Actually, in BC, the Internet served an incredibly important role.
In Canada, one of the most remarkable things about the SARS outbreak (at least, IMHO) is that Vancouver, which is Canada's gateway to the pacific region, saw a relatively small SARS outbreak, as compared to Toronto, or many asian countries. This despite the fact that many infected travellers either passed through their airports, or actually disembarked there.
Recently, this fact was discussed in a piece on the CBC. In response, the BC health officials said they had been aware that something was coming down the pipe for some time now. This was possible, in part, because the Internet allowed for quick distribution of information regarding the mysterious disease outbreak in China. Many websites had been warning for months that there appeared to be a mysterious "atypical pneumonia" in existence, and that health officials in other countries should be on their toes. As a result, the BC health ministry requested that all hospitals immediately quarantine any patients who exhibited signs of atypical pneumonia.
This experience contrasts with what occured in Toronto, where the first SARS patient was admitted to a hospital, and, because the doctors there had no inkling about this upcoming disease, placed the patient in a room with two other patients, who also developed SARS. And thus began the outbreak in Toronto which, while in the end was handled quite well, still presented a serious challenge, as they simply weren't prepared for it.
So, in the end, BC fared very well. Why? Because the health officials there kept their ears to the ground. And they were able to do this, in part, because the Internet allowed them to gain and share information amongst one another quickly and easily.
Glad you aren't informed. Easter and Christmas were both around before Jesus was a twinkle in Gods eye. Easter (Oestera) was the fertility festival, and Christmas was the Winter Solstace celebration to show the Gods people were kind and giving, so they sun would come out more. The shortest day of the year used to be on the 25th of December, and has switched to the 21st now.
Glad you missed my point. Whatever the origins of these holidays are, in recent history (which is really what counts, since we're discussing commercialization of religious symbols/holidays/etc... a recent Western phenomenon), they were pretty well strictly attached to Christianity in Western culture. So, holidays that had strong religious connotations are being twisted to serve commercial interests, so, what, we can sell more bunnies and chocolates?
Basically, my problem is with commercial interests taking essentially non-commercial values/beliefs/etc and manipulating them for their own gain. I hardly thing this argument is debatable, given the way your average Christian "celebrates" Christmas and Easter. I happen to have a similar problem with Valentines day, the (ultimately twisted) wedding industry, and many other things I'm sure I could think of if I didn't have to go to a meeting right now...;)
Yes, but the basis of these holidays (and the reasons for celebrating them) in Western culture are religious (this can most definitely be said for Christmas, and IMHO, Easter as well). Or are you trying to convince me that the west celebrates Easter because it's knowingly celebrating the Spring solstice?
My point is only that these holidays, which in recent history have been pretty well strictly attached to Christianity, have been warped by commercial interests.
Jesus of Nazareth did not die so we could enjoy eggs and chocolate bunnies!
Totally OT, but nice.sig. I'm atheist, myself, but I have rather strong issues with religious holidays being perverted for commercial gain. Heck, even Christmas has some sense of it's religious foundations... but Easter, the holiest Christian holiday, is completely commercialized. Truly amazing, IMHO.
I wonder how long it will take before non-Christian religious holidays start getting the same treatment. I can see it now: Buy Ramadanorade, the only fluid replacement you can trust for your fasting needs!;)
Or is it your position that international law does not apply to U.S.A.
Actually, I thought that was the position of the American government. After all, they went into Iraq without UN sanction, all the while going on and on about how they were free to act unilaterally to "defend" their borders (as if Iraq is a major threat to their own security) via pre-emptive strikes on potential "threats" (how they call that "defence" is beyond me).
And if that wasn't enough, they've also opted out of the International Criminal Court, going so far as to almost pass a law which would require the US to use military force to "rescue" soldiers being tried for war crimes. And they've already said they will be holding domestic trials for Iraqi war criminals, rather than using the established, international mechanisms.
Yup, I think the American goverment has made it pretty clear what their position is on international law...
