"This can lead to or increase the 'brain drain' in countries such as Canada"
I have to say, it's been my experience that a Brain-Drain is what Canada needs in the IT department; canadian companies need to learn IT costs money, after all, it does run their entire business.
-Me; president, MDS Networks (Small Business Solutions Providers)
Did the court mention anything about the fact that Napster shouldn't even be in court over this; since they have done nothing to promote the distribution of illegal music, and have not made a utility which can be construed as illegal in any way shape or form?
My girlfriends apartment got broken in to about a month ago, [SARCASM]I'm still involved in litigation with 6 different companies that manufacture crowbars. When are these people going to learn, they can't provide the public with Tools. Idiots.
[/SARCASM]
I love hearing comments like this: "Of course Napster should be shut down. Its users are thieves."
Actually, my CD collection got stolen about a year ago. Every one of the 65 songs I have on my harddrive, I own the intellectual right to. I know, I know, "What about people who *do* use it for illegal purposes?". I suppose I'm being a hypocrite hating all these absolute moron Americans who own guns for whatever reason; or the fact that I drive a car, when it has been proven that cars are used in Hit & Runs and sometimes they're stolen and people 'joyride' in them.
Let's not get in to the fact that I have a computer, which could be used to steal music like napster, or that my fingers work so I can type things and use a mouse to steal music like Napster. Cuff me now; I'm a criminal like everybody else.
I sure hope the extra Writable CD tax stays since Napster has nothing to do with the majority of *real* piracy operations. After all, we're all criminals deep down inside, and we may as well punish ourselves under the religion of law.
"Realize that you see maybe $0.50US of the purchase price of that CD. Realize that they're selling it for anywhere from $10-20US and it cost them no more than $1.50US to make the damn thing, in a jewel box with inserts."
The point is you are being charged for doing something illegal before you even do it. If they added 1 cent on to the price of a writeable cd, then you are being charged 1 cent extra to use that CD.
The point is that our rights as consumers have been taken away under the premise that we will stop consuming the right products.
Say you buy a writable cd, and actually use it for something other than copying music (Hard for them to imagine eh?) then you go out and buy some horrible Dr. Dre CD. You have been charged $10-$20 + $0.50 to own that CD. Or you could look at it like this: you have been charged for that CD and ripped off $0.50 for no reason.
That's assuming there's one person in the world who only buys 1 writeable CD with a CD burner.
I'd like to see the next person in court over copywright infringment say, "I've already paid 50 cents for the right to own this copied CD, it's not my fault that that's what they're charging, or that I'm inclined to use the CD for the purpose I've already paid for".
In my opinion, that's a valid argument; and I think everyone would agree were the added "tax" to double the price of a writeable CD.
"acceptable" reaction from consumers is what keeps this blatent violation of the constitution going (Innocent until proven guilty); and whatever we're covered under up here in canada. (eh)
"a leader in the so-called 'open source' movement, which is dedicated to the proposition that material, copyrighted or not, should be made available over the Internet for free."
Is it not possible to counter-sue this moron for libel, since Open Source does in fact turn a profit, and many large corporations are releasing new software packages under the open source license?
His statement about 'Copyright or not' is ludicrous. Any lawyers wish to comment on the plausability of this, in turn take up the case, and give me a fair percentage of the winnings?
"Yep. And from the story Armstrong told, the only handy piece of metal he had was his pen."
You must be trolling. Look the fact that his pen cost $2M to make is completely irrelevant to the fact that it saved his life simply by being conductive. They didn't spend $2M trying to make it conductive; if they had invented a Teflon pen for $4M he would have been screwed.
You can argue he wouldn't have had the pen there if they hadn't spent $2M on developing it, but so what; if I spend $30,000 on a rolex watch and find myself with 5 minutes to live lest I short out a bomb detonation device - it doesn't mean I chose the right watch. I'd be glad I was wearing a watch, I'd also be glad to find a hairpin.
If, somehow, in some way - writing with Pen ink, and pen ink only had saved his life -- then it would be worthy. And writing with Pen ink in space over any other writing aid will never save a human life; you can quote me on that.
