional lot, but they are not nearly that dumb.
That's fine. But the point is that if you wander out of your basement and get trashed, you have to be ready to accept the possibility that on Monday morning all of your coworkers are going to have a picture of you dancing in your underwear in their inbox.
This isn't a problem with FB per se; the problem is that, as you pointed out, everyone has a camera phone, and with the internet as it is, there are a million free and easy ways to make those pictures available to anyone who knows how to use google. In this respect FB is no worse (in fact it is in some ways better) than a blog or photobucket.
This isn't a problem with facebook. This is a problem with digital cameras. If you don't want incriminating pictures of yourself on the internet don't do incriminating things, at least not in front of people with cameras whom you don't trust.
I just want to point out 2 things more or less relevant to this thread:
First, google paid over $124 million for this codec, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say they dropped a penny or two on legal to figure out just what they were getting before they made the check out.
Second, they are using this codec themselves (in chrome, on youtube, etc). They have a vested interest in defending it from patent suits, if those suits should arise.
doh! sorry.
I don't understand how they could make a pattern out of it if it is random. Sure, if each client followed the same cycle of font-substitutions on some known, fixed schedule then they could figure it out.
Or if they managed to finesse the method so they could say, "well we have this sub-combination which seems likely to be unique (say, linux, with Opera v.10, swfdec, and Apple Garamond light) so we are going to ignore these fonts that don't match as noise."
But that is going to have a higher error rate (because there is noise, and it's noise in some of the most informative/identifiable data they have), and it's going to have to be fairly advanced tech.
Isn't there a really simple way to change the fingerprint?
Why not make a script that just periodically installs some bogus fonts (to avoid having these fonts weeded out automatically, we could create a list of real but unusual fonts that practically never get used in webpages).
Then the fingerprint will contain more bits, but it won't matter because it changes regularly. If we wanted to really go all out we could do something similar with plugins.
Although I suspect browsers only load system fonts and plugins at startup, so you would retain a fingerprint until you restarted the browser.