Actually, all you need is for countries to reach a sufficient level of development. Many developed nations have remarkably low population growth these days, and even China has reduced their growth rate to just a couple percent a year (still high, considering their staggering large population, but a great accomplishment nonetheless). Hell, Italy has a *negative* rate of growth, IIRC.
Oh, gotcha, your reasons are philosophical.:) 'course, I disagree, but that's just IMHO... I believe the easiest way to a spam-free (or, at least, minimized) world is to make sure all the SMTP servers out there are somehow authenticated against one another. One step toward this goal is to not accept email from IPs which are a potential spam source, such as end-user boxes on subnets you aren't responsible for. And, no, using filtering or mail-authentication techniques like PGP is not suffient, because the spam is still soaking up bandwidth and CPU cycles... the only way to really stop the problem is to not accept the spam in the first place.
BTW, you should ask your ISP to remove you from the MAPS DUL (they have to add their IPs to it in the first place). If your ISP really does manage a DNS entry for you, they must realize you're running services on your box, so they may be willing to do this.
I own several domains, a few of them for almost 9 years. In that time I have used seven or eight IPs. Only for a year or so did I have a fixed IP. I don't send spam, my servers are not open relays, but I am penalized now because I can not get a fixed IP from Verizon.
Frankly, I'd think you'd understand the reason behind the MAPS DUL, given your obvious amount of experience on the 'net. If a user is forced to send email through their ISP's SMTP server, this makes it far more difficult to exploit open relays using dial-up accounts. It also forces an audit trail, since the ISP likely logs mail transactions, and would probably notice massive mail spikes caused by dial-up accounts being abused to send spam.
As for your particular situation, I'm assuming Verizon doesn't let you send emails using their SMTP server unless they are addressed using the Verizon domain. This is clearly a problem with their setup and warrants a complaint (especially if you're paying for business-class service). But don't attack what is, IMHO, a perfectly legitimate method of curtailing spam because your ISP is braindamaged and you're unable or unwilling to switch.
And they can fsck themselves, because I never ASKED them to look at us (or me in particular) as a competitor to Microsoft. I (and many others like me) write code 'cause it's fun, because we can fill a niche, or because we just need to scratch some itch we have. Taking down the Microsoft was never a primary goal...
Frankly, with all this poiticization of "Open Source", I feel a strong desire to distance myself from this "movement". I much prefer the days when Linux was just Linux and people used it 'cause it was useful, not for some ridiculous philosophical or political reasons.
I always thought that Mars lacked the gravity to hold a sufficient amount of greenhouse gases.
This is part of the story, but certainly not all of it. A far more important factor is that Mars has no magnetosphere. The magnetosphere is what protects the Earth (and Venus) from the solar wind, which is a massive flow of charge particles and radiation from the Sun. Because Mars lacks this protection, any atmosphere imparted upon it would slowly be stripped away by the solar wind. This is likely one of the main reasons why Mars has no atmosphere today, even though it may have had one in the past.
IMHO, a far more interesting question is, what the heck happened to Mars' core? The current theory about why Mars has no magnetosphere is that it's core is no longer molten, meaning no dynamo, and hence no magnetic field. So, what happened to it? The Earth's core will remain molten for a LONG time (primarily due to the decay of radioactive isotopes, IIRC), and yet Mars is a cold, lifeless rock...
And they are stored on your computer (encrypted if you wish) so you don't have to worry so much about the bank getting broken into, or going out of business.
Just a nit pick, but this last point is bollocks.:) The odds of your bank going out of business (as opposed to be acquired) are somewhere between slim and none. And the chance that the bank will get broken into and lose your records? Even slimmer (practically impossible), since a) it's all stored on computer these days and b) they keep massive offsite backups.
Frankly, if you're that paranoid, your home computer is no improvement! I'd be far more worried about a hard disk crash (what is the MTTF of most drives these days? For real, not manufacturer claims:), a nature disaster (do you keep offsite backups?), or a software error (kernel bug, etc) destroying my data.