Incidentally, the applicability of his story is what I'm insulting in reference to his writing skills. The story starts by insulting a person against all forms of costly scientific progress, it then introduced the now infamous $2M pen, It goes on to say the Pen was available completely at random, to be used in a way $2M could not possibly justify, and again insults the person who didn't want to spend $2M on a 3" conducting piece of steel.
What about a metal, mechanical pencil? or a Metal mechanical chalk-holder:)
"If we blow some bucks on space exploration now, who the hell knows what we'll get in 20 or 30 years."
I hate posting so many messages on the same topic; don't get me wrong, I'm all for the space industry and I'm all for the progression of all forms of technology related to the space industry. I just found the story about a $2M pen amusing; on the other hand, I wonder why a $2M pen didn't seem a little ludicrous from the very start.
Now people can go and say, "We'll have a zero-gravity pen forever now, and who knows what future technology will come from research put into that pen" - my question is, why spend $2M on developing a pen that was obviously unnecessary, when at that time, the $2M could have funded the creation of an entire Satellite or a more indestructible interior to the Ascent Stage. In time, the progression of technology would have rendered the pen obsolete in space exploration, or would have in a round-about-way come to develope the pen, (or make developing the pen much cheaper in time).
I'm sure most would agree that space exploration, and technological development beyond the realm of Earth is very important, and is always, benefficial to one degree or another. That in itself does not make NASA, or any corporate entity representing such goals Infallible, or Justified in everything they do.
If a person neglects there family by spending money where it isn't needed, they are considered selfish and self-serving. What makes Nasa any different in neglecting worthy developments in space exploration over flashy technological developments that put a few million in the pockets of scientists contributing practically nothing to the advancement of space exploration? I think there's a cover-up behind the pen here.
In no way am I standing up for Coca-Cola, simply because they suck; but Coca-Cola-Corp. relies completely on public complacency. I would venture to say that the space program is not only unimpeded by the nature of writing utensils at there disposal -- but would not stand to suffer one technological or exploratory drawback without the $2M pen. If anything, they would have benefited $2Million Dollars of research funding.
"And then, God be thanked, Armstrong remembers what Senator Jocksfire called the Two Million Dollar Boondoggle. That egregious taxpayer-ripoff frippery: his zero-gravity pen. He retrieves it, roots around in the ruins of the switch . . . and becomes, among his other distinctions, the first man ever to hot-wire a vehicle on another planet."
This is ludicrous! It didn't take a two-million dollar pen to hotwire the switch, it took a piece of metal. Incidentally, Pencil lead is conductive, and depending on the size of the gap and voltage present, it may very well have been possible to hotwire that lander with a pencil.
Besides, this guy is a horrible writer - I wouldn't read his book if I got paid for it.
After an extensive look at this computers specs, I am confident when I say, "Sign me up!". I mean look at that thing:
Hard Disc
*FAST* memory!
CPU
Power supply
and to top it all off, MAIN RAM.
Who would have thought, that by only 2010 we're going to be seeing computers, "[that], believe it or not, [are] about the size of a Frisbee". Time to throw this old.75x2.5x2.5 footer out the window (About the size of half the available space on any desktop in the world). Time to get me a PC that can *really* fly!
The best part of all, they've incorporated 20th century "The Clapper" technology, for us stingy throwbacks who are scared of product ideas that are actually new!
'Plug it into the wall with a magnetic clamp and watch as our home comes to life. In essence, the computer becomes the operating system for our house, and our house, in turn, knows our habits and responds to our needs. ("Brew coffee at 7, play Beethoven the moment the front door opens, and tell me when I'm low on milk.")'
Someone weld a misty-mate on the side of one of these suckers, and I'll drop my other testicle!
"... a realistic memory cell needs to switch billions, if not trillions of times during its expected life."
yes but 1 compared to 100 is 10^2. We're talking about advancing technology exponentially.
I don't think it will be long before these are useful. A digital camera for example would be able to make use of memory chips with that existing technology. 300 Picture Packs of Ram -- once a process is introduced and prices come down, it may not even be necessary to improve the technology - though I'm sure it will be.
". Look at the volume of air in the atmosphere. Humans are an inconsequential deposit on the surface of this rock."
To get a good idea of how much air volume there is around the planet:
take one of those small (1 foot diameter) globes kids get for gifts, or find one at your school. Take a piece of standard 22lb paper and wrap it around the globe. That's the volume of air in relation to the earth.
