This should be the ultimate goal of teachers everywhere, to improve the education process. And if computers do exactly that, then let's put them in the hands of every student.
Probably, computers improve the education process greatly. They are extremely powerful tools that can be used to find and disseminate a lot of information, true publications, opinion pieces, and hoaxes, not to mention interactive packaged software.
However, teachers have to understand them and understand how to fully leverage and use them to do so, first.
Imagine you introduced a technology into the classroom called a 'book', and no teacher had ever seen one, and didn't know how to use those.
Or if you introduced a 'pen' and a 'pencil', 'chalk' or 'chalk board', but "writing" had never been used in the classroom before.
Or audio or 'video tape' was brought into a classroom... what could the point of that ever be?
Teachers would have to learn first how to use these instructional tools, for them to be effective.
Planning and a lot of work would be required to learn what types of visual aids are effective, and how a chalk board or white board can be used to facilitate learning.
They would also need to learn the limitations of the tools, and when/what things should be taught using yet more advanced technology, or using more traditional methods.
IOW... just because the technology is a godsend and should be great in the classroom, doesn't mean all the work has been done just yet to actually make it beneficial.
I can imagine a situation where, under normal situations, thousands of cars are able to drive within close proximity of each other, during optimal conditions, via autonomous means.
Able to doesn't mean "safe to do so".
This would be up to regulators, and ultimately up to the public to decide.
Currently I believe "close proximity to each other", would be called tailgating, a ticketable offense.
It should occur to you that within 6 blocks of your destination is not the same as at your destination
If you have to travel 3 to 6 blocks from your source to get to mass transit pick-up, and 3 to 6 blocks at your destination away from mass transit drop-off ,
then that means you had to walk a total of [ 3, 6 ] X 2 or 6 to 12 blocks,
that you would not have to walk if you could have personal transportation.
And that is as you say a city with "proper" mass transportation.
People have to walk 1 to 2 miles per round-trip to use that.
Probably 2 to 4 miles per day, when you count the general need of people working to go somewhere to get food at least once a day:)
Question: Why does a cab cost $80?
Answer: The driver.
You think cab companies pay their drivers even half of that $80 per fare?
That would be about $300,000 a year, assuming it took them a whole working hour to commute you....
Well, aside from the fact you are forgetting gasoline and wear and tear on the vehicle... that amount includes pay to the local government in the form of TAXES, to the company for their own facilities, all their workers, software systems to collect fares, accounting department, and return for the shareholders.
And insurance costs to help protect the driver and the company from the possibly extreme liabilities that may exist in transporting people.
P.S. Your personal auto insurance is unlikely to cover using your automated vehicle to transport other people in exchange for money, especially while you are not watching it.
Two major liability risks are Your car gets into an accident and/or causes personal injury to the travelers, OR someone with criminal intent hails your vehicle; your vehicle could be used by a criminal to assist in a get-away, they could cause your vehicle to go somewhere or park somewhere where it is actually illegal to go to or park at, or they could physically vandalize, or cause your vehicle to be damaged.
Let's assume you are an average worker who just spent 60k on your car.
How likely are you to want to rent this out as a Taxi?
There are a few problems; firstly, in some cities this is actually prohibited -- take New York city, you have to actually be licensed to run a cab service, and there is a limited amount of taxi-cab medallions. It would be illegal to have your vehicle answer a road-side hail and provide "taxi service", without the right paperwork, and they are not licensing more than X total vehicles, you would have to buy someone else's license.
This is also risky in that,
Just because your vehicle is autonomous doesn't mean the manufacturer has programmed it as a "point of sale" for offering services to other people.
What happens when a pedestrian somewhere gets in your car, orders it to take them somewhere, and doesn't pay the fare?
Also ignoring the fact... the manufacturer, if they license their 'automation software' for a business use, will likely want a big piece of the action for each fair, especially if they perceive "driver costs as high", they might fix the licensing cost at 80 or 90% of what it costs to hire cab drivers, then they can offer this innovative automation technology to replace their drivers, at a 10% or 20% cost savings over hiring human drivers ---- since that's still a cost savings, the big companies will go for that.
You have no way to force payment other than say taking a credit card payment up front.
If you took cash, there would be no safe place to store the money, since the car is unsupervised, the burglar could simply pose as a rider, order you to a destination, disable the car in transit, and raid the safe.
