Calling it "Climate Change" does nothing to increase clarity.
The climate changes at least four times per year for much of the world. The climate changes twice a day for much more of the world. Mars experiences climate change. Planetoids, Pluto, etc. do not experience rapid climate change as compared to Earth.
To the extent that completely halting climate change on Earth would render it uninhabitable (planet no longer responds to energy input from Sol), my preference is to live on an Earth which experiences predictable and bounded climate changes.
My preference would be to reframe the issue in terms of human systems. China and the U.S. wouldn't need to rely as much on on coal-fired generators if consumers didn't demand lifestyles based on low-dollar-cost disposable consumer goods and entertainments, or if citizens around the world (except France) were a little less sensitive about the N-word. Deforestation and desertification wouldn't be as significant as issues if we focused on ways to recognise, store and exchange value in symbols beyond than Yuans and Euros.
The statistical maths concerned are only slightly more difficult than is required of undergraduates in natural or social sciences programs. However, as a practicing natural and social scientist (but not in geophysics), I have next to no idea of what "inter-station separation measured in degrees" or "interstation correlation" mean in terms of what the instrumentation kit is doing in the field in response to whatever phenomena is claimed to be measured. Thus, without further study, I could not confidently state whether or not the formula referenced has anything to do with reality (just as any third-year computer science undergraduate could implement almost any adequately expressed contemporary economics or finance algorithm in isolation without understanding economics or finance at all).
Right. So that must be why the FTC, Facebook, AT&T and RIAA were all immortalized as having done some wrong to society through their legal business actions (or merely existing) on the front page in the last 24 hours.
On most commercial planes there are at least two other doors, involuntary passage through which would induce far greater terror among the flying and non-flying public than any terrorist action arising through the cockpit.
A bigger teleporter doesn't help if I needed something like an invisible security camera, power source, support pylon, etc. which would be critical for other things to work in real time. (Leaving aside all the reasons that designing field infrastructure to be invisible could be a bad idea in some scenarios, invisible HVDC lines for NIMBYs would be an interesting engineering choice.)
With access to arbitrary teleportation technology, why would you need a personal invisibility cloak? You'd be able to teleport in and out when invisibility would be required (unless you're cloaking infrastructure).
Yup. We were experimenting with new ways to update the software on our LAN-attached product through various consumer and corporate hardware and software firewalls, NAT devices, gateways, VPNs and such around two years ago. From the consumer products using the standard manufacturers' firmwares, on our internal 100Mbps test network the Linksys W??54G devices (which were all essentially the same hardware internally) didn't surpass 4 megabytes of user data per second through the WAN port. The Apple AirPort base station at the time routinely hit 8-9 megabytes of user data per second, but required OS X to configure properly. The various D-Link devices which tested fine on consumer broadband connections consistently disappeared (requiring a hard power reset) after a minute or so of use when attached to the internal 100 Mbps network on the WAN side. On the slightly more expensive side, the Cisco 8xx SoHo routers performed as well or better than the AirPort base station for throughput, but their web-based administrative interface was exceedingly worse than the D-Links' for usability or launching at all in the standard browsers.
If you're happy with the search engine you use now, then please continue to use the search engine you want to use. I do not want to convince anyone to use anything in particular since your choice does not affect me in any way.
I am pointing out that I've switched from Google to Bing because the latter better serves most of my search needs. It may not serve your needs at all (which is fine because that leaves more bandwidth for me).
Having switched to Google when it was still a project in a dorm room, I've seen its entire gamut of user interfaces, and some of them have simply not kept up with the technology available to make the search experience better.
MS marketing probably influenced my initial decision to try Bing, but relevant search results and a powerful but easy UI (being able to expand page previews in search results before clicking is great, as well as being able to preview videos by hovering the cursor before launching them) compelled me to adjust my several browsers' search settings to use Bing by default. For the moment, Bing gets how to do the search interface in a way that's better for me than Google, which in turn is a better interface than raw SQL queries. I expect someone else to make an even better search tool in a few years, but that doesn't stop me from using the best appropriate search tool for my own productivity now.
Also, in my experience, middle-click on modern browsers opens links in new tabs/windows in general, but the same experience may or may not apply to you.
