I think from the POV of some/. readers, Apple can magically choose to be given an award.
I wonder if these same people think the actors can decide "I think I'll win one this year" as a publicity stunt.
Maybe their agent recomended it?;-)
Care to back that up with any sort of factual information or logical reasoning at all? or are we supposed to take for granted that you're some sort of genius that can see past the shallow institutions that we mere mortals operate under?
They say that the most obvious application would be for describing phsyical characteristics and actions in virtual reality environments.
this sounds like it's going to run into some problems. as far as politically correct langauage is concerned, it's going to be hard to come up with a DTD that doesn't offend a particular minority... are we going to have short or fat tags? do we skirt the issue by leaving those out (and making the standard less descriptive)?
as far as i know (and this comes from talking to Microsoft engineers about 802.11x implementations for an article) the whole point of 802.11x isn't to secure content, it's to secure access.
the standard wasn't engineered to protect passwords from eventual decryption, etc. instead, it's a way that a network access point can enforce a security policy so that no traffic can get through on the lowest network layers until a client has sufficently authenticated to the access point. so a wireless hub (or even a wired hub) can say "hey, identify yourself!" and the client can say "hey, this is me!" and the hub will go to a authentication server (in Microsoft's case, they say a RADIUS server) and say "hey, is this (so and so)?" and if the authentication server says yes, then the hub will let the client's traffic through.
coupled with that is a protocol where access points can enforce a policy where clients must refresh their encryption keys on a hourly basis. so a network intruder must be able to crack these keys on an hourly basis to gain access to the network. a week is a joke... these 802.11x access points will be through several iterations of keys by the time one is cracked.
(interestingly enough, the protocol also includes provisions for someone who is wandering between wireless access points where one hub can vouch for the user and cause the newer hub to forward their traffic until authentication by the server is achieved, allowing for roaming without the 3 or so second delay that would be necessary for all of this to happen).
the point of all this is that it's not there to secure your cleartext POP password.. 802.11x is there because access points (be they wireless or ethernet or whatever) are becoming more prevalent in our society in public, physically insecure places, so a protocol has to be developed so that network admins can be sure that the right people are using it.
the protocol even allows (given 802.11x aware hardware) that user levels be granted based on the authentication server, so a guest might be allowed restricted gateway access to the Internet but their traffic may be physically restricted from reaching the LAN fileserver, whereas the admin is given the red carpet.
pretty sweet, from an admin perspective.
OK , let me get this straight:
on
Case Tweaking
·
· Score: 3, Funny
d00d wants to 0wn at the next LAN party, so he takes a Powermac G4 case and installs inside:
A 440LX-based motherboard
A Celeron 466 MHz
wouldn't he be better off with the original Apple hardware? i mean, if you're hacking an Apple case, at least put something faster in it, like dual T-Birds!
it seems to me that a battle is being fought, and we're likely to see moves like this from the companies that control any sort of digital conduit from one device to another.
when digital started becoming popular, many of the companies that developed technologies that shuffled digital media around didn't envision a day when the average user would be able to shuffle that digital content around with the facility that peer to peer and the Internet provides.
now that we can do that, they've basically realized that they've been caught with their pants down, and now they're trying to not only prevent the next logical step in the digital media revolution (the 'loosening up' of content), they're poised to roll back the rights we used to have. they're going to try to roll out set top boxes that can decide whether or not we can tape a television broadcast, e-book readers that won't let friends share novels or libraries lend books, movies that we have to pay for each time we watch 'em, etc.
that's why open source software is such a boon to consumers.. only an organization of individuals can really undermine what is becoming a corperate war on our current techie way of life.
"Save hundreds of man-hours and millions of dollars by freeing your SysAdmins of the responsibility of constantly monitoring security lists and keeping up with the latest patches."
* Save time -- let Red Hat keep your systems current
Connect your systems to the Linux and open source experts at Red Hat, who keep you informed and your systems up to date.
Projects include the obscure (eg: HP's scheduler plugin system), the arcane (eg: MPLS and SCTP), the bizzare (eg: Software Suspend) and the insanse (eg: VAX & PPC-64 architectures).
uh, PPC-64 is coming to the desktop and other mainstream markets in the form of the G5, folks. is it really insane to start developing for it now? was it insane when Linux supported Itanium the day it shipped while Microsoft only had beta software? no. it was a Good Thing.
Is it just me, or is the idea that there's a tiny cigar chomping woman grinning evily and roming among the towering capacitors of my motherboard, possibly wreaking havoc MORE THAN A LITTLE CHILLING! WHAT THE HELL IS UP WITH THE GRAPHIC ON TOP OF THAT STORY???
ironically, i had just finished a noam chomsky book fifteen minutes before i read this reply.
my claim that the mechanism of media bias goes largely unexplained by those that bring it up in conversation obviously neglects linguistics professors and political economists. sorrrieee!
and spelling correction rebuttals are BS ad hominem attacks.
