I just wish there was another laptop manufacturer around that actually cared about screen resolution. I keep finding things with terabyte hard drives, quad-core processors... and 768 vertical pixels. If you want high resolution portables, Apple is really your only option.
The signing authority is *MICROSOFT!* That's why Ubuntu had to go crawling to them and beg to be signed. Even if I accepted that this security measure is needed, it is still a massive conflict of interest for the signing authority to also be a major OS vendor. It'd be a lot easier to accept if the task were granted to a company with no stake in the OS market, like Intel.
Because some time around Windows 10, they'll make it manditory. Microsoft is a company twice convicted of anticompetative actions, with a history of ruthless business strategy. Are you really going to trust them with a 'destroy all my competitors!' button just because they promise not to push it yet?
What security? Secure Boot protects against pre-kernel-loading rootkits - a type of malware so obscure, I've never even heard of it being used outside of proof-of-concept academic demonstrations.
Depends on the design of the new NTLDR. If they are going to the effort of having the firmware validate the loader, I'm guessing that the loader in turn will only boot a microsoft-signed kernel.
Unless they use third-party build tools, as my employer does. In which case those tools are going to break, at least until their vendors can go to beg Microsoft for signing.
Internet pornography is actually illegal in the US. It's just that even in the most conservative states, very rarely is any law enforcement agency dumb enough to try enforcing that law. Bush II made a try at it though - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscenity_Prosecution_Task_Force
An image in the browser cache, with javascript reading the pixel values. The 'evercookie' also used a conventional cookie, and a flash cookie, and a few other methods too. Upon visiting the site, if even one of the cookie copies could be read it would recreate the others.
We've really got two problems to solve: Getting the metadata, and getting the data. They need very different tools.
Getting the metadata is the indexing task - it's been done by websites ever since the appearance of Sharereactor back in ye old days. The challenge isn't to shift lots of data, but to provide a way to filter out the dud files and fakes, and find the links to the files you really want. The Pirate Bay does this.
Getting the actual data is another problem though: You need a way, given a hash*, to locate the corresponding data. Which may be a hundred gig or more, and it's got to be affordable. But trust isn't needed - cryptographic hashing replaces trust.
Both of these need to be resistant to takedown efforts - either through hosting in somewhere resistant to legal action, or decentralisation. One of the ideas I like is simply using existing forums, chat and so on to distribute the links - no need to have specialist pirate hubs, every forum becomes a place to potentially copy-paste linkes to things that may be of interest to the forum members. Plus, google then indexes them all.
*NNTP uses a non-cryptographic identifier, but it fills the same functional role.
One of Hawaii's major economic activities is tourism. I imagine they are very concerned about anything which might alter their postcard-perfect natural landscape. When the tourist trade is responsible for nearly a fourth of the state GDP, much caution is exercised in anything which might impact it.
Stop blaming Obama for this: The TSA was Bush's pet agency, and the introduction of scanners without clear justification or consultation happened on his watch. You can blame Bush for his active role, and Obama for refusing to get involved. Let them share blame.
The administration's action will be a short statement along the lines of 'The administration has taken note of your concerns, and is entirely dedicated to protecting the American people.' That's all.
As I proposed. It can be done - and we know it can be done, because Freenet is exactly that. But Freenet is made for dissidents and activists, and it's anti-tracking measures are accordingly paranoid: Performance is sacrificed in order to make it near-impossible to tell what anyone is either publishing or retrieving. This makes Freenet slow. Really slow.
What you want can be done - it'd have to involve hashes, or better yet hash trees. All it needs is someone with the skill and will to impliment it.
The NNTP protocol is a real mess for binaries, really. Severe overheads, awkward packing. There is a reason for those PAR2 files - because delivery is too unreliable to use without them. If you're looking for a non-p2p method of file distribution, you'd be better off with some sort of simple file server - HTTP, even old-fashioned FTP (Which will soon have you loathing NAT). You'll soon run into two problems though: It costs a fortune, and any sizeable pirate service with such centralisation will eventually attract the attention of authorities.
I think what you really need is some form of content-addressible shared store. Like Freenet, but less paranoid.
Not yet, but one day it will happen... and China is likely to be the first to try it. They have the three vital elements: The technology, the willingness to move on to human experiments, and the desire for international respect to motivate them to do all they possibly can to win.
That works only for minor disagreements. It doesn't so anything when factions have very different views about how society needs to run - when that happens, things turn political.
Or you could dismiss the 'truths to be self-evident' thing as just some powerful rhetoric, because those things are *not* self-evident. There is no great trancendent book of rights. The only natural law on such matters is the law of the pointy stick in the ribcage: Whoever has the power to enforce their will by force is the natural ruler. America didn't win its independance because it was morally better, or because of the strength of their arguments: They won because they had the advantage of some good leadership and fighting on their own turf against an enemy with severely stretched supply lines and political infighting back in Europe.
As an internet giant, youtube would be safe. It's smaller sites that would be shut down. If SOPA had been around back when youtube was a new startup, it'd have been crushed then. One big effect of SOPA would be to make it easy for larger companies to shut down smaller competitors, ensuring that control of the internet remained in the hands of a select wealthy few.
Slashdot Mirror
I just wish there was another laptop manufacturer around that actually cared about screen resolution. I keep finding things with terabyte hard drives, quad-core processors... and 768 vertical pixels. If you want high resolution portables, Apple is really your only option.
