Germany is phasing out its nuclear energy because it's teh suck to dispose of the used material. There are a couple sites under testing but none of them are even suitable for short-term storage. Currently there are two reactors, around Hamburg IIRC, that are offline because of continuous safety problems. I wouldn't say nuclear works well for Germany even though German engineers are generally considered quite capable.
What I don't get in the US discussion is: nuclear is (mostly) for electric energy. Why is the oil price such a great deal in this discussion? You're not using oil to produce electricity, or are you? Or is your fleet of (fossil burning) aircraft carriers the center piece of the problem?
Actually, if you know that you are subject of surveillance, you have a whole arsenal of methods to evade from it. It you aren't, and that's the sneaky little problem with it, you are an open book.
Oh, and they did not only monitor outgoing calls in the company HQ. They tracked all phone calls they were servicing in the whole country and then ran searches against business and private phone numbers of known journalists and employees. So not even at home you were secure.
The data retention law in Germany has been in effect since the beginning of 2008 with a phase-in until 2009 when non-compliance becomes punishable. So the self-organized (shall we call it "grass roots"?) data retention of the Telekom was unlawful. In fact, there were privacy laws that outlawed such a thing explicitly.
The spying does not only come from logging (which is bad enough without it being prohibited) but from using the data at all. Bonus points for using it against their own board.
That is actually not going to be very useful because how are you going to import your vintage data into modern software if you can only open it in a software that runs in a VM that runs in a VM that runs in a VM.
The solution is to archive the data and to document the data format (and/or sources for reading the data) so regardless of which kinds of operating systems are coming you will always have a way to open the files.
Did anybody say "Free software is cool"? Yes. I did.
Well, wise guy, that definition of "capitalism" is so inventive, you might be granted a patent on it.
IOW: the definition is plain wrong.
Interestingly, you use a negative trait of capitalists to define the system (one that isn't unique to capitalism, let alone capitalists, BTW). So you seem to have kind of a low opinion of capitalism. How come?
Windows is not free, it's gratis. There is considerable difference between those. The other difference is: gratis Linux is legal, while gratis Windows isn't. After installing hard drive encryption under Linux and loving it I thought about doing the same on my (payed for) Vista Home Premium. Oops. Doesn't support that. Upgrading cost to a version that actually does encryption: hundreds of Euros.
And accounting under Linux: use GnuCash. It's full-featured and you don't even have to pay for it. I know people who still use years-old versions of accounting programs they can't upgrade because there is no way to migrate the data. GnuCash stores in XML format. That's what I call free/and/ gratis.
Oh, and: things that don't work under Linux. That's true. E.g. my graphics card doesn't work well because ATI couldn't be bothered to write a decent driver for it or open the specs. The other thing is that I have substantially more problems getting WLAN to work on a Windows XP notebook than on my Ubuntu iBook. And that in spite the fact that the Linux WLAN driver is essentially reverse-engineered.
I think, people see the Windows way of doing things as the "normal" way. E.g. you "normally" use Outlook to do eMail. So, when they think about doing eMail under Linux, they ask "will it run Outlook?". Not "will it do eMail?". It takes a bit of time convincing them that changing to Linux changes the way you do certain things, but quite often to the better.
I see the time coming when people say "who wants to use Vista when there is always something that doesn't work?" - e.g. playing DVDs for foreign country codes or copying DRM'd music to a new device. That's when free will be worth more than just being gratis.
As somebody else wrote here in an earlier discussion: Search is not Google's product. You are. Google sells page views to ad customers. So if there is a competitor in the ad market with a similar outreach concerning users, it is a competitor even if it does not offer search, online office or whatever else in Googles product range at all.
Well, it is good in theory. The first "restrictions" mentioned are lower bounds to make sure there actually is something like a key space. The restriction not to use any of the last 6 passwords reduces a largish key space by a really small number of keys in exchange for being safe against formerly used keys that might be compromised. If you didn't use such a restriction, insisting on the users to change their passwords on a monthly basis would be pointless because this would let them change the password each time by the password they are currently using (so - no change at all). The effect of this would be: if an attacker compromised a key she could use it until the end of time.
To put it differently: what good is an infinitely large keyspace if you let people use keys in the (small) subset that is searched first by an attacker? ("love", "sex", "secret", "god" (and "joshua") - but not necessarily in that order)
Schneier actually suggests somewhere to use a really large password that you can't possibly remember, write it down on paper and subsequently treat it like a physical key. Of course he does not suggest to put it in an unencrypted text file on your (networked) computer.
If you don't like the quality of free (as in beer) software that you can do everything you want with, just switch to some proprietary product and stop whining OR start contributing to the projects you complain about. It's not like you are forced to use that stuff.
Yeah. Do so but invest in encryption outside the U.S. because the next step will be to ban encryption on the U.S. part of the internet. Ok, this will severely interfer with all kinds of online payment but how much sense would it make for the FBI if they are allowed to wiretap you but can't read what you type?
Slashdot Mirror
Funnily, their lock-in strategy resulted in a two-way lock-in.
Point is, this isn't an internet tablet. It's a phone. GSM is sufficient for this task.
Awesome. Guess I gotta get another cuppa mud. %-)
You have an 8-digit user ID. When was the time you are referring to? 2006?
Germany is phasing out its nuclear energy because it's teh suck to dispose of the used material. There are a couple sites under testing but none of them are even suitable for short-term storage. Currently there are two reactors, around Hamburg IIRC, that are offline because of continuous safety problems. I wouldn't say nuclear works well for Germany even though German engineers are generally considered quite capable.
