...the President elected to represent his/her nation cannot afford (even with secret court hearings and time-restricted public expoosure - often in the 50-100 year region) to communicate something that might be read by another person, one should not start by asking whether they can afford to write it down. Rather, they should start by asking why such communication is taking place at all. If, even in 100 years, a Presidental instruction is too hot for the nation to handle, long after all people involved and/or targeted are dead and buried (or, at least, dead and in cryogenic storage in Area 51), then perhaps that instruction should never be issued at all.
(If ultra-secure agencies regard 100 years as too short a time, add a 150-year rule, or a 200-year rule. The point is that future administrations may need that information for reasons of national security or national interest, and indeed are far more likely to do so to a far greater degree than any individual could possibly need to avoid personal criticism for recklessness and stupidity. Indeed, archivists are a vital ingredient in the prevention of recklessness and stupidity, whether that information is ever made available to the general public or not.)
The Brinks-Matt Robbery, in which thieves brazenly stole truck-loads of gold bullion, and the two gigantic heists at Heathrow Airport, were all 100% correct - from the perspective of the thieves. And given that next to nothing from any of these three gigantic thefts was ever recovered, I think most people would agree that the implementation was damn-near flawless. As economic models go, though, they suck. They are so utterly defective in any context other than the very narrow one for which they were designed, and even then only from the very narrow, short-sighted perspective of the thief, that they have zero reusability.
Just because something makes a person rich doesn't mean that something is worth copying, would even work for someone else, or could ever be to the advantage of anyone but the original person. It is equally flawed logic to assume that "correct" behaviour could be equally profitable to one-off flawed behaviour. Flaws can make some damn good income, short-term, even if they must degenerate in the long-term.
You will find socially-irresponsible companies have the fastest-rising stocks in the stock-market. Well, until they crash and burn. Cults are the most profitable of all societies. Until they self-destruct. Extremists have the ultimate in work ethics, until they die from the strain. In the Dark Ages, you could build far and away more wooden palisades than you could build stone fortifications. Well, until the builders all died horribly from Greek Fire (early napalm).
And nobody will ever make more money than Microsoft by writing responsibly and sensibly. In the long-term, Microsoft's code is unsupportable and its methodology is unscalable. Vista showed that they are approaching (but are not yet) at the limits. They might not reach the limits for another 10-20 years, but they will someday reach them in such a way that they have blocked off all avenues of escape.
A software company producing a good, solid product won't necessarily make much money in any given year, now or ever, but if the design is truly as good as all that, it will sell longer and require less maintenance. Instead of a 50-year lifespan for the company, you might well be looking at a 250-year lifespan or more. (There are companies today that are much older than that.) I'd say that such a company can legitimately say that it is doing things right, because they meet the ultimate requirement: will you adapt or will you die?
It is also possible that a company that lasts that long will actually end up making more money than Microsoft (as a sum of gross revenue, not net), even if they never matched the sorts of sales Microsoft have achieved and even if they never end up as rich because they spent that resource on improving their product over and above improving their bank balance. Failure to invest is not an admirable quality in my book, nor is cutting corners. In terms of social evolution and being able to adapt to new environmental pressures, Microsoft is an evolutionary dead-end. Massively successful in the short-term, but incapable of survival on a meaningful timeframe.
The Man-Moth is not mythical. I saw him only this morning, chewing on people's jackets. He's not keen on the jackets of managers - he complains they're tasteless. Man-Moth is a moth that got bitten by a radioactive man and has acquired supermothian powers of wearing digital watches and burping in front of the television.
Many people back then held jobs for more than ten years, so I don't see any contradiction. They co-develop the Orange Book, see what algorithms people are submitting (under the secrecy of the time), make notes on the common themes, then patent them when they go independent. Seems simple enough. It's not like any of the Trusted OS developers can complain - it's undesireable attention that might lead to shareholders, users and potential buyers worrying about IP and whether or not they're liable. They'll consider it much safer to keep their heads down. Besides, there's always a chance that 20+ rivals will be hit hard in the pocketbook, which is all good news in a recession.
Regardless of whether this is absolutely correct, there can be no doubt that this is a former insider who has re-phrased the notion of mandatory access controls in a way likely to fool uneducated judges (and certain to fool the idiots at the patent office) into believing it is a new idea. As judges are supposed to confine themselves to matters of law, we can forgive them for not being educated on matters outside of their domain. For that to work, however, the US patent office must be educated on matters of patents and validation. You can't have everyone be uneducated except for the person filing, because then you have no system. Oh, right, that IS what we have. I keep forgetting.
