The damn OS is playing the audio. The damn speech-rec software is doing echo cancellation. Vista should be testing its incoming audio to detect whether it matches any outgoing audio that Vista is playing. What an incredible load of bullshit.
The quality of MS security analysts working on Vista is revealed to be very dim by this explot. This kind of exploit and defect in the Vista multimedia architecture speaks very badly of the prospect for the next 5 years of MS operating systems. They're a plague.
You would love to see Microsoft patent "OS module signing", so that Linux kernel developers and module developers would have to pay Microsoft a fee to license the patent? On a technique ("code signing") that has long been in use? That Microsoft could use to lock Linux out of the technique that could secure kernels, so Linux is insecure?
Why would you want Microsoft to be the only OS maker to use code signing to secure its kernel, and screw everyone else?
Why should we make something that looks a lot like diesel when we can make ethanol? Ethanol is close to the energy content of gasoline. It burns much more cleanly in fuelcells than does gasoline. Diesel doesn't burn in fuelcells - it needs more complex, pressurized, much less efficient mechanical parts. Ethanol is much less toxic and more easily handled than gasoline or diesel.
Sure, gasoline goes right into existing cars. But so does high-concentration ethanol/gasoline mixtures. By the time gasoline is too scarce to add, even if in a decade or two, we can have upgraded engines to fuelcells to use ethanol. And the greenhouse gas pollution we'll pump into the atmosphere will be much less: solving our two biggest "carbon economy" problems at once, instead of perpetuating one while taking pressure off by solving the other.
If anything, we should be looking at lower-energy/impact production techniques for methanol, which has 1/2 the carbon of every ethanol molecule to pump into the atmosphere as pollution.
I think you're right, in practice, but a pair of LEDs would "flicker" in alternating cycles, with one always on. However, that would leave the power delivered in the "rectified" curve, so they would grow bright to dim. If they worked at all at the high voltage of their semicycle of the AC.
By whatever technique, LED bulbs cost as little as a buck, so the power conditioning HW can't be very complex/expensive.
Corporations know that unless the government regulates the market with universal requirements, some competitors will seek the appearance of short-term (and illusory long-term) gain, despite the good reasons (business and ethical) to prop up tyrannies. Those who want to do the right thing but can't afford to fail to compete with those who will do the wrong thing need the government to level the playing field.
It takes balls for corporations to ask the government to regulate them, rather than the absolutely standard "self-regulation" lies they almost always tell to get
Fact is that doing wrong is often more profitable than doing good, at least at first. That's one reason the people create a government to protect our market, which unregulated can undermine our freedom. When corporations work with that system, rather than against it, they're working with the people, rather than against us. Which makes sense, because the corporate execs are people, too.
Your post is pretty goofy, but representative of rightwinger denial. Whether it's "stupid" is left as an exercise the reader. Its writer evidently isn't even up to judging that for themself.
How appropriate that the rightwingers will lie and spew whatever venom (like "questioning the president is treason") they want, but simple statements comparing their Republican Party behavior to Democrats is called "Troll" by their trollMods. TrollMods are the Slashdot equivalent of the filibuster, but not as effective or boring.
Pretty amazing how a slim Republican Senate majority means they can get anything they want. Even destroy the minority "last resort" of filibuster on the most important issues like confirming Supreme Court justices. But a slim Democratic Senate majority means Republicans will filibuster anything they want to stop, whether nonbinding Iraq resolutions.
When it happens? It's a civil war right now, has been for at least months (years, for some of the factions). Even the liars running your war call it that now. You're in a negligibly small group of people living in a fantasy about Iraq that became unsupportable at least 3 to 6 months ago.
The military mission was to secure Iraq. Mop up the "isolated pockets of resistance", end the war. That's what Bush sold the people, the Congress, and the soldiers - except maybe Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith and the neocon crew had a different mission we've still not really learned, or seen accomplished (except maybe anarchy). The mission (that Bush has always denied he claimed was "Accomplished" on that aircraft carrier, except when strutting in a flightsuit actually claiming credit for it) was to stop Iraq's threat to the US, which has been totally screwed up into a much greater threat than the one under control before the war.
"Victors of Antiquity"? The Middle Ages? You're one of those "not as bad as Saddam" people. Well, most Iraqis want us out, because we've now made it worse by instigating their civil war that they want to themselves.