Has anyone else heard the rumour that Microsofts anti-trust suit was file because Microsoft repeatedly refused to "donate" to certain political parties during their run for presidency.
It seems strange to me that this "MAP" deal has been comnmon-knowledge among the general public and millions of retailers for so many years; and yet 28 states finally realized it's illegal yesterday.
Has Big-Brother gotten soft in its fuck-the-little-guy policies? Are they finally going after the large, out-of-control corporations?
I doubt it. How many electronics companies should have there business license revoked for pollution and unsafe working conditions, when instead they pay huge fines year after year that amount to a fraction of a percent of their yearly sales.
I would love to see the music industry fold with no hope of recovery, as well as Microsoft -- but don't let these cases win your favour with the government. The government works for itself.
"long strings of ones and zeros known as object code" -- they make it sound like a developer developes by hitting 1s and 0s and we're fighting to get those numbers covered under freespeech.
I've spent way too much on a Palm Pilot IIIe and there ultra-awesome 1980s 14.4 modem -- only to find out that the palm pilot can not possible handle keyboard input while using the modem.
Welcome to the world of HP Jornada already with color screens, and as bad as *Wince* is, it atleast handles some type of crapass multitasking. I can't do anything when I'm surfing the web or wardialing on my pilot but sit there and wait to get to a pc to do something interesting with the horrible data I've gathered.
At first glance, I'm sure people would think, "Every person on earth can't be given an individual frequency".
As wireless technology becomes available to the general public, I think first of all the progression towards transmitters and receivers which operate on smaller frequency ranges is going to be apparent.
Second of all, it may not be necessary to put people on unique static frequencies for 2 reasons.
More than one person could handle receiving transmissions intended for other people. Through the use of public-key cryptography, networks could be set to act as LANS, and airwaves transmitting all packets with equal time to a small area of subscribers, rather than a large area.
Meaning, packets intended for you would have an ID header, a size, and a time of transmission publicly available, but only your device would know your ID and have the key to decode the packet.
Secondly, we may be looking towards instituting dynamic IP ranges for individuals. Since the lower frequencies travel shorter distances, it is only necessary to ensure unique frequencies for individuals within the areas they can transmit. Using GPS technology, or signals sent from server stations as the subscriber goes out of distance, devices can be set to transmit on a new assigned frequency for a different area.
I think the question in this case isn't what frequencies we can all use, but instead how are we going to share these frequencies among ourselves.
On that note: the frequency range doesn't say much, HAM radios very low frequencies bounce of the earths stratosphere as do the reserved AM radio frequencies - meaning worldwide transmission for some and not for others probably isn't too feasible.
"An inert plastic bag could possibly be used instead of metal to reduce the weight and distribute the pressure."
The reaction is still a violent, hot reaction as the article mentions. I believe the idea is to keep all pressure outside of the tank, the distribution problem occurs at the bottom, where the reaction is supposed to occur within a closed space to ensure that the energy is directed both down and up (equal & opposite reaction), instead of in all directions.
Playing with the tank design helps in many ways, but it still comes down to the simple problem of non-symmetrical expansion, leakage and stress ripping the tank open.
None the less, as the article mentioned these rockets are being built by a company which builds many for land-usage, though the application is still very different, they do have a little bit of applicable testing behind them.
I've been interested in rockets for a long time now, and spent countless hours in OAC chem doing reaction energy equations to find the best fuel for a good home-built, *unmanned!!!!* rocket.
The most severe problem I've seen with rockets isn't deciding on the most efficient, safest fuels, but rather making sure they burn; expand; heat; react.... in a completely symmetrical way - so you can avoid pressure buildups and eventual explosions (or immediate explosions). Every documentary I've seen on rockets from German V2's to home made rockets - shows an incredible failure rate during the initial stages of developement. Failures which end in explosions.
Now my question is, would you rather: 1. swallow your tongue and choke on it for approximately 10 - 15 seconds before being incinerated in a disoriented haze miles above the earth... or:
2. swallow your tongue and choke on it for approximately 10 - 15 seconds before being ejected through a steel casing, miles above the earth, and experience 5 - 10 minutes of your skin peeling away from your body as you plummet to the earth below through vast amounts of caustic, unreacted hydrogen pyroxide.