Which brings me to the next problem... your car is good for parts. A bad guy could decide to take it somewhere, and while it's travelling, disable the automated systems, even disable the entire vehicle and take it to a scrapyard.
If you just needed transportation, you are going to have a hard time justifying the risks in regards to your investment, and the increased insurance costs.
There are some advantages to owning your own vehicle, such as privacy. You are in full control of it, so you know you're not under surveillance, while you are driving what you do in your car is private (except when someone is looking through your window, a risk you can negate by obscuring the view through windows).
There is no way current technology can make this work. Consider how many things could be coming at your car from the periphery that the system would not be able to detect. Animals running across the road, snow and mud slides, road alligators being flipped up from the car in front of you, etc.
Consider how many things could be coming at your car from the periphery that the human eye would not be able to detect. Computer systems can have more sensors with longer range.
Computers can track more objects coming from more directions than the human eye can track simultaneously.
There is no way a computer could accurately detect these things coming from a far distance on an intercept course with you.
Of course they could. It's just a matter of having the right (expensive) sensors on board with sufficient range.
There are even types of sensors such as radar that can detect objects a much larger distance, and infrared sensors that can detect objects (such as children) much smaller than the human eye can, or objects such as child pedestrians that are obscured by a parked car.
The computer can track and predict the object that would not even be visible to your eye, and anticipate the child outside your field of vision about to try and run across the street in front of you.
The human eye is a pretty good, versatile sensor, with a wide range of things it can pick up, but it has limited range (especially if the driver is nearsighted and only has the minimal 20/40 vision required to get their license), and you only have two of them.
For example... you can look to the front, to the side, or behind you, but not in both places at the same time.
This matters, for example, if you are changing lanes.
You can look behind you and to your side to verify clearance, meanwhile, while you glanced behind you for that second, a car in front of you has slammed on their breaks, or a vehicle turning onto the highway has turned in front of you or changed lanes in front of you within 50 feet, and the time you have to make a decision and react was drastically reduced.
That's exactly the sort of thing that should be prohibited by law until the technology has proved itself and become widely accepted by society as foolproof; until then, it should be like cruise control, the human driver should always be able to override it, and the human is responsible for what they allow it to do.
Mimicking intelligent human decisions and good human judgement is probably a good idea.
if an automated vehicle makes decisions that would be unpredictable or unexpected by other drivers, it could cause an accident, or could get a bad rep for the bot car.
Or possibly on some alternate Earth which has no point of it's surface higher than 8,000 feet.
Where is this point on the ground on earth that's over 8000ft and experiences temperatures over 100 degrees fahrenheit for long enough periods of time that Lithium Ion battery manufacturers would need to take this into account?
The United Parcel Service 747-400F was a 747 in freighter configuration, e.g. No "passenger" cabin
Aside from the cockpit, almost the entire plane would be "cargo hold"
Anyways, just because some amount of air pressure is maintained, does not mean it is same as ground air pressure, or that is constant.
I'm thinking at low air pressure, it would be difficult for fire to spread.
But suppose pressure dropped during takeoff or landing. In theory, if the cargo hold is already at high temperature, this could facilitate thermal overrun, by increasing the leakage or allowing a cell to explode.
Once the pressure in the hold finally increases or equalizes, the overrun has already begun, and at that point, the increase in pressure just provides a higher concentration of oxygen to feed the flame.
How hot are we talking about? The safe maximum operating temperature for discharging a Lithium ion battery is typically 140 degrees Fahrenheit. There's no place on Earth that gets that hot naturally....
Typically 140 degrees, but this is pretty close to the max temperature for survival of the battery. Just because this temp is in the "operating range" does not mean the temperature is safe, and won't contribute to thermal runaway, where pressure on a cell caused by heat and voltage causes the cell to burst
"Safe operating values" may not be the same in flight, also: the plane is in motion, and the cargo hold may be subject to air pressures you don't find naturally anywhere on earth's surface.
Lower air pressure surrounding the sealed cell might increase the chance that high pressure in a cell of the battery can explode or spoil the seal.
The temperature in the cargo hold can also be unnatural. Planes have electronics that produce heat, the skin of the plane absorbs some heat, and heat can accumulate if there is no air conditioning -- leading to the cargo hold becoming a quite unnatural oven in some case.