Any OS that was listed as Orange Book B1, B2, B3 or A1 certified would also violate the patent and/or be prior art. This includes Trusted Irix, Trusted Solaris and Genesis. Probably many, many others besides. Since the Orange Book says nothing about having to get such OS' licensed under some obscure patent, and yet the originator of the patent appears to be from the very group that developed the Orange Book, one must assume that the patent is fraudulent and specifically designed to ensnare precisely the operating systems likely to qualify through inside information on what systems did qualify.
Hell, in PR-speak it could also mean it's much slower. So much slower that legacy devices would time out. Or it could mean it's so expensive that the marketing people can double the amount of speed they buy.
Real-time desktops should play DVDs more smoothly when also browsing the Internet or ripping a CD at the same time. Real-time servers - yeah, those would not really have any added value. The new scheduler is definitely cool, tickless is cool, a new stable filesystem AND TWO possibly-superior new experimental filesystems - all definitely cool, usermode drivers I'm not sure on but the ingiuity involved is most certainly cool, new I/O schedulers (now those ARE cool for servers), a candidate for a better DMA allocator (good for anyone who fragments memory - ie: most gamers and most database users), and yes, lots of other cool stuff.
Actually they are based on planet Earth, based around silicon, based in semiconductor phenomena, powered by electricity, controlled by the Linux Operating System, regulated by I2C-based feedback mechanisms, presented by a Framebuffer- or X11-based interface, fed by inputs from electro-mechanical devices and operated by geeks and freaks.
News of a new, fully-integrated real-time patch seems exciting to me. But, then, I'm weird. However, I want to know when Sun acquired the Lustre filesystem and if it was this year, why it wasn't mentioned anywhere. Sun's debacle with MySQL isn't boosting my confidence any, Lustre no longer post their development snapshots or news on what's being changed, resulting in one of the premiere open-source distributed filing systems becoming distinctly less open. THAT bothers me.
OpenDX is good. is also popular, leading to some nice packages like MayaVi2. ChomboVis is no longer under development but may also prove useful. GGobi is another very nice toolkit. For a more mathematical visualization, there's also always Octave.
Such a view is indeed common in the United States. The United States is falling behind in industry, has massively slipping standards on the technical front, and has innovated very little (stepwise refinements are not innovations). The United States is also the origin of the notion that software need not meet any standard of merchandile fitness, rather than simply adapting the existing definition to suit what can be known about software. In short, it is a superb recipe for medicrity and that is indeed exactly what it has produced. It is impossible to produce quality goods by means of a mediocre monoculture of neurotypical Joe Averages. You want some, yes, but you cannot hope to genuinely prosper with a monoculture of them. You NEED a good scattering of eccentrics, mad geniuses, weirdos, freaks and the just plain nuts. But again, you should never have a monoculture of them, either.
Only fools and horses work, if we define work as unpleasent drudgery. Rich biodiverse cultures produce enthusiasts, extreme fans of their occupation, obsessives on details. Rich biodiverse cultures do not exist where "everyone must get along", or where "everyone must be Average". Indy cars are not made in the US but in the UK - not because it's cheaper but because you don't have the washed-out grey mindlessness of Normalicy. At least, not to the same degree. Eccentricity, although not encouraged as it once was, is still not a dirty word there. At one point, it was actively encouraged, and it is in those times you see some of the greatest progress in history. It is since they started to stifle it that you see the country failing. The United States has always detested those who were brilliantly mad, and that is reflected in the lack of really new work, really new directions. There is even a strong suspicion (with justification) that inventions from the US were actually from elsewhere and then stolen. The kind of classical mind (yes, the Greeks loved the brilliantly mad) that is capable of true creativity is almost impossible here.
This is not a complaint, per se. Too many chefs don't add anuthing, so having too many countries encouraging eccentrics is a bad idea. We need countries that are happy with drudgery. What is a complaint is the assumption that drudgery is the only way to be. Without nations of Chefs, there would be nothing for the slaves of drudgery to do. The rest of the world needs people who will sacrifice their mind in exchange for money, as the Chefs alone can produce almost nothing and make nothing.