I know its been said, but it has to be said again: this guy has balls! (for the time being)
This method is interesting and useful, but it is really only "security through obscurity".
For example, if this were to be made an RFC and re-written so as to introduce a protocol and pad generation algorithm - then it would be very useful to a multitude of people. The problem is that once you introduce the standardization of a protocol and an algorithm - you are just introducing a predictable method of finding data-chunks, and decoding them according to there probabilities of being created and distributed in an orderly, protocolled way.
Order, standards and protocols are the only implementations of ideas that are accessable and useful to the public as a whole.
As long as you're introducing fake pads, and messages are decrypted just by knowing your pads locations and method of being produced - you are going to run into major problems if you standardize this.
You may as well just split your messages into chunks, XOR them with a single character and put all its pieces on different sites. BUT should somebody Intercept the message to the receiver with your locations and method, you're screwed.
The only method of securing data properly on a large scale is to use time-tested mathematical models to encrypt it. And these one-time scratch pads are good ideas, but only for information worth using it on - otherwise, you're going to run into major problems when everybody developes there standard-way-of-creating-them, or dispersing them.
I believe the only new idea here is splitting information accross the internet to random sites - but what is random?
"How was the Woz an innovator?", The Woz produced a cheap computer with all hardware specs and software in mind to be an easy to use, easy to program, easy to expand system for the 'everyday computer user'. Yes the altair and IBM and HP and everyone were out there, but there systems were mainframes, they were expensive, they couldn't be built from any electrical enthusiasts spare parts, and they never ever developed into home computers until the Apple came a long.
Wozniak invented a dream and fulfilled it under die dictarzhip uff mizter steve jobs. HEIL JOBS!
haha. Someone should invite the Woz to H2K!!! baby.
"Microsoft in itself does not pose a security risk [but] rather the [risk comes from] dumb 'paper MCSEs'."
How do you explain L0PHTCRACK: Inside a high-technology company, "L0phtCrack 2.5 cracked 90% of the passwords in under 48 hours on a Pentium II/300."
I doubt the most experienced MCSE could reverse engineer MS's source code and remove that tiny glaring security flaw (you know, access by any SKR1PT K1DDIE to your machine). Not after the DMCA anyways.
Or the problems with buffer overflows, the Netbios port (hey if you're an mcse, may as well just shut down everything microsoft has implemented, I mean - its your fault its there).
""UPnP allows (devices) to participate in the same economy... with the end user not having to understand how to set up an IP address,"
"Microsoft is building UPnP into its future Windows releases, starting with its Windows Millennium Edition."
With the future of device connectivity being, "Now you can receive emails from your fridge! And so can the companies that stock it!" -- doesn't this pose a major security risk for 2 reasons.
1) Microsoft is implementing it.
2) Interaction between all devices is handled by a standard protocol and each device is seen as a member of the same IP address?
Does anybody have any ideas for obfuscating or introducing security to these new "connectivity" options?
"If Microsoft hadn't become a company, honestly, how many of you people would be using a computer?"
I would. Definitely. Microsoft cornered and controlled the market, they didn't invent it. Remember, the original (D)OS microsoft sold to IBM, they didn't code.
Thank you for BASIC Microsoft.
"If it were RedHat or Debian, those same people would be up in arms saying that they shouldn't be split or whatever"
Microsoft is being split for a million things they've done that Redhat and Debian both hasn't and in many ways could not. Open source being the most important reason.
Linux turns a profit, and is competetive. That's the type of competition I want.
"Seriously? I can go on the 'Net and find instructions on how to build a high-yield thermonuclear device." It's a good question, but instead of dismissing it as "common information", I would worry about what current nuclear weaponry information is considered classified. I believe The Atom Bomb is fifty years old, and took less than a decade to construct. You have to wonder what 5 decades of continuing research must amount to.
Slashdot Mirror
"This can lead to or increase the 'brain drain' in countries such as Canada"
I have to say, it's been my experience that a Brain-Drain is what Canada needs in the IT department; canadian companies need to learn IT costs money, after all, it does run their entire business.
-Me; president, MDS Networks (Small Business Solutions Providers)
Did the court mention anything about the fact that Napster shouldn't even be in court over this; since they have done nothing to promote the distribution of illegal music, and have not made a utility which can be construed as illegal in any way shape or form?