You can repeat your revised "mission" definition as much as you want. I know that kind of self-hypnosis has gotten you this far, but the rest of us are awake. Enough to notice that it's too late for you to claim that you 'shall not comment on whether we "should do it again in Iran"', after you just said "Iran now has 100+K American troops next to it, which is good if we want to contain it". At least you're up front about defying everyone in America with this escalation that's really designed to intimidate Iran into attacking, just like I saw Stephen Hadley say to Tim Russert a week ago. And of course you're also buying the bullshit that Star Wars will protect us from Iran. Especially invading while Iraq would need even more troops to maintain it as more than a second (or third) front in a war against Iran. With a military so depleted, so unable to recruit, that we're the least prepared for a defense against the rest of the real threats that we've been since 1812.
You have learned nothing from the worst strategic catastrophe, rendered by the worst presidency (both foreign and domestic, and especially military) in American history. People like you have turned America's might into "might have been", and handed Iran it's greatest victories since stopping Saddam (with arms from the Iran/Contra operation you probably somehow think was a good idea).
Pretty convenient for you to ignore the Iraqi Civil War we precipitated which will turn Iraq into Iranian territory, a new terrorist hothouse, or most likely both. That's a worse threat to our "allies" (Saudi Arabia? Only to Cheney) than Iraq was. Including when Saddam was tracking our aircraft with radar over his country, as we tried to provoke him into war while he slid into total impotence from our various forces against him. Including the provocation Bush worked by illegally diverting Afghanistan money and forces before Congress even debated an Iraq AUMF.
Or are you going to pretend that we're doing a great job in Iraq, so we should do it again in Iran?
If you define the mission retroactively to include only what it accomplished.
How about the mission defined in the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq, defend the security interests of the US from the threat in Iraq? That mission has been turned on its head by Bush, no WMD converted into 3000 dead US soldiers and the hottest threat center in the world, probably part of Greater Iran.
We have the most effective military in the world, pointed at our own head.
One last shot, clown, for the edification of anyone reading your bullshit posts.
I advise the NY City Council's Technology committee on matters including shooting down bullshit "security" lies that have tried to censor public info and imagery of facilities from fiber networks to subway tunnels to, yes, nuclear power plants. We have gone toe to toe with bulshitters peddling fear to cover up ways for the public to examine the facilities they're supposed to be securing physically. And we have never seen any real threat increases actually justified by redacting public info already screened by the sensible publishing security process developed outside the hysteria of the entirely counterproductive Bush Terror War. But we have seen the ability of the public and even government overseers to investigate and question real problems get blocked on flimsy excuses.
So you pull you hands off your ears, stop ignoring the citations of real security process I'm offering, or just shut up and let people like me do our job actually securing you and the facilities that can threaten you.
Damnit, the depths of denial and projection you ignorant piss-pants security crybabies infest on Slashdot is absolutely disgusting. Terrorists might have already conquered cowards like you, but the rest of us have lives to lead in a free world. It's a shame we have to drag you along with us, but that's how freedom works.
Don't expect another clue from me again, because you can't afford the bill.
Eeek! TrollMods who can't argue or reveal their identities must have a Google Map of my post, to attack it so, er, effectively! Everyone take cover and grab your ankles, here they come again!
Keep your fantasy world studded with unwarranted insults to yourself. I linked to just the kind of reportage I pointed out is the real problem this fake security restriction is designed to interfere with. And I won't continue to dignify your gibberish somehow finding terrorist vulnerability in imagery you describe as too blurry to make out cars, so useless for corporate espionage.
You've got nothing but incoherent fearmongering, and you're mad at me for refusing to feed it. I won't bother even slapping it down any more. You've got all the fear you can eat all to yourself now.
Thanks for proving my point. Of course I know who McVeigh was. But I didn't notice any nuke plants in his Wikipedia bio. Nor did he have Google. But he did pull off a horrific bombing job.
Lots of available, cheap 5-year old maps and aerial/satellite images have tactical info, but don't come from Google.
How does any of what you said justify Google blurring their facilities, when it doesn't make any difference?
Are you claiming corporations and government agencies are plotting to blow up the nations nuclear facilities? I think you need to stop watching X-Files reruns.