Those are not necessarily conflicting ideas... if the temp in the cargo compartment is not controlled, it might be possible for it to get both extremely hot, or extremely cold at times, depending on local weather, whether the plane is on the ground or in flight, etc.
I imagine Lithium isn't the only thing that might catch on fire in extreme heat, however. Many electronic devices have "operating temperature ranges" and "storage temperature ranges"; although I suppose the airline doesn't care much if they break someone's checked iPod or computer due to letting the cargo temp be too extreme -- it's not until risk of fire, that they become more concerned, and think about banning anything containing Lithium batteries in checked luggage, due to the hazard,
So at least only leave it open to one machine, so you have to get into that one first.
Leaving 'just one' with a working remote SSH daemon is not a very good option. That one machine could go down, then you cannot get into the other.
Also, this implies you are ssh'ing into that machine, and leap-frogging to the other.
This is a security risk larger than simply leaving both machines open, as it means your credentials are passing through another machine.
Either there is an additional copy of your workstation's private SSH key on the machine you have open, you are typing a password, OR you are using ssh agent forwarding.
All 3 provide a mechanism a hacker could use to leverage your credentials from a trusted host, if they had quietly compromised the first machine, they could patch the SSH client to quietly log your passphrase or secret password.
If you SSH in with agent forwarding, a hacker could wait and detect that you have SSH'd in with an active agent socket, and then connect to your SSH agent socket and leverage your credentials with any machine you have access to, for the duration of your SSH session.
By SSH'ing directly to each machine, disallowing agent forwarding, and never allowing any of your servers to have SSH credentials for any other server pass through them, security is improved.
That's no good, when you need to connect to your machines from your laptop in the hotel room or coffee shop wireless.
Remote management technologies are for remote management.
Of course public key / certificate based authentication is the proper mechanism to use for remote access using SSH, and you need the server's public keys pre-installed on your client as well.
But it really does no good to limit SSH to known hosts, when you actually can't know what IP address you will be accessing from a-priori.
There is an Open Source alternative to Microsoft's proprietary system, called PacketFence.
Systems not running a M$ OS will be fine as long as there is either an exception established, or a NAP agent Installed:
Microsoft has promised to make the technology available so people can develop NAP agents for Linux and MacOS.
UNETsystem announced NAP compatible versions of their AnyClick product for Linux and Macintosh OS X operating systems.
I don't think this is really intended to lock other OSes out, although it may make things more expensive, be a slight annoyance, and more annoying (with no real benefit for these other OSes), if you have to buy some proprietary product for them.....
And it can also be a unique problem for the likes of Knoppix...
won't fit well into a NAP scheme. Thus forcing Linux on the network to have some of Windows' inflexibilities, unless you set aside special IP address ranges for Linux boxes and exclude them from the NAP scheme.
NAP / NAC without trusted computing platforms on the client nodes is a stupid, pointless idea. Unless the client can be trusted not to lie about its "health status" there's no guarantee that the client isn't simply infected with something that's smart enough to hide from "health scans".
The health scans aren't meant to detect an infection; they're meant to detect the absence of an antivirus, or absence of security patches, before an exploit occurs.
It is theoretically possible some unhealthy systems might be infected while they are unhealthy and the 'health agent' fooled in a manner that will cause it to report healthy; however, if internet access is limited while unhealthy, the chances of infection are reduced.
The greater risk is a "healthy" system becoming infected and caused to become unhealthy, but the health management agent fooled to still think the system is healthy; it will be an unhealthy, infected, "apparently healthy" system.
However, that is still an improvement over the current situation, where unhealthy, uninfected, "apparently healthy" systems can establish connections with other unhealthy systems all over the place that may actually be unhealthy, infected; or healthy, infected.
The presupposition is that being healthy reduces the probability of infection by other systems.
Why shouldn't they be able to deny registration under their TLD if it does not comport with their cultural standards?
They are not "denying" registration. They are removing records for a legitimate registration that was already created,
based on some content linked to by some URL hosted on servers whose IP address is referenced by some DNS record in the domain.
Exactly right. In the end it IS their domain, a fact that seems somehow to be sneaking by most posters here.
Well, that's just it... it's not their domain at all, they don't own it. Second-level domains belong to the person who
registered the domain, the "registrant". There may be restrictions or qualifications to register a domain (for example, a requirement to have a presence in the country), but once registered, the registry has very little business asking what type of content will be hosted on servers listed in the user's DNS zone.