Actually, I'll break that down into two distinct conclusions, of which the first is exactly what you said. They will find a way. The second conclusion is that they can find ways that don't go against already-transmitted episodes. Yes, inventing a whole new idea is also possible, but (a) brand-new fans, unfamiliar with the old series, won't get anything more out of them doing so than they would using an existing method (but might then become more aware of there being an old series), and (b) fans familiar with the old series will spot the references, potentially leading to such fans returning to the series.
The Watcher being The Doctor was Nyssa's conclusion, but we have no hard evidence of that. We know Time Lords can absorb others to obtain the energy needed to regenerate - The Master has done so several times. We know the Time Lords can synthesize such energy (the Sisterhood did so with the Elixier, and the people the Time Lords interfered with to produce regeneration capsules clearly did likewise). We know Time Lords can also project such energy, should they need to (Planet of the Spiders). Nyssa's conclusion that The Watcher was The Doctor is therefore no different from any other fan theory, even if it was produced in the series. It's an interpretation of canon that is viable but not essential.
The Daleks do have two origins, but I figured out a solution to that. Some Daleks were sent to the Thaal city and had not returned at the time The Doctor destroyed the entranceway. These would have been trapped in the Thaal city and, lacking access to the computer data banks in the Kaled city, would have necessarily invented their own past in order to explain their existence. Lacking advanced technology, they would also have been forced to improvize, hence their use of static electricity.
The population in the Kaled city, however, have suffered some damage to their computer systems. They would have therefore had no ability to be aware of the population of Daleks in the Thaal city. These Kaled Daleks become convinced that they are the only Daleks and therefore do not reconnect with the Thaal Daleks.
As the Thaals possessed rocketry, the Thaal Dalek population rapidly develops space flight (hence their invasion of other worlds) and eventually develop time travel as well (The Chase). The Kaled Daleks independently develop space flight but their seclusion has resulted in a more imperial, structured regime. Eventually, these Dalek populations rediscover each other and partly re-merge. However, the inability to reconcile histories results in the split between the loyalist Daleks and the Imperial Daleks. The mythologies created by the Thaal Daleks also results in groups like the Cult of Skaro and the Emperor-God seen at the end of the 10th Doctor run.
We now have a reconciled history that "explains" the two origin stories and the factionalism that should not have existed in the lower-level Daleks. (Picture the Daleks as similar in structure to the original Cylons of Battlestar Galactica, where the warriors have one primitive brain, the more senior Cylons have two more sophisticated brains and the highest-ranking ones have three highly sophisticated brains.)
I'm not sure if the tenth regeneration could count either. Ohhhhh! In THAT sense! Ok. It's unclear. Time Lords may be able to change their appearance without actually using up a regeneration (Romana was way too bright to have wasted an entire life after a mere 150 years), so it would seem to follow that "partial" regeneration is possible without using up an actual regeneration in the process.
Although this is the 11th Doctor, it is also questionable as to whether each life has used up a regeneration. The Second Doctor to the Third may or may not have been a regeneration but it was under the control and supervision of Time Lord technology. The life-energy (or whatever) that is involved in the process could therefore have been external. If so, it would not have used up that amount of energy internally. The same could be argued for the Fourth to Fifth, as the Watcher was an external source of regenerative energy. (The Third to the Fourth was started externally but the energy was internal.)
If you want to take this line of reasoning further, you may also wish to consider Mawdryn Undead. In that, The Doctor was due to have all his remaining regenerations drained to kill off Mawdryn and his associates. The Brigadier intervened, saving him. But is that all he did? Action and reaction are equal and opposite, and the circuit was still complete. If the machine could take regenerations away, a reverse surge should logically add them. This should give The Doctor potentially another six lives.
Also consider Brain of Morbius. We don't know what effect the elixier had on The Doctor. It is supposed to aid in failed regenerations, so presumably provides an external energy source in addition to any other curative properties. Those who drank it did, after all, become immortal for the duration of drinking it, which suggests that it had that kind of restorative power. This potentially gives The Doctor another additional life, as he didn't require a regeneration to heal.
Finally, if you subscribe to the notion that Russel T Davis is, in fact, a Dalek Agent hell-bent on destroying The Doctor's reputation, you can disregard as much of DW:TNG as you like.
