Microsoft Vista received certification but it requires a "Trusted Computing" compliant PC. i.e. a PC that is hardened to basically an appliance level. Anything going in or out must conform to certain specifications anything modified and the system will no longer. You will not be able to just buy an OEM system and modify it to your own will. Some things will be allowed: install your own apps, etc but any incoming encrypted content saved has to be encrypted on disk using physical on board chips to decrypt, anything going out will either be down-rezed to 480p or have a properly talking 5C/HDCP encryption device on the other end.
The chips themselves are only allowed to be sold to companies who have a certified solution. You can't get the chips in bulk, you can't even buy them without a license. Unless you can rip the basic equivalent of the CPU off a motherboard, solder it onto a DIY device and then create your own drivers for it you are not going anywhere. Theoretically I could rip off a 5C chip off an existing JVC deck (they've been out for a few years) try to reverse engineer it and slap it onto my own specially created circuit board, but I can tell you it ain't happening.
Standard rule is printed collection of the Library of Congress is ~10TB 700mb * 23000 = 16.1TB so it's approximately 1.61 times the Library of Congress
What was more of a blinding beacon to me was that during the middle of a military action, we decided to divert resources and pull up stakes out of Saudi Arabia. In my view Iraq war was about 9/11 but more about getting out of the middle east.
Prior to 9/11 we could have gotten out of S.A. just left it and the situation with Iraq as is, after 9/11 and Bin Laden's direct statement about US's base there being the major cause we were stuck in a wedge. Iraq was still an issue, to the rest of the world they were just as dangerous as they were a decade earlier and was looking like it was going to be another Cuba situation: decades of sanctions and no movement; the US still stuck there. US couldn't just leave S.A. they had been asked to be there by the ruling government, who should they listen to? Handful of very pissed off radicals, or the ruling government (i.e. should the US government bow to the KKK demands and kick Obama out of the Senate because he's black). After all the problems the world had before with falling to terrorists demands, how does the US extract itself out of this situation. The US is there in S.A. until change comes to Iraq (hasn't happened for decade, not going to happen soon), falling over to Alqueda (or KKK in above example) and packing up and leaving only encourages the situation to occur again and again. The world believes that Iraq still has WMD, and at a very minimum would start back up production within a couple of years (unless every scientist suddenly got amnesia) as they had not really made any policy changes. The US says, we want to get out of there, let's treat it like a bandaid; we can slowly pull it off for a couple of decades or we can rip it off all at once. We indirectly give the terrorists what they want but not in the way they want, we extract ourselves out of the Middleast faster than we would elsewise, and we remove a thorn in our side at the same time.
If it was about oil, there are much more profitable and much less visible ways of doing it than this way; it was a give the terrorist what they want but not let them know it maneuver.
I have systems that in 1u take 4x disks, so with 500gb drives you can have a nice round 4TB number using 2u, and I have a disk shelf that hold 15x 500gb disks making it 7.5TB in 3U.
Actually ESX server is much more of a different beast than just a custom linux distro. The linux distro people are used to is basically like the DOS boot disk under the old novell days. You boot up an esx server with the linux distro kernel, it than loads up a secondary special vmware only kernel and that is loaded it kicks out the linux boot kernel. At this point there are 2 this the linux distro is used for: userland management access of the vmware system, and in version 2.5 owns the physical I/O devices (network, scsi, fibre), in version 3.x I/O access supposedly won't have to go through the service console operating system anymore and the linux distro will be a complete virtual machine only used for boot strapping up the specialized vmware kernel and managing the system.
The specialized vmware kernel allows for some interesting things to be done: (overcommit of ram to vm, much closer to native speed, etc) that can't be done elsewhere; at first glance it looks the same, but under the covers they really are different beasts.
I wouldn't call it a Microsoft insecurity issue, but a stupid user issue. The user has to install it for it to work, the user actually has to be involved and allow it onto their box. The same type issue can be had for a Linux box and you don't even have to be a root user to be affected; someone emails you unknown app and like these windows dumbasses you run it can wack all of the Openoffice documents you have been using to write your disertation for the past year is gone.
A stupid user is stupid user, the article summed it pretty well: "Unfortunately, there is no way to patch user ignorance, and the way this virus propagates is through user ignorance,"
Again I said corporate world adoptance not end user, market value != corporate adoptance. Redhat/Suse have been around for how many years with a corporate product and they have extremely hard time getting acceptance; and you expect Google to come in and just automatically have adoptance in a corporate environment????