.LY is the TLD set aside or reserved for the use by the internet community in their country.
People / Organizations in the country don't own the TLD.
Indeed. The TLD is set aside by IANA for the Internet community in Libya.. that does not mean the TLD belongs to the country of Libya.
That does not mean the TLD belongs to whoever "applied for it" first or whoever happens to operate the registry right now.
Some organization who is a trustee designated by IANA for the TLD operates the registry, and implements policies and procedures
for registration and maintenance of domains, for the benefit of the Internet community in Libya.
But I shouldn't be restricted from buying some beer on my one day off each week just because a bunch of fundamentalist shitheads think I should be wasting my morning praying to their sun god.
There's another reason. If people buy alcohol on Sunday, that may increase the chance that a lot of people get a hangover on Monday and skip work, or performance plummets, causing economic catastrophe. And unions losing negotiating power, since their people aren't working anyways.
Banning the sale of alcohol on Sunday is not about religion, it's about economic stimulus, and protecting the unions!
The picture is taken while doing work for the public, government department, thus, the picture becomes part of the public domain.
Public domain means you can use it for things like this.
As for the astronaut, he's an employee photographed on the job, which the public also have a right to see.
If he appears small in the picture and cannot specifically be identified, then in what way is it 'publishing him' anyways, and
not just a generic 'picture of an astronaut'... how can you tell who the person is in the photo if you don't already know before seeing the picture?
In what way is all this legally actionable, again?
As far as I'm concerned Dido has one purpose... to sing I want to thank you which a portion of is used in an album by a singer bamed Eminem whose name you might actually recognize.
So, people like me who contribute to GPL software no longer get to help the cause.
Since the GPL cannot govern use of the software, or prevent you from transporting your copy of it you already have access to across state lines (as long as you are not redistributing it in doing so), you can still obtain and work on the software.
You just may need to take your laptop to a different state, download the source code, work on it.... travel out of state, upload, etc, etc...
Slashdot Mirror
It's 10 years after the world was re-born, after the Y2K collapse of civilization; this is very significant.
This should be the ultimate goal of teachers everywhere, to improve the education process. And if computers do exactly that, then let's put them in the hands of every student.
Probably, computers improve the education process greatly. They are extremely powerful tools that can be used to find and disseminate a lot of information, true publications, opinion pieces, and hoaxes, not to mention interactive packaged software.
However, teachers have to understand them and understand how to fully leverage and use them to do so, first.
Imagine you introduced a technology into the classroom called a 'book', and no teacher had ever seen one, and didn't know how to use those.
Or if you introduced a 'pen' and a 'pencil', 'chalk' or 'chalk board', but "writing" had never been used in the classroom before. Or audio or 'video tape' was brought into a classroom... what could the point of that ever be?
Teachers would have to learn first how to use these instructional tools, for them to be effective. Planning and a lot of work would be required to learn what types of visual aids are effective, and how a chalk board or white board can be used to facilitate learning.
They would also need to learn the limitations of the tools, and when/what things should be taught using yet more advanced technology, or using more traditional methods.
IOW... just because the technology is a godsend and should be great in the classroom, doesn't mean all the work has been done just yet to actually make it beneficial.
I can imagine a situation where, under normal situations, thousands of cars are able to drive within close proximity of each other, during optimal conditions, via autonomous means.
Able to doesn't mean "safe to do so". This would be up to regulators, and ultimately up to the public to decide.
Currently I believe "close proximity to each other", would be called tailgating, a ticketable offense.
It should occur to you that within 6 blocks of your destination is not the same as at your destination
If you have to travel 3 to 6 blocks from your source to get to mass transit pick-up, and 3 to 6 blocks at your destination away from mass transit drop-off , then that means you had to walk a total of [ 3, 6 ] X 2 or 6 to 12 blocks, that you would not have to walk if you could have personal transportation.
And that is as you say a city with "proper" mass transportation. People have to walk 1 to 2 miles per round-trip to use that.
Probably 2 to 4 miles per day, when you count the general need of people working to go somewhere to get food at least once a day :)
Question: Why does a cab cost $80? Answer: The driver.
You think cab companies pay their drivers even half of that $80 per fare? That would be about $300,000 a year, assuming it took them a whole working hour to commute you....
Well, aside from the fact you are forgetting gasoline and wear and tear on the vehicle... that amount includes pay to the local government in the form of TAXES, to the company for their own facilities, all their workers, software systems to collect fares, accounting department, and return for the shareholders.