No, you're the one who's got science fiction on the brain.
Of course governments are plotting to blow up nuclear facilities. What do you think they do in their war departments? What do you think we do in ours about their facilities?
As for corporations, and governments, blowing them up isn't the only thing they'd like to do. They'd like to copy them, or just learn about security, construction or science techniques. That's what espionage, corporate or government, is mainly used for. Every day. For which those orgs already use a lot better resources than Google maps.
And what kind of defense is "who needs this public info"? Aerial images are not on a "need to know" basis. Nor does obscuring them protect them. It does protect them from investigations by journalists and members of the public, who don't have budgets or even knowledge of the alternative sources. But who do pose the real, documented threat to facilities owners, as I pointed to in my original post.
Yeah, reality. Not like that Unabomber, because it's not as exciting to the oversimplistic imagination. But it does have the advantage of being real.
Like I said, clearer, more current, even custom data is available cheap elsewhere.
Is there any evidence that Google maps are used to target facilities any more than are alternate services less likely to be monitored for "red flags" - or at all? I didn't think so.
Yeah, because the security threats to facilities come from the general public which gets its aerial imagery free from these years-old databases, not from corporate, governement or international orgs with budgets for the plentiful (even cheap) aerial/satellite products with recent updates, higher resolution, GIS overlays, even realtime observations. Or their own aircraft/satellites to generate their own custom data.
These blurred images are just Google caving into various narrow interests with either something negligent to hide from an enquiring public or its reporters, or just pretending to secure facilities with meaningless handwaving, or both.
Simcurity: when you just don't care to provide real security, and a simulation will do instead.
Slashdot Mirror
The damn OS is playing the audio. The damn speech-rec software is doing echo cancellation. Vista should be testing its incoming audio to detect whether it matches any outgoing audio that Vista is playing. What an incredible load of bullshit.
The quality of MS security analysts working on Vista is revealed to be very dim by this explot. This kind of exploit and defect in the Vista multimedia architecture speaks very badly of the prospect for the next 5 years of MS operating systems. They're a plague.
Er, the title of the story we're discussing is "Microsoft Applies to Patent DRM'ed OS Modules". Are you reading the same page I am?
You would love to see Microsoft patent "OS module signing", so that Linux kernel developers and module developers would have to pay Microsoft a fee to license the patent? On a technique ("code signing") that has long been in use? That Microsoft could use to lock Linux out of the technique that could secure kernels, so Linux is insecure?
Why would you want Microsoft to be the only OS maker to use code signing to secure its kernel, and screw everyone else?
Why should we make something that looks a lot like diesel when we can make ethanol? Ethanol is close to the energy content of gasoline. It burns much more cleanly in fuelcells than does gasoline. Diesel doesn't burn in fuelcells - it needs more complex, pressurized, much less efficient mechanical parts. Ethanol is much less toxic and more easily handled than gasoline or diesel.
Sure, gasoline goes right into existing cars. But so does high-concentration ethanol/gasoline mixtures. By the time gasoline is too scarce to add, even if in a decade or two, we can have upgraded engines to fuelcells to use ethanol. And the greenhouse gas pollution we'll pump into the atmosphere will be much less: solving our two biggest "carbon economy" problems at once, instead of perpetuating one while taking pressure off by solving the other.
If anything, we should be looking at lower-energy/impact production techniques for methanol, which has 1/2 the carbon of every ethanol molecule to pump into the atmosphere as pollution.
I think you're right, in practice, but a pair of LEDs would "flicker" in alternating cycles, with one always on. However, that would leave the power delivered in the "rectified" curve, so they would grow bright to dim. If they worked at all at the high voltage of their semicycle of the AC.
By whatever technique, LED bulbs cost as little as a buck, so the power conditioning HW can't be very complex/expensive.
How long before Gates has a monopoly control of the global charity market, too?
Corporations know that unless the government regulates the market with universal requirements, some competitors will seek the appearance of short-term (and illusory long-term) gain, despite the good reasons (business and ethical) to prop up tyrannies. Those who want to do the right thing but can't afford to fail to compete with those who will do the wrong thing need the government to level the playing field.