I like Bing's image search because it looks and works better than Google's paginated image gallery which was inspired by the latest in 1990s static HTML page layout. I use Bing in Safari on OS X (via the Glims plugin) because I don't need my business and personal searches to be linked to the random login-required and cookied Google apps my employer subscribes us to. For simple searches, I prefer Bing because it usually returns the same kinds and quality of result as Google, but with less repetition and from more diverse parts of the web. For searches requiring any kind of scoping parameter, Bing completely sucks because it implements some, but not all, of the usual tokens and parameters.
The useful computability of your simplification to parts, and its neglect of emergent properties, assumes a solution to at least one of Clay Millennium Prize Problems, which is not currently in evidence.
I've not yet encountered any automatic brick laying apparatus beyond glorified pavers. Repetitive or trivial does not mean unskilled, nor unprofessional, as good chef's will tell you.
If her morals were so easily swayed by anonymous comments which are otherwise not criminal (otherwise LEO would be doing the discovering), her role in a public position of trust would be more of a concern as she would in office be exposed to far worse from politicians and lobbyists she will encounter on a regular basis.
What's the reasoning (in general) behind more coders is necessarily better for the project in Open Source? For something like wikipedia, where it does not need to compile as a whole, and the parts are loosely coupled, I could see scaling of productivity or quality with numbers. If more is better, why do the biggest projects choose to funnel their development through their respective Alan Cox counterparts?
As we've seen with Flash applets and such, site-locking will primarily result in diverting users from File|Save As... to the several hundred free and for-profit sites/utilities which will pop up to solve this problem. Just look at the large number of YouTube video downloaders, Flash hacks, JavaScript de-obfuscators and PDF liberators.
If something like this open but restricted font distribution scheme is to succeed, it has to learn from the postscript/pdf experience, in which simple "do not copy or embed" flags are useless if the applications do not check or enforce them. Fonts embedded in PDFs are only marginally protected insofar as the PDF only stores the subset of characters actually used in the document, and even then, there are several OSS utilities to extract fonts form PDFs. The web situation is even worse in that with user-generated content, an average debugger/game cheater app, or the source code to Firefox, it would be pretty trivial to mount a dictionary attack to obtain the data for an entire font, its weights, and variants.
This scheme will only be viable if the server does some of the interpreting (e.g. of j/k rules which distinguishes most good fonts from the junk), and presents only a description of the results of rule interpretation to the browser, and even then a dictionary attack to derive the empirical rules would be fairly trivial with or without signing/certificates and the like.
No problem. Since Chrome and various other distributions of other browsers do not ship with the status bar turned on, a malicious content provider could just create their own in CSS.
But why not just move to one of the MySQL forks and compete on technical merit instead of trying to hang on to its monopoly position in the LAMP stack through political/legal shenanigans?
I wouldn't mind having at least both kinds of database since they encode different information.
Building the list of valid issued certificates requires trusting the CAs, other issuers, and their clients to be truthful, accurate and timely with the information they supply about valid certificates. We can only take on faith that whomever is compiling the list does so well, based on information and credentials from meatspace. There are also exposure/competition reasons for not disclosing to the public the list of all your certificates, which would make the contours of this list and its subsets interesting with respect to unintended disclosure from the malevolents.
Building the list of invalid certificates distributes the burden of correctness on whomever wants to contribute to the list. It would provides an opportunity for the determination of validity of each entry to be made by the user of the list, based on the independent verifiable evidence supplied by whomever wants to indicate that a certificate has problems. This is the method of operation of several successful lists of invalid ISPs, invalid routes, invalid hosts, etc. in related spaces.
The list of issued certificates would be great if it provided a way to independently verify that the certificates were legitimately issued to valid entities, but privacy legislation generally prevents that from being viable in most jurisdictions. But in the absence of a secure connection or a capable bureaucracy, my preference would be for tainted information I could independently verify or refute, over tainted information which I could not independently verify in any way.
Context: I've successfully purchased commercial certificates (can re-sign other certificates, etc) from the common vendors having provided less documentation than is required to set up a business banking account. Further, it was acceptable and required to fax copies of such documents "because faxes can't be Photoshopped like e-mail attachments". Further still, I've unintentionally faxed the wrong documents and have still received certificates. From this experience, I deduce that there is the current business SoP around such things is weak, even without being gamed.
In investigating relationships amongst parties to a number of recent confidence scams, we've encountered researchers and investigators who have arrived at the same conclusions about the providence and legitimacy of interesting certificates which are in the wild, where a public list of known bad certificates would have saved time, money, and other costs. If such a thing existed, I would still have questions about security of access since recent published work (not on/.) has highlighted important flaws about what we can assume about factors around, but not in, the secure connection.