And insurance costs to help protect the driver and the company from the possibly extreme liabilities that may exist in transporting people. P.S. Your personal auto insurance is unlikely to cover using your automated vehicle to transport other people in exchange for money, especially while you are not watching it. Two major liability risks are Your car gets into an accident and/or causes personal injury to the travelers, OR someone with criminal intent hails your vehicle; your vehicle could be used by a criminal to assist in a get-away, they could cause your vehicle to go somewhere or park somewhere where it is actually illegal to go to or park at, or they could physically vandalize, or cause your vehicle to be damaged.
Let's assume you are an average worker who just spent 60k on your car. How likely are you to want to rent this out as a Taxi?
There are a few problems; firstly, in some cities this is actually prohibited -- take New York city, you have to actually be licensed to run a cab service, and there is a limited amount of taxi-cab medallions. It would be illegal to have your vehicle answer a road-side hail and provide "taxi service", without the right paperwork, and they are not licensing more than X total vehicles, you would have to buy someone else's license.
This is also risky in that, Just because your vehicle is autonomous doesn't mean the manufacturer has programmed it as a "point of sale" for offering services to other people. What happens when a pedestrian somewhere gets in your car, orders it to take them somewhere, and doesn't pay the fare?
Also ignoring the fact... the manufacturer, if they license their 'automation software' for a business use, will likely want a big piece of the action for each fair, especially if they perceive "driver costs as high", they might fix the licensing cost at 80 or 90% of what it costs to hire cab drivers, then they can offer this innovative automation technology to replace their drivers, at a 10% or 20% cost savings over hiring human drivers ---- since that's still a cost savings, the big companies will go for that.
You have no way to force payment other than say taking a credit card payment up front. If you took cash, there would be no safe place to store the money, since the car is unsupervised, the burglar could simply pose as a rider, order you to a destination, disable the car in transit, and raid the safe.
Which brings me to the next problem... your car is good for parts. A bad guy could decide to take it somewhere, and while it's travelling, disable the automated systems, even disable the entire vehicle and take it to a scrapyard.
If you just needed transportation, you are going to have a hard time justifying the risks in regards to your investment, and the increased insurance costs.
There are some advantages to owning your own vehicle, such as privacy. You are in full control of it, so you know you're not under surveillance, while you are driving what you do in your car is private (except when someone is looking through your window, a risk you can negate by obscuring the view through windows).
Li-Ion batteries DO self discharge. Also, the higher the ambient temperature, the higher the rate of self-discharge.
There is some (quite high) temperature at which the cell would rapidly discharge completely; this depends on the make of the battery.
There is no way current technology can make this work. Consider how many things could be coming at your car from the periphery that the system would not be able to detect. Animals running across the road, snow and mud slides, road alligators being flipped up from the car in front of you, etc.
Consider how many things could be coming at your car from the periphery that the human eye would not be able to detect. Computer systems can have more sensors with longer range. Computers can track more objects coming from more directions than the human eye can track simultaneously.
There is no way a computer could accurately detect these things coming from a far distance on an intercept course with you.
Of course they could. It's just a matter of having the right (expensive) sensors on board with sufficient range.
There are even types of sensors such as radar that can detect objects a much larger distance, and infrared sensors that can detect objects (such as children) much smaller than the human eye can, or objects such as child pedestrians that are obscured by a parked car.
The computer can track and predict the object that would not even be visible to your eye, and anticipate the child outside your field of vision about to try and run across the street in front of you.
The human eye is a pretty good, versatile sensor, with a wide range of things it can pick up, but it has limited range (especially if the driver is nearsighted and only has the minimal 20/40 vision required to get their license), and you only have two of them.
For example... you can look to the front, to the side, or behind you, but not in both places at the same time.
This matters, for example, if you are changing lanes.
You can look behind you and to your side to verify clearance, meanwhile, while you glanced behind you for that second, a car in front of you has slammed on their breaks, or a vehicle turning onto the highway has turned in front of you or changed lanes in front of you within 50 feet, and the time you have to make a decision and react was drastically reduced.
That's exactly the sort of thing that should be prohibited by law until the technology has proved itself and become widely accepted by society as foolproof; until then, it should be like cruise control, the human driver should always be able to override it, and the human is responsible for what they allow it to do.