My girlfriends apartment got broken in to about a month ago, [SARCASM]I'm still involved in litigation with 6 different companies that manufacture crowbars. When are these people going to learn, they can't provide the public with Tools. Idiots. [/SARCASM]
I love hearing comments like this: "Of course Napster should be shut down. Its users are thieves."
Actually, my CD collection got stolen about a year ago. Every one of the 65 songs I have on my harddrive, I own the intellectual right to. I know, I know, "What about people who *do* use it for illegal purposes?". I suppose I'm being a hypocrite hating all these absolute moron Americans who own guns for whatever reason; or the fact that I drive a car, when it has been proven that cars are used in Hit & Runs and sometimes they're stolen and people 'joyride' in them.
Let's not get in to the fact that I have a computer, which could be used to steal music like napster, or that my fingers work so I can type things and use a mouse to steal music like Napster. Cuff me now; I'm a criminal like everybody else.
I sure hope the extra Writable CD tax stays since Napster has nothing to do with the majority of *real* piracy operations. After all, we're all criminals deep down inside, and we may as well punish ourselves under the religion of law.
"Realize that you see maybe $0.50US of the purchase price of that CD. Realize that they're selling it for anywhere from $10-20US and it cost them no more than $1.50US to make the damn thing, in a jewel box with inserts."
The point is you are being charged for doing something illegal before you even do it. If they added 1 cent on to the price of a writeable cd, then you are being charged 1 cent extra to use that CD.
The point is that our rights as consumers have been taken away under the premise that we will stop consuming the right products.
Say you buy a writable cd, and actually use it for something other than copying music (Hard for them to imagine eh?) then you go out and buy some horrible Dr. Dre CD. You have been charged $10-$20 + $0.50 to own that CD. Or you could look at it like this: you have been charged for that CD and ripped off $0.50 for no reason.
That's assuming there's one person in the world who only buys 1 writeable CD with a CD burner.
I'd like to see the next person in court over copywright infringment say, "I've already paid 50 cents for the right to own this copied CD, it's not my fault that that's what they're charging, or that I'm inclined to use the CD for the purpose I've already paid for".
In my opinion, that's a valid argument; and I think everyone would agree were the added "tax" to double the price of a writeable CD.
"acceptable" reaction from consumers is what keeps this blatent violation of the constitution going (Innocent until proven guilty); and whatever we're covered under up here in canada. (eh)
"a leader in the so-called 'open source' movement, which is dedicated to the proposition that material, copyrighted or not, should be made available over the Internet for free."
Is it not possible to counter-sue this moron for libel, since Open Source does in fact turn a profit, and many large corporations are releasing new software packages under the open source license?
His statement about 'Copyright or not' is ludicrous. Any lawyers wish to comment on the plausability of this, in turn take up the case, and give me a fair percentage of the winnings?
"Yep. And from the story Armstrong told, the only handy piece of metal he had was his pen."
:)
You must be trolling. Look the fact that his pen cost $2M to make is completely irrelevant to the fact that it saved his life simply by being conductive. They didn't spend $2M trying to make it conductive; if they had invented a Teflon pen for $4M he would have been screwed.
You can argue he wouldn't have had the pen there if they hadn't spent $2M on developing it, but so what; if I spend $30,000 on a rolex watch and find myself with 5 minutes to live lest I short out a bomb detonation device - it doesn't mean I chose the right watch. I'd be glad I was wearing a watch, I'd also be glad to find a hairpin.
If, somehow, in some way - writing with Pen ink, and pen ink only had saved his life -- then it would be worthy. And writing with Pen ink in space over any other writing aid will never save a human life; you can quote me on that.
Incidentally, the applicability of his story is what I'm insulting in reference to his writing skills. The story starts by insulting a person against all forms of costly scientific progress, it then introduced the now infamous $2M pen, It goes on to say the Pen was available completely at random, to be used in a way $2M could not possibly justify, and again insults the person who didn't want to spend $2M on a 3" conducting piece of steel.
What about a metal, mechanical pencil? or a Metal mechanical chalk-holder
"If we blow some bucks on space exploration now, who the hell knows what we'll get in 20 or 30 years."