You may continue to be glib, but I ask you to consider being part of the solution.
I think the idea of a public revocation database has merit. How would I make sure that my connection to the database has not been tainted? How could this database as a business entity be designed in a way that's less vulnerable to social engineering attacks than the current system?
> "Reguly's survey found that while 83 percent of users check they're using an SSL-secured session before entering their credit card information on a Website, only 41 percent do so when typing in their passwords."
> "More than half of the respondents don't know what Extended Validation SSL (EVSSL) is and how it differs from SSL, while 36 percent say they do. Interestingly, most of them are aware that SSL traffic can be sniffed without their knowledge."
> "Another issue is that users become annoyed and eventually ignore SSL and browser security messages that appear when they hit a site with an invalid certificate, or a browser warns them of a potentially dangerous site, Reguly says. Nearly 50 of the survey's nontechnical respondents just clicked through security warnings without paying attention to them, he says."
Crystals are not a fuel source but a catalyst for the matter- anti-matter reaction. Dr. Leah Brahms, the GCS warp engine designer, complained that Geordi *tech*ed the crystals placement to enhance regeneration of the crystals.
If the crystals were an energy source, a handful of which could be converted into enough energy to move a starship, they would have to store sufficient chemical bond energy to the extent that whacking it with mining tools would be a bad idea, or enough quantum *tech* that they wouldn't play well with organic or other matter, or so much density that it would not be readily available to be mined from the crust of planetary bodies (or, say, liftable by hand as has been repeatedly shown on screen).
Also, other species undoubtedly had replicators which could employ different interlocks on prohibited goods. If the Romulans could replicate tribbles, or if the Borg could replicate biology (they have been exposed to replicator technology from the entire galaxy...), some problems would have been solved differently.
Slashdot Mirror
Calling it "Climate Change" does nothing to increase clarity.
The climate changes at least four times per year for much of the world. The climate changes twice a day for much more of the world. Mars experiences climate change. Planetoids, Pluto, etc. do not experience rapid climate change as compared to Earth.
To the extent that completely halting climate change on Earth would render it uninhabitable (planet no longer responds to energy input from Sol), my preference is to live on an Earth which experiences predictable and bounded climate changes.
My preference would be to reframe the issue in terms of human systems. China and the U.S. wouldn't need to rely as much on on coal-fired generators if consumers didn't demand lifestyles based on low-dollar-cost disposable consumer goods and entertainments, or if citizens around the world (except France) were a little less sensitive about the N-word. Deforestation and desertification wouldn't be as significant as issues if we focused on ways to recognise, store and exchange value in symbols beyond than Yuans and Euros.
The statistical maths concerned are only slightly more difficult than is required of undergraduates in natural or social sciences programs. However, as a practicing natural and social scientist (but not in geophysics), I have next to no idea of what "inter-station separation measured in degrees" or "interstation correlation" mean in terms of what the instrumentation kit is doing in the field in response to whatever phenomena is claimed to be measured. Thus, without further study, I could not confidently state whether or not the formula referenced has anything to do with reality (just as any third-year computer science undergraduate could implement almost any adequately expressed contemporary economics or finance algorithm in isolation without understanding economics or finance at all).
Right. So that must be why the FTC, Facebook, AT&T and RIAA were all immortalized as having done some wrong to society through their legal business actions (or merely existing) on the front page in the last 24 hours.
On most commercial planes there are at least two other doors, involuntary passage through which would induce far greater terror among the flying and non-flying public than any terrorist action arising through the cockpit.
A bigger teleporter doesn't help if I needed something like an invisible security camera, power source, support pylon, etc. which would be critical for other things to work in real time. (Leaving aside all the reasons that designing field infrastructure to be invisible could be a bad idea in some scenarios, invisible HVDC lines for NIMBYs would be an interesting engineering choice.)
With access to arbitrary teleportation technology, why would you need a personal invisibility cloak? You'd be able to teleport in and out when invisibility would be required (unless you're cloaking infrastructure).
But that's the best part of this neo-conceptual post-institutional critique remodernist interpretation of the sine wave. The annoyance /is/ the music.