Mimicking intelligent human decisions and good human judgement is probably a good idea. if an automated vehicle makes decisions that would be unpredictable or unexpected by other drivers, it could cause an accident, or could get a bad rep for the bot car.
Or possibly on some alternate Earth which has no point of it's surface higher than 8,000 feet.
Where is this point on the ground on earth that's over 8000ft and experiences temperatures over 100 degrees fahrenheit for long enough periods of time that Lithium Ion battery manufacturers would need to take this into account?
The United Parcel Service 747-400F was a 747 in freighter configuration, e.g. No "passenger" cabin
Aside from the cockpit, almost the entire plane would be "cargo hold"
Anyways, just because some amount of air pressure is maintained, does not mean it is same as ground air pressure, or that is constant.
I'm thinking at low air pressure, it would be difficult for fire to spread.
But suppose pressure dropped during takeoff or landing. In theory, if the cargo hold is already at high temperature, this could facilitate thermal overrun, by increasing the leakage or allowing a cell to explode.
Once the pressure in the hold finally increases or equalizes, the overrun has already begun, and at that point, the increase in pressure just provides a higher concentration of oxygen to feed the flame.
How hot are we talking about? The safe maximum operating temperature for discharging a Lithium ion battery is typically 140 degrees Fahrenheit. There's no place on Earth that gets that hot naturally....
Typically 140 degrees, but this is pretty close to the max temperature for survival of the battery. Just because this temp is in the "operating range" does not mean the temperature is safe, and won't contribute to thermal runaway, where pressure on a cell caused by heat and voltage causes the cell to burst
"Safe operating values" may not be the same in flight, also: the plane is in motion, and the cargo hold may be subject to air pressures you don't find naturally anywhere on earth's surface.
Lower air pressure surrounding the sealed cell might increase the chance that high pressure in a cell of the battery can explode or spoil the seal.
The temperature in the cargo hold can also be unnatural. Planes have electronics that produce heat, the skin of the plane absorbs some heat, and heat can accumulate if there is no air conditioning -- leading to the cargo hold becoming a quite unnatural oven in some case.
Those are not necessarily conflicting ideas... if the temp in the cargo compartment is not controlled, it might be possible for it to get both extremely hot, or extremely cold at times, depending on local weather, whether the plane is on the ground or in flight, etc.
I imagine Lithium isn't the only thing that might catch on fire in extreme heat, however. Many electronic devices have "operating temperature ranges" and "storage temperature ranges"; although I suppose the airline doesn't care much if they break someone's checked iPod or computer due to letting the cargo temp be too extreme -- it's not until risk of fire, that they become more concerned, and think about banning anything containing Lithium batteries in checked luggage, due to the hazard,
So at least only leave it open to one machine, so you have to get into that one first.
Leaving 'just one' with a working remote SSH daemon is not a very good option. That one machine could go down, then you cannot get into the other.
Also, this implies you are ssh'ing into that machine, and leap-frogging to the other.
This is a security risk larger than simply leaving both machines open, as it means your credentials are passing through another machine.
Either there is an additional copy of your workstation's private SSH key on the machine you have open, you are typing a password, OR you are using ssh agent forwarding.
All 3 provide a mechanism a hacker could use to leverage your credentials from a trusted host, if they had quietly compromised the first machine, they could patch the SSH client to quietly log your passphrase or secret password.
If you SSH in with agent forwarding, a hacker could wait and detect that you have SSH'd in with an active agent socket, and then connect to your SSH agent socket and leverage your credentials with any machine you have access to, for the duration of your SSH session.
By SSH'ing directly to each machine, disallowing agent forwarding, and never allowing any of your servers to have SSH credentials for any other server pass through them, security is improved.
however you can restrict it to known-good hosts
That's no good, when you need to connect to your machines from your laptop in the hotel room or coffee shop wireless.
Remote management technologies are for remote management.
Of course public key / certificate based authentication is the proper mechanism to use for remote access using SSH, and you need the server's public keys pre-installed on your client as well.
But it really does no good to limit SSH to known hosts, when you actually can't know what IP address you will be accessing from a-priori.
There is an Open Source alternative to Microsoft's proprietary system, called PacketFence.
Systems not running a M$ OS will be fine as long as there is either an exception established, or a NAP agent Installed: Microsoft has promised to make the technology available so people can develop NAP agents for Linux and MacOS.