What I don't get in the US discussion is: nuclear is (mostly) for electric energy. Why is the oil price such a great deal in this discussion? You're not using oil to produce electricity, or are you? Or is your fleet of (fossil burning) aircraft carriers the center piece of the problem?
Right. Or passports. Oh, wait. They're already doing that.
Actually, if you know that you are subject of surveillance, you have a whole arsenal of methods to evade from it. It you aren't, and that's the sneaky little problem with it, you are an open book.
Oh, and they did not only monitor outgoing calls in the company HQ. They tracked all phone calls they were servicing in the whole country and then ran searches against business and private phone numbers of known journalists and employees. So not even at home you were secure.
The data retention law in Germany has been in effect since the beginning of 2008 with a phase-in until 2009 when non-compliance becomes punishable. So the self-organized (shall we call it "grass roots"?) data retention of the Telekom was unlawful. In fact, there were privacy laws that outlawed such a thing explicitly.
The spying does not only come from logging (which is bad enough without it being prohibited) but from using the data at all. Bonus points for using it against their own board.
Don't buy any other similar products. Ours will come out Really Soon (TM). At least we hope so.
That is actually not going to be very useful because how are you going to import your vintage data into modern software if you can only open it in a software that runs in a VM that runs in a VM that runs in a VM.
The solution is to archive the data and to document the data format (and/or sources for reading the data) so regardless of which kinds of operating systems are coming you will always have a way to open the files.
Did anybody say "Free software is cool"? Yes. I did.
Well, wise guy, that definition of "capitalism" is so inventive, you might be granted a patent on it.
IOW: the definition is plain wrong.
Interestingly, you use a negative trait of capitalists to define the system (one that isn't unique to capitalism, let alone capitalists, BTW). So you seem to have kind of a low opinion of capitalism. How come?
Windows is not free, it's gratis. There is considerable difference between those. The other difference is: gratis Linux is legal, while gratis Windows isn't. After installing hard drive encryption under Linux and loving it I thought about doing the same on my (payed for) Vista Home Premium. Oops. Doesn't support that. Upgrading cost to a version that actually does encryption: hundreds of Euros.
/and/ gratis.
And accounting under Linux: use GnuCash. It's full-featured and you don't even have to pay for it. I know people who still use years-old versions of accounting programs they can't upgrade because there is no way to migrate the data. GnuCash stores in XML format. That's what I call free
Oh, and: things that don't work under Linux. That's true. E.g. my graphics card doesn't work well because ATI couldn't be bothered to write a decent driver for it or open the specs. The other thing is that I have substantially more problems getting WLAN to work on a Windows XP notebook than on my Ubuntu iBook. And that in spite the fact that the Linux WLAN driver is essentially reverse-engineered.
I think, people see the Windows way of doing things as the "normal" way. E.g. you "normally" use Outlook to do eMail. So, when they think about doing eMail under Linux, they ask "will it run Outlook?". Not "will it do eMail?". It takes a bit of time convincing them that changing to Linux changes the way you do certain things, but quite often to the better.
I see the time coming when people say "who wants to use Vista when there is always something that doesn't work?" - e.g. playing DVDs for foreign country codes or copying DRM'd music to a new device. That's when free will be worth more than just being gratis.
As somebody else wrote here in an earlier discussion: Search is not Google's product. You are. Google sells page views to ad customers. So if there is a competitor in the ad market with a similar outreach concerning users, it is a competitor even if it does not offer search, online office or whatever else in Googles product range at all.
Well, it is good in theory. The first "restrictions" mentioned are lower bounds to make sure there actually is something like a key space. The restriction not to use any of the last 6 passwords reduces a largish key space by a really small number of keys in exchange for being safe against formerly used keys that might be compromised. If you didn't use such a restriction, insisting on the users to change their passwords on a monthly basis would be pointless because this would let them change the password each time by the password they are currently using (so - no change at all). The effect of this would be: if an attacker compromised a key she could use it until the end of time.
To put it differently: what good is an infinitely large keyspace if you let people use keys in the (small) subset that is searched first by an attacker? ("love", "sex", "secret", "god" (and "joshua") - but not necessarily in that order)
Schneier actually suggests somewhere to use a really large password that you can't possibly remember, write it down on paper and subsequently treat it like a physical key. Of course he does not suggest to put it in an unencrypted text file on your (networked) computer.
If you don't like the quality of free (as in beer) software that you can do everything you want with, just switch to some proprietary product and stop whining OR start contributing to the projects you complain about. It's not like you are forced to use that stuff.
AFAIK, MAC addresses can be sniffed while you use the WLAN and replayed when you don't to get access. So this is not a good way to authorize a client.
The issue isn't whether you're (too) paranoid, but whether you're paranoid enough.
The April 2005 issue of Scientific American also has a couple of lines about this approach in an article about general anti SPAM efforts.
... how many FPS?
Yeah. Do so but invest in encryption outside the U.S. because the next step will be to ban encryption on the U.S. part of the internet. Ok, this will severely interfer with all kinds of online payment but how much sense would it make for the FBI if they are allowed to wiretap you but can't read what you type?
What I don't get: why would anybody want to shell out money for an LCD if he ends up using VNC to remote admin the server?
Ok. Try this link. Sorry.
A (commercial but pretty good) web browser with frames and forms support from Ilinx.
No. ZKS announced that the service is to be shut down way before September 11.