So much of a "no idea" that you and everyone else on Slashdot knows perfectly well that I'm right, that the IBM mantra of "nobody ever got fire for..." is far truer in a recession than in a time of optimism. So much of a "no idea" that I stand by my claim that managers are inherently conservative to the point of being lemmings, whereas you aren't willing to stand at all.
There are many IPv6 tunnel brokers - British Telecom, Hurricane Electric, and so on. Since it costs nothing to get an IPv6 tunnel, it's trivial to do, and all modern OS' support it, anyone worthy of the title of geek should already be using at least one such tunnel. (Hell, I used to run 10 IPv6 tunnels on Linux 2.0.20!)
Well, no, they're not stored every place. Usually, they're stored on the user's web browser or in some other similar system. As I recall from the paper on The Internet Auditing Project, their SSH security was broken because someone had the password on their Windows box and the Windows box was broken into. Also bear in mind that there were many stories in 2008 of servers being cracked, leading to the loss of hundreds of thousands, occasionally millions, of credit card numbers. So whilst I agree with you that Bruce isn't identifying all of the critical points, I would argue that there are an enormous number of weaknesses in existing systems and that almost all of them have been exploited in the past.
For online shopping, I take the line that credit card numbers (and indeed any other personal information) should never be stored on online servers. That information should be passed, still encrypted, to servers behind the DMZ. If DMZ-based systems need to authenticate against such data, they should authenticate against a strong cryptographic hash of that data, never against the raw data itself. All actual use of the data should be on internal, secure networks that have no direct outside access and only very controlled, very limited communication with DMZ-based machines which should be assumed to have already been broken into.
For personal machines, browsers have way way too much access to data. The same basic concept should be applied as for servers, so that browsers are completely sandboxed, the key data (such as accounts, passwords and so on) is kept by software with no direct outside access, and that browsers should merely proxy that data (again, already in encrypted form) to remote sites. Ideally, browsers should never manipulate raw data of any kind, with all true client-side I/O (be it JPEG images, SSL certificates, or whatever) being handled elsewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
...the President elected to represent his/her nation cannot afford (even with secret court hearings and time-restricted public expoosure - often in the 50-100 year region) to communicate something that might be read by another person, one should not start by asking whether they can afford to write it down. Rather, they should start by asking why such communication is taking place at all. If, even in 100 years, a Presidental instruction is too hot for the nation to handle, long after all people involved and/or targeted are dead and buried (or, at least, dead and in cryogenic storage in Area 51), then perhaps that instruction should never be issued at all.
(If ultra-secure agencies regard 100 years as too short a time, add a 150-year rule, or a 200-year rule. The point is that future administrations may need that information for reasons of national security or national interest, and indeed are far more likely to do so to a far greater degree than any individual could possibly need to avoid personal criticism for recklessness and stupidity. Indeed, archivists are a vital ingredient in the prevention of recklessness and stupidity, whether that information is ever made available to the general public or not.)
The Brinks-Matt Robbery, in which thieves brazenly stole truck-loads of gold bullion, and the two gigantic heists at Heathrow Airport, were all 100% correct - from the perspective of the thieves. And given that next to nothing from any of these three gigantic thefts was ever recovered, I think most people would agree that the implementation was damn-near flawless. As economic models go, though, they suck. They are so utterly defective in any context other than the very narrow one for which they were designed, and even then only from the very narrow, short-sighted perspective of the thief, that they have zero reusability.
Just because something makes a person rich doesn't mean that something is worth copying, would even work for someone else, or could ever be to the advantage of anyone but the original person. It is equally flawed logic to assume that "correct" behaviour could be equally profitable to one-off flawed behaviour. Flaws can make some damn good income, short-term, even if they must degenerate in the long-term.
You will find socially-irresponsible companies have the fastest-rising stocks in the stock-market. Well, until they crash and burn. Cults are the most profitable of all societies. Until they self-destruct. Extremists have the ultimate in work ethics, until they die from the strain. In the Dark Ages, you could build far and away more wooden palisades than you could build stone fortifications. Well, until the builders all died horribly from Greek Fire (early napalm).
And nobody will ever make more money than Microsoft by writing responsibly and sensibly. In the long-term, Microsoft's code is unsupportable and its methodology is unscalable. Vista showed that they are approaching (but are not yet) at the limits. They might not reach the limits for another 10-20 years, but they will someday reach them in such a way that they have blocked off all avenues of escape.