Other than their name what benefit are they bringing to for more corporate adoptance? In reality it's just another distro, another variant of the same stuff nothing really earth shattering here.
Think of the massive cable infrastructure today using Cisco equipment for all the backend stuff and you then have a motorolla settop box. Imagine Cisco being able to say, we'll sell you an end to end solution and provide discounts based upon volume. I'm not thinking end user at all, I'm thinking all the cable companies who have absolutely horrible PVR's. With Tivo's new cablecard supported system, it wouldn't really even take any modifications to drop it in; if they want to provide additional serivices i.e. docsis modem, voip, etc. Cisco can take it's IP in those areas (SCI-Atlanta does regular cableboxes giving them the bi-directional interactive capabilities) and put it into one nice box and put a ribbon on top of it.
You do realize that entrapment in layman terms means that you entice them to do something that they normally WOULD NOT DO, don't you? Unless we are allowing you to make up a completely new definition that's what it is. We was most certainly willing to do this, it would be a very difficult statment to say that this would be something that he would not normally do. Entrapment in layman terms is that you entice them with something so much that you basically force them to cross a moral boundry they normally would not do. He was already past that moral boundry so again even under layman (not even talking legal) terms it's still not entrapment.
"However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity."
Not only do you have no clue what entrapment is, you can't even read the linked story:
"Like many others, Genovese downloaded a copy. Unlike others, he posted a note to his website offering it for sale.
According to court records, an investigator hired by Microsoft took Genovese up on his offer and dropped two Hamiltons on the secret source code. The investigator then returned and arranged a second $20 transaction for an FBI agent, which led to Genovese's indictment under the U.S. Economic Espionage"
Follow me here, from the article: he downloaded it, offered it up for sale on his website and *after* that Microsoft came back and purchased the code which he posted he had and was for sale. After they did that, they dropped a note to the feds that a guy was selling the shit and to gather even more evidence they can do it to. Note the timeline as to what happened here? You can follow the timeline of events can't you (let me repeat it because it might take a couple of times to get through your thick head)
1) he offered to sell it on his website before anybody talked to him 2) Microsoft guy finds that he has made a offer of selling it on his website 3) Microsoft guy gives him $20 for his made offer 4) Microsoft tells feds 5) Feds do it to 6) Feds nab him 7) You like a complete moron think that's entrapment and continue arguing that it is
Why exactly do you think this is even remotely like entrapment? Here's a thought, since you obviously don't know what entrapment is, why don't you go and look up what it means before you engage your fingers here again.
Well lets think a little bit here, I guess Linus intentionally allowed a back door into the Linux kernel as there have been security bugs that have lasted back into the pre 1.0 days. Going past bunches and bunches of seucrity revies (many more the WMF one). So I guess those must be really, really secret backdoors.
Kool-aid, how about you taking off the tin-foil hat and come back to reality. FYI there was an article posted here that said they don't help at all.
Beta implies that it will go full production very soon, how many YEARS (with an S) has google had newsgroups in beta? And how many years has froogle been in beta, google just slaps on beta to let them do whatever they want to it at the same time giving them an excuse for bad quality.
Let's be honest here, unless google alone gets to redefine the concept of beta then after 2 months I say it's production and no longer beta.
Hmm.... I didn't realize that Gentoo can automatically update Oracle, vmware, and all the software out there in the universe that runs on gentoo???
The same thing you are complaining about applies to what you are praising. Every distro then should be trying to get every application into all the different installation methods. Yast, rpm, emerge, etc all have the same deficiencies
Idle the Intel 955 uses 189 watts Idle the AMD FX 60 uses 148 watts Difference of 41 watts 41/1000 =.041 watts per kWh.041 * $.078 = $0.003198 difference in cost per hour to run (7.8 cent average) $31 /.003198 = 9693.558 hours = Electricity break even point ~403 days
Under load the Intel 955 uses 286 watts Under load the AMD FX 60 uses 225 watts Difference of 61 watts 61/1000 =.061 watts per kWh.061 * $.078 = $0.004758 difference in cost per hour to run $31 /.004758 = 6515.34258 hours = Electricity break even point ~271 days
Ahh.... you are one of those aren't you. You'll say anything to try and support your floundering argument, no matter how silly. I feel sorry for the school where you live if you seriously believe that if an illegal bribe was found out prior to a transaction that it would just continue as planned... you are seriously stupid.