Re:No, you missed the point...
on
Linus on DRM
·
· Score: 1
if someone wants to write a kernel module that doesn't allow any media files to be played unless they are encrypted with your public key (forcing you to give your private key out to anyone you want to be able to play that media file)
Out of curiosity, why on earth would you use a PKI-based encryption scheme for DRM if you're gonna give out your private key to everyone in the first place? Is there a technical reason for this? Because, it seems to me that using a symmetric cipher is just as secure in this case (you have to give out your ultra-secret secret in both cases), and symmetric key encryption is far more cryptographically secure (fewer bits needed to get the same amount of security).
I believe he's making a jab at the X-Box. It uses signs and hidden keys to sign the binaries in order to be allowed to execute.
Or he could be talking about a gpl'ed game where they use PKI, but they dont disclose the priv key. It's bound somewhere in the binary.
*sigh* Why don't you people read a little bit about PKI before shooting your mouth off? The games contain a digital signature, which is generated using the private key of the signing organization. The X-Box (and similar systems) just contain a public key, which is used to verify the DS. That's all! No hidden keys! Heck, if the box was networked, it could just download the public key from a key server somewhere, or even grab it from a web server, because they're public!
Re:Same with X-box?
on
Linus on DRM
·
· Score: 3, Informative
No, this isn't the same thing at all (as has been said over, and over, and over, and over...). The X-Box contains a public key which it uses to verify the signature on code before it loads. This signature is generated using Microsoft's private key, which it keeps locked up safe somewhere. Here's how it works:
Microsoft takes code, generates a secure hash, and encrypts that hash using it's private key, generating a digital signature.
The digital signature is embedded in the work.
When the work is loaded by the X-Box, it decrypts the digital signature using MS's public key. Then, it generates its own hash and compares it to the one it got by decrypting the signature. If they are the same, the code is legit, otherwise, abort!
So, you see, there is no private information embedded in the X-Box. It's all public keys.
Yup, you suck.;) Seriously, you should go and check out a real IMAX film. One that was created from an IMAX master, and designed specifically to be shown on an IMAX screen. These things are incredible to see. Because it's filmed on 70mm, the image is crystal clear, and the higher frame rate means it's unbelievably smooth and realistic. I've seen a couple (one on thrill seekers... sky divers, etc, on the IMAX... lots of vertigo:), and one on the rainforests, which had gorgeous fly-overs) and I was blown away each time.
So, seriously, check out a real IMAX film, not one of these crappy transfers. You'll change you're mind, trust me.
Well, it really depends on how the audio is mixed. When I saw Oceans Eleven, the audio *kicked*, but that's partly because that movie has one of the most entertaining, funky soundtracks I've heard in a long while.:)
My problem with these massive screens is that the original prints are usually not filmed at a high-enough resolution. As a result, the images just look huge and blurry. Now, if I could see an IMAX-sized hollywood film, but with a beautiful, high-resolution print (like *real* IMAX films, which are filmed on 70mm rather than 35, and at a higher frame rate), I'd be all for that. But as it stands, the megaplex giant screens are big enough for my taste.
Also, IMAX-specific films often use the IMAX screen size in a special way. Because the screen itself fills up a person's visual field, the film is designed to keep the important details centered on the screen, while using visual cues at the edges (and tricks, like using an aspherical lens, which leverages a person's peripheral vision) to make the viewer feel like they're "inside" the movie. Hollywood films aren't filmed to take this into account. As a result, on the IMAX, I find I'm forced to move my whole head in order to take in all the important details of a scene, which makes the experience uncomfortable.
Actually, I think IMAX is actually displayed at 60 FPS. But, to fix that is easy... you just display each frame two or three times... 'course, on a large screen like that, the jerkiness in, for example, pans, will be painfully visible.
Errr, they display the movie in "letterbox"-style format on the IMAX screen (I would know, I saw Oceans Eleven on the IMAX). So the image is bigger, AND you get the kick-a** IMAX sound system.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, in BC, the Internet served an incredibly important role.