A software company producing a good, solid product won't necessarily make much money in any given year, now or ever, but if the design is truly as good as all that, it will sell longer and require less maintenance. Instead of a 50-year lifespan for the company, you might well be looking at a 250-year lifespan or more. (There are companies today that are much older than that.) I'd say that such a company can legitimately say that it is doing things right, because they meet the ultimate requirement: will you adapt or will you die?
It is also possible that a company that lasts that long will actually end up making more money than Microsoft (as a sum of gross revenue, not net), even if they never matched the sorts of sales Microsoft have achieved and even if they never end up as rich because they spent that resource on improving their product over and above improving their bank balance. Failure to invest is not an admirable quality in my book, nor is cutting corners. In terms of social evolution and being able to adapt to new environmental pressures, Microsoft is an evolutionary dead-end. Massively successful in the short-term, but incapable of survival on a meaningful timeframe.
The Man-Moth is not mythical. I saw him only this morning, chewing on people's jackets. He's not keen on the jackets of managers - he complains they're tasteless. Man-Moth is a moth that got bitten by a radioactive man and has acquired supermothian powers of wearing digital watches and burping in front of the television.
Many people back then held jobs for more than ten years, so I don't see any contradiction. They co-develop the Orange Book, see what algorithms people are submitting (under the secrecy of the time), make notes on the common themes, then patent them when they go independent. Seems simple enough. It's not like any of the Trusted OS developers can complain - it's undesireable attention that might lead to shareholders, users and potential buyers worrying about IP and whether or not they're liable. They'll consider it much safer to keep their heads down. Besides, there's always a chance that 20+ rivals will be hit hard in the pocketbook, which is all good news in a recession.
Regardless of whether this is absolutely correct, there can be no doubt that this is a former insider who has re-phrased the notion of mandatory access controls in a way likely to fool uneducated judges (and certain to fool the idiots at the patent office) into believing it is a new idea. As judges are supposed to confine themselves to matters of law, we can forgive them for not being educated on matters outside of their domain. For that to work, however, the US patent office must be educated on matters of patents and validation. You can't have everyone be uneducated except for the person filing, because then you have no system. Oh, right, that IS what we have. I keep forgetting.
Any OS that was listed as Orange Book B1, B2, B3 or A1 certified would also violate the patent and/or be prior art. This includes Trusted Irix, Trusted Solaris and Genesis. Probably many, many others besides. Since the Orange Book says nothing about having to get such OS' licensed under some obscure patent, and yet the originator of the patent appears to be from the very group that developed the Orange Book, one must assume that the patent is fraudulent and specifically designed to ensnare precisely the operating systems likely to qualify through inside information on what systems did qualify.
Where's Scooby Doo and the gang? They're good at unmasking spooks.
Hell, in PR-speak it could also mean it's much slower. So much slower that legacy devices would time out. Or it could mean it's so expensive that the marketing people can double the amount of speed they buy.
Real-time desktops should play DVDs more smoothly when also browsing the Internet or ripping a CD at the same time. Real-time servers - yeah, those would not really have any added value. The new scheduler is definitely cool, tickless is cool, a new stable filesystem AND TWO possibly-superior new experimental filesystems - all definitely cool, usermode drivers I'm not sure on but the ingiuity involved is most certainly cool, new I/O schedulers (now those ARE cool for servers), a candidate for a better DMA allocator (good for anyone who fragments memory - ie: most gamers and most database users), and yes, lots of other cool stuff.
I must've been asleep when that was announced.
Actually they are based on planet Earth, based around silicon, based in semiconductor phenomena, powered by electricity, controlled by the Linux Operating System, regulated by I2C-based feedback mechanisms, presented by a Framebuffer- or X11-based interface, fed by inputs from electro-mechanical devices and operated by geeks and freaks.
News of a new, fully-integrated real-time patch seems exciting to me. But, then, I'm weird. However, I want to know when Sun acquired the Lustre filesystem and if it was this year, why it wasn't mentioned anywhere. Sun's debacle with MySQL isn't boosting my confidence any, Lustre no longer post their development snapshots or news on what's being changed, resulting in one of the premiere open-source distributed filing systems becoming distinctly less open. THAT bothers me.
Good thing NASA likewise never uses Open Source to design engines and aircraft alongside companies like Boeing. (*This product may contain nuts^H^H^H^Hsarcasm.)