Did you read the rest of the article, the one example you give actually isn't about the US intentionally spying on France but spying on the middle east and they come across an illegal activity; and the rest of what I quoted actually gives MULTIPLE examples of France intentionally spying on US companies. Why don't you just give up your argument now? You have nothing left to stand on other than trying to put forth a stupid argument based solely on trying not to get your ego bruised.
Maybe you should *read* what I post.... Go back, read it again, and do it once more for good measure.
If you READ the post, you'll see that what happened was that the government caught an ILLEGAL BRIBE with the Saudi government. Now if you are going to go around and start saying that when the police catch someone in an illegal bribe that it's a protectionist action, I'm going to say you are an idiot.
I have and and again it pails in regards to EU countries, not only is it the crazy big stuff you mention but look at the immense amount of protectionism pervasive into everything.
And hey lets take France and spying, you opened it and let me throw a big old stinker right back at you.
http://www.ainonline.com/issues/01_04/01_04_spying p66.html Far more common, experts say, is the type of spying done by government intelligence agencies, the information from which can often end up directly helping companies in the countries doing the spying. The U.S. government, for example, denies engaging in any type of industrial espionage, but it admits that the intelligence it collects has in the past helped U.S. companies. Probably the most well known example of such activity took place in early 1994, when France's Prime Minister flew to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, to put the finishing touches on what he and his government thought was a blockbuster deal for Airbus airliners. Instead, the official was rebuffed by the Saudi government, which turned around and announced it was awarding the coveted contract to Boeing instead.
The reason? At the time the Airbus deal was being pieced together, the U.S. National Security Agency, using its high-tech communication spy network, allegedly had been intercepting faxes and telephone calls among the Saudi government, the Saudi national airline and Airbus. In the course of these "routine" espionage activities, NSA agents are alleged to have discovered that Airbus officials were offering bribes to a Saudi government official. The NSA reportedly passed the information to U.S. officials, who intervened with the Saudi government, which in turn arrested the Saudi government official and broke off negotiations with Airbus. The New York Times and NBC News jumped on the story, which the NSA, rather than trying to cover up, admitted was all true, calling it a "win" for the U.S. aerospace industry.
Based on what is already known about government-espionage activities, billions of dollars' worth of commerce has in effect been siphoned from bidders in certain countries and handed to those in other nations. In addition, government spies allegedly pilfer vast amounts of technology-related data each year and hand it over to companies in their own countries. The New York Times, for example, reported that between 1987 and 1989 French intelligence planted moles at a number of high-tech companies in the U.S., including IBM, whose alleged job it was to steal technology to aid France's computer industry. In fall 1991, according to the paper, a French intelligence team also allegedly attempted to steal stealth aircraft technology from Lockheed, an effort that was successfully thwarted only after the FBI learned of the plot.
I'd have a real problem with EU given US taxpayer money for military used products when they disagree with the actions they'd be used in. I'd rather have my US taxpayer money stay in US companies to stimulate *my* economy instead of another countries. If you don't support the action, then you should not be able to profit from the action.
And are you really trying to say that the US & EU are equal in their protectionist actions? Have you actually looked at the quantities and numbers? You need to come back to reality here if you even think the US comes close to the protectionist actions that the EU nations have.
Why do you think this doesn't currently apply to google? Google is no exception, they are allways looking for ways to get more money. Just because they have some misguided "geek love" of google being able to basically walk on water, it doesn't change anything.
Umm.... any DNS operator worth his salt will try to limit requests to the "." In the local hints file he should have most of all the tld's so his server shouldn't go asking who's authoritative for.fr By doing that not only do they reduce the load the other dns servers it also would limit affects from what you are suggesting. Where you seem to imply that hard coding is something not done, I'd say that it should be something that everybody already is doing. True at this time the central authority for the hints file everybody downloads comes from ICANN, but if ICANN decided to shove all.fr somewhere else; all you'd have to do is *not* change your local information.
Technically I guess it would still apply as I could use skype over my pots dial-up modem line to talk to someone long distance (very painfully). That would most definetly be on the PSTN and as such would require it.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Vista received certification but it requires a "Trusted Computing" compliant PC. i.e. a PC that is hardened to basically an appliance level. Anything going in or out must conform to certain specifications anything modified and the system will no longer. You will not be able to just buy an OEM system and modify it to your own will. Some things will be allowed: install your own apps, etc but any incoming encrypted content saved has to be encrypted on disk using physical on board chips to decrypt, anything going out will either be down-rezed to 480p or have a properly talking 5C/HDCP encryption device on the other end.