UNETsystem announced NAP compatible versions of their AnyClick product for Linux and Macintosh OS X operating systems.
I don't think this is really intended to lock other OSes out, although it may make things more expensive, be a slight annoyance, and more annoying (with no real benefit for these other OSes), if you have to buy some proprietary product for them.....
And it can also be a unique problem for the likes of Knoppix... won't fit well into a NAP scheme. Thus forcing Linux on the network to have some of Windows' inflexibilities, unless you set aside special IP address ranges for Linux boxes and exclude them from the NAP scheme.
--
--Mysid__2010 1007 bcf68101-61e9-32b5-bd2a-e671f9d2f379
NAP / NAC without trusted computing platforms on the client nodes is a stupid, pointless idea. Unless the client can be trusted not to lie about its "health status" there's no guarantee that the client isn't simply infected with something that's smart enough to hide from "health scans".
The health scans aren't meant to detect an infection; they're meant to detect the absence of an antivirus, or absence of security patches, before an exploit occurs.
It is theoretically possible some unhealthy systems might be infected while they are unhealthy and the 'health agent' fooled in a manner that will cause it to report healthy; however, if internet access is limited while unhealthy, the chances of infection are reduced.
The greater risk is a "healthy" system becoming infected and caused to become unhealthy, but the health management agent fooled to still think the system is healthy; it will be an unhealthy, infected, "apparently healthy" system.
However, that is still an improvement over the current situation, where unhealthy, uninfected, "apparently healthy" systems can establish connections with other unhealthy systems all over the place that may actually be unhealthy, infected; or healthy, infected.
The presupposition is that being healthy reduces the probability of infection by other systems.
Why in the devil do you have ssh available to the world?
Because SSH is a secure protocol for remote management of computer systems.
Why shouldn't they be able to deny registration under their TLD if it does not comport with their cultural standards?
They are not "denying" registration. They are removing records for a legitimate registration that was already created, based on some content linked to by some URL hosted on servers whose IP address is referenced by some DNS record in the domain.
Exactly right. In the end it IS their domain, a fact that seems somehow to be sneaking by most posters here.
Well, that's just it... it's not their domain at all, they don't own it. Second-level domains belong to the person who registered the domain, the "registrant". There may be restrictions or qualifications to register a domain (for example, a requirement to have a presence in the country), but once registered, the registry has very little business asking what type of content will be hosted on servers listed in the user's DNS zone.
.LY is the TLD set aside or reserved for the use by the internet community in their country. People / Organizations in the country don't own the TLD.
Indeed. The TLD is set aside by IANA for the Internet community in Libya.. that does not mean the TLD belongs to the country of Libya. That does not mean the TLD belongs to whoever "applied for it" first or whoever happens to operate the registry right now.
Some organization who is a trustee designated by IANA for the TLD operates the registry, and implements policies and procedures for registration and maintenance of domains, for the benefit of the Internet community in Libya.
Trustee != Owner
But I shouldn't be restricted from buying some beer on my one day off each week just because a bunch of fundamentalist shitheads think I should be wasting my morning praying to their sun god.
There's another reason. If people buy alcohol on Sunday, that may increase the chance that a lot of people get a hangover on Monday and skip work, or performance plummets, causing economic catastrophe. And unions losing negotiating power, since their people aren't working anyways.
Banning the sale of alcohol on Sunday is not about religion, it's about economic stimulus, and protecting the unions!
The picture is taken while doing work for the public, government department, thus, the picture becomes part of the public domain.
Public domain means you can use it for things like this.
As for the astronaut, he's an employee photographed on the job, which the public also have a right to see.
If he appears small in the picture and cannot specifically be identified, then in what way is it 'publishing him' anyways, and not just a generic 'picture of an astronaut'... how can you tell who the person is in the photo if you don't already know before seeing the picture?
In what way is all this legally actionable, again?
As far as I'm concerned Dido has one purpose... to sing I want to thank you which a portion of is used in an album by a singer bamed Eminem whose name you might actually recognize.
So, people like me who contribute to GPL software no longer get to help the cause.
Since the GPL cannot govern use of the software, or prevent you from transporting your copy of it you already have access to across state lines (as long as you are not redistributing it in doing so), you can still obtain and work on the software.
You just may need to take your laptop to a different state, download the source code, work on it.... travel out of state, upload, etc, etc...
hm... how about $5 per minute? :)