OpenDX is good. is also popular, leading to some nice packages like MayaVi2. ChomboVis is no longer under development but may also prove useful. GGobi is another very nice toolkit. For a more mathematical visualization, there's also always Octave.
Such a view is indeed common in the United States. The United States is falling behind in industry, has massively slipping standards on the technical front, and has innovated very little (stepwise refinements are not innovations). The United States is also the origin of the notion that software need not meet any standard of merchandile fitness, rather than simply adapting the existing definition to suit what can be known about software. In short, it is a superb recipe for medicrity and that is indeed exactly what it has produced. It is impossible to produce quality goods by means of a mediocre monoculture of neurotypical Joe Averages. You want some, yes, but you cannot hope to genuinely prosper with a monoculture of them. You NEED a good scattering of eccentrics, mad geniuses, weirdos, freaks and the just plain nuts. But again, you should never have a monoculture of them, either.
Only fools and horses work, if we define work as unpleasent drudgery. Rich biodiverse cultures produce enthusiasts, extreme fans of their occupation, obsessives on details. Rich biodiverse cultures do not exist where "everyone must get along", or where "everyone must be Average". Indy cars are not made in the US but in the UK - not because it's cheaper but because you don't have the washed-out grey mindlessness of Normalicy. At least, not to the same degree. Eccentricity, although not encouraged as it once was, is still not a dirty word there. At one point, it was actively encouraged, and it is in those times you see some of the greatest progress in history. It is since they started to stifle it that you see the country failing. The United States has always detested those who were brilliantly mad, and that is reflected in the lack of really new work, really new directions. There is even a strong suspicion (with justification) that inventions from the US were actually from elsewhere and then stolen. The kind of classical mind (yes, the Greeks loved the brilliantly mad) that is capable of true creativity is almost impossible here.
This is not a complaint, per se. Too many chefs don't add anuthing, so having too many countries encouraging eccentrics is a bad idea. We need countries that are happy with drudgery. What is a complaint is the assumption that drudgery is the only way to be. Without nations of Chefs, there would be nothing for the slaves of drudgery to do. The rest of the world needs people who will sacrifice their mind in exchange for money, as the Chefs alone can produce almost nothing and make nothing.
Be fair! The guy has learned a lot since writing the division unit for the original Pentium.
That's because Mammoths have no opposable thumbs and therefore no means of becoming organized.
*blinks and goes to check an online dictionary for this unfamiliar word*
Actually, I'll break that down into two distinct conclusions, of which the first is exactly what you said. They will find a way. The second conclusion is that they can find ways that don't go against already-transmitted episodes. Yes, inventing a whole new idea is also possible, but (a) brand-new fans, unfamiliar with the old series, won't get anything more out of them doing so than they would using an existing method (but might then become more aware of there being an old series), and (b) fans familiar with the old series will spot the references, potentially leading to such fans returning to the series.
The Watcher being The Doctor was Nyssa's conclusion, but we have no hard evidence of that. We know Time Lords can absorb others to obtain the energy needed to regenerate - The Master has done so several times. We know the Time Lords can synthesize such energy (the Sisterhood did so with the Elixier, and the people the Time Lords interfered with to produce regeneration capsules clearly did likewise). We know Time Lords can also project such energy, should they need to (Planet of the Spiders). Nyssa's conclusion that The Watcher was The Doctor is therefore no different from any other fan theory, even if it was produced in the series. It's an interpretation of canon that is viable but not essential.
I have a life. I keep it safe in a small box by my desk. Occasionally, I take it out and polish it.
The Daleks do have two origins, but I figured out a solution to that. Some Daleks were sent to the Thaal city and had not returned at the time The Doctor destroyed the entranceway. These would have been trapped in the Thaal city and, lacking access to the computer data banks in the Kaled city, would have necessarily invented their own past in order to explain their existence. Lacking advanced technology, they would also have been forced to improvize, hence their use of static electricity.
The population in the Kaled city, however, have suffered some damage to their computer systems. They would have therefore had no ability to be aware of the population of Daleks in the Thaal city. These Kaled Daleks become convinced that they are the only Daleks and therefore do not reconnect with the Thaal Daleks.
As the Thaals possessed rocketry, the Thaal Dalek population rapidly develops space flight (hence their invasion of other worlds) and eventually develop time travel as well (The Chase). The Kaled Daleks independently develop space flight but their seclusion has resulted in a more imperial, structured regime. Eventually, these Dalek populations rediscover each other and partly re-merge. However, the inability to reconcile histories results in the split between the loyalist Daleks and the Imperial Daleks. The mythologies created by the Thaal Daleks also results in groups like the Cult of Skaro and the Emperor-God seen at the end of the 10th Doctor run.
