They are just pointing out that there is no more evidence for the hypothesis that it has been caused by rising CO2 levels, than there is for the hypothesis that it is caused by normal cycles in the sun, or that it is caused by the falling number of pirates.
So they are claiming that the documented increase in temperatures and the documented increase in carbon dioxide in our atmosphere are merely correlated and that there is no evidence of a causal relationship? But there is plenty of evidence that CO2 in the atmosphere does prevent energy from radiating away from Earth - it's simple physics. Certainly there is debate over how much of the temperature increase is caused by the CO2 increase, but it is certain that some of the temperature increase is caused by the increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
Thet are not claiming they *cant* access it simply that its encrypted. These are not one and the same thing.
They state in the FAQ that without the PIN they can't access the data. I admit the FAQ doesn't specifically say that Google doesn't have access to your PIN, however common sense leads me to believe that they can't. Because if they can access the data on the server, why bother with a PIN at all? They could have just stuck with SSL for the data in transit. It's not like most people are going to care about the encryption (after all plenty of people happily use gmail without encryption). Anyway I've emailed them for clarification so we'll see if anything comes of that.
And since they state that under certain circumstances they may access it I would suggest that it is likley that they will have retained a way of accessing it.
Where did you see that? If you're refering to FAQ question 9, then I believe they are talking about decrypting the data on the client side.
That's a worrying case of paranoia you've got there, you might want to get it looked at.
Seriously, are you trying to say that Google have gone to the trouble of announcing encryption, built a client convincing enough to fool security researchers (who will inevitably check), but are really planning to read my bookmarks for their own nefarious purposes? Why wouldn't Google just not mention encryption? This way they're opening themselves up to lawsuits.
Or do you just mean that the government has a burning desire to log in to websites using my accounts?
So what if it's encrypted iF Google has the encryption key.
Did you not read the rest of that FAQ? Or are you being deliberately misleading? From the FAQ:
What's the point of encrypting my information?
By encrypting your information, it will be transmitted to and stored on Google's servers in a format that is nearly impossible to interpret without the PIN. That means that without the PIN, no one, not even Google, will be able to read your data.
He's actually right. If your main source of revenue is advertising dollars, your biggest asset is your "client base" and all the information you have about them - basically a big database about who likes what and how you can contact them. Put those two things together, and you have a goldmine for corporate marketing/advertising departments. They even have a very ubiquitous software application called "Goldmine" (a CRM app).
All of which is completely irrelevant to this discussion because the information you are givng them is encrypted and they can't read it.
But all of that is irrelevent if the data is encrypted and they can't access it, as they claim. They don't have your personal data to share (rather, not via this service). Now maybe they're lying and the data isn't encrypted (or they are able to decrypt it), but I think we've got to take them at their word until evidence to the contrary turns up.
For those who are worried about giving their browsing history and passwords to Google (or anyone for that matter), you can still reap the benefits of synchronized bookmarks with another Firefox extension: Foxmarks.
Does Foxmarks encrypt the data? If they don't you might feel more secure with Google (or you could run your own Foxmarks server).
I like and trust goggle as much as I trust any corporation, but do I want them to have yet more information about me? Probably not. So personally I will give it a miss,
Cue the "tin foil hat" posts, closely followed by the "there is no privacy anyway" posts possibly followed by some random "I don't like the new layout" posts.
You forgot to cue the "the data's encrypted" posts. So you don't need to worry about handing over any more personal information.
With a computer, sure. By hand, for short messages, they can be very difficult to break. This particular message is something like 280 letters with a keyword length of 9. That means you've only got about 31 letters per key letter for frequency analysis. To make it easier Kirby-Smith kindly left the spaces in, but on the other hand he made some mistakes.
A fine sentiment to express had the Caeser cipher (or even a general monoalphabetic cipher) been used here. But it wasn't. They used a Vignere cipher. So next time, RTFA, don't just glance over it.
I understand the sentiment, but I hope you realise that TPB going down will make no difference at all to the piracy rate, just as the demise of Suprnova made no difference.