The chips themselves are only allowed to be sold to companies who have a certified solution. You can't get the chips in bulk, you can't even buy them without a license. Unless you can rip the basic equivalent of the CPU off a motherboard, solder it onto a DIY device and then create your own drivers for it you are not going anywhere. Theoretically I could rip off a 5C chip off an existing JVC deck (they've been out for a few years) try to reverse engineer it and slap it onto my own specially created circuit board, but I can tell you it ain't happening.
Standard rule is printed collection of the Library of Congress is ~10TB
700mb * 23000 = 16.1TB
so it's approximately 1.61 times the Library of Congress
What was more of a blinding beacon to me was that during the middle of a military action, we decided to divert resources and pull up stakes out of Saudi Arabia. In my view Iraq war was about 9/11 but more about getting out of the middle east.
Prior to 9/11 we could have gotten out of S.A. just left it and the situation with Iraq as is, after 9/11 and Bin Laden's direct statement about US's base there being the major cause we were stuck in a wedge. Iraq was still an issue, to the rest of the world they were just as dangerous as they were a decade earlier and was looking like it was going to be another Cuba situation: decades of sanctions and no movement; the US still stuck there. US couldn't just leave S.A. they had been asked to be there by the ruling government, who should they listen to? Handful of very pissed off radicals, or the ruling government (i.e. should the US government bow to the KKK demands and kick Obama out of the Senate because he's black). After all the problems the world had before with falling to terrorists demands, how does the US extract itself out of this situation. The US is there in S.A. until change comes to Iraq (hasn't happened for decade, not going to happen soon), falling over to Alqueda (or KKK in above example) and packing up and leaving only encourages the situation to occur again and again. The world believes that Iraq still has WMD, and at a very minimum would start back up production within a couple of years (unless every scientist suddenly got amnesia) as they had not really made any policy changes. The US says, we want to get out of there, let's treat it like a bandaid; we can slowly pull it off for a couple of decades or we can rip it off all at once. We indirectly give the terrorists what they want but not in the way they want, we extract ourselves out of the Middleast faster than we would elsewise, and we remove a thorn in our side at the same time.
If it was about oil, there are much more profitable and much less visible ways of doing it than this way; it was a give the terrorist what they want but not let them know it maneuver.
I have systems that in 1u take 4x disks, so with 500gb drives you can have a nice round 4TB number using 2u, and I have a disk shelf that hold 15x 500gb disks making it 7.5TB in 3U.
Actually ESX server is much more of a different beast than just a custom linux distro. The linux distro people are used to is basically like the DOS boot disk under the old novell days. You boot up an esx server with the linux distro kernel, it than loads up a secondary special vmware only kernel and that is loaded it kicks out the linux boot kernel. At this point there are 2 this the linux distro is used for: userland management access of the vmware system, and in version 2.5 owns the physical I/O devices (network, scsi, fibre), in version 3.x I/O access supposedly won't have to go through the service console operating system anymore and the linux distro will be a complete virtual machine only used for boot strapping up the specialized vmware kernel and managing the system.
The specialized vmware kernel allows for some interesting things to be done: (overcommit of ram to vm, much closer to native speed, etc) that can't be done elsewhere; at first glance it looks the same, but under the covers they really are different beasts.
I wouldn't call it a Microsoft insecurity issue, but a stupid user issue. The user has to install it for it to work, the user actually has to be involved and allow it onto their box. The same type issue can be had for a Linux box and you don't even have to be a root user to be affected; someone emails you unknown app and like these windows dumbasses you run it can wack all of the Openoffice documents you have been using to write your disertation for the past year is gone.
A stupid user is stupid user, the article summed it pretty well: "Unfortunately, there is no way to patch user ignorance, and the way this virus propagates is through user ignorance,"
Again I said corporate world adoptance not end user, market value != corporate adoptance. Redhat/Suse have been around for how many years with a corporate product and they have extremely hard time getting acceptance; and you expect Google to come in and just automatically have adoptance in a corporate environment????
Other than their name what benefit are they bringing to for more corporate adoptance? In reality it's just another distro, another variant of the same stuff nothing really earth shattering here.