I hate posting so many messages on the same topic; don't get me wrong, I'm all for the space industry and I'm all for the progression of all forms of technology related to the space industry. I just found the story about a $2M pen amusing; on the other hand, I wonder why a $2M pen didn't seem a little ludicrous from the very start.
Now people can go and say, "We'll have a zero-gravity pen forever now, and who knows what future technology will come from research put into that pen" - my question is, why spend $2M on developing a pen that was obviously unnecessary, when at that time, the $2M could have funded the creation of an entire Satellite or a more indestructible interior to the Ascent Stage. In time, the progression of technology would have rendered the pen obsolete in space exploration, or would have in a round-about-way come to develope the pen, (or make developing the pen much cheaper in time).
I'm sure most would agree that space exploration, and technological development beyond the realm of Earth is very important, and is always, benefficial to one degree or another. That in itself does not make NASA, or any corporate entity representing such goals Infallible, or Justified in everything they do.
If a person neglects there family by spending money where it isn't needed, they are considered selfish and self-serving. What makes Nasa any different in neglecting worthy developments in space exploration over flashy technological developments that put a few million in the pockets of scientists contributing practically nothing to the advancement of space exploration? I think there's a cover-up behind the pen here.
In no way am I standing up for Coca-Cola, simply because they suck; but Coca-Cola-Corp. relies completely on public complacency. I would venture to say that the space program is not only unimpeded by the nature of writing utensils at there disposal -- but would not stand to suffer one technological or exploratory drawback without the $2M pen. If anything, they would have benefited $2Million Dollars of research funding.
"And then, God be thanked, Armstrong remembers what Senator Jocksfire called the Two Million Dollar Boondoggle. That egregious taxpayer-ripoff frippery: his zero-gravity pen. He retrieves it, roots around in the ruins of the switch . . . and becomes, among his other distinctions, the first man ever to hot-wire a vehicle on another planet."
This is ludicrous! It didn't take a two-million dollar pen to hotwire the switch, it took a piece of metal. Incidentally, Pencil lead is conductive, and depending on the size of the gap and voltage present, it may very well have been possible to hotwire that lander with a pencil.
Besides, this guy is a horrible writer - I wouldn't read his book if I got paid for it.
> What benefits has the space program brought us?
teflon
Don't forget that the US spent millions on developing a pen that could write in space.
The russians when faced with the same problem: chose a pencil.
"The device uses the PS/2 keyboard port, something not commonly found on a PalmPilot"
There are keyboards available for the palm which work through the serial interface and draw power from the + anode of the serial interface.
After an extensive look at this computers specs, I am confident when I say, "Sign me up!". I mean look at that thing:
.75x2.5x2.5 footer out the window (About the size of half the available space on any desktop in the world). Time to get me a PC that can *really* fly!
Hard Disc
*FAST* memory!
CPU
Power supply
and to top it all off, MAIN RAM.
Who would have thought, that by only 2010 we're going to be seeing computers, "[that], believe it or not, [are] about the size of a Frisbee". Time to throw this old
The best part of all, they've incorporated 20th century "The Clapper" technology, for us stingy throwbacks who are scared of product ideas that are actually new!
'Plug it into the wall with a magnetic clamp and watch as our home comes to life. In essence, the computer becomes the operating system for our house, and our house, in turn, knows our habits and responds to our needs. ("Brew coffee at 7, play Beethoven the moment the front door opens, and tell me when I'm low on milk.")'
Someone weld a misty-mate on the side of one of these suckers, and I'll drop my other testicle!
" ... a realistic memory cell needs to switch billions, if not trillions of times during its expected life."
yes but 1 compared to 100 is 10^2. We're talking about advancing technology exponentially.
I don't think it will be long before these are useful. A digital camera for example would be able to make use of memory chips with that existing technology. 300 Picture Packs of Ram -- once a process is introduced and prices come down, it may not even be necessary to improve the technology - though I'm sure it will be.
". Look at the volume of air in the atmosphere. Humans are an inconsequential deposit on the surface of this rock."
To get a good idea of how much air volume there is around the planet:
take one of those small (1 foot diameter) globes kids get for gifts, or find one at your school. Take a piece of standard 22lb paper and wrap it around the globe. That's the volume of air in relation to the earth.