Yup. We were experimenting with new ways to update the software on our LAN-attached product through various consumer and corporate hardware and software firewalls, NAT devices, gateways, VPNs and such around two years ago. From the consumer products using the standard manufacturers' firmwares, on our internal 100Mbps test network the Linksys W??54G devices (which were all essentially the same hardware internally) didn't surpass 4 megabytes of user data per second through the WAN port. The Apple AirPort base station at the time routinely hit 8-9 megabytes of user data per second, but required OS X to configure properly. The various D-Link devices which tested fine on consumer broadband connections consistently disappeared (requiring a hard power reset) after a minute or so of use when attached to the internal 100 Mbps network on the WAN side. On the slightly more expensive side, the Cisco 8xx SoHo routers performed as well or better than the AirPort base station for throughput, but their web-based administrative interface was exceedingly worse than the D-Links' for usability or launching at all in the standard browsers.
If you're happy with the search engine you use now, then please continue to use the search engine you want to use. I do not want to convince anyone to use anything in particular since your choice does not affect me in any way.
I am pointing out that I've switched from Google to Bing because the latter better serves most of my search needs. It may not serve your needs at all (which is fine because that leaves more bandwidth for me).
Having switched to Google when it was still a project in a dorm room, I've seen its entire gamut of user interfaces, and some of them have simply not kept up with the technology available to make the search experience better.
MS marketing probably influenced my initial decision to try Bing, but relevant search results and a powerful but easy UI (being able to expand page previews in search results before clicking is great, as well as being able to preview videos by hovering the cursor before launching them) compelled me to adjust my several browsers' search settings to use Bing by default. For the moment, Bing gets how to do the search interface in a way that's better for me than Google, which in turn is a better interface than raw SQL queries. I expect someone else to make an even better search tool in a few years, but that doesn't stop me from using the best appropriate search tool for my own productivity now.
Also, in my experience, middle-click on modern browsers opens links in new tabs/windows in general, but the same experience may or may not apply to you.
Amongst several things, the most important would be the ability to scroll in both directions through the list of all search results on one page.
This is 2009. DHTML and AJAX aren't experimental technologies.
And also, "Show similar images" is fairly handy, and something I would have expected Google to have figured out first.
I like Bing's image search because it looks and works better than Google's paginated image gallery which was inspired by the latest in 1990s static HTML page layout. I use Bing in Safari on OS X (via the Glims plugin) because I don't need my business and personal searches to be linked to the random login-required and cookied Google apps my employer subscribes us to. For simple searches, I prefer Bing because it usually returns the same kinds and quality of result as Google, but with less repetition and from more diverse parts of the web. For searches requiring any kind of scoping parameter, Bing completely sucks because it implements some, but not all, of the usual tokens and parameters.
The useful computability of your simplification to parts, and its neglect of emergent properties, assumes a solution to at least one of Clay Millennium Prize Problems, which is not currently in evidence.
I've not yet encountered any automatic brick laying apparatus beyond glorified pavers. Repetitive or trivial does not mean unskilled, nor unprofessional, as good chef's will tell you.
If her morals were so easily swayed by anonymous comments which are otherwise not criminal (otherwise LEO would be doing the discovering), her role in a public position of trust would be more of a concern as she would in office be exposed to far worse from politicians and lobbyists she will encounter on a regular basis.
What's the reasoning (in general) behind more coders is necessarily better for the project in Open Source? For something like wikipedia, where it does not need to compile as a whole, and the parts are loosely coupled, I could see scaling of productivity or quality with numbers. If more is better, why do the biggest projects choose to funnel their development through their respective Alan Cox counterparts?
As we've seen with Flash applets and such, site-locking will primarily result in diverting users from File|Save As... to the several hundred free and for-profit sites/utilities which will pop up to solve this problem. Just look at the large number of YouTube video downloaders, Flash hacks, JavaScript de-obfuscators and PDF liberators.
If something like this open but restricted font distribution scheme is to succeed, it has to learn from the postscript/pdf experience, in which simple "do not copy or embed" flags are useless if the applications do not check or enforce them. Fonts embedded in PDFs are only marginally protected insofar as the PDF only stores the subset of characters actually used in the document, and even then, there are several OSS utilities to extract fonts form PDFs. The web situation is even worse in that with user-generated content, an average debugger/game cheater app, or the source code to Firefox, it would be pretty trivial to mount a dictionary attack to obtain the data for an entire font, its weights, and variants.