Will this marginalize freelance writers in favor of staff flacks more interested in the company line than the truth, concentrating even more power in the hands of the media moguls?
yes, you read that subject right. i used to work as a journalist for K. Rupert Murdoch, of News Corp. fame. i've heard many accusations of bias in large corperate media institutions, but never do i hear a theory for how this actually occurs. do editors lean over the shoulders of writers and tell them to bias the news in corperate news organizations? the answer is no. here's the real skinny:
on everyone's desk at the Fox News Channel, the New York Post and other News Corp. properties is a Pilsbury Doughboy-sized replica of Rupert himself that watches your every move. any time you consider writing about things like the WTO protesters, Ralph Nader, or fluffy bunny rabbits, the Rupert replica will cluck his tounge or shake his head dissaprovingly.
this is why i enjoy being a freelance writer now, because i don't have to labor under the Rupert's watchful gaze.
seriously, does anyone think there's a difference between freelance and full-time journalists? the copy gets worked over by the same editors anyway.
there's semi-draconian media laws in Canada set up to prevent Canadian media from being overrun by the U.S media conglomerates. problematic implimentation in places, but i certainly understand the sentiment.
one of the laws is that foreign sattelite broadcasters cannot sell their services in Canada. a judge ruled that since DirecTV's service was unable to be sold in Canada, it therefore had no fair market value. and since something that is valueless cannot be stolen, it's OK to watch DirecTV in Canada for free.
DirecTV can bring up charges against Canadian individuals for violating laws in the United States, but they're not likely to prosecute them unless they come over the border.
This information I learned from speaking to one of the techie higherups at DirecTV.
I write for both the online and print versions of a publication. when i am assigned an article, i am told that it will be for the online site or the print magazine. i am paid different fees based on where the piece is to be published. i write based on the medium i'm writing for: the online site covers more up-to-the-day stuff ("breaking" news) whereas the print version is a little more "let's take a step back" material, since it takes about two months for my copy to actually appear in print (magazines have LONG turnaround times).
last week i noticed something that i was assigned to write for the print magazine showing up online. it had been editied differently to suit the fact that it was published on the site.
to me, these facts lend creedence to the idea that the Web is a lot more than just an archive of the print material: "instant" turnaround, different content, different pay rate. i was a little miffed that i hadn't been asked about the second publication, especially since the article was different.
this is basically old news. the partnership was already there; the only new news is that this chip is going in the PS3. but c'mon, who couldn't predict that from the earlier story?
as far as i know, sony's plan for the PS3 puts it more squarely in the net appliance/set top box market. this news is in line with that plan.
There's a strong rumor that IBM can make G3s with clock rates that meet or exceed 2 GHz. But as it stands, Motorola is the only PPC manufacturer that can/wants to make G4s -- which are stuck at 733 Mhz. So the overall platform stagnates because Apple doesn't want its low-end systems (based on the G3) blowing the doors off the high-end systems (based on the G4). The situation is getting out of hand... it sucks when marketing concerns get in the way of performance computing.
Slashdot Mirror
It's an IEEE standard! You can get FireWire PCI cards! How is that proprietary?
because they chose to license it, and later they chose to let an independent org (which they have a big stake in) control the licensing.
I wonder if these same people think the actors can decide "I think I'll win one this year" as a publicity stunt.
Maybe their agent recomended it?
Care to back that up with any sort of factual information or logical reasoning at all? or are we supposed to take for granted that you're some sort of genius that can see past the shallow institutions that we mere mortals operate under?
in other words, i cry BUNK.
this sounds like it's going to run into some problems. as far as politically correct langauage is concerned, it's going to be hard to come up with a DTD that doesn't offend a particular minority... are we going to have short or fat tags? do we skirt the issue by leaving those out (and making the standard less descriptive)?
Hey, yeah, thanks for nothin! ;-)
just joking. hey, *i* voted for him. yeah, doesn't he teach at Columbia now?
First he invented the Internet, now this! :)
the standard wasn't engineered to protect passwords from eventual decryption, etc. instead, it's a way that a network access point can enforce a security policy so that no traffic can get through on the lowest network layers until a client has sufficently authenticated to the access point. so a wireless hub (or even a wired hub) can say "hey, identify yourself!" and the client can say "hey, this is me!" and the hub will go to a authentication server (in Microsoft's case, they say a RADIUS server) and say "hey, is this (so and so)?" and if the authentication server says yes, then the hub will let the client's traffic through.
coupled with that is a protocol where access points can enforce a policy where clients must refresh their encryption keys on a hourly basis. so a network intruder must be able to crack these keys on an hourly basis to gain access to the network. a week is a joke... these 802.11x access points will be through several iterations of keys by the time one is cracked.
(interestingly enough, the protocol also includes provisions for someone who is wandering between wireless access points where one hub can vouch for the user and cause the newer hub to forward their traffic until authentication by the server is achieved, allowing for roaming without the 3 or so second delay that would be necessary for all of this to happen).
the point of all this is that it's not there to secure your cleartext POP password.. 802.11x is there because access points (be they wireless or ethernet or whatever) are becoming more prevalent in our society in public, physically insecure places, so a protocol has to be developed so that network admins can be sure that the right people are using it.
the protocol even allows (given 802.11x aware hardware) that user levels be granted based on the authentication server, so a guest might be allowed restricted gateway access to the Internet but their traffic may be physically restricted from reaching the LAN fileserver, whereas the admin is given the red carpet.
pretty sweet, from an admin perspective.