It takes balls for corporations to ask the government to regulate them, rather than the absolutely standard "self-regulation" lies they almost always tell to get
Fact is that doing wrong is often more profitable than doing good, at least at first. That's one reason the people create a government to protect our market, which unregulated can undermine our freedom. When corporations work with that system, rather than against it, they're working with the people, rather than against us. Which makes sense, because the corporate execs are people, too.
Your post is pretty goofy, but representative of rightwinger denial. Whether it's "stupid" is left as an exercise the reader. Its writer evidently isn't even up to judging that for themself.
Moderation -1
100% Troll
How appropriate that the rightwingers will lie and spew whatever venom (like "questioning the president is treason") they want, but simple statements comparing their Republican Party behavior to Democrats is called "Troll" by their trollMods. TrollMods are the Slashdot equivalent of the filibuster, but not as effective or boring.
Starting Score: 1 point
Moderation -1
100% Troll
Are trollMods implying that the ice weasels eat Anonymous pisspants Cowards any time of the day?
Pretty amazing how a slim Republican Senate majority means they can get anything they want. Even destroy the minority "last resort" of filibuster on the most important issues like confirming Supreme Court justices. But a slim Democratic Senate majority means Republicans will filibuster anything they want to stop, whether nonbinding Iraq resolutions.
Anonymous shithead Coward, you just offer more chances to tell the truth about this evil Iraq War and its fans like you.
Most Iraqis want us out immediately, you insane lying warmonger.
A fagot is a bundle of sticks, you illiterate homophobe.
My mother is dead, and she still wouldn't fuck a necrophile like you.
At night, the ice weasels come and eat Anonymous pisspants Cowards.
When it happens? It's a civil war right now, has been for at least months (years, for some of the factions). Even the liars running your war call it that now. You're in a negligibly small group of people living in a fantasy about Iraq that became unsupportable at least 3 to 6 months ago.
The military mission was to secure Iraq. Mop up the "isolated pockets of resistance", end the war. That's what Bush sold the people, the Congress, and the soldiers - except maybe Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith and the neocon crew had a different mission we've still not really learned, or seen accomplished (except maybe anarchy). The mission (that Bush has always denied he claimed was "Accomplished" on that aircraft carrier, except when strutting in a flightsuit actually claiming credit for it) was to stop Iraq's threat to the US, which has been totally screwed up into a much greater threat than the one under control before the war.
"Victors of Antiquity"? The Middle Ages? You're one of those "not as bad as Saddam" people. Well, most Iraqis want us out, because we've now made it worse by instigating their civil war that they want to themselves.
You can repeat your revised "mission" definition as much as you want. I know that kind of self-hypnosis has gotten you this far, but the rest of us are awake. Enough to notice that it's too late for you to claim that you 'shall not comment on whether we "should do it again in Iran"', after you just said "Iran now has 100+K American troops next to it, which is good if we want to contain it". At least you're up front about defying everyone in America with this escalation that's really designed to intimidate Iran into attacking, just like I saw Stephen Hadley say to Tim Russert a week ago. And of course you're also buying the bullshit that Star Wars will protect us from Iran. Especially invading while Iraq would need even more troops to maintain it as more than a second (or third) front in a war against Iran. With a military so depleted, so unable to recruit, that we're the least prepared for a defense against the rest of the real threats that we've been since 1812.
You have learned nothing from the worst strategic catastrophe, rendered by the worst presidency (both foreign and domestic, and especially military) in American history. People like you have turned America's might into "might have been", and handed Iran it's greatest victories since stopping Saddam (with arms from the Iran/Contra operation you probably somehow think was a good idea).
Dick Cheney, is that you?
Pretty convenient for you to ignore the Iraqi Civil War we precipitated which will turn Iraq into Iranian territory, a new terrorist hothouse, or most likely both. That's a worse threat to our "allies" (Saudi Arabia? Only to Cheney) than Iraq was. Including when Saddam was tracking our aircraft with radar over his country, as we tried to provoke him into war while he slid into total impotence from our various forces against him. Including the provocation Bush worked by illegally diverting Afghanistan money and forces before Congress even debated an Iraq AUMF.
Or are you going to pretend that we're doing a great job in Iraq, so we should do it again in Iran?
If you define the mission retroactively to include only what it accomplished.