The signing authority is *MICROSOFT!* That's why Ubuntu had to go crawling to them and beg to be signed. Even if I accepted that this security measure is needed, it is still a massive conflict of interest for the signing authority to also be a major OS vendor. It'd be a lot easier to accept if the task were granted to a company with no stake in the OS market, like Intel.
Caw.
Because some time around Windows 10, they'll make it manditory. Microsoft is a company twice convicted of anticompetative actions, with a history of ruthless business strategy. Are you really going to trust them with a 'destroy all my competitors!' button just because they promise not to push it yet?
What security? Secure Boot protects against pre-kernel-loading rootkits - a type of malware so obscure, I've never even heard of it being used outside of proof-of-concept academic demonstrations.
Depends on the design of the new NTLDR. If they are going to the effort of having the firmware validate the loader, I'm guessing that the loader in turn will only boot a microsoft-signed kernel.
Unless they use third-party build tools, as my employer does. In which case those tools are going to break, at least until their vendors can go to beg Microsoft for signing.
Internet pornography is actually illegal in the US. It's just that even in the most conservative states, very rarely is any law enforcement agency dumb enough to try enforcing that law. Bush II made a try at it though - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscenity_Prosecution_Task_Force
The only people I've seen use :> are furrys. It's the bird-smily.
:>
Go on. Just admit it
An image in the browser cache, with javascript reading the pixel values. The 'evercookie' also used a conventional cookie, and a flash cookie, and a few other methods too. Upon visiting the site, if even one of the cookie copies could be read it would recreate the others.
We've really got two problems to solve: Getting the metadata, and getting the data. They need very different tools.
Getting the metadata is the indexing task - it's been done by websites ever since the appearance of Sharereactor back in ye old days. The challenge isn't to shift lots of data, but to provide a way to filter out the dud files and fakes, and find the links to the files you really want. The Pirate Bay does this.
Getting the actual data is another problem though: You need a way, given a hash*, to locate the corresponding data. Which may be a hundred gig or more, and it's got to be affordable. But trust isn't needed - cryptographic hashing replaces trust.
Both of these need to be resistant to takedown efforts - either through hosting in somewhere resistant to legal action, or decentralisation. One of the ideas I like is simply using existing forums, chat and so on to distribute the links - no need to have specialist pirate hubs, every forum becomes a place to potentially copy-paste linkes to things that may be of interest to the forum members. Plus, google then indexes them all.
*NNTP uses a non-cryptographic identifier, but it fills the same functional role.
I was thinking more of wind.
One of Hawaii's major economic activities is tourism. I imagine they are very concerned about anything which might alter their postcard-perfect natural landscape. When the tourist trade is responsible for nearly a fourth of the state GDP, much caution is exercised in anything which might impact it.
There is a sort of unspoken agreement on Freenet regarding that subject. Everyone knows it exists, but speaking of it is taboo.
Stop blaming Obama for this: The TSA was Bush's pet agency, and the introduction of scanners without clear justification or consultation happened on his watch. You can blame Bush for his active role, and Obama for refusing to get involved. Let them share blame.
The administration's action will be a short statement along the lines of 'The administration has taken note of your concerns, and is entirely dedicated to protecting the American people.' That's all.
As I proposed. It can be done - and we know it can be done, because Freenet is exactly that. But Freenet is made for dissidents and activists, and it's anti-tracking measures are accordingly paranoid: Performance is sacrificed in order to make it near-impossible to tell what anyone is either publishing or retrieving. This makes Freenet slow. Really slow.
What you want can be done - it'd have to involve hashes, or better yet hash trees. All it needs is someone with the skill and will to impliment it.
But how do you define 'directly related' and 'one thing?'
The NNTP protocol is a real mess for binaries, really. Severe overheads, awkward packing. There is a reason for those PAR2 files - because delivery is too unreliable to use without them. If you're looking for a non-p2p method of file distribution, you'd be better off with some sort of simple file server - HTTP, even old-fashioned FTP (Which will soon have you loathing NAT). You'll soon run into two problems though: It costs a fortune, and any sizeable pirate service with such centralisation will eventually attract the attention of authorities.
I think what you really need is some form of content-addressible shared store. Like Freenet, but less paranoid.
But this is a computer. We should celebrate when it reaches 32 years!
Not yet, but one day it will happen... and China is likely to be the first to try it. They have the three vital elements: The technology, the willingness to move on to human experiments, and the desire for international respect to motivate them to do all they possibly can to win.
That works only for minor disagreements. It doesn't so anything when factions have very different views about how society needs to run - when that happens, things turn political.
Or you could dismiss the 'truths to be self-evident' thing as just some powerful rhetoric, because those things are *not* self-evident. There is no great trancendent book of rights. The only natural law on such matters is the law of the pointy stick in the ribcage: Whoever has the power to enforce their will by force is the natural ruler. America didn't win its independance because it was morally better, or because of the strength of their arguments: They won because they had the advantage of some good leadership and fighting on their own turf against an enemy with severely stretched supply lines and political infighting back in Europe.
As an internet giant, youtube would be safe. It's smaller sites that would be shut down. If SOPA had been around back when youtube was a new startup, it'd have been crushed then. One big effect of SOPA would be to make it easy for larger companies to shut down smaller competitors, ensuring that control of the internet remained in the hands of a select wealthy few.
I imagine Apple deliberatly made the iPod a write-only device in order to maintain a better relationship with the labels.