Think of the massive cable infrastructure today using Cisco equipment for all the backend stuff and you then have a motorolla settop box. Imagine Cisco being able to say, we'll sell you an end to end solution and provide discounts based upon volume. I'm not thinking end user at all, I'm thinking all the cable companies who have absolutely horrible PVR's. With Tivo's new cablecard supported system, it wouldn't really even take any modifications to drop it in; if they want to provide additional serivices i.e. docsis modem, voip, etc. Cisco can take it's IP in those areas (SCI-Atlanta does regular cableboxes giving them the bi-directional interactive capabilities) and put it into one nice box and put a ribbon on top of it.
In corporate environments I'd say that Sun was/is as big as Google is in official corporate acceptance.
You do realize that entrapment in layman terms means that you entice them to do something that they normally WOULD NOT DO, don't you? Unless we are allowing you to make up a completely new definition that's what it is. We was most certainly willing to do this, it would be a very difficult statment to say that this would be something that he would not normally do. Entrapment in layman terms is that you entice them with something so much that you basically force them to cross a moral boundry they normally would not do. He was already past that moral boundry so again even under layman (not even talking legal) terms it's still not entrapment.
Again, even under his explanation that still *doesn't* fall under entrapment
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e024.htm
"However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity."
Not only do you have no clue what entrapment is, you can't even read the linked story:
"Like many others, Genovese downloaded a copy. Unlike others, he posted a note to his website offering it for sale.
According to court records, an investigator hired by Microsoft took Genovese up on his offer and dropped two Hamiltons on the secret source code. The investigator then returned and arranged a second $20 transaction for an FBI agent, which led to Genovese's indictment under the U.S. Economic Espionage"
Follow me here, from the article: he downloaded it, offered it up for sale on his website and *after* that Microsoft came back and purchased the code which he posted he had and was for sale. After they did that, they dropped a note to the feds that a guy was selling the shit and to gather even more evidence they can do it to. Note the timeline as to what happened here? You can follow the timeline of events can't you (let me repeat it because it might take a couple of times to get through your thick head)
1) he offered to sell it on his website before anybody talked to him
2) Microsoft guy finds that he has made a offer of selling it on his website
3) Microsoft guy gives him $20 for his made offer
4) Microsoft tells feds
5) Feds do it to
6) Feds nab him
7) You like a complete moron think that's entrapment and continue arguing that it is
You aren't that stupid are you?
Why exactly do you think this is even remotely like entrapment? Here's a thought, since you obviously don't know what entrapment is, why don't you go and look up what it means before you engage your fingers here again.
Well lets think a little bit here, I guess Linus intentionally allowed a back door into the Linux kernel as there have been security bugs that have lasted back into the pre 1.0 days. Going past bunches and bunches of seucrity revies (many more the WMF one). So I guess those must be really, really secret backdoors.
Kool-aid, how about you taking off the tin-foil hat and come back to reality. FYI there was an article posted here that said they don't help at all.
Beta implies that it will go full production very soon, how many YEARS (with an S) has google had newsgroups in beta? And how many years has froogle been in beta, google just slaps on beta to let them do whatever they want to it at the same time giving them an excuse for bad quality.
Let's be honest here, unless google alone gets to redefine the concept of beta then after 2 months I say it's production and no longer beta.
Hmm.... I didn't realize that Gentoo can automatically update Oracle, vmware, and all the software out there in the universe that runs on gentoo???
The same thing you are complaining about applies to what you are praising. Every distro then should be trying to get every application into all the different installation methods. Yast, rpm, emerge, etc all have the same deficiencies
Idle the Intel 955 uses 189 watts .041 watts per kWh .041 * $.078 = $0.003198 difference in cost per hour to run (7.8 cent average) .003198 = 9693.558 hours = Electricity break even point ~403 days
.061 watts per kWh .061 * $.078 = $0.004758 difference in cost per hour to run .004758 = 6515.34258 hours = Electricity break even point ~271 days
Idle the AMD FX 60 uses 148 watts
Difference of 41 watts
41/1000 =
$31 /
Under load the Intel 955 uses 286 watts
Under load the AMD FX 60 uses 225 watts
Difference of 61 watts
61/1000 =
$31 /
Ahh.... you are one of those aren't you. You'll say anything to try and support your floundering argument, no matter how silly. I feel sorry for the school where you live if you seriously believe that if an illegal bribe was found out prior to a transaction that it would just continue as planned... you are seriously stupid.