How about the mission defined in the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq, defend the security interests of the US from the threat in Iraq? That mission has been turned on its head by Bush, no WMD converted into 3000 dead US soldiers and the hottest threat center in the world, probably part of Greater Iran.
We have the most effective military in the world, pointed at our own head.
One last shot, clown, for the edification of anyone reading your bullshit posts.
I advise the NY City Council's Technology committee on matters including shooting down bullshit "security" lies that have tried to censor public info and imagery of facilities from fiber networks to subway tunnels to, yes, nuclear power plants. We have gone toe to toe with bulshitters peddling fear to cover up ways for the public to examine the facilities they're supposed to be securing physically. And we have never seen any real threat increases actually justified by redacting public info already screened by the sensible publishing security process developed outside the hysteria of the entirely counterproductive Bush Terror War. But we have seen the ability of the public and even government overseers to investigate and question real problems get blocked on flimsy excuses.
So you pull you hands off your ears, stop ignoring the citations of real security process I'm offering, or just shut up and let people like me do our job actually securing you and the facilities that can threaten you.
Damnit, the depths of denial and projection you ignorant piss-pants security crybabies infest on Slashdot is absolutely disgusting. Terrorists might have already conquered cowards like you, but the rest of us have lives to lead in a free world. It's a shame we have to drag you along with us, but that's how freedom works.
Don't expect another clue from me again, because you can't afford the bill.
That's funny, the Northern Hemisphere is as green as the Southern Hemisphere, though only one is in the middle of winter!
Moderation -1
70% Insightful
30% Overrated
Eeek! TrollMods who can't argue or reveal their identities must have a Google Map of my post, to attack it so, er, effectively! Everyone take cover and grab your ankles, here they come again!
Keep your fantasy world studded with unwarranted insults to yourself. I linked to just the kind of reportage I pointed out is the real problem this fake security restriction is designed to interfere with. And I won't continue to dignify your gibberish somehow finding terrorist vulnerability in imagery you describe as too blurry to make out cars, so useless for corporate espionage.
You've got nothing but incoherent fearmongering, and you're mad at me for refusing to feed it. I won't bother even slapping it down any more. You've got all the fear you can eat all to yourself now.
Thanks for proving my point. Of course I know who McVeigh was. But I didn't notice any nuke plants in his Wikipedia bio. Nor did he have Google. But he did pull off a horrific bombing job.
Lots of available, cheap 5-year old maps and aerial/satellite images have tactical info, but don't come from Google.
How does any of what you said justify Google blurring their facilities, when it doesn't make any difference?
Of course governments are plotting to blow up nuclear facilities. What do you think they do in their war departments? What do you think we do in ours about their facilities?
As for corporations, and governments, blowing them up isn't the only thing they'd like to do. They'd like to copy them, or just learn about security, construction or science techniques. That's what espionage, corporate or government, is mainly used for. Every day. For which those orgs already use a lot better resources than Google maps.
And what kind of defense is "who needs this public info"? Aerial images are not on a "need to know" basis. Nor does obscuring them protect them. It does protect them from investigations by journalists and members of the public, who don't have budgets or even knowledge of the alternative sources. But who do pose the real, documented threat to facilities owners, as I pointed to in my original post.
Yeah, reality. Not like that Unabomber, because it's not as exciting to the oversimplistic imagination. But it does have the advantage of being real.
Like I said, clearer, more current, even custom data is available cheap elsewhere.
Is there any evidence that Google maps are used to target facilities any more than are alternate services less likely to be monitored for "red flags" - or at all? I didn't think so.
No, I'm saying those "security measures" are useless, and have other costs. The security tradeoff is totally not worth it.
It's like saying "don't close the barn door after the horse has already escaped. RUN AND CATCH THAT HORSE NOW!"
Yeah, cos the Unabomber had Google, right?
Yeah, because the security threats to facilities come from the general public which gets its aerial imagery free from these years-old databases, not from corporate, governement or international orgs with budgets for the plentiful (even cheap) aerial/satellite products with recent updates, higher resolution, GIS overlays, even realtime observations. Or their own aircraft/satellites to generate their own custom data.
These blurred images are just Google caving into various narrow interests with either something negligent to hide from an enquiring public or its reporters, or just pretending to secure facilities with meaningless handwaving, or both.
Simcurity: when you just don't care to provide real security, and a simulation will do instead.