We now have a reconciled history that "explains" the two origin stories and the factionalism that should not have existed in the lower-level Daleks. (Picture the Daleks as similar in structure to the original Cylons of Battlestar Galactica, where the warriors have one primitive brain, the more senior Cylons have two more sophisticated brains and the highest-ranking ones have three highly sophisticated brains.)
I'm not sure if the tenth regeneration could count either. Ohhhhh! In THAT sense! Ok. It's unclear. Time Lords may be able to change their appearance without actually using up a regeneration (Romana was way too bright to have wasted an entire life after a mere 150 years), so it would seem to follow that "partial" regeneration is possible without using up an actual regeneration in the process.
Although this is the 11th Doctor, it is also questionable as to whether each life has used up a regeneration. The Second Doctor to the Third may or may not have been a regeneration but it was under the control and supervision of Time Lord technology. The life-energy (or whatever) that is involved in the process could therefore have been external. If so, it would not have used up that amount of energy internally. The same could be argued for the Fourth to Fifth, as the Watcher was an external source of regenerative energy. (The Third to the Fourth was started externally but the energy was internal.)
If you want to take this line of reasoning further, you may also wish to consider Mawdryn Undead. In that, The Doctor was due to have all his remaining regenerations drained to kill off Mawdryn and his associates. The Brigadier intervened, saving him. But is that all he did? Action and reaction are equal and opposite, and the circuit was still complete. If the machine could take regenerations away, a reverse surge should logically add them. This should give The Doctor potentially another six lives.
Also consider Brain of Morbius. We don't know what effect the elixier had on The Doctor. It is supposed to aid in failed regenerations, so presumably provides an external energy source in addition to any other curative properties. Those who drank it did, after all, become immortal for the duration of drinking it, which suggests that it had that kind of restorative power. This potentially gives The Doctor another additional life, as he didn't require a regeneration to heal.
Finally, if you subscribe to the notion that Russel T Davis is, in fact, a Dalek Agent hell-bent on destroying The Doctor's reputation, you can disregard as much of DW:TNG as you like.
So much of a "no idea" that you and everyone else on Slashdot knows perfectly well that I'm right, that the IBM mantra of "nobody ever got fire for..." is far truer in a recession than in a time of optimism. So much of a "no idea" that I stand by my claim that managers are inherently conservative to the point of being lemmings, whereas you aren't willing to stand at all.
There are many IPv6 tunnel brokers - British Telecom, Hurricane Electric, and so on. Since it costs nothing to get an IPv6 tunnel, it's trivial to do, and all modern OS' support it, anyone worthy of the title of geek should already be using at least one such tunnel. (Hell, I used to run 10 IPv6 tunnels on Linux 2.0.20!)
Well, no, they're not stored every place. Usually, they're stored on the user's web browser or in some other similar system. As I recall from the paper on The Internet Auditing Project, their SSH security was broken because someone had the password on their Windows box and the Windows box was broken into. Also bear in mind that there were many stories in 2008 of servers being cracked, leading to the loss of hundreds of thousands, occasionally millions, of credit card numbers. So whilst I agree with you that Bruce isn't identifying all of the critical points, I would argue that there are an enormous number of weaknesses in existing systems and that almost all of them have been exploited in the past.
For online shopping, I take the line that credit card numbers (and indeed any other personal information) should never be stored on online servers. That information should be passed, still encrypted, to servers behind the DMZ. If DMZ-based systems need to authenticate against such data, they should authenticate against a strong cryptographic hash of that data, never against the raw data itself. All actual use of the data should be on internal, secure networks that have no direct outside access and only very controlled, very limited communication with DMZ-based machines which should be assumed to have already been broken into.
For personal machines, browsers have way way too much access to data. The same basic concept should be applied as for servers, so that browsers are completely sandboxed, the key data (such as accounts, passwords and so on) is kept by software with no direct outside access, and that browsers should merely proxy that data (again, already in encrypted form) to remote sites. Ideally, browsers should never manipulate raw data of any kind, with all true client-side I/O (be it JPEG images, SSL certificates, or whatever) being handled elsewhere.