Has anyone else heard the rumour that Microsofts anti-trust suit was file because Microsoft repeatedly refused to "donate" to certain political parties during their run for presidency.
It seems strange to me that this "MAP" deal has been comnmon-knowledge among the general public and millions of retailers for so many years; and yet 28 states finally realized it's illegal yesterday.
Has Big-Brother gotten soft in its fuck-the-little-guy policies? Are they finally going after the large, out-of-control corporations?
I doubt it. How many electronics companies should have there business license revoked for pollution and unsafe working conditions, when instead they pay huge fines year after year that amount to a fraction of a percent of their yearly sales.
I would love to see the music industry fold with no hope of recovery, as well as Microsoft -- but don't let these cases win your favour with the government. The government works for itself.
Boy oh boy, I love journalism.
....
... ftp://ftp.mds-networks.com/HotXXXVideos/workout.rm "
"long strings of ones and zeros known as object code" -- they make it sound like a developer developes by hitting 1s and 0s and we're fighting to get those numbers covered under freespeech.
Unfortunately, bill gates has already done that
now check this eye-candy
The real story is right at 2600.
Man, doesn't anybody here read 2600? they've been involved & covering this for months.
I've spent way too much on a Palm Pilot IIIe and there ultra-awesome 1980s 14.4 modem -- only to find out that the palm pilot can not possible handle keyboard input while using the modem.
Welcome to the world of HP Jornada already with color screens, and as bad as *Wince* is, it atleast handles some type of crapass multitasking. I can't do anything when I'm surfing the web or wardialing on my pilot but sit there and wait to get to a pc to do something interesting with the horrible data I've gathered.
I missed out hardcore.
At first glance, I'm sure people would think, "Every person on earth can't be given an individual frequency".
As wireless technology becomes available to the general public, I think first of all the progression towards transmitters and receivers which operate on smaller frequency ranges is going to be apparent.
Second of all, it may not be necessary to put people on unique static frequencies for 2 reasons.
More than one person could handle receiving transmissions intended for other people. Through the use of public-key cryptography, networks could be set to act as LANS, and airwaves transmitting all packets with equal time to a small area of subscribers, rather than a large area.
Meaning, packets intended for you would have an ID header, a size, and a time of transmission publicly available, but only your device would know your ID and have the key to decode the packet.
Secondly, we may be looking towards instituting dynamic IP ranges for individuals. Since the lower frequencies travel shorter distances, it is only necessary to ensure unique frequencies for individuals within the areas they can transmit. Using GPS technology, or signals sent from server stations as the subscriber goes out of distance, devices can be set to transmit on a new assigned frequency for a different area.
I think the question in this case isn't what frequencies we can all use, but instead how are we going to share these frequencies among ourselves.
On that note: the frequency range doesn't say much, HAM radios very low frequencies bounce of the earths stratosphere as do the reserved AM radio frequencies - meaning worldwide transmission for some and not for others probably isn't too feasible.
TCP/IP will solve all! 8-)
"An inert plastic bag could possibly be used instead of metal to reduce the weight and distribute the pressure."
The reaction is still a violent, hot reaction as the article mentions. I believe the idea is to keep all pressure outside of the tank, the distribution problem occurs at the bottom, where the reaction is supposed to occur within a closed space to ensure that the energy is directed both down and up (equal & opposite reaction), instead of in all directions.
Playing with the tank design helps in many ways, but it still comes down to the simple problem of non-symmetrical expansion, leakage and stress ripping the tank open.
None the less, as the article mentioned these rockets are being built by a company which builds many for land-usage, though the application is still very different, they do have a little bit of applicable testing behind them.
But I wouldn't do it.
I've been interested in rockets for a long time now, and spent countless hours in OAC chem doing reaction energy equations to find the best fuel for a good home-built, *unmanned!!!!* rocket.
... or:
The most severe problem I've seen with rockets isn't deciding on the most efficient, safest fuels, but rather making sure they burn; expand; heat; react.... in a completely symmetrical way - so you can avoid pressure buildups and eventual explosions (or immediate explosions). Every documentary I've seen on rockets from German V2's to home made rockets - shows an incredible failure rate during the initial stages of developement. Failures which end in explosions.