- A 440LX-based motherboard
- A Celeron 466 MHz
wouldn't he be better off with the original Apple hardware? i mean, if you're hacking an Apple case, at least put something faster in it, like dual T-Birds!VirtualPC's been out for a while, there, chappy..
Troll?? Informative?? It was a JOKE!
jeez!
yes, shortly after beginning the research, he inexplicably was shot off into outer space.
when digital started becoming popular, many of the companies that developed technologies that shuffled digital media around didn't envision a day when the average user would be able to shuffle that digital content around with the facility that peer to peer and the Internet provides.
now that we can do that, they've basically realized that they've been caught with their pants down, and now they're trying to not only prevent the next logical step in the digital media revolution (the 'loosening up' of content), they're poised to roll back the rights we used to have. they're going to try to roll out set top boxes that can decide whether or not we can tape a television broadcast, e-book readers that won't let friends share novels or libraries lend books, movies that we have to pay for each time we watch 'em, etc.
that's why open source software is such a boon to consumers.. only an organization of individuals can really undermine what is becoming a corperate war on our current techie way of life.
hack on, boys and girls!
jeez, thank goodness you're on the good side, or at least it would seem..
Hyper Text Markup Language
it's a stateless language, but a language nonetheless.
this is insightful. somebody mod this up please!
In my Newton! :)
uh, PPC-64 is coming to the desktop and other mainstream markets in the form of the G5, folks. is it really insane to start developing for it now? was it insane when Linux supported Itanium the day it shipped while Microsoft only had beta software? no. it was a Good Thing.
Is it just me, or is the idea that there's a tiny cigar chomping woman grinning evily and roming among the towering capacitors of my motherboard, possibly wreaking havoc MORE THAN A LITTLE CHILLING! WHAT THE HELL IS UP WITH THE GRAPHIC ON TOP OF THAT STORY???
my claim that the mechanism of media bias goes largely unexplained by those that bring it up in conversation obviously neglects linguistics professors and political economists. sorrrieee!
and spelling correction rebuttals are BS ad hominem attacks.
yes, you read that subject right. i used to work as a journalist for K. Rupert Murdoch, of News Corp. fame. i've heard many accusations of bias in large corperate media institutions, but never do i hear a theory for how this actually occurs. do editors lean over the shoulders of writers and tell them to bias the news in corperate news organizations? the answer is no. here's the real skinny:
on everyone's desk at the Fox News Channel, the New York Post and other News Corp. properties is a Pilsbury Doughboy-sized replica of Rupert himself that watches your every move. any time you consider writing about things like the WTO protesters, Ralph Nader, or fluffy bunny rabbits, the Rupert replica will cluck his tounge or shake his head dissaprovingly.
this is why i enjoy being a freelance writer now, because i don't have to labor under the Rupert's watchful gaze.
seriously, does anyone think there's a difference between freelance and full-time journalists? the copy gets worked over by the same editors anyway.
how's this for the ultimate catch-22?
there's semi-draconian media laws in Canada set up to prevent Canadian media from being overrun by the U.S media conglomerates. problematic implimentation in places, but i certainly understand the sentiment.
one of the laws is that foreign sattelite broadcasters cannot sell their services in Canada. a judge ruled that since DirecTV's service was unable to be sold in Canada, it therefore had no fair market value. and since something that is valueless cannot be stolen, it's OK to watch DirecTV in Canada for free.
DirecTV can bring up charges against Canadian individuals for violating laws in the United States, but they're not likely to prosecute them unless they come over the border.
This information I learned from speaking to one of the techie higherups at DirecTV.
Just to offer my perspective:
I write for both the online and print versions of a publication. when i am assigned an article, i am told that it will be for the online site or the print magazine. i am paid different fees based on where the piece is to be published. i write based on the medium i'm writing for: the online site covers more up-to-the-day stuff ("breaking" news) whereas the print version is a little more "let's take a step back" material, since it takes about two months for my copy to actually appear in print (magazines have LONG turnaround times).
last week i noticed something that i was assigned to write for the print magazine showing up online. it had been editied differently to suit the fact that it was published on the site.
to me, these facts lend creedence to the idea that the Web is a lot more than just an archive of the print material: "instant" turnaround, different content, different pay rate. i was a little miffed that i hadn't been asked about the second publication, especially since the article was different.
just my two cents.
as far as i know, sony's plan for the PS3 puts it more squarely in the net appliance/set top box market. this news is in line with that plan.
There's a strong rumor that IBM can make G3s with clock rates that meet or exceed 2 GHz. But as it stands, Motorola is the only PPC manufacturer that can/wants to make G4s -- which are stuck at 733 Mhz. So the overall platform stagnates because Apple doesn't want its low-end systems (based on the G3) blowing the doors off the high-end systems (based on the G4). The situation is getting out of hand... it sucks when marketing concerns get in the way of performance computing.