In Canada, one of the most remarkable things about the SARS outbreak (at least, IMHO) is that Vancouver, which is Canada's gateway to the pacific region, saw a relatively small SARS outbreak, as compared to Toronto, or many asian countries. This despite the fact that many infected travellers either passed through their airports, or actually disembarked there.
Recently, this fact was discussed in a piece on the CBC. In response, the BC health officials said they had been aware that something was coming down the pipe for some time now. This was possible, in part, because the Internet allowed for quick distribution of information regarding the mysterious disease outbreak in China. Many websites had been warning for months that there appeared to be a mysterious "atypical pneumonia" in existence, and that health officials in other countries should be on their toes. As a result, the BC health ministry requested that all hospitals immediately quarantine any patients who exhibited signs of atypical pneumonia.
This experience contrasts with what occured in Toronto, where the first SARS patient was admitted to a hospital, and, because the doctors there had no inkling about this upcoming disease, placed the patient in a room with two other patients, who also developed SARS. And thus began the outbreak in Toronto which, while in the end was handled quite well, still presented a serious challenge, as they simply weren't prepared for it.
So, in the end, BC fared very well. Why? Because the health officials there kept their ears to the ground. And they were able to do this, in part, because the Internet allowed them to gain and share information amongst one another quickly and easily.
Well crap, you're right... what's MPEG-2 Layer 3? Obviously another audio codec, but I've never heard of it.
MP3 (or even MPEG-2, Layer 3
:)
Umm... heh, those are the same things, just to let you know.
Ahh good, consistency... I may disagree with you, but at least you're consistent.
It's the people who, for example, villify weed and get drunk at office parties which really piss me off.
Glad you aren't informed. Easter and Christmas were both around before Jesus was a twinkle in Gods eye. Easter (Oestera) was the fertility festival, and Christmas was the Winter Solstace celebration to show the Gods people were kind and giving, so they sun would come out more. The shortest day of the year used to be on the 25th of December, and has switched to the 21st now.
;)
Glad you missed my point. Whatever the origins of these holidays are, in recent history (which is really what counts, since we're discussing commercialization of religious symbols/holidays/etc... a recent Western phenomenon), they were pretty well strictly attached to Christianity in Western culture. So, holidays that had strong religious connotations are being twisted to serve commercial interests, so, what, we can sell more bunnies and chocolates?
Basically, my problem is with commercial interests taking essentially non-commercial values/beliefs/etc and manipulating them for their own gain. I hardly thing this argument is debatable, given the way your average Christian "celebrates" Christmas and Easter. I happen to have a similar problem with Valentines day, the (ultimately twisted) wedding industry, and many other things I'm sure I could think of if I didn't have to go to a meeting right now...
Yes, but the basis of these holidays (and the reasons for celebrating them) in Western culture are religious (this can most definitely be said for Christmas, and IMHO, Easter as well). Or are you trying to convince me that the west celebrates Easter because it's knowingly celebrating the Spring solstice?
My point is only that these holidays, which in recent history have been pretty well strictly attached to Christianity, have been warped by commercial interests.
Jesus of Nazareth did not die so we could enjoy eggs and chocolate bunnies!
.sig. I'm atheist, myself, but I have rather strong issues with religious holidays being perverted for commercial gain. Heck, even Christmas has some sense of it's religious foundations... but Easter, the holiest Christian holiday, is completely commercialized. Truly amazing, IMHO.
;)
Totally OT, but nice
I wonder how long it will take before non-Christian religious holidays start getting the same treatment. I can see it now: Buy Ramadanorade, the only fluid replacement you can trust for your fasting needs!
Or is it your position that international law does not apply to U.S.A.
Actually, I thought that was the position of the American government. After all, they went into Iraq without UN sanction, all the while going on and on about how they were free to act unilaterally to "defend" their borders (as if Iraq is a major threat to their own security) via pre-emptive strikes on potential "threats" (how they call that "defence" is beyond me).
And if that wasn't enough, they've also opted out of the International Criminal Court, going so far as to almost pass a law which would require the US to use military force to "rescue" soldiers being tried for war crimes. And they've already said they will be holding domestic trials for Iraqi war criminals, rather than using the established, international mechanisms.