This scheme will only be viable if the server does some of the interpreting (e.g. of j/k rules which distinguishes most good fonts from the junk), and presents only a description of the results of rule interpretation to the browser, and even then a dictionary attack to derive the empirical rules would be fairly trivial with or without signing/certificates and the like.
No problem. Since Chrome and various other distributions of other browsers do not ship with the status bar turned on, a malicious content provider could just create their own in CSS.
But why not just move to one of the MySQL forks and compete on technical merit instead of trying to hang on to its monopoly position in the LAMP stack through political/legal shenanigans?
I wouldn't mind having at least both kinds of database since they encode different information.
Building the list of valid issued certificates requires trusting the CAs, other issuers, and their clients to be truthful, accurate and timely with the information they supply about valid certificates. We can only take on faith that whomever is compiling the list does so well, based on information and credentials from meatspace. There are also exposure/competition reasons for not disclosing to the public the list of all your certificates, which would make the contours of this list and its subsets interesting with respect to unintended disclosure from the malevolents.
Building the list of invalid certificates distributes the burden of correctness on whomever wants to contribute to the list. It would provides an opportunity for the determination of validity of each entry to be made by the user of the list, based on the independent verifiable evidence supplied by whomever wants to indicate that a certificate has problems. This is the method of operation of several successful lists of invalid ISPs, invalid routes, invalid hosts, etc. in related spaces.
The list of issued certificates would be great if it provided a way to independently verify that the certificates were legitimately issued to valid entities, but privacy legislation generally prevents that from being viable in most jurisdictions. But in the absence of a secure connection or a capable bureaucracy, my preference would be for tainted information I could independently verify or refute, over tainted information which I could not independently verify in any way.
Context: I've successfully purchased commercial certificates (can re-sign other certificates, etc) from the common vendors having provided less documentation than is required to set up a business banking account. Further, it was acceptable and required to fax copies of such documents "because faxes can't be Photoshopped like e-mail attachments". Further still, I've unintentionally faxed the wrong documents and have still received certificates. From this experience, I deduce that there is the current business SoP around such things is weak, even without being gamed.
In investigating relationships amongst parties to a number of recent confidence scams, we've encountered researchers and investigators who have arrived at the same conclusions about the providence and legitimacy of interesting certificates which are in the wild, where a public list of known bad certificates would have saved time, money, and other costs. If such a thing existed, I would still have questions about security of access since recent published work (not on /.) has highlighted important flaws about what we can assume about factors around, but not in, the secure connection.
You may continue to be glib, but I ask you to consider being part of the solution.
I think the idea of a public revocation database has merit. How would I make sure that my connection to the database has not been tainted? How could this database as a business entity be designed in a way that's less vulnerable to social engineering attacks than the current system?
FTFA:
> "Reguly's survey found that while 83 percent of users check they're using an SSL-secured session before entering their credit card information on a Website, only 41 percent do so when typing in their passwords."
> "More than half of the respondents don't know what Extended Validation SSL (EVSSL) is and how it differs from SSL, while 36 percent say they do. Interestingly, most of them are aware that SSL traffic can be sniffed without their knowledge."
> "Another issue is that users become annoyed and eventually ignore SSL and browser security messages that appear when they hit a site with an invalid certificate, or a browser warns them of a potentially dangerous site, Reguly says. Nearly 50 of the survey's nontechnical respondents just clicked through security warnings without paying attention to them, he says."
Virtualization increases the attack surface if done incorrectly.
I am a grad student, do not have a lot of money because along with my girlfriend we have 3 Macs in the house.
/Made on a Gateway hackintosh
Crystals are not a fuel source but a catalyst for the matter- anti-matter reaction. Dr. Leah Brahms, the GCS warp engine designer, complained that Geordi *tech*ed the crystals placement to enhance regeneration of the crystals.
If the crystals were an energy source, a handful of which could be converted into enough energy to move a starship, they would have to store sufficient chemical bond energy to the extent that whacking it with mining tools would be a bad idea, or enough quantum *tech* that they wouldn't play well with organic or other matter, or so much density that it would not be readily available to be mined from the crust of planetary bodies (or, say, liftable by hand as has been repeatedly shown on screen).
Also, other species undoubtedly had replicators which could employ different interlocks on prohibited goods. If the Romulans could replicate tribbles, or if the Borg could replicate biology (they have been exposed to replicator technology from the entire galaxy...), some problems would have been solved differently.