Now my question is, would you rather:
1. swallow your tongue and choke on it for approximately 10 - 15 seconds before being incinerated in a disoriented haze miles above the earth
2. swallow your tongue and choke on it for approximately 10 - 15 seconds before being ejected through a steel casing, miles above the earth, and experience 5 - 10 minutes of your skin peeling away from your body as you plummet to the earth below through vast amounts of caustic, unreacted hydrogen pyroxide.
I know its been said, but it has to be said again: this guy has balls! (for the time being)
This method is interesting and useful, but it is really only "security through obscurity".
For example, if this were to be made an RFC and re-written so as to introduce a protocol and pad generation algorithm - then it would be very useful to a multitude of people. The problem is that once you introduce the standardization of a protocol and an algorithm - you are just introducing a predictable method of finding data-chunks, and decoding them according to there probabilities of being created and distributed in an orderly, protocolled way.
Order, standards and protocols are the only implementations of ideas that are accessable and useful to the public as a whole.
As long as you're introducing fake pads, and messages are decrypted just by knowing your pads locations and method of being produced - you are going to run into major problems if you standardize this.
You may as well just split your messages into chunks, XOR them with a single character and put all its pieces on different sites. BUT should somebody Intercept the message to the receiver with your locations and method, you're screwed.
The only method of securing data properly on a large scale is to use time-tested mathematical models to encrypt it. And these one-time scratch pads are good ideas, but only for information worth using it on - otherwise, you're going to run into major problems when everybody developes there standard-way-of-creating-them, or dispersing them.
I believe the only new idea here is splitting information accross the internet to random sites - but what is random?
"How was the Woz an innovator?", The Woz produced a cheap computer with all hardware specs and software in mind to be an easy to use, easy to program, easy to expand system for the 'everyday computer user'. Yes the altair and IBM and HP and everyone were out there, but there systems were mainframes, they were expensive, they couldn't be built from any electrical enthusiasts spare parts, and they never ever developed into home computers until the Apple came a long.
Wozniak invented a dream and fulfilled it under die dictarzhip uff mizter steve jobs. HEIL JOBS!
haha. Someone should invite the Woz to H2K!!! baby.
"Microsoft in itself does not pose a security risk [but] rather the [risk comes from] dumb 'paper MCSEs'."
How do you explain L0PHTCRACK: Inside a high-technology company, " L0phtCrack 2.5 cracked 90% of the passwords in under 48 hours on a Pentium II/300."
I doubt the most experienced MCSE could reverse engineer MS's source code and remove that tiny glaring security flaw (you know, access by any SKR1PT K1DDIE to your machine). Not after the DMCA anyways.
Or the problems with buffer overflows, the Netbios port (hey if you're an mcse, may as well just shut down everything microsoft has implemented, I mean - its your fault its there).
File & Print sharing, non-encrypted network protocols.
You can't blame MCSEs for Microsofts mistakes - after all, they were trained by MS.
""UPnP allows (devices) to participate in the same economy ... with the end user not having to understand how to set up an IP address,"
"Microsoft is building UPnP into its future Windows releases, starting with its Windows Millennium Edition."
With the future of device connectivity being, "Now you can receive emails from your fridge! And so can the companies that stock it!" -- doesn't this pose a major security risk for 2 reasons.
1) Microsoft is implementing it.
2) Interaction between all devices is handled by a standard protocol and each device is seen as a member of the same IP address?
Does anybody have any ideas for obfuscating or introducing security to these new "connectivity" options?
"If Microsoft hadn't become a company, honestly, how many of you people would be using a computer?"
I would. Definitely. Microsoft cornered and controlled the market, they didn't invent it. Remember, the original (D)OS microsoft sold to IBM, they didn't code.
Thank you for BASIC Microsoft.
"If it were RedHat or Debian, those same people would be up in arms saying that they shouldn't be split or whatever"
Microsoft is being split for a million things they've done that Redhat and Debian both hasn't and in many ways could not. Open source being the most important reason.
Linux turns a profit, and is competetive. That's the type of competition I want.
"Seriously? I can go on the 'Net and find instructions on how to build a high-yield thermonuclear device." It's a good question, but instead of dismissing it as "common information", I would worry about what current nuclear weaponry information is considered classified. I believe The Atom Bomb is fifty years old, and took less than a decade to construct. You have to wonder what 5 decades of continuing research must amount to.