Yup, I think the American goverment has made it pretty clear what their position is on international law...
Ooh, that came out harsher than intended, my appologies. s/dumbass//. Someone's cranky this morning... :/
Yeah... 'cuz it's lossless, dumbass. Cartoons, text, or anything else with low noise will only look good in a lossless format (ie, GIF or PNG).
Actually, all you need is for countries to reach a sufficient level of development. Many developed nations have remarkably low population growth these days, and even China has reduced their growth rate to just a couple percent a year (still high, considering their staggering large population, but a great accomplishment nonetheless). Hell, Italy has a *negative* rate of growth, IIRC.
Oh, gotcha, your reasons are philosophical. :) 'course, I disagree, but that's just IMHO... I believe the easiest way to a spam-free (or, at least, minimized) world is to make sure all the SMTP servers out there are somehow authenticated against one another. One step toward this goal is to not accept email from IPs which are a potential spam source, such as end-user boxes on subnets you aren't responsible for. And, no, using filtering or mail-authentication techniques like PGP is not suffient, because the spam is still soaking up bandwidth and CPU cycles... the only way to really stop the problem is to not accept the spam in the first place.
BTW, you should ask your ISP to remove you from the MAPS DUL (they have to add their IPs to it in the first place). If your ISP really does manage a DNS entry for you, they must realize you're running services on your box, so they may be willing to do this.
I own several domains, a few of them for almost 9 years. In that time I have used seven or eight IPs. Only for a year or so did I have a fixed IP. I don't send spam, my servers are not open relays, but I am penalized now because I can not get a fixed IP from Verizon.
Frankly, I'd think you'd understand the reason behind the MAPS DUL, given your obvious amount of experience on the 'net. If a user is forced to send email through their ISP's SMTP server, this makes it far more difficult to exploit open relays using dial-up accounts. It also forces an audit trail, since the ISP likely logs mail transactions, and would probably notice massive mail spikes caused by dial-up accounts being abused to send spam.
As for your particular situation, I'm assuming Verizon doesn't let you send emails using their SMTP server unless they are addressed using the Verizon domain. This is clearly a problem with their setup and warrants a complaint (especially if you're paying for business-class service). But don't attack what is, IMHO, a perfectly legitimate method of curtailing spam because your ISP is braindamaged and you're unable or unwilling to switch.
And they can fsck themselves, because I never ASKED them to look at us (or me in particular) as a competitor to Microsoft. I (and many others like me) write code 'cause it's fun, because we can fill a niche, or because we just need to scratch some itch we have. Taking down the Microsoft was never a primary goal...
Frankly, with all this poiticization of "Open Source", I feel a strong desire to distance myself from this "movement". I much prefer the days when Linux was just Linux and people used it 'cause it was useful, not for some ridiculous philosophical or political reasons.
I always thought that Mars lacked the gravity to hold a sufficient amount of greenhouse gases.
This is part of the story, but certainly not all of it. A far more important factor is that Mars has no magnetosphere. The magnetosphere is what protects the Earth (and Venus) from the solar wind, which is a massive flow of charge particles and radiation from the Sun. Because Mars lacks this protection, any atmosphere imparted upon it would slowly be stripped away by the solar wind. This is likely one of the main reasons why Mars has no atmosphere today, even though it may have had one in the past.
IMHO, a far more interesting question is, what the heck happened to Mars' core? The current theory about why Mars has no magnetosphere is that it's core is no longer molten, meaning no dynamo, and hence no magnetic field. So, what happened to it? The Earth's core will remain molten for a LONG time (primarily due to the decay of radioactive isotopes, IIRC), and yet Mars is a cold, lifeless rock...
And they are stored on your computer (encrypted if you wish) so you don't have to worry so much about the bank getting broken into, or going out of business.
:) The odds of your bank going out of business (as opposed to be acquired) are somewhere between slim and none. And the chance that the bank will get broken into and lose your records? Even slimmer (practically impossible), since a) it's all stored on computer these days and b) they keep massive offsite backups.