The original design would have been safe but what seemed an innocuous change completely changed the dynamics of load bearing, a result easily derived by any first year physics student.
Your own link states that the original design would only support 60% of the minimum load required by Kansas City building codes. That's hardly a safe design.
It's "theft" only in the "the industry wants to abuse words for scare-mongering while insulting their lawful customers by putting unskippable 'Don't be a thief' shit at the beginning of my DVDs" sense.
Yes. Since they are so keen to get an emotive response I think we should start refering to copyright protection as rape. Maybe then people will stop trying to defend the use of "theft" to describe it.
I didn't check out the studies mentioned, but the page itself seems to be of the opinion that the serifs may not be the real issue. Makes it look like that first study might have drawn their conclusion based on the incorrect assumption that serifs were the only difference between the tested fonts that affects readability.
Except that your math only stands if you're calculating the loss of the entire drive (or drive set) as opposed to any data loss.
No. The chance of losing all 7 drives (using the 20% per drive chance of failure) is 0.2^7 = 0.00128%.
The chance of data loss (of any kind) is greater with 7 drives than it is with a single drive.
Yes, it is greater. 79% vs 20%, just as the OP said. But it's not 7 times greater. Let me go through it again:
The chance of losing at least one drive is equal to 100% minus the chance of not losing any drive. Each drive has an 80% chance of surviving (1-0.2). So the chance of all drives surviving is 0.8^7 = 21%. Therefore the chance of at least one drive failing is 79%. This is basic statistics.
As someone else pointed out, using real failure rates it does in fact work out to be almost exactly 7 times the failure rate of one drive. However that is only because the failure rates are so low. Most of the people in this discussion clearly don't understand the mathematics at all.
Thank you for explaining with math what is quite obvious.
It's only quite obvious if you don't understand statistics. In fact it only works out to be so close to 7 times more likely to lose data because the chance of a failure is so low in the first place.
Not to mention the fact that if you use hardware RAID you're tied to that particular hardware's implementation of RAID. If that controller dies (unlikely, but possible), you need to replace it with the same sort of controller.
This is not too much of a concern if the controller is on an expansion card. But if it's on the motherboard it's a major issue. Motherboards fail much more often than RAID controllers, and new designs come out much more regularly so you're more likely to have trouble finding the particular motherboard you need a year or two down the track. I stay away from motherboard based RAID now (RAID 1 is fine, obviously).
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, are you trying to say that Google have gone to the trouble of announcing encryption, built a client convincing enough to fool security researchers (who will inevitably check), but are really planning to read my bookmarks for their own nefarious purposes? Why wouldn't Google just not mention encryption? This way they're opening themselves up to lawsuits.
Or do you just mean that the government has a burning desire to log in to websites using my accounts?
But all of that is irrelevent if the data is encrypted and they can't access it, as they claim. They don't have your personal data to share (rather, not via this service). Now maybe they're lying and the data isn't encrypted (or they are able to decrypt it), but I think we've got to take them at their word until evidence to the contrary turns up.
According to the FAQ it's encrypted on their servers and they can't read it. You may choose not to believe them, of course.
The data is encrypted before being sent to Google's servers. Nice knee-jerk reaction though.
Nice try, but if read the link you'll see mention to Louie the Lizard. That's a Budweiser (Anheuser-Busch) mascot.
Works for me with FF 1.5.0.4 on WinXP. Maybe you're using a security setting that stops it working?
I didn't check out the studies mentioned, but the page itself seems to be of the opinion that the serifs may not be the real issue. Makes it look like that first study might have drawn their conclusion based on the incorrect assumption that serifs were the only difference between the tested fonts that affects readability.
The chance of losing at least one drive is equal to 100% minus the chance of not losing any drive. Each drive has an 80% chance of surviving (1-0.2). So the chance of all drives surviving is 0.8^7 = 21%. Therefore the chance of at least one drive failing is 79%. This is basic statistics.
As someone else pointed out, using real failure rates it does in fact work out to be almost exactly 7 times the failure rate of one drive. However that is only because the failure rates are so low. Most of the people in this discussion clearly don't understand the mathematics at all.