Did you read the rest of the article, the one example you give actually isn't about the US intentionally spying on France but spying on the middle east and they come across an illegal activity; and the rest of what I quoted actually gives MULTIPLE examples of France intentionally spying on US companies. Why don't you just give up your argument now? You have nothing left to stand on other than trying to put forth a stupid argument based solely on trying not to get your ego bruised.
Maybe you should *read* what I post.... Go back, read it again, and do it once more for good measure.
If you READ the post, you'll see that what happened was that the government caught an ILLEGAL BRIBE with the Saudi government. Now if you are going to go around and start saying that when the police catch someone in an illegal bribe that it's a protectionist action, I'm going to say you are an idiot.
I have and and again it pails in regards to EU countries, not only is it the crazy big stuff you mention but look at the immense amount of protectionism pervasive into everything.
g p66.html
And hey lets take France and spying, you opened it and let me throw a big old stinker right back at you.
http://www.ainonline.com/issues/01_04/01_04_spyin
Far more common, experts say, is the type of spying done by government intelligence agencies, the information from which can often end up directly helping companies in the countries doing the spying. The U.S. government, for example, denies engaging in any type of industrial espionage, but it admits that the intelligence it collects has in the past helped U.S. companies. Probably the most well known example of such activity took place in early 1994, when France's Prime Minister flew to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, to put the finishing touches on what he and his government thought was a blockbuster deal for Airbus airliners. Instead, the official was rebuffed by the Saudi government, which turned around and announced it was awarding the coveted contract to Boeing instead.
The reason? At the time the Airbus deal was being pieced together, the U.S. National Security Agency, using its high-tech communication spy network, allegedly had been intercepting faxes and telephone calls among the Saudi government, the Saudi national airline and Airbus. In the course of these "routine" espionage activities, NSA agents are alleged to have discovered that Airbus officials were offering bribes to a Saudi government official. The NSA reportedly passed the information to U.S. officials, who intervened with the Saudi government, which in turn arrested the Saudi government official and broke off negotiations with Airbus. The New York Times and NBC News jumped on the story, which the NSA, rather than trying to cover up, admitted was all true, calling it a "win" for the U.S. aerospace industry.
Based on what is already known about government-espionage activities, billions of dollars' worth of commerce has in effect been siphoned from bidders in certain countries and handed to those in other nations. In addition, government spies allegedly pilfer vast amounts of technology-related data each year and hand it over to companies in their own countries. The New York Times, for example, reported that between 1987 and 1989 French intelligence planted moles at a number of high-tech companies in the U.S., including IBM, whose alleged job it was to steal technology to aid France's computer industry. In fall 1991, according to the paper, a French intelligence team also allegedly attempted to steal stealth aircraft technology from Lockheed, an effort that was successfully thwarted only after the FBI learned of the plot.
I'd have a real problem with EU given US taxpayer money for military used products when they disagree with the actions they'd be used in. I'd rather have my US taxpayer money stay in US companies to stimulate *my* economy instead of another countries. If you don't support the action, then you should not be able to profit from the action.
And are you really trying to say that the US & EU are equal in their protectionist actions? Have you actually looked at the quantities and numbers? You need to come back to reality here if you even think the US comes close to the protectionist actions that the EU nations have.
> The only TVs that don't support 720p are cheapo CRT TVs that don't want to convert the signal
Or us unlucky bastards who were early HD adopters who bought our expensive gear 5+ years ago...
Why do you think this doesn't currently apply to google? Google is no exception, they are allways looking for ways to get more money. Just because they have some misguided "geek love" of google being able to basically walk on water, it doesn't change anything.
Umm.... any DNS operator worth his salt will try to limit requests to the "." In the local hints file he should have most of all the tld's so his server shouldn't go asking who's authoritative for .fr By doing that not only do they reduce the load the other dns servers it also would limit affects from what you are suggesting. Where you seem to imply that hard coding is something not done, I'd say that it should be something that everybody already is doing. True at this time the central authority for the hints file everybody downloads comes from ICANN, but if ICANN decided to shove all .fr somewhere else; all you'd have to do is *not* change your local information.
Technically I guess it would still apply as I could use skype over my pots dial-up modem line to talk to someone long distance (very painfully). That would most definetly be on the PSTN and as such would require it.