:), a nature disaster (do you keep offsite backups?), or a software error (kernel bug, etc) destroying my data.
Just a nit pick, but this last point is bollocks.
Frankly, if you're that paranoid, your home computer is no improvement! I'd be far more worried about a hard disk crash (what is the MTTF of most drives these days? For real, not manufacturer claims
if someone wants to write a kernel module that doesn't allow any media files to be played unless they are encrypted with your public key (forcing you to give your private key out to anyone you want to be able to play that media file)
Out of curiosity, why on earth would you use a PKI-based encryption scheme for DRM if you're gonna give out your private key to everyone in the first place? Is there a technical reason for this? Because, it seems to me that using a symmetric cipher is just as secure in this case (you have to give out your ultra-secret secret in both cases), and symmetric key encryption is far more cryptographically secure (fewer bits needed to get the same amount of security).
So, anyone have any insight on this one?
I believe he's making a jab at the X-Box. It uses signs and hidden keys to sign the binaries in order to be allowed to execute.
Or he could be talking about a gpl'ed game where they use PKI, but they dont disclose the priv key. It's bound somewhere in the binary.
*sigh* Why don't you people read a little bit about PKI before shooting your mouth off? The games contain a digital signature, which is generated using the private key of the signing organization. The X-Box (and similar systems) just contain a public key, which is used to verify the DS. That's all! No hidden keys! Heck, if the box was networked, it could just download the public key from a key server somewhere, or even grab it from a web server, because they're public!
- Microsoft takes code, generates a secure hash, and encrypts that hash using it's private key, generating a digital signature.
- The digital signature is embedded in the work.
- When the work is loaded by the X-Box, it decrypts the digital signature using MS's public key. Then, it generates its own hash and compares it to the one it got by decrypting the signature. If they are the same, the code is legit, otherwise, abort!
So, you see, there is no private information embedded in the X-Box. It's all public keys.References?
Is that all IMAX really is? Do I just suck?
;) Seriously, you should go and check out a real IMAX film. One that was created from an IMAX master, and designed specifically to be shown on an IMAX screen. These things are incredible to see. Because it's filmed on 70mm, the image is crystal clear, and the higher frame rate means it's unbelievably smooth and realistic. I've seen a couple (one on thrill seekers... sky divers, etc, on the IMAX... lots of vertigo :), and one on the rainforests, which had gorgeous fly-overs) and I was blown away each time.
Yup, you suck.
So, seriously, check out a real IMAX film, not one of these crappy transfers. You'll change you're mind, trust me.
Well, it really depends on how the audio is mixed. When I saw Oceans Eleven, the audio *kicked*, but that's partly because that movie has one of the most entertaining, funky soundtracks I've heard in a long while. :)
My problem with these massive screens is that the original prints are usually not filmed at a high-enough resolution. As a result, the images just look huge and blurry. Now, if I could see an IMAX-sized hollywood film, but with a beautiful, high-resolution print (like *real* IMAX films, which are filmed on 70mm rather than 35, and at a higher frame rate), I'd be all for that. But as it stands, the megaplex giant screens are big enough for my taste.
Also, IMAX-specific films often use the IMAX screen size in a special way. Because the screen itself fills up a person's visual field, the film is designed to keep the important details centered on the screen, while using visual cues at the edges (and tricks, like using an aspherical lens, which leverages a person's peripheral vision) to make the viewer feel like they're "inside" the movie. Hollywood films aren't filmed to take this into account. As a result, on the IMAX, I find I'm forced to move my whole head in order to take in all the important details of a scene, which makes the experience uncomfortable.
Actually, I think IMAX is actually displayed at 60 FPS. But, to fix that is easy... you just display each frame two or three times... 'course, on a large screen like that, the jerkiness in, for example, pans, will be painfully visible.
Errr, they display the movie in "letterbox"-style format on the IMAX screen (I would know, I saw Oceans Eleven on the IMAX). So the image is bigger, AND you get the kick-a** IMAX sound system.